How Pius XII Protected the Jews - By Jimmy Akin

Padre

Milforum Chaplain
The twentieth century was marked by genocides on an monstrous scale. One of the most terrible was the Holocaust wrought by Nazi Germany, which killed an estimated six million European Jews and almost as many other victims.


During this dark time, the Catholic Church was shepherded by Pope Pius XII, who proved himself an untiring foe of the Nazis, determined to save as many Jewish lives as he could. Yet today Pius XII gets almost no credit for his actions before or during the war.


Anti-Catholic author Dave Hunt writes, "The Vatican had no excuse for its Nazi partnership or for its continued commendation of Hitler on the one hand and its thunderous silence regarding the Jewish question on the other hand. . . . [The popes] continued in the alliance with Hitler until the end of the war, reaping hundreds of millions of dollars in payments from the Nazi government to the Vatican."[1]


Jack Chick, infamous for his anti-Catholic comic books, tells us in Smokescreens, "When World War II ended, the Vatican had egg all over its face. Pope Pius XII, after building the Nazi war machine, saw Hitler losing his battle against Russia, and he immediately jumped to the other side when he saw the handwriting on the wall. . . . Pope Pius XII should have stood before the judges in Nuremberg. His war crimes were worthy of death."[2]


One is tempted simply to dismiss these accusations, so wildly out of touch with reality, as the deluded ravings of persons with no sense of historical truth. This would underestimate the power of such erroneous charges to influence people: Many take these writers at their word.

Stepping out of the nightmare fantasyland of Hunt and Chick and back into sunlight of the real world, we discover that, not only was Pius XII no friend of the Nazis, but that his opposition to them began years before the War, before he was elected to the papacy, when he was still Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, the Vatican Secretary of State.


On April 28, 1935, four years before the War even started, Pacelli gave a speech that aroused the attention of the world press. Speaking to an audience of 250,000 pilgrims in Lourdes, France, the future Pius XII stated that the Nazis "are in reality only miserable plagiarists who dress up old errors with new tinsel. It does not make any difference whether they flock to the banners of social revolution, whether they are guided by a false concept of the world and of life, or whether they are possessed by the superstition of a race and blood cult."[3] It was talks like this, in addition to private remarks and numerous notes of protest that Pacelli sent to Berlin in his capacity as Vatican Secretary of State, that earned him a reputation as an enemy of the Nazi party.


The Germans were likewise displeased with the reigning pontiff, Pius XI, who showed himself to be a unrelenting opponent of the new German "ideals"—even writing an entire encyclical, Mit Brennender Sorge (1937), to condemn them. When Pius XI died in 1939, the Nazis abhorred the prospect that Pacelli might be elected his successor.


Dr. Joseph Lichten, a Polish Jew who served as a diplomat and later an official of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, writes: "Pacelli had obviously established his position clearly, for the Fascist governments of both Italy and Germany spoke out vigorously against the possibility of his election to succeed Pius XI in March of 1939, though the cardinal secretary of state had served as papal nuncio in Germany from 1917 to 1929. . . . The day after his election, the Berlin Morgenpost said: ‘The election of cardinal Pacelli is not accepted with favor in Germany because he was always opposed to Nazism and practically determined the policies of the Vatican under his predecessor.’ "[4]


Former Israeli diplomat and now Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Pinchas Lapide states that Pius XI "had good reason to make Pacelli the architect of his anti-Nazi policy. Of the forty-four speeches which the Nuncio Pacelli had made on German soil between 1917 and 1929, at least forty contained attacks on Nazism or condemnations of Hitler’s doctrines. . . . Pacelli, who never met the Führer, called it ‘neo-Paganism.’ "[5]


A few weeks after Pacelli was elected pope, the German Reich’s Chief Security Service issued a then-secret report on the new Pope. Rabbi Lapide provides an excerpt:

"Pacelli has already made himself prominent by his attacks on National Socialism during his tenure as Cardinal Secretary of State, a fact which earned him the hearty approval of the Democratic States during the papal elections. . . . How much Pacelli is celebrated as an ally of the Democracies is especially emphasized in the French Press."[6]


Unfortunately, joy in the election of a strong pope who would continue Pius XI’s defiance of the Nazis was darkened by the ominous political developments in Europe. War finally came on September 1, 1939, when German troops overran Poland. Two days later Britain and France declared war on Germany.


