Has there ever been a just war?

[Marc_Anthony]

Some like to point out the church condemns commnism and that is true. The same individuals ignore the church equally condemns laissez-faire in the same encyclycal.

Ayn Rand was extremely immoral, but many follow her philosphy.

From what I’ve seen, most of the posters here don’t endorse laissez-faire capitalism-only capitalism in general.

And I see virtually zero Catholics here who will support Ayn Rand.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The war of 1812 when the USA invaded Canada

Canada wasn’t even a country then!

Sorry, just had to get that out.

 

[sedonaman]

…One of the lessons that some of us learned (But not all of us) that if a tyrant like Hitler starts attacking and taking over small countries near them that that aggressive country must be stopped immediately, before they gain so much money and war material manufacturing ability that they may be able to defeat us. …

And that the tyrant be handed over to a war crimes court.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

YES: YHWH commanded Joshua to carry out a war of conquest and extermination in Canaan. Joshua 8:1, “Then YHWH said to Joshua, ‘Be fearless now, and be confident. Take all your fighting men with you, and march against Ai.’” If YHWH orders warfare, who dares say that it is not just?
In modern times we have no such orders from YHWH that I am aware of. What we do have are two contradictory things: one being the just war catechism (2309) of the Catholic Church, and the other being the example set by Benjamin Salmon, a Catholic. When he refused to fight in WWI Salmon wrote this to President Wilson: “…The lowly Nazarene taught us the doctrine on non-resistance, and so convinced was He of the soundness of that doctrine that He sealed His belief with death on the cross…” Mr. Salmon was imprisoned by the US Army, and the priests of the Catholic Church refused to give him any sacraments there.
So which is correct, catechism 2309 or Mr. Salmon’s letter? If we would apply the principles enumerated in 2309 to ancient Israel at the time of Herod we would find, I believe, that those principles would authorize a war of liberation against the brutal and exploitative Roman occupation. Mattew 2:16, “Herod … had all the male children killed who were two years old or under…” But our geat Rabbi, Yehoshua ben Yosef, refused to authorize any such war, even though His followers expected Him, as Messiah, to do just that. There can be absolutely no doubt that, if He had authorized war against Rome, He would have been successful. Instead, Rabbi Yehoshua allowed Himself to be arrested by His enemies and brutally executed. It is His example that I believe YHWH wants us to follow. Therefore I do not think that catechism 2309 is valid and it should not be used as an excuse by Catholics to participate in warfare of any kind.

 

[GEddie]

YES: YHWH commanded Joshua to carry out a war of conquest and extermination in Canaan. Joshua 8:1, “Then YHWH said to Joshua, ‘Be fearless now, and be confident. Take all your fighting men with you, and march against Ai.’” If YHWH orders warfare, who dares say that it is not just?
In modern times we have no such orders from YHWH that I am aware of. What we do have are two contradictory things: one being the just war catechism (2309) of the Catholic Church, and the other being the example set by Benjamin Salmon, a Catholic. When he refused to fight in WWI Salmon wrote this to President Wilson: “…The lowly Nazarene taught us the doctrine on non-resistance, and so convinced was He of the soundness of that doctrine that He sealed His belief with death on the cross…” Mr. Salmon was imprisoned by the US Army, and the priests of the Catholic Church refused to give him any sacraments there.
So which is correct, catechism 2309 or Mr. Salmon’s letter? **If we would apply the principles enumerated in 2309 to ancient Israel at the time of Herod we would find, I believe, that those principles would authorize a war of liberation against the brutal and exploitative Roman occupation. ** Mattew 2:16, “Herod … had all the male children killed who were two years old or under…” But our geat Rabbi, Yehoshua ben Yosef, refused to authorize any such war, even though His followers expected Him, as Messiah, to do just that. There can be absolutely no doubt that, if He had authorized war against Rome, He would have been successful. Instead, Rabbi Yehoshua allowed Himself to be arrested by His enemies and brutally executed. It is His example that I believe YHWH wants us to follow. Therefore I do not think that catechism 2309 is valid and it should not be used as an excuse by Catholics to participate in warfare of any kind.

A war of Israel against the Romans had zero chance of success, as shown when it happened 40 years after our LORD’s day; and as such was not a just war. That is why HE warned HIS followers not to engage in it but to flee to the mountains.

