Talk:Reichskonkordat

Untitled

 * Archive1 Str1977 20:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Archive2 Str1977 10:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Archive3 Str1977 (smile back) 16:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The passing of the Enabling Act
The Enabling Act could not have been passed with the votes of the Deutschnationale Partei, the Nazis and the Center Party alone. Decisive were two more circumstances: Herman Göring was Secretary of State of Prussia, thus he was commander in chief for the police. The other fact was that there was yet no immunity for parliament representatives. So, Hermann Göring assisted the passing of the enabling act by suddenly imprisoning almost all representatives of the Social Democratic Party (for whatever reasons) shortly before the Enabling Act was brought in. As two thirds of the representatives attending were necessary, the Act could then be passed. I do not have a source for this, this belongs to common knowledge.

So, if the article tells about the Enabling Act putting up the (adventurous) theory that the vatican helped the Enabling Act in turn for the Reichskonkordat, it should as well mention these facts above, which brings the true circumstances, especially the limited powers of the Center Party, back closer to true relations. UAltmann 08:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ualtmann, you are mistaken about that: there was immunity for deputies (unless of course, when caught in the act) but this immunity is no right of the individual deputy (still isn't) but a measure to protect parliament. Hence it can be waived. Göring also didn't (and it wasn't him alone) arrest all SPDers but only some of them. All Communists however were arrested. A trick devised by the SPD to render parliament unable to vote was foiled by changing the procedure, so the remaining SPDers attened after all. It is correct to say that the the Centre Party's votes (and the BVP's) were necessary for the act to pass, in addition to those of Nazis, DNVP, both Liberal parties, and the smaller groupings. However, there is no foundation for including the Vatican in this. The Centre was not the Pope's puppet. Str1977 (smile back) 16:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, I am mistaken! What are we going to do about this? I did not say that Göring dit it alone, it was just a helpful fact that he was a minister in Prussia. There was no factual immunity, this was just a theoretic term. The Enabling Act could not have been passed without this move of Göring and the nazis. So, it is wrong to suggest (like the article does) that the support of the Center Party was the major cause for the enabling act to have been passed and that it was done in turn for the Konkordat. Now, honestly, you can feel free to change the wording, but I see no sense of removing a whole paragraph. Change the wording in your sense, but I think there should be also one little hint to the Kulturkampf. One cannot fully understand the relationship of the Vatican to Germany as the country of the reformation without the kulturkampf. And the latter was a real motive for the Vatican to push for a Konkordat. The restructuring of the states after ww I was not the only reason. The Lateran Treaties deserve being mentioned as well. --UAltmann 10:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Last removals
Why has the section about the Kulturkampf been removed? The consequences of the Kulturkampf were the main motives of the Vatican for a Konkordat with Germany. --UAltmann 07:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This information can be included but not the top of the section. The starting point for any attempts was the changes of 1918/19. The Kulturkampf certainly influenced many German clerics (not "Vatican's clergymen" - Pacelli certainly was not influenced by the German Kulturkampf) and this can be noted in the appropriate place. Note also that some information given was patently false. Let me quote:

"At the time after WW I, many of the Vatican's clergymen still were under the impression of the "Kulturkampf" (Cultural Fight),"

As I said, this concerns German clerics and not Italians like Pacelli. If you meant all clerics with the term "Vatican's clergymen", I can only say that the term would be seriously inappropriate, if not derogatory. (As an aside, "struggle" is better than "fight" here.)

"... which was initiated in the 1860's by Bismarck in Prussia and after 1871 in Germany."

Wrong. The Kulturkampf was iniated in reaction to the 1st Vatican Council (1869/70), and not only by Bismarck but also by the Bavarian government.

"According to the Doctrine of Bismarck, no member of the Catholic Church should have access to public or business office."

What's that, the "Doctrine of Bismarck"? The wording also implies that the following became the law, which isn't accurate: some orders were banished, some churches taken away (for the benefit of the fringe Old"Catholic"Church), file keeping, marriages and schools transferred to secular officials, and priests were forbidden from touching politics in their sermons (the "Kanzelparagraph" (Pulpit paragraph), more of that later). However there was to my knowledge no legal ban on clerics running for parliament.

"Eversince, the Vatican was insisting on a treaty ruling the relation between church and state."

No, the "Vatican" (if we really must use that term) had been insisting on such treaties on various occasions ever since the 15th century.

"The primary aim of the Vatican was to ensure the freedom of religion and freedom of exercizing religious service for the Catholics in Germany."

That is correct.

As for the Kanzelparagraph (abolished only under Chancellor Adenauer), it might be of interest in contrast to the rulings of the Concordat. Right now, the text might imply that the Concordat cut of a hitherto free clergy from politics, which is not accurate. Priest talking politics in their sermons could be arrested even before 1933.

Apart from that, the only importance of the Kulturkampf I can see is the one of the psychological setting of various German clerics. Str1977 (smile back) 08:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The Kulturkampf was by far not only a german matter since the reasons for the Kulturkampf were not only German matters, and Pacelli wanted the Konkordat especially with Germany because of the Kulturkampf. The Kulturkampf was by far more than just the Kanzelparagraph and by far more than just a psychological setting in the minds of various clerics. The wish for a Konkordat ruling the freedom of religion cannot be traced back to the 15 th century, this is wrong, because religious freedom was not an issue in the 15 th century. In the middle ages there was the dispute about the appointment of the bishops (Investiturstreit) and the Church wanted an agreement about this, but this may not be messed up with the issue of the Konkordat. For Hitler, the Konkordat was an attempt to make not only the priest, but also the whole church be silent on political matters. If you say that one of my sentences is correct, why not leave it there? The reasons for the Konkordat of course belong to the top of the article. --UAltmann 10:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Germany not a state?
Str1977, I see you have great interest for this article. But saying that "Nazi Germany was not a state" is misleading and hides the historical relevance of the Reichskonkordat. Obviously, the major historical and encyclopedical interest of this Concordat is much more related to the players involved than the Concordat itself --otherwise, it would just be "one more". I suggest to modify the header in order not to fool the reader with an apparently "irrelevant" bias for one of the most polemic documents in contemporary history. Best regards, --MaeseLeon (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Concordat with Austria
There was apparently an additional concordat with Austria and its ruler Dollfuss at around the same period, on July 5 1933. There should probably be additional information on this concordat in one of our articles. ADM (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

My edit of November 8th 2010
At the end of the first paragraph, there was a diffamating section that was just wrong. If the leadership of the NSDAP was overwhelmingly Catholic, that does seemingly not include Göring, Frick, Rosenberg, Heß, Ley. Moreover, the association that the Catholic Church was near in its teaching to the NSDAP comes rather odd if we take into account the fact that prior to the Reichskonkordat, the NSDAP members were most of the time debarred from the sacraments, that Cardinal Faulhaber did not restrict himself to call National Socialism "a heresy incompatible with Christian belief", and a Cardinal is not expected to use such terms lightly, or that neither the Catholic Hitler as Chancellor, nor the Protestants von Neurath (Foreign Office) and Frick (Interior Ministry), as competent ressort ministers, were allowed to sign the Concordat we are just speaking of, but that this had to be left to Vice Chancellor von Papen who was a Catholic non-nazi. The Catholics at the time had exactly one party, as such supported one party, were organised in one party, and that is the Zentrum. (Except in Bavaria, where the former Zentrum section became, need I say it: not the NSDAP, but the Bavarian People's Party.) --77.4.59.69 (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Lack of sources in "After World War II"
I am translating this article (older revision) to Polish, and I noticed that the section "After World War II" lacks sources (except first paragraph). Could someone fix this, please? Any hints on sources? BartłomiejB (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I added source about the ruling to the article (credits goes to user:Lupo). BartłomiejB (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding criticism and church-state separation: I added reference to one of the articles on concordatwatch.eu. It is not ideal, but I guess it is better than nothing. BartłomiejB (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent Edit to include a Secular Humanist Blog (Free Inquiry) as a credible RS. Ref. an "amateur" "historian" Gregory S. Paul
1) The goal of Wikipedia is to maintain a Neutral POV. This is an Article discussing history; therefore, critical historical facts should be limited to work of professional historians whether a book, article or other publication. This work introduced as a credible RS was produced by an amateur historian freelance scientist and illustrator Gregory S. Paul serving a particular audience who have an interest in promoting Secular Humanism. The Blog cited to reference this work is dedicated, supported by and funded by those who hold to this unique world view, including Mr. Paul. This is fine, but it does not belong here. Just as a Catholic Blog and its publications do not. Clearly, both have an agenda.

2) The Three part 2003 Article in Free Inquiry written by Mr. Paul, in the section titled, "Destroying Democracy . . . .", referencing this concordat makes modest and fractious use of historians work on this particular subject; wherein, footnotes 25-35 offered speak to the Protestant experience within Nazi Germany [Scholder] - and two others who go over the topic briefly. None, however, state the concordat was a quid pro quo for the termination of the Center Party. This is Mr. Paul's personal opinion and his own words. Correlation is not Causation. These eventualities were related in time but had wholly different dynamics and reasons for occurring.

3) There does not exist any documentary evidence that this concordat was a quid pro quo. None. Both sides use this void to their advantage to "spin at will". For the sake of historical accuracy to state otherwise is a false history.

