Let the shit hit the fan...

[JoltinJoe]

The implication is that there were many Catholics, with many more Lutherans.

Exactly. JoltinJoe and his Catholic websites want to gloss over it though..... along with every sketchy thing in the church's past (or present)... It's sad, really.

This thread has reached the lowest levels of dumb. I'm not arguing anymore... Going back and forth on the semantics in some barely read, obscure book. I bet the author would be floored to know there are people actually arguing about his book.

Translation: This book creams my position.

Sky, you were born ignorant and so you shall remain.

[native]

Again, the key words there are actually "openly resisted." The vast majority of priests in German did not support the Third Reich -- and some openly resisted it.

Yes, those are the key words. A minority, according to your author, "openly resisted." My first quote was about how many more "SIDED OPENLY."

That's the context that you were talking about..... he says "a not insignificant number of Catholic priests and many more Lutheran ministers SIDED OPENLY with Hitler and the aims of National Socialism... This book, however, is dedicated to the MINORITY of priests who openly resisted and suffered the consequences.

Credit where credit is due, skelly. Nice job researching the photos and articles.

That said, it is not remarkable that sincere men of faith would support Hitler in March of 1938 as an anti-communist. You know full well that Hitler did not lead a crusade in the name of religion. He was not religious himself, and he privately held religion and religious leaders in contempt. Hitler was, however, obviously very clever in using propaganda and diplomacy to manipulate and acquire the levers of power and recruit allies until he was powerful enough to take what he wanted. Hitler successfulluy wooed and manipulated both priests and communists in his rise to power, as was illustrated in the photos with church leaders you posted here.

Up until late 1938, Hitler had actually helped protect the church from persecution by communists. I suspect you already know the history and purposefully left it out, but for the rest of us, we should realize that the Austrian Bishops' Declaration in early 1938 (which you cited on this thread) was prior to the Carlsbad Decrees of 24 April, 1938, demanding autonomy for the Sudetenland, the Munich Agreement of 30 September, 1938, and the subsequent Nazi occupation of the Sudetenland. It was also prior to the naked aggression of the Nazi invasions of Slovakia in March of 1939 and Poland in late 1939.

Before these invasions by the Nazis, much of the world saw Hitler as the peace-maker he claimed to be. Hell, his party received 97% of the vote in the Sudentenland, where he emnjoyed higher levels of support than in any other sector of the reunified Germany! At the time, the world had reason to see Hitler as a potential savior, as Hitler had not yet unleashed the dogs of war and the world had only recently experienced Lenin's "Red Terror," the Ukrainian genocide-by-famine engineered by Stalin in the 30's, and the torture and execution of nuns and Priests by the reds in the Spanish Civil War in the late 1930's.

A sample of such communist atrocities during the Red Terror: "... According to documents cited by the late Alexander Yakovlev, then head of the Presidential Committee for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression, priests, monks and nuns were crucified, thrown into cauldrons of boiling tar, scalped, strangled, given Communion with melted lead and drowned in holes in the ice. An estimated 3,000 were put to death in 1918 alone...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nice try, skelly, but epic fail. THANK YOU, however, for forcing me to do my homework.

[native]

The implication is that there were many Catholics, with many more Lutherans.

Exactly. JoltinJoe and his Catholic websites want to gloss over it though..... along with every sketchy thing in the church's past (or present)... It's sad, really.

This thread has reached the lowest levels of dumb. I'm not arguing anymore... Going back and forth on the semantics in some barely read, obscure book. I bet the author would be floored to know there are people actually arguing about his book.

The sad thing skelly, is that you try to justify support for your thesis that Hitler's atrocites were religiously motivated by savaging the Catholic Church.

A thousand inquisitions cannot match the atrocities of atheists like Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al...

[JoltinJoe]

Yes, those are the key words. A minority, according to your author, "openly resisted." My first quote was about how many more "SIDED OPENLY."

