Was Hitler a Christian and were his actions prompted by his Catholicism

[DieselDaisy]

Hitler being a christian defies the current historiographical consensus which concludes that he was either an outright atheist, disdainful of Christianity, or at best a lapsed non-functioning Christian who sought to manipulate the church for his own benefit (a la Napoleon). It is an opinion that fails to take into account the Nazi war against the Lutheran and Catholic churches, and the Nazi preoccupation with social Darwinism creation theory and pre-Christian occultism. It is nonsensical to declare that Hitler was any sort of christian of the pious sort. Even the briefest look at historical wisdom will demonstrate otherwise, Kershaw, Bullock - even the old but ever reliable Shirer.

PS

Hitler was baptised Catholic. This would presumably be his default religion (if he was a practicing Christian)? An active Catholic's duty is to partake of the sacraments and hold a christian ideology with an overriding emphasis on papal primacy. There is no evidence that Adolf Hitler ever partook of the sacraments or believed the Pope to be the successor of St Peter - or any of the other tenements of Catholicism such as Marian worship for that matter. Where is the evidence of Hitler attending mass? We need this evidence to conclude that Hitler was a Christian!

Edited June 14, 2016 by DieselDaisy

[PappyTron]

10 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

That's because he wasn't Pappy.  I've stated my case ...yet all you do is sensationalize things that never happened....or if they did happen, you are twisting the facts to make them fit your agenda (much like Hitler himself did)...everything you've stated so far has been completely unsubstantiated. 

The burden of proof lies with you.  Show factual documented evidence, from valid historians stating that Hitler was a Christian and followed and worshiped Jesus Christ (as portrayed in the Bible) as an adult and when he ruled Germany under the Nazi party.

Links please.

 

Hitler stated that he was a Christian ("I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord"), stated that Germany was founded on Christian beliefs and morals (" It (the National Government) regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life"), implored German Christians of all denominations to stand together ("We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people").

What statements have I sensationalised? Which facts have I twisted? What have I said has happened that has not happened? What agenda do you believe me to have?

that Hitler was a Christian and followed and worshiped Jesus Christ (as portrayed in the Bible)

You show me ANY Christian that follows the word of Jesus to the letter. You can't.

Let's be honest here, KK, you are just getting pissy because you claimed Hitler to be an Atheist and the facts of the matter is that he believed in God. Can you show me any evidence that Hitler was an Atheist? Can you show me any quotes of Pope Pius stating that Hitler was not a good Christian, or even a Christian full-stop? Heck, can you show me any evidence of The Holy See denouncing or excommunicating any senior Nazi officials?

Can ANY of you show me a quote, by Hitler, where he states "I am not a Christian" or "I do not believe in God"? You're all so quick to mumble about how he was truly a Pagan and how he didn't really believe in God and how he was just using Christianity for his own purpose, yet you cannot show any evidence to support it, yet according to Kasanova King it is me who is obligated to provide links. I absolutely agree that Hitler was using Christianity in order to get what he wanted from the German people and I absolutely agree that he was a terrible Christian by any measure, but him using God in order to push his own hatred and personal agenda does not make him any less of a believer in the Almighty.

[PappyTron]

1 hour ago, The Archer said:

'Hitler's conception of an 'Aryan' Christ as a champion against the Jews, while probably not unique, is just beyond ludicrous. Hitler's 'Christian' beliefs probably held that the Aryan Holy Spirit impregnated the Semitic Mary and cleansed the resultant mixed race Jesus of his olive/brown skin and raven hair and dark eyes and made him thoroughly Nordic with pink sin, blonde hair and blue eyes  

So, maybe if this way Hitler's Jesus could 'pass' for being Aryan, Hitler could 'pass' for being Catholic and Jehovah could 'pass' for being Odin. Of course, this would be as likely as one chooses for it to be.

However so you try to define Hitler as legitimately 'Christian', it's a bit of a stretch to call him a 'believer'. He could have been a 'believer' of the tooth fairy too and championed his version of that belief for its usefulness, without being a believer 'in' the tooth fairy. Likewise, he could have been a believer of Jesus, without being a believer in Jesus.

As for Pius and the Catholics - the articles above, along with plentiful other evidence, clearly indicate why choosing not to directly condemn Hitler, was the wiser, if not necessarily more moral choice, for Pius and the Catholic hierarchy.

