Talk:Catholic Church and Nazi Germany/Archive 2

Ammendment discussion: "silence" + Tiso and national examples
Greengrounds, the tone of Pius leadership is established with the lines that he was "a cautious diplomat" etc, while the accusation of "silence" is currently dealt with as follows:

As our article already amply demonstrates, it is problematic and contested to simply characterize Pius XII's various actions as "silence". But given the common use of the phrase, I propose to amend our text to deal with it as follows:

Slovakia, if not Tiso is already mentioned in the lead. It could be expanded along these lines, if we really want to start singling out national responses (which I would hesitate to agree we should). As a suggestion though, we could expand on this line:

With the following replacement text:

That probably covers it, but then the question arises of how many national examples we cite in the lead: - there were Catholic leaders of Allied countries too (Poland, Free France, Australia, Belgium etc - Elisabeth of Bavaria, Queen of Belgium for example is commemorated as a Righteous Gentile) and there were rifts between collaborators and the Vatican in other Nazi conquests/satellites (such as Croatia) too. So, we need to formulate those words carefully. In fact, the actions of the Church in unoccupied Allied nations is hardly dealt with at all in our article yet - and there were multiple relevant actions taken by church leaders in the USA and elsewhere which could be mentioned (if briefly). Ozhistory (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Good Morning! - Let's stay on topic- revising the lead. We can tackle the various ancillary persons and individual nation issues outside Germany - later. It seems the most challenging issues - as pointed out by Greengrounds, Ozhistory and others, in the lead are: addressing the "silence/omission issue, incorporate anti-semitism and framing to set an NPOV tone for the Article as a whole.

Positive Christianity should be in the lead - in my view - because its a allows the reader to incorporate the full picture of what was going on in Germany at the time before moving on to the Articles various sections. It explains the "world view" of religion/ "Christian faith" from within the Nazi ideology and only needs a slight revision. As for focusing only on the Nazis? It's a disservice to the reader. The Article is titled: "The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany" not "The Catholic Church and The Nazi Party".

"Nazi Germany" is a common phrase to incorporate a period of history of Germany -not just and solely - the Nazi Party. Like any national history - its complex. There were multiple millions of Germans who did not agree with Nazism, or adapted portions of its ideology, rationalized it and/or went "underground" internally or externally and resisted. One of the myths of the period is that it ["Nazi Germany"] was a monolith goose stepping in unison reality. Nothing could be further from the truth. Millions of Germans were as much victims of Nazism as any nation that encountered them.

And, let's always keep foremost in mind what we're dealing with here: The core of the Nazi Party were criminal brute thugs who had no scruples, that found joy forcing others to their will at the point of a bayonet! It is they who are the primary criminals. '''Any dealings with them were engaged under extreme duress. Free will and human reason are greatly compromised in any dealings with them'''. Moving on.

So, how do we incorporate the "silence/omission" concern, anti-semitism and frame the Article so that it offers a balanced NPOV in the lead, so that it flows seamlessly to the body? Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Toland quote in full
On Toland, Greengrounds says above that I have "twisted" Toland's words. I have done no such thing. For the benefit of all editors, here are Toland's words:

Here are my/our words currently in lead:

Nothing has been "twisted". As to Greengrounds comment about the church as an "official body", I would restate what others have said: the church as "an official body" is multinational and multi-institutional. Hierarchical, but not monolithic - comprising parishes, dioceses, religious orders, hospitals, hospices, seminaries, schools, monasteries, convents, the papacy, the Vatican, youth organisations, lay organisations - even trade unions, political parties - and millions upon millions of individual members. The responses of Catholicism to Nazism were multi-institutional and multi-regional and multi-layered - but "under the Pope's guidance" (to use Toland's precise words), the church provided more protection for Jews than any other organisation. This does not discount any other debate about what more the Papacy could have said, or the German bishops might have done, or the ancient roots of European anti-Judaism - but it is relevant and factual.

A statement on the scale of Catholic assitance to Jews is necessary in our lead, just as reference to the modern debate about what the Vatican said publicly deserves a place. Acknowledging the scale of Catholic assistance does challenge Greengrounds stated POV that the Holocaust was a "Christian movement" and that the "deeply antisemitic church" did not "have a big problem" with the murder of Jews - but when history challenges a POV, I say change your POV: not vice versa!

Little hope of progress while I have to waste (everybody's) time dealing with allegations of "twisting" sources which barely depart from my own words, and come from sources already named as "reliable" by Greengrounds. Nevertheless, as the unfounded allegation was raised, it had to be responded to. In the interests of progress, I think the question to return to is my/Greengrounds proposal to reduce the lines about "Positive Christianity" in my previous post. Hopefully we can reach agreement there. Ozhistory (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is more that the quote gets used a blanket statement, making the church out to be a saviour of jews, when in reality, the "Vatican's concern was for the rights of Jewish converts.


 * The church only DEMOTED TITO, not get rid of him. "The Slovakian bishops told Tiso that, through persecution of people on the basis of their race, he acted against the principles of religion and the Vatican demoted Tiso.[168]"


 * So your quote that the church was basically a hero for the jews (saving a few thousand), gets quickly demolished by the fact that "Tiso and prime minister Bela Tuka, (who described himself as a daily communicant), had power over 90000 Jews. According to Raul Hilberg, Catholic Slovakia, wanting to serve its two masters, Berlin and Rome, gave up its Mosaic Jews- a journey by train to Auschwitz required one hour - to please Hitler, while holding back its 20000 Christian Jews to please the Holy See.[166] The Vatican did not act on reports from Slovak army chaplains in October 1941 of mass shootings of Jews on the Eastern Front, but when, in early 1942, papal diplomats in Bratislava, Hungary and Switzerland predicted impending deportations and exterminations, the Vatican protested. Burzio, advised Rome of deportations to Poland "equivalent to condemning a great part of them to death" and the Vatican protested to the Slovakian legate. The protests, not made in public, were ineffectual and 'resettlements' continued in the summer and autumn of 1942 - 57,000 by the end of 1942."


 * So Tito, representing the church, "resettled" 57,000 jews. Sent them to their deaths. But the only thing that gets mentioned in the lead is "the church saved thousands of jews". And this is just Tito. There were many others like him.96.52.180.114 (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Greengrounds, could you please indent your comments with using the ::: system so it is clear where your comments start and stop. I note again you are using your IP address. You have previously called me a "liar" for stating that you sometimes edit with an anonymous IP address. You might retract that accusation now. On substance - yes, in tiny Slovakia alone, the church helped save around 20,000 people from the Holocaust; but no - Tiso (not Tito, the Communist leader, as you have written in in what may be a typo above) did not "represent the church". He represented the secular government of the nazi satelite state of Slovakia, and defied the express protests of his church - as the partial quote from our text which you have written above attests (and the subsequent text you have omitted to include attests even more plainly). The likely number of Jews saved by the church throughout the Nazi Empire, by the way, is not "a few thousands", but a few hundred thousands (perhaps over 800,000). Perhaps we should include the range of figures estimated by different historians to give readers a picture of the scale (ie that protections of Jews by the church may have reduced Holocaust deaths by nearly one sixth)? Ozhistory (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Good Morning -  I'll try this again. My previous response went amiss and became "lost" in the midst of the exchange between Greengrounds, Ozhistory and our mystery IP. Let's stay on topic: Revising the lead to set an NPOV tone for the entire Article and provide a logical frame for the Article, so that, it flows seamlessly to its various sections.

We agree this Article has a host of issues. The last few days I have discovered multiple citations of various historians and sources from A-Z, from note 1- 300+. (About one third complete) that are, well, a mess. The good news? Most editors do excellent work. The bad news? Over 30% are clearly "cherry picking" quotations of the primary source that border on intentional deception by omission to support a POV - or even = an agenda, that the sources themselves would be outraged their work was so maligned. This is shameful, of course, and its pointless to 'shake down" who and what side is guilty. But, because of this, We need to slow this down - considerably. This may take weeks to correct!

And, we need to be very candid about this. This is very disturbing to put it mildly. As for me, personally, and for others as well, I would suppose ? We should not continue to "entertain" witnessing sacred history turned into a charade of nonsense in some instants while investing precious time and resources to correct this unless editors are willing to engage with some modicum of respect and an earnest attempt to at least try their hand at impartial objectivity.

Greengrounds? You offer good insights but, unfortunately, I'm forced to state, your language sometimes slips to places it ought not. There is no need, or useful purpose, for phrases like "weasel words" - accusing editors of offering "bad faith misinformation" and so on. It could be that this language is misread but. . . . Perhaps, you could politely offer your piece? You bring up valid points, but it does not need to be packaged this way. I hope.

We can tackle ancillary persons and individual nations outside of Germany- later. Trust me - there is plenty to address there as well - on both sides. So, sure it will be bumpy ride because what has taken place here has left us a bowl of noodles to unwind - on both sides. And, its fraught with rabbit holes that lead nowhere.

