(Reports, Essays, and Comments)
THE JESUIT POPE
Pope Francis elected as 266th Roman Catholic pontiff
The choice of Jorge Bergoglio as pope shows a decisive shift from Europe
Obama praises Jorge Bergoglio's 'love and compassion' on historic day
With the election of a Jesuit Pope, the world's attention has been drawn to the benign reputation that has been achieved by the Jesuit Order (the Society of Jesus.)1 A truer portrayal of the character of this organization is found in its history ("The Jesuits"2), and that of the Roman Catholic religion, which is the subject of the "Dark Shadows From the Past" section of this page.
Just over two centuries ago, the Beast of Rev. 13:1, which Bible prophecy establishes conclusively as the papacy, received a deadly wound. This was predicted by Rev. 13:3 (first part) It appeared as though the wound was fatal, but the prophecy also predicted that the deadly wound would be healed, and all the world would wonder after [follow (NKJV, NRSV)] the Beast. Here is a vindiction of the "sure word of prophecy" which should be obvious to all but those whose thinking has been warped by the sophistries of "higher criticism" in the interpretation of the Scriptures.
The election of Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, now Pope Francis I, places a spotlight on yet another principle of the Roman Catholic Social Doctrine, or Natural Law. It is called "Social Justice." It is a concept which is not friendly to individual liberty. Social Justice is part of a web of interlocking principles of Rome's Social Doctrine, including Subsidiarity and Solidarity. and Globalism is also an essential component. There are quotations in this document which reveal these interlocking principles. Relevant passages are highlighted for easy identification
There is a liberal view of social justice, a socialist view of social justice, a communist view of social justice, an Evangelical Protestant church view of social justice, etc. As variant as each view may be, they all derive from the Roman Catholic concept, which is a part of Rome's Social Doctrine/Natural Law. There is a raging controversy in conservative circles over a perception that Social Justice is a communist ideology3. Though probably unintentional, the debate serves as a distraction from the reality that it is a Roman Catholic religio-political concept. Nevertheless, one essay cites credible Roman Catholic documentary evidence that a Jesuit communist community was established in the South American country of Paraguay in the 17th and 18th centuries.4 Of course, this would have pre-dated both the Social Justice and modern Communist ideologies. However, the former may indeed bear strong resemblance to socialism and communism, so much so that the Vatican has felt compelled to disavow any connection.5
(Anyone who carefully reads the documentation on this page should not fail to recognize that Roman Catholic social principles pervade the psyche of America. If the nation has not already been completely Romanized, it is close to that condition. There is no resistance to what has been a gradual process. When those who abhor the thought of theocracy but are now supporting the socio-political agenda of Rome realize what has happened, it will be too late. The nation referred to in Revelation 13:12 is America.)
Malachi Martin, in his book Keys of This Blood: Pope John Paul II Versus Russia and the West for Control of the New World Order, stated:
In a 24,000-word document known, as papal documents generally are, by its now famous first words, Redemptor Hominis, John Paul displayed a depth of thought and consideration coupled with a message that was characteristically simple and startling.
No human activity escapes the religious dimension, he said; but especially important are the activities that constitute the sociopolitical life of men and women wherever they reside. Indeed, the note that dominated and animated that encyclical document was John Paul's insistence that the hard, intractable problems of the world—hunger, violation of human dignity and human rights, war and violence, economic oppression, political persecution—any and all of these can be solved only by acceptance and implementation of the message of Christ's revelation announced by the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church.(Underscored and italicized emphasis added.)
This appears to be a paraphrase by Martin; but there is little doubt that this is an accurate representation of what the Pope intended to convey. There also seems to be confirmation in the following statement about Martin:
In the final years before his death, Martin was received in a private audience by Pope John Paul II. Afterwards, he started working on a book with the working title Primacy: How the Institutional Roman Catholic Church became a Creature of the New World Order. This book which promised to be his most controversial and detailed work ever was never completed. Some speculate that his death was murder. (From TESTIMONY OF FATHER MALACHI MARTIN INEDIT; Underscored emphasis added.)
The statement attributed to Pope John Paul II exemplifies the nature and scope of the Roman Catholic concept of Social Justice. The objective is stated, and in fulfillment of Prophecy "all the world [follows] the Beast."
THE ORIGIN AND DEFINITION OF ROMAN CATHOLIC SOCIAL JUSTICE
The origins of ‘social justice’ — you might be surprised
You might be surprised to discover that the term ‘social justice’ comes not from the United States or from Marxism, but from a Catholic priest.