It can be argued that instead of acquiescing to Hitler's secular overlordship, the more legitimately 'Christian' thing for them to do would have been to defy Hitler and face extermination. Say, in the manner of the underground Roman church of the early centuries, or the Russians under the Bolsheviks, or the Armenians under the Turks, in the hope of eventually surviving their persecuting enemy, with their integrity intact and without blemish. Or, they could have simply evacuated the Vatican and established a Papacy in exile - the worst that could have happened would have been Hitler re-doing the Sistine frescos with images of the Nazis victorious in Valhalla. Instead, the Vatican chose passive-aggressive resistance over outright opposition, in order to survive.

But, this lack of condemnation does not amount to an endorsement of Hitler's personal beliefs or 'faith' as being Christian, or his extermination of Jews (and gypsies and Protestants AND Catholics) as being sanctioned by the Church, or legitimize his actions as that of a Catholic, whether lapsed or indifferent or fake. Everyone from rampaging Huns to murderous Arab Caliphs, from benign Ottoman Sultans to indifferent Mongol Khans, have been engaged with and accommodated, by Popes and Patriarchs, who in order to ensure the survival of their ecclesiastical dominions, rendered token submission to hostile Caesars. That doesn't legitimize any of them or their atrocities as Christian. Hitler's actions and his tenuous connection to Catholicism by birth, don't make him one either.

Mealymouthed apologetics. Pius, as Christ's Vicar, refused to denounce either Hitler or Mussolini and he refused to condemn the Holocaust. Saying that he "took the wiser, if not necessarily more moral choice" by refusing to condemn what was going on in Europe sums up the bankrupt morality of the church, full-stop. God's right-hand man preferred to cower in a corner, surrounded by gold and jewels, (tonnes of which were plundered in Croatia by priests who took part in mass killings and sent the proceeds back to The Holy See) rather than stand up for what was right and he refused to intervene when the Chief Rabbi of Palestine begged him to help the Jews of Spain and Lithuania. As millions of people were being slaughtered across the globe, Pius quoted Psalms and stated "bear adversity with serene patience" which is pretty easy to say when it isn't you taking in a lungful of Zyklon B.

[Ace Nova]

10 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

 

Hitler stated that he was a Christian ("I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord"), stated that Germany was founded on Christian beliefs and morals (" It (the National Government) regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life"), implored German Christians of all denominations to stand together ("We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people").

What statements have I sensationalised? Which facts have I twisted? What have I said has happened that has not happened? What agenda do you believe me to have?

 

 

You show me ANY Christian that follows the word of Jesus to the letter. You can't.

Let's be honest here, KK, you are just getting pissy because you claimed Hitler to be an Atheist and the facts of the matter is that he believed in God. Can you show me any evidence that Hitler was an Atheist? Can you show me any quotes of Pope Pius stating that Hitler was not a good Christian, or even a Christian full-stop? Heck, can you show me any evidence of The Holy See denouncing or excommunicating any senior Nazi officials?

Can ANY of you show me a quote, by Hitler, where he states "I am not a Christian" or "I do not believe in God"? You're all so quick to mumble about how he was truly a Pagan and how he didn't really believe in God and how he was just using Christianity for his own purpose, yet you cannot show any evidence to support it, yet according to Kasanova King it is me who is obligated to provide links. I absolutely agree that Hitler was using Christianity in order to get what he wanted from the German people and I absolutely agree that he was a terrible Christian by any measure, but him using God in order to push his own hatred and personal agenda does not make him any less of a believer in the Almighty.

I stated Hitler wasn't a Christian.  Not in accordance to the Biblical version of what Jesus Christ taught and what Christians believe.  I never stated he didn't believe in a "god".  As a matter of fact, I stated Hitler believed in his version of "a" Christ and in his deranged mind, he associated his Christ with the Christ of Christianity.  But they were clearly two different things.  

I can say I'm an quantum physicist.  But I use pseudo science as my basis and teach a bunch of gibberish.  Does that make me a quantum psysicist? 

 

Stop the nonsense.  If you want to say Hitler was a Christian, go ahead.  The majority of the world and any credible historian will disagree with you.  

