Couldn't load picture

Former Pope Pius XII has been on the road to sainthood since 1967. This site takes the position that Pius XII was a villain of the highest order, not a saint. While others have taken this same position, they have all missed the mark with regard to demonstrating it - some rather badly.1 This site also faults the United States government for its incredible decision to recognize the Roman Catholic Church's tax exempt status in America even as the German Catholic clergy was exhorting its parishioners to fight for the Fuehrer, and urges that it now try to redeem itself by imposing serious economic sanctions on an organization that would call Pius XII a saint notwithstanding that he shook hands with the devil.

The position that Pius XII was a villain is taken despite the fact that Pius XII did more than his detractors would have you believe. Pius XII spoke out against the war on several occasions. His predecessor, Pope Pius XI, trashed Hitler's notion of Aryan supremacy in the encyclical co-written by the future Pius XII entitled Mit brennender Sorge. This was the official position of the Vatican, and there really was no need for Pius XII to officially reiterate its contents. He certainly never repudiated it. Furthermore, Pius XII was "the boss" of those mostly Italian Catholics who did shelter at least some Jews from Nazi harm. What Pius XII did not do, however, was tell German and Italian Catholics that killing opposing combatants during World War II was not justified, and therefore was violative of the commandment which states "Thou shalt not kill." His failure to do so is deplorable, and even standing alone, should be sufficient to vilify him rather than beatify him.

Moreover, his motive for failing to condemn the Axis war effort as "unjust" is reprehensible. It is clear that Mussolini was anti-Zionist and anti-Bolshevik and Hitler purported to be anti-Zionist and anti-Bolshevik. It is clear that for whatever reason the Vatican shared both Mussolini's anti-Zionist animus and anti-Bolshevik animus and Hitler's purported anti-Zionist animus and anti-Bolshevik animus. It is not disputed by anyone that the Vatican had control over the Center Party in Germany. Nor is it disputed that this party helped Hitler acquire more power than that which he already had as Chancellor. It will be seen that given Mussolini's well-publicized statements, the Nazi Party's political platform, and Hitler's Mein Kampf, it is impossible to excuse this act with ignorance of what was to come. It is also not disputed that Pius XII, when he was still just Eugenio Pacelli and "merely" the Vatican Secretary of State, signed the agreement that dissolved the Center Party, which otherwise would have been in a position to vote against the Nuremberg race laws, as well as the renewal of the act that increased Hitler's power. The Vatican should thus be regarded as Hitler's accessory, and Pius XII plainly shared in this culpability.


This section merely states the obvious. A firmly established precept of the Catholic faith is that the Bible is divinely inspired. Another firmly established precept is that the pope is Christ's vicar on earth. So how do these two precepts apply to World War II? Obviously, war involves killing. The fifth commandment says, "Thou shalt not kill." The question of whether it is okay to kill soldiers fighting for the enemy thus arises.

Although the prohibition against killing is worded as an absolute, even amongst believers only a small minority believe that killing another human being is never permitted. Most agree that killing in self-defense is permitted, and most non-Catholics agree that the death penalty is permitted. The Bible clearly sanctions some wars, and Augustine's concept of a just war as originally propounded in City of God is now catechismal.2 The Vatican has sanctioned wars in the past, including but not limited to the Crusades, the War of Eight Saints, and the Anglo-Spanish War.

Modern warfare presents a more difficult situation. The problem with the Augustinian justification of killing during modern war is that it does not and cannot apply to justify killing by combatants on both opposing sides. Opposing sides cannot be said both to be fighting a just war - at least one side must be wrong. During WWII, Axis Catholics killed Allied Catholics, and Allied Catholics killed Axis Catholics. It is impossible for the Catholics on both sides to have been justified.

Pius XII was clearly at fault for permitting this situation to exist. If it is not the prerogative of the Catholic Church to say when killing during war is justified, then why did Augustine deem it necessary to say when it was justified? To say that God took the trouble to divinely inspire the Bible, and then to appoint the pope as Christ's vicar on earth and charge him with regard to matters of interpretation thereof, and then leave it to some self-interested secular rulers to decide when it's okay to kill makes no sense whatsoever. That is certainly not the Vatican's approach when it comes to abortion or the death penalty. Thus, the pope, under Catholicism's own precepts, had a duty to instruct those fighting either for the Axis powers or the Allied powers or both that their participation in the war did not justify killing. His failure to do so, without more, should have disqualified him for consideration as saint.

Note that this isn't just a failure in a vacuum. It is to say the very least interesting to ponder what effect a Vatican condemnation of the Axis powers' war effort would have had. Germany's primary ally in the European theater was Italy. Italy was a Catholic nation. Under the terms of its constitution, the only State religion was Catholicism. During Pius XII's tenure as Pope, the Vatican's relationship with Italy was defined by the Lateran Pacts of 1929. The pacts consisted of three sections: 1) the Conciliation Treaty; 2) the Financial Convention; and 3) the Concordat. Through these pacts, Vatican City somehow became an independent sovereign, and the Roman Catholic religion remained the one and only official religion of Italy. Article 36 of the Concordat is especially interesting:

Italy, considering the teaching of Christian doctrine according to the form received by Catholic tradition as the foundation and the crown of public instruction, agrees that religious instruction imparted in the public elementary schools shall have a further development in the secondary schools according to a programme to be established by an accord between the Holy See and the State.

Such teaching shall be given by means of masters and professors, priests and religious approved by the Ecclesiastical Authority, and subsidiaries by means of lay masters and professors, who for this end shall be furnished with a certificate of fitness to be issued by the ordinary of the diocese.

The revocation of the certificate on the part of the ordinary deprives the teachers of the capacity to teach.

For the said religious teaching there shall only be used in the public schools the text-books approved by the Ecclesiastical Authority. (Emphasis added.)

One can see that Catholicism was part and parcel of all public education through the American equivalent of high school for ten years before Hitler kicked off World War II. That's a lot of Roman Catholic influence on the average Italian.

With influence like that, it is difficult to see how a condemnation of Italian participation as an ally of Germany would not have affected the average Italian's willingness to go to war as an ally of Germany. The fact that Italy subsequently switched sides during the war bolsters this assertion considerably. Not having Italy as an ally might well have required Hitler to rethink his decision to fight a war on two fronts. The fact that approximately one third of Germany was Catholic would have required still more rethinking. Had Pius XII instructed Italian and German Catholics that killing opposing combatants during World War II was not justified, World War II might well have been shortened considerably, and maybe even averted. Thus, by beatifying (and ultimately granting the status of saint to?) Pius XII, the Vatican is effectively making war more likely in the future by exalting those who were at least possibly in a position to stop it in the past and did very much less than they could. So doing will not exactly encourage future popes to do more to avoid future wars. So what is the priority here?


This section is the heart of the matter. What follows under this heading will show that the Vatican, with at least adequate knowledge of Hitler's mindset and methods, increased the level of Hitler's power after he became Chancellor, voluntarily abdicated its position to do anything to oppose the increased power granted to him, and at best did nothing to countermand the exhortations of the German Catholic clergy for the German Catholic to fight for the fuehrer. Pius XII, as Vatican Secretary of State, was indirectly involved in the power increase, and was directly involved in the abdication. He was Pope when the Vatican failed to countermand the exhortations of the German clergy.


An abbreviated synopsis of Pius XII's career is as follows. He was born Eugenio Pacelli in 1876. He was ordained in 1899. In 1901 he began his work with the Vatican's Department of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs. He rose through the ranks of that department, becoming Undersecretary in 1911, Adjunct Secretary in 1912, and finally Secretary in 1914. He was appointed Nuncio to Bavaria in 1917, and served in that capacity to Germany beginning in 1920. (Nuncio is the Vatican equivalent of ambassador.) He was promoted to Cardinal Secretary of State in 1930. He became Camerlengo in 1935. Finally, after the death of his predecessor Pius XI, he was elected Pope in 1939 and remained in that office until his death in 1958. Given Pius XII's background, it is obviously accurate to say that he had his finger on the pulse of current events during his tenure as Secretary of State and when he took the job as pope.

During Pius XII's tenure as Pope, the Vatican's relationship with Italy was defined by the Lateran Pacts of 1929. Key features of these pacts were noted above.

During Pius XII's tenure as Pope, the Vatican's relationship with Germany was defined at least in part by the Reichskonkordat of 1933 (hereinafter "the Concordat"). Pius XII, when he was still just Pacelli the Vatican Secretary of State, signed the Concordat for the Vatican. The Concordat contains provisions amounting to diplomatic immunity for certain representatives of the Vatican, and thus implicitly recognized the Vatican's status as an independent sovereign. Another provision of primary importance is found in in Article 32: "... the Holy See will enact regulations to exclude the clergy and members of religious orders from membership in political parties and from working on their behalf." Note that the Supplementary Protocol regarding Article 32 provided that "[i]t is understood that similar regulations regarding activity in party politics will be introduced by the Reich for members of non-Catholic denominations." Various other provisions are included, all of which have importance but most having secondary importance. Examples include observance of the evidentiary privilege granted by law in the confessional, and exempting clergy from things like jury duty. In the subsequent encyclical Mit brennender Sorge, Pius XI described the Vatican's intent with regard to the Concordat as being:

the desire, as it behooved Us, to secure for Germany the freedom of the Church's beneficent mission and the salvation of the souls in her care, as well as by the sincere wish to render the German people a service essential for its peaceful development and prosperity.