Meanwhile, can we come to some conclusions regarding the lead ?

1) As Greengrounds rightly states - we should bring home the role of anti-semitism (not the "Highly anti-semitic Catholic Church" variety - Greengrounds. Not wishing you ill, but there is an abundance of history and documents to refute that language that is authentic, very real and relevant to this time period. But, indeed, anti-semitism, in its various forms, was inclusive of every strata and class of Europe and played a substantial role. And, yes, some Bishops were affected. Wherein, its roots can be found in the conflict between the early Christians and Jewish communities and misinterpretation of the New Testament by many Christians through the ages. Yes? This seems proper and correct.

2) We begin with a "mile high view" introduction, that is, the demographics of 1933 Germany, such as population mix by faith, including the Jewish, the Weimar Republic  (1921-1933/34), who the major figures were and the main political parties?

3) As for the 'Positive Christianity" it needs to remain in my estimation. This is crucial. Why? Because it is critical to understanding the Nazi world view of religion, in particular, Christianity and its role in the Nazi "vision" along with its attitude towards religion in general. This is seen in its National Socialists Manifesto Article 24 that I believe belongs in the lead - where it states, and I quote, literally:

"We demand the freedom of all religious beliefs in the State, in so far as they do not endanger the existence of the State, and they do not offend against the manners and morals of the German race, The party bases itself on Positive Christianity without binding itself dogmatically to any single confession. "

Close analysis speaks volumes. Note, "in so far as they do not endanger the existence of the State." Very telling, I think we can conclude? And, "they do not offend against the manners and morals of the German race." Well, this is the bone to chew on. Who defines what are "the manners and morals'? What does the phrase "German race" mean? And, who determines who is of the "German race", or not, and how? Then, lastly, "The party bases itself on "Positive Christianity". This is the Nazis defining themselves as to faith and religion. This is very relevant to this Article, I would suggest, even pivotal to understanding - on the whole - where the Nazis were "coming from" with regard to any religious institution. Yes? In short, this is not about "Protestants" - its about the Nazis themselves.

Just a final note. To Ozhistroy's point. We need to grasp how the Catholic Church works if we're going to engage with real understanding. It functions theologically and under canon law wherein, only Bishops speak with binding authority on behalf of the Church. They are granted much autonomy in their respective diocese. Outside dogma and specific doctrine they're not beholden one to the other. However, on principle issues of faith and morals they are to act as a "college", wherein, the Papacy has the last word. Once one is a Bishop, it is very difficult to remove them from office. Even if the accusations are grave in nature - it can take years. They are afforded strict and powerful rights under canon law that even the Pope must honor.

This means the words and/or actions of a Cardinal (who may or may not a Bishop) a priest, Msgr., deacon, nun, religious, or an influential lay person, that is to say, a lay theologian, professor, politician and so on, do not represent the Church, or speak with binding authority, for the Church. So, if we wish to focus on the reality of this history our focus should be - The Bishops. If we desire to get to the bottom of it? Follow the Bishops. And, the "Bishop of the Bishops" is the Pope his Papacy. This is why, to a substantial degree, focusing too much on "daily communicants", lay persons and low ranking clerics is of significant interest as to their individual role, but at the bottom? They do not speak for the institution.

It is akin to looking at, for example, the current Vice-President of the U.S., and others in high public office, who proclaim publicly to be Catholic, but are at strong odds on a host of issues with the Bishops of this country.? Who, if you were studying the Catholic Church in America, is speaking for the Catholic Church? The Catholic politicians, or the Bishops?

Until next timeIntegrtiyandhonesty (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * the Church, in the new testament greek, ekklesia, - those called out ? something like that, , -" The term, in its full meaning, denotes the whole body of the faithful, both rulers and ruled, throughout the world (Ephesians 1:22; Colossians 1:18)." - so the article could look at the pope, bishops, priests, ordinary catholics -  Sayerslle (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with Sayerslle on what is church: ie "pope, bishops, priests, ordinary catholics". Integrity, as to the "mystery IP" - no mystery there, it's Greengrounds. Occasionally he hasn't logged in properly to comment: see | here. (no criticism implied here, as Greengrounds has mistakenly assumed in a talk post elsewhere). Meanwhile, I agree with Integrity that reference to Positive Christianity should remain in lead, and agree with Greengrounds that it can be reduced. Ozhistory (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sayerslle and Ozhistory - Good to 'see' you both. Yes, in a very theological/spiritual sense, but not to get too lost in this theological concept? The Article is primarily about the institution and its reaction/response to the rise of Nazism: The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany - not - Catholics and Nazi Germany. The idea we're now touching on is called, Apostolic Succession, and the authority it holds in the Catholic Church. Now, we can debate this till the cows come home - but this is how the Catholic Church defines itself to the world at large. It states for itself that only Bishops speak with binding authority and represent to the world - in an official public sense - the 'Church' and no others. They take this very seriously as it is a dogma as they understand it.

Should the Article discuss "Non-Bishops" both good and bad? Sure! But, it's less than credible to scholars to state a "Non- Bishop" speaks with authority or "represents" the institution and where it stands on various matters and/or actions. This is my understanding.

So, we are concluding then that "Positive Christianity" stands. Yes? What about the idea of including Article 24 of the National Socialist Manifesto? It's mercifully brief and really drills down efficiently to a pivotal point.Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I looked at the lead to see this mention of Positive Christianity - it is just a sentence, and it is important to mention - whether it is in the right place within the flow of the narrative in the lead is doubtful and the quote from point 24 is rather  abruptly truncated, doesn't help the sense of what is being said - - everythings a bit of a mess - I think 100% positive Christianity should be mentioned and it is discussed at  length in Derek Hastings book 'Catholicism and the Roots of Nazism' - where it is seen as part of the Nazis appeal in catholic Munich  "It was precisely this type of religious appeal-self-consciously interconfessional but fundamentally Catholic oriented-that made  the Nazis brand of Positive Christianity especially attractive to young Munich Catholics in the early 1920s, in contrast to secular, occult-based, and often anti-Catholic volkisch elements elsewhere." p.96 - of course this might be too early for the time-frame of the article but it shows it isn't as simple as, oh positive Christianity - thats nothing to do with Catholicism, or how Nazism  grew, where it first took hold etcSayerslle (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sayerselle - You have a point. Good to know we're collaborating. The Article 24 quote is made short. . . . so - a touch awkward. We can fix that. Perhaps including the whole of Article 24? It's fairly brief. It seems to fit following the statement "in many respects Nazism was hostile to Catholicism  . . .  . and anti-Christian." This offers, in part, why. And, it leads to the "Mit" smoothly. We can elaborate on "Positive Christianity" where it fits best in a section of the Article I would think?

The Article is a bit of a mess - agreed. I would suggest that its stumbling through to young adulthood. All the elements are there - but is in need of refining and some mature sobriety. I would challenge Mr. Hastings notion that "Positive Christianity" was/is -"fundamentally Catholic oriented." But, certainly, more acceptable than Nordic myth and occultism.

Rejecting the Apostles Creed (the proclamation that Jesus of Nazareth was both true man and truly God incarnate, conceived by the Holy Sprit, died and rose from death, and ascended to heaven to the right hand of God, and so forth) is so beyond the pale of Catholic/orthodox Christian understanding of theology it's difficult to see how this works. Also, rejecting the Hebrew scriptures i.e., the Old Testament, that provides the prophets who speak of the coming Messiah would be heresy to a devout Catholic and certainly to its clergy - hence - the 'Mit".

Not to mention, this notion of "Positive Christianity" emerged from a group(s) within the Protestant Church of Germany. Not the best endorsement for an average Catholic, let alone a cleric. To me, this notion of it being "fundamentally Catholic oriented" seems fatally flawed in the final analysis. Had it perhaps had an appeal? Sure, to a degree, to the young and impressionable - but not a serious mature Christian. Even the vast majority of Protestants rejected out of hand and was the source among them of the Confessing Church. So, I think, Mr. Hastings is way off the mark here. Sorry, but this simply seems highly speculative and taking liberties beyond realistic probabilities Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * but, that move against 'political catholicism' - toward 'religious catholicism' that hastings describes - was a catholic phenomenon, and was part of the atmosphere of Catholicism in Munich, birthplace of Nazism, at the turn of the last century - and look at a 'mature' Christian like Michael von Faulhaber in the much vaunted Advent sermons (1933-34) saying things like this : "By accepting these books (the Old testament books) Christianity does not become a Jewish religion. These books were not composed by Jews; they are inspired by the Holy Ghost, and therefore they are the word of God, they are God's books. [-] Antagonism to the Jews of today must not be extended to the books of pre-Christian Judaism." - its God incarnate that is preached, but kind of removed from Judaism - maybe I'm conflating unrelated stuff, but to me it shows where some of the the catholic church in Germany was at in a way Sayerslle (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Good Morning Sayerselle - Let's try not to get too bogged downed in this. Revising the lead and Article to an NPOV is our primary focus. Quickly, in response, the "birthplace" of Nazism is in the mind of Hitler and his followers - yes? And, "Positive Christianity" was primarily a phenomenon derived from Protestants out of Prussia: the north-northeast of Germany, though that has little value as well. It's the human mind in either case.

