Wars and Conflicts permalink
Pope Pius XI
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.
Posted by Les-Reid (U11723970) on Sunday, 18th January 2009
Ambrogio Damiano Achille Ratti (Pope Pius XI) was pope from 1922 until 1939. Thus his papacy covers the years when fascism and nazism were gathering strength and taking over Europe.
He struck the deal with Mussolini which created the Vatican as an independent state within Italy in 1929. He signed a concordat with Hitler in 1933 which protected Catholic schools. He supported Franco in his fascist rebellion against the democratic government of Spain.
To what extent, then, I wonder, did the Vatican side ideologically with the Nazis and the Fascists when WW2 approached and did ordinary Catholics take their lead from the Vatican? The Fall of France, for example, was actually welcomed by some French organisations like Action Francaise which were strongly anti-communist and staunchly Catholic. It is remarkable too that Catholic Ireland remained neutral throughout WW2 - was Irish neutrality a result of the pro-fascist line that Pius XI had followed?
It certainly makes the story of Paul Touvier easier to understand - the collaborator who helped the Nazis round up French Jews to send to the camps, but who was able to evade capture for years after the War because he flitted from one Catholic monastery to another. Brian Moore's novel The Statement makes a gripping narrative out of Touvier's story.
Can anyone recommend a historical account of the Vatican's politics during the 1930s? I assume that Cornford's book, Hitler's Pope, which I have not read, deals with Pius XI's successor, Pius XII, who reigned during the War years. -
Message 2
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Sunday, 18th January 2009
did the Vatican side ideologically with the Nazis and the Fascists when WW2 approached and did ordinary Catholics take their lead from the Vatican?
That's a bit like asking - "did the Lutheran Church side ideologically with the Nazis and the Fascists when WW2 approached and did ordinary Lutherans take their lead from Hanover?"
There was no 'one-glove-fits-all' attitude by either catholic or protestants during those years. There were supporters and opponents (and a good many indifferent to politics) in all of the religious sectional groups. For example, just as the Lutheran Church in Germany had the Pastors Martin Niemoller and Dietrich Bonhoeffer actively opposing the Hitler regime, so too did the Catholic Church have the likes of Clemens von Galen, Bishop of Munster who was also openly critical of the Nazi government. -
Message 3
Posted by Les-Reid (U11723970) on Monday, 19th January 2009
Surely the structure and methods of the Catholic church and the Protestant churches are very different? The Catholic church is a top-down hierarchy with instructions being sent down to the laity which they must obey on pain of excommunication. It is probably more of an oligarchy than a monarchy, since the Cardinals do have a lot of influence over what the Pope decrees, but the hierarchical nature of the organisation is surely beyond question.
Protestant churches are quite different. They are on a smaller scale, for a start, and they have always set great store by individual conscience. Many Protestant churches are organised on democratic principles. They do have leaders, but they are not in control the way a Pope is.
So the question reamins: given the power that Pope Pius XI had to command the support of millions of Catholics throughout Europe for the cause of Fascism and Nazism, to what extent did his rapport with Mussolini, Hitler and Franco encourage ordinary Catholics to side with the Axis powers? -
Message 4
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Monday, 19th January 2009
But remember - the Pope is infallible.
-
Message 5
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Monday, 19th January 2009
given the power that Pope Pius XI had to command the support of millions of Catholics throughout Europe for the cause of Fascism and Nazism, to what extent did his rapport with encourage ordinary Catholics to side with the Axis powers?
Exactly the same extent as the rapport which King Edward VIII (given the power he had to command the support of millions of Anglicans throughout the world for the cause of Fascism and Nazism) had with Mussolini, Hitler and Franco would have encouraged ordinary Anglicans to side with the Axis powers. -
Message 6
Posted by Les-Reid (U11723970) on Monday, 19th January 2009
Vizzer wrote "Exactly the same extent as the rapport which King Edward VIII (given the power he had to command the support of millions of Anglicans throughout the world for the cause of Fascism and Nazism)..."
You jest, surely? Edward had the name of a playboy and his affair with Mrs Wallis had created an air of scandal. His encounters with the Nazis were of no consequence.
Pope Pius, by contrast, struck lasting deals with Hitler and Mussolini. He obtained real political advantage from those deals, including the creation of the Vatican as an independent state. He spoke out strongly in support of Franco and thus encouraged Catholics to join the Fascist side in the Civil War. With his support, Franco was able to present his Fascist putsch as a holy war to restore Spain to its traditional Catholic ways.
Irish neutrality seems to me to be more easily understood if one starts from the fact that Ireland was then a devoutly Catholic country and De Valera, its leader, a devoutly Catholic man. The pro-Fascist attitudes of Pope Pius would have been a guide to De Valera not to side with the Allies in their war with the Axis powers. Of course, the traditional anti-British outlook of the Irish, and De Valera himself, was motivation in itself not to join the Allied cause, but the support given by Pope Pius to the Fascists and the Nazis would have been crucial. Catholics are given their moral code by their Pope as rules, not as suggestions (eg the ban on contraception) so when the Pope declared his support for the Fascists, then ordinary Catholics would have been required to follow his lead. Since the geographical position of Ireland precluded any alliance with the Axis powers, then neutrality was the best the Irish could do to comply. -
Message 7
Posted by Charles Babbage (U2239092) on Monday, 19th January 2009
<QUOTE/>Since the geographical position of Ireland precluded any alliance with the Axis powers, then neutrality was the best the Irish could do to comply.</QUOTE><BR /><BR />That and get 100,000 Irish to fight with British forces. Maybe to sabotage them????
-
Message 8
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Tuesday, 20th January 2009
Isn't there also some evidence that, at the end of WW2, Pope Pius XII gave assistance to a number of fleeing Nazis so that they would safely reach South America?
-
Message 9
Posted by 2295wynberglad (U7761102) on Tuesday, 20th January 2009
I understand that a few did find their way to Ireland, and did very well, one set up a publishing company, is that True? I think I saw that on a television show his escape from prison helped by monks? did not pay to much attention as there was company present.
-
Message 10
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 20th January 2009
Edward had the name of a playboy and his affair with Mrs Wallis had created an air of scandal. His encounters with the Nazis were of no consequence.
The press in the UK (and in many other Commonwealth countries) was severely censored and news curtailed. Ordinary people had little or no notion of Edward's private life. The analogy regarding Edward VIII, however, was to highlight that fact that just as individual Anglicans were able to separate their religious life from their political life - so too could catholics.
Pope Pius, by contrast, struck lasting deals with Hitler and Mussolini. He obtained real political advantage from those deals, including the creation of the Vatican as an independent state.
Pacelli wasn't Pope at the time of either the 1929 Lateran Treaty or the 1933 Reichskonkordat although he was closely involved as Secretary of State with the latter. The key word here, however, seems to be 'lasting'. The fact that the Vatican City is still an independent state today, and the fact that the 1933 Concordat is still in effect in Germany today, would show that these deals were beneficial for the Holy See irrespective of who happened to be in governement in either Germany or in Italy at the time that they were agreed.
He spoke out strongly in support of Franco and thus encouraged Catholics to join the Fascist side in the Civil War.
He did no such thing. Pius only congratulated Franco later on.
