Hitler's Pope

I think the main points of Concordat was the protection of RCC in Germany.

I hope you may trust this at least.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat#Terms_and_violations


The main points of the concordat are

• The right to freedom of the Roman Catholic religion. (Article 1)
• The state concordats with Bavaria (1924), Prussia (1929), and Baden (1932) remain valid. (Article 2)
• Unhindered correspondence between the Holy See and German Catholics. (Article 4)
• The right of the church to collect church taxes. (Article 13)
• The oath of allegiance of the bishops: "(...) Ich schwöre und verspreche, die verfassungsmässig gebildete Regierung zu achten und von meinem Klerus achten zu lassen (...)" ("I swear and vow to honor the constitutional government and to make my clergy honor it") (Article 16)
• State services to the church can be abolished only in mutual agreement. (Article 18)
• Catholic religion is taught in school (article 21) and teachers for Catholic religion can be employed only with the approval of the bishop (article 22).
• Protection of Catholic organizations and freedom of religious practice. (Article 31)
• Clerics may not be members of or be active for political parties. (Article 32)

 

concordat

• Was it the "The right to freedom of the Roman Catholic religion. (Article 1)" that you object to, Eli?

Dangerous stuff, all that freedom of religion, you know.

 

You don't understand the real meaning of it.

Its main target is the Unlimited Freedom of RCC over all the other religion, at the sacrifice of the true Christianity, as RCC always enjoyed by torturing and killing the true believers like Vaudois and Waldensians, etc.

If you read it carefully, RCC was the only religion which could collect taxes for their churches etc.
If you could not find the special status of RCC in Concordat, I doubt about your eyes.

 

It is much more than what we have in Canada which is already far infavor of RCC though.

In Canada, RCC is the only religion which can have schools at the expenses of Public Tax Payers, and so about 50% of the schools are Catholic schools funded by Protestants Taxes.

In the Concordat, Catholic religion was supposed to be taught at the Schools, which means all the schools.

Catholic collects the church tax ( a portion of the tax), which is still valid even today.

What RCC omited was the right to kill the people of other religion.

This is the Freedom which Catholic meant.

 

I'm not sure why I bother

dealing with a bigot like you - but

That's the collection plate, Einstein.

And this has to do with 1930's Germany how????

No, it was supposed to protect the right of the Catholics to operate their own schools. Germany was largely a Lutheran nation, and I doubt the Lutherans would have let Catholicism be taught in their public schools.

So you would ban the collection plate?

Not at all.

 

[

Contemporary sources regarding the role of the Pope in World War II say that he was responsible for saving hundreds of thousands of Jews from the Holocaust. It wasn't until nearly 20 years after the war that this was even questioned.



Hi again, I feel a bit like an outsider in this discussion (?), but the question is important. Can you give one concrete example of the pope saving Jewish lives? He personally intervened to stop the saving of Slovakian Jewish children, did nothing for the thousand Jews who were deported from Rome, and a cardinal he later promoted expelled Jewish children from Catholic schools etc in Hungary just as the Jews were being deported from there. It is not an impressive record.

Contemporary Jewish sources often believed false but hopeful rumors, a comon situation in war time, when real news was both horrific and hard to get. The Vatican rep to the Jewish Agency in Palestine inadvertantly passed on one such hopeful false rumor, probably believing it himself. This is why later historical research has been vital to find out just what did happen.
Colin

 

It was told by 3 persons that Mein Kampf was dictated or written by Jesuit priest Bernhardt Staempfle when Hitler instructed.

Edmond Paris, in his The Secret History of the Jesuits, it was the Jesuit Bernhardt Staempfle who wrote Hitler's Mein Kampf. This fact is further confirmed by one of the founders of the Nazi Party, Roman Catholic Otto Strasser, in his revealing book, Hitler and I. It was Roman Catholic Hitler who said of the Roman Catholic Himmler having modeled the SS after the Jesuit Order,

http://www.vaticanassassins.org/purpose_of_vatican_assassins.htm

The site which I refer to is not the one documented academically but for easy posting purpose I brought.

This claim came from, Edmund Paris, Otto Strasser, Alberto Rivera
(http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/49364.htm)

It is understandable that Hitler didn't write the details of the book but assigned that job to another and it was taken by Jesuit Priest Staempfle.

 

This is why I don't trust Catholic people or Catholic advocators.
It is very much obvious that Catholic had inserted the privileges of their religion in the Concordat, and that no other religion could enjoy such privileges.

