Yes, as Pius XII did the Nazis.
It’s a matter of scale. There’s a lot of worldly compromise built into Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.
Except that your concept was useless. There were subversive messages being spread around Germany. There were groups doing that. There were people keeping records (often the Nazis themselves. None of it mattered. It did not subvert Hitler or weaken his power. The Italtians were already generally against Hitler, but too fragmented (with no central gfovernment at all) to organize to fight him directly.
Secondly, are seriously condemning the Pope because he was not skilled in created underground social movements to destroy all-powerful tyrants in the midst of a massive war spanning three continents? Are you seriously complaining that he was morally at fault for not being a master strategist superman with his own 133t ninja spy ring?!
The Germans knew well enough not to do so, which is why they never made any direct attacks against the Pope, or even occupied the small area he controlled directly. The Pope knew that and used that information.
Kind of my point. I think the Vatican could have done more, and I don’t think any actions taken would have been as unsuccessful as people claim, or would have resulted in a military occupation of the Vatican. There was a large tendency to see fascism as the savior from communism, and therefore for the RC Church to overlook the excesses to greater or lesser extent. Said tendency didn’t start with the Germans, nor end in 1945.
Right, but what in your opinion could the Pope have done more? ‘Subversion and diplomacy’ is an unsatisfactory answer for being both vague, and something that he did do.
So what specific things would you have done were you in Pius XII’s shoes?
Not sure where I said “subversion and diplomacy”…
Anyway, what more could have been done? Maybe publicity regarding the Final Solution, from an organization not subject to accusations of being a mouth piece for Judaism. Possibly announcement, repeatedly, that participation in it was contrary to being a Roman Catholic - the 1942 Christmas Eve announcement could have been a lot more specific and a lot more targeted.
It’s a matter of degree. There’s plenty of blame to go around in assessing responses to the Holocaust, and nobody gets off totally without blame. I have no doubt that many members of the Catholic Church at differing levels did much to mitigate the persecution of Jews. I don’t think in the face of such evil, though, it is possible for anyone, let alone an organization that views itself as God’s representative on earth, to have done enough if every possible avenue has not been explored, even at grave personal risk.
Well, the death camps were semi-secret. Although it was known that Jews were being taken away and sent to camps, most people believed that these were Concentration Camps: not nice places (and far worse than most imagined) but not automatic death sentences, either. Germans certainly could have known if they had wanted to, but they didn’t. And Germans from all walks of life proved perfectly happy to participate in organized or disorganized murder and violence. It was certainly not clear
Secondly, the Pope was definitely not in favor of German Facism, given that Hitler was even then in the process of committing genocide on Poland and repressing Catholics in southern Europe, with particular emphasis on stringing up Catholic clergy.
The Allies and the Vatican came into possession of evidence (including that from escapees) of the true nature of the death camps. I believe it should have been publicized.
And while the Catholic Church was no specific supporter of German fascism, its role in the coming to power of the Nazis isn’t spotless (again, most groups weren’t). I’ll object to your description of the Nazis “particular emphasis” being stringing up Catholic clergy. That implies, to me at least, a preeminent position for that activity. The particular emphasis was on Jews and communists. Catholic priests were killed, but not because they were Catholic priests, but because they were community leaders, as were teachers etc. Jews were seen as a threat because of their Judaism; it wasn’t just rabbis and other Jewish leaders who were killed.
The Church received word of a systematic elimination of the Jews not long after the invasion of the Soviet Union.
The Pope did not condemn the Germans for this (nor did he ever during the war). He did not condemn anti-Semitism as has been claimed here. He did not warn Catholics not to participate in the Holocaust nor did he order them not to stand idly by while others took part. He did not warn Catholic leaders in Western Europe that this was coming. He did not order Catholics to hide or protect Jews. He did not excommunicate Nazi Catholics. He did not protest when Germany rounded up the Jewish population of Rome. He did not condemn the Nazis even after the Allies captured Rome.
He did save some Jews by using his Holy offices to intervene in some cases, but not nearly as many as some charitable sources suggest. He did chastise the United States for dropping a single bomb on the Vatican (it turned out not to be an American bomb) though he did not condemn the bombing of Britain. He did oppose the allies aim of unconditional surrender. He did make a cryptic Christmas address in 1942 that criticized atrocities without any mention of the Jews. He blew off the concerns of German Bishops upset over the plight of the Jews.