With his support, Franco was able to present his Fascist putsch as a holy war to restore Spain to its traditional Catholic ways.
President Eisenhower of America also supported Franco's regime as legitimate.
Irish neutrality seems to me to be more easily understood if one starts from the fact that Ireland was then a devoutly Catholic country and De Valera, its leader, a devoutly Catholic man. The pro-Fascist attitudes of Pope Pius would have been a guide to De Valera not to side with the Allies in their war with the Axis powers. Of course, the traditional anti-British outlook of the Irish, and De Valera himself, was motivation in itself not to join the Allied cause, but the support given by Pope Pius to the Fascists and the Nazis would have been crucial.
Irish neutrality was more to do with the fact that southern Ireland had only achieved independence from the UK in 1922. That was only 17 years before the UK declared war on Germany. It's not suprising, therefore, that Dublin might have been reluctant to tow the UK imperial line. It would have been a bit like asking America to join with the UK against France in the Napoleonic War only 16 years after American independence. America didn't ally itself with the UK in 1799 - Ireland didn't ally itself with the UK in 1939.
Catholics are given their moral code by their Pope as rules, not as suggestions (eg the ban on contraception) so when the Pope declared his support for the Fascists, then ordinary Catholics would have been required to follow his lead.
Protestants also have rules (not suggestions). This is why, for example, abortion is illegal in Northern Ireland.
Since the geographical position of Ireland precluded any alliance with the Axis powers, then neutrality was the best the Irish could do to comply.
As has been pointed out by Charles Babbage - Irish neutrality was disctinctly pro-Allied which is why, for example, British airmen who bailed out over southern Ireland all made it back to the UK while German crew, by contrast, were all interned by the Irish authorities.
Neutral Sweden (an officially Protestant country with an established Protestant church) supplied Germany with nearly all her iron ore and a good deal besides during the Second World War. Sweden's neighbour Finland (also an officially Protestant country with an established Protestant church) was an out-and-out ally of Germany. -
Message 11
Posted by Les-Reid (U11723970) on Wednesday, 21st January 2009
Visser writes:"Pacelli wasn't Pope at the time of either the 1929 Lateran Treaty or the 1933 Reichskonkordat although he was closely involved as Secretary of State with the latter."
Correct. That is why this thread is titled "Pope Pius XI" rather than "Pope Pius XII".
The first message above states "Ambrogio Damiano Achille Ratti (Pope Pius XI) was pope from 1922 until 1939. Thus his papacy covers the years when fascism and nazism were gathering strength and taking over Europe."
Cornford's book,'Hitler's Pope', is about Ratti's successor, Pacelli. My suggestion on this thread is that they were both supporters of the Fascist-Nazi powers.
Visser writes that Sweden and Finland collaborated with the Nazis, implying that we should therefore excuse any collaboration by the Vatican. I would say that countries which were subject to invasion (from both sides, in the case of Finland) and had to fight for their survival, are in a different category from Ratti and Pacelli (Popes Pius XI and XII) who lent their support to the Fascist-Nazi cause voluntarily and were enthusiastic in their support. -
Message 12
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 21st January 2009
Visser writes:"Pacelli wasn't Pope at the time of either the 1929 Lateran Treaty or the 1933 Reichskonkordat although he was closely involved as Secretary of State with the latter."
Correct. That is why this thread is titled "Pope Pius XI" rather than "Pope Pius XII".
I was replying to Message 6 which says 'He spoke out strongly in support of Franco and thus encouraged Catholics to join the Fascist side in the Civil War.'
Where is the evidence for this? The only Pope who gave public support for Franco was Pius XII in 1939.
Visser writes that Sweden and Finland collaborated with the Nazis, implying that we should therefore excuse any collaboration by the Vatican.
I wrote no such thing. I highlighted that fact that these Protestant countries were sympathetic neutrals or allied to Germany, to contrast this with the (incorrect) suggestion in Message 6 that Irish neutrality was 'pro-Fascist' and that only the 'geographical position of Ireland precluded any alliance with the Axis powers'.
I would say that countries which were subject to invasion (from both sides, in the case of Finland) and had to fight for their survival, are in a different category
How was the case of Finland in 1939 any different from that of catholic Poland?
Ratti and Pacelli (Popes Pius XI and XII) who lent their support to the Fascist-Nazi cause voluntarily and were enthusiastic in their support.
You'll need to explain what you mean here by the phrase 'Fascist-Nazi cause' as it's not clear. -
Message 13
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Wednesday, 21st January 2009
[Pius XI] supported Franco in his fascist rebellion against the democratic government of Spain. … With his support, Franco was able to present his Fascist putsch as a holy war to restore Spain to its traditional Catholic ways.
The pope wasn’t the only one – the Americans did. Roosevelt, for example. And you should also study the British role in letting the legitimately elected Spanish government be overthrown by Franco’s fascists with the help of the Italian and German regimes. See, for example, (scroll 2/3 of the way down to Document 8).
Over 35 countries, including Ireland, Britain, USA, France, Germany and Italy signed a non-intervention pact which Germany and Italy promptly proceeded to ignore. Meanwhile, those bastions of democracy, the USA and Britain, stood back and allowed the fascist regimes of Germany and Italy to support Franco in overthrowing the democratically elected government of Spain, thus introducing his own fascist regime.
It is remarkable too that Catholic Ireland remained neutral throughout WW2 - was Irish neutrality a result of the pro-fascist line that Pius XI had followed?
Was Pius XI pro-Nazi? Even if he was Irish neutrality was based on more mundane considerations than those of the pope, as has already been pointed out, I think, by Vizzer.
Irish neutrality seems to me to be more easily understood if one starts from the fact that Ireland was then a devoutly Catholic country and De Valera, its leader, a devoutly Catholic man.
The church establishment in Ireland was not sympathetic to nationalist/republican ideals. You cannot take it as a guide when interpreting events or motivations. Before independence all those engaged in opposing either the church or the British state were excommunicated because their war was not considered a holy one. After independence, at the time of the Civil War, Dev and the anti-Treaty republicans continued under excommunication by the church. In fact, I don’t know that the bishops ever formally revoked these excommunications. Those proscribed were never excommunicated by name – the actual effect was essentially dependant upon individual conscience and the privacy of the confessional. Concerning the church’s action Dev himself said: “Never was charity of judgment so necessary and apparently so disastrously absent. Ireland and the church will, I fear, suffer in consequence.”
Many rebels, who later became politicians, remained alienated from the church even after all military hostilities ceased. Also, at a grass-roots level, many priests were not in tune with the hierarchy’s position regarding Irish republicans. -
Message 14
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 21st January 2009
Edward as Prince of Wales was well liked by the people of the U K If he had stood his ground, there was a great chance he would have carried their support against both the Government and the press, thus in 1939 we would have had a pro Hitler King on the throne. Again, a lot of the upper class and moneyed people in England supported Hitler, seeing him as an answer to the growing threat of the Communists.
-
Message 15
Posted by Les-Reid (U11723970) on Wednesday, 21st January 2009
Mic_mac wrote: "Many rebels, who later became politicians, remained alienated from the church even after all military hostilities ceased. Also, at a grass-roots level, many priests were not in tune with the hierarchy’s position regarding Irish republicans."
