LinearShould Pius XII be canonized? Or come to that, JPII. (Main Forum)
by Helen 
, The other side of Australia, Monday, December 21, 2009, 16:18 (1244 days ago)
Personally a pope who has forbidden women to be ordained and a pope who was silent about the treatment of Jews shouldn't be.
I have inlcuded a letter from Edith Stien to Pius 12 which shows that at this point in of her writing, he had not spoken out.
Helen
Holy Father!
As a child of the Jewish people who, by the grace of God, for the past eleven years has also been a child of the Catholic Church, I dare to speak to the Father of Christendom about that which oppresses millions of Germans. For weeks we have seen deeds perpetrated in Germany which mock any sense of justice and humanity, not to mention love of neighbor. For years the leaders of National Socialism have been preaching hatred of the Jews. Now that they have seized the power of government and armed their followers, among them proven criminal elements, this seed of hatred has germinated. The government has only recently admitted that excesses have occurred. To what extent, we cannot tell, because public opinion is being gagged. However, judging by what I have learned from personal relations, it is in no way a matter of singular exceptional cases. Under pressure from reactions abroad, the government has turned to "milder" methods. It has issued the watchword "no Jew shall have even one hair on his head harmed." But through boycott measures--by robbing people of their livelihood, civic honor and fatherland--it drives many to desperation; within the last week, through private reports I was informed of five cases of suicide as a consequence of these hostilities. I am convinced that this is a general condition which will claim many more victims. One may regret that these unhappy people do not have greater inner strength to bear their misfortune. But the responsibility must fall, after all, on those who brought them to this point and it also falls on those who keep silent in the face of such happenings.
Everything that happened and continues to happen on a daily basis originates with a government that calls itself "Christian." For weeks not only Jews but also thousands of faithful Catholics in Germany, and, I believe, all over the world, have been waiting and hoping for the Church of Christ to raise its voice to put a stop to this abuse of Christ's name. Is not this idolization of race and governmental power which is being pounded into the public consciousness by the radio open heresy? Isn't the effort to destroy Jewish blood an abuse of the holiest humanity of our Savior, of the most blessed Virgin and the apostles? Is not all this diametrically opposed to the conduct of our Lord and Savior, who, even on the cross, still prayed for his persecutors? And isn't this a black mark on the record of this Holy Year which was intended to be a year of peace and reconciliation?
We all, who are faithful children of the Church and who see the conditions in Germany with open eyes, fear the worst for the prestige of the Church, if the silence continues any longer. We are convinced that this silence will not be able in the long run to purchase peace with the present German government. For the time being, the fight against Catholicism will be conducted quietly and less brutally than against Jewry, but no less systematically. It won't take long before no Catholic will be able to hold office in Germany unless he dedicates himself unconditionally to the new course of action.
At the feet of your Holiness, requesting your apostolic blessing,
(Signed) Dr. Edith Stein, Instructor at the German Institute for Scientific Pedagogy, Münster in Westphalia, Collegium Marianum.
PS I have just learned that this was sent to Pius XI not the XII - one needs to be fair in all things. So, maybe Pius XII inherited rather than instigated the silence on the treatment of the Jews.
lockedWill Benedict be the George Bush of the Papacy?
Back in March we had a discussion with Paul O´Shea who had just returned from a Symposium of Pius XII in Jerusalem. I can understand the argument put forward in support of Pius XII that he did not want to make matters worse by speaking out against Hitler - an argument by the way with which many people disagree.
But one thing I cannot understand is Pius's silence about the mass killing of the Serbs, Jews and Muslims by Pavelic who was the head of Catholic Action and in direct contact with the Catholic hierarchy. Further, many of his concentrations camps were headed by priests, mainly Franciscans. Pius may not have had any control or influence over Hitler, but he certainly had it over Pavelic and his Franciscan priests.
