It is time to put an end to the disingenuousness -- the bias, in a word -- and the disinformation concerning Benedict XVI.
As soon as he was elected, the accusations of "ultraconservatism," taken up in a loop by the media, began -- as though a pope could, in fact, be anything but "conservative."
There have been those excessive insinuations, if not crass jokes, about the "German pope," the "post-Nazi" in a cassock, the one the French satirical television program Les Guignols de l'Info blatantly nicknamed "Adolf II" (and this because, like all adolescents his age, he was enrolled in the regime's youth movements).
Texts have been quite simply distorted, regarding his trip to Auschwitz in 2006, for example, where it was asserted -- and repeated, also in a loop, time blurring the memory of the event -- that he paid homage to the 6 million Polish dead, victims of a mere "band of criminals", without mentioning that half of them were Jews. (The falsehood is downright staggering, considering that, on that day, Benedict XVI plainly spoke of the attempt of the "powerful of the 3rd Reich" to "eliminate the Jewish people" from the "ranks of the nations of the earth" [cf Le Monde, 30 May 2006]).
And now, this is the record, I was going to say the limit, with this visit to the synagogue in Rome, following visits to other synagogues in Cologne and New York: the same chorus of disinformers scarcely waited for him to cross the Tiber before announcing, urbi et orbi, that he had failed to find adequate words, hadn't made the appropriate gestures and, thus, hadn't quite pulled it off.
Well then, since the event is still recent news, allow me to make a few things perfectly clear.
When he bowed his head in silence before the wreath of red roses placed before the plaque commemorating the martyrdom of 1021 deported Roman Jews, Benedict XVI was only doing his. duty, but he did it.
When Benedict XVI paid homage to the "faces" of these "men, women and children" rounded up as part of the project of "extermination of the people of the Covenant of Moses," he was stating the obvious, but he said it.
When Benedict XVI reiterates, word for word, the terms of John Paul II's prayer at the Wailing Wall a decade ago, when Benedict XVI then asks "forgiveness" of the Jewish people, long the subject of pogroms inspired by the furor of an antisemitism essentially Catholic in nature and this, again, by reading John Paul II's own words, it is time to stop repeating, like braying donkeys, that he is not going as far as his predecessor.
And finally, when Benedict XVI stands before the inscription commemorating the 1982 attack committed by Palestinian extremists in Rome and declares that the Judeo-Catholic dialogue that began with Vatican II is now "irrevocable", and when he expresses the intent to "deepen" and "develop" the "debate between equals" with the Jews, our "older brothers," one can accuse him of any number of things, but not of "freezing" the process begun by John XXIII.
And, as for the affair of Pius XII...
If need be, I shall go back over the very complex affair of Pius XII.
I shall go back over the case of Rolf Hochhuth, author of the famous work, The Deputy, the genesis of the polemic regarding the "silences of Pius XII", in 1963.
And I shall go back over the particular fact that this burning dispenser of justice is, as a matter of fact, a negationist, often condemned as such (notably by Paul Spiegel, the now-deceased former president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany), whose last provocative act consisted of defending David Irving, who denies the existence of gas chambers, in an interview with the extreme right wing weekly Die Junge Freiheit five years ago.
For the time being, I would just like to recall (as has Laurent Dispot in La Règle. du Jeu, the review I edit), that in 1937, when the terrible Pius XII was still just Cardinal Pacelli, he co-authored the. encyclical With Burning Anxiety, which today still remains one of the firmest and most eloquent of anti-Nazi manifestos.
For the time being, we owe it to historical accuracy to point out that, before engaging in clandestine action, opening -- without saying so -- his convents to Roman Jews hunted by the fascist bullies, the silent Pius XII made a number of speeches broadcast by radio, in particular at Christmas of 1941 and 1942.
After his death, they earned him the praise of Golda Meir, who knew the value of the spoken word and was not afraid to declare that "during ten years of Nazi terror, while our people suffered in dreadful agony, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the executioners".
