Listen Vanessa: Roman Catholicism’s Nazi History Exposed! Written By Jenny Steinberg

March 5, 2012

The Concordat between the Vatican
and the Nazis
Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli
(later to become Pope Pius XII)
signs the Concordat
between Nazi Germany and the Vatican
at a formal ceremony
in Rome on 20 July 1933.
Nazi Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen sits at the left,
Pacelli in the middle,
and the Rudolf Buttmann sits at the right.

The Concordat effectively legitimized Hitler and the Nazi government to the eyes of Catholicism, Christianity, and the world.

(Elegance4Life) Did he do the right thing by not speaking out? The controversy over Pius XII’s silence on Nazi atrocities during World War II has raged intermittently for three decades. Critics say that a papal protest to the Naz…is might have saved millions of lives. But pope, Paul VI, insisted that “an attitude of protest and condemnation would have been not only futile but harmful.”
But why bring the matter up again? Is it not just whipping a dead issue? No. The Vatican itself is keeping it alive. Officials have even set aside their fifty-year-delay policy on publishing archive documents. They realize that, unless people do understand, critics have a most powerful argument to illustrate moral failure in the Church.
Many sincere Church members want to know the answer. They know that even Pope Paul VI was very much involved in matters back there as a close aide to Pius. Thus a Jesuit committee has been publishing selected documents from the Vatican archives since 1965. The latest, titled “The Holy See and the War Victims,” came out in April 1974. Does it provide any fresh insights?
News reports give the limelight to documentary evidence that the Vatican had received much information about Nazi atrocities from a very early date. But much more significant is another little-noticed item. It shows that one of Pius XII’s trusted aides raised an issue that probes much deeper than the question of why the pope did not speak out against the Nazis. “Monsignor” Domenico Tardini (later a cardinal) is reported to have asked in exasperation:
“That the Holy See cannot make Hitler behave, everybody understands. But that it cannot keep a priest on the leash—who can understand this?”
Shallow debate over how much good the voice of Pius XII would have done has all but obscured this far more fundamental issue. Honest Christians are forced to face the question: How could Nazi atrocities even have been committed in the first place if it were not for the cooperation of the people and their spiritual leaders? Ninety-five percent of Germans back there were either Catholic or Protestant. Nearly 32 million, over 40 percent, were Catholic, as was almost the entire population of Germany’s European allies, Austria and Italy. Even among the dreaded S.S., almost a fourth were still Catholic in 1939, despite S.S. leadership pressures to resign.
Pius XII himself lays bare this very issue in a recently published private letter to the priest who caused “Msgr.” Tardini’s exasperation. As president, the priest, Jozef Tiso, ruled the Nazi protectorate of Slovakia throughout the war (1939-45). Pius wrote “Monsignor” Tiso that he had hoped that the Slovak government and people, “Catholic almost entirely, would never proceed with the forcible removal of persons belonging to the Jewish race,” and the fact that “such measures are carried out among a people of great Catholic traditions, by a government which declares it is their follower and custodian,” distressed him greatly.—April 7, 1943.
But how could any form of cooperation with the Nazi racial extermination program even be considered among a people who the pope himself said were ‘Catholic almost entirely and of great Catholic traditions’? Surely the moral teachings of the Church would make it unthinkable for “Msgr.” Tiso and his flock to have any part in genocide! History shows whether they did. Honest-hearted church members certainly desire an explanation for such conduct as well as that of the other so-called “Christian” nations involved with the Nazis.
The Vatican’s own Cardinal Eugène Tisserant supplies one reason with the candor and openness of a private letter to a friend. After the fall of France in 1940, he wrote complaining to Cardinal Suhard of Paris that “Fascist ideology and Hitlerism have transformed the consciences of the young, and those under thirty-five are willing to commit any crime for any purpose ordered by their leader.” But how could these Church-trained consciences be so easily “transformed”? After all, Hitler had been working on them only about seven years, while the Church had been training its flock for well over a thousand!
“Vital Point of Christianity”
Surely Pope Pius could do something about this Nazi encroachment into traditional Church territory—the human conscience! But Cardinal Tisserant mourns:
“Since the beginning of November [1939], I have persistently requested the Holy See to issue an encyclical on the duty of the individual to obey the dictates of conscience, because this is the vital point of Christianity.”
However, history reveals no papal statements during the war on this “vital point of Christianity.” In fact, Tisserant went on to make the melancholy forecast: “I fear that history may have reason to reproach the Holy See with having pursued… a policy of convenience to itself and very little else. This is sad in the extreme.”3