It is absolutely an ignorance that Germany had more Lutheran than Catholics.

Saar sensus shows 72% Catholic, 26% Protestant, 0.5% Jewish.

http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/rise(n)-2.htm

There could have been a large differences and variety depending on the regions, but Bavaria would have much more Catholics than 72%, which was the biggest state in Germany.

No other religion could enjoy such protection by Nazis, except Roman Catholic.

 

read a book, why don't you?

I don't have time to counter every lie that you bring up against the Pope. Why don't you try reading "The Myth of Hitler's Pope" by Rabbi David Dalin or "The Defamation of Pius XII" by Ralph McInerny to get your information.

The Condordat was supposed to protect the religious freedom of the RCC. It's the Pope's job to protect the rights of Catholics. However, within days, it was violated by Hitler, so really it was ineffective except to give the Vatican the right to protest violations of the agreement.

Albert Einstein praised the efforts of the RCC in these words:

The Pope, through his bishops and diplomats in occupied countries, directed them to save as many Jews and other people in danger of deportation and imprisonment as they possibly could. Traveling papers and visas were distributed. Underground railroads were set up. The Pope's only weapons were diplomacy and his encyclicals condemning totaliarianism and facism. He couldn't exactly send the Swiss Guards up against the Nazis, now could he? He did his best to protect as many people as possible in the face of unimaginable horror.

An axample of the Pope's direct intervention to save the lives of 500 Jews.

 

Jews are quite diverse and I don't give blank endorsement to them, but when it comes to Messianic Jews, they are quite reliable.

How come Pacelli made the Concordat with Italy in 1929, with Germany 1933, with Spain 1953, Diplomatic relationship with Japan in 1942 which was one of the Axis countries?

He was a great man in science, which doesn't mean that he was correct even in religious reality.

This portion is really in controversy even today.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3035081

Some of excerpts are here:

At issue in the Yad Vashem-Vatican dispute is a photograph of Pius in Yad Vashem's museum in Jerusalem with the caption: "Even when reports about the murder of Jews reached the Vatican, the pope did not protest," refusing to sign a 1942 Allied condemnation of the massacre of Jews during World War II.

Yad Vashem said it would be ready to re-examine Pius XII's conduct during the Holocaust if the Vatican opened its World War II-era archives to the museum's research staff and new material emerged. Despite frequent requests from Holocaust researchers, the Vatican has denied access to major parts of its archives, including wartime papers.


Why do Vatican refuse the access to their own archives, if they work for the truth and they are supposed to preach the Truth?

 

eli

You're obviously in the grip of an anti-RCC obsession. The facts are out there - put out there by unbiased people who don't run websites like "Baptist Truth!". There are also people who write books about subjects like this that deserve a book-length treatment, not one-liners in support of an imaginary (yet ineffective!) conspiracy.

Because he was the Vatican's Secretary of State before 1938, then Pope. Because the RCC is a world-wide organization, it is obligated to deal with other countries to protect the rights of the Catholic citizens in those countries.

But he had more common sense and observational ability in his little finger than you do in your whole body!

Not true - the Pope issued encyclical after encyclical condemning totalitarianism in the late '30's and early '40's. They are all publicly available for you to read on the vatican.va website. One of the hard things that the Pope found out was that his strong condemnations of totalitarianism brought severe reprecussions from those governments upon the Catholics and Jews of those countries. The Nazis punished the people for the words of the Pope that condemned them. So he had to be very careful about public pronouncements and work mostly through his diplomats and bishops to protect the people and save them from the totalitarian governments that they suffered under.

If you go to the Vatican website, there is a link to "Secret Archives". Go for it.

 

I do have many records of history. Not only the Baptists, even Wikipedia recorded some of the atrocities conducted by the Popes and Catholics.

I can show you by another posts because those are too much volume.

Why does Catholic look like parasites attached to the dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, France, and other dictators in Croatia, Slovakia etc? Where was their famous Martyrdom gone?

The victims of Holocaust know very well, and the Israelites will learn about the tactics of Vatican more and better in the future.
The Pope may have condemned some atrocities and murders publicly, but behind the scene, he might have said this way, " Heil Hitler, don't worry about our condemnation, we fully support you because Third Reich is the first and only regime which materialize the Idea of Holy Roman Catholic"
Pacelli never condemned Hitler, has he ever?
Hypocrites do something and utilize it for their hypocrisy often. Some hundreds of Jewish children may have escaped to Vatican when the Vatican approved Fascists tried to expel the Jews, then they advertize it greatly after the War. God know the Hypocrisy well.

