Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
July 22, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

The Unwomanly Face of War
The Life of Caliph Washington

Truthdig Bazaar more items

Email this item Print this item

Consider the Source

Posted on Feb 28, 2009
Pope Benedict XVI
AP photo / Alessandra Tarantino

Pope Benedict XVI waves to the faithful during the Angelus prayer in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican in January.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published in The Independent.

Square, Story page, 2nd paragraph, mobile
So it’s all the fault of the Pope’s satraps. “Vatican advisers blamed for Pope’s woes,” I was informed by one headline. “A self-imposed cone (sic) of silence surrounds Benedict.” And now poor old Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Benedict XVI, the solitary German who found himself manning an anti-aircraft gun at the end of the Second World War (“briefly” and “unwillingly”, I know) has had some “harsh words” for his advisers because – according to the Vatican – he “had no idea of Bishop Williamson’s views before lifting an excommunication order against him last month”.

Williamson, I should add, is the disgusting British-born prelate of the Society of Saint Pius X who has said that “not a single Jew died in a gas chamber” in the Second World War. This Cambridge-educated priest says he is prepared to “re-examine” the historical evidence of the Holocaust – but, needless to say, declines to visit Auschwitz. Unsurprisingly, the Vatican has rejected Williamson’s mealy-mouthed apology to those who suffered “injustice” at Nazi hands.

Now a lot of folk will go along with the line that the Holy Father is so stupid – so utterly out of touch with Planet Earth and all its Catholic children, so “cut off from the real world” (here I quote a Vatican “insider”) – that he has no idea how disastrously his actions are received. Hmmm. Well, I wonder.

For was this not the same Pope who actually visited Auschwitz and – to the understandable outrage of Jewish dignitaries who were present – blamed a Nazi “gang” for the Jewish Holocaust? Before this infallible pronouncement, an awful lot of people thought that the Nazi German nation was to blame for Auschwitz, but old Joseph apparently thought it was a mafia clique in Berlin that murdered six million European Jews. And – here we go again – was this not the same ex-Cardinal Ratzinger (anti-divorce, anti-gay and anti-aircraft, as I always remind myself) who delivered a lecture at Regensburg in 2006 in which he quoted from a Byzantine text which characterised the Prophet Mohamed as evil and inhuman?


Square, Site wide, Desktop


Square, Site wide, Mobile
Chancellor Merkel, it was, who called up the old boy to point out that pardoning Williamson gave the impression that Holocaust denial was “permissible”. The last time a German Chancellor took so serious an interest in the words of the Holy Father, of course, was more than 60 years earlier when A Hitler Esq profoundly hoped that Pope Pius XII would abide by Williamson’s line on the Holocaust. That particular pope’s silence is well expressed in the sinister black statue of His Holiness in St Peter’s Basilica, a bespectacled cadaver that so shocked a Muslim friend of mine that she took 36 photos of the thing “because he looked so evil”.

Well, there you go. But I bring all this up today because of a remarkable article by Ralph Coury, professor of history at Fairfield University, Connecticut, which appeared in the latest issue of the Institute of Race Relations’ journal Race and Class. The redoubtable professor has combed his way through Benedict’s Regensburg peroration, in which the Holy Father quotes the 14th-century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus as telling a visitor to “show me just what Mohamed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and human”. God, the good Paleologus told his interlocutor, “is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body”.

Coury’s detailed critique of Benedict’s mistakes – his apparent belief, for example, that there is a doctrine of jihad in the Koran – is compelling, but he has also unearthed some revealing interviews in which Ratzinger/Benedict reveals a lot more than he should have done about his own bias against Islam. “There is a very marked subordination of woman to man,” he says of Islam in 1996. “There is a very tightly knit criminal law, indeed, a law regulating all areas of life, that is opposed to our modern ideas about society ... above all, Islam doesn’t make any sort of concessions to enculturation (sic). Islam is Arab (sic), and anyone who becomes Islamic takes on this form of life.”

In Regensberg, Benedict went on to say that Christianity took on “its historically decisive character in Europe” despite “its origins and some significant developments (sic) in the East”. These few significant “developments” presumably include a Jew called Jesus and his birthplace in Bethlehem - which is at least 1,000 km from Rome – along with the misadventures of numerous disciples in the Middle East, until Saint Paul headed off to Macedonia and the whole shebang mercifully became a “Western” or “occidental” religion.

Benedict’s remarks on the theological significance of Israel on Roman Catholics have themselves been a little odd. “If it has significance for you, it must have significance for us,” he told a Jewish leader before he was pope. “One would think that such a small people couldn’t really be important,” he said of the Jews in 1993. “But I believe there is something special about this people and that the great decisions of world history are almost always connected to them somehow.” This is not very comforting.

But Coury has also traced some very disturbing decisions by Benedict; his post-papal demotion, for example, of Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, head of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, his distancing himself from the pro-Palestinian Angelo Cardinal Sidaro, John XXIII’s secretary of state and a friend of Michel Sabbah, the Palestinian Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem; not to mention Benedict’s private audience (originally kept secret) with the increasingly weird Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci – whose crackpot statements included the assertion that “Islam breeds hatred” and that Muslims “breed like rats”. The details of this extraordinary papal audience with the late Ms. Fallaci have never (unsurprisingly) been disclosed.

And what do I make of all this? Well, I don’t think the Pope is as innocent as he seems, nor so ill-advised. He sees Christianity as a superior, “Western” religion and is prepared to demean other religions to prove it. I think he knows exactly what he is doing. I think he knows what he is saying. I used to think he was a silly old German. Now I am beginning to suspect he might be a very nasty piece of work.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Folktruther, March 12, 2009 at 1:41 pm Link to this comment

ALLEN GURFINKLE - I am astonished by the assertion that by 1942 85% of Jews from Germany and Austria had emmigrated.  IF you can document this assrtion, your entire argument gains much more credibility.

Report this

By Allan Gurfinkle, March 6, 2009 at 9:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By Folktruther, March 6 at 9:31 pm #

...... Well, Allan, Jews were scattered around in the cities and towns, and if they began systmatically disappearing in wartime, one could wonder what happened to them.

85% of the Jews had emigrated from Germany and Austria by 1942.  The policy from that point on was forced deportation.  There is no doubt that everyone in Germany and the world was aware of this policy.

At the same time, there is no evidence that even the Jews thought they were being sent to ‘gas chambers’ or ‘death camps’.  You can read Elie Weisel’s ‘Night’ to see a first hand account.  He was sent to Auschwitz in 1944, he had no idea that he was about to be killed, and he wasn’t.  When the Soviets approached the camp he was in the camp hospital with an infected foot.  He was given the choice of staying and being liberated by the Soviets, or setting off on a long march with the Nazis.  He marched.  All recounted in ‘Night’.

When the Nazis deported the Hungarian Jews in 1944, they negotiated with the local Hungarian Jewish representatives to organize the deportation.  Do you think the Jews were knowingly sending their countrymen to ‘death camps’.  This is absurd and there is not a shred of evidence to support it.  Here is Eichmann discussing the negotiations ..