This does not mean that just war is impossible, but without our LORD around, or any more prophets, we are stuck trying to figure it out on our own.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Invictus_88]

Personally I think the last just war was WWII.

Korea and Vietnam to me were fought defending extreme right dictators from equally evil communist dicators. I think there were no “good guys” in those two.

Afghanistan? Falklands War?

 

[Bill_7154]

So, you think that nobody would want your stuff? What if they want is your neigbor’s life and his wife and children (to be made into slaves)? You may think your belongings are ‘measly’, they may not be to someone who does not have as much as you have. One of the reasons you are free to say ‘I won’t go’ and choose not to defend the USA is others, like from enlisted men like Ira Hayes up through the rankes to the generals, were willing to put their lives on the line to defend this country and other countries… :knight1::knight2:

Did you close your eyes when reading my post? I clearly stated I would take up arms to defend my neighbors as well as my own family.

I’m too old ‘to go’ and have medical conditions in which they wouldn’t take me anyway. But I registered for the draft when I was 18.

There is a BIG difference between DEFENDING the usa and going on the offense and desimating other countries. There is also a big difference between defending the usa and sticking military bases in every country around the globe. I don’t conisder those things to be defense. I consider them to be offense in the instance of invading another country and consider planting military bases around the globe in just about every country there is to be a sort of cooercive political tactic which I also would consider to be more offense than defense.

Go take a look at the % of senators and representatives seated today who have served in the military and compare that to the % of senators and representatives seated 60 years ago or so who served in the military. FYI there has been a drastic reduction. Another reason for me to distrust gov’t, the top dogs in gov’t want to get all the gravy but don’t want to do any of the heavy lifting. This was not the case when the country was founded and it has been becoming less and less with each passing generation or 2.

Peace,
Bill

 

[KnightsAltar]

Absolutely, though I may be a bit late to the discussion, the Holy Crusades were a just war, the Eastern Empire requested help from the Roman Church, this was purely a defensive war. Thus, very just, but that’s it folks, i don’t care how bad hitler was, or if japan attacked us (we actually provoked that attack, we had plenty of time to defend ourselves in the moment but the president needed an excuse) didn’t our Savior say to turn the other cheek?
pax

 

[exnihilo]

Lincoln was a godly man, but not necessarily a man of God.

The historical evidence is that Lincoln was not a practicing Christian. He did not attend church and showed no real signs of religious devotion. He did however frequently invoke Biblical language.

I’ve read some articles and maybe even a history book that said the same thing. That Lincoln freed the slaves as a tactic to separate Britain from the South. Britain was the main buyer of the South’s Cotton and therefore the South’s main source of income. After thinking about this for several years I don’t believe that theory.

I’ve read articles that talked about how Lincoln hated slavery and when you think about it, that was why the South succeeded from the Union. Lincoln had been elected President and the South was afraid that Slavery would be declared illegal.

We can never truly know why any man, other than ourselves, did anything. When we are talking about past events we are speculating. But based on historical documents Lincoln was not a fan of slavery but at least part of his dislike had to do with his racist opinion of Blacks.

I think the best argument for his Emancipation Proclamation, ‘freeing the slaves’, was that it was a classic war technique. Historically warring parties would ‘free’ their opponents slaves. They would hope for a slave rebellion to help them win the war. The British actually freed all the American slaves during the revolution. The reason why Lincoln’s ‘freeing the slaves’ is best understood in this context is because if you actually read the document you will find he exempts vast territories. He exempted all Union slave states and also all Confederate territory (Louisiana and Virginia) that the Union controlled. So he freed slaves where he had no power and kept them enslaved where he did. It seems pretty silly to make the argument the North fought to end slavery when it made no effort to end slavery in its territory. Slavery existed in Union territory throughout the war and if the Union position is correct only was ended in rebelling states.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

Dear Mr. GEddie: Quote: “A war of Israel against the Romans had zero chance of success…”
I can’t believe my ears. Our great Messiah, the miracle worker, the one with the Angels on His side unable to defeat the Romans? Are you for real? Actually, the Isaelites, under the false messiah Simon bar Kokba, did quite well against the Romans, completely annihilating at least one legion. And you say that the real Messiah could not have wiped the Roman Empire off the face off the map. Preposterous!
Quote: “… without our LORD around…” Who says He is not around? Maybe you should look a little harder!