That's the context that you were talking about..... he says "a not insignificant number of Catholic priests and many more Lutheran ministers SIDED OPENLY with Hitler and the aims of National Socialism... This book, however, is dedicated to the MINORITY of priests who openly resisted and suffered the consequences.

Credit where credit is due, skelly. Nice job researching the photos and articles.

That said, it is not remarkable that sincere men of faith would support Hitler in March of 1938 as an anti-communist. You know full well that Hitler did not lead a crusade in the name of religion. He was not religious himself, and he privately held religion and religious leaders in contempt. Hitler was, however, obviously very clever in using propaganda and diplomacy to manipulate and acquire the levers of power and recruit allies until he was powerful enough to take what he wanted. Hitler successfulluy wooed and manipulated both priests and communists in his rise to power, as was illustrated in the photos with church leaders you posted here.

Up until late 1938, Hitler had actually helped protect the church from persecution by communists. I suspect you already know the history and purposefully left it out, but for the rest of us, we should realize that the Austrian Bishops' Declaration in early 1938 (which you cited on this thread) was prior to the Carlsbad Decrees of 24 April, 1938, demanding autonomy for the Sudetenland, the Munich Agreement of 30 September, 1938, and the subsequent Nazi occupation of the Sudetenland. It was also prior to the naked aggression of the Nazi invasions of Slovakia in March of 1939 and Poland in late 1939.

Before these invasions by the Nazis, much of the world saw Hitler as the peace-maker he claimed to be. Hell, his party received 97% of the vote in the Sudentenland, where he emnjoyed higher levels of support than in any other sector of the reunified Germany! At the time, the world had reason to see Hitler as a potential savior, as Hitler had not yet unleashed the dogs of war and the world had only recently experienced Lenin's "Red Terror," the Ukrainian genocide-by-famine engineered by Stalin in the 30's, and the torture and execution of nuns and Priests by the reds in the Spanish Civil War in the late 1930's.

A sample of such communist atrocities during the Red Terror: "... According to documents cited by the late Alexander Yakovlev, then head of the Presidential Committee for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression, priests, monks and nuns were crucified, thrown into cauldrons of boiling tar, scalped, strangled, given Communion with melted lead and drowned in holes in the ice. An estimated 3,000 were put to death in 1918 alone...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nice try, skelly, but epic fail. THANK YOU, however, for forcing me to do my homework.

Love the epic fail. Not that he is going to grasp why.

Just to note, however, that the photos Sky posted of clergy with Hitler do not depict Catholic clergy (but for a single photo, taken after a German cardinal delivered a diplomatic statement from the Vatican to Hitler in 1935 which made a demand for greater religious autonomy). They are largely clergy from the Deutsche Christen, a Nazi-sanctioned "Christian" church which operated as nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Third Reich. For example, one of the photos involves Hitler greeting Ludwig Muller, who was never a member of the Catholic clergy. Indeed, the garb worn by the clergy in these photos would indicate that the clergy are not Catholic, and this would be obvious to anyone familiar with Catholic priests, bishops, and cardinals.

This is a common tactic used by Catholic hate sites. In fact, some years back, an author by the name of John Cornwell wrote a book "Hitler's Pope," concerning Pope Pius XII -- a work which Cornwell himself later largely disavowed and recanted, although it is still favorably cited by anti-Catholics.

The photo on the cover was a picture of Pius XII, prior to his papacy, leaving a meeting with a representative of the Weimar Republic in 1929, when the future pope was Papal Nuncio to Germany. However, it was used to suggest that Pius XII had face-to-face meeting with the Nazis -- which never actually happened.

[youngterrier]

Either there is a God or there isn't.

If there isn't; then all the killing done in the name of religion has been for nothing.

If there is; then we are worshipping the same God, albeit in different ways. Since God will ultimately judge us He probably doesn't want us killing each other in his name, so once again the killing done in the name of religion has been for nothing.

"No religion = no problems" is the ultimate mindless cop out, Cap.

