29 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYour analogy isn't very good; detectives usually have catalogued evidence by 70 years after the crime.
The "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 hat the Commission was going about it's task in an independent manner (they were "disloyal"😉.
Let's see if I can simplify this for you - over 3 million separate documents that still need to be identified, catalogued and archived from the period under consideration (1922-1939). That's over 3,000,000,000 documents. At an average of 10 minutes a document, a person would need to be working for 60 years straight to do that - and I strongly the doubt the Vatican archives had more than a handful of archivists at any time.
And the period in question is not the period during which Pius XII was Pope - it was the period when he was still a Cardinal. The Church already archived and made available to the Commission all documents available during his Pontificate. It's clear they thought the WWII period was more important than the pre-War period, otherwise they would've simply proceeded in chronological order with regards to archiving.
Apply some common sense, man.
29 Nov 05
12 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder: " .... the facts are as follows: ... "
The 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:
A) An independent commission was formed to investigate the actions of the Church during the Holoc ...[text shortened]... der a fair account of the historical facts. The facts of the matter support no other conclusion.
Marauder: ".... and asking for documents relating to the questions (all of which are clearly relevant to the subject of the investigation);
That's an opinion, NOT a fact.
Marauder: "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."
At best an opinion, at worst a malevolent accusing speculation, but certainly NOT a fact.
Marauder: "When the commission requested extensive documentation relating to the questions they had, they were being "disloyal" to the RCC; "
Very incorrect. You didn't read the article very carefully. I do not post and give quotes for nothing. You state and imply, or should I say insinuate, that Father Gumpel called the commission "disloyal", because the commission requested certain documents. This is clearly an untruth. Please reread my post where I answered the question why, on which grounds, Father Gumpel called the commission's behaviour "disloyal to the Holy See, academically unacceptable and incorrect." ? Certainly NOT because the commisssion asked for additional information and documents. An untruth, NOT a fact at all.
Marauder: "This appears to have been fine and dandy with the RCC ... "
Speculation, NOT a fact.
Marauder: "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".
Again at best an opinion, at worst a malevolent accusation, but certainly NOT a fact. See the following statement.
"[Eugene Fisher, Catholic coordinator of the commission and adviser of the U.S. bishops' conference, said that two archivists are working as fast as possible to catalogue the post-1922 documents. He added: "The question is not if the documents are published, but when. It is only a question of time."]"
http://www.zenit.org/english/archive/0107/ZE010726.htm#8543
Marauder: " .... and allows people like you to claim that all the historical questions regarding Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust have been "settled".
What I was referring to was the accusation Pope XII collaborated with the Nazi's and was gleefully watching, without doing anything, the destruction of the European Jewish people. We can find these accusations and lies in books like John Cornwell's "Hitler's Pope" and many others. Even if you read the preliminary report, which asks questions about the Pope's actions, it becomes clear that these allegations are fabrications. Thát's what I meant when I said that the historical question whether Pope Pius was "Hitler's Pope" is settled. He certainly was NOT "Hitler's Pope". He did NOT collaborate with the Nazi's, on the contrary. No serious historian doubts this anymore. The "Pius Wars" are over. What remains will be secondary battles, like we are having now, Marauder.
"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
Marauder: "The most likely conclusion to draw from these basically undisputed facts .... "
As I pointed out your above "facts" are not at all facts, therefore your conclusion that the Vatican wasn't interested in a report based on the truth, but based on manipulation ["white wash"] and disrespect for the truth is a scientifically unacceptable speculation of your own making.
This is what the commission says:
"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."
"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."
http://www.zenit.org/english/archive/0107/ZE010726.htm#8543
I hope you and others would do the same and would not jump to conclusions in order to suit your/their own political and ideological interests.
29 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeYes, if we wait another 70 years the Church might finally get around to supplying the relevant documents to the great grandsons of the scholars; then we won't have to "jump to conclusions" about events that happened 60 years ago. I presented the facts of which you failed to refute a single one. As usual, you present nothing but your usual ridiculous conspiracy theories and personal attacks. Cite ONE of the 47 questions asked that is, in your opinion, not relevant. If the Vatican didn't have a problem with turning over additional documents, why didn't they? And don't give me the "catalogue" BS; the requests in the preliminary report are pretty specific. Both you and LH are full of it.
