R. J. Grigaitis

If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you. (John 15:18-19)

The sex abuse scandal the pope has found himself in does not surprise me; in fact, I’ve come to expect things like this. This is a satanic attack, but not against the pope. It is an attack against at least 70% of Catholics, and more likely, more than 80% of Catholics, not to mention the many people that knowingly or unknowingly wish to be Catholic.

Very few people get their news from reliable sources. Most put their trust in the mass media, which is unapologetically  anti-Catholic. Even the majority of people in the mass media that claim to be Catholic give an anti-Catholic slant to the news. An example of this is the use of the terms Anti-Choice, or Anti-Abortion, or the new one, Abortion Rights Opponent for the correct term Pro-Life. Another example is who they choose to quote as authentic Catholic experts, who usually turn out to be major Catholic dissenters like Fr. Richard McBrien. Since this is where most people get their news, including the vast majority of Catholics, they’re quite likely to believe this anti-Catholic propaganda.

It’s also no coincidence  that the mass media is bringing this story out at this particular time of year. It’s that time of year when some, among the 70% of Catholic that do not regularly attend Mass, are deciding if they’re going to go to Mass for Easter. With the recent reports in the news about the pope, maybe they won’t go to Mass this year, maybe never again.

What about the 30% that do regularly attend Mass? Well, it seems that less than 20% of Catholics practice the Faith in its entirety, most notably on the major issue of contraception (Remember the term intrinsically evil?). This means that at least a third of Catholics that regularly attend Mass don’t actually believe everything the Church teaches. With the recent reports in the news about the pope, maybe they’ll stop believing more of what the Church teaches.

The Catholic Church is the voice of God in the world. The only way to God is through the Catholic Church. Hence, everyone knowingly or unknowingly wants to be Catholic. The majority of people are not Catholic. With the recent reports in the news about the pope, maybe they’ll never become Catholic. (Note: you don’t have to be Catholic to go to heaven, but once you’re in heaven, you’ll be Catholic.)

What about the pope? He’s probably not the least bit concerned about his good reputation, which is extremely good. His biggest concern is likely the three groups of people mentioned above.

What about the mass media? They’ve succeeded! When the truth becomes too obvious, they’ll simply quit reporting on this issue. They will offer no apology, and they will not run stories that contradict what they are now reporting. They will leave the general public to continue to doubt the pope’s character, and since the majority of the general public only gets its news from the mass media, the truth will likely never reach the majority of the general public.

What am I going to do? I’m going to go back to only reading reliable news sources. A while ago, I started reading news from the mass media, but I’m too disgusted with it now. When a major event happens that I need to pray about, the pope will publicly pray about it. When he does, reliable new sources will report on it, and when they do, I’ll hear about it.

What do I suggest you do? Seek out reliable news sources that are not intent on slandering Christ’s Church. I also recommend going to Mass this Easter whether you’re Catholic or not.

I watched the movie  The Shoes of the Fisherman around twelve years ago, and from what I remember, I thoroughly enjoyed it. After learning more about the Eastern Churches and, in particular, the person whom the lead character of this movie is based on, I decided I would have a better appreciation for the story, so I bought the book. It was a well written book, but now that I’ve finished it, I feel that my time would have been better spent reading something more inspirational.

Like many, I saw this story as being prophetic of the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. The book came out in 1963 and the movie came out in 1968. Ten years after the movie came out, Karol Wojtyla became the first Slavic pope, as well as the first one to come from a Communist nation, both of which occur in The Shoes of the Fisherman. Even the names of Pope John Paul II and the protagonist of The Shoes of the Fisherman are similar: Karol and Kiril.

As I said many see the connection between this movie and the pontificate of Pope John Paul II; however, very few people seem to know the actual inspiration for The Shoes of the Fisherman: Major Archbishop Josyf Slipyj.

Josyf Slipyj was the Major Archbishop of the Ukrainian Byzantine (Greek) Catholic Church between 1944 and 1984. A major archbishop has basically the same jurisdiction and autonomy as a patriarch without the actual title of patriarch. Technically, this title didn’t exist until 1963 when Pope Paul VI created this new office instead of establishing Archbishop Slipyj’s see as a patriarchate. Before 1963, Archbishop Slipyj had the same duties, but not as much authority and autonomy.