[PappyTron]

Just now, Kasanova King said:

I stated Hitler wasn't a Christian.  Not in accordance to the Biblical version of what Jesus Christ taught and what Christians believe.  I never stated he didn't believe in a "god".  As a matter of fact, I stated Hitler believed in his version of "a" Christ and in his deranged mind, he associated his Christ with the Christ of Christianity.  But they were clearly two different things.  

I can say I'm an quantum physicist.  But I use pseudo science as my basis and teach a bunch of gibberish.  Does that make me a quantum psysicist? 

 

Stop the nonsense.  If you want to say Hitler was a Christian, go ahead.  The majority of the world and any credible historian will disagree with you.  

A Christian is a person who believes that Christ is their saviour. Hitler believed in Christ. Perhaps he had different views of what it meant to be a Christian, but so do Catholics compared to Jesuits compared to Amish, compared to Lutherans.

You just have you pink panties in a bunch because you wanted to slam atheists by stating that Hitler was one. Sad, pathetic, inaccurate and transparent.

Is George Bush a Christian to you? Was he being Christian when God told him to invade Iraq and kill more than two million people?

I can say I'm an quantum physicist.  But I use pseudo science as my basis and teach a bunch of gibberish.  Does that make me a quantum psysicist?

Based on how you conduct your posts I doubt that anyone would have you down as a high-school graduate, let alone a Quantum Physicist.

[DieselDaisy]

Why would Hitler make statements sustaining Christianity and conclude a concordat with the Vatican? For the exact same reason Napoleon did, votes and institutional power. Christianity is inherently conservative, i.e. anti-Bolshevik, and inherently held the hearts and minds of the German people captive. The only way to harnass the forces of conservatism as well as gain and maintain power was to say some trivialities about Christianity - particularly in 1933-34 when Hitler's power was fragile.

Hitler, in reality, had a running battle with the Lutheran and Catholic churches. Nazi sterilization laws; eradication of the Catholic Youth League; suppression of Catholic literature; the murder of Klausener were merely some of the big issues between the Catholic Church and Nazism. The Pope issued My Burning Sorrow, lambasting the Hitlerite leadership for breaking the concordat - clerics and nuns were arrested and executed, monasteries suppressed:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge.html

Lutheranism was generally more supportive of the Third Reich however it too had discontent, over Nazification (of the Protestant churches), the election of pastors, Niemoeller - again, clerics were arrested, executed. 

Other christian sects such as Jehovah's Witnesses were persecuted from the very beginning.

[Ace Nova]

10 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

A Christian is a person who believes that Christ is their saviour. Hitler believed in Christ. Perhaps he had different views of what it meant to be a Christian, but so do Catholics compared to Jesuits compared to Amish, compared to Lutherans.

You just have you pink panties in a bunch because you wanted to slam atheists by stating that Hitler was one. Sad, pathetic, inaccurate and transparent.

Is George Bush a Christian to you? Was he being Christian when God told him to invade Iraq and kill more than two million people?

 

 

Based on how you conduct your posts I doubt that anyone would have you down as a high-school graduate, let alone a Quantum Physicist.

Lol.  I guess my 8th grade dropout education (according to you) will trump your doctorate because you are clearly wrong.

Why divert the subject?  Is that not what someone does when they have gotten their ass handed to them in a debate?

As for George Bush, you won't find me defending the Iraq invasion... ever.

Now back to the subject.

 

Please post links to all your theories.  Again, the burden of proof lies with you.  Show me...show all of us documented evidence, from valid historical sources, stating that Hitler was Christian and followed Christianity (as the entire world knows it to be) during his reign. 

 

And no, this has nothing to do with anyone slamming atheism.  I simply asked a question initially...just a question.  Is atheism to blame if the majority of mass murderers throughout history were atheists?  The same way you blame religion as a cause for mass shootings.

 

I'm under the opinion it does not.  I've stated since my inititial posts that evil crosses all barriers...whether someone is religious or atheist is irrelevant, imo.  Bad people, do bad things.  

[DieselDaisy]

If you pursue higher education through the British education system (I think he is British?) you do the Nazis. You do a lot of Nazis infact. There are Nazis everywhere in the British syllabus. One component of that will be a section called ''religion in the Third Reich'' or something similar. You will then study how Hitler persecuted Christianity at the expense of pseudo-science. You will consult a multitude of sources, indicating Hitler's anti-Christianity and anti-Christian policies. You will summarise that Hitler was either an agnostic or an atheist. 

