Novak: No anti-Semitism in Gibson's 'Passion'

Chicago Sun Times ^ | 11-03-03

[TomB]

This is about the forth time, I think that this series of quotes has been dragged out.

And they will continue to be "dragged out" as long as you continue to discuss "Pius the Silent" (which he, by the way, properly earned, according to you). As it is painfully obvious to most people, it is impossible to label Pius "silent" when there are so many contemporary accounts (not "after dinner testimonials) relating exactly what he said. The two are mutually exclusive.

Of course PIUS helped the jews

We'll see if that is still "operational" later in the thread.

--that does not mean he and his church aren't guilty of contributed mightily to getting them in the nazi gunsites in the first place.

That's a monstrously stupid thing to say. Pius, even before he was Pope, denounced Nazism in the fiercest terms:

On April 28, 1935, four years before the War even started, Pacelli gave a speech that aroused the attention of the world press. Speaking to an audience of 250,000 pilgrims in Lourdes, France, the future Pius XII stated that the Nazis "are in reality only miserable plagiarists who dress up old errors with new tinsel. It does not make any difference whether they flock to the banners of social revolution, whether they are guided by a false concept of the world and of life, or whether they are possessed by the superstition of a race and blood cult."[iii] It was talks like this, in addition to private remarks and numerous notes of protest that Pacelli sent to Berlin in his capacity as Vatican Secretary of State, that earned him a reputation as an enemy of the Nazi party.

Dr. Joseph Lichten, a Polish Jew who served as a diplomat and later an official of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, writes: "Pacelli had obviously established his position clearly, for the Fascist governments of both Italy and Germany spoke out vigorously against the possibility of his election to succeed Pius XI in March of 1939, though the cardinal secretary of state had served as papal nuncio in Germany from 1917 to 1929. . . . The day after his election, the Berlin Morgenpost said: ‘The election of cardinal Pacelli is not accepted with favor in Germany because he was always opposed to Nazism and practically determined the policies of the Vatican under his predecessor.’ "[iv]

Former Israeli diplomat and now Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Pinchas Lapide states that Pius XI "had good reason to make Pacelli the architect of his anti-Nazi policy. Of the forty-four speeches which the Nuncio Pacelli had made on German soil between 1917 and 1929, at least forty contained attacks on Nazism or condemnations of Hitler’s doctrines. . . . Pacelli, who never met the Führer, called it ‘neo-Paganism.’ "[v]

In the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge (1937) whose final form Pius XI attributed to then-Cardinal Pacelli, made the statement:

"we are all Semites spiritually" and ought to hold the Jewish people in high regard accordingly. Rabbi Lapide relates that shortly after his election, Pius reaffirmed: "It is impossible for a Catholic to be an anti-Semite; spiritually all of us are Semites."

You have to jam your fingers pretty deep into your ears (and close your eyes very tightly) in order for Pius to be "silent".

[donh]

Since you apparently have refused to acknowledge the links that conservonator provided for your edification, allow me to quote some of what is on the first one:

Well, that's pretty amusing, since I quoted his cite back to him. Do you also have an allergy to reading what I've written before responding to it?

A person can say anything they want to about the church. Until you make formal request, or the church throws you out, the default conclusion is that you are what you were. Has anyone denied that Hitler was raised Catholic, and was catholic most of his life? And that his hatred of jews was therefore markedly similar to that of most german catholic jew-haters? This is growing more and more curious. What do you think you will gain from winning this argument? Not much, it appears.

[Barnacle]

Do you also have an allergy to reading what I've written before responding to it?

Perhaps. Sort of like a gag reflex.

[M. Thatcher]

Maybe the movie isn't anti-semitic, but Novak is.

Your charge is beyond contemptuous.

I am not a Novak fan, but your claim is libelous. Novak is not a political supporter of Israel, but that does not make the man anti-semitic. I think he's wrong on Israel. I think he's wrong about a lot of things. But to call the man anti-semitic is malignantly ignorant.