It should be noted that a lot of what Germany agreed to in the Concordat with regard to salvation of souls was already guaranteed to the Vatican by German law anyway. From 1919 until 1945, the ultimate source of German law was the Weimar Constitution. The Weimar Constitution offered both the individual and religious organizations - including the Roman Catholic Church - some pretty serious guarantees. They can be found in Articles 135 - 141. There was no state church. Freedom of association was guaranteed to religious bodies. There were no restrictions as to the union of religious bodies within Germany. The Catholic Church was entitled to regulate and administer its own affairs without Reich interference. It was entitled to appoint its own officials. It was a corporation with public rights and, as such, was entitled to levy taxes on the basis of the civil tax rolls, in accordance with the provisions of Land law. In addition, it had the same legal rights as other corporations under the general regulations of the civil code.


Two issues that were very prominent in Europe (and elsewhere) in the early 1920s were Zionism and communism. Simply put, Zionism was a movement to establish a Jewish nation in Palestine. Everybody knows what communism is. Bolshevism was the name given to communism Soviet Union style. (The name of the political party that conducted the October Revolution was "Bolshevik.") Both issues had been around for a while, but the Bolshevik Revolution made their importance paramount.


This point focuses on two acts and one omission of the Vatican: 1) the Vatican support for the "Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the State" (Enabling Act); 2) the voluntary dissolution of the Center Party, which was an express condition of the Concordat; and 3) Pius XII's failure to countermand the exhortation of the German clergy for the German citizen to fight for the Fuhrer. The bottom line, which is not and cannot be disputed, is that the Vatican voluntarily did two things that aided Hitler: first, it gave him more power, regardless of whether this grant of additional power was a constitutional amendment or an unconstitutional law, and regardless of whether this additional power was unconstitutionally exceeded by Hitler; and second, it took itself out of position to do anything meaningful from within the German legislature. Because the Vatican aided Hitler, its failure to contradict the exhortations of the Catholic clergy for its parishioners to fight for the Fuhrer is all the more egregious.

Couldn't load picture

None of the following eleven propositions are in dispute: 1) Mussolini was anti-Zionist and anti-Bolshevik, and the Vatican, including Pius XII, knew it; 2) Hitler purported to be anti-Zionist and anti-Bolshevik, and the Vatican, including Pius XII, knew it; 3) the Vatican was anti-Bolshevik and, for whatever reason, anti-Zionist; 4) the Vatican knew that Hitler would violate the Treaty of Versailles; 5) the Vatican knew about Hitler's methods; 6) the Vatican knew that Hitler felt that Germany should have played the same role as that of Japan in the Russo-Japanese War; 7) the Vatican controlled the Center Party; 8) the Center Party unanimously supported the Enabling Act; 9) it was by means of the Enabling Act that Hitler attained an increase in power; 10) the Center Party was dissolved at the direction of the Vatican pursuant to the Concordat; 11) had the Center Party still existed, it would have been in a position to vote against the Nuremberg race laws and vote against continued operation of the Enabling Act; 12) the Catholic clergy in Germany exhorted its parishioners to fight for the Fuehrer; 13) Pius XII did not countermand those exhortations. These propositions are discussed one by one immediately below. The conclusion is that the Vatican assisted in the increase of Hitler's power because it wanted him to do everything he did, that it dissolved the Center Party because it didn't want to be in a position to be required do anything about what Hitler was doing, and that it didn't counteract the exhortations of the German Catholic clergy because it wanted the German citizen to fight for the Fuehrer.

1. Mussolini was anti-Zionist and anti-Bolshevik (and the Vatican knew it)

Mussolini was anti-Bolshevik. Together with perhaps as many as one hundred forty-five others, he founded the Fasci di Combattimento (Fascist Movement) in a meeting held at the Piazza San Sepelcro in 1919. Two key components of the newly founded movement’s political platform were 1) that Bolshevism “showed a ruinous result” in the country of its origin; and 2) that the Socialist Party must be opposed because it is in essence conservative.3 Mussolini’s anti-Bolshevik stance manifested itself again in 1920, a year of extreme strife on the labor front in Italy. At that point, Mussolini stated that Russian Communism was impossible in individualistic Italy, and further that a recent inspection of conditions in Russia revealed that Russian Communism had failed. The fervor of his anti-Bolshevik stance was revealed in 1921 when Italy’s Prime Minister abolished the bread subsidy, Parliament rejected an agreement made between manufacturers and employees under which the employees were to have received a share in the control of the enterprise, and the aid of the Fascists was enlisted to quell Socialist resistance to these measures.4

Mussolini was anti-Zionist. In 1914, Mussolini founded a newspaper named Popolo d'Italia. On October 19, 1920, he published an article in the paper which contained the following statement of his: “[I]t is easy to foresee that the collapse of Bolshevism in Europe will be followed by a pogrom of unprecedented proportions."5 He followed this statement with a warning to the Italian Zionists: "Let us hope that the Italian Jews will have the sense not to stir up anti-Semitism in the only country where it has never existed."6 Although Mussolini did not become ruler of Italy until 1922, it was clear from public reaction, especially amongst the Jews, that his statements caused some degree of notoriety.7 Given the nature of the relationship between Mussolini and the Vatican both before and after the Lateran Pacts of 1929, it strains credulity to say that the Vatican in general and Pius XII in particular were unaware of the two statements quoted above when Pius XII signed the Concordat.

Mussolini subsequently shifted his ant-Jewishness to racial grounds. Writing as a socialist in an article on Nietsche’s philosophy of force, he once said: “The inversion of moral values was the chief feat of the Jewish people. The Palestinians [sic] defeated their age-old enemies by destroying their codes of moral values. This was an act of spiritual vengeance in harmony with the sacerdotal temperament of the Jewish people.”8 Mussolini’s negative attitude toward the Jews at this point in his career cannot be explained on racial grounds, for he also denounced “theoretical and practical Pan-Germanism as an insult to the Italian race and as an attempt to undermine the solidarity of the working class."9 He characterized the Bolshevik Revolution as the fruit of an alliance between the German high command and the synagogue. By 1919, he had concluded that Lenin’s regime was not “German-Jewish” but rather simply Jewish.10 In September of 1936, Hitler, through Goebbels, decried “world Jewry” for the umpteenth time, and called upon Europe to "do battle" against "Jewish Bolshevism." Ominously, Mussolini soon followed suit. In 1937, Mussolini shifted Italian anti-Semitism from anti-Zionistic grounds to racial grounds, and suddenly became race-conscious with respect to relationships between Italians and blacks in Ethiopia.11 Then, in February of 1938, Mussolini, stated in a published announcement that “the universal Jewish problem will be solved in only one way: by the creation in some part of the world, not in Palestine, of a Jewish State, a State in the full sense of the word ….”12

At this point, the following observations are appropriate. First, there are at least several peoples who are Semitic but not Jewish. Second, Hitler's allies were not Aryan. Presumably, the Japanese found Pan-Germanism as insulting as Mussolini found it. Given that Hitler only went after a small segment of the earth's Semitic peoples, that he allied himself with peoples of different races, and that Mussolini's anti-Jewishness always existed but only evolved to rest upon racial considerations after nearly twenty years, it is clear that race played no part in the axis powers' "anti-Semitism."

2. Hitler was anti-Zionist and anti-Bolshevik (and the Vatican knew it)

We've seen what Mussolini thought of Zionism. Now let's look at what Hitler thought. For that, we can consult Mein Kampf, the two-volume book Hitler dictated in 1924, and which was published in 1925 (volume 1) and 1926 (volume 2). By 1933, nearly a quarter million copies had been sold. In it, he questioned whether Jews (in Vienna) were German Jews, or a "people in themselves" and not "Germans of a special religion." The following excerpt is quite revealing:

And whatever doubts I may still have nourished were finally expelled by the attitude of a portion of the Jews themselves.

Among them there was a great movement, quite extensive in Vienna, which came out sharply in confirmation of the national character of the Jews: this was the Zionists....

Was there any form of filth or profligacy, particularly in cultural life, without at least one Jew involved in it?13

This one is worse:

For while Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb goyim. It doesn't even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks.14

With regard to Bolshevism, the following quote can hardly be termed ambivalent: "In this period my eyes were opened to two menaces of which I had previously scarcely known the names, and whose terrible importance for the existence of the German people I certainly did not understand: Marxism and Jewry."15 Nor can the following quote: "... from the fog and mist of social phrases rises the leering grimace of Marxism."16 Here is how he described Marxism:

The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.17

There have been no claims by the Vatican that they thought Hitler felt any way other than how he indicated in Mein Kampf when the Center Party unanimously supported the Enabling Act and when the Center Party voluntarily dissolved itself.

