Tuesday, January 08, 2008

..it is unfair to blame the Catholic Church

"I completely understand your point (and agree with it) that this [the Holocaust] wasn't the Church at all, but was demented individuals, who may have had a background in Catholicism... it is unfair to blame the Catholic Church for members who go astray.."

- David Kochman, Board member
Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies at Keene State College

It is unfair to blame the Catholic Church for members who go astray. Well said. Unfortunately, this is precisely what the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies at Keene State College has been doing. Read here: http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2007/12/call-for-apology.html

And while Mr. Tom White (a staff member of the Center) has argued that, "any interpretation of his Papacy [Pius XII's] are at best, ongoing, as the Vatican has only recently totally opened their archives on this subject," (a lie which has been refuted at this Blog), the Reich Central Security Office had no doubts about this great Pontiff. They considered him "the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals."

Following Pope Pius XII's sermon at Christmas, 1942, the Reich Central Security Office prepared a detailed analysis of the Pope's address for Reinhard Heydrich which was submitted on January 22, 1943:

"In a manner never known before, the Pope has repudiated the National Socialist New European Order. His radio allocution was a masterpiece of clerical falsification of the National Socialist Weltanschauung. It is true, the Pope does not refer to the National Socialists in Germany by name, but his speech is one long attack on everything we stand for....God, he says, regards all peoples and races as worthy of the same consideration. Here he is clearly speaking on behalf of the Jews...That this speech is directed exclusively against the New Order in Europe as seen in National Socialism is clear in the Papal statement that mankind owes a debt to 'all who during the war have lost their Fatherland and who, although personally blameless have, simply on account of their nationality and origin, been killed or reduced to utter destitution.' Here he is virtually accusing the German people of injustice towards the Jews, and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals."

It's not the record of Pope Pius XII which is in question. It's the credibility of the Cohen Center which is in question.

20 comments:

Alan said...

And Tom White considers himself a Catholic? With friends like him, who needs enemies? Why do I get the feeling that if he had been around in Nazi Germany, he would have turned over fellow Catholics to the Gestapo? How does he sleep at night after slandering Christ's Mystical Body the Church?

Susan said...

Tom Matson posted a quote, a portion of which said, "In our liberal democracy, no group — however virtuous or religious — may claim an exemption from criticism or scrutiny, nor may any religion demand that secular society adhere to its own definitions of heresy or blasphemy. When such policies are attempted, they lead to bullying, favoritism based on power and the end of meaningful freedom of speech and thought."

No group? Does this include the Cohen Center and SBC Watch? How about yourself? We have witnessed an end to "meaningful freedom of speech and thought" which resulted from the bullying and favoritism of the Cohen Center and SBC Watch. The anti-Catholic quote you posted at SBC Watch was (even by David Kochman's admission) disgusting and totally inappropriate. And while the Cohen Center showed favoritism to the atheistic SBC Watch by prominently referring to that Blog, Paul Melanson's Blog was conspiculously banned from the discussion. This because he is a Catholic.

But the truth is coming out, despite the plans of some to squash it and silence it. And the anti-Catholicism of the Cohen Center and SBC Watch have been brought out into the light. The ugly truth of their anti-Catholicism now a matter of public record.

No amount of smoke and mirrors will ever change that fact. The truth has been revealed.

Paul Anthony Melanson said...

Orthodox Catholics who are faithful to the Magisterium usually aren't welcome at the table Susan. All the talk of "diversity" and "hospitality" is really a sham. Unless you march in lockstep with the liberal ideology and/or historical revisionism, you are persona non grata. But then Christ told us that while the world loves its own, it hates those who belong to Him - John Chapter 15.

Anonymous said...

I am a student at Keene State. And I have to say that I often feel very unwelcome either in class or on campus generally. It's not so much that anyone treats me with harshness or calls me names etc. It's more subtle than that. There is an intolerance on campus which is more stealth-like. It is crafty enough to just slip under the radar but one may perceive it just the same. But with the Cohen Center situation, the intolerance appears to be more open and even confrontational. I would encourage you to keep doing what you're doing. People are beginning to talk. But I wouldn't expect Keene State to welcome you with open arms either. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

You're right "babe," you and your cohorts are not welcome at Keene State. As far as I am concerned, there is no difference between any Catholic and the SBC cultists. You are all medieval fools mired in monkish superstition. Get over it "babe."

Paul Anthony Melanson said...

I posted the last comment to give my readers an idea of the sort of anti-Catholic hatred that's out there (as if most of you aren't already aware of this anyway).

At The Keene Sentinel Blog, someone with a Blogger profile and calling herself "Sally M" slandered me by telling others I have made "false accusations about individuals" whom I don't even know and of using "cruel words...to describe others."

When pressed for evidence to substantiate her claims, "Sally M" became quiet. However, the following entry was posted at The Keene Sentinel:

paul
1/2/2008 10:44:32 AM
Sally you found me out-I am really all those people, I suffer from multiple personality disorder and now I am in therapy-I will no longer post here -

The fact that The Keene Sentinel would post such comments is most unfortunate. This most especially because such comments do not contribute to authentic dialogue.