4) Mr. Paul makes a number of statements in this 2003 article that are simply hard to match with history. As an example he states, "It was Papen who in 1933 made Hitler chancellor." p. 9. This is spin at the least and nonsense at its worst. No mainline professional historian would make such a claim. It's simply and plainly - false. Without doubt and to be sure - he played a role in promoting Hitler's appointment; however, the constitutional power to appoint was wholly in the hands of President Paul Von Hindengurg [a Protestant]. Also, Kurt von Schleicher [a Protestant] played a critical role along with numerous industrialists and landowners of all religious and secular stripes who feared Communism.

We can go on but this is why I argue this reference is not a genuine third party RS.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) "The goal of Wikipedia is to maintain a Neutral POV". Yes. But by no means this article has been NPOV with the extensive Catholic sources cite and lack of contentious views (mainly deleted by you, perhaps? Don't get uptight, this is a joke). This is the the reason, or partly the reason, why this article is rated C on both Wikiprojects. Please educate yourself with Neutrality of Sources on the sources allowed on Wiki pages. The monopoly of truth is not held in the hands of "professional" historians AND former Jesuits or priests, e.g., Peter Hebblethwaite and James Carroll. You repetitively point to Gregory Paul as "an amateur historian freelance scientist and illustrator" while carefully leaving out the fact that he has been researching topics on Theology and Sociology since 2005 (NPOV much?). On the contrary of what you choose to believe, Paul is a well-established, extensively-published researcher and internationally renowned. I still find it funny that a paleontologist is not considered a "historian" in your eyes (this is also a joke). Also, while you express politically-correct suspicion on Vatican sources, sources such as National Catholic Welfare Conference, Catholic Culture, First Things Journal, Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture, Catholiceducation.org, Journal of Church and State and many others are sitting languorously by, bathing in the willful negligence casted down by crusaders like yourself. Walk the talk. Take them down and I will take you seriously.


 * 2) Again I want to stress that nobody cares about what you think of an argument presented in an published article in a reputable journal by an renowned scholar of the highest academic caliber . You are not St. Peter the gate keeper (or are you?). The bottom-line is, I don't agree with what you said above, but I am not deleting anything. This is how things work in 21st century. Give me your sources refuting Paul and I will put it up there. Intelligent people will read the arguments themselves and make an independent decision. If people want parental guidance, then they will find you.


 * 3) This is really number 2.


 * 4) This is really number 2, as well.


 * Let me reiterate what I have just said: Paul is a well-established, extensively-published researcher on multiple disciplines and internationally renowned. His papers appeared on multiple serious peer-reviewed journals such as Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Journal of Religion and Society, Evolutionary Psychology, Philosophy and Theology, and Science, just to name a few. His research credentials are as solid as anyone cited on this page. Any rebuttals made to his paper will only be considered credible if presented through academic means and sources in a professional manner. Otherwise, it's just your amateur, personal POV. Deleting scholars you don't like on here is neither honest nor showing signs of integrity. Clergyboy (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * P.S. Initially, I don't even want to respond to you on your counter-arguments made against Paul. You clearly harbored strong emotional preferences and intellectual narrow-mindedness that (almost) border on religious zeal when you made the accusation. Just look how you point to Free Inquiry as a blog. No one should take you seriously. However, in case some reader haplessly fall for your biased, one-sided view on Papen, let me quote some sentences here from the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal


 * Clergyboy (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The Nuremburg Tribunal makes the point. Nowhere does it state he [Papen] "made" Hitler Chancellor, which is what Mr. Paul undeniably asserts and most incorrectly; among a host of other fractious statements and claims. The Tribunal also rightly states he was a lay person. As such, he did not formally represent the Church with binding authority in any capacity at any time. For his own political gain he attempted to persuade Catholics as the Tribunal makes clear as well. As a result, he was forced out of the Center Party. Most importantly, in relation to the Church, the Tribunal makes no assertion Bishops [who solely possess formal binding authority] as a body''' promoted or supported Nazism.

As stated earlier - Papen was one voice among many with varying interests, motivations and religious backgrounds promoting Hitler's appointment. In the end, it was Hidenburg's decision. HIdenburg was the only person in this history with the constitutional power to appoint Hitler as Chancellor. It's a challenge when bits of factual historical detail like this get in they way of a presumption, but this is an irrefutable - fact.

Another fact that gets lost in the noise is there is no documentary evidence the Concordact was a quid pro quo as a "kick back". Please produce one source document of the period that points to this. 'If you find this? You'll be famous and rightly so'. Conjecture, hearsay and assumptions are not history. They're conjecture, hearsay and assumptions. One is entitled to depend on such loose associations and to form a "critique", but it must be acknowledged as an opinion - not an irrefutable fact. This would not hold credence in a court of law.

