|
Jews, Catholics
and the Holocaust
By Albert Doyle
Jews are prominent
in the present highly visible culture-war
assault on the Catholic Church in America,
from the quite recent vilification of Pope
Pius XII for “not doing enough” to help
Jews in World War II to the entertainment
industry’s open bias against the Catholic
Church and all it stands for. Many Catholics
try to avoid noticing. The current assault
on the memory of Pius XII is particularly
instructive.
In the aftermath of the horrors of World
War II Jews from Albert Einstein to Gold
Meir were outspoken in their praise of the
Pontiff for his efforts to help Jews during
the Nazi persecution. Not a Jewish voice
was raised in criticism of the war-time
Pope. And these were people who had personally
experienced the horrors of the war. Yet
today scarcely a Jewish voice is heard in
his defense as a claque of calumnators hack
away at his memory and reputation. Amazingly,
there are no new revelations to justify
this attack, just “reinterpretations” of
known facts. The recent controversy about
access to the Vatican World War II archives
only served to expose the bias of the Jewish
scholars involved. They openly asserted
that the records will reflect badly on the
Pope - in the absence of a single shred
of new evidence. One may well wonder how
this remarkable change came about.
Cardinal Pacelli in 1930,
9 years before being named Pope Pius XII
It will be said that
not all the critics of the Pope are Jews
and this is correct. The ranks of his attackers
include several disaffected Catholics with
agendas quite beyond the Pope’s relations
with the Jews. But one must recognize that
Jews are now virtually unanimous in their
condemnation of Pius XII. The history of
this sorry affair is well set out in Ronald
Rychlak’s book, Hitler, the War and
the Pope. This meticulously documented,
scholarly book (and others like it) has
been ignored by an “establishment” media
which gleefully publicized the attacks.
No one knows all this better than Dr.
William Donohue, head of the Catholic League
for Religious and Civil Rights, the spunky,
confrontational organization which meets
what it sees as anti-Catholic bias in public
life, head-on, up-front and directly. As
Donohue often says, “Anti-Catholicism is
the last ‘acceptable’ prejudice in our culture”.
The Catholic League is in the trenches of
the culture-war, much more so than the Catholic
hierarchy who often shy away from public
controversy. It is of course much more than
“political”. In the past, anti-Catholicism
always existed in “intellectual” circles.
(Peter Vierek once said that “anti-Catholicism
is the anti-semitism of the intellectuals”.)
Today it is part of every day popular culture,
in the media and entertainment fields particularly,
and is openly expressed by many who would
have refrained from doing so in the past.
Dr. Donohue does not hesitate to point
out his opponents’ misstatements of fact
and bias and he does so “on the merits”,
with facts and figures. He often succeeds
in extracting retractions, whether those
are sincere recognition of the validity
of his complaints or commercial fear of
annoying Catholics who, after all, are the
largest religious group in America. Although
many of his targets are Jews, he scrupulously
avoids confronting them as Jews. From his
standpoint this is undoubtedly wise and
in any case the most egregious offenders
are usually not religious Jews. Were he
to even mention the obvious facts he would
bring down on himself and his organization
the now damning accusation of “anti-semitism”.
The mere suspicion of such a charge, no
matter if unfounded, would cause many of
his timid Catholic supporters to depart
him with speed. Consider the reaction of
Jews to the assertion that Soviet communist
leaders were disproportionaltely Jewish
- a fact. A charge of “anti-semitism” is
the price for such assertions.
To illustrate, note how Pope Pius XII
has been attacked as “anti-semitic” merely
for having once said in passing that certain
individual communist agitators in pre-war
Germany were Russian Jews and unpleasant
characters, a fact which no one questions.
This is the basis for the charges of his
“anti-semitism”, despite the many actions
by the Pontiff in aid of Jews during the
war.
Perhaps this also helps one understand
why Donohue and the Catholic hierarchy in
general studiously avoid any question about
“the Holocaust”, and in fact, often join
in the din of anti-intellectual shouting,
denouncing anyone who expresses any doubt
about any facet of the dogma as “deniers”,
etc.! Many Catholics who read this will
recognize what I’m saying but others may
be surprised. The intimidation and desire
to be politically correct is powerful.
Of course in the real world differences
of opinon about religious beliefs are understood
and expected. Many Jews are “anti-Catholic”
like some non-Jews. And of course no one
is compelled to accept Catholic religious
doctrine and belief. Honest Jews are willing
to admit and discuss these differences of
religious views. Donohue has trouble with
the subject and tries to ignore it, presumably
on the theory that his specialty is only
defending the Church against calumnies as
he sees them.
The fact is that Jews not only reject
Christ as the Messiah as a matter of religious
belief but the Talmud vilifies Christ in
often loathsome, sometimes scatological
passages. Many Catholics are ignorant of
or at best uncomfortable with these things
and try to avoid thinking about them. American
Catholics dearly like to be seen as just
like everyone else. The Catholic hierarchy
is also influenced by the praiseworthy efforts
of the present Pope to reach out a hand
of friendship to Jews including apologies
for past anti-semitic actions of Catholics.
Historically, open hatred of the Christian
Catholic Church was an accepted practice
among pious Jews and is an unpleasant if
ignored part of the ancient history of Christian-Jewish
animus. In other words, past nastiness between
Christians and Jews was far from one-sided,
although this is rarely mentioned today.
Today the prevailing orthodoxy even in Christian
circles is that modern-day Jewish animus
toward the Church is a justifiable result
of past (and sometimes undeniable) Christian
persecution. But this is only partly an
explanation.
The late Israel Shahak, an Israeli academic,
in his book Jewish History, Jewish
Religion, discusses the historic,
cultural and political burden of Jewish
xenophobia or hatred of non-Jews. His later
book, “Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel”
(with Norton Mezvinsky) also explores the
subject. He makes a case that this is far
from ancient history and that it informs
the policies of the State of Israel today,
a state which rather openly practices “official”
discrimination against non-Jews. Needless
to say this makes Shahak unpopular among
pro-Israel American Jews in particular.
He survived intellectually in Israel, which
is more open in discussing such matters.
It is doubtful he would have survived professionally
in America. He is not alone in his views
however in spite of atttemps to shut him
off. I have no idea whether Shahak is even
known to Dr. Donohue. He never mentions
him.
In any event all of this is the background
to where many Catholics are in A merica
today.
What has all this got to do with the
historic event which has since circa 1967
become known as “the Holocaust” ? Let me
explain.
As noted above, Dr. Donohue, the vigorous
Catholic defender, avoids the “800 pound
gorilla” of the the Jewish angle to modern
cultural anti-Catholicism for the reasons
mentioned above. But he has other reasons.
He is well aware that in view of his interests
he is always treading on dangerous ground,
risking an untrue but potentially fatal
ADL charge of “anti-semitism” if he even
hints a whiff of criticism of Jews. Donohue
does from time to time point out the hypocricy
of some Jewish anti-Catholics who do not
recognize the bias in their own attacks
on the Church which would be anathema if
applied to actions of Jews. In this he is
like Shahak, even if he doesn’t mention
him.
In our times “the Holocaust” has become
a quasi-religious matter for many Jews (and
some others), in fact, for many the central
feature of American Jewish consciousness
and self-identity. Some Jews recognize this.
See for example, Peter Novick’s The
Holocaust in American Life. Anyone
questioning even the slightest part of the
accepted dogma will be met with a devastating
attack, politically, personally, and professionally.
Knowledge that this is the case has effectively
silenced many who have doubts about “the
Holocaust” stories.
What better way for the leading “Catholic
defender” to demonstrate his lack of “anti-semitism”
then by joining the mob of the “everyone
knows” crowd on the subject of “the Holocaust”!
It’s so easy and there are “no enemies to
the left”! Too easy.
I know that this sounds as though I’m
accusing Donohue of cynical temporizing.
Actually I don’t think that is the entire
problem. Donohue is an intelligent, educated
man, an academic, and undoubtedly a decent
person. However, like many other American
Catholics, he is unfortunately ignorant
of the inroads which revisionism has made
in the cult of “the Holocaust”. (By the
way, I refer to “the Holocaust” in quotes
since I agree with the analysis of Norman
Finkelstein who in his book The Holocaust
Industry adopts the same convention
in order to distinguish between the real
event, which he calls the “Nazi holocaust”
or persecution of Jews, and the gaggle of
“war stories” and lies which constitute
the canonical “Holocaust” in the popular
mind.). I would characterize the view of
the average American Catholic about “the
Holocaust” as a dim suspicion that “not
all the Holocaust stories are true - but
who cares? After all, they suffered so much.
And what can I do anyway? Back to the TV”.
I don’t know if Donohue (of whom I at
least expect more) has read Novick, Shahak
or Finkelstein. On the basis of what he
writes one must assume that he isn’t aware.
He certainly never discusses it and would
probably say there is no need to do so,
given his own agenda. Nevertheless, he seems
to have bought into every war-time propaganda
story on the subject of “the Holocaust”.
For example, some time ago he recommended
with enthusiasm to his readers on the subject
of “the Holocaust” a magazine article on
the topic which was a farrago of mostly
60 year old war-time propaganda, including
as just one example the absurd claim that
Rommel’s target in his North African campaigns
was to “get at” the Jews in Palestine -
even years before the creation of the Zionist
state and contrary to the then aim of Hitler
to drive Jews into Palestine - among other
such nonsense in the recommended piece.
As for real “Holocaust” revisionsists
- forget it! I doubt that Donohue has ever
read anything on the subject - The
Journal of Historical Review, the
Committee for Open Debate of the Holocaust,
Arthur Butz’ seminal The Hoax of the
Twentieth Century and the others.
The mere mention of these things seems to
upset him and his way of dealing with it
seems to be to retreat into familiar blasts
of “everyone knows” conventional wisdom.
Like many people of his generation he was
brought up to believe in every story and
apparently this is enough for him. In this
sense he is frozen in time, around 1947.
And it protects him from certain attacks.
This recalls my own correspondence with
that otherwise splendid magazine,
The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs,
who, while regularly critical of Israeli
actions and policies for their abuse of
Palestinians (unlike Donohue, who avoids
this subject), also find it convenient to
bash “Holocaust” revisionists and accused
them of being people who “deny that anything
bad happened to the Jews in World War II”.
I have challenged them many times to produce
evidence of a single revisionist who said
that. I never got an answer.
More honest is Norman Finkelstein (by
the way, also a critic of revisionists)
who said in his book The Holocaust
Industry,
“Articulating the key Holocaust dogmas,
much of the literature on Hitler’s Final
Solution is worthless as scholarship.
Indeed the field of Holocaust studies
is replete with nonsense, if not sheer
fraud.”
The point is that there are Catholics
who have a better informed viewpoint about
“the Holocaust” than folks like Dr. Donohue,
who, after all, is only typical of the current
Catholic clerical leadership and the Catholic
“flock” ( an unfortunate, but perhaps accurate
description) . These better informed Catholics
have to overcome their timidity and the
intimidation of the “politically correct”
to speak out in their own Catholic circles.
I sense that this is happening, ever so
slowly. “The mills of the gods grind slow,
but they grind exceeding fine”. And the
World Trade Center disaster is causing a
lot of people to think about first causes.
|
