Pot and Kettle Call Each Other ‘Blessed’
Pope Benedict XVI angered many Jewish leaders by uttering kind words for Pope Pius XII last week. Pius XII was the controversial pope during World War II, who many believe did nothing to fight against Hitler’s Germany to save Jews from Nazi death camps. The issue has sparked great emotion from Holocaust survivors due mainly to the eminent beatification of Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II. Simply put, Pope Benedict’s kind words Venerate the individuals in question and signal his endorsement of continuing the process toward beatification and finally, sainthood.
Pope Pius XII
Non-Catholics are free to conjecture the proceedings but technically, Catholics are obliged to accept the Pope’s words due to the principle of “Papal Infallibility.” This Catholic doctrine states that the Pope is incapable of error. This is the point where not being Catholic is a plus since I reserve the right to disagree with anyone about anything at any time.
The role that individuals across the political spectrum played in WWII will be debated by historians perhaps forever. I think a more interesting story is how a Pope, who is bound to have the most zealous sycophants in the world (outside of Islam that is), can be nominated to receive the highest postmortem honor the religion recognizes—sainthood. This essentially means that the person can be revered and prayed to forever—sort of like Elvis.
The question is, is it appropriate for popes to participate in nominating other popes for an honor that in their view affects everyone of Christian faith? Is there a conflict of interest? Before answering consider that Pope Benedict XVI served directly under Pope John Paul II, who was nominated immediately after his death. The rules of beatification impose a waiting period following the passing of an individual so that the emotion evoked by the loss will not play a part in the nomination process. Those who loved Pope John Paul II vowed to wait the minimum time period and then nominate him as soon as they were able to—and so they did.
Let’s look at some analogous examples to compare our reaction relative to the Popes:
Example 1: Baseball’s Hall of Fame includes such names as Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, and Reggie (Mr. October) Jackson. Suppose the Commissioners of Baseball began nominating each previous commissioner for induction? Would that be a conflict of interest? Okay, not the best example but you get the point.
Example 2: Suppose each new President used his pardon power to protect previous Presidents and their administration from prosecution of crimes committed? Might upset a few people no? Huh, what’s that? Oh, I’m being told that has happened already.
The question at hand is when one pope assists another pope in the canonization process, is it appropriate? Or is it a case of, ‘their sandbox, their rules?’ Is the structure of the Catholic Church still relevant in today’s world or do things like this lower its credibility?
The Pope once held great power. Does he still? The Pope must still be a man after all. Will girls continue to play in the boy’s sandbox where the rules favor boys? It is 2009 after all…but that’s a discussion for another sandbox.
Comments
Related topic: Is Society Outpacing Religion?
I do not resemble any type of saint, so my opinion is that of an outside observer. This smells bad. It is bad enough to have an infallibility clause in your job description but to be able to lay the groundwork for this political-style spin is outrageous. The record of Pius XII is not unclear. This is an issue where he has been found to be lacking in human rights conviction and such ambiguousness should be reason enough to halt any sainthood process.
I realize that the Holocaust was bad, but does all of WWII have to be put forever in that context? Pius XII was not elected Pope to fight for Jews. I agree he should have spoken against what happened to them but people speak about him as if he were the Gestapo at Auschwitz. Exactly what power do you supposed he had–in the middle of occupied Italy?
Besides, Jews are not innocent. They have their own little Auschwitz going on in Gaza and the West Bank right now. One would think they’d be against the sort of thing they are doing there.
I am not sure what part of WWII that I should view in a lesser degree of historical importance. I have no intention of allowing my grandkids to let this particular piece of history repeat itself because of a movement to lessen its effect.
You assert that Isreal is operating a death camp on the West Bank. Do me a favor and point me in the direction of this fact. After all, I would not want to make wild accusations about such an important issue.
Dude, all the shanty towns they call “refugee camps” in the occupied territories are supposed safe zones that the UN has recognized for 40 years. The Palestinians were supposed to live in temporary refugee camps until peace deals could be finalized and real cities built. 40 years later those people are still living in the same refugee camps with their movements restricted by the Israelis.