Even if you pursued history up to GCSE level, you would have pursued this path! This is high school, pre A-Level, stuff! Spotty chavs are learning this haha.

Pappy, a doctorate my arse. Plonker's doctorate maybe.

[PappyTron]

8 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Lol.  I guess my 8th grade dropout education (according to you) will trump your doctorate because you are clearly wrong.

Why divert the subject?  Is that not what someone does when they have gotten their ass handed to them in a debate?

As for George Bush, you won't find me defending the Iraq invasion... ever.

Now back to the subject.

 

Please post links to all your theories.  Again, the burden of proof lies with you.  Show me...show all of us documented evidence, from valid historical sources, stating that Hitler was Christian and followed Christianity (as the entire world knows it to be) during his reign. 

 

And no, this has nothing to do with anyone slamming atheism.  I simply asked a question initially...just a question.  Is atheism to blame if the majority of mass murderers throughout history were atheists?  The same way you blame religion as a cause for mass shootings.

 

I'm under the opinion it does not.  I've stated since my inititial posts that evil crosses all barriers...whether someone is religious or atheist is irrelevant, imo.  Bad people, do bad things.  

I've given you quotes by Hitler expressing his belief in God, multiple times, yet you seem to be unable to read them. You don't get to decide whether a person is a Christian or not, only God does, and it was Jesus who stated that. Here's a thing: given that it was you who stated that Hitler was an atheist, why don't YOU, for once, provide the evidence? At this juncture there is no debate, as all you have done is repeat the same old crap "But Pappy, Hitler didn't follow the Bible, so he wasn't a Christian"

As for George Bush, you won't find me defending the Iraq invasion... ever.

That is not what I asked. I asked whether George Bush is a Christian or not. So, is George W Bush a Christian, yes or no?

[PappyTron]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

If you pursue higher education through the British education system (I think he is British?) you do the Nazis. You do a lot of Nazis infact. There are Nazis everywhere in the British syllabus. One component of that will be a section called ''religion in the Third Reich'' or something similar. You will then study how Hitler persecuted Christianity at the expense of pseudo-science. You will consult a multitude of sources, indicating Hitler's anti-Christianity and anti-Christian policies. You will summarise that Hitler was either an agnostic or an atheist. 

Even if you pursued history up to GCSE level, you would have pursued this path! This is high school, pre A-Level, stuff! Spotty chavs are learning this haha.

Pappy, a doctorate my arse. Plonker's doctorate maybe.

Even if you pursued history up to GCSE level, you would have pursued this path! This is high school, pre A-Level, stuff! Spotty chavs are learning this haha.

We did the British colonisation of Africa, the transatlantic slave-trade, WW1 and the Industrial Revolution for History GCSEs. Did not cover Nazism much other than is a broader context at undergraduate level, either. A swing and a miss by the Dingle.

[The Archer]

2 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Mealymouthed apologetics. Pius, as Christ's Vicar, refused to denounce either Hitler or Mussolini and he refused to condemn the Holocaust. Saying that he "took the wiser, if not necessarily more moral choice" by refusing to condemn what was going on in Europe sums up the bankrupt morality of the church, full-stop. God's right-hand man preferred to cower in a corner, surrounded by gold and jewels, (tonnes of which were plundered in Croatia by priests who took part in mass killings and sent the proceeds back to The Holy See) rather than stand up for what was right and he refused to intervene when the Chief Rabbi of Palestine begged him to help the Jews of Spain and Lithuania. As millions of people were being slaughtered across the globe, Pius quoted Psalms and stated "bear adversity with serene patience" which is pretty easy to say when it isn't you taking in a lungful of Zyklon B.

The issue here is the validity of Hiter's Christianity or his Catholicism, not the efficacy of Pius and the Vatican establishment as ministers of Christ. Ad hominem attacks on the latter, do not substantiate your position on the former.