You cannot deny all the photos which I illustrated.

 

I post this because you deny the Baptist recorded history.
I already showed you the photos of the Third Reich related to Pacelli.
Also, Jesus said " A corrupt tree cannot bear good fruits" ( Mt 7:18)

You can judge whether RCC is the good tree or not.

[FONT=바탕]RCC toward Albigenes[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]The Albigensian Crusade or Cathar Crusade ([/FONT][FONT=바탕]1209[/FONT][FONT=바탕] - [/FONT][FONT=바탕]1229[/FONT][FONT=바탕]) was a 20-year military campaign initiated by the [/FONT][FONT=바탕]Roman Catholic[/FONT][FONT=바탕] Church to eliminate the [/FONT][FONT=바탕]heresy[/FONT][FONT=바탕] of the [/FONT][FONT=바탕]Cathars[/FONT][FONT=바탕] of [/FONT][FONT=바탕]Languedoc[/FONT][FONT=바탕]. It is historically significant for a number of reasons: the violence was extreme--even by medieval standards; [/FONT]


[FONT=바탕]In July the crusaders captured the small village of Servian and headed for [/FONT][FONT=바탕]Béziers[/FONT][FONT=바탕], arriving on [/FONT][FONT=바탕]July 21[/FONT][FONT=바탕]. They invested the city, called the Catholics within to come out, and demanded that the Cathars surrender. Both groups refused. The city fell the following day when an abortive sortie was pursued back through the open gates. The entire population was slaughtered and the city burned to the ground. According to the Cistercian writer [/FONT][FONT=바탕]Caesar of Heisterbach[/FONT][FONT=바탕], one of the leaders of the Crusader army, the Papal legate [/FONT][FONT=바탕]Arnaud-Amaury[/FONT][FONT=바탕], was asked by a Crusader how to distinguish the Cathars from the Catholics. He answered: Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" — "Kill them [all]! Surely the Lord discerns which [ones] are his."[1] Contemporary sources give estimates of the number of dead ranging between seven and twenty thousand. The latter figure appears in Arnaud-Amaury's report to the Pope. The news of the disaster at Béziers quickly spread and afterwards many settlements surrendered without a fight.[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]The [/FONT][FONT=바탕]Inquisition[/FONT][FONT=바탕] was established in Toulouse in November 1229, and the process of ridding the area of Cathar heresy and investing their remaining strongholds began. Under Pope Gregory IX the Inquistion was given great power to suppress the heresy. A campaign started in 1233, burning vehement and relapsed Cathars wherever they were found. Even exhuming some bodies for burning[/FONT]


[FONT=바탕]RCC toward Waldensians[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]They disobeyed and began to teach unorthodox doctrines; they were formally declared [/FONT][FONT=바탕]heretics[/FONT][FONT=바탕] by [/FONT][FONT=바탕]Pope Lucius III[/FONT][FONT=바탕] in [/FONT][FONT=바탕]1184[/FONT][FONT=바탕] and by the [/FONT][FONT=바탕]Fourth Lateran Council[/FONT][FONT=바탕] in 1215. In 1211 more than 80 were burned as heretics at Strasbourg, beginning several centuries of [/FONT][FONT=바탕]persecution[/FONT][FONT=바탕]. The movement was brutally persecuted during the 12th and 13th centuries and nearly totally destroyed, but the Waldensian Church survives to this day.[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]The members of the group were declared schismatics in [/FONT][FONT=바탕]1184[/FONT][FONT=바탕] in [/FONT][FONT=바탕]France[/FONT][FONT=바탕] and heretics more widely in [/FONT][FONT=바탕]1215[/FONT][FONT=바탕] by the [/FONT][FONT=바탕]Fourth Council of the Lateran[/FONT][FONT=바탕]'s anathema. The rejection by the Church radicalized the movement; in terms of ideology the Waldensians became more obviously anti-Catholic - rejecting the authority of the clergy, declaring any [/FONT][FONT=바탕]oath[/FONT][FONT=바탕] to be a sin, claiming anyone could preach and that the Bible alone was all that was needed for salvation, and rejecting the concept of [/FONT][FONT=바탕]purgatory[/FONT][FONT=바탕] and the idea of relics and [/FONT][FONT=바탕]icons[/FONT][FONT=바탕].[/FONT]


[FONT=바탕]As early as the [/FONT][FONT=바탕]twelfth century[/FONT][FONT=바탕], the Waldensians were granted refuge in [/FONT][FONT=바탕]Piedmont[/FONT][FONT=바탕] by the Count of Savoy. While the [/FONT][FONT=바탕]House of Savoy[/FONT][FONT=바탕] itself remained strongly [/FONT][FONT=바탕]Roman Catholic[/FONT][FONT=바탕], this gesture angered the Papacy. [/FONT]While the Holy See might have been willing to tolerate the continued presence of large Muslim populations in the Normans' Kingdom of Sicily, it was less than willing to accept a new Christian sect in Piedmont


All the quotations are from Wikipedia, which I believe you trust, though it lacks a lot of Info and is very much biased in favor of RCC. RCC is not the good Tree.

