Russian version
Pius attacked for not confronting evil, Benedict attacked for confronting evil
- Информация о материале
- Автор: Dennis Prager
Jewish World Review Sept.
26, 2006 / 4 Tishrei, 5767
Among the most heated debates of the last 40 years has been the debate
over Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust. What did he do when the greatest
evil of his day engulfed Christian Europe? Was he "Hitler's Pope," as the
name of a widely read book about him charged? Was he too reticent in speaking
out against Nazism and the Nazi extermination of Europe's Jews? Was he
perhaps even a Nazi sympathizer? Or was he in fact a great friend of Europe's
Jews who did whatever he could to save tens of thousands of Jews, especially
in Italy, opening up the doors of Church institutions to hide Jews?
It is not my aim here to offer an answer to that debate. But the attacks
on Pope Benedict XVI may help shed new light on some of the motives for
the attacks on Pius XII. It is true that we have always known that most,
if not all, of Pius's critics were/are on the political/religious Left.
But this no more discredited their critiques of Pius than the fact that
the vast majority of Pius's defenders were on the political/religious Right
discredited their defense.
But recently the critics have lost credibility. If the same people
who attack Pope Pius XII for his silence regarding the greatest evil of
his time are largely the same people who attack Pope Benedict XVI for confronting
the greatest evil of his time, maybe it isn't a pope's confronting evil
that concerns Pius's critics, but simply defaming the Church.
After all, has not Benedict done precisely what Pius's critics argue
that Pius, and presumably any pope, should have done — be a courageous
moral voice and condemn the greatest evil and greatest manifestation of
anti-Semitism of his time?
Take The New York Times editorial page, for example. It is written
by people who condemn Pius for his alleged silence and now condemn Benedict
for not being quiet. According to the Times, Benedict will only create
more anti-Western Muslim violence. But that was exactly the excuse defenders
of Pius XII so often offered for why Pius XII did not speak out more forcefully
— that he was afraid it would only engender more Nazi violence. Yet Pius's
critics have (correctly) dismissed that excuse out of hand.
Another example is Karen Armstrong, the widely read ex-nun scholar
of religion. She has written of Pius XII that his "apparent failure to
condemn the Nazis has become a notorious scandal." Moral and logical consistency
suggest that she would welcome a pope who did confront today's greatest
evil. But she has joined those condemning Pope Benedict. She wrote (putting
these arguments in the mouths of affronted Muslims with whom she sympathizes):
"the Catholic Church is ill-placed to condemn violent jihad when it has
itself . . . under Pope Pius XII, tacitly condoned the Nazi Holocaust."
The argument is so illogical that only those who attended graduate
school or Catholicism-bashers could find it persuasive. First, how do you
condemn the silence of one pope when confronted with the greatest evil
of his time and condemn another pope when confronting the greatest evil
of his time? Second, if indeed the Church is guilty of condoning evil in
the past, why does that render it "hypocritical" (her term for Benedict's
condemnation of Islamic violence in God's name) to confront evil in the
present? If my grandfather was a murderer, am I a hypocrite for condemning
murder?
And as expected, the author of the above-mentioned critique of Pius
XII, "Hitler's Pope," John Cornwall, has also condemned Pope Benedict,
describing the pope's words about Muhammad and Islamic violence as "incendiary"
and "abrasive" (presumably calling Pius XII "Hitler's Pope" is neither
incendiary nor abrasive); and writing disparagingly of Benedict "having
said that dialogue with Islam was difficult."
The pope could have chosen a better way to warn about Islamic violence
in God's name than by citing a Byzantine emperor's sweeping indictment
of Muhammad and Islam. But he had the courage to do precisely what the
critics of Pius XII bitterly complain Pius XII did not do — use the power
of religion and the prestige of the papacy to focus the world's attention
on the greatest evil and greatest outburst of Jew-hatred since the Holocaust.
I have followed the arguments surrounding Pius XII and his behavior
during the Holocaust all my life, and as a newly appointed member of the
United States Holocaust Memorial Council, I particularly feel the need
to attain clarity on this issue. But the condemnations of Pope Benedict
by virtually every major critic of Pius XII lead me to wonder whether the
critics really want popes to confront evil or just want popes to think
like they do.
© 2006, Creators Syndicate
Russian version
Russian version
An introduction to MAOF
Haim Goldman
Haim Goldman
Dear Friends,
Would you believe that the undersigned has anything in common with
-- Professor Victor Davis Hanson (Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University),
-- Dr Charles Krauthammer, (Washington Post, Time, The Weekly Standard),
-- Caroline Glick (Deputy Managing Editor of the Jerusalem Post),
-- Jonathan Tobin (Executive Editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent).
Amazingly, the editors of the MAOF website decided that the missives of the undersigned are worthy of translation and posting along the articles written by these distinguished authors.
The first letter was published without the consent of the undersigned.
However, after thorough examination of the laudable attitude of MAOF and of the excellent contents of the website, the undersigned had most graciously granted his permission for publication of his missives in both English and Russian.
“Analytical Group MAOF” [1] is an organisation founded about ten years ago by Russian-speaking Jewish intellectuals. The attitude of MAOF is definitely pro-Zionist -- unambiguously and unapologetically.
One of MAOF’s primary purposes is providing information and analysis about Middle-Eastern and world affairs as well as about Israel’s history, values and dilemmas. In addition to extensive publication activity in various media, MAOF also organises excursions and seminars. While the vast majority of the contents of the MAOF website is in Russian, texts originally written in English are provided in the original [2] as well as in Russian.
There are arguably about 250 millions of Russian-speakers worldwide and many of them do not read English. The indisputable motivation for the author’s permission was to grant those millions of disadvantaged people the grand benefit of reading the author’s ruminations. If the author is ever maliciously accused that his tacit motivation for authorising the publication was his craving to be listed along with the above-mentioned distinguished writers, his plea will definitely be “nolo contendere”.
The editors of MAOF expressed their gratitude by granting the undersigned a privilege that no other author got – the opportunity to review and correct the Russian translation before publication. The original letters of the undersigned are at [3] and their Russian version is at [4]. At of today, only two letters are posted but several other letters are pending translation.
You are kindly ENCOURAGED TO RECOMMEND the MAOF website to your friends and colleagues worldwide, particularly those who speak Russian. Those who do not enjoy the benefit of proficiency in the exquisite Russian language can find many thought-provoking and inspiring articles about Middle-Eastern and world affairs in the English section [2].
Sincerely,
Haim Goldman
28.10.2006
REFERENCES:
[1] http://maof.rjews.net
[2] section.php3? sid=37&num=25
[3] authorg.php3? id=2107&type=a
[4] authorg.php3? id=2166&type=a