Another Setback For Pius XII

[goofyfish]

The present Pope has long been rather keen on beatifying then canonizing one of his predecessors, Pius XII. There has been considerable controversy about the then Pope's alleged anti-Semitism and the adequacy of his efforts during the War.

Now there are claims (Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, Guardian, Independent, and only a few others at present), originally published in an Italian newspaper (Corriere della Sera) that Pius XII attempted to prevent child survivors of the Holocaust being returned to their parents. Amongst other things:

If the children have been entrusted [to the Church] by their parents, and if the parents now claim them back, they can be returned, provided the children themselves have not been baptized. It should be noted that this decision of the Congregation of the Holy Office has been approved by the Holy Father.

It seems to me that John Paul II's attempt to fast track his pet candidates for sainthood is one of the most telling and ugly features of his reign. He seems bent on anti-liberalism, which may indeed stem from belief and respect for tradition, but then to throw tradition out the window as he has done in this case shows that he doesn't care about tradition, only about getting his way.

:m: Peace.

 

[okinrus]

There's a difference between anti-semetism and Pope Pius' beliefs and practices on baptism. Furthermore, I'd think if a couple did indeed attempt to win back their children, and the church refused because their children were baptized, there would be some public outcry.

 

[Leo Volont]

The problem I have with the Pope's recent spate of Beatifications and Canonizations is that they seem to me to be diluting what it is a Catholic thinks of as a 'Saint'. The Pope is advancing these candidates merely because they were doctrinally 'good' Catholics. That seems awfully political. But Historically we understand Saints to be those who are especially Graced by God, and they evince this with Miraculous Powers. The most recent Saints have had the thinnest instances of any miraculous powers. Such Saints do not deserve to be placed side by side with a Francis of Paola or a Francis of Assisi, an Anthony of Padua, a Dominic, a Vincent Ferrer, a Joseph of Copertino.

You know, the Way the Church should look at it is that God choses who Saints are. God pickes His Own Saints and shows it by giving them God-like Powers. The Church's job is only to identify and acknowledge those instances. But instead, the Church has made Sainthood little more than an 'Employee of the Month' kind of thing.

Anyway, it won't concern us for much longer. The Church is coming to an End. Saint Malachi, in the Eleventh Century predicted all future Popes, and guess what? The line of Popes come to an end. John Paul II is the last pope. There will be an assassinated Pope, and then a disputed Pope and then an Anti-Pope, but all of that will simply be background noise on the wider and more serious occurances of End Time Catastrophes... all of which we will see in the next 8 years. When the present Pope, John Paul II, dies, it is the beginning of the End. Watch out!

 

[one_raven]

Furthermore, I'd think if a couple did indeed attempt to win back their children, and the church refused because their children were baptized, there would be some public outcry.

They shouldn't have been REQUIRED to "win them back"!

Anyway, it won't concern us for much longer. The Church is coming to an End. Saint Malachi, in the Eleventh Century predicted all future Popes, and guess what? The line of Popes come to an end. John Paul II is the last pope.

I'd love to read up on this. I've never heard of it.
Could you please offer a source?
Thanks.

 

[Leo Volont]

I'd love to read up on this (St. Malachy's Prophecies of Future Popes to the End of Time). I've never heard of it.
Could you please offer a source?
Thanks.

http://www.dayofgod.net/Malachy/malachy.htm

http://www.catholic-pages.com/grabbag/malachy.asp

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12473a.htm#malachy

These sites ought to give you as much background as you should ever wish to have. The one is amusing because the author thinks that because Malachy includes the non-Roman 'Avignon and Schismatic' Popes it indicates that the prophecies probably are not genuine. Is just shows that being stupid does not prevent one learning spelling and grammer, and that stupid people can write the most ridiculous things... Malachy's List should not be limited to some specific set of historically approved Popes... it simply includes all of the Popes.

I myself never got caught up in the fervor of treating Rome as an especially sacred city. Afterall, the Greatest Saint in all of History thus far was sponsored by the Avignon Pope -- Vincent Ferrer, a Dominican, an Order that also sided with the Avignon Popes. The Roman faction won out against Avignon only to lose all of Christendom in the Protestant Civil Wars that they were poorly positioned to win to seriously fight. Had the Popes maintained a strong strategic hold in France, as they did at Avignon, we would still have a Christendom today. We would not have had a destructive 30 Years War, the fragmentation of Europe into warring states, the French Revolution would have stayed in some ugly parallel universe, and the Napoleanic Wars as well as the bloodbaths of the 20th Century would not have occurred.

So the Church had won Rome only to lose the World... and then they could hardly hold Rome. The Vatican is not Rome. Few people realize that the Italian Nation rose up in War against the Catholic Church and confiscated the Papal Territories from the Church -- essentially stealing much of Northern Italy from direct Papal Jurisdiction. The Vatican is little more than where the Pope is placed under a kind of House Arrest by the Italians.

So I think that there would probably be a better argument that the legitimate line of Pope's followed the honest election of the Avignon Pope's and that the Roman Pope's, considering their bad luck and lack of Grace, represent something of a descent of a curse. Anyway, its almost over.

 

[okinrus]

They shouldn't have been REQUIRED to "win them back"!

To catholics, baptism is a vow to remain in the Church. For infants, because they cannot consent to this vow themselves, they should only to be baptized if their parents raise them Christian. Jewish children shouldn't have been baptized unless if they were to be raised within the Church. My second point was that unless if their was some sort of public outcry, at the time this occurred, then either the Jewish parents weren't looking for their children--unlikely--or the letter was misconstrued--very likely, I think.