Israel Rabbi Asks Pope to Halt Pius' Beatification

The New York Times (AP) ^ | January 12, 2010

[blu]

God, you’re nice! So happy to have you as a fellow Catholic!

[AnAmericanMother]

No problem.

I think part of the difficulty is that we know, now. We know that Hitler would be defeated (although it was a near-run thing) -- that Europe would not be under the heel of the Nazis forever -- that the Pope didn't get arrested and hauled off to Germany.

Pius XII was in a difficult, uncertain, and terrifying situation: how to help protect the Jews of Rome and of Italy from persecution, arrest, and death, while balancing that against the risk to his flock, his priests and religious and even himself from the power of the Nazis. Secondarily what he could do to protest against persecution of Jews in other places, balanced against the risk that the Nazis would respond to his protests by stepping up their efforts. This actually happened in the Netherlands -- the Dutch bishops spoke out against the persecution of the Jews, and the Nazis responded by rounding up all Catholics of Jewish origin (including Edith Stein, Saint Teresia Benedicta of the Cross).

The pastoral letter protesting the deportation of Jews was published on Sunday, July 26, 1942. The next day, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, the commandant of the Nazi occupation, ordered that all Catholics of Jewish origin in the Netherlands be deported immediately. The written warrant for the arrest of all such individuals was dated July 30 and gave as the reason: "because the bishops interfered." The saint and her sister were seized from their convent 5 days later, and were murdered in Auschwitz two weeks to the day after the bishops' pastoral letter.

That kind of result will cause you to rethink speaking out.

[AnAmericanMother]

Still avoiding the issue at hand, I see.

Name calling and clumsy sarcasm has absolutely no effect on the facts. It simply exposes the weakness of your position and your unwillingness to address the historical evidence.

[sitetest]

Dear blu,

Thanks for the nice words. They come when needed. ;-)

In looking at the correspondence between you and AnAmericanMother, I don't see that her initial posts to you were untoward.

Her first post to you was #33. It lays out an outline of the case in favor of Venerable Pope Pius XII to counter your initial remarks that were negative toward the pontiff.

Then she asked you whether or not you were particularly well-informed on the subject, and then stated contingently that if you weren't:

“If not, that doesn't make you a ‘thinker’ as you claim. You have to have some material to work with, otherwise you're just casually repeating slander and maligning a good man.”

In that the last two statements are contingent on whether or not you're well-informed on the subject, they seem a reasonable conclusion to the post. Altogether, the post is a challenge to you to back up what you say, which is sort of a big part of what Free Republic's about.

The tone is firm and unyielding, but hardly harsh or nasty, at least not as it comes across to me.

The second post to you, before you replied to any of hers, is #35. This starts out with a monitory statement about what Catholics generally do and don't do. It isn't aimed directly at you, but it wouldn't be terribly unreasonable to make the inference.

Nonetheless, in my own view, I'd probably go with the benefit of the doubt, here, and still assume good will on the part of the correspondent.

The next sentence starts out with the statement of a conditional again, which makes me more inclined to interpret the first statement as a general statement, and not necessarily aimed directly at me (or, in this case, you).

The statement is true enough. If you haven't read up on the controversy, you're not a very engaged Catholic, at least not on this topic. Especially if you hang out much on FR!! LOL!! I don't know how many threads I've read about this in the last 10 years! Wish I had a buck for each one.

Again, the poster assumes nothing, but rather states in the conditional.

The tone is a little more strident, but from my perspective, tends toward the milder of side of what is permitted at FR, especially in the Religion Forum.

Your first post at #47 was:

“Ahhh...there’s no better Catholic than a converted Catholic. gotcha.”

As your current post to explains, although it isn't exactly meant as a slur against converts, it is, nevertheless, a negative comment about the poster's status as a correspondent in the discussion. One might rephrase it as, “There go those converts again!”

As a response to AnAmericanMother's posts, it offers no counter-evidence, no counter-argument, no nothing other than a [negative] statement about your correspondent. It's just an ad hominem.

That's the breakdown in the conversation, in my view. When folks move to ad hominem arguments, it isn't unreasonable to infer bad things.

Now, you don't want to get into it with AnAmericanMother to defend your initial remarks.

It isn't unusual on FR for folks to request a defense of one’s remarks, but I know of no rule that requires a poster to answer the request with an actual defense. Sometimes, folks make casual remarks without wanting to get into a big debate. Or at least, I know I often make quickie little remarks on threads without wanting to get into a big, long, drawn-out debate.

But inferring from your first post some hostility to converts wasn't unreasonable (especially since your meaning, if not precisely hostile, wasn't really a positive one).

And I don't think that AnAmericanMother's request for you to offer some defense of your initial post was unreasonable, either.

Finally, keep in mind that there have been uncounted threads about the sanctity or lack thereof of Venerable Pope Pius XII on Free Republic, and many, many, many folks in these parts have used these threads to attack venomously and unfairly not only Pope Pius but the entire Catholic Church. Some of these attacks have been scurillous.

So, please accept my own apologies if I gave offense, but your initial post seemed to be a potential lead-in to another such attack.

sitetest

[blu]

No, m'dear, what is does is show my ability to walk away before I say something which will make me look like a know-it-all, judgmental shrew.

"Just walk away

just walk away

too much trouble here for you to stay

Gonna get yourself in trouble

Just walk away".

[AnAmericanMother]

Thanks, sitetest!

If I spoke too sharply, I apologize.

As sitetest observes, this issue has been covered over and over again on FR. I was a little too quick to assume ill intent, blu, because I assumed that you were familiar with the facts and at least some of the previous FR threads.

But if you haven't looked at the question since 1992, then my assumption that you were wilfully ignoring the facts was wrong.

And for that I apologize.

[blu]

Thanks for the incisive review! I appreciate the time it took you to do that. Your points are valid. However, you missed the one underlying point of my posts, albeit unstated. No one Catholic is better than another one. None of us are in a position to judge another. I take offense when my Catholic-ness is called into question, and I LOATHE when Catholics fight amongst themselves. Oh, yeah, and I hate being talked down to! LOL, who doesn’t?

(Also, some of my sparkyness today may be a result of a highly insulting email that someone sent me, as a result of this thread. The only reason to send such an email is because the sender knows the mods wouldn’t let it stand. So, yeah, I think I’m a little defensive...however, I am trying to maintain my manners. And I hate Catholics eating their own!)

Again, thanks for the review! Great job (meant very sincerely)

[sitetest]

Dear blu,

“No one Catholic is better than another one.”

I don't know about that. I know LOTS AND LOTS of Catholics who are way better than me. We could start with my wife...

“None of us are in a position to judge another.”

My view of that statement is that none of us can see into the heart of another. No one knows the inmost motivations of a soul, no one knows the final destiny of a soul. We don't even know that of ourselves. Only God's judgment matters.

But we can look at the outward behavior of others and judge its catholicity. And colloquially, it isn't unfair to then say, “That's no Catholic!”

After all, in this thread, we have stated the fact that Hitler was baptized a Catholic, and it was just terrible that he was never excommunicated [which isn't actually a true statement]! What is formal, explicit excommunication if not a statement by the Church that for all appearances, you're not a good Catholic?

Does anyone want to actually defend that Hitler was a good Catholic?

After all, you said NO Catholic is better than another. I know lots of Catholics who are better than me, but I think that perhaps I'm better than Hitler was.

“I take offense when my Catholic-ness is called into question, and I LOATHE when Catholics fight amongst themselves.”

I understand, and I'm not keen on Catholics fighting one another, either. But what do you do with someone like Nancy Pelosi (or Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Barbara Mikulski, etc., etc.) who claim personally to be Catholics, often even devout Catholics, and yet who nonetheless enable great evil and flout binding Catholic teaching?

It seems to me that it's very reasonably to say, colloquially, she's an execrable Catholic.

“Oh, yeah, and I hate being talked down to! LOL, who doesn’t?”