No religion = Mao and 77 million dead innocents
No religion = Stalin and 30+ million dead innocents
No religion = Lenin and 20 million dead innocents
No religion = Hitler and 20 million dead innocents
No religion = Pol Pot and 3 million dead innocents
...and on and on and on and on

Looks like a list of the victims of National Socialism/Communism to me, as Communism and Fascism rely on collectivism and disapprove of individualism (in other words speech) which only results in the persecution of those who display speech. Religion (or the lack thereof) does not kill people, the oppressive regimes who violate the rights of man in the name of (Insert purpose here) do.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

To me that reads..."Not insignificant # of Catholics with Lutherans adding to the overall total."

How the **** can you read that any other way?

Because that is not what it says. In fact, it says nothing even remotely similar to what you just suggested.

It says not an insignificant number of Catholic priests and many more Lutheran ministers sided openly with the Nazis.

If you read with any comprehension, that means that there were "many more" Lutheran clergy (than Catholic clergy) who "sided openly" with the Nazis.

BTW, "not an insignificant number" implies a plain minority of Catholic priests sided openly with the Nazis -- which would be historically accurate. Too many for my liking, but a clear and distinct minority.

Joe, I ain't emotionally involved in this thing like you are so I'll forgive your simple minded "comprehension" slight as being due to your lack of being able to look at what I was saying objectively.

I'm only talking about that line...it says "not insignificant" correct?

would "not insignificant" by the virtue of my lack of comprehension not also mean "Significant"?

Because of course our little brains aren't quite up to your comprehension on it is is possible that the sentence reads:


"On the seventieth anniversary of the outbreak of World War II, it is a sad fact to record, but true, that a significant number of Catholic priests and many more Lutheran ministers sided openly with Hitler and the aims of National Socialism."

Hell, I ain't even trying to bash ya. You make good arguments when you stick something that has merit but totally wash away your credibility when you start your little whining over minutia about something like this. I can see you lashing out at D1B as that is what he is going for...I'm just trying to see how you can read this thing absolutely differently than the message I get out of it...which is the correct one I might add.

[JoltinJoe]

Not insignificant does not mean significant.

if the author meant significant, he would have used that word.

For example, the African-American population is about 13%. To me, that would mean it is neither significant nor insignificant. So it is "not insignificant."

Granted, the improper use of the double negative causes some ambiguity over what the author means (which may have been intentional).

[native]

"No religion = no problems" is the ultimate mindless cop out, Cap.

No religion = Mao and 77 million dead innocents
No religion = Stalin and 30+ million dead innocents
No religion = Lenin and 20 million dead innocents
No religion = Hitler and 20 million dead innocents
No religion = Pol Pot and 3 million dead innocents
...and on and on and on and on

Looks like a list of the victims of National Socialism/Communism to me, as Communism and Fascism rely on collectivism and disapprove of individualism (in other words speech) which only results in the persecution of those who display speech. Religion (or the lack thereof) does not kill people, the oppressive regimes who violate the rights of man in the name of (Insert purpose here) do.

The historical fact remains that none of the above listed democides of innocent civilians were in the name of religion, and that none of the dictators who engineered the democides were religious or believed in God.

The historical truth also remains that the Judeo-Christian regimes have done a much better (not perfect) job of imposing and/or encouraging order and fairness with fewer deaths of innocents than atheistic regimes.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Not insignificant does not mean significant.

if the author meant significant, he would have used that word.

For example, the African-American population is about 13%. To me, that would mean it is neither significant nor insignificant. So it is "not insignificant."

Granted, the improper use of the double negative causes some ambiguity over what the author means (which may have been intentional).

Got it. Your saying that your former slight was not built on a solid foundation and either you or I could have the proper interpretation and more likely it lies somewhere in the middle.

[native]

..."On the seventieth anniversary of the outbreak of World War II, it is a sad fact to record, but true, that a significant number of Catholic priests and many more Lutheran ministers sided openly with Hitler and the aims of National Socialism."...

