Originally posted by no1marauder
Your last sentence shows your idiocy; I haven't said the Church was guilty of anything except not turning over relevant documents. You and other RCC martyr experts quickly jump to the conclusion that the RCC is being persecuted. The Church itself recognized that an airing of the facts regarding Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust was necessary, but then tri ...[text shortened]... eview is perfectly in keeping with the paranoid mentality that seems so prevalent among the RCC.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b/]I haven't said the Church was guilty of anything except not turning over relevant documents.

You've specifically asserted that the "the RCC ... refused to cooperate further when it perceived that the Commission might come to conclusions at variance with the official position of the Church".

The article you cited which claims that ...[text shortened]... Commission not mention that the Vatican had in fact provided responses to all of its questions?

Here is an excerpt from the preliminary report which clearly puts the lie to your claim that somehow the Commission was insinuating that because a document hadn't been published the RCC must be hiding "incriminating" documents:

The variety of the documents, and the moral questions that arise from some of them, attest to the serious endeavor on the part of the editors who prepared them, and the inclusion of documents that then, and subsequently, raised questions about the role of the Holy See speaks to the editors' efforts at objectivity. Indeed, the fact that such questions have been repeatedly raised within the Church itself illustrates the extent to which the Church's understanding of its role in the world has evolved dramatically since the events described in our report.

However, a scrutiny of these volumes of Vatican documents does not put to rest significant questions about the role of the Vatican during the Holocaust. No serious historian could accept that the published, edited volumes could put us at the end of the story. This is due neither to the complexity nor to the difficulty of the questions themselves, nor to the editorial quality of the documentary volumes. Rather, it reflects the fact that many of the documents are susceptible to different interpretations. Interpretation is unavoidable in the work of historians; it is particularly relevant and sensitive in this case because the Historical Commission is dealing with what the editors of the documents themselves acknowledge to be only a portion of the available evidence.7 One of our goals is to understand the actions of Pius XII and the Vatican during World War II, how they decided upon the policies they followed, and why. But the ability to do so is limited by the fact that our Commission, and scholars in general, have at their disposal only a selection of the Vatican documents. One of the inevitable results of this limitation is that some commentators have relied more heavily on speculation than is desirable, and some have succumbed to sensationalism.

The published documents themselves often raise important questions to which they do not provide answers. The mere presence of a document, after all, says nothing about how it was received, what attention was devoted to its reception, or how it was regarded or treated in the various circles of Vatican diplomacy. Furthermore, the editors of the ADSS conceived of their project in a certain light, as do all scholars, and thus we are not only faced with the task of analyzing the contents of the volumes, but also of examining the aim and focus of the editors.

Many questions can be answered by reading the lengthy introductions that accompany each volume, a summary of which Father Blet has provided, but other questions still remain. In the introductions, the editors quote numerous documents, some of which are published in the volumes, and others of which are referred to but not published. In Volume 1, for example, the editors mention letters sent to the Pope by "anxious souls", who remain unnamed, beseeching him to work for peace, sometimes even submitting plans of action to him.8 These appeals, however, are not included in the body of the volumes. Similarly, in the introduction to Volume 2 the editors explicitly quote in footnotes from some of the correspondence of the German Catholic hierarchy to the Pope. But the text of the volume contains only letters from Pius XII to the German bishops.

The editors themselves acknowledge that they used certain criteria in selecting the documents they published. In the Preface to Volume 1, they explain that the Secretariat of State

receives reports and sends instructions that concern both the internal life of the Catholic Church and the religious life of its faithful, and which have nothing to do with international relations. This is why the present volume is limited to the publication of documents that serve to explain the Holy See's involvement in issues relating to the war of 1939-1945.9
The editors likewise make the point in Volume 2, where they note that "the Pope deals with a great many issues that are strictly ecclesiastic and concerning religious life."10 A generation later, historians might find relevant to their inquiry issues that previously appeared to be strictly ecclesiastical or religious in character.
What then can we bring to the discussion that others have not? We do not claim expertise on all of the subjects covered in the published volumes, although we are all part of the ongoing research and dialogue surrounding the Church and the Holocaust. Each of us came to the commission with distinct viewpoints based on previous work. We hope to provide a multiple dimension to the report that reflects scholarly difference and opinions inherent in any research. Our collaboration and joint review of the published documents has not only been mutually enriching but has also generated a forum for investigation and dialogue. This does not mean, however, that we have reached unanimous agreement on the interpretation of every document.