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Dear Mr. GEddie: Quote: “A war of Israel against the Romans had zero chance of success…”
I can’t believe my ears. Our great Messiah, the miracle worker, the one with the Angels on His side unable to defeat the Romans? Are you for real? Actually, the Isaelites, under the false messiah Simon bar Kokba, did quite well against the Romans, completely annihilating at least one legion. And you say that the real Messiah could not have wiped the Roman Empire off the face off the map. Preposterous!
Quote: “… without our LORD around…” Who says He is not around? Maybe you should look a little harder!

I am saying that unless Jesus decided not to limit his omnipotence as a human He could not have won. He would have had to essentially destroy the roman armies himself-leading the Jews into rebellion would have been their destruction. One legion does not an army make.

 

[epan]

622,000 men gave their lives in the US Civil War so that 4.5 million human beings could be released from slavery.

-Tim-

So, is the claim that the death of 600,000+ was justified, because the end result was the abolition of slavery in the US? If so, then would it be just for the US to go to war with countries which currently allow slavery and human trafficking?

I believe that sometimes there is no other option than to use lethal force to stop evil. Hitler is the most popular example. There have been a number of others in history.

 

[GEddie]

So, is the claim that the death of 600,000+ was justified, because the end result was the abolition of slavery in the US? If so, then would it be just for the US to go to war with countries which currently allow slavery and human trafficking?
.

No, it would not be. Slavery is an evil, but not every evil requires a foreign intervention.

As has been said ad nauseum on the thread, the ACW was not fought to end slavery. That only became a war aim of the USA after it began. The war was waged to hold the country together; because Lincoln knew that neither it nor any of the pieces would survive in division.

In any case, body count is not, in itself, a determinant of just war. It cannot be, because it cannot be known in advance. Either a war is just when it begins or it never is.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Vouthon]

Absolutely, though I may be a bit late to the discussion, the Holy Crusades were a just war, the Eastern Empire requested help from the Roman Church, this was purely a defensive war. Thus, very just, but that’s it folks, i don’t care how bad hitler was, or if japan attacked us (we actually provoked that attack, we had plenty of time to defend ourselves in the moment but the president needed an excuse) didn’t our Savior say to turn the other cheek?
pax

Oh come on Why not turn the other cheek with the Muslims and simply defend Europe rather than invade other lands and put them into our control? The Reconquesta was well under way in Spain. The lands conquered by the Muslims in the Arab Invasions had been in there hands for hundreds of years.

We didn’t have any need, really, and our “help” to Byzantium resulted eventually, long-term, with the horrendous Sack of Constantinople which sounded the death knell for the Empire and is a key cause for its ultimate collapse into Turkish hands. We could I am sure have defended Byzantium without claiming land for ourselves and minus the terrible massacres of civilian Muslim populations such as during the Siege of Constantinople.

Now we cannot impose the Geneva Convention on Middle Age people. What the Christians did was not “awful” or illegal by the standards of the time but in our modern eyes it would constitute war crimes. And that’s the point I am making.

I’m not saying the Crusades didn’t have a just cause (I actually believe that they did), I am merely presenting you with an alternate understanding. To call the Crusades “holy” (NO WAR IS HOLY or can be since it results in the loss of human life) and to hold them up as an exemplary instance of just combat, without looking at them in historical context, and while likewise trying to undermine the necessity and justice behind World War Two, is way off in my opinion.

You seem to forget that Hitler, aka the Hossbach Memorandum 1937, intended to dominate Eastern Europe to achieve lebensraum and then eventually the entire European continent. Hitler even planned for war with America for the mid 40s.

He fought a war of annihilation in Poland.

“All Poles,” Himmler swore, “will disappear from the world.” On August 22, 1939, one week before the Nazi invasion of Poland, Hitler gave the Wehrmacht their instructions: “Kill without pity or mercy all men, women and children of Polish descent or language… Be merciless. Be brutal. It is necessary to proceed with maximum severity. The war is to be a war of annihilation.”

August 22. Foreign Minister Ribbentrop goes to Russia to sign the German-Russian “Non-Aggression Pact” which would lead on September I to the beginning of World War II. Hitler summons Nazi leaders and all his army commanders to inform them what to expect after the Polish army is destroyed: “Things will then happen which would not be to the taste of the German generals—the destruction of the Polish intelligentsia, in particular the priesthood, by the SS.”

