Talk:Reichskonkordat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] The passing of the Enabling Act

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

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

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

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

[edit] Last removals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is correct.

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

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

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