More fisking of the complicity of The New York Times in the Holocaust: the role of Catholic liberals in denouncing Pius XII

Let’s keep up some pressure on The New York Times. Let’s take Father Gordon’s work and take it another step.

As I recently implied in a rather incisive article about The NY Times’ complicity in the Holocaust (here) — spurred on by the brilliant exposition of the matter by Father Gordon MacRae (about), in his Pulitzer worthy article on TheseStoneWalls (here), which has elicited some rather incisive comments (here) – it is crime of the MSM to ignore the crimes against humanity wrought by The New York Times.

It just now came to my attention that The New York Times hates Susan E. Tifft (the author of a book about the Times, helping to expose their complicity in the Holocaust) so much, that they dissed her work about the Times in their obituary of her here, even as her husband, another great journalist, was morning her passing at such a young age from cancer. The New York Times continues to be montrous about all this. Susan’s work, mind you, is what instigated Father Gordon’s exposition.

Sure, those like by Dr. Rafael Medoff have proclaimed that the likes of A.M.Rosenthal Acknowledged N.Y.Times Downplayed Holocaust News: Here. But, really, to tell you the truth, that’s just not good enough. Not only does The New York Times have to stop their minimizing of all this as time goes on (they go on the attack instead as linked above), but they need to come out as they never have before and proclaim that, in fact, they were effectively complicit in the Holocaust because of their strategic ommissions and misrepresentations.

* * * Having said that… * * *

A wonderful lady, Dorothy Stein, who comments now and again over at Father Gordon MacRae’s These Stone Walls noted the following in her comment on the article in question:

“A part of me should be shocked at what you have written here, though I know in my heart that it is the absolute truth. I have long believed that it was self-serving of the NY Times to launch an attack on Pope Pius XII for something that the Times itself treated with great negligence. However, as you write so well, if the opinions of Jews and their families had prevailed at the time the horrors of the Holocaust took place, there would be no questions today about this Pope’s sanctity and courage. The Jews of World War II Europe revered him for the great man he was. What the detraction today is really about is not the disdain of Jews, but rather the attacks of disgruntled Catholics hellbent on keeping this Pope’s name out of the Communion of Saints. You have once again written with truth and honor.”

My understanding of that incisive observation is the following:

• Yes, The New York Times is guilty as charged even on the many points just revealed by Father Gordon, including their unfathomable hypocrisy in complicity with the attack on Pius XII by the KGB through disinformation about that Pontiff’s role in the Holocaust.
• Those who were suffering through the Holocaust knew better, but their suffering voices were monstrously silenced by the Times.
• Liberal Catholics today carry the flag for the Times of the 1940s up until today. Of course, the Times backs liberal Catholics, because liberal Catholics hate Pius XII as much as The New York Times.

Thanks especially for that last bit, dear Mrs. Stein! Liberal Catholics, indeed! Hah!

Now why on earth would liberal Catholics of today want to freak out so much over Pius XII that they would knowingly lie about him, denounce him, discredit him? Oh my… Let’s count the ways, I mean, just a few, because there are so many! Pius XII is hated to this day, even more than ever by liberal Catholics, now that his cause is up for beatification, for, say…

• …his defining the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, soul and body into heaven, because anything that’s said about Mary points right to Jesus, she being His mother. What happened at the time, in fact, was that this was taken as a reminder of the definition of the dogma of Mary being immacultely conceived. There was an immediate reaction among liberal academics of the time to deny that there was any such thing as original sin, much less any immaculate conception. This led to what is today an almost universal denial of original sin. No sin, no need for a Redeemer. No need for ethics and morality. We can do what we want.
• …his clear teaching against polygenism, which means that rejecting original sin for this reason is not possible, and that one would have to simply reject the Magisterium of the Church and the Pontiff, so that there is no need for ethics and morality. We can do what we want.
• …his clear statements about sexual morality, because with such clarity, there was no room for dissent, unless one simply reject the Magisterium of the Church and the Pontiff, so that there is no need for ethics and morality. We can do what we want.
• …his condemning situation ethics and its proportionalism of nothing over nothing, what blossomed out as the decadence of 1968 (after the publication of Humanae Vitae) and the moral failure of so many leaders in the Chuch. Liberals, mind you, want to support all this failure because, in that case, there’s no need for ethics and morality. We can do what we want.
• …his pushing for accurate Scriptural studies, because that would mean that one could not despise the Jews as idiots for the way they wrote the Jewish Scriptures, holding that we find in Genesis, for instance, mindless copying of Babylonian myths that they didn’t understand and miscopied and misinterpreted and misedited and misredacted, so that it is all rubbish, and that…. and that… therefore there is no original sin in Genesis, and therefore there is no sin and no need for redemption and no need for ethics nor morality. We can do what we want.

And so on. You get the idea. All of this is as much alive today than in yesteryear, even more so.

But who are these liberal Catholics? Glad you asked. Start with John Cornwell and his Hitler’s Pope, and go from there.