Not going to attempt to "defend" Bishop Faulhaber's Advent homily series. His words you quote, however, can be interpreted in the positive sense as well. Meaning, he may have had in mind to diffuse the debate by directing the conversation to a deeper meaning. They are the words inspired by God - not the words of men - who happen to be the souls chosen, therefore, they are the words of God alone. Do you agree this is possible?

And, that he is alerting his congregation to not confuse anti-semitism with the word of God? Yes? Possible? And, attempting to open the minds of those listening that accepting the Old Testament as inspired by God does not mean to be fully Christian one is proclaiming to be of the Jewish faith? Because, there were those who were saying this, Sayerselle. This was the "word on the street." This is not too difficult to grasp in my estimation.

Regarding, "political Catholicism" vs "religious Catholicism" was the "atmosphere"/ debate of Munich? It was the debate in the Curia and the Papacy - not just Munich during this period of history. The very same dynamic took place in Italy from 1922-1929 leading up to the Lateran Concordat of 1929. This was so in other parts of Europe as well, such as Ireland, Spain and even Mexico in the Americas.

The collapse of monarchy in Europe, as a result of WWI, is the primary cause of this debate coinciding with the emergence of democracy. In the end, Bishops -on the whole - not all - were uncomfortable with having political parties speaking/representing the Church for fear of creating the problem of mixed and confused teaching and "signals". When it came to having to choose - they chose the route - that the Church was better preserved by the hierarchy than a political movement. So, they were willing to negotiate their status. By the way, the restrictions were on clerics alone. Lay persons were free to form a political party. In Germany, it was the Nazi Party that initiated "banning" parties by force of law and, literally, murderous thuggery. Too often forgotten. In most cases, however, it was clerics who formed and led these Catholic parties in Europe. Therefore, a problem for both Church and State.

Meanwhile- how do we incorporate the role of anti-semitism into the lead? I agree with Greengrounds - it should be there,Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * yes it should be there I think - a short paragraph to itself maybe - start with something very general like, from Michael phayers book " anti-Semitism , an ingredient of socio-religious culture of the era - not til Vatican 2 were things confronted about the very language used - the 'deicide' question - and I think I remember reading they referred to 'the perfidious jews' at every mass at this time, and faulhaber (again in the advent sermons ) refers to the idea of a curse on the Jewish people -  a mindset - and then focus in a bit more - the idea I got from phayers  first chapter was Pius XI was more focused on this problem than Pius XII- who was rather  obsessed with anti-communism  - so that, for example, shortly after he became Pope , Pacelli  lifted the ban on action francaise - 'he was willing to accept the rabid anti-Semitism of Action francaise- - trade offs - ) - phayer gives many examples of anti-Semitism permeating  various levels of catholic life - example -"nazism fared better among Austrians (than germans), for whom a certain measure of hatred towards jews was more or less part and parcel of the believing  catholic (Phayer p.10) - and the concordat mention in the lead  by the way looks  very kind of , the Nazis didn't behave, wheras what about the  view that that some like Preysing and Maximilian Kaller had , that it was a mistake,  -  and (Phayer p.18) that "catholic leaders had accommodated themselves again and again to the new regime."  - " from the beginning to the end of the THird reich the agreement inhibited bishops from speaking about matters not directly related to the Catholic church" Sayerslle (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sayerselle- Well, that's a major download! So, let's deconstruct this: 1) Agree on anti-semitism needs highlighting in lead using Phayer, 2) Examples being the "perfidious Jews" prayer, Pius XI vs Pius XII, and 3) A need for critique of the Concordat - and allow me to add the "Mit" to round this out.

1) a) What seems NPOV is to explain the undisputed historical roots of anti-semitism; that is, the discord that emerged between the early Christians (who were almost entirely Jewish) and the Jewish community of the Roman Empire. It was indeed '' (ca. 30-60 CE) a contentious and tension filled event and process initially within the Jewish community itself.

St Paul, the "great evangelist" was a well educated and fervent student of the Jewish faith out to persecute "Christians" when he "encountered Christ" while traveling to Damascus. He suffered beatings, imprisonment - as did many of the Apostles (who were all Jewish - at least in faith) at the hands of fellow Jews. This was narrated in the New Testament. (ca. 65-100 CE) As time passed, non-Jewish communities became Christianized (ca. 70 -800 CE) while the narrative and the scriptures had become misinterpreted. And, maligned by others for the benefit of gain via racism intensified by faith - and so it went. How we express this efficiently and with relevance to the Article is the challenge as I see it.

b) As for Phayer? Sure, in the introduction (p. xii) he states, "if Pius [Pius XII] had spoken out in language that directly challenged Hitler. Historians unanimously agree that Hitler would not on that account have curtailed the Holocaust." On page xiii he remarks, "If Pius [Pius XII] was tainted with anti-semitism, it did not keep him from aiding the Jews during and after the Holocaust."  Further, on the same page, he says, "To hold that the pope [Pius XII] always acted negatively toward the Jews is to close ones eyes to history."  Yet, what you quote is of great value as well. Balance is the key. And, we can go on.

2) As for the "perfidious Jews" prayer and deicide ? The prayer was not prayed at every Mass, Sayerselle. That prayer is exclusively reserved - as far back as history can verify - to be said during Holy Week on Good Friday only. And, certainly not during the season of Advent. So, this idea of it being prayed at every Mass is truly mystifying. Where did that come from? There is much confusion about this prayer.

The word perfidious in English means - one who can not be trusted. Its Latin root is fides, which means faith. The Latin word perfidis means, non-believer, or one lacking faith. This became confused - by some- with the English word perfidy which means a treacherous person. This prayer on Good Friday has the intention of praying for the Jewish people to come to believe that Jesus was/is the Messiah.

Now, the language of the original Latin translated to English is insensitive. "Let us pray for the faithless Jews that Almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord". Almighty God, who dost not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness. . . . " This was the prayer going back to at least the 11th century. In 1960 (before Vatican II) - in response to the Jewish people - it was changed to, "Let us pray for the Jews; that almighty God may remove the veil. . . ." after Vatican II it was changed to, "Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of His name and in faithfulness of His covenant."  I'll let you decide how much this actually contributed to true hate and racism i.e. authentic anti-semitism. For me, its modest. This is all on Wikipdia for further inquiry.

There were much worse - such as rumors of Jews engaging in ritual murder of "innocent Christians" especially children and so forth made into art. As for deicide question, well for some. And, it has value - but at the same time? This is rather base in its logic. How do mere creatures "kill" an eternal God? It was not God who died on the Cross- in authentic Christian theology- but the humanity of Christ. It's impossible to "kill" God.

3) As for the Concordat and Mit critique? In the lead it seems "overkill",if you will, because it will become "wordy". The lead is to introduce the fundamental elements. Each will have its own section. That seems the proper place to elaborate. Yes?

Phew!! I'm toast. Look forward to your feedback.Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Integrity. It is worth quoting a little more of Faulhaber's sermons:


 * God is not "removed from Judaism", but the church is deemed as the successor of the People of Israel as the "vehicle for Divine Revelation". At any rate, the theological commentary Faulhaber offers on the divine authorship of the scriptures (quoted by Sayerslle above) is a world away from Nazi racial theory. Taken in full, the sermons, despite what seems to us archaic expression, contained clear challenges to the tenets of Nazi racial theory (which is of course why the Nazis banned their publication and had Faulhaber shot at). The sermons, incidentally, also evidence something of the nature of the early Nazi-Catholic clash: eg. attempts to remove scripture study from classrooms, and efforts to supplant traditional Christianity with Nazi ideology: Faulhaber protests that "on November I3th, 1933, the German Christians passed the following resolution : We expect our national Churches to shake themselves free of all that is un-German, in particular of the Old Testament and its Jewish morality of rewards..." etc.


