Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[guanophore]

Hi guan,
Near the end of the JDDJ, this:

Does the Catholic Church actually teach this now, or is this somehow less than “teaching”?

Jon

You mean that the CC does not fall within the condemnations? Not in any way I am aware, but much more attention is given to the clarity of instruction around justification so as to make it clearer to the faithful.

 

[guanophore]

 It would seem if anyone rejects the overly sentimental

portraits of Luther so popular in the 1800’s they are accused
of antipathy.

No, but if one holds Luther’s shortcomings against modern Lutherans, and is lacking in charity toward ones’ non Catholic siblings then it certainly comes across as antipathy.

Even inside the Church inaccurate portrayals exist of our own saints who were sentimentalized in the 1800’s and early
1900s. The original “Story of a Soul” is an excellent
example. Yet no one would accuse those who wanted and
eventually got a more accurate portrayal of the Little Flower
of being hostile to the saint. Lol.

I think that might depend upon whether they ascribed to modern Catholics the failures of accuracy.

how is the Story of a Soul and excellent example of an inaccurate portrayal? Do you think the author was sentimental about her own journey?

 

[guanophore]

The "Catholic" response * of how the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification is somehow not a declaration leaves one confused and may in-fact be an example of attitude rather than accuracy. *

Accusing us of falsehood will not help you make the document into something it is not, Evantel. Of course it is a Declaration. That is used in the title, and the kind of declaration it is described within. You cannot, by accusing Catholics of having and 'attitude" problems, make it into a papal or conciliar declaration.
EvangelCatholic;12299552:

Having read a Lutheran commentary on the official dialogue one realizes that this is not some "pie-in-the-sky" idealism but rather significant steps toward unity.

Absolutely!

These are the people who actually participated in the formation of the Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity and suggest inter-communion/ eucharistic hospitality between the two Western Communions.  Clearly the scope and intent of JDDJ is closer relationships between the Lutherans and Catholics not division.

Indeed, and let us pray that this work, and the fruit of it, will continue.

 

[marywarfield]

No, but if one holds Luther’s shortcomings against modern Lutherans, and is lacking in charity toward ones’ non Catholic siblings then it certainly comes across as antipathy.

I think that might depend upon whether they ascribed to modern Catholics the failures of accuracy.

how is the Story of a Soul and excellent example of an inaccurate portrayal? Do you think the author was sentimental about her own journey?

The author was accurate. Unfortunately her Mother
Superior who Therese designated to edit the work in
the event of her death edited the work with glee- cutting
out more than 50 pages of four hundred words each
which the loyal Mother felt portrayed the Saint in less
than holy terms.
For instance the fact that Therese was a somewhat
difficult child who drove her mother to distraction with
her poor behavior was cut out of the first publications giving
readers an inaccurate portrayal, a very sentimental
view of a person who was so perfected her virtues
were not possible for the average person.

The fact of her contemplating suicide, doubted at times
that Christ was real and not a fairy story- all left out
of the original printings.
It took some years before Story of a Soul was published
exactly as the Saint wrote it. And by then many were
outraged and disappointed with the “real” Therese.

Very common in both Churches- overly pious views
of Luther which war with the reality of his filthy mouth
and overly pious renditions of Therese which discouraged
the average person from following her Little Way.

This is why it is important for people of good will
to educate themselves through many channels and not
just accept that which makes them comfortable.

The value of a person’s soul requires facing unpleasant
truth as well as reading the Disney versions.

JMO

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Another poster provided the link to what is the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. I underlined the section on declarations.

Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity

Art. 135 — It is the function of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity to engage in ecumenical work through timely initiatives and activities, labouring to restore unity among Christians.

Art. 136 — § 1. It sees that the decrees of the Second Vatican Council pertaining to ecumenism are put into practice.

It deals with the correct interpretation of the principles of ecumenism and enjoins that they be carried out.

§ 2. It fosters, brings together, and coordinates national and international Catholic organizations promoting Christian unity, and supervises their undertakings.