I only mentioned Hindenburg's faith as a Protestant to raise the question. As a Protestant, what possible benefit would it have been to him [Hinenburg] to advance the Catholic Church? Mr. Paul gravely misrepresents history by making grossly simplistic generalized and misleading statements such as, '''"It was Papen in 1933 who made Hitler chancellor." p.9 .''' This is very distant from true history. He [Papen] assisted, promoted and used his influence [as the Tribunal makes clear] to seek Hitler's appointment. In addition, Mr. Paul wholly dismisses the role others played most notably, Hindenburg. It's positively impossible to support Mr. Paul's statement with the fact: It was Hindenburg who appointed Hitler Chancellor in 1933. If Mr. Paul's hyper-extended spin that it was Papen who "made' him Chancellor does not raise a "red flag" for you and others? I'm lost to what would.

There is no need to "educate myself" on Neutral POV. I'm fully aware. On that point? To mislead by omission and fractious sharing of facts and other such tactics are the hallmark of propaganda. Such things are not a credible RS and do not belong here. Further, no other mainline scholarly work references Mr. Paul on this history, which would be an affirmation. The strong implication of your language that your position is free of a bias is a somewhat self serving. This assertion has more questions attached to it than answers. We all have a POV Clergyboy. If one breathes? They have a POV. The question is can it be backed credibly with facts?

Lastly, this English translation of the Concordat you added is a very questionable sample. It's chuck full of editorial bias and leading commentary. How can this be justified as objective? There must be a pure translation out there free of editorial and biased commentary. It amazes me the quantum leaps that take place on this topic. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No more numberings today? Not to worry, I won't poke fun at your math this time. It’s your English skill that got me concerned.


 * 1) Let us look at Paul's original text shall we? So we can clear this vicious slander -- '''Gah! Paul just put one free-standing sentence in the original paper! It’s not RS! It’s a spin! It’s a blog! Delete! Delete!’’’-- which you so painstakingly trying to make.


 * According to Oxford Dictionary — Make: Cause (something) to exist or come about; bring about


 * Now, no one reading this paragraph is to take your de jure argument seriously. Appealing to legalism, which is the fallacy you try to repetitively pull-off here, is not going to make your zealous intolerance less apparent. Everyone except you knows the author is not talking about “de jure” actions here, but rather pointing out who the “de facto” power maker at that time was and who really caused, which is same with ‘’made’’, Hitler to be Chancellor. It was Papen. You can disagree with his arguement that Papen had the most power and influence to bring about Hitler as Chancellor and was responsible for that outcome and subsequent birth of Nazi Germany. But don’t distract us by pretending you are a kindergartener and can’t read a sentence well. The author is making a case on “without Papen’s reckless aid, Hitler would not have become Germany’s leader”. Do you understand the use of “make” now? Your lack of English reading skills are really hindering productive discussion here. Everyone agree that Hindenburg officially made Hitler the Chancellor, but without Papen, Hindenburg would have never yielded. So Papen made this all happen. Papen made Hitler the Chancellor. Wanna write it down fifty times?


 * Furthermore, a far-cry from the unpopular view you tried to make Paul’s research look like, works by "main-stream secular historians” Robert Gellately, Ian Kershaw, Klaus Scholder, Nathan Stoltzfus, Beth Griech-Polelle, Sarah Gordon and many others have all pointed out the pivotal and active role Papen had played in precipitating the ascension of Hitler and the subsequent birth of Nazi Germany. You must be practicing seriously “cherry-picking” when ignoring all those studies and findings. Jesuit priests may not like those writers’ “POVs”, or “propaganda” that “mislead by omission and fractious sharing of facts”, nor will devout members from WikiVaticanCity even quote their works on this Wikipedia page (on the other hand Catholiceducation.org is fine), but those sources are well-cited in Paul’s paper and used to support his scholarly arguments. Let me stress again, Paul’s research credentials are as solid as anyone cited on this page. Any rebuttals made to his paper will only be considered credible if presented through academic means and sources in a professional manner. Otherwise, it's just your amateur, personal POV. Deleting scholars you don't like on here is neither honest nor showing signs of integrity.


 * 2) “There is no documentary evidence the Concordact was a quid pr quo. Please produce one document of the period that points to this. If you find this? You'll be famous and rightly so.” Hahaha, bad, bad, bad “honestyandintegrity”. I am writing this because I know exactly why you are challenging me to find a document. Listen to this,


 * Grant me access to Vatican Secret Archive, I’ll find one for you. But let’s not get stray here. The point is not “challenging me to produce a document”. This has much persuasiveness as “go publish a paper on how Hindenburg was in his prime year and intellectually sound and made independent choices when he was 83”. We are not WWII historians on this Wiki talk. If we are, then we won’t be on here. You express a lot of things, but no matter how much Catholic evidence you cite here, no one cares. A hearsay from a uptight Wiki Editor is not a RS. It must be somewhere in the Sutra. Paul state “it was a classical kick-back political scheme”, fine, because he, a well-established, extensively-published researcher on multiple disciplines and internationally renowned, chose to express his researched opinion on an article which subsequently was published on a reputable journal. This is reliable enough, more so than your hideous smear. No matter how you rave about this statement being incorrect, your credential and reliability are no match to his. He is RS, you are POV, as well as mine, because we are anonymous internet people saying things. You disagree with me and I disagree with you. But that doesn’t matter, because intelligent people will come by and read all the sources and citations on here and make independent conclusion. Censoring citations and sources because it’s not Church teaching happens to be a thing of the past. So next time you go about deleting scholars you don’t like, think about how pompous and self-serving that action is.


 * 3) “Lastly, this English translation of the Concordat you added is a very questionable sample.” Oh I am sorry sire, did I screw up again? I am terribly sorry that while you are lounging and censoring stuff, I made such a mess trying to clean up this article and diligently finding new contents to build up the rating of this article. I didn’t know C is an acceptable score to you and all those one-side Catholic sources (Catholic Culture, First Things Journal, Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture, Catholiceducation.org, Journal of Church and State) are “referenced by mainline scholarly historians”. Show some respect. How about you do something productive here? Clergyboy (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Appreciate your sense of humor. Perhaps we can get you into the Vatican Secret Archives. It only requires a Masters degree and a sponsored research project. First, Papen was forced to resign his Chancellory Nov. 17, 1932. Kurt von Schleicher was the acting Chancellor from that date until Hitler's appointment Jan. 30, 1933. Papen was a member of the Bavarian People's Party [BVP] during this period which had monarchist leanings. So, Papen 'engineered' an electoral victory for Hitler while a member of another party? Interesting; whatever that opaque phrase even means. It's as clear as mud. And, spins as a veiled conspiracy theory of the highest caliber. Right up there with America did not really land on the moon in 1969.

Nevertheless, how do these facts square with the claim, "It was Papen who in 1933 made Hitler chancellor."? Once again, he possessed no such authority or power under the constitution. Was it Schleicher paving the way by stepping down at the bidding of Hindenburg? Or, more likely Hindenburg et al., [who despised Hitler] manipulating all parties to achieve the longer term objective of solving the "Nazi problem" and the "pesky imposition of democracy" by the Allies of WWI? We can agree on one point. Papen had a meddling ambition devout lay Catholic or not. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Praise the lord you agree at least that Papen was not innocent! That really took sometime! And right, the three Jewish and three Catholic scholars barely made it pass undergraduate. I think for the wartime archives after 1923, you need something like the Jesuit Oath of Induction to get you in. That's my POV though. Pray don't delete that.
 * As for further dwelling on your POV re Papen, first and foremost, Schleicher succeeded Papen on December 3, 1932. I hope your publications were not so careless, but what do I know about Catholic Journals? Now my POV will be that Kurt von Schleicher approached the left wing of the Nazi Party led by Gregor Strasser tried to build up a Third Position (Querfront) strategy. These plans failed when in turn Hitler disempowered Strasser. Simultaneously, Papen worked with Hitler to work up Hindenburg. Outmaneuvered by Papen and Hitler on plans for the new cabinet, Schleicher asked for new elections. On 28 January, Papen described Hitler to Paul von Hindenburg as only a minority part of an alternative, Papen-arranged government. On 29 January, Hitler and Papen thwarted a last-minute threat of an officially sanctioned Reichswehr takeover, and on 30 January 1933 Hindenburg accepted the new Papen-Nationalist-Hitler coalition. In one sentence it was Papen who in 1933 made Hitler chancellor. Who said anything about "elections"? Where did that come from? If you keep putting words into my mouth, then this thread is not gonna end anytime soon. Hitler may gain or loss few millions votes no matter how many elections there gonna be. Papen is gonna make sure Hitler get appointed the Chancellor when the Reichstag is fractious. I hope you can see Papen was the singular most profound factor that resulted in Hitler's appointment as Chancellor. Clergyboy (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It was never my intention to "defend" Papen, his reputation or acts. We agree he was not an innocent in this tragic human mess on an epic scale. It is not your words, but Mr. Paul's with regard to elections in the same paragraph we're both referencing on p. 9 Mr. Paul wrote, he Papen, " . . . . engineered the key electoral victory that brought Hitler to power."  We need to remind ourselves who were dealing with here. A murderous gang of thugs. Papen soon learned what it means to play chess with a murderous thug. A year later in 1934 Hitler attempted to murder Papen during the Night of the Long Knives in 1934.

