Replies

I do not challenge your authority. I wanted to ask that this should also be set aside as unproven fantasy of enemies of the Church. Please pardon the length. I am not engaging you in a debate. Thanks in advance for reading.

The committee was suspended. This is a fact. I can see in looking at the requests they were asking for working papers. I know that documents in progress are often destroyed when the release comes out.

They were offered documents, but not the drafts they were asking about. I was told but I can't prove right now that the Camerlengo who presides after the Popes death is charged with burning all the documents, drafts and papers not worthy of the archive. The documents may no longer exist.

The central catalyst of the controversy, the book, "Hitlers Pope" contained a great deal of characterizations and sensationalisms that are subjective. For example,
Pacelli had been recruited into the Vatican in 1901, at the age of 24, to specialize in international affairs and church law. Pious, slender, with dark luminous eyes, he was an instant favorite.

SO tell me, how does the author gather information that objectively tells him that because of his slender appearance, and dark eyes he was appointed into a position. Other passages all but paint a homo-erotic relationship between the future Pope and German politicians. How would the author conclude that the Pope was gay? How are we as Catholics prove something did not occur?

I would put these things exactly in the same category as the "Protocol of Zion" and the Jesuit/Knights of Columbus oath. It is a slander that required the speaker to prove a negative did not occur and not require the slanderer to prove the statement. Proving innocence is exactly opposite the practice we demand. We should have evidence the Pope was guilty but the author can't provide it, just innuendo and vague intimations of Papal abuses.

Other charges are likewise tainted with characterizations that are not borne out by the original documents. The committee could have studied them and reflected on them, but since the archives did not contain drafts they stopped. I don't understand why they abdicated this duty, however, is this enough to say the wild charges issued by persons here should bear weight?