The Myth of Hitler's Pope

[Kitsune]

Has anyone else read "The Myth of Hitler's Pope?"

I was asked to read a book "The Myth of Hitler's Pope," which is a book which is critical to the various books which are critical to Pope Pius XII and the Catholic Church as far as treatment of the Jews in general. I was able to get it through an interlibrary loan from Old Dominion University Library.

One item I have with the author right off that he is extremely free about labeling people as Liberal and that the Liberal Media is highly uncritical about the books he is writing against. It is not at issue with "The Popes against the Jews" and is not mentioned in what I have read of "Constantine's Sword" but he talks repeatedly about how they have a liberal agenda toward such subjects as Abortion. It makes me consider that there is an agenda with his writing as he accuses the others of having.

A specific problem I have is that Dalan, the Author, is highly critical of Kertzer, the author of "The Popes against the Jews" is that he appears to not understand Kertzer's stance not of hatred of the Catholic Church but that it is a human organization. Some popes have been and bad. Dalan also talks about specific statement that Kertzer does not talk about a specific example Pope Benedict XIV speaking out against antisemitism but Kertzer wrote of Pope Benedict XIV in very positive terms, leading me to think of Dalan as being a bit disingenuous.

Dalan, in the beginning of the book, also talks a bit of the previous history of the church and about Pope's treatment and it is interesting that he skips around a lot such as completely ignoring Paul IV. I also would like add it is interesting that he specifially uses Pope Alexander VI (Roderic Borja [Italian: Borgia]), the Pope know for corruption, as s one of the best as far as fair treatment of Jews.

One interesting subject which he discusses is Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-Hesseini and his place in the modern antisemitism of the Arab world. I have seen bits and pieces in other places about him.

[Darth Wong]

Any author who spends time ranting about "liberal bias" is clearly full of shit. Even if such a bias existed, there would be no meaningful way of assessing its strength, nor would it have any bearing on the strength of arguments raised for and against any particular position. Ranting about "liberal bias" is the exclusive domain of liars; accusation of "bias", after all, is the most popular form of ad-hominem fallacy.

[Kitsune]

To quote Dalan (Pg 2):

Very few of the many recent books about Pius XII and the Holocaust are actually about Pius XII and the Holocaust. The liberal bestselling attacks on the pope and the Catholic Church are really an intra-Catholic argument about the direction of the Church today. The Holocaust is simply the biggest club available for the liberal Catholics to use against the traditional Catholics in their attempt to bash the papacy and thereby to smash traditional Catholic teachings - especially on issues related to sexuality, including abortion, contraception, celibacy, and the role of women in the church.

One weird thing is that the author claims the title of Rabbi but sometimes it sounds more like what I have heard from Catholics (as far as thought patterns) than someone who is Jewish. Kertzer also claims to be Jewish although not a rabbi and his writing does not strike me as traditionally liberal in tone either.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

He sounds absolutely silly. Seems like he reasons as follows.

A: Papacy is found to be complicit in some of the most morally indefensible and horrific movements in history.

B: This weakens the claims of the papacy to moral infallibility, thus leading more credence to liberal Catholics challenges to traditional authority.

C: Liberal Catholics have an agenda for reforming current teachings regarding social issues, sexual conduct, and possibly hierarchical restructuring.

Conclusion: A is false or can be dismissed as irrelevant.

[Darth Wong]

He sounds absolutely silly. Seems like he reasons as follows.

A: Papacy is found to be complicit in some of the most morally indefensible and horrific movements in history.

B: This weakens the claims of the papacy to moral infallibility, thus leading more credence to liberal Catholics challenges to traditional authority.

C: Liberal Catholics have an agenda for reforming current teachings regarding social issues, sexual conduct, and possibly hierarchical restructuring.

Conclusion: A is false or can be dismissed as irrelevant.

That's called the Appeal to Consequence fallacy: something cannot be true if we don't like the ramifications of it being true.

For example: "She can't be cheating on me. If she was cheating on me, it would mean that she doesn't love me."