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.
He never left. But you know that.
:)
Then may He be realized.
If you think that the creation of Israel is to fulfill bible prophecy then you are indeed a scholar!
To the human way of thinking, Jesus being tortured and then dying on a cross seems like a screwy way to save makind. But that was God's plan for our salvation. I do not believe Pius was ANY KIND of a friend to the Jews. To suggest that the Israeli people would have even WANTED a homeland that was Biblically irrelevant to them is hard for me to understand.
Your note indicates to me that you consider Israel strictly from the p.o.v. of human geopolitics. The p.o.v. of Bible believing Christians is that Israel is part of God's plan of Redemption.
In Revelation He promised us that Israel would be back in their Land, the Land GOD gave them, at the end of the world. Pius wanted to thwart that. In effect, Pius wanted to thwart the prophesies in the book of Revelation. God rejected Pius's schemes. I leave it to your imagination as to what Bible believing Christians think of Pius and his motives.
Methinks you watch too much Jack Van Impe. Your criticism of Pius XII is based on a bogus interpretation of scripture, and equally false history. Perhaps a little more scholarship needs to be applied. But first, change your sources.
Oh really? How so? I base my belief, as do tens of millions of Christians, on the LITERAL interpratation of what was a clear prophesy give by God to us in Revelation. Revelation was written in 95 AD. After Israel and Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed.
It is eye opening to realize that whenever someone in the Bible is READING the Bible, they take what it says LITERALLY. The classic example of this is Daniel chpt 9:
2 During the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, was studying the writings of the prophets. I learned from the word of the LORD, as recorded by Jeremiah the prophet, that Jerusalem must lie desolate for seventy years...
Daniel based his following actions on the premise that God's Word in the Bible meant a LITERAL 70 years. Indeed, God exiled the Jews for precisely 70 years. We see that God is again fulfilling His words in Revelation LITERALLY. There is now an Israel, there is now a Jerusalem, and soon there will be a new Temple. (But there wouldn't have been is Pius had his way.)
You criticize my scholarship...what "scholarship" do YOU bring to the table??? I close with some predictive words from a very wise, learned man:
"About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the Prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition."
Sir Issac Newton 1642-1727
Newton took the Bible quite literally, and the literal interpretation of the prophesies in Daniel and Revelation were his life's passion.
Are you aware that Newton was an Arian?
(And a bump to this fine thread)
I've asked for you to back that statement up. From your silence I am forced to conclude that you are unable to. Therefore your charge that Pius XII was "thwarting the will of God" is erroneous at best, malicious at its worst. The facts demonstrate that Pius was an able and willing friend to the Jews of Europe during the Nazi occupation and many notable Jews acknowleged that fact during their lifetimes( Golda Meir for one). His opposition to a Jewish state was not contrary to some fraudulent interpretation of Revelations, as you suggest, but rather consistent with his history as a friend to the Jews and Christ's teaching of brotherly love.
First of all, some background. Zechariah 12 gives us some info on the future of Jerusalem.
2 I will make Jerusalem and Judah like an intoxicating drink to all the nearby nations that send their armies to besiege Jerusalem.3 On that day I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone, a burden for the world.
Zechariah 12 was written around 480 BC. While true that Jerusalem was conquered,, retaken, then conquered again (finally by Rome). it was never "a burden to the world" (like it most certainly IS today). The vast majority of people on earth didn't even know it existed and Jerusalem was burned and destroyed by Rome in 70 AD. continuing with Zechariah...
None of the nations who try to lift it will escape unscathed.4 "On that day, says the LORD, I will cause every horse to panic and every rider to lose his nerve. I will watch over the people of Judah, but I will blind the horses of her enemies.5And the clans of Judah will say to themselves, `The people of Jerusalem have found strength in the LORD Almighty, their God.'6"On that day I will make the clans of Judah like a brazier that sets a woodpile ablaze or like a burning torch among sheaves of grain. They will burn up all the neighboring nations right and left, while the people living in Jerusalem remain secure. 7 The LORD will give victory to the rest of Judah first, before Jerusalem, so that the people of Jerusalem and the royal line of David will not have greater honor than the rest of Judah.8On that day the LORD will defend the people of Jerusalem; the weakest among them will be as mighty as King David! And the royal descendants will be like God, like the angel of the LORD who goes before them!9For my plan is to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
Now, what time frame is this talking about? Jerusalem from 480 BC to Christ's day? It's possible to allegorize these words to mean the battles over Jerusalem, though "nations to the right & left" "never "burned up"... but we don't have to speculate, Zechariah gives it away in the coming verses...
10 "Then I will pour out a spirit of grace and prayer on the family of David and on all the people of Jerusalem. They will look on me whom they have pierced and mourn for him as for an only son.
Clearly this is Jesus. Zero doubt about it. This is a future Prophesy for Jerusalem AFTER the time of Christ. Back to Zech...
They will grieve bitterly for him as for a firstborn son who has died.
Has THAT ever happened yet? No. So from this passage we know that there will be a someday be a future city of Jerusalem, (there now is) populated by Jews (there now is) who will ALL grieve for and accept Jesus Christ as their Messiah. (As yet, they DON'T) Now, with that background firmly in our pocket, lets go to Revelation:
In Rev 4 Jesus says to John :
1Then as I looked, I saw a door standing open in heaven, and the same voice I had heard before spoke to me with the sound of a mighty trumpet blast. The voice said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must happen hereafter.
The following visions are in the future, AFTER John wrote Revelation, in 95 AD> (25 years after Jerusalem was utterly destroyed by Rome)... okay on to Revelation 12. (which transpires AFTER 95 AD)
1 Then I witnessed in heaven an event of great significance. I saw a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon beneath her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant, and she cried out in the pain of labor as she awaited her delivery. 3 Suddenly, I witnessed in heaven another significant event. I saw a large red dragon with seven heads and ten horns, with seven crowns on his heads. 4 His tail dragged down one-third of the stars, which he threw to the earth. He stood before the woman as she was about to give birth to her child, ready to devour the baby as soon as it was born. 5 She gave birth to a boy who was to rule all nations with an iron rod. And the child was snatched away from the dragon and was caught up to God and to his throne.
Okay, again, this is clearly Jesus Christ. So... who is the "woman" in verse 1? It could only be one of three things. It could be Eve, who theoretically, gave birth to everyone, Jesus included. It could be Mary, who gave physical birth to Jesus. Or it could be the Nation of Israel, who gave birth to the Messiah. (Indeed, Jesus is often reffered to as the "Son of David". The key to her identity is clearly the line:
I saw a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon beneath her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head. This clearly identifies her as the Nation of Israel.
Doing a computer Bible search, there are zero matches to sun, moon, stars and either Eve or Mary. Neither woman is ever mentioned in connection to the sun, with the moon beneath her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head. But the fledgling nation of Israel clearly is, in Genesis 37. It's a reference to Joseph's dream involving his family...
9 Then Joseph had another dream and told his brothers about it. "Listen to this dream," he said. "The sun, moon, and eleven stars bowed low before me!" 10 This time he told his father (Jacob) as well as his brothers, and his father rebuked him. "What do you mean?" his father asked. "Will your mother, your brothers, and I actually come and bow before you?" 11But while his brothers were jealous of Joseph, his father gave it some thought and wondered what it all meant.
Jacob's family IS the Nation of Israel. The twelve brothers became the twelve tribes of Israel, and indeed, we get the very name "Israel" because that is what God changed Jacob's name to! Gen 32:28 And He said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
The next verse in Revelation 12 tells us another deatil...
6 And the woman (Israel) fled into the wilderness, where God had prepared a place to give her care for 1,260 days
Keeping in mind that this is a future prophesy, and that Israel didn't exist when John wrote these words, we can safely say that 1) this has never yet happened, and 2) FOR this to happen, there needs to be an Israel, living in their actual homeland of Israel which God gave to them forever. (Which we now happily see!)
My reason for bringing up Pius XXII's letter to Roosevelt, is that Pius didn't want Israel to have back their Biblical God-given homeland...
(from the Pius's letter) "It is true that at one time Palestine was inhabited by the Hebrew Race, but there is no axiom in history to substantiate the necessity of' a People returning to a country they left nineteen centuries before,
Or, failing that, Pius wanted Israel to accept refuge in some Biblicaly irrelevant land...
(from the Pius's letter)"If a 'Hebrew Home' is desired, it would not be too difficult to find a more fitting territory, than Palestine
"More fitting territory"???????????? What could be more fitting than the land which God gave to Israel FOREVER? The land which prophesies in Zechariah, and Revealtion (and others) clearly SAID was God's future plan for Israel?
To think that someone who purports himself to be "God's vicar on earth" would oppose something so basic as God keeping His unconditional, everlasting promises to Israel, clearly revealed in Scripture, is something Bible believers cannot allow to go unspoken of and unchallenged.
Now, in conclusion, I know beyond doubt, that Catholic freepers will immediately try to counter and oppose my preaching here. I understand that your loyalty to the Roman Catholic Organization is more important than anything to you. I realize that this little discourse here will probably change no minds.
I have merely done my duty to God's Word here to the best of my ability, as God has given me the strength and wisdom to do so. And I have alerted all readers of this thread to the historical fact that Pope Pius XXIIth opposed the rebirth of Israel in their Biblically relevant, God-given Homeland, with whatever implications anyone may wish to draw from that.
Then why do you waste our time with your erroneous exegesis?
I only see one olive tree in Romans 11. How many do you see?
What does Galatians 3:29 mean? What does Ephesians 3:5-6 mean? Anything?
No doubt. Tensions between the Vatican and Fr. Tiso were very tense and by no means friendly. I'm not up to speed on events in Slovakia, but based on what I've read the "kid gloves" accusation is grossly unfair. Let me get back to you on this.
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.