Early in 1940, Hitler made an attempt to prevent the new Pope from maintaining the anti-Nazi stance he had taken before his election. He sent his underling, Joachim von Ribbentrop, to try to dissuade Pius XII from following his predecessor’s policies. "Von Ribbentrop, granted a formal audience on March 11, 1940, went into a lengthy harangue on the invincibility of the Third Reich, the inevitability of a Nazi victory, and the futility of papal alignment with the enemies of the Führer. Pius XII heard von Ribbentrop out politely and impassively. Then he opened an enormous ledger on his desk and, in his perfect German, began to recite a catalogue of the persecutions inflicted by the Third Reich in Poland, listing the date, place, and precise details of each crime. The audience was terminated; the Pope’s position was clearly unshakable."[7]


The Pope secretly worked to save as many Jewish lives as possible from the Nazis, whose extermination campaign began its most intense phase only after the War had started. It is here that the anti-Catholics try to make their hay: Pius XII is charged either with cowardly silence or with outright support of the Nazi extermination of millions of Jews.
Much of the impetus to smear the Vatican regarding World War II came, appropriately enough, from a work of fiction—a stage play called The Deputy, written after the War by a little-known German Protestant playwright named Rolf Hochhuth.


The play appeared in 1963, and it painted a portrait of a pope too timid to speak out publicly against the Nazis. Ironically, even Hochhuth admitted that Pius XII was materially very active in support of the Jews. Historian Robert Graham explains: "Playwright Rolf Hochhuth criticized the Pontiff for his (alleged) silence, but even he admitted that, on the level of action, Pius XII generously aided the Jews to the best of his ability. Today, after a quarter-century of the arbitrary and one-sided presentation offered the public, the word ‘silence’ has taken on a much wider connotation. It stands also for ‘indifference,’ ‘apathy,’ ‘inaction,’ and, implicitly, for anti-Semitism."[8]


Hochhuth’s fictional image of a silent (though active) pope has been transformed by the anti-Catholic rumor mill into the image of a silent and inactive pope—and by some even into an actively pro-Nazi monster. If there were any truth to the charge that Pius XII was silent, the silence would not have been out of moral cowardice in the face of the Nazis, but because the Pope was waging a subversive, clandestine war against them in an attempt to save Jews.


"The need to refrain from provocative public statements at such delicate moments was fully recognized in Jewish circles. It was in fact the basic rule of all those agencies in wartime Europe who keenly felt the duty to do all that was possible for the victims of Nazi atrocities and in particular for the Jews in proximate danger of deportation to ‘an unknown destination.’ "[9] The negative consequences of speaking out strongly were only too well known.


"In one tragic instance, the Archbishop of Utrecht was warned by the Nazis not to protest the deportation of Dutch Jews. He spoke out anyway and in retaliation the Catholic Jews of Holland were sent to their death. One of them was the Carmelite philosopher, Edith Stein."[10]


While the armchair quarterbacks of anti-Catholic circles may have wished the Pope to issue, in Axis territory and during wartime, ringing, propagandistic statements against the Nazis, the Pope realized that such was not an option if he were actually to save Jewish lives rather than simply mug for the cameras.


..... continued at source due to word limit


http://www.catholic.com/documents/how-pius-xii-protected-jews
 
He obviously new nothing of:

"The Monastery Route." Roman Catholic priests, especially Franciscans, helped Odessa move fugitives from one monastery to the next until they reached Rome. According to Wiesenthal, one Franciscan monastery, Via Sicilia in Rome, was virtually a transit station for Nazis, an arrangement made possible by a bishop from Graz named Alois Hudal. Wiesenthal speculates that the motive for most of the priests was what he viewed as a misguided notion of Christian charity. Once in Italy, the fugitives were out of danger, and many then dispersed around the globe.
Sorry Padre we went through all this before didn't we?.... It wasn't just a rogue priest who went astray, but an organised escape route involving hundreds of people, who knowingly aided and abetted the escape of the perpetrators of one of the worlds most heinous mass murders.

But I suppose,... the jews weren't christians were they, whereas most Germans were?
 
Last edited:
I found a rather interesting site.

20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity

by Chaz Bufe

http://www.seesharppress.com/20reasons.html

Here are just two.

1. Christianity is based on fear. While today there are liberal clergy who preach a gospel of love, they ignore the bulk of Christian teachings, not to mention the bulk of Christian history.

Throughout almost its entire time on Earth, the motor driving Christianity has been—in addition to the fear of death—fear of the devil and fear of hell. One can only imagine how potent these threats seemed prior to the rise of science and rational thinking, which have largely robbed these bogeys of their power to inspire terror. But even today, the existence of the devil and hell are cardinal doctrinal tenets of almost all Christian creeds, and many fundamentalist preachers still openly resort to terrorizing their followers with lurid, sadistic portraits of the suffering of nonbelievers after death. This is not an attempt to convince through logic and reason; it is not an attempt to appeal to the better nature of individuals; rather, it is an attempt to whip the flock into line through threats, through appeals to a base part of human nature—fear and cowardice.

