Arkansas abortionist who killed 20,000 babies dies of leukemia
In a 2005 puff piece, the Los Angeles Times reported Arkansas abortionist William Harrison “estimates he’s terminated at least 20,000 pregnancies.”
That averages out to 645 abortions a year since Harrison began committing the act in 1974. So he added about another 3,225 babies to that statistic before retiring in May of this year after being diagnosed with leukemia. (Photo from a July pro-abort “atta boy” rally below left.)
Four months later Harrison has died from the disease, on September 24, at the age of 75. I’m only sad if he passed from this life without repenting. Otherwise, preborn babies are now safer and the world is rid of a depraved killer.
Other interesting quotes from the LAT piece:
He calls himself an “abortionist” and says, “I am destroying life.”
But he also feels he’s giving life: He calls his patients “born again.”
“When you end what the woman considers a disastrous pregnancy, she has literally been given her life back,” he says….
When he’s done, Harrison performs another ultrasound. The screen this time is blank but for the contours of the uterus. “We’ve gotten everything out of there,” he says….
“It’s completely formed about nine weeks,” [Harrison’s] nurse tells [a patient]. “Yours is more like a chicken yolk.”
The girl, who is five weeks pregnant, looks relieved. “Then no,” she says, “it’s not a baby.”…
Harrison draws his own moral line at the end of the 2nd trimester, or 26 weeks…. Until that point, he will abort for any reason.
“It’s not a baby to me until the mother tells me it’s a baby,” he says.
But Harrison refuses to end 3rd-trimester pregnancies…. Harrison believes they may be developed enough to feel pain in utero….
“I just don’t think it should be done,” says Harrison, who calls the practice infanticide.
Harrison also claimed to be Hillary Clinton’s doctor in a 2004 Amazon review of Bill Clinton’s book, My Life. Click to enlarge….
In a 2008 email exchange with Dr. Warren Throckmorton, Harrison wrote he knew he aborted “human souls”:
Anyone who has delivered as many babies as I have, and has seen hundreds of living and dead embryos and fetuses being spontaneously aborted as have I, knows exactly what we are doing when we provide an elective abortion for our patient. We are ending the life of an embryo or a fetus. Not the life of a person, but certainly a creature that might have become a person under other circumstances…. I always go back to 2 of the most insightful and beautiful verses of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khyyam….
Better, oh, better cancel from the Scroll
Of universe one luckless Human Soul,
Than drop by drop enlarge the Flood that roars
Hoarser with Anguish as the ages roll.
When Omar wrote his beautiful and treasured poem over a thousand years ago, mankind had no way of safely canceling “from the scroll of universe one luckless human soul” whose numbers make up that flood of howling anguish; at least, no way of canceling it without risking also the life of the woman carrying it. In this day of medical marvels and, hopefully, ever increasing social justice, we possess such a way….
For those girls and women and their families whose circumstances would make their babies “luckless human souls,” I “cancel” them before they become babies.
Physicians who save wanted babies from being spontaneously aborted (and we can save a few now that God once seemed determined to abort), and we who cancel “luckless human souls” are doing God’s work.
Well, now Harrison has met God face to face and has learned whether God agrees.
Harrison’s memorial service will be at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Fayetteville on October 4 at 5:30p. I would not be opposed to pro-lifers simultaneously memorializing the preborn dead at what is certain to be celebration of their murders at Harrison’s hand.
[HT: Operation Rescue; top photo via The New York Times]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
So — to this dead abortioni . . . I mean abortion doctor, the “creature’s” value depend(s) on whether it is wanted or not?
I once read about a rally where notorious Montreal abortionist Henry Morgenthaler appeared. He had performed even more abortions on “creatures” than this guy and when he mentioned the amount, the crowd cheered. I try to understand the other camp’s point of view, but this is really sick. Why would anyone celebrate this?
“It’s not a baby to me until the mother tells me it’s a baby”
“Harrison draws his own moral line at the end of the 2nd trimester, or 26 weeks”
What if the mother (the mother of what- not a baby?) says it’s not a baby at 30 weeks? How is it up to the mother until 26 weeks but not up to the mother after that?
It’s very sad that he died of a disease that must have been very painful. My condolences to his family.
That being said, if a human is a creature but not a person, I must be listening to a slaveholder from the early 1800’s. I’m going to get back in my time machine and see if I can fix the date..
Dr. William Harrison
Canceled September 24, 2010.
God have mercy on him.
“At least” 20,000 children. After a while, you lose count. *shudders*
I’m going to take this opportunity to pitch Med Students for Life, a subgroup of SFLA. I’m not a med student, but I love the work they’re doing. This is the area where we can have the greatest impact. If we change the mind of just one person who was going to become an abortionist, that’s potentially tens of thousands of lives saved! You should all check them out.
What a sick, disturbed, confused man. His thinking is frightening. May God have mercy on his soul. And the poor women who he has turned into childless mothers through his perversely grandiose way of “cancelling” human souls.
If this doesn’t illustrate just how well Satan has people deceived, I don’t know what will.
Beentheredonethat
September 27th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
If a woman believes an abortion is immoral then she shouldn’t have one. She certainly doesn’t get to tell me what my morals should be but then again these folks have always been hellbent on dictating others religious views and morals. Also, when are the anti-abortion people going to start being concerned with what happens after the birth of the unwanted pregnancy? If adoption is their answer how come there are so many many children in orphanges and foster care? If adoption is the answer there should be no children without families.
Been:
Unfortunately even people who would make great parents sometimes get turned down for adoption. The system isn’t perfect, and pro-lifers don’t claim it to be, but we know that adoption is a better choice than abortion.
There’s women on here who have had abortion and it was extremely painful for them. They were lied to and weren’t lovingly cared for.
The unfortunate thing about it is it’s too often the norm.
Women are told: “It’ll be just fine. Don’t you worry.” But when they DO worry and it ISN’T fine often times those same people are suddenly too busy for them and suddenly don’t care.
That’s when people like Catholic Charities, Foundation For Life, and other people in the pro-life movement step forward and say “WE care.”
Obviously a woman who believe abortion is immoral shouldn’t have one. That’s like stating the sky is blue, but that’s not the point. The point is, either the preborn baby is a life and is developing and growing and ALIVE or he/she isn’t. You can’t have it both ways.
The point pro-lifers have come to is this: the pre-born child (embroyo, fetus, baby, whatever you want to call him or her) IS a life from the moment he or she is conceived. He/she grows, develops, and LIVES within the mother’s womb until he/she can live outside the mother’s womb.
When you take that away willfully you end that life. It isn’t a question of perhaps or maybe, because medical science has shown us the pre-born human being is in fact, growing, devloping and LIVING inside the mother’s womb.
Don’t believe me? Just pick up a pregnancy book that has pictures. Or look at an ultrasound. Those are pretty straight forward.
Is your love for human life conditional, Jill?
Do you only want fetuses to live?
I think you want people to believe that you want born human beings to live, too. I think you want people to believe that you think born human beings should not be killed. I think you want people to believe that you respect fetal life the same as born human life.
Why then, are you only sad IF he repented?
A human being has died, Jill. How can you not be sad about that?
Hi Beentheredonethat.
“If a woman believes an abortion is immoral then she shouldn’t have one. She certainly doesn’t get to tell me what my morals should be but then again these folks have always been hellbent on dictating others religious views and morals.”
If you believe rape is wrong, don’t rape. You certainly don’t get to tell me what morals should be.
See how silly that sounds? We are claiming that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being- that it is murder (not in the legal sense, but in the moral sense). Thus, we as human beings with rational have a moral obligation to indeed tell others what morals should be, or at least argue for them under law.
In fact, you say “She certainly doesn’t get to tell me what my morals should.” Why not? Would it be immoral if she did? Thus, aren’t you telling her what her morals should be which according to you, you shouldn’t do?
“but then again these folks have always been hellbent on dictating others religious views and morals.”