To your point however, Ex opere operantis Ecclessiae does not negate Ex opere operato, so unfortunately, questioning the legitimacy of the Church itself with respect to the morality of its actions, just becomes moot. Further, as already explained, there were clearly alternate courses of action that could have ensured the moral sanctity of the Church and preserved its spiritual authority - either vigorous opposition and extermination, or exile. But, either of these would have risked its temporal effectiveness and the ability to ACT with moral certitude, most notably in saving thousands of Jews from slaughter -

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/piusdef.html

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4176106,00.html

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/pope-pius-xii-saved-thousands-of-jews-1.300589

So, to put it simply could the Pius led Vatican have condemned and opposed Hitler forcefully, making themselves glorious martyrs worthy of their Christianity? Yes, they could have.

Would it have made a difference? No, or very likely not.

Did the Vatican's policy of publicly keeping silent and secretly saving Jews work? Yes, the evidence indicates that it did.

So, in this case, in regard to the choice between mouthing moral banalities and appearing morally bankrupt, the ability to take useful moral action through the latter course, made it the wiser one.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, PappyTron said:

 

 

We did the British colonisation of Africa, the transatlantic slave-trade, WW1 and the Industrial Revolution for History GCSEs. Did not cover Nazism much other than is a broader context at undergraduate level, either. A swing and a miss by the Dingle.

That explains why you still think Hitler is a christian then.

Do you consider Nero a Christian?

[PappyTron]

1 minute ago, The Archer said:

The issue here is the validity of Hiter's Christianity or his Catholicism, not the efficacy of Pius and the Vatican establishment as ministers of Christ. Ad hominem attacks on the latter, do not substantiate your position on the former.

To your point however, Ex opere operantis Ecclessiae does not negate Ex opere operato, so unfortunately, questioning the legitimacy of the Church itself with respect to the morality of its actions, just becomes moot. Further, as already explained, there were clearly alternate courses of action that could have ensured the moral sanctity of the Church and preserved its spiritual authority - either vigorous opposition and extermination, or exile. But, either of these would have risked its temporal effectiveness and the ability to ACT with moral certitude, most notably in saving thousands of Jews from slaughter -

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/piusdef.html

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4176106,00.html

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/pope-pius-xii-saved-thousands-of-jews-1.300589

So, to put it simply could the Pius led Vatican have condemned and opposed Hitler forcefully, making themselves glorious martyrs worthy of their Christianity? Yes, they could have.

Would it have made a difference? No, or very likely not.

Did the Vatican's policy of publicly keeping silent and secretly saving Jews work? Yes, the evidence indicates that it did.

So, in this case, in regard to the choice between mouthing moral banalities and appearing morally bankrupt, the ability to take useful moral action through the latter course, made it the wiser one.

It is not an ad hominem on Pius, simply pointing out that he refused to excommunicate Hitler or any of the other Nazis, and he never condemned the atrocities that the Nazis committed, instead choosing to remain silent on the matter and refusing to help the Jews of Spain and Lithuania even as they were being loaded onto trucks bound for gas chambers. How that ties into Hitler is that the Pope had the chance to say "Hitler is not a Christian and does not do God's work" but did not. In the face of that we can only look to what Hitler himself stated about his religious beliefs; that he was a Christian, that Christian morality was the basis of Germany and the German family, and that he felt he was following his saviour Jesus in his condemnation of the Jews.

questioning the legitimacy of the Church itself with respect to the morality of its actions

As a human I have EVERY right to question a body that claims to have a direct line to a perfect God and has the chance to speak up against a war that is engulfing the world, yet instead chooses to not only remain silent, but to also sign peace treaties with the aggressors of said war. Not you, not the Pope, not a God itself will keep me from expressing the wickedness of sitting idly by whilst hoovering up stolen Nazi Gold to be laundered through Vatican banks.

 

[PappyTron]

8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

That explains why you still think Hitler is a christian then.

Do you consider Nero a Christian?

No, the reason why I believe Hitler to be a Christian is that he himself stated it multiple times and there are zero quotes/excerpts/videos/radio recordings etc, of him stating otherwise. He may not have been a good Christian, and he may have been twisting the Bible for his own agenda, and he may have had Pagan beliefs and an obsession with the occult, but that does not take away the position of him having a professed belief in the Christ of the Bible as his saviour.

I do not know enough about Nero's religious affiliations, though I do lament for poor Octavia.