Could Hitler’s intention in Poland have been any clearer? Should the world have sat back and let Hitler annihilate peoples he considered to be “inferior races”?

Not to mention his desire to eliminate the Catholic priesthood and hierarchy in Poland. At Leczyca, the Jesuits were expelled from their residence and forced to watch as their church was looted of sacred vessels, vestments, reliquaries and works of art. The priests were not even allowed into the church to save the Blessed Sacrament. Most of the priests were arrested and sent to concentration camps.

In Germany in 1935, Hermann Goering gave the rationale for crushing the Church: “Catholic believers carry away but one impression from attendance at divine services and that is that the Catholic Church rejects the institutions of the Nationalist State.”

And they were right to suspect Catholics of disloyalty to the Reich. Catholics protested against the removal of crucifixes from Bavarian schools in 1941, during which they tossed out of classrooms and burnt the mandatory pictures of Adolf Hitler, replacing them with the banned crucifix.

Blessed Clemens August Von Galen, the bishop of Münster, spoke out against the Nazis’ euthanasia program during World War II and became the inspirer of the White Rose resistance movement within Germany.

Hitler expected a full-scale European war with Britain and France between 1941-1944/5 and then the USA.

If Britain and France had not declared war on him BEFORE he invaded Russia, he would have been unstoppable and there would be no Catholic Church today, since Hitler called its clergy “walking abortions in cassocks” and detested the Pope.

And you are trying to suggest that Britain and France should have let Hitler annihilate the Polish people, send all its priests, Bishops, intellectuals etc, to concentration camps and then plough on into Russia and after obtaining that Lebensraum then move on to dominate Europe and then attack the USA?

And please I’m not even going to debate over Japan, since the morality of US action is blindling obvious.

PS I do believe the Crusades had a just cause, although like World War II not all the actions of the Christians were in accordance with just action.

 

[Vouthon]

I object to any war being called “Holy”.

“just” I can accept, “holy” I cannot.

War is a result of the Fall and I regard it as offensive to put the words “holy” and “war” together in the same sentence.

Holy War is not a doctrine or concept in Christianity. The medieval Christians actually heard about and (sadly) utilized the idea from the Muslim world and even in the Qur’an the word “Jihad” has a multitude of meanings and could refer in a more general way to “struggle”, although Hadiths and most Muslim jurists throughout history have understood it as meaning “War”.

It fell out of use quickly because it is NOT Christian in origin.

NO WAR IS “HOLY”.

All war, whether just or not, is innately evil because it is a deviation from God’s original plan for humanity being one and brothers to one another.

“…All of humankind is but one family, dispersed over the face of the whole earth; all men are brothers, and ought to love each other as such. May shame and infamy overtake those impious wretches who seek a cruel unnatural glory in the blood of their brothers, which is their own blood…All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers…”

- Archbishop François Fénelon (6 August 1651 – 7 January 1715) (Let. 30), Catholic mystic

Many of the Church Fathers were opposed to warfare in principle. Yet from the time of Saint Augustine, Catholicism has had a clearly defined and evolving Just War doctrine - as is necessary for practical purposes rather than idealistic ones. Nonetheless according to Pope Pius XII:

"…An essential point in any future international arrangement would be the formation of an organ for the maintenance of peace, of an organ invested by common consent with supreme power to whose office it would also pertain to smother in its germinal state any threat of isolated or collective aggression.

No one could hail this development with greater joy than he who has long upheld the principle that the idea of war as an apt and proportionate means of solving international conflicts is now out of date…"

***- Venerable Pope Pius XII, Democracy and a Lasting Peace, 1944 ***

Blessed Pope John Paul II was even more emphatic:

“…Father of everyone, listen to the unanimous cries of your children. No more war, the adventure with no return. No more war, the spiral of violence and mourning…”

**- Blessed Pope John Paul II **

 

[RPRPsych]

I object to any war being called “Holy”.

“just” I can accept, “holy” I cannot.

War is a result of the Fall and I regard it as offensive to put the words “holy” and “war” together in the same sentence.

Holy War is not a doctrine or concept in Christianity. The medieval Christians actually heard about and (sadly) utilized the idea from the Muslim world.

It fell out of use quickly because it is NOT Christian in origin.

