Cardinal Manning said...

Hi Lorelei,

In your last post, I saw you change the subject a couple of times, point to other people, throw out more ugly generalizations, and cry "mistreated".

But, I found no apology from you. No retraction. No, "Oops, I completely misrepresented the Catholic Church. I apologize".

You can prove me wrong by showing me a document from a pope that specifically deals with the holocaust, yet you choose to quote other sources instead. So find me a quote and show me.

I've given you the sources by Rabbi Dalin that include this information, and you refuse to click on a simple link and look at it because you're more interested in slamming the Church than in discovering historical truth.

Your actions speak louder than your words.

Why should I do what you can simply do for yourself when you've already shown your disinterestedness in the truth?

You'd rather read Dave Hunt and sit in your comfortable, ignorant Anti-Catholic cubby hole and close your eyes to the truth of the matter.

Here, let me walk you along the path.

First, we click on this link.. okay, walk with me here..

click: http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/jump.cgi?ID=3656 to access Rabbi Dalin's account of Pius XII and the Catholic Church,

and scroll down to the subtitle: "The Historical Record: What Pius XII Did for the Jews", and read the historical account from a Jewish perspective.

Here, to make it even more easy for you, I've placed this section of the article right here in my post.. OOoooOOooo!

NOTE: All of the following is an article written by a prominent 21st c. Jewish Rabbi

Despite allegations and misrepresentations to the contrary, it can now be documented conclusively that Pope Pius XII was responsible for saving hundreds of thousands of Jews during the Holocaust. Although the villainous "silence" of the Pope has been repeatedly alleged since the early 1960's, there is much historical evidence to confirm that he was not silent, that before and after he became Pope he spoke out against Hitler and that he was almost universally recognized, especially by the Nazis themselves, as an unrelenting opponent of the Nazi regime.

Pius XII publicly and privately warned of the dangers of Nazism. Throughout World War II, he spoke out on behalf of Europe's Jews. When Pius learned of the Nazi atrocities in Poland, he urged the bishops of Europe to do all they could to save the Jews and other victims of Nazi persecution. On January 19, 1940, at the Pope's instruction, Vatican radio and L'Osservatore Romano revealed to the world "the dreadful cruelties of uncivilized tyranny" that the Nazis were inflicting on Jewish and Catholic Poles. The following week, the Jewish Advocate of Boston reported the Vatican radio broadcast, praising its "outspoken denunciation of German atrocities in Nazi [occupied] Poland, declaring they affronted the moral conscience of mankind."

In his 1940 Easter homily, Pius XII condemned the Nazi bombardment of defenseless citizens, aged and sick people, and innocent children. On May 11, 1940, he publicly condemned the Nazi invasions of Belgium, Holland, and Luxemburg and lamented "a world poisoned by lies and disloyalty and wounded by excesses of violence." In June 1942, Pius spoke out against the mass deportation of Jews from Nazi-occupied France, further instructing his Papal Nuncio in Paris to protest to Marshal Henri Petain, Vichy France's Chief of State, against "the inhuman arrests and deportations of Jews from the French occupied zone to Silesia and parts of Russia."

The London Times of October 1, 1942, explicitly praises him for his condemnation of Nazism and his public support for the Jewish victims of Nazi terror. "A study of the words which Pope Pius XII has addressed since his accession," noted the Times, "leaves no room for doubt. He condemns the worship of force and its concrete manifestations in the suppression of national liberties and in the persecution of the Jewish race."

Pius XII's Christmas addresses of 1941 and 1942, broadcast over Vatican radio to millions throughout the world, also help to refute the fallacious claim that Pope Pius was "silent." Indeed, as The New York Times described Pius' 1941 Christmas address in its editorial the following day, it specifically applauded the Pope, as a "lonely" voice of public protest against Hitler: "The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas…In calling for a 'real new order' based on 'liberty, justice, and love'…the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism. Recognizing that there is no road open to agreement between belligerents 'whose reciprocal war aims and programs seem to be irreconcilable,' Pius XII left no doubt that the Nazi aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christian peace." The Pope's Christmas message of 1941, as reported by The New York Times and other newspapers, was understood at the time to be a clear condemnation of Nazi attacks on Europe's Jews.

