Posted on 04/20/2002 11:13:03 AM PDT by Romulus
Supporters of Pope Pius XII took a firm and impressive stand at a major Holocaust Conference, and in so doing, demonstrated that the debate on the wartime pontiff's role during the Holocaust may be shifting in his favor. On April 14-15, Millersville University, in Millersville, Pennsylvania, USA, hosted the Twenty Second Annual Conference on the Holocaust, which was devoted this year to the theme, "Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust." The Conference hosted lectures by a virtual Who's Who of the Popes supporters, detractors and those who fall somewhere in between. Among the presenters at Millersville were authors James Carroll (Constantine's Sword), Ronald Rychlak (Hitler, the War and the Pope), Susan Zuccotti (Under His Very Windows: The Vatican and the Holocaust in Italy), John Jay Hughes (Pontiffs: Popes Who Shaped History), J. Michael Phayer (The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930-1965), John Morley (Vatican Diplomacy and the Jews During the Holocaust, 1939-1943), Stewart Stehlin (Weimar and the Vatican, 1918-1933), Jose Sanchez ( Pius XII and the Holocaust: Understanding the Holocaust), Sergio Minerbi (The Vatican and Zionism), John S. Conway (The Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 1933-1945) , German scholar Michael Feldkamp (Pius XII and Deutschland [Pius XII and Germany]), and Rabbi David Dalin (author of the watershed article, "Pope Pius XII and the Jews," published in The Weekly Standard). Ecumenical leaders Fr. John Pawlikowski, A. James Rudin and Seymour Reich were also in attendence and contributed to the debate.
A number of prominent philosophers and theologians also spoke, including Richard Rubinstein (Professor Emeritus of the University of Bridgeport) who opened the Conference with a startling--many said shocking--speech, saying of Pius XII: "The question is, whatever he did, did he regard the elimination of the Jews as a benefit, and the answer to that, I think, is yes." The statement was so wild, so beyond the pale that it created a backlash: no one else among the panelists (or in the audience) dared to defend it, and it badly damaged the authority of Pius XII's critics for the rest of the Conference. James Carroll was deeply critical of the Vatican's role during the Holocaust, and drew a connection between the current pedophilia scandals (involving homosexual priests) and the cause of Pope Pius XII. "The same people who want to canonize Pius XII are the same people who have covered up for these priests," he said.
But this charge was undermined by Carroll's own admission that many conservative Catholics who have a favorable opinion of Pius are equally horrified by the sexual scandals and cover-ups in the Church. Moreover, after it was pointed out to Carroll that many of the scholars in attendance who had a high opinion of Pius were neither Catholic nor conservative, he admitted that people of good will, from all different perspectives, can and do disagree about the wartime pontiff. As if to prove that point, David Dalin, a distinguished American Rabbi and historian, delivered an address which detailed the Pontiff's wartime assistance to Jews, the testimonies of those who worked with him and loved him, and described Pius's outspoken denunciation of Nazi atrocities (showing that they were clearly understood by both the Nazis, who hated them, and the Catholic rescuers, who were inspired by them). He ended by asserting that the Jewish leaders who hailed Pius XII both during the War, and at the end of his life, were objectively right, and that the Pontiff was indeed a "Righteous Gentile."
None of Dalin's fellow-panelists answered any of his major points, except for one minor challenge which questioned whether the Israeli Philharmonic actually honored Pius XII or the Italian people in general. (It turns out that Dalin is correct: the Philharmonic played a special Concert for Pius, on May 26, 1955, in gratitude "for the immense work of humane assistance taken by the Pontiff to save a great number of Jews during the Second World War," to quote "The Tablet" of London, July 30, 1955)
The debate became polemical when Susan Zuccotti assailed Jose Sanchez (for criticizing her) Ronald Rychlak (for using quotes from John XXIII and Paul VI in defense of Pius XII) and "Inside the Vatican" magazine (for publishing an article on the late Msgr. John Patrick-Carroll Abbing, whose rescue efforts on behalf of Jews she questioned).
