Vatican Holocaust- The Truth?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Could someone please explain to me what this is all about? Is there truth to this?I really want someone to just take this issue head on, rather than talking about how many Jews were saved during WWII and how the pope was against Hitler.

http://srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/manhattan-vatican.html

-- John (John@sfnoise.com), February 16, 2004

Answers

Take a look here.

More Reading:
(1) A Patriot, Not a Nationalist By Josip Stilinovic . The Catholic World Report. Pages: 36-40 Ignatius Press, August/September 1998 (Josip Stilinovic, a journalist based in Zagreb, writes regularly for Catholic World Report.)

(2) On Trial Again By Robin Harris The Catholic World Report Pages: 41-43 Ignatius Press, August/September 1998 (Robin Harris is a British journalist who is an expert on the Balkan region. )

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 16, 2004.


Could someone please explain to me what this is all about?

its about somebody who has a very personal vendetta against the church writing something which is complete slander against it. simple as that. it doesnt take an expert to lie about something, theres always a sucker out there who will beleive it.

Is there truth to this?

no, its ridiculous. The pictures he uses as "proof" contain pictures of GERMAN troops during WWII, not catholic priests. one the one picture which does show a priest shows a person kneeling for a blessing, NOT being "forcefully converted."

FURTHERMORE, Mr. Manhattan references dates and locations as his proof... from a logical and historical standpoint, these are not proof. my (incorectly) stating that on Dec 7th 1963, Mr. Manhattan shot 13 people in an italian plaza does not make it true, nor does his mindless prattle of errors given specific dates make them any more true.

Even more so, Mr. Manhattan claims that another book offers the same evidence... so it must be true. this is faulty logic. because two lies agree doesnt make either true. What happens is the first book is making ALOT of money with the hardcore anti catholics, so Mr. Manhattan takes the first book and expands on it with anti catholic rhetoric that he's heard. now anti catholic bigots flock to buy his book too, and Mr. Manhattan makes even more money (which I will discuss below).

No, the only form of proof which can be acceptable is what is called a primary source document. Something recorded by a person involved or nearly involved in a situation WHEN IT TOOK PLACE. that means that in order for Mr. Manhattan to say that our picture of a priest doing a blessing is definitively proof of "forceful conversions" he would have to back it with a verifiable historical document which states that that is what the picture shows. I could probably look at any number of pictures of Mr. Manhattan and make up some elaborate story about him, but i dont do that, I'm civilized.

I really want someone to just take this issue head on, rather than talking about how many Jews were saved during WWII and how the pope was against Hitler.

Since it already appears you know about how many jews were saved, and how the papacy has an award from the jewish leader of their church for the lives saved, I'll spare you that. also, since you now know the difference between difinitive proof and supposition, lets discuss a few key factors...

Mr. Manhattan wrote a book called The Vatican's Billions. He talks about the billions of dollars the "communist" church has hidden away. he slanders the jesuit order as the secret richest order in the world. What Mr. Manhattan has FAILED to tell his readers is that he was born to a wealthy american couple in italy, and has at least three houses (spain, italy, and one other country). His books do sell quite well. Funny thing is, if i were rich, and wanted to criticize someone for their money, i would probably sell my extra houses and give it to charity first... oh well, hypocracy knows no bounds. Mr. Manhattan is known as a poet, and fictional writer. His area of study was ECONOMICS. he CLAIMS to be the single most authoritative source on catholic history. There is a reason he doesnt offer real proof... becuase he is wholly uneducated on the very simple idea of what historical proof means.

Mr. Manhattans book review: the ones i found which were not his sites, or sites of books that he referenced (which were few) listed his book either as science fiction or as "supposition historical fiction." Never found an unbiased site which warranted Mr. Manhattans text as a true document.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 16, 2004.


no more underline....

-- (clean@ing.up), February 16, 2004.

Thought this might help. Rabbi Israel Zolli, Chief Rabbi of Rome during the Shoah, in 1945 was baptized into the Catholic faith and took as his baptismal name Eugenio, the baptismal name of Pope Pius XII. These are some of his articles. Scource: http://www.secondexodus.com/html/more/zolli.htm

-- Mark Advent (adventm5477@earthlink.net), February 16, 2004.

So, what did you hear? What is to be reformed/refereed/refuted?

All I have heard is that the Pope at that time should have been more of a advocate for all peoples under the Axis thumb. And what he did was not as much as a brave man could have been. Had a papel election been needed because of his bravery, it would have made a powerful statement. But maybe he feared that the Italian government would influence that election. In anycase while he *did* say and do some things to alleviate the horrors, he did not do as much as he could have.

The legend (or truth) of Good King Christian of Denmark riding in the park with a yellow star to show solidarity with the Jews shows what could have possibly been done.

But we are critizing from our time's reference frame, not theirs. Maybe the Church was trying to preserve its own? Maybe there was a taint of Kill-the-jews??? Hard to prove.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), February 20, 2004.



All I have heard is that the Pope at that time should have been more of a advocate for all peoples under the Axis thumb.

then you have heard wrong, both the pope then, and today's pope were strong helping hands to the jewish people. Any stronger and the nazi's would not have only killed the pope, but set the catholics into the concentration campls as well. keep in mind that the pope recieved a comendation from the leaders of the Jewish faith for his action in saving THOUSANDS of jews from the nazis.

And what he did was not as much as a brave man could have been.

and what do you suppose any brave man would do in an occupied country with a sadist who would destroy not only you but your entire religion in the occupied countries? This is real life, not some rambo movie... and the pope's role is decidedly unrambo'ish.

Had a papel election been needed because of his bravery, it would have made a powerful statement. But maybe he feared that the Italian government would influence that election.

or what if the nazis had expanded their treatment to include even more catholics than originally? remember, more than 50,000 catholics died at Hitlers hands as well. What would you do, as a church leader with no military and the lives of a lot of your faithful on the line? I'd sign a bunch of fake baptismal certificates so that the jews could pretend to be christian... exactly what the pope did... or did you expect a 70 year old man to pick up a gun and go ultimate soldier?

In anycase while he *did* say and do some things to alleviate the horrors, he did not do as much as he could have.

again, what would you have done? keep in mind that the pope is hailed as the man who single handedly saved the most jewish lives during the holocaust. No other man can honestly claim that by themselves they saved the lives of tens of thousands of jews.

The legend (or truth) of Good King Christian of Denmark riding in the park with a yellow star to show solidarity with the Jews shows what could have possibly been done.

ah, yes, but you forget that this is the pope, not just a protestant king. the protestant king doesnt have MILLIONS of followers to be exterminated at hitlers hands... if the pope had pulled such a stunt then the catholics would have gone on the chopping block as well, there would be no vatican, and there would have been no one to sign all those falsified documents which actually saved lives instead of throwing one more away...

But we are critizing from our time's reference frame, not theirs. Maybe the Church was trying to preserve its own?

this is criticizing from a hollywood thoughtless reference frame, where when one person says no, magically everything changes and happy flowers sprout and the bad guy turns good. stop watching movies and read a few real books about history... this was a grizzly war and what was needed was a helping hand, not a shouting voice.

Maybe there was a taint of Kill-the-jews??? Hard to prove.

And maybe you've had one too many doses of anti catholic syrup... youre relation of history is flawed and bigotted against the catholic church. I suggest some serious introspection about your bias and your apparent lack of knowledge about the situation in europe at that time... no offense.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 21, 2004.


"Could someone explain to me what this is all about." Well my explaiination is what I have heard. And What is heard is not always what is true. It does seem that what I have heard is much less than what the preceeding poster was going on about. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), February 27, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