Such authority and autonomy allowed him to consecrate three bishops without approval of the pope. This annoyed some of the Roman Curia since such ordinations are illicit in Roman canon law (this is why those three bishops of the Pius X Society were excommunicated), but not in Eastern canon law. One of these bishops was Lubomyr Husar, who now holds the office that Major Archbishop Slipyj held.

The KGB offered to make Josyf Slipyj the patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church if only he broke union with Rome. He refused, so they put him in a Siberian concentration camp for almost 18 years. In 1960, Blessed Pope John XXIII created him a Cardinal in pectore, and three years later succeeded in bringing him to Rome.

This real story is much more interesting and inspiring than The Shoes of the Fisherman. My favourite part of the movie is when Pope Kiril sneaks out of the Vatican and comes across a dying man in a Jewish community of Rome. When the man dies, Kiril begins chanting a Jewish lament in Hebrew. I don’t know if Josyf Slipyj would have done this, but I do know that his predecessor, Servant of God Metropolitan Andrey Sheptysky, used to preach to the Jews in Hebrew. Unfortunately my favourite part of the movie, the chanting in Hebrew, is not in the book.

Instead of reading The Shoes of the Fisherman, I would have much rather read a biography of Josyf Slipyj or of Andrey Sheptysky. This is a plea to all Ukrainian historians that have a command of the English language: please write a biography about Major Archbishop Josyf Slipyj and one about Metropolitan Andrey Sheptysky.

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.

Since, as my last post states, there are no photographs of Eugenio Pacelli and Hitler together, either before or after Pacelli became pope, the next best thing to discredit Pope Pius XII is a photograph of Hitler with the man that succeeded Pacelli as Papal Nuncio to Germany. Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo held this office from 1930 to 1945, which meant it was his job to represent the Vatican to whatever German government was in power. At first, it was the Weimar Republic, the president of which was Paul von Hindenburg (the photograph in my last post was of Pacelli leaving a birthday reception for von Hindenburg). Soon after von Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler as Chancellor of Germany, the Weimar Republic gave way to the Third Reich, and it was to Hitler and his government that Archbishop Orsenigo had to direct all Vatican negotiations and diplomacy.

As the chief Vatican diplomat in Berlin, Orsenigo had opportunities to voice Vatican concerns directly to Hitler. Below is a photograph of one such occasion:

I received an e-mail from someone with a version of this photograph where everyone is cropped out except Orsenigo and Hitler.  Along with the picture is this text:

On April 20, 1939, Archbishop Orsenigo celebrated Hitler’s birthday. The celebrations, initiated by Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) became a tradition. Each April 20, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin was to send “warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany” and added with “fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars.”

(Source: Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII, by John Cornwell)

It is interesting to note the the source of this picture and text. The British edition of Hitler’s Pope has the photograph found in my last post on the cover with a caption dating the picture March of 1939. As I explained, this date is false. The cover of the American edition doesn’t give this false date, however, the picture has been doctored in such a way that this false date appears possible. I concluded that the doctoring of this photograph was not accidental, but a deliberate attempt to deceive people. Thus, the text that accompanies the above picture is questionable at best.

Did Pacelli initiate a tradition to celebrate Hitler’s birthday each April 20? He couldn’t have done it personally because, as I stated in my last post, Pacelli left Berlin never to return four years before Hitler came to power. He could have initiated it from Rome. If he did, he would have needed approval of Pope Pius XI, who died February 10, 1939.

Would Pius XI approve an initiative to celebrate Hitler’s birthday? Judging by correspondence between Orsenigo and the Vatican, the answer would be no!

In 1936, Orsenigo asked instructions regarding an invitation from Hitler to attend a Nazi Party meeting in Nuremberg, along with the entire diplomatic corps. Pacelli replied, ”The Holy Father thinks it is preferable that your Excellency abstain, taking a few days’ vacation.”

In 1937, Orsenigo was invited along with the diplomatic corps to a reception for Hitler’s birthday. Orsenigo asked the Vatican if he should attend. Pacelli’s reply was, “The Holy Father thinks not. Also because of the position of this Embassy, the Holy Father believes it is preferable in the present situation if your Excellency abstains from taking part in manifestations of homage toward the Lord Chancellor,”

In Hitler’s much publicised visit to Rome in 1938, Pius XI and Pacelli refused to meet with Hitler by leaving Rome a month early for the papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo. Pius XI’s remarked, “The air in Rome makes me ill.”

