The Great Executive Trojan Horse and the House of God

Taxpayers Cannot Sue Faith Based Initiatives funding via Executive Branch, Court Rules

As long as there has been a Church and a State, of any form or fashion, there has been a controversy over Church-State relations. One of the hallmarks of an oppressive society is too close a tie between the Church and State: Biblically only one culture, Israel has ever managed a successful Theocracy, by divine ordination, and all others, including Catholic Spain, and Protestant England have run into great difficulties when there is no recourse for a diversity of belief.

I am not advocating that there should be virtually no relationship between Church and State: that would also be foolish, for while the Church needs the State far less, the State does indeed need the Church for a stable society. This has become problematic lately because of the degree of corruption which the Church of varying denominations has exhibited : with graft, greed, embezzlement, sexual sin in the pulpit, even against children etc, it is a sad and sorrowful thing that the government occasionally has to step in, but when the Church, though it mentions the name of Christ behaves in a manner anathema to Him and His Word, we cannot be surprised when the laws of the land are applied to protect innocents, because the Church did not bear its own responsibility.

However, a far greater problem these days, is a lazy comfortable Church, particularly in America. American Churches of most denominations, at first were extremely reluctant to accept 'faith based initiatives' [what a rubric!], or any form of government intervention or funding or interference. There has always held a principle in scripture, that the State, even in the theocracy of Israel was not to involve itself in the workings of the House of God: two examples of the disasterous consequences were Uzziah the King entering into the Temple to perform the sacrifice, and Saul failing to wait for Samuel to do the same. In Revelation and Daniel, the ultimate 'evil' act comes with the 'desolation of abomination', the Anti-Christ, entering in to the Temple to defile it: again, the ultimate State intrusion into God's House.

While the above is indicative of Scriptural concerns, to be continued....
LS Blogs

The Great Executive Trojan Horse and the House of God

Taxpayers Cannot Sue Faith Based Initiatives funding via Executive Branch, Court Rules

As long as there has been a Church and a State, of any form or fashion, there has been a controversy over Church-State relations. One of the hallmarks of an oppressive society is too close a tie between the Church and State: Biblically only one culture, Israel has ever managed a successful Theocracy, by divine ordination, and all others, including Catholic Spain, and Protestant England have run into great difficulties when there is no recourse for a diversity of belief.

I am not advocating that there should be virtually no relationship between Church and State: that would also be foolish, for while the Church needs the State far less, the State does indeed need the Church for a stable society. This has become problematic lately because of the degree of corruption which the Church of varying denominations has exhibited because

How God Answers the Revisionists in the Ukraine

Jewish scholars expected to visit newly found Holocaust grave site in Ukraine

Jun 11 2007, 14:20

Where Are the Jews-Part II

Was there a Move to De-Judify Modern Bible Translations and Paraphrases in the Years before, during and after the Shoah?
Where are the Jews in the New Bible Translations?- Pt. I

---

Introduction and Review of Part I
That Hitler and the Third Reich meant to rid Germany and Europe of Jewish influence, culture and even bloodlines, is fairly well known today even in popular culture. The extent and methodology which was used by the Third Reich in eradicating Jewish presence in all facets of German society has fascinated, and horrified modern scholars, who have among other things discovered that the 'Final Solution' or Endlosung extended to the Church as well, using the very words and doctrines of the church, to metamorphosize it into something altogether different than the Body of Christ it was intended to be. In past articles we have already looked at the '
I.morphing' of the German Lutherans into the 'Deutsche Christen',with a redefinition of doctrines and concepts although it was never completed, of

II. The de-judification of the Bible by introducing a Neo-Marcionism in which the Old Testament and Jewish influence in the New Testament such as Romans, and other Pauline Epistles were to be eradicated or redefined, and

III.Within both Catholic and Protestant Churches a cleansing of Jewish membership altogether or at least a lessening of equality of Jewish members even of converts in the practice of liturgy, including in the 'High' Churches of the taking of sacraments such as communion, and

IV. A politicizing of the Church including State sponsorship of Ministries such as nursing, benevolence and pastor pensions, State censorship of sermons, State takeover of former religious education sites and orphanages etc. This occurred both in the DC and in the larger body of German Christians as well as in the minority 'Confessing Church' of Bonhoeffer and Neimoller.

Further, like the rest of the German Reich, there was an intensive Gleichschaltung or 'Coordination' of efforts to infuse Nazi beliefs, control, culture and command at all levels, and the Church was the target of this effort as well. Germany and Europe at the time of the Shoah became a political chessboard for the Reich, the Vatican and the rest of the World, manipulating the placement of loyalists in positions such as pro Nuncios, Bishops, Police, mayors, Priests, Ministers and other Doctrinally and Politically loyal persons to maximize the ease of the 'morphing' of the Church, and carry out other policies of deportation and killing, and meet with as little resistance as possible. As with the Arts and social agencies/law enforcement, they often introduced a few loyalists, changed policies lockstep and promoted from within the Party or sympathizers, without forcing a total and immediate change. [Education differed]

The Holy Bible and the Third Reich

We have discussed previously the gutting of Jewish influence in the scriptures, and on a different website, the treatment of Conversos vs Marranos vs non-converts has been discussed ( See article at www.shoahrose.com/converts.html).
While there were somewhat diverse opinions in theological schools such as at Tubingen among Catholic and Protestant theologians about Reich policies, at most theological schools, the move toward Party members only and loyalty oaths prevailed, especially in Chairmanships and higher academic offices.

