New Pope is a former Hitler Youth...?

[Blue Rectangle]

Ratzinger is known as an opponent to moral relativism, but he may unintentionally become a benefit to that cause.  More than a few liberal Catholics will use the argument, "The Church can't tell me what to do because the Pope was a Nazi!"

[Blue Rectangle]

I think I'll lighten things up with a DU quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Blue Rectangle]

The church didn't oppose the Nazis.

The Church didn't support the Nazis.

Hey, check it out:  I too can write a one-sentence-long gross over-simplication of a complex political situation.

[Blue Rectangle]

I think I'll lighten things up with a DU quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did Ratzinger steal Utah?

Another:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

At times, DU is better political satire than The Onion.

[Blue Rectangle]

In fact, the only countries allied with Nazi Germany that weren't Catholic were Japan and Romania.

And Bulgaria.

Out of Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary (the six Axis nations), only Italy and Hungary have Catholic majorities.

The European countries on the side of Germany (the above, plus Finland, Croatia, etc.) represent populations that are about 1/3 each of Catholic, Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox.

Many of Germany's friends were driven by hatred of Germany's enemies: the Irish and Ukrainians were sympathetic because they hated the British and Russians, respectively.  This doesn't make them bad people any more that Stalin's opposition to Hitler makes him a hero.  These aliances were driven by politics and old ethnic hatreds, not religion.

[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.

[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.

[Blue Rectangle]

When someone says the Pope runs the Catholic Center Party, he is essentially saying "I am a complete fool, uneducated in history and unwilling to admit error."

That being attributable to jfern.

Read this. That's future Pope XII signing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat



Now do you admit error, you hypocrite?

That's the signing of the Concordat, not the Enabling Act.  The Concordat was something the Church had pushed for long before anyone had ever heard of Adolf Hitler.  The Concordat did not support the Nazi Party in any way or condone its actions; it was an agreement not to interfere politically in exchange for the protection of religious freedoms.  At worst, Pacelli committed the same error Chamberlain did.

[Blue Rectangle]

When someone says the Pope runs the Catholic Center Party, he is essentially saying "I am a complete fool, uneducated in history and unwilling to admit error."

That being attributable to jfern.

Read this. That's future Pope XII signing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat



Now do you admit error, you hypocrite?

That's the signing of the Concordat, not the Enabling Act.  The Concordat was something the Church had pushed for long before anyone had ever heard of Adolf Hitler.  The Concordat did not support the Nazi Party in any way or condone its actions; it was an agreement not to interfere politically in exchange for the protection of religious freedoms.  At worst, Pacelli committed the same error Chamberlain did.

If you'd read the article, you'd see that this was linked to the Enabling Act. Hitler was very happy to get the Concordat signed.

I did read the article.  Obviously each side got something they wanted.  The agreement to not interfere politically translated into the Church not condemning those in the Center Party who wanted to appease Hitler.  Like I said, there is a parallel to Chamberlain--although Chamberlain deserves more blame because his life and religion wasn't being directly threatened.  The Church in Germany had to have felt that pressure.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.