The Vatican was closed, and the priests and religious brothers and sisters left in Rome were told not to participate in the festivities and celebrations surrounding Hitler’s Visit. On the Feast of the Holy Cross, Pius XI said from Castel Gandolfo, “It saddens me to think that today in Rome the cross that is worshipped is not the Cross of our Saviour.” (He was referring to the swastika.)

If this was the attitude of Pius XI and the future Pius XII (Pacelli), why was Orsenigo photographed at a birthday reception for Hitler on April 20, 1939? The answer is simple, this date is as reliable as the rest of the text with it. This photograph was actually taken at a New Year’s reception in Berlin on January 1, 1935.

What would Orsenigo and Hitler talk about on such occasions? We may not know what they were talking about in this photograph, but we do know that on May 4, 1939, Orsenigo voiced Pius XII’s concerns on what appeared to be an imminent war. Hitler showed little interest. Hitler gave the same response (or lack of) in November of 1943 when Orsenigo spoke on Pius XII behalf about the status of persecuted peoples in the Third Reich, apparently referring to Jews.

On these two occasions, Orsenigo met no success; however, diplomacy did have some affect, at least early on. A key to this diplomacy was the Reichskonkordat, which I mentioned in my last post. I found this photograph of the signing of this concordat online, along with the following text:

The Concordat between the Vatican and the Nazis

Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli (later to become Pope Pius XII) signs the Concordat between Nazi Germany and the Vatican at a formal ceremony in Rome on 20 July 1933. Nazi Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen sits at the left, Pacelli in the middle, and the Rudolf Buttmann sits at the right.

The Concordat effectively legitimized Hitler and the Nazi government to the eyes of Catholicism, Christianity, and the world.

There is some truth in this text, but only a selected portion of the truth. The goal of getting this concordat signed was not to legitimise Hitler and the Nazi government, but to secure the rights of the Church in Germany. Pacelli had been working for such a concordat since the 1920s, but was unsuccessful. When Hitler came to power, he accepted the concordat proposed to the Weimar Republic to gain international respectability. However, the concordat helped the Jews more than it helped the Nazis.

The concordat gave priests and bishops the right to speak out against moral wrong doing, so they were able to legally condemn Nazism as time went along. It also prohibited Catholic priests and bishops from joining the Nazi Party. (Protestant ministers were not protected in both of these regards.) Most importantly, the memorandum accompanying the ratification to the concordat specified that “Jews must be treated with Christian Charity.”

Five months after the concordat was signed, the Austrian bishops stated the following in a letter:

The concordat recently concluded between the Holy See and Germany does not mean that the Catholic Church approves of the religious errors of Nazism. Everybody knows how tense is the situation between the Church and State in Germany. . . . The Catholic Church has never agreed with the three fundamental errors of Nazism, which are first, race madness, second, violent anti-Semitism, and third extreme nationalism.

Between 1933 and 1939, Pacellie issued more than fifty protests of concordat violations, mostly over the treatment of the Jews. In these protests, the language used regarding violations against the Jews was virtually identical to the language used regarding violations against Catholics.

Another important feature of the concordat was that the Church had standing to protect and object to the maltreatment of Catholics. The Church used this to protect Jews by issuing false baptismal certificates. A few Jews were actually baptised, but for the most part, they were issued the certificates without being baptised.

As these historical facts suggest, Catholics were discouraged from honouring Hitler, both by Pope Pius XI and by Pope Pius XII. When possible, Vatican diplomats, such as Archbishop Eugenio Pacelli and Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, did everything they could to protect Catholics, Jews, and anybody else persecuted by the Nazis. In attempting to secure such protection, these Vatican diplomats had to negotiate face to face with Nazis, including Hitler himself. To suggest that such diplomacy with the Nazis was collaboration is utterly ridiculous. Unfortunately, by simply putting deceiving captions under actual photographs, many are misled.