A couple things. First of all, I would be happy to discuss with you how the rejection of abortion is not a religious view. It is found in religions, but anyone with a love for the natural order can see that abortion is intrinsically evil. Secularprolife.org is a great place to start, but the fact remains that just because religious are the most outspoken against abortion does not imply that it cannot be argued against on purely secular grounds. I always do, and I would be happy to share those secular arguments against abortion which I find compelling with you.
“Also, when are the anti-abortion people going to start being concerned with what happens after the birth of the unwanted pregnancy?”
We are. We always have been and always will be. And, sadly, this line will always be repeated by pro-choicers because it is an easy blow-off that doesn’t require any work or thinking. Only in the world of abortion is are those who do not support an immoral action blow-off and discredited for allegedly NOT taking action in something different. Do you also fault those who support “take back teh night” for not being concerned about children? Is the doctor who spends his time looking for a cure to colon cancer criticized because he ignores teh problem of breast cancer? We are talking about abortion. How does our position or even lack thereof affect the morality of abortion? This is simply an ad hominem argument which does not at all address the issue, but the behavior of teh person putting forth the position. Suppose there was no one in foster care. Would abortion then be evil and you would not support it? This claim about teh number of children in foster care does not at all touch on what we are discussing. It is an ad hominem, designed to distract from the real issue which is abortion; that abortion unjustly takes the life of an innocent human being.
Hey, Jill. Remember that cable special on those women who had abortions or were considering abortions? Remember one of them had their aboriton with Dr. Harrison? They filmed it (without getting graphic).
It was about two years ago.
MSNBC?
His patient was a blonde whose Christian mother sat next to her during the procedure and it was revealed that this was her second abortion.
“She certainly doesn’t get to tell me what my morals should be.”
Darn time machine still acting up-
Kushiels, I don’t presume to speak for Jill as an individual, but of course we don’t prefer one human over another, such as a fetus over an adult. But when an adult has made it his life’s work to kill humans, it is admittedly difficult to feel warmly toward him. I’m more sad that Eva Braun died and less sad that Hilter died. Does that make me a bad person or a hypocrite? If so, I personally don’t care.
Are you against capital punishment, Kushiel? If you are against capital punishment, then you are a hypcrite to prefer adults to developing children. If you support capital punishment, then you are less of a hypocrite for also supporting feticide. I personally care more about living human beings than I do about someone else calling me a hypocrite. All humans are hypocrites to one degree or another. That doesn’t justify murder. Nothing justifies murder.
“All humans are hypcrites to one degere or another.”
I think most of us try not to be, but you’re right. Generally at least once in our lives we’ll be hypocritical about something.
“That doesn’t justify murder. Nothing justifies murder.” very true, Ninek.
Beentheredonethat, if abortion is strictly a religious issue, why are there prolife atheists and agnostics?
“Pro-Life” people celebrating Death….
True Colors…..
ninek – at least you are somewhat sad that Hitler, and I assume Dr. Harrison, died.
Jill, on the other hand, seems to suggest she is not sad that he died at all, and she would only be sad to hear that he did not repent before dying.
“Doctor” Harrison — I have to put doctor in quotes because he flagrantly violated the Hippocratic Oath he swore to uphold, at least 20,000 times over — said a baby was only a baby if his/her mother said it was a baby. Otherwise, s/he was only a “creature”.
By that line of (il)logic, if one’s emotions (or lack thereof) about a person determine his or her humanity (or lack thereof), we who value life at any stage can say that Harrison was only a creature himself.
After all, the innocent, defenseless, helpless babies he murdered had never harmed anyone; they had never taken even one life.
So if we’re going to make comparisons here, Harrison’s life wasn’t worth beans.
Just think — if he hadn’t lived, 20,000 more humans may have been allowed their right to life.
Don’t tell me that’s harsh if you have no problem with anyone murdering the youngest, most innocent, most defenseless, most helpless among us.
KushielsMoon,
Jill is a Christian. You have to look at it from her point of view.
We, as Christians, cannot sad when someone dies of natural causes. It means that God decided to take them out of this life. Natural physical death means that God has called the person home. It is not celebration of death, but the celebration of new life with God. Yes, we might miss the person, but that does not mean that person is not in always in our hearts. If the person made it to Purgatory or Heaven, he or she would be an intercessor for us.
It is when a person is killed by unnatural causes, such as abortion or other forms of murder, that we should be so sad, because that person did not get to live out the life God had planned for him or her. Also, if that person had sinned, he or she may not have gotten a chance to repent, and that is, again, something to be sad about. What we can be happy about in cases such as this is that we know that when evil happens, God always somehow makes something good come out of it. We can also be glad that the person no longer has to put up with such an evil world, and we can hope that they experience joy in the next life.
We do not know whether Harrison repented at the last minute before he died and got a reprieve or not, and it is not our place to judge. We do not know what happened to him, we only know that God decided to take him. In this, God’s Will was done, and that is something that we can only be glad about.
In other words, what Jill meant by saying, “I’m only sad if he passed from this life without repenting,” is that she knows that this is in God’s hands. She knows that if Harrison did repent, then he is spending eternity in bliss, but, if he did not, then he is spending eternity in torment. If he did not repent, THEN it would be very sad. If he did repent, then we can only be happy that he is happy.
Therefore, you cannot call Jill’s love of life conditional, because she knows the truth of our immortal souls.
Doesn’t get much more ‘conditional’ than ‘I love you baby, but I don’t want you-you’re dead’ does it, moonbat…proaborts present their list of demands that must be met before they will consider not killing their child like hostage negotiators, and then they want to lecture us on unconditional love? Unconditional love lets live-no matter how hard the cirumstances. Proabort monkey love does not.
Christians only care about your “soul” and collecting it for “god”. If you do not repent before you die your life was for nothing since the purpose of life is to serve god and earn your place in heaven… That’s why Christian missionaries hand out bibles before they hand out food in third world countries. They also like to give the natives “biblical or Christian names like John or Peter” and strip them of their own identity and heritage.
If God was real and Jesus was truly his son they would not need such a vicious advertizing campaign. Do you know the number of humans who have been slaughtered over the last 2000 years because they would not surrender their soul to a Christian god? No you don’t, because its way to high to count. Almost all of South America at one point, two separate crusades, not to mention all the Jews in concentration camps that the Catholics decided not to help because they were not Christians, the list is very long and each listing would represent millions of souls that would not be converted to Christianity.
There is NOTHING unconditional about Christian love…..
HI Biggz.
“not to mention all the Jews in concentration camps that the Catholics decided not to help because they were not Christians”
This has been discredited multiple times now. Probably the most thorough refutation of this claim is the history book “Hitler, the War, and the Pope” by Ronald J. Rychlak, not to mention the book “The Myth of Hitler’s Pope” by Rabbi David Dalin which is a response to the popularizer of this myth, John Cornwell’s book “Hitler’s Pope.” In fact, Cornwell has largely recanted much of his previous position by admitting that “it is impossible to judge the motives for his [Pius XII] silence during the war.”
You will not find ANY mention of Catholics not doing anything to help Jews before the 1960s. This myth began with a German play by Ralf Hockhuth called The Deputy in which he depicts a silent Pope doing nothing to help Jews. Because anything that bashes the Catholic Church is a-okay, this idea became popular and accepted as “common knowledge” in society. Yet you can go back and look at the microfilm of the NYT and other contemporary newspapers during and after WWII and see that they had nothing but praise the Pope and Catholic Church for helping to save so many Jews by doing things like printing baptismal certificates for them so that they wouldn’t be recognized as Jews.