Sanchez, who is considered a Pius XII moderate, and who delivered one of the best received speeches of the Conference, stated that when Pius XII's wartime actions are looked at "in context," his defenders have the stronger case. A disgruntled member of the audience, who obviously was on the side of the critics, asked Sanchez incredoulously, "Are you saying that if we examine all of Pius XII's activities in context, then we must all cast our lot with the defenders?"
Sanchez paused a moment and then delivered his answer: "Well, yes--that's exactly what I am saying." A moment later, he said he wasn't trying to be flippant but had reached his conclusion after condiderable study and reflection.
Rychlak took the high ground and treated Zuccotti's criticisms with humor; he pointed out that there is far more evidence than just the quotes Zuccotti cited to demonstrate that John XXIII and Paul VI both attributed Jewish rescue to Pius XII. He did not spend further time responding to her specific claims, since he has a major forthcoming article in "The Journal of Modern Italian Studies" (to appear in June) which does just that.
Instead, he delivered a speech entitled, "A Lawyer Looks at History," in which he demonstrated how the prosecuters of Pacelli withhold or manipulate evidence which would never be accepted in a court of Law. "If the charges now made against Pope Pius XII ever actually did reach a court, they would be thrown out for a lack of evidence," he said.
"Inside the Vatican" will publish a forthcoming article which will cover the Millersville Conference in depth, and give a detailed reply to Zuccotti's criticisms. But for now, it must be said: Dr. Zuccotti made a serious (but no doubt unintentional) error when she denied that Msgr. Carroll-Abbing ever wrote about his rescue efforts on behalf of Jews in his memoirs, "But for the Grace of God" (Delacorte Press, 1965). In fact, Carroll-Abbing, who was in Rome during the German occupation, writes that after the Nazis rounded up Rome's Jews in October of 1943, "I went back to my desk that October morning and wondered why my colleague, Monsignor Vitucci, had not yet put in an appearance. It was one o'clock before he did arrive and he was visibly agitated.
"On entering the convent of Our Lady of Sion that morning to say Mass he had found the place in an uproar. A crowd of Jewish women and their children had sought refuge there from the round-up and were in a state bordering on hysteria. Some of them had their menfolk taken away; others did not know where their husbands and sons had gone to seek a hiding-place.
"Almost immediately, word came from the Vatican that, because of the emergency, nuns would be allowed to give hospitality in their convents to Jewish men as well as their families....With each day that passed, Monsignor Vitucci [Carroll-Abbing's assistant] and I found ourselves becoming increasingly involved in the problems of the hideaways. The word had passed from one good sister to another, from one convent to another. Soon we were in touch with many of the more than a hundred and fifty religious institutions that were sheltering Jews." (emphasis added, p.56)
The issue of the Vatican's sealed Archives and the recent Jewish-Catholic panel (now-defunct) which studied the wartime role of Pius XII was also discussed. Seymour Reich, one of the two coordinators of the Pius XII study group, expressed his view (shared by everyone at the Conference) that the Holy See should open up its wartime archives as soon as possible. To his credit, he accepted some responsibility over the failure of the Pius XII study group which, he acknowledged, had leaked sensitive information, and ended in discord. But he thought the whole affair, in its own way, drew attention to the importance of the Vatican archives and may have played a part in the Vatican's recent announcement that it will release new archival material beginning in 2003.
John Conway seconded Reich's desire to see all the relevant archives, but defended the Vatican's archival policies and politely questioned the conduct and competency of certain members of the disbanded study group. He also emphasized that most historians have never even heard of, much less read, the enormously important 12 volumes of "Acts and Documents of the Holy See Relating to the Second World War," which have already been published. Fr. Hughes gave a strong address explaining the difficulties of cataloguing and releasing the Vatican's archives, which contain millions of documents and need to be meticulously analyzed and organized before they are released. He pointed out that many countries, including our own, have kept many of their archives sealed, and that these will remain sealed long after the Vatican opens theirs.