In an e-mail discussion with someone, I was told, “Just do a google and you will see many pictures of the Pope and Hitler together.” The implication is that if they were photographed together, they must be collaborators, or the very least, on friendly terms. This, of course, is a faulty argument because before Eugenio Pacelli became Pope Pius XII, he was papal nuncio to Germany. This meant that it was his job to represent the Vatican to whatever German government was in power.

Expecting to find something vaguely incriminating I’d have to explain, I did a Google search of images with the query «Hitler pope» and got a lot of hits. I went through the first 32 pages of images, and didn’t find a single picture of the pope and Hitler together. What I did find was this photograph, along with a number of copies of a doctored version:

According to some sources, this is a photograph of Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII, leaving the presidential palace in Berlin in March 1939. He is supposed to be leaving a meeting with Hitler. You can’t miss the profile of Pacelli, but the date must be wrong because Pacelli was elected pope on March 2, 1939. He would have been in the conclave the day before, so it would have been impossible for him to be in Berlin in March of 1939.

It is obvious that the two soldiers on either side of the staircase are Weimar soldiers and not Nazi soldiers, so the photograph must have been taken before 1933. The doctored version of this photograph fixes this discrepancy by cropping the nearest soldier out of the picture, and blurring the rest of the photograph so that one can’t tell if the other soldier is a Weimar soldier or a Nazi. The helmets are similar, so once the farther soldier is blurred, it’s easy to mistaken him as a Nazi.

Another mistake that is easy to make when the photograph is blurred is to think that the chauffeur saluting Pacelli is an SS officer. To help this deception, the open car door is also cropped out.

The car door itself is also a hint to the actual date of the photograph because it has square corners. This is typical of the 1920s. By the 1930s they were rounded. In addition to making the chauffeur look like a saluting SS officer by cropping out the car door, it hides the fact that that car pre-dates the Third Reich. It would be very unusual for a diplomat, such as a papal nuncio like Pacelli, to be chauffeured around in an old car.

It is very revealing that although the doctored version of this photograph is blurred, Pacelli’s unmistakable face is not blurred in the least. In the original, you can make out all the faces, but in the doctored version, only Pacelli’s face is clear. This could not be an accident. Whoever doctored this photograph wanted to deceive people.

This photograph was actually taken in October of 1927. Pacelli, as papal nuncio to Germany, was leaving a birthday reception for Paul von Hindenburg, president of the Weimar Republic. This is twelve years before Pacelli became pope, and six years before Hitler became Chancellor of Germany.

Another interesting fact is that Pacelli never actually met Hitler, even though Pacelli was the first papal nuncio in Berlin and was in Munich at the same time as Hitler. Pacelli was appointed nuncio to Bavaria in 1917, and since there was no nuncio to Prussia or Germany, he was the Vatican representative to the entire German Empire. After World War I, Pacelli was one of the few foreign diplomats to remain in Munich. The night of the Hitler-Ludendorff-Putsch in 1923, the only member of the Bavaria cabinet that was not at the Bürgerbräu Keller was Franz Matt, who was having dinner with Munich Archbishop Michael von Faulhaber and Papal Nuncio Eugenio Pacelli. In 1925,  the German nunciature was moved to Berline, and in 1929 Pacelli left Germany never to return. This was four years before Hitler became Chancellor of Germany. When Pacelli signed the  Reichskonkordat for the Vatican in 1933, Hitler didn’t sign it, but sent his vice chancellor, Franz von Papen, to Rome to sign for Germany. This is why there are no photographs of Pacelli and Hitler together. Due to the timing of diplomatic appointments, they never had a chance to meet.

The doctoring of this photograph, and the incorrect historical information that sometimes accompanies it only demonstrates the lengths that some hateful men will go to discredit a very good man.

I thought about commenting on the news article Bleak stories behind failed condom campaigns back in mid-April when it was highlighted on the Catholic Radio International show The Heart Of The Matter. When I read it again last Saturday in the May 1st issue of Life and Family Report by St. Joseph’s Workers for Life and Family, I decided to finally comment.

No, I would never again eat sweets with a wrapper on. I tried it before I was Catholic, and it just wasn’t as pleasurable  as without a wrapper, which is why I often took the wrapper off before the sweet was gone.