Bobby – Check the dates, The Catholic Church did nothing to help until the US entered the war and Hitler’s downfall was assured. The Catholic Church sat there and did nothing until they could determine which side was going to win. Had Hitler won, the Catholic Church would have continued and become the new state religion. Kind of funny how Hitler never looted the Vatican even though they were looting everyone else in Europe for all their wealth and historical treasures in order to rewrite history according to Nazi beliefs, but the Vatican who has more wealth and historical treasures than anyone else somehow escaped without a bent spear . Must be the will of god, or maybe a deal with Hitler? You know there are still Nazi documents that are hidden that if found would cause us to rewrite history according to former Hitler SS Brass…
Oh Biggz, just not impressive at all. I give you books that have historical documentation to consider, and you respond by repeating the same thing you mentioned before. AGAIN, I have no reason to believe you’re really interested in discussing this. Your entire case for the hypothesis that the Church had some deal with the Nazis was that the Vatican was never looted? That fact alone trumps all the historical documentation that I have alluded to? I’ll read anything you want me to read, but my guess is you’ve never read nor know of a serious historical work which details your position. I don’t see anything in your response that implies that you are seeking truth on this matter- only that you want to win an argument.
“You know there are still Nazi documents that are hidden that if found would cause us to rewrite history according to former Hitler SS Brass…”
Oh okay, great. I don’t know what this is supposed to prove, but actual documented evidence points to the fact that the Church did more to help the Jews than any other organization. I’m not trying to have a debate on this over the next 24 hours. My intention was to have you actually do some reading and research if you really care, not have a back and forth on this.
Amy, we can’t be sad when people die of natural causes?
Come on. We absolutely can be sad. Even if we know that our loved ones are with Christ, we can still be sad that they left our world.
Are you saying that Dr. Harrison will be in your heart, or that other people who you like will be in your heart?
When you say “In this, God’s Will was done, and that is something that we can only be glad about.”
Are you saying that you’re glad a man died of cancer?
Still waiting for Jill herself to answer.
But Dr. Harrison, I am 27 weeks pregnant and I say its not a baby! I want an abortion! What do you mean you won’t do one? Why are you pushing YOUR MORALS on MY BODY!
He was kinda hypocritical, no?
Can you imagine if all doctors prescribed to Harrison’s looney ethical/medical ideology? “But doctor, I don’t care what you say. Its not a malignant tumor. I really feel at this stage its benign. I just FEEL that way no matter what medical tests show.”
“You are absolutely right, patient! Since you feel the tumor is benign it must be! Even though medical science is showing me that your tumor is malignant I must trust your feelings first and foremost.”
WHAT STUPIDITY!
KushielsMoon,
I can’t answer for Jill, but I generally share her sentiments. One can only hope that this butcher repented before he died. The consequences are eternal.
That said I’m glad he’s off the stage and no longer slaughtering innocents. But I sincerely hope that he surrendered himself to God’s infinite forgiveness, love and mercy.
Not having read previous posts on this thread regarding Harrison, nor having time to debate the issue….I pray God has mercy on his soul.
Bobby Bambino,
Your book recommendations are always appreciated. Thanks!
Biggz,
So the Catholic Church did nothing for the Jews and had a secret understanding with the Nazis? You are spouting a lot of vile slander. It’s tiresome to have to refute this again and again.
Pope Pius XI denounced the Nazi regime and its racial ideology in no uncertain terms well before the war began: see his 1937 encyclical Mit brennender Sorge. (I think I’ll make you look it up to learn what the German means, otherwise you will never learn to do any independent research). This encyclical had to be smuggled into Germany and read from the pulpits in all the Catholic churches because the Nazis would never have allowed it to be published.
From the time they came to power, the Nazis regarded the Catholic Church in Germany as their greatest enemy and incredible violence was unleashed against German Catholics and their organizations. Why would they have done this if the Church was so neutral?
Anti-Catholic cartoons in Nazi papers clearly showed the Church and the Pope as defenders of the Jews.
All the German bishops gathered together in Fulda in 1937 announced the excommunication of anyone who joined the Nazi party. Not exactly neutral, were they?
As for the future Pope Pius XII, he was denouncing Hitler already in the 1920’s while he was papal nuncio to Bavaria. He also did so repeatedly after becoming Pope in 1939. It’s true that from the time the Nazis invaded Rome in 1943, he could say very little without endangering the lives of all the people — including many Jews — the Holy See was protecting in the city. But he did help save the Jews of Rome from deportation and set up a Church network to help Jews throughout Europe. He actually spent a lot of money from the Vatican treasury from this as well as his family’s personal fortune to aid the Jews. (So much for your sneers about looting the Vatican).
Hitler actually planned to invade the Vatican and kidnap the Pope, clearly recognizing Pius XII as his greatest enemy, but some of his generals who had a least a shred of common sense dissuaded him.
If your specific charge is that Catholics or the Pope didn’t aid Jews in concentration camps until the U.S. entered the war at the end of 1941, it’s a charge that doesn’t make much sense, since few if any people knew that Jews were being killed in the camps until that time. And even before then, in 1939, when Hitler invaded Poland, Pius XII sent a message to the Cardinal Primate of Poland urging him to help get the Jews out of the country because he knew what Hitler was going to do to them.
I second all of Bobby’s book recommendations (Rychlak’s book in particular is fantastic and meticulously documented; a new updated edition just came out last year).
Another Jewish man who has done an enormous amount to stop this stupid slander is Gary Krupp. Just Google Pave the Way Foundation and you will get a multitude of documents and eyewitness interviews that show just how much Pius XII did for the Jews.
So what documented evidence do you have for your position, Biggz? Keep in mind though that I have a Ph.D in history and you are going to be arguing with me at your peril.
(By the way, imaginary German documents in archives that haven’t yet discovered don’t mean a thing historically).
“This has been discredited multiple times now. Probably the most thorough refutation of this claim is the history book ‘Hitler, the War, and the Pope” by Ronald J. Rychlak, not to mention the book ‘The Myth of Hitler’s Pope’ by Rabbi David Dalin which is a response to the popularizer of this myth, John Cornwell’s book ‘Hitler’s Pope.'”
Actually, the matter is still highly DEBATED, not DISCREDITED. See: http://www.amazon.com/Under-His-Very-Windows-Holocaust/dp/0300093101
Cornwell’s book betrays his anti-Catholic sentiments, and then you’re left with the arguments of a Roman Catholic and a professor tenured at an obscure Catholic school founded by the owner of Domino’s pizza. Pick your scholar?
The real question is: why don’t historians have full access to the Vatican’s archives?
It doesn’t take much of a brain to realize that any organization characterized by such bureaucratic morass can easily shield evidence of malfeasance (or, in this case, criminal silence) on the part of its members.
The world would be far, far better off without organized religion. Secular pro-lifers, anyone?
“The world would be far, far better off without organized religion.”
LOL Megan,
How do you define “better off”? Anarchy?
Yeah, watch out for Lori Biggz, she’s got a PhD in Medieval History!
Janet, on what basis do you assert that without organized religion there would be anarchy? (Keep in mind though that I have a Yellow Belt in Politics! :-))
cranium, my Ph.D. may be in Medieval History, but my Masters degree is in modern European History, so I have studied all this stuff, believe me.
Megan, since when does where a professor teaches have anything to do with his qualifications? It doesn’t, but it has a lot to do with the fact that you don’t have a credible argument to fall back on. No matter who you are, facts, documentation and airtight arguments speak for themselves.
Susan Zucotti, stretching to her utmost to try and discredit Pope Pius XII, goes so far as to discredit the actual testimony of Jewish Holocaust survivors. I would not rely on her; she uses methods no historian would accept.
The Vatican has already published tons of information from its papers and archives about the war. The reason that the publication of some is taking so long is that they must all be cataloged, but this work is proceeding as fast as it can be done. No one is trying to hide anything.
I cannot for the life of me understand this mania for insisting that every last piece of paper in the Vatican archives must be scrutinized before people will accept that Pope Pius XII aided the Jews!
If the accusation is that the Pope remained silent – well every last public utterance of his has long been known; there is no doubt whatsoever about what he said. Nothing in the archives is going to add to this.