“In obedience to Himmler’s directive I now concentrated on negotiations with the Jewish political officials in Budapest . . . Among them Dr. Rudolph Kastner, authorized representative of the Zionist Movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold lawyer and a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from resisting deportation - and even keep order in the collection camps - if I could close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine. It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price . . . was not too high for me . . . We trusted each other perfectly. When he was with me, Kastner smoked cigarettes as though he was in a coffeehouse. While we talked he would smoke one aromatic cigarette after another, taking them from a silver case and lighting them with a silver lighter. With his great polish and reserve he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself. Dr. Kastner’s main concern was to make it possible for a select group of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel . . .

Report this

By Folktruther, March 6, 2009 at 5:31 pm Link to this comment

Well, Allan, Jews were scattered around in the cities and towns, and if they began systmatically disappearing in wartime, one could wonder what happened to them.

But there is an emotional disconnect when power commits great crimes to prevent us from accepting it.  Many intelligent Americans will not look at the evidence of 9/11 and consider the possiblity that the US government helped orchestrate it.  The US powerful simple wouldn’t be crazy or evil enough to do such a thing.  But they did.

Power structures throughout history have often been evil and crazy.  Indeed, in a certain sense this is the norm. But how many Americans do you think would accept that the US power structure is evil or crazy?

Is this more a matter of ignorance, not knowing, or is it denial, not wanting to know?

Report this

By Allan Gurfinkle, March 5, 2009 at 3:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By Folktruther, March 5 at 2:54 pm #

......the German people didn’t know about the genocide at the time.  Which is partly becaue they didn’t want to know about it,

From the previous linked documents showing the communcications between the US State Dept. and the German high command we know that not even the Jewish dominated War Refugee Board in the US thought that Jews were being exterminated at Auschwitz.  When a number of prominent Jews approached Roosevelt to speak out about the holocaust he said that he did not have time to waste on a ‘mythical pogrom’.  See the article linked below for a full account by Hollywood screenwriter and Jewish activist Ben Hecht ...

If the US state department and US military intelligence and FDR didn’t know about the holocaust, how can anyone be expected to know, whether they ‘wanted to know’, or not?

Report this

By wadosy, March 5, 2009 at 1:43 pm Link to this comment

the holocaust makes israelis exempt from criticism… if you criticize israel, you’re a nazi, a reincarnation of hitler, and hitler holocausted six million jews, and we know this is true because the jewish establishment tells us it’s true, and the jewish establishment can prove it’s true by assassinating you in the media, and by maybe even throwing you in jail.

and that’s all the proof that’s needed.

Report this

By wadosy, March 5, 2009 at 1:28 pm Link to this comment

anonymous says…

“I had never before seen a link suggested between the lack of news coverage of Pope JPII’s views against the Iraq war and the coverage of the priest sex abuse scandal…”

what could have caused this latest outbreak of anti-pope propaganda?

could it have anything to do with this?

Pope Benedict, in his strongest comments yet on the situation in Gaza, on Sunday condemned the violence that he said had killed hundreds of “innocent victims”.

notice the quotation marks around “innocent victims”... we all know that those kids killed in gaza were guilty as sin, ...which explains the quotation marks.


but why would anyone care about what the pope said way back in the middle of january? ...any civilized person has already forgotten about gaza, let alone what the pope said about it.

“Naturally, we very much hope that the visit will be held in an appropriate atmosphere and will be as successful as Pope John Paul II’s was,” said Olmert. “A Papal visit to the Holy Land is always an exceptionally significant event and we hope that it will be this time as well.”

Olmert confirms Pope Benedict to visit Israel in May haaretz

so maybe it’s the pope’s upcoming visit to israel and the west bank that’s got everybody worried… maybe this latest little dustup is a shot across the pope’s bow, encouraging him to keep his big yap shut during his visit.

Report this

By truedigger3, March 5, 2009 at 12:41 pm Link to this comment

anonymous wrote:
“Gordon Brown today challenged the US and the world to address problems of poverty and education in Africa. Using rhetoric not often heard from a politician ...”

Oh pleee..ze don’t get fooled by that clever Britt.
This is just the classic good cop bad cop routine.
The British empire is a primary but “not all” reason why there is too much poverty and internal strife in Africa and everwhere where the Union Jack flew.

Report this

By Onello, March 5, 2009 at 11:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I agree with Tom Edgar’s inference that we must be vigilant in speaking up against those who condone genocide.  Approval is often couched within words which dehumanize whichever “other” is the convenient scapegoat of a given time and circumstance.  Semantics can be used to trump up hatred especially when
the public is ambivalent.

Report this

By Folktruther, March 5, 2009 at 10:54 am Link to this comment

Tom Edgar—That the German lady was racist and bleieved in genocide does not disporve that the German people didn’t know about the genocide at the time.  Which is partly becaue they didn’t want to know about it, just as the American people do not want to know about the enormous bloodshed caused by the Amereican power system throughout history.

The subject was never mentioned again, you say.  Might this be part of the reason that genicidal views are adopted so casually?  Since people want to avoid the unpleansantness of objecting to them?  Indeed, provide hospitality and tolerance for these views?

Report this

By anonymous, March 5, 2009 at 8:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A reply to some of the commenters: I had never before seen a link suggested between the lack of news coverage of Pope JPII’s views against the Iraq war and the coverage of the priest sex abuse scandal, but the idea that the coverage of the sex scandal was anti-Catholic I find silly.

Whatever the motivation, are we not grateful that the press uncovered as much of this scandal as it has? Those in the Church who tried to dismiss the scandal as a product of anti-Catholic bias were ridiculous—and probably gave evidence of their own anti-Semitism.

On the war question, many American Catholic bishops apparently did not agree with their pontiff, so the issue is not so simple. I think that so little news coverage was given to the pope’s anti-war message relates more to a general anti-religious and anti-foreign bias in our news, as well as a pro-establishment one.

Lok at the coverage of UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s address to a Joint Session of Congress. How many articles started out like this? “Speaking like the son of a minister that he is, Gordon Brown today challenged the US and the world to address problems of poverty and education in Africa. Using rhetoric not often heard from a politician ...”

Report this

By onello, March 4, 2009 at 9:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Child abuse comes in many guises including the bombing of helpless children and the family’s who love and care for them.

Report this

By Tom Edgar, March 4, 2009 at 7:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The German People didn’t know of the Jewish extermination camps???

The following is factual.  In the seventies we had staying with us (Australia) a German Lady who had been seventeen at the end of WW2. A conversation between my Australian wife and the German Lady went like this.

A general discussion took place about the crimes against the Australian aborigines in the early days, which my wife deplored.  Unthinkingly she then said.  “Does Germany have a similar history of persecution of minorities?”.... “Oh! We killed a few million Jews, but unfortunately didn’t finish the job.”  The subject was never approached again.

Report this

By wadosy, March 4, 2009 at 3:27 pm Link to this comment

Jailed child-abuse priest killed: inmate to be charged August 25, 2003

Geoghan served as a priest from 1962 until he was defrocked in 1998. The Boston Globe reported last year that Geoghan was removed from four parishes between 1974 and 1989 for molesting children, but church officials in Boston repeatedly returned him to the ministry.

Last year the newspaper persuaded a Massachusetts judge to open thousands of pages of church documents from civil lawsuits.

