Subscribe to our newsletter at
http://emperor.vwh.net/MailList/index.php
Receive articles from Emperor's Clothes Website

Please forward this text or send the link to a friend.
http://emperor.vwh.net/vatican/pope-2.htm

Emperor's Clothes
[ www.tenc.net ]

With Internet Explorer, Best Viewed With Medium Text Size

Truth vs. Hype: Vatican policies under John Paul II regarding Jews and the Holocaust, Yugoslavia and El Salvador   

The Pope and Antisemitism, Part 2: Mr. Laughland's Adulation

Written by Jared Israel, edited by Samantha Criscione
[29 April 2005]

To read Part 1, "Did the Pope Really Reject Church Antisemitism? Mr. Foxman's Mistake," go to
http://emperor.vwh.net/vatican/pope-1.htm

===========================================================

In Part 1 of this series, I analyzed Abe Foxman's eulogy for Pope John Paul II. Foxman heads the US-based Anti-Defamation League, which claims to be "the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism." However, I found that Foxman's eulogy doesn't live up to that claim.

Foxman noted that John Paul II became Pope just after the Vatican II Council rejected the 2000 year old slander that the Jewish people murdered Jesus. Foxman argued that the Pope had a crucial choice: whether or not he would "take the initiative of Vatican II" and make sure it had "a major impact on the Catholic world."

I argued that such an impact required a huge campaign in the Catholic Church to change long established policies and doctrine that treated Jewish people as pariahs. But Mr. Foxman provided no evidence that Pope John Paul II had initiated a fight to transform the Church. Rather, he praised the Pope for a public relations campaign that used symbolic gestures to get Jews (and everyone else) to believe the Church had changed.

I argued that to evaluate Pope John Paul II's real stance on 2,000 years of abuse of Jews, one needed to examine the content of Church statements and actions to see whether the doctrine that "the Jews killed Jesus" had been weeded out. Part 1 ends with this paragraph:

"Abe Foxman argues that John Paul II 'changed 2,000 years of history.' Foxman extols the 'symbolism' of the Pope's visit to Israel in March 2000. In Part 2 we will examine some comments made about the Jewish people in a TV interview with an important adviser to Pope John Paul II, broadcast on the eve of that visit."

That TV interview accused the Jewish people of murdering Jesus and wanting to do the same to Gentiles today. The interview was given by Reverend Peter Gumpel.

========================================================

Laughland's Adulation

 ========================================================

Reverend Peter Gumpel is no ordinary German Jesuit.  Gumpel is described by CBS News as "an important papal adviser,"[1] and the media has made him a star. According to the media search engine  Lexis-Nexis, newspapers and TV news programs have consulted Gumpel 271 times on Vatican issues. And although Gumpel has been in the Vatican 50 years, about 80% of the coverage occurred on or after his first big TV interview, 17 March 2000. That was the eve of John Paul II's trip to Israel, and in the interview Gumpel accused "the Jews" of murdering Jesus and of wanting to kill Gentiles today. [2]

We'll discuss the 17 March interview shortly. It is shocking that once the flack over that interview died down, with all the coverage Gumpel now receives, the media never mentions that he is an open antisemite. Instead they treat him with respect; indeed, sometimes more than respect. Case in point: commentator John Laughland's article, "Pius the Hero," which appeared in the London Spectator, 20 July 2002.

Laughland's Spectator piece was ostensibly aimed at defending the controversial Pope Pius XII, but I think its purpose was to idolize the controversial Jesuit, Peter Gumpel. Here's how Laughland described meeting Gumpel in the Vatican: 

"There are some people in whose presence the heart warms with a peculiar intensity. Father Professor Dr Gumpel is such a man. The high-domed forehead betrays both formidable intelligence and distinguished ancestry; the exquisite manners and the immaculate languages ('I had to give this lecture in Latin because I do not speak Polish') are the unmistakable hallmarks of the German ancien regime. Yet this frail, softly spoken man is in the eye of a storm." [3]

Laughland's assertion that Gumpel's allegedly "high domed forehead betrays formidable intelligence and distinguished ancestry" is more than preposterous. It harks back to the pseudo-scientific British racists of the 19th century who claimed that 'intelligence' and 'breeding' could be determined by analyzing facial features and measuring the skull. [4] These quacks 'discovered' that Irish and Welsh working people (and of course, Jews and blacks) supposedly had receding foreheads and other physical traits supposedly indicating mental inferiority. By contrast, high foreheads were said to adorn the British upper classes, derived of course from Saxon (i.e., German) ancestors. Just so does Laughland's "heart warm... with a peculiar intensity" at Gumpel's "unmistakable hallmarks of the German ancien regime."   

