JCC Pope watch MMXIII (MMXXV Edition)

No argument there.

 

Bull crap.

1940, Pius asked members of the clergy to do whatever they could for Jews who were interned. Then in 1941 a German-Jew came to him and Pius spoke to him, with these words in front of German soldiers, "You are a young Jew. I hope you know what that means and I hope you will always be proud to be a Jew. whether you are worthier than others only the Lord knows, but believe me, you are at least as worthy as every other human being that lives on our earth! And now my Jewish friend, go with the protection of the Lord, and never forget, you must always be proud to be a Jew!" Then his 1942 Christmas message, "Mankind owes that vow to the numberless exiles whom the hurricane of war has torn from their native land and scattered in the land of the stranger; who can make their own the lament of the Prophet: 'Our inheritance is turned to aliens; our house to strangers.' Mankind owes that vow to the hundreds of thousands of persons who, without any fault on their part, sometimes only because of their nationality or race, have been consigned to death or slow extermination." Then in 1943 there was a possibility the Germans would arrest the Pope, Pius instructed that should that happen he would immediately resign and a new Pope be elected in Portugal. The Pope even ordered the Vaticans coffers emptied to help pay a ransom for Jews held by the Germans, which the Germans took but then sent the Jews to death camps anyways. Then the Pope sent Nuncio Orsenigo to speak to Hitler on his behalf on the subject of the Jews persecution, it had no effect thought.

Pius was silent because he was afraid of the German response to openly attacking the Holocaust. And if he had what would've happened? Nothing. It would have continued, albeit the Vatican might have been stormed and a bunch of Catholics would suddenly find themselves in those camps as well. That was Pius's logic, if he stayed silent he could have his priests, nuns, etc... do what they could to help the Jews... if he spoke out they would no longer be able to. Is that convenient for him? Yes, but here's the thing... Pius was human. He wasn't a good man, he wasn't a great man, he wasn't a hero, he was just human. He acted out of fear, but despite that he still did much more than a lot of other people of the time.

To say that Pius did not care about the fate of the Jews is an absolute lie that disregards history and fact. Did Pius do enough? No. No one did enough. If Pius is an immoral coward and complicit murder, EVERY HUMAN BEING not in a death camp during that time in history is one as well.

 

That is exactly what I said.

...

 

Right then: some remedial reading for you.

And while we're on the subject of quotes, here's some notable ones...

"Not even institutions of worldwide importance, such as the International Red Cross or the Roman Catholic Church saw fit to appeal to Hitler in a general way on behalf of the Jews or to call openly on the sympathies of the world. It was precisely because they wanted to help the Jews that these organizations refrained from making any general and public appeals; for they were afraid that they would injure rather than help the Jews thereby."
--Ernst Von Weiszacker, the German ambassador to the Vatican during World War 2, from his memoirs.

"Should the Vatican either politically or propagandistically oppose Germany, it should be made unmistakably clear that worsening of relations between Germany and the Vatican would not at all have an adverse effect on Germany alone. On the contrary, the German government would have sufficient effective propaganda material as well as retaliatory measures at its disposal to counteract each attempted move by the Vatican."
--Von Ribbentrop's communique to Weiszacker on 24 January 1943.

"Others besides Pius XII had to face a similar agonizing dilemma. The Polish cardinal, Prince Sapieha, begged Pius XII not to make public protests, as they only increased the persecution of his people. The International Red Cross refrained from protest because they feared that their work in German-controlled countries would be stopped. The British and American Governments were accused of callous indifference to the fate of the Jews because they failed to take them out of Nazi clutches before it was too late. To have done what was asked of them would have prolonged the war."
--Sir Alec Randall, former British Representative to the Vatican, in a letter to the London Times, May 15, 1963.

"The detained priests trembled every time news reached us of some protest by a religious authority, but particularly by the Vatican. We all had the impression that our warders made us atone heavily for the fury these protests evoked ... whenever the way we were treated became more brutal, the Protestant pastors among the prisoners used to vent their indignation on the Catholic priests: 'Again your big naive Pope and those simpletons, your bishops, are shooting their mouths off .. why don't they get the idea once and for all, and shut up. They play the heroes and we have to pay the bill.'"
--Monsignor Jean Bernard, also former inmate of Dachau.

