Register to Comment
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Brenny Brenny is offline
    Brenny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,397

    Nazis vs Catholic paedophiles

    Sorry if this has been posted already, I looked but couldn't find a thing about it on the site.

    I thought this might be of interest to anyone curious about the history of child abuse in Catholic Europe. Many have wondered if and when did anyone ever try to tackle the problem in the past. Was any government ever virtuous enough to face down the power of the Catholic Church over this issue?
    Well it seems there was, the good old National Socialists of 1930s Germany. The author of the following article attacks the old master of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, but the whole article itself is tinged with propaganda and spin and seeks to subtly equate opponents of the church with nazism. At the same time many members of the German clergy were strong opponents of the nazis and that is pointed out here and should be acknowledged, but many will feel that Pope Pius was not as opposed to Nazism as he could and should have been.

    Goebbels and the pedophile priests operation, by Massimo Introvigne

    In 1937 the Nazi propaganda minister organized a campaign to discredit the Catholic Church in response to the encyclical ‘Mit brennender Sorge.’ The head of the German military’s counter-espionage unit, Wilhelm Canaris, passed the documents to Pius XII.

    “There are cases of sexual abuse that come to light every day against a large number of members of the Catholic clergy. Unfortunately it’s not a matter of individual cases, but a collective moral crisis that perhaps the cultural history of humanity has never before known with such a frightening and disconcerting dimension. Numerous priests and religious have confessed. There’s no doubt that the thousands of cases which have come to the attention of the justice system represent only a small fraction of the true total, given that many molesters have been covered and hidden by the hierarchy.”

    An editorial from a great secular newspaper in 2010? No: It’s a speech of May 28, 1937, by Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945), Minister of Propaganda for the Third Reich. This speech, which had a large international echo, was the apex of a campaign launched by the Nazi regime to discredit the Catholic Church by involving it in a scandal of pedophile priests.

    Two hundred and seventy-six religious and forty-nine diocesan priests were arrested in 1937. The arrests took place in all the German dioceses, in order to keep the scandals on the front pages of the newspapers.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #2
    Kilbarry1 Kilbarry1 is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,800

    Quote Originally Posted by Brenny View Post
    Sorry if this has been posted already, I looked but couldn't find a thing about it on the site.

    I thought this might be of interest to anyone curious about the history of child abuse in Catholic Europe. Many have wondered if and when did anyone ever try to tackle the problem in the past. Was any government ever virtuous enough to face down the power of the Catholic Church over this issue?
    Well it seems there was, the good old National Socialists of 1930s Germany. The author of the following article attacks the old master of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, but the whole article itself is tinged with propaganda and spin and seeks to subtly equate opponents of the church with nazism. At the same time many members of the German clergy were strong opponents of the nazis and that is pointed out here and should be acknowledged, but many will feel that Pope Pius was not as opposed to Nazism as he could and should have been.

    Goebbels and the pedophile priests operation, by Massimo Introvigne
    Indeed. The following is from the thread "The Fellow-Travellers: 'Liberals' Supporting Dictators":
    http://www.politics.ie/history/10292...tators-10.html

    I have now posted the FULL texts of the letters published by O'Casey and Shaw in the British press in October/November 1939, urging the British Government to make peace with Hitler. Of course neither of them had to deal with the Nazis face to face - and the same applies to John Charles McQuaid. As to which of these three Irishmen would have handed such a situation best, the following should be of interest. ...........

    CHILD ABUSE, THE NAZIS AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

    The following is an extract from Michael Burleigh's book 'Sacred Causes: Religion and Politics from the European Dictators to Al Qaeda'. Burleigh is a leading historian who has taught at Oxford, the London School of Economics etc. His book explores the attitude of the churches to totalitarian dictatorships and the attitude of such dictators as Hitler and Stalin to the Catholic Church in particular.

    "[In Nazi Germany in the 1930s] the state used various forms of chicanery to close Catholic homes and institutions. These ranged from adversely changing their charitable tax status to using the Gestapo to suborn children to make accusations of sexual abuse against those in charge of them.

    "Between September 1933 and March 1937 [the Vatican] secretary of State Pacelli signed over 70 notes and memoranda protesting against Nazi violations of the Concordat [1]. The Nazis almost immediately began chipping away at the autonomy of Catholic lay organisations which had apparently been secured by the Concordat..........

    "In the mid-1930s these various measures were given a more vicious accent by Government sponsored campaigns involving those old standbys of money and sex. ......Well publicised investigations into these currency violations in turn triggered denunciation of the Catholic clergy for mostly homosexual but also paedophile offences. Between May 1936 and July 1937 there were 270 prosecutions of such men, of whom 170 monks and 64 priests were convicted. A major trial was held in Koblenz in May 1936 which resulted in the conviction of past and present members of a lay nursing order, most of the evidence coming from a former member of the order who had joined the SD [SS Security Service]. The intervening Olympic Games led Hitler to drop further trials, which were resumed with a vengeance after Pius XI's encyclical 'Mit Brennender Sorge' was released in early 1937.

