Posted on 05/18/2005 5:30:01 AM PDT by Irontank
Pius XII has been used as a scapegoat to ridicule pre-Vatican II Catholicism. His worst critics are not Jews, rather, they are the liberal so-called "Catholics" who live as if the Church began in 1965, and everything before that was instantly anathematized. Since Pius XII was the face of the Church immediately before the Council, he must be maligned, but they have to use convenient political arguments to discredit him to the masses.
Anything?! If Pat says 2+2=4, will you deny the truthfulness of that statement because of "bias"? What an utterly vapid statement.
But further on point, those facts in the article are not "his", but actual statements. They conclusively prove, without the bias of historical revisionism, that Pius did indeed speak out forcefully against the Nazis and help the Jews.
As about ANY issue, one should value opinion expressed not buy any openly-biased sides (like Pat or me) but independent, unemotional source, like the link I have posted.
What makes your link "independent" and "unemotional"?
Did you read the link?
You know what I don't understand?
Since when throughout history had our Jewish brothers and sisters wanted us to be involved in anything that was going on in their community in the past before the holocaust? Now (not then as Jewish news would evidence, they even extolled him as righteous), all of a sudden we didn't do enough then, we tried to take babies from their parents, we actually helped the Nazis? What is wrong with this guy? I mean sure, we could have done more, lots of people could have and many did nothing.
He easily forgets the religious that died there also (Though it could never compare), The Vatican and religious houses who hid many. When you say that, you're told...'They could have done more'. This is truly amazing to me. There is a long, painful and sordid history to be sure...but, and because of that, when did we become the best friend and protector of our Jewish Brothers and Sisters all of a sudden in their eyes (which we were then, by the way)? Since when did they want Catholics involved in any of their affairs?
This guy is a disgrace to his ancestors. I'm sure any holocaust survivor would tell him a different story.
I am a Catholic. I volunteer at the Jewish Nursing Home, work with Jewish Organizations on social and legal issues, work as an Disabilities advocate for children with children with a specialty in Asperger's syndrome Autism at Synagogue Schools and Impartial hearings to make sure the children get all the services they need. These are my elder brothers and sisters...without them spiritually and otherwise, there is no me. I have talked with many survivors and their children and have never once have I heard anything negative.
I'm going to email him with a history lesson, wait for his reply and then I will proceed to shut him down. Enough rhetoric already.
Is it me? Someone clue me in on this.
Hmmm???
I'm waiting.
All I've seen from you so far is squawking and wild accusations of "antisemitism", backed up by precisely ... Nothing.
Time to put up or shut up, boyo!
Yea, are you going to debate the points in the article or just post links and ad hominems?
What's "hominems"?
What's "boyo"?
Patiently.
Waiting.
For.
Anthing.
Other.
Than.
Childish.
Prattle.
If Pat means the Roman Catholic Church(RCC) then ALL protestant "churchs" are renegade cults.. and not "churches" at all.. WONDER where Pat got that idea.. Hes not dumb.. He must have got that idea from somewhere.. Where.?.
However if he means "THE Church" of which the RCC is only one of.. then other churchs are not "dissed".. by him at this time.. I'm not sure he means THAT though..
What thinkest thou.?. Be careful its a hot issue.. better yet don't answer it..
The introduction of Right-to-Work states like Texas probably had more to with the South Rising Again and shrugging off a century of rat rule than anything else. The hell with unions. Communists from the start, communists till the end.
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy which, literally translated means "against the man". It generally means a person uses an attack against someone as a means to invalidate the argument of that person.
In stating that, because Pat Buchanan is an anti-Semite, you can dismiss anything he says, you are guilty of an ad hominem attack.
BTW, if this was just a snarky way to attack my pluralization of "hominem", realize it is a very common, although literally (in the Latin sense) incorrect, usage.
NOW will you address the points in the article?
You raise excellent points. Thank you.
That much is obvious ... your link fails to persuade, and to simply call it "The Facts" is more than a little presumptuous. The footnotes sure look like a set of sources with various axes to grind. Worse, the conclusion that Pius XII "could have done more" is utterly vapid. Is that supposed to be your defense of the charge that the article at the head of this thread is (in your passionately aggressive words) "antisemitic squeal"? You owe the author an apology.
Funny how it wasn't "anti-semetic squeal". Just because Buchanan denounces anti-Catholic individuals who slander the name of a great man doesn't mean he is anti-semetic. Anyway, he states facts. You actually have to read half of the article to have that point come across, I guess....
whatever.
It's overplaying the anti-Semite card that leads me to take that epithet with a HUGE grain of Kosher salt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.