[DieselDaisy]

4 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

It is not an ad hominem on Pius, simply pointing out that he refused to excommunicate Hitler or any of the other Nazis, and he never condemned the atrocities that the Nazis committed, instead choosing to remain silent on the matter and refusing to help the Jews of Spain and Lithuania even as they were being loaded onto trucks bound for gas chambers. How that ties into Hitler is that the Pope had the chance to say "Hitler is not a Christian and does not do God's work" but did not. In the face of that we can only look to what Hitler himself stated about his religious beliefs; that he was a Christian, that Christian morality was the basis of Germany and the German family, and that he felt he was following his saviour Jesus in his condemnation of the Jews.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge.html

[PappyTron]

12 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge.html

That's a fallout from the collapse of the Reichkonscordat where the Nazi Party decided that the Catholic church had too much political influence, despite agreeing, specifically, to stay out of German politics. In turn, young Germans were prodded into joining things such as the Hitler Youth rather than Catholic groups, and Pius felt that the effect of that was forcibly preventing young Germans from being close to the church. Political games, and not a condemnation of Hitler so much as a father trying to protect his flock.

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

That's a fallout from the collapse of the Reichkonscordat where the Nazi Party decided that the Catholic church had too much political influence, despite agreeing, specifically, to stay out of German politics. In turn, young Germans were prodded into joining things such as the Hitler Youth rather than Catholic groups, and Pius felt that the effect of that was forcibly preventing young Germans from being close to the church. Political games, and not a condemnation of Hitler so much as a father trying to protect his flock.

You asked where was the condemnation by the Pope of Hitler's policies. You have it.

 

[PappyTron]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

You asked where was the condemnation by the Pope of Hitler's policies. You have it.

 

Holocaust policies, not pre-war political willy waving over who was top dog in Germany. You already know that though. Anyway, as requested, back on the subject at hand.

[The Archer]

1 hour ago, PappyTron said:

It is not an ad hominem on Pius, simply pointing out that he refused to excommunicate Hitler or any of the other Nazis, and he never condemned the atrocities that the Nazis committed, 

Well, criticism of the ill-begotten wealth of the Roman Church, or its lack of moral courage didn't justify Hitler's catholicism in any way, so it seemed superfluous to your argument. The modern Catholic church's hesitation in excommunicating Hitler or any head of state for that matter, is explained in the links earlier posted. But, briefly explained, the point is that the Church desisted from the precedent of excommunicating Catholic heads of state for their actions taken against the Catholic Church or faith, because of the repercussions on innocent Catholics under those rulers, as well as the implications on the Church's ability to influence or shape events directly in those realms. Further to that, Hitler's actions were not performed as a Catholic, or as part of a Catholic agenda, or as a Catholic head of state. So, the question of excommunication does not arise here.

1 hour ago, PappyTron said:

instead choosing to remain silent on the matter and refusing to help the Jews of Spain and Lithuania even as they were being loaded onto trucks bound for gas chambers. 

As explained previously, the Vatican chose the less visibly appealing, but more prudent and effective way to help save the Jews that they could. 

1 hour ago, PappyTron said:

How that ties into Hitler is that the Pope had the chance to say "Hitler is not a Christian and does not do God's work" but did not. 

The Roman Church's position on excommunicating heads of state has been referred to in the first paragraph above. If your assertion is that Hitler's Catholicism was tied to the Pope's recognition of him as one, then that undercuts your previous statements that Hitler's own stated positions about his 'belief' in Christianity are what matter.

1 hour ago, PappyTron said:

It is not an ad hominem on Piu In the face of that we can only look to what Hitler himself stated about his religious beliefs; that he was a Christian, that Christian morality was the basis of Germany and the German family, and that he felt he was following his saviour Jesus in his condemnation of the Jews.

Any of Hitler's assertions of Christian morality being the basis of his beliefs, or the basis of Germany and the German family were hollow, if not patently false, and ample evidence for that has been provided in this thread, in other posts. 

1 hour ago, PappyTron said:

As a human I have EVERY right to question a body that claims to have a direct line to a perfect God and has the chance to speak up against a war that is engulfing the world, yet instead chooses to not only remain silent, but to also sign peace treaties with the aggressors of said war. Not you, not the Pope, not a God itself will keep me from expressing the wickedness of sitting idly by whilst hoovering up stolen Nazi Gold to be laundered through Vatican banks.