The ensuing scandal spread across the country, triggering a cascade of allegations, lawsuits and grand jury investigations. Hundreds of priests were removed from the ministry, the Pope summoned US cardinals to Rome, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops revised its policy on sex abuse, and Cardinal Bernard Law was forced to resign as Bishop of Boston last December.

not too hard to figure out the timing of this priestly sex abuse scandal.

Report this

By wadosy, March 4, 2009 at 3:03 pm Link to this comment

Allan Gurfinkle says…

“...there is a plenty of information that IS available, and on the internet, that is more than sufficient for arguing, trust me.”

yeah, i spose you’re right, and maybe it should be argued about if for no other reason than to expose—to people who’ve swallowed decades-worth of holocaust crockery without a question—the holes in the official story.


now we got another spasm of anti-catholic crap from the media, which is rooted in the catholic church’s unfortunate tendencies to disapprove of israel’s wars.

it’s no coincidence that, as the pope is objecting to the iraq war, the pederastic priests surfaced.

John Paul II stated before the 2003 war that this war would be a defeat for humanity which could not be morally or legally justified.

Pope John Paul II calls War a Defeat for Humanity: Neoconservative Iraq Just War Theories Rejected

well, hell.

how you gonna establish benevolent global hegemony without killing a few million people, mr pope?

Report this

By Folktruther, March 4, 2009 at 12:00 pm Link to this comment

I assumed, Dihey, that there were pressures to join the Hitler Youth League, but from my discussions with those who did, there was also ways and legitimate excuses for resisting.  Which is far less the case with bein conscripted into the Wehrmacht.

When e-talking to a math teacher about my daughter, he asked why she remained seated while everyone saluted the flag. I didn’t know this and thanked him for telling me (she was a teenager and the tendency is not to communicate during that period.)  I suggested however that she was a peace advocate and did not want to salute a war flag.

All power structures teach their children in one form or another to pledge allegiance to a war flag so that when someone in authority waves it, the young of one country will march off to kill, mutilate, rape, loot and terrorize the young of another.

There are ways to avoid doing this with sufficient moral courage, and it takes much less courage to resist joining organizations who embody barbarism.  Pope Ratso IDENTIFIES with barbarism.

Report this

By samosamo, March 4, 2009 at 11:31 am Link to this comment

The pope is more like rush limbaugh but wears white robs instead of back clothes. Both have no meaning to life and should be ignored.

Report this

By dihey, March 4, 2009 at 7:15 am Link to this comment

The notion that this Pope joined the Hitlerjugend voluntarily ignores the bizarre and complex Nazi state. I know some about this because I was drafted into the Wehrmacht in February 1945 but was lucky that I lived in the Netherlands where I could “disappear” until the end of the war.

If it is true that the Pope’s father was a policeman, then the refusal of the boy to join HJ (a few boys did refuse indeed) might have had nasty consequences for his father. Heinrich Himmler was the boss of the German police and would certainly have considered the Pope’s father a security risk. Refusal to send his son to the HJ could have landed him in a concentration camp.

I do not know whether the Pope’s father was a ardent supporter of Hitler or an ant-Nazi. My point is that judgments which are based on superficial notions of what the Nazi state was like are useless.

Report this

By Ivan Hentschel, March 4, 2009 at 6:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is very polite and politic to speak in quiet, analytical terms about the Pope and his (What? No female Pope?) Church, but they have both become irrelelvant to modern life and both have undeniable histories of causing death, suffering and mayhem. Papal infallibility is a horrible fallacy and fraud which has been perpetrated upon the world and the church’s adherents. The Church itself has become a monetary drain on the very people that it purports to serve and its self-serving mis-appropriations of the Christian faith has been a 2000 year of source of violence and hatred and bloodshed. And those realities are all on a good day. Lip service and niceties should be tossed out to make way for intense criticism, revisionism and restructure, but the movement and its internal workings are too old, too entrenched and too mammoth to expect much. It will take the ideological and conceptual equivalent of a giant asteroid to exterminate and/or modify this dinosaur. In the end, the world has suffered greatly at its hands. The pope is the titular head of a poisonous serpent wth many heads. And of late the church has gone back to selling…what do they call them? indulgences? Just think about that word. What would Jesus say? Probably no comment.

Report this

By Eso, March 4, 2009 at 4:50 am Link to this comment

“...All religions are somewhere between useless and destructive…”
This is so until you realize that materialism (which almost everyone seems to believe in) is also twaddle. Did not Yeats say that “the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity”? Which is a pretty accurate description of our times, is it not?

Actually, religion is quite useful. I have never thought of the separation of state and religion as anything as a political move by materialism (get rick quick schemers) to shake off religion (granted at times outdated) so as to get rid of anyone who would be willing to sacrifice for community.

Report this

By Sepharad, March 3, 2009 at 11:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

godistwaddle & diamond, somehow you’ve put me in the position of having to defend some of the Catholic clergy. diamond, my father (a Catholic) was abandoned by his family for marrying a Jewish woman so at the wedding, only one guy shows up on my Dad’s side—a Jesuit friend of his who was a shrink at a public psychiatric hospital in the city. This man filled in as half of our family (even after Dad’s brother decided years later that the split over religion was ridiculous) and never once suggested or implied to us kids that our Judaism was deficient in any way. godistwaddle, our youngest son’s godfather was (recently deceased) a Jesuit who spent most of his life trying to keep runaway kids on Haight Street from getting sucked into drugs, prostitution rings, etc. He also spent his free time in Central America helping his liberation theologist buddies. He was a poet, had a great sense of humor, and suggested to our argumentative older son that whatever the church’s shortcomings, God at least was not a bureaucrat. My husband and I aren’t believers, but he never raised our lack of belief as an issue. (He did once try to persuade us that it was worth standing in a mob for six hours on the off-chance that we might get a glimpse of John Paul II when he stopped by to say mass at Mission Dolores in San Francisco.)

All religions are somewhere between useless and destructive, but if people need to believe or want to practice their religion it doesn’t bother me—until they try to impose it on or otherwise affect a society. It’s just stupid to denigrate any collective group of people, whether they are Catholic or German or Moslem or Jewish or WASPS or whatever. We’re all individuals, unique, and will have to bear the consequences if we try to force others into our own mold. (Unfortunately, the movers and shakers and profiteers controlling most societies rarely face the consequences of their arrogant behavior and thievery and brutality—the consequences mostly hurt the people whom they govern.)

Report this

By Allan Gurfinkle, March 3, 2009 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By wadosy, March 3 at 5:11 pm #

...but it’s fruitless arguing about it so long as real investigations are forbidden… we simply dont have enough data to argue.

Your right that investigations that require physical access to the camps, or access to controlled data like that in the Bad Arolsen archives, are forbidden. Nonetheless, there is a plenty of information that IS available, and on the internet, that is more than sufficient for arguing, trust me.  All it takes is a slightly obsessive drive to ferret it out.  Also there are discussions on alt.revisionism (wild), (revisionist) and (Zionist) that get way into the data and details.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, March 3, 2009 at 2:12 pm Link to this comment

Folktruther, March 3 at 12:35 am #

Gentlemen, please.  No reasonable person blames Ratso for being conscripted into the military, if indeed he was.  But he voluntarily JOINED the Hitler Youth League.  Whatever bullshit is now said about it.  I’ve know people who were members and it was a VOLUNTARY organization, like the Communst party or the Boy Scouts of America. You didn’t have to join it.

