Catholic scholars urge pope to slow Pius sainthood

[JReducation]

Yep, that’s the criticism I was referring to. But nevertheless there are those who are using his work to claim that Pius was a Nazi collaborator. That is an accusation that deserves scrutiny.

That is a rather parochial view of the matter. If Catholics simply canonize him and ignore the accusations then it will become fodder for anti-catholicism and damage the reputation of the Church.

If Pius is being libeled, then his libelers should be exposed. I’m not referrring to the accusation that Pius was insufficiently diplomatic to save Jews from the Holocaust but in the accusation that he was an active anti-semitic collaborator. Somebody is lying here.

What is the justification for enabling anti-catholic libel?

I agree that the liers should be exposed. But that is not the role of the Vatican. The Vatican does not take on issues like this. Because it creates diplomatic waves. Have you ever seen a pope in a debate? Nor do they ever contradict lies directly. They make broad sweeping statements that include the answer to the lie, withint a larger statement.

It is up to scholars to contradict the accusation. I hope that someone does write a book that exposes the lies. The rebuttal is not going to come out of the Vatican. It cannot. This is something that the 21st century world does not understand. The Vatican is not like other secular governments where they have to save face to get re-elected. The Vatican has to deal with the larger issues that affect the Church. The accusations against Pius is not an issue that anyone in theological circles, bishops or the Roman Curia consider to be serious enough to affect the teachings of the Church.

What will happen is that that Pope Benedict will say what he has always said. This is not a problem for the pope. This is a problem that has to be solved at the lower levels. Use the principle of subsidiarity. If historians are saying that Pius aided the Nazis, then let other historians argue the point. The Church will give them the help they need.

When he was Cardinal Ratzinger and he was told about the sexual abuse scandal in the USA, he said that it was not a problem that needed the attention of the pope. It was an American problem that had to be solved by American bishops. They should only come back to him when they failed. He has always been very careful not to involve the papacy in contraversies. Pope John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and now Benedict, have been excellent diplomats. Benedict is probably the weakest of them, but he’s not bad. He learned pretty fast after the Regensburgh issue.

We just have to wait and see what happens.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I agree that the liers should be exposed. But that is not the role of the Vatican. The Vatican does not take on issues like this. Because it creates diplomatic waves. Have you ever seen a pope in a debate? Nor do they ever contradict lies directly. They make broad sweeping statements that include the answer to the lie, withint a larger statement.

The vatican is more than the pope. But even if we set that aside, there is still the problem that the vatican controls the documents that supposedly condemn (or exonerate) Pius. If the vatican doesn’t want to dirty it’s hands defending against such libels it should publish the papers and let Catholic scholars take up the matter.

I’d like to be able to say more than “I dunno” or “it’s none of your business” when people ask me why an anti-semite has been canonized.

It is up to scholars to contradict the accusation. I hope that someone does write a book that exposes the lies. The rebuttal is not going to come out of the Vatican. It cannot. This is something that the 21st century world does not understand. The Vatican is not like other secular governments where they have to save face to get re-elected. The Vatican has to deal with the larger issues that affect the Church. The accusations against Pius is not an issue that anyone in theological circles, bishops or the Roman Curia consider to be serious enough to affect the teachings of the Church.

That seems to me to be a mistaken view. If Catholics can’t understand or explain the canonization then they may be more inclined to fall away while those who might be considering conversion would hesitate.

When he was Cardinal Ratzinger and he was told about the sexual abuse scandal in the USA, he said that it was not a problem that needed the attention of the pope. It was an American problem that had to be solved by American bishops. They should only come back to him when they failed. He has always been very careful not to involve the papacy in contraversies. Pope John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and now Benedict, have been excellent diplomats. Benedict is probably the weakest of them, but he’s not bad. He learned pretty fast after the Regensburgh issue.

Whether or not it becomes a vatican function, there needs to be some scholarly institution that can explain such decisions to the outside world as well as prepare those in the vatican for the consequences of their decisions.

 

[JReducation]

Bubba made some interesting points. Let’s look at them one at a time. I must warn everyone that I’m writing from what I have experienced, but that does not mean that things cannot change. There are not hard and fast rules on these things.