Luigi Taparelli, a Jesuit, coined it in 1840. Living in Italy in the 19th century, he was concerned about the socio-economic effects of the Industrial Revolution on the new working class.
To that end, he revived the philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas — Thomism — in order to help resolve these problems, on which the Church had taken no defined position.
Taparelli’s scholarship played a part in Pope Leo XIII‘s 1891 encyclical, Rerum Novarum (On the Condition of the Working Classes).
Social justice has since influenced Catholic and Protestant teaching, despite its Modernist and Pelagian tendencies. It includes Taparelli’s concept of subsidiarity, which ties in with communitarianism. Like it or not, subsidiarity is part of today’s Church — Catholic and Protestant.
Subsidiarity relies on church programmes, small groups, volunteering in the community via the church and developing ties with community organisers, which the CCHD collections fund in the United States.
Many orthodox Christians shun these more populist programmes, and they are right to do so. Pope Pius X and John Gresham Machen both spoke out against making the Gospel into a social mantra and ignoring its message of salvation.
However, a number of Anglican parishes in the UK are helping David Cameron’s communitarian Big Society programme by getting members of church congregations ‘involved’ in volunteer work for national charities and community-based programmes.
Is that making ‘disciples of all men’? Traditionalists are right in saying that it does not. Modernists and postmodernists would counter that it doesn’t matter — the perceived social benefits trump Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross for our sins and His promise of eternal life.
Unfortunately, recent Popes have openly supported social justice concerns as have ‘liberal’ Protestant churches.
A Gospel message of eternal life has gone by the wayside. (Underscored emphasis added.)
Cf. Social Justice: Not What You Think It Is ("For its proponents, 'social justice' is usually undefined. Originally a Catholic term, first used about 1840 for a new kind of virtue (or habit) necessary for post-agrarian societies, the term has been bent by secular "progressive" thinkers to mean uniform state distribution of society's advantages and disadvantages. Social justice is really the capacity to organize with others to accomplish ends that benefit the whole community. If people are to live free of state control, they must possess this new virtue of cooperation and association.")
The Origins of Social Justice: Taparelli d’Azeglio
Taparelli opposed in principle the entire liberal project, both political and economic, which he sometimes summarized under the two names, John Locke and Adam Smith. A collection of his essays bears the appropriate title Tyrannous Liberty. The reason for this opposition was that he saw liberalism as a product of the Protestant Reformation, which exalted private judgment over the divine authority of the Roman Catholic Church and thereby replaced the Catholic sense of community with an emphasis on the self-interest of the isolated individual. . .
The logical outcome of the society created by individualism is a demand for redistribution, and so communism. At bottom the individualistic economy is just anarchy.
By contrast, the "Catholic economy" represents order. It is founded on belief in God, submits to divine revelation, maintains respect for the human person and for the Christian ideals of charity and selfsacrifice, and is alone capable of explaining what actually happens in economic life. As against the "iron law of wages," for example, Taparelli argues that in practice an employer must pay wages sufficient to support not only the individual worker but his family, and furthermore that this is the right and Catholic thing to do—an argument that was to become a founding doctrine of official Catholic social teaching. But the Catholic economy as Taparelli understands it is by no means one that pursues economic equality. Taparelli does not believe in social equality, either in political life or the economy. He believes, as we have seen, that there is a natural hierarchy among men, and leadership in all spheres goes rightly to those who create order. . .
In the Catholic economy taxes will be minimal, and government will be careful not to adopt measures that injure capital. Government should know what kinds of taxes will weigh least heavily on capital, what are the cheapest kinds of taxes, how to make the best use of capital not invested, and how to use wisely the money necessary to buy the instruments of commerce. The poor will find themselves free to lift themselves up to wealth. Taparelli does not place care for the poor among the duties of government, but of individuals. It is the duty of those who have the goods of this world to care for those who lack them, and this should be reflected in the theoretical account of how an economy works successfully. . .
So far as I have been able to discover, Taparelli never used the term "social justice" with reference to economic questions.Social justice for him is the constitutional justice of a society, the justice that defends right order in the constitutional arrangements of the society. Its task at that juncture of history, he believed, was to defend the inherited rights of the existing powers, the Church and the aristocracy, against the rising tide of democratic equality. But many of those who read him, including Pope Pius XI, leaving Taparelli's constitutional views and his doctrine of inequality entirely aside, focused instead on his economic doctrine and applied his term "social justice" to that. Under that name, a concept of economic equality he did not espouse was to be his paradoxical legacy to his church and the world.