[b/]Marauder: " .... the facts are as follows: ... "
Marauder: ".... and asking for documents relating to the questions (all of which are clearly relevant to the subject of the investigation);
That's an opinion, NOT a fact.
Marauder: "The good Father apparently believes that the purpose of the commission was merely to r ...[text shortened]... uld not jump to conclusions in order to suit your/their own political and ideological interests.
29 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerBunk and BS. The Vatican archives I'm sure has more than ONE employee; please don't present such an obvious non sequitur. Again many of the requests in the preliminary report are WWII era documents that the Church refused to hand over. That's why the Commision stopped work; they were being denied access to records they requested. Their final statement was trying to be diplomatic, but you don't have to be a mind reader to figure it out.
[b]Your analogy isn't very good; detectives usually have catalogued evidence by 70 years after the crime.
Let's see if I can simplify this for you - over 3 million separate documents that still need to be identified, catalogued and archived from the period under consideration (1922-1939). That's over 3,000,000,000 documents. At an ave ...[text shortened]... ply proceeded in chronological order with regards to archiving.
Apply some common sense, man.[/b]
If you and Ivanhoe really had any interest in the truth of the matter, you'd be writing the Vatican insisting that they make public the records and clear the matter up pronto. People hiding something usually have something to hide.
EDIT: Your claim that the documents requested were only those prior to Pope Pius XII "popehood" is clearly wrong:
Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Holy See's Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, has issued a statement reviewing the controversy about the International Catholic-Jewish Historical Commission and expressing regret that it has suspended its work. The Commission was charged to analyze published archival materials on the role of the Vatican during the Second World War, especially as concerns the Holocaust, but was not given access to unpublished materials.
In a Communiqué dated 24 August 2001, Cardinal Kasper states that the Commission was never promised access to the full archives since 1922, i.e., those covering the pontificates of Pius XI (1922-39) and Pius XII (1939-1958). The Vatican, he states, is ready to grant such access "as soon as the reorganising and the cataloguing work is concluded."
http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?id=1764
He made that statement on August 30, 2001; maybe it is just one guy doing the entire work at the Vatican archives.
29 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder: "Yes, if we wait another 70 years the Church might finally get around to supplying the relevant documents to the great grandsons of the scholars; ... "
Yes, if we wait another 70 years the Church might finally get around to supplying the relevant documents to the great grandsons of the scholars; then we won't have to "jump to conclusions" about events that happened 60 years ago. I presented the facts of which you failed to refute a single one. As usual, you present nothing but your usual ridiculous c ...[text shortened]... BS; the requests in the preliminary report are pretty specific. Both you and LH are full of it.
The documents will be ready sooner than you think.
Marauder: "I presented the facts of which you failed to refute a single one.
Then you didn't read my posts.
Marauder: "As usual, you present nothing but your usual ridiculous conspiracy theories and personal attacks."
Are you drunk ?
Marauder: "Cite ONE of the 47 questions asked that is, in your opinion, not relevant.
You'd better adress the many points I've raised first, marauder. Besides Marauder, I stated whether these requested documents were relevant or not is a matter of opinion. Thát is my claim. This doesn't mean that I would consider any of these documents or the attached questions as being irrelevant. You are taking refuge in side issues to avoid the main issue and that is the LIE that Pius XII collaborated with the Nazi's and watched gleefully how European Jewish people were destroyed in the Shoa. Thát marauder is the question you should address, instead of all these nitpicking side-issues.
How about it ?
Marauder: " ... Both you and LH are full of it. "
You're losing (it) again, marauder ..... be carefull.
29 Nov 05
According to the Vatican press release, the scholars "are also expected to raise relevant issues that its members feel have not been satisfactorily resolved by the documentation already available. They may also draw on the knowledge and assistance of other specialists, including colleagues and associates. Following its review, the joint team will issue a report on its findings and conclusions."
