Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:20, 3 September 2005

The article about the Reichskonkordat has been created by translating the article in the German Misplaced Pages.

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

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

Lupo 08:58, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi Lupo,

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

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

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

Lupo, I have fixed three phrases as you can see in the page history. Furthermore, I have checked on the name of Reichskonkordat, and saw at Yahoo Search that at least 35 websites under that name exist in English, which is in itself quite respectable, and so you might as well leave it like that.

I must say there are 2,380 websites indicated in English with the header Reich concordat. So, I leave it up to you if you want to move the article to Reich concordat. But I really do think there is no problem with the German name Reichskonkordat, it is certainly recognised as such. If you like, do a #redirect of Reich concordat to it, if you like.

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

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

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

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

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

(article 13) Kirchengemeinden - "parishes", Kirchenorganisationen - "church organizations", Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechtes - "statutory corporations".

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

(article 23) Beibehaltung - "retention", Neueinrichtung - "creation",

Bekenntnisschulen - "denominational schools".

Hopefully, this will help you. Dieter Simon

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

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

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

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

Church Concordat and Enabling Act Legalities

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

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

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

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

Situation at law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stitch -up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JWales Final Responsibility re:Auschwitz Testimony Against Pope Pius XII etc

Earlier FK pique: I'm sorry Jimbo , but I see the responsibility to settle intractable disputes rests with you . I seem to run into intractable dispute on your WP , so I ask you to take responsibility . No one else can take this your place . I refer you to the articles Pope Pius XII and Hitler's Pope as the centre of this dispute and ask you to put yourself into the position of final arbiter now, OK ? I particularly think that the surviving Roman Jewess's words be taken as an issue : I wish you therefore to show or not show , that an Auschwitz survivor be called POV ( rv'd ,Pius in WWar 2) . You will see that the difference between the two articles at this minute is simple : one (PPII) is the 'censored' or whatever version of the other (H's P).

Having been battling to and beyond the brink for 8 months on the one article , I say that only you can survey this with any authority to do anything about it . Let you be the judge of all the WP requisites, knowing that your judgements are real , and that ultimately you yourself will equally be judged . Auschwitz survivors are definitely in a minority and this responsibility for arbitration I lay at you because you are the organ . I will consider myself in-active until you please let me know that I am required . As various users may find this disappearance odd , I post this letter to you for them to see elsewhere . Famekeeper 09:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Secret Annexe

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for this reference:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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