Taparelli has a good claim to being the father of Catholic social teaching. One of his students was the Jesuit Matteo Liberatore, who wrote the first draft of Pope Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical, Rerum Novarum (On the Condition of the Working Classes), the first papal statement on "the social question." Leo himself, as we have noted, had been a student of Taparelli's, his collaborator at the Civiltà Cattolica, and seems to have been influenced by him. Pius XI used to recommend the study of Taparelli's works in conversations with his friends and colleagues. One of Liberatore's students was Oswald von Nell-Breuning, S.J., who wrote Pius XI's 1931 encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno, which officially adopted "social justice" as part of Catholic doctrine, but as an economic doctrine notably stronger than Taparelli's: "[T]he right ordering of economic life cannot be left to a free competition of forces. For from this source, as from a poisoned spring, have originated and spread all the errors of individualist economic teaching." In 1932 Franklin Delano Roosevelt quoted this encyclical in a campaign speech before a large crowd in Detroit, saying it was " just as radical as I am" and "one of the greatest documents of modern times." (Underscored emphasis added.)
THE INTERLOCKING PRINCIPLES OF ROME'S SOCIAL DOCTRINE
Social Justice and Global Solidarity
The U.S. Bishops touch on two other major policy areas in Part II of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: social justice and global solidarity.
With regard to social justice, the bishops inform us that social and economic policies should foster job creation, provide safe working conditions and living wages, and avoid unjust discrimination. Workers must be allowed to bargain collectively without reprisal. Economic freedom and private property should be protected. Welfare policy should protect families and help them leave poverty, while at the same time providing a safety net for those who can’t. Faith-based groups can serve as effective partners with government, but should not be made to compromise their beliefs in order to do so. Social Security should provide adequate income to poor and middle-class families when workers retire or become disabled and to their survivors when the wage-earner dies. Health care and housing should be affordable and accessible to all as basic human needs. Agricultural policy should insure that no one goes hungry in our country, while at the same time providing farmers and farm workers with a just return on their labor. The nation’s immigration system needs reform to help families stay together, to provide a fair legalization process, and to address the causes of migration. Parents should be allowed to choose the schools that best suit their children with appropriate government support. Society should work to decrease the culture of violence. Criminal justice systems should aim to rehabilitate criminals, not just punish them. Care for the earth including developing renewable energy sources and addressing climate change represents justice.
With regard to global solidarity, the bishops call for reducing global poverty, protecting human rights, supporting beneficial UN programs, offering asylum for victims of persecution, and the U.S. providing leadership in conflicts around the globe. (Underscored emphasis added.)
Solidarity: The Fundamental Social Virtue
Families are bound together in love and solidarity. Every individual family is called to be a rich expression of that love andsolidarity and a witness of the same to the world. Furthermore, the human person participates in the broader human family by his own nature. Our humanity is shared, and our reality as persons immediately and irrevocably links us to the rest of the human community. Yet, for participation to be most meaningful, it must be consciously practiced and chosen. The willingness to practice participation while striving for social justice is the social virtue of solidarity.
Solidarity is, therefore, the acceptance of our social nature and the affirmation of the bonds we share with all our brothers and sisters. Solidarity creates an environment in which mutual service is encouraged. It also the social conditions in which human rights can be respected and nurtured. The ability to recognize and accept the whole range of corresponding duties and obligations that are embedded in our social nature can occur only in an atmosphere enlivened by solidarity.
As a virtue, solidarity's context is freedom and justice. Our solidarity with all of the human family implies a special commitment to the most vulnerable and marginalized in our midst. The natural unity of the human family cannot be fully realized when people suffer the ills of poverty, discrimination, oppression, and social alienation, leading to isolation from the larger community. But our response of love must be voluntary to be virtuous. In a special way, solidarity encourages striving for relationships that tend toward equality on the local, national, and international levels. All members of the human community must be brought as fully as possible into the circle of productive and creative relationships.
In the strict sense of the term, the most genuine and meritorious solidarity is not coerced. Historically, coerced solidarity denied responsible freedom and worked as an affront to human dignity. One cannot force, through political means, the acceptance of our shared responsibilities to one another in love. At the same time, no society may neglect the requirements of justice, particularly social and economic justice toward the poor. Society may appropriately direct the actions of its members to fulfill the obligations owed in justice to all persons. We especially listen to the cries from the most vulnerable among us.
The true communion of solidarity incorporates the reciprocity of men and women, most strikingly in marriage. Men and women share many characteristics, yet their differing strengths, interests, and emphases create a diversity that becomes a source of enrichment and unity. Solidarity is more fully achieved when the reciprocal differences of men and women are seen as an affirmation of the equal dignity of each.