 

In fact, the Pope did refuse to sign an Alllied protest about the Holocaust which was released by them on December 17, 1942 (that is, it is your "not true" which is, unfortunately not true). The Pope said he was unable to condemn "specific atrocities". He did however publically condemn specific atrocities against the polish catholics and even the possibility that Rome might be bombed. [FONT=&quot]The Pope himself contacted the American rep, Tittman thirty four times during 1943-1944 over his fears of the bombing of Rome, while the British diplomat to the Vatican, Osborne noted in 1942 that “instead of thinking of nothing but the bombing of Rome, [the Vatican] should consider [its] duties in respect of the unprecedented crime against humanity of Hitler’s campaign of extermination of the Jews”.[FONT=&quot][/FONT] Osborne also commented: “The more I think about it, the more I am revolted by Hitler’s massacre of the Jewish race on one hand, and on the other, the Vatican’s apparently exclusive preoccupation with the ... possibilities of the bombardments of Rome”.
Because of the Pope's silence, Catholics across Europe continued to persecute Jews, unaware they were sinning by doing so.[FONT=&quot][/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

Read A Book

Then why don't you read the books that I suggested?

ditto.

Hitler and Mussolini hated the RCC. They worked against it. Again, the RCC is a world-wide organization that must deal with secular governments. The fact that they do deal with secular governments does not mean that they endorse them, only that they have to find a way to work with them to protect the rights of members of the RCC.
The US has diplomatic relations with countries all over the world. This doesn't mean they agree with all their practices, or can control their governments.

Wow, that's a bunch of pure speculation on your part.

I guess I have to repeat myself. Encyclical "Mit Brennender Sorge" issued by Pius XI and authored in large part by Cardinal Pacelli was read on Palm Sunday in the Catholic Churchs in Germany in 1937 condemned the actions of Hitler and his goverment. Pius XII's Christmas message of 1941 deplored the moral ruins of the time, condemning the treament of the Jews. All over the world, the Pope's messages were understood as condemning the atrocities that were commited against the Jews. But you choose to believe the charges put forth by an ex-Nazi in a play put out in 1961, 20 years after the war. Whatever.

Photoshop, selective editing, not knowing the context or setting of the pictures that you show - I really couldn't care less about your pictures. They illustrate nothing except that a simple mind can and will believe anything he sees. A picture may speak "1000 words", but it leaves out 10,000 more.

 

I think the Deportation of the Jews out of Rome and the reaction by Pacelli is one of the most important aspects when we understand about Hitler's Pope.

Cornwall described the situation surrounding September-October 1943 quite well but there must be some more I guess.
On October 16, 1943, on Saturday thousands of Jews werre deported by the trucks. At that time, Maglione answered, " Holy See would not wish to be put in a situation where it was necessary to utter a word of disapproval"
Of course, they made some nice lip service as well, far later on, it was made by Kessel and Gerhard Gumpert, as if it had been speaking in the name of Bishop Hudal speaking in the name of Pius 12. " I earnestly request that you order the immediate suspension of these arrests.." ( p 305-307 of Hitler's Pope by Cornwall)

Here are some comments:

The chapter on the roundup and deportation of the Jews of Rome is particularly heartbreaking ( Chicago Tribune)

Hitler's Pope accurately reflects the decline, inside and outside the Catholic Church, of the reputation of Eugenio Pacelli, Cornwall's arguments, he detailed the grasp of Roman Catholic history and politics and his lucid prose will persuade many readers of the merits of his indictment of Pius 12 - Houston Chronicle


Why was the Holy See so much blinded not to see the killings in Auschwitz?

 

Yes, RCC is a Worldwide Anti-Christ Organization full of Idolatry.

 

Some day in the future Jesus will come again and will reveal who is this man,

2 Cor 11:14
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

He will reveal who is on the Broad Way.

