You said, "None of us will rest in the face of revisionism no matter how pleasant the face." Amen to that, which is why I rise to Pius' defense when those ignorant of history spout slander about a good man. I'm no more a Catholic paranoid than you are a Jewish paranoid. As a matter of fact, I am a Catholic convert, and in the course of examining the faith I became familiar with a lot of its history, including Pius' efforts before and during WWII, which I have already partially laid out for you. I will not tolerate slander of a good man, whether he is a Catholic, a Jew, or whatever. However, our culture is still quite eager to slander Catholics, but now only Louis Farrakhan [?sp] can get away with slandering Jews.
You have still not explained how you would have done better than Pius in using his "power and resources". I will not dispute that he was one of the most influential men in the world at the time, but certainly there were a score or so with more practical power, two of whom could lay their hands on him and his entire curia at their whim [Adolph and Benito]. Once imprisoned [or dead], how would Pius exercise his power and influence? How would he have saved tens of thousands of Italian Jews from a prison cell? In the face of the overwhelming evil of Nazi Germany, over whom he had no direct influence or power, he did what all men of good conscience in occupied Europe did: he persevered and did as much good as humanly possible.
Could he have opposed Hitler earlier? Don't forget that of all Western leaders only Churchill saw Hitler's evil clearly from the start. Perhaps Pius wasn't as smart as Churchill, but then, neither are you or I.
No, he wasn't perfect, but he clearly deserves better consideration from those who are ignorant of the facts. That's what I demand. If I see a post from someone who from willful ignorance denies the holocaust I will try to set them straight, too. No revisionism. |