Most of what is in the Vatican archives is only going to be the Vatican copies of documents that have already been found and studied in the archives of embassies, government offices and nunciatures all over Europe. The evidence is quite abundant and points in only one direction: that the Holy See and the Pope worked heroically on behalf of the Jews.
The clamor for the Vatican to “open up” its files is just an act of desperation on the part of the bigoted.
Megan, I’m sure you can find some better use for your time than to continue to spread ignorance.
“since when does where a professor teaches have anything to do with his qualifications?”
Exactly, Lori. It’s one of these easy blow-offs of scholarship. It doesn’t require you to look into the evidence at all or think- all you have to do is “discredit” the person by citing something about them concerning pizza, unrelated to the question at hand, and poof! No need to do any work.
I’m happy to read the book, Megan, and see what it has to say. In particular, I’d be very interested to see how it was that Rolf Hockhuth was the first one to realize and publicize Pius XII’s silence.
“…tenured at an obscure Catholic school founded by the owner of Domino’s pizza.”
So is the idea here that if you found a pizza chain and if you found a school, then it follows that everyone you hire is not a scholar? I’m trying to figure out what syllogism you have in mind here, and how other things that a founder of a school has founded somehow affects the level of scholarship of his employees. If Ryshlak gets a job at a new school, will he THEN become a scholar?
“why don’t historians have full access to the Vatican’s archives?
It doesn’t take much of a brain to realize that any organization characterized by such bureaucratic morass can easily shield evidence of malfeasance (or, in this case, criminal silence) on the part of its members.”
Sure, it’s logically possible, but what actual evidence is there besides speculation? How does the fact that the Vatican has archives that are secret somehow discredit all the historical documents cited in say, Rabbi David Dalyn’s book? Again, unlike Biggz, I don’t have faith in the existence of some secret documents. I base my beliefs on evidence.
Secular pro-lifers, anyone?
Happy to oblige. (I’ll ask you to google them, so that my comment doesn’t get stuck in the queue for excessive links.)
SecularProLife.org
Science for Unborn Human Life
Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League
Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians
Feminists for Life
Libertarians for Life
etc. etc.
You are kidding about name changes. For one, everyone interacting with a separate culture gets a new name that the other can pronounce. My elegant- lineage Chinese boyfriend had half a dozen names, from following his world-bank economist father around the globe. His “name” is XYZ, depending. His father calls him “X” I called him “Y” since I didn’t have the whole intonation thing down.
Africans can, and do, keep their African names. Have you seen the list of bishops from Africa? Have you seen the names of their congregations? Have you seen the names of the people settled in safe places, and cared for by christian charities? Pres Bush’s ambassador to the UN was settled in America, and assisted, by a Lutheran charity ( Okay, he was Cambodian, not African, but still). He’s not named Bob. Boutros Boutros Ghali- is still Boutros Boutros Ghali, not Bob Galley. He’s Coptic. One of the original Christian churches. last time I checked, Egypt was still in Africa.
I cannot believe you are possibly that stupid about the history of the church. It started in Jerusalem, and went out like a vast rose window all the way around the world. Missionaries went to Rome- that’s our Western Inheritance. Missionaries- written about in Acts- went to Egypt, and to Ethiopia. Missionaries went East- Syria, Jordan, and on to India. Some went to the Mongol court. Some went to China. Arguably, some went to Japan and on to the Pacific Islands- all this in less than 500 years. Oh yeah, Ireland. and on and on up there. The Roman Catholic friars went out with the european explorers and found christian communities. they found communities that had already suffered persecutions. they found underground churches. they found “christian marranos” in japan. ( the japanese christians would hide a cross on their buddhist statues) they found other religions borrowing the pageantry and thoughts of christian churches- tibetan buddhism looks catholic in habit, for instance. it’s why its’ more congenial in the west than other buddhist practices.
Good Grief. Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Margaret Sanger- they attempted to kill everybody who wasn’t “just like them.” They did a really good job, too, hundreds of millions dead, by political class, or color, or family. They are the sanitizers and the racists.
The church? Has two or three things in common at each place- each Christian declares Jesus the only begotten son of god, prays the Lord’s Prayer, and recites the creed. The rest is wildly, entirely different. I can look in my hymnal and find hymns in swahili, in spanish, in some mayan language, in swedish, in german, in english. I know, when I sing ” holy, holy, holy” that everyone in the world, and in heaven is singing with me, but not just in english. that’s the church. I cry with joy knowing god has invited me into this huge, wonderful human family.
Venerable Pius XII is my favorite late Pope, so I’ll just have to open my mouth on this one… If you look at groups that so adamantly oppose the canonization of Pius XII and perpetuate the lies regarding his life, they all have one peculiar thing in common; they seem to have taken a break during the second world war.
Though the site has since been redone, the history of the Anti Defamation League (began 1913) had a glaring gap in their history timeline. There wasn’t anything listed for those years. Since the site has been redone they have listed their opposition to bigotry on American soils. Try to find information about how these groups significantly assisted their Jewish brethren in Europe- Such information is hard to find.
ps- If anyone’s interested, look up some of the audiences and writings of Pius XII regarding medical ethics, feminism and the like- it’s pretty good stuff.
The Vatican archives are open to all legitimate scholars, but naturally they are not going to hand over delicate, antique parchments to your average tourist! Get real. I also can’t go to NYU’s library without credentials, such as a student ID, or an introduction from another university and paw and maul their antiques. Besides, most of the material is published elsewhere. Are you having trouble laying your hands on a specific manuscript? I find some pretty obscure stuff even on Amazon.com. So really, enough with the Vatican conspiracy theories. Yer just jealous, cuz we got one leg.
Hi Lori,
You said it rather well with Megan:
“Megan, since when does where a professor teaches have anything to do with his qualifications? It doesn’t, but it has a lot to do with the fact that you don’t have a credible argument to fall back on. No matter who you are, facts, documentation and airtight arguments speak for themselves.”
Of course with the pro-abort gang the game goes like this:
What do you know, you didn’t go to college!
then,
What do you know, that’s not what your degree is in!
then
What do you know, you only have a bachelor’s degree!
then
What do you know, you only have a master’s degree!
then
What do you know, your doctorate is only from (fill in the blank).
Then with someone like Dr. Robert George, Chair of Jurisprudence at Princeton University it’s,
Well what do you expect, he’s Catholic!
It’s always something with these folks. It’s the old lawyer’s admonition: When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the facts are not on your side, pound the table.
Gerard Nadal 2010/09/28 at 12:20 pm
LIKE
Biggz wrote:
Yeah, watch out for Lori Biggz, she’s got a PhD in Medieval History!
…and Biggz wonders why people call him a troll. Stop feeding him, y’all, and maybe he’ll move on to where there’s more Purina® Troll ChowTM…
I have a strong devotion to Ven. Pius XII, too; and I get rather impatient with bigoted trolls walking all over his memory in big, dirty, horny boots laden with innuendo, distortions, and outright lies. If you hate him, then be honest and SAY so; don’t be childish and boorish, and make up (or mindless parrot) smear campaigns against him.
Paladin, cranium wrote the warning to Biggz. Not that it matters, since like most trolls, they’re practically interchangeable, at least as far as their anti-Catholic bigotry goes.
Paladin, cranium wrote the warning to Biggz.
Ack! Sorry… I knew that (honestly!); I’ve no idea why I substituted Troll #2 for Troll #3. Correction noted! Here’s the revised version, for the record:
…and Cranium wonders why people call him a troll. Stop feeding him, y’all, and maybe he’ll move on to where there’s more Purina® Troll ChowTM…
Let’s see: Nick, Biggz, Cranium… any other new trolls to add to the list?
RE: “Doctor” Harrison’s life
I cannot grieve that he has died a natural death. Many people don’t live as long as he did.
I grieve that he misused the gift of life he was given to murder at least 20,000 innocent people, to deprive them of their right to life. Perhaps now those who would have died if he had continued to commit abortion will have a chance to live.
Of course with the pro-abort gang the game goes like this:
Well said, Gerard Nadal! Very well said. And unfortunately, all too true.
Simple human decency would prevent the kind of appalling, celebratory behavior embodied in this post and most of its comments. The complete lack of decency and respect for the dead shown here is a real eye-opener.
Joan,
Forgive me, but your comment is rather ignorant and rash; there’s a vast difference between being glad at someone’s death for its own sake, versus being relieved and glad that a grievous threat to unborn children (and to anyone foolish enough to be influenced by his words and efforts) has ended. Care to ask your opponents a bit about motives, first, before indulging your itchy flame-thrower trigger finger?
Joan,
I look forward to your outrage at the pro-aborts who parade around this blog militating for the right to add to the pile of 52 million dead babies in this nation since I was 12 years old. A proportional sense of outrage at the celebration of the right that created that pile would no doubt lead to a stroke. So maybe just the same level of outrage would be an encouragement to me and a sign of consistency from you.
Simple human decency would prevent the kind of appalling, celebratory behavior embodied in this post and most of its comments. The complete lack of decency and respect for the dead shown here is a real eye-opener.
joan, allow me to rephrase your comments just a bit:
Simple human decency would prevent the kind of appalling, celebratory behavior embodied in comments quoted here (in the lead story of this post and other posts on the Home page) by “pro-choice” advocates who celebrate millions of deaths of completely innocent, helpless, defenseless human beings.
The complete lack of decency and respect for those dead as shown here in those real-life quotes is a real eye-opener. How is it that intelligent adults can have no decency at all and celebrate those millions of deaths???
“Doctor” Harrison was one man who lived out a full life cut short by no one. But he used his gift of life to snuff out the lives of at least 20,000 babies. Not only that, but when he spoke of those deaths, he did not speak of them with any sorrow or grief — only appalling, celebratory behavior!!!
Are you one of those who likewise rejoice in the unprovoked deaths of millions of innocents? FAR more than the millions which were murdered by Hitler? (Which did in fact include abortions of Jewish babies — my FIL was in Europe after the war when the revelations were forthcoming.) The official death count there was 6 million. The official death count — thus far (and counting) – of the modern American holocaust is upwards of 50 MILLION!!
If so, why do you chastise those who are glad that other innocents may have a chance to enjoy their right to life?
If not, why try to levy false guilt on those of us who want every person to enjoy his/her right to life? I, for one, am not buying it.
As I said earlier:
I cannot grieve that he has died a natural death. Many people don’t live as long as he did.
I grieve that he misused the gift of life he was given to murder at least 20,000 innocent people, to deprive them of their right to life.
Perhaps now those who would have died if he had continued to commit abortion will have a chance to live.
In videos I have seen of William Harrison he seemed to be very gentle towards women. I have seen abortionists like Tiller who were so arrogant and condescending or abortionists that were very angry and gruff. I think it is a sad and terrible thing that Harrison used his gentle demeanor in a profession of destroying life instead of saving life. It is a shame that he was probably a person with a good heart but who ridiculed God and the Bible and allowed himself to be led into the depths of hell on earth dismembering living children in their mother’s wombs for a living. I cannot pray for him as a born-again Christian I believe it is already too late if he didn’t repent before he died but I will now redouble my efforts to remember other aging abortionists in prayer. God is so very merciful.
Backtracking:
“If you hate him, then be honest and say so.”
Whoa, whoa, whoa, let’s not appeal to raw emotions here. I’m suggesting that any social entity with such a complex hierarchical structure lends itself to grave corruption, especially when it attempts to silence all criticism of itself. This doesn’t mean I HATE Catholicism, or Protestantism, or government. The case of Pius XII: I don’t doubt that he did aid many Jews; anybody with a shred of conscience would have done so after a certain point. But I would expect an individual who purports to be a moral pillar to condemn fascism and evil in no uncertain terms. With Nazism rising to prominence and while Pacelli was still Secretary of State, he ratified
Reichskonkordat. His encyclicals denounced aspects of Nazism, but initially on the grounds of Germany’s violations of the 1933 treaty, and afterwords made little explicit reference to the appalling treatment of Jews. Pius XI, however, wrote Humani Generis Unitas–an explicit condemnation of anti-semitism–which Pius XII chose not to publish.
Yes, Pius XII demonstrated acts of individual mercy to help Jews in peril, but where was the clarion call awakening the world to the evils of fascism, Nazism and anti-semitism? Even post-WWII, when the evils of Nazism were glaringly apparent, the pope chose to speak out against imposing the death penalty on Aushwitz war criminals. Was the death penalty “just”? No, but where was the explicit condemnation of the evils these men perpetuated? I’m not seeing it in an post-war encyclicals…
Pius XII proved himself to be a shrewd politician, hedging public statements, accommodating fascists to protect Church sovereignty, and overall indirectly enabling tyrants to act with impunity. Many Catholics acted nobly, bravely, and ethically during the War, but did the injunction to combat evil come from on high? Probably not.
And I have every right to comment on where a scholar choose to teach. It IS telling.
Megan,
Some light reading on Pius XII for you.
The New York Times editorial on December 25, 1941 (Late Day edition, p. 24): “??The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas… he is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all… the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism… he left no doubt that the Nazi aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christian peace.??”
The New York Times editorial on December 25, 1942 (Late Day edition, p. 16) states:?? “This Christmas more than ever he is a lonely voice crying out of the silence of a continent… Pope Pius expresses as passionately as any leader on our side the war aims of the struggle for freedom when he says that those who aim at building a new world must fight for free choice of government and religious order. They must refuse that the state should make of individuals a herd of whom the state disposes as if they were lifeless things.”
World Jewish Congress, 21 July 1944:Wrote to Pius XII, “gratefully conscious” of his “aid on behalf of sorely afflicted and menaced Jews in Hungary, which have been followed by offer of the Regent to secure release of certain categories of Jews particularly children. His Holiness’ efforts bring us new hope at the eleventh hour of saving from death the surviving remnants of decimated European Jewry.”
Headlines From The New York Times:
October 28, 1939 “Pope Condemns Dictators, Treaty Violators, Racism: Urges Restoring of Poland.”
January 23, 1940″Vatican Denounces Atrocities in Poland; Germans Called Even Worse Than Russians.”
August 6, 1942 “Pope is Said to Plead for Jews Listed for Removal from France.”
August 27, 1942 “Vichy Seizes Jews: Pope Pius Ignored.”
October 17, 1943 “Pope Said to Help in Ransoming Jews.”
December 4 1943 “Vatican Scores Germans: Denounces Decision to Intern and Strip All Jews in Italy.”
The New York Times on the liberation of Rome:
“Under the Pope’s direction the Holy See did an exemplary job of sheltering and championing the victims of the Nazi-Fascist regime. I have spoken to dozens of Italians, both Catholics and Jews, who owe their liberty and perhaps their lives to the protection of the Church.”
Chief Rabbi of Rome:Rabbi Israel Zolli in 1945 converted to Catholicism with his wife, and in honor of all the Pope did for the Jews during the War took Pius XII’s name, Eugenio and had the Pope as his Godfather.
Chief Rabbi Herzog of Palestine:“The people of Israel will never forget what his Holiness and his illustrious delegates are doing for us unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history.”
FDR:“I should like to take this occasion to express to His Holiness my deeply-felt appreciation of the frequent action which the Holy See has taken to render assistance to the victims of racial and religious persecutions.” –August 3, 1944
Moshe Sharett:Later First Israeli Foreign Minister (April 1945):?” . . 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, to save children, and Jews in general.”
Golda Meir: Israeli Foreign (October 1958):?”When fearful martyrdom came to our people, the voice of the pope was raised for its victims.” Pinchas E. Lapide:Three Popes and the Jews (1967):?”. . . the Catholic Church, under the pontificate of Pope Pius XII was instrumental in saving at least 700,000, but probably as many as 860,000, Jews from certain death at Nazi hands.”
Rabbi David G. Dalin: The Weekly Standard, February 26, 2001:?”. . . Pius XII was, genuinely and profoundly, a righteous gentile.”
Zenit News:?http://www.zenit.org/article-12040?l=english
“No one knows exactly how many Jews were hidden and saved by the Church, but according to “Three Popes and the Jews” by Jewish historian Emilio Pinchas Lapide, then consul general in Milan, “the Holy See, the nuncios, and the Catholic Church saved between 740,000 and 850,000 Jews from certain death.” It is estimated that more than 80% of the Jews in Italy escaped the Nazi genocide. In Rome alone, the Jewish community has certified that the Church saved 4,447 Jews from the Holocaust.”
Kenneth Woodward: Newsweek (March 30, 1998):?”In his 1942 Christmas message, which The New York Times among others extolled, the pope became the first figure of international stature to condemn what was turning into the Holocaust.”
Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/pontifications/2009/04/in-praise-of-benedicts-folly.html#ixzz10u05PiwO
More for you Megan:
Israeli diplomat and Consul in Italy, Pinchas Lapide chronicled the extraordinary growth in Catholic Jewish relations from the 1930’s to 1967, the year he published, “Three Popes and the Jews” He concluded:
“The Catholic Church saved more Jewish lives during the war than all other churches, religious institutions and rescue organizations put together.”
Then, there is the detailed book by Rabbi David G. Dalin:
“The Myth of Hitler’s Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews From the Nazis,” by Rabbi David G. Dalin, (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc, 2005).
The Polish Educational Foundation of North America has compiled a 273 page (pdf) non-comprehensive selection of Jewish survivors’ testimony (2007) of the efforts of Priests, Monks and Nuns in over 900 Roman Catholic Church Institutions by several times that number of those who staffed them. Several hundred additional cases have yet to be added to this work. It may be accessed at:http://www.savingjews.org/docs/clergy_rescue.pdf http://www.kpk.org/english/toronto/clergy.pdf
For a video Lecture By Ronald J. Rychlak from Pave the Way Foundation that DEMOLISHES all arguments against the Church’s and Pope Pius XII’s roles in aiding Jews:
http://www.barhama.com/PAVETHEWAY/5.html
Two Books by Ronald J. Rychlak:
“Righteous Gentiles, How Pius XII and the Catholic Church Saved Half a million Jews From the Nazis.” (2008) And…
“Hitler, The War and The Pope” (2000)
A good online article:
Pius XII and the Holocaust, By Thomas Craughwell:http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a014.html
Consider a representative selection:“In all, some 40,000 Jews throughout Italy were saved from the Nazis. Fourteen years after the liberation of Rome by the Allies, an officer of the Jewish Brigade was quoted in Davar, the Hebrew daily of Israel’s Federation of Labor: ‘When we entered Rome, the Jewish survivors told us with a voice filled with deep gratitude and respect: If we have been rescued; if Jews are still alive in Rome come with us and thank the Pope in the Vatican. For in the Vatican proper, in churches, monasteries and private homes, Jews were kept hidden at his personal orders…. Even on the synagogue near the Tiber he had his papal seal imprinted, and that was respected even by the Nazis.’
In the interest of giving the WWII Jews back their voice, a voice stolen from them in the 1960’s when false witness against Pope Pius XII (and by extension, against the WWII Jews’ testimonials) became fashionable, here they are in their own words.
THE GOOD SAMARITAN: JEWISH PRAISE FOR POPE PIUS XII ?By Dimitri Cavalli
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/PIUS12GS.HTM
MORE PERIOD COMMENTARY FROM THOSE WHO WERE THERE:
Albert Einstein:Time Magazine, December 23, 1940:?”Being a lover of freedom, when the 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 Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing 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.”
Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/pontifications/2009/04/in-praise-of-benedicts-folly.html#ixzz10u1DcLxk
Good on you, Gerard!
Megan I typed an extremely detailed rebuttal on every one of your points, but it just got lost in the ether – aaacch!
Let me sum up everything by saying if you would read Prof. Rychlak’s book instead of simply condemning him for teaching at a Catholic university, you would have an irrefutable answer to every one of your objections. The very fact that you dismissed him because of where he teaches rather than for any of the contents of his book, makes it very clear to me that you haven’t read it.
And by the way, just what would you have to say to all the Jewish writers who obviously have no Catholic bias but who support Pope Pius XII and the Church? How are you going to dismiss them?
I’m too tired to go on, but maybe tomorrow. . .
Megan wrote, in reply to my comment (to the trolls):
[Paladin]
“If you hate him, then be honest and say so.”
[Megan]
Whoa, whoa, whoa, let’s not appeal to raw emotions here.
:) Cute. If it helps, I wasn’t talking to you, in that instance; I was talking to whichever of the “three troll Amigos” (Nick, cranium, Biggz) were commenting at the time.
In all candour, though: the statement wasn’t only one of exasperation (though it certainly expressed that, as well), but of sad and real experience. For reasons at which I can only guess, a distressingly large number of people (mainly those who hate the Catholic Church and Her teachings) react to Venerable Pope Pius XII with a very thinly disguised hatred and fury… and for nothing that he did (or didn’t do) in particular. The canards about His Holiness “doing nothing” during the Shoah are just that: troll-ish canards, thrown about by people with virtually no sense, less manners, and even less evidence for their wild accusations. (That’s one of the prime identifiers of a troll, by the way: jumping from sub-topic to sub-topic, and throwing accusations far and wide in the hopes that at least something will stick.) Given also the deafening silence of these critics against the others who provably kept silence (e.g. many elements of the mainstream media, etc.), I can only conclude that their rage is not based on their stated reasons… or on any discernible rational reasons. Thus, I think it’s hardly illogical to entertain the hypothesis that such people have an anti-Pius-XII agenda. Translated: they hate him, and they hate what he represents.
I’m suggesting that any social entity with such a complex hierarchical structure lends itself to grave corruption, especially when it attempts to silence all criticism of itself.
Can you give any clear examples of where the Catholic Church did anything of the sort? I’ve seen the Church defend Herself against slander and libel, and I’ve seen Her rebuke those who claim to be Catholic while rejecting Her requirements and teachings (think of someone who insists on being admitted to PETA, but who amuses himself by throwing live baby chicks into a blender for fun, and you may be able to see the incongruity–admonishments and excommunications would hardly be “unjust oppression” in that case, right?), but I don’t know what examples *you* have in mind. Clarify?
This doesn’t mean I HATE Catholicism, or Protestantism, or government.
I’ll take your word for that; but do remember that I wasn’t talking to you, personally (in the above)!
The case of Pius XII: I don’t doubt that he did aid many Jews; anybody with a shred of conscience would have done so after a certain point. But I would expect an individual who purports to be a moral pillar to condemn fascism and evil in no uncertain terms.
He did. See the quotes from Gerard (which is only a small smattering of what the Holy Father did, in that regard). Do you see why this particular idea of yours is mistaken?
And I have every right to comment on where a scholar choose to teach. It IS telling.
Well… it’s reasonable to ask, “tells WHAT”?
When I was a student, I read a book, based on real events, about nuns in France who saved a group of Jewish children by hiding them at their convent during WW2. Later, as a teacher, I used that book in my classes to help my students understand the realities of that war. If I can recall the book’s title I will post it here.
I’m not exactly sure how Nazi atrocities in any way diminish the reality of how “Doctor” Harrison lived and misused his life (I don’t believe they do, at all), but that book is good (and important) reading. NOTE: I’m not Catholic.
Claire, I read that book too. Do you remember what it was called?
