Talk:Reichskonkordat/Archive 1

Discussion of Translation from German
The article about the Reichskonkordat has been created by translating the article in the German Wikipedia.

Help is needed: the section on the main points of the concordat contains many technical terms. I am not sure my translations adequately reflect the meaning and intent of either the summary in the article in the German Wikipedia or of the original text. Could somebody who is fluent in legal and religious terminology in both German and English review this, please?

Also, I didn't find any good external links in English. Ideally, the article would have a link to an external, unbiased in-depth treatment of the subject, or alternatively two links to contrary views of the Reichskonkordat...

Lupo 08:58, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi Lupo,

I have changed the name of "German Empire" to "German Reich". Reich is not strictly the translation of empire, especially since at the time it was really the "Weimar Republic", definitely not empire, then. Actually it should be "German Republic", really. I'll change it to that, if that is alright with you. When Hitler came to power it became a "Reich". --Dieter Simon 01:24, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, Hitler became Chancellor in January, 1933, and on 23. March that year through an Enabling Act he suspended the Weimar Republic. But it is still semantically inappropriate to call it an "empire". Indeed it should be called German Reich, even in English the proper designation should be Reich. --Dieter


 * Thanks for the clarification. Lupo 08:06, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Lupo, I have fixed three phrases as you can see in the page history. Furthermore, I have checked on the name of Reichskonkordat, and saw at Yahoo Search that at least 35 websites under that name exist in English, which is in itself quite respectable, and so you might as well leave it like that.
 * I must say there are 2,380 websites indicated in English with the header Reich concordat. So, I leave it up to you if you want to move the article to Reich concordat. But I really do think there is no problem with the German name Reichskonkordat, it is certainly recognised as such. If you like, do a #redirect of Reich concordat to it, if you like.


 * Well, my Google search for "Reich concordat" revealed 227 english web pages, and 83 using the German word "Reichskonkordat". Anyway, I had used the German name because I hadn't found a proper English name for the treaty. I'll do a redirect under Reich concordat. Lupo 11:11, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * As for the several references you left out of the the "main points of the concordat are" list


 * (article 5): Geistliche is "priests", Staatsschutz - "state protection", Staatsbeamte - "civil servants".


 * (article 8)I am not sure what "Zwangsvollstreckung in das Amtseinkommen" means. In certain respects it translates as "distraint" on the priest's income: in others it may mean "levy of execution" which weems to be similar: some kind of hold over the income if debts are incurred, but this needs to be reconfirmed by someone who knows more about German legal proceedings.


 * (article 10) geistliche Kleidung - "priest's vestments", Strafen beim Missbrauch - "punishable in case of improper use".


 * (article 13) Kirchengemeinden - "parishes", Kirchenorganisationen - "church organizations", K&ouml;rperschaften des &ouml;ffentlichen Rechtes - "statutory corporations".


 * (article 18) should read "state benefits" or "payments by the state to the church" I think.


 * (article 23) Beibehaltung - "retention", Neueinrichtung - "creation",
 * Bekenntnisschulen - "denominational schools".


 * Hopefully, this will help you. Dieter Simon


 * Will get back to this later. Lupo 11:11, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dieter, I re-inserted the "interested in the disempowerment of the clergy" bit: articles 16 and 32 really have nothing to do with reassuring the Catholic critics. Lupo 11:16, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, no problem, Lupo, I merely looked at the German article and what they said there. Leave it to you. --Dieter Simon


 * I see refrence to the arrested Communist Deputies  being  somehow decreed(?) as Dormant  . Can this be elucidated, or does it obviate all my questions of 23 EAct legitimacy ? How can dormancy overcome  the Enabling Act part2 on the 23 March? (PS I even get users mixed up !)Famekeeper 10:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Church Concordat and Enabling Act Legalities
This ,yours, is extra wow for you , Str ! Just when I was going to pull up a couple of points from the Enabling Act, about which  you might be able to help. I have seen a claim in WP that there was a further subsequent Decree to that Act, the suggestion being that it was between  the so-called-on-WP Reichstag Fire Decree and  the 23 rd March 1933 Act ..

I think we need to find that other little decree, or is it a reference to the subsequent summer action banning all parties totally ? Don't you agree( that we need to know) ?

I think we need to know because, apart from inaccuracy on WP , I see an altogether ''fundamental (!) issue here in this situation.


 * I found the answer: there was no sub decree . All detention was called protective Custody, which we knew , but which was precisely the opposite of protective custody .  The 1916  Act for protective Custody , until  27 Feb 1933 , in force , allowed for  what we could consider normal  clauses of habeas corpus within 24 hours, legal representation, access to documentary evidences and acusations etc.  Hindenburg signing the Fire decree on 28 febuary 1933 , did not notice the absence of the Protective Custody  Act  in the Fire Decree .  However  ,  whilst  the un-protected custody of  all citizens threafter applied  even legally , it did not apply under article 20 of the constitution of the German Empire (Weimar) to the  deputies of it's reichstag . These were immune , a concept with which we are all familiar today .  I believe therfore that all the questions below naturall y follow from this anomaly , and that the findings of the Nuremburg Trials   are sufficient , as they describe the  withdrawal of Protective Custody , to  tell us by what exact method Hitler  achieved  power .  The questions below  thus continue toward resolution .  Famekeeper 11:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Situation at law
If there was not a sub#decree ,undermining Part 2 of the Act, then according to the translation done by Djmutex , to whom thanks , part2  EAct states that nothing will be lawful if done against the Reichstag (" O..prOvisions as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag". (note plural)

Part 4 EAct speaks of contracts with foreign States and that.... no need  of  reference to the German legislature shall be required.

