New Pope is a former Hitler Youth...?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

For the zillionth time, STFU and read a statistics book on correlation.

I have, and I assume you have as well, but judging from your ability to comprehend even a Wikipedia article, you would find a book of little use.

So do you still think that 940 heads and 60 tails is not statistically significantly different from that of a fair coin?

If yes, I rest my case.
If no, then your opinion has changed since here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=15214.225

[J. J.]

You intellectual dishonesty (or perhaps you intellectual incapasity) are demonstrated here by quoting an article that shows no relation between the Concordat and the Enabling act.  That is exceptionally pathetic.  Of course, the reader can simple click the link and make their own determination.

Pleas

Blah blah blah, Sorry J.J spinning doesn't make up for the fact that you're an idiot at statistics and obviously didn't read the link carefully.

Let's face it, the statistiscs issue is a very white and black issue. You're wrong, I'm right. The hell I'm arguing anything less white and black with you, when you can't even admit that you're wrong in such a simple case. Go read a statistics book, or talk to a statistics professor, whatever, since you obviously can't accept the simple logic I put out because you hate me or something.  I'm sure I have more experience with statistics than you.

Nice attempt to hijack a tread, which you are losing, but it won't work JFRAUD.

I do not hate you, but I also don't like people being attacked unfairly.  That is one of the reasons you never saw the "John Kerry: A War Criminal from a Family of Drug Dealers" thread. 

In this case, you've found an article that has the words "Enabling Act" and "Concordat" is them.  Of course, the article made no mention that the two were connected.  It is that type of intellectual dishonsety that bothers me about many, if not most of your posts.  I'll say this for Goldie, a conservative that I also disagree with, he reads his links.

I suggest that anyone interested simply click the links you've posted and those I've posted and make up their own mind about the linkage between the two and the political situation in Germany in the early 1930's.

Two points:

1.  I am not now nor ever was a Roman Catholic.  If I were a member, because of some affiliations I have, I would be excommunicated.  I have no motive in this thread except to see that the accurate story be told.

2.  I had my graduate level statistics book open when I was posting on statistics.  I also looked at web sites on statistics.  I finally understood that you were referring to probabilities not statistics.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nice attempt to hijack a tread, which you are losing, but it won't work JFRAUD.

I do not hate you, but I also don't like people being attacked unfairly.  That is one of the reasons you never saw the "John Kerry: A War Criminal from a Family of Drug Dealers" thread. 

In this case, you've found an article that has the words "Enabling Act" and "Concordat" is them.  Of course, the article made no mention that the two were connected.  It is that type of intellectual dishonsety that bothers me about many, if not most of your posts.  I'll say this for Goldie, a conservative that I also disagree with, he reads his links.

I suggest that anyone interested simply click the links you've posted and those I've posted and make up their own mind about the linkage between the two and the political situation in Germany in the early 1930's.

Two points:

1.  I am not now nor ever was a Roman Catholic.  If I were a member, because of some affiliations I have, I would be excommunicated.  I have no motive in this thread except to see that the accurate story be told.

2.  I had my graduate level statistics book open when I was posting on statistics.  I also looked at web sites on statistics.  I finally understood that you were referring to probabilities not statistics.

Again you demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty. If 1000 people were polled, and Kerry lead Bush 94-6, would that be considered a statistically significan lead by Kerry?

[J. J.]

Once again you show your intellectual dishonesty and lack of character.  You've attack on a an entire group of people; the links that you've posted don't support the claim and in you desparation to hide you ignorance, you attempt to chhange the subject.

We'll will let the readers click you you links and posts, and mine.  It is an excellent example, ultimately, of your credibility.

Well JFRAUD, I'll answer your question, if you post it on a thread where it is relevent.  Are you willing to do that, or should we add cowardice to you character traits along with inteelectual dishonesty.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Once again you show your intellectual dishonesty and lack of character.  You've attack on a an entire group of people; the links that you've posted don't support the claim and in you desparation to hide you ignorance, you attempt to chhange the subject.

We'll will let the readers click you you links and posts, and mine.  It is an excellent example, ultimately, of your credibility.

Well JFRAUD, I'll answer your question, if you post it on a thread where it is relevent.  Are you willing to do that, or should we add cowardice to you character traits along with inteelectual dishonesty.