 * the Nazis invited him to chat with hitler in 1936 and he carried out Hitlers bidding,- the sermons are a defence of orthodox Christianity, he has to defend the scriptures, as you point out they were under fire, so hes defending that, not the flesh and blood jews of his day - It is only with this Israel of the early biblical period that I shall deal in my sermons - the early centuries after Jesus decided the Canon- you got thrown out for hating the books of the Old Testament , like Marcion,  etc - he is reiterating orthodoxy, fighting for Catholicism not the Jews -(and  in his fourth sermon  he says -  Notwithstanding all the guidance of divine grace Israel did not know the time of her visitation. [-] The great majority of the people rejected the Messiah with the cry: 'His blood be upon us and upon our children' (Matt. xxvii, 25). - None of this makes him pro-Nazi and I don't believe I tried to make  out it did- - @integrity and honesty -  about the 'perfidious Jews' said at every mass - that is just my mistake - I think i'd read about it, remembered the phrase but forgot the exact context, -stil , saying it once a year seems pretty bad - its like they didn't get that jesus, his disciples, the Pharisees,  - its all Judaism ,  - maybe its since the DEad sea Scrolls , we've begun to see more how fractured Judaism was - Essenes, Pharisees, Zadokites, etc Sayerslle (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a defence of Catholic orthodoxy, but in defending Catholic orthodoxy he necessarily challenged Nazi racial ideology ("Christ rejects ties of blood" etc) - I think this is very significant. Nevertheless, the theological objections to Judaism held within the Catholic Church at the time are also expressed by Faulhaber ("Emmanuel came to His own, yet His own would not receive Him... The great majority of the people rejected the Messiah with the cry: 'His blood be upon us and upon our children'" etc) and such lines, used in isolation from the broader points Faulhaber raised against racism and from Catholic doctrine prohibiting violence and requiring the protection and just and equitable treatment of the Jews under the law, were potentially of use to Nazi propagandists. I guess this all goes some way to broadly summarizing the points to be addressed in discussing the Catholic contribution to European anti-Semitism in our opening and in the article more broadly. Ozhistory (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism Incorporated into Lead
Sayerselle Ozhistory and fellow editors - As you may have noticed, I expanded the reference of the lead on Articles 4 and 24 of the Nazi Manifesto to get the ball rolling on anti-semitism. The point of "theological rejection" should not to be viewed as "anti-semitic". In the Old Testament the prophets proclaim this of their own people on a host of occasions in the metaphoric language of adultery, rejection and so on. To be in opposition with the Judaic understanding of who was Jesus of Nazareth and the implications of that view, are not anti-semitism - in the least. This needs serious clarification.

The Semitic race is not solely to be Jewish. The Semitic race encompasses a host of peoples- among them, Arabs. As it applies to the Jewish people is our focus here. Therefore, anti-semitism is not theological in nature - at all. It is - at the core- racism, that can take on many forms, to be sure, but authentic anti-semitism is - racism, and no less. Let's be clear on this. Otherwise, this becomes a very circular fungible mess lacking prudent and reasonable discernment.

The statement that Bishop Faulhaber "did Hitler's bidding" - (Sayersellle (?) - is a bit flippant. What does that even mean? What valid historical documents precisely offer objective evidence of this "bidding"? And, what actions - precisely - are we speaking about which speak to "doing his bidding"? Not to be harsh, or overly critical. When discussing history we need to be precise. Nor, is this challenge suggesting this Bishop was without fault by any means.

Thank you for being forthright regarding the Good Friday "Jewish" prayer. An honest lapse in memory;understandable, Sayerselle. What I offer as well is that this prayer is a litany. It is not solely the Jewish people that this prayer evokes. The sample offered above is only a portion of that litany, but a host of others, as well, are included. It is wise counsel to be cautious when offering critique of others sacred rituals and prayers wether Hindu, Catholic, or otherwise.

The crux of the matter is the heart of intent of a rite or prayer - even when the language is sorely lacking which reflects the culture and historical period it emerged from which can be offensive to our 21st century sense of proper language. For example, in our times, and from time to time, we will witness on the sabbath a Rabbi praying for those who have, "Yet come to the one true God." Does this mean they are bigots-racists ? That they hate the polytheistic Hindu, of the Indus people, for example? Of course not. Does this mean none are bigots? Of course not. Hope you see where this is going: Impartiality and Objectivity.

So, let's move forward. Let's formulate a paragraph - or so - in the lead that properly expresses the truth - without maligning it - what role anti-semitism played in the Catholic Church and generally in Europe during this era. With one personal caveat to all.

Personally, I will not be party to a process that attempts to smear, "tar and feather" or unjustly accuse: that, the Catholic Church was/is a hate filled, racially motivated, or theologically excessive, solely politically motivated in pursuit of worldly power, mongering institution which was "in bed" with the Nazis in a unspoken hearts desire to lead innocents to their death via "silence" apathy, or otherwise. This is a crime against history and no less and unjust. The objective historical evidence does not support this notion during this period of history. Yet, indeed, there were serious crimes against humanity that place guilt squarely among Catholics both "high and low" and anti-semitism had a role with a history. Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * @integrity and honesty - just to say what I was referring to with the 'doing Hitlers bidding' - I was referring to after the meeting Faulhaber had with Hitler in his mountain retreat near Berchtesgarden, arranged by Orsenigo - Hitler told faulhaber to go off and decide how best he could support the Nazis in their great undertaking of defeating the red menace of Bolshevism and Faulhaber  went away kind of impressed by hitler (Guenther Lewy p.208) and helped other bishops to realize  that Bolshevism "represents the greatest danger for the peace of Europe and the Christian civilization of our own country."  Faulhaber submitted to the German bishops the draft of  a new episcopal proclamation against Bolshevism, praising Hitler for his astuteness and "The German bishops consider it their duty to support the head of the German Reich by all those means which the Church has at its disposal." the Church  must mobilize in order "to strengthen confidence in the Fuhrer (quted in Lewy p.210)- and another pastoral letter read on jan 3  1937 ,which faulhaber had drafted, again did Hitlers bidding " the Fuhrer and Chancellor of the Reich, Adolf HItler, has sighted the advance of Bolshevism from afar and his thoughts and aspirations aim at averting the horrible danger from our German people and the entire occident. the German bishops consider it their duty to support the head of the German Reich by all those means which the Church has at its disposal."- that's why I ssaid, in this instance, faulhaber did hitlers bidding-imo  Sayerslle (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sayerselle- Understood, and thank you for the articulation. Let's start with Lewy's worldview. He is opposes organized religion. He closes his book on the last page (341) by writing, "When God is hated, every basis of morality is undermined" Pope Pius XII asserted in 1939. Then Lewy summarizes, "The debate over the relevance of an organized religion to human morality is of long standing and it will not be ended by such categorical pronouncements. Then he writes,  "If mankind ever again is faced with moral challenges. . . . we must hope that it will have better moral guidance. " So, he is passing judgement - at least on Pius XII. This is his "take". Not an issue - but is important to know where a writer stands.

Your take?This may be one way of stating it. Can we say, drawn from the old saw of diplomacy: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend?" Could it be that the bishop in question responded not so much to be "told" (your words - not Lewy's), but rather, to listen?

The Marxists form of Communism vs Catholicism/Christianity are diametrically opposed. One atheistic and materialistic willing to use lethal force to impose its will, the other, spiritual. They can not ultimately succeed/co-exist while the other does.

In fact, no faith in a supreme being was possible and one could not make claim one was a participant in Bolshevism and hold to any form of spiritual view of life : Catholic. Protestant, Hindu, Muslim, etc. It only stands to reason - given the horror stories of thousands of priests, religious and lay Catholics of Spain being massacred by the Communists and their allies that the bishop might want to listen to what Hitler had to say? Not - that the fascists of Spain were not guilty of the same. And, Lewy never uses the word "bidding", or frames the conversation as the bishop being "told", Sayerslle, in the pages that discuss this '''4. The Struggle Against Bolshevism''', pp. 205-210.

This meeting happened to discuss the struggle with the Communists in the midst of the Spanish Civil war in (1936). Yes? In 1936 Hitler was firmly in power. He and the Nazis were still relentlessly pressuring, by all means at their disposal -(including shameless murder), the Catholics of Germany to conform to their "vision" as expressed in Article 4 and 24 of their "program". Lewy remarks on the same page you quote (p. 210), "But, the quid pro quo (the "bidding deal" as you envision it) never materialized. As long as the Church insisted on defending the confessional schools, the Catholic organizations and other rights guaranteed in the Concordat, the Nazis were unwilling to halt their war of attrition." The "war of attrition" is eluding to the pressure of the Nazis on the Catholic Church.

Was this request for a meeting yet one more example of Hilter's political manipulation to cause others to "co-operate" under the extreme duress of murder of many and imprisonment of innocents? Was the bishop flawed to have attempted a quid pro quo? I would say - resoundingly - yes. Was the pastoral letter denouncing Communism (a position of the Church since 1891 while Hitler was an infant ), and in this offer to express support for the Reich in their opposition to Bolshevism doing Hitler's "bidding"? Well that's a touch subjective. Interesting to note Sayerselle? Apparently this bishop learned a hard life lesson. Less than one year later he was the primary author of the "Mit". Interesting - no? We do not need to agree on every twist and turn, Sayerselle. How boring would that be?