Cardinal Cassidy and Mr. Reich pointed out that, if questions still remain, "further clarification will be sought".
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/zjwctww2.htm
Thus the Vatican agreed before hand that the Commision could raise relevant issues and request further information. The RCC reneged on the deal, pure and simple.
29 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderAccusations, accusations .... adress the main issue, marauder .... you know, this thread's subject ? ... the accusation, the LIE, that Pius XII and the Church collaborated with the Nazi's and actually helped the Nazi's killing the European Jewry in the Shoa.
According to the Vatican press release, the scholars "are also expected to raise relevant issues that its members feel have not been satisfactorily resolved by the documentation already available. They may also draw on the knowledge and assistance of other specialists, including colleagues and associates. Following its review, the joint team will issue ...[text shortened]... e relevant issues and request further information. The RCC reneged on the deal, pure and simple.
29 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeI believe the documents were ready then; maybe they'll disappear like the records of Bruno's trial.
[b]Marauder: "Yes, if we wait another 70 years the Church might finally get around to supplying the relevant documents to the great grandsons of the scholars; ... "
The documents will be ready sooner than you think.
Marauder: "I presented the facts of which you failed to refute a single one.
Then you didn't read my posts.
M ...[text shortened]... Both you and LH are full of it. "
You're losing (it) again, marauder ..... be carefull.[/b]
You refuted no facts; the facts are that the Commission asked questions and requested materials as it was understood they would. The fact is the Vatican did not hand over the requested documents. Do you dispute those facts? Given those facts, the conclusion that I reached are the only logical ones. Father Gumpel is the head of the movement to beatify Pope Pius XII and hardly a non-biased source. It would be a wonderful thing to beatify Pius and then find out that he did have some complicity, wouldn't it?
Your claim originally was that Pius saved 860,000 Jews; since you have no evidence for such an absurd claim, it was wise of you to abandon it. The issue as to what Pius did during the Holocaust could be considerably illuminated if the Vatican allowed scrutiny of the relevant documents. They refuse to at this time. Why do you think that is, Ivanhoe?
I don't really care about your childish little comments, so you might as well give it up. You're an utter hypocrite to complain about how others post, when your posts are filled with personal insults and snide remarks. Please try to stay on topic like a grown up.
29 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe Vatican knows how much, if at all, Pius collaborated with the Nazis and his level of glee, if any, at the Holocaust. Let them release their documents to the public and we'll all know. I don't make conclusions on insufficient data, particulary when the side being investigated refuses to meaningfully cooperate with the investigation.
Accusations, accusations .... adress the main issue, marauder.
29 Nov 05
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder: "Given those facts, the conclusion that I reached are the only logical ones."
I believe the documents were ready then; maybe they'll disappear like the records of Bruno's trial.
You refuted no facts; the facts are that the Commission asked questions and requested materials as it was understood they would. The fact is the Vatican did not hand over the requested documents. Do you dispute those facts? Given those facts, th ...[text shortened]... are filled with personal insults and snide remarks. Please try to stay on topic like a grown up.
You are getting drunk.
Marauder: "Father Gumpel is the head of the movement to beatify Pope Pius XII and hardly a non-biased source."
There is no "movement", he is head of the beatification process, a coordinator as it were. He is prominent in this case because he is very knowledgeable about everything concerning Pius XII.
Marauder: "Your claim originally was that Pius saved 860,000 Jews; since you have no evidence for such an absurd claim, it was wise of you to abandon it."
You are becoming very annoying again. I did not abandon it.
Marauder: "I don't really care about your childish little comments, so you might as well give it up. You're an utter hypocrite to complain about how others post, when your posts are filled with personal insults and snide remarks. Please try to stay on topic like a grown up."
You're not able to see reality anymore and you are again starting to spout your insults. You're definitely drunk. I'll see you when you're sober, maybe then you are able to address the main issue in a coherent way.
29 Nov 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeA post with nothing but childish insults. Maybe you should hit the "Alert Moderator" button for your own post, Ivanhoe.
[b]Marauder: "Given those facts, the conclusion that I reached are the only logical ones."
You are getting drunk.
Marauder: "Father Gumpel is the head of the movement to beatify Pope Pius XII and hardly a non-biased source."
There is no "movement", he is head of the beatification process, a coordinator as it were. He is prominent ...[text shortened]... ee you when you're sober, maybe then you are able to address the main issue in a coherent way.[/b]
29 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThe Vatican archives I'm sure has more than ONE employee; please don't present such an obvious non sequitur.
Bunk and BS. The Vatican archives I'm sure has more than ONE employee; please don't present such an obvious non sequitur. Again many of the requests in the preliminary report are WWII era documents that the Church refused to hand over. That's why the Commision stopped work; they were being denied access to records they requested. Their final statement ...[text shortened]... ment on August 30, 2001; maybe it is just one guy doing the entire work at the Vatican archives.
Actually - it has two archivists (and you can't just pick anyone off the street to archive historical documents, you know). So that's two people working 24/7 for 30 years.
You're deliberately turning a blind eye to the logistics in question. Either you're so anti-Vatican that you don't really care for the truth, or you've never organised so much as a house party for four in your life.
Again many of the requests in the preliminary report are WWII era documents that the Church refused to hand over. That's why the Commision stopped work; they were being denied access to records they requested.
OK - I stand corrected on the pre/post-WWII documents bit. That doesn't change the fact that all of the catalogued materials has already been published; several of the answers the Commission sought were indeed in those published material; the answers that could be referenced from the published material was presented in Fr. Gumpel's dossiers; the Commission did not actually go through those dossiers before leaking the preliminary report.
Aside: You seem to feign ignorance as to who leaked the preliminary report to the press. Well, who do you think it could be?
Now, the question any sensible analyst of the issue should be asking is - how many of the 47 questions were still not answered at the time the Commission disbanded? The Commission never prepared a final report (or interim report after the preliminary one).
If you and Ivanhoe really had any interest in the truth of the matter, you'd be writing the Vatican insisting that they make public the records and clear the matter up pronto. People hiding something usually have something to hide.
Ah, what happened to your famous principle of "presumption of innocence"?
As ivanhoe and the Vatican have repeatedly pointed out - they are archiving the documents as fast as they can. Presumably, the work is very close to completion by now - but, of course, the Commission disbanded in 2001.
29 Nov 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerSnotnoses like you suck at insults, so I suggest you leave it to the experts. The Vatican is full of it and you know it; why would they agree to forming a commission if most of the relevant documents weren't ready for review? The cataloguing excuse is utterly lame. The archivists haven't been soooooooooo busy that it has prevented them from putting certain records on CD-ROM's for sale according to the Vatican archive site!
[b]The Vatican archives I'm sure has more than ONE employee; please don't present such an obvious non sequitur.
Actually - it has two archivists (and you can't just pick anyone off the street to archive historical documents, you know). So that's two people working 24/7 for 30 years.
You're deliberately turning a blind eye to the logist ...[text shortened]... the work is very close to completion by now - but, of course, the Commission disbanded in 2001.[/b]
I assume someone with access to the information leaked the report, but that is quite different from saying the Commission itself leaked the report as you and Father Gumpel are claiming. Are you able to understand the difference between one person who may have been a researcher or secretary doing so and the Commission itself deliberately doing so? Probably not; Father Gumpel's version fits better with the type of matyrdom stories that Ivanhoe and the RCC luvvvvvvv so much.
Apparently none of the questions were answered to the satisfaction of the Commission; they requested unpublished documents pertaining to all of them and received nothing. Again it is obvious that the RCC merely wanted them to go over the already published material and supply a big coat of whitewash to the issues. The Commission wasn't interested in merely reviewing already published documents and taking the Church's answers as gospel; they wanted to make an independent assessment of the facts. The Church prevented that. How could they issue a final report when they didn't have the information they requested?
From our previous discussions it is obvious that your knowledge of legal matters is woefully inadequate; "presumption of innocence" is confined to criminal cases. The presumption in law is that you are obliged to turn over all materials relevant to the case unless they are privileged. Failure to turn over relevant materials will get you a sanction from the court; and a complete refusal to do so, entitles the court to instruct the jury that the fact of non-disclosure can be used as evidence that the materials withheld would be damaging to the non-disclosing side's case. Or the court can simply find for the opposing side if the failure to disclose is particulary severe (as it is here). Learn a little bit about law if you insist on making pithy, inaccurate comments about it.
29 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderSnotnoses like you suck at insults, so I suggest you leave it to the experts.
Snotnoses like you suck at insults, so I suggest you leave it to the experts. The Vatican is full of it and you know it; why would they agree to forming a commission if most of the relevant documents weren't ready for review? The cataloguing excuse is utterly lame. The archivists haven't been soooooooooo busy that it has prevented them from putting cer ...[text shortened]... here). Learn a little bit about law if you insist on making pithy, inaccurate comments about it.
Like yourself? Is this your counterpart to "ivanhoe's techniques" that you mentioned in the other thread?
why would they agree to forming a commission if most of the relevant documents weren't ready for review?
The answer is in the Commission's report itself:
The mandate given to us by our sponsoring bodies was to review the volumes that make up the ADSS and to raise relevant questions and issues that, in our opinion, have not adequately or satisfactorily been resolved by the available documentation, and to issue a report on our findings.
In many cases (like Q1 - that deals with the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge) the answers were available in published documents.
The archivists haven't been soooooooooo busy that it has prevented them from putting certain records on CD-ROM's for sale according to the Vatican archive site!
This is just a red herring. The skill-sets required to scan documents and put the records on CD-ROMs are obviously very different from those required to actually identify and catalogue documents.
I assume someone with access to the information leaked the report, but that is quite different from saying the Commission itself leaked the report as you and Father Gumpel are claiming.
Actually, it was Bernard Suchecky (one of the members of the Commission) that leaked the report*. I hope that ends the debate.
Probably not; Father Gumpel's version fits better with the type of matyrdom stories that Ivanhoe and the RCC luvvvvvvv so much.
Still think Fr. Gumpel's version is a "martyrdom story"?
Apparently none of the questions were answered to the satisfaction of the Commission; they requested unpublished documents pertaining to all of them and received nothing.
We don't know that - the Commission never made a follow-up report.
How could they issue a final report when they didn't have the information they requested?
They could've issued a report demonstrating how Fr. Gumpel's dossiers did not answer their questions.
From our previous discussions it is obvious that your knowledge of legal matters is woefully inadequate; "presumption of innocence" is confined to criminal cases.
I'm talking about your personal standpoint here. Is the Church always guilty until proven innocent (on any issue&dagger😉 to you? And, even then, is your burden of proof reasonable?
---
* http://www.time.com/time/magazine/notebook/0,9485,1101010806,00.html
† that is not raised by RBHill!
29 Nov 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerYour 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 tried to manage the Commission into making the findings it wanted. That was not acceptable to the independent scholars on the Commission and is not acceptable to me. Like Ivanhoe said, let the truth come out.
[b]Snotnoses like you suck at insults, so I suggest you leave it to the experts.
Like yourself? Is this your counterpart to "ivanhoe's techniques" that you mentioned in the other thread?
why would they agree to forming a commission if most of the relevant documents weren't ready for review?
The answer is in the Commission's re ...[text shortened]... //www.time.com/time/magazine/notebook/0,9485,1101010806,00.html
† that is not raised by RBHill![/b]
The article you cited which claims that one of the commission members leaked the report also says that the reason the Church failed to turn over further documents was "anger". Is that settled too by the article? Assuming a commission member did leak it, the RCC would have some right to be angry but not much; I fail to see what harm public disclosure of historical questions did to the Church (Ivanhoe has already cited one of the questions that seem to support the Church's version). In any event, a hissy fit that prevented the Commission from finishing its review is perfectly in keeping with the paranoid mentality that seems so prevalent among the RCC.