Hughes effectively demolished the arguments of those who claim that the Vatican is hiding incriminating documents, and made a stirring call for mutual respect among scholars and the Holy See as they move forward in pursuit of historical truth.
Particularly impressive was Dr. Michael Fedkamp of Germany, who sytematically refuted the thesis embraced by John Cornwell (author of Hitler's Pope) and other extreme critics, who accuse Eugenio Pacelli (the future Pius XII) of engaging in reactionary policies, as Pius XI's Secretary of State, which enabled Hitler to aquire power. As Feldkamp proved, citing unimpeachable evidence from German and Church archives, there is not a shred of truth to these charges, and that, if anything, Pacelli was a moderate realist who was open to progressive thinking, and always pursued a path compatible with an honorable Christian conscience.
By the end of the two day affair, the extreme and bitter comments made by Rubenstein and Carroll were largely forgotten, and the supporters of Pius XII came out ahead, as intelligent and well-informed scholars who had solid reasons for their views.
Fr. Morley ended the conference with a note of grace, by calling for moderation, sensitivity and humility among the practicioners of historical research.
The Conference was put together by Dr. Jack Fischel, Chair of the History Department at Millersville University, and Director of Millersville's annual Holocaust Conference, who won high marks from all involved.
What I have never seen mentioned in this regard is the history of the separation of Church and State. It was understood in the past that the Church needed to be protected by incursions from the State, and so separate Ecclesial and secular court systems were set up, the former being governed by Canon Law. If memory serves, all of that unpleasantness between Henry II and Thomas à Becket arose from a dispute over whether clerics could be subjected to secular penalties. (Henry, of course, had Becket murdered in his own cathedral, and was later subjected to a public flogging by Church authorities in punishment.)
Naturally, this system could be sustained only so long as the Ecclesial courts were seen to be carrying out their duties equitably, and not yielding to the temptation of leniency towards their own. I find it rather odd that some are proposing that the Holy Orthodox Church has it right in this regard, with her emphasis on sacerdotal collegiality. The failure of the Catholic Church in dealing with the current crisis suggests instead a greater need for strict hierachical accountability; the hierarchy having failed to exercise the disciplinary power properly within its scope. Greater collegiality could have only aggravated the present situation.
Perhaps I may be of some assistance with the following outline. You could begin with the following quotations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways." [Lumen Gentium 16]
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, [cf. Nostra aetate 4] "the first to hear the Word of God." [Roman Missal, Good Friday 13: General Intercessions, VI] The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ", [Rom 9:4-5] "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable." [Rom 11:29]840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.
In addition, there is this passage from Mit brennender Sorge:
16. Whoever wishes to see banished from church and school the Biblical history and the wise doctrines of the Old Testament, blasphemes the name of God, blasphemes the Almighty's plan of salvation, and makes limited and narrow human thought the judge of God's designs over the history of the world: he denies his faith in the true Christ, such as He appeared in the flesh, the Christ who took His human nature from a people that was to crucify Him; and he understands nothing of that universal tragedy of the Son of God who to His torturer's sacrilege opposed the divine and priestly sacrifice of His redeeming death, and made the new alliance the goal of the old alliance, its realization and its crown.
Finally, you might wish to discuss the absurdity of the notion that human actions, such as the production of a Red Heifer, or, even, the establishment of the modern state of Israel, could somehow "force God's hand," as it were, and cause Him bring about the End of the Age. The argument usually given in support of this notion relies on a Calvinist understanding of predestination. Philosophically, then, the concept denies causality. You may wish to use this as an example of defective theology actually resulting in harmful temporal as well as spiritual consequences, since it is presently being put forth as a justification for lighting the fuse on the powder keg which is the Holy Land. There is, of course, no guarantee that the looming violence will in fact be the Armageddon of Revelation and not just an enormous human tragedy, but the perpetrators will deny culpability, since they deny as well that they possess free will.
