´óÏó´«Ã½

In case you missed it, Pope John Paul II and Pope Pius XII have been declared "Venerable", first major step on road to canonisation.

Some good news to end the year.

Oh Joy!


(lol)

I knew you'd be pleased, RJB.

I do have hopes for Oscar Romero someday.

You read my mind MCC.

While I'm theologically conservative I grew up under Margaret Thatcher so retain some socialist notions, one of which is that supporting the poor and oppressed doesn't necessarily make you a liberation theologian or a Marxist. I reckon if Jerzy Popowulska (sic) is a martyr then so is Oscar.

Oscar Romero was a Conservative who was made Archbishop precisely because that's what he was. Someone who would tow the party line. It took the brutal murder of his friend, Rutillo Grande, and the massacre which took place on the Cathedral steps, to wake him up to realise that Christianity is about the Gospel and about people, not about stagnant Church teachings. (As a matter of interest, another Bishop who happened to be on the Cathedral steps that day, was Bishop Casey.)

Romero would later be shown the door at the Vatican when begging JPII and Ratzinger for help. He broke down in tears in front of them. They ignored him and he was assassinated one week later. On a visit to El Salvador years later JPII spent all of 59 seconds praying at his grave.

In any case, I'm sure the conferring of sainthood on him by a church leadership who rejected him - when it mattered - is neither here nor there. Especially since they fast tracked Escriva of Opus Dei in return for 'taking care of' Vatican debt, even dispensing with the use of devils advocate. Sainthood these days is on an intellectual parallel with X-factor. In fact, not even.

"In case you missed it, Pope John Paul II and Pope Pius XII have been declared "Venerable", first major step on road to canonisation. Some good news to end the year."

It seems that if it is up to the Vatican, good news and positive images about popes is all that should be allowed to ever see the light of day:



"The Vatican made a declaration on the protection of the figure of the Pope on Saturday morning. The statement seeks to establish and safeguard the name, image and any symbols of the Pope as being expressly for official use of the Holy See unless otherwise authorized."

Of course they don't say officially that they would only allow positive use of the name, images etc. But I doubt if RJB would receive permission for his writings about the pope if their permission was really required.

PK

One of the very salient points about this 're-branding' of the Pope which a lot of people seem to have missed, in relation to everything that has been written about clergy sexual abuse and cover up, is the consistent accusation levelled against the Church, that it is only concerned about its IMAGE.

It seems that position is now official.

The Vatican supported the wrong side in World War 2, but it has survived the opprobrium which ensued. The Pope went to Madrid to congratulate Franco when he slaughtered his way to power in Spain. The Vatican backed Mussolini and was awarded the status of independent state for its services. Pius XI praised Hitler and struck deals with him in the Konkordats. The Catholic hierarchy denounced the French Resistance as terrorists and backed Petain's colloborators. After the war, the Vatican helped Nazis escape to Argentina. The French monasteries sheltered Nazi fugitive Touvier for years.

All the above is in the public domain. You can see illustrative photos at You can read about their activities in 'Hitler's Pope' and 'The Real Odessa'. Our own Brian Moore wrote a novel about Touvier, titled 'The Statement', later turned into a film. Etc.

But Catholicism has centuries of social power to draw on and it grips its followers by their feelings of family loyalty and community. It is also skilled in the arts of evasion and deflection.

What are paedophile priests and a cover-up hierarchy compared to complicity with the Nazis and Fascists in WW2? Their assurance is that they have got away with worse before.

Oldredeyes - I think I remember you. Didn't you used to read for Jackanory or was it Roald Dahl's "Tales of Total Nonsense Invented by Communist Loving Anti-Catholics"

Ah, top rate ad hominem against oldredeyes there, mccamleyc. Care to elaborate where the communist bit came from?

Hardly ad hominem. The play, The Deputy, which started the libel against Venerable Pope Pius XII, was written by a German commie and financed by the KGB. You can read more about it and how Jewish leaders respected the late Pope here:

Read the article. Catholic Church says Pope was nice guy. Pretty convincing.

What if it is mental reservation? (again.) It would be harmful to the Catholic people to learn that senior members of the Hierarchy colluded with the Nazis so, better just to ignore facts and concentrate on stories about the Vatican helping some Jews.

The article was based on research by Gary Krupp - last time I looked he was Jewish, as were all the rabbis mentioned in the article.