It is very hard to take any moral inspiration from Pius’ term as pope.
Other Catholics, yes. Pope John XXIII for one, but not Pius.
A great read on the subject can be found in [urlhttp://www.iupress.indiana.edu/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=22013=this book
I suppose that he was a better moral example then some of his predecessors like say the Borgia Pope.
I still think that he was a coward.
Perhaps, but noone did, and they had reasons for not doing so. You may argue with those reasons, but historically there’s no evidence it would have helped, given that Nazis controlled the communication channels within Germany. Rumors were spread, and ofte they were fairly accurate, but apart from the BBC no one had a good channel to communicate.
And? The large point remains that Catholics were being killed in huge numbers solely ebcause they were Catholic and too visible. I would remind you that this was envisioned merely as the first act of destroying or removing everyone from the east in order to make way for “pure-blooded” Germans. The Nazis were against every group which might stand against them, and Catholic and Orthodox leaders were first on the list after any invasion, well before Jews or Communists, I might add.
Lets be honest now the Pope and the Catholic church did next to nothing to oppose Hitler and Mussolini,a few platitudes doesn’t make an organised opposition.
If the Pope had called on all Catholics whatever their nationality,whatever their station in life to fight a holy crusade against the Fascists or for those of less courage to maintain a campaign of non cooperation or even covert sabotage then Europe would have been a very,very hot spot for the Nazis,that would have needed a hell of a lot more men and resources to contain the rebellion which would have in turn curtailed Hitelers and Mussolinis military adventures elsewhere
The Catholic church is and was then an incredibly wealthy organisation,just a small proportion of that wealth could have done so much to fight one of the most evil regimes in history.
But what happened ?
Oh we’ll hide away a few jews in monasteries to salve our consciounces but in such a way that we can pretend it was a few individuals acting on their own initiative if they get caught.
Apart from the fact that Pius comes across as a total physical coward more concerned about his own skin then the millions of innocents being terrorised,tortured and murdered,it comes across as “we dont want the church to lose its power whatever the circumstances”.
Big deal he spoke out against the Fascists once, and very quietly and achieved absoloutley nothing.
May god forgive Pius and the Catholic church, because I dont think that the souls of the dead millions and their families will.
Because that worked so well in Henry VIII’s England?
You’re ignoring the history of the past 500 years and it’s summary failures to accomplish this very goal when tried.
It’s interesting your ability to read people’s minds across time and space.
How does he come across as that?
If only they hadn’t allowed the Protestant heresies to flourish, all of this might have been prevented.
The Vatican had a very obvious method of communication, one it used. As to the first part, I’ve already said other groups were shamefully inactive in the face of the Holocaust. I think the Allies should have bombed the railroads to the death camps. But at least their rationale - that defeating Germany was the best way to end the persecution of the Jews, was accompanied by a direct attempt to defeat Germany.
Would such action byt he Vatican have helped? I don’t know. It wouldn’t have hurt. And inaction by Allied governments (who lets remember were fighting an all-out war against Germany) should be judged on a different level to inaction by a religious organization. The Vatican not declaring war on Nazi Germany as a state is one thing, and should be compared to other states who chose to remain neutral - some with more justification than others; for those who remained neutral without threat of imminent invasion it is, in my mind, a disgraceful decision. But this was a religious organization too as well as a state. And the Pope styled himself as Christ’s representative on earth. Do you think silence in the face of the Holocaust was particularly Christ-like?
This is ridiculous, and incorrect. Catholics were not on the death list qua Catholics. Polish Catholic priests were killed as potential leaders of a population that the Nazis wished to decapitate. Individual Catholics were not targetted for their religious beliefs. There was never a policy of extermination of Catholics. A Jew, regardless of his or her social or political status was labelled for death.
So that makes it irrelevant? How does the Pope use his ‘existing communications channels’ if the Nazis killed them?
It seems that your only tactic in this thread is to keep saying the things that have already been disproved many times, as if you can turn falsehoods into truths by endless repetition. mswas has repeatedly asked you to provide some specific examples of what the Pope could have done differently that would have changed the course of the Holocaust, and you only respond by continuing to speak in vague generalities. Seeing as that’s all we’re going to get out of you, I won’t bother arguing further on the main topic, but I will correct this one thing.
When you gripe about the immensely wealthy Catholic Church, you’ve been suckered by an urban legend both in the “is” and “was then” parts. The Catholic Church could not have helped out in the Holocaust with part of its great wealth, because that great wealth is only imaginary.