NO WAR IS “HOLY”.

I’m late to this discussion, but this is a good post!

However, I’d like to add one caveat:

We have exactly one example in human history of a nation being directly ruled by the one true God: the ancient kingdom of Israel. At times, He would issue unequivocal commands that His people should engage in war - for example, against the Amalekites.

Would such a war, commanded directly by God Himself (or through the agency of one of his Prophets) count as a “Holy” War? I’m not sure myself.

 

[Vouthon]

I’m late to this discussion, but this is a good post!

However, I’d like to add one caveat:

We have exactly one example in human history of a nation being directly ruled by the one true God: the ancient kingdom of Israel. At times, He would issue unequivocal commands that His people should engage in war - for example, against the Amalekites.

Would such a war, commanded directly by God Himself (or through the agency of one of his Prophets) count as a “Holy” War? I’m not sure myself.

Thank you brother!

Historically, the armed invasion of Canaan and the slaughter of the Canaanite peoples is not said to have occured in the way the biblical history describes. Rather the Israelites are known to have peacefully emigrated and occupied this territory. This leads one to suspect that at least that war is a literary convention with a symbolic meaning.

However, I do believe that the War of David against the Amalekites would have happened.

The problem though is that Israel “had” to survive because it was the chosen vehicle through which God himself would be born. Its a unique case that I do not think we can apply to any other situation. I mean, consider the regulations for general war outlined in Deuteronomy. It is totally different from the (symbolic largely) extermination of the Canaanites - because as I said Israel was a unique situation.

Even the Maccabean War was not “commanded” by God.

No war was sanctioned in the New Testament. Christ is the prophesised Prince of Peace.

I do not, thus, think that the wars of the OT need be seen as “holy” simply because the sacred authors thought them to be ordained by God, nor certainly is the unique case of Israel’s wars of survival a precedent for understanding subsequent wars post-Christ’s coming, or classifying them as “holy”, as per Deuteronomy which highlights the difference.

 

[RPRPsych]

Thank you brother!

Historically, the armed invasion of Canaan and the slaughter of the Canaanite peoples is not said to have occured in the way the biblical history describes. Rather the Israelites are known to have peacefully emigrated and occupied this territory. This leads one to suspect that at least that war is a literary convention with a symbolic meaning.

However, I do believe that the War of David against the Amalekites would have happened.

The problem though is that Israel “had” to survive because it was the chosen vehicle through which God himself would be born. Its a unique case that I do not think we can apply to any other situation. I mean, consider the regulations for general war outlined in Deuteronomy. It is totally different from the (symbolic largely) extermination of the Canaanites - because as I said Israel was a unique situation.

Even the Maccabean War was not “commanded” by God.

No war was sanctioned in the New Testament. Christ is the prophesised Prince of Peace.

I do not, thus, think that the wars of the OT need be seen as “holy” simply because the sacred authors thought them to be ordained by God, nor certainly is the unique case of Israel’s wars of survival a precedent for understanding subsequent wars post-Christ’s coming, or classifying them as “holy”, as per Deuteronomy which highlights the difference.

I like this explanation.

And even moderate-to-conservative Biblical scholars agree that the Conquest of Canaan wasn’t some sort of free-for-all bloodbath. The 31 “kings” referred to in the book of Joshua, for example, may have been local leaders or chieftains rather than “kings” in the modern sense; and in some places, Israelites and others did co-exist until much later (such as the Jebusites in Jerusalem.)

My confusion arose because I sometimes saw these wars being referred to as “holy” in the chapter headings that some Bibles have. (For example, in 1 Maccabees 2, the Jerusalem Bible has the sub-heading “Mattathias begins the Holy War” or something of that sort.)

And Isaiah’s prophecy (Is 2: 2-4), which looks forward to the Messianic age of Jesus Christ, clearly speaks of a time when men will “beat their swords into ploughshares” and “study war no more”, which backs what you’re saying.

I guess war, like disease, is a “necessary evil”; an “accidental” property of our fallen world. That obviously means that we have to tolerate it on occasions, but that should not stop us from trying to minimize it as far as possible.

My brother used to say “War is like surgery; it’s obviously a crude and less than optimal way of solving a problem, but it is sometimes the only way.”