The on-topicality.... ( and by the way to achieve that which here seems your intention in your edit, use  dissolution, )... topicality of the Enabling Act to the Reichskonkordat /Concordat IS that I read from Part2 Enabling Act ...... there was no legality to the meeting of the Reichstag on 21 March Ceremonial. Nor on 23March actual 'Sitting' of/for  the  Enabling Act.

If it was not legal to interfere with the Reichstag, then it was illegal to arrest and detain Communist Deputies , surely ?

Please, you check as you can. Is a Reichstag Deputy a part of the Reichstag, does a Reichstag(parliament) exist separate from a body of deputies  who parlent? I would see it as logically not existing, therefore attacked and  already illegal on those  sole occasions of its  assembly. Illegal assembly, because not the actual real body of the Reichstag in its living flesh.

The Third Reich hence would not have  come to power with any  legality whatsoever on the 23 March , as history seeks to allow. The entry on 1933, I bet on WP  says Nazis seized or ascended to power , both wrong , on 23 March (if it says even that)  .They seized power when they arrested Reichstag Deputies illegally  before the Reichstag Fire , in mid-late Febuary. Of course there's the problem of the intervening real election of 5 march, and the continuance of illegal detention , presumably  re-election of men in prison at the date. Is this what you were trying to tell me  all along ? But why should you tell me when even the WP is wrong, and all the world says Hitler was voted in ,in the Reichstag on 23 March ? All the historians I see have missed this vital point. I would love to see more, but anyway I have heard or seen no reference to the illegality of those two meetings .All record the claims of legality made by Hitler , following in to the legal Reichskonkordat. The very Elections, what are they , legal or not legal ? It would appear not, the Reichstag was already  attacked illegally by the detention. More change to history needed, or not. If there was no other decree signed by President Paul von Hindenburg between  28 march and the 5 march  General Election. [There was not]

I have to claim that this is not research we are into ( or I ), but comes under  NPOV accuracy rules and balance  , in this case with the whole of WP  and of  history. The fact that it is published as an interpretation, or not , does not affect our interpretation of the German words  translated into  Parts 1 to 5 of the Act. That the legality is as I see it, or is not ... is the first question. The Tam Sat Asi / It is as it is /Es asi/ C'est ca -rules ,surely ? WP believes in explaining, this is explanation , is it not ? No ad hominem here.

Second question- IF it is plainly visible as illegal ...... then there is no legality to the siezure of power under the Act , as the very vote for the Act contravened the Act ?

Third question, presumably the Concordat is illegal at this minute, as it's  claiming an illegal present existence (there's rather a lot of  money involved  , is it some actual %age of GNP ?). I fear old fellow, that this gives me  -a reason to see the legal answer to  this emanating from the parties( the vatican being one , germany , now,  the other ). If you are willing to discuss and search through for the confirmation before I ask the church ,and  whoever legally represents Germany in the real world, I would  be happy to so do with you.

Fourth question .We had such a hard time earlier, and for what ? The question of a Secret Annexe. Hard. I accepted what you edited on that.

Question five A Nazi Concordat  or a Germany(y)  Concordat ? I see Part5 EAct as clearly showing it was a Concordat made with the Government. For the people ..just OK, but with the people , how? The entire was without live legal reference to any German people (Germany ) as there was no legislature - viz   "...shall not require the approval of the bodies concerned with legislation."

That's to say Germans  who have a country or some such generic entity, of which they are a live  part ,and in which the quality of approval is a factor of reality ( says so in the Act) - that the Concordat was with German (Germans, or Germany)... as a fact ).

It appears suddenly blindingly obvious that- there was no lawful German Head of State ? None, and certainly not empowered by the Enabling Act. Nor a Germany : no law for Germans and no law in Germany. No legal basis beneath Hitler's trumpeted claims for such. No State legally able to approve the concordat, a false legal document , subject to immediate reclamation  I would logically  think.

I'm going to leave out the little inconsistancies that came between us  at such length. I look forward to your leaving some stuff out ,and all (meaning ,as well) .... I do you the credit of asking you these questions, but I have posed them to others, and they are the basis for the future editing , and everything ....aren't they ?

Three last points : a) that you edit here with 'dissolvement' and I guess grammatically  it could be seen in the light of say enfranchisement  ,but these v's as in v make it rather  difficult to put  in the ear. I suggest 'dissolution' is neutral  . Dissolved  no  as it can, but  not necessarily  ,as I have previously argued, be qualified by a reflexive -( was dissolved means something done to so say ) . Dissolution would perfectly achieve the balance you were after, and leave open the  possibility of a more or less dissolved entity , and more or less  implied reflexivity  upon  the verb . Of course  it becomes  dependently illegal everything   anyway months before . We are only speculating on the  picture of a facade crumbling  . All is relevant , like a novel can be  the same sort of reflection of spirit in time surely as  a  crumbling  party , can express the same crumbling. I digress,.

b) Is altogether more serious (: I attest that you here have tried to be NPOV, or been NPOV , roughly at a glance .) I FK, do not  want to tie all this up with a specification that the dissolution and the concordat were ,  with their  relation to Kaas' vote , all solely and  alone   the result ,100 %, of a papal push . I am sure that you are and have all along been partly correct to say that it shouldn't be so presented: that there are , were other even equal factors. I can't say that I have yet been persuaded by anything within the  wider social history of the Centre party , but  I am interested and need to know everything , simply to still my own doubts of myself , of all I do claim.

