“If any of them had happened, then the perpetrators would have been in the wrong. However, an entity does not share in the blame for deeds committed in its name when those acts are done without its knowledge or consent, and most especially when such deeds are contrary to the wishes of that entity.”
The argument is the Pope Pius XII saved so many Jews, there fore he was a good man.
That very argument admits he knew what was going on. Therefore he must share in some of the guilt. Inaction in the face of a crime is not a defense.
“The argument is the Pope Pius XII saved so many Jews, there fore he was a good man.”
No, that’s not the argument.
If you are going to refute a person’s argument, you must refute the argument he actually advances, not some limping, spavined distortion of it.
The argument is that the facts, the known, documented, historical facts, demonstrate that calumny such as is under discussion here has not the slightest shred of truth to it. That the Holy Father helped the Jews, to the extent that those Jews actually present and involved praised him highly, is just one of those facts.
If Old Scratch will allow it, you really should treat yourself to some accurate history. You can find a bit here:
and in Rabbi David Dalin’s 2005 book, “The Myth of Hitler’s Pope.”
“That very argument admits he knew what was going on. Therefore he must share in some of the guilt.”
That is not logical to even the tiniest degree.
Apropos of nothing whatsoever, most humans seem to believe themselves proficient thinkers...that is, skilled at the application of reason to evidence such that a correct conclusion is reached.
I would estimate that perhaps one in a hundred thousand of them is correct in that belief.
“Inaction in the face of a crime is not a defense.”
And the creation of a malicious myth—such as the fictitious inaction in which you believe—is a gravely evil deed.