And, as yet, it's especially surprising that we place the entire weight of responsibility for the deafening silence concerning the Shoah that echoed throughout the world, or nearly all, upon the shoulders of a Sovereign of the time who had neither cannons nor aircraft at his disposal; b) who went to great lengths, most historians tell us, to share with others who were informed the. knowledge available to him; and c) who in fact saved a great many of those he was morally responsible for, in Rome, but elsewhere as well.
A word to add to the Great Book of Modern Abjection: Pius or Benedict, one can be both Pope and scapegoat.
Benedict must be heartened to have such a defender.
Part of the propaganda I suppose.
But no one can back it up.
Of course presenting the facts will change few opinions here, but that shouldn't keep one from speaking truth.
The inquiries in Ireland have gone on for more than ten years. He has agreed to write a letter to the people of Ireland -- and before doing so, he pointed out in another letter that Pius XII just had to be silent over the death of millions, because it was the thing to do at the time. So his own words about Pius pretty much disprove your article, don't they?
\That letter also effectively removes any possibility that his apology to the Irish would be anything other than words.
You can bring up as many apologists as you like, but the Vatican, while demanding policies proven to promote the spread of AIDS in under-developed countries, is also ignoring the work of christians that has brought a new wave of witchburnings to Africa. The people of Haiti were 80% catholic, and it was the church that took on the education of their children -- more than 50% of the country was illiterate.
We are so tired of religious apologists. We don't care how many apologists you pile up in your corner -- you and your ilk are bad news to the people of Earth. We'll be better off when you, Benny and every other snakeoil salesman is gone for good.
After years of nazi crimes (sending political opponents to concentration camps, etc.) the encyclical is used only to protest for the interference of the State in religious matters, in violation of the Concordat with the Catholic church.
Pius as pontifical legate helped Hitler coming to power by orienting the votes of the Catholic party. That was done in the hope that Hitler would have signed the Concordat and crush liberal and socialists, as Mussolini had previously done in Fascist Italy. Hitler actually signed the Concordat, but he did not really intend to respect it, and this provoked the Vatican reaction.
The point of the encyclical is that the totalitarian nazi state would be ok if it respected the power of the Curch in spiritual matters (allowing priests to teach religion at school, etc.).
A short excerpt:
"No one would think of preventing young Germans establishing a true ethnical community in a noble love of freedom and loyalty to their country. What We object to is the voluntary and systematic antagonism raised between national education and religious duty."
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge_en.html
Similar concepts had been exposed by Pius XI in his encyclical "Non abbiamo bisogno":
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_29061931_non-abbiamo-bisogno_en.html
That is gutsy language. Can't imagine FDR talking to the Krauts that way. Or imagine the current pope writing that about say the US. Oh, the howls of interference.
What part of "social justice" involves taking a priest who mol.ests kids and moving him to a new parish so he can do it again?
Explain to me how I "misunderstand" the Doctrine of Discovery.
Also, I tried to get a statement from the catholics for their on their position regarding medical marijuana. No one would talk to me or return my calls. As an institution your church is terrifically effective at refusing to explain a prejudicial policy to a reporter. I was not impressed.
I did a ceremony to start the New Age on Solstice 2004 and a Freedom of Religion Ceremony on 5-5-5. I am a witch so I figured I could and that the time had come. I think I was right.
The catholic church was positively terrified of the New Age. I suppose they saw it as a loss of power or an act of the devil. Well, I am tired of them making hay out of demonizing people like me so I stood up to them.
Power corrupts, you would think catholics would want to be more spiritually pure.
I sure want them to be, so I try to set them an example.
He is but one more dinosaur in the public conscience justifying archaic ideas while at the same time apologizing for the ones before him.
And so conservatism goes, always trying to catch up with reality but never quite making it.
Name any of his policies that are conservative...?
Women's rights
Women's right to choose an abortion
Gay rights/marriage
AIDS prevention
Healthcare for all
Feeding the poor
End of war
Of these examples, your pope preaches for the last three. (this is not a scientific poll!). But of the first four, his viewpoints and actions are very "conservative."
Why is the Vatican continuing to shelter Cardinal Bernard Law?