Published in a...... Roman Catholic Magazine. I think PK was attempting to alert us to the possibility of bias in his post # 7.

I think the bias is in the closed mind of the reader.

A direct quote from the article -

"In making public statements, we must always be mindful of the principle, 'to avoid the greater evil." '

And there we have it....

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Moderator - you are a joke.

I take it MCC doesnt stand for Mr Chris Cringle.

Perhaps I broke copyright by quoting from famous Jews who defended the Pope.

I really can't understand how people can take these positions against Pius XII - the Jews at the time and after the War regarded him as a friend and heroic figure. The Nazis clearly regarded him as an enemy. A quick google will give you quotes from Einstein, Golda Meir, the New York Times - no one at the time regarded him the way some people do today. I mean it's not as if someone has unearthed secret evidence showing him selling Jews to the Nazis, or passing on information. Quite the contrary - all the research points the other way.

RJB think he's spelt with Ks.

On a different note - this is sort of interesting


And can I say, in case I don't get a chance, a very happy Christmas to you all, to William and his little elves (mods), the regular and occasional contributors, the ones who drive us mad, the ones we agree with. Christmas, with its wonderful mix of the religious and the secular, has something for everyone - even Brian McClinton.

And don't forget the Pope's urbi et orbi address and blessing on Christmas morning - you can get a plenary indulgence under the usual conditions.

I'll just add that to my Christmas Day list.

9am - remove giblets.
9.30 - stuff Turkey.
10.00 - watch Pope's Christmas message.
10.15 - scrape off stuffing from television and put back in turkey.
10.30 - have large gin and tonic to calm down from the nausea.

You are a funny man.

But the urbi et orbi isn't on till noon Rome time (11am) here so you'd be a bit premature.

I always like to get the children to kneel for the blessing - the boys have Joseph as a second name after Ratzinger and of course little Teresa Benedicta likes to know she's named after the Pope as well. Mary can feel a little left out, but visiting Santa last week, she was given 2 presents because she was the only girl he'd met called Mary. Nice touch I thought.

What? 11 o'clock, not 10 o'clock?!!

I've been watching Noel Edmonds for the past fifteen years and thinking it was the Pope. No wonder I'm such a wet liberal.

mccamleyc,

You call me a fantastist because I wrote "The Pope went to Madrid to congratulate Franco when he slaughtered his way to power in Spain. The Vatican backed Mussolini and was awarded the status of independent state for its services. Pius XI praised Hitler and struck deals with him in the Konkordats. The Catholic hierarchy denounced the French Resistance as terrorists and backed Petain's colloborators. After the war, the Vatican helped Nazis escape to Argentina. The French monasteries sheltered Nazi fugitive Touvier for years."

Which of the above facts have you got evidence to disprove? You seem to have plenty of personal abuse to fling about, but no evidence. Are you, by any chance, an adherent of the cult in question? Perhaps you are not truly impartial when you consider the history of the rise of Fascism and Nazism, and the stance taken by the Vatican. For my part, I find the photographs of Pius XI congratulating Franco, Mussolini and Hitler a clear indication of the official line.

I hope the mods won't consider this too "off-topic" (as I have nothing much to say about the Vatican, Catholic Church or Pius XII), but - as mccamleyc has done in #21 - let me also wish every contributor - and not forgetting William! - every blessing for (dare I use the word) CHRISTmas and the New Year.

And I extend my good wishes (and I am not being sarcastic) even to those who have bestowed on me some robust epithets of late - "eejit" and "crackpot" are two that spring to mind (as well as the wonderfully erudite "vanitas_sine_logica", ha ha!). At this season of goodwill I extend the hand of friendship to you (in much the same way that two boxers do after smacking the life out of each other for twelve rounds).

I am reminded of a little translation controversy from an apparently "dodgy" dossier called "the Bible", which relates to this season of goodwill...

Luke 2:14 - "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favour rests." (NIV)

Luke 2:14 - "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!" (NKJV)

"Men" of course means "people" (anthropois). I favour the NJKV version in which goodwill is extended to ALL people, whereas the NIV restricts goodwill to God's "favourites" (whoever they might be).

And just so I can get a "Catholic" comment in, let me quote the following:

Luke 2:14 - "Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will." (Douay Version - puts yet another complexion on the verse!)