The Irish Free State turned into a Catholic theocracy within a few years of achieving independence. Catholic teaching on divorce, for example, became the law of the state almost immediately. WB Yeats, the poet and Senator, protested vociferously, but the presence of a Protestant minority did not deter the new Ireland from imposing Catholic mores on all its citizens. The education system was handed over to the Catholic church and the Constitution declared that Catholicism was the religion of the country.
De Valera said "A Catholic country for a Catholic people."
So the forebodings of the Northern Protestants were clearly well founded - 鶹Լ Rule was indeed Rome Rule.
Did all that loyalty to the Catholic church have any influence on the decision to remain neutral during WW2? I would say that the answer to that question would depend entirely on the position adopted by Popes Pius XI and XII, which, as I have argued above, was openly pro-Fascist and pro-Nazi. Which is not to say that long-established anti-British feelings did not also play a part. Some members of De Valera's government welcomed the prospect of Britain's defeat at the hands of the Nazis and the IRA mounted a bombing campaign in Coventry and Belfast to help the Nazis. There was in fact a combination of the two factors - traditional anti-British prejudice and staunch Catholic piety - and they both contributed to the outcome which was Irish neutrality.
I would recommend that you read "In Time of War" by Robert Fisk to get the full background to Irish neutrality. -
Message 16
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Thursday, 22nd January 2009
Les (re your OP)
Can anyone recommend a historical account of the Vatican's politics during the 1930s?
You might be able to find this via inter-library loan:-
"Morgan, Thomas B. 'A Reporter At The Papal Court - A Narrative of the Reign of Pope Pius XI.' 1937. New York: Longmans"
Certainly more useful for your research than Comford on Pius XII. -
Message 17
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Thursday, 22nd January 2009
the Constitution declared that Catholicism was the religion of the country.
This is exactly the same in England (only substitute 'Catholicism' with 'Anglicanism').
De Valera said "A Catholic country for a Catholic people."
He did no such thing. Where is the evidence for this?
James Craig, the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, on the other hand, did indeed describe Stormont and Northern Ireland as "a Protestant Parliament and a Protestant State" and also described his government as "a Protestant Government for a Protestant people".
You can read his words here:
the position adopted by Popes Pius XI and XII, which, as I have argued above, was openly pro-Fascist and pro-Nazi.
You have failed, however, to provide any proof to support your argument.
There was in fact a combination of the two factors - traditional anti-British prejudice and staunch Catholic piety - and they both contributed to the outcome which was Irish neutrality.
Your suggestion that Catholics were somehow pro-Axis does not stand up. You contradict yourself at virtually every turn on this. For example you say that 'the IRA mounted a bombing campaign in Coventry and Belfast to help the Nazis' and then you say that this is somehow an exhibition of 'Catholic piety'. As Mick mac has pointed out the Catholic church in Ireland was in opposition to the IRA.
You also fail to appreciate that catholic Spain and catholic Portugal were also neutral during the Second World War. Was this as a result of 'traditional anti-British prejudice'? In the case of Portugal in particular such an accusation is simply laughable.
You've also failed to address the question asked in Message 12 regarding Poland. You need to explain how (in your opinion) the invasion and occupation of catholic Poland by Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939 was somehow supported by the Catholic Church. -
Message 18
Posted by Les-Reid (U11723970) on Thursday, 22nd January 2009
Vizzer,
You assert dogmatically that De Valera never said "A Catholic country for a Catholic people."
How can you be so sure? Do you know every word that he said? Why would he not say it, when he believed that the Irish nation had a special destiny as a Catholic country (see his St Patrick's Day speech of 1935, for example)? Why would he not say it when he made sure that the Catholic church had a special place in the Irish Constitution? You merely reveal your own prejudice when you make such assertions.
He said it in the course of the controversy over the Protestant woman who was sacked from her librarian job to make way for a Catholic.
Northern politicians replied in kind.
You say that I contradicted myself because I said that ultra-Catholicism and traditional anti-British bigotry combined to produce the refusal to join the Allies in the war against Nazi Germany. You say that the IRA bombing campaign in Coventry and Belfast during WW2 had nothing to do with Catholicism. In fact, I was using it as an example of traditional anti-British bigotry, so there is no contradiction whatsoever.
Once again, you seem to have personal problems in facing up to the facts.
Some more facts for you to chew on -
Sean Russell, leader of the IRA during WW2, went to Berlin to offer the services of the IRA in attacks on Britain. There is a statue to commemorate that great collaborator in Dublin.
Chamberlain gave the Treaty ports to Ireland in 1938 in an unforced gesture of friendship, with the proviso that that they might be used by Britain 'in extremis.' When WW2 came, De Valera refused to allow any British access to them, thereby exposing supply convoys to more U-boat attacks. Many hundreds of British sailors died as a result, victims of German U-boats and De Valera's intransigence.
When Hitler died, De Valera went to the German embassy to offer his condolences. Pictures of the inmates of Belsen had been seen in the papers only the week before. De Valera brought shame on Ireland with his policy of neutrality and he crowned it with his foolish condolences on the death of the most reviled dictator that Europe has ever seen. Despicable. -
Message 19
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Friday, 23rd January 2009
He said it in the course of the controversy over the Protestant woman who was sacked from her librarian job to make way for a Catholic.
I only have your word to take for that. I note, however, that you have still failed to provide a reference or a link for this even on an oral history basis.
Northern politicians replied in kind.
Sectarian tit-for-tat – eh? Are we supposed to be impressed by this?
You say that I contradicted myself because I said that ultra-Catholicism and traditional anti-British bigotry combined to produce the refusal to join the Allies in the war against Nazi Germany. You say that the IRA bombing campaign in Coventry and Belfast during WW2 had nothing to do with Catholicism. In fact, I was using it as an example of traditional anti-British bigotry, so there is no contradiction whatsoever.
It seems that you’re now saying that the IRA had nothing to do with the catholic church.
Sean Russell, leader of the IRA during WW2, went to Berlin to offer the services of the IRA in attacks on Britain. There is a statue to commemorate that great collaborator in Dublin.
And this relates to Pope Pius just how exactly?
Chamberlain gave the Treaty ports to Ireland in 1938 in an unforced gesture of friendship, with the proviso that that they might be used by Britain 'in extremis.' When WW2 came, De Valera refused to allow any British access to them, thereby exposing supply convoys to more U-boat attacks. Many hundreds of British sailors died as a result, victims of German U-boats and De Valera's intransigence.
Why should the independent Irish Free State have been expected to go to war just because the UK did? What part of the word ‘independence’ do you not understand?
De Valera brought shame on Ireland with his policy of neutrality
There is nothing shameful about neutrality. The UK, for example, remained neutral during the Vietnam War. Was that shameful?
When Hitler died, De Valera went to the German embassy to offer his condolences.
With regard to de Valera’s visit to the Director of the German Diplomatic Mission in Dublin, Eduard Hempel, to offer his condolences then this was nothing more than standard diplomatic procedure at the time on the occasion of the death of the head of state of another country.
This was simply de Valera being a stickler for protocol - (quite a common phenomenon in newly independent states). But no - we are expected to believe, rather, that it was his ‘ultra-Catholicism’ urged on by Pope Pius which made him do so.