Gurfunkle is quite right.  The Nazis kept the exxtermination of Jews secret from the German people, as sourced, for example, in Chris Harman’s THE PEOPLE’S HISTORY OF THE WORLD.  It was done to increase the morale through the “victory” of destoying Judaism while the German army was losing.  It is childish and vengful to hold the German people responsible, just as it is the Amereican people for the rounding up, hassling and torturing of Muslims.  The responsibility is always one of power.

Wow! Weird! I actually agree with FT on this one post…

Something NOBODY has mentioned: It’s clearly obvious that Benedict is really, Really, REALLY rotten manager and leader (they are not the same thing).  I mean, it’s not that the guy is stupid—clearly he’s not. It’s that he’s tone-deaf (and I’m not talking about music).  He never seems to think about who his wider audience is, and consequently sticks his slippered foot into his mouth.

Yeah, he’s a pretty lousy pope—not as bad as Pius XII but not as good as his four immediate predecessors. (JPII, JP, Paul VI, and John XXIII).

Report this

By wadosy, March 3, 2009 at 1:11 pm Link to this comment

rose clouds of holocaust

there’s no use arguing about “intent to exterminate” or the numbers because even skepticism is forbidden, let alone a real investigation.

given the history of lies from radical jews, adding the lies that got us into iraq, and adding israel’s and israeli americans’ motives, means, opportunity and character to stage 9/11, all of which put them head and shoulders above other suspects for 9/11…

well, i dont know.

once again we got to call on doc aumann’s game theory… if certain people are acting as if they know the holocaust is phony, and seem to be lying in defense of the official story, then they probably know something about the holocaust that the rest of us dont.

the same procedure is at work in exxon/AEI’s denial of global warming, and exxon/CERA’S denial of peak oil.

...but it’s fruitless arguing about it so long as real investigations are forbidden… we simply dont have enough data to argue.

the fact that the ADL and other radical jewish defenders of the holocaust myth are not calling for an investigation, and instead are criminalizing investigation, is enough to cast suspicion on the official holocaust story.

Report this
Russian Paul's avatar

By Russian Paul, March 3, 2009 at 12:28 pm Link to this comment

Rose clouds of holocaust,
Rose clouds of lies,
Rose clouds of bitter,
Bitter, bitter lies,

When the angels of ignorance,
Fall down from your eyes,
Rose clouds of holocaust,
Rose clouds of lies…

—Death In June

Report this

By omniadeo, March 3, 2009 at 12:17 pm Link to this comment

“the Holocaust has been mythicized by Zionism to justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, but there is abundant evidence that it is not a myth…”

Very important. The systematic extermination of Jews and others was real.

The creation of the mythic “Holocaust” for political purposes is not primarily a matter of facts but of the manipulation of human emotions over a story, a story that is part of the whole Jewish story of the troubles of the Chosen People. Because it is woven into the Christian mythos via the Bible, this story has even more power.

For what it is worth, my intention below was certainly not to defend Ratzinger. (I know nothing of the facts of his conscription or membership in Nazi Youth). I both pity and despise him. (good luck diamond!)  My intention was to lay out the hypocrisy of getting indignant over the the German people’s complicity in crime without looking at our own sorry record in the last 60+ years. 

The collapse of the Holocaust MYTH (not the dispute over the FACTS of Nazi extermination of Jewish and other populations in Europe) is, in my mind, related to the same. The US has its own WWII “Good War” in which we were the goodies and the Germans were the baddies. In combination with the emotional manipulation of westerners over the “Holocaust,” this has served to put the white hat on our own brutal war machine ever since WWII.

The death toll from Vietnam, South and Central America, Iraq, Afhanistan, Palestine, Africa easily tops 5 Million. These were all wars of choice for profit and control.

I am tired of having the Germans painted as some unusually morally deficient people who allowed their state to kill for land, resources and profit, that’s all. Morally deficient? Yes they were, but not unusual, unfortunately.

Report this

By Allan Gurfinkle, March 3, 2009 at 11:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Fisk disingenuously notes “This Cambridge-educated priest says he is prepared to “re-examine” the historical evidence of the Holocaust – but, needless to say, declines to visit Auschwitz.”

Perhaps the reason Williamson does not want to visit Auschwitz is the possibility that he might be arrested. See for example ...

Germany may arrest Holocaust row bishop


“Germany’s Justice Minister, Brigitte Zypries, confirmed yesterday that officials were considering issuing a European Union-wide arrest warrant for Dr Williamson, who flew into Britain earlier this week after being expelled from the Argentine seminary where he had been living for much of the past five years.”

Report this

By wadosy, March 3, 2009 at 9:46 am Link to this comment

it’s a peculiar way to make a living.

it’s likely that people never really “grow up”... they just learn, mostly the hard way, to disguise the fact that they’re still the same dismal little two-year-old egomaniacs they ever were.

so what we got here is a situation that eliminates the possibility of criticism… removes all requirements for self-control ... it’s like turning little kids loose in a candy store.

the chain of logic is real easy to understand: radical jews got immunity from criticism by exploiting the holocaust myth, and were able to exploit that immunity to justify massive injustice in the preservation of their country… not to mention their use of the holocaust to gain control of the most powerful military in the world.

now that peak oil and global warming threaten israel, now that the collapse of israel’s protector looms, it becomes even more important to protect the holocaust myth… more leeway will be needed because more atrocities will have to be committed.

we’ve already killed a million people, largely in defense of israel… what if we have to kill millions more palestinians and arabs and other muslims?

...are jews in danger of being displaced as the most persecuted people on earth?

from a radical jewish viewpoint, that’d be an even bigger tragedy than the holocaust itself, wouldnt it?

Report this

By Folktruther, March 3, 2009 at 9:17 am Link to this comment

Wadosy- There is no question that the Nazis made and implemented plans to exterminate the Jewish and Roma populations of Europe.  There is some question about numbers and, possibly, whether gas chambers were used.  the Holocaust has been mythocized by Zionism to justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, but there is abundant evidence that it is not a myth.

I agree however that something has gone haywire with the whole ideological truth tradition.

Report this

By Allan Gurfinkle, March 3, 2009 at 7:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By Folktruther, March 3 at 12:35 am #

.....The Nazis kept the exxtermination of Jews secret from the German people,

Well, they did better than that.  The links provided are to scans of the original documents showing contacts between the German High Command, the War Refugee Board, and the US State DepartmentThe communications were sent in anticipation of the Soviet capture of Auschwitz. What they show is that the Germans were in contact with the Allies, denying any plan to exterminate Jews or anyone else, and promising to protect the inmates from the advancing Red Army.
From: STETTINIUS acting for Department of State and War Refugee Board, Washington, D.C.
Dated: January 22, 1945, 10 p.m.
For: HUDDLE and McCLELLAND, Bern, Switzerland
Rec’d: January 22

Reference Department’s 192 of January 13, Irish Department of External Affairs, confirms that it inquired of German authorities concerning the rumor that Germans intended to liquidate the inmates at camps Oswiecim, Hoss, and Birkenau, and that the Germans replied that the rumor that it is their intention to exterminate the Jews in these camps is pure invention devoid of all foundation and that if the camps were to be abandoned their inmates would be evacuated.