""We leave it to the [local] bishops to weigh the circumstances in deciding whether or not to exercise restraint, ad maiora mala vitanda [to avoid greater evil]. This would be advisable if the danger of retaliatory and coercive measures would be imminent in cases of public statements by the bishop. Here lies one of the reasons We Ourselves restrict Our public statements. The experience We had in 1942 with documents which We released for distribution to the faithful gives justification, as far as We can see, for Our attitude."
--Pope Pius XII letter to Bishop Von Preysing, quoted in the Tablet, London, 16 March 1963.

"We share the grief of the world over the death of His Holiness Pius XII. During a generation of wars and dissensions, he affirmed the high ideals of peace and compassion. During the ten years of Nazi terror, when our people went through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and to commiserate with their victims. The life of our time has been enriched by a voice which expressed the great moral truths above the tumults of daily conflicts. We grieve over the loss of a great defender of peace."
--Golda Meir on the death of Pius. Dunno who she was, apparently a Minister of some place called Israel?

"Excellency:
In these harsh times our thoughts turn more than ever with respectful gratitude to what has been accomplished by the Sovereign Pontiff on behalf of Jews in general and by Your Excellency on behalf of the Jews of Romania and Transnistria.
In the most difficult hours which we Jews of Romania have passed through, the generous assistance of the Holy See, carried out by the intermediary of your high person, was decisive and salutary. It is not easy for us to find the right words to express the warmth and consolation we experienced because of the concern of the supreme Pontiff, who offered a large sum to relieve the sufferings of deported Jews, sufferings which had been pointed out to him by you after your visit to Transnistria. The Jews of Romania will never forget these facts of historic importance . . . "
--Rabbi Safran of Bucharest, letter to the Papal Nuncio, 7 September 1944.

That's leaving aside all the assistance he rendered to Jews in Italy, in the Vatican itself.

 

And a couple more interesting quotes, this time from someone you'd recognise, Ender_Sai:

"As Leon Papeleux makes clear, the Vatican’s posture shifted during the course of the war, as did that of other neutrals: the Holy See gradually became more forthcoming in its demarches on behalf of Jews and more overt in its assistance to the persecuted. But the Pope remained reluctant to speak out almost until the very end. In the autumn of 1943, with Rome under German occupation, the Nazis began roundups of Jews virtually on the doorstep of the papal palace. On a knife’s edge, the Pope seems to have balanced carefully, fearing at any moment that the SS might descend on the Vatican itself.
In his signals to Berlin, the German ambassador to the Holy See, Ernst von Weizsaecker, portrayed a pro-German pope, alluding to his reluctance to protest the assault on the Jews. Was Weizsaecker delicately trying to subvert the intentions of the SS by suggesting the high price the Reich might have to pay for the persecutions? Was he trying to protect the Pope from direct Nazi moves against him? Or was he accurately reporting the perspectives of the Holy See? Interpretations of this episode vary widely—from those who see Pius playing a delicate, complicated game with Nazi occupiers, expressing himself cryptically, to those who read the incident as a further indication of church reluctance to take any risks on behalf of Jews."

And further on in the same document:

It is true that Pacelli had served many years as papal nuncio in Germany and feared mightily during the war that the defeat of the Nazis would lead to the triumph of Bolshevism in Europe. But Vatican documents do not indicate a guarded pro-Nazism or a supreme priority of opposition to the Soviet Union. Nor do they reveal a particular indifference to the fate of Jews, let alone hostility toward them. Rather, the Vatican’s communications, along with other evidence, suggest a resolute commitment to its traditional policy of reserve and conciliation. The goal was to limit the global conflict where possible and above all to protect the influence and standing of the church as an independent voice. Continually apprehensive of schisms within the church, Pius strove to maintain the allegiance of Catholics in Germany, in Poland, and elsewhere. Fearful too of threats from the outside, the pope dared not confront the Nazis or the Italian Fascists directly.

And lastly--

In retrospect, some historians have come to appreciate the tactical caution of the Holy See. Guenther Lewy, for example, suggests that a “flaming protest” by the pope against the perpetrators of genocide would almost certainly have failed to move the German public and would likely have made matters worse—especially for the half-Jews as well as for practicing Catholics in Germany. Others claim that much of the present condemnation of Vatican policy springs from mistaken assumptions about church doctrine. It may be quite correct to say, as does Father John Morley, that the Vatican “betrayed the ideals it set for itself”.

The author? Michael R. Marrus, the guy who wrote The Holocaust in History. These passages come from The Holocaust and the Christian World, Yad Vashem 2000, pp. 126-129.

Not even the historians you've studied support your view Pius XII was indifferent to the Jews, Ender.

 

The thing is, he was in a position to do much, much more. Kolbe stuck his neck out -- Pius XII didn't.
Hell, THIS GUY probably had even more reason to be afraid!

(It's really interesting to look up those who were declared Righteous Among the Nations -- one was Prince Phillip's mother!)

Let's also not forget the Jewish orphans, one of the most disgusting examples of his tenure. False baptismal records are one thing. Actual baptisms? That's completely insane.

Damn, this thread has really gone off track, hasn't it?

 

(Yes, it has...)

Kolbe was a saint. Pius XII was not. (Not yet, anyway). More pertinently, Kolbe only gave up his own life. Pius XII arguably did not have the right to unilaterally endanger the thousands of Catholic priests and monks under Nazi-occupied Europe with his actions. It's easy to say he didn't do "Enough", but as GenAntilles said - nobody did. I mean, you could just as easily argue that Kolbe should not have sacrificed his own life in Auschwitz for another person and instead should've kept working to keep morale up, that he would have saved more lives that way. It's armchair quarterbacking of the worst kind.

The other issue is: "in a position to do much, much more" ... of what?
What could he have done, bearing in mind his position?
Declared war? No, mainly because he was a Pope, and by that point the Pope had no personal army under his banners. Not to mention in order to get to Germany he would have to pass Hitler's ally, Mussolini.
Encouraged others to declare war? No, because everyone was already pretty much in it against Hitler after he invaded Poland and then the Low Countries - not to mention it would have meant setting aside the cloak of neutrality, which is referred to above. If the Vatican's going to be criticised for neutrality, then you have to say the same about Spain and Switzerland - both of which were safe havens from the German army at some points.
Could he have spoken out publicly against the Nazi regime, against the genocide? Yes, but consider the consequences if he had; they're spelled out pretty well in the various quotes set out above. And note that whilst the Vatican seems to have been pretty well-informed about the concentration camps, it wasn't the only body that knew: Britain and possibly the US knew as early as 1941 what was going on at Auschwitz, but they didn't make the knowledge public or announce they were going to war for Judaism at large. Nor did the International Red Cross, though it too knew and had a parallel secular status to that of the Church: it, too, stuck to neutrality figuring it could do more good in German-controlled areas if it didn't speak out.

Pius XII can be criticised for not openly opposing the Nazi regime, but at the same time he did not prevent local Catholic churches from acting in support of the Jews. He did not assist the Nazi slaughter unless it be by the most tortuous chain of omission. This is not to say you can't do harm to someone by omission of action, but the chain of causation has to end somewhere.

The key to it is, paradoxically, in Ender_Sai's own quote that purpotedly shows Pius XII's indifference to the Jews: "there is no effective help we can offer other than our prayers." The key word is bolded: effective, as in practical, as in that would make a difference. There were a number of gestures I suppose Pius could have done -- offer himself for ransom in exchange for the Jews, excommunicate Hitler, announce the Vatican was a safe haven for any Jew who could get within the walls, declare all churches across Europe were safe havens for the Jews -- but none of those measures would have assisted. None. Hitler had a massive army, the SS, and Italy surrounded the Vatican. And any of those measures would have put most if not many clergy if not Catholics in jeopardy across any of the occupied countries by way of reprisals. Ribbentrop's communique to Wieszacker in 1943 is particularly chilling in its assurances on that.

 

I will dismantle the "facts" from deliciouschildanus.com when I get home Saintheart.

 

Hope you can do it without resorting to profanity, caricature, or ad homonym this time, dude.

 

Ad hominem, that is.

 

Yes, it does, but Saintheart pretty much said what had to be said, so no need to repeat. Although I will add, that just because the Church issued a formal apology in the 1990's, does not mean, contrary to what some believe, that the Church only accepted the Heliocentric model then. I highly doubt that people like Fr. Angelo Secchi, Fr. Barnaba Oriani, Fr. Stephen Perry, Fr. Georges Lemaitre etc. would have had been able to get their work published if such was the case.

 

So we should respect the Catholic church more or less because they apologised in the 90s?

 

No, who said I'm asking for respect for my faith. But I will stand up for it when I see false claims get thrown around in an echo chamber and ingrain people with such unfound hatred, not just a differing viewpoint, but a real genuine hatred.

 

I am not ignoring the subject out of any deceitful purpose, I am just not well verse on the subject, yet, But I do know that, no, the Catholic Church in Germany was not at all complacent; Priests, sisters, brothers, laity all went to their deaths in concentrations camps for doing something, granted not in the same number as the Jews, obviously. The Church did not "tacitly approve" the Nazi party either, have you read Mit brennder Sorge?

And I ask, since many here say that Venerable Pope Pius XII didn't do enough, as to imply that he wasn't concerned with the fate of the Jews, what would have been "enough" in your opinion?

 

People have good reason to hate the church. It's a fundamentally dishonest organisation that deliberately spreads AIDS and poverty, with a massive wealth founded on charlatanry. It's an organisation that promotes sexual inequality for supernatural reasons, which says that suffering is a positive thing which brings us closer to a god who almost certainly doesn't exist. It's an institution run by virgins who presume to lecture us on sexual behaviour, while at the same time covering up the sexual abuse of children in their care. An organisation with links to the Mafia... A religion so perversely corrupt that it has its own BANK (with a professional reputation to rival the church's for corruption).

If this was a secular organisation, it would have been shut down long ago.

 

See, this here touches on a greater subject, I suppose that the faithful can offer whatever arguments to the agnostics/atheists here, but they won't accept any of it. We are arguing from an entirely different starting point, that there is a God. That God promised the Holy Spirit will guide that Church and so those teachings, we believe, are the Truth. So yes, I do believe suffering can be a good thing, but no the Church doesn't teach it's necessary, and we should do what we can to alleviated it. How we go about doing that is obviously different from what the secular world generally believes, because, we assume there is a God, from which follows a series of conclusions. Unless, I could get you guys to see it from that essential premise, I guess, none of you would be able to understand the Church's reasoning.

It disheartens me that the mere mention of anything the Church does and stands for is met with skepticism and hatred. That the Church and Her servants are INTENTIONALLY trying to oppress the world and do evil for ulterior motives, like greed, power etc. As someone who works regularly with Priests, faithful Laity, Bishops and has met many clerics from across the world, I jut really do not see them as the type of people who want anything but the good of others and have genuine concern for them. The picture of the Church and Her histroy the secular world( Much which is still informed by Enlightenment prejudice.)paints just doesn't match what those folk represent. As such, I feel the need to speak up, when I see such vitriol being spewed.

*No, the Church does not teach sexual inequality, it teaches complementarianism. Again this will probaby mean very little to many, because it stems from a wholly different assumption.

 

I have to disagree with that. The essence of Christianity, particularly Catholicism, is self -sacrifice. That is what love is about. It's not about helping your friends or those who agree with your 'creed', it's about the idea of laying down your life for complete strangers, because you love them. It's one of the tenets of Christianity which I actually admire but which is demonstrably absent in those who have chosen to join the ranks of the administration of the faithful.

I am a big fan Pope John Paul I. I think he understood what the Catholic Church was supposed to be about, pity he died (or murdered? - yes according to author David Yallop) before he could implement his sweeping changes.

 

But that's exactly what Saintheart is saying. You emphasised it yourself - self-sacrifice. SELF-sacrifice. Not sacrifice of those under your care and responsibility.

 

But Jesus said you should give up your family to follow him, aren't your family in your care and responsibility?

He said anyone who had forsaken possessions and power in this life would be rewarded in the next, so why didn't the church risk giving up their power to do what's right?

Or were they considering the Jews as the family they were sacrificing? Do you think the Catholic church may have thought of the Jewish holocaust as a good kind of suffering?

 

Mar17swgirl - yes I get that but the larger point that Saintheart seems to be making (and what I am responding to specifically) is the emphasis placed on laying down for your life for your "friends". The point that Saintheart appears to be pursuing is that Pius really had no duty to put himself or other in danger because the Jews were strangers to him and were not followers of Christ. I disagree with this fundamentally for the reasons set out in my previous post. I also take issue with this idea that self-sacrifice cannot extend to others "in your care". All of the martyrs of Christendom suffered as did their families and loved ones, as did the followers and disciples of Christ himself.

I'm not sure Christianity would have been given a kick start if Jesus kind of decided to remain silent for fear of implicating his buddies and getting them into trouble.

 

That wasn't really my point, Lost, but I get where you're coming from.

I might point out that Jesus did remain silent for fear of implicating his buddies at one point. When he was arrested, when the temple guards asked for him, Jesus said "I am the man," not "I am the man, and these are twelve, sorry, eleven of my closest buddies who believe I'm the Messiah." Indeed he went further, rebuking one who used a sword and healing the ear of the guard who'd been injured. Jesus never implicated any of his followers to the authorities. And it was well-known he had them. Indeed I think it was a point of prophecy that he had to fulfill: that even though he was taken, not one of those who followed him were to be harmed.

