Posted on 06/15/2013 4:03:11 PM PDT by NYer
A new film, Under the Roman Sky, starring James Cromwell as Pius XII, details the heroic efforts of Pius XII to save the Jews of Rome from the Nazis, after Rome came under Nazi occupation subsequent to the fall of Mussolini following the Allied invasion of southern Italy in 1943.
Rabbi David G. Dalin, in his review of a Moral Reckoning, a tome by Daniel Goldhagen which sought to blame Catholicism for the Holocaust, details the efforts of the Pope to save the Jews of Rome:
Goldhagen’s centerpiece is the outrageous allegation that Pius XII “did not lift a finger to forfend the deportations of the Jews of Rome” or of other parts of Italy “by instructing his priests and nuns to give the hunted Jewish men, women and children sanctuary.” Much of this is lifted straight from anti-Pius books like Susan Zuccotti’s Under His Very Windows–and thus Goldhagen repeats the errors of those books and adds extras, all his own, in his determined attempt to extend their thesis into over-the-top railings against the sheer existence of Catholicism.
GOLDHAGEN IS APPARENTLY UNAWARE (or, more probably, doesn’t care) that many distinguished scholars have declared Zuccotti’s book “not history but guesswork,” as the historian Owen Chadwick put it. Zuccotti’s principal charge, mindlessly repeated by Goldhagen, is that there is no credible evidence that Pius XII ever explicitly ordered his subordinates to assist Jews in Italy. In fact, there is a whole body of evidence that proves Pius did. In 1964 Cardinal Paolo Dezza, the wartime rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University, published a signed article stating unequivocally that during the German occupation of Rome, Pius XII explicitly told him to help “persecuted Jews” and do so “most willingly.” In his 2001 book Gli ebrei salvati da Pio XII, Antonio Gaspari compiles additional testimonies. And more recently, Gaspari came across new documents, establishing that as early as 1940 Pius XII explicitly ordered his secretary of state, Luigi Maglione, and Maglione’s assistant, Giovanni Battista Montini (the future Paul VI), to send money to Jews protected by the bishop of Campagna.
The Nazi deportations of Italy’s Jews began in October 1943. Pope Pius ordered churches and convents throughout Italy to shelter Jews, and in Rome itself 155 convents and monasteries sheltered five thousand Jews throughout the German occupation. Pius himself granted sanctuary within the walls of the Vatican, and his summer residence at Castel Gandolfo, to countless homeless Jews. Goldhagen’s book conspicuously lacks any discussion of Castel Gandolfo, which enjoys a unique place in the annals of Jewish rescue (and Catholic rescuers) during the Holocaust: In no other site in all of Nazi-occupied Europe were as many Jews saved and sheltered for as long a period.
The recently released memoirs of Adolf Eichmann also contain new evidence disproving Goldhagen’s claim. The memoirs confirm that Vatican protests played a crucial part in obstructing Nazi intentions for Roman Jews. Eichmann wrote that the Vatican “vigorously protested the arrest of Jews, requesting the interruption of such action.” At Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem, Israeli attorney general Gideon Hausner said, “the pope himself intervened personally in support of the Jews of Rome.” Documents introduced at the trial provide further evidence of Vatican efforts to halt the arrest and deportation of Roman Jews.
Over 6,000 Roman Jews were secretly sheltered within churches, convents and monasteries in and around Rome during the occupation. Other Jews were the recipients of baptismal and birth records forged by Church officials. When the Nazis sought a large sum of gold from the Jews of Rome, Pius offered to pay it, although the Jews were able to pay the sum without his help. The evidence that these efforts were done at the command of the Pope mounts each day:
This network gave passports and money to Jewish families so that they could escape.
I often brought money to Jewish homes.
At least 12 German priests in Rome were allowed to help me.”
The network’s intervention had already begun even before Germany had invaded Italy.