We all understand today, and others learned too late then, seeking a treaty with Hitler was a fools errand. We only need to ask Neville Chamberlain, Stalin and others how dangerous this was. To Hitler, and his murderous gang, a treaty was a tactic to delay unveiling true intentions. We can argue the Popes and Bishops, indeed, all were duped who had to deal with him early on hoping reason would prevail. The only reason the Concordat stands today is because it was ratified while the Weimar Republic was still marginally functioning. It was not until the death of Hindeburg in August 1934 that Hitler made his move without hesitation with the last vestiges of democracy in Germany then literally buried with Hindenburg.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Although you showed much unwarranted hostility towards differing views and almost zero tolerance for secular humanists while giving full credits to arguments championed by biased Catholic sources, I still agree with what you said re Papen and Bishops. I fully consent to the notion that Hitler presented himself as a viable alternative to the defunct Weimar democracy and difficult economic meltdown, and that many people at that time were deceived into a "quick fix", which turned out to be disastrous on a global scale. The recent emerging neo-Nazis around Europe are growing in scale much similar to the year towards the end of Weimar Republic. But this time, Muslims and Jews are targeted in the name of salvaging the economy. The appeal of a "quick fix" to the perennial Europe problem is strong to this day.
 * And re your skepticism on "Papen engineered the key electoral victory that brought Hitler to power", while I fully embrace the argument that Papen played a singular role in promoting Hitler's cause in the early days, I can't say I agree 100% with this argument. However, this is certainly not to say this is a conspiracy theory that Paul is deliberately spinning. With due justice, Papen was appointed the new Chancellor in May 1922 and lifted the ban on the NSDAP's SA paramilitary to secure Hitler's support. Failing that, he called for a immediate election. That July election saw unprecedented, huge gain for NSDAP and, for the first time, became the largest party in the parliament. This string of events showcased Papen's role in granting critical bargain chips to Hitler. I understand why Paul feel inclined to pin the fault on Papen. Clergyboy (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * We're closer in our thinking than we may believe. I whole heartedly agree with most of your recent sharing. It was not my intention to express hostility toward Secular Humanism and its adherents, but rather, the glossing and over simplification of a very complex and breathtakingly quick collapse of the Weimar Republic. Mr. Paul simply made misstatements in his 2003 writing that feeds the beast of misinformation. It's a challenge enough to deconstruct this history on its own merits without zealot Catholics, religious and Humanists cluttering the room with noise and confusion.

Too often people of faith confuse religion with "religiousity" and faith with politics. And, frequently, Humanist assume a person of faith is hopelessly steeped in ignorance and superstition. It's a very difficult dynamic to reconcile. It is my personal view Catholics need to "step-up" and "smell the coffee" that there were many Catholics who failed miserably in their call to defend the innocent and defenseless while ancient anti-semitism played a role. Many so called Catholics committed horrific crimes in this history that rise uncomfortably high among some in the hierarchy of the period. Did it reach the papacy to the point of culpability? This is still unclear. The objective evidence thus far does not point to this and it is unjust to claim so as if it were an irrefutable fact of history.

At the same time, Humanists are a bit too quick to presume the worst. There were many Catholics who laid down their lives and risked much for the sake of the Jewish people and others. From a simple villager to Bishops within Nazi Germany and its occupied territories as well as millions of others of faith. And, yes, even within the Vatican during the Nazi occupation of Rome. Life is more complex than many of us wish it were. It is rarely "us or them" who are to blame for such an epic nightmare. It is human to look for a scapegoat. We all have reason to carry our share of the burden for what happened. All of us.

The good news? Humanity ultimately stood up to unmitigated evil with a united front. At least long enough to bring it to an end. We can only hope it will again if need be. Integrity&honesty.


 * I do think you are saying some reasonable things at this point and I apologize if I have been harsh in my tone in referring to many of your early criticisms. It was never my intention to play down your perspectives and, as you clearly see, I do not intent to vandalize the page with overtly secular views while taking down sources from the other side. I also think that this is a very controversial chapter in Church’s history and the myriad of anecdotes, personal memoirs, past propaganda, historical files that are difficult to locate, and personal preferences all contribute to the never ending debate on who’s responsible for what. There are parties (either zealous or rational) who would point to the lack of “legal binding documents” that can approve Pius XI guilty of actively collaborating with Hitler and promoting Nazi party to power. On the other hand, there are people (either zealous or rational) who would point to the fact that “the church and the Berlin government held a joint service of thanksgiving that featured a mix of Catholic, Reich, and swastika banners and flags (p.11)” and question the real political intention behind this signing of Concordat. It is my opinion, that although in courts we assume innocence before proven guilty, what constitute a “proof” is largely a human construct and varies according to party lines. “Uncomfortable accommodation in the interest of self-preservation” in one’s eyes may be another’s “response was so exuberant (p.11)” that “most Catholics ‘soon adjusted to the dictatorship’(p.11)”. Where is the truth in this? Unfortunately, I regard the grand question “what was the Church thinking in 1933” as answerable as “who own the West Bank” (while on here there’s one edit a year, over there 7 edits are made every other day). The best we can do under the circumstances is to be completely intellectually honest and open and strive to provide a balancing view from across the spectrum, so intelligent people who care about this topic so deeply can find first hand sources and citations in those articles and arrive at an independent conclusion. (Although I doubt anyone would come here without forming one’s opinion already; how many people you know knows about the Concordat?)


 * It is along this line that I would argue people writing for Free Inquiry (not sure Paul would like the lable Secular Humanist) and former Jesuit-turned-historian both have credible merits if they have intelligent things to say about this issue. Just like Zionism-israel.com and KingHussein.gov.jo can co-exist on the page about West Bank, I think Free Inquiry and First Things Journal are equally justified to accommodate each other on Reichkonkordat. Granted, Paul is critical on many of the things he say about the Church, but didn’t Scholder say or Sarah Gordon comment
 * Those direct quotations are in his article, along with accurate documentations of various events that happened around the same time. Gregory Paul makes extensive use of those historical account and literary resources to formulate his own position, much like everyone else. The only difference is that he reached a rather overtly critical conclusion than most of the authors quoted on the original Wikipage. I would like to persuade you that, just like on the page G.W. Bush Fox News and MSNBC are both accepted as sources, Gregory Paul’s response to the most ardent Catholic apologists deserve to be mentioned at least once in the entire Reichkonkordat page. This is to give due weight to the critics and at the same time preserving a balance of diverging views on this issue. There is an active debate that is going on in the field among historians from different background and I truly believe this is one way to echo that in this Wikipage.


 * I thank your diligent patrol and active contribution to the Wikipages that surround Catholic Church-Nazi Reich, and I definitively share your passion on this particular issue. Although you expressed hope that humanity will once again prevent such atrocity from happening, I harbor a more pessimistic outlook. The recent ISIS aggression on both religious and secular entities has spread from the center of Middle East to at least three other continents. Although one can argue the religious fanaticism is at the root of such global expansion, but I think the fundamental motivator behind this movement is human’s instinct to look for a “quick-fix” during hardship, much similar to what happened in 1932-33. High unemployment and perilous economic outlook in many of these countries fueled many’s desire to live under a strong and stable Caliphate and return to the prosperity that “foreign enemies” (Jews, Christians, other Muslims) had stolen from them. The steady elevation of the degree and scope of violence targeting an ever widening audience has not been effectively countered by any responsible group or country so far. U.S., being the only capable country in the world to offer meaningful assistance to troubled Middle Eastern countries, is tied down in domestic bickering. Not long ago, Muslim fundamentalists just slaughtered an entire school of Christian college students in Kenya and now the news are all about Hilary Clinton and Lewinsky. There is no formal declaration of war from one country to another, but the atrocities and killings continue nonetheless. A mass massacre on Jews made by Nazi Germany would probably have gone unnoticed if Hitler didn’t declare wars on anyone (did anyone meaningfully care when Hitler annexed Austria?). The same violence is being carried out daily by people who believe in a totalitarian regime, but as long as their victims are conveniently “insignificant” in the eyes of major world powers, the old routine continues. What did humanity learn from Hitler? Not a lot, only that calling someone Nazi is a convenient way ending a conversation and whenever you do that on television you will be on the headline. Clergyboy (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No need for an apology . . . . but I will offer it was engaging and at times you chimed in with an appreciated humor. It's an exceptionally complex history. And, we have all the elements of the most intense human experiences packaged and compacted into a brief period: war, genocide, religion, politics and irrevocable multi-generational geopolitical consequences. This is epic human history of the highest order. So, it draws out the best and worst in us.

Agreed - today humanity is flirting dangerously with a similar dynamic of the early 20th century and the 1930's, but in a larger more complex "theatre" with the destructive capacity to destroy civilization. Not the ideal circumstance. It's often ignorance and poverty mixed with a perception there are no viable options which drive people toward desperate measures to achieve "security" and "stability". The collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WW I planted the seed of our current challenge.

The Islamic milieu of the former Empire was humiliated and treated with a dismissive air by the European victors. It was the net sum of a downward spiral of Islamic culture beginning with its defeat in Spain in the 15th century and the Battle of Lepanto in the 16th. The years following WW I set in motion a steady decline in influence and economic production only mitigated by oil. Most of the Persian, Arab and Arab Sea nations, and large swaths of Islamic Africa, are poor, illiterate and currently not able to sustain themselves with pockets of massive concentrated inherited wealth controlled by a few monarchists, their families and a privileged few, i.e., Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, United Arab Emirates and so on. While theocracies like Iran survive with an iron fist in a world where might makes right is the standard of legitimacy.

This is same stage that sparked WW I: the collapse of monarchy amidst unjust social systems. We have dubbed the current rebellion the "Arab Spring", but if history is any measure, it will not be long before it becomes the "Arab Debacle". If we're not already there.