This is what Paul had to say:
All of this is true. And outside my immediate competency. I recommend reading Phayer's books - "The Catholic Church and the Holocaust 1930-1965" (Indiana UP 2000) and "Pius XII, the Holocaust and the Cold War" (Indiant UP 2008). That is a good starting point. On Stepinac - the jury is still out. I discussed this with a Serbian priest who is studying at Yad Vashem at some length. I think Jovan Culibrk is right on saying that on some things Stepinac was a good man (his condemnation of the killiing of Jews and Serbs) but weak on other things (his support, however tepid, of the Pavelic regime). As more and more documentary sources are collected and studied from the former Yugolsavia I fear the picture will get much worse. Jovan's research so far makes for very sad reading as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. (On a related matter - it does help explain the reticence expressed by many Orthodox towards rapproachement with Rome - the history is too bloody and still too raw) As for what Pius knew ... until the archives are opened we only have a sketchy picture, but it is safe to say that he had a pretty clear picture of an awful situation. Did he know Franciscan friars were killing Serbs? I suspect he did. Pius was a micro-manager - it would be odd if he did not know something as major as priests killing people. As for his action or inaction ... it does not look good.
As Paul had earlier explained the Vatican opened its archives in relation to Germany, but it has never opened its archives in relation to the activities of Pavelic and the Croatian clergy.
Benedict's reputation is in tatters as a result of his 2001 instruction to the Irish Bishops to pervert the course of justice in Ireland and cover up pedophile crimes. Any steps towards the beatification of Pius XII before the Croatian question is resolved can only make his situation worse.
He might end up going down in history as the George Bush of the Papacy.
locked
That 2001 instruction to the Irish Bishops
by ray(O) , Toowong, Monday, December 21, 2009, 19:58 (1244 days ago) @ James
There seems to be a little controversy over this document. I was trying to find the actual instruction and have a read of it.
Does anyone have some more information on it? The only 2001 reference I found is to a document from JP2?
I found this reference:-
'Lawyers point to a letter the Vatican sent to bishops in May 2001 clearly stating the 1962 instruction was in force until then. The letter is signed by Cardinal Ratzinger...'
So I guess the 1962 document is the real bogeyman.
together in the Faith of Christ
Ray
lockedThat 2001 instruction to the Irish Bishops _is this it?
by Englishwoman , Monday, December 21, 2009, 20:13 (1244 days ago) @ ray(O)
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/EpistulaEnglis...
All bishops surely?
Mary
lockedThat 2001 instruction to the Irish Bishops _is this it?
by MikeM , Monday, December 21, 2009, 21:49 (1244 days ago) @ Englishwoman
So it's telling bishops to refer cases to Rome, but where is it telling them to cover up crimes? Does it tell them not to refer crimes or allegations of crime to police?
lockedThat 2001 instruction to the Irish Bishops _is this it?
I think this is the letter...
see http://www.opusbonosacerdotii.org/ad_exsequendam_ecclesiasticam_legem.htm
Ad exsequendam ecclesiasticam legem
In order to fulfill the ecclesiastical law, which states in Article 52 of the apostolic constitution on the Roman Curia, "[The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] examines delicts against faith and more grave delicts both against morals and committed in the celebration of the sacraments which have been reported to it and, if necessary, proceeds to declare or impose canonical sanctions according to the norm of common or proper law,"(1) it was necessary first to define the method of proceeding in delicts against the faith: This was accomplished through the norms titled Agendi Ratio in Doctrinarum Examine, ratified and confirmed by the supreme pontiff, Pope John Paul II, together with Articles 28-29 approved in forma specifica.(2)
At approximately the same time, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, through an ad hoc commission established, devoted itself to a diligent study of the canons on delicts both of the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches in order to determine "more grave delicts both against morals and in the celebration of the sacraments" and in order to make special procedural norms "to declare or impose canonical sanctions," because the instruction Crimen Sollicitationis, issued by the supreme sacred Congregation of the Holy Office on March 16, 1962,(3) in force until now, was to be reviewed when the new canonical codes were promulgated.
Having carefully considered opinions and having made the appropriate consultations, the work of the commission finally was completed. The fathers of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith examined the commission's work carefully and submitted to the supreme pontiff conclusions on the determination of more grave delicts and the manner of proceeding to declare or impose sanctions, with the exclusive competence in this of the apostolic tribunal of this congregation remaining firm. All these things, approved by the supreme pontiff himself, were confirmed and promulgated by the apostolic letter given motu proprio beginning with the words Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela.