§ 3. After prior consultation with the Supreme Pontiff, the Council maintains relations with Christians of Churches and ecclesial communities that do not yet have full communion with the Catholic Church, and especially organizes dialogue and meetings to promote unity with them, with the help of theological experts of sound doctrine. As often as may seem opportune, the Council deputes Catholic observers to Christian meetings, and it invites observers from other Churches and ecclesial communities to Catholic meetings.

Art. 137 — § 1. Since the Council often deals with matters which by their very nature touch on questions of faith, it must proceed in close connection with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, especially if declarations and public documents have to be issued.

§ 2. In dealing with important matters concerning the separated Oriental Churches, the Council must first hear the Congregation for the Oriental Churches.

Art. 138 — Within the Council there exists a Commission to study and deal with matters concerning the Jews from a religious perspective, the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews; the president of the Council presides over the Commission.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19880628_pastor-bonus_en.html#PONTIFICAL%20COUNCILS

 

[guanophore]

The value of a person’s soul requires facing unpleasant
truth as well as reading the Disney versions.

JMO

This is well said, for all of us.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

There definitively is some Catholic opposition to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification per Rorate Caeli website:

The “Hermeneutic of Continuity” and the Joint Declaration on Justification
The Vatican website reports the address of the Holy Father to a Lutheran delegation from Finland this morning, during which he remarked: “The Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue Commission in Finland and Sweden continues to consider the Joint Declaration on Justification. This year we celebrate the tenth anniversary of this significant statement, and the Commission is now studying its implications and the possibility of its reception.”

When the Joint Declaration was first presented at a press conference in 1998 by Cardinal Cassidy, then president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, it was accompanied by the official Response of the Catholic Church to the Joint Declaration, a document which the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had collaborated on and which pointed out Lutheran passages in the Joint Declaration which appeared to contradict the Council of Trent. The whole purpose of the Joint Declaration was for Lutherans to say things on justification which would not contradict the teachings of the Catholic Church, and for Catholics to say things which would not contradict the Lutheran confessional documents. So when Cardinal Cassidy said the Joint Declaration was ready to be signed, the Lutheran World Federation demurred, saying it was impossible to sign as long as the Catholic Church found some parts of the declaration incompatible with the Catholic faith. Further discussions ensued, and the result was a joint Annex published in 1999 which offered clarification and interpretation in response to the Response of the Catholic Church. Cardinal Cassidy signed in Augsburg, Germany together with a Lutheran bishop on October 31, 1999. And still the disputes and interpretations were not over. There soon appeared an article signed *** (indicating a source within the Curia, probably the CDF) in Osservatore Romano commenting on the Annex which had noted that the Lutherans use the concept of “concupiscence” in a sense different from that of Catholics.

Not stated by the unsigned article was an obvious consequence: the only way to reconcile the Lutheran and Catholic statements on “concupiscence” in the JD—concupiscence is sin (Lutheran), concupiscence is not sin in the proper sense (Trent)–is to use distinct meanings for the subject term when the Lutheran and Catholic propositions are compared. And in the following years, various Catholic theologians would find the Joint Declaration simply indigestible for the Catholic mind. (As an aside, the present writer once spoke with an American archbishop who decided not to hold a joint observance in his diocese when both Catholic priests and Lutheran pastors told him they didn’t understand the Joint Declaration.) Some questioned the authority of the Joint Declaration (is the Christian Unity council president’s signature and a pope’s praise enough to make it an act of authority imposing assent on all the baptized?) as well as some of its content, finding various Lutheran passages to be contrary to the Catholic faith despite the document’s claim that they are compatible. Most notable among these theologians was the late Cardinal Avery Dulles whose 2002 article in the Josephinum Journal of Theology declared flatly that some Lutheran points made in the JD contradicted the Council of Trent and that no theology professor would be allowed to teach those points in a Catholic seminary. Professor Christopher Malloy of the University of Dallas published Engrafted Into Christ: A Critique of the Joint Declaration, a book which Fr. Augustine J. DiNoia, OP of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said needed to be read by all theologians who would treat of the topic (according to the publisher’s brochure).

