Talk:Mit brennender Sorge

Translation concerns
The translation "anxiety" for "Sorge" is very unusual. "Concern" would be the best fit. But this is what the official page says. It is also strange that the official Vatican site does not have this document in its original language. Sebastian 06:49, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)


 * The Vatican has the German text here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge_ge.html 69.212.51.56 (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The translations that come up depend on the language portal you enter the website on. The encyclical is translated to English here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge_en.html (just add _en to the end instead of _ge) So in the official (Vatican) translation, 'anxiety' is used. I'm not sure how the word 'Sorge' is used in German today, but it obviously comes from the same root as the Swedish word 'sorg' which is more akin to grief. I'm sure there's some subtleties and approximations in translations, and the fact that is was drafted by a non-native speaker could also play a factor. However, I'm willing to trust the official Vatican translation as conveying the truest meaning in English. Hence, I'm going to change it to 'anxiety'. I hope this is fine. 120.16.86.228 (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed "Sorge" would be translated as "concern". Probably the "Wahnprophet" is not only a mad prophet, but more closely a delusional "Prophet of delusions", being delusional himself and teaching his delusions as prophecies. Compare the Faust of Goethe: "Du bist noch nicht der Mann den Teufel aufzuhalten, umgaukelt ihn mit Traumgestalten, versenkt ihn in ein Meer des Wahns..." where Mephisto invokes the Spirits to misguide Faust into dreams - and sink him into a Sea of delusions. Insofar the translation of "Prophet of nothingness" is rather diplomatic and does not convey the original meaning of the German text. 70.137.140.88 (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "concern" is not the best fit; older translations had it as "With burning sorrow ..." which fits perfectly with the subject matter, and the tone of the encyclical. The "New German-English Dictionary" by Herbert and Hirsch, New York which I purchased in 1959 gives "Sorge" as first choice for "Sorrow", and "care; grief" for "Sorge". The official translation in English on the Vatican website, as noted elsewhere, has the sections in a radically different order than the German text. Moreover, the language of the German text is redolent with phrases current in the 1930s, such as "before the eyes of the world" (vor den Augen der Welt), but the phrase "eyes of the world" - so common in that era - appears nowhere in the English translation. Indeed, "Augen" occurs 7 times in the German text, and "eyes" only 3 times in the English. One might wonder if the translation process was German to Italian to English, or some such path to confusion. But, in any case the English "translation" is not a reliable source from which to get an authentic reading of the encyclical. For a reference to "Sorrow" as the translation of "Sorge", see http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/leaf-sum/catholicsvnazis.htm or do a search to find more not-hard-to-find examples. Regrettably, it does not seem certain that the German text, as posted, is totally reliable. As far as I can tell, there is no Latin text of this encyclical, and while we all enjoy the access the Internet affords us, a really serious analysis of mbS will require access to a copy of the document as it existed in 1937. Too bad, because in our modern vocabulary the encyclical is a definitive warning against the cult of personality. SDgeorge577 (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree that Sorge would come closest to Sorrow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.236.40.162 (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

From the Pope Pius XII article
Composed mostly by then Cardinal Pacelli, unlike most encyclicals, which are written in Latin, was written in German. It was then smuggled into Germany, secretly distributed, and read at the Masses on Palm Sunday. The Nazis confiscated all available copies of the encyclical, arrested printers who made copies, and seized their presses. Those distributing the encyclical were arrested.

