The Myth of Hitler's Pope, book by Rabbi David Dalin....

[calitennis127]

For everyone who isn't American, it may be kind of hard to comprehend what I am about to say, but pretty much everything that is taught about history in American schools is a lie. I'm sure the situation is somewhat similar in Europe, but I will leave it to our European friends to comment on that. I'll stick to what I know very well, which is my own country of the good ole USA.

Our education and media establishments repeatedly cover up truths on vital matters and propagandize on behalf of their pet causes. A great example of this has to do with the subject of this e-mail - a book I read about 4 or 5 years ago and have decided to re-visit now. Besides the American South, one of the great targets for the media and education establishments is the Catholic Church. The Church gave the world the horrors of the Inquisition, Galileo persecution, Holocaust facilitation, and, now, sexual abuse of children (I have seen this last matter discussed in detail in another thread, with many sides of the issue considered, so I won't address it now).

For the record, I am originally and naturally a Northeasterner myself. I know all about university Democratic Party-favoring environments. Actually, that's really all I have ever known. But I also am Catholic. I am not particularly pious or devout, but I care enough to understand the significance of religion and the basic foundation that it constitutes for society.

Now, when it comes to Pope Pius XII and perceptions of the Holocaust, most people who go to college in America or read the New York Times believe that the Catholic Church was in cahoots with Hitler and the Nazis. In particular, it is contended that Pope Pius XII quietly wanted Hitler to finish off the Jews, so he did nothing to stop the Holocaust, and in some ways, he even facilitated it.

This total nonsense was given a great boost of credibility with the publishing of John Cornwell's book, Hitler's Pope, in 1999. The anti-Catholic leftist media of America ate it up like little kids going after their favorite flavor of birthday cake. Yum, yum, yum, yum. Let's bash that Church and drive its reputation into the ground. Let's indict it for the Holocaust.

Cornwell was made into a celebrity. His assertions became talking points for the truth-denying, historically ignorant scoundrels of the New York Times and other prominent media outlets in America. I believe he went on to "60 minutes", among other television programs, to promote his book. The point is, his supposed "findings" were welcomed joyously by the misinformed and callow minds of the American media.

So, along comes the good guy in the story: Rabbi David Dalin. In 2005, he wrote a book that played off the title of Cornwell's waste of trees. Dalin's book was called "The Myth of Hitler's Pope". Thoroughly researched and carefully documented, it completely put to rest the media fallacy of Pope Pius XII's complicity in the Holocaust. It actually showed that Pius XII did more to save Europe's Jews than anyone, in particular saving a very high percentage of Jews in Rome and Italy (80-85%) from extermination at the hands of the Nazis. He even allowed the papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo to be used to house 3,000 Jews.

Now did Rabbi Dalin get warm reviews in the New York Times and the Washington Post? Did Anderson Cooper or Mizzzzzzzz Rachel Maddow do an interview with him on their shows? Was his book made into required or even suggested reading for American college students studying the Holocaust or World War II?

Yes, at the same time that pigs were made to fly.

Cornwell's shoddy, error-filled book has been disproved and discredited by many researchers in the last 14 years, Dalin among others. Cornwell has actually even retracted many of his claims out of embarrassment. But none of this has gotten any publicity or front-page newspaper coverage the way Cornwell did when his book came out in 1999.

The only interview I have been able to find of Dalin discussing The Myth of Hitler's Pope is this one, with a paltry 121 views on youtube. I don't think any NYT bloggers will be linking to it any time soon. Consider yourself lucky for getting to see it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJEHQuTYVXc

 

[britbox]

I haven't read either books, but the point about the media is spot on. In the printed media, you get headlined features to grab people's attention on the front pages. If the article is later proved wrong, you get a tiny apology printed in the corner of page 2, weeks later. Unfortunately mud sticks.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

classic cali - proclaim a narrative that supposably everyone is holding up, and then come in as the savior to de-bunk the myth.

never mind that the picture and discussion are actually much diverse. that in big outlets like the Economist and the (hardly right-wing) Newsweek, Cornwell's work has been critizised. or that Cornwell himself actually backpedalled, and went on to offer a more balanced view in later books and interviews - one that is more in tune with what I would have seen as the general picture of Pius XII: someone who didn't (maybe because he couldn't or didn't dare to) speak up as much, as publicly and as directly as his predecessor had while the worst of all atrocities were in progress. who (like many others) feared communism so much that he (incorrectly) might have seen fashism as the lesser evil. and someone who helped save thousands of lifes, knowing that so many more died.
all this might help to remind us that life is not black and white, that there's a myriad of perspectives and aspects for every story. which is why Cornwell's book and the attention-seeking, sales-oriented title (which Dalin knew well to play on) are so wrong.

and which is why you're also wrong, painting in black and white, claiming "most people who go to college in America or read the New York Times believe that the Catholic Church was in cahoots with Hitler and the Nazis. In particular, it is contended that Pope Pius XII quietly wanted Hitler to finish off the Jews". now, the first part - "the church was in cahoots with Hitler and the Nazis" - i guess most people indeed are aware of the simple Fact that some parts of the catholic church, especially the grand organisation as such, to some degree collaborated, if only in finding a modus vivendi. just like other parts, members, clerics fought the Nazis. (much like the french, one might say)

the latter part, about Pius XII quietly wanting the genocide, however, is going well beyond even Cornwell's early, wrong version of things. i guess (unlike you?) i can't judge the general college-educated, NY times reading population, but i must say that i've had a conversation or two about these topics with people who fit that description, and none of them came even close to such a stupid, simplistic idea as the one you claim is perpetuated as common knowledge among them (and a myth that you, in your everlasting fight for truth, need to debunk).

also, one more caveat, if you'd like to actually discuss Pius XII (and not just media bias and the evil left-wing machinery, that is probably in cahoots with the evil feminist propaganda army that Ricardo seems so eager to fight): you seem to suggest that all of the criticism of Pius XII is founded in left-wing anti-catholic bias. yet i think the main problem for the legacy of Pius XII is in the positive catholic legacy - being compared to Pius XI, a much more vocal critic of the racist Nazi regime, as opposed to Pius XII's silent and diplomatic ways. saved it is hard to gauge which way was the better one - in hindsight, it is impossible. but of course, looking at the course history, one can't help but wonder what would have happened had the pope invoked his moral authority more drastically, more clearly and earlier.

back to your issue regarding the public attention of Cornwell's book vs. Dalin's - i think two issues are at work here. for one, britbox is spot on - headlines and attention-grabbing works with mud and sleaze campaigns, not so much with nuanced, balanced responses. and as the old saying goes - only bad news is good news. the other thing would be that Dalin's book came out in 2005, at a point where criticism of Cornwell was quite well established, and even Cornwell himself had already voiced his updated, more balanced views; and lastly, considering Dalin had already voiced his opinion in earlier essays, the book didn't exactly offer groundbreaking news.

 

[DarthFed]

For everyone who isn't American, it may be kind of hard to comprehend what I am about to say, but pretty much everything that is taught about history in American schools is a lie. I'm sure the situation is somewhat similar in Europe, but I will leave it to our European friends to comment on that. I'll stick to what I know very well, which is my own country of the good ole USA.

Our education and media establishments repeatedly cover up truths on vital matters and propagandize on behalf of their pet causes. A great example of this has to do with the subject of this e-mail - a book I read about 4 or 5 years ago and have decided to re-visit now. Besides the American South, one of the great targets for the media and education establishments is the Catholic Church. The Church gave the world the horrors of the Inquisition, Galileo persecution, Holocaust facilitation, and, now, sexual abuse of children (I have seen this last matter discussed in detail in another thread, with many sides of the issue considered, so I won't address it now).

For the record, I am originally and naturally a Northeasterner myself. I know all about university Democratic Party-favoring environments. Actually, that's really all I have ever known. But I also am Catholic. I am not particularly pious or devout, but I care enough to understand the significance of religion and the basic foundation that it constitutes for society.

Now, when it comes to Pope Pius XII and perceptions of the Holocaust, most people who go to college in America or read the New York Times believe that the Catholic Church was in cahoots with Hitler and the Nazis. In particular, it is contended that Pope Pius XII quietly wanted Hitler to finish off the Jews, so he did nothing to stop the Holocaust, and in some ways, he even facilitated it.

This total nonsense was given a great boost of credibility with the publishing of John Cornwell's book, Hitler's Pope, in 1999. The anti-Catholic leftist media of America ate it up like little kids going after their favorite flavor of birthday cake. Yum, yum, yum, yum. Let's bash that Church and drive its reputation into the ground. Let's indict it for the Holocaust.

Cornwell was made into a celebrity. His assertions became talking points for the truth-denying, historically ignorant scoundrels of the New York Times and other prominent media outlets in America. I believe he went on to "60 minutes", among other television programs, to promote his book. The point is, his supposed "findings" were welcomed joyously by the misinformed and callow minds of the American media.

So, along comes the good guy in the story: Rabbi David Dalin. In 2005, he wrote a book that played off the title of Cornwell's waste of trees. Dalin's book was called "The Myth of Hitler's Pope". Thoroughly researched and carefully documented, it completely put to rest the media fallacy of Pope Pius XII's complicity in the Holocaust. It actually showed that Pius XII did more to save Europe's Jews than anyone, in particular saving a very high percentage of Jews in Rome and Italy (80-85%) from extermination at the hands of the Nazis. He even allowed the papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo to be used to house 3,000 Jews.

Now did Rabbi Dalin get warm reviews in the New York Times and the Washington Post? Did Anderson Cooper or Mizzzzzzzz Rachel Maddow do an interview with him on their shows? Was his book made into required or even suggested reading for American college students studying the Holocaust or World War II?

Yes, at the same time that pigs were made to fly.

Cornwell's shoddy, error-filled book has been disproved and discredited by many researchers in the last 14 years, Dalin among others. Cornwell has actually even retracted many of his claims out of embarrassment. But none of this has gotten any publicity or front-page newspaper coverage the way Cornwell did when his book came out in 1999.

The only interview I have been able to find of Dalin discussing The Myth of Hitler's Pope is this one, with a paltry 121 views on youtube. I don't think any NYT bloggers will be linking to it any time soon. Consider yourself lucky for getting to see it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJEHQuTYVXc

This is all news to me. Now I am not a NY Times reading American but I did go to college here and I've never heard of the theory that the Catholics were helping out Hitler.

As for some of the other topics brought up they are spot on. Of course there are some bad things the USA has done that are not in the history books here. Same thing is probably true for every country. For instance, I often have heard that in Japan there is no mention of the rape of Nanking.

The media loves a good attention grabbing headline. They are liberal as hell no doubt but you seem to overlook the simple concept that they are trying to get as many people to read/watch their stories as possible. A headline reading "Catholic Church aided Hitler in the Holocaust" is going to catch everyone's eye and have its intended effect.

 

[Kieran]

Good post, John, and you're right about this all being not so black and white, but in fairness to Cali, I know where he's coming from. I see so much lousy, lazy and shoddy anti-Catholicism, that his assessment isn't a million miles off, while also using exaggeration to make the point. Let's be clear: Cornwall pulled back a little from his outrageous slurs against Pius. Let's also be clear that Cornwall's idea of the Church is that it should reflect some hippy 60's ideal. Let's throw it all out and become Protestants, basically. He wrote a couple of truly offensive and stupid articles in the Sunday Times when B16 called it a day. He has a horrible attitude against the Church.

There's a lot of people who casually believe the worst about the Church in everything and Pius XII being Hitler's Pope fits the bill perfectly. I read Dalin's book a few years ago, and recently I'm tempted by another book I've seen in town, by a Jewish author who had access to recently made public Vatican files relating to Pius and his corresponces and actions. What's interesting is that so many Jews seem eager to rehabilitate this pope. They know the truth of it, that in a terrible situation, he was personally heroic and he also incurred the wrath of nazis by instructing the clergy to help Jews whenever and wherever they could. When B16 suggested that Pius be declared blessed, his 'nazi past' was knowingly recalled as the wise nodded and told us what sort of church we had.

Here's a clip of Dalin's book, and I'm glad to see that a new, more rigorously academic approach is being taken to this era, including examinations of Pius and what he did during the war. I have to admit to being a little tired of the Dan Brown/John Cornwall versions of Catholic history being so happily lapped up...

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

Kieran - true, Cali's exaggarations are piled on something that at it's core is rather factual. i hope it didn't seem as if i deny that. i was just trying to point out that he's piling a lot of stuff up there that's far from reality.

i think you're pointing to an interesting aspect in mentioning that there's more than one Jewish author working on Pius XII and explicitely defending him. a number of reasons for that, i'd assume. of course, it's no secret that conservatives of different faiths are probably more fond of each other than they are of liberal/anti-clerical movements in general, but i wouldn't see that as a determinating issue here. i think there could be something deeper going on here. after all, there is no doubt that Pius XII DID save a lot of people from sure death. did he do all that he could, everything that was in his might? i have no idea. i for one can't decide if i'd like to call him 'heroic'. did he incur the wrath of the nazis? he sure risked something with what he said and did while residing in a city that's occupied by Nazis/their allies. but compared to others who "incurred the wrath of the Nazis", he came out unscathed. i think that might be the core of some criticism - with all the moral authority that the Papacy has, couldn't he have gone further? couldn't he have risked a complete confrontation? what would or could have happened then, of course? how many more lifes would that have risked? and is that a way to go for a religious leader, or could it have been considered a step back into the times of more 'political' Popes? in either case, that's quite a rift there, from "heroic and brave, savior of many" to "didn't do all that he could despite his claim to moral authority". i reckon it's only natural that there would be a number of jewish writers interested in both sides of this story.

i dunno. it's hard to say, even in hindsight. and i don't like to judge. and yes, others do like, and yes, they like to judge over the church. then again, i feel like it has to be viewed in the context that throughout its history, the church has done nothing but judge over other people, even/especially their personal lives, claiming moral higher ground while being morally bankrupt for centuries. so i can understand that a certain backlash is only natural.

i also understand how canonization/beatification can trigger such discussions with a negative twist. of course, everybody in the church understands that, saint or not, they are human beings and as such have their faults and biographical twists and turns. but to an outsider, "saint" seems to mean that this person is perfect, and that every aspect of him or her is to be worshipped - infallible, really. so if we're talking about rather recent historical figures, it's natural that if their name is brought up, different views on different details will emerge and be discussed, and that, at the prospect of this person being called a 'saint', would make people eager to point out their flaws.

yet, while this is done quite viciously in regards to religious/christian/catholic processes (as this is a rather emotional subject in one way or another for so many), it's not limited to it. think of the discussions and the dirty laundry you get as soon as someone is nominated for a major public office. or if a statue is to be made, a holiday to be named - discussions can get real ugly, real quick. in Vienna, we have Major discussions about the re-naming of streets that are currently named after politicians - raging anti-semites and idols of Hitler who have also done a lot of good for the city of Vienna; founding fathers of our Second Republic who fought the Nazis but might have also been anti-semites. so while the religious topics might be a little more heated and emotional, the discussions of historical figures surely aren't limited to those of the clergy.

how about some positive news on/by popes, by the way? Francis is really trying hard to become everybody's darling. explaining to his followers that yes, even Atheists can be good and decent people and that they - shocker - can get into heaven as well! so there's hope yet loving it

 

[Kieran]

Great stuff again, John, I really like the way you turn things over and see all sides. Of course, the great 'myth' about Pius is that he was 'Hitler's Pope' - but also that he was silent. He was far from that, and Dalin points to the historical record. But the myths die hard. A very interesting thing he also points to, is the origin of this myth, a 1963 play in Communist East Germany (from memory) called The Deputy. From such humble start did this myth begin - and before this play there was never a suggestion of Pius being either silent or complicit.

A similarity might be drawn here with the da Vinci Code, which though low-level nosense, fooled a lot of people and some of them stayed fooled.

In fact - again from memory, but the article I cited above might mention it - the Chief Rabbi of Rome converted the Catholicism after the war. The reasons are in the book. Some may cast historically dubious aspersions on this, but that would maybe adding insult to the ex-Rabbi's intentions.

I'd dispute that the Church has ever been 'morally bankrupt for centuries' while conceding that at times the hierarchy has made it look as if it is. St Athanasius once wrote that the road to hell is paved with bishop's skulls, and I think many a Catholic and non-Catholic would find common ground with the wily saint on that one - bishop though he was, himself. But not all bishops are morally bankrupt - and nor is the Church made up solely of the hierarhy. Inspirationally, throughout the history of dodgy careerist and politically ambitious popes and bishops, the saints did indeed come marching in, to bring the true light and spirit of the Church to the fore.

And yeah, I'd like more positive spins on the Church. The bad publicity doesn't harm me because a lot of it's justified - though the sins of the Church have an inconvenient habit of looking exactly like the sins of everyone bloody else. But an occasional positive story would be nice. The Pope as exorcist, anyone? :angel:

 

[calitennis127]

John needs to read Mr. Dalin's book - closely. In particular, he needs to pay attention to all of the ways in which Pius XII has been slurred. To both John and Kieran, I have to say, I am not "exaggerating" one bit. The standard belief among American leftist opinion in schools and in the media is that Pope Pius XII aided and abetted Hitler. If you say it, people think you sound very smart and they will generally applaud you, nodding their heads.

One simple fact about the USA that foreigners and even some Americans do not really understand is that, politically speaking, the most powerful segment of the population are Northeastern Democrats. The education system of America is their playground, set with their rules, and they govern the general attitudes of the major media as well. This is why I often tell friends that if you want to know a) what the establishment of the country really thinks and b) what direction the education system is pushing America's younger generation toward, then flip to MSNBC.

