You wrote:
“Not at all. Pressure is on you because of the actions of your past leaders.”
No, not at all. Pope Pius XII, according to several Jewish historians, saved more than 800,000 Jewish lives. I feel no pressure whatsoever.
“Quick, start talking bad about American Presidents.”
Please show me where I have done this in this thread. All I did was to twice point out the facts - FDR didn’t do as much as he could have yet, for some reason, no anti-Catholic here wants to be that honest. Why not?
“Sounds like my kids: But he did it, too.”
No, sounds more like a reasoned argument: if Pius, who saved 800,000 Jews, is so hated and vilified, why is not FDR who did so little and so late while leading a world power? And why do the anti-Catholics here heap scorn om Pius XII when he saved 800,000 Jews while giving FDR a complete pass when he actually passed up opportunities to save Jews?
“And, yes, that is a form of justification.”
Again, Pius saved more than 800,000 Jews. I don’t need to justify that. Pius is clearly a great hero in regard to saving Jews. FDR? Not so much. You are justifying FDR’s inaction while almost vilifying Pius’ action of saving 800,000 Jewish lives by saying all he committed evil actions. How is saving 800,000 Jewish lives an evil action? Please explain that to me. And while you’re at it, please explain to me why FDR should be applauded for not doing more to save Jews in WWII? If you want ammunition I’ll even help you out. Read Rosen’s Saving the Jews: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Holocaust. Rosen shows how there is a lot of overblown ideas about what FDR could have done to save the Jews. His book isn’t well known, but it was easily accepted by lay people and scholars alike. The problem is that Pius XII faced just as many obstacles as FDR when it came to helping Jews but he still managed, against all odds, to save 800,000 Jews. When scholars point this out - today - this is treated with scorn while it was well known in the 40s that Pius had saved massive numbers of people. Rosen writes a book and barely anyone bats an eye at it. The lesson is clear: revisionist history on FDR is acceptable, but history about Pius XII that is not revisionist and merely proves what was already known by Jews and others in the 1940s is unacceptable. Clearly anti-Catholic sentiment is the key. It is the only thing diving the reception of Rosen’s book and conclusions and the works of Dalin, Rychlak, Lapide, Levai, Graham, Blet, O’Carroll, Doino, Zolli, the 12 folio volumes of the Actes, etc.
***You are justifying FDR’s inaction....***
What color is the sky in your world? I haven’t discussed FDR at all and, frankly, refuse to do so. It has absolutely nothing with how good or evil some Pope was. It is a non-issue.
I realize that Catholics are duty bound to defend their Popes. That doesn’t mean that the rest of us have to be starry-eyed. And, it doesn’t mean we have to be distracted by Catholic attempts to try and confuse things. I have this thing called a free choice and don’t have to bow down before any leader in my church.