Meanwhile - what are your thoughts on the inclusion of Article 4 and 24 of the Nazi "manifesto" of 1920 in the lead and how do we get to the Catholic Church problem with anti-semitism within?
 * Hi again, I just read that paragraph and I think it is illuminating - maybe a problem is such a long quote in the lead -it is very useful as it sets out the Nazi search for a 'religious' identity, -the Nazi 'antidote' to the 'Jewish-materialistic spirit' -  I know the lead is supposed to summarise the main topics covered in the article so it maybe is too much quoted though and the whole quote belongs in a section that could cover the Nazis  attitude to Christianity in general - as for the anti-Semitism - that is such a problem - I would still just use as a guide Michael Phayer  as his book was  focused on the Holocaust and Catholic-Jewish relations - sorry thats not much help - Im collecting the 'soldier of christ', robert ventresca 2012 new biography of pius XII this wek from the library - maybe the book will give me something fresh to add - overall I think maybe we should try and agree to focus on certain sections, and then, when the article is better, go back and look at the lead? Sayerslle (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Sayerselle - Agreed - the inclusion of the full text of Articles 4 and 24 is "winded"; I'm of the mind that it frames the Article contextually in such a way that it drills down to the essentials very efficiently and "sets the stage" for the "conversation"; in that, we enter the mind of Hitler and the Nazis straightaway. And, it brings to the quick why the Church responded primarily in the context of denouncing racism because that's how the Nazi's proclaimed publicly how they viewed the world at large, and - most valuable - how they (the Nazis) defined themselves. In that same light, I agree it requires a place in the lead to address anti-semitism that Greengrounds and others wisely put forward. But, elaboration s/b reserved for a section called: The Role of Anti-Semitism, or such.

Can we conclude to let it stand for now until we sort out a solution? We're just starting to bring a rational structure to this Article and weed out its currently redundant quality and badly worded "noise" that Ozhistory has done good work addressing. Like any good Article on such a challenging topic? It's an evolutionary process. Our goal s/b to clean this up, then appeal for some level of "edit protection", so that, the good work of yourself and others is not forever "undone" in an endless cycle of "edit skirmishes".

As well, I do endorse the idea of incorporating Phayer in some way in the lead regarding the role of anti-semitism within the Catholic Church -at least, to begin moving forward on this in the lead. In the first chapter, Catholic Attitude toward the Jews before the Holocaust, he offers a reasonably balanced view in my estimation. But, with one cautionary note. There is a significant distinction to be made - I believe.

From what I can make out there is a fourfold reality in the Catholic dynamic. There is 1) The Holy See: that is, the "Vatican", the Curia -a body of advisors to the Papacy - and the Pope himself.  2) The Bishops of Germany 3) The "lower clergy" and religious i.e., monks, nuns, etc.  of Germany and last 4) A double layer among the lay persons: influential lay Catholics like Papen -who often "ran off" on his own initiative with, or without, the Bishops "nod", because he had the will and the means. Then, the average Catholic "on the ground" who suffered and/or benefitted from the words and actions of all of the above. Phayer does a decent job of describing this concisely.

And, anti-semitism varied greatly up and down this dynamic and over time. But, I would suggest that "innocent ignorance" at the bottom of this layer of lay people we'll find the worst of it. That is, exploitation of this ignorance by "people in the middle" for petty gain, or grasping for local/ regional power we'll witness the criminal?

He does seem to offer Pius XII some benefit of the doubt, but notes Pius XI - as he approached his death bed in early '39 - was ready to "pounce" on the Nazis once and for all while Pius XII - at his succession -pulled back from that. So, what's next? Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * next, for me, is to read the ventresca pius XII bio,collecting it tomorrow, also look in detail at the Derek hastings book, lewy and phayer, make notes on a sub-page, and then hopefully come back with fresh ideas - by the way, just noticing your last edit , the reference to krieg refers to the foregoing - I don't think it was claiming the extended quote was taken from that source. Sayerslle (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sayerselle- Hello, yes, as I mentioned a week or so ago - I'm walking through every blessed citation/reference to verify content and context - it's brutal. This one stood out as questionable because the contention between the block quote and citation was lacking and unclear. So, to "shake the tree" I temp. remove a citation as I verify the information. If it turns out bogus I leave it as per revision edit. If a "weak" citation turns up "roses" I try to improve it and "undo" it's temp status "hold ", if you will. Not fun - but its necessary to get this Article to NPOV and actually be historically correct.

Now verified as legit - my question is placement in the Concordat section. This bishop was not part of the Concordat delegation for negotiations. Simply because they met during the period of negotiations does not mean they're related in such a direct substantial sense. And, in this case, they're not.

In this context it implies this meeting and what Hitler said had weight in the negotiations. Our author, Fr, M. Rhonheimer, makes that leap to connect them - but. What Hitler stated must have struck the bishop as illogically insane. Though Hitler was historically correct referencing what was true 400+ years previous. . . . is the equal to saying to the current  President of the US, "We know I have been attacked for my views on slavery, but we all know previous Presidents had slaves and our nation protected that right; I only desire to return to that time." Really? Some may think this is relevant to the Concordat? I fail miserably to do so. Otherwise, Fr. Rhonheimer makes a wonderful broader case for Christians and Catholics to stop rationalizing the tragic flaws of the period and initiate healing. Look forward to what you learn from your current read. Until next time -Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Good discussion on Faulhaber above. I agree with Integrity's dissemination of the 1936 church position on Bolshevism (ie it had far deeper roots than one meeting with Hitler), and his referral to the subsequent history of Faulhaber and the regime. On the new inserts to the lead I would say, the content in useful and could be transferred in full to relevant sections in article if not already there, but for a lead the inserts are too long and can (and should) be tightened. Nazism had a long way to run after 1920 for example, so the 1920 manifesto, while relevant, probably shouldn't be presented as the final word. Similarly, this is not an article about "The Holocaust", or even "Catholic Church and the Holocaust", but rather about the totality of the Catholic-Nazi picture, so we need to be pithier in covering the topic of anti-semitism. I'll take a closer look and see if I can achieve these things without losing substance. Ozhistory (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

photo descriptors
I think another weakness of the article overall is overly verbose photo descriptors. They tend to result from cobbled together compromise texts. I propose we place any that might fit this category here for discussion:

To begin with, the photos in the introduction contain essay length descriptors and need editing. Please discuss, but my feeling is the existing descriptors are not good, because they manage to be both too narrow and too long to place at the head of an article.

Below is the existing text, followed by my proposed edit:

Ozhistory (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ozhistory- Agreed - many of the photo captions here are too "wordy" and/or distractingly digress. Your change is fine with me. Just two other thoughts. First, thank you for your work on the Nazi Manifesto and the anti-semitism paragraph.

Second, as for the anti-semitism piece? My suggestion is to have that paragraph (as you revised) immediately follow the Nazi Manifesto. They flow seamlessly one to the other and provide a logical segue to the next paragraph and - vitally- set a tone of NPOV for the Article by addressing the "hot button" issues and 'defuse' them from the start.Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, on re-reading that works. My concern there was to group topics, but also keep some chronological logic. Ozhistory (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I take the point about the captions being too long, although personally I didn't find that problematic. However, I did find the content rather interesting and it led me to follow links and references to read a bit more around the subject. Come to think of it, it was the proximity of the text to the photos that actually drew my attention, like a Pull quote, so I wonder if there is any value in shortening them. If you want to shorten the captions, please transfer as much as you can into the article body text as it is of interest. Your suggested edits are actually the same length as the existing captions, so I don't see why you shouldn't just cut them back to 1 line.86.128.166.92 (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Establishing Deadline for Neutrality Issue/ Lead Content and Appeal for Partial Edit Protection
Fellow editors. It's time. We need to move forward in a meaningful and long lasting manner. It seems prudent that we establish a hard deadline that compels us to where we establish the NPOV status of this Aritcle, conclude to appeal for partial edit protection for the uncontested facts of lead and core historical facts of its various sections. Otherwise, we need to ask. Why are we putting such effort into this? And, all this good work is nearly for naught only to be maligned by less than forthright "editors" in the future. May I put forward the weekend of July 20th, 2013?Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * July 20 for an npov article? this article is hundred of millions of miles from being npov. Sayerslle (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no deadline. I do not see the value of setting a deadline for article improvement. The danger would be that ill-considered changes are incorporated.

Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet? Appreciate your point - but It's a suggestion - specifically and primarily speaking to the neutrality dispute and appealing for edit protection. That's very clear in my language. Not at all a call to "wrap-up and deliver" on the Article itself. It is a means of compelling us to focus and be serious about getting these two issues resolved and accomplished - and no more.

You and I do not fundamentally approach this topic from the same light perhaps. This has been established. And, that's fine. Of course, I'm willing to work with you, but, I must state we're asked to put forward input with solid verifiable information. My experience - thus far - with you on this topic has been a series of terse statements from you such as "very misleading" without a single word as to what your point is. If you're earnestly seeking genuine history, which I'm certain you are, and have a grounded view of this very serious topic to the level this Article now requires of us? Then I look forward to collaborating and to hear your understanding. But, dropping in for a visit and placing little one liners now and again is just not very constructive at this point. It's your call to contribute in a substantial and constructive way as you have in the Nazi Germany Article. Hope we get there. Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Fellow editors - So, we know where Sayerselle and Binksternet stand - without doubt. Thank you. Once more, however, the proposal is about compelling purposeful action as to NPOV and edit protection. Not the body of the Article as a whole. The date was merely "kicking the idea around" on this particular point - i.e., NPOV. This begs the question.

