Common knowledge? The matter is subject to controversy at the least with regards to Pope Pius XII. The agreement that was signed between the Nazis and the Vatican followed one signed by Protestant churches. In both cases, (and you can argue this, obviously), the intention apparently was to ensure that the members of the church in Germany were not targeted.

What I find so preposterous, aside from the idiocy of aligning oneself with a party whose views run completely opposed to yours, is how naive they were to think that Germans actually cared enough about the church! And I'm including members of the clergy, whom I'm sure, whether by participation or inaction, were involved in the killing of innocent people, from Jews to Gypsies, and everything and everyone in between.

The argument surrounding Pius has basically been concerning whether he did enough or not. I find two things to be important here. 1) The pope did not have much more than a moral authority then, as now, and certainly not much political clout. In a country where the Nazi party reigned, that moral authority amounted to basically...nothing. 2) That being the case, signing an agreement with the Nazis would make absolutely no sense, since that wouldn't protect the faithful, nor would it allow for access to those who couldn't give a lesser damn. As well, the pope would have nothing to lose if he were to speak out, since the worst that could have been done to the faithful would have been done anyways.

And was, as members of the clergy who opposed the Nazis (what an embarassingly and disgustingly small number that was) were killed. The majority went along with the scum ideals and perpetrated acts of severe injustice and cruelty (and I blame them for that and include the Church as a participant).

I think that much, at least, we can be certain of. I'm not sure what Piux XII's personal thoughts were when signing that agreement, or what his real intentions were, or if it was his decision. I know that prior to being a pope, when he was in Germany, he filed three dozen official protests against the party and considered the Nazi party to be worse than the communists (whom the Church detested). He also ordered an edict to be read in all German churches, in German, contrary to the usual lating documents the Vatican releases, that condemned the prejducies of the Nazis, with mention of a condemnation of prejudice based on ethnicity and religion. But that might just be (maybe is) one side of things, I'm not sure. But he was most definitely not inactive. Only, that a pope can't be active beyond the use of words; militarily, only the Swiss guards are there for his employment.

I think that his big mistake was that he thought the German Catholics would listen, or that signing an agreement with the Nazis would help those who needed help. All it could do was to give the image that the Vatican supported what was done, which could have only played into the hands of the Nazis. I am 100% positive that it was used by Hitler's propaganda machine, which was keen on silencing anything that ran contrary to their ideas, including anything the pope or those opposed in the Church might have stated. Most didn't seem to have any problem turning their attention to the Nazis then. Even in Poland and elsewhere, not much heed was taken to the doctrines of the Church, which would have explicitly forbade any criminal acts against Jews or anyone else. Instead, what was exploited (by laypeople and clergy members) was the pervasive anti-semitism that had been (is, probably) a stable of the Church in Europe.


One thing I'm sure of is that that which was right was not done by 'Christians'. The few who did the right thing were either killed or suffered otherwise.

Pius isn't everyone. On the contrary I think many citizens would have listened to him had he taken the Nazi's to task on a "moral" standpoint. Half the criticism has not to do with Germany but with Italy, Spain, etc. I think not having an army doesn't necessarily mean not having power. Had Hitler assassinated the Pope, he would have been done for way earlier than he was. The problem lies when the select men that do profit off of such experiences are the ones wielding the moral power.

Boxie, have you read this book? I've heard so much about it and really want to read it actually.






Bleh, I'm having trouble finding the text to John Paul's Mea Culpa address from 2000. I did find this on cnn, which I do remember being how it went:
"The document acknowledges sins only by those acting in the name of the church. It does not acknowledge any sins by the church itself or those who have served as its popes..."

That's harsh..

About WWII, too much is hidden about it. For example, most portuguese people only found out like 5 years ago that Portugal helped Hitler financially.

Not really. Institutions change, if ever so slowly. No one can argue that there wasn't massive anti-semitism in the 30's-50's in Europe and everywhere else for that matter of fact. There's always been a huge fault line here and Pius capitalized on it. That's why I consider John Paul's apologia to be a step in the right direction, even if its not an outright condemnation of Pius, it did acknowledge that fault line and the need to deal with it on a broader institutional level. In those respects, I think there have been leaps and bounds in the past two decades. That's also not to say it couldn't regress depending on who they designate as JP's predessesor.