 

[GEddie]

Oh come on Why not turn the other cheek with the Muslims and simply defend Europe rather than invade other lands and put them into our control? The Reconquesta was well under way in Spain. The lands conquered by the Muslims in the Arab Invasions had been in there hands for hundreds of years.

We didn’t have any need, really, and our “help” to Byzantium resulted eventually, long-term, with the horrendous Sack of Constantinople which sounded the death knell for the Empire and is a key cause for its ultimate collapse into Turkish hands. We could I am sure have defended Byzantium without claiming land for ourselves and minus the terrible massacres of civilian Muslim populations such as during the Siege of Constantinople.

Now we cannot impose the Geneva Convention on Middle Age people. What the Christians did was not “awful” or illegal by the standards of the time but in our modern eyes it would constitute war crimes. And that’s the point I am making.

I’m not saying the Crusades didn’t have a just cause (I actually believe that they did), I am merely presenting you with an alternate understanding. To call the Crusades “holy” (NO WAR IS HOLY or can be since it results in the loss of human life) and to hold them up as an exemplary instance of just combat, without looking at them in historical context, and while likewise trying to undermine the necessity and justice behind World War Two, is way off in my opinion.

You seem to forget that Hitler, aka the Hossbach Memorandum 1937, intended to dominate Eastern Europe to achieve lebensraum and then eventually the entire European continent. Hitler even planned for war with America for the mid 40s.

He fought a war of annihilation in Poland.

Could Hitler’s intention in Poland have been any clearer? Should the world have sat back and let Hitler annihilate peoples he considered to be “inferior races”?

Not to mention his desire to eliminate the Catholic priesthood and hierarchy in Poland. At Leczyca, the Jesuits were expelled from their residence and forced to watch as their church was looted of sacred vessels, vestments, reliquaries and works of art. The priests were not even allowed into the church to save the Blessed Sacrament. Most of the priests were arrested and sent to concentration camps.

In Germany in 1935, Hermann Goering gave the rationale for crushing the Church: “Catholic believers carry away but one impression from attendance at divine services and that is that the Catholic Church rejects the institutions of the Nationalist State.”

And they were right to suspect Catholics of disloyalty to the Reich. Catholics protested against the removal of crucifixes from Bavarian schools in 1941, during which they tossed out of classrooms and burnt the mandatory pictures of Adolf Hitler, replacing them with the banned crucifix.

Blessed Clemens August Von Galen, the bishop of Münster, spoke out against the Nazis’ euthanasia program during World War II and became the inspirer of the White Rose resistance movement within Germany.

Hitler expected a full-scale European war with Britain and France between 1941-1944/5 and then the USA.

If Britain and France had not declared war on him BEFORE he invaded Russia, he would have been unstoppable and there would be no Catholic Church today, since Hitler called its clergy “walking abortions in cassocks” and detested the Pope.

And you are trying to suggest that Britain and France should have let Hitler annihilate the Polish people, send all its priests, Bishops, intellectuals etc, to concentration camps and then plough on into Russia and after obtaining that Lebensraum then move on to dominate Europe and then attack the USA?

And please I’m not even going to debate over Japan, since the morality of US action is blindling obvious.

PS I do believe the Crusades had a just cause, although like World War II not all the actions of the Christians were in accordance with just action.

Although I am not taking issue with your other statements on the history, I say the Church would have survived. That is in its nature. The Pope would be in exile, maybe all the way to Australia (if the New World became Fascist), but whoever is in command of government, the Church will be there until the end of time.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Vouthon]

Although I am not taking issue with your other statements on the history, I say the Church would have survived. That is in its nature. The Pope would be in exile, maybe all the way to Australia (if the New World became Fascist), but whoever is in command of government, the Church will be there until the end of time.

ICXC NIKA

You are 100% correct, the church would have survived, given that it is the Mystical Body of Christ. Looking back I am a little surprised that in my haste I uttered that. I was being somewhat exaggerative tbh, and you have rightly reigned that in. My point was that Nazi aims would have been oriented towards the destruction of the Catholic Church should their have been no WWII. It would have been Julian the Apostate all over again - come to think of it, on October 21, 1938, the Pontiff personally attacked Hitler, likening him to Julian the Apostate.

I must search out that speech and quote it later in the thread. The church clearly recognised the threat which is why Pope Pius XI’s encyclical “Mit Brennender Sorge” of 1937 was the world’s first public denunciation of Nazism.