What does the realization of an NPOV look like? It seems there is a fundamental dynamic here. Concerned Editors need to express briefly/ list what are the NPOV concerns - specifically- with regard to this Article so that we can then tackle them. This point counter point on each point is not the ideal approach IMO. Once we have this listing we then conclude and commit on getting to an NPOV. And, please let's not have an avalanche of vague "wiki-lingo". The guidelines and policies are vital - to be sure. Yet, decisions need to be made within them. Otherwise, this is going to be endlessly and hopelessly circular with people reading books and doing research on the subject with some plucking and "cherry picking" for citations to support a POV on the more challenging nuances of this history. The result is endless edit skirmishes. Again, near pointless and a waste time. Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Editors Concerns of Neutrality
So, in that spirit - I will go first. My concerns of neutrality-

1)The Article becoming so unbalanced and lopsided in its critique of the German Catholic Church and the Holy See during the rise and fall of Nazism in its tone, that it becomes literally (and can be legitimately accused of) being Anti-Catholic - Christian. So much so, that it borders on  (by explicit intent - or otherwise) unjustly smearing the institution and its members both past and present. To such an extent that it all but states explicitly that the German Catholic Church, the Holy See and the Nazi Party were one in the same. Or, they were so hopelessly intermingled that, for all intents and purposes, they were. While strongly suggesting it (the Church)  is currently intentionally "duping" the world at large about its role.

2) The Article becomes no more than a justification for the failings and periods of tragic lapses in judgment by the Holy See, some German bishops, other bishops and individual members during this period.

3) Currently implied presupposition "formulae" that the passing of the Enabling Act of 1933 is directly -in terms of intentional causality on the part of the Church- to assist placing Hitler in power being related to the Concordat of 1933 as a quid pro quo to protect the Church from Communism. It does so by way of circumstantially "connecting the dots" when, in fact, this is historical speculation not verified documented historical fact. Though this is one POV of it . . ..

This has not been established by mainline/mainstream political scientist and/or historians as a fact. And, when they do discuss this in that light, they offer a speculated hypothesis while stating so in their writings while framing it in that language, such as: "We can speculate . . . If we follow this line. . . . We can imagine . . . . We can reconstruct  . . . . Though existing  documents only imply . . . ", and so on. There are only a handful of historians who proclaim this as a "fact". But, when they do, its immediately controversial. Regardless, the Article - and related Articles to the Concordat - do so offering a weakened diluted background of the history of Concordats directly related to it. Or, don't offer the "big picture", that the Holy See was implementing a global doctrine of prohibiting clerics from forming and/or leading political parties and institutions, or running for political office; not only in Germany, but globally, starting in the early '20's - that today is universally applied.

4) Editors intentionally, or otherwise, on both sides ("pro-con") offer accepted RS references - but engage highly selective quotations by omission of material facts contained in that same RS. Fortunately, this has been limited, but it has happened and is a reality here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Integrtiyandhonesty (talk • contribs) 12:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello again - 'off the cuff-ish' response 1)where does it suggest the Nazi party and Church are one and the same? 2)yes, well, that's a tendency I see for sure, another editor called that the The True Believer style of editing 3)If Academic historians etc make such speculations then  the article should surely  say so ' x, y and z, have said ..' this is exatly where i'm up to in the Ventresca book bythe way   and he makes  observations like this "scarcely a day after the Enabling act was approved than Monsignor Kaas left for Rome to help steer the negotiations that would lead in a few months to the signing of the Reichskonkordat. Events moved quickly from there as Vatican officials worked to produce a draft agreement."  And didn't the bishops  issue some kind of formal declaration  that catholics could dispense with earlier " bans and warnings " about the Hitler movement.  Ventresca finishes the paragraph " And it was just what hitler wanted, and needed." So are we to just 'cherry pick' Vatican approved versions , or- just  say what happened ,and when,  and maybe add a few comments on it from reliable sources - various historians with a few various interpretations and comments. 4)everyone has to select to some degree-  , if there is outrageous bias and cherry picking, you can cut it out, no? in the (very) long run I believe the most outrageous pov does get trimmed back. to me its like the Fool in King Lear, wikipedia, it often spouts  a kind of gibberish , but because it isn't particularly respected by anyone, it has a kind of freedom , and its commentary on affairs  is part of the overall 'play'  Sayerslle (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Good Morning Sayerselle - Interested in hearing - or seeing- your work from your recent reading - I did note your recent contribution. So, it's about the preponderance of implication that should be our concern w/o a valid counter-balance that feeds the tendency as you phrased it. And, leaps of conclusion either way w/o full disclosure is the concern. "The True Believer" editor can be helpful - but then -they should be forthright that they are, especially now when addressing neutrality. A good Article on a topic like this leaves room for a reader to think for themselves. Such an Article needs to avoid leading and directing to a foregone conclusion or presume one.

As for the Concordat - Rhodes states on p. 173, "Hitler eliminated the Communists . . . . (the expulsion of the Communists Party from the Reichstag - my words). He also knew that Pius XI disapproved of on principle Catholic political parties . . . ."  eluding to the doctrine of clerics not being politically active. Earlier, in 1929, in Italy the same happened. The Holy See sought the delusion of clerics being politically active - long before Hitler's meteoric electoral successes in '32.

The fact that German clerics went to Rome immediately after the Enabling Act of '33 was passed is undeniable proof of culpable complicity? Could this also mean there was an urgent awareness that the passing of the Act  was dangerous to the Church surviving in Germany? That it was now at great risk? Maybe? That they were fully aware of this?

In Phayer's The Catholic Church and the Holocaust on p. 18 he "pulls no punches" and directly challenges John Cornwell 'Hilter's Pope' assertion and those who state the same, "that the Concordat was the result of a deal that delivered parliamentary votes of the Center Party . . . . giving him the . . .  Enabling Act of 1933 . . .  is historically inaccurate." One can not be more plane than that. And, I can site other works that plainly state to make this claim is only hypothetical in nature in the best of circumstances - if we need to. This is what I'm addressing immediately that fatally strikes a blow to the neutrality issue. Because, once one does this math: Enabling Act+ Concordat = complicit culpability all objectivity is lost and judgement is rendered: delivered and passed. All else flows from there.

As for the "lifting the ban" to join the Nazi Party needs context. The Nazi Party began a process of terminating any employee at all levels of government, universities and any form of trade association who was not a member of the Nazi Party - or be a member to secure a job long before the Enabling Act vote. 1/3 of Germany was Catholic. This - in the midst of the Great Depression. Unemployment in Germany in '33 was over 25%. People need to eat Sayerselle - yes? And, it states in that same pastoral letter that the bishops were not withdrawing any of the former moral objections'. It was a compromise - in large measure - to address the real life issues of lay Catholics. Anyhow .... impartial objectivity. Yes?
 * people need to eat - Luke 12:22 Sayerslle (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Rolling back the lead section
I know there have been a good number of good faith changes to the lead section since March 2013 when Integrtiyandhonesty began working on it, but the darn thing has ballooned into an unmanageable mess, violating the guideline at WP:LEAD by having too many paragraphs and too much text. The text of the lead section must be a summary of the article, not an extension of arguments about the topic. Our reader is best served by a short lead section containing no more than four paragraphs.

Thus I am rolling back the lead section to its condition at the end of February 2013. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Prior to today's fiasco of edit reverts, particularly, above by Binksternet, four editors: Ozhistory, Greengrounds, Sayerselle and myself have been working diligently and in collaboration to address of number of concerns for weeks and making substantial progress while Binksternet made little contribution of substance. Though there was an appeal to do so.

Today - with little consideration and in a matter of minutes Binksternet discards weeks of good work by sincere well informed editors. My offering today used several RS's known by all. And, as stated in the edit itself -it was open for editing by anyone -clearly not a hatchet job. This is uncalled for, wholly disruptive and without basis in fact. These four editors know I have worked with them in good faith and served as a conduit to agreements and collaboration. Weeks of diligent hard work by several editors wiped out on a virtual whim. Very, very sad. I strongly urge arbitration on this matter- or a serious discussion.Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Love the bold type; it reminds me of a Chick tract.
 * Regarding the heavy pruning job I performed today on the lead section, you will note that 13kb of text was removed. That is too much text for this article's lead section. Your version had 12 paragraphs! Furthermore, you were making the lead section into your personal version of the article itself, which is not what the lead section should be. The other editors were faced with your insistent and staccato additions which is why they were working with you at times, but also against you with many reversions of your work. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Binkersnet - That statement is wholly off the mark. 90% of the progress and work that was being made was in the lead - had you paid attention - you would know that. That's where our focus was. Addressing anti-semitism as it was determined vital in the lead - the make-up of Germany, what Popes served during the period and so on. All reached by consensus.