So, too, was the Pope's Christmas message of the following year. Pope Pius XII's widely-discussed Christmas message of December 24, 1942, in which he expressed his passionate concern "for those hundreds of thousands who, without any fault of their own, sometimes only by reason of their nationality or race, are marked down for death or progressive extinction," was widely understood to be a very public denunciation of the Nazi extermination of the Jews. Indeed, the Nazis themselves interpreted the Pope's famous speech of Christmas 1942 as a clear condemnation of Nazism, and as a plea on behalf of Europe's Jews: "His [the Pope's] speech is one long attack on everything we stand for…he is clearly speaking on behalf of the Jews…he is virtually accusing the German people of injustice toward the Jews, and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals."

In his recent history of the modern papacy, Professor Eamon Duffy of Magdalen College, Oxford University, substantiates the fact, ignored by Pius' critics, that the Nazi leadership viewed the Pope's 1942 Christmas message as an attack on Nazi Germany and as a defense of the Jews. "Both Mussolini and Ambassador Ribbentrop were angered by this [the Pope's December 24, 1942] speech," notes Duffy, "and Germany considered that the Pope had abandoned any pretence of neutrality. They felt that Pius had unequivocally condemned Nazi action against the Jews."

Critics of Pius minimize the significance of the Pope's 1942 Christmas message and fail to note (or analyze) the German reaction to the Pope's address. To do so, as Pius' defenders have aptly noted, would destroy their image of Pius as a "silent" Pope, and would demonstrate that the Nazis were very much aware of, and angered by, the Pope's condemnation of the Final Solution.

This awareness and danger on the part of the Nazis, moreover, had potentially dire consequences for the safety and security of Pope Pius XII during the remaining years of the war. The Pope's condemnation of Nazi actions against the Jews, led to considerable speculation at the time that Hitler would seek revenge on the papacy, and attack the Vatican.

There was, to be sure, ample historical precedent for Pius XII to have feared for his safety and security, if not his very life, should the Nazis be provoked to besiege the Vatican. As Rychlak has recently pointed out, the possibility of German invasion of Vatican City was very real: Napoleon had besieged the Vatican in 1809, capturing Pius VII at bayonet point and forcibly removing him from Rome. Pope Pius IX fled Rome for his life following the assassination of his chancellor, and Leo XIII was also driven into temporary exile during the late nineteenth century.

In fact, Hitler spoke publicly of wanting to enter the Vatican and "pack up that whole whoring rabble." It has long been known that at one point Hitler planned to kidnap the Pope and imprison him. And, as several scholars have noted, Pius XII knew that the Nazis had a plan to kidnap him. In addition to minutes from a meeting on July 26, 1943, in which Hitler openly discussed invading the Vatican, Ernst von Weizsacker, the German Ambassador to the Vatican, has written that he heard of Hitler's plan to kidnap Pius XII, and that he regularly warned the Pope and Vatican officials against provoking Berlin. So, too, the Nazi Ambassador to Italy, Rudolf Rahn, has described the kidnapping plot and attempts by Rahn and other Nazi diplomats to prevent it.

In critically assessing what actions Pius XII might have taken, but did not take, on behalf of the Jews of Europe, his defenders and critics alike point to his "failure" to excommunicate Hitler and other Nazi party leaders. Indeed, many of the Pope's "defenders," including this writer, wish (and believe) that papal excommunication should have at least been attempted. Such sentiments notwithstanding, there is abundant evidence to suggest that the excommunication of Hitler would have been a purely symbolic gesture, and would not have accomplished what its proponents hoped for. Hitler, Himmler and other Nazi leaders were, to be sure, baptized Catholics who were never excommunicated. Had Pius XII excommunicated them, his critics claim, such an act might have prevented the Holocaust, or significantly diminished it. On the contrary. There is much evidence to suggest that a formal order of excommunication might very well just have achieved the opposite.