Please request Swiss Political Department to inform German Government that the above reply of German authorities to Ireland has been noted by the Government of the United States, and that this Government accordingly expects that Jewish and other survivors of these and other concentration, detention, and labor camps in Germany and German-controlled territory will be kept alive by German authorities.

In view of the nearness of Oswiecim and Birkenau to the front, it is urgent that the above communication reach German authorities with the greatest possible speed.


The German response follows:
From: HUDDLE, Bern, Switzerland
Dated: January 20, 1945, 3 p.m.
Rec’d: January 20, 11 p.m.

As reported in Legation’s 6818 October 12 Germans issued press denial of any intention to exterminate inmates of Tuwiecim and Birkenau following contrary report brought out by Polish circles in London that time.

I have never been able to receive reliable confirmation of reports circulated that orders have gone out to SS controlling Jewish camps to kill all internees who cannot be evacuated in front of Allied advance.

Based on a great deal of fragmentary information collected during the past several months regarding Nazi policy toward Jewish deportees in camps and particularly in very recent statements.

Report this

By wadosy, March 3, 2009 at 4:14 am Link to this comment

Folktruther says:

“The Nazis kept the exxtermination of Jews secret from the German people”

...which might not have been that hard a secret to keep… seeing as how jews were not exterminated, the holocaust persecution myth is getting so frazzled around the edges, and jewish leaders forbid real investigations.

we have to assume that even jewish leaders themselves dont even believe in the “six million”, otherwise they’d be agitating for a real investigation to settle the matter once and for all, instead of trying to criminalize skepticism.

something’s haywire with this whole setup.

Report this

By Folktruther, March 2, 2009 at 8:35 pm Link to this comment

Gentlemen, please.  No reasonable person blames Ratso for being conscripted into the military, if indeed he was.  But he voluntarily JOINED the Hitler Youth League.  Whatever bullshit is now said about it.  I’ve know people who were members and it was a VOLUNTARY organization, like the Communst party or the Boy Scouts of America. You didn’t have to join it.

Gurfunkle is quite right.  The Nazis kept the exxtermination of Jews secret from the German people, as sourced, for example, in Chris Harman’s THE PEOPLE’S HISTORY OF THE WORLD.  It was done to increase the morale through the “victory” of destoying Judaism while the German army was losing.  It is childish and vengful to hold the German people responsible, just as it is the Amereican people for the rounding up, hassling and torturing of Muslims.  The responsibility is always one of power.

Report this

By Onello, March 2, 2009 at 5:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Stand back far enough for perspective and you see that all patriarchies are laughable yet useful to those who have a need to lord over others.

Report this

By diamond, March 2, 2009 at 3:30 pm Link to this comment

I don’t blame Ratzinger for being conscripted into the Wehrmacht as a teenager: I blame him for trying to take the Catholic church back to a pre-20th century mindset. Before the pill, before the social change of the sixties, before the sexual revolution, before the democratization of society, which we take for granted, thinking it can never be overturned or taken away. I blame him for being a reactionary as John Paul was before him. Why these people want to go back to that cold, grey era of conservative conformity is a mystery. Unless you factor in that it was an era of almost complete masculine control of society on every level and the heyday of church power and of ignorance and superstition amongst the parishioners. Then it’s not a mystery any more. We have a priest here at the moment fighting to keep control of his church because the Vatican has moved to evict him. Why? Because he allows the worshippers to basically run the Mass and allows gays to take communion like all the other worshippers. He allows women (heavens above!) to preach. He has refused to hand over the keys to the priest sent to replace him and his flock have basically occupied the church. It’s not about the Wehrmacht - it’s about whether the Catholic church will allow its members to move into the 21st century or whether it will fight to keep them living in the 19th century. Ratzinger is for staying in the 19th century, in fact his real preference is the medieval era. That pro-gay, pro-democracy priest said ‘The Vatican bullies the bishops and the bishops bully us’. Is this what Jesus would have endorsed? I don’t think so. He encouraged women to be leaders in his sect, though the Vatican has done its best to pretend he didn’t.

Report this

By Allan Gurfinkle, March 2, 2009 at 1:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Fisk’s article is remarkable for many reasons, one of which is his statement “For was this not the same Pope who actually visited Auschwitz and – to the understandable outrage of Jewish dignitaries who were present – blamed a Nazi “gang” for the Jewish Holocaust?”

For Fisk, it is not sufficient to blame a group of Nazis, or even the Nazis themselves, for the holocaust, it is the entire German nation that is guilty.  What is his evidence of this?  None is offered.  Consider the Nuremberg trial - only one of the twenty one defendants, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, was charged with any operational part in the holocaust.  He ‘confessed’ to nothing and testified that he learned of the holocaust from allied radio, see his testimony here ...

In any case there is not a shred of evidence that the general German population has any idea of the holocaust.

Report this

By Eso, March 2, 2009 at 10:15 am Link to this comment

omniadeo. Acts 11:26: “the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch”. However, in Bosnia, during the days of the Cathars (11th – 14th centuries and earlier), the name for “ordained clergy” was krstjan or krst (cross) + jan, whose office corresponded to that of the Cathar “perfects” in the then free country of Albigensia in southern France. The letter J is pronounced as Y. Source: Malcolm Lambert, “The Cathars”, Blackwell Publishing. In some European countries the name Krishyan continues to exists as a common name, not to mention its presence in the name of Krishna, the Indian God. In short, Jan or Yan is a cognate of Ian, John, Ivan, Johann, Huan, Giovanni, etc. The ian in Christ-ian is from yan, who is (and was) hid by changing his name to the inconsequential word ending—ian.

Once we get past the intended slips of the tongue with words, we are ready to discover (or at the very least consider) that ian in Ind-ian also stands for yan, thus, Ind + yan. Incidentally, Antioch was the first city of greater Palestine captured by the Franj (a colloquial Arab name for those (Vikings?) from France and perhaps other parts of northwestern Europe.

Report this
godistwaddle's avatar

By godistwaddle, March 2, 2009 at 7:47 am Link to this comment

The Holy Roman Catholic Church—impeding women, progress, science, and humanity since 300 C.E.  The various Protestant cults—impeding the same since 1517 C.E.

Report this

By omniadeo, March 2, 2009 at 7:08 am Link to this comment

I greatly value Robert Fisk. He has shone an invaluable light on Western efforts in the ME. And God knows I am no defender of Benedict, who is a disaster for the catholic Church. And I agree that the Bishop in question is a dangerous man. But some points here stick in my craw.

The record of Great Britain is second only to the Nazi’s in trying to conquer the world. It almost succeded because it used the slightly less brutal Roman rather than the Assyrian model of Empire. It was definitely responsible for death and destruction all over the world during the process. Including here. The US exists because of genocide. The conflicts in the ME, including Palestine, and Iraq, were seeded by British colonialism.