After the liberation of Rome by the Allies, a delegation of Roman Jews came to the Pope to thank him for his protection of them during the occupation. Pius responded as follows: “For centuries, Jews have been unjustly treated and despised. It is time they were treated with justice and humanity, God wills it and the Church wills it. St. Paul tells us that the Jews are our brothers. They should also be welcomed as friends.”
The efforts of Pius XII to save the Jews of Rome from the Nazis was in microcosm a reflection of the efforts he made to save the Jews of Europe from the Nazis. Everyone knew this at the time. During and after the war Pius XII was hailed as both an enemy of the Nazis and a friend of the Jews. No one disputed this. It was only after his death in 1958 that a campaign of lies, originally begun as part of Soviet propaganda against the Church, was instigated to smear the good name of this great and holy man. These calumnies have been seized upon in recent years by those who hate the Church, as one more weapon they use in their never-ending war against the Church. The historical record is crystal clear as to Pius and always has been crystal clear. He did more than any other single man or woman to aid the Jews of Europe at their time of greatest peril, and he deserves to be honored for it.
Please note I am asking this politely.
“Equating the corrupt leadership working to betray our Constitution with the millions who served in good faith to preserve our Constitution is a major mistake”
I never equated corrupt leadership with those who served in good faith. I was trying to teach a little history in a very short space to another poster. I honor patriotic Americans and those who served their country.
I wasn't implying you didn't honor those who serve and have served.
It seems to me that ansell12’s posts are somewhat off-topic and also biased.
Sure, you could say that the revolution in Mexico was “Catholics fighting Catholics,” but in fact it was basically Communist ex-Catholics fighting and murdering Priests and other Catholics.
It was much the same as the Civil War in Spain, which was also Communists murdering Priests and other Catholics. Franco was villanized by the leftist media, but he simply chose to fight against the Communist murderers; and he managed to keep Hitler from occupying Spain, which was about as much as he was able to do in the circumstances. He also provided refuge to quite a few Jews who managed to make it out of France into Spain, although the leftist Jews certainly don’t give him any credit for that.
I think narses sometimes gets carried away on these threads, but I don’t entirely blame him.
As for whether the U.S. should have intervened in the Mexican civil war, that’s a different question. Probably not. But Mexico wouldn’t be such a mess even now if not for the class warfare that has gone on down there. The best analysis of what’s wrong with Latin America that I know of is Joseph Conrad’s “Nostromo,” which describes the constant shift of dictators in Latin America from left to right, from Communism to crony capitalism. Not much the U.S. can do about it, although it might help if our Democrat politicians didn’t get so loving with their Communist dictators.
Whereas posters may argue vigorously for and against beliefs on “open” Religion Forum threads it is never tolerable to use ad hominems in religious debate because they invariably lead to flame wars when the subject is one’s deeply held religious beliefs.
For something to be "making it personal" it must be speaking to another Freeper, personally.
"Protestants are heretics" is not making it personal. "You are a heretic" is making it personal. "Catholics worship Mary" is not making it personal. "You worship Mary" is making it personal. "Mormons worship many gods" is not making it personal. "You worship many gods" is making it personal.
However, when a poster paints with a brush that accuses an entire religion of criminal behavior - his post will be pulled as flame bait. For example, posts that say "Protestants kill babies" or "Catholics molest children" or "Mormons kill non-Mormons" will be pulled. However, if the post is specific about a non-Freeper, I will not pull it. For example "Rev. Doe says abortion and infanticide are not sin" or "Father Doe was convicted for molesting those kids" or "Mormons killed non-Mormons at Mountain Meadows" would not be pulled.
Statements formed as questions are rarely "making it personal."
"Are you a heretic" is not making it personal. "You are a heretic" is making it personal.
Forms of "making it personal" include mind reading, attributing motive, accusing another Freeper of telling a lie (because it attributes motive, the intent to deceive) - making the thread "about" individual Freeper(s), following a Freeper from thread to thread and badgering a Freeper over-and-again with the same question.
