[donh]

The fact is, unlike the "officers of the inquisition", the support for the Jews in Mit was not contingent on their conversion, so your slap is, as usual, worthless.

It is also the same fluff the church has been putting out for 1400 years, while at the same time inventing forced ghetto-ization, yellow star armbands, and kidnapping jewish children to be raised catholic. "Mit" is generalized opposition to anti-semitism. It is NOT an unqualified excommunication of those who engaged in the holocaust. Like PIUS XII said--opposition to anti-semitism does NOT mean there can't be anti-jewish laws. The church is presently quite careful to draw a distinction between anti-jewish sentiment, which it owns up to, and anti-semitic sentiment, which it does not own up to. Hence, you can be opposed to anti-semitism, and still support anti-jewish laws--like those that made the holocaust legal, for example.

[TomB]

It is also the same fluff the church has been putting out for 1400 years, while at the same time inventing forced ghetto-ization, yellow star armbands, and kidnapping jewish children to be raised catholic.

I see you keep coming back to the "1400 years" mantra. Since you cannot find anything specific to damn Pius with, you are forced to contiually dredge up the Church's past to beat him over the head with.

It doesn't say much for your argument.

Mit" is generalized opposition to anti-semitism. It is NOT an unqualified excommunication of those who engaged in the holocaust.

So why write it at all? The Vatican was already on the "right side" of the war, they didn't need it to brush up their credentials.

And you keep complaining that Nazis weren't excommunicated. What could that have possibly gained? You seem to be real big on useless pontificating. You must love the U.N.

As an aside, I continue to refer to the accords, since he was the Pope's secretary, emmisary to the the talks, and principle architect of that document

Here is what you said:

"despite having signed the concords with Pius the Silent"

If you get that simple fact wrong, or, worse yet, purposely misstate it to buttress your case, what else of all the unsourced bilge is wrong?

I've got news for you. When you save about one person in 10 who is slated to die, in no small measure, due to your institution's ancient actions and current inactions, you have saved a handful. Is this your evidence? Huh.

So now we have departed from "lots" back to merely "a handful"? Evidence? Yes, those are your words.

As you bounce around your allegations, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?