Vatican Threatens To Boycott Holocaust Memorial

Vatican Threatens To Boycott Holocaust Memorial

www.msnbc.msn.com

The Vatican ambassador to Israel threatened Thursday to boycott a Holocaust memorial ceremony next week over a museum’s portrayal of Pope Pius XII’s conduct during the Nazis’ killing of Jews in World War II.

Archbishop Antonio Franco said he had written to the director of the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum asking for the revision of a caption suggesting the wartime pope had been apathetic to the Jews’ plight.

The caption, quoted in the Israeli press, says Pope Pius XII “abstained from signing the Allied declaration condemning the extermination of the Jews” and “maintained his neutral position throughout the war.”

(visit the link for the full news article)

Yet another example of a religous based bias. One religion says something, and another gets offended.
What next?

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by lombozo
Yet another example of a religous based bias.

Huh?

The Vatican is not happy with the pope of the time being portrayed in a manner that is incorrect. Therefore they are not supporting the project. How is that 'bias'? That's just common sense. If something is wrong and you don't like it .. don't support it.

Maybe if the caption had read: ' Pope Pius XII “abstained from signing the Allied declaration condemning the expulsion of the Jews and maintained his neutral position throughout the war.” ... then BOTH parties to this dispute could have been satisfied and correct re: this snippit of history.

But then, these days, the Palestinians and Iraqis have earned the 'Holocaust' mantle in the eyes of the world .... and it might be more seemly if both the Vatican and Israel had the grace to acknowledge THIS fact, rather than quibbling as they are as the world spits in disgust at both of them.




[edit on 12-4-2007 by Dock6]

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by lombozo
Yet another example of a religous based bias.

Huh?

The Vatican is not happy with the pope of the time being portrayed in a manner that is incorrect. Therefore they are not supporting the project. How is that 'bias'? That's just common sense. If something is wrong and you don't like it .. don't support it.

Hey FF,
I agree with you. By bias I'm simply speaking of the way that one religous group represents something vs. another religions view of the same thing.

Originally posted by lombozo
the way that one religous group represents something vs. another religions view of the same thing.

Ohhhhhhhhh ... okay. That's just a difference of opinon then.

Who is putting out this 'holocost memorial' anyways? Numerous Jewish groups have come forward and said that the Vatican wasn't evil at all in it's handling of the Nazis in WWII.

hah yeah right.

Dont they think that perhaps italy was overrun with nazi's and that italy was on the side of the Nazi's, and the pope could be threatened and fearing for his own life.

Nuf said.

Immoral right?

“abstained from signing the Allied declaration condemning the extermination of the Jews” and “maintained his neutral position throughout the war.”

However, this is true. I don't understand what the problem is. Is it because the church doesn't look good here? Well, you can't rewrite history to make certain powerful groups look good.

The Pope made a decision, and now Catholics have to live with it, after all, the Pope's decisions are infallible right?

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

“abstained from signing the Allied declaration condemning the extermination of the Jews” and “maintained his neutral position throughout the war.”

However, this is true. I don't understand what the problem is. Is it because the church doesn't look good here? Well, you can't rewrite history to make certain powerful groups look good.

The Pope made a decision, and now Catholics have to live with it, after all, the Pope's decisions are infallible right?

As is usual Rasobasi, you hit it right on the head. Never have to guess where you're coming from. I respect that.
Isn't it amazing how so many people really do try to rewrite history?

I'd just like to say this. If it was the other way around, and the Jew's were in the Catholic's shoes, they wouldn't be very happy at all either.

I don't believe the Pope did do anything wrong during WWII. What was he going to do? I doubt he could have done very much. The Third Reich was extremely powerful.

And the Catholic church was also very powerfull, and had major control of the Italian population. With a few dissenting words from the Pope, Italy would likely have not been such a major ally, and who knows how many Germans would have chosen faith over country.

The pope was irresponsible with his powers, and likely chose not to side with anyone so that he would stay in good graces with the people, no matter who won.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
after all, the Pope's decisions are infallible right?

Wrong.

The popes decisions are not infallible. The pope is only considered 'infallible' when he speaks on matters of theology and he declares them 'ex-cathedra'. This is a rare happening.

Originally posted by Dock6
But then, these days, the Palestinians and Iraqis have earned the 'Holocaust' mantle in the eyes of the world .... and it might be more seemly if both the Vatican and Israel had the grace to acknowledge THIS fact, rather than quibbling as they are as the world spits in disgust at both of them.
[edit on 12-4-2007 by Dock6]

This is not a FACT. Far from it. Unless you believe that Iraqis and extremists are commiting genocide on themselves? How and who exactly is trying to systemmaticly kill all Iraqis?

As far as the Palestinians, I have not yet seen the gas chambers?

Originally posted by Frontkjemper
I don't believe the Pope did do anything wrong during WWII. What was he going to do? I doubt he could have done very much. The Third Reich was extremely powerful.

He certainly wasn't alone in his omission to support the Jews during the persecutions of WWII. Only one nation, Shanghai, was permitting them refugee status as they fled in droves early into Hitler's final solution. Both Canuckistan and America sent boatloads of refugees back to certain death. Not in ignorance either, plenty of intelligence reports and lucky survivors had relayed the true nature of what was happening to governments of the world. The response was based on a centuries old practice of antisemitism. The church has historically supported and promulgated progroms against Jewry in Europe and the response from the Vatican during WWII might have been regarded as somewhat restrained given their history. A slightly guarded digression from full support of the Nazi's antisemitism.

Saying nothing implies agreement, one of the reasons television is such a suggestible format, one doesn't generally sit and argue with their TV. So his refusal to come out against the Nazi's final solution implies his agreement with it, which is supported by the historical nature of the church's treatment of Jewry.

Israel has curtailed the tour buses of fundamentalist Christians to their country, who parade their views that if Jewry does not convert, they will be condemned to Hell. Their interpretation of the Vatican's response reflected in the sentiments of the plaque is an accurate portrayal of the history. If the church wishes to act like a spoiled child, smarting at the revelations of their own bad behavior, it only reinforces the original double standard.

The fact that they were in a pro-fascist country, the leadership of which, America admired with the statement - Mussolini makes the trains run on time - simply shows that the psychology of the events are a human phenomena, supported by the majority of the West at the time.

The Pope was not in a camp under gun-point, why then did he stoke the flames with his refusal to admonish them? If that is not faced with honesty and clarity - the whole phenomena of genocide will remain where it always has - a justified and rationalized byproduct of 'us' and 'them.'

I personally think Pius XII was smarter than most people are giving him credit. Just because he was a Pope, doesn't mean he should have put his life on the line to oppose a murderous dictator whose homeland almost borders your own country, knowing that any day his regimine could decide to come specifically for you.

There's always something going on more than public eye can see. They even hid Jewish refugees in the Vatican and other holy places:

«Having come to this month of November we must be ready to render services of charity in a totally unexpected manner», writes the anonymous chronicler at the end of 1943. «The Holy Father wants to save his children, the Jews also, and orders that hospitality be given to these persecuted people in the convents, and that the cloisters also must adhere to the wish of the Supreme Pontiff»

30Days - The Holy Father orders...

Once again, the Pope was not under gunpoint in a camp and could have easily fled Mussolini's Italy to a country where he might have safely denounced the holocaust.

Not one Western nation would have closed their borders to the Pope.

However, his denouncement might not have been met with enthusiasm.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Wrong.

The popes decisions are not infallible. The pope is only considered 'infallible' when he speaks on matters of theology and he declares them 'ex-cathedra'. This is a rare happening.

Thanks for that FF, if that's the case, why is the Vatican so upset? Can't they just admit that the pope made a mistake? It's not like doing so would contradict anything theologically presented. All it would do is make another blemish on the already tarnished name of Catholicism.

Just curious....where were the official denunciations from the Lutheran bishops during the Holocaust? After all, Germany is half Lutheran.

The Nazis literally painted a line around Vatican City and told the Pope he could not leave those confines, period. If he was so chummy with the Nazis, why this confinement?

Pius XII personally arranged for the sanctuary of thousands of Jews, and arranged papers for others to be able to leave the country for other safe-havens. As FF stated, many Jewish leaders have praised Pius XII for his work to assist the Jews during this time.

Originally posted by clearwater
Once again, the Pope was not under gunpoint in a camp and could have easily fled Mussolini's Italy to a country where he might have safely denounced the holocaust.

Not one Western nation would have closed their borders to the Pope.

However, his denouncement might not have been met with enthusiasm.

Assuming he could safely depart from the country that completely surrounded the Vatican, would it have been smart to? Wouldn't he be leaving his fellow Catholics to almost certain imprisonment and possible execution? And what of the Vatican itself? We know what kind of historical looters the Nazi's were. Imagine the treasure trove of documents and holy relics that they would have taken for themselves and could very well be lost to history today. If the Vatican itself fell then the entire worldwide religion would be in danger.

You make it seem as though the decision was so simple and so cut and dry. Not all things are black and white. I'm not saying that I agree with the Pope's decision. I'm not saying that I disagreed with it, either. I'm sure there were plenty of circumstances of which we know nothing about even today. For all we know the Pope decided to remain publicly neutral so that he could stay in the Vatican and provide safety and comfort to the oppressed. Perhaps the West asked him to stay there and remain publicly neutral so that he could better aid the Allies war effort in secrecy. These are all hypotheticals, mind you. But to say that he should have denounced the Nazi's and put all of those living in the Vatican in danger just so he could be morally praised by a Holocaust museum and ATS member "clearwater" some 60 years later is a joke.

Anyway, I think we should all appreciate the dangerous times and atmosphere of the late 1930's and early 1940's. It is easy for us to sit here today in the relative safety and comfort of our own homes and second guess the decisions made by those in the past- especially when we don't have all of the relevant information. A lot of people did what they did to survive and to save their families, friends and other loved ones. Therefore, I don't think it's a big stretch to imagine that the Pope did what he did to save the Vatican, its citizens and Catholocism as a whole. While he may be guilty of inaction and turning a blind eye to the suffering of the Jews, lets not condemn him as though he was stoking the fires and dropping the gas canisters into the showers at Auschwitz. To some the distinction is irrelevant, and for that I respect their opinions. But there is no way we can truly know what the Pope did and did not know, what he feared and what his motives truly were.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
The Pope made a decision, and now Catholics have to live with it, after all, the Pope's decisions are infallible right?

I don't know the historical specifics about what happened vis this particular incident. I always though the pope had a "wink wink" arrangement with the fascists that they wouldn't interfere and the Italians and Germans wouldn't blow up Vatican City. If someone has a history of this incident, I am interested in reading it. I am not going to defend anything the Catholic Church did in concert with the Axis.

But an important point needs to be made here. Only when the pope speaks on the issue of dogma is he speaking infallibly. And he has only spoken infallibly a handful of times throughout history.

You should probably read this article and tamp down on the cynicism.