Talk:Pope Pius XII/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Intervention in Democracy and the Civil Order

Two questions:One, in this paragraph: "The questions arising from the Concordat have re-surfaced of late because of the moves toward canonisation for Pope Pius XII, and recent reference to the Enabling act in the book Memoria e Identidad by Pope John Paul II, who cites it as an example of the dangers associated with Liberal Parliamentary Democracy. However the Concordat represents most clearly the opposite dangers to a Democracy from a Church." Isn't the final sentence far too declarative for Wikipedia? It seems to me it's taking a position as though Wikipedia is saying "this is what the Concordat represents". Anyone agree/disagree? Can I remove it, or should it be rephrased....and if so, how?

Two, should phrases like "Disputed" and "Disputed - see below" really be placed in the middle of paragraphs? I removed one, but now am noticing that there are several. Is this unilateral action, or the results of compromise and consensus? Help, anyone? Jwrosenzweig 21:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Go to the Centre Party Germany page and decide. Maybe the wikipedia can't be relied on to help us I agree about disruption of paragraphs. It seems necessary to end each paragraph with its own references and page numbers to avoid futile argument about POV.Flamekeeper 15:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)In fact go to the history reverted within history buttonFlamekeeper 09:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The source for the Kaas movements is The Catholic Church and Germany by Guenter Lewy, from OUP. I remove disputed as suggested Flamekeeper 07:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.

(18) see Rom 3,8

This is the legal principle cited as the basis for the enciclical Humanae Vitae and is the foundation for the entire teaching concerning human fertility. It is the principle upon which Cardinal Ratzinger famously intervened in the Bush-Kerry presidential race therefore playing some large part in modern political affairs. Liberal concern exists that use of this law forbidding complicity with Evil increased the [Republican]] vote. historical concern abounds that in contravention of this church law, the Papacy in 1993 crucially tipped the balance in favour of a dictatorship by Adolf Hitler and away from democracy.

The world might enquire of the Holy Father how soon will he choose institute a public enquiry of Tribunal into the breaking of this Law in direct intent by Pope Pius XI, Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli the future Pope Pius XII, and Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, Leader of the Catholic Centre Party in Germany, against the moral order of the Church and of all societies in general ? The world should, within its intellectual freedom from censorship, ask of the church why this law was not adhered to by its proponents themselves.

The defence against the accusation of a quid pro quo of the Enabling Act for the Concordat with Germany appears to reside in a Catholic League quote from Dr Joachim Fest such that even should they have willed it, the Centre Party would not have had the numbers to make a difference in the vital tipping vote. However this is not borne out by the figures which therefore are herewith stated by necessity:

Without the Centre bloc vote by Monsignor Kaas ( that is, together with the offshoot Bavarian People's Party vote ) the Hitler - Nationalist DNVP totalitarian vote was 347. With Kaas this was 441. A moralist bloc of this Centre with the Socialist moralist vote (such as was registered by their leader in those terms) would have required a totalitarian doubling of that bloc (92 centre +94 socialists) of 186 votes, to 372 deputies for the Act to pass.

But, even had the Centre split, carrying off, for arguments sake, the 18 Bavarian People's Deputies, then the totalitarians would have been required to beat a (doubled because of the two -thirds majority) 74 Centre + 94 SPD, of 356 Deputies.

The Catholic League claim would require that the totalitarian vote would have to have been bolstered by the Bavarian BVP(18), all the minor parties (14) making an exact maximum of 372, as above.. However the total votes cast were 535 and the total Nazi-DNvP vote was only 347 ; and these requisite numbers do not arise to support this defence -unless the by then zombie Communist party could have helped with their proscribed 81, that were never allowed into contention.

Unless the Socialists had fractured, which it seems they did not ( though their vote was 94 out of 120 deputies elected on March 3, 1933 ), and such defecting Socialists had made up the totalitarian numbers, which they did not, then the defense against the quid pro quo seems as deficient elctorally as it is morally.

This defense addresses none of the accusation, which is of a several years long process of political influence, from 1925 onwards, which has a quite calamitous specific dual culmination. More fully, the question should encompass a parallel quid pro quo with the forces of capital, every bit in need of attention from the Upholder of the Law. It is an equal accusation that large numbers of household-name corporations have completely evaded the penalties requisite upon their own devastatingly corrupting influence. The Hochhuth Play accusations, which are by no means invented, also relate to considerable Vatican investment in these same corporations.

It is reported by the Catholic League that Cardinal Pacelli wished to exorcise Adolf Hitler- that he considered him to be possessed by the Devil but a real reckoning of the Pius XII dealings towards and opinion of Hitler needs to be specifically chronologued.

Relevant link: [[3] (http:www.//geocities.comvisplace/vatican10p2.htm)] explains the concerns of the Holy See, the Kaas importance and the monarchist factor in negotiations with the Centre (and the DNvP), and explains closely why there is a dearth of vatican documents.