You have everything exactly backwards. God is Sovereign over all. Bible believing Christians believe that GOD brought about the creation of the modern State of Israel (over the objections of mere men) in order to fulfill the prophesies of Revelation -- not the other way around, as you seem to be stating it.
God prophesied that Israel would go into slavery in Egypt, and then be brought out to a Promised Land. The Egyptians never wanted to give up their slaves, but what God promised, He brought about, regardless of what any Egyptian "Spiritual Leader" wanted, or thought was prudent. Same with the Babylonian captivity. God brought it about, but prophsied He would end it and bring the Jews back to their land, and He did.
God created the modern Israeli state. Not because men wanted it or purposed it, but because He prophesied in Revelation that in the end times Israel would be back in the land, and so they are. God's plan of Redemption unfolds regardless of the folly of mere men. What He wants to happen, happens.
"The children of the kingdom (referring to the Jews) shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matt 8.12)
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold your house is left unto you desolate" (Matt 23.37,38)
"That upon you (Jews) may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias..." (Matt 23.35)
"Then answered all the people and said, his blood be on us, and on our children" (Matt 27.25).
"But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you to councils, and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten" (Mark 13.9)
"He that believeth not shall be damed" (Mark 16.16)
"Ye are of your father the devil and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. which of you convinceth me of sin? And I say the truth, why do you not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God" (John 8.43-47)
"Stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so you do. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers" (Acts 7.51-53)
"It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you (Jews): but seeing you put it from you and judge yourself unworthy of everlasting life, we turn to the Gentiles" (Acts 13.45-51)
"For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake ... wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men, that turn from the truth". (Titus 1.10-14).
"The Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God and are contrary to all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost". (i Thess 2..14-16)
"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is an antichrist, that denieth the father and the son. Whoever denieth the son, the same hath not the father" (1 John 2.22,23)
These vicious and treacherous New Testament teachings, have given the impression that the Jews in the time of Jesus were degenerate and cruel and that they are a deicide race. They have been spread by the church for the last two millennia, and have not been rooted out of Christian thinking to the present day. Even those Christian lovers of Israel, only love the Jews in order to save them from the punishment awaiting them for not having accepted Jesus.
Remember, many learn all this in their Sunday school classes at young, impressionable ages [5-10 years old] and grow up with it. How can a Christian really like Jews when the anti-Jewish teachings of the Christian Bible are his or her first teachings at such an impressionable young age?
I was never taught those things in Sunday School.
And how can you be sure a Christian like me "really" likes you?
I dunno HockeyPop...up until this last post I thought you were a Mensch.
Is it any wonder that today Israeli men in their forties have been putting down their tools, picking up their rifles and kissing their wives and kids good bye as they go off to fight for their existence? We owe them our support because theirs rests on a far higher moral ground.
If you meant I only love Israel because it a "Christian" thing to do - you're wrong. I love Israel for several reasons. Good, hardworking people who are fighting for their lives against a terrorism I can not fathom - just for starters.
"One complication in the Arab tangle was the age old antagonism existing between the Arab and the Jew. Since the former outnumbered the latter by some forty to one in North Africa, it had become local policy to placate the Arab at the expense of the Jew; repressive laws in the past became even more so and the Arab population regarded any suggestion for amelioration of such laws as the beginning of an effort to establish a Jewish government. Remembering that for years the uneducated population had been subjected to intensive Nazi propoganda calculated to fan these prejudices, it is easy to understand that the situation called for more caution and evolution than it did for precipitate action and possible revolution." Dwight D. Eisenhower, "CRUSADE IN EUROPE", Doubleday, pg 128 (1949)
No wonder why 700,000 Jews left Arab countries for Israel. Unfortunately, so did an equal number of Arabs who later began calling themselves "Palestinians".
BTW, you are a mensch.
He acts like a regular mugger: if one subject puts up resistence, he goes to another, until he finds someone who hand over the wallet. First Jordan, then Lebanon, now Israel. The mugging continues. Chicago, San Fransisco and London soon to come.
Peace be with you HockeyPop.
And may G_d be in Bethlehem.
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.