NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.aol.com/article/for-vatican-not-knowing-is-no-excuse/340454

(Feb 12) -- Among the American Jewish leaders who met with Pope Benedict XVI in Rome today, in the wake of the Vatican's recent decision to lift the excommunication of a Holocaust denier, was a Holocaust survivor who had said he intended to thank the pontiff for his commitment to strong Catholic-Jewish relations. Which is so humblingly, breathtakingly generous that I would say we Catholics just got schooled in turning the other cheek.
Our rabbi in this matter, Austrian-born Arthur Schneier, told the AP he still hoped the current tensions were only a "temporary setback'' in relations. Most of Schneier's family died in Auschwitz. After fleeing Vienna in 1939, he was confined in a camp in Hungary. But Schneier knows Benedict personally, having hosted him at his New York synagogue last April, and said "I can rely on Pope Benedict to send the right message.''
What Benedict did tell the 60-some American Jewish leaders who met with him today is that Holocaust denial is unacceptable, period -- particularly for a priest. He also reiterated that the Catholic Church is "profoundly and irrevocably committed to reject all anti-Semitism.''
I can't imagine why any of the leaders at the Vatican today would have made the trip if they didn't believe the pontiff to be sincere and serious in wanting to repair the damage done by the fiasco involving Bishop Richard Williamson.
But what's hard to understand is how the Vatican could possibly contend that Benedict knew nothing about the bishop's history as a denier when Williamson repeated his vile views last month, just days before the Vatican announced its decision to lift his excommunication.
Could a vast bureaucracy of people from around the globe really be that insulated, that reluctant to Google, that wholly oblivious of the forest while gazing fixedly at trees? (Hint: What's the last place on the planet where they still communicate the most important possible news by smoke signal?)
I was covering the Vatican for the New York Times at the height of the American clerical sex scandals, and am even now amazed at how literally out-of-touch top officials there were with events in the U.S.
So, sad to say, I don't doubt that Benedict did not know about Williamson. I say that not to excuse, but to indict. Indeed, the history of the church's tragic failure to act during the Holocaust makes the claim that "We just didn't know'' all the more painful.
How could they not know? Here's how: The four breakaway bishops in this case weren't excommunicated for anything related to the Holocaust; they were thrown out of the church for being party to a schism. (But, wouldn't this be like a doctor treating a broken bone but ignoring the unrelated but not insignificant fact that the patient had stopped breathing? To me, yes.)
The intent in lifting the excommunication was to open a dialogue that might eventually bring these four, and other followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, back into full communion with the church.

Although I commend Ratzinger on keeping open relations with Jewish religious representatives, I still think saying, to this date, in this age, that the Catholic Church really didn't know about what was going on in the concentration camps throughout Europe is unnacceptable. Comments?

I swear, your Holiness, I didn't know he was 7!

Although I commend Ratzinger on keeping open relations with Jewish religious representatives, I still think saying, to this date, in this age, that the Catholic Church really didn't know about what was going on in the concentration camps throughout Europe is unnacceptable. Comments?
As soon as the US and the UK admit that they knew about the camps, but did nothing to stop them (bombing rail lines leading to the camps, or even just bombing the camps themselves) because they didn't give a shit either.

As soon as the US and the UK admit that they knew about the camps, but did nothing to stop them (bombing rail lines leading to the camps, or even just bombing the camps themselves) because they didn't give a shit either.

I always believe that the only reason why the US, at least, got mixed in WWII, was because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Nothing else.

I always believe that the only reason why the US, at least, got mixed in WWII, was because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Nothing else.

FDR wanted us in. we were practically supplying Briton with war goods well before we got officially involved in WWII.

I always believe that the only reason why the US, at least, got mixed in WWII, was because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Nothing else.

The US would have gotten involved eventually. It was just a matter of time before it happened and the Japanese hastened it.

The US would have gotten involved eventually. It was just a matter of time before it happened and the Japanese hastened it.

Why? (and I ask not to contest you, I really want to know)

Why? (and I ask not to contest you, I really want to know)

traditional, cultural Anglo US alliance. We really should become part of the common wealth.

traditional, cultural Anglo US alliance. We really should become part of the common wealth.