[donh]

You have to jam your fingers pretty deep into your ears (and close your eyes very tightly) in order for Pius to be "silent".

Well, that, or you might note all the things PIUS didn't do, that puzzled his contemporaries. Like: a) failing to excommunicate all those engaged in the "jewish solution". b) failing to remove the archbishop of slovokia. c) failing to halt the use of church records to help the SS ferret out jews, as opposed to doing so for jewish converts to christianity. d) architecting an accord with Hitler in which he specifically abstains the church from having a public opinion on "political" questions--such as, murdering millions of jews, for example.

And what is the defense I am about to hear? "Oh, if he had spoken up more would have died." So which is it? Was he silent on one side of his defender's mouth and loud on the other? Apparently, the theory is that he was silent, unless he wasn't. His silence may have been laudable, though I doubt it, looking the eugenics case, but it was definitely silence. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

PIUS helped many jews. What he did not do, what he was incapable of doing, was repudiating his churches inability to see them as having the same moral worth as ,say, lame, handicapped christians. If he can speak with the Voice of Jesus for the lame, why can't he do it for the jews? Why, in fact, did he architect a document in which he explicitly committed his church to "plugging it's ears" as you say.

[polemikos]

That comment displays your propensity for side-stepping the issue.

E-I-S-E-G-E-S-I-S:
to twist the text into preconceived notions; forcing the evidence to fit the theory

The historical evidence, and professional opinions of observers and Jews, most appropriately including those that were there, all praise Pius. You sweep all that aside, accepting spin, propoganda, and bad research by those with an unhiddden bias. That is a prima facia case of eisegesis. Unless you can refute that, it really is pointless to attempt to discuss truth with you because you refuse to see.

[Barnacle]

What do you think you will gain from winning this argument?

I have said what I have to say. It appears to me that you have hate in your heart for some reason. I'm not going to try to convince you any further than I'd try to convince a screaming Liberal about the virtues of Conservatism.

I hope some day, you will have a change of heart. May God bless you.

[donh]

1 - I didn't see these quotes listed together, so your snide comment not withstanding, they bear posting at the risk of repeating.

What? What are you talking about?

2 - They are not after-dinner testimonials, so your characterization is wrong.

Are they testimonials, or are they not? Testimonials are not a proper answer to specific forensic charges backed up by documents in the accused's own hand.

3 - "Adumbrate" is a fairly accurate description of the vague accusations you hurl.

So?

4 - Another word you could look up is "eisegesis" which describes how you came to your conclusion first and then accepted only evidence, no matter how twisted, to support your conclusion.

Oh, indeed. How twisted is the "We Remember" document issued by the catholic church? How twisted is Matthew? How twisted is the doctrine of salvation through the crucifixion and resurrection? How twisted is my recitation of the contents of the Accords between Hitler and the Catholic church?

[donh]

It appears to me that you have hate in your heart for some reason.

That is correct. When mass murders and tortures by public institutions are committed, I have hate in my heart for ALL the germain causes, and a desire to see them laid out permanently and promenently for the world to consider.

[polemikos]

Your characterization of the statements of Jewish leaders and newspaper editorials as after-dinner testimonials is twisted. Either prove it or admit error. Somehow I think you'll do neither.

[aynrandfreak]

As I stated before, anyone who says that Hamas are freedom fighters is anti-semitic. The "freedom" they fight for is freedom from a world with Jews in it. I don't take it back, or apologize, and he's welcome to sue me for libel.

[donh]

May God bless you too.

[Barnacle]

Thanks.

[conservonator]

Your link and quote are from some leftist on a chat board who does not source his "facts". Is that the best you can do?