Sources describing Mit Brennender Sorge are:
 * Thomas Bokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church
 * John Vidmar, ''The Catholic Church througout the Ages
 * Anthony Rhodes, The Vatican in the Age of the Dictators
 * Carlo Falconi, The POPES in the Twentieth Century, from Pius X to John XXIII
 * The Vatican website for Mit Brennender Sorge is here

All of these sources support the article text referenced to Thomas Bokenkotter.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 03:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Antisemitism
If there is a connection to either antisemitism or the fight against it, it needs to be explained in the article. In its current state, it is unclear why the aricle belongs to this cat. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Material sourced from Bokenkotter
As regards the statement, "It described Adolf Hitler as an insane and arrogant prophet and was the first official denunciation of Nazism made by any major organization", I can't find anything like this description of Hitler in the English translation, which also casts doubt on the second claim. I find it hard to believe, for example, that the government of the Soviet Union hadn't denounced Nazism earlier than this.JQ (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I rolled back your removal of sourced material. Bokenkotter is a peer reviewed scholarly source with notes and extensive bibliography that has been a university textbook on the history of the Roman Catholic Church for decades. The section on Mit Brenneder Sorge has notes to two other scholarly works that say the same thing. By eliminating this source because you cant find the description of Hitler in the English translation, you are committing original research We are here to put facts on the page as they are found in scholarly works. Bokenkotter is just one of four that say this, I just used him as a reference because he is the most well known and respected source.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 03:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Vatican copy of the English translation of Mit Brennender Sorge is here Beginning with paragraph 21 it compares the leaders of Nazi Germany to Judas Iscariot.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 03:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sources describing Mit Brennender Sorge are:


 * Thomas Bokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church
 * John Vidmar, ''The Catholic Church througout the Ages
 * Anthony Rhodes, The Vatican in the Age of the Dictators
 * Carlo Falconi, The POPES in the Twentieth Century, from Pius X to John XXIII
 * The Vatican website for Mit Brennender Sorge is here

All of these sources support the article text referenced to Thomas Bokenkotter.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 03:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added these others as sources to supplement Bokenkotter including the quotes from these books because I have had my content eliminated twice now and this should not be happening for such reliably and repeatedly and stronly sourced material. Bokenkotter's book is used by a multitude of universities as a textbook. Per WP:reliable source examples this is the highest level of scholarliness and the kind of book they want us to use above others.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 04:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I assume you are referring to this passage "If the oppressor offers one the Judas bargain of apostasy he can only, at the cost of every worldly sacrifice, answer with Our Lord: "Begone, Satan! For it is written: The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and Him only shalt thou serve" (Matt. iv. 10)." which I would read, not as comparing the Nazis to Judas but as saying that the Nazis may demand of Catholics an apostasy like that of Judas, and that Catholics must refuse. In any case, this is nothing like the statement I removed. I agree there is a problem when what appears to be a reliable source says something about a text that is clearly not supported by the text in question. We can't put in our own summary of the primary source, that would be WP:OR. But it seems even worse to include quotations that are patently not in the text. The fact that a previous editor has made the same objection, independently, should raise some concerns with you.JQ (talk)