The vatican is more than the pope. But even if we set that aside, there is still the problem that the vatican controls the documents that supposedly condemn (or exonerate) Pius. If the vatican doesn’t want to dirty it’s hands defending against such libels it should publish the papers and let Catholic scholars take up the matter.

The Vatican said that it would make the archives available, but not at this time. When they do, the scholars will get to look at them. That’s what this letter is about. The scholars know that they will have a chance to see the archives. They’re just asking the Holy Father to wait with the beatification until they can see these documents.

I’d like to be able to say more than “I dunno” or “it’s none of your business” when people ask me why an anti-semite has been canonized.

The answer is to explain the process of canonization. You explain the different committees and studies involved and how every detail is carefully examined. If there had been any truth to the accusation, the Defender of the Faith would have caught it. He is an individual, but he is sitting at these proceedings with scholars from many different disciplines who are working for him and not all of them are Catholic. They don’t have a dog in this race. They are paid to pick up the details that the Promoter of the Cause may mess up. If there is a recognition by the Defender of the Faith that this man lived a viruous and heroic life, it means that no one on the Defender’s team was able to refute anything. In other words, they couldn’t find a single reason to deny that he was indeed a holy man. Therefore, they had to lay to surrender to the Promoter of the Cause.

That seems to me to be a mistaken view. If Catholics can’t understand or explain the canonization then they may be more inclined to fall away while those who might be considering conversion would hesitate.

Catholics can’t explain canonization because Catholics want it to mean what they want. They want saints who have no conflicts with society. They want saints who have no human frailties. They want to name their own saints. They do not understand that a canonization is an infallible action of the Holy Spirit. The pope can come out and canonize John Doe tomorrow morning, because the Holy Spirit inspired him to do so and Catholics would scream bloody murder because they had not been told in advance.

I believe this is why Rome often pretends not to hear Catholics. Because it is aware that Catholics often want to run the Church. It has learned to tune out. Unfortunately, sometimes it does not hear some things that it should. But that’s the laity’s fault. The faithful have made it a career of whining and complaining so that the Church has often done what many mothers do. It doesn’t listen. We have to learn when it’s important to whine and when to let something go.

Whether or not it becomes a vatican function, there needs to be some scholarly institution that can explain such decisions to the outside world as well as prepare those in the vatican for the consequences of their decisions.

There is. That’s the function of the Congregation for the Faith and the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints. These two Congregations speak in the name of the pope on these matters. They have a history of speaking only on what they believe is important to the entire Church and on what they believe are matters of dogma and doctrine. On other things, they just let time pass and people move on to something else.

The question here is how many people are really paying attention to this possible beatification? I don’t know the answer. If the number is significant enough and it’s the right people, the Vatican will eventually respond. If it’s the wrong people or the number is insignificant, the Vatican may choose not to respond, because responding may call more attention to the matter. I don’t know the ansewr to this. I wish I did so that I could help those who are concerned. I just don’t know the numbers.

From my experience, I live in a major archdiocese and no one is paying attention to this issue, not Catholics nor Jews. We have one of the largest Jewish populations in the country. The topic comes up when someone comments on something they may have read or heard and then its quickly dismissed as “the Vatican’s problem.” Everyone, Catholics and Jews move on. This may be the case in most dioceses. If it is, the Vatican may not want to attract everyone’s attention to it. As I said when I started. It’s only my experience. Things can change.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[chosen_people]

The rush for canonization of Pius XII is part of the creation of the Catholic Church narrative for the causes and actions of the Shoah. According to this narrative, the Shoah can in no way be connected with Christian anti-Semitism. Rather it is claimed to be a result of modern racial anti-Semitism, which the Catholic Church posits that they had no part in its creation. Furthermore, according to this narrative, not only did Catholics not participate in any way or form in the bringing about and the carrying out of the Shoah, they themselves are victims of the Shoah. Here then is Pius XII, himself a victim, protecting to his up most not only the Church and Catholics being persecuted during the Shoah, but working tirelessly and bravely behind the scenes to assist those other victims, the Jews.

 

[pnewton]

The vatican is more than the pope. But even if we set that aside, there is still the problem that the vatican controls the documents that supposedly condemn (or exonerate) Pius. If the vatican doesn’t want to dirty it’s hands defending against such libels it should publish the papers and let Catholic scholars take up the matter.

Scholars? Cornwall is a journalist. A reporter. That puts him right up there with internet posters and bloggers as regards to dependability. He also wrote a conspiracy theory about the death of Pope John Paul I. He is a sensationalist. In any case he lacked the credentitals to write his book. It has been debated and refuted ad infinitum.

I’d like to be able to say more than “I dunno” or “it’s none of your business” when people ask me why an anti-semite has been canonized.

Two point I would like to make about this statement. First, no one has been canonized. Second, there is no anti-semite up for canonization. I refer you to your earlier concern about libel.

 

[redrosetea]

New York City, N.Y., Feb 17, 2010 / 03:03 am (CNA).- In cooperation with the Vatican, the Pave the Way Foundation will soon publish online twelve volumes of World War II documents from the Holy See during the time of Pope Pius XII. The documents have been “almost completely ignored” until now, the organization’s founder told CNA.

The Pave the Way Foundation is a non-profit group founded by Gary Krupp, which seeks to promote inter-religious dialogue and reduce religious conflict. A major focus of the organization is to vindicate Pope Pius XII from false accusations surrounding his papacy. Many have claimed that the late pontiff did nothing to assist European Jews during the Holocaust.

Speaking on the significance of the documents, Krupp, who is Jewish, explained to CNA how the accusations against Pope Pius XII surfaced. In 1963 a play called “The Deputy” by Rolf Hochhuth debuted in Europe which denounced Pope Pius XII and claimed that he failed to take any action in speaking out against the Holocaust.

Although “everybody condemned” the play at the time, including Israeli and Jewish leaders around the world, it nevertheless “caught on and started changing the entire impression of Pope Pius XII,” said Krupp.

Krupp continued to say that “in an effort to correct some of this misinformation, Pope Paul VI ordered three Jesuits to study, to go into the papacy of Pius XII, into those archives, and to pull out every significant document they could find.” Krupp said that the Jesuits described the documents, copied them and eventually published them in a series of twelve books.

“The twelve books, called the ‘Acts of the Holy See during the Second World War’ were published in 1981 and have been almost completely ignored internationally,” noted Krupp. “In fact, there were only a few hundred that were ever printed.”

“By digitizing the entire collection,” he explained, “we are enabling it to be spread all over the world so people all over the world can look at it and come to their own conclusions.”

A recent article from the Agence France Presse (AFP), claimed that although the volumes contain information relevant to WWII, they are “unrelated” to Pope Pius XII.

When asked about this, Krupp responded, “this type of thinking comes from people who have no idea how the Vatican works. It’s as simple as that.”

Krupp explained that as an example of this, one could look and see how few documents are actually signed by Pope Benedict XVI but are rather endorsed by various Vatican officials. In other words, he said, just because Pius XII’s name may not be signed on a document, does not by any means indicate he had no relation to it.

Krupp told CNA that the volumes will be posted on his website as well as the Vatican’s within the next few weeks.

 

[redrosetea]

By Daniel Cole

A few days before Christmas, Pope Benedict XVI signed a decree recognizing the “heroic virtues” of his predecessor Pope Pius XII. This was the first major step on the road to sainthood, and Jews across the globe have reacted with a mixture of incredulity and outrage. Two days after the event, the Chief Rabbi of France said, “Given Pius XII’s silence during and after the Shoah, I don’t want to believe that Catholics see in Pius XII an example of morality for humankind.”

Last Wednesday, in a more veiled attack, Nobel Peace Prize winner and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel told Italy’s parliament, “Whether at the lowest level of politics or the highest level of spirituality, silence never helps the victims. Silence always helps the aggressor.” After the speech, a member of Wiesel’s inner circle confirmed that the phrase “highest level of spirituality” was intended as a reference to Pope Pius XII.

This reaction was easy to predict. Ever since 1963, when Rolf Hochhuth’s play “The Deputy” suggested that the pope had remained silent in the face of Nazism, Pius has been a source of continuous and bitter contention.