During this time, a man named Gerdhard Kittl [or 'Kittel] a Nazi theologian, was continuing the work of his father Rudolph Kittl on the Stuttgart Hebraica, and accompanying texts, which would come to replace the Ben Chayim text, the traditional Hebrew text on which the King James [AV 1611], Spanish Bible, Geneva Bible and Luther's German Bible translations were based. Kittl was the man Martin Buber called the man who 'made Anti-Semitism theologically acceptable', and while most of his writings are not readily available in English, even a cursory reading shows that he had no love of the Jews or their doctrine, or Jewish influence or interpretations of Scriptures. At one point, he had a Jewish scholar working for him in research, although the man was among those who had to flee the country. From a point of faith and belief, apart from the 'rigor' of scholarship, one would have to rightfully question his lack of scriptural office for a task: he collated a corrupted Hebrew text, was not a Jew which both Old and New Testament attest to as a requirement as an 'oracle' of the Word, and the texts of Westcott and Hort held to only 20% of the available manuscript evidence, based largely on the findings of Tischendorf in the late 1800s, which while deified for many years are now falling into serious question due to suggestions of forgery and lower quality of the manuscripts called the Vaticanus, Alexandrian, and Sinaiticus.

While that is somewhat repetitive of what has been written before on the topic in this column, the proposal here, in a preliminary examination, is that the period of 1908 to 1945 saw not only dramatic changes in the Church, but dramatic changes in the Word of God.

Changes in the Translation of Scripture Which Proliferated After 1933-5

1. Versions Proliferated after 1933-5, all but one based upon Kittl's Hebraica and
Nestle Aland Greek, the progeny of Westcott and Hort off Tischendorf's
translations
2. Transliterations, Dynamic Equivalents, and Paraphrases proliferated as opposed to word by word or word for word translations: this was true across text families, where even the newer translations were not word for word after their own modified Hebrew and Greek
3. Many many words were changed that directly affected doctrine. This has been well studied by Riplinger,(1) Waite,(2) Burgon (3) and others. Examples include the changing of references to the 'Blood' of Christ pejorized into a mere 'death'^4-note , or the virgin birth changed to a birth by a 'maid' or unmarried woman, or the deity of Christ denigrated.

References to the Jews Take a Dive: Is this a De-Judification of Scripture?

The Concern here though is not the doctrines which have been examined already, and intensively (see AVpublications.com) but of whether there was either a purposeful denigration of mention of the Jews in the Shoah period, and after, or whether it is a corollary societal change which while some may find a move towards trans-racial language, others may find a move toward a lessening of the place of the Jews in society and History. It is rather inconceivable that the Jews would lose their place in the Bible, given that it is the history of the Jewish people and their Messiah.

To review the data from before: modern translations and paraphrases such as the NASV, the Living Bible, Good News for Modern Man, NIV and others:

1. Mention the word "Israel" less frequently
2. Mention the word "Jew" and "Jews" less frequently
3. Change the expression "Children of Israel" almost entirely to "Sons of Israel"
4. Err either in non-mention or changed mention.

The table below shows the exact figures. While not always in descending order chronologically or count wise, it can be clearly seen that there is a trend to a lesser mention in translations beyond the Textus Receptus. Less mention of Israel, less of the Jews, and less, not more inclusive language regarding the children of Israel.

		>

O Daughter of My People

What is even more interesting is the changes in expressions having to do with the Jews which are more subtle: for example in the following graphs, set against the historical events which affected the change in mention the following expressions show a dramatic change, mostly toward lessening but certainly toward a marked instability of translation after the period in which the Reich affected doctrine, the Church and the approach to Scripture and its interpretation. These terms which change after that point are:

1. Daughter(s) of Zion
2. Daughter of My People [Bat Am]
3. Daughter(s) of Jerusalem

While the changes appear to be statistically significant regarding the line between TR Greek and Nestle Aland and between Hebraica and Ben Chayim Hebrew translations, it should be noted that a quick perusal gives further creedence to the 'de-judification' process as paraphrases are usually more severe in there pejorations and omissions. While some may argue that there is little difference between the phrase "Daughter(s) of Jerusalem" and women of Jerusalem, one can easily see that a daughter is a beloved person, belonging to a family, with a place in the family and a father, whereas 'woman' or 'women' is far more generic and does not carry the same connotation. It promotes a view of a less cohesive Jewish community, and on a broader note, relationship to others and God as Father.