You do of course, but the point was that as per its own belief, the actions of the Church's office bearers, in error or otherwise, do not affect their legitimacy in carrying out their essential spiritual functions, so any appeal to their morality, or the lack of it, needs to be seen within that context. In other words, pointing out that the Catholic Church needs to do X because it is the right thing to do, is the right thing to do. But pointing out that the Catholic Church needs to do the right thing because it is the Catholic Church, is pointless.

1 hour ago, PappyTron said:

Not you, not the Pope, not a God itself will keep me from expressing the wickedness of sitting idly by whilst hoovering up stolen Nazi Gold to be laundered through Vatican banks.

There is a long list of sins committed by Catholic Church officials acting in the name of their Catholic faith, and there have been many sectarian conflicts involving Catholics in which multitudes of evil things have been committed. Pointing out the evil behind each one of these is absolutely necessary and in fact, laudable. But they deserve to be dealt separately. In the context of Hitler and the question of whether he was Catholic or not, and how the Pope should or could have acted towards him, they are just red herrings. Seeking moral equivalence between the Holocaust and the actions of nationalist Croat partisans that they were allied with, and linking them through separate threads to the Vatican is disingenuous and doesn't do anything to support your argument that Hitler was a believing Christian or a practicing Catholic.

[The Archer]

3 hours ago, downzy said:

Can we please return the conversation to the events in Orlando please?  There are many religions threads elsewhere in Anything Goes that can be used for this kind of discussion.

 

On topic: it would seem as though the killer had frequented this venue multiple times before.  Reports that he also used gay men's dating apps.  His father sounds like a real winner when it comes to gay people.  Is this guy using ISIS as a cover for his own feelings of guilt and shame for being gay?  

Sorry, but my last post was made before I saw this one.

On topic, it just seems to me that Mateen's use of gay dating apps and scoping gay clubs were all part of his reconnaissance. He may have just been a gay hater, who preferred them instead of random Americans as targets. Perhaps he saw homosexuality and its acceptance as a particularly depraved aspect of American society. His internet searches and online activity definitely show an obsession with ISIS and all things Jihadi. Unless it can be proved that he was watching gay porn in all of his spare time (and that shouldn't be too difficult), or there are specific examples or anecdotes from his co-workers, friends and family that he struggled with latent homosexuality, labeling him as a closet-gay self-hater is being done all too quickly.

Edited June 15, 2016 by The Archer

[PappyTron]

But pointing out that the Catholic Church needs to do the right thing because it is the Catholic Church, is pointless.

Not pointless, but highly relevant. The Catholic church professes to be the house of God on earth and needs to do "the right thing" because it is meant to be the sole beacon of light on this dark planet. Don't claim to sit next to God in matters of morality and then get involved in continued depravity of the worst kind.

In the context of Hitler and the question of whether he was Catholic or not, and how the Pope should or could have acted towards him, they (the Vatican's stealing of Nazi gold) are just red herrings

Very much not a red herring. In fact, it goes to show that the Holy See was very much content to turn a blind eye to a member of their flock's transgressions, as long as they themselves got something out of the bargain, just the same as the popes of the Middle Ages. They could have condemned Hitler, publically, and excommunicated him, but instead they chose to take his gold. Would they have remained so inactive for an atheist or pagan devil worshipper? Most certainly not.

Seeking moral equivalence between the Holocaust and the actions of nationalist Croat partisans that they were allied with, and linking them through separate threads to the Vatican is disingenuous and doesn't do anything to support your argument that Hitler was a believing Christian or a practicing Catholic.

Not moral equivalence, or disingenuousness, so much as demonstrating that el papa and his flunkies not only didn't condemn Hitler but actively supported them. Again, would they do so if they believed that Hitler was not a Christian, or didn't believe in God or was a devil worshipper?

On topic, there are only two possibilities, really: that he was doing research and reconnaissance or that he was a closet homosexual. Perhaps he had sexual urges and sought to quell them by deepening his faith? Either way, as always happens with these things, in the first few days 100 different versions of what may have happened come out, and by the second week nobody can remember what was true and what wasn't. It's also kind of sad that this is getting less news coverage than when Prince/Bowie/Jackson died, and by orders of magnitude at that.

[The Archer]

Since the subject was taking over the Orlando shooting thread and @downzy suggested moving it to a relevant thread or starting a new one - 

There doesn't seem to be another one specific to this topic, so it would be better to discuss this topic in a fresh thread. To maintain continuity however, it would be a great help if the moderators can move the relevant posts from the Orlando thread to this one, before discussions commence.

Thanks!

[downzy]

10 minutes ago, The Archer said:

Since the subject was taking over the Orlando shooting thread and @downzy suggested moving it to a relevant thread or starting a new one - 

There doesn't seem to be another one specific to this topic, so it would be better to discuss this topic in a fresh thread. To maintain continuity however, it would be a great help if the moderators can move the relevant posts from the Orlando thread to this one, before discussions commence.

Thanks!

Done!

[The Archer]

43 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Not pointless, but highly relevant. The Catholic church professes to be the house of God on earth and needs to do "the right thing" because it is meant to be the sole beacon of light on this dark planet. Don't claim to sit next to God in matters of morality and then get involved in continued depravity of the worst kind.

You must have understood what I meant of course - the Roman church (or any Catholic Church), to itself and to its adherents, can still be 'right' while not 'doing right'. To judge whether it is indeed doing right or wrong, needs to be done without reference to its own conceptions of right and wrong. Therefore, what you are saying is irrelevant in terms of being Christian or at least, being Catholic. When viewing or judging the actions of the Catholic Church, as an objective party, its own standards of morality are not sufficient.

The Roman Catholic Church, or any professed 'agent' of God, whether a Baptist preacher, a Hindu Swami, a Buddhist monk, an Islamic Imam, a Jewish Rabbi, or a self-declared divinely-ordained leader such as Hitler (or for that matter, the Caliph of ISIS), does of course need to be judged according to the morality of their actions. But, not according to a morality of their own making. Rather, their actions must be accounted for as indisputably moral or amoral, by any third party, religious or irreligious.

43 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Very much not a red herring. In fact, it goes to show that the Holy See was very much content to turn a blind eye to a member of their flock's transgressions, as long as they themselves got something out of the bargain, just the same as the popes of the Middle Ages. They could have condemned Hitler, publically, and excommunicated him, but instead they chose to take his gold. Would they have remained so inactive for an atheist or pagan devil worshipper? Most certainly not.

This is a flight of fancy - do you have proof that the Roman Church brokered a deal with Hitler, whereby they exchanged their silence in the face of his crimes, in return for siphoning his money?

Please do explain the trail of the money from Croatia to the Vatican - so that we can all understand what you are getting at.

43 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Would they have remained so inactive for an atheist or pagan devil worshipper? Most certainly not.

It is admissible that the Vatican saw the Communists of the time as a greater threat than Hitler and condemnation of them is a matter of record. However, the Vatican gingerly steps around China, for the sake of its persecuted followers in that country.

But, once again you are confusing silence with inaction. 

43 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Not moral equivalence, or disingenuousness, so much as demonstrating that el papa and his flunkies not only didn't condemn Hitler but actively supported them. Again, would they do so if they believed that Hitler was not a Christian, or didn't believe in God or was a devil worshipper?

Is it not mealymouthed to insist on this, when you have been given evidence that the Vatican not only refused to endorse Hitler's actions but actively resisted him, though covertly and even successfully?

[DieselDaisy]

4 hours ago, PappyTron said:

Holocaust policies, not pre-war political willy waving over who was top dog in Germany. You already know that though. Anyway, as requested, back on the subject at hand.

The Holocaust? The Holocaust did not begin until late-spring 1944! The war was over a year later!

To have expected the Vatican to have vastly superior information on what was happening in the extermination camps than the Anglo-American-Soviet Alliance and within a small enough time span to throw out a missive, condemning the camps, is blatantly absurd - especially figuring in the general war situation, Italy deposing Mussolini and switched alliances. The few people who possessed the paltry information that leaked from the camps, up until the termination of the war, could not get their head around the magnitude of atrocities, such was their unprecedented nature. The prevailing feeling was complete disbelief.

Have you not read the anecdote about Churchill having papers, relating to 'stories' (because that is all it was at this stage) chucked on his desk?