Tell me about it. I especially hate it when after one has been condescended to, and one offers protest, one is then made out to be the perpetrator of the crime. “You're not masochistic enough!! Go back and try harder, you lowly worm!!”

“Also, some of my sparkyness today...”

I got an e-mail sort of like that this morning, too. Didn't do much for my mood.

But running into you has brightened it.

Thanks,

sitetest

[Karliner]

The next day, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, the commandant of the Nazi occupation, ordered that all Catholics of Jewish origin in the Netherlands be deported immediately.

Ha I DO remember this, not the names however. My own family Hx as you can read is full of surprises. Just FYI I was confirmed and went to Old Mission San Juan Capistrano. Today in America I think to speak out may involve some nasty abuse as we're seeing but minor comparatively to the ovens, chambers and ditches of that time. We need to band together regardless of doctrinal differences( we ALL love Jesus do we not?)to beat back this socialist/communist push that will only creat more of a tyranny and where there's outright tyranny blood flows.

On a funny note, I remember being at church in the Old Mission, and the latin mass was droning on, then the incense burners come down the aisle. I whispered to my grandma and told her I needed to leave( asthma). I also misinterpreted her words as I THOUGHT she'd told me the priests were burning insects. It was years I finally learned people used to laugh at my misinterpretation of incense. To this day I tell people they burn insects in their incense. Eh, well, live and learn.

On a latter note, I was born after 1945 but it still amazes me the madness and fear that my very near relatives suffered or died. Some Jewish family were killed at Belgen-Bersen, one at Buchenwald. Others are just gone. I suppose I'd have to spend thousands on genealogy records and go back to Germany( I don't speak German well) and the Hassidic portion of Belarus and Ukraine but some of those pogroms were well before Hitlers time.

I think what gets me is though the last pope did apologize to the Jewish folks there's still a portion of Catholics that tend to believe allah and G!D are one and the same. I only wish there was some way to bring all people together and to define fully who allah is and who the God of the Bible is but that's not even a Catholic/Jewish problem as so many breakaway protestnt Christian churches believe in the "replacement theology" which is very disturbing indeed, but that's another subject altogether. Thanks again.

[AnAmericanMother]

WWII is receding into the distance, but those of us who are old enough to remember are still pretty horrified. My parents' next door neighbor had the number tattooed on his forearm -- he and his brother were the only members of their large extended family to survive the Holocaust. He's in his late 80s now, my dad is 85 -- that generation is passing away, but my generation heard the stories first hand. Preserve that recollection for your kids and grandkids, it's important!

If you want to run some genealogy, check the websites of the LDS and also some sites like WebGen - there are a bunch out there, many free, some subscription. You needn't leave the comfort of your computer chair to find out an awful lot -- immigration records, shipping lists, all that stuff. My family's been here for ages, mostly - the latest group of immigrants was in the 1860s - so all the European stuff I need is really, really old, but it's surprising how much is there, online. I found my gggg grandfather's baptismal record in London, in 1795!

I agree that all Christians need to stick together. I think it's kind of like family. We may disagree among ourselves, even to the point of shouting (if you're in an Italian or Irish family, that's called "normal conversation"), but if anybody attacks from outside, everybody closes ranks.

And I would include believing, practicing Jews in the family. I find that I have a lot more in common with Orthodox or Conservative Jews who actually practice their faith, than with folks who call themselves Catholic but don't follow the teachings of the Church.

And the far left's goal is "divide and conquer" -- you can't see Obama's Notre Dame appearance or his appointments of pro-abort "Catholics" to important positions as anything but an attempt to get the Catholics quarreling amongst themselves, and install if he can a Vichy rump of Catholics-in-name-only to pretend to represent "the Church". I think though that the bishops have finally caught on, that Obama has been using them in a most cynical way.

I will support a candidate 100% if they are pro life and working against socialism, creeping or otherwise. But I will not support a pro death, socialist candidate who's calling him or herself a Catholic.

[Karliner]

Nice post. I think we’ve reached a lot of agreements. Take care now. I’m sure we’ll be commenting again on each others posts in the future.

[AnAmericanMother]

Thanks! I agree. See you around!

[BillyBoy]

>> I actually agree with your sarcastic post; no such persons should be upheld. <<

Well, ThirdRuffian, if you actually take my sarcastic post #14 at face value, you are welcome to try and "investigate" why leading Rabbis did not publicly "speak out" against the Roman Empire's massacre of an estimated 100,000 Christians from roughly 64 A.D - 305 A.D. Christianity was an illegal religion in the empire at the time, whereas Judaism was perfectly legal and they were free to say what they wanted publicly, so why the "silence" when they could have done something?

I think you'll quickly discover that you're the only one who would demand an "explanation" for this, and if you started accusing famous Rabbis of that era of being sympathetic to Roman butchery and referred to them as "Nero's rabbis" you'd be laughed at (yet it's perfectly okay for people to call Pope Pius XII a cpyto-NAZI). Furthermore, if you demanded immediate access to all kinds of sacred jewish texts from that era in the name of "historic research" and they declined to give you carte blanche access to everything you wanted, you could try accusing Jewish officials of trying to "cover up and stonewall" the "truth" to protect the reputation of their famous historic leaders. Again, free free to try this because I'd be willing to bet money that you'd be ridiculed and people would suggest you're motivated by antisemitism when you try to pin Roman empire genocide on "the Jews" for being neutral at the time. No serious historian would take your efforts seriously.

Indeed, any rational person doesn't need to "investigate" this, because they're well aware of the fact that Jewish religious leaders could not have done anything to stop the Roman Empire's slaughter of Christians. Anyone with a half a brain would also deduct the fact that if a bunch of Jewish rabbis decided to go out of their way to loudly protest Christians being persecuted, the roman emperor would have been engaged at this "insolence" against the all-powerful empire ('who the hell do they think they are?') and responded by ordered a bunch of Jews to be throw to the lions as well. (which, of course, would have been the same result during World War II -- massive repercussions against Catholics and more dead Catholics, but no end or even slowing of the holocaust), if the Pope had publicly decided to poke his finger in Hitler's eye. Just as the Jews had no clout to dictate terms to an huge roman empire that viewed them as an annoyance, so did Vatican City when surrounded on all sides by a facist dictatorship during World War II.

The massacre of 100,000 Christians centuries ago is a tragic event in history, but we don't need to scapegoat another religion and blame them for the Romans crimes. It's unfortunate that Catholic bashers can't say the same about smearing good people over the Holocaust.

[BillyBoy]

Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai
(c.135 A.D.– 170 A.D.)

Rabbi Shimon was a “fifth-generation” Tanna, according to the classification of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz in “The Talmud – A Reference Guide,” who flourished in years 135 C.E. - 170 C.E.

He was one of the most eminent disciples of Rabbi Akiva, and is attributed by many with the authorship of the Zohar ("The Brightness"), the chief work of modern-day Jewish mysticism. In addition, the important legal homilies called Sifre and Mekhilta are attributed to him. In the Mishnah, he is often referred to as simply "Rabbi Shimon."

He was a student of Rabbi Akiva, and a contemporary of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel II, who was the Nasi, the Scholar-President, and of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah ben Ilai, among other great contemporaries. He was a complex individual, a Torah giant who was influenced by his father, Yochai, by his great teacher, Rabbi Akiva, and by the events of his day. His father was a man of considerable honor among the Jewish People. He acquired a reputation as a worker of miracles, and on this ground was sent to Rome as an envoy. Yochai was a pacifist, and was well-liked by the Romans. His son, Rabbi Eleazar ben Simon was also a noted scholar

==================================================================

Anyone wanna guess what would happen if we started to blame his "silence" for the Roman empire's Christian massacres, referred to Rabbi Shimon as "Marcus Aurelius' Rabbi" and DEMANDED Jewish leaders stop writing allocates and tributes to him?

[TheThirdRuffian]

I don’t care for your tone or your hostility.

In no way, shape, or form have I attacked the Roman Catholic Church or the Pope.

Nor have I given support to those who attack this previous pope.

You’ve clearly got a chip that makes you unable to talk about things rationally.