Conclusion and Questions

At this point in the research, what can be clearly stated is that there is a marked lessening of mention of the Jews, and key terms referring to the Jews as a nation, people, or in relationship to God. Where there is not a lessening, there is almost an overemphasis. If one views the enclosed graphs, one can see a decided instability after certain key events: after the influence of the change in German theology to Higher Criticism, after Kittl's Stuttgart Hebraica and negative re-definition of the Jews and their place [he is openly anti-Semitic], after the Deutsche Christen reinterpretations of theology and liturgy, after the Jehovah's Witnesses adoption in 1943 of NASV, after blurring of Church-State lines, with the State in the eminent positioning, and after the incorporation of Darwinism, Social Darwinism, Root Race theory [promoted by Blavatsky who also promoted Theosophical translations/interpretations of the New Testament and non-canonical books] and within 30-40 years of Westcott and Hort's introduction of the New Greek. Since almost all of the above changes were at the hands of authors and instigators who were openly Anti-Semitic, it seems hardly logical that the dramatic and systematic changes in Jewish mention in the New Bible translations would not be at least corollated, and very probably causal.

More work needs to be done in the area including

A. Careful histories of text transmission and interpretations during the Shoah years and where [at what Theological institutes]
B. Statistical tests to compare observed trends against decided patterns
C. Investigations into policy making among translators and Committees regarding the inclusion of Jewish mention.

When these issues are resolved, it is highly likely that one will find the pattern of the gleichschaltung of the De-judification of the Word of God itself, which has lasted into this new century, and has forboding potential.

_________________________________________________________________________
REFERENCES AND FOOTNOTES
1. Riplinger, G. New Age Bible Versions Avpublications.com 1993
2. D. A Waite, D. A., Th.D., Ph.D .Defending the King James Bible: A four-fold superiority : texts, translators, technique, theology (Hardcover - Jun 1, 1998)
3. Dean John W. Burgon
Causes of Corruption of the New Testament Text reprint 2000
4. Note: While some downplay the importance of such differences such as the 'blood' vs the 'death' of Christ, it is actually a critical point: the difference between a Divine Savior and Redeemer vs a dead martyr. Further, the denigration here is deliberate as the word in Greek in both text families is 'hemos' indicating blood [e.g. hemotology] and not 'death'. All die, but only one shed His blood in atonement for sin.

Faith in God Becomes an Election Issue

Faith in God and a New Election

I was actively involved in politics as a young person, moreso than most, and often
had a hand in elections, from canvassing neighborhoods to meeting Senators and Presidential candidates at the airport---back then, I had very different political views but I was sure that with political pressure and involvement great changes could
come about: I cannot attest to being nearly as sure now. One difference though, between then and now, though is back then, everyone was assumed to have some sort of religious faith or concern although, few really did, and the ones that did often kept it a secret: for example few remember that George McGovern had been a Presbyterian Minister, and many worried that JFK's Catholicism might solidify the Holy See's control
over the highest office of our land, especially since Joseph Kennedy had an ambassadorial role in the Vatican and since the family had been pretty tight with Pacelli, or Pius XII whose role in 'stirring up' of the Shoah is beginning to come to light. [there are real pictures of Ted Kennedy as a toddler on Pacelli's lap-a picture is worth a thousand words.]

Trends though in religious fervor among candidates have come and gone---most though
have been in ardent strides of certain 'religious movements' to obtain certain
goals: for example, peace initiatives from groups like Catholics or Liberal Protestants and Jews, or Abortion restrictions from groups like Fundamental Christians, Orthodox Jews and other conservative groups or similar projects.
The Moral Majority, founded by Jerry Falwell in June 1979, was one of the first
major overall organized lobbying groups of many similarly minded people to vie for
a level of conservative moralism, and other issues, and they were sought after with
fervor by moderate to conservative candidates knowing how many votes they could pull.

Other Religious Groups Affecting Candidates

While Religious beliefs are finally being more openly addressed, though, it should be noted that several major groups in this country have always had the ability to pull down major numbers of votes, and they can be candidate makers or breakers. One group
are Mormons: they have a strict hierarchy of command, and garner millions of votes quickly. Catholics are another group which while diverse and containing many on opposite sides, still tend towards moral if not political conservatism, although definitions may waver. One change in the American Catholic Climate is the influx over the past 20 years of millions of Mexican Catholics, whose practice of Catholicism and world view is very different than that of most American Catholics. They tend to favor a more 'Old World' Catholicism, with a greater emphasis on relics,
non-biblical holidays and ideas, and a less favorable approach to tolerance especially towards groups such as the Jews. One can certainly point to individuals who do not fit the pattern, but the culture they are coming from is used to fascism, old-relic worship and practice and responses to persons of other faiths and racial backgrounds is often not as lends to a healthy pluralistic society. They are however a unified voting block, and often favor candidates who support illegal immigration, a
deference which has in 20 years radically changed the demographics, safety and provision of entitlements in the US.

One of the most notable groups to have grown over the past 40 years is new American Islam: while it like Christianity splits into several subgroups, like many other minority groups with some diversity, it rises to the occasion in garnering votes which are less issue based and more focused on establishing the political power of
of Islam. While some religious groups are issue based others are agenda based and the distinction is important, as the latter pose more of a threat to a stable society.