My point is that for any of us to excorciate a teenager for being conscripted into the Wehrmacht 70 years ago is a bit shabby. We just murdered a million (that’s right, a million) people in Iraq for oil. I’ll bet Fisk helped finance that, just like I did. (John Paul II, for all his many faults, spoke out forcefully against that war.) When Fisk does some jail time for tax evasion under our own US-Anglo Wehrmacht, I’ll pay more attention to his moralizing.

I abhor any effort to paint the peoples of Islamic countries as any more warlike than anyone else, but Jihad, as a term for struggle, “moral” and military, does in fact exist in the Koran. It is also true, that it is forbidden to use any trnslation of the Koran. Islamic culture without Arabic, and thus Arab culture, is impossible. Islam, just like Christianity, Judaism and all other religions, may have interpreters who de-emphasize and rationalize away its unhelpful teachings, but they are there, in every religion.

Report this

By omniadeo, March 2, 2009 at 6:33 am Link to this comment


Sorry, but the “ian” in ChristIANity has nothing to do with “Ian” which, as a name, is indeed a form of John. “Belgian,” “Indian,” “physician”—all have the same Latin suffix which is used to make an adjective from a noun. Also Constantinople was not even founded yet at the time of Jesus. The Roman governor of Judaea reported directly to the Roman Emperor and Senate.

Report this

By Eso, March 2, 2009 at 5:48 am Link to this comment

Folktruther. Not so speculative as unheard of. The unheard of makes better sense in this case than what passes for orthodox history. True, I do not source my info, but you may begin with Paul Wexler, professor of Linguistics at Tel-Aviv U., who writes on the origins of the Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews. The Crusades by Christians against Cross-Johns (also Krishjohns) in the West are well enough documented. One might remember that Joan of Arc (now rehabilitated) was burnt for trying to save France from Christians. Yes, some say it was all because of the English that the people rallied to her call. Speculating that this was not quite the case can lead one to some interesting insights on what really was going on.

Report this

By Rosemary Molloy, March 2, 2009 at 5:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Geez, I hope Melpo was being sarcastic.  If not—scary.

Report this

By Folktruther, March 2, 2009 at 4:17 am Link to this comment

a wee bit speculative, Eso.

Report this

By Eso, March 2, 2009 at 1:53 am Link to this comment

If one assumes that the religion of “Cross-carrying)-John” arose among the sadhus of Eastern Europe (those wierdos who still roll along the highways in chains and stand for months on their heads in India) and further assume that the word “cross” morphed into “christ” and John morphed into Ian, then it becomes easy to see how the word “Christ-ian”(ity) came into being.

The above sequence of events is implicitly admitted in the New Testament itself, what with John being displaced by Jesus, who was appropriated by Ratzinger’s predecessors. These predecessors or popes were the brothers of sword bearing princes and barrons, who—in order to save themselves from being killed by their brothers (Abel vs Cain, remember?)—agreed to fake spirituality and lead the people of the land “higher and higher” to impossible things. See the results in the warming of the oceans and meltdown of the polar ice caps as a result of their success.

Moreover, if we assume that Jesus was crucified (more likely burnt) in the late 12th century by a king of Constantinople (the headquarters eastern princes or Rome in the East), it becomes possible to see how Rome in the West is founded after Rome in the East is destroyed in 1204 by a Crusade originating in France.

Which assumptions leads us to conclude that Mohammed is just another name for John, re Johannmed, and that he, too, only came into being after Jesus was promoted to replace John, that is to say, sometime after the 13th or 14th centuries.

The history of Christianity is not some irrelevant religious fable as some letter writers insist, but leads toward the sacreligious secular society of our day, which is so helpless to do anything about its own instigated rape of the Earth. In short, the story of religion is a politically relevant story closely tied to secular politics; religion is politics at the highest level (call it psychological manipulation of the masses by the intelligence services).

As for Jews and Jerusalem, it is not difficult to imagine that they, too, had their beginnings in a caste of sadhus (Johns), who for whatever reasons of their own, became priviledged in the eyes of the secular kings. Some say they were the king’s tax collectors. Their priviledged status gained them breathing space at a time when Christians were engaged in eliminating the Cross-Johns (the Cathars in southern France and the Children of Johns in Eastern Europe, for example), who then rushed to convert to the priviledged caste in order to save their lives and not have to buy all the Christian pablum. This is roughly how the Ashkenazic Jews came into being in the East and the Sephardic Jews in the West.

Strange as the above may sound to the ears who have bought into the propaganda originated fairy-tale of an ancient Empire of Israel and Jerusalem (probably as a result of the 1881 pogroms in Russia against not only Jews, but the Ivans of the “old” orthodox church) as the Holy Land (Yaroslav = Jerusalem), this twist is closer to the truth than what we are used to hearing. Incidentally, this is why Hitler (a Catholic) in his mind’s eye killed the descendants of the Children of Johns or Cross-(carrying)-sadhus of Western Europe, and why WW2 will someday be seen as the last (or next to the last?) of Crusades.

Yes, there was a Holocaust, a hoped for “final solution” to the problem of all those sadhus and “outsiders” (Jews, Gipsies, homosexuals, pagans, small-time politicians, thumbling nations) who had survived the earlier Crusades. That story still awaits being told. Robert Fisk touches on, but skirts the background to his story. The judaized Jews (they have forgot that Zion morphs into John) no doubt were the largest suffering party of Hitler’s and Stalin’s Crusades against all dissidents or potential dissidents, but it was the Johns imbedded in their midst by conversions in preceding centuries that made them among the select.

Report this

By diamond, March 1, 2009 at 10:51 pm Link to this comment

‘Unfaltering disgust’ eh? Neat turn of phrase, Radson. As far as I’m concerned there’s no difference between a Nazi and a fascist and the definition of both a Nazi and a fascist is that they don’t believe the state exists to serve the people, they believe the people exist to serve the state. I’m a Catholic by birth and I know all about the Catholic church and it’s anti-democratic, anti-humanist agenda and I know all about John Paul who pushed such an agenda relentlessly. You’re seem to think a Nazi is necessarily someone who oppresses, imprisons and murders Jews but that was only a small part of their plan. They planned to create a global slave world where there was no such thing as human rights and democracy. A place very much like Guantanamo Bay, in fact, or what America will become if the neo cons ever get their hands on power again or if globalization and economic rationalism are not exposed for the frauds they are. The Vatican is a subversion of everthing Jesus stood for and the men who get the top job are okay with that. They are fascists,just like all the men who went before them. I don’t take back one word of what I wrote about John Paul, he was just the acceptable face of fascism, while for you and many others Ratboy is the unacceptable face of fascism because he’s not handsome and charismatic. A very superficial way of looking at the Vatican and its machinations.

Report this

By radson, March 1, 2009 at 6:24 pm Link to this comment

To Diamond

Do you actually know anything about Karol Wojtila.Are you sure that you wish to accuse him of being a Nazi, perhaps because he resided in Krakaw makes you assume that he was implicated

with what was transpiring in Oswiecim during the Shoah .Do you not know ,that there was more than one Shoah perpetrated in Polska during the war,or are you trying to rewrite history like several

of your dubious colleagues To compare Karol with Benoit is not accurate or justifiable ,they are unquestionably different.If your heroes are the likes of Jakob Berman and Ariel Sharon ,so be it ,but in

the meantime you should consider a trip to Polska ,in order to spread your beliefs. Im sure that they will welcome you and your fine comparisons with unfaltering disgust.