Pope Benedict XVI has continued to mention the Joint Declaration in his addresses to Protestant groups. In some of his Wednesday catecheses on faith, love and the Law according to St. Paul he has stated Catholic doctrine on justification, although not always using the language and patterns of Trent and even reading the Lutheran slogan “by faith alone” in a Catholic sense. Clearly the famous hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition and the authentic magisterium has to be applied to ecumenical dialogue as well as to the Second Vatican Council. But this means that to the extent the Joint Declaration is “received” by Catholics coherent with the Faith, its key words will signify one thing to Catholics and something else to Lutherans. Better therefore to abandon the ecumenical model of “reconciled diversity” behind the Joint Declaration and return to argument from Scripture and Tradition, so that with God’s grace many Lutherans as individuals and communities may seek full communion and valid apostolic succession, thus restoring unity and enriching us with some good things God has given to baptized souls trapped in Lutheran error, but in good faith, over the centuries.

Posted by Bonetus at 1/19/2009 08:55:00 PM
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/01/hermeneutic-of-continuity-and-joint.html

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Thanks for your response. You made some excellent points.

Your post is another example of why the non Catholic posters here are confused by Catholics not reacting to the JDDJ as if it were on stone tablets. The same issue occurred in Luther’s day with laity and scholars alike confusing dogma and doctrine and not understanding not all teaching authorities in the Church are equal. Perhaps a discussion of the difference between binding Dictrine, doctrine vs dogma would help non Catholics understand that Luther’s time had the same confusion. Just a thought.

I agree. It seems to me that Catholics and Protestants understand ‘authority’ completely differently. A True Catholic understands that it is the Church which has authority. With Protestants, the authority lies much more with the individual. The Confessional Lutherans profess that it is their church which has the authority to teach, and I am sure that that is mostly true for some. But embedded in the very core of Protestantism and especially Lutheranism, is the ‘right’ of the individual over the corporate, the ‘right’ to rebellion. You see it here all the time in the comments of Confessional Lutherans about how they consider ‘swimming’. If they REALLY believed that their communion had the authority to teach, they wouldn’t consider swimming. That being said, once people have swum the Tiber, virtually all of them dry off for good. The journey which may have included many stops, is then complete.

The Catholic who believes that the Church is what it claims to be should strive to make sure that they follow the teachings of the Church. But it seems that with Protestants it is much more about ‘whether my church agrees with ME.’ Leaving for another communion or another Protestant denomination altogether seems to be of much less gravity than such a move would be for us.

As we have seen, there is no doubt that there was confusion about Salvation in Luther’s time. The teaching at Erfurt was wrong and what Luther was exposed to was not the official teaching of the Church.

“Luther’s reforms, it is clear, were neither an opportunistic attack on the morals of the church nor a piecemeal demand for reform here and there. His fundamental conviction was that the church of his day had lost sight of some of the fundamental themes of the Christian gospel. **After all, the theology he had been taught at Erfurt now seemed to him to be heretical, amounting to the idea of “justification by works” – the notion that humanity can achieve its own salvation by it’s morals or religious achievements” **McGrath, “Dangerous” pg. 58

Of course anyone who sees themselves as being NOTHING but sin and finds it necessary to confess for as much as six hours a day is not going to find much solace in Salvation by Works. Luther believed that even his good works were nothing but sin. This warped belief left him with NO way to Salvation, which didn’t exactly provide the Salvational certainty he so desperately needed. The solution? To create your own theology on Salvation and to ‘find’ something in Scripture which could be ‘interpreted’ to support it.

Everyone assumes (especially if they are denominationally predisposed to do so) that Luther, as a PhD and a priest, was very well educated and understood the teachings of the Church extremely well. That was not the case.

In essence, what Luther was rebelling against was a misperception of what the Church actually taught on Salvation. The Church has NEVER taught Salvation by Works, and in fact, it is a heresy. Luther misunderstood this important teaching of the Church, and began the ‘Reformation’ on the basis of his poor understanding of Church Teaching,

But this does not mean that Luther would not have revolted if he had understood the teachings of the Church correctly. It seems that Luther would never have accepted the correct teaching of the Church because that would not have given him the Salvational certainty that he so desperately needed to have. Thus, while Luther blundered into his Revolt against the Church, he would have revolted even if he had understood Church teachings well.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[Peter_J]

Clearly the energy on this thread is toxic, in my opinion. Most posters seem to be against any ecumenical progress to even question/ undermine the Pope.