Mormons, mentioned above can go either way, but because they are a monolithic organization with decided views and goals they are certainly perceived by others as more threatening, and can actually hurt very stable Conservative candidates such as
Romney, who against other viable candidates can be weakened because of membership in
a Church organization which requires a first loyalty. While Catholicism can hold that claim also, American Catholics are so diverse and often more American than Catholic that while it may dismay voters, it does not cause any longer as much consternation, although those familiar with World Politics might muse that it should.

Some lesser known groups that are mighty 'movers and shakers' though and whose support is courted especially by conservative candidates include a few mega-churches and Christian Universities which even though I may share their doctrine, I would have to say have too much of a vested interest in this world vs the next. One such organization, and even a spoiler, is Bob Jones University. BJU is actually, education wise, a very good smaller university: its students are hard working and its curriculum pretty stable, but what the public remembers is its racially biased policies of the 60, 70s and 80s. One of the reasons though that candidates like Ashcroft from the last election or George Bush show up there, is that far beyond Greenville SC and their smaller school, their students often remain extremely loyal alumni, willing to obey BJU directives in matters such as voting, partisan church politics and church decision-making. Over the years many of their alumni have gone on to hold central positions in communities, churches and the government, so while they may look to some like a little hick school down south, their influence is formidable. That influence can be for the good or bad: they like some other large organizations such as Moody and Tennessee Temple afford other little in the way of basic Civil liberties and are often willing to ruin not only politicians but pastors
and even other Christians lives and careers over issues such as doctrine, platform standards [what can be worn or done by leaders in the Church], and at best, they can pull out many votes in an election and at worst they can defy gravity in breaking the laws of man and God.

Large church and para-church organizations can also be spoilers: some of these churches have membership roles of thousands, even 20,000 with affiliated churches: in an area or region they can swing the vote: the unique thing about many of these large churches is that they are comprised of very active interested voters who far beyond the initial stages of agreement, not only vote but will work for favorable candidates.

The Statistics are fairly overwhelming with regard to membership figures: below is a listing of membership in some of these groups overall:

US Statistics: Church Membership

Christianity	224,437,959	76.5%
Judaism	3,995,371	1.3%
Islam	1,558,068	0.5%/td>
Buddhism	1,527,019	0.5%/td>
Hinduism	1,081,051	0.4%/td>
Unitarian	887,703	0.3%/td>
Wiccan/Pagan/	433,267	0.1%/td>
Spiritualist	163,710	0.05%/td>
Native American	145,363	0.05%/td>
Baha'i	118,549	0.04%/td>

______________________________
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions

However the top statistic is a misnomer because any sect is included, and
most Evangelicals for example, would not include Catholicism or Mormonism or
Jehovah's Witnesses in that figure.

The same source includes the following breakdown of Christian denominations:

Denomination	1990	2001	2004
Catholic	46,004,000	50,873,000	71,796,719
Baptist	33,964,000	33,830,000 47,744,049
Methodist/Wes	14,174,000	14,150,000	19,969,799
Lutheran	9,110,000	9,580,000	13,520,189
Presbyterian	4,985,000	5,596,000	7,897,597
Pentecostal/
Charismatic	3,191,000	4,407,000	6,219,569
Episcopalian/ Anglican	3,042,000	3,451,000	4,870,373
Judaism	3,137,000	2,831,000	3,995,371
Mormon	2,487,000	2,697,000	3,806,258
Churchof Christ	1,769,000	2,593,000	3,659,483
UCChrist	599,000	1,378,000	1,944,762
JW	1,381,000	1,331,000	1,878,431
Assembly of God	660,000	1,106,000	1,560,890

------------------------------------------------
Table from: http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#Pew_branches

Additionally, Jehovah's Witnesses provide a powerful voting block: while it may sway
some against a political candidate , it has not hurt such figures as Colin Murray Powell considerably.

The Candidates

It is sort of interesting given the present growing 'religious' climate in the country to see candidates now vie for status as 'spiritual' or religious. I am personally very glad to see persons in high office at least making mention of having faith: as a young person like many, I lost my own and looked at the world as most politicians do as a vacuum in need of human maneuvering without God or His Sovereignty: but also like most politicians when push comes to shove, religion and faith boil down not to a lived faith and devotion to God, but to a coping mechanism for tough times. For faith to be truly viable in a leader it would have to be the former and not the latter, but it seldom is. Real faith is more than prayer in distress: even atheists accomplish that occasionally.

The faith of the people who run our government is critical though. When a person
implicitly or explicitly denies God or His Sovereignty we get a different morality
and decision making process from when one does not, but accepts the ways of a Creator.

If we truly could get a 'Daniel' in American politics or a 'David' we would no doubt be quite fortunate, but that is not a reality. What we have gotten for the past 60 years are people who often publicly profess most often Christianity or a form of it,
and go to church even, but who actually live abominable lives and very little discipline in carnal areas of their lives which carries over into their decision-making process. Every president since Roosevelt except for Carter and perhaps Reagan and Ford had adulterous affairs, and the last president, Clinton so embarrassed the office and the American people that it has been poison to members of his administration now running, including Hilary Clinton although she at least gets
a sympathy vote. Many believe Gore would have won with a margin had it not been for the unspeakable behavior in office. While some now just look the other way, the statistics above do not lie, and even if many who profess faith are not too serious about it, most agree on a general level of morality which at least disapproves of such behavior.

