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."
But Deborah Dwork, Director of Clark University's Strassler Center for Holocaust & Genocide Studies, doesn't see it that way. Speaking of the fact that Pope Benedict XVI named Pope Pius XII as Venerable, Ms. Dwork replied, "Who the Church elevates is its business, but history is MY business, and Pius XII failed Europe's Jews miserably, unconscionably." See page 21 of this pdf file.
I think Ms. Dwork needs to find another line of business.
The Israeli consul, Pinchas E. Lapide, in his book, Three Popes and the Jews (New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1967) critically examines Pope Pius XII. According to his research, the Catholic Church under Pius XII was instrumental in saving 860,000 Jews from Nazi death camps (p. 214). Could Pius have saved more lives by speaking out more forcefully? According to Lapide, the concentration camp prisoners did not want Pius to speak out openly (p. 247). As one jurist from the Nuremberg Trials said on WNBC in New York (Feb. 28, 1964), "Any words of Pius XII, directed against a madman like Hitler, would have brought on an even worse catastrophe... [and] accelerated the massacre of Jews and priests." (Ibid.)
Yet Pius was not totally silent either. Lapide notes a book by the Jewish historian, Jenoe Levai, entitled, The Church Did Not Keep Silent (p. 256). He admits that everyone, including himself, could have done more. If we condemn Pius, then justice would demand condemning everyone else. He concludes by quoting from the Talmud that "whosoever preserves one life, it is accounted to him by Scripture as if he had preserved a whole world." With this he claims that Pius XII deserves a memorial forest of 860,000 trees in the Judean hills (pp. 268-9). It should be noted that six million Jews and three million Catholics were killed in the Holocaust.
We must remember that the Holocaust was also anti-Christian. After Hitler revealed his true intentions, the Catholic Church opposed him. Even the famous Albert Einstein testified to that. According to the December 23, 1940 issue of Time magazine on page 38, Einstein said:
Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.
I invite readers of this Blog to visit the website of The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights to read the extensive documentation on Pope Pius XII which shows clearly that this saintly Pontiff was nothing less than heroic. My father had an audience with Pope Pius XII in April of 1958, just six months before the Holy Father died. It was an experience he would always cherish.
All too often, the record of history is clouded with the prejudices and presumptions of those who are commenting and reporting on it. Often history is twisted and reinterpreted for ideological purposes. We have seen that Clark University has embraced the radical homosexual agenda. It would appear that the university also embraces historical revisionism. Is this an attempt to discredit the Catholic Church because of its moral opposition toward homosexuality and same-sex "marriage"?
7 comments:
No, Clark University isn't anti-Catholic and Christianophobic at all. It is usual practice for a university to engage in historical revisionism. There is nothing wrong with reinterpreting history to slander an institution.
Dear God, where is Clark heading?
Dr. Halpern, a Clark University alum, left a comment here asserting that, "I can honestly say that in my 4 years there I did not encounter any anti-Christian sentiments. I would describe the atmosphere at Clark as supportive, intellectually stimulating, and encouraging of healthy, thoughtful debate."
Would Dr. Halpern consider Ms. Dwork's hateful statement about Pius XII to be part of that "healthy, thoughtful debate"? No anti-Christian sentiment huh?
What I am learning about Clark University is a real eye opener.
NEW YORK, NY (Catholic League) - Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an article by Deborah Dwork and Eric Greenberg criticizing the Catholic Church for pursuing the cause of sainthood for Pope Pius XII; it is published on the website of today’s Philadelphia Inquirer:
"Deborah Dwork is a specialist in Holocaust studies at Clark University, and Rabbi Eric Greenberg is the director of interfaith policy for the ADL. Their credentials are not in question, but their judgment certainly is.
They begin their remarks by saying that “Pius refused even to say the word Jew during his famous Christmas speech of 1942.” Funny how the New York Times was able to figure out who the pope was referring to at the time. “No Christmas sermon reaches a larger congregation than the message Pope Pius XII addresses to a war-torn world at this season.
This Christmas more than ever he is a lonely voice crying out of the silence of a continent.”
Nowhere in the Times editorial of December 25, 1942 does it mention the word Jew, but only the delusional would think the editors were praising the pope for speaking out about Puerto Ricans. Indeed, the Times ran an editorial the previous year, also on Christmas day, singling out the pope among world leaders: “The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas.”
The New York Times was not alone in praising the heroics of Pope Pius XII. So was Rabbi Greenberg’s organization: the ADL wrote gloriously of his efforts. So did the World Jewish Congress, Golda Meir, Albert Einstein, Emilio Zolli (the chief rabbi in Rome—he converted to Catholicism after the war, taking Pius’ name as his baptismal name), and many others. Furthermore, Israeli diplomat Pinchas Lapide credited the pope with saving as many as 860,000 Jewish lives. Today, English historian Sir Martin Gilbert credits the Catholic Church for its yeoman service.
There is always room for just criticism, but for Dwork and Greenberg to conclude that the cause of sainthood for Pope Pius XII is “an act of aggression against the Jewish people” is flat out unseemly. It also ill-serves Catholic-Jewish relations."
Professor Dwork's jusgment is in question. So too is the credibility of Clark University.
Since professor Dwork has said that, "Pius XII failed Europe's Jews miserably, unconscionably," the burde is on her to back up that claim with historical evidence. The fact that she hasn't suggests something about her lack of professional competency, not just her lack of sound judgment.
Clark University is obviously an environment which is hostile toward Christian doctrine and toward the Catholic Church. Imagine a professor there slandering a prominent Jewish or Muslim leader. Imagine the outcry this would produce. But apparently it's considered to be acceptable to bash the Catholic Church and to make opposition to same-sex marriage out to be illicit and even criminal.
Yet further proof that Clark University has become little more than a hotbed of homosexual propaganda and anti-Catholicism. Disgusting.
Ideologues will often ignore those historical facts which they deem "inconvenient." For example, Deborah Dwork ignores the fact that Chief Rabbi Isaac Herzog had praise for praise for Pius XII: "The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion which form the very foundations of true civilization, are doing for our unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of divine Providence in this world."
Also inconvenient for professor Dwork is the fact that Golda Meir sent a cable to the Vatican expressing condolences at the death of this great Pontiff: "When fearful martyrdom came to our people in the decade of Nazi terror, the voice of the Pope was raised for the victims. The life of our times was enriched by a voice speaking out on the great moral truths."
Golda Meir was there. Where was professor Dwork? Had she even been born yet?
Dwork isn't interested in historical facts Stewart. She employs history as bigotry.
Post a Comment