| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/13/2007 1:17:11 PM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior |
Posted on 04/03/2007 2:32:00 AM PDT by NYer
ROME, APRIL 2, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Adolf Hitler's No. 1 enemy was the Vatican's secretary of state, Eugenio Pacelli, future Pope Pius XII, according to documents recently found in Europe.
In an article published last Thursday by La Repubblica, reporter Marco Ansaldo announced that he has a dossier on Pius XII that complements documentation found in the Vatican Archives.
According to the newly discovered documents, Pius XII was considered an enemy of the Third Reich. Memos and letters unearthed at a depot used by the Stasi, the East German secret police, show that Nazi spies within the Vatican were concerned at the Pope's efforts to help displaced Poles and Jews.
One document from the head of Berlin's police force tells Joachim von Ribbentrop, the Third Reich's foreign minister, that the Catholic Church was providing assistance to Jews "both in terms of people and financially."
Russia's motives
In a commentary on the new documents, Sister Margherita Marchione, author and expert on Pius XII, explains the campaign against the Pope was the work of the Soviets.
"Russia's plans were to control Europe after the war. The only outspoken obstacle to Russia's plan in Europe was the Catholic Church," Sister Marchione wrote.
"The first attacks claiming that the Church had endorsed silently the atrocities of the Nazis came from Communist Russia," she explained. "Soon to control Poland, and other vast areas in Eastern Europe, Russia saw the need to break the loyalty to the Pope of Catholic majorities in those countries.
"The plan was a simple one: convince everyone that the Pope supported the hated Nazis during the war and, therefore, neither he nor the Church could be trusted after the war. The destruction of the Church would leave the field wide open for Russian influence and control."
It is a position ignorant of history.
It is a delusion that the Church is the Whore of Babylon.
Washington Post 7/3/99 Pope Pius XII opposed Jewish homeland in Palestine
37. Questions have been raised regarding the attitude of the Vatican toward a Jewish national home in Palestine during the Holocaust period. Maglione generally responded to requests for assistance in sending Jews to Palestine by reminding appellants of all that the Holy See had done to help the Jews, and of its readiness to continue to do so. But in internal notes published in the volumes, meant only for Vatican representatives, the Secretary of State and his aides explicitly reaffirmed the Vatican’s opposition to significant Jewish immigration to Palestine, stating that "the Holy See has never approved of the project of making Palestine a Jewish home…Palestine is by now holier for Catholics than for Jews."49 The documents also reveal that Angelo Roncalli (the future Pope John XXIII), apostolic delegate to Istanbul, aided Jews to reach Palestine notwithstanding his uneasiness concerning Jewish political aspirations there.50 Is there documentation regarding guidelines for rescue efforts and their implications concerning the Vatican policy with regard to Palestine?
International Catholic-Jewish Historical Commission
The Vatican and the Holocaust: A Preliminary Report
That must be because they realize that the bones of their founder Peter are in that ossuary there in Jerusalem not in Rome.
Examples? You’re championing a work riddled with lies, beginning with the cover....all motivated by a hatred of the Catholic Church.
Round and round we go.
The ossuary didn't say "Peter", it said "Simon". "Peter" was forced into the translation of the ossuary enscription by the author of the article you are so fond of referencing. You've been corrected about this at least once already.
You are trying to split hairs in order to claim lack of credibility on my part . . . sorry, it won't wash. The person with no credibility here is Cornwell. His book is so lacking in credibility that he issued a retraction and the publisher made corrections . . . which is pretty amazing in the publishing world. Ordinarily they stonewall and refuse to do anything until forced -- do you remember that little contretemps at Emory University about the book on Revolutionary era firearms ownership? That author went down kicking, screaming and biting to the bitter end . . . and he was arguably not as much of a fraud as Cornwell. He falsified his underlying data, but at least he didn't put a big fat lie on the cover of the book. And his book was completely discredited (and his historical prize revoked) when the main thesis was disproved.
I happen to be holding in my hot little hands a hardcover copy of Hitler's Pope with the dust jacket in perfect condition.
It does show a Picture of Cardinal Pacelli being saluted by a German Officer.
This is what the back inside flap of my dust jacket says:
Jacket design by Alexander Knowlton @ Best Design, Inc.
Front jacket photograph: Eugenio Pacelli, before his election to the papacy, leaving a reception for President Hindenburg in Berlin, 1927 (Keystone/Sigma)
How does this compare to your copy of the book?
Were there multiple dust jackets depending on the printing, and where the book was sold?
Do you suppose Cornwell was directly involved in the design of the dust jacket(s)?
Do you actually believe the dust jacket is all that important compared to the words within the book?
If all this was true, then why did Hitler need the Enabling Act to be passed? and why did he need the votes of the Catholic Center Party for it to pass?
Without the votes of the Center Party, the Enabling Act would not have passed. It was not a done deal until the deal was done.
The only way to protect the right of Catholics to worship in Germany was to negotiate, which is exactly what the Protestant majority had already done.
What about the right of people to just live lawfully, to speak out when necessary, to write articles, to operate businesses, to organize opposition, to help their fellow man, to save those being led away to slaughter, to follow the dictates of their consciences, and all those other God-given rights. Were those rights protected too?
Or were all of those rights traded in for that sacred right to go to church, to fill a pew, to light a candle, and close your eyes and ears while all else was coming apart in your community and country around you?
Does your review differ in any way from the view of the Apologist site you linked to?
Are you the official corrector on FR??? Here --- I'll fix it for you and remove the parentheses: [Peter].
"The charcoal inscription reads: "Shimon Bar Yonah" which means "Simon Son of Jonah".
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Is that better? Is there anything else that I can help you with today?
Yeah. Where's the "Peter" you keep talking about.
See post #637.
Do you think Cornwell participated in and/or approved of the dust jacket?
I ask that question because I remember Bill O'Rielly disavowing the dust jacket on one of his books. He essentially said "those guys make the cover to sell books. I write what is between the covers."
I think so. I would certainly want to be involved with how my book was presented, if I ever wrote one.
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.