No doubt the pope’s “policy” of diplomatic care in dealing with the Nazis did ensure the “convenience” of survival for the Vatican and the Church. Pius himself advised the German bishops that “the danger of reprisals and pressures,” or worse, called for “restraint” in their pronouncements “in order to avoid greater evils. This is one of the motives,” he wrote, “for the limitations” he put on his own declarations.—April 30, 1943.4
This explanation helps us to understand why Pius conducted himself as carefully as he did. But it leaves unexplained this: Why ministers, priests and their flocks stood by to witness, cooperated with, or actually committed the Nazi atrocities—almost to the last person. What happened to their consciences?
The answer must lie with the training those consciences received. How was a loyal Catholic, for example, to understand Pius XII’s own December 8, 1939, pastoral letter, Asperis Commoti Anxietatibus, addressed to chaplains in the various armies of the warring nations, of whom over 500 served in Hitler’s army? He urged the chaplains on both sides to have confidence in their respective military bishops, viewing the war as a manifestation of the will of a heavenly Father who always turns evil into good, and “as fighters under the flags of their country to fight also for the Church.”5 (Italics added)
This perplexing contradiction is demonstrated again by the pope’s letters to the bishops on both sides. In an August 6, 1940, letter to the German bishops, Pius expressed his admiration for Catholics who “loyal unto death give proof of their willingness to share the sacrifices and sufferings of the other Volksgenossen [fellow Germans].”6 Yet just nine months before, the pope had addressed a similar message to the French bishops, counseling them that they had a right to support all measures to defend their country against these very same “loyal” German Catholics!7 Italian Church metropolitans received like counsel just before Italy joined the war against the Allies.8
Thus when the head of the Church did speak on matters affecting conscience, as did almost all of his clergymen, he applauded the consciences of those who ‘loyally’ served in military forces of any stripe. In fact, when the Vatican’s Berlin correspondent for the official newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, once asked Pius XII whether he would protest the extermination of the Jews, the pope told him that he could “not forget that millions of Catholics serve in the German armies. Shall I bring them into conflicts of conscience?”
Were Protestant churchmen any less responsible? Well, note what the Ecclesiastical Council of the German Evangelical (Lutheran) Church, the largest Protestant body, telegrammed personally to Hitler on June 30, 1941:
“May Almighty God assist you and our nation against the double enemy [Britain and Russia]. The victory shall be ours, to gain which must be the main point of our aspirations and actions in all her prayers [the Church] is with you and with our peerless soldiers who now are about to eliminate the root of this pestilence with heavy blows.”
With this kind of direction from their “shepherds,” what else could the flocks do? What they actually did do speaks for itself, does it not?
Was Hitler’s low estimate of the churches away back in 1933 correct? He boasted scornfully that “the parsons will betray their G-d to us. They will betray anything for the sake of their miserable little jobs and incomes. Why should we quarrel? They will swallow anything in order to keep their material advantages.”(Hitler’s government did continue large state subsidies to the major churches throughout the war.)
To bring home the reality of what Hitler was saying about the churches, a person only needs to ask himself: “If I had been a sincere church member in Germany, Austria, or Italy during that period, what would my spiritual leaders have advised me—and what would I have done?” Suppose you were to say: “I would not have served Hitler.” What would you have faced, not from the Nazis, but from your own spiritual leaders?
Search as he would, Catholic scholar and educator Gordon Zahn could find documented evidence of just one among 32 million German Catholics who conscientiously refused to serve in Hitler’s armies. Aside from churchmen prosecuted for political opposition to the Nazis, he found a total of seven persons between Germany and Catholic Austria who conscientiously refused to take the military oath. You probably wonder why there were so few.
Zahn answers that his extensive interviews with people, who knew these men produced the “flat assurance voiced by almost every informant that any Catholic who decided to refuse military service would have received no support whatsoever from his spiritual leaders.” Ironically, those few who did refuse and stuck to it were actually an embarrassment to their “spiritual leaders.”
For example, in requesting clemency from the Nazi court for a priest who refused, Archbishop Konrad Gröber of Freiburg wrote that the priest was “an idealist who has grown ever more estranged from reality who wanted to help his Volk and Vat…erland but who proceeded from the wrong premises.” Others were denied Communion by prison chaplains for violating their “Christian duty” to take the Nazi military oath.
The documented case of an Austrian peasant, Franz Jägerstätter, illustrates what a church member actually faced from his spiritual leaders. Jägerstätter was finally imprisoned for his stand at Linz, Austria, and later beheaded. The Catholic prison chaplain writes that he had “tried to make it clear to him that he must keep his own and his family’s welfare in mind even in following his personal ideals and principles”—just as Jägerstätter’s village priest had argued long before Jägerstätter was imprisoned. “He seemed to have come around to seeing my point,” says the chaplain, “and promised to follow my recommendation and take the [Nazi military] oath.”