The dismissive comment of being "tolerated" by fellow editors who repeatedly had to revise my input is an absolute digressive ruse. The Talk page itself speaks to that. I find no humor - or useful purpose -in discharging weeks of effort by four editors on a moments whim. Sorry, but that's just not justifiable. You have an opportunity here to do what is fair and just -and honor that collaborative work by undoing what you have done. And offer a legit feedback edit. The choice is yoursIntegrtiyandhonesty (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I choose to follow the WP:LEAD guideline so that the article's lead section is restricted to four paragraphs which briefly summarize the rest of the article. If you aim to violate WP:LEAD then we are at loggerheads. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The "12 paragraphs" you speak of were not "mine" but rather the collaborative efforts of three editors who each brought something to the table. It was a work in progress - as is this whole Article that was yet to be determined. It was working its way.

Your action today greatly disrupted that effort that was soon to be fully realized. And, you take it out of its context of the overall effort to address the NPOV issue. This wholly undiscussed unilateral action on your part - though technically in compliance - is very questionable. Countless hours of sincere effort on the part of four editors treated with such dismissive action borders on hubris 'censorship' and hard to justify with "wiki-lingo" one liners. Very disturbing. We'll let fellow editors speak their piece now.Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

To all editors -So, the current lede is three rather than four paragraphs -or the "out of line" - 12, which was temporary in status as the NPOV issue was resolved. I see. That reveals little at all about the Caholic Church of Germany of the 1930's and 40's. Who were the Popes involved? When did they serve? How many bishops, priests, etc. Who were the major persons involved? What were the demographics? Not a word about Hindenburg? Tell me, how does one discuss the rise of and fall of Nazism in relation to the Catholic Church and not mention Hindenburg, or Franz von Papen in the introduction?

Not a word about the Nazi Manifesto and its position on religion and race - which is vital to understanding the context of the entire relationship between the two? Not a word about anti-semitism and its role. Just how does that work? Binksternet?

The answer - confusion. Wherein, the context and who is who and how it unfolded becomes so disorienting it's near hopeless and it feeds what has plagued this Article for years. Non- stop edit wars. This is your solution? Let's go back to more of the same? To thwart genuine progress? Does this stand up to reason and plain old common sense? All of this information can be constructed in four paragraphs - if we chose to.

You being a senior editor? I'm utterly amazed at this. And, how its justified - in your eyes - as merely "guidelines"? Very incomprehensible, actually. This is my last word. And, I thank all you fine editors: Ozhistory, Greengrounds, Sayerselle and others for the fine high quality work you have done to "raise the bar" of this troubled Article. I know more intimately now why Universities -even at the undergrad level- do not allow Wikipedia to be used as a source in research. I beg you to prove me wrong Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Your histrionics do not move me. The thing is: all of the text I removed is still available in the article history. It's not like I burned your hand-written manuscript and flushed the ashes down the toilet. You are perfectly free to return to the article history, copy the words and references you wish to preserve, and move salient bits down into the article itself, working them into the prose so as to augment or add information which is missing. This is exactly what should have been happening for the past few months. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet- Thank you for your gentlemanly compliments. We can exchange those another time. Not the least bit concerned with "moving you", but rather, with genuine impartiality and objectivity and serving the reading public in manner that reflects the mission of Wikipedia. I realize it's a click and point away to begin setting this straight. That's not the point at all.

The point is this apparent disregard for hours and hours of earnest effort by several editors over several months so flippantly tossed aside. In short, a serious concern about what is actually taking place here. What just happened here is suspiciously close to an attempt at censorship. Now, I'm not stating that this is what happened - I offer you the benefit of the doubt - it may be merely crossing views- but this "draconian' move was - in my view, wholly uncalled for, unjustified and lacking on a host of levels.

We have crossed paths a number of times on this topic, and it is very apparent you and I do not see this topic in the same light. That's actually helpful - but this? Yeah, there is something amiss. I have proven myself to be more than capable of collaborating with others on this difficult subject. And, we have always found our way to a resolution. What this was? Only you can answer.Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * An extended effort by earnest editors is less important to me than serving the reader. Our readers want to see the lead section form a concise summary of the article. Binksternet (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Could not possibly agree more. I too desire that this lede be a concise summary, that is informative, correct, impartial, objective and non-controversial, in four solid paragraphs. That, frames the Article (on this type of subject) in such a way that it does not begin with a foregone conclusion, prejudgement, or plagued with material omission that feeds yet more of the same. And, respects a reader to think for themselves. Indeed, a challenge on a topic such as this. This lede (now on-line), however, objectively, falls woefully short of that - as the good work of these editors of these past few months were attempting to address. And, in actuality, not only in earnest, but offering high quality, scholarly and verifiable input.

This is all needs to be said. All else is a waist. It is my hope that this type of event -such as occurred today- will never happen again. Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with Binksternet that overall the lead was too long when he intervened - BUT - his move to revert back to March 2013 is just plain lazy. The March 2013 version is woefully inadequate both as a summary of the period AND as a summary of the article. Nevertheless, the July text had strayed into too much detail on The Nazi takeover and other matters, which, although interesting, is better off dealt with by wikilinking (and shifting to main article as binksternet suggests), rather than keeping "chapter and verse" on intricacies in a lead. Regardless of how much of the expanded text is reintroduced, the March 2013 text cannot stand. Ozhistory (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Ozhistory. As for Binksternet? Though the lede/lead had become modestly "wordy"? It was full of sound well thought out and credible contributions. Taking this "violation" out of its context of being a collaborative effort addressing a serious issue regarding NPOV on very serious topic? Yeah, not impressed;actually, disappointed that a "Senior Editor" operated this way.

You could have moved and consolidated- with ease - in a matter of minutes, the handful of paragraphs to appropriate sections. This was, in my view? Dismissive and with modest -if any- consideration. As a man who served years of active duty in the US Airborne Infantry as a Ranger in Iraq and Afghanistan this recent "edit" to improve the Article was- questionable. That, raised more questions than addressed the stated concern. When we do not agree on a topic? That's when we should be most open and attentive. Happy 4th of July fellow editors!Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Lede reads much better now... thanks Binkster. Was going to remove my NPOV tag, but have yet to figure out how with this new system.Greengrounds (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

So, it seems NPOV is realized. Since we're offering thanks - it should be made clear that editors Sayerselle, Ozhistroy, and myself formed 95% of the current lede on-line as of this date. Whereas, Greengrounds provided the NPOV challenge and Binksternet the push to "land the plane" and credit is theirs in this? Not to take from the importance of their contribution- they (Binksternet and Greengrounds) provided modest time and effort by comparison.

I do challenge and question the "rolling back" move by Binksternet. It was a not necessary to go that far. It caused very good credible work by several editors over several weeks to now be buried in the data stream, that requires others to retrieve and apply to appropriate sections in the future. When, in my view, the stated concerns could have been addressed in a much more orderly less disruptive way offering respect and honor to the good work of fellow editors. Though moving on -not backing down from this position.

And, it's revealing that there is a reflex-habit/tendency here when an edit is offered that brings some positive light on the Catholic Church on this history, or offers a legitimate credible counter-point to a credible negative, its often labeled a POV and scrutinized to a different standard. But, a negative - is rarely-if at all challenged by some, or hardly a word is said if its of questionable credibility, when it suffers us with material omission of fact. Not discouraging seeking truth - just an observation. It should occur to us here that some negative views on the Catholic Church here are indeed no less and sourced from a POV? Further, a POV is not - of necessity- false, or deceptive on either side - but merely sharing facts? Good we "got there", but maybe we all learned something about what collaboration should look like on such a contentious subject- I hope Integrityandhonesty (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, Integrity, there is indeed such a reflex-habit, and progress on this article will remain the weaker for it. Ozhistory (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * we have just to try and précis and give shape to what the RS historians suggest, surely. what can possibly go wrong? Sayerslle (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Moving On-Lede and Sections Structure
We need to revisit fundamentals now, as Binksternet rightly eluded to. The Wiki guidelines state that a lede is to introduce the main idea, define the subject and highlight points of interest. Not - get bogged down in details. There is no need to get involved in point for point detail and a string of citations in the Lede. The lede should frame the Article and flow to the Sections. The current lede- all seem to agree - is much improved. Let's strive to keep it this way and improve the lede with caution keeping Sections foremost in mind before an edit in the lede. And, now discuss the various Sections and how they tie into the lede.

I think it it safe to say the number Sections here are too many. There has to be redundant overlap here with so many Sections. Can we discuss this?Integrityandhonesty (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Request of Editor Sayerselle
Sayerselle- For months now I have been patiently attempting to collaborate with you as has Ozhistory to improve the Aritcle. It has been exceedingly challenging at times. You appear to have an blind spot that causes an intolerance of other POV's. From time to time, you edit w/o offering what you have added or subtracted; leaving fellow editors no clue what work you did. Now, from time to time we all have done this - inadvertently -but you seem to have a habit while sometimes you offer, "Just a bit from . . . . " when too often this "bit" changes the meaning of an Article Section profoundly, raising concern about intent.

And, you have been doing this since 12/4/11. Now 20 months into this; nearly half the life of this Article w/hundreds of edit contributions mixed with several "edit wars" with numerous editors.Your first edit summaries in 12/04/11 state, "Reads like a piece of apologetics!" and "Looks like another right wing Catholic whitewash." and in response to a revert you say, "This is not a Catholic whitewash site!" In addition, one of the primary sources of the Article mushrooming as it has are - your edits. Since then, nearly 40% of new content and word count are yours alone! So, your "voice" is far from being "muted". Is there not a better way to collaborate?

You often make solid contributions but. . . . just as happened recently - you were asked to not expand the lead unnecessarily - yet - you did -again. The same compliant was offered by an editor back in 12/11. Do you see a pattern here, Sayerselle? If this is such a passion? Perhaps a private blog is an option. But, wearing fellow editors with this apparent intolerance? Or, you could start finding your way to genuinely collaborating. The choice is yours.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * can you bring content issues here please. if I have added material you think is terrible you discuss  it here  I think. have I added so much more than you two lately?  I don't know. you seem to have carried out a very full surveillance of my edits -  one is meant to concentrate on content not contributors.Sayerslle (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sayerslle, your approach makes it difficult to avoid commenting on "editors" rather than just "content", as you so regularly engage in personal comment rather than content based comment. In fact, you seem to boast about being banned several times, and revel in confrontation. This is not the spirit of wikipedia and your self-appointed mission to overcome "apologist POV" too often manifests in jaundiced and selective quoting from texts, which has the precise opposite result to your claim to want to present "what historians have said about the spirit of the times".Ozhistory (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * so you are saying you will comment on me rather than the content. can you bring content issues here please? what specific have I added now that you don't like, think is inapproptriate, selective, jaundiced, whatever. 07:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Sayerslle (talk)

Sayerselle-Just asking for legit collaboration when generating content. And, pointing to the issue of balanced content while accepting legit 'opposing' POV's. If there is something that is material in nature that needs "fixing"- as you see it. Fine. But, use Talk page first. Not the power of the edit- click. Don't just simply delete/undo. Wiki is collaborative in nature -its not about "winning" and one POV dominating the conversation on a controversial topic such as this. It's about balanced NPOV. Hope we can continue to do the good work accomplished thus far.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Photos and Captions
Wikipedia's Manual of Style offers clear instructions regarding Photo captions:

1) Three (3) concise lines - or less.

2) Captions should relate to the photo only. In this case, who/what is it a photo of: A Prelate/Politician/ A person of import. When/where was it taken and that's all. They are not to be used for a narrative/"side-bar" by editors to distract from the Article or Section, or be used to "trump/counter" varying POV's contained in the Article or Section by drawing attention to the photo. Nor, are captions to be used to offer varying POV's within it. Only objective facts:Who, When, Why important. Not commentary regardless of RS or POV.

3) If what "needs" to be stated can not meet these guidelines? It should be placed appropriately in the relevant Section.

This Article has 37 photos much more than an average Article that take up precious space. Long winded captions only serve to make the Article "noisy". Of the 37 - 8 are well beyond the guidelines. The following go beyond the pale of what a caption should be on Wikipedia. They are in order of non-compliance and Section:

CATHOLIC OPPOSITION TO NAZI GERMANY: Photo of Cardinal Faulhaber - Well, beyond guidelines and exceptionally wordy consuming too much space. Its actually, well. . . it speaks for itself.

Eastern Europe: Photo of Bishop Sapieha actually more than double the guidelines.

Southern Europe: Photo of Bishop Stepinac - again more than double the guidelines.

There are others, but we can start with the worst and go from there. Therefore, I request fellow editors to review these captions. And, refrain from long winded captions ref'd.- or not.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * what are the other 5 that go well beyond the guidelines? this article is utterly riddled with pov issues. Sayerslle (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The only photos I think should be trimmed are the ones of Bruning and of Kaas. Those ones go off into tangential text. Binksternet (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The other photos captions are: Brunning, Alferd Rosenburg, Joseph Gobbles and Ludwig Kaas. So, I agree with Binksternet on two. All have been addressed now. And thank you Sayerselle for your collaboration.

This Article isn't currently "utterly riddled" with "pov issues". It was in the recent past - so subjectively biased it was impossible to sort the facts from subjective quantum leaps and inference that led the reader to a foregone implied end as history- rather than inform. The lead from 2011-12 was all but a conclusion rather than an introduction. And, so brief, so void of material facts, it was sorely lacking. This is a fact. It and the Article seriously failed the NPOV test -until recently.

Solid editing practice of a material nature - or a major idea - should be submitted on the talk page first - wait for feedback - then edit. This is the preferred model promoted by Wikipedia. This is how we're asked to collaborate, particularly, on a "hot topic" like this where emotions and politics can cloud the facts and blind people to legitimate varying POV's. It is not varying POV's that's the issue. It's when one dominates to the point that NPOV is lost. This s/b the focus. Not, that we do not agree.

It is overwhelmingly clear what your POV is Sayerselle: The Popes and most Catholic leaders (clergy and political lay persons) were extreme "right-wing" ultraists who desired Hitler to be in power because Hitler opposed Communism, and were willing to "look the other way" before, during and after the Holocaust as the "price to pay" to defeat Communism and certain forms of Socialism while guilty of some form of latent anti-semitism. We get it. This your POV. Not an issue.

However, it is not the only POV on this topic, nor is this historical "gospel truth". To some it is.To some it isn't. Each have valid legitimate contributions to make. This is NPOV. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * well, that's not really my pov. I look at it this way - what would, for example, the 4th paragraph of the introduction be, without mention of tiso, or Hudal or ratlines, or orsenigo - it would be a misrepresentation - it would be turning a blind eye to certain things - it would be "the catholic Church 100% opposed Nazism and the catholic Church and  virtually all catholics fought it like crazy - except for  a bit of 'ineptness' "- that's what it would be like. why do you feel free only to mis/delineate my pov? no-one elses. that's your biased, 'animus' I think Jung calls it.  content not contributors anyhow,  - that's the preferred model etc.Sayerslle (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sayerselle - Uhmm, the 4th paragraph of the lead does mention the 'ratlines", points out Hudal a Nazi informant (spy) and mentions Tiso. So, I'm missing your point entirely. As for your POV - well, I can't get inside your mind - to be sure- but your public offerings during editing make it clear enough - less nuances. Nor, have I sought to single you out. You are among the most active editors. Therefore, this is a natural consequence of your activity and contributions. With that, your POV tends to dominate your edits- so . . . . a seeking of balance is the response. Not that any of us are immune to this - a response is to offer balance and no more. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Bit late here, but yes Integrity, essay length captions use for POV pushing and additions of text there not even included in the main have been a weakness. Thank you for going to the specifics of wikipedia policy there. On one thing Sayerslle says above - it's fine to mention figures like Hudal and Tiso, but please note - Hudal was frozen out by the Vatican after his pro-Nazi views contradicted the Popes, and Tiso's regime was criticized constantly and he was demoted by Rome. Interestingly, Blett's study of the archives only mentions Hudal once, in reference to a request he made to the Nazi authorities to stop the deportations of Jews. So even Hudal, a cleric of undoubted Nazi-sympathies, still protested the Nazi treatment of Jews. These men have a place in our article and perhaps lead - but it should be noted that in their pro-Nazi allegiance, they were acting against the express positions of the Church. Orsenigo too, who Sayerslle calls a "collaborator", and indeed had fascistic sympathies, is an ambiguous figure and no Nazi. They may have been generally ineffectual, but he made numerous protests against Nazi policy - not just about the Nazi "war on the church" (as many contemporary accounts referred to it), but also in relation to the anti-Jewish policies of the Nazis. Furthermore, he too was in many respects a marginalised figure, with important diplomatic matters between the Vatican and Germany in fact handled by the Pope, not by Orsenigo. So if Orsenigo, Hudal and Tiso are important to mention, it is also important that their complexity be made clear and they not be tossed up as mere simplistic propaganda figures. Ultimately more relevant than a Slovakian politician, a marginalised Austrian bishop and an inept Italian church diplomat to the "overall picture" of the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany would be more express quotations from Mit brennender Sorge or the Pastoral Letters of the German Bishops through the 1940s which confirm the essentially antipathetic relationship between the Nazi regime and the Church - a fact taken for granted by every primary source I've ever read on the era, and not even particularly disputed by even revisionist contemporary historians - but a fact not easily gleaned from a reading of our still convoluted introduction. Food for thought, anyway. Ozhistory (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)