When Don Luigi Sturzo, the founder of the Christian Democratic movement in wartime Italy, was asked by Leon Kubovny, an official of the World Jewish Congress during the Holocaust era, why the Vatican did not excommunicate Hitler, he recalled the cases of Napoleon and Queen Elizabeth I of England, "the last time a nominal excommunication was pronounced against a head of state." Pointing out that neither of them had "changed their policy after excommunication," he feared, Sturzo wrote Kubovny, "that in response to a threat of excommunication," Hitler would have even killed more Jews than he had. Writers and scholars familiar with Hitler's psychology share Sturzo's fear, believing that any provocation by the Pope, such as an order for excommunication, "would have resulted in violent retaliation, the loss of many more Jewish lives, especially those then under the protection of the Church, and an intensification of the persecution of Catholics." This is, I believe, a compelling argument that cannot be ignored. It is one, moreover, that is supported by the testimony of Jewish Holocaust survivors, such as Marcus Melchior, the former Chief Rabbi of Denmark, who attests that "if the Pope had spoken out, Hitler would probably have massacred more than six million Jews and perhaps ten times ten million Catholics, if he had the power to do so."

His "failure" to excommunicate Hitler, Pius XII's critics assert, is only one instance of his larger failure to make sufficiently forceful denunciations of the Nazis. The critics who have accused Pius XII of "silence" have claimed that in other ways, also, he failed to forcefully condemn the Nazi regime. Had he done so, they argue, it might have reduced, or even halted the anti-Jewish atrocities. Had he spoken out more forcefully and publicly, they maintain, more Jewish lives would have been spared. Their contention, however, "fails to consider the brutal realities in the wake of Nazism, as well as the retaliatory consequences sure to follow any condemnatory action." More stringent protests, or denunciations, on the part of the Vatican might quite possibly have backfired.

An example frequently cited by defenders of the Vatican is the public protest of Dutch bishops in July 1942 against the deportation of Dutch Jews from the Netherlands. When Pius XII first learned of the Nazi atrocities in Poland, he urged the Catholic bishops of Europe to do all they could to save the Jews and other victims of Nazi persecution. The bishops of Holland distributed a pastoral letter that was read in every Catholic Church in the country, denouncing "the unmerciful and unjust treatment meted out to Jews by those in power in our country." In no other Nazi-occupied country did local Catholic bishops more furiously resist Nazism than in Holland. But, their well-intentioned pastoral letter — which explicitly declared that they were inspired by Pope Pius XII — backfired. As Pinchas Lapide notes: "The saddest and most thought-provoking conclusion is that whilst the Catholic clergy in Holland protested more loudly, expressly and frequently against Jewish persecutions than the religious hierarchy of any other Nazi-occupied country, more Jews — some 110,000 or 79 percent of the total — were deported from Holland to death camps." The protest of the Dutch bishops thus provoked the most savage of Nazi reprisals: The vast majority of Holland's Jews — and the highest percentages of Jews of any Nazi-occupied nation in Western Europe — were deported and killed.

With the advantage of hindsight, Pius XII's revisionist critics have been judging the Pope's "silence" without considering the likely consequences of his having "spoken out" more loudly and explicitly. These critics do not know (or have chosen to ignore the fact) that the Pope had been strongly advised by Jewish leaders and by Catholic bishops in Nazi-occupied countries not to protest publicly against the Nazi atrocities. When the bishop of Munster wanted to speak out against the persecution of the Jews in Germany, the Jewish leaders of his diocese begged him not to because it would result in even greater persecution for them. Pinchas Lapide quotes an Italian Jew who, with the Vatican's help, managed to escape the Nazi deportation of Rome's Jews in October 1943, as stating unequivocally twenty years later: "none of us wanted the Pope to speak out openly. We were all fugitives and we did not want to be pointed out as such. The Gestapo would have only increased and intensified its inquisition…it was much better the Pope kept silent. We all felt the same, and today we still believe that." Bishop Jean Bernard of Luxembourg, an inmate of Dachau from February 1941 to August 1942, notified the Vatican that "whenever protests were made, treatment of prisoners worsened immediately."

