Pius found a way to excuse himself from failing to speak out against fascism and the holocaust, so why should Benedict be different when it comes to abortion?
Dr. Joseph Lichten, a Polish Jew who served as a diplomat and later an official of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, writes: "Pacelli had obviously established his position clearly, for the Fascist governments of both Italy and Germany spoke out vigorously against the possibility of his election to succeed Pius XI in March of 1939, though the cardinal secretary of state had served as papal nuncio in Germany from 1917 to 1929. . . . The day after his election, the Berlin Morgenpost said: ‘The election of cardinal Pacelli is not accepted with favor in Germany because he was always opposed to Nazism and practically determined the policies of the Vatican under his predecessor.’ "[4]
Former Israeli diplomat and now Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Pinchas Lapide states that Pius XI "had good reason to make Pacelli the architect of his anti-Nazi policy. Of the forty-four speeches which the Nuncio Pacelli had made on German soil between 1917 and 1929, at least forty contained attacks on Nazism or condemnations of Hitler’s doctrines. . . . Pacelli, who never met the Führer, called it ‘neo-Paganism.’ "[5]
Further reading - "Three Popes and the Jews" by Rabbi Lapide or http://www.catholic.com/library/HOW_Pius_XII_PROTECTED_JEWS.asp
This is a LIE!
The idea that the Pius was in on it with Hitler or whatever was the creation of Soviet Agitprop in the 60’s. Read paragraph 4 of the above encyclical, delivered to Germany in 1937 by Pope Pius. William L. Shrier's book isn't addressed directly at this issue--as it wasn't dreamed of when he wrote it--but does shed a lot of light on the relation of church and state in general in Nazi Germany.
Pope Benedict already HAS spoken out against abortion at every opportunity, in Mexico, in Brazil, in the US, etc. Just as he spoke, as Cardinal Ratzinger, against “liberation theology” years ago and as a Vatican official basically banished it. I'm not a Catholic, so I might have this wrong, but it is my impression that each diocese is supposed to run mostly on its own and that the Vatican is not inclined to micromanage dioceses. Only if a diocses fails to properly deal with a grave mater after a time would it tend to intervene--the big bad church is too authoritarian and then even worse for not being authoritarian enough.
In closing, a word of wisdom: "To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community." Written in 1891 by Pope Leo, sounds like a speech by Reagan.