Sacrificing other people in your care is a bit of a bridge too far for me to say self sacrifice. Jesus didn't do it; why should Pius? Jesus, who said better that a millstone go round your neck than that you should mislead a child? Jesus who noted "would any of you give your son a stone if he asked for bread?" (Let's leave aside the paedophilia issue: it's been handled appallingly by the Church, and I've no argument on that.) The point being that, to the Pope, I would have thought all those hundreds if not thousands of priests and monks are his family; his flock; given to him to tend to. Do you sacrifice one half of your flock on the hope of ransoming the other flock? Maybe a saint could make that choice easily; ordinary humans have rather a harder time than that. I think Pius was subject to a lot of competing considerations - preservation of the Church, which was a sworn part of his job and obeying the will of Christ while doing so. That's why I keep banging on about having to be in his position with his responsibilities -- you might not agree with his choice, but at least it can be better understood. And understanding is the goal of history, not judgment.

V-2, whether it's ignorance or mischief by you I think you're conflating two or three Biblical passages together. Jesus says you have to give everything up and follow him; in another passage he says the consolation for that choice is that what you give up in this life will be given to you tenfold in the life to come. It does not mean throwing your children to the wolves to follow him. That would be a dreadful perversion of the Christian message. And don't bring up Matthew's "I have come to set father against son"; that refers to the fact Christianity is a radical, even heretical choice in a Jewish society, not a suggestion that you murder your kids for the sake of the faith. Is this a perfect moral textbook of what to do in any given situation? Nope. That's what your conscience is for. As far as Pius is concerned, we can argue his motives back and forth -- historians still don't agree on them -- but at the end of the day I believe he made the call he thought was right in context. If he honestly thought he was doing the right thing, after a lot of contemplation.

P.S.: +1 to the shout out to John Paul I. Like Kennedy, he was dead before history could really judge him as a success or failure, but he showed great promise. I would've liked him. I also still think there's a good case for murder despite the holes in Yallop's theory - but the Vatican Bank did, and probably still does, need a massive cleanout. In a way Yallop's cataloguing of the Vatican Bank's activities is more valuable than the conspiracy theory surrounding JP I's death. Put it this way, Paul Marcinkus took a lot of secrets to the grave, and I think he'll answer for a lot more in the beyond than he did here.

 

I'd just like to say explicitly I'm officially liking the opening post due to the brilliant title.

edit: and it's really a great picture.

 

Saintheart - I'm not really trying to comment specifically on the exploits of Pius because I know very little about him, my comments were directed at your justification for his perceived lack of action on the premise that the Jews were "strangers to his creed" and were not therefore worth taking the risk to protect. You then provided a quote which seemed to support that proposition that self sacrifice for your friends is a demonstration of the love which defines Christian values.

I just disagree that sacrifice for your friends really defines Christianity. I would have thought that sacrifice for strangers is more along the lines of what Jesus was all about. If I am wrong about that, then I guess I am wrong about the only redeeming value I see in Christianity. The point though is the question of risk. My comments regarding Pius really revolve around the issue of certain things which morally require one to take a risk. I'm talking about risk in the face of pure, unadulterated evil. Should a person allow the wholesale slaughter of "strangers to your creed" simply because helping them might expose yourself and your flock (and more importantly your wealth and treasure) to risk? To me, the answer is "no" and more importantly I would have thought that this would be a no-brainer for a person who follows the teachings of Christ?

Also, just quickly, my point about Jesus is not that he didn't try to protect his followers, simply that he would have known that actively preaching his message would inevitably implicate his followers - obviously this is something that his followers willingly accepted but nonetheless Jesus was definitely a risk taker.

 

This is a much more class of argument, but also one that is wholly different than what I objected to. If you want to defend Pius on the notion that it wasn't clear what the correct thing to do was, fine. You are welcome to that position, and is at least one that is not contradictory in its opening premise. What I reacted vigorously to was your specific suggestion that, even if speaking out had been the clearly identifiable correct course of action, it would have been acceptable to shirk from doing so in order to protect the Vatican from being razed. I have only ever said that absolutely is not, and under no circumstances ever should be, an acceptable rationale for not doing what morality obliges.

Really? Any piece of art is "sacred?" Any at all? Lolcats is spiritually valuable? The quickly abandoned Gap logo redesign is spiritually valuable? The statues of pagan idols housed in the Vatican are spiritually important for Christians?

I should dearly hope that all of us here value human lives more than a piece of artwork.