Where did I say it was irrelevant. I am just objecting to your false, and pretty offensive attempt to claim victim status for Catholics as a whole at the hands of the Nazis in order to whitewash the Vatican’s war record.
Leaving aside what is indisputable, that Catholics were never targetted for death as a group, because they were Catholics, you are missing the point totally. There were attacks on Catholic priests in Poland, and many were killed (though there was not a policy of the extermination of all Catholic priests in Poland, as far as I have seen on the issue). There wasn’t, however, similar actions agaisnt Catholic priests in Croatia, in Italy, in Belgium, in France, in Austria, in Luxembourg, in Lituania (I believe), or in the other counties that the Nazis occupied (which while not Catholic majority had significant Catholic populations) that weren’t seen as racially inferior to the degree the Poles were. That might just indicate to you that Catholic priests in Poland who were killed were killed as Slav potential leaders, rather than as Catholic priests.
And therefore, in the countries where such killings did not occur, the Vatican’s communication network was intact. It just wasn’t used to publicize the Holocaust. Which was a mistake.
I wasn’t the one who made the connection, but why is it offensive to talk about the deaths of Catholics in World War II? What qualifies people murdered by the Nazis as victims and what doesn’t?
No one is missing the point. We understand that Catholics were not systematically exterminated for being Catholic. Might they have been if the Pope had declared the German National Government as the enemies of Christ? Your penchant for oversimplifying a complex issue doesn’t mean I don’t understand what separates the two even though I am not the one who originally made the point.
Perhaps it was a mistake. Likely it was, but others made the choice not to publicize it, why did they make this decision?
What is offensive is the intent in doing it. It’s an attempt to paint the Catholic church and its members as equal victims of the Holocaust as Jews, homosexuals, Roma and others who were exterminated because of their biological make up. You keep attempting to misrepresent what I am saying, just as you misrepresent history to whitewash the Vatican.
I am the one oversimplifying??? You are so blinkered you don’t even admit to a possibility that the leadership of the Catholic Church in World War 2 did not respond with all possible, indeed all expected opposition to the Holocaust and other crimes of the Nazis. If you think the Nazis could have extermianted the Catholic population of Europe, you have no understanding of the history of the time period. Then again, that wouldn’t surprise me.
As I said, it was a mistake by everyone. It is a badge of shame all involved have to wear. The Allied leaders didn’t publicize the Holocaust as soon as they found out because they feared it would be dismissed as propaganda. They were wrong in that conclusion, but it is certainly true that pronouncements from leaders of countries at war are less believable on their face than those from a religious and moral leader, whose flock is spread across countries on both sides of the conflict.
I’m not trying to whitewash anyone of responsibility. Then again, I don’t claim Churchill and Rooseveld were Christ’s representatives on earth, so I guess it is a little easier to admit they were wrong on this.
No one is drawing an equivalence. Calm down hoss. :rolleyes:
Ah yes, the old trusty, “If you don’t agree with me you must be willfully blind.”, argument. Always a gem.
You are oversimplifying. You see it as a choice between Catholic slaughter vs not Catholic slaughter. You are completely ignoring the complete lack of traction Catholic opposition to national governments in Europe had for the few centuries leading up to that. So you are excoriating the Pope for not taking a tactic that had been an abysmal historical failure leading up to the Holocaust.
That’s definitely an argument worth pondering.
Fair point.
I never said opposition to the national government - I haven’t discussed that. I do think opposition to the Nazi government has to be seen as a moral duty, but that’s not the point here. People who refused to aprticipate in the Holocaust weren’t punished. They weren’t shot. They were excused duty. Only a very limited number of people did it. Had thousands upon thousands done it, history might well have been different. Those thousands would also have sinned one hell of a lot less, which probably should be a concern of the Pope too. Had countries allied to Germany, such as Croatia, acted differently as a result of papal pronouncements, more Jews might have been saved.
If you want to debate whether a call to overthrow the Nazi government would have been a wise idea on the part of the Papacy, that is a different point to what I have been saying. One could be a “good German” and not pack Jews into gas chambers. It is even easier to be a good Croat, or good Lithanian and refuse to do that. The Pope chose not to ask his flock to take that step in clear, precise terms. And that is far from doing everything he could to end, or at least mitigate the harm of one of the greatest crimes of history.