In addition, solidarity's surest foundation is faith. A true humanism implies love and respect for each and every individual human person. In a fallen world, however, it is only the recognition of the common fatherhood of God and brotherhood in Christ that will ensure the realization of this important principle. Solidarity is a social virtue that bears many fruits and blessings, which come in a variety of forms and affect all of life. Solidarity yields a healthy society, a thriving economy, care for those on the margins, and structures that protect the family. (Undercored emphasis added.)
In 1997, the U.S. Catholic Bishops prepared a pastoral letter titled Called to Global Solidarity: International Challenges for US. Parishes, in which they reflected on the key elements of global solidarity, based on the teachings of our Catholic faith. Their conclusion in 1997, at the dawn of the 21st Century, was that these teachings are too often unknown, unheard or unheeded. . .
Solidarity is action on behalf of the one human family, calling us to help overcome the divisions in our world. Solidaritybinds the rich to the poor. It makes the free zealous for the cause of the oppressed. It drives the comfortable and secure to take risks for the victims of tyranny and war. It calls those who are strong to care for those who are weak and vulnerable across the spectrum of human life. It opens homes and hearts to those in flight from terror and to migrants whose daily toil supports affluent lifestyles.
(Called to Global Solidarity, 1997)
Solidarity is the conviction that we are born into a fabric of relationships, that our humanity ties us to others, that the Gospel consecrates those ties and that the prophets tell us that those ties are the test by which our very holiness will be judged.
(Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, Catholic Relief Services)
[Solidarity] is not a feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of so many people, both near and far. On the contrary it is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; to the good of all and each individual, because we are all really responsible for all.
(Pope John Paul II, On Social Concerns, 1987)
The Global Solidarity Team focuses on a particular social justice issue three or four times during the year by providing a packet of resources for use by individuals and/or the parish community. Our own “Catholic Social Teaching” will provide the grounding for each issue that is addressed. (Underscored emphasis added.)
Praying with the poor
Two great watchwords of Catholic Social Teaching emerged in the 20th century; subsidiarity (first spelt out in Pope Pius X1 encyclical Quadragesimo Anno - “The Fourtieth Year” (1931), forty years after Rerum Novarum -”Of New Things” (1891),on ‘reconstructing the social order and perfecting it conformably to the precepts of the Gospel’ and solidarity, appearing inGuadium et Spes – “The Joys and Hopes” (1965), at the Vatican Council, in the encyclical Populorum Progressio ”The development of peoples” (1967), and emphasizes in the encyclicals of Pope John Paul II.
Subsidiarity was initially an insistence that the law must not undertake more, nor go further than is required for the remedy of evil and the removal of danger (Rerum NovarumI paragraph 29). Pope Pius XI went further spelling out that “it is an injustice and at the same time both a grave evil and a disturbance of the right order to transfer to the larger and higher collectivity functions which can be performed or provided for by less and subordinate bodies”(Quadragesimus Anno, paragraph 9). Decisions, in other words should be left to the appropriate levels, a principle notably adopted by the European Union. . .
Surprisingly the catechism of the Catholic Church states that “the principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism” (Quadragesimus Anno – paragraph 1885) yet later in the text it turns to precisely those forms of ‘social enterprise’, collectivism and local mutual economic developments that are now attracting attention again in Coalition Britain.
Meanwhile, solidarity, a concept traditionally associated with social democratic, socialist and trade union politics (Solidarnosz in Poland in 1980s) has fallen into neglect politically and theologically.
Yet the concept of “international solidarity between all peoples” is central to Gaudium et Spes and Populorum Progressio. Pope Paul VI said that “there can be no progress towards the complete development of man without the simultaneous development of all humanity in the spirit of solidarity”
He insisted that “the reality of human solidarity which is a benefit for us also imposes a duty” and that “same duty ofsolidarity that rests on individuals exists also for nations”. It is therefore both personal and political. Pope John Paul II went further to spell out in Sollicitudo Rei Socialis that solidarity is “not a feeling of vague compassion, but a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good, that is to say to the good of all and of each individual because we are all really responsible for all.” (Underscored emphasis added.)
THE SOCIAL GOSPEL
Note that the hyperlinked pages may not conform to all of the fundamental principles of Seventh-day Adventism. However, they provide excellent analyses of the Social Gospel, and demonstrate that the movement and it modern iterations derive from the Social Justice concepts that originated in Roman Catholicism
The Social Gospel was an early 20th century Protestant Christian movement which placed its emphasis on the application of Christian principles to society's problems. Until this time, most Protestant ministers did not do much to address any of the growing problems of industrial society.