Did this advice come from a Nazi? No—it came from a priest in good standing long after the war! But that was not the only pressure from spiritual leaders. Bishop Fliesser of the same Linz diocese reveals that he, too, had “known Jägerstätter personally,” and argued “to no avail” that Jägerstätter was not responsible “for the actions of the [Nazi] civil authority.” The bishop said that his was “a completely exceptional case, one more to be marveled at than copied.” Bishop Fliesser was writing to a priest after the war in explanation of his refusal to allow publication of Jägerstätter’s story in the Linz diocesan paper. The story might “create confusion and disturb consciences,” he said.
Thus Bishop Fliesser viewed a man who followed his conscience as an “exceptional case”—not to be copied. “I consider the greater heroes to be those exemplary young Catholic men, seminarians, priests, and heads of families who fought and died in heroic fulfillment of duty,” he continued. Even the Nazi’s court-appointed attorney Feldmann used this argument in an attempt to get Jägerstätter to compromise, noting the millions of Catholics, including clergy, engaged in combat with a “clear” conscience. Finally, Feldmann recalls, he challenged him to cite a single instance in which a bishop in any way discouraged Nazi military service. He knew of none. Do you?
From as early as 1987, there was talk of plans by the Catholic Church to produce a document acknowledging its responsibility in the Holocaust. So there was great expectation when in March 1998 the Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews released the document entitled We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah. While the document was appreciated by some, many were dissatisfied with its contents. Why? What did they find objectionable?
Anti-Judaism and Anti-Semitism
The Vatican document makes a distinction between anti-Judaism, for which the church acknowledges guilt, and anti-Semitism, which it disclaims. Many find the distinction and the conclusion to which it leads unsatisfying. German rabbi Ignatz Bubis said: “To me it seems like a way of saying that it’s not our fault; it’s someone else’s fault.”
Although Italian Catholic historian Giorgio Vecchio accepts the distinction between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism, he points out that “the problem is also that of understanding how Catholic anti-Judaism may have contributed to the development of anti-Semitism.” It is of interest that the Vatican paper L’Osservatore Romano, of November 22-23, 1895, published a letter stating: “Any sincere Catholic is, in essence, anti-Semitic: so is the priesthood, by obligation of doctrine and ministry.”
The part of the Vatican document that provoked the most criticism, however, was the defense of the actions of Pius XII, appointed pope on the eve of World War II. Pius XII had served as nuncio (papal legate) to Germany from 1917 to 1929.
The Silence of Pius XII
Italian jurist Francesco Margiotta Broglio did not think that the document “offers new or explanatory elements on the widely debated issue of the so-called ‘silence’ of Pope Pius XII, on his alleged German sympathies, and on his diplomatic actions toward the Nazi regime both before and during his papacy.”
The majority of commentators agree that no matter how one views the import of the document We Remember, the question of why leaders of the Catholic Church remained silent about the genocide in Nazi concentration camps “remains wide open.” According to American historian George Mosse, by choosing silence Pius XII “saved the church but sacrificed her moral message. He behaved like a head of State, not like a pope.” Well-informed Vatican observers believe that what delayed the release of the document was the difficulty in handling the role of Pius XII in the Holocaust.
The document’s defense of Pope Pius XII has irritated many. “Silence on the ‘pope’s silences’ makes this document disappointing,” writes Arrigo Levi. Elie Wiesel, winner of the 1986 Nobel Prize for Peace, said: “It seems to me that claiming we Jews should be grateful to Pius XII is a heresy, to put it mildly.”
The document adopts the traditional distinction made by Catholic theologians, according to which it is claimed that the church as an institution is holy and preserved from error by G-d, while its members, who are sinners, are the guilty parties for any evils perpetrated. The Vatican commission writes: “The spiritual resistance and concrete action of other Christians was not that which might have been expected from Christ’s followers. . . . [Such ones] were not strong enough to raise their voices in protest. . . . We deeply regret the errors and failures of those sons and daughters of the Church.”
However, attributing guilt to single members of the church rather than accepting it as an institution seemed to the majority to be a big step backward, compared with recent explicit requests for forgiveness. For example, the Roman Catholic Church in France issued a formal “Declaration of Repentance,” asking G-d and the Jewish people for forgiveness for the “indifference” the Catholic Church showed toward the persecution of Jews under France’s wartime Vichy government. In a statement read by Archbishop Olivier de Berranger, the church admitted that it had allowed its own interests “to obscure the biblical imperative of respect for every human being created in the image of G-d.”

