J
jdnation
Guest
Hey, I know I posted this awhile back. But I recently found the real answer in an article in the paper ‘The Catholic Register’ that we recieve here in Toronto. It dealt with the issue over people attempting to sue the Vatican over opening its archives.
Of course in that story, the Vatican officials weren’t intimidated and countered the charges brought against also pointing out the annoying detail that all those who were the loudest in condemning the Vatican of being secretive never stayed to make use of the archives and examine material once they were opened, mainly because many of the groups and scholars were driven to uncover some conspiracy, secret or cover-up that the Catholic Church doesn’t want the world to know and when they do not find what they wanted, simply leave.
The point of long delays and waits is that the Vatican takes the time to do the monumental task of collecting, numbering and organizing the documents for consultation. Each document is double checked for details like protocol numbers, handwritten notations and envelope information, so its precise context can be established. This in in order so that poor scholarship and people with agendas of reading what they want out of text cannot do so.
Anyway in the article was mention of this issue, originating from a document discovered in France concerning Pius’s approval that any Jewish children baptized to save them from the Nazis were to be entrusted only to families or institutions that would guarantee their continuing education in the faith. Jewish groups pounced on it claiming that it meant that the Vaticcan under Pope Pius XII didn’t want baptized Jewish children returned to their parents.
The problem at first was that the letter was unsigned summary of Church policies with no clear indication of the source, written in French and not found in the archives of the papal nunciature in France.
However, later a more complete version of the letter came out clarifying the problem.
Turns out, the Church leaders were talking about abandoned Jewish Children who were in the care of Church institutions, not children whose parents wanted them back.
“It would be another thing if the children were requested back by parents,” said the letter.
Well that settles that…
Of course in that story, the Vatican officials weren’t intimidated and countered the charges brought against also pointing out the annoying detail that all those who were the loudest in condemning the Vatican of being secretive never stayed to make use of the archives and examine material once they were opened, mainly because many of the groups and scholars were driven to uncover some conspiracy, secret or cover-up that the Catholic Church doesn’t want the world to know and when they do not find what they wanted, simply leave.
The point of long delays and waits is that the Vatican takes the time to do the monumental task of collecting, numbering and organizing the documents for consultation. Each document is double checked for details like protocol numbers, handwritten notations and envelope information, so its precise context can be established. This in in order so that poor scholarship and people with agendas of reading what they want out of text cannot do so.
Anyway in the article was mention of this issue, originating from a document discovered in France concerning Pius’s approval that any Jewish children baptized to save them from the Nazis were to be entrusted only to families or institutions that would guarantee their continuing education in the faith. Jewish groups pounced on it claiming that it meant that the Vaticcan under Pope Pius XII didn’t want baptized Jewish children returned to their parents.
The problem at first was that the letter was unsigned summary of Church policies with no clear indication of the source, written in French and not found in the archives of the papal nunciature in France.
However, later a more complete version of the letter came out clarifying the problem.
Turns out, the Church leaders were talking about abandoned Jewish Children who were in the care of Church institutions, not children whose parents wanted them back.
“It would be another thing if the children were requested back by parents,” said the letter.
Well that settles that…