However, as the 19th century closed, rapid urbanization and industrialization convinced many Protestant clergymen that there was a need for them to promote certain ideals of social justice which could be derived from the gospels. Altough it made use of a number of ideas from Europe, this movement was almost entirely American, characterized by a boyant idealism and a pragmatic, action-oriented program. . .
Another influential figure was Walter Rauschenbusch whose 1907 Christianity and the Social Crisis was destind to become an important theoretical work about the nature and purpose of Social Gospel. Rauschenbush was himself influenced by the work he did in New York City because his Baptist parish was located in the notorious neighborhood popularly known as Hell's Kitchen.
Rauschenbusch argued that the notion of "sin" should not be applied to individuals, but also to society as a whole. Just as a sinful person was an affront to God, a sinful and unjust society offended God. If the social order as a whole can embody sin, then it must be possible to fight that sin - this effort was what became known as the Social Gospel, a gospel message for the benefit of society and not simply particular individuals. (Underscored emphasis added; but cf. A. T. Jones' Individuality in Religion - quaint 19th century style of writing, but solid reasoning)
Three Fallacies of the Social Gospel
Individualism means tyranny.
Baptist theologian Walter Rauschenbusch famously preached these words in Christian opposition to the evils of capitalism and big business. Of course, the opposite is true: individualism is freedom from tyranny. But he firmly believed the Gospel promoted a form of Christian socialism that is somewhat reminiscent in some Emerging Church circles today.
In the early 20th century, the Social Gospel movement was driven by the belief that the Second Coming of Christ could not happen until humanity rid itself of all social evils by human effort. Followers applied Christian ethics to social justice issues, especially as it related to economic policy.
The Emergent Social Gospel
In a recent radio interview posted at www.familylife.com, "Seeing the AIDS Crisis Through God's Eyes," Rick Warren answered a question about the Social Gospel:
"Bob: Let me ask all three of you – there are some who would look at this emphasis and say, 'You know, 50, 60 years ago, the church got distracted with what became known as the 'social gospel,' and forgot evangelism, forgot the spiritual needs of people. Are we in danger of doing that again?
"Rick: No, we're not in danger of doing that, and I think that's a great question, though. It was even earlier than that, at the beginning of the 20th century, Protestantism split into two wings, and there were certain theologians who came out that said, 'We don't have to worry about redemption anymore. We don't have to worry about the cross and the atonement and personal salvation. What we need to do is redeem the social structures of society' and, basically, all it was Marxism in Christian clothing. That's really what it was.
"Well, what happened is the liberals took the social justice issues – racism, injustice, poverty, things like that – and the conservatives, Bible believers, took the personal issues of morality – family, homosexuality, personal morality, and salvation.
"Well, who was right? I actually happen to believe they're both right – that Jesus cared about both the body and society. He cared about the spirit. He wanted people saved, but He also wanted us to act different in society. And, honestly, I would love to see a new reformation that brings those two back together that says, 'Jesus cares about the poor, the sick, the lame, the hurting' – He clearly did – the orphans, the widows, without watering down the fact. And you know, in my heart, as an evangelist, everything I do has the motivation of sharing the good news."
The original Social Gospel movement was characterized by the lack of a biblical Gospel message. It grew and flourished in the early 20th century when the Protestant churches had been overtaken by higher criticism. The denudated Gospel was supplanted by the idea of a "brotherhood of all mankind" ethos. Great waves of social action accompanied the Social Gospel, but it was truncated - it was human activity devoid of the Word of God and the Holy Spirit.
In the quotations above, Rick Warren is talking about a new Social Gospel message - a "new reformation that brings those two back together;" i.e., wedding the Social Gospel activism with the biblical Gospel. This is being marketed to the evangelical world as a more compassionate way. But it is, in reality, a new synthesis. And Synthesis is, by definition, a watering down of the Thesis by pulling in elements of Antithesis - thereby corrupting biblical TRUTH. . .
The original Social Gospel movement was characterized by the lack of a biblical Gospel message. It grew and flourished in the early 20th century when the Protestant churches had been overtaken by higher criticism. The denudated Gospel was supplanted by the idea of a "brotherhood of all mankind" ethos. Great waves of social action accompanied the Social Gospel, but it was truncated - it was human activity devoid of the Word of God and the Holy Spirit. (Underscored emphasis added.)