I don't claim that the papacy wanted the 'perish the Jew' more than they  wanted  the  'perish the Bolshies, atheistic Russian Nihilism or less. I think it was that they wanted both  ,and Hitler offered both (it was perfectly public his offering ).

Nor do I see  that the Centre as a block decided to allow the vote by Kaas, nor that they understood the  true motives of Kaas. I relate that Edgar Ansel Mowrer on p 209 of his Personal History ) gave reason to believe that the papal wish  was a serious factor in the civil party'''.

I see little to negate the fact  and coherence of the papal wish , and nothing to negate  Mowrer's  report that their wish was clearly stated ,10 months prior to the Enabling Act. You managed to find the minutes of the Centre Party Germany's last  Enabling Act  meeting - where's the rest ?

I don't negate the nature of the working party  from the 15 th March , I agree it looked pukka or above-board , to a point even  was so  , but, I don't  diminuish the fact of Kaas' private  meeting (unheard of by then) with Hitler on his return from the papacy  ,  at the end of March,  before Papen crawled in there to St Peters  ,in the return visit to Rome of both  .Ludwig  Kaas went to Rome immediately after the Enabling Act day. I pulled all that out and  you saw it, the  MegaMemex timeline ,they quoted Lewy, I said , for the dates.

Anyone should answer any of these questions, then the entry for 1933 can be corrected  on WP  first .Famekeeper 22:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Stitch -up
It still occurs to me that perhaps the stitch -up by Kaas was this. This is the worst I see : that Kaas acted throughout as a double agent of the Pope(you say only Pacelli) and that Bruning and most, or, all the Party , bought his line about the letter of guarantee,... but that that was a stitch up itself.

Kaas with Hitler's prior knowledge and assent, agreed to ask [Hitler] for the letter of guarantee to assuage  Bruning and the civil party  , so they believed that he was acting in good faith. Kaas knew  from the  stitch-start that  this was all show : Hitler and he agreed, we'll make a show of it and promise and delay , and you'll give the votes, and it won't be apparent  , afterwards, anyway we'll produce a promise to Hindenberg , the old fool. Don't worry Kaas, you will look good , they'll look good in the Party, I don't need to worry about the guarantee, you have my whole  true  anti- Communist  and anti -semitic  Fuhrerdom , your Pope shall have his end with the Jews and Communists alike, I will give him the whole of Russia  if I wish as well as Europe. The vote must be mine,Kaas, you will only  pretend to hesitate and you will see that history  will only see you as the bringer of blah blah  blah.

Kaas does dandy out of the over-all stitch up. The germano cabal in the vatican triumph, the pushy Bishops are slapped down like JPII slapped them down  but much more. Pius believed he could rest his soul knowing that he had protected Europe ,doubly, from atheist and Jew. Pacelli confirmed himself the ascendancy from then on. Hitler won a double pot:International recognition, no small  matter, and  the legalisation ( spurious as we here see ) as perpetual head of state ( 4 yearly renewable by the EAct).

It is highly relevant what you can relate about the centre following these days, and yes, forgive me  Str, for going so naked into the street and driving us all into  controversy ad hominem. I repent always in the hope that I can put back some clothes on. I don't have your benefits of faith ,

This following is a general statement. I wish to have the freedom to  go to law if necessary, to sort out the questions I here raised today on this page ,  to  go to law(meaning ask)  the , is it , Federal Republic of Germany  for us to be given an answer of the law re: legality or otherwise of the 21 March 1933 Reichstag , of same on 23 March  , OK -administration ? I at the same time ask them, is there a valid Concordat in place in their country with the Holy See now , and if so which valid administration so  placed it?

Secondly I wish to go to law if necessary to find a legal answer from the Holy see as to whether there IS a Reichskonkordat, legally  and if so with which valid administration  was it made and on behalf of which  people - A State , or an entity of administration without approval or legal standing , or a valid entity ? Ok-administration?

Other questions for the church are when is your Holiness going to remedy the scandal of Kaas and  his involvement in  the up-ending of civil order and morality through Kaas, Pacelli and Pius XI ? When fortify the essence of Christ's thinking  in which you relate his  promise us salvation , by reporting  the  excommunication of  these three figures , along with Papen , (who knew ?)  that was automatic under latae sententiae and all the divinity of  the magisterium. And their removal from the sanctity of their present burial etc.

Users, permit the necessity of length. To Str, sorry about the mess .To Str, I am claimed as a subject , which narrows it down , to more defenders of the faith I see so ragged .Famekeeper 11:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Added :Despite the apparent contrarians on WP denying the entry of the Centre Party and the Reichskonkordat into the historical conclusions of John Cornwell, it appears in fact wrong , and that the evidence brought   by myself on Pacelli are  extremely  slight in  comparison .  Hitler's Pope in other words may not  be artificially separated from these other articles , at all , not they from Hitler's Pope.

