Thu 23rd Oct 2014 | Last updated: Wed 22nd Oct 2014 at 18:57pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Sparks fly at Pius XII debate in London

Majority of the audience failed to be swayed by scholars speaking in favour of the wartime pope

By on Friday, 23 November 2012

Scholars speaking in favour of Venerable Pope Pius XII and his wartime record managed to convince a significant number of people that the Pontiff did the best he could to save Jewish lives from the Holocaust, even if they failed to win over the majority of the audience at a recent lively debate in London.

The Intelligence Squared debate, held last Wednesday in front of a large audience of participants, heard four scholars debate the motion: “‘Hitler’s Pope’: Pius XII did too little to save the Jews from the Holocaust”.

Speaking for the motion were the British historian Viscount John Julius Norwich and UN jurist Geoffrey Robertson. Speaking against were William Doino, a leading expert on Pius XII and his wartime record, and Professor Ronald Rychlak, a law professor at the University of Mississippi and also a leading scholar on Pius.

The “Oxford style” debate, in which scholars debate the motion and the audience votes at the beginning and at the end, predictably provoked some heated discussions.

Doino and Rychlak spent much of the evening presenting fact after fact in defence of Pius XII in an attempt to counter the so-called “Black Legend,” but their opponents were master performers who managed to convince many in the audience through sheer force of rhetoric and style.

“Those in favor of the motion made an eloquent argument and gave a superb performance,” conceded Gary Krupp, founder of the Pave the Way Foundation which has been at the forefront of clearing Pius’s name. But he added: “Unfortunately, it was totally based on erroneous mistranslated rhetoric, which has been repeated over and over again. The documentation we have posted online discredit each of the statements made by Robertson and Norwich.”

“I also find it outrageous,” Krupp continued, “when the revisionists make such eloquent conclusions about what Pius XII should have or could have done. They seem to be oblivious to the reality that the Pope acted in the middle of ground zero, under a constant threat against his Church and his life. I wonder, what did the Archbishop of Canterbury do to save Jews from the safety of London?”

Professor Rychlak and William Doino share their reflections on the debate below.

Professor Rychlak:

“Of course I was disappointed that the vote did not come out our way, but the room began about 3-1 against us and it ended about 2-1 against us, so there was some positive movement.

I had spent the two days prior to the debate at an international conference on Pius XII at the Sorbonne. At that conference, even the “critics” agreed that the term “Hitler’s Pope” was indefensible. Similarly, it was agreed that no one can seriously argue that he was anti-Semitic, and the facts show that he was in contact with and advanced the cause of the anti-Hitler resistance in Germany.

To move from that group of well-informed scholars who were discussing the latest archival findings to a debate over evidence that has long-since been disproven was somewhat problematic. Our opponents hit us with a slew of false charges that we felt obliged to rebut, but that put us on the defensive and made it hard to set forth the strong affirmative case that we have. I wish that I had been able to present our affirmative case, but that’s the way it goes when debating a pre-set resolution at a formal debate.

A few days after the debate, I spoke at the chancery at University College London. Several people there were aware of the debate and were actually quite happy that the vote came out as well as it did.”

William Doino:

“I think the debate went better than expected, considering the challenges Professor Rychlak and I faced. It was clear, given the pre-debate vote, that we began very heavily outnumbered, with a large amount of skeptics – if not very active critics – of the wartime papacy in the audience.

But by the end of the night, we were able to more than double the number of our original supporters (which, percentage-wise, at least, was more than the opposition gained), and win over a healthy number of “don’t knows,” even as there still remained, as was inevitable, those with opposing viewpoints (For a supportive British comment about how our side did, check out this tweet (second tweet) by clicking on here.)

Our opponents basically repackaged and recycled the now thoroughly-disproven claims of John Cornwell’s Hitler’s Pope. Because of the strict time limitations, and the structure of the debate, we were not able to answer every outdated error–though we answered many– or present all the evidence we have, so much of which is new and compelling. But I do believe we effectively conveyed our main points:

–that Pius XII, well before he became pope, and well before the Second World War and the Nazi Holocaust broke out, was issuing major warnings about the madness of Hitler, and the evils of racism and anti-Semitism;

—that in the critical six months between his election as pope (March, 1939) and the outbreak of World War II (September 1939), Pius XII issued impassioned appeals to try to prevent the War (and therefore the Holocaust, which the War made possible) from ever happening

—that Pius XII was emphatically not “silent,” and did in fact condemn the Nazis horrific crimes–through Vatican Radio, his first encyclical, Summi Pontificatus, his major addresses (especially his Christmas allocutions), and the L’Osservatore Romano

–that Pius XII intervened, time and time again, for persecuted Jews, particularly during the German occupation of Rome, and was cited and hailed by the Catholic rescuers themselves as their leader and director.