Up until the Munich Agreement in late 1938 and the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, it was not unreasonable for Cathlic Priests and Lutheran ministers to side with Hitler.

[JoltinJoe]

"No religion = no problems" is the ultimate mindless cop out, Cap.

No religion = Mao and 77 million dead innocents
No religion = Stalin and 30+ million dead innocents
No religion = Lenin and 20 million dead innocents
No religion = Hitler and 20 million dead innocents
No religion = Pol Pot and 3 million dead innocents
...and on and on and on and on

Looks like a list of the victims of National Socialism/Communism to me, as Communism and Fascism rely on collectivism and disapprove of individualism (in other words speech) which only results in the persecution of those who display speech. Religion (or the lack thereof) does not kill people, the oppressive regimes who violate the rights of man in the name of (Insert purpose here) do.

You are so wrong. These regimes killed because they were atheists.

Communism is an amoral economic system, nothing more or nothing less. It is objectionable to many not because it is immoral, but because it is inefficient.

People kill because they embrace a moral philosophy which allows such action. Atheism, on a collective, state basis, is a moral philosophy which no finds no overriding importance to any individual life because there is nothing sacred about any individual life. We are products of evolution, nothing more, and certainly not the handiwork of a creator. Thus, collective atheism allows for the taking of life for a so-called "greater cause."

Do the math. They killed because of their moral philosophy, not because of their economics.

[JoltinJoe]

Not insignificant does not mean significant.

if the author meant significant, he would have used that word.

For example, the African-American population is about 13%. To me, that would mean it is neither significant nor insignificant. So it is "not insignificant."

Granted, the improper use of the double negative causes some ambiguity over what the author means (which may have been intentional).

Got it. Your saying that your former slight was not built on a solid foundation and either you or I could have the proper interpretation and more likely it lies somewhere in the middle.

Right. Keep in mind the point which was not insignificant was that the "many more" language applied to the Lutheran ministers.

[native]

Looks like a list of the victims of National Socialism/Communism to me, as Communism and Fascism rely on collectivism and disapprove of individualism (in other words speech) which only results in the persecution of those who display speech. Religion (or the lack thereof) does not kill people, the oppressive regimes who violate the rights of man in the name of (Insert purpose here) do.

You are so wrong. These regimes killed because they were atheists.

Communism is an amoral economic system, nothing more or nothing less. It is objectionable to many not because it is immoral, but because it is inefficient.

People kill because they embrace a moral philosophy which allows such action. Atheism, on a collective, state basis, is a moral philosophy which no finds no overriding importance to any individual life because there is nothing sacred about any individual life. We are products of evolution, nothing more, and certainly not the handiwork of a creator. Thus, collective atheism allows for the taking of life for a so-called "greater cause."

Do the math. They killed because of their moral philosophy, not because of their economics.

I read YT's post a little differently, Joe. I do not think he was saying that the listed democides were economic in nature or that he discounts the potentially positive nature of religion or the proven evil nature of collective atheism.


...but I expect YT to weigh in for himself.

[JoltinJoe]

You are so wrong. These regimes killed because they were atheists.

Communism is an amoral economic system, nothing more or nothing less. It is objectionable to many not because it is immoral, but because it is inefficient.

People kill because they embrace a moral philosophy which allows such action. Atheism, on a collective, state basis, is a moral philosophy which no finds no overriding importance to any individual life because there is nothing sacred about any individual life. We are products of evolution, nothing more, and certainly not the handiwork of a creator. Thus, collective atheism allows for the taking of life for a so-called "greater cause."

Do the math. They killed because of their moral philosophy, not because of their economics.

I read YT's post a little differently, Joe. I do not think he was saying that the listed democides were economic in nature or that he discounts the potentially positive nature of religion or the proven evil nature of collective atheism.


...but I expect YT to weigh in for himself.

