Objectivity and research on Pope Pius XII's response to the holocaust
#11
(04-18-2018, 02:30 PM)For Petes Sake Wrote: The Holocaust has always been used as a weapon to guilt and extort people.

Too true. Israel exploits it all the time. Norman Finkelstein (whose parents were Holocaust survivors) wrote a book on it called The Holocaust Industry. In my opinion, the consistently Judeocentric Holocaust is equally as bad as its exploitation by Israel. Poles suffered terribly under the Nazis, as did others. St. Maximilian Kolbe died in a concentration camp, if I recall correctly. Israel recently was putting pressure on Poland recently over a bill that would've made it illegal to say that Poland was complicit in the Holocaust. I personally am opposed to that legislation because research into history should not be stifled by legislation, but to say that concentration camps in Poland were "Polish Death Camps" instead of Nazi Death Camps is an insult to Poles everywhere, especially Polish Gentile survivors of the Holocaust. No one denies that some Poles collaborated with the Nazis. Even the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis.

[-] The following 1 user Likes Echo's post:
  • Klemens
Reply
#12
(04-18-2018, 02:40 PM)Echo Wrote:
(04-18-2018, 02:30 PM)For Petes Sake Wrote: The Holocaust has always been used as a weapon to guilt and extort people.

Too true. Israel exploits it all the time. Norman Finkelstein (whose parents were Holocaust survivors) wrote a book on it called The Holocaust Industry. In my opinion, the consistently Judeocentric Holocaust is equally as bad as its exploitation by Israel. Poles suffered terribly under the Nazis, as did others. St. Maximilian Kolbe died in a concentration camp, if I recall correctly. Israel recently was putting pressure on Poland recently over a bill that would've made it illegal to say that Poland was complicit in the Holocaust. I personally am opposed to that legislation because research into history should not be stifled by legislation, but to say that concentration camps in Poland were "Polish Death Camps" instead of Nazi Death Camps is an insult to Poles everywhere, especially Polish Gentile survivors of the Holocaust. No one denies that some Poles collaborated with the Nazis. Even the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis.

There is a big difference between saying that Poles were complicit in the Holocaust and that Poland (state or nation) was complicit in the Holocaust. 

If there had been an Axis-aligned (collaborationist) Polish state, such as the French Vichy regime, then one can talk of Poland’s complicity in the Holocaust. However, as Poland was directly annexed and occupied by the Germans (the German Generalgouvernement did not allow local participation), there was no such structure. The only Polish government was the London Government-in-Exile.

This Bill (when translated into English) mentions only the Polish Nation (as a collective entity) or Polish State (political-administrative entity) in the controversial additions to Article 55a (specifically Paragraph 1). There is no stated prohibition against accusations against Polish collaborators in Article 55a, Paragraph 1. If such a prohibition existed in Paragraph 1, then the language would likely have used the terms ”Polish persons” or ”Polish individuals.” 

While Article 55a (especially Paragraph 1) in its current form might be interpreted to cover individual Polish collaboration, Article 55a does not contain actual language supporting such a move.

Moreover, Article 55a, Paragraph 3, provides the following remedy, if a controversy should arise:
 
"No offense referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall have been committed if the act was performed as part of artistic or scholarly activity."

Hopefully, you can see that there is a whole lot of talk and little actual analysis of Article 55a of the controversial IPN Bill. Reading through a plethora of English press releases concerning the IPN’s bill, I have not seen any attempts to disect the actual language of the IPN Bill.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Klemens's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#13
(04-18-2018, 03:25 PM)Klemens Wrote:
(04-18-2018, 02:40 PM)Echo Wrote:
(04-18-2018, 02:30 PM)For Petes Sake Wrote: The Holocaust has always been used as a weapon to guilt and extort people.