In accordance with our charge, we began our work with an analysis of materials that have been in the public domain for over two decades. We agreed to undertake this task for a variety of reasons. First, these volumes have been little used and little known, outside a small circle of specialists. Second, given the highly controversial and emotive nature of the subject matter, we agreed that it would be useful to engage in an independent inquiry by three Catholic and three Jewish scholars with a view to promoting a deeper and more mature level of historical discourse between and within our two communities. Third, we believe that such a common examination of the published documentation is a first step toward achieving access to further archival documentation and historical evidence.

In discharging our mandate, we hope to establish a more secure documentary basis for analyzing the actions and policies of Pius XII and the Vatican. Our task is not to sit in judgment of the Pope and his advisors. Rather, through analysis and study of their actions, statements and letters, we hope to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the role of the papacy during the Holocaust.

Sounds like a balanced, scholarly approach to me.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I have no reason to believe TIME got its facts right or wrong; I haven't seen the source of their information. Kinda like the Commission regarding Pope Pius XII.

The rest is mere second guessing of scholars who the Church agreed were qualified in the first place. It's absurd and unnecessary for EVERY Commission member to read 11 volumes of ma ...[text shortened]... on is far more likely than "well NONE of the documents have been catalogued". That's just BS.

At the end of August 1942, the Greek Catholic Metropolitan of Lviv (Lwow), Andrzeyj Szeptyckyj, wrote to the Pope and described with stark clarity the atrocities and mass murder being carried out against the Jews and the local population... Moreover, he indicated to the Pope that he had protested to Himmler himself. Finally, he publicly denounced the massacres of Jews in circumstances in which some Ukrainian Catholics themselves were collaborating with the Germans in these murders.

This archbishop wrote two letters. One refers to the occupation by the Russians (Volume 3.1, Page 24 in the Introduction, Aug. 30, 1941), in which he says that the Communists were persecuting all those who were Christians; they had deported 500,000 people to Russia and killed many priests. Almost half of the faithful were deported to Russia.

The following year, he wrote another letter describing the atrocities of the Germans. The commission has said there were Catholics who had persecuted the Jews.

Now, I have read the letter several times, and I have not found written what they state. This is an undue and slanderous interpretation. Perhaps they have not understood the text where the contrary is written, that is: "I must mention with great recognition the help that German Catholics give us through the channels of an association for helping Germans outside of Germany (Volume 3.2, pages 626-627)." In the question, the Commission quotes the right letter but falsifies the terms.

The encyclical "Mit Brennender Sorge" was published in 1937. Not much is found, necessarily, in the volumes taken into consideration because these begin in 1939 and go up to 1945. Moreover, "Brennender Sorge" was published by Pius XI and not by Pius XII. They are asking for other documents on this encyclical but they do not know at least four volumes that I have quoted page by page, where the original writing of the encyclical is found and later the published version -- books that give the most detailed information on the history of the encyclical.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Here is an excerpt from the preliminary report which clearly puts the lie to your claim that somehow the Commission was insinuating that because a document hadn't been published the RCC must be hiding "incriminating" documents:

The variety of the documents, and the moral questions that arise from some of them, attest to the serious endeavor on the ...[text shortened]... e of the papacy during the Holocaust.

Sounds like a balanced, scholarly approach to me.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]I have no reason to believe TIME got its facts right or wrong; I haven't seen the source of their information. Kinda like the Commission regarding Pope Pius XII.

Just a question - do you think the Commission viewed actual primary sources themselves in the 11 volumes of the ADSS or just Vatican summaries of those source?

The Commission ...[text shortened]... . That's just BS.

As I said, when it comes to the Church - guilty until proven innocent.[/b]

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Here is an excerpt from the preliminary report which clearly puts the lie to your claim that somehow the Commission was insinuating that because a document hadn't been published the RCC must be hiding "incriminating" documents

You cannot accuse me of lying over a claim I never made.

I never said the Commission insinuated what you said above. I said that was the [PR] implication of the leak.[/b]

Originally posted by no1marauder
The major problem you have dealing with a lawyer is that you are ignorant of the law. The rules regarding the disclosure of documents are far different from the presumption of innocence in a criminal case. There is no reason to use a poor analogy when the law specifically deals with the refusal of parties to hand over documents. Your "defense" of the R ...[text shortened]... steadfastly refuse to reveal thousands of documents they have. You look like a foolish sophist.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Are you joking? You state the Commission leaked the preliminary report, then you state:

The report itself suggests that an exhaustive and thorough study of the published volumes has been made and that, therefore, the questions asked by it are not ones that can be satisfactorily answered from those volumes. Further, virtually all of the questions ...[text shortened]... t the Vatican was hiding incriminating documents. Have at least the courage of your convictions.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]PLEEZE don't claim you weren't insinuating that the Commission leaked the report to suggest that the Vatican was hiding incriminating documents.

I am most definitely insinuating that was the reason why Bernard Suchecky (perhaps with the approval of other members of the Commission) leaked the report.

I am most definitely not insin ...[text shortened]... b enough to] put that in the report itself!

Your citation from the report disproves nothing.[/b]

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]The major problem you have dealing with a lawyer is that you are ignorant of the law. The rules regarding the disclosure of documents are far different from the presumption of innocence in a criminal case. There is no reason to use a poor analogy when the law specifically deals with the refusal of parties to hand over documents.

Are you tel ...[text shortened]... eptyckyj was denouncing hypothetical examples where Catholics persecuted the Jews, right?[/b]

Originally posted by no1marauder
Which is it:

LH1: I never said the Commission insinuated what you said above. I said that was the [PR] implication of the leak

LH2: I am most definitely insinuating that was the reason why Bernard Suchecky (perhaps with the approval of other members of the Commission) leaked the report.

Which LH is right?

Do you have any reason to dispute this perfectly reasonable, common sense observation?

I would dispute it as a normative rule simply because there are plenty of situations where there are perfectly good explanations for not being able to disclose non-privileged documents at a particular point in time:

- the archaeologist example I mentioned earlier
- a school-teacher who is asked to return marked exam papers before she has tabulated the results
- an accountant who is asked to submit financial documents before they have been cross-checked
etc.

I guess you really can't read. Szeptyckyj PUBLICALLY DENOUNCED real instances when Catholics were involved in the persecution of Jews; BUT those PUBLIC DENUNCIATIONS weren't in the cited letters.

For one thing, in the context of the Commission's question, it is clear that the public denunciation or an account of it is indeed in the "letter" (the question mentions only one when, in fact, there were two) mentioned.

For another, if the denunciation (or an account thereof) is not in the letter(s), then how did the Commission conclude that such a denunciation was made based on the ADSS?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Both. In the context of the discussion, it was clear that the first sentence of LH1 referred to the content of the report while the second sentence refers to the action of leaking the report.

LH2 deals simply with the action of leaking the report - which is the same as the second sentence of LH1. If you read the sentence right after LH2, tha ...[text shortened]... 1.

Just because I changed the order of my assertions does not mean I've contradicted myself.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Do you have any reason to dispute this perfectly reasonable, common sense observation?

I would dispute it as a normative rule simply because there are plenty of situations where there are perfectly good explanations for not being able to disclose non-privileged documents at a particular point in time:

- the archaeologist example I mentio ...[text shortened]... er(s), then how did the Commission conclude that such a denunciation was made based on the ADSS?[/b]