Susan challenged "Sally M" to provide evidence to support her claim and received no response. But astute readers of this Blog know full well that I don't engage in personal attacks. Do I challenge people when they slander the Church or otherwise engage in falsehood? You bet. The old saying applies here: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Expect supporters of the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies at Keene State College to continue with the adolescent attacks while refusing to engage in an authentic dialogue. Apparently it's all the have to offer to the conversation.

Roger Vaste said...

Yet another anonymous person is spreading lies at the Sentinel Blog. I decided to address this lie for obvious reasons. It is the Cohen Center which doesn't want dialogue. Maybe they should open up a dialogue with the Catholic League?

My response:

No one has ever invited Paul Melanson or myself to the Cohen Center. But why would they? They so obviously have a problem with Catholicism. And at this point, speaking for myself, I wouldn't be interested in such a meeting. Why would I be? The Cohen Center isn't interested in dialogue. Instead, the Center seems committed only toward fostering an anti-Catholic atmosphere.

Why didn't Russell and Victoria Provost meet with SBC leadership instead of creating an entire Blog to address their grievances and concerns? Why didn't they choose instead to sit across from Louis Villarrubia and Douglas Bersaw?

You know the answer. The same applies in this case. I don't see any real difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism. Until the Center apologizes for fostering anti-Catholicism, there can be no real dialogue. David Kochman, a board member of the Center, has already admitted that Henry Knight's remark was wrong. Let's hope that his associates will have the courage to do the same and that they will apologize for offending Catholics who love their Church.

Roger Vaste
rvaste@yahoo.com

Roger Vaste said...

By the way J.A.R., the people you are disparaging were using their first names for nearly a year at SBC Watch and you had no problem with that. But now that these people have a problem with the anti-Catholicism of the Cohen Center you have a problem with them. Real first names aren't "quirky" as you put it. But silly names such as "J.A.R." or "Ya Right" etc are.

You suggest that Paul Melanson refused to publish a comment which your friend wrote and then you write, "I'd say that was curbing freedom of speech." Do you have any proof of your allegation? And what would you call the Cohen Center's decision to close the comments at its Blog simply because its anti-Catholicism was being exposed? I call THAT "curbing freedom of speech."

You have also made the claim that Paul Melanson is "bashing" the people at the Cohen Center. Where is your evidence of this allegation? Please write me at rvaste@yahoo.com and provide me with your evidence.

If you fail to contact me to provide me with your evidence, I will assume that you are no more honest than Louis Villarrubia and his associates when I challenged them to provide us with evidence of his legitimate ordination to the diaconate.

I am waiting. Please don't let me down. Please don't let us down. Let's talk.

rvaste@yahoo.com

Michael Cole said...

Paul, I think that you are right about the Cohen Center not wanting an authentic dialogue. If anything, it looks like the Center is afraid of dialogue and this is why they closed the discussion at their Blog. The decision to close the discussion was, I think, a defensive measure.

Natalie said...

I was looking at Keene State because I am graduating this year. But now I have some serious reservations about the school. Thanks for the information.

Susan said...

Question the SBC in public as Russell Provost has and there's no problem. Question Russell Provost and the Cohen Center in public and you are said to be "attacking." I addressed this hypocritical double-standard at the Keene Sentinel Blog. Here it is:

"What a shame that Russell Provost has decided to add lying to his decision to post offensive anti-Catholic comments a his Blog SBC Watch. He now says, "I, for one, still believe in freedom of speech. I am looking forward to see Susan, Craig, Barbara, Ellen, Lawrence,Paul, and others who have attacked me.."

But no one has attacked Mr. Provost. What we have attacked is his anti-Catholicism in the form of hate-filled comments he posted at SBC Watch as well as his defense of the anti-Catholic Cohen Center. When Mr. Provost was using his Blog to criticize the SBC and to allow others the opportunity to do so, that was "okay." But now that some question his anti-Catholicism or ideas he implies that we don't love "free speech."

Doesn't the SBC also have "free speech"? And yet, no one questioned Mr. Provost's free speech rights of criticizing or questioning the anti-Semitism of the SBC. Why then does he question our free speech rights to question his views and/or actions?

A hypocritical double-standard. He is free to publically oppose anti-Semitism (while being critical of the SBC in public),but we are not free to oppose anti-Catholicism and question the Cohen Center or his Blog in public. Unbelievable."

Margaret said...

Provosts dishonesty doesn't stop there. It looks like once again he is trying to make it look like he uncovered the SBC story. At his blog he claims, "In March(2007) I started SBCWATCH to inform and educate the people of Richmond and the surrounding area about the SBC.

I have uncovered many disturbing items associated with the SBC. There is the question about their denial of the Holocaust..." and he goes on.

"HE" uncovered many disturbing items associated with the SBC? The Holocaust denial of the SBC was actually addressed by The Boston Globe back in 2004. As for the anti-semitism of the SBC and the many other errors and deceits (e.g., "Brother Andre Marie posing as a Deacon), Paul Melanson was addressing these for years. Provost just started his blog - by his own admission - in March of 2007.