    Hitler immediately the Ministry of Justice to give priority to these 'morality trials'. The Ministry of Propaganda urged the press to treat these trials as evidence of pervasive perversity within the Catholic Church. The press, and caricaturists in particular, had a field day with illicit intimacies in the confessionals or tubby monks whose capacious cassocks concealed several pairs of dainty feet. That summer Nazi publications also attacked secretary of state Pacelli, accusing him of using a visit to Liseux in France to organise the 'moral encirclement' of Germany with the aid of 'friends' in the French Communist Party who were shown holding his cloak. [2] ......

    "Tendentious reporting [3] of a small number of sex crimes (involving mainly lay staff) in Catholic boarding schools or religious houses enabled members of the Government to claim that the Catholic Church was awash with sex fiends. There were few holds barred in gathering the evidence, which involved the SD and Gestapo interviewing disgruntled religious drop-outs, ex-pupils and orphans, with offers of sweets alternating with a head bashed into a wall or the threat of concentration camp to secure the appropriate testimony. On this basis minister for the Churches Kerrl could claim that 7,000 clergy had been convicted of sex crimes between 1933 and 1937, whereas the true figure seems to have been 170, of whom many had left the religious life prior to their convictions. The deliberate inflation of statistics was a favoured Nazi device for ramping up hysteria [3], as they would do in 1939 when they turned 5,000 ethnic German victims of the Poles whose country the Nazis had invaded into '50,000'. There was no reporting of similar sexual transgressions involving members of Nazi formations.
    "

    The above extract is from Chapter 3, sub-section 111 of Burleigh's book, the part entitled 'The Catholic Church and German National Socialism'.

    Notes:
    [1] This is Eugenio Pacelli, who became Pope Pius XII in 1939. According to John Cornwell (and other 'liberal' commentators) he was 'Hitler's Pope'. (Cornwell's book of that name was published in 2000).

    [2] So the Nazis accused the future Pope Pius XII of being a friend of Communists whereas 'liberals' accuse him of being soft on Nazis! I recall that George Orwell once said that Nazis and Communists have more in common with each other than either has with a democrat!

    [3] Regarding "tendentious reporting" and "ramping up hysteria" the following quotation from Hermann Kelly's book 'Kathy's Real Story' is relevant. The author is talking about the use of the term 'paedophile priest' by the media in Ireland.

    "According to Michael J. Breen (Studies Autumn 2000) this phrase was used 332 times in The Irish Times between August 1993 and August 2000. The 'paedophile priest' term comes up 265 times in The Irish Times archive between January 1996 - August 2007, yet the terms 'paedophile farmer', 'paedophile lawyer', 'paedophile teacher' or 'paedophile journalist' never occurs." (page 148/149).

    As per George Orwell, The Irish Times has more in common with Nazi propagandists than it has with the Catholic Church -and the same applies to Sean O'Casey and George Bernard Shaw!
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #3
    Riadach Riadach is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    23,588

    This has to be the worse Godwin's law argument I've seen in a while.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #4
    eoghanacht eoghanacht is offline
    eoghanacht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    36,823

    So, it's the fault of the Devil, the Jews, homosexuals, secular society, anti catholic agenda and now the Nazi's? JESUS WEPT

    It has absolutely nothing to do wth the fact the Church betrayed its flock and raped kids............
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #5
    Riadach Riadach is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    23,588

    Quote Originally Posted by eoghanacht View Post
    So, it's the fault of the Devil, the Jews, homosexuals, secular society, anti catholic agenda and now the Nazi's? JESUS WEPT

    It has absolutely nothing to do wth the fact the Church betrayed its flock and raped kids............
    No no, it's not the fault of the nazis. See the people who are accusing the church of child abuse are doing what the nazis did, ergo they must be evil. Poor RCC, heart bleeds.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #6
    The Caped Cod The Caped Cod is offline
    The Caped Cod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    10,941

    In like Flynn there Brother Kilbarry le Sale, defender of the faith. Any chance to deflect some attention from the Vatican eh.
    But, if the church were not friendly to the Nazis, why did they help smuggle so many of them out of Europe? Tunring the other cheek were they? Personaly I doubt it, as when the RCC speaks about turning the other cheek, they are not referring to facial features.

    Does nayone else find it funny that it takes a comparison with the Nazis to try and make the church look good, and even then it fails?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #7
    Kilbarry1 Kilbarry1 is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,800

    Quote Originally Posted by eoghanacht View Post
    So, it's the fault of the Devil, the Jews, homosexuals, secular society, anti catholic agenda and now the Nazi's? JESUS WEPT

    It has absolutely nothing to do wth the fact the Church betrayed its flock and raped kids............
    Michael Burleigh does not say that EVERY allegation made by the Nazis against the Church was false. Indeed he points out that some of their allegations against Poles were true as well - although the number of ethnic German victims in Poland was more like 5,000 than 50,000. The point he makes is that the Nazis engaged in "tendentious reporting" and "ramping up hysteria".

    Hermann Kelly points out that the Irish Times has done precisely the same by making hundreds of references to "paedophile priests" and none to paedophile journalists, lawyers etc.

    Did you even read what Burleigh has written?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #8
    iartaoiseach iartaoiseach is offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,663

    Quote Originally Posted by Kilbarry1 View Post
    Michael Burleigh does not say that EVERY allegation made by the Nazis against the Church was false. Indeed he points out that some of their allegations against Poles were true as well - although the number of ethnic German victims in Poland was more like 5,000 than 50,000. The point he makes is that the Nazis engaged in "tendentious reporting" and "ramping up hysteria".

    Hermann Kelly points out that the Irish Times has done precisely the same by making hundreds of references to "paedophile priests" and none to paedophile journalists, lawyers etc.

    Did you even read what Burleigh has written?
    did you read the whole book? his commentary on ireland while having some elements of truth was imo very flawed, generalistic and borderline rascist do you also agree with his thesis on ourselves?
    After that I would take most of what he says with a pinch of salt. he seemed to use that book as a way to attack the religiosity of fascism etc while at the same defending the religiosity of religion. he is also apparently a right wing leaning catholic himself which if true would indicate to me some level of bias. I read his other book on the Nazis and found it very interesting but 'sacred causes' I found to be a disappointment. He has a definite agenda in that book imo.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #9
    Kilbarry1 Kilbarry1 is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,800

    Quote Originally Posted by iartaoiseach View Post
    did you read the whole book? his commentary on ireland while having some elements of truth was imo very flawed, generalistic and borderline rascist do you also agree with his thesis on ourselves?
    After that I would take most of what he says with a pinch of salt. he seemed to use that book as a way to attack the religiosity of fascism etc while at the same defending the religiosity of religion. he is also apparently a right wing leaning catholic himself which if true would indicate to me some level of bias. I read his other book on the Nazis and found it very interesting but 'sacred causes' I found to be a disappointment. He has a definite agenda in that book imo.
    I read his entire book over 2 years ago. I recall that he wrote a fair amount about Ireland and was extremely hostile to the IRA and their version of blood sacrifices. I think he regards their terrorist campaign as a kind of preview of Islamic terrorism - based on hate-filled fanaticism rather than any positive vision. However I was mainly interested in what he wrote about the Catholic Church.

    EVERY historian is biased in some way and that is probably what drives them to write books. However in the above extract, I deliberately choose to concentrate on specific verifiable incidents. A historian who was biased in an anti-clerical direction would probably ignore Pacelli's criticism of the Nazis, their denunciation of him and the fact that they utilised false allegations of child abuse to discredit the Church. Burleigh's "bias" probably impels him to emphasise those issues but there is nothing wrong with that (especially in a society where anti-clericalism is mainstream).
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #10
    iartaoiseach iartaoiseach is offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,663

    Quote Originally Posted by Kilbarry1 View Post
    I read his entire book over 2 years ago. I recall that he wrote a fair amount about Ireland and was extremely hostile to the IRA and their version of blood sacrifices. I think he regards their terrorist campaign as a kind of preview of Islamic terrorism - based on hate-filled fanaticism rather than any positive vision. However I was mainly interested in what he wrote about the Catholic Church.

    EVERY historian is biased in some way and that is probably what drives them to write books. However in the above extract, I deliberately choose to concentrate on specific verifiable incidents. A historian who was biased in an anti-clerical direction would probably ignore Pacelli's criticism of the Nazis, their denunciation of him and the fact that they utilised false allegations of child abuse to discredit the Church. Burleigh's "bias" probably impels him to emphasise those issues but there is nothing wrong with that (especially in a society where anti-clericalism is mainstream).
    he is entitled to his bias and I would not be an IRA sympathiser but what he said about the irish in general was particularly ill informed and like something a 18th century english imperialist might have said. If that is the level of his research and opinion well then I would not rate him on any subject without reading some other opinions first to achieve some balance. the fact that you chose to use him without acknowledging the fact that he has such an agenda would imo weaken the point you make. historians should first and foremost tell the facts. many historians let their opinions get in the way of the facts David Irving for example. Burleigh imo does just that in that book.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment