Posted on 05/20/2011 9:49:27 PM PDT by bronxville
MANCHESTER, England (CNS) --
U.S. and British diplomats discussed exerting pressure on Pope Pius XII to be silent about the Nazi deportations of Hungarian Jews, according to newly discovered documentation. The British feared that the wartime pope might make a "radio appeal on behalf of the Jews in Hungary" and that in the course of his broadcast would "also criticize what the Russians are doing in occupied territory."
Sir Francis D'Arcy Osborne, the British ambassador to the Vatican, told an American diplomat that "something should be done to prevail upon the pope not to do this as it will have very serious political repercussions." Osborne's comments were made to Franklin C. Gowen, an assistant to Myron Taylor, the U.S. special representative to the Vatican.
Gowen recorded the conversation in a letter to Taylor, saying he had promised Osborne that he would bring his concerns to the "immediate attention" of the U.S. ambassador. "It was understood that, pending your reaction, he would not take any steps vis-a-vis the Holy See," Gowen told Taylor.
More information from the “Curious Presbyterian” -
“Evidence shows Allies urged Pope Pius XII not to publicly speak out against Holocaust...
The United States and Great Britain discouraged Pope Pius XII from speaking out against Nazi brutality, warning the Pope that a public protest could have grave consequences. The Allies’ recommendation is reported in a document unearthed recently by the New York-based Pave the Way Foundation, founded by an American Jew, Gary Krupp.
Krupp asserted that these revelations help to give context for the way in which Pius XII handled the Nazi horror. The document is correspondence between the British representative to the Holy See, Sir D’Arcy Osborne, and Myron Taylor, his U.S. counterpart.
A Nov. 7, 1944, note signed by Taylor’s assistant, Franklin C. Gowen, reports to Taylor that Osborne “called and said that he feared the Holy Father may make Radio appeal on behalf of Jews in Hungary and that in his appeal he may also criticise what the Russians are doing in occupied territory.”
“Sir D’Arcy said something should be done to prevail upon the Pope not to do this,” the note added, “as it would have very serious political repercussions.”
. . . Further information about the Catholic response to the Holocaust has been uncovered by Dimitri Cavalli, a journalist, researcher, and contributor to Pave the Way archives and publications. He has located documents from an international Jewish press called the JTA (Jewish Telegraph Agency).
One release dated June 28, 1943, reports Vatican Radio denunciations of the treatment of Jews in France. A few days earlier, June 25, 1943, the JTA reported the denunciation in German of anti-Semitic actions in Slovakia.
Cavalli also discovered a May 19, 1940, Jewish Chronicle magazine published by B’nai B’rith featuring Pope Pius XII’s picture on the front cover with the lead article titled The Pope’s Jewish scholars. This article reports how the Vatican was hiring Jewish academics who were fired by Italian institutions due to Mussolini’s anti-Semitic laws.
The JTA also reported a confrontation between Cardinal Pierre-Marie Gerlier, archbishop of Lyon, when he was visited by Nazi authorities in France. The Nazis told the archbishop they would leave the Church alone, if the cardinal and other clergy would not oppose the anti-Jewish laws and would stop protecting Jews.
The cardinal responded that the French clergy did not engage in politics but “is obeying the Pope.” He cut short the confrontation telling the Nazis, “You no doubt know that the Holy Father has condemned the anti-Semitic laws and all anti-Jewish measures.”
Another JTA article, from Feb. 5, 1943, reported a strong condemnation of Nazi theories from Cardinal Jusztinián Györg Serédi, archbishop of Esztergom. On the same page is a short article on how Mussolini is reported to be relaxing his Jewish racial laws in order to try to strengthen his relations with the Vatican.
The Jewish Chronicle of London dated Sept. 9, 1942, reports that Joseph Goebbels, minister of propaganda in Nazi Germany, printed 10 million pamphlets in multiple languages for distribution in Europe and Latin America, condemning Pope Pius XII for his pro-Jewish stance.
When can we expect an apology for his false — and now empirically refuted – accusations from arch anti-Catholic bigot Richard Dawkins?”
I won’t be holding my breath.
http://curiouspresbyterian.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/richard-dawkins-empirically-refuted-yet-again-new-evidence-shows-pope-pius-xii-protected-jews/
What’s new? Another betrayal by none other than our friends, the anti-semitic brits and the anti-semitic US state department. May they in the hell they made up for themselves.
- Beautiful artwork for a beautiful man of God.
Yes, and the Armenians suffered even more when they were cleansing Turkey of Christians.