Lying and hypocrisy? Michael Cole showed us how Provost castigated citizens of Germany for being afraid of "speaking up" and how he later admitted to Mary Richardson that he first hosted his blog anonymously because he was afraid.

The lying and hypocrisy are so thick you could cut it with a knife.

Dale said...

Russell Provost writes, "Unlike other blogs, I allowed all comments (except those with bad language) to be posted." Bully for him. But he still shouldn't have posted the anti-Catholic comments. But the problems with his blog run much deeper. He posted anti-Catholicism himself when he initially compared Ave Maria University with the anti-Semitic SBC.

Susan, David (Kochman - a member of the Cohen Center), and a couple of others expressed their concerns. Only after they did so did Russell Provost change the title of that post. Roger Vaste actually printed off this exchange before Russell Provost suddenly deleted the comments at his blog.

If anyone wants proof of this exchange - complaining about Russell's anti-Catholic blog post - just write Roger Vaste and request a copy. I'm sure he will be more than willing to forward you a copy.

Sanctus Belle said...

Thank you for continuing with such a spirited defense of our Holy Religion Paul.

Paul Anthony Melanson said...

Thanks all for your input. Sanctus, RAV-4 is a chick SUV? Egad I hope not....I drive one..haha.

Keep up the great work at Our Lady's Tears!

God love you all.

Brian said...

Margaret, you noticed that huh? I laughed when I first read it. He thinks he "scooped" even the Globe. Of course, he's three years late. Kind of reminds me of Al "I invented the internet" Gore.

Shaun said...

It has always been my experience that liberal "academics" feel they are not accountable to anyone or anything. These fraudulent ideologists routinely attack positions they disagree with but when someone is critical of THEIR position, they immediately cry "foul" and complain about "personal attacks."

A childish attitude to be sure. Their message is abundantly clear: I can challenge your position but mine is sacred. It's as if these fanatics believe they are infallible. They have a problem with the Holy Spirit guaranteeing the infallibility of one man - the Vicar of Christ - with regard to faith and morals and only under certain circumstances. But they nevertheless believe that they are ALL infallible and that no one should ever challenge their positions or deeply-held convictions.

If it weren't so frightening, it would be laughable. This is no doubt why Keene State College closed the discussion at their Holocaust Studies Blog. They probably view themselves as some sort of ersatz Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Only in this case, the "faith" is liberal/atheistic secular humanism. And no "dissidents" are allowed.

This Blog is pretty damn interesting. I plan on returning.

Stewart said...

A terrific article which shows the relationship between Atheistic Humanism and mass murder or genocide:

http://www.christianaction.
org.za/firearmnews/2004-04_thegreatestkiller.htm

Paul Anthony Melanson said...

The link posted above by Stewart will take you to an article which concludes with the following statement:


"The bitter harvest of atheism proves that humanism is the most destructive religion in all of history. The secular state is the greatest killer ever, and secular states have made the 20th Century the bloodiest century of all time."

An indisputable fact. Strangely, there are those who are not concerned with the evils of secular humanism but only with what they perceive as the threat of "theocracy."

I have decided not to post an anonymous comment left at this Blog this morning because it was highly slanderous. Readers of this Blog will recall how I published a comment written by Mr. Tom White and how I provided Mr. White with a lengthy response which refuted his arguments. Therefore, let it not be said that I refuse to publish comments written by someone who disagrees with me. I have done so many times at this Blog.

However, this anonymous individual wrote (in part): "I am an atheist. I was not raised with any religion in my life. I am offended by your tone when you speak of atheists.."

Of course, this anonymous individual didn't provide me with any evidence, any specific examples of an offensive "tone" when I speak of atheists. This because I have never been critical of persons who are atheists.

This anonymous individual then wrote, "I feel it is unfair to label atheists as bad or unworthy or killers. Labeling is in itself very negative and not productive." But when have I labelled atheists as "bad or unworthy or killers"? Again, no specifics from this dishonest person. I do agree that with Stewart (and others) that Atheistic Humanism has proven to be more deadly than any other ideology. History doesn't lie. And I have to disagree with this writer's contention that "labelling is in itself very negative and not productive." Sometimes this is the case and at other times it is not. We label a man who takes advantage of a woman a "rapist." Have we not labelled him? Likewise, we label a man who kills an innocent person a "murderer," or one who abuses a child a "pedophile." Labels are only bad when they foster discrimination and /or are applied unfairly.

How ironic that this anonymous individual has absolutely no problem with labels which are unfair and foster an atmosphere of discrimination and prejudice. Labels such as "homophobic." And while this anonymous individual has no problem with those who would attribute Holocausts to "theocracy" or who would imply that religious fanaticism is at the root of genocide, he or she believes that it is "unfair to label atheists....killers."

Isn't it "unfair" to place such a label on religious belief?

Brian said...

"Labeling is in itself very negative and not productive..." This from one who backs the anti-Catholic Cohen Center. I wonder if this person is aware that Victoria Provost has used the label "homophobic" to describe those who oppose homosexuality? Isn't this a label?

Site Meter