Secret Annexe
OK, the secret annexe to the RKK't is in here. The logic seems inescapable as presented. How is this defended as a clause by the present Parties to the  still - existing  Concordat, apart from the other questions ? I mean how is it defended as of the time of the illegal definition. I already see one of the Parties (the Third Reich ) as illegal under the German Constitution at the signing. I see the other party as canonically (Christianly ) illegal at the signing  and now  I think the still-existing legislation deserves categorisation. If it ws against a treaty signed by germany when it was made, then it itself was illegal , too. I find the ramifications of this relevant to various articles-to do with the parties involved. Particularly in relation to John Cornwell's Hitler's Pope .Famekeeper 13:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The annex is in here and it should be. Some thoughts on this, beginning with a repost of what I wrote on the Kaas page: (S)

"... quite frankly, I don't think it really explosive or shocking. It was clear that Hitler wanted to reverse the Versailles treaty - but so wanted every other party and every other government in Germany since the ink had dried up. (Communists excepted, but they strove for a more "global" reversal). Hitler is special not because he wanted to reverse Versailles but because he wanted much more than this. And many realized this only as it was too late. (S)


 * explosive is as explosive does, no one yet understands their laws here, cept already on the article page, the Versailles truth of illegality explodes the Church (F)

"Now if it became clear - either during or before the negotiations - that Hitler wanted to return to a conscripted army, it was only logical and prudent to deal with such a possible development and to include safeguards for that too. And of course Hitler wanted to have it kept secret. (S)


 * Point therefore porved. Do not ,Str remove, therefore- the "secret annexe", you admit it here. I dont need your admission and I dont care if you think this or Hitler thinks this :Secret is secret, and illegal under Versailles Treaty (F)

"I can't see what the big fuzz is, since I don't think anyone could claim that the secret annex helped Hitler in implementing his policies. He could have done it without a concordat to be sure and the other powers didn't need to be informed on rearmament intentions by the Vatican. They knew enough but they couldn't decide on action. The western powers didn't wanted to follow Pilsudski's demands for a "preemptive strike" and the isolation policy in alliance with Mussolini later collapsed also." (S)


 * Fuzz is the wrong word, you mean fuss. Deflective analysis whilst interesting in itself is deflective when it  retreats from the actual issues. I do not  categorise this analysis. I categorise the legality of action. See the respective canons as repeatedly quoted  on  Discussion Archives Pope Pius XII. Hitler's Pope, Theology Pope Benedict XVI etc  . Exact numbers and rendition and consequences  , all to see. (F)

As I said, the annex clearly points to Hitler's intention to reinstitute conscription. This means that those involved in the negotiations knew about that (or at least could 2 and 2 together). In that case it was prudent to include safeguards. I don't know whether you want to have more. Please specify. (S)


 * And to alliance of intention towards War by all contumate ( legally conscious) parties, whom we could agree might  call themselves prudent, (F)

As for this reference: (S)

"as of the time of the illegal definition . I already see one of the Parties (the Third Reich ) as illegal under the German Constitution at the  signing . I see the other party as canonically (Christianly ) illegal  at the signing" (F quoted by S)

No, it is not illegal in any way. The concordat was an international treaty between the German Reich and the Holy See. The legality of such a treaty does not hinge on what you talk about. And even than, the "legality of the Holy See" cannot be questioned. Pius XI ratified what was negotiated in his name. He was Pope undisputably. You canon law reasoning, which is faulty in itself, cannot change that. Even if Pius had excommunicated himself, as you claim and I deny, he would still be Pope. He would only be excluded from reveiving the sacraments (hence the name of that penalty) until absolution. A Pope is Pope with full powers until he dies, abdicates or is deposed for heresy (the only possible charge) by an ecumenical council (and even than the process is unclear, as it has never happened). (S)


 * The treaty might have been signed by a legal un-deposable pope, if breaking of the magisterium is not heresy, but the legality of the churchman's thought and action , and that of his inferiors is all clearly , by canon law, illegal , read again where they are and where your arguments stopped there , then at the relevant places of archive stated hereabove (F)

As for Germany, the issue is more complicated since the German constitution is more complicated. Hitler was the legally appointed Chancellor of a legally appointed government, serving under a legally elected President. Your legality issue boils down to the legality of the Enabling Act (under whose provisions the concordat was ratified). (S)

Note that this legal issue must be discussed under the then legal principles. Legal philosophy prevailing at that time in Germany was "legal positivism" which focused exclusively on procedure and did not accept any "natural law" - this is in contrast to German law after 1949. Under the 1949 consitution: the basic (human or civic) rights cannot be abolished or altered in substance, neither can the federal structure be abolished. Of course parliament could still vote for this with 2/3s and the pres could sign it into law, but it'd still be unconstitutional and a breaking with our constitution - in which case every German citizen would have the right to resist, if no other means are left. (S)


 * Section two of the very Enabling Act itself does not retract the German Empire constitutional protection for the "institutions of the Reichstag" .All acts against the deputies and their free consciences and representation of all the people  was illegal after the EAct The  detention of deputies was not so far as you yet prove to me by actual rndering of exact law under Presidential decree, legal under the  solely prior Hindenburg decree orders. habeas corpus was removed from citizens but certainly not from deputies. Prove ???????? (F)


 * Deputies are citizens too. At best, AH would have needed parliament's ok for the arrest. But he didn't, since basic right were suspended. Means for everyone. And this has nothing to do with EAct, as it was before the act. And the EAct only protected the Reichstag as an institution and its rights, not the individual deputies (It's just not about them in the EAct). Str1977 23:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC) (S)

Back then, it was different. Any part of the Weimar constitution could be changed with 2/3 majority or suspended by the president via § 48. This is what Hindenburg did after the Reichstag fire, he suspended civic rights and hence the arrest of the communists was legal under the legal provisions at that time. What was illegal was the deputies formal expulsion from their parliamentary membership. Whether that affected the approval of the EAct you know best. (S)


 * This is not the argument. Artcle 48 did not suspend the deputies by forbidding their freedom and conscience . There was only one 2/3 vote relevant or  at that  Weimar period and it was  a stictch up as I say it is most troubling that what is inconsitent with law on the wikipedia is found to be legal by a modern european government. (F)