So how much does everyone think the church is actually worth?? And i'm guessing it's the wealthiest religious insitution. What is the next wealthiest? Judaism?

Harvard University :wink:

No really, the Vatican is by far the richest "non-profit" institution in the world and Harvard comes in at second.

Serious??? Is harvard that rich?? I feel gulliable in this thread.. First jesus' journal and now this..

Considering that Judaism is in charge of all the accountants and the worlds financing, it could be number 2.

I find it hard to believe that anything by the pope could have had much effect in countries where the governments would have firmly been opposed to any views that went contrary to theirs. If he was true to Christian doctrine, then fascism and Nazism would have been vehemently and uncompromisingly opposed, without compromise. But how often are the actual teachings of Christ followed, even by popes?

Something tells me that emphasizing the teachings of a Jew from 1,900+ years past would not have pleased the Nazis.

Or the general population.


I heard about the assissination attempt, only that the one whom Hitler ordered to perform the execution did not follow up on the order. Anyways, from Hitler's viewpoint, the pope was clearly loathsome, if for no other reason than that he was competition, and that's not very pleasent to a dictator.


I haven't read that book, btw. I do, however, agree with this statement:

"Pacelli's failure to respond to the enormity of the Holocaust was more than a personal failure, it was a failure of the papal office itself and the prevailing culture of Catholicism."

I would like to extend it, however, to include not only the "prevailing culture of Catholicism", but that of Europe as a whole, whether Christian or otherwise. Much of the work of the Nazis with regards to the Jews, but also gyspsies and others, was done and/or prepared for them, and had been done before on smaller scales.


I disagree with the following:



Hitler's worst excesses refers to the Holocaust, obviously (why didn't they state it directly), and if that is so, then that phrase is nonsense. The Church had, for nearly 2,000 years, either explicitly or implicitly, encouraged or not spoken out against anti-semitism, to the point where a sudden shift could not have possibly made any difference. Look at the current state of things, with the Holocaust on our minds. There are still 30% of Americans who believe the Jews, not humans in general or the Romans, but the Jews, killed Christ, and I recall a certain controversy surrounding a film last year. And this is in an environment where we have freedom of speech. Imagine working against the Nazi propaganda machine. The Nazis had no problem using Christian propaganda if it supported their cause. Indeed, they had 2,000 years of it to look back at and pick and choose. What they could not have done was to promote the teachings themselves, as those would undermine their cause. If the Catholic party would have stayed true to the doctrine, then that would have meant automatic opposition to Hitler and Nazism, which would not be accepted under any terms. There wouldn't be a compromise between them, the Nazis would have completely silenced them, as they did those who actually did stand up against them (who were so few in numbers, in a country of tens of millions, a continent of hundreds of millions).

Anyways, it would be a travesty to those who died during those years if nothing happened to change the attitude of the Church. Some has been done, I think JP2 really did some good work, but those are babysteps. The interesting thing is that, even if the church were to change, Europe has moved on already. Secularism is king now, beyond any doubts. So the church appears to have been relegated to funerals and weddings. Whatever moral authority it had, if it had any in the 1930s and 1940s, is virtually non-existent in Europe outside Poland (and Italy, perhaps).

Interestingly, anti-semitism, however, has not gone anywhere. Actually, in addition, there is now anti-islamic sentiment, and hostility towards anything conservative.

Europe keeps moving, but not towards progress. Any movement anywhere seems to always require victims, whoever they are. :shakes head:

Harvard has an endowment of around $21B.

I'm not sure anyone knows how rich the church is. But as was stated in the first post, some things are simply priceless.

In terms of real estate, etc., every church you see worldwide, as well as every cemetery, hospital, etc. that is associated with the Church is part of it.

So I dunno, maybe $1T in assets? Perhaps $2T But it serves 1.1B people, and really, I'm just guessing. There is not way to know for sure.

I think in terms of revenues, it's probably $90-100B, which would make it roughly 1/3rd the size of Wal-Mart.


Judaism as a religious institution I doubt would be anywhere near being second, as it has a much, much, much smaller membership and thus requires less. I would say Islam is second. It practically controls many a nation in the Middle East and elsewhere. :razz:

Okay i tried to google the question "Wealthiest NGOs" and nope nothing pops up that's good