I am disgusted that Pope Pius was so vilified and personally it disgusts me that the Brits would do this, knowing what was going on. If the Pope had spoken up (as John Paul II did with Communism) I am more than sure that Hungarian Jews would have been saved and that things could have been turned around and I bet that the Pope would have been able to start not just ending deportations, but at also saving Jewish lives who were in those camps.
Why are the Brits so anti-semitic?
Some Protestants claim that the Pope should have spoken out more forcefully/more specifically re Hitler and Nazi Germany. The counter-argument is often made by Catholics that the Catholic Church saved 860,000 lives through the Church's (relatively) wordless actions.
Is the argument being made that the Pope would have spoken out more forcefully, but for the intervention of these Allied diplomats? If that's the claim, who gets the credit for 860,000 Jewish lives saved by the Pope's not speaking out?
Listen. The brits have always cared about their own arses and the hell with everyone else. What they did then, they still do today.
Had hitler succeeded during WWII, his next target was the Roman Catholic Church. He supported, and was supported BY, a breakaway sect of Catholics who had no allegiance to Rome, and after he had used them, he slaughtered them wholesale.
LOOK what the brits have led in doing to libya. GREED. Pure simple.
As for the Armenians, it wasn’t “worse” or better, any more than it was for the aged, the infirm, the retarded, the crippled, the Gypsies, the Christians, or the Jews. Genocide is NEVER good or bad. It is ALWAYS pure evil. You cannot equate them to each other in any other way. Whether it is Africns or Aborigines, white, yellow, red or green. 6 or 6 million.
There is no such thing as a “worse” genocide.
Those who condemn Pius XII do not understand that he was facing two evils. His first duty was to protect the church. hitler had spies and plants within the church. What good would it have done for him to call even more attention to HIMSELF? None. And he would hve been killed. what good is dead pope?
The Allies betrayed General Patton, too, and may have had him killed (or Stalin did) because he hated the Russians and thought they were more evil bastards than the Nazis (and that is saying something!). (Target Patton).
Eisenhower and Montgomery were in bed with the Communists utterly ignoring their atrocities and trying to foil Patton’s every move all during the war. Made Patton puke and he was going to Congress to bring all their traitorous actions to light. Eisenhower, who had Presidential ambitions, wanted him to shut up. If Patton would have been listened to...WWII (by many top historian’s estimates) would have ended at least a year earlier and saved hundreds of thousands of Allied lives. Patton was a genius and the most common question of the Axis Powers was, “Where is Patton?”
The Brits and the U. S. State Dept. might have tried to influence Pope Pius XII, but it doesn’t seem to have worked.
“personally it disgusts me that the Brits would do this”
The same brits who rewrote the New Testament for a murdering, womanizing, jaded king? Think about it.
“There is no such thing as a “worse” genocide.”
Of course I agree. I can see I phrased it badly with the “even more” while just meaning to name another ethnic group they cleansed.
It only worked to the extent that a VOICE was silenced. The actions were not. Point of fact, the silence probably helped.
I understand, but you know, a LOT of people don’t. They think that we Jews are only concerned with ourselves. That could not be further from the truth.
I am ashamed to say it, but the Allies knew about the holocaust and did nothing to stop it because of the resource drain it was on the Axis. The victims represented another potential 3 million Axis troops and tens of thousands of educated professionals. in the big picture they were expendable and the Popes efforts to save them ran counter to Allied interests.
At the end of the war, the head Rabbi of Rome converted to Roman Catholicism. That’s good enough evidence for me.
I am afraid our history of the 20th Century Wars (along with all American history) has been largely revised by the Marxists in academia. Our curricula in schools and publishing outlets are controlled by an elite few who only allow the Marxist viewpoint and destroy, disparage, or eliminate other viewpoints.
“I understand, but you know, a LOT of people don’t. They think that we Jews are only concerned with ourselves. That could not be further from the truth.”
It’s provable, Henry Morgenthau Sr., a Jew, remains an Armenian Hero to this day. A heartwretching story.
You have a point there. I honestly have to wonder sometimes about whether or not they really are allies of ours. Many of them look at Americans as ‘savages’ and consdiering how bad their culture has gotten, do we really want them anymore? They were really anti-American in a lot of posts about Osama Bin Laden and they are still whining about Iraq and Afhganistan. If the idiots hadn’t interfered in the region in the first place, I do not think that there would have been a problem at all.
“The same brits who rewrote the New Testament for a murdering, womanizing, jaded king? Think about it.”
Actually, that being Henry VIII, they only went along with a new “Church of England” that triggered so much religious bloodshed that it still hasn’t healed. I’ts neither really Protestant or Catholic, but created for the convenience of the monarch. William and his new wifey cohabited long before the marriage and still got a full nuptial mass for their ceremony and she wore white (with a low enough neckline).
They rewrote the testament for King James I.
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.