Need backup refuting claim that Vatican was complicit in Ethiopian genocide

PazzoGrande · #1 Apr 13, '12, 3:26 am

Facebook users, please visit http://www.facebook.com/#!/OCP.Page/...89050504507669

They are trying to start a petition demanding that the Vatican apologise for the Ethiopian genocide (yes you read that right). It's so stupid. The Pope blessed the Italian troops and all of a sudden that means that he was complicit in their atrocities. In the comments section you'll find the page owner even claimed that the Vatican caused the genocide.

I need backup in debating back. This being an Orthodox page, there aren't many Catholics who can lend a hand. My dismantling of their argument is logical but I'm afraid that the numbers may defeat me.

I'm asking for help because this stupid thing can cause a lot of damage if it spreads too far.

(I also cross-posted this on the Apologetics forum)

Hokomai · #2 Apr 13, '12, 4:43 am

All people of good will had a moral responsibility to oppose Italian fascism and the invasion of Ethiopia. Any enduring institution should apologise if it did not, and more so if it took action to support either fascism or the invasion. This includes the Vatican. Of course it should apologise. An apology for complicity in genocide would depend on the facts - I am not aware that genocide is a good description of what happened in Ethiopia. "Serious war crimes" would be more accurate.

PazzoGrande · #3 Apr 13, '12, 5:02 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hokomai

All people of good will had a moral responsibility to oppose Italian fascism and the invasion of Ethiopia. Any enduring institution should apologise if it did not, and more so if it took action to support either fascism or the invasion. This includes the Vatican. Of course it should apologise.

That's silly. The Vatican is not responsible for the genocide and had no part in it. It's the equivalent of saying that anyone who voted for Bush is responsible for the atrocities committed by some troops.

The Pope blessed Italian troops praying for their safety. So what? If a mother prays for her child who is going into war, does that mean she approves of the war? No. Does that even mean that her soldier son approves of the war? No. It's absurd.

Like I wrote, the owner of that page even went on to insist that the Vatican "committed" the genocide. That's ridiculous too. Did the 1,000 or so Vatican employees go in and invade and kill and pillage Ethiopia? Of course not.

Hokomai · #4 Apr 13, '12, 5:10 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by PazzoGrande

That's silly. The Vatican is not responsible for the genocide and had no part in it. It's the equivalent of saying that anyone who voted for Bush is responsible for the atrocities committed by some troops.

The Pope blessed Italian troops praying for their safety. So what? If a mother prays for her child who is going into war, does that mean she approves of the war? No. Does that even mean that her soldier son approves of the war? No. It's absurd.

Like I wrote, the owner of that page even went on to insist that the Vatican "committed" the genocide. That's ridiculous too. Did the 1,000 or so Vatican employees go in and invade and kill and pillage Ethiopia? Of course not.

You are not responding to my post, although you call it 'silly'. I said the Vatican should apologise, not for genocide, but for failing to oppose Italian fascism and the invasion of Ethiopia. Your 'some troops' argument is false. The USA is opposed to war crimes as part of its official policy. Italian fascist policy was specifically in favour of them, including the invasion of Ethiopia.

Armyvet007 · #5 Apr 13, '12, 5:56 am

Vatican officials and clergy, under the spiritual leadership of Pope Pius XI, blessed Mussolini’s Fascist army on its way to carry out a systematic mass extermination campaign in Ethiopia that claimed the lives of no less than one million people, including the entire monastic community at the Debre Libanos Monastery, the destruction of 2,000 churches, 525,000 homes and the perpetration of havoc upon the environment.

Unsupported. The author needs to cite sources which show that a)the purpose of the campagin was a "systematic mass extermination" a1) or that a "systematic mass extermination" was a major incorporated policy of the campaign b)that the Vatican knew this and c)that the blessing of the troops was specifically for their safety in carrying out this "systematic mass extermination"

Though Mussolini’s systematic genocide of the Ethiopian people from 1935-1941 occurred virtually within the same timeframe as Hitler’s Nazi holocaust against the Jews from 1933-1941, nevertheless, the Fascist genocide in Ethiopia is excluded from the annals of the world’s history books and from historical genocide documents at the United Nations.

systematic and genocide have very specific definitions attached to them in international law/relations. Do the Italian actions meet this criteria? If so, why isn't the UN's failure to properly apply this definition the focus of this petition?