Maybe, but he has previously stated the canard that Communist states killed because they were Communists, not because they were atheists. So maybe I'm reading that into what he's saying.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Got it. Your saying that your former slight was not built on a solid foundation and either you or I could have the proper interpretation and more likely it lies somewhere in the middle.

Right. Keep in mind the point which was not insignificant was that the "many more" language applied to the Lutheran ministers.

I was never unclear on that. The point of that is the "many more" as I read it is in addition to the many that were siding with Hitler from the Catholic side. But we've went over that already.

It's not nearly as important as dissecting the meaning of the lyrics to Don McLean's "American Pie" but an attempt was made.

[BDKJMU]

I knew what the link would be before I even clicked it. I saw the headline a couple of hours ago. Do you think there's any coincidence this news was released late on a Friday night?

Kudos to Rep. Peter King of New York:

"It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero," King said in a statement. "While the Muslim community has the right to build the mosque, they are abusing that right by needlessly offending so many people who have suffered so much.…Unfortunately the president caved into political correctness."

The thing is, Obama's comments on last Fri night, at a "Ramadan" dinner at the White House, no less, followed by his backtracking over the weekend was a campaign gift to Republicans. You have the White House trying to "explain" Obama's remarks, and Reid breaking with Obama over BHO's remarks. Democrats, the gift that keeps on giving..
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08 ... ue-debate/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WTF? Talk about a thread hijack. The last comment on BHO's remarks, which is what this thread is suppose to be about, was the above on page 4 by me. Prior to that was page 2. Since we've had 5 pages mostly on the false accusation of Hitler being Catholic. So Back on topic. Just like when when Obama made the idiotic "The police acted stupidly" remark, he can't seem to keep his mouth shut about local and state matters.

Democrats: We were blindsided by President Obama's Ground Zero mosque comments
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... tml?r=news" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If Obama had any political savvyness to him, he would have listened to Ronbo and kept his mouth shut. Like I said, thank you Obama. You might have helped to elect a few more Republicans this fall..

[youngterrier]

I read YT's post a little differently, Joe. I do not think he was saying that the listed democides were economic in nature or that he discounts the potentially positive nature of religion or the proven evil nature of collective atheism.


...but I expect YT to weigh in for himself.

Maybe, but he has previously stated the canard that Communist states killed because they were Communists, not because they were atheists. So maybe I'm reading that into what he's saying.

you're definition of an Atheist government is waaayyyy different than mine,

Communist Government says "There is no God, only the Government, and thus you must obey the government." That's Anti-theist to me, but what the heck do I know an Anti-Thiestical government is in itself a theocracy as God is the government, and the people must obey the Government.

my definition of an Atheist government is more of the "nonreligious" kind of Atheism as oppose to the "full denial" Atheism (see Communist Government--more like Anti-theism), which neither confirms nor denies the existence of God or Gods and simply protects the rights of man via social contract.

Government does not need a stance on God to function and for its people to be free.

[houndawg]

The thing is, Obama's comments on last Fri night, at a "Ramadan" dinner at the White House, no less, followed by his backtracking over the weekend was a campaign gift to Republicans. You have the White House trying to "explain" Obama's remarks, and Reid breaking with Obama over BHO's remarks. Democrats, the gift that keeps on giving..
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08 ... ue-debate/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WTF? Talk about a thread hijack. The last comment on BHO's remarks, which is what this thread is suppose to be about, was the above on page 4 by me. Prior to that was page 2. Since we've had 5 pages mostly on the false accusation of Hitler being Catholic. So Back on topic. Just like when when Obama made the idiotic "The police acted stupidly" remark, he can't seem to keep his mouth shut about local and state matters.

Democrats: We were blindsided by President Obama's Ground Zero mosque comments
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... tml?r=news" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If Obama had any political savvyness to him, he would have listened to Ronbo and kept his mouth shut. Like I said, thank you Obama. You might have helped to elect a few more Republicans this fall..