But it’s difficult to understand how Hochuth’s fictionalized history came to be accepted in the first place. How could Pius XII, once recognized as the single greatest defender of Europe’s Jews, come to be known as Hitler’s Pope? Why have we cast the era’s greatest hero in the role of the villain?

Pius XII’s Jewish contemporaries would be appalled to learn how their descendents are slandering his memory.

In 1940, Albert Einstein, a German Jew who had fled the Nazis, recalled: “Only the (Roman Catholic) Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth.

I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised, I now praise unreservedly.”

On Christmas Day, 1941, The New York Times editorial page wrote that “Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe… He is about the only ruler left on the continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all.”

In 1944, Alexander Safran, Chief Rabbi of Romania, poured his heart out in a letter to the Papal Nuncio: “It is not easy for us to find the right words to express the warmth and consolation we experienced because of the concern of the supreme Pontiff, who offered a large sum to relieve the sufferings of deported Jews… The Jews of Romania will never forget these facts of historic importance.”

In February of 1945, Isaac Herzog, Chief Rabbi of Palestine, pledged his community’s undying gratitude as well:

“The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates… are doing for our unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of divine Providence in this world.”

In April of the same year, Moshe Sharett, who later became the second Prime Minister of Israel, visited Pius and “told him that my first duty was to thank him, and through him the Catholic Church, on behalf of the Jewish public for all they had done in the various countries to rescue Jews.”

When Pius died in 1958, Golda Meir, the fourth Prime Minister of Israel, remembered that “[w]hen fearful martyrdom came to our people in the decade of Nazi terror, the voice of the Pope was raised for the victims.”

Pius was such a hero to the Jews that when Israel Zolli, Chief Rabbi of Rome, converted to Catholicism at the end of World War II, he took Pius’s Christian name, “Eugenio,” as his own.

Now, at a distance of 65 years, a throng of latter-day critics insists that Pius should have spoken out against the Nazis more explicitly, or more loudly. But I propose that Einstein, Safron, Perlzweig, Herzog, Sharett, Meir and Israel Eugenio Zolli were in a better position to judge.

When Benedict acknowledged the “heroic virtues” of Pope Pius XII, he was speaking on behalf of a generation of Jews who had promised never to forget what Pius had done for them. The rest of us, far from condemning that “lonely voice in the silence and darkness,” should join in the chorus of praise.

 

[pnewton]

. Furthermore, according to this narrative, not only did Catholics not participate in any way or form in the bringing about and the carrying out of the Shoah, they themselves are victims of the Shoah.

No one has ever said**, ever**, that no Catholics participated in the Holocaust. And yes, Catholics too were killed by Nazi Germany in camps. Give it what title you will, dead is dead.

If your accusation of this “narrative” ever materializes, please let us know and link where the Church is making these rather incredible claims.

 

[redrosetea]

When Pope Pius XII died in 1958, his role in saving Jews during the Nazi horror was praised unstintingly. Among those who lauded him were Israel’s Prime Minister Golda Meir, B’nai B’rith ( which made Pius XII its Man of the Year), the World Jewish Congress, the Jewish Commission and leaders of the Jewish communities in Hungary, Turkey, Italy, Romania and the United States. The chief rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, an eyewitness to what went on in Rome, converted to Roman Catholicism because he was so impressed with the pope’s humanitarian role in saving Jews.

A good deal of this attitude toward Pius XII began to change with the vicious attack on him by the German playwright Rolf Hochhuth in his 1963 play, “The Deputy.” In gross distortion of the available evidence, Hochhuth’s animus was breathtaking.

Now, thankfully, Pius XII — Eugenio Pacelli — is being stoutly defended again, and the heavy lifting is being conducted by heroic members of the Jewish community. Sir Martin Gilbert, one of the world’s leading historians, has called Pacelli righteous. Rabbi David Dalin, in “The Myth of Hitler’s Pope,” has scornfully rejected accusations against the pontiff. Gary Krupp, Jewish president of the nonsectarian Pave the Way Foundation, says the foundation will publish more than 2,300 pages of original documents showing Pope Pius XII’s efforts to help Jews.

Krupp concluded: “Quite possibly, Pacelli saved more Jews than all of the world’s religious and political leaders combined. Moreover, in the true spirit of heroism, the Pope did all this with the direct threat of German rifles leveled 200 yards beneath his very windows.”

John A. Schuler

Hamden

 

[redrosetea]

In his recent column on Pope Pius XII, Tom Blackburn showed that with Catholics like he, the church needs no enemies (“Pius too silent to be saintly?” Jan. 25).

His column appeared one day after the French, atheist Jewish philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy had a piece in The Huffington Post defending Pope Pius XII against the sort of charges that Mr. Blackburn makes. Here is Mr. Henri-Levy:

“For the time being, I would just like to recall … that in 1937, when the terrible Pius XII was still just Cardinal Pacelli, he coauthored the encyclical “With Burning Anxiety,” which today still remains one of the firmest and most eloquent of anti-Nazi manifestos. For the time being, we owe it to historical accuracy to point out that, before engaging in clandestine action, opening — without saying so — his convents to Roman Jews hunted by the fascist bullies, the silent Pius XII made a number of speeches broadcast by radio, in particular at Christmas of 1941 and 1942.”

Mr. Blackburn never mentioned that the encyclical was read in every Catholic church in Germany on Palm Sunday 1937. Mr. Blackburn never mentioned that in Christmas editorials in both 1941 and 1942, The New York Times praised the pope and cited him as the only one in the entire world speaking out:

"The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas … as we realize that he is about the only ruler left of the continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all. The last tiny islands of neutrality are so hemmed in and overshadowed by war and fear that no one but the pope is still able to speak aloud in the name of the Prince of Peace. … The pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism. And in 1942:

“This Christmas more than ever he is a lonely voice crying out of the silence of a continent. … When a leader bound impartially to nations on both sides condemns as heresy the new form of national state which subordinates everything to itself…”

From the peace, quiet and safety of his home, Mr. Blackburn bravely criticizes Pope Pius XII for his putative silence at the time the pope was living in the Vatican, hiding Jews, while being surrounded by Nazi tanks.

LARRY SPENCER

Wellington

 

[chosen_people]

No one has ever said**, ever**, that no Catholics participated in the Holocaust. And yes, Catholics too were killed by Nazi Germany in camps. Give it what title you will, dead is dead.

If your accusation (?) of this “narrative” ever materializes, please let us (?) know and link where the Church is making these rather incredible claims.

You may want to start with the Vatican commission document “We Remember: A reflection on the Shoah” - and once you have studied and learnt the contents of this document we may continue our discussion of the Catholic narrative of the Shoah together.

 

[pnewton]

You may want to start with the Vatican commission document “We Remember: A reflection on the Shoah” - and once you have studied and learnt the contents of this document we may continue our discussion of the Catholic narrative of the Shoah together.

FYI - On an open forum one poster does not get to decide what others can or can not discuss, or what they must read first. They can only decline to post themself. However, ss you did not provide a link, I will.:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_16031998_shoah_en.html

I really see nothing in it that reflects on the canonization of Pope Pius XII, though. Perhaps other may.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Catholics can’t explain canonization because Catholics want it to mean what they want. They want saints who have no conflicts with society. They want saints who have no human frailties. They want to name their own saints.

Now you’re being silly.

Can we at least agree that moving Pius forward in the canonization process represents a warranty, by those with access to the materials, that he was not a Nazi collaborator and that when the documents are ultimately published (including those that the conspiracy theoriests claim are being hidden) that Pius will be exonerated of the worst accusations from Cromwell et alia will be revealed as fraud?

No, I don’t expect saints to have no conflicts with society or to be without human foibles and I don’t expect Pius to have singlehandedly stopped the Nazi war machine by clever diplomacy. If that is all this controversy represents, I would have no difficulty defending Pius against any and all.

The question here is how many people are really paying attention to this possible beatification?

Obviously some people are paying attention now but the real question is how much attention will the final beatification receive and what will be the scale of public scandal if it turns out that Cromwell is right about what the documents reveal.

I not only hope that Cromwell will be proved wrong but that someone will tar and feather him (academically speaking) for spreading vicious libel.

 

[JReducation]

Now you’re being silly.

Yes, I admit to that to a cetain extent. But I do get frustrated with today’s lay Catholic believing that the Church has to prove everything and disclose everything. That’s never been the way that the Church has operated and that kind of expectation is unreasonable, because the Church administration is not going to change it’s manner of doing business, especially the Vatican. They change very slowly over there. We only succeed in setting ourselves up for frustration wishing for what is not likely to happen.

Moving right along. . .

Can we at least agree that moving Pius forward in the canonization process represents a warranty, by those with access to the materials, that he was not a Nazi collaborator and that when the documents are ultimately published (including those that the conspiracy theoriests claim are being hidden) that Pius will be exonerated of the worst accusations from Cromwell et alia will be revealed as fraud?

Let’s go back to basics. The job of the Defender of the Faith is to ensure that the candidate has indeed lived a heroic and virtuous Christian life as defined by theology and that the person has never said, done or maliciously supported any action, belief, or system contrary to the faith. The Defender of the Faith does not work alone. As I said above, he has a team of experts who examine every detail that the Postulator puts on the table and his team brings forward other things that the Postulator may have left out.

After the committee is finished and the Defender writes his conclusion that Pius was indeed a heroic and viruous Christian deserving of public veneration as a saint, that statement is reviewed by another committee of Cardinals with magnifying glasses. They approve and then it is reviewed by the Pope and his advisors. The pope approves and send it back to the Sacred Congregation for the decree. Once the decree has been made, there is no allowance for introduction of any new material on the person’s life. The process is cloesd.
The process that now begins is the study of the alleged miracles.

This means that is he has been declare Venerable, nothing was found that is in conflict with the faith. Even if you find that he was a pick-pocket and there is sufficient evidence of conversion and penance, there is no conflict with the faith. The issue for the committee that studied his life was not whether he collaborated or not with the Nazis. The issue for the committee is whether he knowingly committed any grave sin of which he did not repent and for which he did not do sufficient atonement.

I’m not suggesting that he was a collaborator. I’m just saying that the moral question is whether the person atoned for their sins. If you accuse someone of grave sin, such as collaboration with the Nazis, but you also find atonement, then there is not case aganst the person. Another scenario, if you find collaboration, but you also find there was no freedom, because there were threats to innocent people, then you have no moral problem. You can say that you have a prudential problem, but not a moral one. The freedom was impaired. And in the best case scenario, it could be that Pius never supported the Nazis and that his influence did not impress them enough. In the worse and best case scenarios, the man is still a heroic and virtuous Christian. Someone would have caught any discrepancy between his spiritual and moral life and that of the faith, had there been one. There are too many magnifying glasses and not all of them are Catholic or favorable to the person. There are always antagonists involved in these committees for the sake of fairness and truth.

Obviously some people are paying attention now but the real question is how much attention will the final beatification receive and what will be the scale of public scandal if it turns out that Cromwell is right about what the documents reveal.

Let’s take it to it’s worse possible scenario. Let’s say that Pius is canonized and that Cromwell is right. The fact that he is right will not change the fact that Pius is a saint and must be publically venerated by Catholics, because a canonization is an infallible statement from the Chair of Peter. The theological explanation in the worse case scenario would be that the man did everything that Cromwell said, but was not morally culpable for reason A, B and C.

Let’s look at the other scenario. The Cromwell, after publishing his book retracted his interpretation of the facts. He conceeds that it is not that easy to judge the man. The problem is that there is a book out there, whose author later said, “I made a mistake. My comments on the information are too gratuitous,” but no one is hearing it, because there is not second book to correct the first. He needs a sequal to his own book and I don’t see that coming.

I’m always very confident in the work of these committees. This is a very thorough process. That’s why they do not allow any further evidence against the person to be introduced after the decree of Venerable. The Church has to move on to the alleged miracles, otherwise it can spend eternity studying a case. And there is no need for that, because if there is truly a saint in Pius XII, the Holy Spirit will make it happen and if there isn’t, the Holy Spirit will block the canonization. With our faith in the infallibility of the Church and the protection of the Holy Spirit, we can move ahead trusting that everything that was reasonable was done.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The issue for the committee that studied his life was not whether he collaborated or not with the Nazis. The issue for the committee is whether he knowingly committed any grave sin of which he did not repent and for which he did not do sufficient atonement…I’m not suggesting that he was a collaborator. I’m just saying that the moral question is whether the person atoned for their sins. If you accuse someone of grave sin, such as collaboration with the Nazis, but you also find atonement, then there is not case aganst the person.

That’s a pretty low standard. If HItler himself had gone to confession before being hung he would qualify as venerable.

The job of the Defender of the Faith is to ensure that the candidate has indeed lived a heroic and virtuous Christian life as defined by theology and that the person has never said, done or maliciously supported any action, belief, or system contrary to the faith.

This seems much more aligned with what I remember from Catholic school. Saints are to be venerated as exemplary Christians. Venerable would presumably mean worthy of veneration. I’m not suggesting that they must be perfect, just questioning the seeming indifference to the charge of Nazi collaboration.

Let’s take it to it’s worse possible scenario. Let’s say that Pius is canonized and that Cromwell is right. The fact that he is right will not change the fact that Pius is a saint and must be publically venerated by Catholics, because a canonization is an infallible statement from the Chair of Peter. The theological explanation in the worse case scenario would be that the man did everything that Cromwell said, but was not morally culpable for reason A, B and C.

I suppose that will have to do, then. But you can be sure that people will expect a good A, B, and C in that situation.

Let’s look at the other scenario. The Cromwell, after publishing his book retracted his interpretation of the facts. He conceeds that it is not that easy to judge the man. The problem is that there is a book out there, whose author later said, “I made a mistake. My comments on the information are too gratuitous,” but no one is hearing it, because there is not second book to correct the first. He needs a sequal to his own book and I don’t see that coming.

That is also something that concerns me, which is why I said early on that those who have perpetrated libel ought to be held to account by somone. It’s a very serious charge and it either disqualifies Pius from sainthood (barring a very good A, B, and C) or those spreading the libel should be exposed for their frauds.

 

[JReducation]

That’s a pretty low standard. If HItler himself had gone to confession before being hung he would qualify as venerable.

Actually, the Church does not deny or affirm that Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Alexander the Great, Judas Iscariot, etc etc are in Heaven or Hell.

If any of these folks are in heaven, then they are saints and we do venerate the unknown saints on All Saints Day. All it takes is contrition, not even confession. So if Hitler had gone to confession and had been truly contrite, he would have gone to Purgatory and from there to Heaven. But you have many “ifs” in this sentence. However, we as Catholics believe that as long as there is life there is also hope for God’s mercy to save the greatest sinner. By the way, Hitler was not hung. He committed suicide.

This seems much more aligned with what I remember from Catholic school. Saints are to be venerated as exemplary Christians. Venerable would presumably mean worthy of veneration. I’m not suggesting that they must be perfect, just questioning the seeming indifference to the charge of Nazi collaboration.

Venerable does mean worthy of veneration. That’s why the next step is the study of the miracles. It has already been established that Pius is worthy of veneration. Now we have to establish that the alleged miracles are truly through his intercession.

I suppose that will have to do, then. But you can be sure that people will expect a good A, B, and C in that situation.

There is a story in the Franciscan Archives about Gregory IX. It is said that when he decided to canonize Francis of Assisi there were two objections from the Cardinals. 1) Francis’ case had not been studied. 2) You can’t canonize someone using their nickname. Which is actually true.

Gregory turned around and said that he knew Francis personally and that he also had reports about miracles from people whom he considered credible; therefore, what others thought was not his concern. On the second point, he made a rather comical remark that made sense. If he canonized the man as St. John of Assisi or St. John Bernadone, not one would pray to whom, because no one would know who he was. He has been known as Francesco from the age of one, only his mother called him Giovani and that was when she was angry.

The point is there is truth to what Gregory said. You’re not going to please everyone. At some point a pope has to make a decision on something and call it , The End. Just as those who questioned Gregory’s judgment died and are forgotten, those who question the pope who canonizes Pius XII will also die and be forgotten. We don’t know who will canonize him. That’s up to Holy Spirit. We must have a lively faith in the Holy Spirit. If the man is canonized, then the Holy Spirit has spoken. And we move on.

That is also something that concerns me, which is why I said early on that those who have perpetrated libel ought to be held to account by somone. It’s a very serious charge and it either disqualifies Pius from sainthood (barring a very good A, B, and C) or those spreading the libel should be exposed for their frauds.

The Church is not going to do it. The Holy See avoids those kinds of conflicts. That will be taken up by some historian at some point. I’m not sure if it will do much good. People prefer the sinister and the conspiracy theories over the facts.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Adeodatus]

Well if people won’t believe the testimony of Jews at the time that Pius XII stood fast against Nazism and saved almost a million Jews by his personal intervention* then it is they who are the Negationists.

Some people evidently think they will gain something by denying the testimony of the Jews and by creating a false ill will between the Catholic Church and the Jews. Here in the USA at least it is the Left that likes to stir up this trouble, even though the Left are themselves no friends of Israel (unlike conservatives).

• • Between 700,000 and 860,000, according to Israeli diplomat and theologian Pinchas Lapide.

 

[redrosetea]

The Church is not going to do it. The Holy See avoids those kinds of conflicts. That will be taken up by some historian at some point. I’m not sure if it will do much good. People prefer the sinister and the conspiracy theories over the facts.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Exactly they prefer to read a book by a kook than the 12 volumes Rome is going to put on line shortly, and the accolades given by honorable people who lived during this era

They turn their nose up at facts, and devour salacious rubbish by people who are trying to make a fast buck

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Actually, the Church does not deny or affirm that Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Alexander the Great, Judas Iscariot, etc etc are in Heaven or Hell. If any of these folks are in heaven, then they are saints and we do venerate the unknown saints on All Saints Day. All it takes is contrition, not even confession. So if Hitler had gone to confession and had been truly contrite, he would have gone to Purgatory and from there to Heaven.

I actually hope that he did. But if that is all that is entailed in veneration, then what need is there for research? Just get the testimony of his confessor that he was genuinely contrite and that’s the end of the matter.

But you have many “ifs” in this sentence. However, we as Catholics believe that as long as there is life there is also hope for God’s mercy to save the greatest sinner. By the way, Hitler was not hung. He committed suicide.

I know. But that would not have served my illustration (unless there is some way to be contrite about suicide).

Venerable does mean worthy of veneration.

And the test of this is mere evidence of genuine contrition? Again, seems like a very low standard to me.

The point is there is truth to what Gregory said. You’re not going to please everyone. At some point a pope has to make a decision on something and call it , The End.

If the worst accusations against Pius are true, I will be very surprised if this is forgotten.

The Church is not going to do it. The Holy See avoids those kinds of conflicts. That will be taken up by some historian at some point. I’m not sure if it will do much good. People prefer the sinister and the conspiracy theories over the facts.

It’s not necesary that the Church do it, it’s only necessary that the scholars willing to take on this task are given access to the documents that Cromwell claims led him to call Pius “Hitler’s Pope.” Instead of slowing down the canoniztion process, why not speed up the document publication?

As for your last point, you sound even more cynical than I am.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Here is a more subtle angle of attack:

American historian Jared Israel points to a February 17, 1941 New York Times article which reported that the archbishop of Zagreb (Croatia’s capital), Alojzije (Aloysius) Stepinac, was holding conferences in Vatican City “seeking the freedom of Catholic priests detained in [pre-Nazi] Croatia in connection with the circulation of… ‘Free Croatia!’ pamphlets, attributed to Ante Pavelic.” Pavelic, who once criticized Hitler for originally being too soft on the Jews, was the founder of the fascist Ustashas, who were engaging in terrorism all over Europe to “liberate” Croatia from Yugoslavia. He famously said, “A good Ustasha is one who can use a knife to cut a child from the womb of its mother.”

Israel explains the significance of the understated Times article: “The arrested priests were agitating for a fascist coup d’etat,” and if these had been rogue priests, “the Vatican would have disciplined them and perhaps issued a statement condemning them; it certainly would not have [held] top-level conferences to manage their defense.”

jpost.com/Features/InThespotlight/Article.aspx?id=169378