In a discussion in the greekforum, Joe Brennan wrote:

Are we really going to start blaming the Pope and the Catholic Church
for these massacres? I too, would like to know about the money that
was funneled into the Vatican Bank. But benefiting from an atrocity
and actually comitting it or ordering it are two different things --
the latter is a much graver sin. There were Fransiscan religious who
comitted crimes -- which I think is shameful -- but were the acting
more or less on their own or was every move coordinated from a secret
war room in the Vatican? I think the former. Of course the Vatican
praised the formation of a Catholic Croatian state, it's in charge of
the Catholic Church, after all. But most of those dottering old
turds were living in a world where Dalmatia was still a Roman
province. Stupid, boorish, insensitive, and vacilating? Yes.
Authors of genocide on the order of Hitler and Stalin? Hardly.

And while we're going around suing, let's sue the Russians and
Ukranians and Belorussians who massacred 14,500 at Katyn (the
10,000 "missing" were obviously killed, we just haven't found their
mass grave yet). Millions more died in other massacres or because of
the grinding poverty they were subjected to by their German and
Soviet conquerors. Where was the vaunted Russian Orthodox faith that
went underground during the Soviet Era. Shouldn't it have awakened
Russians soldiers to the evil that they were doing? Melt down every
ounce of gold in every Russian Orthodox monastery and church to pay
for their failure to properly form the consciences of their
faithful. Or perhaps we can try to forgive and learn and vow never
to let it happen again.

As far as the sainthood issue, I think that the current pope has been
far too hasty in canonizing saints. It is possible that when
information is uncovered showing that someone did not lead a saintly
life and never repented and amended his life, his feast can be
supressed he can be removed from the canon of saints. Frankly, I
think the pope has been relying on the word of others in declaring
saints. Politics has a lot to do with it -- and there are some very
unsavory red-robed politicians lurking in the Vatican. My advice:
write a letter to Congregation for the Causes of Saints. There
are "advocati diaboli" who are always looking to take down a saint or
a candidate -- it's their job.

surasev wrote in greekforum@yahoo.com:
IT IS EXHAUSTING TO WATCH PEOPLE FIGHTING ONE ANOTHER OVER RELIGIONS....EVEN MORE SO WHEN DIFFERENT SECTS OF THE SAME RELIGION (CHRISTIANITY) ARE BATTLING OVER WHO IS MORE RIGHTEOUS i DON'T THINK THIS IS WHAT GOD HAD IN MIND.

surasev wrote in greekforum@yahoo.com:
IT IS EXHAUSTING TO WATCH PEOPLE FIGHTING ONE ANOTHER OVER RELIGIONS....EVEN MORE SO WHEN DIFFERENT SECTS OF THE SAME RELIGION (CHRISTIANITY) ARE BATTLING OVER WHO IS MORE RIGHTEOUS i DON'T THINK THIS IS WHAT GOD HAD IN MIND.

The issue is not unpleasant arguments between Christians. The issue is genocide. You can be a Catholic and recognize the crimes of the Catholic Church. When I was a boy, my grandmother, a very devout Catholic, told me, with horror, of what had been perpetrated by the Ustasha party under the spiritual leadership of monks, priests, and bishops, in Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia.

The Russian Orthodox Church had nothing to do with Katyn and did not have chaplains in the ranks of Smersh or the NKVD. I regret advising you that the Catholic Church had chaplains in every Ustasha outfit, and provided essential support to the establishment of the Ustasha party. It was a clerical party, and the church supported it. Stepinac and other bishops saw the genocide against Serbia as an opportunity for the finals solution of the schismatic problem, as the Orthodox Church was seen.

I agree with Brennan that Stepinac was a fool, and that he did not order the killing to start in 1941. However, Pope Pius XII was no fool, and he did not object. When he chose to, he could be very authoritarian with his flock. He did impose excommunication on Catholics who voted communist, yet he never issued threats or excommunications to Catholics involved in the extermination of Serbs, Gyspsies, and Jews. The Roman Curia was fully aware of what was going on in Bosnia. The Pope decided to look the other way as his men covered themselves with the blood of the innocent. One telephone call from Rome would have put an end to genocidal lunacy in 1941.

It's too late now to wihdraw sainthood from Cardinal Stepinac. The damage has been done. In 1989 he was beatified in the heart of Yugoslav Catholics. Just as Pope was involved in starting WWI when he authorized and blessed Austria's aggression on Serbia in 1914, so Pope Wojtla kneeling in front of the wax statue of Stepianc was a major factor in creating the mood that gave us the Yugoslav Secession Wars.

In greekforum@yahoo.com. Joe Brennan wrote:


I have been reading as much on the issue as I have had time for lately (not much). While I have seen lots of evidence for Catholic involvement in Pavelic's genocide, including priests and some of the bishops who wanted to forcibly convert Orthodox to Catholicism, there were others who objected to the genocide. Unfortunately there was not much they could do. I sincerely doubt that a simple telephone call from Pius would have stopped anything for long. And how do we know that one was never made?

I'm not trying to portray the church as an innocent bystander in the war -- no one was completely neutral in that war, even Switzerland, as we have all seen. Yes, the church by sins of commission and sins of ommission participated in the taking of life. But I continue to resist the notion that massacres perpetrated by local, nationalist religious were coordinated top-down by the Vatican or even really approved of privately.

The Vatican helped Pavelic after the war, just as they helped Catholic Nazi war criminals. I think that this was more because they were Catholic and anti-Communist than an endorsement of fascism (although the Church did make it clear during the war that it preferred fascits to Communists, because the fascists at least were not atheist).

I know very well that the Orthodox Church had no chaplains at Katyn, much less any participating in massacres. But they did have clergy in Russian who failed to speak out against such things -- for the same reason that Pius often failed: to protect the church from a very powerful and often hostile regime.