One candidate for whom there is great concern is Obama. Obama is tightly tied to a Church which has a firm commitment to African politics, and his name Barak HUSSEIN Obama has sent many to uncover his beliefs especially since his natural father was Islamic. His case is one which shows a need for discernment among voters: for awhile, his youthful appearance and exuberance and liberal causes, mixed with what many thought was a sort of evangelical background gave him broad initial support. The Church he attends though upon close examination falls into a semi-gospel, semi-liberal, and semi-political Church, mostly Afro-American membership, in which missions point more toward African aid and intervention than towards spreading the Gospel. While that is certainly a first amendment right of his to practice his faith where he chooses, it becomes impingent upon the voter to determine if he is indeed really a believer in Christ, or someone affected by a Social Gospel more than
a 'living' one. This example points to a common error which is rampant today
among voters, that if a candidate says they are for example a 'born again 'Christian
that they are or have even made a real profession.

George Bush rode to the top quickly as a moderate 'born-again' Christian candidate
who quickly garnered alot of support from places like BJU, TTU and others, but his personal life attests something altogether different: again, his choice, and not ours to judge except regarding whether he was worthy of the evangelical vote. 'Born Again' Christianity does not claim that Allah is God or that all faiths have one God, and yet in public interviews Bush has proclaimed both.

Jews have also had a rather hard time in political office though there are many: we have not yet seen a Jewish president because there is a stereotype and anti-Semitic
perception of seditious behavior which has carried beyond the Shoah when Judaism was equated with Communism and Bolshevism and we did our part in establishing that prejudice with many Jewish victims of the McCarthy era. Lieberman was a moderate and viable candidate, but there is still much prejudice and growing prejudice in a country characterized by over 75% of the population of faith groups known for problems in that area. The US probably has one of the better climates for a Jewish
candidate to run, but to win is another issue.

Faith is an issue of character and a predictor of choice. It is important to note
the backgrounds and choices of candidates in this area. One could not argue that Huckabee's Southern Baptist experience and ties would not influence his decision making, for some of us in a positive way for others negative. The higher up in government one rises, the harder it is for a true believing Christian or Jew with a lived faith to really practice that faith. Becoming a member or proponent though of a
prevalent belief system just for the sake of garnering votes is despicable and needs to be stopped: it is an affront to God and this nation, which in case any one else haschecked lately is greatly in need of His Favor.

Read column below

Nazi Schmatzi --Vatican to Yad Vashem regarding Pius XII

Pius XII, The Vatican Nuncio to Israel, and Yad Vashem

Here we go again: Pius XII's record on the Jews and the Shoah has risen more times than Lazarus. A few weeks ago, at a most inopportune time, nearing the Yom Shoah commemoration of the Holocaust, the Nuncio to Israel, originally decided to boycott the services due to what the Vatican considered an ill-considered record on the role of Pius XII during the Shoah. After awhile, he reneged, avoiding a possibly nasty international scene, but the volatile situation points to the truth of Israeli-Vatican relations under all the schmaltzy decrees and letters declaring how much they all really love the Jews, their elder brothers, even though if Rome had half a chance, they would like to move onto the Temple Mount and set up housekeeping.

I know I am supposed to say that more circumspectly, but old age is causing me in my oncoming diplomatic dementia, to call obvious things by what they truly are. At this point in history, we are all going to have to come to conclusions which are not even really arguable any more. Pius XII, while the Vatican would like to paint him as a candidate for sainthood, was not saintly at all: he was a consummate Vatican politician, experienced in international politics and 'diplomacy' and utterly key in the movement of Nazi-Vatican relations from far before the first bullet flew into an innocent victim.

Grading Pacelli [Pius XII]

A number of researchers up to 15-20 years ago were not really sure about Pius XII's records: the first 50 years following an event of the magnitude of WWII, requires massive sifting of information and the Shoah's documents and records are so complex and numerous, that the careful synthesis of what really happened is only beginning to come to light. As more and more information has surfaced and the real history of the Shoah is in progress of being written, Pius XII not only does not get an 'A+' or even a berating for how much more he could have done, but instead emerges as a key player in chess game of Bishops and Pro Nuncios and Apostolic delegates [Vatican Ambassadors], but among other things consistently chose in new and moved placements pro-Nazi clerics.

The Berlin Checkmate & The German Question

An example of this was his relationship with Cesare Orsenigo, the nuncio in Berlin from 1935 on. Orsenigo was so pro-nazi, that his racial policies and other opinions more closely mimicked the Reich than the holy See: so much so that Bishop Preysing, an outspoken defender of German Jews called for Pacelli [Pius XII] to send them instead a man with "brains and heart". Orsenigo was the man who hosted Hitler's 50th birthday gala, an event sponsored by the Vatican.