Try this. It’s sourced. And just in case the prospect of facing sourced information scars you, I’ll post a taste

For example, the New York Times reported that Bishop Fidel Garcia y Martinez, Bishop of Calahorra in Spain, condemned Nazi propaganda and racism in a pastoral letter published in February, 1942, based on Mit Brennender Sorge of Pope Pius XI. In his pastoral letter, the bishop included texts by the German Catholic Bishops in their 1941 pastoral letter from Fulda as well as sections from the pastoral letter by the Catholic bishops of the Netherlands. Circulation of all these works, the Times pointed out, was forbidden in Germany. (N.Y. Times, May 24, 1942, p.4, 1-2)

The German Catholic bishops issued a second pastoral letter on March 22, 1942, the first having been published in the autumn of 1941. Both were formal protests against policies of the Nazi regime, and were read publicly in every Catholic pulpit throughout Germany. The first was a general condemnation of Nazi doctrines. The second, read on Passion Sunday, protested vehemently against Hitler’s then new policies of interfering in Church affairs and education, and strongly protested against “all violations of personal freedom,” against the killing of insane persons and the proposal to kill incurables, against unjust seizure of individuals and of property. (N.Y. Times, June 7, 1942, p. 12, 1-5)

The only reason I continue to entertain this discussion is not for your edification, you’re lost, but for those lurking.

[donh]

That comment displays your propensity for side-stepping the issue.

Oh, indeed. No one will address my point, and that's fine. I show you until I'm blue in the face that that doesn't address the point, and that's "eisegesis". Fine, have it your way.

The historical evidence, and professional opinions of observers and Jews, most appropriately including those that were there, all praise Pius. You sweep all that aside, accepting spin, propoganda, and bad research by those with an unhiddden bias. That is a prima facia case of eisegesis. Unless you can refute that, it really is pointless to attempt to discuss truth with you because you refuse to see.

address my enumerated points, a) through d), in a just previous post, and I will once again explain to you why this is yet another chapter of this sustained exercise in bait&switch rhetorical tactics.

I AM NOT DENYING THAT PIUS SAVED JEWS. IT DOES NOT HELP YOUR CASE TO CONTINUE PROVING IT OVER AND OVER. Got it? Probably not. Sheesh.

[donh]

That comment displays your propensity for side-stepping the issue.

Oh, indeed. No one will address my point, and that's fine. I show you until I'm blue in the face that that doesn't address the point, and that's "eisegesis". Fine, have it your way.

The historical evidence, and professional opinions of observers and Jews, most appropriately including those that were there, all praise Pius. You sweep all that aside, accepting spin, propoganda, and bad research by those with an unhiddden bias. That is a prima facia case of eisegesis. Unless you can refute that, it really is pointless to attempt to discuss truth with you because you refuse to see.

address my enumerated points, a) through d), in a just previous post, and I will once again explain to you why this is yet another chapter of this sustained exercise in bait&switch rhetorical tactics.

I AM NOT DENYING THAT PIUS SAVED JEWS. IT DOES NOT HELP YOUR CASE TO CONTINUE PROVING IT OVER AND OVER. Got it? Probably not. Sheesh.

[donh]

For example, the New York Times reported that Bishop Fidel Garcia y Martinez, Bishop of Calahorra in Spain, condemned Nazi propaganda and racism in a pastoral letter published in February, 1942, based on Mit Brennender Sorge

By xmas, 1942, most of the German Jews were ash. PIUS himself spoke up with the Official Voice in xmas 1942--with the Allies upcoming victory plain to see. And this is your evidence--a pastoral letter that's too little, too late? BFD.

[polemikos]

Ah, a small step in the right direction.

You now acknowledge that Pius XII helped the Jews. Good for you.

We have also demonstrated that you mischaracterize evidence.
While you also sidestep issues, but I'm willing to let that pass for now.

Now, moving forward, do you acknowledge that Pius XII used his papal authority to save a large number of Jews?

[donh]

Your link and quote are from some leftist on a chat board who does not source his "facts".

Oh, and the "Catholic League" has no irons in the fire?

Is that the best you can do?

No, as a matter of fact, it's not. It's just what I could do quick. Since I've cited hundreds of primary sources on this thread, including the bible, the doctrine of salvation through christ, a mass of Hitler quotes from speeches, and nazi posters, and first person narratives, I'll take this feeble thrust with a grain of salt.