Too true. Israel exploits it all the time. Norman Finkelstein (whose parents were Holocaust survivors) wrote a book on it called The Holocaust Industry. In my opinion, the consistently Judeocentric Holocaust is equally as bad as its exploitation by Israel. Poles suffered terribly under the Nazis, as did others. St. Maximilian Kolbe died in a concentration camp, if I recall correctly. Israel recently was putting pressure on Poland recently over a bill that would've made it illegal to say that Poland was complicit in the Holocaust. I personally am opposed to that legislation because research into history should not be stifled by legislation, but to say that concentration camps in Poland were "Polish Death Camps" instead of Nazi Death Camps is an insult to Poles everywhere, especially Polish Gentile survivors of the Holocaust. No one denies that some Poles collaborated with the Nazis. Even the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis.

There is a big difference between saying that Poles were complicit in the Holocaust and that Poland (state or nation) was complicit in the Holocaust. 

If there had been an Axis-aligned (collaborationist) Polish state, such as the French Vichy regime, then one can talk of Poland’s complicity in the Holocaust. However, as Poland was directly annexed and occupied by the Germans (the German Generalgouvernement did not allow local participation), there was no such structure. The only Polish government was the London Government-in-Exile.

This Bill (when translated into English) mentions only the Polish Nation (as a collective entity) or Polish State (political-administrative entity) in the controversial additions to Article 55a (specifically Paragraph 1). There is no stated prohibition against accusations against Polish collaborators in Article 55a, Paragraph 1. If such a prohibition existed in Paragraph 1, then the language would likely have used the terms ”Polish persons” or ”Polish individuals.” 

While Article 55a (especially Paragraph 1) in its current form might be interpreted to cover individual Polish collaboration, Article 55a does not contain actual language supporting such a move.

Moreover, Article 55a, Paragraph 3, provides the following remedy, if a controversy should arise:
 
"No offense referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall have been committed if the act was performed as part of artistic or scholarly activity."

Hopefully, you can see that there is a whole lot of talk and little actual analysis of Article 55a of the controversial IPN Bill. Reading through a plethora of English press releases concerning the IPN’s bill, I have not seen any attempts to disect the actual language of the IPN Bill.

Thank you for the clarification of what this bill contains. Also, I see that you live in Poland. Do you know of any scholarly critiques of the author Jan Grabowski, who wrote a controversial book Hunt for the Jews: Betrayal and Murder in German-Occupied Poland (https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.prem...-1.5430977).
Reply
#14
For anyone interested, here are two reviews of a book provocatively titled Catholicism and the Roots of Nazism: Religious Identity and National Socialism.


http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.j...1-gardiner
Quote:Even the title Hastings has chosen is misleading. It would have been more accurate to call the book Anti-Papal Catholicism and the Roots of Nazism because the Catholics whom Hastings discusses rejected the pope and used religion to promote eugenics. Rather than referring to Nazi Catholics as “anti-papal,” Hastings calls them “anti-ultramontane,” “religious,” and “Reform” Catholics. These three adjectives were the euphemisms German Catholics used in that era to hide their hostility to Rome. Employing the same terms today obfuscates the truth, which is that these were disloyal Catholics. Hastings admits that these Catholics were disciples of Johann Döllinger, a Munich theologian excommunicated in 1871 for refusing to accept Vatican I’s dogma of papal infallibility, and that they followed him in regarding loyalty to the pope as “anti-German” and in believing that Germans had to reinterpret Catholic theology for the modern age. In one respect they didn’t follow Döllinger: They saw that “a nationalistic reform of the church could best be brought about by remaining explicitly inside the church,” and hence they avoided excommunication “at all costs.” Like certain of today’s politicians, these anti-papal Catholics professed their “religious loyalty” to the Church as a “broader spiritual community spanning the centuries.” Yet, through periodicals like the Beo­bach­ter they distanced their movement from the larger “anti-Christian” völ­kisch movement. Both the Jesuit Augustin Bea and Bavarian Minister of the Interior Franz Schweyer warned them about the anti-Christian “pathology” inherent in Nazism.

https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=600&repos=6&subrepos=2&searchid=1822711
Quote:Note: Although Derek Hastings’ study falls well outside the normal range of recommendations for CatholicCulture.org, Catholicism & The Roots of Nazism: Religious Identity & National Socialism is a sound scholarly account of the links between Modernist Catholicism and National Socialism up until 1923. Though the book is provocatively titled, Hastings knows the difference between orthodoxy and Modernism. Specialists will find his work valuable.
Reply
#15
(04-18-2018, 02:04 AM)Poche Wrote:
(04-17-2018, 04:45 PM)Echo Wrote: Has anyone come across the work of the Australian Catholic historian Dr. Paul O'Shea? He seems to take a middle-of-the-way approach when it comes to Pius XII and his responses to the Nazi regime and the holocaust. (http://paulonpius.blogspot.com/)

More or less he appears to be saying Pius was a good man but he also had his flaws and he made some serious errors in his responses to the Nazis and the Holocaust. He has praised other authors who have written books which are critical of the Popes and the Church, such as David I. Kertzer (author of The Popes Against The Jews and The Pope and Mussolini) and David Cymet (author of History vs Apologetics) (http://paulonpius.blogspot.com/2012/04/i...ry-vs.html).

Here is a review of O'Shea's book A Cross Too Heavy
http://www.catholica.com.au/brianstake/040_bt_print.php

The chief rabbi of the Roman synagogue was so impressed with Pius XII's response during World War II that he converted to the Catholic Faith.
And took on the pope’s name, Eugenio, iirc.

I read somewhere that he was debating a condemnation of the nazis, but the Dutch bishops went ahead and did so, resulting in more Catholics, including bishops, being arrested. This meant less people able to help nazi victims avoid arrest.
-sent by howitzer via the breech.

God's love is manifest in the landscape as in a face.  - John Muir

I want creation to penetrate you with so much admiration that wherever you go, the least plant may bring you clear remembrance of the Creator.  A single plant, a blade of grass, or one speck of dust is sufficient to occupy all your intelligence in beholding the art with which it has been made  - Saint Basil

Heaven is under our feet, as well as over our heads. - Thoreau, Walden
Reply
#16
(04-18-2018, 04:26 PM)Echo Wrote:
(04-18-2018, 03:25 PM)Klemens Wrote:
(04-18-2018, 02:40 PM)Echo Wrote:
(04-18-2018, 02:30 PM)For Petes Sake Wrote: The Holocaust has always been used as a weapon to guilt and extort people.

Too true. Israel exploits it all the time. Norman Finkelstein (whose parents were Holocaust survivors) wrote a book on it called The Holocaust Industry. In my opinion, the consistently Judeocentric Holocaust is equally as bad as its exploitation by Israel. Poles suffered terribly under the Nazis, as did others. St. Maximilian Kolbe died in a concentration camp, if I recall correctly. Israel recently was putting pressure on Poland recently over a bill that would've made it illegal to say that Poland was complicit in the Holocaust. I personally am opposed to that legislation because research into history should not be stifled by legislation, but to say that concentration camps in Poland were "Polish Death Camps" instead of Nazi Death Camps is an insult to Poles everywhere, especially Polish Gentile survivors of the Holocaust. No one denies that some Poles collaborated with the Nazis. Even the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis.

There is a big difference between saying that Poles were complicit in the Holocaust and that Poland (state or nation) was complicit in the Holocaust. 

If there had been an Axis-aligned (collaborationist) Polish state, such as the French Vichy regime, then one can talk of Poland’s complicity in the Holocaust. However, as Poland was directly annexed and occupied by the Germans (the German Generalgouvernement did not allow local participation), there was no such structure. The only Polish government was the London Government-in-Exile.

This Bill (when translated into English) mentions only the Polish Nation (as a collective entity) or Polish State (political-administrative entity) in the controversial additions to Article 55a (specifically Paragraph 1). There is no stated prohibition against accusations against Polish collaborators in Article 55a, Paragraph 1. If such a prohibition existed in Paragraph 1, then the language would likely have used the terms ”Polish persons” or ”Polish individuals.” 

While Article 55a (especially Paragraph 1) in its current form might be interpreted to cover individual Polish collaboration, Article 55a does not contain actual language supporting such a move.

Moreover, Article 55a, Paragraph 3, provides the following remedy, if a controversy should arise:
 
"No offense referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall have been committed if the act was performed as part of artistic or scholarly activity."