 * PS - can you provide citations (including page numbers) where the other sources you mention give the same quote as Bokenkotter. That would be helpful.JQ (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I raised this at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and gave a more neutral cite in the light of the discussion there.JQ (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have provided the page numbers and all citation information including quotes from several other sources that support Bokenkotter. Bokenkotter is a scholarly source with notes and bibliography. Two of the sources that I included are the ones cited by Bokenkotter - Falconi and Rhodes.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 00:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bokenkotter may be "a scholarly source with notes and a bibliography", but that doesn't change the fact that the phrase he attributes to the encyclical ("[a] mad prophet posessed of repulsive arrogance") simply isn't there. Does Bokenkotter cite his source? If not, the quotation must surely be regarded as suspect. This does not constitute original research: it's a simple by-product of actually reading the encyclical, which is readily available. Notes and bibliographies are no guarantee of sound scholarship, nor should the supposed authority of a writer blind us to obvious deficiencies in his work. ChrisBaumNYC (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The passage referred to seems to be paragraph 32 in the German, which is paragraph 27 in the English - at least, that is where the words Rhodes translates as "repulsive arrogance" ("widerliche Hochmut") come from. The passage in German is:
 * Demut im Geiste des Evangeliums und Gebet um Gottes Gnadenhilfe sind mit Selbstachtung, Selbstvertrauen und heldischem Sinn wohl vereinbar. Die Kirche Christi, die zu allen Zeiten bis in die jüngste Gegenwart herein mehr Bekenner und freiwillige Blutzeugen zählt als irgendwelche andere Gesinnungsgemeinschaft, hat nicht nötig, von solcher Seite Belehrungen über Heldengesinnung und Heldenleistung entgegenzunehmen. In seinem seichten Gerede über christliche Demut als Selbstentwürdigung und unheldische Haltung spottet der widerliche Hochmut dieser Neuerer seiner selbst.
 * and in the Vatican's own translation:
 * Humility in the spirit of the Gospel and prayer for the assistance of grace are perfectly compatible with self-confidence and heroism. The Church of Christ, which throughout the ages and to the present day numbers more confessors and voluntary martyrs than any other moral collectivity, needs lessons from no one in heroism of feeling and action. The odious pride of reformers only covers itself with ridicule when it rails at Christian humility as though it were but a cowardly pose of self-degradation.
 * Can we find any other sources on this? It seems to take a great deal of creative interpretation to state that that paragraph is unambiguously referring to Hitler personally... Bokenkotter may be happy to make that leap, but it would be best if it could be assigned to him rather than to the words of the encyclical.  TSP (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Bokenkotter has derived this from an earlier writer, maybe Rhodes. But regardless, it's an interpretation and needs to be assigned a source, not stated as a fact.JQ (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Manual translation
Below literal manual translation from German, by native speaker of German. The interjections have been left in place.

Wer in sakrilegischer Verkennung der zwischen Gott und Geschöpf, zwischen dem Gottmenschen und den Menschenkindern klaffenden Wesensunterschiede irgend einen Sterblichen, und wäre er der Größte aller Zeiten, neben Christus zu stellen wagt, oder gar über Ihn und gegen Ihn, der muß sich sagen lassen, daß er ein Wahnprophet ist, auf den das Schriftwort erschütternde Anwendung findet: „Der im Himmel wohnt, lachet ihrer“

Who - in sacrilegic disregard for the difference in nature between God and creature, between the God-human and the children of man - dares to place any mortal - and were he the greatest of all times - by the side of Christus, or even above him and against him, has to let himself told, that he is a prophet of delusions, to whom the written word applies in harrowing way "The one who is dwelling in heaven laughs about them" 70.137.140.88 (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The word used for Christ, in English, is The God-Man. --93.135.49.244 (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC) (native speaker of German)

Anti-semitism
I do not think that this article should criticize any lack of mention of anti-semitism in Mit Brennender Sorge. Jews were not the only people being persectuted by the Nazis. The encyclical does not single out Catholics either, it condems "racism" which is an apparent reference to anti-semitism. I think this article is in grave need of overhaul to reflect the most scholarly sources. Falconi is given too prominient a place in the article given that his book is out of print and not oft cited. Bokenkotter has three reprintings, it is the most widely used scholarly source on Church history that is used as a university textbook by wide range of universities for over three decades and is the most oft cited of any of the sources on the page. I think his review of Mit Brennender Sorge deserves a greater representation on the page.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 19:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should criticize, but that's different from saying that it shouldn't include the question of whether the encyclical mentioned anti-semitism, especially if discussed repeatedly in multiple reliable sources. Falconi may be out of print, but its very much available at any major university library; I have no idea on what basis you make the claim it is not often cited; it is included in any halfway decent review of literature on the subject (and there have been many; e.g. Sanchez). I have no idea why we can't present both and attribute their opinions to the author; there is no need for Wikipedia to claim one of the views is "right", and the factors you suggest for doing so are dubious at best. A textbook, like an encyclopedia, is generally not given as much scholarly weight as a secondary source for the simple reason that it does not cite nearly as many primary sources, have a different audience, etc. Savidan 19:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Bokenkotter book meets the highest standards of WP:reliable source examples It is not written as a textbook, it just so happens to have been used as one for three decades by multiple universities for the simple reason that it is considered the most scholarly and definitive work on the history of the Church. I have not seen Falconi's assessment of Mit Brennender Sorge in any other source. You say it is in Sanchez' book - can you provide an isbn, page number and quote? That would be helpful. Thanks.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 19:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not contest that it is reliable; that is a far cry from saying that it should trump all other points of view. I refer to José Mariano Sánchez, Pius XII and the Holocaust: understanding the controversy, p. 33. "Another important work unearthing sources is Carlo Falconi...". His book is cited many more times in books about Pius XII, as you can easily confirm on Google books (where you can also find the Sánchez book). I don't see why it matters whether the specific point in Falconi's book has been discussed in other works; to my knowledge you do not even claim that about Bokenkotter. Savidan 22:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