The Stepinac issue brings us back to the same anti-Communist, pro-Catholic idea. Don't forget to throw in a post-Communist resurgence of Croation nationalism and the political pressure inside the Vatican that would originate from Croation clergy. With millions already having beatified someone in their hearts, as you said, how could
sainthood be refused? The church responds to causes advanced by its members. This pope has been very liberal with sainthood causes and has approved just about everything that has come his way. I think that everyone over-estimates how much of the process is in the pope's hands. Like every other modern leader with a lot to do, he
delegates. The last statement made with a declaration of infallibility was made in the 1950's regarding the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. There has been no claim to infallibilty in the Stepinac matter.

I believe that it was Cardinal Tisserant who, outside Pope Pius XII's study, during the visit of Archbishop Stepinac in Rome, is said to have raised his hands asking Christ, to make Himself heard "now if ever": he saw that Stepinac was winning the ear of Pope Pius. There were decent priests in Croatia and even good cardinals in Rome, but Pope Pacelli sided with psychopaths in the Croat church.

The Vatican took the same approach towards Croatia as Washington took in regard to the killing of priests and nuns in El Salvador or the genocide against the Catholic people of East Timor and Guatemala's Indios: it chose normal political "realism". I have no reason to doubt that both Pius XII and Reagan counseled moderation. Germany also advised moderation to the Ustasha government, and was opposed to the extermination of the Serbs. Hitler, however, thought of the war he had to win, just as Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr thought of the cold war they had to win, when they authorized full support for Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, the group in charge of Cambodian genocide, or of Gulbudin Hekmatiar, who specialized in throwing acid in the face of women in western dress in Kabul. By the way, Italian soldiers did more than counseling moderation: notwithstanding heavy diplomatic pressures, they excluded Eichman and the Ustasha death squads from Italian occupation areas and gave protection to Serbs, Gypsies, and Jews. Mussolini and his men thought the Ustasha to be psychotics, but those were allies, and Rome's influence was limited. Pope Pius had instead a very special relationship to Archbishop Stepinac: absolute power. All priests take a vow of obedience. Excommunication and schism were unthinkable for the Croat church hyerarchy in 1941.

I have no complaints about the Vatican helping ustasha and nazis to save their lives. They did that just like they had helped many Jews, it's part of the ancient church tradition of sanctuary, it would have been wrong not to help. In my own house Jews were hidden until May 1 1945, and a Gestapo officer and his family afterwards. No problem. I am talking about official praise for a genocidal regime and for the glorious struggle against the Allies. I am talking about allowing priests to join the death squads, I am talking about allowing a monk to be in charge of a death camp for Serbs, Gypsies, and Jews. I am talking about repeating the horrors of the crusades in the 1940's and starting all over in the 1990's.

No one demanded that the Pope place the Catholic Church in danger by confronting Hitler or making anti-nazi speeches. I am not talking about heroism, which by the way was displayed by thousands of Catholic priests in occupied Europe. I am talking about giving orders to save the church of Croatia from getting involved in genocide. To make things worse, Cardinal Stepinac, put on trial and confined to the village of his birth, was presented by the Vatican as a suffering martyr. After his death, his cult was tolerated and even fostered. In this way Rome paved the way to the denial of genocide in WWII, ethnic cleansing against Serbs in 1990 and 1991, and war.

This is not an exhausting fight over religion, Orthodox against Catholic. This is an argument that must take place, especially amongst Catholics, over whether we ought to reject the apologia of criminal religious leaders or whether we should prepare the ground for the next religious war.

Very good Matt, just one thing, regarding Italian soldiers:

"Italian soldiers did more than counseling moderation: notwithstanding heavy diplomatic pressures, they excluded Eichman and the Ustasha death squads from Italian occupation areas and gave protection to Serbs, Gypsies, and Jews."

That sounds to me like you'r trying to tell that Italy had a positive role in WW2, and that they protected Jews, Serbs and Gypsies. I am afraid the role of Italy was quite clear, and I know that many Italians still think that Italy had nothing to do with HItler and the Axis coalition. And Slovenia also witnessed the mighty terror of the occupation by Italian (as well as German) forces. And I can link this with the "Optanti" whom you'r trying to put as innocent people that lost their property. Well many did infact (in Slovenia and Croatia) but with a very good reason. It was only compensation for the destruction Italy did during it's occupation and the role of these people. And senator Torricelli is defending those same people, and the likes of Fini, Bossi and Berlusconi must be very happy. Fascists even getting international recognition and support from influentual USA senators. Wonderful.

Please don't get me wrong, I have absolutely nothing against Italians, and I know you'r part Italian :), but I do think that some people in Italy are conveniently forgetting some facts, some very unpleasant ones. And the current government is embodying those very elements, sorry to say so. I am expecting a fierce response from you

Blaz is right, the role of Italy in the Balkans was that of junior partner in a gang of thugs. We invaded your country and committed all sorts of horrors.

What I said was that principled generals in the Italian army, against orders from Rome, excluded Eichman and the Ustasha from their occupation areas. Rome ordered cooperation and the generals ignored the orders. Berlin complained, and diplomatic notes were issued in which Rome promised again and again to overcome the "sentimentalism" of Italian generals.

Result: Italian occupied areas, such as the Alpes Maritimes district in France, Slovenia, Macedonia, and Kosovo became refuge for Jews. The Italians also did their best to protect Serbs and Gypsies, while the Germans in their occupation areas had a more laissez-faire attitude towards Croat and Albanian nazis.

As for the optanti, ethnic cleansing is not justified by previously done harm, even if we are dealing with aggressor nations, such as Italians or Germans. Otherwise we could justify the expulsion of everyone from every country.