Probably Basil Marceaux will be the intellectual leader of them

[youngterrier]

Looks like a list of the victims of National Socialism/Communism to me, as Communism and Fascism rely on collectivism and disapprove of individualism (in other words speech) which only results in the persecution of those who display speech. Religion (or the lack thereof) does not kill people, the oppressive regimes who violate the rights of man in the name of (Insert purpose here) do.

You are so wrong. These regimes killed because they were atheists.

Communism is an amoral economic system, nothing more or nothing less. It is objectionable to many not because it is immoral, but because it is inefficient.

People kill because they embrace a moral philosophy which allows such action. Atheism, on a collective, state basis, is a moral philosophy which no finds no overriding importance to any individual life because there is nothing sacred about any individual life. We are products of evolution, nothing more, and certainly not the handiwork of a creator. Thus, collective atheism allows for the taking of life for a so-called "greater cause."

Do the math. They killed because of their moral philosophy, not because of their economics.

And what is this "Greater Cause" if it is not economic? Granted they kill because they feel they have nothing to lose, but our government doesn't blackbag people because it's afraid God will come down and smite them but because the masses would revolt. Freedom, whether it be religious freedom, speech, etc. is a threat to collectivism because those who speak out, divide the mass, etc. interfere with the "efficiency" of the Almighty Government and must silenced for the Government to have full control of its people

[Cap'n Cat]

I read YT's post a little differently, Joe. I do not think he was saying that the listed democides were economic in nature or that he discounts the potentially positive nature of religion or the proven evil nature of collective atheism.


...but I expect YT to weigh in for himself.

Maybe, but he has previously stated the canard that Communist states killed because they were Communists, not because they were atheists. So maybe I'm reading that into what he's saying.

native,
You're a first class dolt. They killed because they were paranoid scumbags, not be3cause they were Commies or atheists.

[Grizalltheway]

..."On the seventieth anniversary of the outbreak of World War II, it is a sad fact to record, but true, that a significant number of Catholic priests and many more Lutheran ministers sided openly with Hitler and the aims of National Socialism."...

Up until the Munich Agreement in late 1938 and the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, it was not unreasonable for Cathlic Priests and Lutheran ministers to side with Hitler.

Say what?? Did any of these priests and ministers read Mein Kampf?

[D1B]

Looks like a list of the victims of National Socialism/Communism to me, as Communism and Fascism rely on collectivism and disapprove of individualism (in other words speech) which only results in the persecution of those who display speech. Religion (or the lack thereof) does not kill people, the oppressive regimes who violate the rights of man in the name of (Insert purpose here) do.

You are so wrong. These regimes killed because they were atheists.

Communism is an amoral economic system, nothing more or nothing less. It is objectionable to many not because it is immoral, but because it is inefficient.

People kill because they embrace a moral philosophy which allows such action. Atheism, on a collective, state basis, is a moral philosophy which no finds no overriding importance to any individual life because there is nothing sacred about any individual life. We are products of evolution, nothing more, and certainly not the handiwork of a creator. Thus, collective atheism allows for the taking of life for a so-called "greater cause."

Do the math. They killed because of their moral philosophy, not because of their economics.

God Joe you are an idiot. You're so brainwashed, you just don't, and never will, get it - or more likely - you are not honest. You are a liar.

You're always spouting off about your prodigious knowledge of history, strike that - of everything. Yet you fail to admit that the vast majority of deaths that your fellow idiot Naive cites, were due to disastrous economic, specifically farm and food production programs that produced mass starvation. The best exception being the millions of Jews murdered by Hitler - a result of the catholic church's, and to a lesser extent the protestants, villification of jews for 1900 years. Modern anti-semitism is a catholic creation. MOF, your fucking pope apologized for it.

So you think atheism caused the deaths huh? Just like Hitchens says when this tired and desperate accusation sees the light of day, tyranny's roots are in faith, not skepticism. Why the fuck do you think fascism and communism got their start in the most religious (germany, italy and russia) of nations.