On now to John's point about Pope Pius XII maybe not speaking out enough. Again, you need to read the book John and pay close attention to certain parts of it. Here are just a few of the facts and considerations that Dalin presents on this question of why Pius XII didn't throw a hissy fit for future generations to applaud:

- Pope Pius XII did not excommunicate Hitler or issue more confrontational pronouncements because he felt it would jeopardize the safety of many Jews being hidden, particularly in Italy and Rome, and he also was concerned that the Nazis would begin an intense campaign of persecution against Catholics given their anti-Christian attitudes.

- Dalin cites this quote from Marcus Melchior, the former chief rabbi of Denmark and himself a Holocaust survivor: "it is an error to think that Pius XII could have had any influence whatsoever on the brain of a madman. If the pope had spoken out, Hitler would probably have massacred more than six million Jews and perhaps ten times ten million Catholics, if he had the power to do so."

- Dalin also cites this quote from the Jewish lawyer Robert M.W. Kempner, who served as a prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials: "every propaganda move of the Catholic Church against Hitler's Reich would have been not only 'provoking suicide,'...but would have hastened the execution of still more Jews and priests."

- Rabbi Dalin also offers this example in support of Pope Pius XII's decision: he points to the Nazi response to the protests of the Catholic clergy in Holland; they protested more often and more vociferously than the religious hierarchy of any other Nazi-occupied country, in particular with a letter in July 1942 signed by Dutch bishops that protested the deportation of Jews from the Netherlands; and, what happened? Well, from Holland, the highest percentage of Jews of any Nazi-occupied nation in Western Europe (79%) were deported to death camps

- Moreover, Pius XII was worried about Catholics and their safety due to sentiments such as these:

From Hitler himself: "You can be a Christian or a German. You cannot be both"

From Baludur von Schirach, the leader of the Hitler Youth: "The destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement"

Josef Goebbels expressed desire to exterminate "after the last Jew, the last priest"

From the historian W.D. Rubinstein, explaining that Hitler's upbringing in Austria left him with a disdain of Catholicism and the Catholic monarchy "only slightly less vicious than that which he shows to Jews and Communists"



John is simply unaware of the nature of American political discourse. If you were to go on MSNBC and say that Pope Pius XII was complicit in the Holocaust, everyone would nod in gleeful agreement at your alleged historical perspective. If you were to go on Bill Maher's show and denigrate Pope Pius XII's World War II actions, all of the historically ignorant audience members would clap approvingly, applauding your supposed historical awareness.

I am not "exaggerating" one bit. I am characterizing the political climate in America exactly for what it is. If you don't believe me, move here for a year or two. Watch MSNBC and read NYT/Washington Post op-eds. After that, you will walk away saying Cali was right on point.

 

[shawnbm]

There are some illuminating posts here by all. I have enjoyed the to and fro. One reason, in my personal opinion, the Catholic Church, its popes and bishops get broadswiped so often in the press and the history books is because folks really like to say that if you (meaning the institution) are not wholly holy through and through at all times, then you should not dare "to judge others" as if you (the institution) have "higher moral ground". The idea is that this is hypocrisy. I understand some feel that way about the Catholic Church, but is a flawed view.

This is because the Catholic Church is like an ark, so to speak; it has, does and always will contain sinners and saints--at all levels of the institution, both lay and clerical/religious. It does not judge as an institution and it does not believe it (the institution) occupies any higher moral ground than anyone else as a matter of personal or corporate morality in human affairs.

What the Catholic Church DOES affirm and pronounce, though, is what is believes is a sacred deposit of faith (of dogmas, doctrines, beliefs) that it is POWERLESS to modify or change. So, it is duty bound to disagree and call erroneous those beliefs, positions, doctrines, etc. that are inconsistent with what the Church believes has been revealed as Sacred Truth by the LORD. Hence, it may appear the Church is looking down its corporate nose to "judge" homosexually oriented people who engage in homosexual acts and proudly declare this to be God-given rather than embrace chastity, women who can't be ordained to the priesthood "as a matter of equal civil rights", or that one's relationship with the Almighty is personal to the person and can be "equally" truthful as anything the Catholic magisterium teaches--but that is not so. The Catholic Church--notwithstanding how unpopular its position is as handed down through time--cannot and will not espouse a doctrine, dogma or belief that runs counter to the Sacred Faith and Tradition. That is not judging others or putting itself on higher moral ground; it is merely passing on the Sacred Trust, whether others like it or not.

The Church at one time did become too overtly political and it needed to be reformed, which it did and still continues to do. The core teachings did not change--indulgences and prayers/masses for the repose of the souls of the departed are still part of the Faith, notwithstanding the Protestant "Reformation"--and they never will. Catholicism teaches that certain things are immutable and constitute Truth throughout all time--it is not to offend or hurt people. To the contrary, she believes if folks follow these things, they will be happier and live eternally as such.

 

[calitennis127]

also, one more caveat, if you'd like to actually discuss Pius XII (and not just media bias and the evil left-wing machinery, that is probably in cahoots with the evil feminist propaganda army that Ricardo seems so eager to fight): you seem to suggest that all of the criticism of Pius XII is founded in left-wing anti-catholic bias. yet i think the main problem for the legacy of Pius XII is in the positive catholic legacy - being compared to Pius XI, a much more vocal critic of the racist Nazi regime, as opposed to Pius XII's silent and diplomatic ways. saved it is hard to gauge which way was the better one - in hindsight, it is impossible. but of course, looking at the course history, one can't help but wonder what would have happened had the pope invoked his moral authority more drastically, more clearly and earlier.

Funny stuff here, John. So the man who was Pius XII was just "silent and diplomatic" as opposed to "vocal" in his criticism of the Nazis. Here is some of the information Dalin presents to address your misconceptions:

- In November 1923, after Hitler's failed attempt to take over the government in Munich, Pacelli wrote a letter to the Vatican Secretary of State denouncing Hitler's National Socialist Movement

- Pacelli gave 40 speeches between 1917 and 1929 denouncing some aspect of the emerging Nazi ideology

- Pacelli sent the Nazi regime 55 protests while serving as Vatican Secretary of State

- The Nazi press referred to Pacelli as a "Jew-loving" cardinal throughout the 1930's

- In 1937 at the Cathedral of Notre Dame, Pacelli described Germany as "that noble and powerful nation whom bad shepherds would lead astray into an ideology of race"

- In a meeting with Dietrich von Hildebrand, Pacelli declared that "There can be no possible reconciliation" between Christianity and Nazi racism as they were like "fire and water"

- In 1937 and 1938, Pacelli expressed strong anti-Nazi views in talks with Alfred Klieforth and Joseph Kennedy, two U.S. diplomats

- Klieforth later wrote that Pacelli regarded Hitler as an "untrustworthy scoundrel" and a "fundamentally wicked person"

- In an official report that Klieforth filed with the State Department about his 1937 meeting with Pacelli, Klieforth noted that Pacelli "did not believe Hitler [was] capable of moderation, in spite of appearances," and "that he oppposed unalterably every compromise with National Socialism"

- In his 1938 meeting with Joseph Kennedy at the Vatican, Pacelli gave Kennedy a memorandum written by himself that discussed why he opposed National Socialism; Pacelli told Kennedy at this meeting that "evidence of good faith" by the Nazi regime was "completely lacking" and that "the possibility of an agreement" or a "political compromised" with the Nazis should be "out of the question"

- When Hitler visited Rome in 1938, Pacelli along with Pope Pius XI refused to meet with him and left Rome for the papal summer resudence of Castel Gandolfo

- The day after Pacelli became pope, the Berlin Morgenpost wrote: "The election of Cardinal Pacelli is not accepted with favor in Germany because he was always opposed to Nazism and practically determined the [pro-Jewish] policies of the Vatican under his predecessor"




I could go on and on. Real silent, huh?

 

[huntingyou]

another thread for cali that I can't block

for the record, catholism has a net effect of destruction and slavement so it really doesn't matter what US colleges teaches or a News paper organization decideds to publish. At the end of the day, it's up to the individual to drop the emotional crutch and take his/her first step as a sovereing human being.

As far as Pius is concern....meh, I find Pope Alexander VI more interesting to study; although Constantine the Great had a much far reaching impact and it's often ignore as solely a Romen Emperor and later a saint. Damn, what about the medici popes?
ohh so many wonderful popes we have to choose..........

 

[Kieran]

Cali, I think in relation to Rabbi Dalin, John isn't disagreeing with you. Maybe us Europeans don't know the extent of liberal politics or how infested some Americans are by conspiracy theories, though we have those cranks here too.

Nice posts though, and Shawn too. Glad you're getting a good run out of that book. There are other new books out now which debunk it even further. The article I cited was what first drew me to Dalin. It's not a bad website, either. Some good stuff on there by Scott Hahn...

 

[calitennis127]

another thread for cali that I can't block

for the record, catholism has a net effect of destruction and slavement so it really doesn't matter what US colleges teaches or a News paper organization decideds to publish. At the end of the day, it's up to the individual to drop the emotional crutch and take his/her first step as a sovereing human being.

Okay, ESL student.

"Catholism" is properly spelled "Catholicism".

The word you are looking to related to slavery is ENslavement.

"Newspaper" is a single word.

"Sovereing" is properly spelled "sovereign". I'll assume that you know that one and it was just a typo.

The dictionary is just 2 seconds away at dictionary.com in case you are interested in patching up your little issues.

As for your broader points, this thread is about the Pius XII question, not one of huntingyou's moronic opinions. Huntingyou tries to understand the game of tennis for much of his life, and he can hardly do that. His life philosophy is of no interest to anyone.

 

[britbox]

another thread for cali that I can't block

If you don't want to read the thread then don't click to open it - it's not rocket science.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

John needs to read Mr. Dalin's book - closely. In particular, he needs to pay attention to all of the ways in which Pius XII has been slurred. To both John and Kieran, I have to say, I am not "exaggerating" one bit. The standard belief among American leftist opinion in schools and in the media is that Pope Pius XII aided and abetted Hitler. If you say it, people think you sound very smart and they will generally applaud you, nodding their heads.

so you go from "all who go to college and read NYT" to "leftist opinion". that's one step. but i stand by what i said: i have American friends and acquaintances, college-educated, nyt- (and even more washpost-) reading democrat-voting (or even further to the left). none have seemed to have such a simplistic and wrong view as the one you presented as common knowledge among them.

On now to John's point about Pope Pius XII maybe not speaking out enough. Again, you need to read the book John and pay close attention to certain parts of it. Here are just a few of the facts and considerations that Dalin presents on this question of why Pius XII didn't throw a hissy fit for future generations to applaud:

- Pope Pius XII did not excommunicate Hitler or issue more confrontational pronouncements because he felt it would jeopardize the safety of many Jews being hidden, particularly in Italy and Rome, and he also was concerned that the Nazis would begin an intense campaign of persecution against Catholics given their anti-Christian attitudes.

- Dalin cites this quote from Marcus Melchior, the former chief rabbi of Denmark and himself a Holocaust survivor: "it is an error to think that Pius XII could have had any influence whatsoever on the brain of a madman. If the pope had spoken out, Hitler would probably have massacred more than six million Jews and perhaps ten times ten million Catholics, if he had the power to do so."

- Dalin also cites this quote from the Jewish lawyer Robert M.W. Kempner, who served as a prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials: "every propaganda move of the Catholic Church against Hitler's Reich would have been not only 'provoking suicide,'...but would have hastened the execution of still more Jews and priests."

- Rabbi Dalin also offers this example in support of Pope Pius XII's decision: he points to the Nazi response to the protests of the Catholic clergy in Holland; they protested more often and more vociferously than the religious hierarchy of any other Nazi-occupied country, in particular with a letter in July 1942 signed by Dutch bishops that protested the deportation of Jews from the Netherlands; and, what happened? Well, from Holland, the highest percentage of Jews of any Nazi-occupied nation in Western Europe (79%) were deported to death camps

- Moreover, Pius XII was worried about Catholics and their safety due to sentiments such as these:

From Hitler himself: "You can be a Christian or a German. You cannot be both"

From Baludur von Schirach, the leader of the Hitler Youth: "The destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement"

Josef Goebbels expressed desire to exterminate "after the last Jew, the last priest"

From the historian W.D. Rubinstein, explaining that Hitler's upbringing in Austria left him with a disdain of Catholicism and the Catholic monarchy "only slightly less vicious than that which he shows to Jews and Communists"

alright, as Kieran (as he actually reads other's posts rather than browse through them looking for details to jump at) said - I'm not actually disagreeing with you all that much in regards to Pius XII - just saying that i don't think the public opinion is as unequivocally negative as it is; and that criticism is not just based in anti-catholic leftist propaganda bias, but comes from the fact that history's most atrocious crimes are a rather emotional subject for many, and that this is part of why the discussion on Pius XII is what it is. he's not the only one, though. as i tried to point out, the Holocaust, the Shoah are so incredibly hurtful human memories that everyone who was involved in whatever way is subject to brutal judgement. just think of the discussions of the Funktionshäftlinge or look up Benjamin Murmelstein (or even the controversies between Austrian chancellor Kreisky and Simon Wiesenthal).
however, you and (in a more reasonable manner) Kieran are of course right in that the catholic church will always be on the receiving end of extra scrutiny in a lot of affairs - Shawn wonderfully laid out some of the reasons for that (which i had tried to, but couldn't quite phrase as clear), and his view of why it isn't right to do so.

moving on, two subjects here: first, the question of how the comparatively silent ways of Pius XII might have been more or less succesful than if he had spoken out. first, as you pointed out, i shouldn't have attributed Pius XII as "silent" without adding "compared to Pius XI" at every instance. if you do read my posts carefully, though, you'll see that i actually do make the distinction and do acknowledge that Pius XII Did speak out. but compare Summi Pontificatus and Mit Brennender Sorge, and you'll see the difference that i mean. (btw, from your list of actions by Pius XII, aside from speeches made in the 20ies, long before the Machtergreifung, when the Nazis were mostly a threat to the conservative governing powers in germany, and aside from actions under of Pius XI, you're pointing to moves made in diplomatic channels; so that's Exactly what i was trying to point out (while at the same time acknowledging he was actually vocal beyond that; funny that those are the instances, like the christmas adress, you do not point to, instead almost re-enforcing my point about his preferment of diplomatic channels.)

so yes, Pius XII was vocal at times, but not like XI, and not all the time; regarding moments like Razzia of Rome, we can see how Pius XII actually tried to use the Threat of speaking out in order to save many (yet not all). I think Melchior and Kempner (not sure how the latter's being jewish is relevant here, but alright) do have a very valid opinion. the other side, though, is that we'll always be left to wonder what have happened had he sought full confrontation. Melchior said "if he had the power to do so". whether or not he (Hitler) would've had that power is the question. we don't know how a full-on confrontation in '39, 42, or even 44 by the Pope would've affected the course of events. Kempner speaks of "suicide" - yes, maybe that is what some would have expected from such a religious leader. to round up his cardinals, march to the jewish ghetto and say "what you're about to do on those of our brethren, you'll have to do unto us as well". martyrdom.
as i said, i'm not to judge past decisions, and there's few positions more difficult to be in than that of a wartime pope, i'm sure. my martyrdom example? who's to say that his cardinals wouldn't have rounded up, at the prospect of sure death, and off'd the pope himself, electing a more nazi-compatible pope? but what i'm saying is that you shouldn't deny the sincerity of those who see wrong when the supposably biggest of moral authorities did not act and speak ever more drastically against the world's greatest evil. if not in the face of these atrocities, when then would "throwing a hissy fit", as you thought fit to describe more drastic opposition, be adequate, indicated, necessary?

(btw, again, the fear of communism maybe should be viewed as another motive in there. i think the "hidden anti-semitism" of the original Cornwell is rather lame, the fear of the left wing taking over, in a country with as strong a communist movement as Italy, especially before the US had entered the war, was probably very real, and to a good degree responsible for the course that Pius XII took. maybe he thought risking all-out confrontation would have resulted in the fashist and conservative cancelling each other out, and socialist forces taking over, resulting in many more million dead, and the church and faithful targeted even more explicitely. that, as hurtful as it is, would in my opinion be a very understandable motive for carefully choosing when and when not to risk confrontation. i think this perspective is even more valid if we look at the course of action in WWII. did Pius XII start speaking up more drastically in late '42 because the Nazi crimes got ever worse? or did he, in part, do so because in November '42, the US had entered the Mediterrenean Theater, making a defeat of the Nazis that Doesn't lead into communist supremacy in europe more likely? i think both are relevant aspects.)

second, the Nazi aggression against catholicism and catholics: noone is disputing that either. for both ideological and power-political (an absolutist leader cannot accept another authority next to him) reasons, Nazism was set to be at war with Catholicism. in my close family, the ones who opposed the Nazis was the side of the family that was the most devout catholic. and Hitler viciously targeted those who did act and speak against them (there was a "Priest's block" in Dachau, after all). yet the question that persists is would he have been able to win a confrontation with the Holy See, had the church set all institutions against the regime. maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't have. once again: i think it's stupidity to claim that the Pope would have been successful. but i also think it's understandable if someone says that at a sight of these crimes, he would've been obliged by his standards, that of the catholic church, to at least try.

John is simply unaware of the nature of American political discourse. If you were to go on MSNBC and say that Pope Pius XII was complicit in the Holocaust, everyone would nod in gleeful agreement at your alleged historical perspective. If you were to go on Bill Maher's show and denigrate Pope Pius XII's World War II actions, all of the historically ignorant audience members would clap approvingly, applauding your supposed historical awareness.

I am not "exaggerating" one bit. I am characterizing the political climate in America exactly for what it is. If you don't believe me, move here for a year or two. Watch MSNBC and read NYT/Washington Post op-eds. After that, you will walk away saying Cali was right on point.

Bill Maher is NOT the general political climate. If you go on Fox and Friends saying that global warming is a hoax manufactured by the DNC, you'd be applauded as well - does that mean that this is the general political climate? your claim fits the general motive presented by conservatives, though, that the oh-so-mean, socialist media machinery is force-feeding the people with leftist-liberal ideas. it might be true that the conservative is a little lacking in the "presentable intellectual with mass-appeal" segment; which in part might be because of the near impossible task it has to try (at least since Reagan), reconciling socially conservative (christian) motives with economically libertarian goals, while at the same time trying to portray themselves as "no compromise"-minded. to bridge that gap is a tight rope walk while juggling flaming chainsaws, and it's no surprise that few are able and willing to do so. but that's a whole other discussion to have.
back on topic - you are aware that you did ignore my pointing out how Cornwell's initial ideas have actually been criticised In the general media and by the author himself?

also, i must ask how you can know so well that i'm simply unaware? i'd reckon (as in fact i do often read NYT and WashTimes op-eds, do watch CNN, have watched some MSNBC as well as Fox News at times, watch Maher, Colbert and Stewart, log on to HuffPost as well as the NationalReview, had a subscription to TIME for two years running) that i'm probably more exposed to North-Eastern politico discussion than a good portion of the US. and btw, there's colleges in Kentucky and Kansas, and great universities still founded and run in catholic tradition as well; there's probably hundreds of thousands of students in ardently conservative christian colleges and universities; so it's not like there's no schools outside of the left(ist propaganda machinery that you fear and despise so much), which is part of why your original post was so blatantly exaggerating.

it's funny though - three US Americans have posted on topic in this thread. shawn and you, with a decidedly pro-Pius XII opinion, and DarthFed, who says he's never heard of what you said was so much set in stone in college-world USA. thank god your old nemesis huntingyou set foot in here to blabber off-topic with some anti-religious brouhaha, to make you feel you're in the right on your supposably defensive position.

lastly, it's "Joseph" Goebbels and "Baldur", to be nitpicking (jk here, just a little fun regarding what you did to hunting. please don't return the favor - as you know, English is not my first language, plus i'm replying in short breaks at work, so i'm rather sure my posts are quite error-filled.)

---

There are some illuminating posts here by all. I have enjoyed the to and fro. One reason, in my personal opinion, the Catholic Church, its popes and bishops get broadswiped so often in the press and the history books is because folks really like to say that if you (meaning the institution) are not wholly holy through and through at all times, then you should not dare "to judge others" as if you (the institution) have "higher moral ground". The idea is that this is hypocrisy. I understand some feel that way about the Catholic Church, but is a flawed view.

This is because the Catholic Church is like an ark, so to speak; it has, does and always will contain sinners and saints--at all levels of the institution, both lay and clerical/religious. It does not judge as an institution and it does not believe it (the institution) occupies any higher moral ground than anyone else as a matter of personal or corporate morality in human affairs.

What the Catholic Church DOES affirm and pronounce, though, is what is believes is a sacred deposit of faith (of dogmas, doctrines, beliefs) that it is POWERLESS to modify or change. So, it is duty bound to disagree and call erroneous those beliefs, positions, doctrines, etc. that are inconsistent with what the Church believes has been revealed as Sacred Truth by the LORD. Hence, it may appear the Church is looking down its corporate nose to "judge" homosexually oriented people who engage in homosexual acts and proudly declare this to be God-given rather than embrace chastity, women who can't be ordained to the priesthood "as a matter of equal civil rights", or that one's relationship with the Almighty is personal to the person and can be "equally" truthful as anything the Catholic magisterium teaches--but that is not so. The Catholic Church--notwithstanding how unpopular its position is as handed down through time--cannot and will not espouse a doctrine, dogma or belief that runs counter to the Sacred Faith and Tradition. That is not judging others or putting itself on higher moral ground; it is merely passing on the Sacred Trust, whether others like it or not.

The Church at one time did become too overtly political and it needed to be reformed, which it did and still continues to do. The core teachings did not change--indulgences and prayers/masses for the repose of the souls of the departed are still part of the Faith, notwithstanding the Protestant "Reformation"--and they never will. Catholicism teaches that certain things are immutable and constitute Truth throughout all time--it is not to offend or hurt people. To the contrary, she believes if folks follow these things, they will be happier and live eternally as such.

that, my friend, is an excellent post. thank you very much.

 

[calitennis127]

Bill Maher is NOT the general political climate.

Yes he is. As I stated in my original thread, the most powerful segment of the media and educational establishments is the extreme Democratic Left in America. This is a de facto reality, not an official one, but a reality that would not be denied by anyone who has a fundamental understanding of politics in America. This segment dictates the direction of the country and it is its set of premises that dominates political discourse in America. Having the vast bulk of the educational establishment behind them is very significant.

You are looking at this numerically. You say, "Bill Maher and MSNBC are only two avenues of political opinion; there are many others". I'm sorry, but that is a stupid and oblivious way to look at the matter that does not address real life realities. Extreme leftists such as Maher and the MSNBC crew are seen in society as the smartest people with ideas that no one can refute. They consider themselves the smartest and display a smug attitude. "Moderates", "conservatives", Fox News people, whoever you may consider their opposition - pretty much all of the time they cannot refute the basic premises of the Left.

Why? Well, mainly because the Left dominates the education system and has set the curriculum for decades. In America, we can't even talk honestly about the main event in our history - the Civil War - because merely quoting Abraham Lincoln from his letters or his speeches makes one a Confederate-sympathizing racist.

I live in a college town. If I had a dollar for every time I had heard negative comments about Fox News, I would be able to laugh at Warren Buffet.

So please, do not tell me about the political climate in America. The extreme posture of Maher, Maddow, O'Donnell, etc. may have to do with their individual personalities, but they genuinely feel that no one can refute their arguments about history and philosophy. And, indeed, no one ever really does that. That is why I say they define the political climate of America. I don't care what the numbers are when it comes to the range of media voices; I care about who wins and who is dominant and whose views come out on top.

In that case, it is the Maher-MSNBC-NY Times editorial nexus. That is the bottom line. The likes of the Weekly Standard columnists provide very meek opposition.

Also, if you took a poll in college towns asking the question "who is smarter - Maddow or Hannity?" I guarantee that upwards of 80% would say Maddow. I am describing the real world, you are describing fantasy John.

If you go on Fox and Friends saying that global warming is a hoax manufactured by the DNC, you'd be applauded as well - does that mean that this is the general political climate?

Absolutely not, and that is because the vast majority of people in academia and in elite media disagree with you. The Ivy League nexus is 90% against you. So, in that case, your little Fox News diatribe is completely irrelevant.

your claim fits the general motive presented by conservatives, though, that the oh-so-mean, socialist media machinery is force-feeding the people with leftist-liberal ideas.

No, I don't look at the leftist media as "oh-so-mean" or even "socialist", fundamentally speaking. I see them simply as wrong and ignorant on a wide array of vital matters, particularly in history. It starts with their completely erroneous, stupid, counter-factual, and ignorant ideas on the American founding and the Civil War. It then proceeds up to Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson.

So the problem with them is not, fundamentally, that they are mean or socialist. I could care less about mean because obviously I am a mean SOB myself. No, fundamentally I see them as ignorant and wrong.

back on topic - you are aware that you did ignore my pointing out how Cornwell's initial ideas have actually been criticised In the general media and by the author himself?

I didn't respond to it because I don't have time to parse every last line of your massive posts. I can only get to some lines.

I don't care if Cornwell has been criticized in the general media here and there. In fact, I acknowledged that in my original post. I am aware that the media does occasionally report on some stories which are inconvenient to the Democratic Leftist line of thinking. But, to me, that is irrelevant in the big picture. Such occasions are only blips on the radar, petty diversions from the grand historical process.

The apt word to think of here is "Zeitgeist". It is the "spirit of the times" to lampoon certain targets and move American society in the direction of leftist-socialist programs. That is a plain reality. When it comes to the Church, the incredibly biased and misplaced analysis of the clergy abuse crisis is case and point. Criticizing the Church is fashionable and in line with what polite opinion maintains; an obscure article in Newsweek about Pope Pius XII not being such a bad guy doesn't change that.

Finally, as a matter of personal anecdote, I recall an occasion I witnessed in a college classroom a little under 5 years ago in which the students maintained a blog (it was a philosophy course). There were posts on a wide array of topics. One student commented on the complicity of the Church and the Pope in the Holocaust. At least four or five other students replied with posts that fully agreed.

Again, think of the most powerful people and the spirit of the times. Sean Hannity barking at someone about universal healthcare's shortfalls on his talk radio program is just a temporary rough patch for the process of the MSNBC people getting what they want.

it's funny though - three US Americans have posted on topic in this thread. shawn and you, with a decidedly pro-Pius XII opinion, and DarthFed, who says he's never heard of what you said was so much set in stone in college-world USA. thank god your old nemesis huntingyou set foot in here to blabber off-topic with some anti-religious brouhaha, to make you feel you're in the right on your supposably defensive position.

Thanks for the massive sample size of influential people there. Two Catholics and Darth who hadn't heard of the issue.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

alright, i thought i'd leave this, as we don't seem to disagree all that much on the historical topic...
but this one gem?

Bill Maher is NOT the general political climate.

Yes he is.

yes. in a country where 80-92% (depending on the exact question) believe in God, Bill Maher is the general political climate, especially on religious issues.

 

[tented]

alright, i thought i'd leave this, as we don't seem to disagree all that much on the historical topic...
but this one gem?

Bill Maher is NOT the general political climate.

Yes he is.

yes. in a country where 80-92% (depending on the exact question) believe in God, Bill Maher is the general political climate, especially on religious issues.

Exactly. And take a look at these US news ratings. Anyone who looks at those numbers, and still thinks the liberals are the major force behind the dissemination of news, or that MSNBC/Maher/etc. represent the general political climate is being willfully blind to reality:

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/05/22/cable-news-ratings-for-tuesday-may-21-2013/183727/

 

[shawnbm]

Seeing the posts above do provide for some entertainment. The link tented provided, whilst helpful in terms of getting raw numbers, do not tell the story. You have to ADD HLN, CNN and MSNBC together and you see it is a split with FNC (which should have FBN linked to it)--but that is cable only and leaves millions out who get their news from one of the big three--ABC, NBC or CBS (all of which should be placed alongside the MSNBC and CNN group in my view). With that, the mainstream media (as Fox calls it) probably still pulls in more viewers than Fox and its affiliates at FBN. In fact, I think that is well established.

But, Chris Matthews is not mainstream; he is an old-style far left liberal who grew up with stories of Nixon, Vietnam atrocities, Kent State, nuclear disarmament, the Great Society of LBJ, Che Guevara as a poster and all that. He comes from the fundamental premise that government is a helper--there to lift up the poor who (he and others of his ilk intuitively believe) are incapable of doing so for themselves because of racism by whites against blacks and immigrants, oppression by the Catholic Church on civil rights one has to do whatever they wish to do, and greedy, rich, power-hungry corporate America that wants to drive the proletariat into the ground. I have heard him in the last weeks actually say that the scuttlebutt in the USA over the spinning of the Benghazi tragedy by the White House and its State Dept. in the two months before the election, the IRS scandal and associated efforts to obtain more information about these things by Republican Congresspersons (although this week, a list of Democrats have joined in on some of these positions) is largely based in racism. So, I don't think he is mainstream; is a far-leftist at heart who believes--deep within--the world would have been a much better place if Jack and Bobby had run things. They are his and his generation's messiahs, as it were--who were martyred by the evil ones.

Sorry for going on, but the idea Matthews is mainstream just gets my goat. Joe Scarborough and Bill O'Reilly (one from MSNBC and the other from Fox) are folks who fit more in between the Matthews and Maddox on the far left and the Limbaughs and Savages (both major radio personalities) off to the far right. There you go.

 

[tented]

^ I see your point, Shawn, but I posted those numbers to show the difference between Fox and MSNBC, even though I didn't expressly put it that way. My bad.

If MSNBC represents the far left, and Fox the far right, then there's virtually no contest:

Total viewers per day:
FNC = 1,472,000
MSNBC = 345,000

The far left, therefore, is drawing a quarter of the audience the far right is drawing.

ABC, CBS, NBS, CNN fall in between, IMO.