2. Christianity preys on the innocent. If Christian fear-mongering were directed solely at adults, it would be bad enough, but Christians routinely terrorize helpless children through grisly depictions of the endless horrors and suffering they’ll be subjected to if they don’t live good Christian lives.

Christianity has darkened the early years of generation after generation of children, who have lived in terror of dying while in mortal sin and going to endless torment as a result. All of these children were trusting of adults, and they did not have the ability to analyze what they were being told; they were simply helpless victims, who, ironically, victimized following generations in the same manner that they themselves had been victimized. The nearly 2000 years of Christian terrorizing of children ranks as one of its greatest crimes. And it’s one that continues to this day.

As an example of Christianity’s cruel brainwashing of the innocent, consider this quotation from an officially approved, 19th-century Catholic children’s book (Tracts for Spiritual Reading, by Rev. J. Furniss, C.S.S.R.):


Look into this little prison. In the middle of it there is a boy, a young man. He is silent; despair is on him . . . His eyes are burning like two burning coals. Two long flames come out of his ears. His breathing is difficult. Sometimes he opens his mouth and breath of blazing fire rolls out of it.

But listen! There is a sound just like that of a kettle boiling. Is it really a kettle which is boiling? No; then what is it? Hear what it is. The blood is boiling in the scalding veins of that boy. The brain is boiling and bubbling in his head. The marrow is boiling in his bones. Ask him why he is thus tormented. His answer is that when he was alive, his blood boiled to do very wicked things.

There are many similar passages in this book. Commenting on it, William Meagher, Vicar-General of Dublin, states in his Approbation:


"I have carefully read over this Little Volume for Children and have found nothing whatever in it contrary to the doctrines of the Holy Faith; but on the contrary, a great deal to charm, instruct and edify the youthful classes for whose benefit it has been written."
 
You are a "good christian" if,...


1 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

2 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

3 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

4 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

5 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

6 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

7 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

8 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

9 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

10 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
 
He obviously new nothing of:

Sorry Padre we went through all this before didn't we?.... It wasn't just a rogue priest who went astray, but an organised escape route involving hundreds of people, who knowingly aided and abetted the escape of the perpetrators of one of the worlds most heinous mass murders.

Yes, I acknowledge this all the time and everywhere, as you know. It's part of my objectivity and ability to see faults on "my side." Some Catholics betray Christian values and act hypocritically. They gave the Nazi salute to an atheistic/neo pagan regime. They're not good advertisements for Christianity. But there are good ones (eg. Pope Pius XII) and there's no harm in publishing their good deeds especially if they are the victim of a smear campaign over the years, and on this forum.

A lot of my posts (the serious ones, not so much the frivilous ones) are not for your benefit or BritinAfrica and his crew or my ol sparing partner Monty. It's for others who read our debates so that in amongst your claims, quotations, references, arguments - some of which are accurate and fair and I agree with, but others not, I can at least get in alternative views, historical facts and their reliable sources.

Our stouch on the other Thread (re. atheist Dawkins) has got 1,052 plus views, but only 92 replies - mostly from the same gang of 5 - 6 bigots. That means a lot of forum members have watched and read the topic but without comment. They're the ones I care about and am mindful of in defending that and those who I want to defend.

You're set in your ways. Entrenched. You've made up your mind on Religion and Christianity (although the version of Christianity you mock above is not my version of Christianity and much of it is not reflective of Catholicism). I accept that, and I've noticed we agree on some other topics.

Like BritinAfrica, I notice you don't rebut alot of my points, just make new insulting points attacking on a different topic. It proves to me and to those silent 1,000 readers that you can't rebut the information I post.

A lot of your (by "your" I mean the gang of 6) anti-religious / anti-Catholic jibes are emotional and subjective in the extreme, but as I say I don't so much post what I post to convert you or persuade you, as to at least have a written alternative view recorded on the forum for a larger readership of our debates.
 
How strange, people who don't agree with your views Padre are bigots. You have not been able to refute one single fact I have posted, you cannot, because they are true.

You have as much hope of converting me, as I have of becoming Pope BritinAfrica the first.

Golly gosh, at first I had a crew and now we are now a gang of six? You've been reading too much Sherlock Holmes Padre.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I acknowledge this all the time and everywhere, as you know. It's part of my objectivity and ability to see faults on "my side." Some Catholics betray Christian values and act hypocritically. They gave the Nazi salute to an atheistic/neo pagan regime. They're not good advertisements for Christianity. But there are good ones (eg. Pope Pius XII) and there's no harm in publishing their good deeds especially if they are the victim of a smear campaign over the years, and on this forum.
I'll be the first to admit that there are possibly many christians who are very good people. Never the less, in my personal experience, the vast majority of christians are no more than "christians of opportunity" or what I call "Sunday christians". People who have no qualms whatsoever about deliberately and willingly ignoring every christian value in the book the instant that it suits their purposes.

This is not a "shot at you, nor the Catholic Church, but it is a very considered opinion that I have come to over many years. One significant difference that I have noticed with Catholics, is the predominance of followers who go to church largely out of fear. A fear that has been instilled into them as children, a fear totally without any form of logic or reason (other than to ensure they are controlled by the church). This "illogical" fear is given real "teeth" as we get older, as that fear grows to include, a fear of social rejection by those with whom we have previously closely identified.

What was it that St. Francis Xavier said?... "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man"?

Yep,... it's a well worked out and very deliberate policy of fear induced social manipulation that would make people like Joe Stalin and Kim Jong Il, just blush with envy. I believe that this is probably also the case with such groups as some of the more isolationist and "charismatic' churches such as the Plymouth Brethren etc., but as yet I have no personal experience with them or their beliefs so for the moment it is no more than a suspicion.

With very few exceptions, christians are their own worst enemies demonstrating a duplicity and and hypocrisy in their every day lives that just beggars belief. In my experience, more visibly pious the follower, generally the worse they are.
 
Last edited:
The twentieth century was marked by genocides on an monstrous scale. One of the most terrible was the Holocaust wrought by Nazi Germany, which killed an estimated six million European Jews and almost as many other victims.


During this dark time, the Catholic Church was shepherded by Pope Pius XII, who proved himself an untiring foe of the Nazis, determined to save as many Jewish lives as he could. Yet today Pius XII gets almost no credit for his actions before or during the war.


Anti-Catholic author Dave Hunt writes, "The Vatican had no excuse for its Nazi partnership or for its continued commendation of Hitler on the one hand and its thunderous silence regarding the Jewish question on the other hand. . . . [The popes] continued in the alliance with Hitler until the end of the war, reaping hundreds of millions of dollars in payments from the Nazi government to the Vatican."[1]


Jack Chick, infamous for his anti-Catholic comic books, tells us in Smokescreens, "When World War II ended, the Vatican had egg all over its face. Pope Pius XII, after building the Nazi war machine, saw Hitler losing his battle against Russia, and he immediately jumped to the other side when he saw the handwriting on the wall. . . . Pope Pius XII should have stood before the judges in Nuremberg. His war crimes were worthy of death."[2]


One is tempted simply to dismiss these accusations, so wildly out of touch with reality, as the deluded ravings of persons with no sense of historical truth. This would underestimate the power of such erroneous charges to influence people: Many take these writers at their word.

Stepping out of the nightmare fantasyland of Hunt and Chick and back into sunlight of the real world, we discover that, not only was Pius XII no friend of the Nazis, but that his opposition to them began years before the War, before he was elected to the papacy, when he was still Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, the Vatican Secretary of State.


On April 28, 1935, four years before the War even started, Pacelli gave a speech that aroused the attention of the world press. Speaking to an audience of 250,000 pilgrims in Lourdes, France, the future Pius XII stated that the Nazis "are in reality only miserable plagiarists who dress up old errors with new tinsel. It does not make any difference whether they flock to the banners of social revolution, whether they are guided by a false concept of the world and of life, or whether they are possessed by the superstition of a race and blood cult."[3] It was talks like this, in addition to private remarks and numerous notes of protest that Pacelli sent to Berlin in his capacity as Vatican Secretary of State, that earned him a reputation as an enemy of the Nazi party.


The Germans were likewise displeased with the reigning pontiff, Pius XI, who showed himself to be a unrelenting opponent of the new German "ideals"—even writing an entire encyclical, Mit Brennender Sorge (1937), to condemn them. When Pius XI died in 1939, the Nazis abhorred the prospect that Pacelli might be elected his successor.


Dr. Joseph Lichten, a Polish Jew who served as a diplomat and later an official of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, writes: "Pacelli had obviously established his position clearly, for the Fascist governments of both Italy and Germany spoke out vigorously against the possibility of his election to succeed Pius XI in March of 1939, though the cardinal secretary of state had served as papal nuncio in Germany from 1917 to 1929. . . . The day after his election, the Berlin Morgenpost said: ‘The election of cardinal Pacelli is not accepted with favor in Germany because he was always opposed to Nazism and practically determined the policies of the Vatican under his predecessor.’ "[4]


Former Israeli diplomat and now Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Pinchas Lapide states that Pius XI "had good reason to make Pacelli the architect of his anti-Nazi policy. Of the forty-four speeches which the Nuncio Pacelli had made on German soil between 1917 and 1929, at least forty contained attacks on Nazism or condemnations of Hitler’s doctrines. . . . Pacelli, who never met the Führer, called it ‘neo-Paganism.’ "[5]


A few weeks after Pacelli was elected pope, the German Reich’s Chief Security Service issued a then-secret report on the new Pope. Rabbi Lapide provides an excerpt:

"Pacelli has already made himself prominent by his attacks on National Socialism during his tenure as Cardinal Secretary of State, a fact which earned him the hearty approval of the Democratic States during the papal elections. . . . How much Pacelli is celebrated as an ally of the Democracies is especially emphasized in the French Press."[6]


Unfortunately, joy in the election of a strong pope who would continue Pius XI’s defiance of the Nazis was darkened by the ominous political developments in Europe. War finally came on September 1, 1939, when German troops overran Poland. Two days later Britain and France declared war on Germany.


Early in 1940, Hitler made an attempt to prevent the new Pope from maintaining the anti-Nazi stance he had taken before his election. He sent his underling, Joachim von Ribbentrop, to try to dissuade Pius XII from following his predecessor’s policies. "Von Ribbentrop, granted a formal audience on March 11, 1940, went into a lengthy harangue on the invincibility of the Third Reich, the inevitability of a Nazi victory, and the futility of papal alignment with the enemies of the Führer. Pius XII heard von Ribbentrop out politely and impassively. Then he opened an enormous ledger on his desk and, in his perfect German, began to recite a catalogue of the persecutions inflicted by the Third Reich in Poland, listing the date, place, and precise details of each crime. The audience was terminated; the Pope’s position was clearly unshakable."[7]


The Pope secretly worked to save as many Jewish lives as possible from the Nazis, whose extermination campaign began its most intense phase only after the War had started. It is here that the anti-Catholics try to make their hay: Pius XII is charged either with cowardly silence or with outright support of the Nazi extermination of millions of Jews.
Much of the impetus to smear the Vatican regarding World War II came, appropriately enough, from a work of fiction—a stage play called The Deputy, written after the War by a little-known German Protestant playwright named Rolf Hochhuth.


The play appeared in 1963, and it painted a portrait of a pope too timid to speak out publicly against the Nazis. Ironically, even Hochhuth admitted that Pius XII was materially very active in support of the Jews. Historian Robert Graham explains: "Playwright Rolf Hochhuth criticized the Pontiff for his (alleged) silence, but even he admitted that, on the level of action, Pius XII generously aided the Jews to the best of his ability. Today, after a quarter-century of the arbitrary and one-sided presentation offered the public, the word ‘silence’ has taken on a much wider connotation. It stands also for ‘indifference,’ ‘apathy,’ ‘inaction,’ and, implicitly, for anti-Semitism."[8]


Hochhuth’s fictional image of a silent (though active) pope has been transformed by the anti-Catholic rumor mill into the image of a silent and inactive pope—and by some even into an actively pro-Nazi monster. If there were any truth to the charge that Pius XII was silent, the silence would not have been out of moral cowardice in the face of the Nazis, but because the Pope was waging a subversive, clandestine war against them in an attempt to save Jews.


"The need to refrain from provocative public statements at such delicate moments was fully recognized in Jewish circles. It was in fact the basic rule of all those agencies in wartime Europe who keenly felt the duty to do all that was possible for the victims of Nazi atrocities and in particular for the Jews in proximate danger of deportation to ‘an unknown destination.’ "[9] The negative consequences of speaking out strongly were only too well known.


"In one tragic instance, the Archbishop of Utrecht was warned by the Nazis not to protest the deportation of Dutch Jews. He spoke out anyway and in retaliation the Catholic Jews of Holland were sent to their death. One of them was the Carmelite philosopher, Edith Stein."[10]


While the armchair quarterbacks of anti-Catholic circles may have wished the Pope to issue, in Axis territory and during wartime, ringing, propagandistic statements against the Nazis, the Pope realized that such was not an option if he were actually to save Jewish lives rather than simply mug for the cameras.


..... continued at source due to word limit


http://www.catholic.com/documents/how-pius-xii-protected-jews
Read the comments of daniel silva novelist in one of his novels the very opposite is true. With Qoutes by jewish historians.
 
Seno: I think in many respects, your comment above is quite right. I suppose I'll find out one day if my Christianity is a pathway to something good beyond this life, or a falsehood.

Either way, if lived properly and authentically, and putting aside institutional church corruption, basic Christianity as a personal code of behaviour (do unto others as you would want done unto you, charity to others, etc) is not a bad code to live by.

BritinAfrica: you're probably a good bloke. Catholics/Catholicism have only ourselves to blame for making people like you hold us in contempt. Too many times you have seen and met the worst of us, and so no wonder you have the opinions that you do.

My personal experience of Christianity and Catholicism has been very different to yours and more positive. I've seen the good done by good people in parishes, schools (very different to the one you went to), nursing homes, hospitals, charities (St. Vincent de Paul), support groups for disadvantaged people, soldiers rescued from suicide (funny, most defence members seeking my help are atheists).....and so on.... But I'm not blind to the mistakes, corruption, imperfections and hypocricy you rightly point out.

If someone was anti-Britain, or anti-Labour Party or anti-Conservative Party, or anti-Church of England, or anti-Monarchy, or anti-British Army, they could, if they googled and researched hard enough, find plenty of dirt, and skeletons, and stupid policies and embarrasing out-of-date publications, or shameful actions by the British Government, Labour/Conservatives, Anglicans or past Kings and Queens. Also easy to do this to the Roman Catholic Church and you have done it.

No organisation in history has clean hands, a perfect membership, but the bad apples should never overshadow the good apples, and bad stupid deeds should not wipe out good and honourable deeds from the historical record, beit Empires come and gone, religions, political movements, philosophies.............................

This is a definition of bigotry/bigot:

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing sex, race, ethnicity, religious belief or spirituality, political alignment, nationality, language, sexual orientation, and age; and to those from a different region, with non-normative gender identity, those who are homeless, and those with various medical disorders, particularly behavioural and addictive disorders. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.

I am open minded on evolution. I see many faults, even crimes in Catholicism/Chrisitianity but because of the good in it I maintain membership or belief in it. I'm objective. I'm conservative in my politics but see good in the Left and leftists at times. Some of you on some topics are just so extreme in opinion and language especially on the Catholic church and Catholics. Believe me, good blokes as you are, right as some of your arguments are, you have nevertheless earned the label and fulfilled the text book definition of "Bigot"

If I see an apple or babana with bruising, I don't throw them in the rubbish. I'll eat the good bits and avoid the bruising and chuck the bad part out. You seem to see bruising - (exaggerate its size maybe) and throw out the whole fruit, good and bad - or at least that's how you come across in your posts.
 
Last edited:
You seem to see bruising - (exaggerate its size maybe) and throw out the whole fruit, good and bad - or at least that's how you come across in your posts.
No, I disagree with your fruit analogy, because fruit is inanimate, and (as far as I know) completely without morality, logic or the power of reason.

What I see, is people,.. people who do have the powers of logic and morality, people who have the ability to make wise choices should they wish, yet they can't face up to the fact that they are for the most part shallow, selfish and immoral, and as such they would rather seek "gods forgiveness" than make an honest attempt to change their moral compass.
 
Last edited:
Seno: I think in many respects, your comment above is quite right. I suppose I'll find out one day if my Christianity is a pathway to something good beyond this life, or a falsehood.

Either way, if lived properly and authentically, and putting aside institutional church corruption, basic Christianity as a personal code of behaviour (do unto others as you would want done unto you, charity to others, etc) is not a bad code to live by.

As long as it's not preaching hell and damnation or scaring the crap out of children and adults alike, then yea, its a good code to live by. However, I don't need religion to live my life in a responsible and respectable way. I often hear the term "God fearing people." Why on earth should people fear God, according to various teachings he is the best thing since sliced bread.

BritinAfrica: you're probably a good bloke. Catholics/Catholicism have only ourselves to blame for making people like you hold us in contempt. Too many times you have seen and met the worst of us, and so no wonder you have the opinions that you do.

That's big of you Padre and I mean that with respect. I've tried to live my life in a fit and proper way, treating others how I like to be treated.

My personal experience of Christianity and Catholicism has been very different to yours and more positive. I've seen the good done by good people in parishes, schools (very different to the one you went to), nursing homes, hospitals, charities (St. Vincent de Paul), support groups for disadvantaged people, soldiers rescued from suicide (funny, most defence members seeking my help are atheists).....and so on.... But I'm not blind to the mistakes, corruption, imperfections and hypocricy you rightly point out.

I have done work with Down and educational sub normal children, not out of religious beliefs, reward or a pat on the back, I did it because I thought it was the right thing to do. And as it happens they are fantastic kids, never sad or miserable. Many of today's (have it all and still not satisfied) children should work with those kids for a few months.

If someone was anti-Britain, or anti-Labour Party or anti-Conservative Party, or anti-Church of England, or anti-Monarchy, or anti-British Army, they could, if they googled and researched hard enough, find plenty of dirt, and skeletons, and stupid policies and embarrasing out-of-date publications, or shameful actions by the British Government, Labour/Conservatives, Anglicans or past Kings and Queens. Also easy to do this to the Roman Catholic Church and you have done it.

Tell me about it, study English history for a while, there are more then a few skeletons in the cupboard. At one time the English were the most hated race on earth. We may still be for all I know.

No organisation in history has clean hands, a perfect membership, but the bad apples should never overshadow the good apples, and bad stupid deeds should not wipe out good and honourable deeds from the historical record, beit Empires come and gone, religions, political movements, philosophies.............................

The idea should be to root the bad apples out and put their heads on spikes instead of trying to find excuses.


This is a definition of bigotry/bigot:

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing sex, race, ethnicity, religious belief or spirituality, political alignment, nationality, language, sexual orientation, and age; and to those from a different region, with non-normative gender identity, those who are homeless, and those with various medical disorders, particularly behavioural and addictive disorders. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.

I am open minded on evolution. I see many faults, even crimes in Catholicism/Chrisitianity but because of the good in it I maintain membership or belief in it. I'm objective. I'm conservative in my politics but see good in the Left and leftists at times. Some of you on some topics are just so extreme in opinion and language especially on the Catholic church and Catholics. Believe me, good blokes as you are, right as some of your arguments are, you have nevertheless earned the label and fulfilled the text book definition of "Bigot"

If I see an apple or babana with bruising, I don't throw them in the rubbish. I'll eat the good bits and avoid the bruising and chuck the bad part out. You seem to see bruising - (exaggerate its size maybe) and throw out the whole fruit, good and bad - or at least that's how you come across in your posts.

Very interesting Padre, let me remind you of something you wrote.

In Australia, perhaps elsewhere too, if the person(s) you are debating áre too biased and entrenched in their prejudice to see even just a little truth in the alternative point of view, as you are, then the only recourse is to take the piss out of them. And I'm afraid that is just so easy with red-neck Alf Garnet Poms who opted for the army rather than jail when they left lower secondary education.

I see that as bigotry Padre. Are you saying those who left lower secondary modern education are red necks who chose the army instead of jail?

Remember this Padre? "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."
 
Last edited:
My last word on the subject is this;
I was raised in a Catholic home, mum and dad are Italian, no big shock there!
My mum was religious, but had no respect for the church because back in Italy she had seen the church grow rich on the hard work of the people.
Her family owned a big farm and the church took its share of the proffits regardless of how well they did.
Also she was convent educated and fell foul of the Nuns because she has an oppinion and has never been afraid to voice it!
My dad was non comital about the church but he believed in what he called "Christian Values" and the Ten Commandments
We lived in a part of town that was full of Italian imigrants and the Roman Catholic Church decided that the town needed an Italian Roman Catholic Church built.
This church was built, at the expense of the poor people in the town, not the Vattican and people were threatened with excumunication if they did not contribute!
My mum tells me how she threw the Priest and two Nuns out of our house when they turned up one night, on my dad's pay day, to ask for money for the church.
My mum did not have me put forward for my First Communion because she refused to pay the Priest to have it done.
As a result of this my paternal Grandmother in Italy, told my parents I would not be welcome in her house as I was the child of Satan! I was eleven years old at the time.
For me I have seen religion destroy lives, alienate families and do more harm than good, while robbing people blind. My mum always says,
"You'll never see a hungry Priest"
Now I know, as I have already said, that their are Priests, Nuns, Christians, Rabis, Imans, and other ordinary people out there that do a lot of good for the poor and deprived, but these people are doing it because they have goodness with in them already, not placed there by some supernatural deity.
I was told by a patient's relative I must be a good Christian to do the job I do.
I replied, "No. I do the job I do to put a roof over my family's head and food on their table!"

I have no problem If anyone wants to Worship God, Buddah, Allah, Imhotep,Quetzalcoatl, or the fairies in your garden.
Just don't expect me to believe, and respect my reasons for not believing.

The end.
 
My last word on the subject is this;
I was raised in a Catholic home, mum and dad are Italian, no big shock there!
My mum was religious, but had no respect for the church because back in Italy she had seen the church grow rich on the hard work of the people.
Her family owned a big farm and the church took its share of the proffits regardless of how well they did.
Also she was convent educated and fell foul of the Nuns because she has an oppinion and has never been afraid to voice it!
My dad was non comital about the church but he believed in what he called "Christian Values" and the Ten Commandments
We lived in a part of town that was full of Italian imigrants and the Roman Catholic Church decided that the town needed an Italian Roman Catholic Church built.
This church was built, at the expense of the poor people in the town, not the Vattican and people were threatened with excumunication if they did not contribute!
My mum tells me how she threw the Priest and two Nuns out of our house when they turned up one night, on my dad's pay day, to ask for money for the church.
My mum did not have me put forward for my First Communion because she refused to pay the Priest to have it done.
As a result of this my paternal Grandmother in Italy, told my parents I would not be welcome in her house as I was the child of Satan! I was eleven years old at the time.
For me I have seen religion destroy lives, alienate families and do more harm than good, while robbing people blind. My mum always says,
"You'll never see a hungry Priest"
Now I know, as I have already said, that their are Priests, Nuns, Christians, Rabis, Imans, and other ordinary people out there that do a lot of good for the poor and deprived, but these people are doing it because they have goodness with in them already, not placed there by some supernatural deity.
I was told by a patient's relative I must be a good Christian to do the job I do.
I replied, "No. I do the job I do to put a roof over my family's head and food on their table!"

