I would truly like to see a reference that supports this particularly odd claim.
Is this true? Genuine question.
It’s not like the church has a massive bank account it can simply withdraw from. It has a lot of wealth in that it owns priceless works of art, Cathedrals and various gold and jewel items that were given to it by princes and others over the course of its history. It also has a massive infrastructure of churches all over the world that it must administer.
This is what I thought, the church does not have ‘imaginary’ wealth but real wealth, by any marker it is a wealthy organisation.
John Allen, the Vatican reporter for the newspaper National Catholic Reporter, estimated that in 2002, the Vatican had an operating budget of $260 million, and total assets (including investments, property holdings, stock portfolios, capital funds and so on of $770 million. (Source is John Allen’s “All the Pope’s Men”, which is about life inside the Vatican and curial politics. I’d reccomend it.)
Apparently you’ve never heard the phrase “Land Rich, Cash Poor”.
Are you suggesting that the Pope’s reasoning was “IF I speak out, Catholics MIGHT become victims, so it is better to NOT speak out in suport of those who ALREADY ARE victims?”
I’m suggesting that it’s not that simple.
Yes I have but wealth <> cash, it is the sum total of all your assets.
Thanks for the recommendation.
What did that Jesus fella say about rich men and heaven again? I kid, I kid I do not want to add a hijack. 
I am not using a tactic as I have no particular interest let alone hatred against the Catholic church but I DO have an interest in honesty and logic.
I am not using “vague generalities”,Christ gave his life,Pius didn’t even sell one art treasure.
What could Pius have done ?
As a Christian and the leader of Gods Church on Earth he could have said on radio,by international visits,by wire that every true Catholic should physically oppose the Nazis by whatever means they could,OR follow a policy of pacific non co operation with the fascists, or covert sabotage,or leave the Fascist countrys.
He could have sold some of the Vatican art treasures and used the money to buy the lives of Jews,Poles,Gypsies,Homosexuals and the menatally and physically handicapped
If you are a true Catholic then you should not defend someone who did not stand up to the mark whatever their rank in the Catholic church,because you are defending either evil or cowardice.
Pius was a total physical coward and I would not be stunned with amazement if it turned out that he didn’t really like Jews or Gypsies all that much.
I’ll justmake my declarations,I’m not a Jew,as far as I know I dont actually know any IRL,I’m not particulary religious and I have no big interest in the Catholic church.
But it can only be spent on a cause if it can be easily liquidated. Maybe they should’ve melted some gold chalices or sold them to collectors but at the same time the collectors were largely fleeing their homes at the time. A Cathedral on the other hand is much harder to liquidate. So if your costs are close to equal with your income that ‘wealth’ isn’t able to be freed to fight a war.
Sorry. A single link to the title of an interesting but seriously flawed historical examination does not cut it. There is substantal evidence that the basic premise of the book is in error and simply linking to the title provides no support for the claim. (I realize that I “only” asked for a reference, but you will forgive me if I presumed that it was clear that I actually wanted genuine support.) Given the general low regard in which actual historians hold the book, it is not a particularly persuasive reference. Beyond that, of course, is the fact that a book that claims that the German people, as a whole, fully embraced the Holocaust is an unlikely voice for a claim that any German who chose could opt out of participation, which was the claim to which I sought a reference.
Christopher Browning’s “Ordinary Men”, which was partly written as a rebuttal to Goldhagen’s thesis, agrees with the assertion for the most part. It’s a look at Reserve Police Batallion 101, which was involved in the round up and murder of Polish Jews, and the way that the members of the batallion saw their work and dealt with their actions. One of the points it makes is that, while there was a good deal of social pressure to participate, there wasn’t any punishment for the members who didn’t participate.
That was generally true up and down the line. Groups like the Death Head SS (which guarded and ran the concentration camps) and the Einsatzgruppen (who engaged in the murder of Jews and Polish and Soviet elites) were volunteer units.
I have always despised the argument that the Church ought to go sell off all its stuff in order to pay for some other things you think good.
I paid for that (in some smal way). So did my ancestors. We want our churches to look beautiful, and we paid good money to make them so. It does not belong to the priests or the bishops or even the Pope, but the Church herself.
Jesus answered such critics when the Apostles denounced a woman for washing Jesus in ointments: the goodness of an act is not judged on some mere utiliarian basis, and a man who makes such judgements is as far away from Christ as can be. And it is worth noting that utilitarian movements based on those principles have tended to inevitably drift towards a coldness towards the poor. They first try to garmer political power for the sake of others, but find that they care less and less about helping people, even hating them.
Here’s a paragraph from Ervin Staub’s “The Roots of Evil”
This is so wrong I have no idea how to answer it. A religion following the teaching of a man who had no possessions, who criticised the rich and made it clear that one of the highest virtues was to help the poor should horde gaudy baubles so it can look pretty? Really?
Did they try though? Did they even begin to start meting down gold chalices or try to sell items to collectors in neutral countries for example?
Oddly enough, I don’t keep Hitler’s Willing Executioners on my desk at work, so couldn’t cite to the page. I do have a ratehr interesting history of the Battle of the Somme, so if you want quotes on that, we can go there…
Seriously, the reason I didn’t bother to post a citation when I got home was that I thought it was pretty common knowledge that individuals weren’t punished. German wives of Jews who protested the imprisonment of their husbands weren’t dragged off to the camps. There isn’t, as a far as I have seen, a vast amount of evidence of Wehrmacht members refusing to take part in crimes agaisnt the Jews in Eastern Europe, and not being punished for it, because, again as far as I have seen, there weren’t many instances of German soldiers refusing. The examples I have seen, in Goldhagen’s book (which has been criticized, but not on that point to the best of my knowledge), and in Browning’s work (thank you Captain Amazing) are uniformly of the view that in the instances where this happened, the soldiers were not punished. Hell, it wasn’t like the Nazis needed unwilling soldiers to kill Jews when they had local militias who would pay for the chance to do it. I see that you don’t find the evidence compelling. It’s therefore up to you to show times when people were punished for this. I’ve put something out there, and Captain Amazing has put more. Criticizing the sources only works if there is evidence to the contrary out there. Point me towards it…