I'm an "NKJV" man, so in the spirit of that interpretation, let my seasonal greeting extend to you ALL, warts 'n' all.

(I look forward to getting back in the ring come the New Year - or even before, if I'm feeling bored...)

Oldredeyes wrote "The Pope went to Madrid to congratulate Franco when he slaughtered his way to power in Spain." Which Pope went to Spain - Pius XI or Pius XII or some other imaginary Pope.

"The Vatican backed Mussolini and was awarded the status of independent state for its services." The Vatican did not "back" Mussolini - it put up with him and was astute enough to negotiate the Lateran Treaty, thus ensuring its neutrality during the Second World War.

"Pius XI praised Hitler and struck deals with him in the Konkordats." Everybody struck deals with Hitler - everyone.

"The Catholic hierarchy denounced the French Resistance as terrorists and backed Petain's colloborators." So French bishops were French - a wonderful observation.

"After the war, the Vatican helped Nazis escape to Argentina." Evidence?

"The French monasteries sheltered Nazi fugitive Touvier for years." It wasn't Catholics - it was Society of Pius X - a schismatic group.

In 27 mccamleyc wrote: "The Vatican did not "back" Mussolini - it put up with him and was astute enough to negotiate the Lateran Treaty, thus ensuring its neutrality during the Second World War."

The Lateran Pacts and the Conciliation Treaty were signed on 11 February 1929 (compulsory religious instruction, Catholicism made state religion, full sovereignity for the Vatican, etc) - ten years before World War 2. Are you trying to present Ratti as a clairvoyant? Ratti was a loyal supporter of Mussolini and was rewarded for his expressions of support. Ratti praised the attack on Abyssinia as a 'holy crusade' and linked the fascist state to church teaching in the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno of 1931.

Neutrality? Nonsense! The Vatican supported the Axis powers from the beginnings of Fascism and Nazism. But they have tried to cover their tracks since the Allies won and it seems that they have succeeded with you.

Oldredeyes - go and read a history book or is it oldblindeyes. Covered their tracks so well that no one during the whole second world war knew about it. Yeah.

Romejellybean - any truth in the rumour you were seen last night in a red dress and a black wig in St Peter's Basilica? Or wondering around Longford at five in the morning? Suppose you can't have been in both places.

Having shown the close relationship between Ratti (Pope Pius XI) and Mussolini, I would now like to provide some facts about the overthrow of the democratic government in Spain.

The popular government of the early 1930s was left-wing and secularist. It ended Catholic control of schools and instigated land reform. The church backed the right-wing reactionaries who opposed reform. There was a failed military coup in 1930. After the Popular Front won the election in 1936, Franco launched a revolt, with military assistance from Hitler and Mussolini. The Fascist revolt was eventually successful, democracy was defeated, military dictatorship installed and political opponents slaughtered. Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) congratulated Franco for his defence of "the ideals of faith and Christian civilization". The Jesuits returned and once again took over the education of students. Bishops took their place in parliament and new laws were always in step with Catholic doctrine. The Falangist party was considered as one with the Catholic faith. It was a matter of pride for party members to appear at Mass in their uniform and give the Fascist salute.

Those are the facts. Since the Fascists and Nazis lost World War 2, there has been an attempt to rewrite history so that the Vatican is presented as if it was a champion of the resistance. Utter rubbish. The Catholic church supported the Fascists and the Nazis and was rewarded for its efforts with a share of authority and social status. It turned a blind eye to the brutal oppression that Fascist and Nazi regimes enforced on their own people and those peoples they conquered, and in return it got its independent state, control of the schools and financial concessions.

Pacelli's congratulations to Franco - "With great joy we address you, dearest sons of Catholic Spain, to express our paternal congratulations for the gift of peace and victory with which God has chosen to crown the Christian heroism of your faith ... We give you, our dear sons of Catholic Spain, our apostolic benediction."

Oldredeyes

You will also find that the Vatican's complete lack of support for the Catholic people (the poor) of El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras, has its roots in what you accurately describe above.

Any lingering doubt about where the Vatican stood with regard to the Spanish Civil War was cleared up when they conferred sainthood on Escriva of Opus Dei - a Spanish Fascist.

Oldredeyes, what you call ending "Catholic control of schools and instigat(ing) land reform" actually means stealing Catholic schools and nationalising privately owned land - in other words standard communism, followed by murdering enclosed nuns, priests and brothers, including dozens of young novices in my own Carmelite order.

None of which has anything to do with the fact that Venerable Pius XII saved at least 800,000 Jews during the second world war and by rights should be declared a Righteous Gentile.

mccamleyc,

It is interesting to see how you start using the word "communist" to denounce the left-wing democratic government of Spain in 1936. The government wanted to create a state education system, free of Vatican control, and to redistribute land in favour of peasant farmers who were living like serfs in the mid-20th century. The government had the democratic support of the people, but you are prepared to denounce them as "communists" and thereby try to justify the armed revolt by Franco and his fascist gang.

Now you are following the pro-fascist line of Ratti (Pius XI) and Pacelli (Pius XII). They used the "communist" label to justify their support for right-wing military dictatorships throughout Europe. In other words, they supported brutal tyranny over democracy and ignored the heinous violations of human rights which that involved.

Franco had only minority support in Spain. He had to go to Morocco to get the troops with which to overthrow the government. He also had the support of Hitler and Mussolini, who provided weapons, troops and planes. German planes ferried troops from Morocco. They also bombed Guernica, the first act of mass terrorism. To their shame, Britain and France stayed neutral and only Russia and Mexico tried to help the government.

The Catholic church sided with Franco and called on Catholics to join the fascist cause. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed in the conflict, including some Catholic clergy. After the conflict was over, Franco's troops slaughtered thousands of their defeated opponents.

And Pope Pius XII sent his congratulations.

Oldredeyes - you were the one started slinging the labels about - everyone's a fascist or a Nazi lover in your book.

I love the way you make a big deal out of Franco getting support from Germany and Italy but downplay the support the Front got from the USSR and Mexico, both bastions of liberal democracy.

The nuns and other religious killed weren't killed accidently by the roof falling. They were taking out and shot in cold blood.

That said, I'm not an apologist for Franco - but I know there were two sides to this conflict and neither of them innocent.

Of course one thing we learn from history - countries recover far quicker from right wing dictatorships than they do from left wing ones.

mccamleyc,

Earlier in this thread you dismissed as fantasy my statements about Vatican support for the Fascists and Nazis during their rise to power in the 1930s and during World War 2. Now you seem to have changed your tune. Now you tell us that "countries recover far quicker from right wing dictatorships than they do from left wing ones." Is this supposed to be some kind of an excuse for the fact that the Vatican supported the right-wing Fascist and Nazi regimes of Mussolini, Franco and Hitler? As if to say,"The Fascists and the Nazis were not as bad as some left-wing tyrannies, so it was excusable that Ratti and Pacelli supported them."

How far would that excuse carry you, I wonder? Perhaps, if you had been living then, you would have joined the Fascist or Nazi forces to fight for the cause? As Ratzinger did.

Your comment on the Spanish Civil War sounds queasy and evasive:"I'm not an apologist for Franco - but I know there were two sides to this conflict and neither of them innocent." One side was the democratically elected government. The other side was a Fascist revolt which overthrew the government and slaughtered its way to power. Your failure to appreciate the fundamental difference between them suggests that your moral reasoning is as deficient as that of Ratti and Pacelli.

Several times on this thread you have told me to go and read some history. The progress of the argument has shown, however, that it you who needs to read some history - instead of the Vatican propaganda which you seem to have swallowed wholesale. A primer on moral philosophy would be helpful too.

"One side was the democratically elected government" - you mean like the Nazis in Germany?

The Vatican did not support the Nazis in Germany nor the Fascists in Italy. Franco wasn't a Fascist. Whatever support he received from the Church was based on the fact that he didn't try to destroy it. People are funny that way. They prefer to prefer people who don't try to kill them.

And the Nazis were as much left wing as right wing.

The statement about countries recovering more quickly from right wing dictatorships is based on the fact that right wing dictators, while they may abuse human rights in similar ways to left wing dictators, tend not to destroy the economy to the same extent. That's simply based on observation of economists in South America.

Thanks for the advice on reading - I've a degree in philosophy already so I'll pass.

I'll also offer a prayer to Venerable Pius XII for those driven by hatred of the Church.

Right wing dictatorships tend not to destroy the economy to the same extent that left wing dictatorships do. Thats based on observations of economists in South America.