You might, however, want to explain why the President of the Irish Free State, Douglas Hyde, also visited Hempel (on a separate day to de Valera) to also offer his condolences. You might also like to remind us what religion Douglas Hyde was. -
Message 20
Posted by oldredeyes (U1591444) on Friday, 23rd January 2009
The central issue on this thread is to what extent did Ratti, as Pope Pius XI, favour the Fascist and Nazi side in WW2.
Ratti became Pope in 1922. He was virulently anti-communist because he was worried by the success of the Russian Revolution and by the growth of communist parties across Europe. His anti-communist outlook chimed entirely with the anti-communist outlook of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco. He congratulated Hitler on his strong stand against communism and said that he was a bulwark of European civilisation. In return Hitler granted the Catholic church a free hand to run its own schools in Nazi Germany, as set down in the 1933 Concordat.
Ratti was also on good terms with Mussolini and thus carved out the deal which saw to the creation of the Vatican state within Italy, thereby ensuring that the Vatican would escape Italy's secular legislature and tax regime.
Ratti's guidance as Pope meant that Catholics throughout Europe were favourably disposed towards the Fascists and Nazis. It was quite a natural allegiance because Catholicism is an authoritarian religion which treats the common people as children to be ruled, in just the same way that the Axis powers did. Democracy was not valued by any of them. On the issue of homosexuality, for example, Hitler was in agreement with Catholic teaching that it was degenerate. The Nazi programme to round up homosexuals simply put into effect the attitude that the Vatican had been preaching.
I wish other posters would provide facts about Ratti and his dealings with the Nazis and the Fascists, instead of digressing with fatuous comparisons to King Edward, etc. It seems to be intended as a smoke screen to hide what Ratti actually did. -
Message 21
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Friday, 23rd January 2009
He was virulently anti-communist because he was worried by the success of the Russian Revolution and by the growth of communist parties across Europe.
Was he any different to Cosmo Lang, Archbishop of Canterbury, in this?
He congratulated Hitler on his strong stand against communism and said that he was a bulwark of European civilisation.
Do you have evidence for this? A reference or a link perhaps?
In return Hitler granted the Catholic church a free hand to run its own schools in Nazi Germany, as set down in the 1933 Concordat.
Is this a problem - or would you have preferred it if catholic German kids had gone to Nazi school?
Ratti was also on good terms with Mussolini and thus carved out the deal which saw to the creation of the Vatican state within Italy, thereby ensuring that the Vatican would escape Italy's secular legislature and tax regime.
Again - is this a problem or would you have preferred the Vatican to pay full Italian taxes which (after 1940) would have been used to help fund the war effort against the UK?
Ratti's guidance as Pope meant that Catholics throughout Europe were favourably disposed towards the Fascists and Nazis.
Utter nonsense. There is no evidence for this. In fact there is ample evidence to the contrary. Here for example is his papal encyclical 'Non Abbiamo Bisogno' from 1931 which condemns the banning of catholic youth organisations by the secular Fascist authorities in Italy:
And here is his encyclical 'Mit Brennender Sorge' from 1937 which specifically distances the church in Germany from the policies of the state:
It was quite a natural allegiance because Catholicism is an authoritarian religion which treats the common people as children to be ruled, in just the same way that the Axis powers did. Democracy was not valued by any of them.
When the Anglican Church has disestablished itself from the state - and removed its unelected bishops from the UK parliament - then come back and talk to me about 'authoritarian religion' and 'democracy'.
On the issue of homosexuality, for example, Hitler was in agreement with Catholic teaching that it was degenerate.
Was this any different from the attitude of the Anglican Church (and the attitude of UK law!) at the time regarding homosexuality?
The Nazi programme to round up homosexuals simply put into effect the attitude that the Vatican had been preaching.
Again - utter nonsense. Where is your evidence for this?
I wish other posters would provide facts about Ratti and his dealings with the Nazis and the Fascists, instead of digressing with fatuous comparisons to King Edward, etc. It seems to be intended as a smoke screen to hide what Ratti actually did.
I've provided plenty of facts, references and links on this thread. Where are yours? -
Message 22
Posted by oldredeyes (U1591444) on Saturday, 24th January 2009
Ratti was Pope throughout the early years of Joseph Ratzinger, who grew up in Hitler's Germany and later became Pope Benedict. He joined the Hitler Youth as a teenager. Those who want to rewrite history for their own ideological reasons claim that Ratzinger was a reluctant conscript into the Hitler Youth, but it is difficult to prove that claim. Given the favourable attitude of Ratti to the Nazis and the Fascists, and given also the Condordat of 1933 which Ratti agreed with Hitler, it is more likely that Ratzinger had no problem with Hitler Youth and joined voluntarily. Hitler Youth was the opposition to communist youth organisations and the Catholic church was strongly opposed to communism.
-
Message 23
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Sunday, 25th January 2009
Ratti was Pope throughout the early years of Joseph Ratzinger, who grew up in Hitler's Germany and later became Pope Benedict.
Ratti was Pope throughout the early years of George Hume, who grew up in Edward VIII's UK and later became Cardinal Basil Hume. So what?
Those who want to rewrite history for their own ideological reasons
If you've consumed some anti-catholic propaganda from somewhere, but haven't been bothered to check out the facts for yourself, then maybe it is indeed a case of 'rewriting history' - but only for you personally.
Ratzinger was a reluctant conscript into the Hitler Youth, but it is difficult to prove that claim.
It's significant that you only seem to refer to his membership of the Hitler Youth. You don't, however, make any mention of the fact that Ratzinger was indeed also conscipted into the German air force and the German army too.
The reason would seem to be that you know full well that membership of the Hitler Youth (initially volunatry) was later made compulsory by state law and that, as juveniles, no member of the Hitler Youth (of whatever religion or none) is held accountable for being a member. It was part of the compulsory state education system. It's a bit like criticizing someone for not not going to school. Although it's technically feasible to avoid state education in Germany (and in the UK etc) the barriers to home schooling are often prohibitive and are intended to be so.
Similarly - being conscripted into the German armed forces as a teenager was an experience Ratzinger shared with hundreds of thousands of others of all religions and none. There were, for example, many Protestant Germans who also joined the Hitler Youth and were also conscripted into the German armed forces.
You're right, however, to cast doubt over whether or not Ratzinger was 'reluctant' in either the Hitler Youth or the German air force or the German army. As far as I'm concerned if someone is youthful and patriotic and serves their country in time of war then they can't really be criticized for that. Ratzinger probably would have been better advised to be fully open about his teenage years during the Second World War. It all seems a bit 'hole-in-corner' at the moment and we'll probably have to wait until the official records are released.
That said - the whole hysterical way in which the Second World War is so often discussed has made it difficult for people (even in Germany) to distinguish between Germany as a country and the Third Reich as a state. This tends to stifle debate, create inhibitions and so hampers true understanding on all sides.
This phenomenon, of course, is not specific to either Catholic or to Protestant Germans.
Given the favourable attitude of Ratti to the Nazis and the Fascists
Despite plenty of evidence having been provided to the contrary you still haven't provided any evidence to support this sweeping claim. Are you going to?
given also the Condordat of 1933 which Ratti agreed with Hitler
The Concordat between the Holy See and Germany is still in effect today. It wasn't agreed 'with Hitler' it was agreed with Germany.