I found it:
Twenty and Ten (Puffin Story Books)
by Claire Huchet Bishop
Also saw this comment:
“I read this book because I love the made for PBS one hour Wonderworks movie Miracle at Moreaux, which was based on this particular story. The story was told to the author by the child, Janet, she has narrate it, and it is a true story, or at least based on a true story, and there were many similar real life stories of French Catholic schools (and their nuns and students, and priests) who saved Jewish children during the Nazi occupation.”
Again, this is OT: Just thought it relevant to remind everyone that Hitler’s religion/ideology was Aryanism, which had nothing to do with the Christian faith. He used churches in Germany as a convenient front, but that’s all it was. The pastors who dared to stand up to him paid the price. There were many Christians across Europe who secretly helped the Jews — Casper Ten Boom’s family was just one. It had to be done in secret.
My post about Claire Huchet Bishop timed out. Here’s a snippet bio of her life. Note the last sentence:
“An American born in France or Geneva, Switzerland. Bishop attended the Sorbonne and started the first children’s library in France. After moving to the United States, she worked for the New York City Public Library. She was [an advocate] for Roman Catholicism and an opponent of anti-semitism.”
Again, this is OT: Just thought it relevant to remind everyone that Hitler’s religion/ideology was Aryanism, which had nothing to do with the Christian faith.
I am not Catholic, but I too get REALLY tired of hearing that Hitler was a Christian. He may have used a religious appeal at first, but he and his followers were deeply into the occult and envisioned a day when the German people would return to their pagan roots. Many skinhead and neo-Nazi types are Odinists, worshipping the gods of Nordic lore (this does not mean, of course, that anyone who follows a pagan religion is racist).
I said I am not Catholic and even though I am a Christian, I am pretty turned off by organized religion. I havent gone to church in quite some time. It seems that many church leaders are just out for money and for self-advancement. I’m sure you’ve heard of that minister in Atlanta who allegedly had affairs with several young men. My daughter goes to his church and defends him and time will tell, but something is going on there that’s not quite kosher . . .
Anyway, despite its faults, the Catholic Church has done a great deal for the disadvantaged. Many Catholic religious were involved in Martin Luther King’s March on Washington. Anyone who is employed in the human services field knows how much Catholic Social Services does for the poor and needy, including those with AIDs. The Maryknolls, the Salesians, etc., have an active presence in the U.S. and the developing world working among “the least of these.” In fact, the first hospitals and orphanages were started by churches.
“When I was a student, I read a book, based on real events, about nuns in France who saved a group of Jewish children by hiding them at their convent during WW2.”
If you have a chance, see Louis Malle’s excellent film “Avoir des Enfants.” Its based on a true story of how a group of monks (or priests, I can’t remember) sheltered Jewish students in a Catholic school during the Nazi occupation of Germany.
Again, this is OT: Just thought it relevant to remind everyone that Hitler’s religion/ideology was Aryanism, which had nothing to do with the Christian faith. He used churches in Germany as a convenient front, but that’s all it was.
Yes, Mein Kampf and Hitler’s election propaganda were all about him being a good Christian. Then when he came into power, the gloves came off. (Hint to Megan: the Vatican signed the Concordat with the Reich because Hitler was already bearing down on Catholics, especially Catholic youth organizations in Germany, and the Pope thought the agreement would help protect them. Of course, Hitler violated the terms of the agreement almost immediately).
But try and tell that to poor Richard Dawkins. He’s still convinced Hitler was a good Catholic who never renounced his faith, that the Church and the Reich went hand-in-hand, etc., etc. All in the service of pummeling Pope Benedict for being German. This was in his editorial comment on the pope’s visit to Britain.
The guy just fell for all of Hitler’s election propaganda 80 or so years after the fact — that makes him quite the Bright, doesn’t it?
(Sorry I’m too tired to hunt up the link to Dawkins’ brilliant article, but I’m sure nothing in it would be a surprise to anyone. By now I can predict the type of junk he writes in my sleep).
I knew there was at least one other book on the topic of Christians in Europe hiding/rescuing Jewish children: Number the Stars, by Lois Lowry (set in Denmark)*
The Hiding Place, by Corrie ten Boom, is the true story of a Christian family in Holland who put their lives on the line to hide many Jews for quite some time.
Corrie’s father, Casper ten Boom, voluntarily wore the Star of David on his sleeve to identify with the Jews.
phillymiss and Lori, you both made excellent, truthful points.
*According to Wikipedia, Sean Astin and his wife are making a movie based on Number the Stars. If they stick closely to the book, it will be a great movie.
Dawkins, et al, always point out that Pope Benedict was a part of Hitler Youth. It’s my understanding that he was pretty much forced to join.
There were way too many “good Germans,” but not all of them supported Hitler. I’m sure some of you have heard of Max Schmeling (sp)? In the thirties, when the African American boxer Joe Louis was the heavyweight boxing champion, he was billed as an “Aryan superman,” who would win back the heavyweight belt for the “master race.” Well, as it turned out, Schmeling never really bought into the Nazi idealogy. He even hid two Jewish children, at great personal risk. Later on, he and Joe Louis even became friends!
I’m not sure why you all feel the need to defend Catholic citizens of their righteousness during WWII. There’s no questioning the fact that many Catholics acted with great moral courage in offering succor to persecuted Jews. My question is whether these individual acts of bravery can be attributed to support from the Vatican or general human conscience; my hunch is the latter.
Lori, you’re right: the Concordat was issued to prevent persecution of Catholics and maintain sovereignty of the Church in Germany. Nothing in this document mentions the Jews at all, even though Nazism, from the start, espoused two principles: German nationalism and, by extension, anti-Semitism. Here are some excerpts from the actual text (Preface and Article 17):
“His Holiness Pope Pius XI and the President of the German Reich, moved by a common desire to consolidate and promote the friendly relations existing between the Holy See and the German Reich, wish to permanently regulate the relations between the Catholic Church and the state for the whole territory of the German Reich in a way acceptable to both parties.”
“Before bishops take possession of their dioceses they are to take an oath of loyalty either to the Reich governor of the state (Land) concerned or to the President of the Reich respectively, according to the following formula:
‘Before God and on the Holy Gospels I swear and promise, as becomes a bishop, loyalty to the German Reich and to the State (Land) of . . . I swear and promise to honour the legally constituted government and to cause the clergy of my diocese to honour it. With dutiful concern for the welfare and the interests of the German state, in the performance of the ecclesiastical office entrusted to me, I will endeavour to prevent everything injurious which might threaten it.'”
Apparently anti-Semitism was “acceptable to both parties,” since it wasn’t condemned. Sort of negates anything the pope did do (when the persecution became glaringly apparent, or Jews in Rome faced imminent destruction) to help the Jews. Pius XII de-fanged his predecessor’s Humani Generis Unitas (though even this text censured the Jews for not having accepted Christ as Messiah) rendering the encyclical a flaccid appeal for world peace and racial harmony instead of an explicit condemnation of anti-Semitism.
Also, I just had a conversation with an old roommate of mine, Jew and history student. Father was raised on an Israeli kibbutz during the 60’s and 70’s. He offers another interesting perspective: the possibility that Meir and Jewish leaders at the time praised Pius XII in attempts to gain support for legitimacy of the new Jewish state. Don’t take his word for it, though. Here’s a recent letter from Holocaust survivors to the pope: http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showkb.php?org_id=843&kb_header_id=13061&kb_id=36161
But sure, I’ll read the Rychlak book, with the hopes of being proven wrong. Why would I take comfort in the fact that a spiritual leader would allow fascists to act with impunity?
Megan, since you said “you all”, I’m assuming I’m one of those.
Let me be clear: I am not Catholic. I’m not seeking to defend anyone. Some of the people I named who helped hide and rescue Jews were not Catholics. They were Protestant Christians. All the people who did so (and some, like Schindler, who were not even mentioned) were true heroes, because they risked their very lives to help the Jews.
My only purpose for posting as I have was to post FACTS — that’s all.
Many people incorrectly believe Hitler was a Christian. It is clear that his ideology was Aryanism, which had (and has) nothing to do with the Christian faith.
However, my main concern here is that we have departed so far from the subject of this thread — “Doctor” Harrison’s heinous acts of abortion and his lack of sorrow and grief over the 20,000 children he killed, in clear violation of the Hippocratic Oath he had sworn to uphold. Nazi atrocities cannot diminish in any way the atrocities he himself committed. He was without excuse.
Megan, I may be late in posting this; I hope you will still be able to read it. I was a work and couldn’t devote the time that a full reply deserved until now.
Apparently anti-Semitism was “acceptable to both parties,” since it wasn’t condemned [in the Concordat].
This is a really disingenuous statement, considering the situation. Do you really think the Nazis would have accepted the insertion of any condemnation of anti-Semitism in the text? The whole negotiation would have been called-off instantly had the Vatican suggested such a thing. Pope Pius XI had no other recourse in the situation if he wanted to protect the lives of his flock. The Vatican was (and still is) a sovereign state, but it was by no means a world power in the traditional sense. It did not have an army or a navy to back up its demands as the Nazis did. It was a weak party beset by a stronger one. It’s ridiculous to suggest that this means the Pope or Cardinal Pacelli in any way found anti-Semitism “acceptable.” Nor can I imagine why you think bowing to this necessity somehow “negates” everything the Vatican later did.
Sort of negates anything the pope did do (when the persecution became glaringly apparent, or Jews in Rome faced imminent destruction)
You are conveniently mixing up your Popes here. Pius XI was the Pope who was responsible for the Concordat. Cardinal Pacelli, the Secretary of State, only acted as a go-between. And Pius XI was the one who condemned Nazism racist policy explicitly in Mit brennender Sorge; the one who had hoped to write another encyclical on anti-Semitism before his death. Does the Concordat really negate what he did?
Pius XII de-fanged his predecessor’s Humani Generis Unitas (though even this text censured the Jews for not having accepted Christ as Messiah) rendering the encyclical a flaccid appeal for world peace and racial harmony instead of an explicit condemnation of anti-Semitism.
To begin with, there was no encyclical, only three different draft texts written by three Jesuits. One of them did find its way onto Pius XI’s desk and was there when he died, but it was still only a draft, not revised by Pius or the Vatican team in the Secretariat of State, as is normal for a papal encyclical. The Pope hadn’t even make any annotations on the draft. There was nothing like a finished encyclical and there’s no indication of when (if ever) the Pope was going to publish it.
If the draft had been published in its original form, it would have been disastrous, since it contained quite a number of passages which are anti-semitic, or at least problematic in that regard. It actually accused the Jews of “blind materialism” – one of the Nazis’ main charges against them. This would have thrown a great deal of fuel on the Nazi fire. I don’t believe that Pius XI, who had once said, “spiritually we are all Semites,” would have ever published such a text.
When Pius XII published his own version of this encyclical, Summi Pontificatus, he used some ideas from the original text, with one of the original Jesuits, Fr. Gundlach, helping him. He did gut the original draft – he gutted it of all its anti-Semtic statements, something which you seem strangely unwilling to give him credit for. In calling for and end to racism, and recalling that in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek,” the Pope may have used guarded language, but he unerringly hit his target. The Nazis were furious. The head of the Gestapo said that the encyclical was “exclusively directed” against Germany and its ideology. The Nazis heavily censored the text when it was published in Germany Every newspaper in Europe and the U.S. at the time understood that the Pope had condemned Germany’s racial policies. Why do you think a more explicit condemnation of Anti-Semitism was necessary, when everyone understood what was meant at the time?
Once again, it’s important to stress that in all of the statements that have been criticized for not being more specific, or where he was silent publicly, but worked behind the scenes, Pius XII measured his words because he knew anything too explosive would bring down worse persecution on the heads of the Jews; he said this himself many times both before and after the war.
And no, he did not fail to act until the Jews of Rome were threatened. He was extremely active in the efforts to rescue Jews throughout Europe from the very beginning, as I said in my above comment, and as Professor Rychlak’s book details.
Why would I take comfort in the fact that a spiritual leader would allow fascists to act with impunity?
I don’t know, Megan, why would you? Better yet, why have you? To me, you seem to be taking an inordinate amount of pleasure condemning that Vatican, and speculating about how corrupt it is, in spite of your lack of any real knowledge of the subject, and your difficulty of accepting any other viewpoint.
I’m not blaming you for this; you’ve just accepted what you’ve read, and what you’ve read is simply the official line of secular liberalism, which has a belief. about this subject that is simply impervious to the facts.
Thank you at least for saying you will read Rychlak’s book. Actually, the latest edition is a bit shorter in the first part, because of the long appendix of original documents and a discussion of The Deputy. It’s useful to consult the earlier edition as well.
And please go to the Pave the Way Foundation website.
http://www.pavethewayfoundation.org/default.aspx
Gary Krupp, who runs the site and the Foundation, is very frank about the fact that as a Jew he grew up hating Pius XII from what he had heard about him. But then he learned the facts, and how he is one of this Pope’s greatest supporters.
I hope you will be willing to reconsider your views. I wanted to take the time to answer you because (unlike the ridiculous Biggz and cranium) you appear to be intelligent and curious and quite possibly willing to admit you are wrong. And believe me you are wrong here.
RE: I had said:
“The Hiding Place, by Corrie ten Boom, is the true story of a Christian family in Holland who put their lives on the line to hide many Jews for quite some time.
Corrie’s father, Casper ten Boom, voluntarily wore the Star of David on his sleeve to identify with the Jews.”
I neglected to add that the ten Boom family did not quit hiding and taking care of Jews until they themselves were arrested. Every one of them (about 10 people) were taken to concentration camps, and Corrie was the only one who survived.
She wrote a number of books about their experiences, including The Hiding Place. A movie based on her book was filmed and released to theaters in the 1970s; is now on DVD.
And, to stay on topic: Nazi atrocities cannot diminish in any way the atrocities ”Doctor” Harrison committed. He was without excuse.
I’m a little disappointed in your historiography here. Are you so willing to dismiss these claims:
http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showkb.phporg_id=843&kb_header_id=13061&kb_id=36161
as mere “official line[s] of secular liberalism”?
“Impervious to the facts.”
Really? One book invalidates all criticism of the pope’s actions, clears it up–like that? This sounds like an attempt to recoup Pius XII’s image at all costs.
“It was a weak party beset by a stronger one.”
I suppose my issue with the whole matter is this change in rhetoric. In one instance the pope is the intermediary between God and man, arbiter of morality, and then he’s a mere politician. Which is the case?
Megan,
There is not one book, but a huge number of books that can be cited to prove my case, not to mention tons of documents. Bobby and Gerald and I have cited a number of them. You can research and find many others.
I have know idea what that Concordat Watch thing is all about since I’m told when I go there that that page can’t be found and the site requires a password anyway. Maybe you’ll enlighten me.
Where is the contradiction in saying, as I did, that a Pope has spiritual and moral authority, but very little political power? What you said is just a twisting of that.
In negotiating the Concordat, the Pope may have worn a politician’s hat for a bit, but in protecting his flock, which was what the Concordat is all about, he was acting as a pastor.
Don’t underestimate that moral authority, by the way. During a terrible war in which he had nothing to put against the guns but his moral authority, Pope Pius XII helped save hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives throughout Europe. (A Jewish scholar estimated this number).
You’re scraping the bottom of the barrel here, Megan. Naturally, I don’t expect you to all of a sudden start accepting the Pope as your moral authority. Nor would I expect you to accept what I way without investigating it. I would, however, expect you not to keep on slandering a Pope without even bothering to try and find out the facts, and rejecting the solid facts given you because of trivial excuses.
Really? One book invalidates all criticism of the pope’s actions, clears it up–like that? This sounds like an attempt to recoup Pius XII’s image at all costs.
A book you candidly admit you haven’t read. How would you know what it contains or if its arguments are valid?