Lol.

Would that have anything to do with the US and its poodle, Britain, applying sanctions, giving military aid to the opposition and doing every possible thing in its power to undermine any legitimate left wing government?

Our church has been the friend of the rich, the powerful, the oppressors and has deserted the poor, even when those poor were her own Catholic sons and daughters.

You have a degree in Philosophy from a Catholic Institution. Jelly bean philosophy, MCC, and jelly bean christianity.

I did it for six years and got the same degree. It was propaganda, very selective, carefully vetted, propaganda.

The curse of this blog is that you have to repeat yourself about six times before there is any understanding of what you're saying. Firstly - I'm not a supporter of any dictators, leftwing or rightwing. And you may be right about the role of US support etc - but it is a fact that left wing dictators have more of an economic angle to their philosophy, such as it is, and it tends to destroy countries for longer - partly because left wing dictators have been less keen to engage in foreign trade. On a slightly different note - how should we designate the Chinese dictators currently in power - left wing, or right wing?

RJB - you really should try not jumping to conclusions. Did I say I had a degree in philosophy from a Catholic institution? Don't think I did. And I'm not using a mental reservation. I don't. From a regular state university. God love you, jelly bean, were you a bit slow? Six years to get a degree?

It's all a question of

Orrabest furr the Bells!

The Catholic church is an authoritarian, non-democratic, hierarchical organisation. It is run by a cabal of men and its chief objective is self-perpetuation. It has ever been thus. In the past, its natural political counterparts were the monarchies of Europe. In the 1930s, its natural political counterparts were the Fascist and Nazi regimes of Mussolini, Franco and Hitler. It supported those regimes with vigour, praising their leaders as defenders of 'Christian culture', and was rewarded for its support with control of the education system in those countries, an independent state (the Vatican) and, in the case of Mussolini, cash funding.

The Vatican had no difficulty working with those dictators because it is a dictatorial regime itself. Like them, it did not place any high priority on human rights - as has been seen again in the recent revelations concerning the cover-up by the hierarchy of paedophile priests. The human rights of the victims were not a priority. The hierarchy simply moved the paedophiles to new parishes and swore all involved to secrecy. Ratzinger's letter of 2001, Crimen Sollicitationis, insisted upon secrecy, backed up with threats of excommunication, for everyone involved in a paedophile priest case, including the victims. Clearly, the priority in all the actions of the hierarchy was to protect the image and reputation of the church (ie the business), rather than uphold the human rights of the victims. The same pattern has been seen throughout the world, in all the countries where paedophile priests have been uncovered: Ireland, USA, Australia, South America, etc.

The arrogance of the Vatican is also typical of those Fascist and Nazi regimes. When the Murphy Commission wrote to the Vatican, asking for information pertaining to the paedophile priests and the cover-up, the Vatican did not reply. Some time later, when its silence became a point of criticism, it declared that it is an independent state and only replies to correspondence from governments. So it regards protocol as more important than defending the rights of rape victims! Yet it parades itself as an authority on moral matters!

The Vatican empire is of a kind with Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany. It deserves to go the same way.

Yes. And I believe it also conspired with Chancellor Palpatine, Saruman the White and has Ted Bundy on it's list of friends on FaceBook.

Re 41.

Feeble satire is hardly an adequate answer to the facts that I have assembled in the course of this thread.
Defenders of the Vatican Inc will have to do better than that.
Or is that the best they can do?

Biased assertions are not facts.

"Feeble satire is hardly an adequate answer"

No, but it passes the time of day.

"to the facts that I have assembled in the course of this thread"

Er...facts? As opposed to wild allegations? I have to say that I haven't been struck by your sense of balance. The Free P's are more nuanced in their critique. "Foxes Book of the Martyrs" keeps springing to mind.

"Defenders of the Vatican Inc"

Sheesh - not me, guv. I'm Evangelical, and I'm pretty critical of Ecumenism. I don't like lazy arguments, is all.

"Or is that the best they can do?"

I don't know. Neither will you if you keep ranting.

GV

It is deplorable that people should allow their prejudices to stand in the way of an objective appraisal of the facts. All the evidence shows that Ratti (Pius XI) and Pacelli (Pius XII) supported the Fascist and Nazi regimes. They supported those regimes because they approved of their virulent anti-communism and they were rewarded for showing their support.

I have given details of the relationship between Mussolini and the Vatican - The Lateran Pacts and the Conciliation Treaty were signed on 11 February 1929 (compulsory religious instruction, Catholicism made state religion, full sovereignity for the Vatican, etc). Ratti was a loyal supporter of Mussolini and was rewarded for his expressions of support. Ratti praised the attack on Abyssinia as a 'holy crusade' and linked the fascist state to church teaching in the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno of 1931.

I have given details of the Vatican's support for Franco - Pacelli's congratulations to Franco - "With great joy we address you, dearest sons of Catholic Spain, to express our paternal congratulations for the gift of peace and victory with which God has chosen to crown the Christian heroism of your faith ... We give you, our dear sons of Catholic Spain, our apostolic benediction." Franco had overthrown the democratic government of Spain and was slaughtering his opponents by the thousand after they had surrendered. Pacelli sent his congratulations.

The Concordat with Hitler was signed on 8 July 1933. The direction in which the Nazi tyranny was moving was already obvious, but the Vatican saw no problem. Concentration camps had been built, trade unions banned, political parties attacked by the SA and SS, KPD and SPD declared enemies of the state and a national boycott of Jewish businesses enacted on 1 April that same year. See The Vatican signed the Concordat which gave it state protection for its property and maintained Catholic education. Photos of the cordial relations between the Vatican and the Nazis can be seen at

The support that the Vatican gave the Nazis should be contrasted with the opposition voiced by the Confessing Church, whose members suffered at the hands of the Nazis. Niemoller was imprisoned in 1937 and Bonhoeffer was hanged in 1945.

All the above are historical facts. I hope that the people who disagree with my viewpoint will provide more historical facts to challenge mine, rather than simply resorting to name-calling, as if that was an argument. The latter is puerile and tedious.

puerile and tedious


Difficult to take from a man who calls himself redeyes (-;

Redeyes - you clearly have no understanding of the purpose of treaties in international law, and in particular the importance of a concordat which made it more difficult for the Nazis to act against the Church. As for the photos - pathetic doesn't begin to describe them - look at me standing beside a banana - I must be a banana. As for the Nuncio meeting Hitler on his birthday - it wasn't his birthday - it was the standard New Years Day meeting of the diplomatic corps - the Vatican specifically instructed the the Nuncio to attend only standard German diplomatic events and not ones associated primarily with Hitler. Cornwell's book is mostly rubbish, from the bogus photograph on the front to the last bitter page. I've seen photos of bishops giving blessings made to look like they were giving the Nazi salute.

Doubtless some bishops and priests were Nazi supporters but very few.

As for the Lateran Treaty - it did not "give" the Pope sovereignty - it merely recognised the reality of the existing sovereignty of the Holy See and the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Italy.

mccamleyc,

It is easy to denounce John Cornwell's book as 'rubbish' and Cornwell himself as 'bitter', but what we want to see are some clear examples of historical facts that he got wrong in his book about Pope Pius XII and the Vatican's cosy relationship with the Nazis, "Hitler's Pope".

Cornwell was given access to Vatican files because the Vatican thought that he, being a devout Catholic, would toe the party line and produce a face-saving account of what Pacelli (Pius XII) had done. Ironically, it turned out that Cornwell was a historian of integrity, not a toady, and so the account that he produced damned Pacelli as a right-wing fanatic who had no problem with the Nazi regime.

In my opinion, the only weakness in Cornwell's research is that he is still loyal to the cause of Catholicism. Therefore, he sees Pacelli as an aberration. I have no such illusions and so I see Pacelli as merely another example of the basic malaise which permeates Catholicism - its arrogance, authoritarianism, anti-democratic outlook, self-centred moral code, secrecy, neglect of human rights, etc. In short, the collusion with the Nazis is symptomatic of systemic corruption and the rot set in centuries ago.

You have not answered my point concerning the date of the signing of the Concordat. In posting 45 I stated:"Concentration camps had been built, trade unions banned, political parties attacked by the SA and SS, KPD and SPD declared enemies of the state and a national boycott of Jewish businesses enacted on 1 April that same year. See "

Instead of answering that point, you make a ballyhoo about the party with Hitler being a celebration, not a birthday party. Big deal.

You could try reading "The Myth of Hitler's Pope" by Rabbi David Dalin or visit this website

The Concordat was in negotiation for many years, long before the Nazis came to power. Signing it was a last ditch attempt to limit what Hitler might do, and remember, lots of countries were trying to do the same with Hitler. But you can't say that signing an agreement with Hitler in 1933 somehow makes you responsible for everything he did up till 1945.

What you call "the party with Hitler" is a big deal, because it's an obvious example of simple untruths. That site claims "On April 20, 1939, Archbishop Orsenigo celebrated Hitler's birthday. The celebrations, initiated by Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) became a tradition. Each April 20, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin was to send "warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany" and added with "fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars."

That is completely untrue and that is a big deal. Pretending that Pacelli initiated celebrations for Hitler's birthday when he actually expressly instructed the nuncio not to attend any such celebrations is a big deal. Much the same as the fraudulent, misleading cover photo on "Hitler's Pope", designed to look like Pacelli was being saluted by Nazis when it was actually taken in 1927.

Brian

I think that we need to keep *everything* Jesus said about Hell in mind, and also use the OT as a context. The 'woes' and condemnations were standard Prophetic rhetoric.
What Jesus said about Hell should not be read through Dante, or the Greek playwrights. We have the images of separation, exclusion from a feast, and a rubbish pit (Gehenna, hence the references to flames.) Exclusion is the most prominent image, and it is due to a refusal to accept an invitation. An act of choice on the part of the lost.

There is not even a hint of a Calvinistic Messiah deciding who does or doesn't get in. So if you mean 'condemn to Hell' in that sense, you've misread or misunderstood.

If you simply mean Jesus preached something like "turn or burn" then I agree, but can't see the inconsistency. "Burn" is an image (like being in the dark or outside a feast), and there is a chance to turn. And the burning/darkness etc is *in part* a natural consequence of our decisions. (Although the image of punishment is also present. So Hell is more than the natural consequence in Jesus view.)

I'll see what you make of those comments.

GV

At 49 mccamleyc wrote that the Concordat between Pope Pius XII and Hitler which was signed on 8 July 1933 was "a last ditch attempt to limit what Hitler might do".

Fairy-tales. The Concordat was a deal which gave the Catholic church what it wanted - control of its own schools within the dictatorial Nazi state. It was a deal which suited both sides - Hitler got what he wanted, public endorsement of the Nazi regime by the Vatican, and Pope Pius XII got what he wanted, religious dominance in German culture, particularly its schools. It was the same deal which Pius sought with all the fascist and nazi regimes; the same deal as the ones he struck with Mussolini and Franco.

The moral torpor of the Vatican is seen in the date on which the deal was struck: 8 July 1933. The vicious brutality of the Nazi regime was blatantly obvious, but Pacelli was not in the least concerned. He was a fanatical anti-communist, like Hitler, Mussolini and Franco, and so he was more than willing to associate with those brutal tyrants, because their brutality was proving effective.

The photograph of the party with Hitler is evidence of the cosy relationship between the Vatican and the Nazis. You can quibble over the caption, but you cannot alter the fact that the photo records a cosy social gathering.

Your defence of Pacelli seems inconsistent to me. You deny that he supported Hitler, but you admit that he supported Franco. What is the difference? They both seized power by brute force, slaughtering those who got in their way. As I pointed out above, the military assistance that Hitler and Mussolini gave to Franco was crucial to his winning the war and crushing the democratic government of Spain.

You seem to support Franco yourself. At 32 you wrote:"what you call ending Catholic control of schools and instigat(ing) land reform actually means stealing Catholic schools and nationalising privately owned land - in other words standard communism." In those lines you try to justify the murderous assault that Franco launched against the government of Spain because it wanted to create a secular education system and also wanted to redistribute land in favour of the poor. You support a murderous thug, rather than admit that the people of Spain, acting through their democratically elected government, have a right to organise their own education system and the distribution of land. Yes, it is nationalisation. It was the basis on which the NHS and the ´óÏó´«Ã½ were formed - and the British Rail network, before privatisation wrecked it. Etc.

"Nationalisation = communism = justification for murderous fascist revolt" If that is your justification for Franco, why not include Hitler and Mussolini? They are all brutal right-wing thugs who trampled down democracy and human rights.

Did you know that the Vatican's secret music archive contains a copy of every single album of Willie McCrea's singing that has ever been produced.... i was amazed too.