DARK SHADOWS FROM THE PAST
The past is not necessarily a predictor of the future; but Bible Prophecy must be taken into consideration, The nondescript Beast of Rev. 13:1-10 is by nature a persecuting power, and the lamblike Beast of Rev. 13:11-16 becomes a persecuting power. The first Beast is the Church of Rome, and the second Beast is the United States of America Cf. The Beast and the False Prophet. It is a notorious fact that the Church of Rome has a history of accomodation, if not actual collaboration, with cruel totalitarian regimes, the most notorious example being Nazi Germany, extending to facilitating the escape to Latin America of mass murderers through the "Rat Lines." The nations have not been without warnings in the news media. The Protestant world is strangely heedless, and will pay for its failure to believe in the prophetic Word. Here is documentation of the dark shadows in the Church of Rome's past, which in the light of Bible prophecy are predictive of her future actions. (It is clear from Rev. 13:11-16 that there must be collusion between the nondescript Beast and the lamblike Beast in its changed character, to make an Image to the Beast. It is also clear from Rev. 16:13-14 that these act jointly with the Dragon, identified in Rev. 12 as Satan, to gather the nations to the battle of the great day of God Almighty.)
Papal election stirs Argentina's 'dirty war' past
It's without dispute that Jorge Mario Bergoglio, like most other Argentines, failed to openly confront the 1976-1983 military junta while it was kidnapping and killing thousands of people in a "dirty war" to eliminate leftist opponents. . .
Other activists are angry over the positions Bergoglio, 76, has taken in recent years, as Argentina pursues investigations aimed at exposing those responsible for killing as many as 30,000 people, and finding traces of their victims. Some say he's been more concerned about preserving the church's image than providing evidence for Argentina's many human rights trials.
"There's hypocrisy here when it comes to the church's conduct, and with Bergoglio in particular," said Estela de la Cuadra, whose mother co-founded the Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo activist group during the dictatorship to search for missing family members. "There are trials of all kinds now, and Bergoglio systematically refuses to support them."
Bergoglio twice invoked his right under Argentine law to refuse to appear in open court in trials involving torture and murder inside the feared Navy Mechanics School and the theft of babies from detainees. When he eventually did testify in 2010, his answers were evasive, human rights attorney Myriam Bregman told the AP.
Bergoglio's own statements proved church officials knew from early on that the junta was torturing and killing its citizens even as the church publicly endorsed the dictators, she said. "The dictatorship could not have operated this way without this key support," she said.
Understanding the Vatican During the Nazi Period
Historians generally see the policy of Pius XII as consistent with a longstanding tradition of Vatican diplomacy. During political storms of the depression years, this tradition was interpreted by Eugenio Pacelli, Cardinal Secretary of State under Pius XI and later to become the wartime Pope. Pacelli exemplified a profound commitment to the spiritual and pastoral mission of the Holy See; he saw his role as avoiding association with power blocs and forging diplomatic links with conservative or even fascist regimes. As fascism extended its influence in Europe during the 1930s, the Vatican remained aloof, occasionally challenging fascist ideology when it touched on important matters of Catholic doctrine or the legal position of the church, but unwilling to interfere with what it considered to be purely secular concerns. Beyond this, the Vatican found most aspects of right-wing regimes congenial, appreciating their patronage of the church, their challenge to Marxism, and their frequent championing of a conservative social vision. . .
The Vatican quarreled with both Hitler and Mussolini on race, but hardly out of concern for the welfare of Jews. Throughout this period the Church seldom opposed anti-Jewish persecutions and rarely denounced governments for discriminatory practices; when it did so, it usually admonished governments to act with "justice and charity", disapproving only of violent excesses or the most extravagant forms of oppression. Much more important for church policy was the clash between the pseudobiological bases of racism and the fundamental principles of Catholicism and church authority. The tendency of fascist movements, especially Nazism, to use race as a foundation of their regimes directly challenged the Church's claims in the fields of baptism, marriage, and, more broadly, the definition of who was and who was not a Catholic. The Holy See sometimes muted its opposition, usually preferring conciliation and diplomacy even on fundamental questions such as these. Nevertheless, conflict could break through the surface. One notable occasion was March 1937, when the papal encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge (With Burning Concern) condemned the false and heretical teachings of Nazism. The Holy See openly protested Mussolini's turn toward racism the following year. Yet at the same time the Vatican strove to avoid an open breach – as it was to continue to do throughout the war. As always, the goal was political neutrality and the safeguarding of the institutional interests of the Church in a perilous political world. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)
The Vatican Made Nazism Possible in Germany and Croatia
The evidence shows that:
A) The Catholic church hierarchy, acting under Vatican orders, played the decisive role in making Hitler the dictator of Germany.
B) Subsequently, the Catholic hierarchy was active in Nazi movements outside Germany, for example in the Balkans, where the church was the institutional base of the Nazi puppet State of Croatia.
C) Although at Yad Vashem, in the year 2000, Pope John Paul II described the Nazis as having “a Godless ideology,” in 1933, when it mattered, the Vatican ordered German Catholics to love, honor, obey and protect the Nazis.
Tied up in the Rat Lines
The smuggling and hiding of Croatian war criminals was part of the extensive network known as the Rat Lines. Senior officials at the Vatican were involved in hiding and smuggling Nazi war criminals and their collaborators so they would not be arrested and tried. Hundreds of war criminals were provided with church and Red Cross papers that enabled them to hide in safe houses and then flee from Europe, mainly to the Middle East and South America. Among them were Klaus Barbie ("the butcher of Lyon"), Adolf Eichmann, Dr. Josef Mengele and Franz Stengel, the commander of the Treblinka death camp.
The Vatican network was also used by leaders of the Ustashe - the nationalist Croatian Catholic movement that was active in Croatia and collaborated with the Nazi occupation. "The Reverend Dr. Prof. Krunoslav Draganovic seemed to be in cooperation with the Ustasha network. And he was given a Vatican assignment as the apostolic visitator for Croatians, which meant he reported directly to Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini," states an American document based on a report from the Italian police; the document was recently placed in evidence at the court in San Francisco where Gowen testified.
The leaders of the Ustashe headed by Pavelic are the ones who stole the victims' property: art and jewelry - silver and mostly gold. After the war they fled with the treasure and laundered it with the help of Vatican institutions. According to Gowen's testimony, Montini, who in 1964 became the first pope to visit the State of Israel, was also involved in the Vatican's help in laundering the wealth. (Underscored emphais added.)
The Pope, Eichmann and the Nazi 'Ratlines'
The role of Pope Pius XII during World War II, his relationship with Nazism and his efforts (or lack of them) to save Jews from the gas chambers are hotly disputed. Even within the Jewish community there are strong opinions on both sides of the debate.
But the latest Eichmann revelations suggest that Pope Pius XII's moral stature – and qualification for sainthood – should be judged on its conduct in the aftermath of Nazism's defeat. Once the evil of the Holocaust was revealed for all to see, the Holy See should have been at the forefront of the campaign to bring the war criminals to trial.
In fact history's most savage mass murderers – Adolf Eichmann, Dr Josef Mengele, better known as Auschwitz's 'Angel of Death', Franz Stangl, commandant of the Treblinka extermination camp – escaped justice down the 'ratline' that ran straight through the Vatican state in Rome.
Senior members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy – marinaded in virulent Judeophobia and obsessed by Bolshevism – organised the escape of thousands of the most debauched, cruel monsters to a peaceful, prosperous retirement in Catholic South America.
The question that's salient today, as Pope Pius XII heads for canonization, is how much did he know of this most shameful episode in the 20th century history of the Vatican? (Underscored emphasis added.)
Liberal View of Social Justice:
On a classical liberal theory, the difference between a world of liberal communities and a world liberal community is not of fundamental importance. Since the aim of government in a community is to assure the basic liberty and property rights of its citizens, borders are not of great moral significance in classical liberalism (Lomasky, 2007; but cf. Pogge, 2002: ch. 2). In contrast under the ‘new’ liberalism, which stresses redistributive programs to achieve social justice, it matters a great deal who is included within the political or moral community. If liberal principles require significant redistribution, then it is crucially important whether these principles apply only within particular communities, or whether their reach is global. Thus a fundamental debate between Rawls and many of his followers is whether the difference principle should only be applied within a liberal state such as the United States (where the least well off are the least well off Americans), or whether it should be applied globally (where the least well off are the least well off in the world) (Rawls, 1999a: 113ff; Beitz, 1973: 143ff; Pogge, 1989: Part Three). (Underscored emphasis added.)
Socialist View of Social Justice:
Socialism and Communism
Socialism, as distinct from "socialistic" ideas and practices that are evident as far back as biblical times, is a set of ideas, or theories, at the heart of which is a strong belief in social justice. All socialist theories are critical of wealth and the concentration of wealth in private hands; all of them advocate the elimination of poverty by equalizing the distribution of wealth, most often by some degree of collective (i.e., public) ownership. Only the most extreme socialist creeds have advocated the total elimination of private property. Because socialism also advocates some form of collective action, it can be defined not only as a theory but also as a movement.
Consequently, bitter critiques of private wealth and intellectual theories about poverty became especially frequent preceding and during the French Revolution of 1789-99. Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-78) was one of the earliest-known proponents of the state's responsibility for the equal distribution of wealth, but did not go so far as to advocate the dispossession of the rich. During the French Revolution, the supporters of the radical Jacobins in power demanded greater social justice and the equalization of wealth, but were not opposed to private property. (Underscored emphasis added.)
Communist View of Social Justice:
The Theology of Communism
The Communist has something of the same kind of passion for social justice that is found among the prophets in ancient Israel. He is concerned with the redemption of mankind and often thinks of his movement in terms of Biblical Messianism. To him, the proletariat, rather than a single savior, is the anointed instrument of liberation. (Underscored emphasis added.)
Evangelical Protestant Church View of Social Justice:
A Christian View of Social Justice (An Evangelical view which seeks to base Social Justice on the Bible; but there is only one source for the term)
Social Justice is a word we hear often. From discussions with our neighbors at our local coffee house, to the nightly news, to the political arena, Social Justice seems to be a common topic of discussion and debate. But what do we mean by the term Social Justice? Is it biblical? Should Christians participate in acts of Social Justice?
Two Predominate Views of Social Justice
(1) Unconstrained view – This view is based on everyone getting their fair share. Every society has a lump sum of resources and it is thought that everyone in that society should have their fair share of those resources. Injustice occurs when some in that society are privileged to more than others. In other words, injustice occurs when resources are not shared equally.
(2) Constrained view- This view is based on the fair treatment of all peoples, and it is not concerned with everyone having their fair share of the total resources in a given society. This means injustice does not occur when wealth is not redistributed. Rather, injustice occurs when people are not treated fairly.
Which View is Biblical?
If we look at a sampling of verses on Social Justice, I think we can make an educated decision regarding the Bible’s idea of Social Justice.
Exodus 21:1-11 provides laws regarding the fair treatment of slaves.
In Deuteronomy 15:1-18, especially 7-11 and 13-15, rules are given concerning meeting the needs of the poor.
Psalms 72:12-15 and Psalm 103:6-7 tells of God redeeming the oppressed and persecuted from their oppressors, working righteousness and justice for them.
Proverbs 31:8-9 tells us to judge righteously and to defend the rights of the poor and needy.
By far these are not all the verses in the Bible on Social Justice, but they give us an idea of which view the Bible is upholding, which I believe is the Constrained View.
God’s Word does not command us to redistribute wealth amongst our society, so that we all have equal access to the total resources of the society in which we live. Differing classes and a distribution of wealth does not constitute injustice.
A biblical view of Social Justice holds that we are not to show partiality, not to steal, not to swindle others, not to take advantage of the weak because they are uninformed or unable to stop us.
So then, rather than saying we need to redistribute our resources, so that we are all on equal footing, a biblical view of Social Justice tells us that we are to care for the oppressed and seek to stop others from oppressing them. We are to speak up for those who are being persecuted. We are to work for laws that stand for the fair treatment of all peoples regardless of race or nationality.
Christians are to Work for Social Justice
If we believe part of God’s mission is to redeem the oppressed and persecuted, to make sure the poor are cared for and the helpless are not taken advantage of, and we believe we are apart of that mission, then we are to do the same. Christians are to work for Social Justice in their cities.
1 Jesuits are known for education, social justice ("Why are the Jesuits so reluctant to become popes? As the Holy See's own spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, a Jesuit, put it Thursday: Jesuits are "known for service" to others and not for wielding authority"; but cf. History of the Jesuits "The Jesuits, special agents of the pope, are better adapted to moving among people of influence.")
2 THE JESUITS (From Christian Edwardson's Facts of Faith):"When we reflect upon their past history, and remember that the Jesuits have been expelled from fifty different countries, seven times from England, and nine times from France, and from the Papal States themselves, there must be a reason why civil governments, Catholic as well as Protestant, have found it necessary to take such steps. Only in countries such as the United States, where they are allowed to carry on their work peaceably, we hear little of them. But some day Americans may wake up to find our present generation completely Romanized, and our boasted "liberty" a thing of the past. The prophet declares: "And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; . . . and by peace shall destroy many." Daniel 8:25. . .
Those who feel that the foregoing facts constitute no danger to American civil and religious liberty, would do well to remember that the Jesuits carry on an extensive educational program in this country, and that, according to their textbooks, their principles of civil government are diametrically opposed to the American ideas of separation of church and state. See their "Manual of Christian Doctrine, by a Seminary Professor," pp. 131-133. Philadelphia:1915."
3 Social Justice: Code for Communism; Social Justice at the University
4 Radical Takerover Pt. 6 – Rome’s Social Justice & Communism
5 Vatican official: Church’s justice teachings need new 'vocabulary' for some US audiences; Vatican to America: ‘Social Justice’ is About Relationships, Not Socialism