Pope rehabilitates Holocaust denier

[minionofmidas]

I suppose they had some arcane theological reason that the article doesn't hit upon, and that is nothing whatsoever to do with the Holocaust.

Certainly, being a disgusting idiot is no reason to be expelled from a church? Can we agree on that much?

[minionofmidas]

So we end up with furore over Pope Pius, Spanish clerical fascists.

I don't think that's ever going to go away with "better communication".

[minionofmidas]

Uh... while "ally" he was not, it's not as if that particular pope's *relative* closeness to fascist positions (as in, closer to that than to anything approaching Democracy. And as in, closer to that than the average paranoid Vatican functionary) was a secret during the war or even before.

He did, sometimes, make frustratingly tiny noises on behalf of the Jews (frustrating to many within the Vatican itself, that is; and to the Western powers' liaisons there) but not on a scale with what he said on behalf of the Poles during the war, or what he was to do for individual Nazis after. And he seemed really to think that he had done not only all he could but all he had to do - the problem being that he was an Antisemite.

He was certainly not a "hero" in the 50s (except among those Catholic conservatives who wrongly believed the Catholic church to have been in much greater danger than it was during the Nazi reign, and then wrongly credited its unscathed emergence to his stewardship. Anticommunism enters here, too, but is hardly a prime mover. The traditions of paranoia - siege mentality if you prefer - that emerged thanks to Italian Unification are far more relevant.)... the election of John XXIII would hardly have been possible otherwise.

It was during Pius' lifetime that people inside the Vatican joked about the last three popes of that name....
Pius X was a saint and knew it not.
Pius XI was no saint and knew it.
Pius XII was no saint and knew it not.

It's probably quite accurate (if you accept that Pius X was a "saint". Or, as a nonbeliever, just substitute "a good man" or something like that.)

Anyways, the difference between this issue and the Pius XII issue is the difference between non-excommunication and canonization. The one should be self-evident, the other can never be.

EDIT to take one claim out that I wasn't too sure about on reflection.

[minionofmidas]

Or to quote Goebbels' diary on one of those papal pronouncements, "the pope is closer to our position than is commonly perceived."

[minionofmidas]

He certainly didn't *like* Hitler or his views, quite on the contrary.

If that wasn't clear enough from the above.

It's just that he patently - absurdly obviously - had a horribly wrong set of priorities and was a net force for evil as a result. Or at least not nearly enough of a force for good. He's like so many Germans who had misgivings and didn't act on them but later felt they had... a normal psychological reaction of course. The only difference is that he could have made at least a little bit of a difference; most others could not. He was no Nazi (though he wasn't a Conservative in a modern postwar sense either; he was lightyears to the right of that); he just failed his people and the people of the world due to a lack of courage and moral fibre. It's not... right... to *condemn* that if you haven't been in the same situation... but it's certainly wrong, and very much so, for a church to venerate him. (Incidentally, the process for beatification of Pius XII was begun, decades ago under Paul, on the same day as that of John XXIII. Vatican politics at its finest...)

[minionofmidas]

The whole position of the Vatican, and to an extent that of many of the bishops in Europe, was that the trend towards authoritarianism, whether fascistic or not in 1930's Europe, seemed to these Catholics as coterminous.

Eh... what do you mean by "coterminous"? I *think* I understand you, I just want to make sure...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Theoretically. Somehow, the fact that the Savoy kings had never done anything of the kind, and that Mussolini not only had never done anything of the kind but had signed the Lateran treaties, might have given the Vatican strategists a clue here, don't you think? Given the catholicism of the Italian people, it just absolutely wasn't worth it no matter what the popes said or did (and they were less cautious with what they said in the 1870s... they were less cautious with what they said as late as 1937). As long as they weren't exactly raising an army on the premises, I suppose.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

not sure what you're referring to here... WWI or WWII?

[minionofmidas]

Alright, thanks.

[minionofmidas]

I'm sorry but while I obviously disagree with Holocaust deniers, I'm not sold on the idea that they ought to be excommunicated from the Church for that reason.

He was not excommunicated for being a Holocaust denier.  He was excommunicated years ago for reasons regarding Catholic theology.  The argument being made is that it looks like a deliberate slap in the face to Jews by reinstating him now, just a few weeks after he made his his revisionist views known on Swedish television.

I was just pointing out why people here wanted him to remain excommunicated.

For "people" read "benconstine".

While discussion of The Pontiff's decision certainly merits a place here, let's all take a step back and not broad brush an entire denomination as Anti-Semitic or pro-Hitler.

Those who have discussed this in great detail (myself and Lewis) have not used a broad brush. My main concern is infact that we can't make a reasoned critique of the actions of the Vatican during WWII without being accused of some sort of 'anti-Catholicism' or at worst historical revisionism.

As an academic historian, I have to be critical and reached a balanced view. I have to grapple with some uncomfortable truths in the process but anything else would be a whitewash.

That's how I feel, Andrew.  And you, as a Catholic, certainly have more ground than I, as an Anglican, from which to criticize.

My beef is not with thoughtful, reasoned criticisms of the RCC.  Especially such criticisms coming from within its membership.  My criticism is aimed at those who see the church doing wrong, either now or in the past, and presuming that is always -- or even usually -- the case.  I don't think it is.

But I certainly do concur with the belief that the Catholic Church has much to repent for.  Yet I also feel precisely the same way about my denomination.  We Anglicans and Episcopalians have no shortage of embarassing history.

Repent? Meh. If the Christian churches were to "repent" and change their ways on every wrong they've done, I don't think they'd qualify as "Christian" any more, so I'm certainly not asking them to do anything of the kind.

I would be perfectly content with knowing that the bad old pre-58 days are not to return.