I can’t speak to your experience, of course, but my own experience in such things is fairly extensive and suggests to me that it is usually not “most” but a small number of highly vocal Catholics.

 

[Annie39]

Hi Mary,

Thanks for your response. You made some excellent points.

I agree. It seems to me that Catholics and Protestants understand ‘authority’ completely differently. A True Catholic understands that it is the Church which has authority. With Protestants, the authority lies much more with the individual. The Confessional Lutherans profess that it is their church which has the authority to teach, and I am sure that that is mostly true for some. But embedded in the very core of Protestantism and especially Lutheranism, is the ‘right’ of the individual over the corporate, the ‘right’ to rebellion. You see it here all the time in the comments of Confessional Lutherans about how they consider ‘swimming’. If they REALLY believed that their communion had the authority to teach, they wouldn’t consider swimming. That being said, once people have swum the Tiber, virtually all of them dry off for good. The journey which may have included many stops, is then complete.

The Catholic who believes that the Church is what it claims to be should strive to make sure that they follow the teachings of the Church. But it seems that with Protestants it is much more about ‘whether my church agrees with ME.’ Leaving for another communion or another Protestant denomination altogether seems to be of much less gravity than such a move would be for us.

As we have seen, there is no doubt that there was confusion about Salvation in Luther’s time. The teaching at Erfurt was wrong and what Luther was exposed to was not the official teaching of the Church.

“Luther’s reforms, it is clear, were neither an opportunistic attack on the morals of the church nor a piecemeal demand for reform here and there. His fundamental conviction was that the church of his day had lost sight of some of the fundamental themes of the Christian gospel. **After all, the theology he had been taught at Erfurt now seemed to him to be heretical, amounting to the idea of “justification by works” – the notion that humanity can achieve its own salvation by it’s morals or religious achievements” **McGrath, “Dangerous” pg. 58

Of course anyone who sees themselves as being NOTHING but sin and finds it necessary to confess for as much as six hours a day is not going to find much solace in Salvation by Works. Luther believed that even his good works were nothing but sin. This warped belief left him with NO way to Salvation, which didn’t exactly provide the Salvational certainty he so desperately needed. The solution? To create your own theology on Salvation and to ‘find’ something in Scripture which could be ‘interpreted’ to support it.

Everyone assumes (especially if they are denominationally predisposed to do so) that Luther, as a PhD and a priest, was very well educated and understood the teachings of the Church extremely well. That was not the case.

In essence, what Luther was rebelling against was a misperception of what the Church actually taught on Salvation. The Church has NEVER taught Salvation by Works, and in fact, it is a heresy. Luther misunderstood this important teaching of the Church, and began the ‘Reformation’ on the basis of his poor understanding of Church Teaching,

But this does not mean that Luther would not have revolted if he had understood the teachings of the Church correctly. It seems that Luther would never have accepted the correct teaching of the Church because that would not have given him the Salvational certainty that he so desperately needed to have. Thus, while Luther blundered into his Revolt against the Church, he would have revolted even if he had understood Church teachings well.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

Topper your summation is excellent and your conclusion probably correct.

Pax et bonum,
Annie

 

[JonNC]

This is the difficulty you see. The Church doesn’t “teach” us
anything about Lutherans or what the Church believes
about Lutherans. It is only discussed on a “need to know”
basis as in mixed marriages or conversions.
Other than those individual to individual issues, without
the Internet or forums like this most Catholics would
never hear this stuff.
Reality is on a day to day basis the laity never hear
references to any other religions. At all.
I don’t believe in 58 years I have ever heard a priest
even say the word Lutheran. Why would they?
So a “teaching?” it is a non binding teaching if any
lay person chose to be taught I suppose.

Perhaps “position” would have been a better term.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

You mean that the CC does not fall within the condemnations? Not in any way I am aware, but much more attention is given to the clarity of instruction around justification so as to make it clearer to the faithful.

No. I actually meant is it the Vatican’s position that the Lutheran churches that have signed on to the JDDJ, in areas covered by the JDDJ, no longer fall under those specific Trent condemnations?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by EvangelCatholic
Clearly the energy on this thread is toxic, in my opinion. Most posters seem to be against any ecumenical progress to even question/ undermine the Pope.

=Peter J;12300279]I can’t speak to your experience, of course, but my own experience in such things is fairly extensive and suggests to me that it is usually not “most” but a small number of highly vocal Catholics.

And, sadly, there are also a small number of Lutherans (usually outside this forum) that share, if little else, this opposition to most things ecumenical between our traditions.
That said, some of the opposition from both sides here is to an overreaching as to the meaning and extent of the declaration.
So it seems that, on one hand, on both sides we find those who are vested in the current division, a small few of whom are indeed “toxic” in their opposition. While on the other hand, some seem to wish to jump the gun and place more weight on the dialogue documents than they actually hold. While my sentiments are with the latter group, my head tells me that leaders are responsible for these dialogues, not the laity.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

Thus, while Luther blundered into his Revolt against the Church, he would have revolted even if he had understood Church teachings well.

It is these kinds of judgmental and overreaching statements, Topper, that make it difficult to just accept your scholarly postings. You have done some excellent research and summarize it well, but then you wrap it is these opinionated summaries that just serve to leave one inclined to discount the whole post.

None of us is in a position to judge the soul of another, and certainly not to make predictions about what they might do, or might have done. None of us can know how things might have been different if Luther were not afflicted with his scruples and misperceptions about the teaching of the Church.

 

[Porknpie]

It is these kinds of judgmental and overreaching statements, Topper, that make it difficult to just accept your scholarly postings. You have done some excellent research and summarize it well, but then you wrap it is these opinionated summaries that just serve to leave one inclined to discount the whole post.

None of us is in a position to judge the soul of another, and certainly not to make predictions about what they might do, or might have done. None of us can know how things might have been different if Luther were not afflicted with his scruples and misperceptions about the teaching of the Church.

True,

Topper says this …

It is true that I have a pretty negative opinion regarding Martin Luther but it is one that is entirely based on the facts about the man.

Then gives opinionated summaries of his own… and of others, presenting them as facts. Example below…

Perhaps the chief beneficiary of this insight was Luther himself.

In doing so, what emerges is his pretty negative opinion.

Which discounts to a great degree the points he his trying to make.

That’s both my observation and opinion.

 

[marywarfield]

And, sadly, there are also a small number of Lutherans (usually outside this forum) that share, if little else, this opposition to most things ecumenical between our traditions.
That said, some of the opposition from both sides here is to an overreaching as to the meaning and extent of the declaration.
So it seems that, on one hand, on both sides we find those who are vested in the current division, a small few of whom are indeed “toxic” in their opposition. While on the other hand, some seem to wish to jump the gun and place more weight on the dialogue documents than they actually hold. While my sentiments are with the latter group, my head tells me that leaders are responsible for these dialogues, not the laity.

Jon

Exactly. While I would embrace a Coca Cola type
world in which we are all unified and a we are the
world type thing- it is not a reality.

Most likely there will be those Catholics who seperate
themselves from the CC when unity with Lutherans
is fully achieved.
At the same time- attempting to claim a unity that
does not entirely exist could be damaging to the
whole process. It is Gods work and we should not
direct it for Him.
Best to say:
It is really sad for all we are not totally in agreement,
not totally “one”, but those who are appointed to
work it out are making significant progress and
so we have hope.

 

[marywarfield]

It is these kinds of judgmental and overreaching statements, Topper, that make it difficult to just accept your scholarly postings. You have done some excellent research and summarize it well, but then you wrap it is these opinionated summaries that just serve to leave one inclined to discount the whole post.

None of us is in a position to judge the soul of another, and certainly not to make predictions about what they might do, or might have done. None of us can know how things might have been different if Luther were not afflicted with his scruples and misperceptions about the teaching of the Church.

I’m sorry Topper I have to say I agree with Guanophore
here. If you could stick to presenting the research which
is just excellent Topper- never have I seen such quality on these
forums- without the summation from personal opinion-
I believe that would be more effective.

At the same time Guanophore- in Topper’s defense-
I believe he suffers from the same frustration many
Catholics suffer from. Not able to understand how a full
religion can develop from something they see as basically irrational from
the onset if it is to be deemed “holy” and also
the selective acceptance by Lutherans on honest
research by Lutheran scholars and others.
I think again it heartens back to what Topper referenced
in another post- individualism vs. corporate if you will.
Many Lutherans are quite comfortable apparently with
choosing only those areas of research they agree with
and tossing the rest as opposed to Catholics who tend
to swallow hard truths more easily because we are
more used to dogma overriding our individual inclinations.

 

[guanophore]

At the same time Guanophore- in Topper’s defense-
I believe he suffers from the same frustration many
Catholics suffer from. Not able to understand how a full
religion can develop from something they see as basically irrational from
the onset

Yes, I understand this, and I certainly can see a great deal of irrationality in Luther. However, the Lutheran faith is not rooted in Luther. Lutheranism is rooted fundamentally in the Catholic faith, and although Luther did influence it to an extent, the early “Lutherans” basically marginalized Luther when the Confession was developed. His small catechism was adopted, but it is largely Catholic.

This is why it is so important for us to distinguish the life and thought of Luther from the modern Lutheran communion.

Otherwise, it is like saying that Catholicism has been permanently and irrevocably contamimnated by the behavior of the Medici popes.

if it is to be deemed “holy” and also
the selective acceptance by Lutherans on honest
research by Lutheran scholars and others.

I think that Lutherans do not attempt to classify Luthers’ writings as “holy”. On the contrary, ,they receive the creeds of the CC as part of holy tradition.

I think again it heartens back to what Topper referenced
in another post- individualism vs. corporate if you will.
Many Lutherans are quite comfortable apparently with
choosing only those areas of research they agree with
and tossing the rest as opposed to Catholics who tend
to swallow hard truths more easily because we are
more used to dogma overriding our individual inclinations.

Well, we all have skeletons in our communal closets, and there are plenty of high minded Catholics who are unaware of them and are quick to disparage others as well. I learn new things every day here on CAF, and have had to work on my charity as well.

 

[guanophore]

I’m sorry Topper I have to say I agree with Guanophore
here. If you could stick to presenting the research which
is just excellent Topper- never have I seen such quality on these
forums- without the summation from personal opinion-
I believe that would be more effective.

Topper, I thought about this a lot today, and I am going to throw you a challenge. Since your scholarship, fervency,and writing has been so good, I am going to challenge you to refrain from putting any opinion or conclusions on your work. I think you are intelligent and skilled enough to be able to draw your readers to a conclusion without making it for them. I think the development of this skill will make you even more effective as an apologist than you already are.

 

[marywarfield]

Yes, I understand this, and I certainly can see a great deal of irrationality in Luther. However, the Lutheran faith is not rooted in Luther. Lutheranism is rooted fundamentally in the Catholic faith, and although Luther did influence it to an extent, the early “Lutherans” basically marginalized Luther when the Confession was developed. His small catechism was adopted, but it is largely Catholic.

This is why it is so important for us to distinguish the life and thought of Luther from the modern Lutheran communion.

Otherwise, it is like saying that Catholicism has been permanently and irrevocably contamimnated by the behavior of the Medici popes.

I think that Lutherans do not attempt to classify Luthers’ writings as “holy”. On the contrary, ,they receive the creeds of the CC as part of holy tradition.

Well, we all have skeletons in our communal closets, and there are plenty of high minded Catholics who are unaware of them and are quick to disparage others as well. I learn new things every day here on CAF, and have had to work on my charity as well.

Well see. This is where you and I part because I DO
believe we have been permanently and irrevocably
Injured by the Medicis. Lol.
I think any time there is a sin that’s mortal it does
permanent damage- hence Purgatory. Lol.
The Medicis will ALWAYS be with us although
they do not define us necessarily. And Luther will
ALWAYS be with us although HE does not
necessarily define Lutherans or us since like
the Medicis Luther was a Catholic as well.
They will always be a part of our respective church
journeys- we can’t deny them.

To deny the significance of their contribution rightly
or wrongly would be as sensible as studying the history
of Germany while politely refraining from mentioning
Hitler. It can’t be done.