OK, if that wasn’t graphic enough for you:

Two-thirds of the world’s HIV/AIDS cases are in Sub-Saharan Africa. The men there sleep with whomever they like and don’t get married until they are old and need someone to cook for them. “A man might be sleeping with six different women in a year.” These men want to have children, so they don’t use condoms.

HIV positive men in Sub-Saharan Africa often don’t care if they give it to someone else. They think, “I can’t be the only one. Since someone gave me the disease, I will give it to someone else.”  Men that don’t care if they pass on a disease don’t use condoms.

Rape is common place, and “even if the rapist is known, nothing much is done.” In South Africa, “more than a quarter of all the females can expect to be raped at least once in their life.” Rapist don’t use condoms.

These are the facts of the general sexual morality in Sub-Saharan Africa. This is why Pope Benedict XVI is sceptical about the effectiveness of distributing condoms as a solution to this problem. Even if a condom is used, it’s no guarantee that a disease will not be transmitted. If anything, condoms embolden people to take more risks. “Fighting AIDS with condoms is like extinguishing a fire with petrol.”

Will a man who sleeps with several different women say, “I better not use a condom because the pope says it’s a sin”? Will a man who doesn’t care if he passes on a disease say, ”I better not use a condom because the pope says it’s a sin”? Will a rapist say, ”I better not use a condom because the pope says it’s a sin”? It is ludicrous to think that anyone that engages in activity that is far more immoral than using a condom will not use a condom simply because the pope says it’s a sin.

What is needed in Sub-Saharan Africa is not condoms, but morality. The only positive thing about distributing condoms as a solution is the revenue generated by western condom manufacturers; a revenue that is funded primarily by taxpayers. Since the condoms don’t get used, wouldn’t it be a lot easier to just flush money down a toilet? Oh yeah, they can’t afford ones that flush.

There is only one rational solution to the world wide problem of HIV/AIDS and other STDs: have only one sex partner for your entire life. Since you know you’re not going to get a disease, and NFP is more reliable for avoiding pregnancy, there’s no reason to compromise sexual pleasure with a condom. Don’t eat sweets with a wrapper on.

On April 15, 2009, Fr. Thomas J. Loya will address the prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life) issued by Pope Paul VI. Alone in the world, the pope insisted that the Church could not change its teaching on what was then quaintly called “the regulation of births.” 

June 29, 2008

Pope Benedict XVI
The Apostolic Palace,
00120 Vatican City, Europe

Your Holiness,

It is very fitting that I write this letter to you today on the great Solemnity of St. Peter and  St. Paul. It is fitting because, although I can in no way compare myself to St. Paul, I am willing to correct Peter when he is wrong. I would never question you on an issue of faith and morals, but you have erred on an issue of psychiatry, of which I have a little knowledge because I have been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder.

It was in the following paragraph from your June 25, 2008 Wednesday General Audience that you erred:

However, the problem arises: Does not one end in this way in a sort of dualism? Is not one faced with affirming two complete personalities with reason, will, sentiment? How can this dualism be overcome? How can the completeness of the human being be preserved while protecting the unity of the person of Christ, who was not schizophrenic?

I believe that you did not mean to say that Christ did not have schizophrenia, but that He did not have dissociative identity disorder, also known as multiple personality disorder. Schizophrenia is often confused with dissociative identity disorder, and in some rare cases a person may have both disorders, but they are two very different disorders. A person with dissociative identity disorder will display multiple distinct identities or personalities, whereas a person with schizophrenia will have impairments in the
perception or expression of reality.

Most schizophrenics do not experience any sort of dualism in their identity or personality. My illness and the anti-psychotic drugs to control it have affected my personality; however, like most schizophrenics, I have always had one identity or personality.

All of my psychotic symptoms have been under control for a number of years, although I do suffer from the side affects of the drugs that control these symptoms. I very willingly accept my suffering by uniting it with Christ’s suffering, and it has afforded me time to devote to Christ and His Church. I have written a book about my illness, Bricks & Barbwire, and have published much of my theological work on my website
(http://grigaitis.net).

I very much appreciate your work and teaching, and I in no way want to admonish you. I just want to point out that by misusing the term schizophrenic, you may offend some people that desperately need to hear your message.

I remain your most humble servant,
R. J. Grigaitis, S.F.O.