The French declaration stated in part: “The church must recognize that in regard to the persecution of the Jews, and especially in regard to manifold anti-Semitic measures decreed by the Vichy authorities, indifference by far prevailed over indignation. Silence was the rule, and words in favor of the victims the exception. Today, we confess that this silence was a mistake. We also recognize that the church in France failed in its mission as the educator of people’s consciences.”
More than 60 years after the terrible tragedy of the Shoah, or Holocaust, the Catholic Church has not yet managed to come to terms with its own history—one of ambiguity and silences, to say the least. But there are some who have never had to take any such step. By Jenny Steinberg

If there are any doubts at all that the church was involved in or complicit to the nazis after reading the article above please view pics below

Hitler wth Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, the papal nuncio in Berlin, 1935

Chaplain with a machine gun unit (Source:
Most wars are justified on religious grounds.
Of course if a soldier felt uneasy about slaughtering others, they could always turn to a chaplain who would then patiently explain to them that killing is allowed by God and about the righteous morality of war. He might then give a few Biblical examples of God ordained killings. And then he might tell them that Jesus will forgive them and send them to Heaven if they should happen to die.

Nazi Chaplin’s Visor Hat

Hitler signing his autograph for a Christian fan (Source: Hitler in Seinen Bergen, Heinrich Hoffmann, Berlin, den 24.9.35)

The Fuhrer in FrankenAdolf Hitler (center) at the monument for the war dead in Franken Germany. According to Ray Cowdery, Hitler rarely missed an opportunity to visit war memorials, even when a photographer was not present.(Source: Hitler: The Hoffmann Photographs, Vol. 1, Ray Cowdery, Ed., 1990) 

greets Muller the “Bishop of the Reich” and Abbot Schachleitner

 Nazi GravesOne must not forget that Germany represented the most Christianized country in the world in the 1930s and 40s. Nazi Christian soldiers died as Protestants and Catholics and their grave markers testified to their religion.
Catholic Bishops giving the Nazi salute in honor of Hitler.
Note Joseph Goebbels (far right) and Wilhelm Frick (second from right)
(Source: USHMM, Photo source: Bayerische Staatsbibliothek [Bavarian State Library]) An Archbishop with the NazisArchbishop Cesare Orsenigo, head of the Diplomatic Corps, attending the Nuremburg Party Rally in September 1933.
According to Dr. Paul O’Shea, Orsenigo, as Dean of the Corps, it was the Nuncio’s role to lead the Corps at all major government functions. After 1935 Orsenigo did not attend major government propaganda displays.
(Photo source: A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen) [Note, Goldhagen incorrectly attributes this photo to Cardinal Faulhaber.]

Deutsche Christen (German Christians)
The Deutsche Christen (DC) became the voice of Nazi ideology within the Evangelical Church (the Religious Right of their day) and approved by Hitler. They proposed a church “Aryan paragraph” to prevent “non-Aryans” from becoming ministers or religious teachers. Most church leaders solidly supported the “Judenmission.” Only a very few number of Christians opposed Nazism such as the “Confessing Christians” (a Church movement not recognized by the Protestant orthodoxy) headed by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The support of Nazism by the majority of German Christians and German Christian leaders shows the danger of mixing religion with government.
Note the flags with the Christian cross with the swastika in the middle (also described as the Double Cross) To see a movie trailer about the Deutsche Christen, from the documentary film, “Theologians Under Hitler,” click here.
(Photo sources: unknown)

Deutsche Christen (German Christians) ABOVE TWO PHOTOSThe photo on the left shows Christian worshippers of Christ and Nazism on the march in front of the Berlin Cathedral. SS guards stand at attention. The head of the march shows members in party and SA uniforms while pastors follow in the rear.
Note the flags with the Christian cross with the swastika in the middle (also described as the Double Cross) To see a movie trailer about the Deutsche Christen, from the documentary film, “Theologians Under Hitler,” click here.
(Photo sources: unknown)

So spoke Jesus Christ
A front page of the Nazi publication, Der Stuermer.
The headline reads, “Declaration of the Higher Clergy/So spoke Jesus Christ: You hypocrites who do not see the beam in your own eyes. (See Matthew 7:3-5)
The cartoon depicts a group of Hitler Youth marching forth to drive the forces of evil from the land. The caption under the cartoon reads, “We youth step happily forward facing the sun… With our faith we drive the devil from the land.”
Hitler leaving Church
Hitler leaves the Marine Church in Wilhelmshaven.
(Source: The German Propaganda Archive )

Hitler greets a Catholic Cardinal (Source: USHMM)

Hitler’s mother’s grave Klara Hitler was a pious Catholic mother who raised Hitler according to her beliefs.
Hitler felt grief-stricken over his mother’s death. She was buried alongside her husband in Linz, Austria. German soldiers here pay their respects to the grave in 1938.
Note the Christian cross on her monument.
(Source: The Importance of Adolf Hitler, by Eleanor H. Ayer, Lucent Books, 1996, p. 25)
To see what the gravesite looks like today, click here.

Priests giving the Hitler salute
Priests giving the Hitler salute at a Catholic youth rally in the Berlin-Neukolln stadium in August 1933.
(Source: A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen)

Ludwig Muller, a Nazi sympathizer, and a candidate of Hitler, was elected to the position of Reich Bishop in 1933 as Hitler attempted to unite regional Protestant churches under Nazi control. Hitler did not practice separation of Church & State. Although Hitler had problems with the Catholic Church and eventually wanted to replace Catholicism with his brand of Christianity, the very fact that Hitler wanted a united German Church proves that he supported Christianity.
Berlin, Germany, November 17, 1933.
(Source: USHMM)

Mother’s Cross (Mutterkreuz)
Hitler encouraged several programs for the growth of a strong German Nazi Volk. These programs involved the encouragement of the virtues of German motherhood for the purpose of increasing the size of their families and the abolition of abortions (except for the mentally ill). In 1938, Hitler instituted a new award to honor German Nazi motherhood, especially for large families. He awarded such mothers the cross of Honor of the German Mother (Ehrenkreuz der deutschen Mutter).
Although the German Iron cross usually appears symmetrical this particular cross, by lengthening the vertical member, emphasizes Christianity.

When you see a crossage from the anti-Semitic German children’s book, “Der Giftpilz” (The Poisonous Mushroom)The text reads, “When you see a cross, then think of the horrible murder by the Jews on Golgotha…”see 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15, “…the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men”

Leave a Comment » | $55 customized graffitiwall drawing done in facebook, Pope Pius XII, Promoting Pius XII | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon

Corpus Separandum is Latin – The Catholic Church demanded Jerusalem not be part of Israel in 1947?

December 18, 2011
His Blood Be Upon Us

Pious XII personally intervened after 1945 to commute the sentences of convicted German war criminals. This solicitude for Nazi criminals contrasts sharply with Pius XII ignoring all entreaties to make a public statement against anti-Semitism even after the full horrors of the death camps had been revealed in 1945. “A provisional conclusion, drawn from the study of thousands of documents, is that the mass murder of Jews was fairly low on his list of priorities. Of course, much the same could be said of Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin, but they did not claim to be the “Vicar of Christ” or to represent the Christian conscience.”… “The million or so unpublished documents from the pontificate of Pius XII (1939-1958) according to the Vatican’s most recent estimate, will only be available in about four year’s time.”…

The_United_Nations ran “Durban II” and on the first day of the conference, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the only head of state to attend, made a speech condemning Israel as “totally racist” and referred to the Holocaust as an “ambiguous and dubious question.” When Ahmadinejad began to speak against the Jews, all European Union delegates left the conference room. The Vatican delegation didn’t say a word. Pope Benedict visited Bethlehem, where the Christian population has dropped from a majority to less than 20%. Benedict delivered a message of solidarity to the 1.4 million Palestinians isolated in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. He said nothing of the suffering of Gaza’s 3,000 Christians since Hamas took over that territory in 2007. Benedict could have decried the bombings, shootings and other Islamist attacks against Gaza Christian establishments, the brutal murder of the only Bible-store owner of Gaza, or the regular intimidation and persecution of Christians there. Instead, the Pope stood beside Mahmoud Abbas as the Palestinian leader deceptively pointed to a concrete separation barrier in Bethlehem and blamed that barrier, as well as Israeli “occupation,” for the plight of Christians.

Carroll a lapsed Catholic priest is a prolific writer on Church-related subjects, such as Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews — A History, and he writes thoughtful and intelligent books. Here’s what Carroll has to say about the UN intention in 1947 to preserve Jerusalem outside either a Palestinian or a Jewish state: Arabs, both Christian and Muslim, wanted control of the sacred centers, but they were not alone in being unable to abide the thought of Jewish control. Yes, the city was the most disputed real estate in Palestine, but mere political turf was not really the issue. The clue to the significance of the Corpus Separandum proposal for the city lay in its being offered in a Latin phrase – the language of Rome, which had initiated Jerusalem’s condition as an apocalyptic nerve center (see the Arch of Titus, near the Colosseum, with its bas-relief celebration of the first century destruction), and of Catholicism, which had kept the condition current. Greeks, too, were part of this, as Byzantium had carried forward assumptions about Jewish expulsion from the land that Constantine and his mother, Helena, had made holy. But by now the Vatican was the chief custodian of exile theology, and it was universally expected to be a party to any internationalizing arrangement. Rome’s unfulfilled desire for Jerusalem was the very genesis of the mimesis – The mimetic rivalry. The Holy See has previously expressed support for the status of corpus separatum. Pope Pius XII was the among the first to make such a proposal in the 1949 encyclical Redemptoris Nostri Cruciatus. This idea was later re-proposed during the papacies of John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II. Corpus separatum is Latin for “separated body”. The term refers to a city or region which is given a special legal and political status different from its environment, but which falls short of being an independent city state.

Jews Expelled from Jerusalem in 1948

Tuesday, February 15, 2000 – In a historic meeting at the Vatican, Pope John Paul II and the leader of the PLO terrorist organisation, Yasser Arafat, signed a covenant. “According to this agreement, Jerusalem should be an international city based on international resolutions and an international guarantee. (The UN decided on more than one occasion that Jerusalem should be an international city.)”“They also decided that any step or activity taken by Israel to change this position of Jerusalem is against the law. The agreement also recognises a “Palestinian” state in the land of Israel and agrees on cooperation between the Vatican and the PLO and the Vatican committed itself to assist the so-called “Palestinians”. Authorities in the Vatican explained: “the agreement paves the way for establishment of full diplomatic relations with a Palestinian state when it is founded”. The PLO representative in the Vatican stated: “This is an historical covenant”.

the NT curses Jews. some xians translate that curse differently then other xians, but in the end I don’t feel very comfortable with a faith that is based on a document that confused people for 2000 years (supposedly)… and frankly I don’t …think they were confused. I take people at their word that they are peaceful, but history is not interpreting that curse well… and Jews are aware of this. I’m not orthodox… I’d like to be, but my life is cushioned in secularism. I live next door to a minister who lends me his lawn mower in the summer despite the fact that he is a Ron Paul fan and thinks the Rothschilds control the banks. I understand that there are people who do not understand their own texts and therefor act on their own human nature. I’ve had a nice conversation with a guy from New Guinea… eating people was just part of his culture. I get it. I also understand that we can not survive if we point out the truth all the time and have to get along. I would like to clarify… I don’t fear Christians. I will tell you why. The Holocaust proved to be the absolute worst thing that ever happened to the church. If another Holocaust happened it would be exponentially bad for Christians. The reason is that if every last Jew were killed off (1) it would not deny the messianic prophesy… because our messiah could be the child of gentiles who were from the line of David. (2) many moral Christians would be angered and would convert to Judaism after every last Jew was killed. Judaism is an inherent Western position. As long as there are Christians there will be Jews… till the end of time. If I were a church leader it would make sense on a pure level of benefit to protect ‘Israel. To not support Judaism from a Christian position is suicide. It is true that we Jews now depend on you for our protection. Our planes will not fly without your technology. We Jews might contribute, but our relationship is symbiotic. So do not fear any hate from me. On the other hand… as much as our relationship is dependent on one another… there is also an inherent character of the Christians to kill Jews that comes directly from your doctrine. it is like a death wish however. it might be seen as a misinterpretation… but it appears to be a misinterpretation that won’t ever go away because replacement theology can be argued axiomatically.

Leave a Comment » | Carroll, Catholic Church, Christians, Corpus Separandum, Jerusalem, Pope, Pope Pius XII, Promoting Pius XII, Redemptoris Nostri Cruciatus, replacement theology, Vatican | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon

The Usury Accusation

July 4, 2011

The Catholic Church forbade usury. Without the ability to lend with interest there would be no trade, no merchandise, no commerce.
That was where the Jew came in and solved the problem for Christian Europe. Both the Church and the nobleman needed an intermediary. Since the Jew was going straight to Hell anyway, according to Church doctrine, why not use him while he was on this Earth.

Leave a Comment » | capitalism, Catholic Church, Christians, free market, Pope, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Paul VI, Pope Pius XII, usury, Venture Capitalists | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon


September 19, 2010
(4internationa) The essence of Pope Benedict´s visit to England seems to be the following: 1. No mention at all of the serious threat to the Jews of Israel, and the danger to them from an Iranian Fascist Government led by Ahmadinejad, which has threatened Israel with war on many occasions. 2. No mention of the Fascists who seek the destruction of Israel, called “Palestinians”, that is Abbas and Fatah, Hamas, and outside Iran, Hizbullah and Arab Fascist and antisemitic activity in most Arab countries 3. No support or defence of Israel from this Pope. 4. No mention of Christians, and Catholics, being driven out of Iraq. 5. In general, a serious cover provided to Islam and Sharia Law in a score of countries, in many of which Catholics are being killed.

But the key to Benedict lies in the Middle East. Israel is the Homeland of the Jews and the record of the Vatican towards the Jews is the worst possible, and was the centre of antisemitism in the world. Pope Benedict evades all of these issues and lectures the British people about them being “secular”. What a nerve this guy has!
At the centre of this Papal visit to Britain is not that weird cleric John Henry Newman, friend of Chesterton and of all people TS Eliot, but is the record of the Vatican  during the Holoicaust. This is an extract from Jewish Virtual Library on the issue:

(Pius 12 during Holocaust) Pope Pius XII’s (1876-1958) actions during the Holocaust remain controversial. For much of the war, he maintained a public front of indifference and remained silent while German atrocities were committed. He refused pleas for help on the grounds of neutrality, while making statements condemning injustices in general. Privately, he sheltered a small number of Jews and spoke to a few select officials, encouraging them to help the Jews.

The Early Years: The Pope was born in 1876 in Rome as Eugenio Pacelli. He studied philosophy at the Gregorian University, learned theology at Sant Apollinare and was ordained in 1899. He entered the Secretariat of State for the Vatican in 1901, became a cardinal in 1929 and was appointed Secretary of State in 1930. Pacelli lived in Germany from 1917, when he was appointed Papal Nuncio in Bavaria, until 1929. He knew what the Nazi party stood for, and was elected Pope in 1939 having said very little about Adolf Hitler’s ideology beyond a 1935 speech describing the Nazis as “miserable plagiarists who dress up old errors with new tinsel.” Pacelli told 250,000 pilgrims at Lourdes on April 28, “It does not make any difference whether they flock to the banners of the social revolution, whether they are guided by a false conception of the world and of life, or whether they are possessed by the superstition of a race and blood cult.” He believed National Socialism was “profoundly anti-Christian and a danger to Catholocism.”(1) Even as Cardinal, Pacelli’s actions regarding Hitler were controversial. Hitler took power on January 30, 1933. On July 20 that same year, Pacelli and German diplomat Franz Von Papen signed a concordat that granted freedom of practice to the Roman Catholic Church. In return, the Church agreed to separate religion from politics. This diminished the influence of the Catholic Center Party and the Catholic Labor unions. The concordat was generally viewed as a diplomatic victory for Hitler.(1a) Pacelli was elected Pope on March 2, 1939, and took the name Pius XII. As Pope, he had three official positions. He was head of his church and was in direct communication with bishops everywhere. He was chief of state of the Vatican, with his own diplomatic corps. He was also the Bishop of Rome. In theory, at least, his views could influence 400 million Catholics, including those in all the occupied eastern territories – the Poles, Baltics, Croatians, Slovaks and others.(2) As soon as he was appointed Pope, Pacelli did speak out against the 1938 Italian racial laws that dealt with mixed marriages and children of mixed marriages.(3) However, he issued no such condemnation of Kristallnacht (the night of broken glass) which occurred in November 1938, and which recent evidence shows he was informed of by Berlin’s papal nuncio. As the security of the Jewish population became more precarious, Pius XII did intervene the month he was elected Pope, March 1939, and obtained 3,000 visas to enter Brazil for European Jews who had been baptized and converted to Catholicism. Two-thirds of these were later revoked, however, because of “improper conduct,” probably meaning that the Jews started practicing Judaism once in Brazil. At that time, the Pope did nothing to save practicing Jews.(4)

Cries for Help: Throughout the Holocaust, Pius XII was consistently besieged with pleas for help on behalf of the Jews. In the spring of 1940, the Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Isaac Herzog, asked the papal Secretary of State, Cardinal Luigi Maglione to intercede to keep Jews in Spain from being deported to Germany. He later made a similar request for Jews in Lithuania. The papacy did nothing.(5) Within the Pope’s own church, Cardinal Theodor Innitzer of Vienna told Pius XII about Jewish deportations in 1941. In 1942, the Slovakian charge d’affaires, a position under the supervision of the Pope, reported to Rome that Slovakian Jews were being systematically deported and sent to death camps.(6) In October 1941, the Assistant Chief of the U.S. delegation to the Vatican, Harold Tittman, asked the Pope to condemn the atrocities. The response came that the Holy See wanted to remain “neutral,” and that condemning the atrocities would have a negative influence on Catholics in German-held lands.(7)  In late August 1942, after more than 200,000 Ukrainian Jews had been killed, Ukrainian Metropolitan Andrej Septyckyj wrote a long letter to the Pope, referring to the German government as a regime of terror and corruption, more diabolical than that of the Bolsheviks. The Pope replied by quoting verses from Psalms and advising Septyckyj to “bear adversity with serene patience.”(8) On September 18, 1942, Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Pope Paul VI, wrote, “The massacres of the Jews reach frightening proportions and forms.”(9) Yet, that same month when Myron Taylor, U.S. representative to the Vatican, warned the Pope that his silence was endangering his moral prestige, the Secretary of State responded on the Pope’s behalf that it was impossible to verify rumors about crimes committed against the Jews.(10) Wladislaw Raczkiewicz, president of the Polish government-in-exile, appealed to the Pope in January 1943 to publicly denounce Nazi violence. Bishop Preysing of Berlin did the same, at least twice. Pius XII refused.(11)

Papal Reasons and Responses: The Pope finally gave a reason for his consistent refusals to make a public statement in December 1942. The Allied governments issued a declaration, “German Policy of Extermination of the Jewish Race,” which stated that there would be retribution for the perpetrators of Jewish murders. When Tittman asked Secretary of State Maglione if the Pope could issue a similar proclamation, Maglione said the papacy was “unable to denounce publicly particular atrocities.”(12) One reason for this position was that the staunchly anti-communist Pope felt he could not denounce the Nazis without including the Communists; therefore, Pius XII would only condemn general atrocities.(13)

The Pope did speak generally against the extermination campaign. On January 18, 1940, after the death toll of Polish civilians was estimated at 15,000, the Pope said in a broadcast, “The horror and inexcusable excesses committed on a helpless and a homeless people have been established by the unimpeachable testimony of eye-witnesses.”(14) During his Christmas Eve radio broadcast in 1942, he referred to the “hundreds of thousands who through no fault of their own, and solely because of their nation or race, have been condemned to death or progressive extinction.”(15) The Pope never mentioned the Jews by name.
In a September 1940 broadcast, the Vatican called its policy “neutrality,” but stated in the same broadcast that where morality was involved, no neutrality was possible.(18) This could only imply that mass murder was not a moral issue.
The Pope’s indifference to the mistreatment of Jews was often clear. In 1941, for example, after being asked by French Marshal Henri Philippe Petain if the Vatican would object to anti-Jewish laws, Pius XII answered that the church condemned racism, but did not repudiate every rule against the Jews.(16) When Petain’s French puppet government introduced “Jewish statutes,” the Vichy ambassador to the Holy See informed Petain that the Vatican did not consider the legislation in conflict with Catholic teachings, as long as they were carried out with “charity” and “justice.”(17)
Robert Wistrich notes that “by the end of 1942, the Vatican was among the best-informed institutions in Europe concerning the Holocaust. Except for the Germans or perhaps British intelligence, few people were more aware of the local details as well as the larger picture.”(17a)
On September 8, 1943, the Nazis invaded Italy and, suddenly, the Vatican was the local authority. The Nazis gave the Jews 36 hours to come up with 50 kilograms of gold or else the Nazis would take 300 hostages. The Vatican was willing to loan 15 kilos, an offer that eventually proved unnecessary when the Jews obtained an extension for the delivery.(19)
Pius XII knew that Jewish deportations from Italy were impending. The Vatican even found out from SS First Lieutenant Kurt Gerstein the fate of those who were to be deported.(20) Publicly, the Pope stayed silent. Privately, Pius did instruct Catholic institutions to take in Jews. The Vatican itself hid 477 Jews and another 4,238 Jews were protected in Roman monasteries and convents.(21)
On October 16, the Nazis arrested 1,007 Roman Jews, the majority of whom were women and children. They were taken to Auschwitz, where 811 were gassed immediately. Of those sent to the concentration camp, 16 survived.(22)

Leave a Comment » | Nazi, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Pius XII | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon