Buchanan Defends Pius XII

Nice article by Pat Buchanan defending Pope Pius XII.  Some people, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, keep insisting that the Church was indifferent to Nazi mass murder during World War II.  Reminds me of the Chesterton line that for some people when it comes to beating the Church, any old stick will do.

Comments

[retrofuturistic]

The actions of Pope Pius XII during the WWII era were completely understandable and do not require apology.

HOWEVER, we need to be careful in our choice of defenders. Given the public perception of Pat Buchanan as something of an anti-Semite and Third Reich apologist -- a perception that I personally think is somewhat justifiable and, at least, "based on a true story" -- I don't think we Catholics want to be identify ourselves with Mr. Buchanan on this point.

[JesseJr]

Pat Buchanan is alright by me. It's only those who do not follow sound doctrine that whine about his conservative, no nonsense views. He is a Traditional Catholic and avoids the protestantized novus ordo....like we all should. Nothing wrong with avoiding error.

I can easily identify with Pat Buchanan and so do alot of others who avoid the un-Catholic hallmarks of liberalism to include; humanism, religious indifferentism, modernism and the scorn for anything sacred and reverent.

Pat would make a much better president than Bush does.

[Donegal Tom]

HOWEVER, we need to be careful in our choice of defenders. Given the public perception of Pat Buchanan as something of an anti-Semite and Third Reich apologist --

Wow, you can totally insert "Pius XII" for "Pat Buchanan" in that comment and get mad props from those who hate the Church.

[joseph elias]

somebody has to defend the church if you listen to people in the new church andthe media ,youd think the church only began in 1965 following vatican 2....

[JesseJr]

Seems people who are liberal, novus ordo or belonging to one of the fringe groups (homosexuals, feminists, etc) are afraid of good Pat Buchanan. There was a time in life when Pat Buchanan would not have stood out in a crowd because everyone was exactly like him.

[D. Carter]

I believe John Cornwall, the author of "Hitler's Pope", has recanted, at least partially (I can't recall the original link where I saw this news, but it was mentioned in NRO's "The Corner" earlier this year).

Wow, you can totally insert "Pius XII" for "Pat Buchanan" in that comment and get mad props from those who hate the Church.
I don't see the comparison. Pat Buchanan is not Pius XII. I don't view them as interchangeable. One could also insert "David Duke" in place of "Pat Buchanan" in my comment and the opinion would still be valid. While Pat Buchanan certainly is not David Duke, that's a more apt comparison than with any Pope.

(Not that I'm even remotely worthy of being compared with a pope myself.)

My opinion of Pat Buchanan is based on his own words, his writings, his TV appearances and quotes that appear in the media. This recent article from him is one example: Was World War II worth it?

Mr. Buchanan ends up drawing the conclusion that we were wrong to fight Hitler in World War II because we should have been fighting Stalin. I'm uncomfortable with that position, as I am with much of Mr. Buchanan's writings.