While the Vatican has graciously apologized to Jews for its silence during the Nazi holocaust,

graciously implies that the Vatican didn't have to. Either remove it, or don't bother with the petition [which is based on the idea the Vatican has to apologize].

it has never extended the same Christian courtesy to Ethiopians although, in their case, the Vatican was directly complicit in Fascist atrocities in Ethiopia.

Unsupported

The Vatican’s silence and the United Nations disregard of the genocide against the Ethiopian people is counter to the principles of human rights and justice and continues to have a negative impact on every generation of all peace loving people including those of African origin.

Unsupported claims concerning "silence" and "negative impact". "Negative impact" ignores/invalidated by the support the Vatican's current missions in Africa receive from Africans. Also, why the inclusion of the UN [again]?

Discrete efforts to elicit a Vatican apology have so far remained unanswered. We, therefore, have to appeal to the international community to demand a full, public apology by the Vatican for its complicity with the Fascists who perpetrated untold war crimes against humanity in Ethiopia.

Efforts by whom? Unanswered or with answers the "we" don't like? Who is "we"? Is "we" being held to the same standard being demanded of the Vatican? If not, does that imply that "we" recognize the Vatican to be The Moral Authority and therefore must comply with a higher standard then the "we"? Why appeal to the international community? It's not like the Vatican basis its policies/actions on how the international community views it. Are similar "apologies" being demanded from the rest of the international community for its silence in this manner?

PazzoGrande · #6 Apr 13, '12, 5:59 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hokomai

You are not responding to my post, although you call it 'silly'. I said the Vatican should apologise, not for genocide, but for failing to oppose Italian fascism and the invasion of Ethiopia. Your 'some troops' argument is false. The USA is opposed to war crimes as part of its official policy. Italian fascist policy was specifically in favour of them, including the invasion of Ethiopia.

Supposed failing to oppose the genocide doesn't mean complicity in it. Again, the charge of those people is that the Vatican complied and even that they even caused it.

In any case, about the alleged silence, what is silly is the expectation for an apology for something that it was not responsible for. One apologises for something that one is responsible for. How does the alleged silence equate responsibility? Doesn't it make a ton more sense to expect Italy to apologise? But, the original point is that it's absurd that these people automatically equate alleged silence with complicity.

Was it truly silent? The Vatican has to be very careful about how it condemns other governments, because since 1929 the Vatican has had the law to not get involved with politics. Take for example the Vatican's opposition to the Iraq war. The Pope was bound and could not directly comdemn the war, but instead spoke constantly of the higher principle of peace while Vatican diplomats laboured to try to secure a peaceful solution. The Vatican could not directly comdemn Italy because it was illegal for them to do so, but it doesn't mean that it was silent. And it certainly doesn't mean it was complicit.

Just because it may not at the time have directly condemned the Ethiopian genocide, it does not mean that it didn't speak out against it insofar that it could. And in any case, an ally of one country isn't responsible for the wrongs that country does. That's like saying the UK needs to apologise for the Civil War because they were allies at the time.

My "some troops" argument is thus: these people claim that the Vatican was complicit in the genocide because the Pope blessed the troops. My point is, he blessed them -- so what? He may pray for their safety the same way a mother prays for her child going into Afghanistan; it doesn't mean that any of them is complicit and approves of the war, which is what those people claim.

Armyvet007 · #7 Apr 13, '12, 6:25 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by PazzoGrande

Supposed failing to oppose the genocide doesn't mean complicity in it. Again, the charge of those people is that the Vatican complied and even that they even caused it.

In any case, about the alleged silence, what is silly is the expectation for an apology for something that it was not responsible for. One apologises for something that one is responsible for. How does the alleged silence equate responsibility? Doesn't it make a ton more sense to expect Italy to apologise? But, the original point is that it's absurd that these people automatically equate alleged silence with complicity.

Was it truly silent? The Vatican has to be very careful about how it condemns other governments, because since 1929 the Vatican has had the law to not get involved with politics. Take for example the Vatican's opposition to the Iraq war. The Pope was bound and could not directly comdemn the war, but instead spoke constantly of the higher principle of peace while Vatican diplomats laboured to try to secure a peaceful solution. The Vatican could not directly comdemn Italy because it was illegal for them to do so, but it doesn't mean that it was silent. And it certainly doesn't mean it was complicit.

Just because it may not at the time have directly condemned the Ethiopian genocide, it does not mean that it didn't speak out against it insofar that it could. And in any case, an ally of one country isn't responsible for the wrongs that country does. That's like saying the UK needs to apologise for the Civil War because they were allies at the time.

My "some troops" argument is thus: these people claim that the Vatican was complicit in the genocide because the Pope blessed the troops. My point is, he blessed them -- so what? He may pray for their safety the same way a mother prays for her child going into Afghanistan; it doesn't mean that any of them is complicit and approves of the war, which is what those people claim.

Even more to the point, BJPtG spoke out against the Iraq War, yet Catholic chaplains in the US Army served there. Kinda blows the whole "the Vatican must have supported Italy's actions because priests blessed the troops" conspiracy theory out of the water.

Nine_Two · #8 Apr 13, '12, 10:41 am

To say the Vatican supported the genocide would take some effort, however some Bishops, notably the Bishop of Milan, were very vocal in their support of the war, which the Vatican did bankrole for a nearly bankrupt Italian state.

DadDave · #9 Apr 14, '12, 8:21 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nine_Two

To say the Vatican supported the genocide would take some effort, however some Bishops, notably the Bishop of Milan, were very vocal in their support of the war, which the Vatican did bankrole for a nearly bankrupt Italian state.

What exactly did the Vatican bankrole?

Hesychios · #10 Apr 14, '12, 8:32 am

I doubt that the intention of the Italians was to exterminate the Ethiopeans, but since it was an unjust war any casualties inflicted (no matter how small or how great) are unjustified by any measure.

I don't know anything about the extent of involvement the Roman Catholic hierarchy had in this, financial or otherwise, perhaps there was some or perhaps there was none. Whomever (in any capacity) was behind the attack and subjugation shares the blame for all the resultant suffering.

PazzoGrande · #11 Apr 14, '12, 8:40 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by DadDave

What exactly did the Vatican bankrole?

Yeah, I would have also been under the impression that the Vatican wouldn't even be able to afford that. They were only newly an independent state, and even though the Pope and Mussolini disdained each other, Mussolini's government did agree to give indemnities to the Vatican because Italy took the Papal States. In other words, Italy paid the Vatican and not the other way around.

I don't know the facts about the Vatican Bank lending money to Italy, but I find it hard to believe that the Vatican Bank can afford to lend money to any country, since countries spend amounts in the high billions. A few days alone of the Iraq War would cost much more than the Vatican Bank even has.

Splagchnizomai · #12 Apr 14, '12, 9:02 am

This thread appears to be part of disturbing trend of anti-Roman Catholicism here at EC CAF. It's a shame. It's supposed to be East and West -- not East vs West.

Nine_Two · #13 Apr 14, '12, 9:06 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by DadDave

What exactly did the Vatican bankrole?

The Vatican lent the Italian State the money it needed to carry out the war.

Ironically the reason the Vatican had the money, and Italy didn't, was because of the Lateran Treaty not long before.

My source on this, by the way, is "Pius XII: The Hound of Hitler" by Gerard Noel - a Roman Catholic who was inspired to write the book after meeting with Pius XII (although it was under Pius XI that the Italians were loaned the money).

Cavaradossi · #14 Apr 14, '12, 10:59 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splagchnizomai

This thread appears to be part of disturbing trend of anti-Roman Catholicism here at EC CAF. It's a shame. It's supposed to be East and West -- not East vs West.

Was this thread supposed to be some sort of loyalty test for the Eastern Catholics here or something?

Julia Mae · #15 Apr 14, '12, 11:48 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by PazzoGrande

Was it truly silent? The Vatican has to be very careful about how it condemns other governments, because since 1929 the Vatican has had the law to not get involved with politics. Take for example the Vatican's opposition to the Iraq war. The Pope was bound and could not directly comdemn the war,....

"The Pope was bound...?" "The Vatican has to be careful....?"

Jesus healed on the Sabbath. Against the law.

Popes are the representatives of Christ on earth. Not one is "bound." If the Vatican is supposed to be just another country and the Pope just another world leader, then Catholicism is... what? A really widespread secular institute?

I don't know enough about the while issue to post an opinion except that the idea that the Pope should or should not do anything for any other reason than obedience to the will of God is a pretty scary idea.