You call me a coward when you can't answer that question right here? That's truly ing pathetic. THe reason I brought up the statistics was not to change the subject, but to point out that you NEVER admit defeat not matter how OBVIOUS it is that you're wrong.

[J. J.]

Once again you show your intellectual dishonesty and lack of character.  You've attack on a an entire group of people; the links that you've posted don't support the claim and in you desparation to hide you ignorance, you attempt to chhange the subject.

We'll will let the readers click you you links and posts, and mine.  It is an excellent example, ultimately, of your credibility.

Well JFRAUD, I'll answer your question, if you post it on a thread where it is relevent.  Are you willing to do that, or should we add cowardice to you character traits along with inteelectual dishonesty.

You call me a coward when you can't answer that question right here? That's truly g pathetic. THe reason I brought up the statistics was not to change the subject, but to point out that you NEVER admit defeat not matter how OBVIOUS it is that you're wrong.

Post it, on an appropriate thread.  It actually isn't "obvious" and I would expect that you could have gotten that result in the past election, in a couple of cases (and ones where Bush would 998 out of 1000 as well).

You have just illustrated both your intellectual dishonesty and your cowardice by not accepting the challenge and trying to hide you numerous errors on this thread. 

I'm more than willing to answer it, if you post it on an appropriate thread.

[Blue Rectangle]

Learn to read, idiot:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I read the article carefully, but I couldn't find the part that said von Papen was a preist.  You do know that von Papen and Pucelli are two different people, right?  You do know that von Papen, not Pucelli, was the head of the Center Party, right?  The only link I could find proof of in the article was that von Papen pushed for the Concordat and he also supported (or was forced to support) the Enabling Act.

You are welcome to jump to any unproven conclusion you like, such as that Pucelli told von Papen to support the Enabling Act, but don't accuse people of not reading the article if they don't read what you want them to read between the lines.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Once again you show your intellectual dishonesty and lack of character.  You've attack on a an entire group of people; the links that you've posted don't support the claim and in you desparation to hide you ignorance, you attempt to chhange the subject.

We'll will let the readers click you you links and posts, and mine.  It is an excellent example, ultimately, of your credibility.

Well JFRAUD, I'll answer your question, if you post it on a thread where it is relevent.  Are you willing to do that, or should we add cowardice to you character traits along with inteelectual dishonesty.

You call me a coward when you can't answer that question right here? That's truly g pathetic. THe reason I brought up the statistics was not to change the subject, but to point out that you NEVER admit defeat not matter how OBVIOUS it is that you're wrong.

Post it, on an appropriate thread.  It actually isn't "obvious" and I would expect that you could have gotten that result in the past election, in a couple of cases (and ones where Bush would 998 out of 1000 as well).

You have just illustrated both your intellectual dishonesty and your cowardice by not accepting the challenge and trying to hide you numerous errors on this thread. 

I'm more than willing to answer it, if you post it on an appropriate thread.

Blah blah blah blah blah... Obviously you assume a opinion poll with a  random sample, it's quite obvious. You failed to answer, so you lose.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Learn to read, idiot:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I read the article carefully, but I couldn't find the part that said von Papen was a preist.  You do know that von Papen and Pucelli are two different people, right?  You do know that von Papen, not Pucelli, was the head of the Center Party, right?  The only link I could find proof of in the article was that von Papen pushed for the Concordat and he also supported (or was forced to support) the Enabling Act.

You are welcome to jump to any unproven conclusion you like, such as that Pucelli told von Papen to support the Enabling Act, but don't accuse people of not reading the article if they don't read what you want them to read between the lines.

Let's see if you can read one sentence:

 In return for the Concordat the Centre Party provided parliamentary backing for the Enabling Act and a two-thirds constitutional majority was obtained.

http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/wiki/Nazi_Party

[Blue Rectangle]

Let's see if you can read one sentence:

In return for the Concordat the Centre Party provided parliamentary backing for the Enabling Act and a two-thirds constitutional majority was obtained.

http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/wiki/Nazi_Party

OK.  And where in that sentence does it say the Catholic Church supported the Enabling Act?  The Center Party is not the same as the Church.  Von Papen is not the same as Pucelli.