The injustices they have served up over the last 50 years on one another and others is going to be their downfall. And, justly so. This unavoidable conflict will make for strange bedfellows. Just as WW II had. Islam of the 12th century variety and current variations of it are about to collapse in utter defeat and the world will be better for it. But, it is going to be a very, very bumpy ride. The Turkish model is their future and clearly Islam is in dire need of reformation, but they will not step aside without an epic fight. Of this we can be sure. And, its going to get very ugly out there before it gets better. Within the next decade this powder keg is going to ignite. Maybe, just maybe, it can be managed to a slow burn out like the Cold War. And we'll witness the bad actors weasel away into the dustbin of history. Just maybe. But, it will get better.

Meanwhile, we should work on getting an [editorial free] English translation of the Concordat in this Article. All of it: Preamble and all Articles and amendments. It's beyond deficient not to have one in an Article on the topic Integrityandhonesty (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I concur. Nationalism and cultural pride have often been used to drum up support for battered government or fragile coalitions, but those populist technics tend to back-fire on the instigators if not handled carefully. The very complex and drawn-out sage played out between "developed" and "developing" nations everywhere not only brings forth prosperities and dialogues. When modernization and globalization (people use those interchangeably with Westernization) present themselves as more of a foreign threat than an opportunity the indigenous can reasonably take advantages of, conflicts tend to flare up and continue down the road of worst case possible. The perceived assault on Islamic traditional values carried out by Western Liberal Democracies and their allies, e.g., multi-national corporations, may be dismissed by many as religious and cultural obstinacy or worse of the poor. But as long as there exists poverty and inequality in the Muslim world, misguided Muslims both here and there will continue use this as a reason for Jihads. I don't see how the immediate conflict is going to end in peace, especially since I perceive the currents events resemble a conflict of values, on top of geopolitical clash of interests. Cold War ended largely due to Soviet Socialism being a mostly modern ideology imposed on a disparate and ethnically diverse group. I fear there are too much traditionalism and nationalism thrown in the right now mix and the international military actions taken at this point is indirectly fueling more local dissident and cross-border spillover. There is a new book just came out related to what you have been talking about, The Fall of the Ottomans by Eugene Rogan. Have you read it? The main thesis is that the final demise was not the result of lost wars, but was ultimately brought about by a bad peace treaty.


 * Following your thought on uploading a complete transcript of the Concordat, I have searched online for a pure text copy to no avail. It seems there is a lack of interest in reproducing and translating the concordat, electronically at least. Any version of the English translation then either has to be scanned from a paper source or manually typed up. Unless there is a German version over the the German Wiki which we can borrow. To upload any file Wikipedia makes you go through many screening processes which may explain a lack of said transcript on this page. I won't blame anyone who started the process but failed to follow through for the complicated copyright safety-guard measure. Clergyboy (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed - I have rifled through my private library and found a copy of an English translation of the Concordat by Sidney Z. Ehler and John B. Morrall, 1954, from Newman Press and compared it to other sources on the Internet. It is in full compliance to the word. I will begin to transcribe and ask you [and others] to fact check to ensure its accuracy. Let's do some good work. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Reichskonkordat. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131101185416/http://nationalreview.com/articles/220212/antidotal-history/john-jay-hughes to http://nationalreview.com/articles/220212/antidotal-history/john-jay-hughes

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

when is a translation not a translation?

 * The Reichskonkordat (Reich Concordat) ...

Several questions come to mind. Is it ever called "Reich Concordat"? In en.wp, is there a need to specify that a translation of a foreign phrase is into English? (Should we give Italian and/or Latin translations as well?) Given that Reich is not an English word, how English is the phrase anyway? —Tamfang (talk) 07:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppiied a reference from the official Vatican website, which may or may not have any wider currency. I agree that "Reich Concordat" doesn't sound like English, but if it can be shown to be used in more reliable sources… Sparafucil (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, at the bottom? It's not English. This phrase is common usage among mainline historians and scholars on the topic; namely because, there are literally hundreds of Concordat's - this is but one. They are distinguished one from the other by the nation or region the Concordat was negotiated. In this case, the German Reich, understood as all of Germany, its territories and holdings of the Weimar Republic - not - Nazi Germany by the way.

Nor Hitler or any member of the Nazi Party are signers of this treaty and they played secondary role. President Hindenburg - not Hitler - was the principal party of this treaty. Some muddy the historical waters by conflating that which ought not be for political reasons - not historical accuracy.2620:160:E708:6:0:0:0:D (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Missing quote
Under negotiations, there's a bit of text about a written letter by the pope, and instead of quoting the letter, the only thing that is said is "The text of the letter is easily accessible on the internet." Unablethink (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Terms???
Nowhere does this page say what concessions the Church was granted (and therefore why they wanted to keep it after the war). 84.203.50.190 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)