The Postulator for Pius XII, Dr. Peter Gumpel SJ wrote in 1999 that John Cornwell was blinded by the writings of Heinrich Bruning, accepting Bruning's hatred of Papal Prelate Kaas and extending this to Pacelli since "Kaas worked with Pacelli".The Vatican claims that the archives relating to this era have been accessible, but this does not seem to be borne out by the experience of Cornwell. No clearer reference is made to Kaas and Pacelli's work together and the issue is unattended on one side and on the other simply stated as a matter of complicit fact by holocaust historians. Flamekeeper 06:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

All this ranting of Flamekeeper presupposes that the passing of the Enabling Act, as deplorable as it might be, is the one thing to look at. Fests "would not have had the numbers to make a difference" does not necessarily refer to this one vote only. The Enabling act was not the first step in the demise of the Weimar Republic and it wasnt the last. Hitler could have been dismissed any time until Hindenburgs death. Str1977 23:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Please clean your language STR1977. Insults do no good to the severity of the problem. (FK)

I don’t see where I insulted you, but if the word “ranting” offended you, I do apologize. But please understand, that your posting the same (literally the same) stuff all over the place does not help. I first read it on the B16 page and from the context of that page I really couldn’t understand what it was all about (What “Law” is he talking about?) But again, I apologizes. (Str1977)

I think it a bit odd for a non-native speaker to accuse someone of writing non-sense. Non-sense and nonsense are two different things for a start. My linkage is un-clear, due to the multi-faceted nature of this case. I do not apologise for posting the same facts on various discussion pages. Part of what is applicable for Adolf Hitler is applicable for the Centre party, and the Vatican, and because of Vatican reasoning is applicable to a page entitled Theology of Benedict XVI. I see only that you wish to limit the damage by this reasoning. (FK)

I can't see where I used "non-sense" or "nonsense", except where I copied your term. And you have very high expectations towards me linguistically whereas your … well, I won't comment on the way your posts look like. Please don't get angry about it – I don't want to sidestep anything – but it's true. (Str1977)

You wish to disagree, but you do not answer the problematical points. This which you claim now is incorrect. (FK)

What do I claim? (Str1977)

This was the absolutely principle step towards instituting the dictatorship. You sidestep the Fest issue or you are out of your depth linguistically- I repeat: it is the fact that the Vatican via Gumpel use fest incorrectly that is shocking. I imagine he is not pleased. It is their defence and it is wrong and amounts to dishonesty and subterfuge in their rebuttal. You do not understand, perhaps. (FK)

It's still unclear what you claim my claim is. The ErmGes was one of the principal steps – I said that much further down, didn't I – but it is not the only one. As long as Hindenburg was alive, things could have turned out differently. That doesn't diminish a bit the importance of the ErmGes. (Str1977)

We would be most interested if you would supply us all with deeper information as to exactly how the Enabling vote stacked up: how many of the Centre did abstain, what happened to the missing (from reports) 20 or so Socialists, and where were the 14 very minor party votes- did they vote ? Please do provide us with this information. (FK)

As Your Grace might please to notice ( J ), Never did I deny that the Zentrum’s votes very indeed essential to pass the Enabling act and your criticism of Kaas is perfectly legitimate. There was a “quid pro quo” between Kaas and Hitler in regards to guarantees for the Zentrum. Hitler only noticed them, but Kaas described it (whether intentionally or by mistake) them to be accepted. Of course the letter in question never came. It was very foolish of him to expect Hitler to respect guarantees once he had attained that much power (he should have better listened to his “life long friend” Pacelli, who had a clear view of Nazism already then – and the Ermächtigungsgesetz certainly is one of the major steps toward Nazi tyranny, though not the only one. My criticism against your post was mainly, that you portray this bill as the one and only and decisive step and that, had the Zentrum not given its consent (as they should have IMO), Hitler would have been dead politically right away. Noone knows what would have happened and Kaas and his fellow MPs certainly bear the blame for their action, but please don’t pin the whole blame for the Third Reich on one single party. (Str1977)

There is a wikipedia policy about jokes which I ran foul of straightaway. I hope my language shows some leaning toward grace if not my awkward muck-raking. The Chinese have best understood grace in art. I note that the vatican is a one-hymn wonder these days. The use of their hymn to the saints is extra-ordinary. The theatrical display of holiness is extra-ordinary. It should be avoided. It will be addressed. it is coming soon to the point where children will not be allowed to be used either. Artistically the vatican buys all it can and uses all the arts to over-awe. Music, painting, sculpture, architecture are all effectively put to propaganda use: it is artistic prostitution. Islam is correct on image but even handedly I would suggest that all vocalisation of crowds be discouraged on the grounds of public health requirements against hysteria. However this piece you write exhibits clearly the problem. Again it is like the use of Dr. Fest, you should try and see: I do not suggest that another vote would have prevented the take-over of Hitler. But that is not the point. The point is that Kaas and Pacelli and by his own words Pius XI were sympathetic to the institution of the dictatorship. There was a volte face in the relevant period in the over-all attitude, statements and policy of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany which is widely noted. This is why Cardinal Faulhaber's statements are so important. The contradiction is here: the Vatican knew of the evil and nevertheless sided with it. It is a scandal because of the theological principle or law transgressed. (FK)

Please forgive me, but after you said "we" for the umpteenth time, I couldn't resist the joke.

To your artistic musing, I can only say: A.M.G.D.

You claim they were sympathetic, but don't give any proof for that. It's not in the encyclical you cited. Now you refer to Faulhaber statements without citing them. Yes, the Holy See knew of the evil – but it didn't side with it. (Str1977)

We would also like to know of any information you might provide concerning the Kaas visits to Pacelli and the Pacelli communications back to Kaas, or anything emanating from the Vatican to elucidate any benign motivation. (FK)

a more “benign motivation”? You don’t give any motivation at all (sparing you the trouble of proving anything), but it is innuendo at work. I don’t know what Kaas reported to Pacelli and whether he gave him all the information and what Pacelli replied. I don’t know! Neither do you. But if you want a benign speculation: they probably discussed Hitler’s rise to power, the danger that posed to the Church and christian civilization, whether something could be done against it and what that something might be. (Str1977)