 * No, § 48 only provided the Pres with authority to issue decrees which he used in 1933 to suspend basic rights and then the Hitler government used this to detain whomever they liked (or rather liked not). It is not for nothing that the RT fire decree is called the Magna Charta of the 3rd Reich.
 * As for "forbidding their freedom and conscience" - no they still had their free conscience (as much as Bolsheviks can, but they are only human after all and the great Herbert Wehner lived to tell), but they despite this, they still were detained and hence couldn't vote or do anything, though save for the illegal nullification of their membership they would have still been deputies until the end of the year.
 * Get over it, the concordat is a binding international treaty. Str1977 00:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC) (S)

Be that as it may, parliament passed the Act and no one disputed the process. (S)


 * Nonsense, the arrested deputies disputed . The assembly was illegal and it was therefore a putsch  the church contributed to. (F)


 * Where did they file their protest, pray? (S)

Hence it should be assumed legal and any law passed through this process also. (S)


 * Equal nonsense, similar to'prudence'- a fascinating user response, to be kept for eternity . This is not law, but merelt assumption of law, against the very law achieved, and  thenceforth denied . your supreme court is in error, (F)


 * Yes, our supreme court and our jurisdiction is in error and should hand over absolute power to Mr FK. I guess I should already look for a nice catacomb. (S)

Especially, international treaties. You cannot make the question whether a treaty is binding dependent on such internal matters. Consider this: Hitler suddenly announcing at an opportune moment that the concordat was invalid because never legally ratified because his first government didn't have the legislative power because the EAct was not legally passed. Of course, with Hitler anything is possible (though it would have illegalized his entire first year of government legislation, maybe even four years of it), but this is no basis for international treaties. The reasoning would be like: I make a legal agreement with you but because I am a crook I might later act as a crook and go back on my word and that'd be legal because I am a crook. International relations cannot work this way. (S)


 * It was an illegal act, the signing of the  RKKD't  by the German Government(because of this secret Annexe , per Versailess , and the Govt per the EAct  law was illegal (section 2) (F)


 * Mere contradiction is not argument (Monty Python). You obviously are unwilling or unable to respond to my arguments. Str1977 09:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC) (S)

Hence the concordat ís still binding to this day (save the school thing). (S)

Note, that my layman's presentation (I'm no legal scholar, but it was good enough for the court) focuses entirely on the legality under the Weimar Republic's standards, not on today's legal standards, not on moral issues, not on legitimacy issues (apart from the legal standards given), not on natural or divine law. Just positive law as the Weimarians would have it. I personally think "legal positivism", unfortunately nowadays espoused by pro-aborts and aherents of what I call "new Mengele" research and opposed by our late JPII in his book "Memory ...", I personally think legal positivism completely repugnant. This is what I also tried to express in our first major (4 layered) encounter and which is the basis of Dilectissima Nobis. Str1977 21:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC) (S)

Last word by me, Famekeeper, please watch this article someone, especially the Secret Annexe. Illegal the assembly that passed the Enabling Act for Adolf Hitler (constitutional protection of deputies transgressed), Illegal the Government of Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party contravention of section 2 of Enabling Act .Illegal the Government of Nazi Germany from 28 Febuary 1933 deputy detentions ( as found by the  Nuremburg Trials, Illegal the Roman Catholic reichskonkordat per the versailles treaty , by internal catholic law illegal the popes Pius XI and XII subjects excommunicated at offence Illegal present continuance by present German Government   of vatican treaty .Guilty Contumacy  charge against Holy See of 1933    proved by the existence  of Secret Annexe : 'RESULT : WWII , HOLOCAUST Ends  Famekeeper 01:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC) (F)

This ain't no summary. And you ignore all points I made. Str1977 23:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC) (S)

I AInt finisdhed and i LOST THE LONG ONE. bEHIND. (F)

So this was it? Please spare me your canon law stuff. you obviously don't realize that you have proved nothing of what you claim. (S)

I refer the reader in future to this statement here. This is a dishonest statement re the canon law. You Str, said that you accepted the law, and that if they had indeed been acting as I so charged (and Cornwell) it were relevant ; but you did not accept the action claimed. Now you accept the prudent action, but not the canon law! I call your bad-faith a mockery of my good faith and I protest openly at this mental abuse which is irrefutable. (F)


 * Of course I accept canon law but I don't accept your far fetched conclusions (digging up corpses, invalidation of papal office through excommunication. (S)

Do you know what heresy is at all? (S)


 * renunciation or denial of the Bible, of the magisterium, of Roman 3, 8 (F)


 * No, heresy is a deviation from the revealed truth, as defined in the deposit of faith. E.g. if the Pope had claimed that murder was good, or that there was no resurrection etc (though that might already be apostasy, but that's included here anway). His own moral behaviour, be it ever so seriously wrong (as you claim, but I don't accept), is not heresy and hence no basis for deposing a pope. (S)

Illegal thoughts, ha? Enter the thought police. Should I be concerned? Since you're not in Germany probably not. And thus far we Catholics are still protected by the constitution. (S)


 * Such honour you do it! (F)

The secret annex is not illegal. Yes, the Versailles treaty (which you appearently think the pinacle of statesmanship) forbade conscription but any treaty can be reversed by agreement of the partners. And the annex did not do something that was illegal under the Versailles treaty. It only made an agreement on something that currently was illegal under the Versailes treaty, but that's not to say it couldn't have been changed in a legal way. (S)


 * Readers note this casuistry of legality! (F)


 * It was you who started to argue about legality. If we discuss legality we discuss legality. Now you complain about what you have started. (S)

Just an aside that spring to mind: was the Versailles treaty legal under your reasoning? With what authority did the German delegation sign it? Was the Kaiser involved? Just asking. Please stop your rewriting history according to your lawbook. It's futile anyway. (S) Str1977 23:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * [Your]] lawbook, Str , yours in Rome and in berlin. Not mine. (F)
 * It is far from futile while the up-enders of the teachings of Jesus for political ends throw the world to the wolves. You show no legal nor moral point whatever, but slither in a mud of evasion, which is absolutely revealed here . The signatories of the  Treaty  and of the Armistice know what they did.  I would not like to consider this with someone of this moral or legal response, thankyou very much . Generations have been forced to resort to the most brutal methods to reduce this  odd moral ambivalence. I refer of course to the two wars, and to their origins and their ends., family history ,and jewish and evidently  rankling over there with you . Nevertheless your response to illegality is  revealing . Famekeeper 00:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC) (F)


 * Again, you started the issue of legality. And we are discussing neither the morality nor the legality of World War II (which was unambigously immoral and illegal), but the legality of the concordat. Your issue, not mine. If you don't want to discuss it, then leave it. Str1977 09:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC) (S)

Secret Annex (again)
There has been discussion on various article talk pages about a secret annex to the konkordat. I have not yet had time to look through the history of edits to the article to see whether a discussion of the secret annex has been in the article and has been deleted. If so, it should be restored if it is sourced. (Mere speculation about a secret annex is a conspiracy theory and is only encyclopedic if the speculation has been reported in responsible media.)

The above section of this talk page is very hard for me to understand. It appears to be an exchange between Famekeeper and Str1977, but is neither properly indented nor properly signed. Can we please try to remember to have readable talk pages that can be used to try to improve on articles? Robert McClenon 14:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It appears that there has never been any mention of a secret annex in this article. If there was a secret annex, or if any responsible historians or journalists have stated that there was a secret annex, that should be included in this article.  Robert McClenon 14:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Robert, there is a reference to the annex in section 2 "The concordat":

"secret annex relieved clerics from military duty in the case that mandatory military service should be reinstated. (Germany was not allowed to have mandatory military service by the Treaty of Versailles)."

No one here disputes this annex.

For your benefit, I have marked my and FK's exchanges with a letter S or F, so that you can see more clearly who posted what. Str1977 14:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Not Explosive
If the annex was previously secret, then its source should be identified. Was it declassified at some time?
 * Secret Annexe came to light at outbreak of WWII . By the way euronews will doubtless analyse the present papacy's input if Str's party win now, and  well see a whole historical parallel  of destabilisation of continents, to the benefit of the curators up at the palatine  hills .You wait ...

I see nothing explosive about the secret annex, if it only relieved clerics from conscription. Clerics have often, both in pluralistic nations such as the United States with separation of church and state, and in European nations without a history of separation of church and state, been relieved from military conscription. The exemption of clerics from military conscription has always been one of the liberties that the Catholic Church has requested. The only controversial aspect of the annex is the fact that it was secret. It was secret because it referred to the possibility of reinstituting conscription, which was contrary to the Treaty of Versailles. However, it appears that both Germany and the Holy See recognized that that restriction of the treaty was an infringement on German sovereignty.

If the secret annex stated anything other than that it relieved clerics of military duty in the event that conscription was restored, then what did it state? Robert McClenon 14:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It allowed for the conscription of catholic "padres" in event of hostiliies .I suggect Str specify what padres means, but I suggest it refers to monks and "religiuis" etc rather than local serving priests. FK

Dear Robert, I think the annex was declassified when conscription was introduced again in 1935. Otherwise I can't think how to implement the relief for clerics if the annex is still secret.

FK's point, I think, about it being explosive is that in 1933 when the concordat was signed, Germany was forbidden to have a conscripted army by the Versailles treaty. Hence the provision about clerics and conscription was kept secret, in order to cloud Hitler's intention to reintroduce conscription.

I have stated that much above. FK makes a big scandal out it (on the lines of "the church by signing this secret annex is to blame for WWII etc") and shouts about "illegality" - however, I have argued that the annex alone wasn't illegal as it only covered a possible scenario. What was illegal was the reintroduction of conscription in 1935 but that is Hitler's decision and not the church's.


 * It, the RKKD't was illegal altogether on three coounts 1) Versailles 2) Illegal Third Reich (contravention of section2 Enabling Act) and 3)Illegal in internal magisterial law(see canon discursions)

.1) confirms 3, 2 id dealt with above under my questions. Illegal is a scandal .FK

All that the annex stated is covered. I don't know if you can read German, but the German link has the full text including annex. Str1977 15:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The secret annexe is vastly important to the Doctrine of Double Effect, as it  shows the  contumate  papal  thought prefiguring illegal war .What is  also disputed is the relevance to Ludwig Kaas and to Pius XII and to Hitler's Pope . It was removed by an anon  just prior  to Str's  first appearance upon Pius XII. He says that's not him . OK , however I have recollection of him writing a goodly series of resons why it was excludable . Thus far I cannot pinpoint that conversation.  This annexe(english spelling) was composed and one  should report this, by Kaas. Kaas after returning from Rome 31 March had his private meeting with Hitler (aslo of dispute  over removal) on 2 April . Papen left secretly for Rome , meeting Kaas surreptitiously (from German Press) on 8 th April, they together arrived Rome 9 th. Kaas had first audience over minister Papen  of their two audiences of 9th . Str states and fights throughout to keep to Kenney's Tollet book which states that the quid pro quo began , so Kenney says, on Hitlers sending Papen  . This was so surreptitiously undertaken , and this is well known to even Str , reported via Guenter Lewy and the Timelines, as  Hitler officially opening negotiations with the Holy See on 9th April . There you have it, Shirer and the big guns speak of the quid pro quo in general , with no limitation as to a start on 9 th April , but rather with exactitude as to the Hitler volte face of 23 March in his pro-catholic and christian speech. The other end of the quid is the little speech of  welcome by Pius XI on 10 the April . Now , it is  not honest to limit the historical reference  as Str wishes . Take your pick  McC.  Kaas was  friend and underling to Pacelli, the whole centre is sourced by Mowrer and ex chancellor Bruning as open to pressure by Pacelli over years , certainly 32 and 33 . The idea that somehow a negotiation started on 9th and rceived an immediate , within 24 hours,approbation of Hitler as uncompromising etc etc is  your choice here . The historians coming recently of whom I cite Klemens von klemperer are clear in their association of Kaas with the very speech of Hitler's on 23 March , and that along with the "softening" or volte face of the German Hierarchy that was concurrent and which is reported by the timelines (from Lewy) , simply strengthens the vaguer  linkage of Shirer and  Toland . The books from the thirties are pretty damn categoric in expressing the stitch up as affecting the whole catholic population in Germany and in the Saar . The Secret Annexe is simply an obviously dirty aspect of a sanitised political stroke . However you will never get Str to agree to even the clear un-interrupted reporting of this, as this inculpates the papacy . Got it now ? If I am not accused of misinterpretation , then that would amount to some credit, otherwise what the wiki do you expect me to say ? Even a thee letter repair of the  link from  Hitler and the German Christians or some such article caused an immediate  POV tag from Str today. I'm loathe to touch this organ , because of the above, and for no more .Famekeeper 15:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The reintroduction of conscription by Germany was illegal based on the Versailles Treaty. This does not mean that it was inherently immoral, or even that the Catholic Church should have seen it as immoral.  The Holy See was not a state party to the Versailles Treaty (not having been sovereign in 1919), and was not bound to accept the rule against German conscription.  Any German government in the 1920s or 1930s could reasonably have thought conscription was appropriate to defend against a possible French invasion, since there had been a French invasion when the reparations were in default.  A non-Communist government after 1933 could reasonably have thought that conscription was appropriate to defend against a possible Communist putsch.  (We now know that the Communist threat was being manufactured by the Nazi Party, but the Catholic Centre Party did not know this at the time.)  The secret annex does illustrate an awareness by the Holy See that Germany was considering re-introducing conscription.  It does not illustrate any complicity by the Holy See in any immoral activity, since conscription could have been based on the need to wage just war against a French invasion.


 * Famekeeper's arguments about the immorality of the secret annex assume that he has knowledge of what the intent was of Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII], and [[Ludwig Kaas. If he does not have evidence of their intent (such as from letters), then we should assume the most reasonable intent.  As I have shown, that intent may very well have been to defend against a second French invasion.  It is true that the actual intention of Adolf Hitler was an evil intent.  However, if we wish to pass moral judgment on Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII], and [[Ludwig Kaas, we should take into account what their intentions were, not what Hitler's intentions were.


 * If Famekeeper does not have actual evidence of wrongful Catholic intent, then his whole argument completely falls apart. Robert McClenon 16:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Intent on Holocaust Timeline
The intent []  figures on the Holocaust Timelines []. The war was to be against the Communists .Incredible this guy above: like Str he thinks that doing a deal with someone who's breaking a law(Treaty) ain't himself [] doing anything wrong. What a world that you cannot see this. Double effect is separate [], as is the romans 3,8. [] You McC are welcome to state this you do, but I source my protest[] at the implication and at the example, which is noxious to education as promoting deals outside of the law[]. A wrong-doer is not a right-doer because he is on the soil of a different jurisdiction ,the RKKD't was signed both in Germany and in Rome. Oh-you are a waste of time you guys, quite impossible. This is supposed to be improving the world??????????? The intent was stated by Pius XI on April 10 1933, as I showed you  some months ago, but you refused to listen then , as you doubtless will now. Complete waste of time reasoning with amorality[]. If a govt (anyway illegal but forget that) breaks its own Treaty, the party to the treaty breaking the Treaty is a party to the breaking of the first treaty. It may be lawful or not, but the important thing is that it was done, specified and written. The intent is within the specification of hostilities, as well as wideley reported from the papal lips. This Secret Annexe is termed in the most accepted history  as  " the most particularly disturbing aspect " of the ReichsKonkordat  Never mind, its the same end-one can only recognise  that which is unacceptable and remain free from it ....Famekeeper 17:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I see that Famekeeper states that the war was to be against the Communists. In that case, there was indeed at least some reason to think that it could have been a just war.  The Communists were a threat to the liberties both of Germans and of the Church.


 * Which historian terms the secret annex as "the most particularly disturbing aspect" of the konkordat? Robert McClenon 19:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Communists were Germans and Germans were Communists. McC I am not interested in what you ask, you have irrefutably shown to me your bad faith editing dishonesty and your bully mediation techniques and I have reported these at your Robert McClenon Rfc and on my talk page . I won't scurry because you take me as misinterpreter . Answer is I forget which of the many books . But don't take that as meaning it's not said and not true, only that you and your friend  are such hard work, that it must be a year since I last read it . .  You monger war , that's for you to handle though.