 

[FONT=&quot]Hi, the Christmas message you are refering to was his 1942 one. It did not mention Jews, and was not understood by the Catholic Church in Europe as condemning the atrocities being committed against them.
Near the end of his forty five minute [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Christmas broadcast[/FONT][FONT=&quot], the Pope spoke a single and vague sentence, mentioning “the hundreds of thousands of persons who, without any fault on their part, sometimes only because of nationality or race, have been consigned to death, or to a slow decline”. This would be his only public statement about the Holocaust throughout the war. [/FONT]
The Pope seems to have believed that this single sentence discharged any obligation he had to aid the innocent. Writing to the German bishop Preysing four months later, he stated that he had already done all that he could, and that his Christmas message reference was “short, but well understood”.[FONT=&quot][/FONT] This was in reply to Preysing's own letter which had both mentioned his Christmas message and asked for a more forthright denunciation. The Pope here appears to be disputing Preysing’s description of his Christmas message as insufficiently clear (“Your Holiness has alluded to their probable fate in your Christmas Radio Broadcast”), and rejecting his request for a re-statement (“Is it not possible for Your Holiness again to intervene for the many unfortunate innocents?”[FONT=&quot][/FONT]) on the grounds that it was indeed explicit and sufficient in itself.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
What then is the evidence? Those arguing that the Pope’s message was widely understood as a reference to the Jews cite a British Foreign Office letter, a Times of London editorial and a Nazi report to von Ribbentrop.[FONT=&quot][/FONT] While the first represents one official’s opinion, the next two clearly have their own agendas, either to paint the Pope as an ally of the Allies, or, conversely, to condemn him as such. All of this however begs the question, where does one go for the authorized exegesis of Papal statements? The Nazi press, for example, called the Pope both pro-Jewish and a communist in the same article. Should they be trusted in half their statements, and seen as clearly and groundlessly malicious in the other half? On what basis is some Nazi propaganda to be preferred? Are Times editorials infallible? Interestingly, Mussolini dismissed the Christmas message as full of platitudes, worthy only “of some low parish priest.” The Polish government in Exile likewise condemned it, and demanded that the Apostolic See break its silence and “show clearly and distinctly where the evil lies.”[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Clearly, the authoritative exegesis of Papal statements is to be found in the teachings and actions of the Church hierarchy, in its cardinals, synods and publications. Did these then, given that the Pope declared his message to have been “well understood” widely interpret his Christmas message as including a call to aid the Jewish people? Can one trace an improvement in the behaviour of the Catholic Church after it, as inspired by the Pope, they strive to help the Jews of Europe?

Six months after the Christmas message, the lone Catholic organization in Zegota (the only organisation in Poland to help Jews) withdrew due to its reservations about aiding Jews. The deportations of Jews from France received less Catholic protest in 1943 that it had in 1942. In 1943, the Vatican itself intervened to thwart an attempt to rescue Jewish children in Slovakia. Another attempt in 1943 to rescue Jewish children from the Warsaw ghetto failed “mainly because the Polish clergy was not very interested in saving Jewish children.” Cardinal Seredi wrote in June 1944 that the Church would like to see “the eradication of their [the Jews] undesirable influence.” The Hungarian Nuncio, the Pope’s representative, agreed on June 1944 that it was “vital to eradicate ... the Jewish danger,” and a Hungarian bishop permitted a church to hold celebrations of thanksgiving to God for the expulsion of the Jews. In August 1944, the Inspector General of the Roman Catholic educational institutions in Hungary ordered (on instructions from the Cardinal) that Jewish employees and students be dismissed and expelled. A bishop in Poland similarly expelled Jewish children from a Catholic orphanage. Polish priests and Jesuits likewise preached after 1942 against helping the Jews.

Had the Cardinal, bishops and clergy not heard the Christmas message? Despite Allied newspaper editorials and Nazi propaganda, it is painfully clear that wide swathes of the Catholic church at its highest levels, officially and across Europe, did not see in the Pope’s vague generalizations any reason to make efforts to aid Jews. Claims to the contrary are defeated by the behaviour of the very Church the writers claim to be defending. As R. Wistrich comments: “With all due allowance for the compressed, abstract style of papal pronouncements, this is a protest that lasted for the duration of a single breath and that mentioned neither Jews nor Nazis nor any Nazi ally.”[FONT=&quot][/FONT] And this, spoken in 1942 and never equaled after, is supposed to be a sufficient response to the mass murder of six million? Finally, given that the Pope was informed by Tittman that many thought his statement was vague, and in light of the Catholic behaviour mentioned above, on what basis did the Pope assure Preysing four months later that his Christmas message was indeed “well understood”?


