R. J. Grigaitis

I’ve been asked two questions concerning Hitler’s relationship with the Catholic Church that seem to demonstrate the Church’s culpability in the Holocaust: Why wasn’t Hitler excommunicated from the Catholic Church? And, why wasn’t Mein Kampf put on the Index of Forbidden Books?

It is true that Mein Kampf was never banned by the Catholic Church; however, this does not mean that the Church approved of the book. Mein Kampf was examined by the Vatican for three years before deciding not to ban the book. They had more than enough reason to ban the book, but they had a good reason not to, as well as something better than simply banning the book.

Although the Church did not approve of Hitler, he did come to power legally; thus, the best thing the Church could do was to get Germany to sign a concordat to secure certian rights of the Church within Germany. Banning a book written by the chancellor of Germany would not have been a wise diplomatic move, and would have likely hindered getting the concordat signed. Getting Germany to sign the concordat, however, gave the Church the right to do something better than banning Mein Kampf. Pius XI’s 1937 encyclical, Mit Brennender Sorge (With Burning Concern), was a direct assault on the Nazi ideology and a critique of Mein Kampf. It was not written in Latin, which is the usual language for papal encyclicals, but in German. Without any pre-announcement, copies were smuggled in to Germany and read from the pulpit of every Catholic church in Germany on Palm Sunday (Mass was two hours that day).

Mit Brennender Sorge was the first official denunciation of Nazism made by any major organisation, and because of the concordat that the Nazis had signed with the Catholic Church four years earlier, Catholic priests could legally read it from the pulpit. This did not stop Nazi reprisal, but it did help. The Catholic Church was not able to make such a massive affront to the Nazis again; however, the French did air drop 88,000 copies of Pius XII’s 1939 encyclical, Summi Pontificatus (On the Unity of Human Society), over Germany as Ally propaganda.

These two encyclicals make it very clear that the Catholic Church did not approve of Hitler or the Nazis; however, some say the Catholic Church could have taken an even further step in opposition by excommunicating Hitler.

Excommunicating Hitler would have been pointless. He left the Catholic Faith when he left his parents’ home. His own description of his religious beliefs was as “a complete pagan.” Nonetheless, any Catholic priest could have refused the sacraments to him because he would have been excommunicated ipso facto due to his numerous crimes. There is no evidence that Hitler ever attempted to receive the sacraments after his childhood, and since the only reason for excommunication is to help a sinner recognise the gravity of his sin, thus leading him to seek forgiveness, it would have achieved nothing in Hitler’s case.

The Church would have formally excommunicated Hitler if she felt that it would have had some positive effect, and, in the interest of both Christian and Jewish lives, the Church chose not to ban Mein Kampf.

It looks like Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper put a consecrated host in his pocket after Archbishop André Richard gave It to him during the funeral Mass for former Governor General Romeo LeBlanc. Watch the video below:

It seems that some devout Catholics are outraged by this and want a public apology. I even read one headline on the internet that said, “Canadian PM Commits Sacrilege.” Sacrileges have been committed and public apologies should be made; however, Mr. Harper is not guilty of sacrilege and he should not be the one to apologise.

For a person to be guilty of committing a sacrilege, he must be aware that what he is doing is a sacrilege. It looks more like Mr. Harper may have been extending his hand to shake Archbishop Richard’s hand. When he was given the Body of Christ, he accepted It, not wanting to look like he didn’t know what he was doing. Since he really didn’t know what he was doing, he didn’t consume It; at least, not as long as the camera was on him. Mr. Harper, like many who visit a Roman Catholic church, is not guilty of anything other than not knowing what Catholics do at a Mass.

The problem is not that Mr. Harper didn’t know what to do, but that he was put in a situation that should not have happened. Communion in the hand while standing has never been officially approved by the Church. It is only allowed where an indult has been granted. While many Roman Rite bishops have made standing the norm for receiving Communion and receiving in the hand or on the tongue  as optional, no pope has ever approved it. In fact, every pope that mentions it has discouraged it, if not condemned it.

If we turn the clock back only forty years, Mr. Harper still wouldn’t know what he was doing, but he would have been in a much different situation. All Catholics would have processed to a Communion rail, where they would have knelt down and then received Communion on the tongue. Most non-Catholics, such as Mr. Harper, would have been too intimidated to do anything other than stay in the pew. If they did go forward, it would have been very difficult to commit sacrilege. As it is, sacrilege is very easy, both intentionally and, as in Mr. Harper’s case, unintentionally .

On June 18, 2008, I left the following comment on Doug and Adele’s blog Journey to Therese:

Men are only a temporary necessity until women have a better technology. In the future, women will be able to clone themselves with the DNA of another woman’s egg. They’ll both have the the X chromosomes so there won’t be any more men. Face it, women will win the battle of the sexes!

I first heard of such an idea when I was in high School (last year was my 20 year reunion). LifeNews.com reports today that we’re one step closer to making this science fiction a reality.

It seems that scientists have created a human sperm using embryonic stem cells. Of course the embryonic stem cells came from an aborted child that was created with a naturally occurring sperm. However, if a number of sperm were created from one aborted child all of them could be used to fertilise a number of eggs in vitro. Once these children are implanted in to a woman, the most viable one or two could be left to live while the rest are all aborted to make more sperm. Do this over and over again and there will be no more need for men. The battle of the sexes would be over.

More seriously, judging by all the cloning results so far, if a child is ever brought to term using this method, he will have too many birth defects to live very long. Why do scientists want to cause so much unnecessary suffering and death?