Yes, but instructing German bishops to more or less (almost) as much as support the nazis (if correct, and I am relying on wiki, and you did not tell me that what I said was incorrect) is not about as anti-Nazi as you can get. The dissenting German Bishops were perhaps as anti-Nazi as you could get, but Pacelli apparently silenced them.
Relying on Wiki is usually a pretty bad idea. The Concordat said that clergy would not be active in politics - i.e. would not be active members of political parties or endorse particular parties or political policies from the pulpit in the name of the Church. But this did not "silence" the clergy - much to the Nazis' disgust. The bishops were still encouraged to speak out on matters of morality, which they did; becoming among the most outspoken critics of the regime. This is why Hitler rode roughshod over the Concordat, because he considered that the Papacy was violating it by
encouraging criticism of the Nazi regime. I explain all of this in my article, in the section entitled "The Church and the Reich from 1933". So, again, I wonder if you actually read it.
The word nuance does not appear to be sufficiently woven into in your lexicon here Tim.
Nonsense. I try to present the history of what happened and why as fairly as possible. I think what you're objecting to is that this doesn't fit neatly with your emotional desire to find more to condemn the Church for. Check your emotions.
It's not there for your 'church had no problem with medieval science' thing either. If, as seems to be the case, the church merely had 'no problem' until the 'science' came up against the theological dogma, if they had a list of banned books, and so on and so forth....you seem to be whitewashing a bit.
No, but - again - you seem to be objecting to the fact that the actual history doesn't conform closely enough to your prejudices. As I keep noting, the science came up against theological dogma in precisely
one case - the Galileo Affair. And that was complex, highly exceptional, deeply political and not some black and white "science vs faith" conflict.
The medieval church's attitude to what we might call 'free enquiry' still appears to need a few more quite significant qualifiers than you are giving it.
How? On religion? Sure - but I've already noted that, on matters of
theology, the medieval Church was something close to ISIS. On
science though (or the proto-science of the time)? There were no such issues. This is why for 35 years I've been asking people whose emotional biases make them desperately want this to be true to give me examples from the medieval period (500-1500 AD). So far the total they have been able to produce is ... zero.