Pacelli {Pius XII] also was instrumental in the concordats with Munich [Bavaria] and Berlin [the 1933 pact between the Vatican and the Nazis] and later in the careful and lukewarm declarations of "Mit Brennender Sorge" [With Burning Concern], the 'qualification' of the first concordat. After entering office, he instructed his former colleagues to "leave the German question to him", a politic he cannot be accused of having failed to accomplish.

The war had already begun in Europe and Pius XII hailed from offices in Bavaria and Berlin, though he was Italian, and had already discussed with Cardinal Faulhaber the necessity of letting him [Pacelli (Pius XII) take care of the "German Question".²

The Hidden Encyclical

Pacelli is also the politician ascending to Rome's throne who replaced the suddenly dead Pius XI, who was the day before in the process of signing "Humanitae Generis", the 'hidden encyclical' authored by Jesuit John LaFarge, an American, which would have made the Vatican's position on racial tolerance and hence opposition to the Reich fascists position infinitely more clear. Ledochowski, the Jesuit secretary general at the time, whisked the encyclical from the Papal desk the day of his death, and the attempt for a stronger stand was left in Pacelli's hand, who never advanced anything like it.

Pacelli and A Few Others

To be fair, those who knew Pacelli, and he was not a unanimous choice in that conclave, was first and foremost a 'mover and shaker', but politically, not audaciously. He was criticized during his Papacy as taking too long in making decisions, perhaps due to his years of diplomatic and political employment.
His relations though with Orsenigo, Faulhaber, [who was the consecrator to Ratzinger], and Von Papen [who most do not know had status as a Vatican representative also], all showed strong alliances with the Reich in Berlin.

No Home for Israel

His continuing record was not complimentary. While he was not the only player at the time, his key people including Maglione showed a steady policy of refuge and aid only to Jews who had converted to Catholicism or not at all if it jeopardized Vatican presence in the targeted countries. Vatican representation in the US at the time pushed non-stop and without consideration, against granting Israel a homeland in Palestine, with the reasoning that the Vatican should have first rights there and not the Jews. This is not conjecture, but may be clearly seen in the Nunciature's correspondence in the US during the time. So in addition to a policy of limited aid, was added a policy of no homeland for the Jews.

The Pope of a Few or No Words

Among his other 'accomplishments' was the non-response for help from certain Abwehr members and Bonhoeffer to intervene for an end to the war---in fact shortly after the plea for intervention, those requesting it were arrested and charged with plotting the assasination of Hitler. The most that was done in those years was letter writing and occasional pleas for humanitarian concern for Jews already taken under arrest.

The Jews, in Other Words

Pius refused to use the word "Jew" during most public comminiques in the Shoah.³ Additionally, in October of 1943, when the Jews were rounded up in Rome for deportation, they banked upon Pacelli's word that the Vatican would provide gold-based ransom to release them. As the Rabbi of Rome pleaded with the Holy See to keep his promise [and by the way, the ransom was only to have been a loan] no response came and after hours and hours, the Jews of Italy realized they had been abandoned, and met their fate betrayed. So if Yad Vashem does not think that Pius XII would qualify for sainthood at least in Israel, one should not be overwhelmingly surprised.

Killing and Atrocity Centers-Pacelli Knew

Pius XII [Pacelli]'s reign in Rome, saw the death of 6.5 million Jews including 2.5 million children, and several million others in the Death Camps and Atrocity centers while Rome claimed they did not know, but recent discoveries show that constant reports of conditions in the ghettos and killing centers were well known to the Vatican as early as 1941. ⁴

Tell the Survivors They Cannot Have their Children Back

Enough? No, for over the past couple of years it was found that Pacelli issued a directive for the non-return of Jewish children to parents surviving the holocaust, claiming the Catholic interest in their upbringing with their involuntary baptisms
outweighed the grief and suffering of the few parents who survived and looked forward to nothing more than the sweet expectation of reunion. ⁵

Pius XII and the Vatican Ratline

There is still more: Pacelli sought clemency "for Arthur Grieser
"who had who had murdered thousands of Polish Catholics and Jews (the Poles executed him anyway); and for Otto Ohlendorf, head of one of the notorious Nazi mobile killing squads (U.S. Military Governor General Lucius Clay rejected the pope's appeal, saying that Ohlendorf was guilty of specific, heinous crimes); and for other mass murderers."1-3

Pius failed to report Nazi war criminals in Rome after the War and his staff aided the escape of key Nazis.
Pius & the Vatican later failed to report Nazi Fascists' Gold holdings from Yugoslavia in restitution hearings.[Phayer-3]


Near the end of the war, also, Vatican trains, which were allowed in occupied territories, were used not for the allowed purpose of mercy and medical aid, but for smuggling Nazi Gold out of Berlin. The Vatican Bank also has subsequently been accused of hiding known records and assets of confiscated Jewish holdings which were supposed to be restored, and aided in laundering Nazi funds.