Again:



Still waiting for the church's.

[D1B]

Up until the Munich Agreement in late 1938 and the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, it was not unreasonable for Cathlic Priests and Lutheran ministers to side with Hitler.

Say what?? Did any of these priests and ministers read Mein Kampf?

How bout that "absolute source of truth" shit that Dodger Joe keeps talking bout? They should have known better. Shit didn't help em then and it didn't help em when their priests were fucking kids all over the planet with the full protection of the Vatican.

[D1B]

The catholic church was partners with Hitler Tyranny's roots are in religion...read on

The 1933 Concordat

His Holiness Pope Pius XI and the President of the German Reich, moved by a common desire to consolidate and enhance the friendly relations existing between the Holy See and the German Reich, wish to regulate the relations between the Catholic Church and the State for the whole territory of the German Reich in a permanent manner and on a basis acceptable to both parties. They have decided to conclude a solemn agreement, which will supplement the Concordats already concluded with certain individual German states, and will ensure for the remaining States fundamentally uniform treatment of their respective problems. For this purpose: His Holiness Pope Pius XI has appointed as his Plenipotentiary His Eminence the Most Reverend Lord Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, his Secretary of State. The President of the German Reich has appointed as Plenipotentiary the Vice-Chancellor of the German Reich, Herr Franz von Papen. Who, having exchanged their respective credentials and found them to be in due and proper form, have agreed to the following articles:

Article 1 The German Reich guarantees freedom of profession and public practice of the Catholic religion. It acknowledges the right of the Catholic Church, within the limit of those laws which are applicable to all, to manage and regulate her own affairs independently, and, within the framework of her own competence, to publish laws and ordinances binding on her members.

Article 2 The Concordats concluded with Bavaria (1924), Prussia (1929) and Baden (1932) remain in force, and the rights and privileges of the Catholic Church recognized therein are secured unchanged within the territories of the States concerned. For the remaining States the agreements entered into in the present Concordat come into force in their entirety. These last are also binding for those States named above in so far as they affect matters not regulated by the regional Concordats or are complementary to the settlement already made. In the future, regional Concordats with States of the German Reich will be concluded only with the agreement of the Reich Government.

Article 3 In order to foster good relations between the Holy See and the German Reich, an Apostolic Nuncio will reside in the capital of the German Reich and an Ambassador of the German Reich at the Holy See, as heretofore.

Article 4 In its relations and correspondence with the bishops, clergy and other members of the Catholic Church in Germany, the Holy See enjoys full freedom. The same applies to the bishops and other diocesan officials in their dealings with the faithful in all matters belonging to their pastoral office. Instructions, ordinances, Pastoral Letters, official diocesan gazettes, and other enactments regarding the spiritual direction of the faithful issued by the ecclesiastical authorities within the framework of their competence (Art. 1, Sect. 2) may be published without hindrance and brought to the notice of the faithful in the form hitherto usual.

Article 5 In the exercise of their spiritual activities the clergy enjoy the protection of the State in the same way as State officials. The State will take proceedings in accordance with the general provisions of State law against any outrage offered to the clergy personally or directed against their ecclesiastical character, or any interference with the duties of their office, and in case of need will provide official protection.

The rest of this stunning record of cowardice - http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt ... s%3Disch:1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[D1B]

To me that reads..."Not insignificant # of Catholics with Lutherans adding to the overall total."

How the **** can you read that any other way?

Because that is not what it says. In fact, it says nothing even remotely similar to what you just suggested.

It says not an insignificant number of Catholic priests and many more Lutheran ministers sided openly with the Nazis.

If you read with any comprehension, that means that there were "many more" Lutheran clergy (than Catholic clergy) who "sided openly" with the Nazis.

BTW, "not an insignificant number" implies a plain minority of Catholic priests sided openly with the Nazis -- which would be historically accurate. Too many for my liking, but a clear and distinct minority.

How many?