A reader naturally thinks of "Jews" when the topic of Nazis and religion comes up, so we should give this topic the sort of treatment it gets among experts. When experts talk about this letter, do they sometimes talk about the Jewish angle? Leadwind (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This was 1937. Jews at the time were discriminated against, derided, officially relegated to second-class citizens, forbidden to marry non-Jew Germans, banned from a lot of professions, and encouraged to emigrate. The great pogrom of 1938 however had not happened yet, nor (on a large scale) Jews rounded up to ghettoes or concentration camps just because of being Jewish (that was after the 1938 November pogrom - the concentration camps then were for political prisoners), nor had there been a decision to systematically exterminate them (that was somewhen around 1941), nor had that extermination started (that was in the years following). A 1937 encyclical has the interesting property that it has been written in 1937 and must be considered accordingly.--2001:A61:20E7:E901:2CA8:8671:4253:DC86 (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Blanking sourced text
Is considered vandalism. I do not understand why Savidan eliminated a whole sourced section on the Background of Mit Brennender Sorge that is highly referenced to multiple sources discussing that exact subject. Please do not delete sourced content, especially without discussion. Thanks.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 20:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply a mistake. I must have clicked by accident in my watchlist. I did not and do not intent to edit this article for the time being. Savidan 22:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Paganism" and such
This article contained the following line: "The encyclical condemned particularly the paganism of the national-socialism ideology, the myth of race and blood, and the fallacy of their conception of God." I see two problems with it:

1) That Nazism was/is a "pagan" ideology is something most frequently stated by Christians wishing to distance themselves from it. It is hardly a simple matter-of-fact.

2) The phrase "the fallacy of their conception of God" is clearly not an "encyclopedic" statement, not least because it states that there's a true conception of God and that the Pope/Wikipedia authors know what it is. -- MQ Duck (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ad 1), yes, and as a matter of fact, unless of course we accept the slang-use where "pagan" just stands for "non-Christian", it is a rather simplification of facts in any case. It is a provable fact, of course, that Himmler dabbled in esotericism, but that is, on the one side, like modern neopaganism rather "stupid" than actually "pagan", and second and most important, Himmler (and Heß) were just some of the functionaries of Nazism, and Hitler vividly and provably distanced himself from these leanings. Other Nazis had other views; Papen (though not strictly a Nazi) was a Catholic, though a stupid one; Göring had certainly no religion at all; etc. etc. The idea that Nazis were about to revive Germanic paganism has found a very vivid and knowledgeable denial by none other than C. S. Lewis, by the way.
 * ad 2, of course there is a true conception of God. That is immaterial to the issue here, though; the words are clearly recognizable as the Pope's words here, and "in the Pope's opinion" is obviously and sufficiently implied.
 * Generally, the problem with the "paganism" is that the the phrase "heid" ("Heide", a pagan; "Heidentum", paganism; "heidnisch", pagan [adj.]) appears only twice in the encyclical:
 * first in the phrase: "We thank you [...] who have done their Christian duty in the defense of the rights of God's Majesty against neopaganism - a neopaganism that was offensive-minded and, alas, in many ways favored from influential positions", emphases mine. Whether that means that the Nazi ideology decried before was, among other things, a sort of neo-pagan (by interpretation) or whether influential positions, such as people like Himmler, Heß, Rosenberg (?), Darré (?), favored actually dabbling in pseudo-pagan esotericism is open to debate. Possibly it means both. The general direction of the attack however was the statolatry, nation-olatry and phyletism of the Nazis.
 * second in the phrase: "Whereas even the old Heathenry has recognized that the [Nazi] statement ["Right is what is of use to the people"] [...] must be turned around: [...] "Not because it is useful it is morally good, but because it is morally good it is, among other things, useful." Here he accuses the Nazis not of being Heathens, but of being much worse than the old Heathens.
 * - What then to say? Pius XI condemned the Nazi ideology as, directly, opposed to the Catholic faith, directly against the Faith in God, directly against the Faith in Christ, and directly against the Faith in the one Catholic Church. (There is not much "particularly" about it.)--2001:A61:20E7:E901:2CA8:8671:4253:DC86 (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Divini Redemptoris
The claim that Divini Redemptoris is more harsh on Communism is all well sourced but, I believe, inaccurate. What Divini Redemptoris says about Communism is: it is atheist, based on the erroneous Marxist philosophy, and dangerous. Well - no sensation in there. It is only Ardenti cura, not Divini Redemptoris, that designs a conception of entire Catholicism, and this as an explicit counter-concept to the ideology it condemns. I believe this is more "harsh" than any vocabulary can ever be. --84.154.119.164 (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