The more grave delicts both in the celebration of the sacraments and against morals reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are:
-Delicts against the sanctity of the most august eucharistic sacrifice and the sacraments, namely:
1. Taking or retaining the consecrated species for a sacrilegious purpose or throwing them away.(4)
2. Attempting the liturgical action of the eucharistic sacrifice or simulating the same.(5)
3. Forbidden concelebration of the eucharistic sacrifice with ministers of ecclesial communities which do not have apostolic succession and do not recognize the sacramental dignity of priestly ordination.(6)
4. Consecrating for a sacrilegious purpose one matter without the other in the eucharistic celebration or even both outside a eucharistic celebration.(7)
-Delicts against the sanctity of the sacrament of penance, namely:
1. Absolution of an accomplice in sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue.(8)
2. Solicitation in the act, on the occasion or under the pretext of confession, to sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue, if it is directed to sin with the confessor himself.(9)
3. Direct violation of the sacramental seal.(10)
-A delict against morals, namely: the delict committed by a cleric against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue with a minor below the age of 18 years.
Only these delicts, which are indicated above with their definition, are reserved to the apostolic tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
As often as an ordinary or hierarch has at least probable knowledge of a reserved delict, after he has carried out the preliminary investigation he is to indicate it to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which unless it calls the case to itself because of special circumstances of things, after transmitting appropriate norms, orders the ordinary or hierarch to proceed ahead through his own tribunal. The right of appealing against a sentence of the first instance, whether on the part of the party or the party's legal representative, or on the part of the promoter of justice, solely remains valid only to the supreme tribunal of this congregation.
It must be noted that the criminal action on delicts reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is extinguished by a prescription of 10 years.(11) The prescription runs according to the universal and common law;(12) however, in the delict perpetrated with a minor by a cleric, the prescription begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age.
In tribunals established by ordinaries or hierarchs, the functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests. When the trial in the tribunal is finished in any fashion, all the acts of the case are to be transmitted ex officio as soon as possible to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
All tribunals of the Latin church and the Eastern Catholic churches are bound to observe the canons on delicts and penalties, and also on the penal process of both codes respectively, together with the special norms which are transmitted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for an individual case and which are to be executed entirely.
Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret.
Through this letter, sent by mandate of the supreme pontiff to all the bishops of the Catholic Church, to superiors general of clerical religious institutes of pontifical right and clerical societies of apostolic life of pontifical right, and to other interested ordinaries and hierarchs, it is hoped not only that more grave delicts will be entirely avoided, but especially that ordinaries and hierarchs have solicitous pastoral care to look after the holiness of the clergy and the faithful even through necessary sanctions.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 18, 2001.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Prefect
Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, SDB
Secretary
I have put the relevant bits in red. If such a proceedings was conducted in a local tribunal and the documents sent onto the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then the requirement that the proceedings (including possibly any admissions by priests of sex crimes) were to be subject to "the pontifical secret".
It seems fairly clear from what Fr. Sean McDonagh says that this precluded those involved in the proceedings from going to the police with the evidence. That is an understandable inference from the letter.
lockedPontifical Secret
by Ynot , Tuesday, December 22, 2009, 13:54 (1243 days ago) @ James
James, you wrote:
If such a proceedings was conducted in a local tribunal and the documents sent onto the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then the requirement that the proceedings (including possibly any admissions by priests of sex crimes) were to be subject to "the pontifical secret".
It seems fairly clear from what Fr. Sean McDonagh says that this precluded those involved in the proceedings from going to the police with the evidence. That is an understandable inference from the letter.
I googled the document referred to in the letter, Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela [The Safeguarding of the Sanctity of the Sacraments]. The penultimate para gives more detail on the pontifical secret:
Art. 25
§ 1. Cases of this nature are subject to the pontifical secret.[31]
§ 2. Whoever has violated the secret, whether deliberately (ex dolo) or through grave negligence, and has caused some harm to the accused or to the witnesses, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty by the higher Turnus at the request of the injured party or even ex officio.
Footnote[31] Secretariat of State, Rescript from an Audience of the Holy Father Il 4 febbraio, by which the Regolamento Generale della Curia Romana is made public, April 30, 1999, Regolamento Generale della Curia Romana, April 30, 1999, art. 36 § 2, in AAS 91 (1999) 646: “With particular care, the pontifical secret will be observed, according the norm of the Instruction Secreta continere of February 4, 1974.”
The Secretariat of State or Papal Secretariat, Rescript from an Audience, the Instruction Secreta continere, Concerning the Pontifical Secret, February 4, 1974, in AAS 66 (1974) 89-92:
“Art. 1. Included under the pontifical secret are:...
4. Extrajudicial denunciations received regarding delicts against faith and against morals, and regarding delicts perpetrated against the sacrament of Penance; likewise the trial and decision which pertain to those denunciations, with due regard for the right of the one who has been reported to the authorities to know of the denunciation, if such knowledge is necessary for his own defense. However, it will be permissible to make known the name of the denouncer only when it seems opportune to the authorities that the denounced person and the denouncer appear together in the trial; ...” (p. 90).
It seems to my untrained mind that the bishop who receives a denunciation (complaint) is bound to secrecy from the moment he receives it. It is not only those involved in the judicial process that are so bound.
I think the purpose of the secrecy is to protect the individuals - the accused and the accuser - from gossip and its very damaging consequences. Of course the protection of the Church community as a whole comes in under the same heading.
It is interesting to note that the police follow similar procedure, though for a different purpose. In Melb, Barry O'Callaghan was reprimanded by the police for telling the solicitor of the accused that he could proceed no further since the police had become involved. The solicitor told his client who then had time to destroy evidence. The police were furious, but it is surely a no-win situation.
Anyway, in the past the pontifical secret was taken very seriously. Currently bishops are claiming to pass such accusations to the police in the first instance. Has this caused the legislation in these letters to be revoked, I wonder?
'TonyL
"A post is a free gift, and it will go where it pleases."'
lockedPontifical Secret
Hi Tony,
The language in these documents is pretty convoluted, probably because of a bad translation from the Latin. However, I think you are right. The "pontifical secret" applies to "extra judicial denunciations" which would have to include a complaint about sex crimes committed by clergy.
None of these requirements of secrecy would be a problem where the issue is, for example, a priest having a mistress, or some breach of canon law relating to the sacraments. Neither of them involve any breach of the criminal law.
The problem arises (and surely Ratzinger and his Congregation must have known this) when the particular complaint also involves a breach of the criminal law, such as sexual relations with a minor. A requirement of secrecy in this situation puts the bishop in a situation of himself likely to be in breach of the criminal law at least in common law countries, by not reporting it.
The Vatican document makes no such distinction between situations which might involve some breach of canon law that is not criminal, and those which are.
The letter from Fr. Sean McDonagh points out that the Irish (and perhaps all) bishops interpreted Ratzinger's letter to mean that they were under a canonical prohibition not to report the allegation to the police because that would involve a breach of the "pontifical secret". Such a view is a reasonable inference from this letter, even though it does not say in express terms "do not go to the police".
There are new protocols in place now for dealing with complaints about sex crimes by clergy, and obviously this situation is not going to be repeated. Where these protocols stand canonically I cannot say.
lockedPontifical Secret
by Ynot , Wednesday, December 23, 2009, 08:27 (1243 days ago) @ James
James, not wanting to push this thing along forever, just a bit more. You wrote:
"The Vatican document makes no [] distinction between situations which might involve some breach of canon law that is not criminal, and those which are."
But the 2001/2002 document explicitly stipulates that the "delict against morals" under consideration is "with a minor below the age of 18 years". In fact the identification of this delict seems to be the practical purpose of this document.
-A delict against morals, namely: the delict committed by a cleric against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue with a minor below the age of 18 years.
Wouldn't such an action come under criminal law in most jurisdictions?
Back in 2003 John Allen had a piece in NCR
http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn080703.htm
in which the canonists were pretty quick to say that the 1962 document "Crimen solicitationis" does not prevent a bishop or anyone else from reporting a crime against a minor to the civil authorities. While their opinion is no doubt safe to follow in practice, I can't help thinking that, on the contrary, many would have understood the secrecy bit to mean that these matters were to be dealt with "in house".
One canonist even says the 1962 document was so secret most bishops did not know of its existence. It was so secret it had to be locked away and there was an embargo on even talking about it! (Is this the prototype of our laws against Terrorism that forbid anyone even merely questioned about certain activities to tell anyone, even their families, that they have been so questioned?)
On the other hand, was it in the mid 1980s that our legislators found it necessary to makes laws that require professionals (doctors, teachers, social workers, etc.) to report abuse? That signaled a great awakening in society. It's not really surprising to find the church caught napping years later - but it is now time to give it a good kick up the kyber.
'TonyL
"A post is a free gift, and it will go where it pleases."'
lockedPontifical Secret
Hi Tony,
I probably didn't make myself clear. What I was trying to say is that the Vatican document on quesions of secrecy did not draw a distinction between breaches of canon law that were not criminal and those that were. Certainly sex with a minor is referred to, but the secrecy provisions apply equally to it as to some breach of a sacramental canon, such as throwing away the Eucharist, which is not forbidden by any criminal law.
And John Allen's view is completely in accord with what Fr. Sean McDonagh wrote in his letter. Everyone, it seems, understood the secrecy provisions to apply to sex crimes committed by priests. Interestingly enough, the same secrecy provision did not apply to where a priest embezzled parish funds.
It will be interesting to see what comes out of B16's pastoral letter. The very best gloss that can be put on the 2001 letter is that Ratzinger never intended it as an attempt to hide crimes, and it was just very badly drafted. But the fact that nearly everyone in authority seems to have interpreted it as an order to keep all sex abuse "in house" suggests that at the very least B16 should make a personal apology for that misunderstanding - it was after all his own letter which has now found to have caused so much subsequent grief by allowing pedophile priests to continue their activities.
lockedPontifical Secret - Er?
by Helen , The other side of Australia, Wednesday, December 23, 2009, 11:51 (1242 days ago) @ James
http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=3&subclassID=59&articleID=... Time
If this is how things work in Rome, then as the Pope chooses the bishops who are in complete accord with him, then how can he pretend to be shocked regarding the Dublin Report?
Even though he wasn't pope at the time of the crimes, he certainly had the ear of JPII. And as 'Supreme Pontiff' he is responsible for everything within the Church workings, so hence passing the buck back to the local churches doesn't hold water anymore.
Helen
lockedThat 2001 instruction to the Irish Bishops _is this it?
There is nothing wrong with a private organization having its own internal forums to deal with disciplining of its members. So there is nothing wrong with the Catholic Church having the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith having its own investigations of things such as the sex crimes by clergy against minors.
What is obnoxious and indeed, in most common law jurisdictions, criminal, is having a policy of hiding from the State authorities crimes against the law of the land committed by members of that institution and of which the authorities are aware.
I haven't seen the 2001 letter either, but there are numerous references to it on the internet, and so far I have not seen any Vatican document denying its authenticity. Further, if I can quote from a letter to the Irish times from Fr. Sean McDonagh to the Irish Times,
In 2001, every diocesan bishop in the Catholic Church around the the world received a letter from the then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, instructing them to refer complaints of clerical child sex abuse to the Congregation which would then decide how they should be dealt with. This directive from Rome, which effectively encouraged bishops to commit criminal offences in many jurisdictions, including Ireland, by not reporting the crime first to the police, certainly put the “interest of the institution above the safety and welfare of children.”
The Murphy report in Ireland was highly critical of the bishops who had followed this instruction. One has so far resigned and there is pressure on the others to follow suit.
So far, the Pope has not resigned, but he is the one who should if in fact he did instruct the bishops under pain of excommunication, (according to the reports), that they had to conceal these crimes, and thereby exposing these bishops to being prosecuted for misprision of felony, aiding and abetting and accessory after the fact.
But it would be nice to find the actual letter...
locked
That 2001 instruction to the Irish Bishops _is this it?
by desi , Australia, Tuesday, December 22, 2009, 00:46 (1244 days ago) @ James
This is from a news report after the publication of the Murphy Report:
The inquiry asked for details of reports on abuse sent to the Vatican by the Dublin archdiocese in 2006.
The Vatican did not reply but told the Irish Foreign Affairs department the request "had not gone through appropriate diplomatic channels".
The inquiry condemned church leaders for covering-up abuse for decades.
The Report of the Commission of Investigation into the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin, which was published on Thursday, covered a period from 1975 to 2004.
The commission said it was independent of the government and therefore did not regard it as appropriate to use diplomatic channels when seeking information.
A request for information from the Papal Nuncio also was ignored.
In February 2007, the commission wrote to the Dublin-based Papal Nuncio asking him to forward all relevant documents in his possession.
It also requested that he confirm whether he had any such documents but the Papal Nuncio did not reply.
Has there been any response from the Vatican re the first para.?
Has the Papal Nuncio responded to the Report?
Surely one would expect any 'organisation' to respond to such criticisms of itself - hopefully by saying 'we have nothing to hide and that in so grave a matter there must be total transparency'.
(Perhaps that's what B16 is going to say in his letter to the Catholics of Ireland).
lockedShould Pius XII be canonized? Or come to that, JPII.
There has been much virtual ink spilt on this latest news from Rome. Personally I think canonising popes is not a good idea. The only exception is John XXIII and he was acclaimed by the whole world. My concern as an historian is that the whole process is in danger of being rushed; and for what purpose. The relevant archives for the war years will not be available until 2013 at least. So, why the hurry?
As for JP2 - I can't see anyway ahead until the relevant material about the clergy sex-abuse coverups is revealed. It happened on his watch. Benedict at least, was quick off the mark to start doing something about the "filth in the church".
There are too many unanswered questions about Pius XII that need serious academic research. In any case the process for beatification etc depends upon the gathering and examination of all available material.
The Anti-Defamation League based in New York is preparing a statement. The US Holocaust Memorial Museum released a statement yesterday and there have been comments made by various Catholic agencies. The Sydney Morning Herald is running an article tomorrow.
'Paul
Let nothing disturb you, nothing afright you. All things are passing. God never changes. Patience attains all that it strives for. They who have God, find they lack nothing. God alone suffices. Teresa of Jesus'
lockedShould Pius XII be canonized? Or come to that, JPII.
by Helen , The other side of Australia, Tuesday, December 22, 2009, 20:25 (1243 days ago) @ Paul
http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/main/showNews/id/8745
Surely, even the Vatican is aware of the fall out from this?
Helen
lockedShould Pius XII be canonized? Or come to that, JPII.
Good points made in the Herald, Paul,
http://www.smh.com.au/national/rabbi-hits-out-at-popes-veneration-of-pius-xii-20091222-...
Non Catholics may not believe in saints and sainthood, but they would see the canonization process at least as some sort of knighthood, gong, or Olympic gold medal in recognition of someone's outstanding contribution to goodness in the world. Hence the general and not just Catholic sense of pride in Australia over Mary McKillop's canonization.
But what happens if the the sainted one turns out to have been a bit of a rotter? Or irreparably compromised? There is no process of decanonization, although some penalty can be imposed by removal from the Calendar of Saints if it turns out that the sainted one does not seem to have ever existed. In 1969, this sad fate befell St. Christopher who had already saved me from many traffic accidents.
The Church in its wisdom (as they say) was aware of this problem by having a Devil's Advocate dredge up all the candidate's nasty features. JPII did the English language a great disservice when he abolished the role, even if restructuring of the canonization department saved the Vatican a few shekels. But the restructured sainthood department still occasionally consults those who have less flattering thoughts about the candidate, as happened to Christopher Hitchens in the case of Mother Teresa.
The present pope, in his feverish campaign to make as many saints as possible, has abolished the traditional office of "Devil's Advocate," so I drew the job of representing the Evil One, as it were, pro bono. Fine by me—I don't believe in Satan either.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=hitchens_24_2
The reaction of Jewish people is understandable, given the at times fierce criticism of Pius XII, and even the milder but still significant sort in Paul O'Shea's book. But even more telling will be what happens when someone starts getting into the Vatican archives about what Pius knew was going on in Croatia. It may not be a pretty picture and Pius will have none of the excuses that are sometimes made for him over the Jews in Germany and other parts of Europe controlled by Hitler. Serbs and the Orthodox Church, not to mention Muslims might end up being outraged.
But isn't there another agenda behind this push for Pius? He represented a type of Church that John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council tried to move away from, inward looking, authoritarian and triumphant. Both JPII and B16 have seemed determined to turn the clock back.
Pity about the truth.
locked