There has to be something more behind that. But no matter, this is not about the US joining WWII. This is about the Vatican and the age-old apology of "we didn't know".

There has to be something more behind that. But no matter, this is not about the US joining WWII. This is about the Vatican and the age-old apology of "we didn't know".

it was the whole siding with democracies rather then the dictatorships.


on the excommunication thing. yes the pope should try and have the priest re educated. However, i don't think getting an F in history is grounds for his excommunication in the first place.

Why? (and I ask not to contest you, I really want to know)

I need to run to work real soon but I'll do the best with the time I have. As Greed and Death said it had to do with traditional alliances, but there are more varied reasons as well... that I will not get to describe because its 10 am and I have to be to work in 1 minutes :(.

Eh, nobody cares too much, as long as the people who are getting killed in horrible ways are nobody you know.

Why should Localhost Denial be grounds for any church disciplinary action? Besides the fact that it doesn't matter what one thinks of it, we don't know for sure it happened. It's not written anywhere in the scriptures.

I always believe that the only reason why the US, at least, got mixed in WWII, was because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Nothing else.
The US has been sidling it's way into the war for years. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the accompanying German declaration of war finally got the public willing to mobilize, but the US would have been involved sooner or later.
There has to be something more behind that. But no matter, this is not about the US joining WWII. This is about the Vatican and the age-old apology of "we didn't know".
That is everyone's apology for not doing anything, which is what I was getting at. It is great that the Allies stopped the Holocaust, but that was merely a fortunate accident on their way to beat up on Hitler for violating the status quo.

Why should Localhost Denial be grounds for any church disciplinary action? Besides the fact that it doesn't matter what one thinks of it, we don't know for sure it happened. It's not written anywhere in the scriptures.

More than that -- we have pretty good circumstantial evidence that it didn't happen at all!

Its stated goal was to wipe out Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals and a few other groups.
Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals and those other groups still exist.
Therefore, the Holocaust never happened, because if it had, none of those people would still be around.

The Church's action in excommunicating this person is thus totally unjustified and demonstrates the meddling influence of the Sons of Zion or whatever that illuminati jewish world government was called. Q.E.D.

More than that -- we have pretty good circumstantial evidence that it didn't happen at all!

Its stated goal was to wipe out Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals and a few other groups.
Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals and those other groups still exist.
Therefore, the Holocaust never happened, because if it had, none of those people would still be around.

The Church's action in excommunicating this person is thus totally unjustified and demonstrates the meddling influence of the Sons of Zion or whatever that illuminati jewish world government was called. Q.E.D.

I hope you're just trying to be a smartarse.

As soon as the US and the UK admit that they knew about the camps, but did nothing to stop them (bombing rail lines leading to the camps, or even just bombing the camps themselves) because they didn't give a shit either.

I suspect they actually, you know, fought a war strategically, and thus attacked such targets as would permit them to better win.

I hope you're just trying to be a smartarse.

Me? Heavens forbid.

Me? Heavens forbid.

I was just checking.http://www.chaptanservices.com/purrs/Smileys/purrs%20smilies/shifty.gif

More than that -- we have pretty good circumstantial evidence that it didn't happen at all!
Indeed. If you read the Apocalypse, pretty much the only part of the Bible to detail events past 1000 AD, it says that approximately 140,000 best Jews will go to live the city in the sky.
Not only were the alleged Localhost camps build on solid ground, not only they weren't built to live in, but they definitely weren't nearly as selective.

If it's not in the scriptures, it's a lie.


The Church's action in excommunicating this person is thus totally unjustified and demonstrates the meddling influence of the Sons of Zion or whatever that illuminati jewish world government was called. Q.E.D.
Elders of Zion. They wrote most of the protocols we follow today, such as V.22bis, IEEE 802.3 and IPv6.

I think the US knew but didn't want to get involved. I think the church knew and may have co-operated with them. I think the Nazi used this to their advantage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

There has to be something more behind that. .

The US Navy Neutrality Patrols had engaged U-Boats in combat for several months, culminating in the sinking of the Destroyer USS Reuben James in October, and subsequent escalations which placed the US in the role of de facto belligerent. Likely, the unrestricted submarine warfare would have driven the US into the war, but it would have taken a longer time.

It is entirely possible that in an age before 24/7 news channels, and the internet, that some people, and yes priests, could have not been aware of the extermination of Jews, or the extent. That isn't to deny the events occurred, but merely to contend you were not a knowing witness to them.

It should also be noted that the lifting of an excommunication only occurs after the performance of confession and penance.

More than that -- we have pretty good circumstantial evidence that it didn't happen at all!

Its stated goal was to wipe out Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals and a few other groups.
Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals and those other groups still exist.
Therefore, the Holocaust never happened, because if it had, none of those people would still be around.

The Church's action in excommunicating this person is thus totally unjustified and demonstrates the meddling influence of the Sons of Zion or whatever that illuminati jewish world government was called. Q.E.D.

The bishop was not originally excommunicated for his denial of the holocaust, but becuase he was consecrated as a bishop by some one who did not have the papal authority/ permission to consecrate/ elevate him and the three others (iir the number correctly ).

His denial of the facts came out just a few months ago -just prior to the popes reclaimation of him and the others.

As far as the Catholic church and the death camps- oh they knew, they knew, and turned a blind eye. Rat's are rats even if they end up as pope.

Yet again the Catholic church has covered itself in glory. I dare say it won't be the last time either.

Frankly, they should just be honest and say that their inaction was out of necessity; I don't think for a second that the Nazis would have hesitated to take action if Catholics started posing a particular threat to the regime, even if it meant having to take a rough stance towards Italy (although knowing Mussolini, he would've probably just folded anyways). At least the Church could maintain some semblance of independence and security (and they did do considerable good for many Jews in Europe) rather than throw it all away in a foolish gesture of defiance.

Frankly, they should just be honest and say that their inaction was out of necessity; I don't think for a second that the Nazis would have hesitated to take action if Catholics started posing a particular threat to the regime, even if it meant having to take a rough stance towards Italy (although knowing Mussolini, he would've probably just folded anyways). At least the Church could maintain some semblance of independence and security (and they did do considerable good for many Jews in Europe) rather than throw it all away in a foolish gesture of defiance.

I remember seeing such a justification somewhere, only I don't know how "official" this explanation is.

If official justification is "not knowing", then it had to be, at best, some bishop or such, but more likely it was some Curch-friendly newspaper.

Frankly, they should just be honest and say that their inaction was out of necessity; I don't think for a second that the Nazis would have hesitated to take action if Catholics started posing a particular threat to the regime, even if it meant having to take a rough stance towards Italy (although knowing Mussolini, he would've probably just folded anyways). At least the Church could maintain some semblance of independence and security (and they did do considerable good for many Jews in Europe) rather than throw it all away in a foolish gesture of defiance.

Pope Pius protested against Hitler's Euthanasia Campaign, and Hitler stopped it immediately. Why would the Holocaust have been any different?

Pius himself was quite possibly an anti-semite, and here are some excerpts of an article written in Vanity Fair about ten years ago showing it

http://www.reformation.org/hitler_pope.html

Furthermore, let us not forget that the Catholic Church helped get Hitler into absolute power in the first place by directing the Centre Party to vote in favour of the Enabling Act.

Pope Pius protested against Hitler's Euthanasia Campaign, and Hitler stopped it immediately. Why would the Holocaust have been any different?

Pius himself was quite possibly an anti-semite, and here are some excerpts of an article written in Vanity Fair about ten years ago showing it

http://www.reformation.org/hitler_pope.html

Furthermore, let us not forget that the Catholic Church helped get Hitler into absolute power in the first place by directing the Centre Party to vote in favour of the Enabling Act.

Yeah...uh...here's the frontpage for the site you linked to:

http://www.reformation.org/

As soon as the US and the UK admit that they knew about the camps, but did nothing to stop them (bombing rail lines leading to the camps, or even just bombing the camps themselves) because they didn't give a shit either.

Not this shit again. The Allies didn't try to "stop" the holocaust via bombing not because they didn't care, they couldn't. And on top of that, it would have been a criminal waste resources.

Look at it from a strategical sense, allied bomber losses were around 5% per mission. The concentration camps provided no major source of war goods (yes, some of the camps made munitions or other things, but the major death camps didn't). So bombing the camps does nothing to hasten the end to the war, making them nothing but a waste of pilots, planes and bombs to attack. In addition to that, even if the Allies had hit the camps, that wouldn't have stopped them. "Smart" bombs weren't around then, so all a bomber could do was open the bay doors over a target and hope for the best.
What would have happened if they had bombed the camps? Most likely, the majority of bombs would have hit barracks, killing thousands of people that the attack was trying to save, and would have had little effect on the daily gassings going on. As for the rail lines, well, the allies were bombing rail lines constantly. But again, rail roads are much more easily fixed than a factory, and the camps were not strategic targets. So which target is any general worth his stars going to pick? The target that was heavily contributing to the German war machine and could be destroyed, or the target that did nothing for the German army, and was probably not going to be significantly damaged?

Pope Pius protested against Hitler's Euthanasia Campaign, and Hitler stopped it immediately. Why would the Holocaust have been any different?

Hitler stopped the program because the war with the Soviet Union was making it very difficult to risk dissent at home by further antagonizing the churches. The Holocaust, comparatively speaking, was a far bigger operation and one that was considerably much more dangerous to speak out against; considering it was a central tenet of the Nazi regime, they would have under no circumstances halted it because of the Church's protest.

Hell, I seriously think Hitler would have been more likely to silence dissent by killing the Catholics than halt the Holocaust.

I remember seeing such a justification somewhere, only I don't know how "official" this explanation is.

If official justification is "not knowing", then it had to be, at best, some bishop or such, but more likely it was some Curch-friendly newspaper.

I imagine it's sort of like how the Russian Orthodox church couldn't do a thing about the GULAG system; if they protested, they could wind up there (and many did) and that would spell the end of any attempt to soften the blows.

Pope Pius protested against Hitler's Euthanasia Campaign, and Hitler stopped it immediately. Why would the Holocaust have been any different?

Pius himself was quite possibly an anti-semite, and here are some excerpts of an article written in Vanity Fair about ten years ago showing it

http://www.reformation.org/hitler_pope.html

Furthermore, let us not forget that the Catholic Church helped get Hitler into absolute power in the first place by directing the Centre Party to vote in favour of the Enabling Act.

Does anyone forget the simple fact the Nazi Party was hostile to the Church, and for most of the war the Vatican was effectively under house arrest?

Does anyone forget the simple fact the Nazi Party was hostile to the Church, and for most of the war the Vatican was effectively under house arrest?

No, I don't think anyone's oblivious to that. The problem is that the Church knew it was happening. There's no reason why, to this date, to keep saying they didn't know. It's lame.

Apart from the cases others have mentioned, you might look at what happened in Croatia.

Yeah...uh...here's the frontpage for the site you linked to:

http://www.reformation.org/

I'll agree that the site itself isn't the best, however, the exercpts of the article came from one published in Vanity Fair about ten years ago - that I would consider to be reasonably reliable.

Hitler stopped the program because the war with the Soviet Union was making it very difficult to risk dissent at home by further antagonizing the churches. The Holocaust, comparatively speaking, was a far bigger operation and one that was considerably much more dangerous to speak out against; considering it was a central tenet of the Nazi regime, they would have under no circumstances halted it because of the Church's protest.

Hell, I seriously think Hitler would have been more likely to silence dissent by killing the Catholics than halt the Holocaust.

So, like I said before, what made the Holocaust any different to the Euthanasia Programme? Getting rid of the disabled was another central tenet of the Nazi regime, and you have argued a contradiction. On the one hand, you argue that the Nazis didn't wish to antagonise the church further because they were fighting with Russia, but you also claim that they would have killed Catholics which would have presumably sparked dissent at home and caused problems with said war against Russia.