Hitler Youth was the opposition to communist youth organisations
Name a 'communist youth organsition' in Germany in 1941 which you feel the 14 year old Ratzinger should have joined.
the Catholic church was strongly opposed to communism.
It probably still is. Name a religious grouping (Christian or otherwise) which isn't. -
Message 24
Posted by Les-Reid (U11723970) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009
Ratzinger, the current pope, has rehabilitated a hard right wing bishop who had previously been excommunicated. This particular bishop is a holocaust denier:
Jewish leaders had already broken off relations with the Vatican because of the current pope's disturbing record: he has re-instated a long-ago abolished prayer for the conversion of the Jews, and he approved the canonisation a few years ago of the fascist founder of Opus Dei, Jose Maria Escriva.
All part of Ratti's legacy, surely? -
Message 25
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009
Vizzer Reply to message 12
How was the case of Finland in 1939 any different from that of catholic Poland?
They survived as a free nation and wasnt occupied.
Another question you guys seems pretty uptodate on Catholic church and faith.
SSPX the brotherhood of priests Piux X.
Created by roman catholic bishop Marcel Lefebre a well known antsemitist and Islam hater(he recomend that all muslims are to be expelled from France and Europe),stronly suporting Le Pens right wing.
The brotherhood didnt accept the II Vaticancorcordinat of 1969,it was banned by the pope 1988 and its priest and bishops was cast out of the catholic church.
Autuum 2008 on telly in their german Priestschool was bishop Richard Williamssom denying the holocaust,as he had don before.
In January 2009 did former cardinal Ratzinger.Now pope Benidictus XVI,lift the ban and welcome SSPX their bishps and priests back into the bossom of the church.
Something to think about?
Hasse -
Message 26
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009
Was doing something else while writing this and didnt notice Les post about the same thing I did bring up.
again
Hasse -
Message 27
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 28th January 2009
Ratzinger, the current pope, has rehabilitated a hard right wing bishop who had previously been excommunicated.
And what's your point? Are you in favour of, or opposed to, the pope's power to excommunicate?
This particular bishop is a holocaust denier
Is this the bishop who was educated in the UK by the established Protestant Anglican Church?
Jewish leaders had already broken off relations with the Vatican
Really? Is there a 'Jewish Embassy' in the Vatican? Maybe you can provide a link to its website.
the current pope's disturbing record
What record would that be? Can you provide some details on this?
he has re-instated a long-ago abolished prayer for the conversion of the Jews
You'll need to explain what the issue here is. It's not clear.
he approved the canonisation a few years ago of the fascist founder of Opus Dei, Jose Maria Escriva.
I didn't know that Escriva was a member of either the PNF in Italy or a member of the BUF in the UK. Can you provide his party card membership number perhaps?
Failing that maybe you could define what exactly you mean by the word 'fascist' and explain why you feel that this applies to Jose Escriva.
All part of Ratti's legacy, surely?
What is all part of Ratti's legacy? You haven't even said what 'Ratti's legacy' was. -
Message 28
Posted by Les-Reid (U11723970) on Friday, 30th January 2009
Ratti's legacy is the compatibility between the Vatican and fascist regimes.
I have already mentioned the fact that the Vatican state was created when Mussolini's fascist regime was in power. Here are some other facts: Mussolini permitted religious instruction in primary schools, allowed the crucifix to be displayed in schools and public places and saved the Vatican bank from ruin. Ratti reciprocated by ordering the faithful to remain silent during the Matteotti affair. The Lateran Pacts of 1929 included legislation to make religious instruction compulsory in primary and secondary schools and recognised Catholicism as the only state religion. There was also a large cash donation to the church.
In return Ratti applauded the war in Ethiopia (Abyssinia) as a civilising mission and declared approval for the social organisation of the fascist state in the encylical Quadragesimo Anno of 1931.
The Vatican secured its own advantages and ignored the human rights of all those whom the fascist state trampled underfoot. -
Message 29
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Friday, 30th January 2009
Am I alone in finding Vizzer's spikey, defensive, space-consuming offerings wearisome? Is he/she some kind of official defender of the Vatican with the remit of defending the organisation at all costs, or failing that lay a smoke-screen?
Many of the criticisms laid against the Vatican seem to me valid - but all are vigorously battered by Vizzer.
Anyway, at least we can ignore the bombast and make our own minds up. -
Message 30
Posted by Charles Babbage (U2239092) on Friday, 30th January 2009
<QUOTE/> Am I alone in finding Vizzer's spikey, defensive, space-consuming<BR />offerings wearisome? Is he/she some kind of official defender of the<BR />Vatican with the remit of defending the organisation at all costs, or<BR />failing that lay a smoke-screen? </QUOTE><BR /><BR />To me Vizzer seems to be backing up his/her arguments with facts and has<BR />opened the door to anyone to challenge the points he/she has raised. In fact even though I tend to agree with Vizzer, I wish someone would.<BR /><BR /><QUOTE/> Many of the criticisms laid against the Vatican seem to me valid -<BR />but all are vigorously battered by Vizzer. </QUOTE><BR /><BR />Agree... <SMILEY TYPE='whistle' H2G2='Smiley#whistle'/><BR /><BR /><BR />
-
Message 31
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 31st January 2009
Ratti's legacy is the compatibility between the Vatican and fascist regimes.
That sentence is difficult to understand. It seems to be saying that the Vatican and 'fascist regimes' are compatible and that this is somehow the legacy of Ratti. If that is the correct interpretation of the sentence then it makes no sense whatsoever.
You have so far failed to provide a definition of the word 'fascist' (despite having been requested to do so) and this, therefore, leaves only the Fascist regime which existed in Italy between 1922 and 1943.
Considering that Ratti (as pope) was openly at odds with the actions of the National Fascist Party government in Italy as evidenced, for example, by his encyclical Non Abbiamo Bisogno, then this further shows that your strange sentence is seriously at odds with the reality of what happened.
You have also failed to provide evidence to substantiate your sentence - again despite having been requested to do so. Are you going to provide any?
I have already mentioned the fact that the Vatican state was created when Mussolini's fascist regime was in power.
The Irish Free State was created when Lloyd George's liberal government was in power. So what of it?
Mussolini permitted religious instruction in primary schools
So too does Gordon Brown as has every other UK prime minister before him.
allowed the crucifix to be displayed in schools and public places
Shocking. That would never happen in the UK:
saved the Vatican bank from ruin
So Italy made minimal financial restitution to the Holy See for losses incurred by the Holy See after the annexation of the Papal States by Italy in 1870. What of it? Or do you feel that people shouldn't pay back their debts?
Ratti reciprocated by ordering the faithful to remain silent during the Matteotti affair.
Another lame attempt at a throw-away sentence. Are you going to provide some evidence to support this false assertion? A quote perhaps?
The Lateran Pacts of 1929 included legislation to make religious instruction compulsory in primary and secondary schools and recognised Catholicism as the only state religion. There was also a large cash donation to the church.
This is just a repetition of what you have already said. See above regarding religious education in the UK, the established Anglican Church, the financial convention of the Lateran Treaty etc.
In return Ratti applauded the war in Ethiopia (Abyssinia) as a civilising mission
Yet another unsubstantiated and incorrect claim. Are there any references or links for this? You must have loads of them. Go on – let’s have just one.
declared approval for the social organisation of the fascist state in the encylical Quadragesimo Anno of 1931.
Yeah ... right.
The encyclical is aimed at catholics around the world and not just in Italy. It relates to the rights and responsibilities of private property and also warns catholics against elevating Socialism and Communism etc as religions. Furthermore - nowhere in the encyclical is either the word 'Italy' or the word 'Fascist' to be found. If anything it’s actually quite a bland and dull document which essentially calls for ‘Christian charity’ during the economic depression. Here’s the text:
The Vatican secured its own advantages and ignored the human rights of all those whom the fascist state trampled underfoot.
There’s nothing quite like a melodramatic and sweeping sentence is there? However, (as with the one above) they normally come without references, quotations, supporting examples or substantiating evidence. They also have a tendency to fall apart when subjected to scrutiny and critical analysis. Sweeping claims just can’t stand facts and details. As a result they invariably fail the test. -
Message 32
Posted by ambi (U13776277) on Saturday, 31st January 2009
There's not much doubt that the Catholic Church on the whole supported Italy's Abyssinian adventure, as evinced by the statements of many Italian bishops. Though the pope's statements were more ambiguous, it's hard to believe all these bishops were at odds with central policy.
The stampede of missionaries into Abyssinia after their defeat hardly suggests neutralty. -
Message 33
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Sunday, 1st February 2009
Hello dukess2008
To say that the pope’s statements on the Italian invasion of Abyssinia were ‘ambiguous’ is a euphemistic way of saying that that there is no evidence that Pius XI ‘applauded the war as a civilising mission’ as claimed by Les Reid in Message 28.
It’s difficult, therefore, to understand how you can then say that ‘there's not much doubt that the Catholic Church on the whole supported Italy's Abyssinian adventure’. You seem to be mistaking the ‘Catholic Church as a whole’ with the church in Italy. They're not the same thing. This was, of course, one of the main reasons for the Lateran Treaty. It created an independent Vatican City so that the Holy See could indeed be seen to be genuinely neutral should the Italian state go to war for whatever reason.
You rightly point out that some Italian bishops took a patriotic stance. This is understandable as those bishops were representatives of the established church in Italy after all. Blessing Italian troops going off to war, therefore was pretty much part of their job after all. This is in much the same way as today where Anglican and Catholic etc chaplains minister to UK troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those UK troops are taking part in illegal wars of aggression. Making political or moral judgments regarding the rights and wrongs of a conflict, however, is not the role of the church chaplaincies. The chaplain’s mission is to administer to the spiritual needs of the individual soldiers, sailors and airmen.
To say that ‘it's hard to believe all these bishops were at odds with central policy’ would seem assume that there was a ‘central policy’ in the first place. There wasn’t. The Holy See and the Vatican City themselves were officially neutral in the war. The position of the various diocese of the church in Italy, however, would have been more or less pro-Italian. Then again there would have been the position of catholic bishops etc in other countries. This has generally been the case throughout history. This is why, for example, the various catholic bishops and chaplains in the various nations blessed UK troops and German troops and French troops and Italian troops and American troops and Habsburg troops etc on all sides during the world wars.
When you say that there was a ‘stampede of missionaries into Abyssinia after their defeat’ then this will need to be backed up by some evidence. Just as the Lateran Treaty meant that the Vatican could have a separate foreign policy to that of the Kingdom of Italy so too did it mean that Italy could have a secular foreign policy. If anything the Italian authorities actually expelled missionaries from Abyssinia including Catholic ones. One of them, for example, was the French Bishop of Harar Andre Jarrouseau. Education in Italian Abyssinia was to be an Italian affair. Mussolini’s conquest was for Italy – not for the catholic church. -
Message 34
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Monday, 2nd February 2009
Viz,
You are struggling manfully with your defence of Papal decision-making from Pious XI, through Pious XII to Ratzinger/Benedict. The passion and persistence of your apologia/hagiography makes me wonder whether you believe in Papal infallibility?
If we take the three Popes together (Pious XI, Pious XII and Ratzinger) we see a common problem. Three conservative traditionalists appear to act either to excuse the excesses of brutal authoritarian regimes, do little to oppose, or speak-out unambiguously against authoritarian political regimes (XII) or act to re-habilitate extreme right-wing priests and welcome them back to the fold.
These acts are not randomly distributed. They form a pattern, they attest to a consistent and fairly obvious shared ideology.
People who served, even as youthful volunteers, in Nazi organizations
(Ratzinger would have sworn the following oath: "In the presence of this blood banner which represents our Führer, I swear to devote all my energies and my strength to the saviour of our country, Adolf Hitler. I am willing and ready to give up my life for him, so help me God”)
might be advised to avoid re-habilitating Holocaust deniers (such as Williamson) and promoting hardliners such as Bishop Gerhard Linz, who said that hurricane Katrina was “God’s revenge on homosexuals” (Today's Daily Telegraph, p15).
If we add these poor decisions by Ratzinger to his earlier anti-Islamic comments (2005), then we can discern an unfortunate ‘cluster-****’ of errors which make the average dispassionate observer think that the modern Papacy has too often been content to turn a blind eye to ‘fascist’ excesses whilst maintaining a resolute opposition to any sign of socialism or liberal leaning within the priesthood.
I understand that Ratzinger “is still considering” the possible ‘liberalisation’ of the use of condoms by Catholics who know that they are HIV positive.
How long does it take to stumble towards the glaringly obvious? -
Message 35
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Monday, 2nd February 2009
Not much changes. Bruno was executed in 1600 for agreeing with Copernicus, and Galileo was mistreated decades later for the same reason. Stephen Hawking was awarded the Pope Pius XI medal just because his work on the Big Bang seemed to accord with the theory put forward by the Abbe Lemaitre decades before, but in receiving it Hawking made his point by asking to be shown the Galileo trial records.
In 1981 Hawking was back in Rome, invited by the Vatican to a conference about cosmology. By now he was working on the beginning of the universe, but when Pope John Paul II met him he directed that it was OK to study events that took place after the Big Bang, but he should not enquire into events that might have taken place before the Big Bang because that was God's province. -
Message 36
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Monday, 2nd February 2009
U32
Good post
Hasse -
Message 37
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Monday, 2nd February 2009
makes me wonder whether you believe in Papal infallibility
You’ll need to define the phrase ‘Papal infallibility’. It’s not clear what you mean.
If we take the three Popes together (Pious XI, Pious XII and Ratzinger) we see a common problem. Three conservative traditionalists
You’ll also need to explain what you mean by the phrase ‘conservative traditionalist’ and why you feel that it applies to those 3 popes.
appear to act either to excuse the excesses of brutal authoritarian regimes
Can you provide an example of such an excuse?
do little to oppose
Oppose what?
speak-out unambiguously against authoritarian political regimes (XII)
By this are you saying that Pius XII spoke out unambiguously against authoritarian political regimes? As far as I’m aware he didn’t even speak out against Stalin’s Soviet Union. Can you give an example?
act to re-habilitate extreme right-wing priests and welcome them back to the fold.
You need to define what you mean by the phrase ‘extreme right-wing’ and also give an example of such a priest.
These acts are not randomly distributed. They form a pattern, they attest to a consistent and fairly obvious shared ideology.
If you can provide some examples to substantiate your claims then maybe you could illustrate ‘a pattern’. At the moment it just seems to be so many vague sweeping statements but without precision or substance.
People who served, even as youthful volunteers, in Nazi organizations
(Ratzinger would have sworn the following oath: "In the presence of this blood banner which represents our Führer, I swear to devote all my energies and my strength to the saviour of our country, Adolf Hitler. I am willing and ready to give up my life for him, so help me God”)
might be advised to avoid re-habilitating Holocaust deniers (such as Williamson)
If this is a reference to Richard Williamson then both the catholic church and Williamson’s own religious society have said that his historical opinions are his own. That, therefore, leaves only Williamson and his schoolteachers - the Anglican Church in the UK.
and promoting hardliners such as Bishop Gerhard Linz, who said that hurricane Katrina was “God’s revenge on homosexuals” (Today's Daily Telegraph, p15).
This seems to be an issue concerning Gerhard Wagner’s personal theology. It has nothing to do with Vatican foreign policy either today or in the 1930s.
If we add these poor decisions by Ratzinger to his earlier anti-Islamic comments (2005)
Can you give some details surrounding those ‘anti-Islamic comments’. I’m not familiar with them.
the modern Papacy has too often been content to turn a blind eye to ‘fascist’ excesses
This is yet another vague sweeping statement. You’ll have to give a concrete example here. Otherwise it's just meaningless.
maintaining a resolute opposition to any sign of socialism or liberal leaning within the priesthood.
One wonders why a socialist or a liberal would want to become a catholic priest. Strange career choice. Maybe you would recommend an epileptic to consider a career as a paparazzo.
I understand that Ratzinger “is still considering” the possible ‘liberalisation’ of the use of condoms by Catholics who know that they are HIV positive.
How long does it take to stumble towards the glaringly obvious?
You seem to be under the impression that catholic people slavishly follow every minute detail of religious guidance. As the Rev. Ian Paisley said, over 20 years ago (when responding to a journalist’s comment that the long expected ‘Catholic majority’ in Northern Ireland had failed to materialise) – “it seems that Catholic women have been forsaking Papa’s decree and have been sucking pills!”. -
Message 38
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Monday, 2nd February 2009
You’ll need to define the phrase ‘Papal infallibility’. It’s not clear what you mean.
(A rather 'tired' Viz distraction technique, but never mind)
This is what I mean by Papal infallibility. It comes from Wikipedia, but it sums up my thinking too:-
Papal infallibility is the dogma in Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidei, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics
That's what I mean by the term. Is that clear enough?
How do you understand Papal infallibility? And if you don't accept such a generally agreed definition, why not?
So, how do you understand the term?
Are you a Roman Catholic? -
Message 39
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Monday, 2nd February 2009
Thanks Baron!
-
Message 40
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Monday, 2nd February 2009
As I've been told, the Pope is only "infallible" when he speaks "ex-cathedra". A bit like the old game "Simon says". He's only infallible when he says: "Oh, and this next bit's 'infallible'".
You couldn't make it up. -
Message 41
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 3rd February 2009
distraction technique
It’s significant that you yourself should have introduced the question of papal infallibility into a discussion on the foreign policy of the Vatican in the 1930s and then immediately decide that papal infallibility is a ‘distraction technique’. Remarkable.
The reason I asked for a definition of papal infallibility was that the casual way in which you asked about it led me to suspect that you hadn’t a clue about what it meant other than some vague, clichéd and consequently inaccurate notion of what it was, which you had no doubt picked up from the UK media. This also suggested that you hadn’t done any previous research of your own into the matter.
This is what I mean by Papal infallibility. It comes from Wikipedia, but it sums up my thinking too
It seems that my suspicions were justified.
Papal infallibility is the dogma in Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidei, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics
That's what I mean by the term. Is that clear enough?
That definition consists of 2 sentences and at least 2 concepts. One of the sentences is incredibly long and uses the word ‘or’ 3 times. The other sentence refers to certain religious notions and also includes an undefined and untranslated Latin term.
So no - it’s not clear enough.
How do you understand Papal infallibility?
I don’t understand papal infallibility. Here, however, is a catholic definition in English of ecclesiastical infallibility including papal infallibility:
It’s over 13,000 words long.
And if you don't accept such a generally agreed definition, why not? So, how do you understand the term?
As said above - the definition of the term is complex. What’s seems to be important, however, is to find out exactly what statements by the pope have been deemed to have been ‘infallible’. By all accounts these are few and far between and there have only been 2 ‘infallible’ papal pronouncements over the last 200 years. One of them referred to something called the ‘Immaculate Conception’ and the other refers to something called the ‘Assumption of Mary’. This, of course, raises the question of exactly what is the ‘Immaculate Conception’ and exactly what was the ‘Assumption of Mary’. Do you know? I don’t.
It seems that this ‘papal infallibility’ thing raises more questions than it answers wouldn’t you say?
Are you a Roman Catholic?
No.
P.S. I note that you haven’t provided any examples of Pius XI (or of Pius XII or Benedict XVI) ‘excusing the excesses of brutal authoritarian regimes’ etc. -
Message 42
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Tuesday, 3rd February 2009
"Hitlers Pope" is by John Cornwell (unless there's another book by the same name). The relationship between the Vatican and Germany (where Pius X11 was Vatican envoy) is well documented and researched.
"The Catholic Church and the Holocaust", Michael Phayer, is well worth a read.
"Unholy Trinity : the Vatican, the Nazis, and the Swiss Bank", Mark Aarons and John Loftus, in an expose of the Vaticans involvement with Hitler and his regime.
Although the Vatican emerges from this part of history smelling very bad, the actions of ordinary Catholics in Germany has to be applauded. The same can't be said in Croatia where the whole church is exposed as an embarrassment to all decent Christians. -
Message 43
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Tuesday, 3rd February 2009
"Facts" obtained from the Vatican website ? I think not. Facts from respected historians with no political or religious agenda, who refer to their sources so readers can check for themselves are worth a hundred Vatican websites.
Cosmo Lang was powerless (thankfully), but Germanys 15 million Catholics listened to the Pope, and in many cases ignored him. (thankfully) -
Message 44
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Tuesday, 3rd February 2009
With regard to the excommunication issue, I've asked on other boards why none of those responsible for genocide was ever excommunicated (in particular, Ante Pavelic, a devout Catholic responsible for the slaughter of 500,000 or more Orthodox Serbs while attempting to create the "Catholic State of Croatia"). In fact, the Vatican sheltered these people and then helped them escape to South America (see "unholy Trinity" and others). I find this shocking,as Goering was kicked out for marrying a Protestant.
-
Message 45
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009
Vizzer:
... exactly what was the ‘Assumption of Mary’. Do you know?
I don’t.
It seems that this ‘papal infallibility’ thing raises more questions than it answers wouldn’t you say?
Are you a Roman Catholic?
No.
Clearly not, Vizzer, or you would know that the Pope proclaimed ("infallibly" on this occasion) that Mary was taken - bodily - to heaven.
This was on 1st November 1950. (The infallible proclamation, not the flight of Mary's body.) -
Message 46
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009
"Hitlers Pope" is by John Cornwell (unless there's another book by the same name). The relationship between the Vatican and Germany (where Pius X11 was Vatican envoy) is well documented and researched.
Do you have any details about that relationship which you’d like to share? You haven’t said how it is relevant.
"The Catholic Church and the Holocaust", Michael Phayer, is well worth a read.
Is it well worth a read? What does it say? Do tell.
"Unholy Trinity : the Vatican, the Nazis, and the Swiss Bank", Mark Aarons and John Loftus, in an expose of the Vaticans involvement with Hitler and his regime.
What exactly is exposed? Can you provide some details?
Although the Vatican emerges from this part of history smelling very bad
Does it? You haven’t said what it is that you think caused the smell.
the actions of ordinary Catholics in Germany has to be applauded.
What were those actions?
The same can't be said in Croatia where the whole church is exposed as an embarrassment to all decent Christians.
A sweeping statement. The ‘whole church’? Really? Every single person from top to bottom. Can you provide some details? And why, for example, should, say, Orthodox Christians be ‘embarrassed’ by this?
"Facts" obtained from the Vatican website ? I think not.
This thread is about Vatican foreign policy in the 1930s but somehow their documentation is irrelevant. That’s an interesting approach to historical research.
Facts from respected historians with no political or religious agenda
who refer to their sources so readers can check for themselves are worth a hundred Vatican websites.
What and where are those sources and where did they get them?
Cosmo Lang was powerless (thankfully)
Powerless in what way?
but Germanys 15 million Catholics listened to the Pope, and in many cases ignored him. (thankfully)
What exactly was it that the pope told them? You haven’t said. Do you have a quote or a reference perhaps? And what exactly was it that they ‘ignored’?
With regard to the excommunication issue, I've asked on other boards why none of those responsible for genocide was ever excommunicated (in particular, Ante Pavelic, a devout Catholic responsible for the slaughter of 500,000 or more Orthodox Serbs while attempting to create the "Catholic State of Croatia").
I think you’ll find that in church law excommunication is an instrument of ecclesiastical discipline rather than a tool to reinforce state criminal law.
In fact, the Vatican sheltered these people and then helped them escape to South America (see "unholy Trinity" and others).
Another sweeping statement about ‘the Vatican’. As you know full well this story involved a tiny handful of individuals (mostly Croatian and all almost certainly abusing their positions) and that there is no evidence whatsoever that this was undertaken with either the knowledge or the approval of the Holy See.
I find this shocking,as Goering was kicked out for marrying a Protestant.
Poor Hermann! -
Message 47
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009
Vizzer
If this is a reference to Richard Williamson then both the catholic church and Williamson’s own religious society have said that his historical opinions are his own. That, therefore, leaves only Williamson and his schoolteachers - the Anglican Church in the UK.
Thats one of the lousiest sidesteps i´ve seen on those boards.If Williamson had been bishop in any other of the fairly big churches including your obvious hateobject the Anglican would he been defrocked pronto if he offically whent out denying the holocaust.If he worked as a teacher a politician in all parties exept the extreem right wing ones,would he be booted out on his a*** pdq.
That would happen to him in Chatolic Church if he denied Marys virginity or recomended the use of condoms offically but obviously not by denying of the Holocaust.
I have no idea how many priests in SSPX or the Chatolic world that share his wiev its irrelevant in this discussion.
Lifting the excommunication on bishop Williamson a week after he on telly had denied the holocaust leaves a very bad taste in my mouth at least.
Same with whole SSPX who are against ecuminic talks.
To just after that promoting bishop Linz to cardinal are an obvious pattern that the Church are quickly marching backwards to a harder dogmatic outlook .
Deus Vult.
Hasse -
Message 48
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009
I don’t understand papal infallibility.
Then why are you trying to work-up a generalised apologia for the glaring misjudgments of Popes XI, XII and Ratzinger?
You are simply trying to deflect any legitimate criticism of these Popes by saying that the errors they made were the errors of lesser priests about which they knew nothing.
This is a ludicrous and ultimately doomed enterprise, since there are few more authoritarian ‘chains of command’ than the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Popes (P XII) don’t find themselves ‘unaware’ of Auschwitz nor do they ‘accidentally’ rehabilitate Holocaust deniers such as Williamson (Benedict) or accidentally promote Bishops who believe that hurricanes are ‘God’s revenge on immoral people’ (Benedict)
Here, however, is a catholic definition in English of ecclesiastical infallibility including papal infallibility:
www.newadvent.org/ca.
It’s over 13,000 words long.
Why on earth should I trudge through that tedious un-reviewed in-house ‘magic’ if it didn’t enlighten you?
You started by saying that:-
I don’t understand papal infallibility remember?
As others have said, an objective source (such as Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Britannica) is far preferable to an uncritical self-aggrandising ‘puff’ from the Vatican.
But do keep up your rear-guard action of ‘Viz contra-mundum'; you have managed to turn obfuscatory anal-obsessive pedantry into a baroque art form.
It might not be pretty but it is amusing to watch a headless chicken run around in ever decreasing circles. -
Message 49
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009
How was the case of Finland in 1939 any different from that of catholic Poland?
They survived as a free nation and wasnt occupied.
I think that the Karelians, for example, might beg to differ.
That aside - Hasse - this doesn't address the question of why Lutheran Finland was (supposedly) in league with the Vatican while Catholic Poland was not.
It doesn't compute. -
Message 50
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009
I don't think you understand the concept of reading a book. I've listed several, totalling over 1000 pages. Do you expect me to go through the evidence page by page?
With regard to to 1930's, Pacelli, not Pius X1, seems to have been the reason the Vatican is demonised. As Papal Envoy in Germany it was he, not Pius, who displayed anti Semitic and pro fascist tendencies, something that continued when he became Pius X11. Pius X1 often denounced anti Semitism, and I believe this is why so many German Catholics risked their own lives to protect Jews. As early as 1928 Pius was declaring that Jews should be protected from unjust treatment.
In 1938, after the Anschluss, Pius recalled Cardinal Innitzer to Rome where he was severely reprimanded for ringing church bells and hoisting the Nazi flag over them (Vienna, spring '38).
The address Pius gave to Belgian pilgrims the same year is an even stronger condemation of anti-Semitism. It is his statement that gave Cardinals Schuster, Van Roey and Verdier the strength to condemn the events of "Kristallnacht" (Nov '38).
His health was failing, however, and with Pacelli as his Secretary of State urging caution (Perhaps), Pius became muted, although he did condemn Italy's racial purity laws, stating that "Italy was disgracefully imitating Germany".
It's a shame that he didn't live long enough to complete his Humani Generis Unitas, but several drafts have been discovered indicating that he intended further critisism of Hitler and his activities.
Evidence of his successors beliefs were exposed publicly in Hungary in 1938, where Pacelli addressed the International Eucharist Congress. Referring to Jews, he stated "whose lips curse (Christ) and whose hearts reject him even today", contradicting Pius X1 statements.
As for your other questions, if you can't be bothered, or are unwilling to read a book that may expose you to some unpalatable truths, try Googling "Ante Pavelic" or "Croatian Genocide".
And stop sneering. It's rude.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
鶹Լ iD
鶹Լ navigation
鶹Լ links
鶹Լ © 2014 The 鶹Լ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.