There is much evidence to suggest that had Pius XII more vigorously opposed or denounced Hitler's policies, there would have been serious and devastating retaliation. Undoubtedly, a stronger public condemnation of the Final Solution by the Pope would have provoked Nazi reprisals against Catholic clergy in Nazi-occupied countries and in Germany itself. Undoubtedly, also, such a public condemnation by the Pope would have severely jeopardized the lives of the thousands of Jews hidden in the Vatican, in Rome's many churches, convents and monasteries, and in numerous Catholic churches and other religious institutions throughout Italy, along with the lives of their Catholic protectors who were trying to save them. Many Italian Jewish Holocaust survivors have agreed with Michael Tagliacozzo, a Roman Jew hidden for several months at the Seminario Romano, the pontifical seminary, who approved of the papal policy that enabled him and many others to survive. A clearer public denunciation of the Nazis, they believe, would also have jeopardized the lives of the priests and Catholic laity who were sheltering and protecting them. Indeed, as even Susan Zucotti in her recent critique of Pius XII admits, "the pope's inclination to silence might well have been influenced by a concern for Jews in hiding and for their Catholic protectors."

"By the way, if you would, please - in your reply - state that you've read this material. That way, I'll know that you're actually reading what I post."

To the very end, Pope Pius XII believed that a public denunciation of the Holocaust would have made matters worse by further enraging the Nazis and provoking even more violent reprisals against Europe's Jews, and against tens of thousands of Catholics as well. In retrospect, historians have come to appreciate this tactical caution on the part of Pius XII and the Holy See. His "silence," they recognize, was an effective strategic approach to protecting more Jews from deportation to the Nazi death camps. A more explicit and forceful papal denunciation of Nazism might have invited even more Nazi reprisals and made things even worse for the Jews of Nazi occupied Europe. One might ask, of course, what might have been worse than the mass murder of six million Jews? The answer is abundantly and horrifically clear: The slaughter of hundreds of thousands more.

Pinchas Lapide documents conclusively the extraordinary relief and rescue efforts conducted by Pius XII and his diplomats during the Holocaust. Through his country-by-country analysis of Papal efforts to rescue European Jews throughout Nazi Europe, Lapide demonstrates, beyond any reasonable doubt, that "the Catholic Church saved more Jewish lives during the war than all other churches, religious institutions and rescue organizations put together."

While approximately 80 percent of European Jews perished during World War II, 80 percent of Italy's 40,000 Jews were saved. The Nazi deportations of Italy's Jews began in October 1943, after the German army occupied Rome and entrusted internal security matters to the S.S. On October 16, more than a thousand of the city's Jews were rounded up and deported to Auschwitz, where they were murdered a week later. From October 1943 until the Allied capture of the city in June 1944, the deportations continued, with 2,091 Roman Jews eventually being exterminated in Nazi death camps.

During the months that Rome was under German occupation, Pius XII, who secretly instructed Italy's Catholic clergy "to save human lives by all means," played an especially significant role in saving thousands of Italian Jews from deportation to Auschwitz and other Nazi death camps. Beginning in October 1943, Pope Pius asked the churches and convents throughout Italy to shelter Jews. As a result, although Italian dictator Benito Mussolini and the Fascists who remained loyal to him yielded to Hitler's demand that Italy's Jews be deported, in churches, monasteries and private homes throughout the country Italian Catholics defied Mussolini's orders and protected thousands of Jews until the Allied armies arrived. Although their lives were endangered by helping to save Jews, Italian Catholic Church leaders, from Cardinals to parish priests, hid Jews from the Nazis. In Rome, 155 convents and monasteries sheltered some 5,000 Jews throughout the German occupation. No less than 3,000 Jews found refuge at one time at the Pope's summer residence at Castel Gandolfo, and thus, through Pius' personal intervention, escaped deportation to German death camps. Sixty Jews lived for nine months at the Jesuit Gregorian University, and many were sheltered in the cellar of the Pontifical Bible Institute. Pope Pius himself granted sanctuary within the walls of the Vatican in Rome to hundreds of homeless Jews. Following Pope Pius' direct instructions, individual Italian priests and monks, cardinals and bishops, were instrumental in saving hundreds of Jewish lives.

and, immediately succeeding this account, you can read of the praise from the Jewish Community for Pius XII and the Catholic Church:

During his lifetime, and for several years after his death in 1958, Pope Pius XII was widely praised as having been a true friend of the Jewish people, who saved hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives during the Holocaust. As early as December of 1940, in an article published in Time magazine, the renowned Nobel Prize winning physicist Albert Einstein, himself a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany, paid tribute to the moral "courage" of Pope Pius and the Catholic Church in opposing "the Hitlerian onslaught" on liberty:

Being a lover of freedom, when the Nazi revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom: but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks. Only the Catholic Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised, I now praise unreservedly.

Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, tributes to Pope Pius came from several other Jewish leaders who praised him for his role in saving Jews during the war. In 1943, Chaim Weizmann, who would become Israel's first president, wrote that "the Holy See is lending its powerful help wherever it can, to mitigate the fate of my persecuted co-religionists." Moshe Sharett, who would become Israel's first Foreign Minister and second Prime Minister, reinforced these feelings of gratitude when he met with Pius in the closing days of World War II: "I told him [the Pope] that my first duty was to thank him, and through him the Catholic Church, on behalf of the Jewish public for all they had done in the various countries to rescue Jews…We are deeply grateful to the Catholic Church." In 1945, Rabbi Isaac Herzog, the Chief Rabbi of Israel, sent a message to Msgr. Angelo Roncalli (the future Pope John XXIII), expressing his gratitude for the actions taken by Pope Pius XII on behalf of the Jewish people. "The people of Israel," wrote Rabbi Herzog, "will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion, which form the foundation of true civilization, are doing for our unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of Divine Providence in this world." In September 1945, Dr. Leon Kubowitzky, the Secretary General of the World Jewish Congress, personally thanked the Pope in Rome for his interventions on behalf of Jews, and the World Jewish Congress donated $20,000 to Vatican charities "in recognition of the work of the Holy See in rescuing Jews from Fascist and Nazi persecutions." Dr. Raffael Cantoni, head of the Italian Jewish community's wartime Jewish Assistance Committee, who would subsequently become the President of the Union of Italian Jewish Communities, similarly expressed his gratitude to the Vatican, stating that "six million of my co-religionists have been murdered by the Nazis, but there could have been many more victims had it not been for the efficacious intervention of Pius XII." On April 5, 1946, his Union of Italian Jewish Communities, meeting for the first time after the War, sent an official message of thanks to Pope Pius XII:

The delegates of the Congress of the Italian Jewish Communities, held in Rome for the first time after the Liberation, feel that it is imperative to extend reverent homage to Your Holiness, and to express the most profound gratitude that animates all Jews for your fraternal humanity toward them during the years of persecution when their lives were endangered by Nazi-Fascist barbarism. Many times priests suffered imprisonment and were sent to concentration camps, and offered their lives to assist Jews in every way. This demonstration of goodness and charity that still animates the just, has served to lessen the shame and torture and sadness that afflicted millions of human beings.

Many other Jewish tributes to Pius came in the years just proceeding, and in the immediate aftermath, of the Pontiff's death. In 1955, when Italy celebrated the tenth anniversary of its liberation, the Union of Italian Jewish Communities proclaimed April 17 as a "Day of Gratitude" for the Pope's wartime assistance in defying the Nazis. Dozens of Italian Catholics, including several priests and nuns, were awarded gold medals "for their outstanding rescue work during the Nazi terror."

A few weeks later, on May 26, 1955, the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra flew to Rome to give a special performance of Beethoven's Seventh Symphony, at the Vatican's Consistory Hall, to express the State of Israel's enduring gratitude for the help that the Pope and the Catholic Church had given to the Jewish people persecuted by the Nazis during the Holocaust. That the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra so joined the rest of the Jewish world in warmly honoring the achievements and legacy of Pope Pius XII is of more than passing significance. As a matter of state policy, the Israeli Philharmonic has never played the music of the nineteenth century composer Richard Wagner because of Wagner's well-known reputation as an anti-Semite and as Hitler's "favorite composer," and as one of the cultural patron saints of the Third Reich, whose music was played at Nazi party functions and ceremonies. Despite requests from music lovers and specialists, the official state ban on the Israeli Philharmonic's playing Wagner's music has never been lifted. During the 1950's and 1960's, especially, a significant sector of the Israeli public, hundreds of thousands of whom were survivors of the Nazi concentration and death camps, still viewed his music, and even his name, as a symbol of the Hitler regime. That being the case, it is inconceivable that the Israeli government would have paid the travel expenses for the entire Philharmonic to travel to Rome for a special concert to pay tribute to a church leader who was considered to have been "Hitler's Pope." On the contrary: The Israeli Philharmonic's historic and unprecedented visit to Rome to perform for Pius XII at the Vatican was a unique Jewish communal gesture of collective recognition and gratitude to a great world leader and friend of the Jewish people for his instrumental role in saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of Jews.

On the day of Pius XII's death in 1958, Golda Meir, Israel's Foreign Minister, cabled the following message of condolence to the Vatican: "We share in the grief of humanity…When fearful martyrdom came to our people in the decade of Nazi terror, the voice of the Pope was raised for the victims. The life of our times was enriched by a voice speaking out on the great moral truths above the tumult of daily conflict. We mourn a great servant of peace." Before beginning a concert of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra, conductor Leonard Bernstein called for a minute of silence "for the passing of a very great man, Pope Pius XII."

Similar sentiments were expressed in the many tributes and eulogies for Pius by numerous rabbis and Jewish communal leaders, as well as by most of the Israeli press, several of whose readers suggested in open letters that a "Pope Pius XII Forest" be planted in the hills of Judea "in order to perpetuate fittingly the humane services rendered by the late pontiff to European Jewry." During and for close to two decades after World War II, Jewish praise and gratitude for Pius XII's efforts on behalf of European Jewry were virtually unanimous. Indeed, as Pinchas Lapide has so aptly stated: "No Pope in history has been thanked more heartily by Jews." Because of Pius XII's exemplary humanity toward European Jewry, no other Pope has earned such gratitude from the Jewish people.

[ June 18, 2003, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

I want to thank Rakka Rage for starting this thread. He seems to have disappeared after his initial quotes from these two converts to the Catholic faith.

I found Newman's essay on "The Protestant Idea of the Anti-Christ" very amazing and enlightening, especially since he wrote it as an Anglican before converting to Catholicism. I highly recommend it to all here Catholic and non-Catholic Christians.

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/essays/volume2/antichrist2.html


God Bless

 

Is this supreme authority given only in binding and losing or can they choose to ignore the pope in all areas of the faith if they wish?

Yes, please do, especially the decree that excommunicated all nazi's and explain why these men who were excommunicated still held their positions in the church.

I believe you know the answer to this. What is your point?

~Lorelei </font>[/QUOTE]Why bother.

 

Not exactly what I said, but my point is that all the different Baptist conventions don't mean much to nonbaptists. This guy makes all baptists look bad. To that extent, why doesn't the SBC, which is probably the most known Baptist convention by nonbaptists, come out and condemn Robb. Why don't they publicly represent their membership and say, "Baptist aren't all like him!"

Instead 15 years of silence suggests to me that at a minimum they simply don't care one way or the other.

In my eyes, and no doubt the eyes of many others, they are so tarred.

Right. Many Baptists have no problem condemning Catholics, why so shy aboutr fellow Baptists? [/QUOTE]

 

You try to lay this on Baptists, for what reason I do not know. History proves that at one time Catholics were the object of persecution, but at another time, they were also members of the KKK. Accept it. Put the matter to rest. Why try to continue to revise history and sweep crimes under the rug, just as you sweep the crimes of sexual perverts under the rug.
The Baptists here condemn any crimes they were involved with, and would see the perpetrators come to trial and receive their just due. The Catholics here would just hide their own and move them to another parish. Therein lies the difference
DHK

 

Carson,

You will not hear me apologizing for sharing the truth about catholicism. Again, you dismiss my evidence and yet for your own you quote a rabbi who shares a few quotes from the pope and then expounds on them his interpretation of them. Why not go straight to the source, that is what I have been asking for.

Even so, the quotes in the text were vague and though some assume his statements were geared toward the Nazi treatment of the Jews, it wasn't explicitly stated, and many do not assume he was sincere.

Among your long winded posts and your inflamatory remarks I have not lost sight of the fact that you still have yet to show me a quote where the pope specifically denounced what Hitler did to the Jews. As usual, his statements were vague so they could never be called into question.

You have a rabbi who thinks one way, I can find one that thinks another, in all this it proves nothing.

It's simple Carson, I will walk you through it if you need me to. Take me to the source, the statements of the pope himself. Show me where he explicity denounces the holocaust. Was there no bold clear statement that can be found?

You can keep on posing the rabbi, hoping against hope that this will cause people not to notice that no clear statement of the pope clearly denouncing the holocaust has ever been found. Without the rabbi's interpretation, it can't be seen so clearly, can it? The proof should be simple to find, if it existed. It should be short and sweet and need no narration to explain it's intents and purposes.

~Lorelei

 

Perhaps because it was a Baptist that started the KKK and a Baptist pastor is currently the Grand Wizzard.

Really? There has been virtual silence on Thomm Robb, baptist pastor and Grand Wizard.

Where has all the condemnation been?

Actually, Lorei has been saying that Baptists don't have the power to condemn the KKK and their baptist leader.

 

DHK:

The site that you use to to "prove" your revisionist history says:

“ It is widely held today that the KKK was a lawless group that just went around the post war South looking for innocent Negroes to hang. Such is nonsense . But the myth is deliberately perpetuated by today's biased media and historians . We have many books available that disprove this and we mention other books that we don't sell, but are available else where. Here I will just briefly show some details that the Klan tried to police the situation and prevent innocent Negroes from being harmed .”

http://www.kkklan.com/briefhist.htm


Your sticking with what this site to "prove" Catholics and Jews were part of the KKK, after my pointing out where they are coming from, does not say much about your convictions. I have asked you if this was a mistake in using them as a credible source.

Like I say, I am amazed at the depths you are going to make the KKK a "Catholic thing". I trust no Baptists or practing Catholics are in this organization. Is this really a credible source of information to you? I would be condemning their dishonesty and condemning them for peddling their hate, not using them as a credible source of history.

God Bless

 

"Actually, Lorei has been saying that Baptists don't have the power to condemn the KKK and their baptist leader. "


Yes, and I believe she bases that on their doctrine of soul liberty, which we all know full well that DHK believes in with his whole heart, mind, and soul as a doctrine direct from the creator of the universe.

 

Can you document this? A google search engine produced absolutely no results.
DHK

 

Why should it not be credible? It is their own site, is it not? Do you not use your own sites to prove your own points? In fact over and over again you tell us that if we want the truth you refer us the Catechism. Now your being hypocritical.
DHK

 

DHK:

The site you recommend for “proving" Catholics and Jews were part of the KKK has some credibility problems. They are not reliable historians. How about some academic credentials like a degree from a university. Catholic historians do have degrees from universities. How about unbiased academic historians from accredited universities. I am surprised you accept this revisionist version of history. But then again when it comes to anti-Catholicism I have seen many strange bedfellows.

From DHK recommended website:

http://www.kkklan.com/briefhist.htm

God Bless

P.S. You can use this as "your own" site to "prove" your own point, but I don't know why you would want to dig that kind of a grave.

[ June 18, 2003, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Kathryn ]

 

"no clear statement of the pope clearly denouncing the holocaust has ever been found. Without the rabbi's interpretation, it can't be seen so clearly, can it? The proof should be simple to find, if it existed. It should be short and sweet and need no narration to explain it's intents and purposes. "

Hmmmm. Before it is neccessary to answer something like this I would think it would behoove the accuser to produce some evidence of the time frame in which Pius XII was pope that the Baptists of that time condemned the holocaust. Perhaps something from a southern baptist convention of the 30's and 40's. Surely there is ample evidence due to the superiority of the Baptist faith that they responded rightly in those perilous times.

 

If it is not one excuse, it is another. Anyone can find historical information that Catholics also were involved in the KKK. Accept it and drop it. Here is some information for your perusal.

Although Payne's views appear absurd by today's standards, this subject
was again taken up as late as 1900 by Charles Carroll in his book--THE NEGRO
A BEAST. According to Carroll, blacks were created as a higher form of ape--
for the purpose of performing manual labor for Adam and his descendants
around Eden. Carroll agreed with Rev. Payne that blacks were an animal
with a mind--but argued they had no soul. He believed the "serpent" in the
Garden of Eden was none other than a "Negro" maidservant. To Carroll, the
creation of blacks also explained an enigma appearing in Genesis. That is,
after Cain left the family of Adam and Eve, where did he find a wife to
have children with? According to Carroll, Cain's legacy was to intermarry
with a female black beast. This meant (per Carroll) that all the modern
blacks were, in reality, the offspring of Cain and these black creatures.

http://www.mac-2001.com/philo/crit/SLAVE.TXT

An early proponent of this movement, Charles Carroll, wrote a book called The Negro a Beast. He considered Negroes to be subhuman. The KKK is usually associated with this group.

http://www.carm.org/list/christian_identity.htm

At ten years of age Carles Carroll was sent to school at the Jesuits at Bohemia on Harmon's Manor in Maryland, where one of his fellow students was his cousin, John Carroll, afterwards Archbishop of Baltimore. The following year, 1748, they both crossed the ocean to the Jesuit college at St-Omer in French Flanders, where Charles remained six years. After a year at the college of the Jesuits at Reims he entered the College Louis le Grand at Paris. In 1753 Carroll went to Bourges to study civil law. He remained there for a year and then returned to Paris until 1757. In this year he took apartments in the Temple, London, where he studied law for several years. In later days he spoke in highest praise of the training he received at St-Omer and the College Louis le Grand. To the former he owed his deep conviction of religious truth, and to the latter his critical ability, his literary style, and the basis for the breadth of knowledge which made him an invaluable citizen.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03379c.htm

 

Can you document this? A google search engine produced absolutely no results.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I think he has an extra m in Thomm also try Thomas. You'll find all the info you need.

 

Sorry for the typo.

It's Thom Robb.

 

No, I will not accept it. The whole site is full of lies and is an insult to my intelligence. Just because a person can read and write does not make them qualified as a historian. This is revisionism by the lowest of the low. You are free to accept this as the best you can do to back up your pre-conceived anti-Catholic beliefs, but you are in sorry company.

God Bless

 

Sorry for the typo.

It's Thom Robb. </font>[/QUOTE]So is it then that you just like to revel in slander, rather than deal with facts?

http://www.onepeoplesproject.com/robb.htm

His title of pastor is not earned because he is one, but only because he earned a Bachelor of Theology. There is a difference. He has cloes ties with the Church of Jesus Christ Christian--Aryan Nations. That is anything but Baptist. If you knew this, it was pure slander on your part. No Baptist here would have anything to do with them.
DHK

 

Posted by Kathyrn:

[QUOTENo, I will not accept it. The whole site is full of lies and is an insult to my intelligence. Just because a person can read and write does not make them qualified as a historian. This is revisionism by the lowest of the low. You are free to accept this as the best you can do to back up your pre-conceived anti-Catholic beliefs, but you are in sorry company.

quote: “ It is widely held today that the KKK was a lawless group that just went around the post war South looking for innocent Negroes to hang. Such is nonsense . But the myth is deliberately perpetuated by today's biased media and historians . We have many books available that disprove this and we mention other books that we don't sell, but are available else where. Here I will just briefly show some details that the Klan tried to police the situation and prevent innocent Negroes from being harmed .”

http://www.kkklan.com/briefhist.htm [/QUOTE]

And the Bible says: "As the dog returns to his own vomit." I gave you new information. Some of it was from your own Catholic website. Do you refuse to accept it too. Whatever is presented to you, you refuse. I suppose you would refuse your own catechism at this rate.
DHK