Hopefully, you can see that there is a whole lot of talk and little actual analysis of Article 55a of the controversial IPN Bill. Reading through a plethora of English press releases concerning the IPN’s bill, I have not seen any attempts to disect the actual language of the IPN Bill.

Thank you for the clarification of what this bill contains. Also, I see that you live in Poland. Do you know of any scholarly critiques of the author Jan Grabowski, who wrote a controversial book Hunt for the Jews: Betrayal and Murder in German-Occupied Poland (https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.prem...-1.5430977).
Unfortunately, I cannot think of any academic critiques right now. I myself really never delved into Grabowski, mostly because he is outside of Poland. While his controversial book is well-known, he somewhat left the spotlight without a "bang.” Were Grabowski employed at a Polish institution, he would have been far better covered. 

Also, since Grabowski’s principal critics are not academic historians, he was able to dismiss their arguments based on credentials.
Reply
#17
Quote:EchoHas anyone come across the work of the Australian Catholic historian Dr. Paul O'Shea? He seems to take a middle-of-the-way approach when it comes to Pius XII and his responses to the Nazi regime and the holocaust. (http://paulonpius.blogspot.com/)

More or less he appears to be saying Pius was a good man but he also had his flaws and he made some serious errors in his responses to the Nazis and the Holocaust. He has praised other authors who have written books which are critical of the Popes and the Church, such as David I. Kertzer (author of The Popes Against The Jews and The Pope and Mussolini) and David Cymet (author of History vs Apologetics) (http://paulonpius.blogspot.com/2012/04/i...ry-vs.html).

Here is a review of O'Shea's book A Cross Too Heavy
http://www.catholica.com.au/brianstake/040_bt_print.php
[/quote]
i read a book about Pius XII and the Holocaust and he did pretty much what he could. i don't recall author but i got the book @ a Catholic bookstore

In any case, that is the past.. which we should learn from but if people are trying to get dirt on popes of long ago.. tiresome.

I tend to think Pius XII was the last REAL pope. I t hink it is therefore more important to find "dirt" on those who followed him. If they were members of secret, nefarious organizations that actually work to destroy the Church (from within) ... now THERE is a problem that needs to be dealt with!
Reply
#18
(04-18-2018, 05:38 PM)Jeeter Wrote:
(04-18-2018, 02:04 AM)Poche Wrote:
(04-17-2018, 04:45 PM)Echo Wrote: Has anyone come across the work of the Australian Catholic historian Dr. Paul O'Shea? He seems to take a middle-of-the-way approach when it comes to Pius XII and his responses to the Nazi regime and the holocaust. (http://paulonpius.blogspot.com/)

More or less he appears to be saying Pius was a good man but he also had his flaws and he made some serious errors in his responses to the Nazis and the Holocaust. He has praised other authors who have written books which are critical of the Popes and the Church, such as David I. Kertzer (author of The Popes Against The Jews and The Pope and Mussolini) and David Cymet (author of History vs Apologetics) (http://paulonpius.blogspot.com/2012/04/i...ry-vs.html).

Here is a review of O'Shea's book A Cross Too Heavy
http://www.catholica.com.au/brianstake/040_bt_print.php

The chief rabbi of the Roman synagogue was so impressed with Pius XII's response during World War II that he converted to the Catholic Faith.
And took on the pope’s name, Eugenio, iirc.

I read somewhere that he was debating a condemnation of the nazis, but the Dutch bishops went ahead and did so, resulting in more Catholics, including bishops, being arrested. This meant less people able to help nazi victims avoid arrest.

You are correct. His birth name was Israel Zolli, and he took the name Eugenio in honor of Pius XII. Pius also had a very close Jewish friend (Guido Mendes) as he grew up in Rome. Here is Zolli's autobiography (https://www.amazon.com/Before-Dawn-Autobiographical-Reflections-Eugenio/dp/1586172875/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1524098382&sr=8-1&keywords=before+the+dawn+eugenio).

Getting back on topic, here is a review by the Catholic Historical Review on O'Shea's book (https://muse.jhu.edu/article/261863).
Quote:The flood of books about Pope Pius XII continues unabated. But since no new documentation has appeared in the last ten years, and the papers of the Vatican Secretariat of State, a major indispensable source, are still secreted in the Vatican archive and are not yet released for public scrutiny, it is clear that many of these new books are not the result of new historical analysis or research. Instead, the character and policies of Pius XII are used as part of an ongoing controversy about the authority and governance of the Roman [End Page 410] Catholic Church. The participants seek to prove either the urgent need for reform of an outdated authoritarian institution, or regard Pius as an example of prudent leadership at a time of great political and military danger. With regard to his stance toward the Nazis’ persecution and mass murder of the Jews, many vocal critics have turned Pius into a scapegoat. They believe a less silent pope, with more active engagement, could and should have prevented, or at least mitigated, the Holocaust. But is there historical evidence to substantiate such far-reaching claims, or is this purely the product of wishful thinking? On the other hand, are those seeking to defend Pius doing so in order to exonerate the institution at whatever cost to historical candor? Both books under review attempt to answer these questions.

Paul O’Shea is a young Australian scholar who rejects as superficial the widespread accusations that have depicted Pius as Hitler’s pope, too lenient toward the Germans, an antisemitic bigot, insensitive to the fate of Hitler’s victims, or motivated only by a calculating political opportunism. Instead, O’Shea concentrates on seeing Pius as the inheritor of a long theological tradition, enshrined in the Vatican’s centuries-old stance, whereby the Jews were seen as a renegade people, deserving of conversion but remaining a witness to God’s eternal mercy. O’Shea’s main contention is that centuries of Christian Judeophobia and antisemitism culminated in the papal silence during the Holocaust. On the other hand, O’Shea notes, Pius cannot be dismissed as a bystander. He agonized over every word he uttered on the fate of the Jews, and his discreet actions on behalf of individuals saved many lives. But the widely held expectation that the papal moral influence would be resolutely and loudly deployed was disappointed. The burden of O’Shea’s critique is that he shares this disappointment. He is therefore critical of Pius for not protesting more forcefully, since “there is a moral duty to speak out in the face of evil, regardless of the consequence.”

O’Shea is hardly the first to advance such an opinion, but he fails to point out one all-important factor. For any far-reaching, let alone successful, measures to assist the Jews in war-torn Europe, the Catholic magisterium would have had to undertake a major reversal of its theological position, to abandon its historic anti-Judaic stance and to embrace the theology first adumbrated in 1965. But no such alteration took place. Nor is there any evidence that Pius XII would have supported such a major theological revision. This process only began after his death. O’Shea’s contribution is to show how the Vatican’s mind-set, its entrenched conservatism, and the pope’s own theological training, all combined to reinforce a consistent, if now regrettable, attitude of regarding Jews as second-class citizens or the victims of history. The result was a theological rather than a moral failure.
Reply
#19
Also, does anyone know of any books on the Nazi ratlines (escape routes after the war) and the Church's involvement in it? If I remember correctly, some clergy unfortunately aided Nazi war criminals in their escape but I'm not sure what the extent of this was.
Reply
#20
(04-18-2018, 08:51 PM)Echo Wrote: Also, does anyone know of any books on the Nazi ratlines (escape routes after the war) and the Church's involvement in it? If I remember correctly, some clergy unfortunately aided Nazi war criminals in their escape but I'm not sure what the extent of this was.

There were some articles I read back in my college years, but that was 20ish years ago. From the bit I’ve read, it seems like while there were a very few who knowingly helped war criminals, the great, vast majority was done inadvertently with good intentions. Europe was in such shambles that there really was no way to verify someone’s past.
-sent by howitzer via the breech.

God's love is manifest in the landscape as in a face.  - John Muir

I want creation to penetrate you with so much admiration that wherever you go, the least plant may bring you clear remembrance of the Creator.  A single plant, a blade of grass, or one speck of dust is sufficient to occupy all your intelligence in beholding the art with which it has been made  - Saint Basil

Heaven is under our feet, as well as over our heads. - Thoreau, Walden
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)