You made a conclusion based on circumstantial evidence, not hard proof.  Do you have something more concrete than your interpretation of what that wiki article is implying?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Let's see if you can read one sentence:

In return for the Concordat the Centre Party provided parliamentary backing for the Enabling Act and a two-thirds constitutional majority was obtained.

http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/wiki/Nazi_Party

OK.  And where in that sentence does it say the Catholic Church supported the Enabling Act?  The Center Party is not the same as the Church.  Von Papen is not the same as Pucelli.

You made a conclusion based on circumstantial evidence, not hard proof.  Do you have something more concrete than your interpretation of what that wiki article is implying?

I suppose having you find and read that paragraph was expecting too much.
Here is the previous two sentences in that paragraph:

However Hitler required the legitimacy of the Enabling Act by passing a constitutional change. Von Papen, with the leader of the German Catholic Centre Party Ludwig Kaas, engineered an agreement between the Vatican's Pope Pius XI and Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII).

[phk]

My objection to the new pope is not that he was a Hitler Youth, but the fact that he's a Bush supporter.

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050419/pl_afp/vaticanpopeus

Remaining silent on the issue of abortion would be as big a mistake as not sufficiently opposing the Holocaust.  You can't have it both ways, jfern.  The Church is not going to only speak out against injustices that you oppose and remain silent on issues you support.

You're comparing abortion to the Holocaust? WTF?

I didn't expect you to agree.  In fact, the point of my post is that you don't agree.

Drawing parallels between abortion and the Holocaust is consistent with the Church's policies on those issues.  The Church believes that abortion kills an innocent human life.  The numbers of abortions has surpassed the number killed in the Holocaust.  The comparison is perfectly valid.

A girl having a period kills potential human life too.

[Jake]

So what.  An abortion kills actual human life.

[Blue Rectangle]

My objection to the new pope is not that he was a Hitler Youth, but the fact that he's a Bush supporter.

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050419/pl_afp/vaticanpopeus

Remaining silent on the issue of abortion would be as big a mistake as not sufficiently opposing the Holocaust.  You can't have it both ways, jfern.  The Church is not going to only speak out against injustices that you oppose and remain silent on issues you support.

You're comparing abortion to the Holocaust? WTF?

I didn't expect you to agree.  In fact, the point of my post is that you don't agree.

Drawing parallels between abortion and the Holocaust is consistent with the Church's policies on those issues.  The Church believes that abortion kills an innocent human life.  The numbers of abortions has surpassed the number killed in the Holocaust.  The comparison is perfectly valid.

A girl having a period kills potential human life too.

The Church doesn't believe a fetus is a potential human life.  The Church believes a fetus is human life.  Your analogy has nothing to do with the subject.

[Blue Rectangle]

Let's see if you can read one sentence:

In return for the Concordat the Centre Party provided parliamentary backing for the Enabling Act and a two-thirds constitutional majority was obtained.

http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/wiki/Nazi_Party

OK.  And where in that sentence does it say the Catholic Church supported the Enabling Act?  The Center Party is not the same as the Church.  Von Papen is not the same as Pucelli.

You made a conclusion based on circumstantial evidence, not hard proof.  Do you have something more concrete than your interpretation of what that wiki article is implying?

I suppose having you find and read that paragraph was expecting too much.
Here is the previous two sentences in that paragraph:

However Hitler required the legitimacy of the Enabling Act by passing a constitutional change. Von Papen, with the leader of the German Catholic Centre Party Ludwig Kaas, engineered an agreement between the Vatican's Pope Pius XI and Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII).

Right.  The Center Party wanted the Concordat and so did the Church.  The Center Party agreed to the Enabling Act in order to get the Concordat.  That in no way proves that the Church itself supported the Enabling Act.  Show me evidence, not conjecture, that Pius XI or Pucelli pushed for the Enabling Act.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Let's see if you can read one sentence:

In return for the Concordat the Centre Party provided parliamentary backing for the Enabling Act and a two-thirds constitutional majority was obtained.

http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/wiki/Nazi_Party

OK.  And where in that sentence does it say the Catholic Church supported the Enabling Act?  The Center Party is not the same as the Church.  Von Papen is not the same as Pucelli.

You made a conclusion based on circumstantial evidence, not hard proof.  Do you have something more concrete than your interpretation of what that wiki article is implying?

I suppose having you find and read that paragraph was expecting too much.
Here is the previous two sentences in that paragraph:

However Hitler required the legitimacy of the Enabling Act by passing a constitutional change. Von Papen, with the leader of the German Catholic Centre Party Ludwig Kaas, engineered an agreement between the Vatican's Pope Pius XI and Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII).

Right.  The Center Party wanted the Concordat and so did the Church.  The Center Party agreed to the Enabling Act in order to get the Concordat.  That in no way proves that the Church itself supported the Enabling Act.  Show me evidence, not conjecture, that Pius XI or Pucelli pushed for the Enabling Act.

This is getting tiresome, I have to keep finding different articles that say essentially the same thing slightly differently.

In the general history Pope Pius XI was always looked at as the Pope who allowed the Nazis to take control over Germany very easily in supporting the Nazis with their Enabling Act, giving them unlimited control, a dictatorship. In fact, Pope Pius XI would have never done any actions supporting the Nazis, or even Germany, if there had not been the Papal Secretary of State Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli who always kept the Pope from resisting against Germany. In supporting the Enabling Act and the Concordat the Pope followed just his principles in saving the church in a affected part of the world.

http://www.gymueb.fn.bw.schule.de/mhamann/referate/contadict.htm

[J. J.]

Let's see if you can read one sentence:

In return for the Concordat the Centre Party provided parliamentary backing for the Enabling Act and a two-thirds constitutional majority was obtained.

http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/wiki/Nazi_Party

OK.  And where in that sentence does it say the Catholic Church supported the Enabling Act?  The Center Party is not the same as the Church.  Von Papen is not the same as Pucelli.

You made a conclusion based on circumstantial evidence, not hard proof.  Do you have something more concrete than your interpretation of what that wiki article is implying?

I suppose having you find and read that paragraph was expecting too much.
Here is the previous two sentences in that paragraph:

However Hitler required the legitimacy of the Enabling Act by passing a constitutional change. Von Papen, with the leader of the German Catholic Centre Party Ludwig Kaas, engineered an agreement between the Vatican's Pope Pius XI and Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII).

JFRAUD, it is impossible to claim that the Enabling Act was supported because of the Concordat as the article claims, specifically:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Conordat was signed on July 20, 1993.  Here at two links, including the text of the Concordat:

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob37.html

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_ss33co.htm

The Enabling act was adopted on March 23, 1933, more than three months before the Concordat was signed.  

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/enabling.htm

Are you suggesting that someone had a time machine so that they could bring a copy back from July of 1933 to March of 1933?  In 1933 March still happened before July.

You are now to the point disputing the calendar.

Now, obviously, the Church wanted a Concordat, as it had with several other countries and the German  constituent sates of Baden, Bavaria, and Prussia; none of these had even Nazi participation in government at the times these were signed.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Let's see if you can read one sentence:

In return for the Concordat the Centre Party provided parliamentary backing for the Enabling Act and a two-thirds constitutional majority was obtained.

http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/wiki/Nazi_Party

OK.  And where in that sentence does it say the Catholic Church supported the Enabling Act?  The Center Party is not the same as the Church.  Von Papen is not the same as Pucelli.

You made a conclusion based on circumstantial evidence, not hard proof.  Do you have something more concrete than your interpretation of what that wiki article is implying?

I suppose having you find and read that paragraph was expecting too much.
Here is the previous two sentences in that paragraph:

However Hitler required the legitimacy of the Enabling Act by passing a constitutional change. Von Papen, with the leader of the German Catholic Centre Party Ludwig Kaas, engineered an agreement between the Vatican's Pope Pius XI and Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII).

JFRAUD, it is impossible to claim that the Enabling Act was supported because of the Concordat as the article claims, specifically:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Conordat was signed on July 20, 1993.  Here at two links, including the text of the Concordat:

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob37.html

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_ss33co.htm

The Enabling act was adopted on March 23, 1933, more than three months before the Concordat was signed. 

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/enabling.htm

Are you suggesting that someone had a time machine so that they could bring a copy back from July of 1933 to March of 1933?  In 1933 March still happened before July.

You are now to the point disputing the calendar.

Now, obviously, the Church wanted a Concordat, as it had with several other countries and the German  constituent sates of Baden, Bavaria, and Prussia; none of these had even Nazi participation in government at the times these were signed.

Since you can't admit defeat on the statistics, I doubt you're capable of admiting defeat on anything else. Two claim that those 2 events are not related is a complete fraud. I never claimed that the Condorat happened before the Enabling Act. You are the fraud. Too scared to admit that you think an opinion poll of 1000 random Americans showing Kerry leading Bush 94-6 is a statistically insignificant lead?

[J. J.]

[
In fact, Pope Pius XI would have never done any actions supporting the Nazis, or even Germany, if there had not been the Papal Secretary of State Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli who always kept the Pope from resisting against Germany. In supporting the Enabling Act and the Concordat the Pope followed just his principles in saving the church in a affected part of the world.

http://www.gymueb.fn.bw.schule.de/mhamann/referate/contadict.htm

Which is untrue, but what what else is with JFRAUD.  There is part of the text of the 1993 Concordat:

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_ss33co.htm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You will note each of these states is constituent German State; the Vatican was interested in a Concordat prior to Hitler's rise to power.

The also negociated Concordats in other states:

http://www.country-studies.com/poland/the-polish-catholic-church-and-the-state.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.hood.edu/academic/latgale/catholic.shtml

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe that there were more than those two, but they serve as an example.

As for the statastics, I will be happy to respond on another thread and explain how wrong you are once again.  Perhaps one on you explaining how the calendar works, and how something can be done "in return" in March of 1933 for something that had not happened until July of 1933, would also be in order.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

[
In fact, Pope Pius XI would have never done any actions supporting the Nazis, or even Germany, if there had not been the Papal Secretary of State Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli who always kept the Pope from resisting against Germany. In supporting the Enabling Act and the Concordat the Pope followed just his principles in saving the church in a affected part of the world.

http://www.gymueb.fn.bw.schule.de/mhamann/referate/contadict.htm

Which is untrue, but what what else is with JFRAUD.  There is part of the text of the 1993 Concordat:

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_ss33co.htm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You will note each of these states is constituent German State; the Vatican was interested in a Concordat prior to Hitler's rise to power.

The also negociated Concordats in other states:

http://www.country-studies.com/poland/the-polish-catholic-church-and-the-state.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.hood.edu/academic/latgale/catholic.shtml

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe that there were more than those two, but they serve as an example.

As for the statastics, I will be happy to respond on another thread and explain how wrong you are once again.  Perhaps one on you explaining how the calendar works, and how something can be done "in return" in March of 1933 for something that had not happened until July of 1933, would also be in order.

1. The fact that there were other Condorats doesn't say anything about whether the Nazis supported this particular one in exchange for the Enabling Act

2. The fact that the Condorat was actually signed by future Pope Pius XII a few months after the Enabling Act doesn't say anything about whether the Nazis supported it in exchange for the Enabling Act.

3. I will not respond until you tell me whether if there is a poll of 1000 random likely voters, if Kerry leads Bush with 94% of the vote to 6%, that means that Kerry has a statistically significant lead. This is relevant, because if you answer yes, you are contradicting what you argued for months, not admitting defeat, so to be consistant, you have to answer no, a lead of 94% to 6% in a standard opinion poll is not a statistically significant lead.

[12th Doctor]

Let's see if you can read one sentence:

In return for the Concordat the Centre Party provided parliamentary backing for the Enabling Act and a two-thirds constitutional majority was obtained.

http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/wiki/Nazi_Party

OK.  And where in that sentence does it say the Catholic Church supported the Enabling Act?  The Center Party is not the same as the Church.  Von Papen is not the same as Pucelli.

You made a conclusion based on circumstantial evidence, not hard proof.  Do you have something more concrete than your interpretation of what that wiki article is implying?

I suppose having you find and read that paragraph was expecting too much.
Here is the previous two sentences in that paragraph:

However Hitler required the legitimacy of the Enabling Act by passing a constitutional change. Von Papen, with the leader of the German Catholic Centre Party Ludwig Kaas, engineered an agreement between the Vatican's Pope Pius XI and Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII).

I still don't see the evidence.  I have presented tons of hard facts, you have posted two websites, the one does not give any facts and the other doesn't seem to say what you are saying at all.

So, typical of this whole argument about how the Pius' were friends of Hitler or somehow enabled the Nazis, I have to ask "Where's the Beef"?