Report this

By onello, March 1, 2009 at 6:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is important that the truth is aired and debated in order to manage with civility the explosive anger which inevitably erupts (blind) from feeling manipulated by politics, special interests, the media or ALL religions.

Report this

By melpol, March 1, 2009 at 4:58 pm Link to this comment

Pseudo religious groupies have been grabbing the top of the catch for years. But a new age has dawned. 65 million loners have elected the supreme outsider. The distribution of wealth will now be spread evenly among all deserving Americans. Atheists, gays, odd balls, and all life styles are welcome to share the goodies. Love is everywhere. Even God is sharing the sky with his Angels.

Report this

By paul bass, March 1, 2009 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

isn’t the west in its enlighten ways supposed to be against monarchy
and a theocratic-kleptomaniac-pedophile one at that. just start charging them the taxes they owe for all their land and arrest all law breakers and the catholic church will disappear.

Report this

By diamond, March 1, 2009 at 2:49 pm Link to this comment

I find Ratboy hard to take but let’s not forget his predecessor, the handsome, smooth talking ex-actor John Paul who was as big a Nazi as Ratty any day of the week. He was the charmer who roared at the poor of Latin America to ‘Be quiet!’ when they dared to protest at one of his masses. This was after he told them they couldn’t use contraception or they’d burn in hell, even though there were gangs of feral children roaming the streets of their cities (who were regularly gunned down by the police when their numbers grew too large) because their parents couldn’t afford to feed them. Luther was horrified by the Vatican when he went to Rome. He’d never seen such corruption in his life and the contrast between the wealth and unbelievable luxury of the Pope’s lifestyle and the poverty and austerity of how Jesus lived is what made him nail that inflammatory document to the church door and cause Protestantism to be formed. I’m no fan of Protestantism either. It’s just as inhuman in its own way as Catholicism. They both put doctrine and ideology ahead of people. The Vatican’s just a club for wealthy people: as reactionary and unjust as any monarchy. Jesus would disown all of them.

Report this

By NYCartist, March 1, 2009 at 2:25 pm Link to this comment

Before I read the other comments, I shall make mine.

Thank you, Robert Fisk, for saying what others do not want to say.  I am an older Jew. (I point out that I am opposed to Israel and US policies in the middle east.) 

I always wondered why Christians hated Jews so much.  Half my best friends were Italian Catholic where I grew up in Brooklyn and totally accepted the Jewish half of the street/area (lots of intermarriages, but mostly in the 1950s the kids were brought up Catholic). But when I was in 2nd or 3rd grade,in the years right after WWII, my best
friend came home from parochial school (switching from public school in 2nd grade) and yelled across the street, to me, “The nun said today that you killed Jesus.”.  I called in the window to my mother in our apartment and said, “Did we kill Jesus?”.  “No”,she said.  So, I yelled back, “No we didn’t kill Jesus.”. And we all went about our running in and out of each other’s homes.  I grew up on Italian food and look Italian.

  When James Carroll’s book, “Constatine’s Sword” was published, I delved into it for the answer, why do Christians hate Jews?  If I may give my summary, it boils down to the fact that Jews haven’t accepted Jesus as Messiah.  The book is wonderful and so is the documentary based on the book.  Yes, it’s the James Carroll who writes for the Boston Globe, the peace man, a former priest.

  I am also a huge appreciator of Robert Fisk’s work, who I first heard on DemocracyNow  on WBAI, 99.5FM, NYC.

Report this

By Big B, March 1, 2009 at 2:05 pm Link to this comment

I find incredible that in the 21st century we still worry about what an invisible man in sky thinks. And to listen to a self appointed right hand to said invisible man in even more astounding.

Any catholic who attended church today and gave money to this criminal cabal is guilty of aiding and abetting child molestation.

And they all take birth control and personal ethics advice from a celibate ex-nazi. Jebus, no wonder the catholic church is in decline.

Report this

By Bubba, March 1, 2009 at 1:58 pm Link to this comment

I couldn’t agree more.  But I would like to add something more.  Ratzinger didn’t come out of nowhere.  He came out of his predecessor.  And that should make you wonder to what extent his predecessor may also have been a piece of work.

Report this

By Folktruther, March 1, 2009 at 1:24 pm Link to this comment

Pope ratso, who was a Nazi in his youth, appears to be trying to unite Catholic doctrine around a right wing base, including religious bigotry.  This worked in the case of US neoliberalism and Zionism, culminating in the kleptocapitalism and War on Terrorism of the Bushites.  A political disaster of course but, as a mostly ideological organization Ratso doesn’t have to worry much about the political implications.

So he can oppose birth control, Islam, free speech, etc to unite the right and simply ignore the chruch’s role in fostering the rape of children and the like.  This isolates him from the world, just as Zionism isolates Israel, but it strengthens him in dealing with his own organization.  Fortunately the Vatican doesn’t possess nuclear weapons.

Report this

By Bushfatigue, March 1, 2009 at 12:49 pm Link to this comment

His “holiness” was also the source of the Vatican directive, during the 2004 presidential election campaign, that Senator Kerry should not receive communion due to his pro-life views, nor should a Catholic voter support such a candidate, at the risk of sacrficing his own right to communion.  Like his friend George Bush, the Pope is quite a uniter, isn’t he?

“...Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger…elected Pope Benedict XVI….In a June 2004 letter to US bishops…specified that strong and open supporters of abortion should be denied the Catholic sacrament, for being guilty of a “grave sin.”

He specifically mentioned “the case of a Catholic politician consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws,” a reference widely understood to mean Democratic candidate Kerry….

The letter said a priest confronted with such a person seeking communion “must refuse to distribute it.”

A footnote also condemned any Catholic who votes for a candidate because the candidate holds a pro-abortion position. Such a voter “would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy communion,” the letter read.”


Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, March 1, 2009 at 11:29 am Link to this comment

Ratz has brought the whole sorided history of the Oppressive Vatican and it’s Papacies flooding back to the forefront of Humanities collective mind.
Having been Raised Catholic- But long since recovered- I Know Catholics themselves are not nasty people. Mostly just trying to live the lives with as much goodness in their hearts like any other person of faith. But the History of the Heirarchy in the Church is one of the evils of Absolute power.
Ratz is the ultimate embodiment of all that is wrong with religious Thrones.
As for Judgement about Sexism and Violence, Ratz should realize that Censorship Does not Reign Now- we not only have free access to various books about history (from ALL perspectives), But we have the open dialogue of the Internet.Nor that Dissent or Free thought can be easily destroyed by torturing,Burning or drowning it into Silence.
Jesus was a Jew who never renouced his Faith, just the Ruling Rabbis and those who were not following it’s doctrines.The Romans Killed Christ, at the request of the Rabbis. Two Truths the Roman Catholic Church never emphasized While I was a young impressionable member.Seems Jesus was far more against Religious Heirarchies than the Jewish Faith.Think He’d Rebell against the Reign of terror and heresy of the Catholic Vatican too? No Doubt about it!

Report this

By Jim Yell, March 1, 2009 at 10:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

First of all the Catholic Church should be like the physician “heal thy self”, but on to a tone of reflexive condemnation of Catholic religion and at the same time wishing to turn away critic of Islam.

Every close look at an Islamic country with the possible exception of Turkey which is not Arabic finds governments that are oppressive and murderous, or countries so divided that all the energies of the government and the groups are given to just trying to maintain some semblance of order and safety from day to day. Are we to believe that this doesn’t make a commentary into the merits of these societies?

Let me tell you of the mechanism which makes all of this claim of misunderstanding just so much silliness. The Royal Government of Spain after the Conquest of what is considered Latin America enacted the most progressive laws to protect and free the historic peoples of their new world holdings that one would have thought it a paradise for the original inhabitants, but there were no teeth in the law, no intention by the Spainish officials of these areas to change the slavery and theft of what had value. All the abuse continued.

I feel that giving the Moslems a free ride on this would be the same as acting as if the passing of these admirable laws were the same thing as virtue if they had been enforced.

Wherever Jihad orginated it is an integral and accepted force in Islam and as long as it remains mainstream in Islam one would be a fool to pretend otherwise.

As to the Catholics they should tend to their own followers and stop thinking they speak for the rest of us.

Report this

By radson, March 1, 2009 at 9:54 am Link to this comment

Do we mind disturbing the Priests , I guess we all do .Some people say (keep religion out of politics ,whilst others say keep politics out of religion).Through-out history religion has been probably the greatest cause

of death and destruction on planet Earth,regardless of which faith you support or denounce.Mammon is still the driving force, with regards to the strength of one religion compared to another,when considering the major religious families.The interpretation of the Holy scriptures may be a leading cause for argument between the scholars and all religions do not necessarily evolve with mankind’s own evolution at an equal pace.Yet regardless of which religion you hold dear ,or for that matter whether you adhere to one or not ,somewhere within everyone exists a subliminal comprehension that something or someone superior
exists.There are words that were spoken ages ago by Moses which still hold true today (The Ten Commandments) and I challenge anyone regardless of your religious faith to at least give them a thought.They are
simply logical,yet very difficult to follow.Why can’t we erect a Church that symbolizes all faiths where all would be free to pray.

Report this

By Shift, March 1, 2009 at 9:49 am Link to this comment

Let’s not forget the American Holocaust of one hundred million Native American deaths catalyzed by the issuance of the Papal Bull Inter Caetera.  The Catholic Church has neither apologized nor burned the Inter Caetera as is customary.  This is not to minimize the deaths of six million Jews, but let’s put this into perspective.

Report this
godistwaddle's avatar

By godistwaddle, March 1, 2009 at 9:46 am Link to this comment

Like George W. Bush, Ratzinger isn’t stupid; he’s evil.

I’m only 65, but every clergyperson I’ve ever seen was hypocritical, and either a pervert, a con-artist, or a social misfit.

Report this
photoshock's avatar

By photoshock, March 1, 2009 at 9:12 am Link to this comment

The very idea that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, is stupid does things that can be chalked up as erroneous and enigmatic.
Benedict XVI, is no stupid person, everything that he does and says is calculated and considered, yet everything that has happened since the inauguration of Benedict XVI, cannot and should not be considered as part of a plan to isolate him from the people.
Surely in the life of the Roman Catholic Church, there have been many such popes, ones for whom the seduction of power has overtaken their abilities and they have misused the power of the papacy to their own ends.
There is no doubt in my mind that Benedict XVI, is and has been the worst pope in many years, he has made a concerted effort to turn back the hands of the
church clock, to reverse Vatican II. He has chosen a path for the church that does not include the laity,
married priests and women priests. Yet this path cannot be proven to be a scriptural one.  For in the beginning of the church, there were women priests and married priests.  To this day, there are married priests in the Orthodox tradition, or as is sometimes
known the Eastern Rite churches.
Why then, did the Roman church choose the path of celibacy?  Historically, the rights of inheritance played a large part in this decision.  For as is common, once the man died, the women, would inherit the worldly goods of the man, and some became very rich through this means.  The Roman Church decided that all the worldly goods of its ministers should revert back to the church, therefore they could not have married priests in their fold.  Yet today, as we speak, serving communion are married priests and they have all the same rights and responsibilities as does a priest who chose celibacy.
I speak as one who chose not to join the priesthood, because of that pesky celibacy thing. Yet I believe that I could have made an excellent priest, even with
the option of being married.
Benedict XVI, is and was a walking anachronism! His papacy descends from a time when the popes were all powerful and held sway over the Western World. Given this viewpoint, there cannot but be, proclamations that are not in synch with the times. He lives in another world, one in which, he commands and people obey. This is not the case, American Catholicism and the people in the American Catholic church have minds
of their own and do not stand lightly for pronouncements from the Vatican that are against the consciences of those who continue to worship in the Catholic church.

Report this

By robertr, March 1, 2009 at 8:17 am Link to this comment

It is absurd that now, in the 21st century, it still matters what this man (the pope) says or does not say, thinks or does not think. Can it be any more obvious that religious belief is, for the most part, a destructive force in the world and that it limits the development of human potential? Unfortunately, many Catholics actually pay attention to the words of the pope, just as the followers of other religions listen to the words of their leaders. It is ridiculous. A Holocaust denier like Williamson cannot face the truth that is there for all to see, and the pope (and religious people around the world) cannot see that his faith does more harm than good. It is a shame.

Report this

By jackpine savage, March 1, 2009 at 7:30 am Link to this comment

There is a very good argument that Nazi anti-semitism was, in fact, an outgrowth of Catholic teaching rather than an aberration.

It goes all the way back to canon formation.  Crucifixion was a Roman penalty for high crimes against the state: desertion, treason, etc.

(Let’s just take the Bible at its word for now.) Certainly the Pharisees would have been unkind to Jesus, they were trying to walk a fine line between appeasing the Romans and not pissing off the Jews.  But the real problem was that Jesus was leading a movement that could be dangerous to state (i.e. Roman) control of Judea.  So they crucified him.

From a Jewish perspective, this would make him a hero.  But if you’re trying to sell Christianity to Romans it doesn’t sound so good.  Hence, you write it up so that the Jews get the blame and make it sound like Pilate was manipulated into killing Jesus.

But if it was really a Jewish matter, Jesus would have been stoned to death or some such punishment rather than getting a Roman crucifixion. 

What we have is revisionist history written as the word of God for the benefit of a defunct empire.  Catholic anti-Semitism is doctrinally necessary because it was a prerequisite of State favor from Constantine.  It ebbs and flows, but it should come as no surprise that the Church never spoke out against Hitler’s attempts to rid the planet of Jews. 

Benedict is of that school.  Remember that he re instituted the idea that Christians should work to convert Jews.  And his “apologies” have mostly been thinly veiled attempts to suggest that it was Nazi “paganism” that produced the Holocaust.  But the arguments that Hitler employed were nothing more than thinly veiled Catholic doctrine.

Report this

By Harris Foster, March 1, 2009 at 5:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Vatican with all it’s riches, is the biggest fraud known to man. The idea of a “Pope” is laughable. There is just G-d, every other man who receives reverence is a fraud…the Pope is a fraud and an insult to G-d….

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook