Originally posted by lucifershammerA significant and influential portion of the American electorate is anti-abortion, but certainly cannot be considered pro-life. On the issue of abortion, they employ the rhetoric of fundamental rights. However, these principles get dropped in a heartbeat when they are asked to consider our trigger-happy foreign policy, the death penalty, and the slow and painful deaths that result from systemic poverty and lack of access to health care.
How would you construct a basis for being anti-abortion (let's just use pro- and anti-abortion to cut down on the emotional rhetoric) that is not pro-life?
I suppose one could think of abortion as being something that is just distasteful (rather like wearing casuals to a black-tie affair) rather than based on fundamental issues like rights.
A true pro-life position rails against abortion, the death penalty, most wars, and systemic poverty. Although many thousands or even millions of folks hold to such views, their numbers are too paltry to have much effect upon public policy. Needless to say, they cannot comfortably support Republicans any more than they can Democrats, although I know several who voted for Kerry (or at least against Bush).
Originally posted by lucifershammerI suggest you actually read the preliminary report at http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?id=759. At no place does it criticize the Vatican for not cooperating. If Father Crumpel or anybody else had answers to the questions asked, I'm sure that would have been appreciated, but as scholars the Commission wanted to review the documents themselves, not accept someone else's conclusions carte blanche. Surely this is what would be expected of a serious, independent fact-finding body. The Vatican's refusal to supply documents requested in the preliminary report is where the charge of non-cooperation came in and it certainly seems merited.
[b/]Why should an independent, fact finding body be "loyal" to the Holy See?
It shouldn't - unless he means "disloyal" in an administrative sense; i.e. not keeping the body that formed the Commission informed.
As Father Gumpel's meeting with the Commission predated the release of the preliminary report, you have not answered why the ...[text shortened]... idn't wait for the reply and then went to the press claiming "the Vatican didn't cooperate".
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat Pope Pius XII was in a very difficult situation is beyond question. That he did not and would not have supported or promoted the Holocaust I take as a given. Whether the Church's fervent anti-communism made them somewhat more condoning of the brutal tactics taken by fascist regimes is an important historical question. That the Pope saved 860,000 Jews is a fantasy, though I am sure that members of the RCC did assist the escape of Jews from the clutches of the butchers and some paid for it with their lives. A review of the historical records regarding the RCC's actions during the Holocaust would be a valuable historical inquiry as the RCC recognized in 1999. Sadly, an adequate review was short-circuited by the Church's actions in 2001.
Based on whatever evidence you've seen so far - do you believe PXII actively promoted or turned a blind eye to the Holocaust?
Or do you believe that PXII was between a rock and a hard place and very probably made some dubious decisions?
"Pro X" implies active support for X. I do not accept the term "pro-abortion" to describe my views as I do not actively favor abortion but regard it as a personal decision of someone else. If no one ever had an abortion it would be fine with me. Some people personally believe that abortion is morally unacceptable, but lack the moral fanaticism to believe that every one of their moral positions should be codified into the criminal law. Thus, they oppose criminal laws against abortion AND abortion itself.
"Pro-choice" would be a pretty good description of my views which are based on a woman's right to self-autonomy.
Originally posted by no1marauderFirst, let's get the timeline right:
I suggest you actually read the preliminary report at http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?id=759. At no place does it criticize the Vatican for not cooperating. If Father Crumpel or anybody else had answers to the questions asked, I'm sure that would have been appreciated, but as scholars the Commission wanted to review the documents themselves, not accept s ...[text shortened]... reliminary report is where the charge of non-cooperation came in and it certainly seems merited.
c. Oct 9, 2000 - Commission submits the 47 questions to Fr. Gumpel*. Fr. Gumpel prepares a dossier for each of the questions.
Oct 24 - Commission meets with Fr. Gumpel for 3.5 hours. Only 10 of the 47 questions were addressed at this meeting.
Oct 26 - The preliminary report was leaked to the French press
Oct 27 - Commission holds public press conference to release preliminary report†. Later that day, Fr. Gumpel criticises the conduct of the Commission.
Jul 24, 2001 - Commission announces its decision to suspend its work citing that it needed "access in some reasonable manner to additional archival material"‡
Jul 26 - Fr. Gumpel responds to this decision of the Commission**
The most obvious question about the conduct of the Commission: Why was preliminary report leaked to the press in the first place? Especially since the Vatican had been given only about two weeks to respond and the members of the Commission had not even gone over the replies?
For instance, the first question in the preliminary report is:
1. Eugenio Pacelli, then Secretary of State, and German cardinals played a central role in drafting the 1937 encyclical "Mit brennender Sorge" ("With Burning Concern" ), which was a forceful condemnation of National Socialism. Soon after he was elected Pope, Pacelli met with the same group of German cardinals to discuss how they should deal with Nazism. In order to understand Pacelli's evolving policies as Secretary of State and as pope, can we see the drafts of Mit brennender Sorge, or any other relevant material pertaining to that encyclical or his meeting in 1939 with the German cardinals after his election?
To which Fr. Gumpel responded:
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.
As reasonable scholars, I would've expected the Commission to atleast examine the four volumes in question - instead, the preliminary report was leaked to the press just a few days after they received the dossier from the Vatican.
The Vatican's qualified refusal to supply pre-War documents is not hard to understand - there are over 3mn pages of documents that have not been catalogued. As a person with experience of the law, you tell me - do detectives hand over evidence collected from the scene to the lab for analysis before it has been catalogued?
---
* http://www.zenit.org/english/archive/0010/ZE001027.html#item9
† http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?id=759
‡ http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?id=1770
** http://www.zenit.org/english/archive/0107/ZE010726.htm#8543
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe "seventy year old documents haven't been catalogued yet" excuse is about as convincing as "my dog ate my homework". Esp. considering that the documents in question refer to a pretty important period in history. The Commission had been in existence for over two years; how long should they have waited to issue a preliminary report? Who knows who "leaked" it to the press but the PR itself is not critical of the Vatican; it asks valid questions and requests documents relevant to those questions.
First, let's get the timeline right:
c. Oct 9, 2000 - Commission submits the 47 questions to Fr. Gumpel*. Fr. Gumpel prepares a dossier for each of the questions.
Oct 24 - Commission meets with Fr. Gumpel for 3.5 hours. Only 10 of the 47 questions were addressed at this meeting.
Oct 26 - The preliminary report was leaked to the French press ...[text shortened]... /www.jcrelations.net/en/?id=1770
** http://www.zenit.org/english/archive/0107/ZE010726.htm#8543
Your analogy isn't very good; detectives usually have catalogued evidence by 70 years after the crime. The Church itself created the Commission and then figured out excuses on how not to provide the Commission with requested materials. It seems apparent that the Church's response was anger that the Commission was going about it's task in an independent manner (they were "disloyal"😉.
One of the reasons why the Church and the Pope alledgedly collaborated with the Nazi's was, according to Her accusers, the Churche's preference of the Nazi-regime over the atheistic Communist regime in the USSR.
This is what the Jewish-Catholic investigation commission wrote about this matter in its preliminary report (year 2000):
http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?id=759
42. The case has repeatedly been made that the Vatican's fear of communism prompted it to mute and limit its criticism of Nazi atrocities and occupation policies. We are struck by the paucity of evidence to this effect and to the subject of communism in general. Indeed, our reading of the volumes presents a different picture, especially with regard to the Vatican promotion of the American bishops' support for the alliance between the United States and the Soviet Union in order to oppose Nazism.54 Is there further evidence on this question?
http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?id=759
Originally posted by WulebgrWulebgr: "A true pro-life position rails against abortion, the death penalty, most wars, and systemic poverty"
A significant and influential portion of the American electorate is anti-abortion, but certainly cannot be considered pro-life. On the issue of abortion, they employ the rhetoric of fundamental rights. However, these principles get dropped in a heartbeat when they are asked to consider our trigger-happy foreign policy, the death penalty, and the slow and pai ...[text shortened]... than they can Democrats, although I know several who voted for Kerry (or at least against Bush).
That's an adequate description of the Roman-Catholic Church's position.
Question: On which grounds did Father Gumpel, not the Church, call the commission's conduct "disloyal" [and "dishonest"] ?
or:
Question: On which grounds did Father Gumpel, not the Church, call the commission's behaviour "disloyal to the Holy See, academically unacceptable and incorrect." ?
Answer:
http://www.zenit.org/english/archive/0010/ZE001027.html#item9
"I have publicly expressed my willingness to give answers, but no member of the commission has been in touch with me. They requested that two persons of the commission be able to speak with Father Pierre Blet, but the appointment was canceled without any explanation
Father Gumpel continued: "If they [the commission members] wished to have a wide discussion, and give us the possibility to provide exhaustive answers to each question, the time fixed by them was insufficient. However, we have had utmost willingness, but the commission decided not to know all the answers.
"Moreover, the report that has been published is preliminary in nature, which means that it should serve as a basis for study and discussion. Instead, it has been made public on Internet and the press. With what right have they circulated the preliminary report, which includes harsh accusations against Pius XII and the Church, without having even heard the answers to the questions posed?
"I wonder why they have done this. Did they wish to influence public opinion against Pius XII and the Church? This has happened precisely when we Catholics are making all kinds of efforts to improve relations with the Jewish world."
Father Gumpel was visibly upset. "It is not the first time that this leakage of news occurs," he said. "The same thing happened Aug. 4, when the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, and Internet also, with reference to the activities of the commission published that 'Jewish activists and European leaders have seen the preliminary report,' while we, the scholars and experts in Rome, only saw it just 15 days ago. I find this conduct disloyal and dishonest."
"I find the conduct of the international, historical Judeo-Catholic commission disloyal to the Holy See, academically unacceptable and incorrect," Father Gumpel said."
http://www.zenit.org/english/archive/0010/ZE001027.html#item9
Originally posted by ivanhoeI ask again: how can an independent fact finding commission be "disloyal" to anyone? Father Gumpel seems to assume that it was members of the Commission that leaked the report without any evidence. Father Gumpel also seems to be under the misimpression that the questions were simply to be answered by Vatican flunkies, when the Commission was really using the questions to specify where the focus of their inquiries would be in order to identify what documents they needed. It's quite obvious that an independent commission cannot merely accept the answers from the organization being investigated without looking at the documents themselves.
On which grounds did Father Gumpel call the commission "disloyal" (and "dishonest"😉 ?
"I have publicly expressed my willingness to give answers, but no member of the commission has been in touch with me. They requested that two persons of the commission be able to speak with Father Pierre Blet, but the appointment was canceled without any explanati ...[text shortened]... ssion disloyal to the Holy See, academically unacceptable and incorrect," Father Gumpel said."
Father Gumpel's statement is quite untrue; the commission didn't "decide not to know all the answers"; it did decide that it would not merely accept the answers of the Church without reviewing the facts themselves. That was the whole purpose of the creation of the Commission; if all it was supposed to do is accept what the Church said it was unnecessary in the first place. The RCC in the end refused to cooperate further when it perceived that the Commission might come to conclusions at variance with the official position of the Church (it's "answers"😉 after an independent review of the evidence. Thus, the Church was seeking a whitewash, not a scholarly review of all relevant facts.
http://www.zenit.org/english/archive/0010/ZE001027.html#item9
The Jesuit said that "the report they have presented is preliminary and should be discussed here in Rome with persons who are considered well informed."
He continued, "They came to Rome for three days and presented 47 questions. I had the text with the questions 15 days before the meeting. I prepared 47 dossiers, answering each one of the questions with vast and solid documentation. I was heard by the commission for three and a half hours Oct. 24 in the morning.
"The tone of the discussion was academic and courteous. I gave concrete answers to all the questions, about 10, that could be addressed in that amount of time. The whole discussion was taped and the session was led by a totally impartial and very correct moderator.
"I have publicly expressed my willingness to give answers, but no member of the commission has been in touch with me. They requested that two persons of the commission be able to speak with Father Pierre Blet, but the appointment was canceled without any explanation."
Father Blet is the Jesuit historian whom John Paul II has indicated as the principal expert in matters concerning the Vatican during the Second World War.
Father Gumpel continued: "If they [the commission members] wished to have a wide discussion, and give us the possibility to provide exhaustive answers to each question, the time fixed by them was insufficient. However, we have had utmost willingness, but the commission decided not to know all the answers.
http://www.zenit.org/english/archive/0010/ZE001027.html#item9
Originally posted by ivanhoeThanks for the cut and paste of an article I've already read. You didn't bother to address any of my points in my last post; should an independent fact finding commission rely on the answers of the organization being investigated or examine documents themselves? Should they accept only whatever documents the investigated organization gives to them or seek additional documents they believe are relevant?
http://www.zenit.org/english/archive/0010/ZE001027.html#item9
The Jesuit said that "the report they have presented is preliminary and should be discussed here in Rome with persons who are considered well informed."
He continued, "They came to Rome for three days and presented 47 questions. I had the text with the questions 15 days before the meetin ...[text shortened]... d not to know all the answers.
http://www.zenit.org/english/archive/0010/ZE001027.html#item9
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder: "Thanks for the cut and paste of an article I've already read."
Thanks for the cut and paste of an article I've already read. You didn't bother to address any of my points in my last post; should an independent fact finding commission rely on the answers of the organization being investigated or examine documents themselves? Should they accept only whatever documents the investigated organization gives to them or seek additional documents they believe are relevant?
Then why ask the question when the answer is in the article you've read ?
Marauder: "should an independent fact finding commission rely on the answers of the organization being investigated or examine documents themselves?
Your formulation gives the impression that the commission did not receive any documents at all and merely had to base its investigation on the answers given by the "plunkies" of the Roman-Catholic Church, en passant accusing these scholars and the Church of having a hidden agenda ("white whash" in your words) and thus not interested in the truth. This is a remarkable and interesting accusation coming from your mouth.
Marauder: "Should they accept only whatever documents the investigated organization gives to them or seek additional documents they believe are relevant?
There is obviously a difference of opinion on what the boundaries are of the commission's research object and as a result of that which documents are the relevant documents. This is not an uncommon problem for investigating commissions. Their job is to investigate Pius XII's foreign policies during the war years regarding the holocaust. Whether certain documents fall within the range of the commission's mandate is what the issue is here. To draw the conclusion that the Church is not interested in the truth but instead of that in a "white wash" is a bit premature to say the least. You are jumping to conclusions. The commission's work has been suspended. I'm sure there will be a continuation when the present problems have been solved.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe Commission's work has been "suspended" for over four years; I seriously doubt that it will ever be "unsuspended" unless the RCC can find more mallable scholars. You can try and keep personalizing things like a child, but the facts are as follows:
[b]Marauder: "Thanks for the cut and paste of an article I've already read."
Then why ask the question when the answer is in the article you've read ?
Marauder: "should an independent fact finding commission rely on the answers of the organization being investigated or examine documents themselves?
Your formulation gives the impressi ...[text shortened]... en suspended. I'm sure there will be a continuation when the present problems have been solved.[/b]
A) An independent commission was formed to investigate the actions of the Church during the Holocaust;
B) It made a preliminary report, which was leaked to the press by someone, asking numerous questions and asking for documents relating to the questions (all of which are clearly relevant to the subject of the investigation);
C) The Vatican, in the person of Father Gumpel, had a fit that the preliminary report went public. The good Father apparently believes that the purpose of the commission was merely to receive the Vatican's version of the facts and issue a report supporting that version. When the commission requested extensive documentation relating to the questions they had, they were being "disloyal" to the RCC;
D) The Vatican refused to give to the commission documents the commission requested using as an excuse that 60-70 year old documents covering the greatest crisis in modern times hadn't yet been "catalogued". The Commission unable to review the documents necessary to complete their work due to the actions of the RCC hierarchy, then "suspended" their efforts without issuing a final report. This appears to have been fine and dandy with the RCC and allows people like you to claim that all the historical questions regarding Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust have been "settled". They assuredly have not been to the satisfaction of the Commission appointed by the Vatican itself.
The most likely conclusion to draw from these basically undisputed facts is that the Vatican appointed a Commission expecting that they could control it and get a report based on the information that the Vatican felt like disclosing that would be very favorable to Pope Pius XII. When the Commission showed signs of independence, it was effectively denied the ability to complete its fact finding mission in the manner the scholars felt necessary to render a fair account of the historical facts. The facts of the matter support no other conclusion.