I'd like to know too which historian uses these terms.

FK, you should know that Communism at that time was an international movement with adherents in many countries, including Germany, and with its centre in Moscow. The phrase "every communist is a soviet spy" might be a but hysterical, but it is not completely void of truth.

And for that matter: the Nazis were a threat to the liberties both of Germans and of the Church. And the Nazis were all German too. Str1977 21:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Correct. The Nazis, who were Germans, were a threat to the liberties both of Germans and of the Church.  The point that Str1977 and I appear to agree on, and to disagree with Famekeeper, is that the threat of the Nazis was sometimes poorly understood, including by the Church.  Pope Pius XI assumed that Adolf Hitler believed in the validity of treaties and would honor the konkordat, which is why his subsequent encyclical was largely a protest that the Nazis were ignoring the guarantees they had made under the konkordat.  Where is Famekeeper's proof of the evil intent of the Church?  The secret annex may be disturbing, but it is not explosive or proof of immoral conduct.  Robert McClenon 21:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It is proof of contumate grave overturning of the magisterium, canon law , Pius XI's  own contractual  sense of society in his teachings. It is illegal in church terms, but otherwise simply hypocrisy on a vast scale. George Orwell once called somebody a hole in the air ...Famekeeper 21:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not illegal in any way.

FK cannot even prove the allegations he makes which are strangely detached from the real world. What ever "grave overturning of the magisterium" is.

As regards what Robert said: yes, some understood the Nazi threat poorly, even in the church, while others (e.g. Pacelli) were quite aware of the danger. They had to think about what to do about the dangers and the concordat, which was offered by Hitler, was a possibility. To have a treaty that either protected the church or provided a legal basis for protesting against anti-church measures doesn't seem unreasonable or immoral to me. Particular if the actual cost (the cost of the signing of the concordat, not the cost of Hitler's policies which were his and not the Vatican's) were rather minor.


 * Somehow I think, in FK's mind only a dead churchman is a good churchman. FK seems to demand that the church should have willingly entered upon being persecuted and this - and this is the main point - even though it could possibly be averted. He should read TS Eliot's Murder in the Cathedral. Str1977 21:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Never say die...what? Famekeeper


 * In retrospect, the persecution of the Catholic Church, protested in 1937, could not have been averted. At the time, the best hope was to assume that it could be.  Famekeeper appears to expect that the leaders of the Church would have had foreknowledge of the effects of their actions.  That is not the way this world usually works.  The cost of signing the concordat was mostly a ban on clerics holding partisan or state office.  Such a rule is now applied by the Church to its own clerics voluntarily in countries such as the United States where church-state relations are defined not by concordats, but by a formal state policy of pluralism.  The Church does not normally allow its own clerics and religious to hold public office because it creates a conflict of interest.  Agreeing to such a rule in Germany was hardly an excessive concession in exchange for formal guarantees (later ignored) of religious liberty.


 * It does appear that some of the leaders of the Centre Party did underestimate the Nazi threat, as evidenced by their assent to the Enabling Act, a separate choice from the concordat, and their own voluntary dissolution. It was the Social Democrats, in retrospect, who were the heroic last remaining defenders of German democracy.  That is a hindsight recognition of error by the Centre Party.  It is not a statement of error by Pope Pius XI, who did not vote on the Enabling Act.


 * The Holocaust timeline proves the sequence in which events occurred. Inferring intent from them is the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.  The best way to infer intent is from writings by the principals (whether public statements or private letters).  In the absence of writings, we should infer good intent gone wrong.  Robert McClenon 22:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

My word-are YOU Jimbo? What a lot of inference. Nonsense all, not what I have passed through to the wikipedia at all. This is not even the period we have dealt with, which was the tipping pint. Papen organised the stitch -up, lads. he got the money -bags guys first, then those guys helped Hitler in reefing the Commies, and so then they bought the  Centre. All was a stitch-up and The Pius  XII article, the Hitler's Pope article , the Centre Party article, the Weimar Republic article , the Hitler  article , the Ludwig Kaas article , The BXVI artcicle  -all benefit from a clearer reflection of this reality.

I do not need your or Str's half -baked analysis about what might have happened, and do not need to dig up reason to say that: you are welcome to your views .I have in no way referred ever to the years around 37, except to follow the MegaMemex Timeline , which states that the papal protests were 30 -odd in number  from 1937 , and zero before. This is recognised by the rational editor in his comment on my own Rfc page .I shall stick to the benefit of source, easily attacked as by Str through-out, as misinterpreted, traduced. The limit to this concordat as made by either of you merry pranksters is false in historians pages. There is no limit of the centre demise being what was on offer after 8 april for the RKKD't. It was always power for power. The Enabling Act for the RKKD't. Kaas did it all, a bargain was made, the quid pro quo. The Holocaust followed inexorably as Hitler promised "perish the Jew". They were a very pleasant a gratifying side-dish to the appetite for power .As we know some were turned into lampshades and chair-covers. And now we in Europe suffer again this axis of infection, and it seems the Germans will again follow their religious infiltrators by a sufficient percentage to strike us all towards  war. OK, as we see from the last 30's axis , the result was european sovietism followed by dreg robber-capitalism. Expect this front against Islam to make us a push-over for the Buddhists ! If you are tryig to be reasonable McClenon, I know better ways. You could finally awaken to the reality of your error in accusing me of that which is common history by now. Famekeeper 23:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)