Silence and Delayed Responses

One of Pius XII's favorite tactics was keeping silent in response to even desperate pleas for intervention: already mentioned were the group of Germans who pleaded for intervention, various Pro Nuncios throughout occupied territories received no response or vague replies, often too late. Catholic Poles who requested assistance also received no reply,not unlike the beforementioned Roman Jews.

While many like to mention the few accounts of benevolence, or the Vatican's pretty consistent policy of calls for racial tolerance in general, the truth is, that Pius's record is consistently one of non-intervention, pro-Reich, anti-Israeli homeland, and given the attempt to re-establish the Holy See in world politics from the time of the Lateran treaties on, by politics and doctrinal changes, one could hardly characterize the reign of Pius XII as pro-tolerance or pro-Semitic.

While Catholics may believe some of the PR coming from Vatican City, the record has become utterly clear, that Pius XII was anything but saintlike. Rome can object to Yad Vashem's reluctance all they want, but to even attempt to boycott the Remembrance Day of Holocaust survivors and victims, is ludicrous and an affront to common human decency: apparently the Red Shoes of power and wealth which walked with their entourage into Auschwitz a couple of years ago, were making a statement. They should have crawled in barefoot and in repentance. There is no 'nazi-schmatzi' here: there is a raw anti-human rights history of a Machiavellian Manipulator. It has taken 60 years for Vatican records and archives from this period to open to scholars from the outside---that's as big a cleanup as the one in Alaska by Standard Oil. Oh, and by the way: the U.S. helped in the escape of war criminals.
-------------------------
References
1Goni, UkiThe Real Odessa (Granta Books, 2002, 2nd Ed) : material from the Public Record Office in Englan
2 Hebbelwaithe The Next Pope....
3 1 Phayer, Michael; (Professor Emeritus: History: Marquette U) Commonweal Magazine, "Canonizing Pius XII. May 9,2003
4 Vatican Diplomacy During the Holocaust 1933-1945.
5 http://www.shoaheducation.com/newsource.html [Archive Article]

I Swear: Taking an Oath

Jam 5:12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and [your] nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.
Gabcast! I Swear: Taking and Making Oaths #1



Over the centuries, Foxes Book of Martyrs includes the accounts of Christian Martyrs who were imprisoned or sentenced to death, for differences they held with the State or Kingdom in which they were citizens. Some in the early years refused no more than to light incense to the Emperor. An envoy of Jewish representatives from Jerusalem pleaded with Caligula not to have to call the Emperor God---after being assured this was possible they were killed. Many Christians and Jews, throughout history have
stood on an issue which many find insignificant and obscure, willing to risk imprisonment, torture or death [or banishment] not to take a pledge or oath of loyalty to the State or King.

When faced with such a choice today, Who will stand? Very few---in fact to most Christians and Jews today, the idea of taking an oath for employment or citizenship is a minor thing, a mere detail. An example of such a loyalty oath included in many contracts is found in the following from a University of Florida contract:

I, the above-named citizen of the state of Florida and the United States of America, and being employed by or an officer of the University of Florida and a recipient of Public Funds as such employee or officer, do hereby solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the state of Florida.

Professor Librescu , the Math Professor at Virginia Tech killed holding the door against the gunman, was a holocaust survivor. He also had known the day and time when loyalty oaths were demanded by Hitler by those holding office or in public service or education and the military, and he understood the significance of promising loyalty : which almost always implies a first loyalty, to the state. After the Shoah, in Romania, he was demoted and then ousted for refusing to sign a loyalty oath to the communist regime. Librescu understood more than most college professors, that an oath is not merely a technicality at the bottom of a contract.

In the years before the Shoah, in Germany, as soon as Hitler came to office, on the day after garnering almost 90% of the vote, his first move was the requirement of a Loyalty Oath or pledge. Among the requirements of the mandatory pledge or oath were the following which were written into law:

Article 1.The public officials and the soldiers of the armed forces must take an oath of loyalty on entering service.
Article 2
1. The oath of loyalty of public officials will be:
I swear: I shall be loyal and obedient to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German Reich and people, respect the laws, and fulfill my official duties conscientiously, so help me God.
2. The oath of loyalty of the soldiers of the armed forces will be:
I swear by God this sacred oath: I will render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German Reich and people, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, and will be ready as a brave soldier to risk my life at any time for this oath.'
Article 3. Officials already in service must swear this oath without delay according to Article 2 number 1."¹

IF the German people did not at the time, Hitler, from the beginning understood the importance of an oath of loyalty. He required it of the military, public servants, of college professors and teachers, of artists, and the general populace. He even required it of the young in the
Hitlerjugend

We affirm:
The German people has been created by the will of God.
All those who fight for the life of our people, and those who died,
Carried out the will of God.
Their deeds are to us holy obligation

This we believe.

Speaker:

We affirm that God gave us all our strength,
In order to maintain the life of our people
And defend it. It is therefore our holiest
Duty to fight to our last breath
Anything that threatens or endangers the life
Of our people. God will decide
Whether we live or die.

Everyone present: This we pledge. HJ Pledge²

More alarming though even than the general pledges or oaths, were the ones later required of the Church in Germany: even Catholics were approached with loyalty pledges, and Kerrl attempted to have a Protestant wide push for a loyalty oath for church membership which failed mostly by strategic avoidance although the nazified DC continued with one.

I swear before God this sacred oath, that I will obey absolutely the Führer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, the Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht, and that I will be ready at any time as a brave soldier to give my life for this oath. [This is the oath German that soldiers took upon induction.]²

The Barmen Declaration of Karl Barth was written in protest of Hitler's demand of loyalty from the Church, affirming in the strongest language possible, the allegiance due to God and His Messiah, and not Hitler and the State of Germany. What Hitler had wanted to be the "shibboleth" of German Christianity, gave way to the true shibboleth of the Barmen Declaration.

Elsewhere loyalty oaths were required and even lukewarm Nazi Party members signed them to keep their jobs and comfort levels. Notably, Martin Heidegger signed a Party loyalty oath and maintained membership to keep his chairmanship of the Philosophy department at Freiburg, a decision which led to deep criticism in his post war years, and which he claimed to regret. Most at the time going along with the pledge gave little thought to it, considering it much as we do the 'Pledge of Allegiance', which it was.

The Critical Nature of Oaths

It seems odd to have to declare that one should not take the pledging of an Oath lightly either in the Church or towards the State, but in the modern Western Mind, the concept of honor and loyalty are all but gone: people sign what is necessary to keep working or succeeding in whatever endeavor they have chose. Back when I was in college and into my first jobs, loyalty oaths were not at all uncommon and like the quote above, often required loyalty to the laws and regulations of the State and Institution of employment. U of Florida and many universities still require loyalty oaths, and so do some other workplaces, although often it is an illegal declaration.
The fervor for loyalty oaths traveled from Germany to the US during the McCarthy era, where to object to signing or swearing an Oath to the State amounted to treason or sedition and like in the Reich was equated with Communism.

Real people though were losing real jobs when they failed to sign their Loyalty Oaths and for a time, it was quite a controversy in Academia. The reasons for failing to sign ranged from personal affronts to having to, all the way to religious objections to signing an Oath.

One source notes the following:

"David Saxon once defied university policy by refusing to sign an oath pledging that he was not a member of the Communist party, and was dismissed as a professor at UCLA, putting his career in jeopardy. He would overcome that setback, however, to go on to be president of the University of California.
"

How Important is an Oath?

When Librescu, long after the Shoah refused to sign a loyalty pledge to Ceausescu's regime, he lost his livelihood and eventually his homeland: he would never permanently return---all over the refusal to sign an oath. In this country, the refusal to sign an oath can also mean the loss of a job, or refusing another form of a pledge, such as a social security number can mean the denial of services, even essential ones such as food, housing and utilities. The ones though who have stood a t great cost understood very clearly that those few lines at the end of a contract, are asking "Who is your God?"

The Torah and King James Bible are very clear in that while men throughout the scriptures swore or made oaths, that in deed we are not to swear or make oaths. Part of the reason for this is that we must not presume on God: if we swear we will for example, never break a contract, and then we do, the contract is not simply broken, but we bear additionally the curses attendant on the breaking of a vow or oath.
Jam 5:12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and [your] nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

We cannot pretend to know the end of a thing, so in a very rudimentary level, we should not swear what we cannot promise. At a deeper level though, though an Oath may not mention God at all, when we pledge our first allegiance in an Oath to a thing or entity, we are putting that entity above God and violating the first commandment to have none else before God.

Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

The taking of an oath though, especially one of allegiance to the State is even more intense than that: the word for 'OATH' is 'shebuah' which can carry with it the connotation of a 'curse' or when equated with the word 'adjure' can apply to divination, a practice condemned in both the Old and New Covenants. There is a literal spiritual 'binding' of a relationship: e.g. a servant-master relationship, or a subject-King relationship, and when we chose the State as the Sovereign over the headship of Christ or Adonai, we remove ourselves from the citizenship in His reign.
The New Testament carries the following note about 'conversation' or citizenship- the word used in Phil 3:20: politeuma

1) the administration of civil affairs or of a commonwealth

2) the constitution of a commonwealth, form of government and the laws by which it is administered

3) a state, commonwealth

a) the commonwealth of citizens
[From Blue Letter Bible: Word Search]


Which is the choice we make of citizenship when we follow God. Phillipians 3:20 notes that "our conversation is in Heaven"---we have chosen that as our "Citizenship" and State, and for the Christian, Christ is head, for the Jew he is called "Adonai".
Those "Kingdoms in conflict" as Chuck Colson once coined the dilemma, are what we are faced with in an Oath.

I cannot though, help but think, that the esteemed professor Librescu, has been confirmed in his choice, which while suffering the loss in this world which did not understand, finds his loyalty unquestioned in the next.

_________________________________________
REFERENCES
1 historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-becomes.htm
2 German Propaganda Archives: Hitler Youth Pledge & Church Oath
3 http://www.shoahrose.com/barmen.html
4 http://www.blueletterbible.com