I have no problem If anyone wants to Worship God, Buddah, Allah, Imhotep,Quetzalcoatl, or the fairies in your garden.
Just don't expect me to believe, and respect my reasons for not believing.

The end.

Good post Trooper.

Like I've said, the Church, or certain people in the Church, only has itself or themselves to blame if people like you and your parents / Grand-parents turn against it because of their harsh methods. You and BritinAfrica are reminders to me that we Catholics/Christians have to be more faithful to Christ and when we are we don't do the hypocritical and cruel deeds done to you and your families.

Because my own experience and others is positive, I offer different stories of clergy, nuns, and parish life that is not exploitive of the poor, and cruel, and judgemental and using fear over people.

I understand (better) why you have the opinions you have of the Catholic Church and don't blame you for having them. I'm sorry you and others have seen the worst side of Catholics/Catholicism.

But I suppose, just like people who stick with their football club, or political party, or religion despite the errors, or mistakes or short-comings of some of its leaders & other members, I choose to remain in loyal service to the Church and a member, because I am encouraged by the good people doing good work for no material reward or false motive.

So again, I'm sorry if my defence of the Church inflames you just as your criticism of the Church can inflamed me. You've formed your strong opinion out of negative experiences and negative stories handed down and I respect that. I've formed my opinion out of a different and more positive experience (The Australian nun Mary McKillop and her sisters often went hungry and endured harsh conditions to bring free education to poor Australians. I could match your bad Catholic stories with many good Catholic stories).

That explains why we're on different sides of the (off) topic.

My objective I suppose, when we were taken off-topic into Catholic bashing, was to offer a different side and a different experience to the awful ones suffered by BritinAfrica, and you, and others who have a chip on your shoulder. The Church put the chip on your shoulder and no good priest, or good nun, or good parish, or good Catholic has come into your life to give you a better example of Catholicism.

The pews are full of people who are there of their own free will, they're educated and intelligent, some less so, from all classes and back-grounds, who are inspired to be there and want to be there.

Likewise the streets are full of ex-Catholics hurt by priests, nuns, brothers, lay people, who have turned against their former Church and who can blame them given what's happened to some of them. I don't.

But whenever I read or hear Catholic bashing, I'm keen to offer another side to the person's cricism of Catholics.

Do you, or have you ever belonged to an organisation or group, or family, that you like and are loyal to but where some in the group let the side down and betray the principles and values of the group/organisation/family?

Their misdeeds can make you quit and resent the organisation or inspite of them you remain loyal.

I am a member of the Australian Defence Force. I've served with the Navy and the Army. Currently and in the past, the ADF has had soldiers and sailors and commanders disgrace themselves and the uniform and the country. Some civilians hate the ADF because of what we've done in Europe, Korea, East Timor, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan over the last 100 years.

However other civilians are grateful for what we've done.

Some of our military actions and leaders and troops have abused people and other actions have saved, and helped, and freed them.

Maybe this could be said of other militaries too - USA, Britain?

For my part, despite having had bad generals, admirals, ordinary soldiers/sailors, war crimes, court-martials, etc, I am proud of the ADF and my country and my uniform and I am inspired by the good soldiers/sailors in the rank & file, and by some of our good generals and admirals.

The ADF has some black spots on its history but mostly it is a good history of defeating evil dictators, giving humanitarian aid, defending our people, mateship, etc.

I see the good but am not blind or brainwashed by the bad in the ADF. The bad is there today in maybe 10 per cent of the ADF (crime, drugs, bastardisation, war-crimes) and has been there over 100 years, but its not enough for me to reject the ADF because the good soldiers/sailors that we have, past & present, and the good we've done inspires me.

Now everthing I've just said about the ADF, I can also apply to my religion - Catholicism. Take out generals and replace them with bishops. Take out soldiers and replace them with priests/nuns and it's the same thing with me.

So post you grievances against the Catholic Church if you want to. They are true and accurate and explain your contempt for the Catholic Church. But when you do, I'm provoked to post:

(i) sympathy for what you and your family have suffered,

(ii) respect and understanding for why you have that contempt (once I get the full story and not just the anger and bigotry),

but (iii) I'll post a different view based on different and more positive experiences - NOT TO CONVERT YOU but for those others who read these Threads so that they get both sides of a debate on the topic.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top