Meanwhile the Israelis steal the best Palestinian land and evict the Palestinians at will. When Palestinians protest they are shot dead. If they retaliate then they are terrorists in which case they are shot dead and their friends and relatives are bombed as accomplices.
Make no mistake. The Palestinians are all concentrated in these camps for the convenience of their overlords. They have no rights. If an ethnic group is concentrated in camps what do you call that again?
Of course we are told that the terms “concentration camp” and “Holocaust” are no longer English terms but have been forever reserved for the use of one group for one purpose. No one ever asked my opinion of that so I can use those terms as I choose.
Don’t take my word for it. Read Jimmy Carter’s book “Palestine.” He goes over the whole history objectively. Because he attempted to be even-handed, he was branded an anti-Semite by many Jewish advocates in the US. This is laughable considering Carter’s pedigree on the issue. I mean, with the whole Nobel Prize and Camp David Accords and so forth…
I read this book. You are correct, it is quite illuminating. I also read his latest book on the subject called, “We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land.” I assume you read this one as well since he describes early in the book how some of his former friends in Israel were outraged that he discussed the Palestinian perspective in his previous book. He says they accused him of being an Arab sympathizer. He says it was particularly hurtful because he has known some of these people since the early 70′s. I’ve heard other journalists and activists say the same thing about being branded an anti-Semite for not backing 100% of the Israeli position on middle-east issues. 99% is not enough. Jimmy Carter said he had heard that simply questioning Israeli policy is enough to brand you an enemy of the State of Israel and an anti-Semite but he didn’t believe it until it happened to him.
On the other hand, Bro is right that we cannot diminish the lesson learned from Nazi atrocities. At the same time it is no more reasonable to expect every German to be eternally accountable for this today than it is to expect White Americans to pay reparations to American minorities for atrocities perpetrated against them. Every time that subject comes up you have a political firestorm from left AND right (but mainly right) about how White Americans of today are not responsible for slavery, or the slaughter of Native Americans, or back-stabbing Mexicans to steal their land, and on and on. So why does Benedict XVI have to answer for Nazis if he did not participate? You know the first headline I read online after his nomination as Pope was announced? “Sig heil Hail Mary! It’s a Kraut!” (no kidding)
Just a bit unfair perhaps?
Oh yea, I also agree that the word holocaust DOES in fact have other applications and should not be reserved for this use alone. I think that anyone who follows politics has seen someone attacked for using the word in any other context. I also think that the term anti-Semite has absolutely no meaning any more since it has been so watered down by people who throw it around like a Frisbee. You can question the US government, the French government, the Canadian government. Is the Israeli government not subject to the same scrutiny? How can any government be beyond question? If you brand anyone who questions a government an anti-Semite, have you not just diluted the meaning of the term beyond any practical use? I criticize the Israelis all the time. If that makes me an anti-Semite…well, I’m okay with that.
This is what I like about the internet. I am in the process of reviewing The book and even though I am not prepared to assert the death camp connotation to the refugee camps, I cannot in any way defend the situation that exists. I do not really care whether I get labeled anti semitic because I know it not to be true. I disagree with the conditions there and that is purely a human consideration. The facts are ugly and irrefutable. So any opinion that would categorize my views negatively would first need to address these facts.
You can use whatever term or phrase that you want to in order to convey your thoughts. We are adults, not cogs of some machine.
As far as Pius XII is concerned, holy men are not just men because they have chosen that path in life for their convictions and callings. This makes them responsible for the moral stance of the events of their times. In this light if you do not disagree, then you agree. Not rising to the occasion in that important time, whatever the reason, places him on a much lower level than “saint”.
“Not rising to the occasion in that important time, whatever the reason, places him on a much lower level than ‘saint’.”
I am compelled to agree with this last statement. A wise man once said, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.”