The accusation, which I merely report is not innuendo. Innuendo is not needed. The survivors of the Holocaust do not need innuendo. They know and they list the facts in courts from time to time. As you say Kaas, Pacelli and Pius are dead. Your argumentation is desperate given that the Jewish and humanist websites who present the history and cite the historians refer openly to all of this. To the encyclical which amounts to allowing a future dictatorship, to changes in rules of conduct within the church and for its adherents concerning nazism, changes in attitudes by bishops, cardinal, promulgation of agrement with hitler as beneficial. Come on, its not me, Pal. (FK)

The thing is, you don't give any motivation in the entry. That spares you the trouble of giving evidence. You just say, Kaas met Hitler then, Kaas met Pacelli then, Kaas met Hitler then … I don't dispute that, but what are you trying to say? That's were innuendo comes in. My other point was, since the the three are dead, all your complaints to the current Pope are futile. They don't stand in his tribunal, but in HIS tribunal. And please don't come with "humanist" websites. That's like asking H… (Str1977)

We would like also to see the Vatican Bruning connection to a restoration of the Monarchy in Germany … (FK)

Though Brüning’s monarchism is highly questionable, even if it is true, what’s the problem in turning the unstable Weimar Republic into a more stable, constitutional monarchy along British lines? But the Holy See didn’t have any preference (look into the encyclical you cited) as regards to monarchy or republic, if only her liberties would be respected. (Str1977)

The particular teaching in the particular encyclical needs attention forthwith by the Holy father. It is contrary to Romans 3, 8 for starters and certainly should be amended as contrary to the human interest. You get working on it - or else you if you remain an absolutist, you are a source of moral pollution on the wikipedia. I regret having to say that. (FK)

Moral pollution, ha? Are you already collecting wood for the pyre? There's nothing in the encyclical that's contrary to Romans 3,8. This verse doesn't say that monarchy is evil, or democracy is good. That verse says, we shouldn't do evil to attain good. If you take such an absolutist viewpoint that only a secularist republic (that's what Pius XI is addressing) is a viable form of government, I can only admire your lacking historical sense. (Str1977)

within the same context of Papal involvement in the Centre Party (ie catholic voters) from 1925. (FK)

Of course there was involvement between church-men and the party, but of what kind? of what content? You’re using innuendo to hint at something sinister, but provide no proof. (Str1977)

Wrong - there is stark analysis, search under Pacelli and you'll find it. Half of all searches spill accusation, and the other half spill apologia, such as Gumpel or you try. What is sinister is the Vatican propensity for re-cycling us all backwards to before the French revolution. The church attitude has been consistent since then in seeking a return of the ancien regime. It is not my innuendo but it is your rudeness and it tries to be insulting. However, you and the Church do have a motive in avoiding this unfortunate anti-democratic interference in internal German affairs, as the outcome as they well know, is highly dangerous. Just one of the concommitant realities is that the world needs, as do the Germans themselves, to know where the guilt lies. Great odium lies in the papal under-mining of democracy – then and now. This is why you are quite wrong to think this can only be a discussion on one Pope's page. The under-mining of democracy is plainly the accusation, there is no admission nor correction. The only possible hope for stimulating a correction is to cite the Church LAW back at the church. I am serious and I do. (FK)

So now we are sinister. And we do have a motive, probably a sinister motive, in defending ourselves against smearing and slander. Very interresting. Don't tell me about interference in German affairs, I'm German myself. I know who bears the blame and the guilt for the Third Reich and the War and the Shoa. I'm not one of those who like Hochhuth try to put the blame into some Italians shoes. Yes, the French Revolution. This great event. How could the church get so upset about it. The revolutionaries (not just Robbespierre) only robbed the Church of her land, mingled into her internal affairs, slaughtered priests and nuns and massacred the Vendee (the first genocide of modernity). Then they started to spread this all over Europe and somehow the other countries didn't like that, least of all the Spaniards. So if the Church wasn't cheering for the Revolution, can you blame her? Maybe she was wrong in that reaction, but who are you to blame her? But if you think the Church wanted the Ancien Regime back, you are really mistaken. Wasn't it Kings like Henry IV, Louis XIV, Louis XV that constantly interfered into Church matters on the basis of supposed "Gallicanic liberties". No, noone wants that back. (Str1977)

We should like to see the analysis that is clearly made upon the Vatican's reaction to a fall in Catholics actually voting for the official Catholic Centre Party and how this combined with other threats to change and direct the Papal stance. (FK)

My statistics tell me the Zentrum was pretty stable all the way from start to finish. (Str1977)

Wrong -this annoys- Centre vote fell from 19.7 % of the electoral vote in 1919 down steadily to 11.7 in 1933. it is discussed by historians just how pleased the |vatican would be to dispense with the party and its unmanageable and -I agree- its disparate elements. (FK)

What about absolute numbers. Yes, they lost in percentage, since other parties, especially NSDAP grew. (Str1977)

We should like to see an analysis which would more clearly relate, yes, back to the Concordat and the other many concordats. No one denies that the desire for the German Concordat was other than beneficial. (FK)

So noone denies it? I certainly do? Why does the Church negotiate and sign concordats? To protect the local Churches freedom to practise the faith free from interference from outside the Church, especially the ever-expanding modern state. After the fall of the German monarchies, there was the need for re-regulating this relationship with the now republican states and hence there were numerous concordats with the individual states, Bavaria, Prussia. On the national level that was difficult because of the unstable governments and lacking majorities and the opposition of the Social-Democrats. Hitler’s government, as deplorable as he was, provided an opportunity to come to an agreement, as his government coalition (yes it still was one at first) had a stable majority. There also was a general feeling that this 4th presidential cabinet would not last very long (that’s what Papen thought too) and then the Church would have attained a formal concordat with the German Reich, binding future governments (As it was, things turned out differently and this came to be only after the war, but since then the concordat works well.) On the other hand, the fact that it was Hitler in power made it more urgent: how should know what he might do with this “jewish sect”, especially since in the wake of the “Gleichschaltung” the individual states practically ceased to exist, so what about the concordats signed with them. I don’t think Pacelli had any great illusions about Hitler’s trustworthyness but a document signed by Hitler could at least serve as a basis of protest as it subsequently did. (Str1977)

Pacelli was like everyone else who was taken in by the Fuhrer. However unlike everyone else Pacelli had a professed duty to uphold the moral order. He consciously failed. What people should realise is that Hitler did not wish to wrench power but wished to receive it willingly thus providing him with all the justification he needed then, or indeed, now. The publicity coup accorded Hitler by the Holy See's concordat was tremendous and undoubtedly allowed that much greater evil to evolve. This is a factor in why so many german people were so fooled. But pacelli knew from Church reports that he was backing a monstrosity of genocidal proposals and brutality. (FK)

No, Pacelli saw the nature of that party very early. Hitler wanted the power, how was of secondary concern. He took the "legal way", because the revolutionary approach of Röhm didn't seem rewarding to him (it failed in 1923, after all). There might be a publicity coup (though some dispute that), but you overestimate the importance, especially given that it still was just another government (from the 1933 perspective), and underestimate the risk of letting the opportunity pass by, the risk of having to deal with the same regime and the same tyrant without a concordat. (Str1977)

However, User Str1977, thus far your commentary seems not very elucidatory and your edits amount to a diminution of the serious historical and ethical question that remains, and which is now put into the most elemental Theological context. (FK)

Dr. Fest is used by the Catholic League as has been mentioned. Dr.Gumpel, as is mentioned. These are citations, as is everything. There is no argument about Fest at this point, but about the use of Fest by the Catholic League, which is as quoted. The validity check - you yourself should repeat and if it is incorrect, that will be very important. (FK)

I respect Dr. Fest very much, but if his quote was referring to the actual vote on the bill, he’s wrong, as numbers show. (Though further machinations could have dealt with a Zentrum problem as well as it did with Communists and Social Democrats), but if he’s talking about the whole strain of events, he might agree with my point, that it was not the Zentrum alone that could have turned the tide, certainly not at this hour. (Str1977)

Obfuscation, as in politics, seeks to deflect. I do not say the Centre is alone in reponsibility, but it helps you to suggest I do. (FK)

I hope so, but you talk about nothing else here on Wiki. And what does your citation of what you call the law imply?

And I didn't say the Zentrum is blameless. In fact I said the opposite. (Str1977)

But, User, you should refrain from open censorship, indeed save us the necessity of reverting your edits that try to assuage and diminuish from the historical contradiction. You continue to do this and the clearer it will become that this amounts to historical revisionism and censorship. (FK)

Again, no censoring here. I only objected to your exporting the same post to other pages, where a connection is only tangible and seems to me very constructed (calls for a posthumous tribunal, US elections etc). Actually the right page to discuss this all should be the Kaas page, as he was the one involved with the Ermächtigungsgesetz, but if you want to use this page, so be it. Also a serious discussion can only take place if one meets in one single space. Anyone interested can home here. (Str1977)

Don't rub out this discussion, don't archive. The wikipedia has enough room at like a billion words per buck, browser weakness can be overcome by users visting a cafe, say. (FK)

The talk pages are mainly here to discuss editing business. Of course sometimes that's stretched a bit and one should be lenient about it. You however go to pages where you do not really contribute anything and enter your post and leave. I guess you don't want to discuss but want to spread your "message" all across Wiki, so that everyone knows that the "Church is our misery". (Str1977)

No one wished to be simplistic and obviously this quid pro quo did not exist in a vacuum. (FK)

I am happy to hear that, but from your previous posts I didn’t seem like that to me. In regard to “The Law”, as you call it, the question is whether the events in question were a mere toleration or an active cooperation in evil. This all should be discussed bit by bit and one by one, i.e. if Kaas cooperated in evil, that doesn’t mean that Pacelli also did, let alone the Pope. (Str1977)

It is widely stated that Pacelli and Kaas were hand in glove, Kaas in thrall to Pacelli. I think it is so serious that definitely reference will have to remain – despite your attempts at censorship already – upon the present Pope's page. Desist from your actions - put your energy into yes, just this law. Help the Pope (if you aren't in fact the Pope, he needs your help). He brought it all up in those elections in 2004, Pope John Paul II dragged it out with his last book. All that has been achieved is the terrible problem of this law. The Church breaks its own law - helps a real anti-christ to power, then struggles to persuade the people to adhere to the law. It is shame because it is a good law. (FK)

So it is widely stated? At lot of things are: It is widely stated that an UFO landed in Roswell. That doesn't make them true. Again I did not censore anything.

Please believe me when I say that I am not the Pope and I wanted to be the Pope even less than he did. And Benedict has better things to do than editing Wiki.

You must be really mad that your party lost the elections. But you are mistaken: it has not achieved the "terrible problem of the law" – you’re the only one I know who's up in arms about it. Probably this all is this a secret uproar. Where does the Church break her own law? Even if the three people did in 1933 (I don't think they did, except maybe Kaas, and these three don't make up the Church), where is she doing it now? Anti-christ? Are you still talking about Hitler – yes, he was a anti-christ, though a worse one is still to come – or yet about Bush – if the latter, than look up http://www.bushisantichrist.com/ . The Church always has and always will struggle to persuade people to adhere to the law, yes, and it will always fail. Nothing new there. That didn't change in 2,000 years.

For once we agree: it's a good law. (Str1977)

The general situation, the specific situations of all Germans, were indeed dire for all classes. Actual analysis concerning the extent to which conscious german governmental action exacerbated an already extremely difficult reparations situation exists and will have to be dealt with under Versailles Treaty history. Hindenburg too. Whatever should be analysed should be so, but simply turning our back on this - or yes, pointing all the error at one party does no service. (FK)

I’m not turning my back on it and it certainly isn’t me putting the blame on one party or three individual persons. (Str1977)

The blame is on them because they went against their own Christian precepts and law, not because they are otherwise alone. (FK)

Yes, it is you you put the blame on three people. It is fine if you want to use a bigger measure in regard to Catholics, but it is also the measure that'll be used against yourself. (Str1977)

You wish for greater clarity but if the Holocaust organisations can refrain from open accusation, so can we here and so your demand for further clarification of the point is left. You and the whole world will note that the contributions made thus far have been essentially proved. There is no pleasure in the loss of confidence to be gained by these realisations, there is the opposite. There is no confidence restored by this use of the Law in current democratic battle in the USA. (FK)

As for that, see below. (Str1977)

The editing of christian dictatorship from the article upon Pius XII is a semantic ploy to diminuish the odours emanating from the quid pro quo. (FK)

I deleted it because you give no source for that term. Who used it? When? In what context? Pacelli certainly didn’t consider a Nazi dictatorship to be Christian. Please provide me with that info, I would like to know, even if it turns out not to be relevant here. Until you do I will delete it again and again, as it seems to me really a “semantic ploy”, especially in times where people stoop to such lows as “Hitler was bad, he was a dictator!” Yes, Hitler was bad, and he was a dictator, but the really bad thing about him was not that he was a dictator. Democracies can act evil too (e.g. Athen's genocide on Melos, colonialism, legalisation of abortion), that's the point you're referring to in the late Pope's last book. It's not the formalities of decision that make something wrong or evil, but the decision's moral qualities. (Str1977)

I repeat that this is an abbreviation of the text of the Encyclical as referred to. It is used by the holocaust timeline organisation humanitas who cite Guenter Lewy for Kaas and Pacelli and Bishops and cardinals and papal audiences and secretary of State meetings, ambassadorial meetings and comments, press comment. It is accurate as to the contents of the encyclical and is merely an abbreviation of the text. You simply reveal your POV, user. You apologe as do so many. You will lose your Church if your are not strong in your heart, and face the problem. admission is required by history, historians, human political and cultural organisations, in fact everyone. Do not believe this will go away – it will get worse, and is very timely considering the present Pontiff's own use of the law. (FK)

No, it is not. Please read the encyclical again. If you still can find it in there, read it again. It isn't there! Simply not there! How can it be an abbreviation?

You reveal your POV, too! I'm not ashamed of my POV! It was hard work (and inspiration) getting there and I'm certainly not blind. But I won't let any POV of mine blur my vision or get in the way of rational discourse. If I could see your "christian dictatorship" in there, I'd admit it, but it isn't there. (For your sake, I will send the encyclical to a protestant friend, maybe he can read where I can't.) So I apologe (does that word exist?) – I certainly am not blind for any wrongdoing by any member of the Church, whether peasant Joe or Pope Pius, and I don't have any trouble in admitting it. God has built the Church out of fallible and sinful humans – there are no others around. I must know, I'm one. I will lose my Church? No, He will sustain His Church. There are many problems to be faced, this is not one of them. It will not go away? What, the problem or your posting? (FK)

The encyclical quoted was directed against the Spanish Republican Government legislation to separate church from state. (FK)

I have read the encyclical (Spelling!) and it seemed to me fairly reasonable. Whether a state wants to separate itself from the Church is up to the state to decide (the US did it right away, France did it later, the UK never did it, Germany did it, but in a more cooperative way) – this separation is no law of nature (as against human rights as freedom of conscience, of religious practice, etc). You might agree with it, I might agree with it (with qualifications), but it’s not “the force of gravity”. In fact, the idea of separation is in iteself based entirely on Christian, … nay Catholic ideas and principles (Gelasius, Gregory VII) and was completely unknown in ancient times, before the advent of Christianity. Unfortunately under the guise of this separation, governments can and also have implemented policies intended to crush the Church or at least to drive it into the ghetto of unimportance. That was the case in France around 1900 and in Spain around 1930, which Pius XI is referring to, and these unfortunate policies did even worsen in 1936, which directly lead to the Civil war. It was one Spain against another Spain and neither is blameless. But Franco could use the bitterness among Spaniards for his one purposes. (Str1977)

No, no. If we are to believe we must hold to the law. it is self-evidently beyond the moral order now after we have instituted constitutional democracy, to advocate aristocratic and monarchical rule. Hitler was a monarch - for 12 years. Your morality, user, is again highly objectionable. Or would you perhaps agree with the flippant remark say, that the solution to the consumer society is Pol Pot. however strong you are on Church history, you are suggesting things that Hitlerism innoculated us against. This is very wrong and corrupting, but it justifies all the many fears in existence following Ratzingers 2004 evil intervention. The american left talk about this - openly, as they should. Your politics are dangerous. (FK)

So now my morality is highly objectionable? (And please don't call me user, either Str1977 or nothing or you, but not user!)

I'm not suggesting anything. Even if Hitlerism innoculated you or me against something 8it certainly did), that cannot be said for the year 1933, before Hitler.

Hitler a monarch – yes in a way he was a monarch, but you are missing the point I'm making: the primary thing is not what form of government, but the people making up that government. If Hitler was a monarch, so was Henry IV of France. Are the two to be equated? Or if that's too far in the past, compare Hitler and Mussolini. Both were bad man, but one is definitely worse! How come? Was it because of differences in the form of government? Certainly I'd reject the Pol Pot remark!

Again I'm not suggesting anything – I like a the free-democratic order (the FDGO, as we say in Germany).

Neither did Pius XI suggest a aristocracy in his encyclical. He said, the Church can adapt to all forms. It takes whatever comes along, what that is, is the decision of the Spaniards. But his point was: regardless of the form of government, the Church has to insist, has to demand certain things, that her liberties are respected, at least that she's treated fairly (which the Spanish government then didn't do, according to Pius' reasoning). However, when she's not treated fairly, she must turn to her Lord and suffer until He comes for the rescue. That's what she's always done.

And is Spain now worse off than it was in 1933? After all, the monarchy toppled in 1931 has returned! The reaction has triumphed, or has it?

Hopefully the American left are better than the Cambodian left! (Str1977)

User, you should seriously consider that your desire to retain a blind confidence leads you against the currents of truth. (FK)

Yes, I have confidence (in Him and in her), but I’m certainly not blind. Note that you’re referring to truth here, as I will come back to this latter. (Str1977)

No one seeks vanquishment from facts - either the pieces of history inserted are true or untrue - the words christian dictatorship precisely abbreviate the relevant import from the encyclical, (FK)

What does that mean? I can’t find the words in the document. And I can’t find it relating to anything in the document. (Str1977)

… which whilst evidently referring to Church history throughout the ages of darkness and strife (monarchical-aristocracy), nevertheless is greatly shocking for its toleration of such abandoned principles of government in the 20th century. (FK)

So do you think that there is only one form of government, fitting every country and every age? And what is that? I guess, you’d say “democracy”, but what is “democracy”? The one of ancient Athens, that commited genocide? The one of Switzerland? The British parliamentary monarchy? The US constitution. Is the modern, liberal democracy really a democracy or is it rather a democratically elected aristocracy. Is the US an elective monarchy? Is France a dictatorship, because the president has, theoretically, absolute powers? (Note that up until the 1930s the term democracy is defined differently from today. The still was the clear distinction between “Republic” and “Democracy”. This goes back to Plato and Aristotle, who considered Politea the best form of government and defined Democracy as its corrupted form, calling it also Ochlocracy, i.e. mob-rule. For that reason the Weimar Republic shunned the term Democracy and only two parties called themselves Democratic. Even after the war, some wings of the Christian-Democrats refused that name and adopted Christian-Social for that very reason.)

Sorry, I don’t subscribe to the notion of “abandoned principles”, as if something could be true at 9 in the morning, but false at noon. Though different things might be called for in different situations.

As for the Church, as the cited encyclical shows, she can live under various forms of government and cooperate with them, if only her liberties are respected. (Str1977)

Here you have it. The church can live with various forms of government - the Church was able with equanimity to contemplate and assist in the rise of Hitlerism. This is the reason why we should fear the church now. Ye need to recant I say, for the liberties of the church are as nought when compared to the abandonment of the moral order of humanity. Precisely the accusation is that to save itself, the Church abandoned Humanity. You say it should or could again - you are shocking. You must hold to the law, the law of Jesus, not of preservation of the church. You are deeply immoral. (FK)

The church can, and man can, too. History proves it.

Again, the Church did not "contemplate and assist in the rise of Hitlerism" – some of her members might have, e.g. Kaas, Papen, in a way even Brüning, but not the Church. (Supposing your from the USA: How did you feel when you destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing thousands etc.?)

You needn't fear the Church! You need to fear yourself! If you're not giving power to a tyrant, the Church will not do it for you!

The liberties of the Church and the moral order of humanity go hand in hand. Whenever a government violated one of them, it also violated the other. Hitler did, the French Revolution did, Stalin did, Pol Pot did (I guess there were some Christians there), even the Bourbon Kings of France did it, though on a much much much much lower level (absolutist rule and interference in Church matters).

I certainly hold to the law of Jesus and leave preserving the Church to Him. But just as a father has to take care of his children, a pastor has to take care of his flock. He mustn't cooperate in evil, but he also mustn't be blind to reality. And as if monarchy were against the law of Jesus – what form of government did they have in the 1st century AD? (Str1977)

This is self evidently true, (FK)

The problem is that you think something is self-evidently true when it isn’t and when others hold something true, with more explicit evidence, you denounce it as "truth" (Str1977)

… a repetition of this would be equally more shocking today. The use of Romans 3,8 in the Bush-Kerry Presidential Election whilst understandable for its origin in the abortion debate, is equally shocking if the truth be known about this sordid quid pro quo of the thirties. (FK)

Do we come to the heart of the matter, here? Are you sad because Bush won the election? I certainly am not a 100%-Bushist, I certainly was against the invasion of Iraq when it happened (though not with a illusionary spirit of love for Saddam, as some (not you!) were, or the thought, that this is the worst war ever waged. I’m not pacifist! But still I was against this war. As were the late and the current Pope, BTW.) (Str1977)

what do you mean not you? Cheek of you! (FK)

Just prophylaxis and respect. Some opponents of the invasion talked as if Saddam were an angel and pre-war Iraq paradise. I don't know what you did in that regard, but I try to think best of people and adhere to "in dubio pro reo" and also if I hadn't included it, you might have been shouting: "I never did that, I never did that!" Now I did that out of respect for you and you call it cheek? If you continue behaving like this, I guess, someone will soon be quoting Janet Majors to you. (Str1977)

Now, as for your shocking truth. Even if all your accusations (explicit and implicit) were true, i.e. that Kaas, Pacelli and Pius did “cooperate in evil” (and the Zentrum in 1933 campaigned against Hitler – the mistake was to deviate from that line after the election), that certainly does not mean that we now have to cooperate in evil too, does it? That’s the logic of the “old Adam”, biblically speaking. If the three did cooperate in evil, their case has now moved on into a higher court. (with a small exception in case of Pius XII, as he is also scrutinized by the Congregation for Beatifications – but even if he’s beatified, that doesn’t mean he’s without sin – noone is, but God is merciful – only that he’s found to be now in heaven.) The Church's job is not to judge the dead, that's God's faculty. (Str1977)

You reveal yourselves to be very dangerous immoral people. You will have to be controlled, like an extremist organisation if you do not modernise and present yourelves as adhering to Romans 3,8. (FK)

I adhere completely to Romans 3,8 and I am controlled. You won't control me. Why is it that some people talk all day long about democracy and liberalism etc and now you want to restrict my freedom. If your in power, I will be put into an asylum? Or will I just be burned at the stake? (Str1977)

That George W.Bush raised from circa 48 to circa 52 per cent (or whatever) of votes cast because of the intervention through Romans 3,8 because of Pope Benedict XVI's direct admonition against complicity with evil, makes the thirties history no more than completely relevant to such as would even lazily, prefer forgetfulness. (FK)

Your straining monocausality to the brink. Bush’s victory and Kerry’s defeat had more than one reason. The were many different motivations in Bush voters and also in Kerry voters (though the most probably thought Anyhtingbutbush). Kerry was in a tough spot, since he was the third Catholic to run for president and the first since the infamous Roe-vs-Wade. Apart from his support for abortion, which the line of his party demands, he also - needlessly - supported the mass murdering activities called embryonic stem cell research. Be that as it may, it was not the then Cardinal Ratzinger that opened the question, but Kerry with his running for office and the bishops for admonishing him for his views. The cardinal’s statement in fact was very nuanced (but what do journalists of either persuasion care for nuance), as he said: >> A Catholic cannot vote for a pro-abort politician on the basis of his support for abortion. That’d be formal cooperation in evil. However, a Catholic can vote for a pro-abort politician for other, proportionate reasons. << Of course not every reason is proportionate and since abortion is a rather heavy issue, IMO it’s hard to find proportionate reasons, but an unjust war might be one. I don’t think so (at least not this – past – war), but that’s something one has to consider in one’s own conscience. Note that sometimes who have to choose between two pro-aborts! What then? (Str1977)

Let the reader decide. Or Pol Pot perhaps, and shoot the readers. (FK)

Yes, the reader of the document in question should decide – you could be one of the readers, then you might be better informed about the content. Noone is forced to adhere to this teaching, as the Church is powerless, and should be powerless – she can only talk to people's conscience. Why are you in love with Pol Pot? (Str1977)

To anyone with a heart, the import however, of the thirties contradiction or conspiracy, (FK)

What does contradiction or conspiracy mean? (Str1977)

… is that the entire of modern world history emanates, in all its terrible tragedy, from this one battle between the forces of absolutist (dare one still suggest it given this contradiction ) truth and those of Communism. (FK)

If it’s a battle between truth and communism, I certainly would opt for truth. I’m no liberal, but I’d opt for liberalism, if the alternative is communism. Stalin is a mass murderer no less than Hitler and the two started the 2nd World War. (Str1977)

I have trouble with that last statement as I think would the historians. (FK)

Ever heard of the Hitler-Stalin-Pact and certain secret protocolls? (Str1977)

For my part, I'd rather think the (modern and pre-modern) battle between extreme collectivism (of any colouring) on side, and extreme individualism on the other side, both waging war on each other and against the middle-ground, where humanity, truth, Christianity dwell. (And if individuals in Church history failed in that battle, that doesn't mean the fight is wrong.) But that's a historico-theological aside. (Str1977)

Not aside, central. And your middle ground ended up awash with blood. This casuistical self-justification to the point of mental sickness. Amazing lack of respect to the victims, shameful language. (FK)

I have deep respect for the victims. You cannot imagine how deep. My middle ground is … well, let me ask you: Do you think that the state or another collective should run everyone's life from dawn till dusk? Or do you think everybody has the right to act however he pleases without regard for anyone only restricted by his own will? No? Me neither! These are the extremes – in between is middle ground. That doesn't say what the greater danger is at any given situation. I think that's common sense and I think you actually think so too. (Sorry for being patronising.) (Str1977)

And note that you hailed truth above and now you decry it. (And don't bother to bring up capitalization issues, that's english semantics but irrelevant to the real issue). (Str1977)

I decry the Vatican hypocrisy about this conspiracy and the mis-use of the law as further weakening the remaining goodness in the teachings of Jesus. The truth is the bosses broke their own law to save the company, leaving real people to weep in pain and suffering and death. What is reported as historical truth shows this hypocrisy, therefore I refer to it in such sadness and irony. (FK)

Well, we don't agree whether a law was broken or by whom. Yes real people wept in pain and suffering and death. And only One can dry these tears. But who caused this tears: Hitler, the German government, the German army, the German people. I'm aware of the guilt and the responsibility, believe me – as a German. But the Church is and was were her place is: among the weeping. (Str1977)

Of course, in this life we cannot attain truth with any absolute assurance (see 1 Cor 13) and we are well advised to question ourselves and doubt has its place on our way to truth, but we still have to look for it and we still have to cling to the existence of truth. If there's no truth, everything is meaningless! If there's no truth, Hitler's only fault was, that he lost the war (He would agree with that.) (Str1977)

At last we agree. However unfortunately it is really this: There is no meaning to the institution of the Roman Catholic Church following its abandonment of the Law of Romans 3, 8 and Humanae Vitae. Only an honest confrontation of this abandonment can save the situation, otherweise no, it is the end, you're quite right there. You read Hitler's mind and you reveal his thoughts but they are yours. This reveals a deep despair in you which one dreads to see repeated by the Pacellis of this world. (FK)

No, we don't agree. I'm only giving a realistic analysis of our faculties of knowledge and admit that they are limited. I cannot prove to you that my faith is right, I have to believe, in a way, I have to bet on it and see whether my bet wins in the end or not.

I don't see where Romans 3 was abandoned in this situation by anyone … or ever by the Church (again: the Church is more than just a couple of people)

Yes, I reveal Hitler's thoughts but they are not mine, they are the thoughts of any relativist out there today, that says: >>What do I care about morals or God or anything – whatever works is good.<< I, for my part, loathe utilitarism. (Str1977)

What child cannot but be radicalised knowing this, what reassessment cannot but become necessary to re-align the fractured cultures of humanity back upon some keel of truth? (FK)

Yes, radicalized! But a radical in what? I, for my part, radicalize in Christianity. Or is that too much of truth? (Str1977)

Christianity is meaningless without this law. A child should be radicalised to enforce this law, to enforce you to be better. (FK)

Christianity part and parcel, everything – I'm not going to the cafeteria. This law is not to be enforced, it is to be lived. So enforced in one's own life. There lies your responsibility. (Str1977)

Would not an extra-terrestrial, even, not frown at the evident contra-diction where the leaders of Christianity abandon all humanity (but particularly the Jews) and all the norms of civilised civil order, (FK)

I don't know about extraterrestrials, but did Pius XII not hide Jews. Did not other Christian do that as well. Of course, many also failed, but you're painting with a very broad brush. Apart from persons and their actions, isn't it the Catholic faith that really is the complete opposite of Nazi ideology? I can't say that much about other beliefs, as Communism, current Liberalism. (Str1977)

No, NO – this is standard self-exculpatory obfuscation. I am not attacking the half-hearted (as reported ) Pius XII in actions to which the church always rapidly wish to settle this argument. The church reveals further dishonesty in this evasion technique. (FK)

Don't have a clue what you are saying. I don't want to use the n-word. (Str1977)

... in order to confront an economic creed that desired the same charitable base. Aha you say - this is nonsense and don't we all know. (FK)

I don't want to sound like McCarthy, but nonetheless: Are you a Communist? Just a question. I understand where you got that, I generally am a Social Democrat by political view though not by party, but Communism is charitable is. .. yes, you guessed correctly. .. non-sense. There might be some good intentions in its beginning, but you know where good intentions are used as pavement stones, don't you? (Str1977)

To meaninglessness. No, sometimes I am a poet. I foresee as that the chinese are going to come and get you but not until they have the secret of making milk seep from the base of every tree in Siberia. I give it 50 years. (FK)

Don't understand again, but hey, it's poetry, isn't it?

BTW, the answer is: "to hell" (We call this a proverb.) (Str1977)

Yes we know that what a certain Polish philosopher Kolokowski(?) analysed is correct in this regard: if Communism is defined as from each according as to his means, unto each according to his needs then the failure of Communism lies simply in the responsive question but who decides these. (FK)

Is this your definition of communism. I read it somewhere on wiki before. This definition describes how Marx and his followers thought the final stage of human history they called “communism” would look like. To any pointing out of the faults “real-existing socialism” they’d reply that “communism” had not yet been attained. And they are right, “communism”, defined that way, does not exist and noone has to fight it. The “communism” in the real world is (or was?) a political movement set out to bring about a revolution against “capitalism”, instite a dictatorship and so on … I don’t have to explain this to you, do I? (Str1977)

No, and I didnt ask. Pacelli could have given lessons to Stalin about instituting dictatorship, though, couldnt he? (FK)

No, he couldn't. Regardless of the chronological problems, Pacelli didn't institute any dictatorship. You might have problems with the concordat – but that didn't put Hitler into power. Hitler, as always, was an autodidact. (Str1977)

Sadly it now appears that a Pope decided in so far as he could to put himself on the side of actual War. (FK)

Actual war? What war? Do you mean the past war waged in Iraq? Or the war, some strains of modernity wage against humanity itself? (Str1977)

The war in Adolf Hitler's book, in his policies, in his speeches, in his rabid genocidal imperialist mind that seduced the willing of germany to recover their stolen glories. Do you accept this now, will you work for good? (FK)

I'm doing my best every day to work for good. I don't need you to admonish me.

It wasn't clear what war you were talking about – and what Pope. But Pius certainly didn't put himself on his side. (Str1977)

Will you stop being like the brother of the murderer, stop trying to hide the motive, the weapon, the wherebouts, the effects. You are immoral and shameless but you do understand, you yourself concisely termed it as resulting in meaninglessness. this reveals the deep despair hiding in your catholic soul, and should be a warning to the rest of us human beings that we should really make more effort to bring you lost sheep back into the fold of humanity. before you commit further acts of harm. This is not an end, but a beginning. (FK)

I am the brother of the murderer, I can't help it (the murderer being Hitler, a German as I am one).

Let us recapitulate: I am a "source of moral pollution", "sinister", my "morality is highly objectionable", I am "shocking", one of "very dangerous immoral people", I "will have to be controlled" and am "on the point of mental sickness". I read "Hitler's mind and "… reveal his thoughts but they are (mine), I'm indulging in "standard self-exculpatory obfuscation" and show "deep despair hiding in your catholic soul". I am "a lost sheep" and it is urgent that I be brought "back into the fold of humanity".

I am impressed, Dr Freud, I am impressed. (Str1977)

Flamekeeper 19:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Str1977 10:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Flamekeeper 19:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Str1977 22:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)