[12th Doctor]

Let's see if you can read one sentence:

In return for the Concordat the Centre Party provided parliamentary backing for the Enabling Act and a two-thirds constitutional majority was obtained.

http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/wiki/Nazi_Party

OK.  And where in that sentence does it say the Catholic Church supported the Enabling Act?  The Center Party is not the same as the Church.  Von Papen is not the same as Pucelli.

You made a conclusion based on circumstantial evidence, not hard proof.  Do you have something more concrete than your interpretation of what that wiki article is implying?

I suppose having you find and read that paragraph was expecting too much.
Here is the previous two sentences in that paragraph:

However Hitler required the legitimacy of the Enabling Act by passing a constitutional change. Von Papen, with the leader of the German Catholic Centre Party Ludwig Kaas, engineered an agreement between the Vatican's Pope Pius XI and Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII).

JFRAUD, it is impossible to claim that the Enabling Act was supported because of the Concordat as the article claims, specifically:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Conordat was signed on July 20, 1993.  Here at two links, including the text of the Concordat:

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob37.html

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_ss33co.htm

The Enabling act was adopted on March 23, 1933, more than three months before the Concordat was signed. 

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/enabling.htm

Are you suggesting that someone had a time machine so that they could bring a copy back from July of 1933 to March of 1933?  In 1933 March still happened before July.

You are now to the point disputing the calendar.

Now, obviously, the Church wanted a Concordat, as it had with several other countries and the German  constituent sates of Baden, Bavaria, and Prussia; none of these had even Nazi participation in government at the times these were signed.

Since you can't admit defeat on the statistics, I doubt you're capable of admiting defeat on anything else. Two claim that those 2 events are not related is a complete fraud. I never claimed that the Condorat happened before the Enabling Act. You are the fraud. Too scared to admit that you think an opinion poll of 1000 random Americans showing Kerry leading Bush 94-6 is a statistically insignificant lead?

Again, this argument about the Concordat holds no wieght what so ever.  All it did was provide for the protection of priests and Catholics in Hitler's territory.  An agreement that he later broke anyway.

People forget that the Church had similar agreements with almost every country that contained Catholics and that numerous other countries, including France, Poland and Britain had similar agreements.  Were they supporting the Nazis too?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Again, this argument about the Concordat holds no wieght what so ever.  All it did was provide for the protection of priests and Catholics in Hitler's territory.  An agreement that he later broke anyway.

People forget that the Church had similar agreements with almost every country that contained Catholics and that numerous other countries, including France, Poland and Britain had similar agreements.  Were they supporting the Nazis too?

You missed this part:


However Hitler required the legitimacy of the Enabling Act by passing a constitutional change. Von Papen, with the leader of the German Catholic Centre Party Ludwig Kaas, engineered an agreement between the Vatican's Pope Pius XI and Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII).

[12th Doctor]

Again, this argument about the Concordat holds no wieght what so ever.  All it did was provide for the protection of priests and Catholics in Hitler's territory.  An agreement that he later broke anyway.

People forget that the Church had similar agreements with almost every country that contained Catholics and that numerous other countries, including France, Poland and Britain had similar agreements.  Were they supporting the Nazis too?

You missed this part:


However Hitler required the legitimacy of the Enabling Act by passing a constitutional change. Von Papen, with the leader of the German Catholic Centre Party Ludwig Kaas, engineered an agreement between the Vatican's Pope Pius XI and Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII).

Yeah, I have heard this rumor before, and it is just that, a rumor.  I have never found any historical evidence to back this claim and believe me, I looked.  I wrote a 25 page paper on this topic.

In fact, not only is there no historical evidence to back this claim, this action would totaly inconsitant with the things that both Pius' were saying at the time.

[Blue Rectangle]

jfern:
The reason why this is getting tiresome and why you haven't convinced anyone after 14 pages of posts is that you don't have direct evidence to support your claim.  You can post all the links you want that link to an author who is speculating that the Church supported the Enabling Act.  2,000 speculations do not add up to even a single hard fact.  You are presuming guilt based solely on circumstantial evidence.

Your argument is also based largely on an atempt to shift the burden of proof.  You are essentially saying that you will believe that the Church did support Hitler unless someone can prove otherwise.  We cannot prove a negative in this case, nor do we have to.