–that he instructed the bishops and nuncios in all the Nazi-occupied lands to take a strong stand against the racial persecutions

–that he inspired the Catholic faithful everywhere

– that he was profusely praised by the Jewish community itself, both during and after the War, and especially at the time of his death, and that these testimonies stand, despite efforts to minimize or explain them away.

We also documented – though not nearly at the length we wanted, again because of time constraints – the Soviet Communist campaign to defame Pius XII, which began in order to turn people away from the Church.

Anything we were not able to cover is more than addressed in our respective books, Hitler, the War, and the Pope by Professor Rychlak, and The Pius War: Responses to the Critics of Pius XII (the anthology in which my 80,000 word annotated defense of Pius XII appears) – copies of both which were fortunately made available to the crowd at the end of the debate.
There were three other things I found revealing about the debate:

First, although our opponents repeatedly accused Pius XII of being “silent” during the Holocaust, this is what the Times of London–where our debate took place–declared in an editorial on October 1, 1942, in the very midst of the War: “A study of the words which Pope Pius XII has addressed since his accession in encyclicals and allocutions to the Catholics of various nations leaves no room for doubt. He condemns the worship of force and its concrete manifestation in the suppression of national liberties and in the persecution of the Jewish race…”

Commenting on the wartime Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, the Times continued: “Its generous and honorable citation of ‘forbidden’ Italian authors and its maintenance of the standard of Italian humanism against those of neo-paganism; its plain warnings as to the significance of Nazi-race-worship–all these tend to show where sympathy lies at the heart of the Roman Catholic Church. The millions of believers, lay and clerical, who maintain a stout front against the oppressions of Nazism and fascism in their own or in other countries themselves testify that the sympathies found at the heart of the vast system permeate the whole.”

Second, our opponents mentioned the Nuremberg War Crimes trials, but made no mention of the fact that Pius XII was a strong supporter of them, and in fact met with the lead prosecutor, Robert Jackson, providing the tribunal with evidence to help prosecute the Nazi war criminals. One of Jackson’s deputies, Robert M.W. Kempner-himself a victim of Nazi persecution– became one of Pius XII’s strongest supporters, and answered the charge that Pius supposedly “never made an energetic protest” against the Holocaust. In fact, said Kempner, “the archives of the Vatican, of the diocesan authorities and of Ribbentrop’s Foreign Ministry contain a whole series of protests–direct and indirect, diplomatic and public, secret and open.” (From the forward to Jeno Levai’s book, Hungarian Jewry and the Papacy: Pius XII Did Not Remain Silent (London Sands, 1968), pp. IX-X)

Third, in the question and answer period, someone asked what St. Peter must have thought of Pius XII when he met him at the Gates of Heaven. There wasn’t any time left to address the gentlemen’s query, but had there been, I would have said:

“I am sure St. Peter was well aware of Pius XII’s high character and conduct, particularly during the War; but if he needed any further proof, he wouldn’t have to cite any Catholic sources, but simply listen to the wartime Jewish community itself. The 1943-1944 American Jewish Yearbook affirmed that Pius XII ‘took an unequivocal stand against the oppression of Jews throughout Europe.’ On February 18, 1944, Rabbi Maurice Perlzweig, the political director of the World Jewish Congress, wrote in a letter to the apostolic delegate in Washington: ‘The repeated interventions of the Holy Father on behalf of Jewish Communities in Europe has evoked the profoundest sentiments of appreciation and gratitude from Jews throughout the world. These acts of courage and consecrated statesmanship on the part of His Holiness will always remain a precious memory in the life of the Jewish people.’ And on February 28, 1944, Chief Rabbi Isaac Herzog, of Palestine, sent this message to Pius XII and the Church: ‘The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion which form the very foundations of true civilization, are doing for our unfortunate brothers and sisters in this most tragic hour of history, which is living proof of divine Providence in this world.”

I do think history is moving gradually in favor of a much more responsible and sympathetic view of Pius XII, as more and more evidence appears. Of course, this is occurring in the context of the complex history of the Church, with all its light and shadows, particularly regarding interfaith relations. Fortunately, the Catholic-Jewish relationship has developed over the years and is now very strong– and I pray it remains so, as I said at the end of the debate, hoping to end on an encouraging note.”

This post first appeared in the National Catholic Register.

  • kentgeordie

    The Jews approved the stance of Pius. The Germans condemned it. QED.

  • adamson

    Pinchas Lapide in his book `The Last Thee Popes and the Jews tells exactly what Pius XII did and did not do to denounce the Nazi persecution of the Jews .He felt that vindication of the Catholic Church must be made and made by a Jew. The author neither received nor ask for assistance from the Vatican.

  • David Lindsay

    Pius XII was first ever called “Hitler’s Pope” by John Cornwell, in his 1999 book of that name, a thinly disguised liberal rant against John Paul II with the ‘thesis’ that the future Pius XII, while a diplomat in Germany, could have rallied Catholic opposition and toppled Hitler. Pure fantasy, like the origin of the whole “Pope supported Hitler” craze: the 1963 play The Deputy by Rolf Hochhuth, who was later successfully prosecuted for suggesting that Churchill had arranged the 1944 air crash that killed General Sikorsky.

    Pius XII directly or indirectly saved between 8500 and 9600 Jews in Rome; 40,000 throughout Italy; 15,000 in the Netherlands; 65,000 in Belgium; 200,000 in France; 200,000 in Hungary; and 250,000 in Romania. This list is not exhaustive, and the Dutch figure would have been much higher had not the Dutch Bishops antagonised the Nazis by issuing the sort of public denunciation that Pius is castigated for failing to have issued.

    After the War, Pius was godfather when the Chief Rabbi of Rome became a Catholic, and was declared a Righteous Gentile by the State of Israel, whose future Prime Minister (Moshe Sharrett) told him that it was his “duty to thank you, and through you the Catholic Church, for all they had done for the Jews.” When Pius died in 1958, tributes to him from Jewish organisations had to be printed over three days by The New York Times, and even then limited to the names of individuals and their organisations. All of this is contained in works of serious scholarship by Margherita Marchione, Ralph McInerny, Ronald J Rychlak, and others, most recently the superlative Rabbi Professor David G Dalin.

    Colonel Claus Schenk, Count von Stauffenberg, recently given the full Tom Cruise treatment, was a devout Catholic, with close dynastic connections to the Bavarian Royal House of Wittelsbach that Jacobites would have on the Thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland, and to the family of Saint Philip Howard, martyred Earl of Arundel. In Austria, Hitler ordered the murder of the Chancellor, Englebert Dolfuss, who defended, on the borders of Italy and Germany, Catholic Social Teaching and what remained of the thoroughly multiethnic Habsburg imperial ethos (to this day, numerous German, Magyar and Slavic names are found throughout the former Austria-Hungary) against both the Communists and the Nazis. In the same tradition was Blessed Franz Jägerstätter.

    Examples of Catholic anti-Nazism could be multiplied practically without end. The more Catholic an area was, the less likely it was to vote Nazi, without any exception whatever. Not least, the present Pope’s Maths teacher sent him to get the Hitler Youth form, and then just kept it on file for him. “Thus was I able to escape it.” In other words, he was never in it. Have you got that? He was never in it.

    Quite how relations came to deteriorate so far between the Church and those now screaming falsehood and abuse on this score could then be a subject of examination. And who knows, we might then be permitted to move on to some setting of the record straight about the torrent of falsheood and abuse relating to sex between men and teenage boys, a torrent emanating from those who at least turn a blind eye to, and who not uncommonly engage in, sex between men and teenage boys?

    Still, anything to support organised shakedowns, often by people whose records would otherwise cause their testimony to be laughed out of court, against the Catholic Church. Why? You and I know the answer to that one, dear reader. But imagine if the whole world were caused to know.

  • josephmatte

    Those who are attacking Pope Pius XII are really attacking Catholic orthodoxy. What else has Geoffrey Robertson got in common with John Cornwell ?

  • NewMeena

    All these “Comments” supporting Pius Xll deal with material and arguments put forward by the defenders of the pope in this debate.  But they did not convince the majority of the audience which listened to them.

  • NewMeena

    In his earlier article Mr Pentin wrote: “The debate about Pope Pius XII in London this month will be an education.”

    Often these days interesting debates such as this are videoed and put on YouTube.

    I was initially surprised that this seems not to have been done in this case. Now the thought has come that the result was probably expected and the Church saw little point in advertising the outcome more widely.  

  • adamson

     May be they did not wish to be convinced.We will never know.

  • Kevin

    it ended about 2-1 against us

    That is called the fallacy of the appeal to majority opinion.

    This whole subject is complete nonsense.

  • Rizzo The Bear

    Nobody wants to be wrong, do they?

    WHEN the documentary, conclusive proof comes out that Pope Pius XII (and others at the Vatican) did more in his quiet, unassuming way to rescue Jews, Allies and others that would merit a forest of trees at Yad Vashem … will he get the quintessential, grovelling unreserved apology?

    Even if that happened, it would be a pretty cheap gesture and would fade away like a cheap antacid.

  • Rizzo The Bear

    Like most people, you believe the ‘black legends’…

  • Rizzo The Bear

    I notice Geoffrey Robertson and his ilk haven’t issued a warrant for the arrest of all the Directors -General of the BBC for the heinous behaviour of Jimmy Savile… 

    Sounds crackers? Yeah, like Dawkins, Robertson et. al. who wanted to arrest Pope Benedict XVI for clerical sex abuse!The hollow vessels have been eerily silent…

  • Rizzo The Bear

    I whole-hearedly applaud you, David Lindsay!

    Truth, facts, sense and sanity rolled into one post. 


  • NewMeena

    I have quite an open mind.

    I would have liked to have heard the arguments put forward by the four speakers. 

    You are insolent in presuming to tell me what I believe.

  • NewMeena

    People who attend debates of this kind are generally interested in improving their knowledge and understanding of the topic.

  • NewMeena

    “Nobody wants to be wrong, do they?”

    If you keep an open mind and do not have an axe to grind then you must be prepared to accept new information, thought etc and be prepared to change your opinion if you believe it to be wrong – bearing in mind, of course, that both the new and former opinions may both be wrong.

  • David Lindsay

     You are very kind.

  • NewMeena

    You misunderstand. The argument that the present Pope should have been arrested did not rest on the fact that he is head of the Church (“on Earth” as you might say – although God is everywhere, isn’t He?) but rather that in his previous position in the Church he himself sought to hide cases of abuse (and usually succeeded in doing so). 

  • David

    The folks that attend and organize Intelligence Squared have always been atheists and anti-religionists. Their positions are based on emotion and not on any openness to facts that might contradict their preset beliefs. Such liberal emotion and hysteria is promoted by the media which was taken over by Marxists long ago. The only way to win against such people is to not play their game.

  • Guest

    With thanks.Anyone keen to win over the lazy sceptics may begin by contributing a more accurate Wikipedia entry regarding the conversion of the wartime Rabbi of Rome etc

  • TreenonPoet

     At the time of writing this comment, a video of the whole debate is incorporated below the headline.

    (I thought the two opposing the motion by speaking in favour of Pius XII gave a good performance, even if selective with the facts, and they did manage to increase the numbers for Pius from 41 to 103, an increase of 1:2.5, so nothing for the Church to be too ashamed of in terms of gamesmanship.)

  • Parasum

    “Those who are attacking Pope Pius XII are really attacking Catholic orthodoxy.”

    ## If a Pope, living or dead, can’t be criticised, that only suggests that there is something to hide. An historical character, Pope or not, whose reputation is clear has nothing to lose by being criticised. If Popes can’t be criticised, historical study becomes impossible, and only propaganda is left. As for “attacking Catholic orthodoxy”, that is a ridiculous idea, as well being a illogical trick. People are not going to be brow-beaten into swallowing the Party line just because the implication is that if they don’t, they are ” attacking Catholic orthodoxy”.

    The defenders of the Pope always avoid three issues: the rat-line after the war, relations with Fascist states during it, & the Pope’s readiness to criticise the Maoists clearly, as compared with his dropping of hints about the Nazis. Others mention these issues, so for Catholics to avert their eyes from them is stupid & cowardly. Someone whose cause is in progress needs to be much better defended than that.

  • Parasum

     That kind of evasion merely confirms the worst suspicions people have of the CC: that it cares only for itself, couldn’t care a damn for the abused, and will use any illogic and any lie to get itself out of a jam. An honest Church doesn’t wriggle & squirm & evade criticism by saying “Forget about me, look at them instead”. A lying & callous Church does & says those very things. As this one has.  

    The BBC doesn’t claim the supernatural privileges, power, authority & graces the CC does. The BBC claims neither to be sinless, perfect, nor Divine – the CC makes all those claims for the One it calls its Founder, & claims to be His Body. It can’t get away with being judged by the low standards the BBC, a purely human society of purely human origin, can allow itself – the CC’s presentation of itself doesn’t allow it to be judged by that standard. It has to be judged by a far higher one. It can’t make claims about itself, ans insist upon them, then ignore them when they are inconvenient to it.

  • Parasum

    His account of the previous centuries of Papal Jew-bashing is very instructive & far from creditable to the Papacy; it takes up a large part of the book (which (as a POI) was published IIRC in 1964), and is essential as context for the much more creditable activities of Pius XI and his two successors.

  • Lewispbuckingham

    ‘but their opponents were master performers who managed to convince many in the audience through sheer force of rhetoric and style’
    This style on the part of Geoffrey Robertson was well honed by the time he left Sydney Uni, I remember him dominating debate in his time there.
     Catholics have little to fear from him, because he sees ‘danger from [furious] Catholics [as] “small beer” compared to the reaction that might be provoked by his latest and 14th book ‘Mullahs Without Mercy’ The Australian Nov 24 2012.
     He is worried about a nuclear exchange in the Middle East, and believes the the US and [sic] Russia were ‘rational’ during the Cold War.
     He is concerned about the ‘Beast of Islamic Fundamentalism’, and that acquiring nuclear weapons is a ‘Crime against humanity’.
     Not wanting to detract too much from the power of this analysis, it leaves out the other inconvenient truth. The fact that may not be mentioned.Best to ask two questions.
    Is Iran’s response religious, or a defence against the alleged nuclear arsenal of Israel?
    If there is such an illogical gap in the logic, could he make the same mistake about Pius?

  • The Raven

    Or they wish to hear their own prejudices expertly articulated.

  • The Raven

    1. None of the alleged cases of “cover-up” stood up to scrutiny.

    2. The case made by the “arrest the Pope” lynch mob was never more than old fashioned anti-Catholic bigotry hiding behind a fig-leaf of nebulous claims of cover-up.

  • The Raven

    Where does the Church claim to be sinless or perfect? That’s a colossal straw-man that you’ve just attempted to push over.

    And the very valid point about the Church’s attackers is that they were using the abuse of children as nothing more than a stick to beat an enemy that they already hated; the anti-Catholics care nothing about abuse and less for the victims of that abuse.

  • TreenonPoet

     Before this particular debate, the number of the audience who declared themselves to be in the ‘don’t know’ group regarding the issue (170) exceeded the number in favour of the motion (146) and exceeded the number against (41).


    Catholics will never get a fair hearing in this society, a society saturated with an anti-catholic bias, the product of centuries of black propaganda against Catholicism since the days of the Reformation. It has so seeped into British consciousness that the majority of people, including highly educated individuals who consider themselves well-informed, liberal and open-minded, have anti-catholicism in their bones and blood. Scratch the surface, and out it pops. It is the elephant in the room no one is prepared to admit to, including the Catholic church itself since the 60s. It has constantly sought to downplay this nasty undercurrent of prejudice and bigotry in its push for greater ecumenical understanding, often blithely throwing its own faithful under the bus in the process. And to what end? Absolutely none that I can see. The Church in England is less respected now, more scorned and despised now than it has been since the reintroduction of the Catholic hierarchy in the 19th century. Moral of the story? You dance with the devil and pretty soon you are whistling his tunes. 

  • ConfusedofChi

    ‘Debating’ with bigots is like trying to run in treacle

  • Tridentinus

    Spot on! I couldn’t agree with you more, Raven.

  • NewMeena

    Some might so wish. I would not.

    Thanks to the CH for posting the video link and to TreenonPoet for pointing this out to me (above).

  • NewMeena

    Yes, but this wish (of some), to have their prejudices articulated,  applies equally to both “sides”.

  • NewMeena

    That is your view. Others, such as Geoffrey Robertson for example, who played an important legal role in the attempt to have the Pope arrested, believe they have demonstrated differently.

    They wished for the matter to be tested in a court, that is all.
    He would, of course, have been released on bail pending trial.

  • NewMeena

    “….tells exactly what Pius XII did and did not do….”

    Does it indeed?

    And how do you know that?

  • NewMeena

    No, not “The Jews”, but “some Jews”.

  • The Raven

    Geoffrey Robinson is as much an unbiased observer as Chris Grayling, Johan Hari or Dickie Dawkins. His “opinion” on the Pope’s involvement in a “cover up” was widely derided in the legal press.
    Non-specialist reviewers of his book pointe out that it was light on fact and heavy on polemic. Lawyers took a less charitable view of it.
    The matter could t be tested in court as it didn’t pass the basic test of being a credible allegation.

  • 12Maria34

    You can read 76000 documentation on PPXII here:

  • The Raven

    Nice point, but doesn’t help your argument.

  • The Raven

    We’re the audience polled on their general attitude to Catholicism beforehand? They may not have heard of Pius XII before the debate, let alone heard the “Hitler’s Pope” slur articulated.

  • The Raven

    Let me help out “Kentgeordie”: *the Jews* who were able to give an informed opinion approved the stance of Pius XII.

  • Cailoro

    Whoever called the Pius XII as Hitler’s pope is an arrogant selfish and soulless. been a pope is not that easy, just like been a father is not easy to choose between your children or been a mother choosing between your children which one is good and which one is bad. Pope did everything he could in his power to balance his love for all humanity and his consciousness of saving other and forgive those who committed sin like Hitler and his followers. IF any Catholic question pope his position during those years then he/she should do more meditation about love and forgiveness first and deepen their understanding of been a catholic. i am not saying that those who criticizes the pope is wrong or should not criticize, all i am saying is that imagine yourself in his position, what would you do?

  • NewMeena

    I don’t HAVE any argument here, save to simply say I think Catholics should be more open-minded about the matter. They invariably seem to take one line, without much, or even any, knowledge about this – as a matter of principle.

  • NewMeena

    What ALL of them?

    Of course if you describe contrary opinion as “uninformed”, you really can’t lose.

  • TreenonPoet

     It is unlikely there were many if any who had not heard of Pius XII (given the subject of the debate), but if there were, then they would be in the ‘don’t know’ group and it is possible that some of them were prejudiced against Catholics and wanted that prejudice to be expertly articulated. I agree that that weakens my argument.

  • The Raven

    Invariably? Most of the people writing on here will have read the reported work of historians over the last twenty years: all of which emphatically kicks the legs out from under the case that was made by Hochhuth and popularised by Cornwell (as well as making clear the origin of the Hochhuth/Cornwell allegations in the Lubyanka).
    I would suggest that most of the critics of Pius XII have done little more than read the title of Cornwell’s book and looked at the infamously cropped cover photo.

  • The Raven

    Point to a well informed contemporary critic of Pius XII, then.

  • Nat_ons

    No, not “some Jews” but the greater – also the most influential and acute – part of Jewish leadership, from then Palestine, to the US of A, to Rome itself. It is only now, for the last forty odd years, that some Jews – a vocal, hostile, and rhetoric-led majority – have abandoned the affirmative response Pius XII: during the War, after it, and in opposition to The Deputy. It is difficult to comprehend how the wholly positive reaction of the Jews in understanding just how much was done and being done for hem by Pius XII, and those working with him or for him, could then so dramatically swing many years after the conflict to painting him as a callous monster .. yet comprehending that swing is part of acknowledging the grave injustice launched against this man.

  • Fr. Thomas Poovathinkal

     “It has constantly sought to downplay this nasty undercurrent of
    prejudice and bigotry in its push for greater ecumenical understanding,
    often blithely throwing its own faithful under the bus in the process.”

    The Church is acting in tune with the mind of Christ the Lord. It is perfectly in order and in the spirit of Vatican II : openness, respect and love.

    What we must now actively do is praying for all in the quietness of our hearts making it known only tho the Father in Heaven : Praying for Muslims, Jews and all  the Churches divided and gone from the Mother Church. When we start doing it, Jesus the Lord will do the rest because we are doing His will.

  • Fr. Thomas Poovathinkal

     “Comments”, arguments and data  and facts may reach from mind to mind, from intellect to intellect but only those with goodwill will bear fruit in terms of Truth (God).