questionable wording
quote "in the opinion of some, a veiled attack on Hitler." NO. it's a clear attack (or better criticism) on Hitler/NSDAP. it's like saying the US declaration of independance is 'in the opion of some, an attack on the king of England' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.5.184.243 (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Eh, no... it's not quite the same because mbS used circumlocutions and didn't come right out and name Hitler (although reading it from the pulpits in German Catholic churches kind of makes it clear who is being referred to). I think what we need to do is be more clear as to who has what opinions regarding the specificity of mbS. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The passage in question reads
 * "Should any man dare, in sacrilegious disregard of the essential differences between God and His creature, between the God-man and the children of man, to place a mortal, were he the greatest of all times, by the side of, or over, or against, Christ, he would deserve to be called prophet of nothingness, to whom the terrifying words of Scripture would be applicable: "He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh at them" (Psalms ii. 3)."


 * The "prophet of nothingness" is somebody who places Hitler (so I presume) on a level with Christ. Hitler never claimed to be on the level with Christ at any time. Bishop Hudal on the other hand issued a book "The Foundations of National Socialism" that sought to harmonise National Socialism with Roman Catholicism. Hudal's hand written dedication on the copy sent to Hitler read "the new Siegfried of Germany's greatness". "Siegfried and the Twilight of the Gods" was an opera by Richard Wagner and perhaps that explains why I have seen Hudal's dedication freely translated as the "new Saviour". Hitler laughed as he waved the book at Michael Cardinal Faulhaber at a meeting. It was shortly after this that Pius XI released the encyclical in question. A Catholic historian, Coppa, wrote somewhere that it was the publication of Hudal's book that was the catalyst for the issuing of the encyclical. This is quite likely the reason why historians do not make the claim that Hitler was the "prophet of nothingness"and why it is generally found only in works by apologists. Yt95 (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

"veiled attack" is good, but there's no need to say "according to some." We could say "according to scholars," but everything in WP is "according to scholars." Leadwind (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

controversy
I understand that this is a controversial topic, with one side wanting to emphasize how good the Catholic Church is, and the other trying to minimize the value of this letter. Please be easy with me, a new editor on this page. I'm not a Catholic, and I think the Roman Catholic Church has a 'lot' of explaining to do, but it's important to be fair when addressing historical events. This letter is a perfect example of how a religion can have both a good side and a bad side, so let's cover both sides fairly. I'm interested in this letter because I just read about it in a secular history book, and it's the sort of interesting historical event that I wish I'd known about earlier. Leadwind (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Defending the Catholic faith and the possibility of practicing it in Germany counts as "good side". Thus, I fail to see how you make out a "bad side" in this specific encyclical.--131.159.76.186 (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The "bad side" is the often-cited idea that the church tried too hard to reach an accommodation with the Nazis, and did too little to condemn their racist (and especially anti-semitic) policies. See Pope_Pius_XII for an overview of this ongoing controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.172.106 (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Without wishing to enter the debate on that assertion, I (IP 131.159.etc.) may note that I simply said in this specific encyclical. Whatever to be said about the rest of all events, in this encyclical the Church manifestly did not try too hard to reach an accomodation, nor too little to condemn their racist views.--2001:A61:2089:9601:24FD:78BF:84A1:DCD4 (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Content section?
It doesn't do a good job of describing the content. Maybe I'll pitch in. Mostly I like to do leads. Leadwind (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Mit brennender Sorge
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 Mit brennender Sorge'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 "Ian Kershaw p.381-382": From Reichskonkordat: Ian Kershaw; Hitler: A Biography; 2008 Edn; W.W. Norton & Co; London; pp. 381–82 From Religion in Nazi Germany: Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; WW Norton & Company; London; p. 381-382 

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 ⚡ 03:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Mit brennender Sorge
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 Mit brennender Sorge'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 "Ian Kershaw pp210-11": From Rescue of Jews by Catholics during the Holocaust: Ian Kershaw; The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation; 4th Edn; Oxford University Press; New York; 2000"; pp. 210–11 From Catholic resistance to Nazi Germany: Ian Kershaw; ''The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation; 4th Edn; Oxford University Press; New York; 2000; pp 210–11 

Reference named "Honourable Defeat p.59": From Catholic resistance to Nazi Germany: Anton Gill; An Honourable Defeat; A History of the German Resistance to Hitler; Heinemann; London; 1994; p.59 From Catholic Church and Nazi Germany: Gill, 1994, p.59</li> <li>From Clemens August Graf von Galen: Anton Gill; An Honourable Defeat; A History of the German Resistance to Hitler; Heinemann; London; 1994; p.59</li> </ul>

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 ⚡ 05:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Quotes around Old Testament
In the title of the section named Defending the "Old Testament", why is Old Testament in quotation marks? Marnanel (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mit brennender Sorge. 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/20140527215918/http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk/article/9th-april-1937/3/first-encyclical-in-german to http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk/article/9th-april-1937/3/first-encyclical-in-german

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

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 23:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Sterilisation Law
The 1933 Sterilisation Law is immoral and repulsive, but in what sense is it a violation of the Reichskonkordat? Clivemacd (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In the freedom to confess and publicly practice the Catholic religion (Art. 1) there is included, a fortiori, the liberty to practice it in private; this includes not having to endure against one's will something forbidden by the morality that is insisted on by the Catholic religion, such as sterilization.--131.159.76.186 (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Excessive quotation
The Asssessments section in nothing more than lengthy quotes, which is discouraged. See Quotations. Kablammo (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead too long?
The lead seems a bit overlong for the article. It appears that it might unnecessarily restate many of the points raised later in the body of the article and that a more concise lead would assist readers. I haven't made any changes pending a discussion here. Geoff &#124; Who, me? 15:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It would appear nobody has any objections, so please rewrite the lead as you see fit. Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 20:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. Took a first pass at it - moved two paragraphs unchanged from the lead to the appropriate portions of the article as they included references not already in the article. Anyone else up for a go? Geoff &#124; Who, me? 16:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mit brennender Sorge. 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/20140318110036/http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/rhonheimer.htm to http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/rhonheimer.htm

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) 02:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Historical context
I feel it's worth mentioning that Faulhaber and Pacelli were both in Munich during the 1923 putsch. Wouldn't this have had something to do with the reasoning behind the document? - knoodelhed (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)