It is enough to make one's head spin full circle, followed by the copious discharge of green soup.

========================================================

Laughland glorifies Gumpel for glorifying Pope Pius XII

========================================================

Laughland's stated reason for writing the London Spectator article was that Gumpel, the Vatican relator (a kind of judge) assigned to the beatification of Pius XII, passionately defends Pius against "tired and discredited accusations." Says the article's introductory blurb:

"Pope Pius XII is once more accused of being lenient towards Hitler. John Laughland meets the man who can prove his innocence." [4]

According to Laughland, Pope Pius XII was a defender of Jews and a cautious enemy of Nazism. One reader disagreed:

[Letter to The Spectator starts here]

 Massacre in Croatia; Letters, The Spectator, July 27, 2002, Pg. 32, 188 words

Sir: The words 'uncritical adulation' come to mind on reading John Laughland's interview with Father Gumpel about Pope Pius XII ('Pius the hero', 20 July). It would have been helpful if Father Gumpel had been asked how Pius XII appears to have ignored what was going on in Croatia during the second world war, when Ante Pavelic, a Catholic dictator, was head of the much feared Ustase.

It is estimated that 450,000 Jews, Serbs and Gypsies were massacred by the Ustase. All this happened in the Pope's own backyard without, as far as is known, a word of disapproval from the Vatican. [Note: It is inconceivable that the Catholic Church could have helped run a Nazi-like country, whose policies included the forced conversion of tens of thousands of Serbs to Catholicism, unless the Pope approved. -- Jared Israel]

Benedict Beresford
Liverpool [5]

[Letter to The Spectator ends here]

Laughland suggests that attacks on Pius XII derive from reformist factions within the Catholic Church. But plenty of people unconnected to the Church (I, for one) have attacked Pius XII. As Canadian Newswire commented:

"Pius has been widely accused of indifference to Jewish suffering at the hands of the Nazis and silence in the face of the Holocaust. However, the church is proceeding with plans to make him a saint. [6]

Canadian Newswire understates. Many accuse Eugenio Pacelli of directly aiding the Nazis, before and after he became Pius XII.

For example Pacelli negotiated a Concordat with Nazi Germany. As part of that deal, the huge Center Party (the Catholic party) reversed its long-term opposition to the Nazis.  As late as March 5, 1933, the eve of the last democratic elections, the former Chancellor and Parliamentary leader of the Catholic Center Party, Heinrich Bruening, proclaimed that his party would resist any overthrow of the constitution and urged President Hindenburg "to protect the oppressed against the oppressors." [7]

But as part of the Concordat deal, on the 23 of March 1933, the Center Party, controlled by Pacelli's protege, Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, voted for the "Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich" -- what an Orwellian name! -- otherwise known as the "Enabling Act." Here is how historian William L. Shirer describes the Enabling Act:

"Its five brief paragraphs took the power of legislation, including control of the Reich budget, approval of treaties with foreign states and the initiating of constitutional amendments, away from Parliament and handed it over to the Reich cabinet for a period of four years. Moreover the act stipulated that the laws enacted by the cabinet were to be drafted by the Chancellor and 'might deviate from the constitution.'"[8]

...and...

"It was this Enabling Act alone which formed the legal basis for Hitler’s dictatorship. From March 23, 1933, Hitler was the dictator of the Reich, freed of any restraints by parliament or, for all practical purposes, by the weary old President [Hindenburg]."[9]

Having voted Hitler dictatorial powers, the Centre Party dissolved. The Church then removed its earlier bans on Catholics joining the Nazis and on people receiving communion while wearing swastikas. Catholics were given a message: Nazism was OK. [10]

Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII (seated, center), signs Concordat with Nazi German foreign minister Franz von Papen (seated left from Pacelli) at the Vatican, 20 July 1933.

Is it surprising that the proposed beatification of Pius XII is seen by millions as a) an effort to whitewash criminal misconduct and b) an insult to the Russians, Jews, Serbs, Roma, communists, resistance members, liberals, homosexuals, disabled people and others butchered by the Nazis and their puppets with the complicity or even leadership of the Catholic hierarchy?[10] We ask: how can the Vatican claim it has made amends for its past actions when it has "Father Professor Dr Gumpel" preparing the beatification of Pius XII?

Returning to John Laughland's Spectator article, there is something truly curious about it.  As I said, Laughland's stated purpose is to defend Pope Pius XII.  Now, the main attack on Pius XII comes from John Cornwell's devastating book, "Hitler's Pope." (We've posted a long excerpt from the book.[11]) Indeed, the title of Laughland's article as reprinted in the Montreal Gazette is,

"Hitler's pope? Hardly: The recently released 'Amen' ['Amen' is a movie - JI] trots out the same discredited accusations." [12]

And yet, as a letter to the Gazette noted,

"In his defence of Pius XII and Father Peter Gumpel, Mr. Laughland makes no reference to John Cornwell's book Hitler's Pope (which presumably prompted the headline and perhaps even the article itself) nor does he respond to Mr. Cornwell's arguments." [13]

Isn't it odd to write a piece defending a man whom Laughland calls "Pius the Hero" and not refute a word from the book hailed for its attack on Pius? But while Laughland is sketchy in defending Pius XII, he is unrelenting in praising Gumpel, who is eulogized to his emotional core:

"Gumpel has to draw on his considerable priestly qualities to suppress his obvious inner anger when people today attack Pius XII."

It certainly appears that the real purpose of Laughland's article was to celebrate Reverend Peter Gumpel.  But why celebrate Gumpel?

I think for two reasons.

========================================================

Why the adulation of Gumpel

========================================================

The first reason has to do with a commission of researchers that was  seeking unfettered access to secret Vatican archives on Pius XII and the Nazis. The Vatican assigned Gumpel to deal with the commission. Laughland writes:

"For various reasons, this commission collapsed in mutual recriminations last August, and Gumpel was instructed by the pope to issue a sharp statement accusing the Jewish historians of professional misconduct, of bad faith and, effectively, of lying. 'The whole experience was shattering,' says Gumpel." [My emphasis]

Laughland attacks the researchers:

"The Vatican stands accused of not opening its archives, even though the commission members did not even bother to read all of the 8,000 pages of documents that were put at their disposal..."

But according to a professor who resigned from the commission:

[Excerpt from Professor Robert Wistrich's letter to The Spectator starts here]

Sir: In 'Pius the hero' (20 July), John Laughland uncritically repeats Father Gumpel's claim that members of the Catholic-Jewish historical commission which studied the wartime record of Pius XII 'did not even bother to read all of the 8,000 pages of documents that were put at their disposal'. As one of the six historians appointed by the Vatican to this commission, I can assure Mr Laughland that I spent two years going over every single document published by the Vatican on Pius XII, and many other sources as well. Thus Father Gumpel's assertion is both groundless and impertinent.

I resigned from the commission last October because of the Holy See's refusal to provide our commission with the unpublished documentation which we requested in order to clarify a number of controversial issues. A further reason was the outrageous attack by Father Gumpel last July [2001] on the Jewish historians, which falsely accused them of waging a campaign of defamation against the Church. [14]

[...]

[Excerpt from Professor Wistrich's letter to The Spectator ends here]

Prof. Wistrich also argues that Gumpel's attack was a "deplorable attempt to drive a wedge between the Jewish and Catholic members of the commission" which "was widely condemned at the time by many enlightened Catholics."

I think one reason for Laughland's article was to communicate a message from the Vatican: regardless of how "enlightened Catholics" reacted, in fact when Gumpel accused "Jewish historians of professional misconduct, of bad faith and, effectively, of lying" he was doing so because he was "instructed by the pope."

========================================================

As for the second reason...

========================================================

Laughland's article may also be connected to the TV interview  Reverend Gumpel gave on 17 March 2000, in which he accused "the Jews" of killing Jesus and wanting to do the same to Gentiles today. In order to see the possible connection, we must first consider what Gumpel said in that interview and how the Vatican responded. Which we will do, in Parts 3 and 4.

[Continued in Part 3]

Jared Israel
Editor, Emperor's Clothes

========================================================

Emperor's Clothes
Needs Your Help!

========================================================

Readers are our only source of funds.  If you find our work useful, please help with a donation. Every contribution helps, big or small!

Our best is yet to come...

Here's how to make a donation.

* By credit card at our secure server
https://emperor.securesites.com/transactions/index.php

* Using Paypal (Visa & Mastercard) https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=emperors1000@aol.com&no_shipping=1

* Mail a check to Emperor's Clothes,
P.O. Box 610-321
Newton, MA 02461-0321 (USA)

* Or by credit card over the phone. 1 (617) 916-1705

Thank You!

Subscribe to our newsletter at http://emperor.vwh.net/MailList/index.php
Receive articles from Emperor's Clothes Website!

Please forward this text or send the link to a friend.
http://emperor.vwh.net/vatican/pope-2.htm

Emperor's Clothes * www.tenc.net  

Have you seen the Emperor's Clothes movie  JUDGMENT? It proves the Western media broadcast doctored pictures to support the charge that the Bosnian Serbs were running death camps.