Talk:Catholic Church and Nazi Germany/Archive 4

Bottomline: Was Adolph Hitler a Roman Catholic???
Why are you running away from the fact that Adolph Hitler's early consciousness, good or bad, was in formed by Roman Catholicism???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klara_Polzl#cite_note-5

JCHeverly? There is no "running away" here. The Article offers a wikilink to Adolf Hitler in the first paragraph that explains all this. Nor, is this an Article solely about Hitler, which is why there is a wikilink. If you mean he was raised in a "Roman Catholic" family (by his mother) with a very modest educational background ? Yes, this is a fact. This early formation was long abandoned by Hitler in adulthood. The Bottomline? He was no more "Roman Catholic" than Joseph Stalin was a member of the "Orthodox Russian Church" who was born into and raised in that faith tradition and attended seminary in Russia.

His actions, words and writings as an adult are unclouded.They are very distant from a Christian understanding of life evidenced best by his embracing the false science of Eugenics to justify Nazi policies toward Non-Aryans, the Jewish people, the physically handicap and so on, ultimately leading to the Holocaust. Beyond these facts? An adult is responsible for their words and deeds regardless of childhood formation.

Getting more to the point, and a much more profound question: How does a nation that proclaims to be Christian offer the Nazi Party and the atheistic Communists Party over 50% of their votes in the free and open elections of 1932? This is what catapulted him and the Nazis to grasp the levers of power in 1933-34. This is a much more serious and challenging question. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

*"Give me the children until they are seven and anyone may have them afterwards."---Francis Xavier. “I begin with the young. We older ones are used up but my magnificent youngsters! Are there finer ones anywhere in the world? Look at all these men and boys! What material! With you and I, we can make a new world.”---Adolf Hitler, _Hitler's Letters and Notes_. History speaks for itself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yJ0xB9MqssUser:JCHeverly 03:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Not certain - precisely - what your point is JCHeverly with a You Tube upload of a propaganda film. It's very far from an objective source of history - let alone an RS required of Wikipedia; commingling this propaganda video with a quote of Xavier - taken out of its context - is less than what most would regard as sound history.

Xavier was a missionary and educator. This quote is very common among educators throughout history traced to Plato. Once again? The main thrust here is: an adult is fully responsible for the choices they make in life - as adults - regardless of childhood formation.

Again, Hitler was not a practicing Roman Catholic in his adult life. No one authentically debates this. His actions as an adult provide the evidence. His last choice was to commit suicide. Bottom line? Show one iota of objective evidence, one photo, film or quote of Hitler attending and actively participating in a Mass, receiving the Eucharist, or going to Confession, or stating he had as an adult from a credible source. Short of that? Is merely speculation without supporting historical facts/evidence.

After 80+ years of scrutiny the best anyone can produce is a single photo of him leaving a church for the wedding of an officer. Not exactly overwhelming 'evidence' he was a practicing Catholic Integrityandhonesty (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In the extreme, Adolf Hitler is the prime example of what happens to an individual when they get out into the darkness of false doctrine posing as Christianity. Once again Hitler is a worst case scenario.  There are other examples with other cults, such as Mitt Romney and the Salt Lake City cult.  Just sayin'.User:JCHeverly 02:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Where are we headed with all this? The question is, "Was Hitler a Roman Catholic?" The answer is: As an adult - no. And, as an adult he was responsible for his crimes against humanity. This is clear enough. Not at all clear what this "false doctrine" point is. Are you saying Roman Catholicism is a false faith, or Hitler himself  was "posing". Integrityandhonesty (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Dude, check the Magesterium. According to the Church's Code of Canon Laws, ANYONE receiving the Rite of Baptism in the RC Church is a member of the community of the faithful until they are excommunicated.  Both Hitler and his mistress/wife Eva Braun were baptized in the church, Braun also receiving the Rite of Confirmation.

Furthermore, neither Hitler nor Braun were ever excommunicated according to Wikipedia's own list ---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_excommunicated_by_the_holy_see#20th_century. They were both Roman Catholics that were inculcated with false religious doctrine to the extreme point that they had no concept of conscience and were oblivious to what the Third Reich was doing was wrong. That's my point. The manmade false doctrine teachings of the Roman Catholic Church fucks up people's minds and gets them out into darkness. Another example of Roman Catholic teaching fucking up a persons mind is Sir Jimmy Savile, perhaps England's worst sex offender EVER. I am not going to argue with someone who is probably a devout Roman Catholic and perhaps has swallowed the whole of the Vatican's Coleman cooler of Catechism Kool-Aid. If you're interested, I have included two links to pretty authoritative articles below on excommunication for you to read. The bottomline is Adolf Hitler was a Roman Catholic and his entire thought process was irrevocably fucked up the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Go with God.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/greywlf/catholic.excom.html#top

"The Roman Catholic Church is antidemocratic, authoritarian and intolerant. Americans, Canadians and others from secular or otherwise non-Catholic countries may refuse to believe this. However, like every religion, the Catholic church, when it is in a minority position, is all in favor of tolerance and democracy. However, when it is in control, as in Ireland or Poland, it shows its true colors. 'The church is much more comfortable with authoritarian right-wing governments and has historically allied itself with them. If the people in 'Catholic' countries who do not accept the homophobic, misogynistic and intolerant doctrine of Catholicism would take the step of leaving the church, especially in a positive direction towards humanism, the church's power to do harm would be greatly lessened. Historically, the church saw Mussolini and Hitler as bulwarks against atheistic communism and actively supported Spanish dictator Franco. Hitler, although a Catholic, never committed a grave enough sin to merit excommunication.' Such an action on the church's part might have saved millions of lives."User:JCHeverly 15:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * JC Heverly - It is difficult to know where to begin - but thank you for your efforts and insight. Though this is not a Theology or Canon Law Article your statements/claims press the point. As for Roman Catholic Canon Law with regard to Baptism, Confirmation and Excommunication?

In Catholic theology, baptism and confirmation does not assure good standing with the Church. They are an initiation. After which, one is called to live out their faith with integrity in line with Christian faith and morals. Historical evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates Hitler and Braun where not. As an aside, excommunication under Canon Law does not mean one is "damned" - it simply means one is censured from legitimate public participation in the Church until the issue is reconciled.

'In February 1931, the German bishops issued an Edict excommunicating all'' leaders of the Nazi Party who were proclaiming to be, or ostensibly Catholic. Though not mentioned by name, this - of course - included Hitler'''. And, separately - banned Catholics from membership in the Nazi Party. This lack of sharing in the Wikipaedia Article cited by you can be corrected.

The Vatican had no reason to act because the bishops of Germany already had; though Pius XI had expressed grave reservations about the German bishops conditionally lifting the ban regarding membership in 1933. In fact, the Vatican not offering a rejection of the 1931 excommunication was - an endorsement.

These are historical credible and verifiable facts known by all credible mainstream historians and scholars on the topic. The secondary and separate point of the ban from membership of the Edict of '31 was conditionally modified in 1933 - in large measure - to address a state German law that mandated all Trade Union workers and Civil Servants be members of the Nazi Party and public assurances by Hitler the autonomy of the Catholic Church [and Protestant Churches] would not be threatened. In the document issued in 1933 the German bishops concluded by reiterating their condemnation of core Nazi ideology, i.e., Racism and so on.

Under Canon Law there are two forms of excommunication: a formal public censure fernendae sententiae namely reserved for a challenge to its authority within the Roman Catholic Church; such as, one unilaterally self-claiming apostolic authority as a bishop, for example, requiring a Tribunal review.

And, what is known as Latae sententiae, an immediate and automatic excommunication by virtue of public words and/or actions of  - Catholics solely - who consistently, and without remission, contradict Dogma or Doctrine. In short, self- excommunication by public words and actions that are self-evident. In this way, Hitler and his 'lover' Braun [and many others] had excommunicated themselves through their words and actions, putting aside the official excommunication by the German Bishops in 1931.

Further, regarding Canon Law? Because the Nazi Party secured the largest number of seats than any another party in the Reichstag via an open, free and democratic election in late 1932, and Hitler was Constitutionally appointed Chancellor by President Hindenburg in 1/33? His collation government with the DNVP led by President Hindenburg was a legitimate government under Canon Law. But, also under international secular/humanist law as established by the League of Nations [the precursor of the UN] who also recognized its legitimacy soon after Hitler's appointment. By national referendum Germany withdrew from the League in November 1933.

All through the rise of Nazism and its reign, the Roman Catholic Church officially and publicly denounced core Nazi ideology of Racism, Eugenics and Sate idolatry. Most notably in the encyclical, Mit brennender Sorge issued in 1937 by Pius XI. He also referred to Hitler as, "a mad prophet possessed of repulsive arrogance.' Not the words of an institution endorsing his rule.

Your statements expose significant negative prejudice/bias - perhaps a blindness - that can only be described as Anti-Roman Catholic, to which you're entitled. In your own words, you stated it's a false religion hopelessly infused with hatred of women and those with same-sex attraction and "anti-democratic", which is categorically a statement requiring a challenge. This is not the place for such a conversation; but I will state, this position brings into question objectivity and willingness to maintain a balanced, fair and open discernment of historical facts. This is not a Theology or Canon Law Article. Though they play a role here? The legitimacy of both are not being challenged here. They simply - are. To the extent they are relevant? We have an obligation to approach them with objectivity. At the bottom? It's a History Article.

'''This is not to say many "Catholics" were free of serious crimes, or some were outright Nazi sympathizers/collaborators. There were, in fact, many. From the average lay person to clerics. This is clearly pointed to in the Article, and rightly so. That said, Hitler and Braun [and many others among them] were not practicing Roman Catholics as adults'''. They publicly, and with no intention of remission, contradicted both Roman Catholic Dogma and Doctrine, thereby, were - at a very minimum - excommunicated by latae sententiae, meaning, they excommunicated themselves. All historical evidence points to this.

As to the other statements regarding Mussolini, Franco and the "right"? In the case of Hitler and Mussolini, their economic philosophies were rooted in 'Leftist' thought in the form of Collectivism. Perversions to be sure - manifested in Fascism but rooted there nonetheless. But, it would be malice to say they were "Leftists" in the contemporary sense. To say they were "Far right" is a misconception of historical facts due to their collectivists - fascists economic policies, such as, nationalization (government seizure) of industry as many scholars point out. It's more accurate to say they were both opportunistic thugs and exploiters par excellence.

Benito Mussolini was an self-professed atheist and extremists thug who had no love for the Catholic Church. As for Francisco Franco? He was 'right wing" - as that suits some - correct. In Spain during the Spanish Civil War he was facing the Communists - and cohorts - who openly engaged a pogrom wherein they indiscriminately [no due process] murdered Catholic bishops, priests, religious and devout lay people [many innocent men and women] whose count goes into the thousands simply because of their faith. Just as it [the Catholic Church] officially denounced Nazism in the 30's and beyond - so too Communism in 1891 with the encyclical Rerum Novarum. It's true Franco's forces also committed serious crimes against its people. But, is it fitting a square peg into a round hole to say the Catholic Church was culpable or active in these crimes?

In regard to Ireland and Poland? 'Neutrality is core to Wikipedia. What you shared seems somewhat unbalanced and subjective. Like any institution the Catholic Church - as an institution is flawed as history shows - agreed. One could make a case the Catholic Church was a major force for good [on the whole] in both countries over the centuries as well. Such as, the role John Paul II played in the collapse of the Soviet Union via Poland. This response is already long enough given all that was tossed out there. So, to close.

As for "irrevocable damage"? This is stating [intended or not] a human being is void of free will. Are you saying human beings lack free will? In the end - Hitler and others - like all of us today - had a limited free will to choose what they said and did. Choices adults make of their own free will have consequences, Yes? Like using "colorful language" on Wikipedia such as you have in violation of its guidelines. Be careful. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a soapbox: one cannot make editorial decisions based on ideology--and that all adult human beings have (absolute?) free will to do as they choose is ideology. This talk page has many words and few suggestions for article improvement. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Drmies - could not agree more, but most adults have the capacity to exercise free will. They may not have the courage to face the consequences - but that freedom always exists. Just addressing statements as they come along. So, what improvements would you suggest? Integrityandhonesty (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree on the philosophical point, but that's neither here nor there. My first suggestion would be to send a big fat check to and ask them to give this article a run-through, for copy edits and trimming the fat. I landed at random on a section just now that had some seriously faulty grammar and some suggestive word choice--our article said that Hitler was right, basically (note my tweak). Drmies (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So, Hitler was "right", as in correct thinking, eh? Now that's a position to ponder. Well, I can't endorse paying anyone to be an editor - nor can I afford it, but, yes, agreed, always room to trim fat and verify RS, facts, etc. Let's agree then to do that and whoever can be recruited to join in? All the better.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The article said Hitler "argued the effeminate Jewish-Christian ethic was enfeebling Europe"--which means that there was such a thing as an effeminate Jewish-Christian ethic, and the argument is that it enfeebled Europe. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I see, well, Hitler did make a statement to that affect, though, I do not have access off-hand or recall an RS that verifies a credible translation. We need to recall this was Hitler's 'take' which - in his world - do not require basis in fact - only his personal conviction. And, so it goes. Talk laterIntegrityandhonesty (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My point is that our article said it, and it shouldn't have. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood ..... good. So, we continueIntegrityandhonesty (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm glad I could provoke some light and not just heat in a discussion of this article. Perhaps a scholar of German history, or 20th century European history could lend a hand in improving the article???

One little edit war
This is one in an exchange of reverts. It seems that won this one, perhaps by attrition. But both versions are problematic: 's version has a questionable phrase, "The Center Party's attitude had become crucial"--an "attitude" can't really be crucial, though a party's position can. Integrity's version is problematic too: "...through intimidation and negotiation, the monarchists DNVP, the Catholic Centre Party (led by prelate Ludwig Kaas), and the allied Bavarian People's Party, voted for..." First of all, the BPP is allied with what? But secondly, listing the NDVP, the Centre Party, and the BPP equally takes the alleged crucial position of the Centre Party out of the equation. So, the basic question is, did the Centre Party play a crucial role? Answers should be of the "yes, according to" or "no, according to" variety. And please, keep those answers short and to the point. And perhaps most importantly, since these statements are supposably sourced to "Ericksen, Complicity in the Holocaust, p.52", what does Ericksen say? Drmies (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * In short, yes, it was a crucial/pivotal vote and the Center Party had a crucial role. Though they had only 12% of the vote? To pass the Act required a 2/3 majority. The collation of the Nazi Party and DNVP backed by President Hindenberg was short of that; according, to all credible historians I have read [and this is dozens] agree on this. We can be confident this is true and correct history. The challenge here is to express, comprehensively, and within a credible context, who and why they voted as they had in a brief and concise manner. Easier said than done. It must be stated, the Nazi Party "strong-armed" and manipulated parliamentary rules to deny the Social Democrats - and others - full participation in the vote. Thereby, reaching the 2/3 majority.

In the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William L. Shirer writes pp. 196-197, "How to obtain a majority was the main order of business at a cabinet meeting on March 15, 1933, the minutes were produced at Nuremberg [the Nuremberg Trials]. Part of the problem [reaching a 2/3 vote] '''would be solved by the 'absence" of the eighty-one Communists. . . . Goering felt sure the rest could be easily disposed of "by refusing admittance to a few Social Democrats". . . . a dozen deputies [Social Democrats], had been "detained" by the police."''' This was achieved by use of the Reichstag Fire decree of 2/28/33.

As for listing who voted in favor of the Enabling Act? To 'de-list' those who had? Is to deprive readers of the full context of its history and has the 'appearance' of intentionally removing their role in this event, thereby, comprehension is fatally lost and challenges objectivity.Admittedly, the word - allied - presumes some foreknowledge. The BNVP, or BPP - as dubbed here - was a 'spin-off' of the Center Party. They collaborated frequently on a host of issues and legislation, hence, they were allied as most scholars state.

In Sayerselle's 'defense' - this is a sound quote of Ericksen - a credible RS. And, yes, the word "attitude" seems too subjective, therefore, open to multiple interpretations. The words - position or argument - would be more precise. The actual title of Robert P. Ericksen's book is, '''"Complicity in the Holocaust: Churches and Universities in Nazi Germany", Cambridge Press, 2012, on p 52, he writes. "Because the Act would change the Weimar Constitution, it required a two-thirds majority and could not be passed by the Nazi and DNVP coalition itself. Here the Center Party assumed a crucial role." '''Of course the word, "assumed" is suggestive in that it implies initiative on the part of the Center party desiring to deal/negotitate with the Nazi Party in first instance, which is not the case at all. As for all others, it was under great duress, but anyway, that's what it states. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The 1933 German-Vatican Concordat
This agreement between Germany and the Vatican is given short shrift, in view of what followed. Negotiated by Eugenio Pacelli with the Germans, it provided Hitler with the respectability he wanted from the international community. It was unusual in other respects, too, being a radical turn away from Catholic Germany's rich history of political activism. By agreeing with Hitler to keep the Church out of politics, what Pachelli did was effectively silence any mobilization of Catholics against Hitler. Catholic resistance after that was sporadic and ineffective.

Historians also wonder why as the later Pope Pius XII never abrogated or even threatened to abrogate the concordat, especially as soon as he realized that Hitler was early on heading for a dictatorship and violating basic human freedoms. Organized Catholic resistance could have stopped Hitler in his early years.

One also wonders why German anti-Semitism is not mentioned at all here. Nothing is more relevant to the problems we face now. Anti-Semitism had been embedded in European culture for centuries, and was especially strong in Austria. Christian leaders always dismissed the dangers of stigmatic labeling, which marks people for future destruction, just like a forester tags trees for removal. The connection between anti-Semitism and the Shoa is not incidental but causal.

Goldhagen's observation about the silence and complicity of ordinary Germans should also be noted here.

i agree with the above that Wikipedia is ill served if these pages are seen as white-washing the complicity of Christians in past crimes. We Christians and others would like to see this page better written and organized. Unless we get a clear view of Christian complicity in these events, we will be doomed to repeat them. Bdubay (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Bdubay - Agreed, "white-washing" should be avoided. Just as important? We should avoid wholesale "tarring and feathering" as well. Good point regarding Anti-Semitism. It's addressed at the end of third paragraph of the Lede set in three forms: Nazi Anti-Semitism based on racism, European cultural Anti- Semitism and the historical enmity between Judaism and Christianity up to that point in history.

It can be marginally argued the Concordat gave legitimacy to the Nazi Party, yet, in the same period - and long before ratification of the Concordat [September 1933] - France and Great Britain started negotiations in March of 1933 the Four-Power Pact with Germany. And, then signed and ratified it by July 1933.

The point? What gave the Nazis legitimacy was not agreements with Britain and France, or Concordats with the Vatican. It was the German people. They voted for Hitler in the democratic free and open elections of 1932 of their own free will. In such a way, that the Nazis had the largest block of seats in the Reischstag; thereby, setting into motion a series of events forcing the hand of the President [Hindenburg] to appoint him as Chancellor through a series of "closed door" politics involving numerous interests from late 1932 through early 1933. This is an irrefutable fact of history. Short of invading Germany in 1933-34? Nations and international institutions had to deal with Hitler and the Nazis from that point on.

As to the silence and complicity of the German people? It's a good thought. We should explore that in this context.

To your point regarding "taking the Church out of politics." The Concordat is in reference to the Institution - not the lay population. Only clerics were prohibited to run for office or accept appointments in political parties. The lay people were free to engage. As the Article points out, Catholics were only 1/3 of the population of Germany 1932 - 1934 as Hitler rose to power. Even if every Catholic voter voted against him? It's a presumption they alone could stop him. Though, agreed, had the Church - namely the Bishops - been more militant ? This history would read differently and more lives saved.

It does not appear to me there is "white wash" here in the absolute intentional sense. The Article points to numerous collaborators, crimes and failures by Catholics both clerics and lay people. Always room for improvement of course. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Lede may be too Long
Though Lede may be too long - by a modest measure? This is a complex topic. Therefore, as the guidelines state: the Lede should be a concise summary of the Body of the Article and be no more than 4 paragraphs long; which the current Lede [10/11/14] indeed is. That said, every Article should seek improvement with the passing of time. In that spirit. . . . let's see what can be legitimately done without degrading - knowing this Lede has been vetted and debated over several years by quality and sincere Editors.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * the most effective option would be to step back from your blatant ownership of the article. You have established a long term pattern of habitual reversion in this article, as is immediately apparent from viewing the article history. You couldn't possibly raise any bigger red flag than the edit summary here where you refer to a nonexistent "formal protocol". As a result, it is unlikely that you are going to be accepted as a "moderator" to any effort to fix the lede. VQuakr (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, VQuakr. What you're referencing? Was myself offering the general guidelines that material Edits should be addressed in the Talk page. Yes, I have been active; however, not any more than others. Such as, Sayerselle or Ozhistory to name a few. As the Article stats show, my contribution totals only 17.50% of Top Ten Edits and only 3.8% of the Text of the Article. Does this point to "ownership"? To most - I would think - this suggests a sincere contribution, effort at collaboration while demonstrating restraint and sound due diligence regarding actual Text editing of the Article itself.

It's of historical interest. An area of history I've spent considerable time studying personally and academically over the years; long before Wikipedia existed, which is why it drew my interest in the first instance. And, I do attempt to maintain a neutral stance. As I believe edit history will bear out.

If you consider this "blatant" [a rather negative point of judgement ] I can not address. What I can say is when I first came across the Article two years ago it was very, very lacking. With the good efforts and collaboration with other Editors over that period? It has substantially improved its depth, clarity, and verifiable history while greatly improving its neutrality.

This Article has few who've actually stepped forward doing the hard work to Edit with credibility. That is to say, to take on a complex topic like this and seek out credible reliable sources and so on. This is more to the point - I would suggest - why so few active Editors - not attempts at "ownership". If this is how you see it? Duly noted - and I appreciate the time and effort to offer your understanding. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2014 (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 "MaryFulbrook": From Catholic resistance to Nazi Germany: Mary Fulbrook; The Fontana History of Germany: 1918–1990 The Divided Nation; Fontana Press; 1991; pp.80–81 From Nazi views on Catholicism: Mary Fulbrook; The Fontana History of Germany: 1918–1990 The Divided Nation; Fontana Press; 1991; pp. 80–81 

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 ⚡ 07:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Catholic Church and Nazi Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090924081043/http://catholicleague.org:80/research/kertzer.htm to http://www.catholicleague.org/research/kertzer.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080516084735/http://www.ignatius.com/magazines/hprweb/bk_dalin.htm to http://www.ignatius.com/Magazines/HPRweb/bk_dalin.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Catholic Church and Nazi Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080605031001/http://article.nationalreview.com:80/?q=OThjZDg1NzVlMjBiZWMyNWM4ZWUzNTBjNDk2ZDdjMDE= to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OThjZDg1NzVlMjBiZWMyNWM4ZWUzNTBjNDk2ZDdjMDE=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Catholic Church and Nazi Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130211203429/http://spectator.org/archives/2006/08/18/hitlers-pope/print to http://spectator.org/archives/2006/08/18/hitlers-pope/print
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130211203429/http://spectator.org/archives/2006/08/18/hitlers-pope/print to http://spectator.org/archives/2006/08/18/hitlers-pope/print
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090924081043/http://catholicleague.org:80/research/kertzer.htm to http://www.catholicleague.org/research/kertzer.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

This entire article is a complete and utter mess.
Self explanatory. The article is a complete mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.177.22 (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Please expand your criticism to list specific issues. Then they may be addressed. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Some notes on the title ...
I have some questions about the present title of this page ("Catholic Church and Nazi Germany"). The term "Nazi Germany" refers to the "Third Reich" that existed from 1933 to 1945. The scope of this article is quite wider, dealing with many important questions from the period before 1933. In fact, it follows the interactions between Catholic Church and German Nazism from the very beginnings of that political movement, and even deals with some questions from the proto-history of Nazism in Germany, going back to the second half of 19th century. Also, article deals with some questions from the period after 1945. Therefore, maybe we should consider the possibility of adjusting the present title by replacing "Nazi Germany" with "Nazism in Germany". I think that proposed title "Catholic Church and Nazism in Germany" would be better in reflecting the full scope of this important article, and also it could be used as a standard title for similar articles, for example: "Catholic Church and Nazism in (country X)" or "Catholic Church and Fascism in (country X)". Any thoughts on this? Sorabino (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catholic Church and Nazi Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030133305/http://www.adl.org/main_Interfaith/nostra_aetate.htm?Multi_page_sections=sHeading_4 to http://www.adl.org/main_Interfaith/nostra_aetate.htm?Multi_page_sections=sHeading_4

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Catholic Church and Nazi Germany during World War II
Do we need two similar pages? Links betwen them are unprecize. Xx236 (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 18:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)