4Given, unfortunately, your claims are not supported by history.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

Hi again,
a bit more on the silence of the war-time Popes re the Holocaust.


For M. Phayer, “The question of the Pope’s silence is of theological interest because of the Pope’s claims to infallibility in matters of morality, and of historical interest because of the possible rescue of more Jews by Christians had the Pope intervened.”[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Although the Catholic Church's leadership openly condemned many aspects of Nazi policy, it issued no official condemnation of the regime's eliminationalist persecution of the Jews, or of the signal events of the program. It did not officially protest the April 1933 boycott, the Nuremberg Laws, the depredations of Kristallnacht, or even the Nazi's deportation of German Jews to their deaths.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

The vast majority of lay Catholics, taught to look to their church for moral guidance, and not given the information to which their church was privy, responded to this deliberate silence with a silence of apathy. The Pope here failed in two fundamental areas. He failed the Jews when he withheld the moral and financial aid which was in his power to give them. He failed the Catholics when, having engendered a moral dependency upon himself, he withheld from them the information and council they needed to respond morally to the greatest evil of the age.[FONT=&quot][/FONT] As R. Landau wrote: “A strong and openly voiced papal line might have silenced those Catholic bishops throughout Europe who actively and fervently collaborated with their Nazi masters.”[FONT=&quot][/FONT] Catholic writer Francois Mauriac concluded: “We French Catholics ... never had the consolation of hearing Galilean Simon Peter’s successor clearly condemn the crucifixion of these innumerable ‘brethren of the lord’ in plain terms, not diplomatic allusions.”[FONT=&quot][/FONT] Albert Camus concurred:

During that time of terror, I waited a long time for a loud voice to be raised in Rome. I, the unbeliever? Yes, indeed, more than most. For I know that the spirit would be lost if, in the face of wanton power, it did not pronounce the sentence of condemnation. It is claimed that the voice was raised, but I swear that millions of people like me never heard it.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

As early as 1940 Cardinal Eugene Tisserant had reproached the Vatican for its failure to provide moral leadership, while in 1943, Father Alfred Delp told a meeting of Bavarian clergy that the Church’s silence on the atrocities being committed in the east was endangering its own moral prestige.[FONT=&quot][/FONT] Richard Libowitz wrote:

I must say that I am a Jew; the subtleties of church politics are not my affair. I know only that an institution that has often proclaimed itself a moral watchdog for the world and has insisted upon the primacy of its ethical positions was silent, even as my people were being transported into the maw of Hell.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

In 1939, Pius XII spoke of his duty to proclaim the truth. “In fulfillment of this duty, we shall not let ourselves be influenced by earthly considerations, nor held back by mistrust or opposition, by rebuffs or lack of appreciation of our words, nor yet by fear of misconceptions and misinterpretations.”[FONT=&quot][/FONT] Likewise, von Galen spoke in 1941: “I am called upon ... courageously to represent the authority of the law and to brand as an injustice crying to heaven the condemnation of defenceless innocents.”[FONT=&quot][/FONT] As seen, however, this policy was not applied when it came to the Jews. As early as 1935, Jesuit Father Pribilla had condemned the policy of silence in order “to prevent worse.” “For ultimately, the worst that could really happen is that truth and justice would no longer find spokesmen and martyrs on earth.”[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Jan Karski, who risked his life to get the news to the Pope, wrote later: “The Lord assigned me a role to speak and write during the war, when, as it seemed to me, it might help. It did not”.[FONT=&quot][/FONT][/FONT] In April 1933, the Jewish Christian nun and philosopher, Edith Stein had written to the Pope asking for an encyclical,[FONT=&quot][/FONT] “in view of the indifference of Catholics to the growing vexations against the Jews.”[FONT=&quot][/FONT] In her letter, she asked the Pope to “deplore the hatred, persecution and displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews at any time and from any source.”[FONT=&quot][/FONT] No such encyclical was given in her life time. Nine years later, in 1942, she herself became a victim of the crime the popes had not denounced. In 1937, she wrote in her diary:

I know that my letter was sealed when it was delivered to the Holy Father ... I even received his blessing for myself and my loved ones, but nothing else came of it. Is it not possible that he recalled my letter later on? My fears ... have been gradually realized in the course of the years that followed.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]


[FONT=&quot][/FONT]



[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]


[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

.