The words "prevarication" "dishonesty" "slander" "deceit" "calumny" and "subterfuge" are synonymous with "lie" because they entail intent.
Words such as "false" "error" "wrong" "inaccurate" "misstatement" do not attribute motive and are not "making it personal."
Other words push the envelope of motive but are not synonymous with "lie" for purposes of modding the RF. However, they can be "making it personal" if applied to another Freeper, personally, in such a way the discussion becomes "about" the individual Freeper instead of the issues. Those words include "misrepresentation" "detraction" "disinformation" "distortion" "hyperbole" and "doublespeak."
Another example, calling a group of Freepers "anti-Mormon" attributes motive to them as a group which is not technically "making it personal" - but saying that another Freeper, personally, is anti-Mormon instead of anti-MormonISM is an ad hominem. It is "making it personal."
Another example, a poster may say on an “open” RF thread that a particular belief, diety, religious authority, etc. is "Satanic." But he must not say "You are Satanic." That would be "making it personal." The Bible is always a legitimate source on the Religion Forum, so a poster might quote the Bible where Jesus called Peter "Satan." If a post serves no debate purpose (flame bait or 'making it personal' by devious means) - it would be pulled.
When in doubt, avoid the use of the pronoun "you" and Freeper's names - or put yourself in the other guy's shoes.
Not really a new film, watched it on Netflix over a year ago.
I applaud your defense of the Faith! I did not see your correction of erroneous statements about the Church as incendiary, but as this is a private forum, the moderator makes the rules. Think of the RM as a nun with a ruler!
Post 9 was in response to post 8 that describes situations or history in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America, Mexico, Africa and the Middle East, China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia, that I disagreed with and that encompassed my father’s and mine, and my brother’s time in the military, and my nation’s engagement in combat in almost all those areas.
Responding to post 8 made sense, but I think it is right to point out that other posters got way off topic when they tried to get overly involved in Mexican history.
They even avoided the relevant question of which countries were supposed to send their Army’s to Mexico, and why, and if Mexico needed to be invaded, then perhaps the many Catholic nations south of it could have invaded, or perhaps the Catholic nations of Spain, or France could have gone to help.
America did it’s part by taking in hundreds of thousands of refugees from their Catholic nation of Mexico during that period.
Following that act, president for life, FDR, still retained Catholic voters at 73% in 1940 and 1944, and Jewish voters at 90% both of those elections, and the majority of Protestantism voters were voting against the guy, trying to get him out of office.
Everything remained pretty much the same for his veep in 1948, as America's Protestants as a whole were still voting against the administration, but Truman did magnificently with Catholics and Jews.
Yes, some of us lived and served during that 75 years, as nations like the United States gave blood and treasure, freerepublic is full of us.
One often sees an anti-Americanism show up on these threads.
Why is it so hard for many to accept that the vast majority of Jews in America have always wanted to be AMERICANS? So much so that they have always overlooked the plight of their fellow Jews in distant lands.
They’re not American conservatives because that has always meant a measure of Christian primacy if not of outright Christian authoritarianism.
I was responding to your post 61 to me, post 9 was in response to post 8, and I was right to correct that post.
See post 68.
By voting as far left as they can go? Do you think that desiring to be American explains 90% democrat votes and supporting Debs of the Socialist party at 38%?
The conservative vote is the more American.
See post 72.
You left out the second part. A lot of people besides Jews don’t want to live under Christian authoritarianism. The Founding Fathers, for example.
The people orchestrating the persecution were not Catholic, as I have already patiently explained.
I think we can assume that almost everyone involved in the Mexican power struggle was indeed Catholic.
So the Jews are, and the 1780 Americans were, anti-Christian?
The Jewish vote has always been so liberal for in American history, even leftist and socialist in America, not because of politics, but because of the hope that the democrats will suppress Christianity? Is that why they supported Debs by 38%?
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.