3. The Vatican was also anti-Zionist and anti-Bolshevik

It is certain that the Vatican knew of Mussolini's antipathy toward both Zionism and Bolshevism when it entered into the Lateran Pacts of 1929. It is also certain that the Vatican knew of Hitler's feelings as well when the Catholic Center party helped Hitler on his way to absolute power by supporting the Enabling Act, and also when it entered into the Concordat with Germany in 1933, a requirement of which was the voluntary dissolution of the Center Party.

There is ample evidence that the Vatican shared Hitler's and Mussolini's anti-Zionist and anti-Bolshevik animus. Even the deliberately obtuse must concede that there is something about Zionism and the Catholic Church. Consider the following five things.

Consider first of all, in 1904, Theodor Herzl was leader of the Zionist movement. On January 22 of that year, Herzl received audience with the Vatican through the then-secretary of state of the Vatican, Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val. During their conversation, Herzl broached the subject of Jewish repossession of the Holy Land. The Cardinal said, "Certainly, a Jew who has himself baptized out of conviction is for me ideal.... But in order for us to come out for the Jewish People in a way you desire, they would first have to be converted.... Still, I see no possibility of our assuming the initiative." Herzl responded, "No one is asking you, Your Eminence. The initiative will be taken by one of the Great Powers...."18

At the time of this conversation, there were five Great Powers: US, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Russia. Two weeks after this conversation, the Japanese surprise attacked the Russians at Port Arthur. The timing between the conversation and the attack suggests the possibility (not certainty) that the attack was motivated by Herzl's statement. At that time, relatively few Japanese were Christian, and Japan was certainly not a Christian nation. If indeed the objective of the attack was to discourage Russia from assisting the Zionist movement, Japan was the perfect country to perpetrate the attack since it is difficult to maintain such an accusation against a non-Christian nation. In order to do so, it is necessary to demonstrate that Japan was acting on behalf of Christian nations and at least not wholly in is own self-interest. A statement made by then-President Theodore Roosevelt constitutes a big first step. While the Russo-Japanese War was pending, then-President Theodore Roosevelt notified Germany that "in the event of a combination against Japan" the United States would "promptly side with Japan and proceed to whatever length was necessary on her behalf."19

Another indication that the timing was not coincidental is the following statement of Hitler's from Mein Kampf: "Just suppose that an astute German foreign policy had taken over the role of Japan in 1904, and we can scarcely measure the consequences this would have had for Germany. There never would have been any 'World War.'"20 So what did Hitler think Japan's role was if not to preempt a Zionistic effort on the part of Russia?

Secondly, consider the Jesuit response to the possibility of Herzl’s Zionists establishing an independent Jewish sovereign in a location other than Palestine that appeared in the Jesuit publication Civilta Cattolica:

What sort of Zionism is this, that from the start renounces Jerusalem and the ancient kingdom of Palestine? Does this not prove that they are betraying themselves and confessing that their intentions were utopian? Why not then completely give up the name Zionism? A race of murderers of God, even if supported by all the anti-Catholic sects, feels itself beaten before the fight even begins, beaten by Jesus.21

Thirdly, consider the Vatican opposition to the Balfour Declaration, a declaration in favor of a Jewish state in Palestine by Britain's Foreign Secretary in 1917.

Fourthly, consider Michael Cardinal Faulhaber's stance on Zionism when, writing in 1934, he stated:

After the death of Christ Israel was dismissed from the service of the Revelation. She had not known the time of her visitation. She had repudiated and rejected the Lord's Anointed, had driven Him out of the city and nailed Him to the cross. Then the veil of the Temple was rent, and with it the covenant between the Lord and His people. The daughters of Sion received the bill of divorce, and from that time forth Assuerus wanders, forever restless, over the face of the earth. (Emphasis added.)22

Finally, consider that under the terms of the Lateran Pact of 1929, Italy embraced Roman Catholicism as its national religion. Italy also granted to the Vatican status as an independent national sovereign. The Vatican, even though its status as an independent national sovereign was acquired by a grant from a single country, has enjoyed this status ever since. Its forty-five year refusal to recognize Israel as an independent national sovereign, notwithstanding the fact that recognition as such by members of the United Nations was nearly unanimous, constitutes the most delicious irony of which the writer is currently aware.

The Vatican’s expressed reason for its interest in the Holy Land was the protection of the Holy Places. However, when assured in 1904 that the Holy Places would be excluded from a Jewish state and given extraterritorial status, the Vatican responded, “it won’t do to imagine them in an enclave of that sort.”23 In 1916, the Vatican outlined its demands for Palestine as follows: “The center will of course be in Jerusalem, branching from there to Bethlehem and Jericho, and we have demands regarding Tiberias, Nazareth, and possibly also Tabor-Nazareth.24 Obviously, the Catholic concept of what constitutes a “holy place” is extensive. Note also that concern over the protection of the Holy Places does not explain either Faulhaber's version of a curse upon the Jews or the Jesuit objection to the establishment of an independent Jewish sovereign at a location other than Palestine.

A word with regard to the authenticity of the Holy Places is appropriate here. As Mark Twain noted, "it seems curious that personages intimately connected with the Holy Family always lived in grottoes ... and yet nobody else living in their day and generation thought of doing anything of the kind.... The world owes the Catholics its good will even for the happy rascality of hewing out these bogus grottoes in the rock ..."25

Without regard to the authenticity of the Holy Places, it is clear from the Vatican's refusal to accept a Zionistic solution that accommodated its professed interest, as well as from the failure of its professed interest to explain both the Faulhaber response and the Jesuit response to Zionism, that protection of the Holy Places was a pretext for the Vatican's objection to Zionism.

What follows is a stab at the real reason for the Vatican's resistance toward Zionism. There is certainly dispute regarding it. Note that acceptance of it is not necessary to acceptance of the Vatican's anti-Zionist animus. If nothing else, it illustrates the incongruity of the notion that God divinely inspired the authors of the individual books contained in the Bible but left to man the task of selecting the books to be included, translating them, and interpreting them. There are many different versions of the Bible. This site will compare the translation of two verses - Acts 1:6-7 - by four versions of the Bible: 1) the New American Bible, Revised Edition; 2) the King James Version ; 3) the New English Bible; and 4) the Revised English Bible . The New American Bible, Revised Edition is a Catholic version. The King James Version is Protestant. The New English Bible is non-denominational. The Revised English Bible is a revision of the New English Bible.

Certainly a reason for the Catholic opposition to Zionism can be seen by analyzing the New English Bible version of Acts 1:6-7. In that passage, Jesus, after having purportedly been resurrected, is asked by his disciples, "Lord, is this the time when you are to establish once again the sovereignty of Israel?" Jesus is reported to have responded, "It is not for you to know about dates or times, which the Father has set within his own control." Jesus' response, if factual, would constitute a tacit acknowledgement that restoring the sovereignty of Israel was at least one aspect of his mission. "Sovereignty" means autonomy. If one thinks about it, one can see the element of "game" in this passage. Jesus' failure to restore the sovereignty of Israel seems to permit the conclusion that he wasn't the messiah. However, a ready response is, or at least was, that the apologist will agree that he failed to establish it if the critic agrees that Jesus said it. Such an admission on the part of the critic entails both an admission that Jesus had a messianic mindset and an admission that he rose from the dead. Israel's existence as an autonomous country might change all that. Since the sovereignty of Israel has been restored and Jesus wasn’t the one who restored it, one of two important implications would follow: first, he cannot be the messiah; or second, the reported conversation between the purportedly resurrected Jesus and his disciples never occurred. From this second implication can be inferred that the report of Jesus' appearance after his death are also erroneous. Note that this interpretation does explain both Faulhaber's version of a curse upon the Jews and the Jesuit objection to the establishment of a Jewish sovereign elsewhere from Palestine.

The reader should be advised that the New English Bible is the only version of the four that translates Acts 1:6-7 with the word "sovereignty." In fact, it is the only version of which the writer is aware out of all versions to do so. Other versions use the phrase "restore the kingdom to Israel" (New American Bible, Revised Edition) or "restore again the kingdom to Israel" (King James Version and the Revised English Bible). Furthermore, in addition to the fact that the New English Bible is outnumbered, it has been "overruled," so to speak. More precisely, a revision of the New English Bible has been published by the same publisher, and the revision does not translate the passage in question using the word "sovereignty." Note also that although the same publisher is responsible for both the New English Bible and the Revised English Bible, the people who did the actual translating were different. It might be argued that the committee that translated for the New English Bible was better qualified than was the committee for the Revised English Bible, especially since Charles Harold Dodd was on the former. However, it may safely be assumed that all members of each committee had impeccable qualifications, and any such argument would for any non-expert be entirely subjective. It is at least interesting to note that the no delegates from Roman Catholic churches of the United Kingdom and Ireland did any translating for the New English Bible, but that delegates from these entities did participate in actual translation for the Revised English Bible.

While the two considerations above may be relevant to the inquiry, the correct interpretation is found by considering the philosophy of the translators for the different versions, and then noting how the audience would have received the words "restore the kingdom to Israel." For the most part, the King James Version translators used a word-for-word substitution of English words for Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic words. All of the other three profess to take a different approach. To use the words of the Introduction to the New English Bible, the translators "sought to say in their own native idiom what they believed the author to be saying in his ...." All apologists (but not all critics) of which the writer is aware agree that the apostles had expected Jesus to be a political leader who would restore self-rule to Israel during his historical ministry, and that includes the Roman Catholic Church.26 If that was the expectation, then the reader of Acts at anywhere near the time it was written could not possibly have thought that the words meant something other than the restoration of Israel's sovereignty. To say that the author of Acts intended a different meaning would be to say that he deliberately fostered confusion - and in some cases disbelief, by assigning a different and as yet unknown meaning to a phrase that had a very definite meaning at the time. No way!

The question thus becomes how can "restore the kingdom to Israel" nonetheless mean something other than "establish once again the sovereignty of Israel"? The answer is found by considering exactly what was meant by "the kingdom"? If the current Israel is different than first century Israel in some important respect, then it could be persuasively argued that the current existence of Israel as an independent sovereign is not the equivalent of restoration of the kingdom. A very significant difference is that the current nation of Israel is not a theocracy. The importance of this point will be seen in Part III of this site. For now it is sufficient to note that the current existence of Israel as an independent sovereign arguably demonstrates that Jesus was not the Messiah, and that the current existence of Israel as a theocracy would demonstrate it beyond peradventure.

The Vatican, also known as an historical defender of the status quo, didn't like communism either, at least not the Soviet Union's brand of communism. In 1938, Pius XII described Soviet-style communism as "godless" or "atheistic" and bashed it repeatedly in no uncertain terms in the papal encyclical entitled Divini Redemptoris. The text of the encyclical is readily accessible via the internet, and anyone who has read even a few paragraphs of the encyclical will agree that it difficult to overstate Pius XII's distaste for Soviet-style communism. Thus, not only was the Vatican aware of the anti-Zionist animus and anti-communist animus of both Mussolini and Hitler, it shared it.

4. The Vatican knew that Hitler advocated abrogation of the Treaty of Versailles

Part of the Nazi political platform was its twenty-five point program. By 1933, it is unlikely that many living in Germany were unaware of it, no matter how poorly they were informed. Point number two of the program stated, "the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated."

5. The Vatican was aware that Hitler thought Japan had a "role" in the Russo-Japanese War

Recall the statement Hitler made in Mein Kampf noted above: "Just suppose that an astute German foreign policy had taken over the role of Japan in 1904, and we can scarcely measure the consequences this would have had for Germany. There never would have been any 'World War.'" For the purpose of this discussion, it doesn't even matter if Japan actually did have a role in the Russo-Japanese War. It matters only that Hitler thought Japan had a role. Again, if the theory denoted above is incorrect, then what role did Hitler think that Japan played? Of course, the relevant question is, "What role did the Vatican think that Hitler thought Japan played?"

6. The Vatican knew about Hitler's methods

Recall that Hitler's Mein Kampf had been in print for seven years and had sold approximately one quarter of a million copies. Certainly the Vatican was aware of its contents. Although the book contains passages that a reader might find surprising,27 it is difficult to conclude from reading it that Hitler was a choirboy.

Upon taking control of the Nazi party, he formed the Sturmabteilung (SA), more commonly known as "Brownshirts." The SA was a paramilitary organization whose primary functions were to provide security at Nazi political functions as well as to disrupt the functions of opposing political parties. This second function often entailed the use of physical violence. Hitler himself did a short prison term when he personally along with some of his followers disrupted a speech being given by Otto Ballerstedt, leader of the Bayernbund (Bavarian League), a rival political party.

In November of 1923, Hitler, at that point still relatively obscure outside of Bavaria, attempted an armed coup known as the "Beer Hall Putsch" against the Bavarian government. Twenty people were killed during the attempt, including four Bavarian cops. He used his trial for treason as a political forum, and thus became known throughout Germany rather than only in Bavaria. Hitler was convicted, and sentenced to five years imprisonment, but only served one year. His SA was banned, but continued to exist under another name for a couple of years, and then simply resumed the use of the SA moniker.28

Mein Kampf, the formation of the SA, and the failed coup amply demonstrate that Hitler was both lawless and extremely ambitious. It is certain that Pius XII, who had been Nuncio to Bavaria and who was Nuncio to Germany at the time of the trial, knew of Hitler's book as well as Hitler's criminal past when he signed the Concordat in 1933.

7. The Vatican controlled the Center Party

Recall that Article 32 of the Concordat required the exclusion of the clergy and members of religious orders from membership in political parties and prohibited them from working on their behalf. The Vatican dissolved the Center Party shortly before the Concordat was signed. The fact that party was dissolved at the instance of the Vatican amply demonstrates that the Vatican controlled the Center Party.

8. The Center Party unanimously supported the Enabling Act

On January 30, 1933, Hitler was appointed Chancellor by President Hindenburg. On March 23, 1933, the "Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the State" ("Enabling Act") was passed. This act gave Hitler and his ministers the power to make laws merely by decree. (Note that the Enabling Act expired by its terms on April 1, 1937.) When the act passed the Reichstag, there were four main political parties: 1) the Nazi party; 2) the Center party; 3) the Social Democrats; and 4) the Communist party. The Center Party was, as we have seen, controlled by the Vatican. The vote in favor of the act was 441 for and 84 against. All 84 votes against were made by Social Democrats - each of the ninety-three members of the Center party voted in favor of passage.29

9. It was by means of the Enabling Act that Hitler attained increased power

Here is a schematic summary of the German structure of government as it existed in 1933. For future reference, "Reich" means the government of the German nation. Somewhat similarly to the U.S Constitution, the German ("Weimar") constitution provided for a republican form of government (it is often referred to as the "Weimar Republic") with an executive, legislative, and judicial branch. The executive branch consisted of the president, the chancellor, and the chancellor's ministers. The President represented the Reich in international matters and was commander of all of the armed forces. The President appointed the Chancellor, as well as the Chancellor's ministers at the request of the Chancellor. His appointments were ultimately subject to the approval of the legislative branch. The office of Chancellor resembled that of Prime Minister, and the Chancellor was the head of the executive power for national matters. The legislative branch consisted of the Reichstag and the Reichstrat. The judicial branch looked somewhat like the American judiciary, and consisted of a Reich supreme court, Reich inferior courts, and state court system for the various states that comprised Germany. The Weimar Constitution also provided a structure for the interplay between the governments of the various German states and the government of the Reich.

Here is a brief summary of Hitler's rise to absolute power. On January 30, 1933, Hitler was appointed Chancellor by President Hindenburg. On March 23, 1933, the Enabling Act was passed. This act gave Hitler and his ministers the power to circumvent the legislature and make laws merely by decree. (Note again that the Enabling Act expired by its terms on April 1, 1937.) On August 2, 1934, Hindenburg died. Three hours later, it was announced that the cabinet had enacted a law that combined the offices of Chancellor and President. Hitler was effectively dictator of Germany.

Although it is asserted that the Enabling Act increased the level of Hitler's political power, no opinion is expressed with regard to exactly how much. There are those who think that the Enabling Act made Hitler's seizure of absolute power legal. There are those who think that the Enabling Act was actually an amendment to the Weimar Constitution, and that Hitler unforeseeably unconstitutionally exceeded the scope of the power granted thereby. Presumably, there are those who think the Enabling Act was an unconstitutional law in the first place. It may well be that one must read German, be familiar with general precedents of both Roman and Teutonic law, and have read at least some case law interpreting provisions of the Weimar Constitution before one is even qualified to have an opinion.

10. The Center Party was dissolved at the direction of the Vatican pursuant to the Concordat

See the discussion above pertaining to Article 32 of the Concordat and the Supplementary Protocol thereto.

11. Had the Center Party still existed, it would have been in a position to oppose: a) the ban against all political parties other than the Nazi party; b) the Nuremberg Race Laws; and c) the continued operation of the Enabling Act.

On July 14, 1933 a law was decreed that outlawed all political parties except the Nazi party, thus resulting in a one party state trending toward totalitarianism. It is difficult to see how this law could ever have been enacted had the Enabling Act not been passed. The Catholic Center Party had voluntarily dissolved itself ten days earlier, and was therefore not in a position to oppose the measure in any form or fashion.

On September 15, 1935, the Reichstag unanimously passed two laws now known as the Nuremberg Race Laws. The first prohibited mixed marriages between Germans and Jews (as well as intercourse, and even employment of German females under age forty-five in Jewish households). The second accorded the status of "subject" to the German Jew, while non-Jewish Germans enjoyed the status of "citizen." A series of subsequent decrees expanded upon the two original race laws. The Enabling Act had nothing to do with enactment of the original two race laws, but since there was no longer a Catholic Center Party, it obviously was not in a position to oppose the laws from within the legislature.

By its terms, the operation of the Enabling Act was to limited to four years. It was renewed in 1937, by the Reichstag which was now exclusively populated by members of the Nazi Party. Obviously the Center Party was not there to oppose it. It was renewed again in 1941.

Maybe these laws would have come to pass even had the Center Party fought both the Enabling Act and dissolution tooth and nail. Maybe not. It seems paradoxical that the Center Party actually grew stronger during Bismarck's kulturkampf, but chose to voluntarily disband under Hitler because it believed resistance would be futile. In any event, it should be clear that the Vatican knew Hitler's mindset and methods, that it nonetheless chose to increase his power and remove themselves from any position to oppose him from within the German system, and that Pius XII played a part in this process. He certainly should not get any saint points for that.

12) the Catholic clergy in Germany exhorted its parishioners to fight for the Fuehrer

On September 25, 1939, the New York Times published an article with the headline "German Soldiers Rallied by Churches." The article contained the following excerpt:

The Catholic bishops of Germany have written a pastoral letter stating: "In this decisive hour we admonish our Catholic soldiers to do their duty in obedience to the fuehrer and be ready to sacrifice their whole individuality.

On December 7, 1941 (the day Pearl Harbor was bombed), New York Times published an article with the headline "War Prayer for Reich." That article contained the following excerpt:

The Conference of German Catholic Bishops assembled in Fulda has recommended the introduction of a special "war prayer" which is to be read at the beginning and end of all divine services. The prayer implores Providence to bless German arms with victory and grant protection to the lives and health of all soldiers.

The German Catholic clergy, while strongly objecting to certain aspects of Nazi racial policy, has always taken care to emphasize the duty of every Catholic to his country as loyal Germans in the present war.

13. Pius XII did not countermand German clergy's exhortations

This statement is true. To be sure, Pius XII spoke against the war, but he never officially took a side. Because the German Catholic clergy exhorted their parishioners to fight for the Fuehrer, the reasons for the legal doctrine of respondeat superior ("the boss answers") apply here. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is responsible for the actions of his employees within the scope of their employment because he has the right to direct and control their performance. As we have seen, Pius XII not only had the theoretical right, he also had the actual ability. Had he been subject to Anglo-American law, he could have been held civilly responsible for the actions of the German Catholic clergy. Just because he wasn't subject to Anglo-American law doesn't mean that the reasons for the doctrine did not apply. They clearly did apply, and they mandate that Pius XII should be held responsible for the actions of the German Catholic clergy, especially since he didn't countermand them.

It is difficult to see any room for dispute about the preceding paragraph, but in my opinion it really doesn't go far enough. At some point, if it hasn't already, the Vatican itself is going to say that if a Catholic's government says "Go fight", then it is the Catholic's duty to go fight. Note the Catholic catechism on the point of war.30 The Vatican will support this position by citing Romans 13:1, which contains the Apostle Paul's admonition to obey the authorities. (Never mind for now that it was the Roman government that crucified Jesus and that Paul was admonishing his audience to obey the same authorities that killed their god.) If indeed this is the Vatican's position, then not only did Pius XII not countermand the German Catholic clergy's exhortations, he mandated them, since he certainly had control over the Catholic interpretation of Romans 13:1. Even the genuinely obtuse reader will see that mandating obedience to Hitler renders the mandator ineligible for the status of saint.


There is no question that: 1) the Vatican knew Hitler's mindset; 2) the Vatican knew Hitler's methods; 3) at a minimum, the Vatican knew that Hitler intended to abrogate the Treaty of Versailles; 4) the Vatican assisted in the increase of Hitler's power; 5) the Vatican precluded the possibility of opposing Hitler from within the German system when it dissolved the Center Party; and 6) the Vatican didn't countermand the exhortations of the German Catholic clergy to fight for the Fuehrer. Pius XII was personally aware of the first, second and third of these considerations since he was Nuncio to Germany at the time they became apparent. He was personally involved in the fifth and sixth of these considerations, and was Secretary of State for the Vatican with regard to the fourth. Accordingly, since he along with many others were aware of a high probability that violation of the treaty that ended the first word war would result in another war, Pius XII was personally guilty of knowingly aiding and abetting Hitler in waging an aggressive war. The fact that the Vatican shared - for whatever reason - Hitler's and Mussolini's anti-Bolshevik and anti-Zionist motives should have reserved a seat for Pius XII in the defendant's dock at the first Nuremberg Tribunal.


Couldn't load picture

This section should also induce vomiting. The selective service act in effect during World War II subjected males between the ages of 18 and 45 to potential conscription. Violation of the act was punishable by up to five years imprisonment. See United States v. Anderson, 328 U.S. 699, note 3. During World War II, ten million men were inducted into the US armed forces. Some volunteered - most were drafted. Of these, approximately 298,000 were killed, and 672,000 were wounded.31

Meanwhile, the munitions industry, notorious for its war profiteering in the past, was restricted (at least nominally) by law to profits that were not excessive. The relative inequity of this situation has been noted. Justice Harold H. Burton of the United States Supreme Court said, "For his hazardous, full-time service in the armed forces a soldier is paid whatever the Government deems to be a fair but modest compensation. Comparatively speaking, the manufacturer of war goods undergoes no such hazard to his personal safety as does a front-line soldier and yet the Renegotiation Act gives him far better assurance of a reasonable return for his wartime services than the Selective Service Act and all its related legislation give to the men in the armed forces."32 Perhaps this is because the manufacturer is able to vocalize the concept of patriotism with more fervor than the average grunt.

This situation looked bad enough, but it was way worse than that. The two excerpts from the New York Times quoted above demonstrate that the United States government knew that the German Catholic clergy were exhorting their eligible German parishioners to fight for the Fuehrer. Incredibly, even as German Catholics were exhorting Germans to fight for the Fuehrer and the Pope was not countermanding their exhortations, the Catholic Church in America was exempted from the requirement of paying income taxes.33 The American public's attention to this situation (inter alia) was diverted by the scandal surrounding Union Banking Corporation's (UBC) relationship with Nazi Germany. Prescott Bush was a UBC shareholder and sat on its board of directors. His appointment as chairman of the National War Fund kept the scandal in the mind of the public for the duration of the war.

Why the United States government would permit this situation to exist is no mystery. Be advised that your Uncle Sam is no saint either. Consider the Removal Act of 1830. The Removal Act of 1830 facilitated the relocation of Native Americans east of the Mississippi by granting them land in Oklahoma in exchange for the land they were leaving. It contained an extinction proviso which stated: "Provided always, That such lands shall revert to the United States, if the Indians become extinct, or abandon the same." Many people of the era perceived this proviso as a threat. Although there is a debate about whether what happened to certain Native American tribes indigenous to California during the 1850s constitutes "genocide" within the meaning of that term as defined by the United Nations Genocide Convention in 1948, there is no dispute about what happened in general. In the words of the historian Hubert Howe Bangcroft, "The savages were in the way; the miners and settlers were arrogant and impatient; there were no missionaries or others present with even the poor pretense of soul saving or civilizing. It was one of the last human hunts of civilization, and the basest and most brutal of them all." Thus, the United States government has threatened and sponsored activity that looks a lot like a holocaust, albeit on an admittedly smaller scale.

The United States government held a rabid anti-communist animus prior to World War II. Very clear evidence of its hatred can be seen in the 1919 sailing of the Buford, then property of the Army Transport Service. The Buford, also known as the "Red Ark," transported 249 previously legal aliens to the Soviet Union. Although some of the passengers professed to be anarchists, most of the deportees were communists. Newspapers of the era supported the measure staunchly. It should be clear that your Uncle Sam was not overly concerned with the death of 20,000,000 or so Soviet communists.

The United States government's attitude toward Zionism is a bit trickier. Claims of a wall between church and state notwithstanding, the starting point is that the U.S. has always been and remains a Christian nation. Its churches have always enjoyed tax exempt status. If the U.S. government didn't like Christianity, churches would not be tax exempt. Recall also the previously mentioned threat made by Theodore Roosevelt to intervene on Japan's behalf in the event Germany sided with Russia during the Russo-Japanese War. If indeed the conversation between Herzl and the Vatican prompted the Japanese attack at Port Arthur, as the timing considered in conjunction with Vatican animosity toward Zionism indicates and Hitler's passage in Mein Kampf seems to support, the U.S. would seem to have shared the Vatican's animosity toward Zionism. However, it is a fact that the U.S. has consistently supported Israel, both during its formation after World War II and ever since. This support has been so strong that it might be said that Israel owes its existence to the U.S. Thus, it would appear that the U.S. was pro-Zionist, rather than anti-Zionist.

True as far as it goes, and no further. The apparently contradictory U.S. stance with regard to Zionism is reconciled when the interpretation of Acts 1:6-7 discussed in Part II is taken into account. If it is accurate that Israel must be a theocracy for the kingdom to have been restored to Israel, and if Israel is not a theocracy, then its current existence does not undermine the doctrinal integrity of Christianity. The independent Jewish sovereign that Russia was threatening to help establish might have had a king, a temple, a high priest, and a legal requirement that the Sabbath be observed. Accordingly, it might have looked a lot like a theocracy. As such, it would have undermined the doctrinal integrity of at least some versions of Christianity considerably. It is this situation, one over which the U.S. would have had no control, that was objectionable, not merely an independent Jewish sovereign in Palestine. Implicit in this argument is that the U.S. somehow knew that the Jews it helped establish Israel would not form a theocracy. Yes, indeed! There have also been other Jewish accommodations of Christianity.34

One might wonder where anyone could have learned about the significance of Acts 1:6-7. Obviously, not from the pulpit, and, just as obviously, not in the parochial schools. After July 21, 1925, not in the public schools either. That was the date of the verdict in State of Tennessee v. John Scopes - much better known as the Scopes Monkey Trial. That case was publicized as much as a case could have been at that point in time. Scopes was charged with teaching evolution in violation of state law. His lawyer was Clarence Darrow, regarded by many as the preeminent criminal defense lawyer of his day. What everybody saw was this - it took a jury just nine minutes to convict the defendant as charged despite representation by Darrow. Although the conviction was reversed on a technicality, the constitutionality of the statute under which Scopes was convicted was affirmed on appeal. Given that the case was decided under Tennessee law and the Tennessee Constitution, the case has little if any value as precedent, but there is a sentence that leaps out from the page: "The Court is informed that the plaintiff in error [Scopes] is no longer in the service of the State." That sentence certainly does seem to serve as a lesson for teachers considering teachings contrary to mainstream Christianity.

The significance of Acts 1:6-7 wasn't going to be unveiled in a court of law either. Even as the holocaust was in progress, the United States Supreme Court was deciding a case in a way that had a tendency to reduce judicial inquiry into the doctrinal integrity of Christianity, including the motive for the holocaust. In 1944, the Supreme Court decided the case of United States v. Ballard. A treatise on the procedural and substantive aspects of the case, the historical circumstances in which it arose, the nature of the “I Am” movement, the draft status of its adherents during the war, and the impact the case had upon subsequent litigation would require at least several volumes. Extremely briefly, the “I Am” movement originated with Guy and Edna Ballard in the state of Kansas in 1934. Its religious tenets were based upon the wisdom contained in a book entitled Unveiled Mysteries. The movement’s founders claimed to be divine messengers through which the words of certain “ascended masters” could be communicated to all of mankind. They also claimed the ability to heal persons of disease, whether medically classified as curable or incurable. They used the United States mail to solicit funds for the movement, and were indicted and convicted for using the mails to defraud.

The Supreme Court held that under the circumstances of Ballard, the truth or falsity of the Ballards’ religious beliefs or doctrines could not be evaluated. The court’s holding in this regard represented a significant departure from its approach in the Mormon cases, where it characterized polygamy as “contrary to the spirit of Christianity.”35 The Ballard court did uphold the constitutional permissibility of inquiring into the subjective sincerity. However, as noted by Justice Jackson, future chief American prosecutor at the first Nuremberg Tribunal, prohibiting inquiry into the truth of the religious tenet greatly restricts the inquiry into the subjective sincerity with which a belief is held. Obviously, it is very much easier to prove the insincerity of belief in a demonstrably false religious tenet than it is to prove insincerity with regard to a tenet assumed to be true. Notwithstanding that the prosecution was ultimately able to prove insincerity in Ballard without demonstrating the falsity of the tenets allegedly believed, due to the difficulty of doing so in general, similar prosecutions are for the most part impractical. The federal government seems to have followed Justice Jackson’s advice and had “done with this business of judicially examining other people’s faiths” in every case but Ballard.

To sum up, the United States government was predisposed toward genocide, had a motive to see eighteen million or more Soviet communists killed, appreciated the removal of the threat of the establishment of a Jewish theocracy in Palestine, and helped obscure the motive for the holocaust. When the Catholic tax exemption is considered in light of these facts, a whole new picture begins to emerge.

Note that the faultiness of the Vatican's strategy in World War II is now even more painfully apparent. The following two websites establish that the U.S. engages in too much armed conflict and spends too much on "defense:"

Wikipedia has a reputation for being error-prone, so reduce both the number of "actions" and the amount spent on defense by fifty percent. Surely these cites are at least fifty percent accurate. The U.S. is involved in virtually a constant state of armed conflict, and it costs the taxpayer dearly. The Vatican not only finds this situation permissible, it actually supports it, voluminous anti-war rhetoric notwithstanding. It supports it by continuing to insist that "the evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."

Let's take a closer look at "those who have responsibility for the common good" in the United States. That. of course, would be the United States government. Firstly, consider the fact that the government of the United States was aligned with the interests of the wealthy from its inception. It is not necessary to infer this from the provisions of the Constitution and case law, although it certainly can be so inferred. The fact is that Alexander Hamilton came right out and said it.

(For the skeptical)

The next few pages are for those skeptical of regarding Uncle Sam as aligned with the wealthy. There is George Washington, his father, and his father's cherry tree, and then there is reality. The reality is that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of every level of government have consistently acted in the best interests of the business establishment, at whatever cost to the population at large.

Nowhere is this more conspicuous than in the labor arena. The lowlight with which all Americans are most familiar is slavery. Everyone is familiar with the three-fifths compromise, and most people are aware of the Dred Scott decision. Of course, we were all taught that it was our benevolent leaders, especially Honest Abe Lincoln, that recognized the odiousness of slavery and did the right thing and eradicated it. The reader should at least consider the following. First, a resolution to eradicate slavery was included in the tenth article of the Treaty of Ghent:

Whereas the Traffic in Slaves is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and Justice, and whereas both His Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavours to accomplish so desirable an object.

The treaty was signed in 1814. Then, in 1820, Congress reached the "Missouri Compromise." No doubt it first made its "best endeavour" to avoid it. The Emancipation Proclamation was rendered in 1863, nearly fifty years after the Senate vowed to use its "best endeavours" to abolish slavery. It is at least interesting that the slaves were not emancipated until after the South seceded from the Union. It is also interesting to note that England, the other signatory to the treaty, aided the Confederacy during the war. See the Alabama cases. It is also interesting to note that the original draft of the state constitution for Colorado, which fought on the Union side as a territory, excluded Blacks from the electorate. Not talked about too much is that the presence of slaves increased the overall supply of labor, and thus decreased the wage of the average worker. It also lowered the cost of the cotton purchased by the northern textile mills. In short, a lot of wealthy people liked slavery, not just southern slave owners. Even assuming pure motive on the part of the North, it is clear that the South did not share it, and it is clear that the North at one time condoned slavery and then took an awfully long time to eradicate it.

At least with regard to labor relations, the construction of the first transcontinental railroad from California eastward is another major lowlight. The sense of urgency with which it was constructed was justified by purported concerns over national security. Part of the profit made by the Central Pacific Railroad was a grant of ten miles of land extending on each side of track, including timber rights, but excluding mineral rights. Over ninety percent of the labor force was Chinese. No records were kept regarding the number of fatalities. Reports concerning what was done with the bodies of the Chinese that did die conflict. According to one report, scores and possibly hundreds died from weather alone. According to a report regarding a single Chinese crew, there were a couple fatalities from dynamite, but none after blasting with infinitely more volatile nitroglycerine began. It should be noted that the manufacture, transportation (usually not far) and detonation of the nitro was handled predominately by the Chinese. The veracity of the report is unlikely at best.

It has been the writer's observation that those who do not want to keep score usually don't want to keep score because they would regard the outcome as unfavorable. In any event, it is inescapable that the white male worker did not want the job - not even the Irish, who thought that working for the Union Pacific (the company who built from east to west) was just fine. It is also inescapable that the phrase "not a Chinaman's chance" was coined at this point in history, and, moreover, that the phrase referred to the "heroism" of the Chinese who worked in the high Sierra in the winter of 1866-67. Maybe the average American found a "two percent" death rate remarkable even then?

Child labor constitutes a most abhorrent aspect of labor relations in American history. Child labor owed its prevalence to greed (surprise, surprise) on the part of both the employer and heads of households (generally the husband/father). Employers could pay relatively small wages to the child, and the head of the household was legally entitled to all the money earned by his child. Obviously, the big loser was the child, who not only had to work for free (any notion that the child should earn his keep is foreclosed by the indignation expressed by the courts of this era regarding "deadbeat" dads), but also had to limit or forego any educational opportunities, thus effectively consigning him or her to ignorance and a lifetime of menial labor. Both Congress and the Supreme Court were complicit in this situation. In 1907 a federal law against child labor, sponsored by Senator Alan Beveridge of Ohio was defeated, and in 1910 there were still an estimated two million children employed in industry.

Finally, in 1916, Congress passed a law prohibiting transportation in interstate commerce of goods made at a factory in which, within thirty days prior to their removal there from, children under the age of 14 years have been employed or permitted to work, or children between the ages of 14 and 16 years have been employed or permitted to work more than eight hours in any day, or more than six days in any week, or after the hour of 7 P.M. or before the hour of 6 A.M. However, the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress lacked the power to pass the law because "the manufacture of goods is not commerce, nor do the facts that they are intended for, and are afterwards shipped in, interstate commerce make their production a part of that commerce subject to the control of Congress." Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918).

In 1919, Congress enacted the Revenue Act, also called the Child Labor Tax Law. Under the law, companies employing children under fourteen years of age would be assessed ten percent of their annual profits. In Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Company, 259 U.S. 20 (1922), the Supreme Court held the law violated the constitution because it infringed upon rights reserved to the state by the Tenth Amendment. William Howard Taft was Chief Justice of the Bailey court. In his Inaugural Address given thirteen years earlier, Taft noted with approval that the Roosevelt Congress had passed model child labor laws for the District of Columbia. His remarks seemed to augur well for children, but when given the opportunity as Chief Justice, he sided with the money, as ever.

Finally, in 1938, Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act. Among other things, that act regulates child labor. It has withstood all challenges to its constitutionality, and still contains most of the laws pertaining to child labor today. Any regression would seem to be foreclosed by the truancy laws and the policy behind them.

Other rather glaring examples of the favorable governmental treatment of the wealthy can be found in decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States. Consider especially United Stated v. E. C. Knight, 156 U.S. 1. In it, the Supreme Court held that manufacturers were exempt from the provisions of the Sherman Act of 1890, aka the Sherman Antitrust Act. In 1895, this meant that the American Sugar Refining Company could lawfully control almost all sugar refining in the United States. At the same time manufacturers were permitted to engage in monopolies, courts used the Sherman Act to enjoin workers from striking. As patently anomalous as this situation may seem, such was the state of the law until the Clayton Act of 1914.

Supreme Court rulings with regard to martial law present another anomaly. Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 15 states: "[The Congress shall have power] [t]o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Many (maybe all) of the constitutions of the several states have a similar provision. The first case containing martial law issues that reached the Supreme Court was Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1. That case arose from activity occurring in 1842 in Rhode Island. Briefly, prior to 1843, Rhode Island did not have a state constitutional government, but rather had been governed under a charter adopted by its colonial government that had been in effect since 1663. Under this charter, the right to vote was granted only to those males who owned property. Much of the populace became dissatisfied with the charter government, and some petitioned the state legislature for change. The legislature did not respond in a manner satisfactory to the petitioners. Suffrage associations were formed, and they called for a convention for the purpose of framing a new state constitution. At this convention a new constitution was in fact framed and declared to have been ratified by a majority of the people of Rhode Island. Elections were held under the new constitution, and the elected officials called for and attended an assembly to organize the new government. At this assembly, various officials were appointed and various laws passed.

The charter government refused to officially recognize any of the actions taken by the new government. A resolution was passed declaring all such acts void as assumption of the power of government, in violation of the rights of the existing government and its people. Some supporters of the constitutional government “assembled in arms,” purportedly with the objective of forcibly overthrowing the charter government. The newly “elected” constitutional Governor, Thomas Dorr, led “hundreds’ of men in an attempt to take possession of the state arsenal at Providence. The charter general assembly had passed a resolution declaring martial law. The charter governor submitted an application to the President of the United States for protection against domestic violence, pursuant to Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution. The application was granted, and the President took measures to call out the militia if needed. The charter governor did not wait, and deployed the state militia to suppress the insurrection. The insurrectionists fled when the troops approached and dispersed. No further attempts were made to establish a constitutional government until the charter government itself established one in 1843.

Members of the state militia, acting under orders, broke and entered the home of Martin Luther for the purpose of arresting him. Luther sued for trespass. The troopers defended by alleging that the trespass was justified due to the following: large numbers of men were assembled in different parts of the state for the purpose of overthrowing the charter government, and were actually levying war upon the state; the state was therefore placed under martial law by the charter general assembly which was competent authority to do so; Luther was one of the insurrectionists; and the troopers were acting within their duties when they broke into his home to search for Luther with the objective of effecting his arrest.

The Supreme Court ruled that the trespass was not justified because the charter assembly was not justified in imposing martial law. The Luther court explained that:

If either government [that of Rhode Island or that of the United States] … possessed the authority to pass an act establishing martial law to this extent, it was, of course, that of the United States…. But as the general government did not exercise this authority, and probably could not have done it constitutionally in so sweeping a manner, and in such an early stage of resistance, if at all, this furnishes an additional reason why the State alone could not properly do it.

Such was the law at the time of occurrence of what is at least the most colorful labor dispute in American history. In 1903, the smelter workers in Colorado City instituted a strike against their employers. The Western Federation of Miners (WFM), led by Charles Moyer and Bill Haywood, backed the striking smelters and asked all mining companies in the Cripple Creek district to refrain from shipping their mined ore to smelters in Colorado City. When the mining companies refused to do so, the 3,500 miners in the district struck the mining companies in support of the smelters.

The Mine Owners’ Association responded by forming Citizen’s Alliances in every city, hiring replacement employees (many of whom were convicts released for the purpose of replacing striking workers), and attempting to infiltrate the WFM membership with employees loyal to the mine owners. There were more than several instances of violence. The Citizen’s Alliance of the Cripple Creek district requested that Colorado’s governor – James Peabody – send the state militia to restore order. Martial law was proclaimed in Telluride and throughout Teller County. The militia was sent in to these locations, as well as others where there had been no disturbances. Newspaper editors sympathetic to the strikers were jailed, and strikers were arrested simply for their status as such and held in custody in Goldfield, Colorado. When WFM leaders protested that the constitutional rights of the miners were being violated, General Tom McClellan exclaimed, “To hell with the Constitution.” When WFM leaders protested the suspension of habeas corpus proceedings, General Sherman Bell retorted, “Habeas corpus be damned. We’ll give ‘em postmortems.” Deputy sheriffs were shot, strikers killed, replacement workers killed, mine superintendents killed, and union leaders jailed.

Charles Moyer (president of WFM) had been jailed during the course of the strike, and subsequently filed a lawsuit in the federal district court against the James Peabody, Governor of Colorado. The suit alleged that Moyer was arrested without probable cause, that no charges to support his arrest were ever filed, and that he was denied access to the state courts during his incarceration. Peabody defended by asserting that he had declared the county to be in a state of insurrection, and that the arrest and incarceration of Moyer was therefore justified. The case, captioned Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78, made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which, per Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, ruled that Moyer was not entitled to any damages for his incarceration.

The tenor of the Moyer opinion differs remarkably from that of the court in Luther v. Bradley. Holmes noted that the Colorado constitution provided that “when an invasion of or insurrection in the state is made or threatened, the governor shall order the national guard to repel or suppress the same.” According to Holmes, that meant soldiers “may kill persons who resist, and, of course, that [they] may use the milder measure of seizing the bodies of those whom [are] consider[ed] to stand in the way of restoring peace.”

The bottom line with regard to these two cases is that an armed insurrection was held to be insufficient to warrant the imposition of martial law, while labor unrest - admittedly attended by violence - was held to be sufficient.

Two very obvious examples of alignment with the wealthy and the judiciary can be seen in the judicial doctrines of caveat emptor (Latin for "buyer beware"), a concept that was the general rule governing sales until for almost the first two hundred years of our country's existence. Another is the doctrine of "employment-at-will," under which an employee may be terminated for any reason, or even no reason at all, even if he has relocated to take the job with the promise that it will remain his for life. Subject to a few carefully circumscribed exceptions, the doctrine remains the law in forty eight states today.

A particularly nauseating example of the government's alignment with the wealthy can be found in the passage of McKinley's protective tariff legislation by Congress and approved by the President. Part and parcel of the act was a substantial reduction in the tax on tobacco, no doubt intended to decrease public opposition to the Tariff Act.

A very clear example of the legislative branch of the federal government acting in the best interests of the business establishment at whatever cost to the population at large can be seen in the regulation of pollution, the paradigm example of an economic externality. An externality (or transaction spillover) is defined as a cost or benefit, not transmitted through prices incurred by a party who did not agree to the action causing the cost or benefit. The result of an externality is that the pricing mechanism fails to allocate resources to their most valuable use. Suppose, for example, that excluding the cost of pollution, the cheapest way to manufacture beverage containers is with aluminum. Suppose further that if the manufacturer that produced the aluminum was required to factor the cost of pollution into its sale price, the cheapest way to manufacture beverage containers would be with plastic. Because the producer of the aluminum is not required to factor in the cost of pollution, the cheapest way to manufacture beverage containers remains with aluminum. As a result, the pricing mechanism fails to allocate resources to their most valued use, a situation that runs contrary to any claim of an economy based on capitalist theory.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the solution to pollution was the common law action for abatement and damages under a nuisance theory. The analysis of a nuisance claim closely resembled the analysis of a trespass claim. Much as the trampling of a single blade of grass was deemed sufficient to prove damages in a trespass action, the presence of soot on even a single blade of grass was deemed sufficient to establish damage in an action under a nuisance theory, and justify shutting down a "smelly smokestack." With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, courts became a little reluctant to shut down a factory, and frequently either misapplied or ignored the law to avoid having to do so. Regardless of how it was applied, the law itself remained unchanged.

The Environmental Protection Act, duly passed by Congress and duly signed into law by Richard Nixon, became effective in 1972. Two very noteworthy results of the act were: 1) it became extremely difficult to maintain a private action against a polluter; and 2) the agency that administered the act thought in terms not of zero tolerance, but rather in terms of acceptable levels of pollution. Without regard to any debate over what if any levels of pollution are acceptable, it is clear that whatever that level is constitutes an externality that unjustly benefits the polluter.

To summarize, the following establish the existence of an alliance between the government and the wealthy: 1) Alexander Hamilton's explicit statements; 2) the Dred Scott decision; 3) the doctrine of caveat emptor; 4) the doctrine of employment-at-will; 5) the reduction of tobacco tax to decrease opposition to the McKinley Tariff Act; 6) holding manufacturers exempt from the Sherman Act, while at the same time using it to enjoin workers from striking; 7) ruling that an armed insurrection does not justify the imposition of martial law, but that labor strife does; and 8) effectively abrogating a private landowner's right to sue for an injunction against a polluter, and permitting acceptable levels of pollution. This list is not intended to be exhaustive.

(Back to "those who have responsibility for the common good")

Couldn't load picture

The second thing to consider is the history of war-profiteering in the US. See especially what is commonly known as the Nye Committee Report of 1936. Note especially the mention of General Motors and du Pont. Be advised that ALCOA did very well during World War I, too. In fact, it has been opined that, "War is Pittsburgh's fairy godmother."36 Does the Vatican really think that an entity whose interests are aligned with the munitions industry will make an unbiased decision with regard to whether a war is just? Look at the length of the list, which should be enough by itself. Note that we haven't always been the free world's watchdog, either. Then look at the big picture with regard to Operation Iraqi Freedom. George Walker Bush rode roughshod over the United Nations to start that war mostly because Iraq allegedly possessed weapons of mass destruction and had ties to al-Queda. Oops! As it turned out, neither was the case. Only then, after the U.S. was already deeply involved, was the objective of freeing the Iraqis emphasized to the American public. See how easy it is to make a mistake with regard to a war being justified? Hmmm. (And then Bush got re-elected. The whole world saw that, much the same as the whole world saw Truman get re-elected after having made the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan.) The Vatican certainly should have denounced continuation of the war after no weapons of mass destruction or ties to al-Queda were discovered.

There are many public officials in the U.S. who are Catholic and who understand this situation completely, even though none will admit it. One who is mired in the middle of it is Pete Visclosky, Representative for Indiana's first congressional district, and a Catholic. Note that the steel mills of Gary are in his district. If war is not Gary's fairy godmother, it is at least its benefactor. In 2003, Visclosky voted no on the question of whether to go to war with Iraq, and yes to appropriating the money to fund the war in Iraq. If he thought the war was just, why did he vote against authorizing it? If he thought it was not just, why did he vote to fund it, and why didn't he say anything about the Vatican "washing its hands" of the matter by virtue of the proviso in section 2309 of the Catechism? He purports to be solidly behind the veteran, and his voting record does support this. However, he has remained mute with regard to Pius XII's failure to countermand the German clergy during World War II, hasn't said anything in print about the push to make him a saint, and wouldn't touch the issue of the Catholic Church's tax exempt status while Pius XII's was failing to countermand the German clergy during World War II with a ten foot pole. Try him.



1. See especially John Cornwell, Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII ( Penguin Books, 1999). Cornwell omits any arguments concerning papal responsibility for acts of his employees in Germany, and indeed argues that the aid given to the Jews in Italy should not be attributed to him since he lacked personal involvement.

2. Section 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

there must be serious prospects of success;

the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

3. Herman Finer, Mussolini’s Italy (Archon Books, 1964), 43.

4. Finer, 134.

5. Meir Michaelis, Mussolini and the Jews (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1978), 13.

6. id.

7. id.

8. Michaelis, 10.

9. id. 5.

10. Michaelis, 13.

11. Michaelis, 115.

12. Michaelis, 141.

13. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translated by Ralph Manheim (Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999), 56-57.

14. Hitler, 325.

15. Hitler, 21.

16. Hitler, 51.

17. Hitler, 65.

18. Sergio I. Minerbi, The Vatican and Zionism – Conflict in the Holy Land, translated by Arnold Schwartz (Oxford University Press, 1990), 98 citing The Diaries of Thedor Herzl, ed. M. Lowenthal (New York, 1956), 1601-05 .

19. William H. Harbaugh, The Life and Times of Theodore Roosevelt (Oxford University Press, New York, 1961), 266.

20. Hitler, 141.

21. Minerbi, 97, citing Civilta Cattolica, September 1899, 749.

22. Michael Cardinal Faulhaber, Judaism, Christianity and Germany, (The Macmillan Company, 1934), 5.

23. Minerbi, 98, citing The Diaries of Thedor Herzl, ed. M. Lowenthal, New York, 1956, 1601-05.

24. Minerbi, 109.

25. Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad, or The New Pilgrim's Progress (American Publishing Company, 1869), 382.

26. Commentary to Acts 1:6-7 by US Conference of Catholic Bishops

27. For example, consider the following:

In hardly any people in the world is the instinct of self-preservation developed more strongly than in the so-called 'chosen.' Of this, the mere fact of the survival of this race may be considered the best proof. Where is the people which in the last two thousand years has been exposed to so slight changes of inner disposition, character, etc., as the Jewish people? What people, finally, has gone through greater upheavals than this one - and nevertheless issued from the mightiest catastrophes of mankind unchanged? What an infinitely tough will to live and preserve the species speaks from these facts!

Hitler, 300.

28. See William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (New York: Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, 1990), 3-117 for background.

29. Schirer, 199.

30. Section 2310 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

Public authorities, in this case [where the requirements of section 2309 have been met], have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

31. Encyclopedia Britannica, Macropedia, Vol. 29, 1023.

32. Lichter v. U.S., 334 U.S. 742, (1948), 756

33. "For so long as federal income taxes have had any potential impact on churches -- over 75 years -- religious organizations have been expressly exempt from the tax." Walz v. Tax Commission of New York, 397 U.S. 664(1970), at p.676. "Following passage of the Sixteenth Amendment, federal income tax acts have consistently exempted corporations and associations organized and operated exclusively for religious purposes, along with eleemosynary groups, from payment of the tax. Act of Oct. 3, 1913, § IIG(a), 38 Stat. 172. See Int.Rev.Code of 1954, § 501 et seq., 26 U.S.C. § 501 et seq." Walz v. Tax Commission of New York, 397 U.S. 664(1970), ftnt 4.

34. A problematic Biblical passage pertains to the purported virgin birth of Jesus. Aside from inherent incredulity, the myth of the immaculate conception is problematic for a number of reasons. It's inception is rooted in the so-called messianic prophecy found in Isaiah 7:14. That verse states "the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a son, and shall call him Immanuel." According to Catholic commentary, "[t]he Church has always followed St. Matthew in seeing the transcendent fulfillment of this verse in Christ and his Virgin Mother." The book of Isaiah was originally written in Hebrew. The Hebrew word for "virgin" is "alma". It is necessary to note that in Hebrew, the word "alma" can mean either "virgin" or "young woman". When this verse was translated into Greek and became part of what is now called the Septuagint, the translator, for whatever reason, opted for virgin.

The verse noted above must be considered in conjunction with that found in Jeremiah 23:5 - "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will raise up a righteous shoot to David ...." Catholic commentary to this passage states, "A messianic king will arise from the line of David who will rule our Judah and Israel with the justice of the Lord ...."

Thus, according to modern Christian dogma, the prophecy regarding the coming messiah says that he will be BOTH of the line of David and born of a virgin.

There is convincing evidence contained within the Christian Bible itself that the myth of the Immaculate Conception was fabricated, presumably for the dual purpose of demonstrating fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 and of establishing the Christian claim of Jesus' divine status. Both Matthew (Matt. 1:1-16) and Luke (Luke 3:23-38) contain genealogies of Jesus. Both genealogies (note that they are inconsistent), by their express terms, purport to trace the lineage of Joseph. Biblical scholars, be they apologetics or critics, are unanimous in concluding that the reason for the inclusion of the genealogies was to demonstrate that Jesus was from the line of David, and thus fulfilled the purported prophecy regarding the lineage of the messiah. This assertion presents a paradox for Christianity at a very basic level. If Jesus was immaculately conceived, then he is not the son of Joseph, and, consequently not of the line of David, and can therefore not be the messiah. If he is the son of Joseph, then Jesus cannot be the Son of God, and the Immaculate Conception must be a myth.

There is, of course, the theoretical possibility that Jesus mother Mary, aka "The Virgin Mary," aka "The Madonna," was of the line of David. This is where another Jewish accommodation of Christian dogma can be seen. One problem with Jesus being descended from David through Mary is that first century Jewish women in Palestine were regarded as less important than men. In the Bible, the tribes of Israel were given male names and biblical characters are always referenced by their fathers' names. See also Ephesians 5:22 ("Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.") Nonetheless, mainstream Judaism reckons a child's status as a Jew or non-Jew by the status of the mother, not the father.

35. In Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, the Supreme Court said “[polygamy] is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the western world.” Since it is impossible to determine the spirit of Christianity without an examination of its dogma, implicit in this statement is that the court evaluated Christianity as a religion. The court also said “[t]he State has a perfect right to prohibit polygamy, and all other open offenses against the enlightened sentiment of mankind, notwithstanding the pretense of religious conviction by which they may be advocated and practiced.” The conclusion that the court examined the subjective sincerity with which Mormon held its doctrine on plural marriages is compelled by the court’s use of the word “pretense.”

The readily apparent contrast between the approach in the Mormon cases and that in Ballard is difficult to reconcile by any explanation other than political expediency, and the Supreme Court of the United States is no stranger thereto.

36. Harvey O'Conner, Mellon's Millions - The Biography of a Fortune: The Life and Times of Andrew W. Mellon (The John Day Company, New York, 1933), 64.