St. Peter the Aleut

9 views
Skip to first unread message

nick cobb

unread,
Sep 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/2/98
to
St. Peter the Aleut

First Native American martyr,
killed in California by Catholic missionaries.


Simeon Janovsky, former administrator of the Kodiak colony during the
early 1800's, wrote the
following in one of his letters:

"On another occassion, I was relating to him (St Herman) how the spanish
in California had
imprisoned 14 Aleuts, and how the Jesuits were forcing all of them to
accept the Catholic Faith. "But
this Aleut would not agree under any circumstances, saying 'We are
Christians.'

"The Jesuits protested, 'That is not true, you are heretics and
schismatics. If you do not agree the
accept our faith then we will torture all of you.' "Then the Aleuts were
place in cells until evening; two
to a cell. At night the Jesuits came to the prison with lanterns and
lighted candles. They began to
persuade the Aleuts in the cell once again to accept the Catholic faith.
'We are Christians,' was the
answer of the Aleuts, 'and we will not change our Faith.'

"Then the Jesuits began to torture them, at first the one while his
companion was the witness. They
cut the toes off his feet, one joint - and then the other...And then
they cut the first joint on the fingers
of the hands, and then the other joint. Afterwards, they cut off his
feet and his hands; the blood
flowed. The martyr endured all and steadfastly insisted on one thing: 'I
am a Christian!'

"In such suffering he bled to death. The Jesuits promised to torture to
death his comrades also on the
next day. But that night an order was received from Monterey stating
that the imprisoned Aleuts
were to be released immediately,and sent there under escort. Therefore,
in the morning all were
dispatched to Monterey with the exception of the martyred Aleut.

"This was related to me by a witness, the same Aleut who was the
companion of the tortured Aleut.
Afterwards, he escaped from imprisonment, and I reported this incident
to the supreme authorities in
St. Petersburg.

"When I finished my story, Father Herman asked, 'And how did they call
the Martyred Aleut?'

"I answered, 'Peter, I do not remember his family name,' The Elder stood
up before an icon,
reverently made the sign of he Cross, and pronounced, 'Holy
newly-martyred Peter, pray to God for
us!'"

O Holy Martyr Peter the Aleut,
pray unto God for us!


tad...@adsnet.com

unread,
Sep 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/3/98
to
In article <35EDE180...@cris.com>,
~+~

O Holy Martyr Peter the Aleut,
pray unto God for us!

~+~
Bravo, Nicholas you found some documentation, congratulations!


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

tad...@adsnet.com

unread,
Sep 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/3/98
to

Troyen

unread,
Sep 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/3/98
to
That is a sad story.

Sinner, Troyen.

Gerard F. Bugge

unread,
Sep 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/3/98
to

tad...@adsnet.com wrote :

>> St. Peter the Aleut

>> First Native American martyr,
>> killed in California by Catholic missionaries.

>> Simeon Janovsky, former administrator of the Kodiak colony during the
>> early 1800's, wrote the
>> following in one of his letters:

>> "On another occassion, I was relating to him (St Herman) how the spanish
>> in California had
>> imprisoned 14 Aleuts, and how the Jesuits were forcing all of them to
>> accept the Catholic Faith. "But
>> this Aleut would not agree under any circumstances, saying 'We are

>> Christians.'........

> Bravo, Nicholas you found some documentation, congratulations!

Hold the congratuations!

The "Jesuits" were not even in California at that period......

So much for "verifiable" evidence!

Gerard Serafin

*Celebrating the Romance of Orthodoxy:*
A Catholic Page for Lovers: http://www.praiseofglory.alabanza.com
*Baltimore's Beautiful "Powerhouse of Prayer":*
StAlphonsus: http://www.praiseofglory.alabanza.com/stalphonsus.htm
*The Redemptorists--With Christ is Plentiful Redemption:*
cyberMission: http://www.praiseofglory.alabanza.com/mission.htm
*A Russian Catholic cyberCenter:*
St Michael's: http://www.praiseofglory.alabanza.com/stmichael.htm
*God's Friend and Ours:*
Servant of God Father Francis X. Seelos: http://www.seelos.org


Gerard F. Bugge

unread,
Sep 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/3/98
to

Troyen wrote in message

regarding the posting of how the "Jesuits" killed Peter the Aleut:

>That is a sad story.

Yes, indeed, sad that such misinformation is still being posted on the
internet......the Jesuits were not in California at the time of the alleged
murder. How sad that this slur goes on.......

Robert G. Tallick

unread,
Sep 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/3/98
to
> Yes, indeed, sad that such misinformation is still being posted on the
> internet......the Jesuits were not in California at the time of the alleged
> murder. How sad that this slur goes on.......
>
> Gerard Serafin


Gerard:

Give it a rest already. Anyone can open up a website and put whatever
they wish....EVEN YOU.

Most people of a slavic background see all Roman Catholics as Jesuits.
It was the Jesuits that came dressed in Orthodox garb and who tried to
obliterate the Orthodox Church in Slavic lands. In the OFFICIAL Simeon
Yanovsky's Account (From 'Protraits of American Saints' the term Jesuit
is never used. I didn't print it because it had been alluded to in a
previous post. It was late, I was tired, and I'm a two fingered
typist. I think maybe its time to post it now to end this 'Jesuit'
debate once and for all.

As I said, anyone can open up a web site and print their own version or
words about anything...EVEN YOU.

Bob

Robert G. Tallick

unread,
Sep 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/3/98
to
>From "Portraits of American Saints' Compiled & edited by George A. Gray &
Jan V Bear


ST PETER THE ALEUT: SIMEON YANOVSKY'S ACCOUNT

There is a similiar version of the murder of Peter the Aleut in a letter
dated November 22, 1865, from Simeon Yanovsky (the chief director of the
Russian-American Company in Alaska) to Igumen Damascene of the Valaam
Monastery in Russian Finland. (Valaam is the place from which the monks
of
the 1794 Kodiak Mission came.) Yanovsky writes about a conversation he
once had with St Herman.
In the course of this conversation, Yanovsky told the monk the story of
how
Roman Catholic priests in California tried to force the Aleut hunters to
embrace Roman Catholicism. The prisoners said, "We are Christians; we
have
been baptised." They even showed the Latin priests their baptismal
crosses.
"No, you are heretics and schmatics," replied one of the priests. "If
you
do not agree to take the Catholic faith, we will torture you." The
captives were then told to "think it over."
Coming back later, the priests found that the Aleuts again refused to
renounce Orthodoxy and to embrace the Roman Church. They took a
prisoner
and cut off one of the toe joints from one of his feet and then from the
other. In response to this, the Aleut simply repaeted; "I am a
Christian;
I will not betray my faith," Next they cut a joint off each finger
--first
from one hand then from the other. Then they hacked off one foot at the
instep and then one hand at the wrist. The Aleut's wounds were
terrible,
and he eventually died from the loss of blood. The remaining Aleuts
were
promised that they would be tortured the next day unless they forsook
their
false religion.
During the night, an order came, commanding that the remaining prisoners
be
sent immediately under guard to Monterey, the capital of California.
The
order was carried out.
After Yanovsky told this all to St Herman, the elder asked the name of
the
tortured Aleut. "Peter," Yanovsky replied, "but I cannot remember his
other name. "Then, standing before the Icon, the monk crossed himself.
and
said "Holy. newly martyred Peter, pray to God for us!"

================================================================================

You will note that in the official published version at no time are the
RC
priests referred to as either 'Jesuits' or Franciscans'. Simply as
Roman
Catholic priests (who were probably from Spain since that part of
Californian was Spainish territory at the time). The term 'Jesuit' or
'Francisan' are being added by people telling the story. They are
inaccuricies but is that justification to say he never existed? I see
Icons or RC Holy pictures of St Nicholas portraying him with a Mitre
(both
Latin & Orthodox). The fact is, the Bishops did not wear Mitres at the
time St Nicholas was Bishop. The RCC usually portray's him in a Latin
mitre
with Latin vestments. Fact is, he was an Eastern Bishop & certainly
would
never had been wearing Roman vestments! Is this inaccuracy enough to
claim
he never existed? I understand he has been downsized by the RCC. Is
this
the reason? I think not.
If you think for one minute that the RCC does not have a sorid past,
then
you are either very nieve or live in a fantasy world my friend. There
isn't one religion on the face of the earth (Orthodoxy included) that
doesn't have a few skeletons in their closet they are not too proud of.

St Peter the Aleut pray to God for us! And reveal yourself to the
doubting
Thomas...Gerard.

Bob

Gerard F. Bugge

unread,
Sep 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/3/98
to

>
>Robert G. Tallick wrote >
:

>Anyone can open up a website and put whatever
>they wish....EVEN YOU.

>As I said, anyone can open up a web site and print their own version or
>words about anything...EVEN YOU.

Nice to see you quoting yourself, Bob!

Well, yes, I can put anything I wish on my website. I take my website
very seriously and work hard to make it the best possible site--"to the
praise of His Glory." Glad you seem to have visited and looked it over.
Hope you said a prayer for me, even as I pray daily for all who visit my
site(s). I hope that my Catholic Page for Lovers reflects something of His
ever-greater Love for us. And is "catholic" as well--drawing on rich
sources from both the west and east. I am delighted to have many references
to saints of the east and many beautiful images as well.

I just posted on my "Filioque" page a piece by the renowned Orthodox
theologian, Archbishop John Zizioulis--giving his own measured reponse to
the Clarification on the Filioque issued by the Secretariat for Christian
Unity in Rome. I hope to keep expanding on this page--working, tediously
and slowly, on a wonderful article comparing the theology of the Holy
Spirit's procession in St John of Damascus and St Thomas Aquinas.

Yes, I can post whatever I wish on my webpages. I hope I am posting the
best possible things that witness to Christ and His Church and may inspire
hearts to yearn for a closer contact with the Triune God. I would deeply
appreciate any prayers that God might bless this effort and bless all who
may visit. Thanks!

John Peters

unread,
Sep 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/3/98
to

Gerard F. Bugge wrote in message ...

> The "Jesuits" were not even in California at that period......
>
> So much for "verifiable" evidence!


Simply substitute the word "Franciscans" for "Jesuits" everybody and we can
move on.

By the way was there any difference in the way Orthodox monks treated the
Native Alaskans and the way the Catholic friars treated the Natives of
Mexico and California?

I believe there is ample "verifiable" historical documentation to persuade
both sides of the real differences, I'll take St. Herman anyday over Friar
Juan (and so would you Gerard if you were smart)

"And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors..."

John

Robert G. Tallick

unread,
Sep 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/3/98
to
> By the way was there any difference in the way Orthodox monks treated the
> Native Alaskans and the way the Catholic friars treated the Natives of
> Mexico and California?


There most certainly was. Read the life of St Innocent. When they
arrived in Alaska he and his family lived in an underground hut just
like the Natives. He established a school for children and adults,
incorporating Aleutan ideas and culture into teaching the basics of
Christianity. (Unlike the Spanish priests that destroyed the native
culture they found in what is now Mexico & California). Using his
skills in carpentry, masonry, and metalworking to teach the Aleuts. He
also studied the Aleutian culture and language. The Aleuts had no
written language, so he developed a written alphabet for them. He also
wrote the first book in the Aleutian tongue: "An Indication of the
Pathway into the Kingdom of Heaven'. He also translated portions of the
Bible, a catechism and the Liturgy into the Aleut language so that the
people would not have to worship in Slavonic. In his free time he built
furniture for his house, clocks for many of the rooms, musical
instruments for his family and friends, and he also made candles for the
churches.

And surprise of surprises!!!! In 1836 he visited Ft Ross, California
and traveled by land TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSIONS OF SAN RAFAEL, SAN
JOSE, SANTA CRUZ, SANTA CLARA AND SAN FRANCISCO. THE REASON FOR HIS
TRIP WAS TO DELIVER ROLL-ORGANS (LIKE PLAYER PIANOS) AND OTHER MUSICAL
INSTRUMENTS WHICH HE HAD MADE AT THE REQUEST OF THE FRANCISCAN
MISSIONARIES.

H. Paul Jacobson

unread,
Sep 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/3/98
to
On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Robert G. Tallick wrote:

> And surprise of surprises!!!! In 1836 he visited Ft Ross, California
> and traveled by land TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSIONS OF SAN RAFAEL, SAN
> JOSE, SANTA CRUZ, SANTA CLARA AND SAN FRANCISCO. THE REASON FOR HIS
> TRIP WAS TO DELIVER ROLL-ORGANS (LIKE PLAYER PIANOS) AND OTHER MUSICAL
> INSTRUMENTS WHICH HE HAD MADE AT THE REQUEST OF THE FRANCISCAN
> MISSIONARIES.

Even he refers to the Fraciscans as Jesuits. I suspect Russians at that
time didn't know, or didn't care, about the differences among the various
Catholic Orders. After all, the Orthodox don't have anything comparable
to 'orders'.

Paul Jacobson 'sleep glues my head to the sacred page'
hp...@u.washington.edu [St. John Cassian]
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~hpj3/orth_sources.html


nick cobb

unread,
Sep 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/3/98
to
This is historical proof--not something made up. Go check the original records
yourself.

Gerard F. Bugge wrote:

> tad...@adsnet.com wrote :
>
> >> St. Peter the Aleut
>
> >> First Native American martyr,
> >> killed in California by Catholic missionaries.
>
> >> Simeon Janovsky, former administrator of the Kodiak colony during the
> >> early 1800's, wrote the
> >> following in one of his letters:
>
> >> "On another occassion, I was relating to him (St Herman) how the spanish
> >> in California had
> >> imprisoned 14 Aleuts, and how the Jesuits were forcing all of them to
> >> accept the Catholic Faith. "But
> >> this Aleut would not agree under any circumstances, saying 'We are
> >> Christians.'........
>
> > Bravo, Nicholas you found some documentation, congratulations!
>
> Hold the congratuations!
>

> The "Jesuits" were not even in California at that period......
>
> So much for "verifiable" evidence!
>

Brian Delaney

unread,
Sep 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/3/98
to
You forget to mention the heroic example of Fray Bartolomeo de los Casas who
defended the Indians against the Spanish secular authorities in the 16th
Century. I do revere St Herman but there were also heroes and saints in the
Catholic side in this period.

Peace,

Brian

John Peters wrote:

> Gerard F. Bugge wrote in message ...
>

> > The "Jesuits" were not even in California at that period......
> >
> > So much for "verifiable" evidence!
>

> Simply substitute the word "Franciscans" for "Jesuits" everybody and we can
> move on.
>

> By the way was there any difference in the way Orthodox monks treated the
> Native Alaskans and the way the Catholic friars treated the Natives of
> Mexico and California?
>

Brian Delaney

unread,
Sep 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/3/98
to
Bob,
This is extreme even for the usual tone of your posts here. "Most people of
slavic background see RC's as Jesuits"???? oh come now. Most of the Orthodox I
have met and who are my brothers and sisters in Christ are of Slavic heritage
(including a wonderful lady who fled the Revolution and who when I introduced
myself said "oh, you are Catholic, so close, so close!) and they are truly
tolerant and see the Catholic Church as being very close to the Orthodox. Many
of the emigres furthurmore, looked on the RCC as anti-Communist when some in the
Moscow Patriarchate colluded with the regime.
Many of the loveliest and most tolerant of my Orthodox friends are from
native Orthodox families whereas the only militant and self-righteous ones have
been among the recent converts to Orthodoxy and whose attitude seems to reflect
that they "own" Orthodoxy. I HOPE not for the sake of the faith.

Peace,

Brian

Robert G. Tallick wrote:

> > Yes, indeed, sad that such misinformation is still being posted on the
> > internet......the Jesuits were not in California at the time of the alleged
> > murder. How sad that this slur goes on.......
> >
> > Gerard Serafin
>
> Gerard:
>

> Give it a rest already. Anyone can open up a website and put whatever
> they wish....EVEN YOU.
>


> Most people of a slavic background see all Roman Catholics as Jesuits.
> It was the Jesuits that came dressed in Orthodox garb and who tried to
> obliterate the Orthodox Church in Slavic lands. In the OFFICIAL Simeon
> Yanovsky's Account (From 'Protraits of American Saints' the term Jesuit
> is never used. I didn't print it because it had been alluded to in a
> previous post. It was late, I was tired, and I'm a two fingered
> typist. I think maybe its time to post it now to end this 'Jesuit'
> debate once and for all.
>

> As I said, anyone can open up a web site and print their own version or
> words about anything...EVEN YOU.
>

> Bob


ferg...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Sep 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/4/98
to
It wasn't 100% of the RC clergy. The unfortuante thing is that those who
served the state weren't the exception either.
Any time any church serves the state or big bussiness anytime the state wraps
it's "loving arms" around the church there is a price paid.

Thank you for your other posts today they were refreshing.

Nektarios

------------------
"John Peters" <hoodp...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
(snip)


>and the way the Catholic friars treated the Natives of
>Mexico and California?

(snip)

> John

--
*************************
Jack Nektarios Ferguson
Seoul Korea
*************************

ferg...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Sep 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/4/98
to
Gerard knows all of this. When this has been posted and argued by him before
it's been the same stuff, almost word for word. I would guess that it was
much less a matter of Orthodox vs RC with whoever was involved as it was that
St. Peter was not "Indian" and not RC. Had he been baptist or anything else
he would have faired no better. There were non Indians of various groups,
eg. the organ music sales in your post, who came and went in CA during the
same period. Maltreatment of Native Americans is not hard to document. On a
previous list the entire explaination was provided with evdience of the
Russian use of "Jesuits" for any RC monk. Nektarios

-------------------------------

ferg...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Sep 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/4/98
to
I revere St. Herman too and a number of other saints some held in common by
Orhtodox and RC. I also have great respect for many RC saints. There is also
the story of the priest at a mission just south of Salinas CA who starved
giving his food to the native American's at the mission. To paint all RC as
some do here as evil doers e.g. all jesuits or to paint all Orthodox as the
more subtle Gerard does is just plain bigotry. Don't know that it can or
should be defended. The story posted of the Jesuit who lied to spy on the
Orthodox really sounds like either Jack Chick or the stuff I heard as a kid
from a former nun who converted to the SDA church. She talked to groups
about cells under all RCC so they could put the "Sunday" worshipers, who had
the mark of the beast (pope) on them during the great time of trouble.

Nektarios
--------------------------------


Brian Delaney <bri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> You forget to mention the heroic example of Fray Bartolomeo de los Casas who
> defended the Indians against the Spanish secular authorities in the 16th
> Century. I do revere St Herman but there were also heroes and saints in the
> Catholic side in this period.
>
> Peace,
>
> Brian
>
> John Peters wrote:
>
> > Gerard F. Bugge wrote in message ...
> >
> > > The "Jesuits" were not even in California at that period......
> > >
> > > So much for "verifiable" evidence!
> >
> > Simply substitute the word "Franciscans" for "Jesuits" everybody and we can
> > move on.
> >
> > By the way was there any difference in the way Orthodox monks treated the

> > Native Alaskans and the way the Catholic friars treated the Natives of
> > Mexico and California?
> >


> > I believe there is ample "verifiable" historical documentation to persuade
> > both sides of the real differences, I'll take St. Herman anyday over Friar
> > Juan (and so would you Gerard if you were smart)
> >
> > "And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors..."
> >
> > John
>
>

Gerard F. Bugge

unread,
Sep 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/4/98
to

Robert G. Tallick wrote

about St Innocent:

>And surprise of surprises!!!! In 1836 he visited Ft Ross, California
>and traveled by land TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSIONS OF SAN RAFAEL, SAN
>JOSE, SANTA CRUZ, SANTA CLARA AND SAN FRANCISCO. THE REASON FOR HIS
>TRIP WAS TO DELIVER ROLL-ORGANS (LIKE PLAYER PIANOS) AND OTHER MUSICAL
>INSTRUMENTS WHICH HE HAD MADE AT THE REQUEST OF THE FRANCISCAN
>MISSIONARIES.

This story is wonderful and I've read it in more detail even. It speaks
of the mutual respect that the Franciscans and St Innocent had for one
another. In St Innocent's account, there is even some good humor!

How different this real story is from the story/legend of Peter the
Aleut!

Strange--if these same Franciscans just decades back--had dismembered
and disembowelled an Orthodox Aleut, that St Innocent would be spending days
among them, trying to make money by selling organs!

Just doesn't "jive" and *this* story is verifiable!

Thanks for mentioning it. I had forgotten about it. It is just another
reason that I believe the Peter the Aleut story wrapped in fiction and
inaccuracies! Long live the spirit of St Innocent in his dealings with the
Franciscans!

Gerard F. Bugge

unread,
Sep 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/4/98
to
Nektarios writes:
To paint all RC as


>some do here as evil doers e.g. all jesuits or to paint all Orthodox as the
>more subtle Gerard does is just plain bigotry.

What? Please actually read the words I write. I always qualify my
comments and never lump all Orthodox together. How many times have I
praised some Orthodox! (Some of my dearest friends and brethren in Christ
are Orthodox Christians and I revere them beyond words...).

For you to say what you do is stunning to me. And baffling.

And it is simply wrong. I don't think, however, you are deliberately
lying--I think your emotions, perhaps, cloud your objectivity. Just how I
see it.....

Gerard F. Bugge

unread,
Sep 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/4/98
to

John Peters wrote

>By the way was there any difference in the way Orthodox monks treated the
>Native Alaskans and the way the Catholic friars treated the Natives of
>Mexico and California?

>I believe there is ample "verifiable" historical documentation to persuade
>both sides of the real differences, I'll take St. Herman anyday over Friar
>Juan (and so would you Gerard if you were smart)

Dear John,

This is the sort of stuff I avoid. First of all, I am not an historian.
Secondly, I tend to think that "we're all made of the same stuff" and tend
to believe that for most peoples and events there are many nuances,
exceptions, and "grey" areas, etc. But I do not like condemning those who
went before us and can't defend themselves....as a general rule. Just not
something I do easily anyway.

My comments about Peter the Aleut are not condemning anyone as such. I
raise a question about standards for glorification/canonization--sparked by
an Orthodox priest's comments on this newsgroup that I perceived a slur on a
candidate for beatification in the Catholic Church. This slur stirred me to
raise my own objections to the glorification of Peter the Aleut....in other
words, the priest criticized the Catholic Church but perhaps overlooks some
"problematic" areas in his own backyard. Rightly or wrongly, that's how
this all began.

Just one other comment. I am quite certain that the record of the
Spanish Missions is a mixed bag. I also would tend to believe that there
was much holiness, zeal, love, and concern for the temporal and eternal
well-being of others at work. I've visited many of the superbly beautiful
Spanish Missions.

To use your own "reasoning"---if these Missions are so beautiful, then
what transpired there must be beautiful too----:-).


Gerard F. Bugge

unread,
Sep 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/4/98
to

Robert G. Tallick wrote

>If you think for one minute that the RCC does not have a sorid past,
>then
>you are either very nieve or live in a fantasy world my friend. There
>isn't one religion on the face of the earth (Orthodoxy included) that
>doesn't have a few skeletons in their closet they are not too proud of.

Dear Bob,

I have never once indicated that I think the Catholic Church without her
failures and, yes, sins (through her members). In fact, I've several times
admitted this and have no problem so doing.

This thread is not about atrocities and skeletons in closets. It's about
the standards of glorification/canonization in place in the Church that
glorified a legendary character (and to this date, not one shred of
historical evidence has been given regarding the person or martyrdom of
Peter the Aleut). It was stirred by an Orthodox priest's comment that
indicated the Catholic Church is ready to beatify someone who cooperated in
the slaughter of "a million Orthodox Serbs" (and I wonder where this figure
comes from, differing, as it does, from any figure I've ever seen--and this
is not to deny the atrocities of the neo-Nazi government responsible for the
murders--just to point out what might be a pattern of exaggeration).

So I have not listed atrocities on either side.

I've just asked for verifiable evidence that the legend of Peter the
Aleut is not just, as I think it is, a legend and fantasy.

Your own reminder of St Innocent's very cordial relationship with the
Catholic missionaries in California is to me just another counter-indication
that the dismemberment and disembowellment of Peter the Aleut is made up and
should, in all honesty, be acknowledged for the legend it is....

ferg...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Sep 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/4/98
to
Gerard You know I am not a great defender or much else when it comes to St.
Peter the Aleut. You are smart enough to udnerstand the conditions and
mindset of the Europeans who came to California. St. Peter would have been a
non European. If it all occured exactly as has been posted did those who put
him to death understand he was Orthodox or believe that he was a non European
and hence uncivilized and half human? Looking at the story back into an age
when people knew less about the world than we do, and look how bigoted we
are. Looking back at a time and place where the church and goverment were
often serving each other what is so difficult to believe? Gerard isn't it
time to change your one note song? Nektarios

-----------------------


"Gerard F. Bugge" <gbu...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote:
>
> Robert G. Tallick wrote
>
> about St Innocent:
>
> >And surprise of surprises!!!! In 1836 he visited Ft Ross, California
> >and traveled by land TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSIONS OF SAN RAFAEL, SAN
> >JOSE, SANTA CRUZ, SANTA CLARA AND SAN FRANCISCO. THE REASON FOR HIS
> >TRIP WAS TO DELIVER ROLL-ORGANS (LIKE PLAYER PIANOS) AND OTHER MUSICAL
> >INSTRUMENTS WHICH HE HAD MADE AT THE REQUEST OF THE FRANCISCAN
> >MISSIONARIES.
>
> This story is wonderful and I've read it in more detail even. It speaks
> of the mutual respect that the Franciscans and St Innocent had for one
> another. In St Innocent's account, there is even some good humor!
>
> How different this real story is from the story/legend of Peter the
> Aleut!
>
> Strange--if these same Franciscans just decades back--had dismembered
> and disembowelled an Orthodox Aleut, that St Innocent would be spending days
> among them, trying to make money by selling organs!
>
> Just doesn't "jive" and *this* story is verifiable!
>
> Thanks for mentioning it. I had forgotten about it. It is just another
> reason that I believe the Peter the Aleut story wrapped in fiction and
> inaccuracies! Long live the spirit of St Innocent in his dealings with the
> Franciscans!
>

> Gerard Serafin
>
> *Celebrating the Romance of Orthodoxy:*
> A Catholic Page for Lovers: http://www.praiseofglory.alabanza.com
> *Baltimore's Beautiful "Powerhouse of Prayer":*
> StAlphonsus: http://www.praiseofglory.alabanza.com/stalphonsus.htm
> *The Redemptorists--With Christ is Plentiful Redemption:*
> cyberMission: http://www.praiseofglory.alabanza.com/mission.htm
> *A Russian Catholic cyberCenter:*
> St Michael's: http://www.praiseofglory.alabanza.com/stmichael.htm
> *God's Friend and Ours:*
> Servant of God Father Francis X. Seelos: http://www.seelos.org
>
>

Robert G. Tallick

unread,
Sep 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/4/98
to
> I do revere St Herman but there were also heroes and saints in the
> Catholic side in this period.
>
> Peace,
>
> Brian


I'm sure there were Brian. I'msure there were.

Robert G. Tallick

unread,
Sep 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/4/98
to
> How different this real story is from the story/legend of Peter the
> Aleut!
>


Just can't give it up can you? You use every opportunity to antagonize
and insult. And then play the innocent 'but I love you' role. You
don't fool anyone Gerard.

By the way, what is YOUR PROOF St Peter never existed? You keep coming
up with the inaccuracy concerning the Jesuits. It's already been
explained that the words 'Jesuit' or 'Franciscan' do not appear in the
official publication of the Saints life. How about the RC Holy pictures
of St Nicholas in a western Mitre and modern wester clerical garb. Do
you still believe in St Nicholas?

> Strange--if these same Franciscans just decades back--had dismembered
> and disembowelled an Orthodox Aleut, that St Innocent would be spending days
> among them,


I think it's called being a Christian and having a Christian attitude.
Could be one of the many reasons he is a saint!

Robert G. Tallick

unread,
Sep 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/4/98
to
> Dear John,
>
> This is the sort of stuff I avoid. First of all, I am not an historian.
> Secondly, I tend to think that "we're all made of the same stuff" and tend
> to believe that for most peoples and events there are many nuances,
> exceptions, and "grey" areas, etc. But I do not like condemning those who
> went before us and can't defend themselves....as a general rule. Just not
> something I do easily anyway.


Anyone see the irony of this comment? You are right, you are not a
historian so quit insinuating that your opinions concerning St Peter are
in deed fact. If you don't believe in him...fine. There are those of
us who do.. and this is after all, is an Orthodox Newsgroup.

Your comment..."I don't like condemning those who went before us and
can't defend themselves, etc."...is laughable. Why don't you practice
what you preach?

> This slur stirred me to
> raise my own objections to the glorification of Peter the Aleut....


And, tell us, what slurs caused you to try and create the same havoc
regarding the same subject, using the same words, on two other Orthodox
discussion groups that you were politely asked to leave?

> This thread is not about atrocities and skeletons in closets. It's about
> the standards of glorification/canonization in place in the Church that
> glorified a legendary character (and to this date, not one shred of
> historical evidence has been given regarding the person or martyrdom of
> Peter the Aleut).


Who are you to question the standards for glorification of Orthodox
saints? You make snide remarks like 'legendary character' but have
provided not one shred of evidence to back up your claim. Instead you
make comments concerning there were 'no Jesuits' in California at the
time (even though it has already been explained the word 'Jesuit' never
appears in the official documentation...which you seem to ignore). Your
other shred of evidence is 'It doesn't sound true so therefore, it
isn't).
I think the person who stated nothing outside of a living witness will
convince you otherwise is correct. So I don't intend to discuss this
with you anymore. It's like talking to a brick wall.

> It was stirred by an Orthodox priest's comment that
> indicated the Catholic Church is ready to beatify someone who cooperated in
> the slaughter of "a million Orthodox Serbs"

Yes, and your reaction is to use it as an excuse to defile an Orthodox
saint instead of proving that the priests comments are false. Why do
you ask us for proof but don't think you are required to provide proof
in the above matter? Believe me, I can bring in quite a few Serbian
Orthodox to this newsgroup to provide proof of the atrocities committed
by this person. But it would just start another flame war. However, I
could put you in touch with just such a person so you could discuss the
matter privately. Want his email address?

Fr. John Morris

unread,
Sep 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/4/98
to

First of all, I am not an historian.


That is the first thing that you have written with which I completely agree.
If you were an historian, you would realize that at the time and place of
the martyrdom of St. Peter the Aleut, it was very common for Roman Catholics
to persecute and even kill non Roman Catholics. Even in this century,
Croatian Roman Catholics murdered almost 1,000,000 Serbian Orthodox.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Fr. John Morris

unread,
Sep 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/4/98
to

It was stirred by an Orthodox priest's comment that
+AD4-indicated the Catholic Church is ready to beatify someone who cooperated in
+AD4-the slaughter of +ACI-a million Orthodox Serbs+ACI-

The cooperation of the Roman Catholic Church with crimes of the Croatians
during the Second World War are well documented. It is a scandal that
anyone, much less the Pope, would even consider canonizing a man who
blessed those who murdered almost a million Orthodox Serbs.

For all that you have written, you have yet to produce one shred of evidence
to challenge the truth of the story of St. Peter the Aleut.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Evan Kalenik

unread,
Sep 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/4/98
to
Gerard F. Bugge wrote:

> This thread is not about atrocities and skeletons in closets. It's about
> the standards of glorification/canonization in place in the Church that
> glorified a legendary character (and to this date, not one shred of
> historical evidence has been given regarding the person or martyrdom of

> Peter the Aleut). It was stirred by an Orthodox priest's comment that


> indicated the Catholic Church is ready to beatify someone who cooperated in

> the slaughter of "a million Orthodox Serbs" (and I wonder where this figure
> comes from, differing, as it does, from any figure I've ever seen--and this
> is not to deny the atrocities of the neo-Nazi government responsible for the
> murders--just to point out what might be a pattern of exaggeration).

The fact is that the Roman Catholic Church is making into a saint someone who
cooperated in the slaughter of almost a million Orthodox Catholic Serbs. As for
the "numbers", the Roman Catholic Church talks about 250,000, and that is a
number that only the Roman Catholic Church talks about. It is at least half of
the lowest number that is seen (and then usually only referring to the Serbs and
not the others who were butched under this new "saint") and only a third of what
comes from the United States Government sources, the UN and the assorted War
Tribunals. One can only guess that 250,000 deaths is not enough to disqualify
him to become the latest Roman Catholic "saint".

> So I have not listed atrocities on either side.

Nor would you since you would have to list the atrocities by the Roman Catholic
Church and that would be best swept under the carpet.

> I've just asked for verifiable evidence that the legend of Peter the
> Aleut is not just, as I think it is, a legend and fantasy.

And you ignore the historical fact that the Roman Catholic Church is making into
one of their "saints" another mass murderer of Orthodox Catholics. Interesting
standards you maintain.

> Your own reminder of St Innocent's very cordial relationship with the
> Catholic missionaries in California is to me just another counter-indication
> that the dismemberment and disembowellment of Peter the Aleut is made up and
> should, in all honesty, be acknowledged for the legend it is....

Well, by your analogy, Christ must be made up also since He was willing to
forgive those who crucified Him. Just because St. Innocent held cordial
relations with everyone, even those who persecuted the Church, shows more about
St. Innocent than anything about St. Peter. Orthodox Catholics try to follow
the example that Christ set for us. To try to use that for your purposes is in
bad taste, to say the least.

Evan

Gerard F. Bugge

unread,
Sep 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/4/98
to
Nektarios writes:

>Gerard isn't it
>time to change your one note song?

And I thought I was doing a symphony!!!!!!

I've covered more than one point in my Peter the Aleut posts....and have
posted a good bit more on various threads in this newsgroup....

I respond to replies to my posts, as best as I am able.

In this post you replied to with this comment, I praised highly the
wonderful and convivial spirit of St Innocent. His account of his visit to
the Franciscans in California is both touching and humorous--and bespeaks a
reverence in which both held each other.

I do not subscribe in any way to what seems a "note" you sing
often--e.g. Gerard, you know there were atrocities committed by our
ancestors--so why not just believe the story of Peter the Aleut or at least
just accept that it happened and moved on.

I don't accept that at all. I am not aware, personally, of Franciscans
or Jesuits dismembering or disembowelling *anyone!* I do not claim they
are spotless or without some pretty awful things in their long histories
(but, oh what blessings they have given to the Church and to the world!).

Sorry, but I await some verifiable proof that such was actually done to
Peter the Aleut.....or would hope for a retraction and decanonization in the
interest of truth, authenticity, and the holiness of the Church herself. I
won't hold my breath. In fact, as I write this, I think you're right and
I've said my piece. Now to move on to other things (but offer still
stands---free dinner to anyone who can give me--and others--any verifiable
proof).

Long live the spirit of St Innocent!

Gerard F. Bugge

unread,
Sep 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/4/98
to

Fr. John Morris wrote:

replying to Gerard's humble and humiliating admission:

"First of all, I am not an historian."

>That is the first thing that you have written with which I completely
agree.

How good that we make some progress....and I look forward to many more
items I write on which we can agree!

Thank you for the encouraging, supportive words. No longer sad!

Gerard F. Bugge

unread,
Sep 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/4/98
to

Robert G. Tallick wrote >

>Just can't give it up can you? You use every opportunity to antagonize
>and insult. And then play the innocent 'but I love you' role. You
>don't fool anyone Gerard.

Can't recall using the "L" word lately--or ever--on this newsgroup,
regarding any particular person who reads this newsgroup. Seems like some
people have lots of preconceived ideas and make statements not at all
supported by a careful reading of what is actually written. So I don't
think I have to worry about "fooling" anyone. My words speak for themselves,
I hope. And anyone can judge them as they wish.

(By the way, Bob, have I told you lately that I love you?????)


>
>By the way, what is YOUR PROOF St Peter never existed? You keep coming
>up with the inaccuracy concerning the Jesuits. It's already been
>explained that the words 'Jesuit' or 'Franciscan' do not appear in the
>official publication of the Saints life.

OK, I admit I have no proof that a non-existent person didn't exist!

You win.

Now will you give me a free dinner at restaurant of my choice????? (In
fact, if someone had followed my generous offer in the first place, I might
have tried to find records that verify that Peter the Aleut never
existed....perhaps there's a Hall of Records somewhere giving information on
those who weren't born in that locality?

> How about the RC Holy pictures
>of St Nicholas in a western Mitre and modern wester clerical garb. Do
>you still believe in St Nicholas?

I always thought that St Nicholas was an Italian, since he's buried in
Bari, Italy. (Remember I am not an historian!).

And if you believe that---well, you also believe the legend of St Peter
the Aleut to be true and that he was dismembered and disembowelled by
Catholic missionaries......

Like you, this is it for me. No more. It's been interesting and
enlightening for me.

Dinner anyone?

Marina

unread,
Sep 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/4/98
to

>
> My comments about Peter the Aleut are not condemning anyone as such. I
>raise a question about standards for glorification/canonization--sparked by
>an Orthodox priest's comments on this newsgroup that I perceived a slur on
a

>candidate for beatification in the Catholic Church. This slur stirred me
to


>raise my own objections to the glorification of Peter the Aleut....in other
>words, the priest criticized the Catholic Church but perhaps overlooks some
>"problematic" areas in his own backyard. Rightly or wrongly, that's how
>this all began.


So when someone pointed out the speck in your eye (this slur)-- you had to
find a plank of wood in ours (questionable standards of glorification)!!

We are confused aren't we? I think you'll find the Bible has it rather
differently-- something about self -reflection.
Whoever sent the original provocative post may have been wrong. Maybe he
really was ignoring "a plank of wood" -- but then two wrongs do not make a
right and your action is no better. You do just the same thing. Just as he
may have been wrong to point out your faults -- you are just as wrong to
point out our perceived faults. It doesn't solve anything--

You remind me of a kid in the school yard "My Church is better than your
Church nah-nah-na-na-nah",
"Our saints are better than your saints" nah-nah-na-na-nah"

Gerard, GROW UP!!


Evan Kalenik

unread,
Sep 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/4/98
to
Gerard F. Bugge wrote:

> Can't recall using the "L" word lately--or ever--on this newsgroup,
> regarding any particular person who reads this newsgroup. Seems like some
> people have lots of preconceived ideas and make statements not at all
> supported by a careful reading of what is actually written. So I don't
> think I have to worry about "fooling" anyone. My words speak for themselves,
> I hope. And anyone can judge them as they wish.

Which is why you should be thankful for the folks who removed you from other
places. For here you have shown your true colors. A wolf in sheeps clothing is
still a wolf.

> OK, I admit I have no proof that a non-existent person didn't exist!
>
> You win.

Yet somehow you refuse to say anything about ol' Joe Kunstevitch, the Roman
Catholic "saint" known for his mass murder of Orthodox Catholics. And is
outraged that historical facts about the latest character involved in the mass
murder of almost a million Orthodox Catholics that the Roman Catholic Church is
making into a new "saint" is even casually mentioned. So, one doesn't have to
look far to see how your words speak for themselves. What they say isn't very
pretty.

> Like you, this is it for me. No more. It's been interesting and
> enlightening for me.

Well, thank God for little favors.

> Dinner anyone?

Why don't you say a novena to your St. Joe Kuntsevitch. Murdering Orthodox
Catholics wasn't good enough for him so he went and dug up the graves of the
Orthodox Catholics and fed them to his dogs. Perhaps he could suggest someplace
for you to eat.

Evan

nick cobb

unread,
Sep 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/4/98
to
It really doesn't matter if a few disagree about the events concerning St. Peter
the Aleut. There are enough historical documents proving what has been said as
true. Steve, it doesn't matter if you believe it or not. History says its true.
If you really wish to force this issue, go study the original documents!


Gerard F. Bugge

unread,
Sep 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/4/98
to

Marina wrote

>Gerard, GROW UP!!

I'm trying..... But don't forget I'm only a young kid (16 years old)
and don't expect too much from me. Give me time. God's not finished with
me yet. Let me bloom where I'm planted. And, most of all, Marina, I'm OK
and you're OK.

(And when are you going to fill in your "under construction" cyberdesert
pages? I keep waiting.... When I grow up, maybe I can help you some...).

Marina

unread,
Sep 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/5/98
to

Gerard F. Bugge wrote in message ...
>
>Marina wrote
>
>>Gerard, GROW UP!!
>
> I'm trying..... But don't forget I'm only a young kid (16 years old)
>and don't expect too much from me. Give me time. God's not finished with
>me yet. Let me bloom where I'm planted. And, most of all, Marina, I'm OK
>and you're OK.
>
LOL -

> (And when are you going to fill in your "under construction"
cyberdesert
>pages? I keep waiting.... When I grow up, maybe I can help you some...).
>

When "real life" stops getting in the way. As it is, I figured half a loaf
is better than none.

Marina

ferg...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Sep 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/5/98
to
In article <35F00234...@webspan.net>,
Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> wrote:

> Gerard F. Bugge wrote:
>> Your own reminder of St Innocent's very cordial relationship with the
>> Catholic missionaries in California is to me just another counter-indication
>> that the dismemberment and disembowellment of Peter the Aleut is made up and
>> should, in all honesty, be acknowledged for the legend it is....
>
>Well, by your analogy, Christ must be made up also since He was willing to
>forgive those who crucified Him. Just because St. Innocent held cordial
>relations with everyone, even those who persecuted the Church, shows more about
>St. Innocent than anything about St. Peter. Orthodox Catholics try to follow
>the example that Christ set for us. To try to use that for your purposes is in
>bad taste, to say the least.

--- Gerard needs to give up trying to throw fuel on embers, producing
divisison and anger and pay attention to what he could do, heal wounds.
Gerard does always help me to curb my bad temper and sharp tongue but there
must be an easier way of learning greater patience. As I recall there were a
number of years between St. Peter and St. Innocent visits? It could also be
that the focus of whoever was there was on taming the savages rather than
anti Orthodox. How much they would have known or understood that St. Peter
was an Orthodox who only guess work. The attitude toward Native Americans by
Spanish, Mexican and US Goverment is pretty clear. The entire perspective
was of a Europe as the center of the universe and civilization. but Gerard
is well aware that the point of St. Peter is *not* who killed him but how he
died i.e. confessing the Lord. He as a former Orthodox who aspired to the
priesthood is well aware that the method of canonization in the Orthodox
church(s) is the same as it was in the early centuries. The method changed
in the RC church in the middle ages.

Nektarios

ferg...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Sep 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/5/98
to
Nick No one has to prove anything about St. Peter the Aleut. The Orthodox
way to canonization is *not* a judicial process. It is a process of local
veneration over time and a bishops a few or many at a time recognize the
virtues and often miracles attached to this person. Additionally they are
not a heritic or schismatic. The RCC church felt a need, likely due to
philophy of the period, to insitutie a judicial procedure. It is interesting
that here in Korea when the effort to canonize Korean saints was in full
swing, history be damned, that St. Kim (can't recall the rest of his name
right now) mircles and stories of them were needed so his relics were taken
from church to church where the miracles would occur. Reading the histories
produced just prior to the papal visit and comparing them with other works a
friend and I (two Irish RC priests) use to laugh a great deal. When one
visits the museum there are dates that contradict and you have to read
between the lines to make complete sense of it, not to say it isn't correct
it is a matter of perspecitve. Were these people who were tortured to death
who died for our Lord saints? Do I rally need to go to the church or to any
other accounts and take the story apart, nope. I ahve no problem with
recognizing them as saints, they died proclaiming our Lord as saviour living
the life of a Christian as they knew it. Was St. Peter ever alive, who
cares. It doesn't in anyway denigrate my faith if you venerate him. I don't
but may some day. I don't feel a need to do a Gerard and challenge his
existence. His death is not anti RC but should be seen as a warning to those
who beleive that the MP and Russian goverements marriage is a holy one. Some
here like to emphasiz the anti RC aspect of St. Peter but if in fact they do
venrate St. Peter I would suggest a prayer to our Lord asking for what his


--

John Peters

unread,
Sep 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/5/98
to

Gerard F. Bugge wrote in message ...

> This is the sort of stuff I avoid. First of all, I am not an
historian.


>Secondly, I tend to think that "we're all made of the same stuff" and tend
>to believe that for most peoples and events there are many nuances,
>exceptions, and "grey" areas, etc. But I do not like condemning those who
>went before us and can't defend themselves....as a general rule. Just not
>something I do easily anyway.
>

> My comments about Peter the Aleut are not condemning anyone as such. I
>raise a question about standards for glorification/canonization--sparked by
>an Orthodox priest's comments on this newsgroup that I perceived a slur on
a
>candidate for beatification in the Catholic Church. This slur stirred me
to
>raise my own objections to the glorification of Peter the Aleut....in other
>words, the priest criticized the Catholic Church but perhaps overlooks some
>"problematic" areas in his own backyard. Rightly or wrongly, that's how
>this all began.

And that's why, even coming into the thread in the middle, I knew it was
somehow "bad". Remember what a priest once told me, you do not have to have
devotion to a particular saint, but you must accept the Church's judgement
(and I might add, do not diss the devotion of others to their holy ones)
concerning their sanctity.


> Just one other comment. I am quite certain that the record of the
>Spanish Missions is a mixed bag. I also would tend to believe that there
>was much holiness, zeal, love, and concern for the temporal and eternal
>well-being of others at work. I've visited many of the superbly beautiful
>Spanish Missions.
>
> To use your own "reasoning"---if these Missions are so beautiful, then
>what transpired there must be beautiful too----:-).

Yes the missions are beautiful, but also tragic in that much suffering
produced such beauty, but that is the reality in many venues.

John

John Peters

unread,
Sep 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/5/98
to

Evan Kalenik wrote in message <35F00234...@webspan.net>...

>The fact is that the Roman Catholic Church is making into a saint someone
who
>cooperated in the slaughter of almost a million Orthodox Catholic Serbs.
As for
>the "numbers", the Roman Catholic Church talks about 250,000, and that is a
>number that only the Roman Catholic Church talks about. It is at least
half of
>the lowest number that is seen (and then usually only referring to the
Serbs and
>not the others who were butched under this new "saint") and only a third of
what
>comes from the United States Government sources, the UN and the assorted
War
>Tribunals. One can only guess that 250,000 deaths is not enough to
disqualify
>him to become the latest Roman Catholic "saint".


One can only wonder why we even need to discuss St. Peter the Aleut?

I am curious to know if a RC must go along with the canonization of
Archbishop Stepinac? It would seem that all the verifiable evidence in the
world is right at your fingertips which would make him a poor candidate.
But more alarming is the quickness and ongoing political and ethnic
struggles which make such a canonization such a harmful event. It is as
distressing as the supposed visions of Medjugorge which took/take place a
few miles from genocidal carnage - it just flys in the face of not only
faith and reason but any semblance of concern for real suffering.

There is absolutely no way the RC's and Orthodox will see eye to eye on this
one, but can you or others explain how such a canonization could be dealt
with in anything but a vicious polemical way? How does this fit in with
your visions of ecumenism?

John

Gerard F. Bugge

unread,
Sep 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/5/98
to

Fr. John Morris wrote in message ...

>The cooperation of the Roman Catholic Church with crimes of the Croatians
>during the Second World War are well documented. It is a scandal that
>anyone, much less the Pope, would even consider canonizing a man who
>blessed those who murdered almost a million Orthodox Serbs.

Dear Fr John and all,

As I said I am not an historian by profession, but just the other day I
received the latest issue of perhaps my favorite journal of all: Inside The
Vatican--a beautifully produced magazine with gorgeous photos and excellent
and wide-ranging articles. It happened to have this piece about Cardinal
Stepinac. I post it here to give more information on this topic, which you
originally brought up in this newsgroup:

-----------------------------------------------------
------------

Croatia Celebrates

Croatia is celebrating. For many decades the country's Catholics have been
waiting patiently, and now Pope John Paul II will finally beatify their
national hero, Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac. The beatification is scheduled
for October 3 at Croatia's national Marian shrine of Marija Bistrica (site
of a famous mass pilgrimage Stepinac led after being appointed coadjutor
archbishop of Zagreb, Croatia's capital; "Marija Bistrica is the heart of
Croatia," Stepinac often said). Fifty-two years after his 1946 sham trial
under Communism, the former Archbishop of Zagreb will be officially
recognized for his fearless struggle for justice under a tyrannical regime.

Who was this Shepherd of the Church whom the Communists hated and vilified
even beyond the grave?

Alojziie Stepinac was born on May 8, 1898 in Krasic, not far from the
Croatian capital Zagreb. The son of a prosperous farmer, he attended
secondary schools in Zagreb and took part in World War I, where he was taken
prisoner.

Conditions in post-war Croatia caused the young Stepinac much anxiety.
After the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1918, the
victorious powers annexed both Croatia and Slovenia into the newly-formed
Serbian monarchy. A nation of ethnic, religious, historical and economic
contradictions was thus forged, in which the Serbs took military and
administrative control. With the assassination of the Serbian king and the
nation's transformation into a republic, the situation for Croatians only
worsened. The Serbs oppressed both the Croatian and Slovenian populations,
inciting intense nationalist hopes for independence among those minority
groups.

Upon his release from war camp, Alojzije Stepinac decided to become a
priest. He left for studies in Rome and returned to his homeland several
years later with degrees in philosophy and theology. His progress in the
Church hierarchy was swift. By 1934, Msgr. Stepinac had already been made a
bishop and appointed Coadjutor-Archbishop of Zagreb. In 1937, with the
death of the incumbent Anton Bauer, Stepinac became Archbishop of Zagreb, at
the same time assuming the positions of Metropolitan and President of the
Yugoslav Bishops' Conference.

Archbishop Stepinac had an ambitious reform program in mind: establishment
of an independent Catholic press, a Caritas center in the bishop's compound,
energetic anti-abortion campaigns, the launching of Catholic "social work
weeks," and overall modernization of the Croatian Church. By nature,
Stepinac was completely apolitical. His fervent commitment was to the
doctrine and the life of Christ's Church. Historical circumstances,
however, plunged the Archbishop of Zagreb into a head-on collision between
Church and State. And to start with, the archbishop's reforms were brought
to a standstill after only four years.

For the Balkans, the Second World War began with the Nazi invasion of 1941.
The Nazis were warmly welcomed by Croatians, who hoped to liberate
themselves from Serbia under German protection. And in fact, on April 10,
194 1, the "Independent State of Croatia" was proclaimed.
Zagreb's archbishop at first pledged his loyalty to the new Croatian state;
he soon realized, however, that a terrorist regime was in the works.
The Nazi-backed Fascist regime derived its support from the
Ustasha-militias, far-right nationalist troops which revenged themselves
mercilessly on the Serbian minority and zealously implemented the Nazi's
"final solution" for Jews. Later on, Communist rulers would accuse the
Croatian Church--and especially its Primate Alojzije Stepinac--of complicity
in horrors such as the Jasenovac concentration camp, where at least 700,000
prisoners allegedly perished under the Ustasha knife.

In war-time Croatia, only membership in the Catholic Church could save
Serbs, Jews and other persecuted groups from deportation and extermination;
Catholic baptisms began to be carried out on a massive scale. Precise
statistics concerning Catholic baptisms in the Ustasha period are not
available, but least 6,717 children of Serbian Orthodox parents were
baptized, registered as Catholics, and rescued from deportation.

Stepinac is known to have sternly warned his priests that Catholic
conversion required preparation and conviction; but certainly the mood of
hysteria led to exaggerations on both sides.

The Archbishop of Zagreb opened his bishop's palace to fugitives; he
protested openly--and often successfully against the imprisonment of
Orthodox priests. We have written proof that Stepinac was soon considered
persona non grata in the "Independent State of Croatia." The authorities
objected to his persistent warnings and criticisms, and discussed ways of
keeping the Primate quiet.

Worse was to come. In the course of the years 1944-45, Communist partisans
under Josip Broz Tito conquered the Balkans, occupied Zagreb, and
established the socialist federation of Yugoslavia. Tito knew of Stepinac's
fierce antagonism to Communism from a pastoral letter the archbishop had
written in 1943. In the very first days of their takeover, the Communist
forces eliminated approximately 14% of Croatia's Catholic and Orthodox
clergy. Further "religious cleansings" were carried out by administrative
means: confiscation of the Catholic press, closure of seminaries,
expropriation of Church property, bans against religious assembly.

Stepinac made it perfectly clear to both the clergy and Catholic faithful
that he would protect their rights--even if it might cost him his own life.
After the collapse of Communism in 1990 and the subsequent opening of
Beigrade's Secret Archives, a detailed plot for Stepinac's assassination
came to light. Tito, we read, wished the Croatian Primate's elimination
because of his "excessive" influence among the common people. Only the
dissent of a Croatian Communist Party leader deflected an attempt on
Stepinac's life.

Instead, on May 17 1945, the archbishop of Zagreb was arrested on charges of
having collaborated with the Nazi occupiers. Tito had Stepinac, whom he had
branded an "enemy of the State," informed that good relations between Church
and State would be possible it the Croatian Church severed its links to Rome
and set up an independent national Church entity. Stepinac refused.

An outcry for Stepinac's liberation was raised by Croatian bishops and
international organizations. In fact, in early September 1945, the Zagreb
archbishop was freed to lead one last Croatian Bishops' Conference assembly
and to delegate some of his responsibilities and competencies. Imprisoned
once more on September 17, he had to wait more than a year, until September
30, 1946, for his trial to begin. The legal proceedings were a complete
sham, according to a pattern established by Stalin in Russia; only seven of
the defendant's 35 witnesses were allowed to testify.

A sentence of guilty was pronounced on October 16, 1946. Stepinac was
condemned to 16 years of hard labor, and one week later transported to the
infamous Lepoglava penitentiary. Throughout the democratic world there was
protest and indignation; even Jewish communities testified that the Croatian
primate had been a friend to their people.

Finally Tito himself must have realized that the Archbishop's "punishment"
was losing him international respect. On December 5, 1951, Stepinac was
conditionally freed from prison; he was exiled to his birthplace, Krasic,
where he was closely guarded and from where he was not allowed to move.
On November 29, 1951, world radios broadcast the news that Pope Pius XII had
raised Alojzije Stepinac to the cardinalate. Croatians rejoiced. That
privilege awarded by His Holiness in Rome was clear proof that the Communist
accusations had been untrue and that Stepinac's trial had been a fraud. It
was the Vatican's only weapon against the injustices of Yugoslav Marxists.

At that point Belgrade broke off relations with the Holy See; Stepinac's
guard was increased and his freedom further circumscribed. The new cardinal
waived his trip to Rome to receive his cardinal's hat; he feared he would
never be allowed back into his homeland.

Meanwhile, the former Primate was suffering from many ailments. His health
had been ruined by difficult prison conditions and by constant psychological
harassment. After a series of operations, Cardinal Stepinac died at the age
of 62 on February 10, 1960. His burial took place three days later in
Zagreb Cathedral, where his sarcophagus lies to this day.

Yet Belgrade's hatred--and perhaps fear--of Cardinal Stepinac remained
constant and virulent. Thirty years after the cardinal's death, the
Communist regime aborted a proposed papal trip to Yugoslavia, out of fear
that the head of the Catholic Church might celebrate a Mass at Stepinac's
tomb. Only in 1994, after the fall of Communism in Belgrade and the
disintegration of the Yugoslav Republic, was Pope John Paul 11 able to pray
at the grave of his "beloved Croatian martyr."

And now the Croatian cardinal, who never received his cardinal's ring or
donned his red hat, will be proclaimed a Blessed in the Roman Church.
Cardinals' robes are the color of blood because cardinals are expected to
give their very lives for the Church. Stepinac suffered a bloodless
martyrdom and never wore his purple robes. His fate, a continual political
struggle, was certainly one he would not have chosen for himself.

For Croatians, Cardinal Stepinac has always been a symbol of their Church
under persecution. First under Serbian intolerance and then throughout
years of Communist oppression, Alojzije Stepinac provided his Church and
faithful with both certainty and guidance - a light in their darkest days.
Croatian Catholics have always venerated Cardinal Stepinac's memory and made
pilgrimages to his Zagreb tomb - as if to the shrine of a holy saint. Now
Croatia's martyr to the faith will soon take his place among the Blessed of
the Roman Catholic Church.

(Diethild Treffert is a free-lance German journalist who has specialized in
Russia and Eastern Europe, both before and after the fall of the Iron
Curtain.)

-----------------------------------------------------------
---------------------

Robert G. Tallick

unread,
Sep 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/5/98
to
> Croatia is celebrating. For many decades the country's Catholics have been
> waiting patiently, and now Pope John Paul II will finally beatify their
> national hero, Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac.


All I can say is this is almost unbelievable! It will set back
relations between Orthodox Cathoilics and Roman Catholics for
decades!!!!

Gerard F. Bugge

unread,
Sep 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/5/98
to

Robert G. Tallick wrote

after clipping a few lines from a rather detailed article about Stepinac,
which shows how untrue many slurs and slanders about him are:

>> Croatia is celebrating. For many decades the country's Catholics have
been
>> waiting patiently, and now Pope John Paul II will finally beatify their
>> national hero, Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac.

>All I can say is this is almost unbelievable! It will set back


>relations between Orthodox Cathoilics and Roman Catholics for
>decades!!!!

And the people cried: Amen!

At least some.....especially many netizens......

OK--it's none of my business about the Orthodox glorification of Peter
the Aleut. I concede my impudence---pointed out to me by several in this
newsgroup. I AM SORRY. I will not speak of this again....I repent, recant,
and retract.

Now can I ask the same from others?

And, of course, if the story I posted is true, Cardinal Stepinac
deserves beatification as a confessor of the faith, and faithful pastor of
his flock. Just as the Pope did not let his glorification and soon to be
canonization of Edith Stein (Sister Benedicta of the Cross) be sidetracked
by numerous cries of "foul." And Jewish/ Catholic relationships continue to
improve--as the dialog continues. Truth is truth, regardless. And
eventually, as many on this list express, there is no closeness not rooted
in truth and authenticity--and with that I totally agree. (And believe, too,
that there are degrees of truth and apprehension of truth and that love can
build bridges even if there are significant differences within a desire and
commitment for the fulness of truth).

I am sure the Pope has weighed many things in his decision. As some had
pointed out, popular piety and devotion play a significant role in any
canonization by the Church. Here is a classic case of this deep-seated
devotion and popular canonization. I am sure, too, the Pope abides in his
deep desire to see closer communion between the Orthodox and Catholic
Churches--and trusts that truth will not set back relations, except for
those who like to believe inaccuracies, slanders, and slurs.

Fr. John Morris

unread,
Sep 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/5/98
to
The canonization of a bishop who openly supported the fascists during the
Second World War is an insult to all who fought and died to defeat Hitler
and his supporters.

The Croatians were not forced into union with the Sebs. They spent almost
the whole 19 century supporting Pan Slavism. Indeed, one of the major causes
of the First World War and the break up of the Habsburg Empire was the
desire of the South Slavs to form South Slav state.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Evan Kalenik

unread,
Sep 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/5/98
to
John Peters wrote:

> I am curious to know if a RC must go along with the canonization of
> Archbishop Stepinac? It would seem that all the verifiable evidence in the
> world is right at your fingertips which would make him a poor candidate.
> But more alarming is the quickness and ongoing political and ethnic
> struggles which make such a canonization such a harmful event. It is as
> distressing as the supposed visions of Medjugorge which took/take place a
> few miles from genocidal carnage - it just flys in the face of not only
> faith and reason but any semblance of concern for real suffering.

Roman Catholics have no choice. When their pope tells them what they are to
believe they must. Case closed.

> There is absolutely no way the RC's and Orthodox will see eye to eye on this
> one, but can you or others explain how such a canonization could be dealt
> with in anything but a vicious polemical way? How does this fit in with
> your visions of ecumenism?

I have no version of ecumenism. I doubt that this situation will be viewed any
differently than with Joe Kuntsevitch. We will watch them honoring another mass
murderer and simply shake our heads in disbelief.

Evan


ferg...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Sep 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/6/98
to
Is this in fact correct of RC dogma and doctrine? I suspect that you know it
isn't.
Nektarios

------------------
Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> wrote:
(snip)


> Roman Catholics have no choice. When their pope tells them what they are to
> believe they must. Case closed.

(snip)

ferg...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Sep 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/6/98
to
Fr. You are a historian can you post specific evidence regarding the Cardinal
Stepinac collaboration and support of nazi as well as support of and
participation in gencide of any group. I am not challenging you but don't
have a clue, shock your not surprised. I would like to see evdience. If it
is documented, late enough in this century it should be easy I think it is
something that RC and Orthodox should unite in just as Jews and RC have on
several issues. But please without RC bashing. Nektarios

-------------------------

ferg...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Sep 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/6/98
to
Having interent computer problems so not sure if this one made it in.

Evan

I think you know this isn't correct. Do you have any evidence that it is
correct?

Nektarios

Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> wrote:
> Roman Catholics have no choice. When their pope tells them what they are to
> believe they must. Case closed.

Gerard F. Bugge

unread,
Sep 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/6/98
to
Nektarios writes:

asking Fr John Morris:

>Fr. You are a historian can you post specific evidence regarding the
Cardinal
>Stepinac collaboration and support of nazi as well as support of and
>participation in gencide of any group. I am not challenging you but don't
>have a clue, shock your not surprised. I would like to see evdience. If it
>is documented, late enough in this century it should be easy I think it is
>something that RC and Orthodox should unite in just as Jews and RC have on
>several issues. But please without RC bashing.

Dear Nektarios,

With you, I will await documentation and verifiable proof regarding Fr
Morris' criticism of Cardinal Stepinac.

One thing I am sure: the Holy See has scoured all the documentation
available.....this is always the case in any possible beatification and
canonization. Some who have much popular support for canonization, have
not yet been "raised to the altars" precisely because of this thorough
review of everything relating to the person. In the case of someone like
John Henry Newman, in part, it is because of the sheer volume of his
writings and dairies, I am told.

At any rate, with you I would love to see verifiable evidence, worthy of
an historian, to document the charges made against Cardinal Stepinac (I
realize the Communists had lots of such documentation!).

Evan Kalenik

unread,
Sep 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/6/98
to
ferg...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> Fr. You are a historian can you post specific evidence regarding the Cardinal
> Stepinac collaboration and support of nazi as well as support of and
> participation in gencide of any group. I am not challenging you but don't
> have a clue, shock your not surprised. I would like to see evdience. If it
> is documented, late enough in this century it should be easy I think it is
> something that RC and Orthodox should unite in just as Jews and RC have on

> several issues. But please without RC bashing. Nektarios

Here is something from U.S. News and World Report. It is a good start. Maybe
later I can scan some of the photo's to see this latest mass murderer proposed as
a Roman Catholic saint with his buddies, the Ustashe.

U.S. News & World Report
3/30/98
World Report

A vow of silence

Did gold stolen by Croatian fascists reach the Vatican?

BY SUSAN HEADDEN, DANA HAWKINS, AND JASON VEST

Through the nightmare of World War II that would end with 56 members of her
family perishing in concentration camps, there were two days that Eta Najfeld
will never forget. The first was April 10, 1941, when Najfeld, a 25-year-old
Jewish medical student, watched as exuberant crowds lined the streets of
Zagreb to cheer the Ustashas--the ultranationalist fascist party that the
Nazis had just installed at the helm of an "independent" Croatian state. The
other was three months later, when a band of Ustasha soldiers burst into her
family's shop, an elegant emporium stocked with Oriental rugs, English linens,
and French silks. "They took everything," says Najfeld, now 82 and living in
Belgrade.

As the Nazis and their allies sent millions of Jews and others to their
deaths, they stole billions of dollars from their victims. In the postwar
chaos, and the horror of their anguish, Najfeld and most other survivors cast
from their mind any thought of recovering the property they had lost. Najfeld
still worries that any talk about lost wealth will somehow diminish the
enormity of the Holocaust.

But in recent months, new evidence has forced victims and accomplices alike to
confront that nearly forgotten question: What happened to the loot? The Nazi
plunder has been traced to banks in Switzerland, Sweden, Portugal, and other
neutral countries that were secretly helping the Nazis stash stolen gold or
launder it to buy war materiel. One state after another has opened its
archives and banking records to aid the search, with one glaring exception:
the Vatican.

Last week, the Vatican issued an official statement calling for repentance
over the failure of some church members to do enough to aid Jews during the
war. But the statement did not mention the mounting calls for an inquiry into
the Vatican's financial dealings with the Nazis and their allies. So far, the
Vatican has flatly refused to allow investigators access to its archives,
despite repeated pleas from several nations and from Jewish groups.

The Vatican's continuing secrecy means the evidence is incomplete, but already
declassified documents from the archives of the United States and other
nations suggest that--with the aid of Croatian Catholic priests--Ustasha
plunder made its way from Croatia to Rome, and possibly to the Vatican itself.
Some of the stolen wealth was used to help Croatian war criminals flee to
South America.

"We make no charges against the Vatican, but we keep building a very damning
picture," says Elan Steinberg, executive director of the World Jewish
Congress. "Because of their silence in the face of accumulated evidence, the
failure to uncover the truth can only be laid at the doors of the Vatican."

Next month, a task force headed by Under Secretary of State Stuart Eizenstat
that is investigating the role of the neutral countries is expected to issue a
report that raises questions about the Vatican's wartime financial dealings.
Among the documents reviewed: a declassified 1944 intelligence report noting a
transfer of funds, via a Swiss bank, from Berlin's Reichsbank to the Vatican.
Although there may be innocent explanations for such dealings--church assets
being moved out of Germany, perhaps--the discovery of similar transactions by
Swiss banks led to revelations of a huge Nazi operation to launder stolen gold
with the help of neutral countries.

Church blessing. The Croatian connection, however, is the core of the new
evidence that suggests the Vatican might have directly handled funds stolen
from the victims of the Nazis and their allies. From 1941 to 1945, the
Ustashas exterminated an estimated 500,000 Serbs, Jews, and Romany (Gypsies)
and looted their property. They demanded ransom amounting to 1,000 kilograms
of gold from all the Jews in Zagreb, only to ship them to concentration camps
and kill them anyway. It is a matter of historical record that the Croatian
Catholic Church was closely entangled with the Ustashas. In the early years of
World War II, Catholic priests oversaw forced conversions of Orthodox Serbs
under the aegis of the Ustasha state; Franciscan friars distributed Ustasha
propaganda. Several high Catholic officials in Yugoslavia were later indicted
for war crimes. They included Father Dragutin Kamber, who ordered the killing
of nearly 300 Orthodox Serbs; Bishop Ivan Saric of Sarajevo, known as the
"hangman of the Serbs"; and Bishop Gregory Rozman of Slovenia, a wanted Nazi
collaborator. A trial held by the Yugoslav War Crimes Commission in 1946
resulted in the conviction of a half-dozen Ustasha priests, among them former
Franciscan Miroslav Filipovic-Majstorovic, a commandant of the Jasenovac
concentration camp where the Ustashas tortured and slaughtered hundreds of
thousands with a brutality that shocked even the Nazis.

As more secret documents become public, however, one priest emerges as the
most significant player of all. The Rev. Krunoslav Draganovic, a Franciscan,
had been a senior official of the Ustasha committee that handled the forced
conversion of Orthodox Serbs. In 1943, the Ustasha arranged with the Croatian
Catholic Church to send Father Draganovic to Rome. There he served as
secretary of the Istituto San Girolamo, a seminary for Croatian monks that was
in fact a center of clandestine Ustasha activity. Draganovic also became
Ustasha leader Ante Pavelic's unofficial emissary to the Vatican, and de facto
liaison to the Pontifical Relief Commission, a Vatican organization that aided
refugees during and after the war.

The ratline. According to secret reports from the U.S. Army's
Counterintelligence Corps (CIC), written just after World War II and since
declassified, Draganovic and his collaborators at San Girolamo provided money,
food, housing, and forged Red Cross passports for a number of Ustasha war
criminals seeking to escape justice. Through an underground railroad of
sympathetic priests, known as the "ratline," the Ustashas could move from
Trieste, to Rome, to Genoa, and on to neutral countries--primarily
Argentina--where they could live out their days unpunished and unnoticed.
Along the ratline, virtually the entire Ustasha leadership went free. "All
these people were escaping--and this at a time when just getting a meal in
Rome was a major accomplishment," recalls William Gowen, a CIC officer in Rome
after the war.

The copies of memos filed by Gowen and other members of the
counterintelligence corps, now stored in U.S. Army archives at Fort Belvoir,
Va., contain a wealth of detail on suspicious comings and goings at San
Girolamo. The dispatches leave little doubt that the ancient walled compound
at Via Tomacelli 132 was more than an ordinary monastery. "San Girolamo is
honeycombed with cells of Ustasha operatives," Gowen wrote on Feb. 12, 1947.
"In order to enter this monastery, one must submit to a personal search for
weapons and identification. . . . The whole area is guarded by armed Ustasha
youths in civilian clothes, and the Ustasha salute is exchanged constantly."
>From a source inside the compound, Gowen even managed to obtain Draganovic's
secret files, which, Gowen reported on Sept. 5, 1947, "indicate clearly
[Draganovic's] involvement in aiding and abetting the Ustasha to escape into
South America."

Another Croatian priest living at San Girolamo was also active in smuggling
war criminals, documents show. A recently declassified memo, believed to have
been written in 1946 by an agent of the Office of Strategic Services
(OSS)--the precursor of the CIA--reports that a priest called Father Golik was
supplying false passports and money to members of the Ustasha. Golik, the memo
says, was alleged to be "chief sponsor of all Croats resident in Rome, with
special attention to the needs of former Ustasha members." The memo reports
allegations that the Ustashas "are given a monthly allowance of 6,000 lire per
person [the equivalent of $2,700 today], in addition to the privilege of cheap
meals at the San Girolamo mess."

Croatian Catholic officials were funneling money to war criminals even after
they escaped to Argentina, documents show. According to cable intercepts cited
in a 1947 U.S. diplomatic report, Pavelic escaped in November 1947 to Buenos
Aires, where he was said to have been met by a retinue of Catholic priests.
Newly declassified documents also show that Bishop Rozman was funneling money
to South America from a Swiss bank account set up "to aid refugees of the
Catholic religion." U.S. military attachi Davis Harrington reported on March
9, 1948, that Rozman "is going to Bern to take care of these finances. The
money is in a Swiss bank, and he plans to have most of it sent through to
Italy and from there sent to the Ustashas in Argentina."

Further clues about the path of Ustasha gold are provided by Croatian National
Bank records uncovered last fall by an American historian of Croatian descent.
According to Jere Jareb, author of Gold and Money of the Independent State of
Croatia Moved Abroad, the documents show that 288 kilograms of gold was
removed from the Croatian National Bank and the state treasury on May 7,
1945--the day that Germany capitulated. By Draganovic's own testimony, part of
that treasure landed in his hands. The "Golden Priest," as Draganovic was
known, acknowledged to the Yugoslav War Crimes Commission that he doled the
money out to Ustasha soldiers and Croatian civilian refugees. (Though called
to testify, Draganovic was never charged. He later returned to Yugoslavia and
died there in 1983.)

When in Rome. But does any of the evidence implicate the Vatican itself? The
strongest indication so far is a memo that first prompted the State
Department's interest. The memo, dated Oct. 21, 1946, was discovered last
summer in the declassified files of the U.S. Treasury Department. Written by
OSS agent Emerson Bigelow, it reports that money sent by Ustasha from Croatia
to Rome after the war had been partly intercepted by the British, but that 200
million Swiss francs--the equivalent of $170 million today--were being held in
the Vatican for safekeeping. According to "rumor," the memo says, the money
was being used to finance Croatian war criminals in exile.

When the Bigelow memo was released last year, the Vatican swiftly dismissed
it, insisting that the charges could not be true. But some researchers who
have studied World War II intelligence matters note that other archival
documents counter the notion that a Vatican-Ustasha link is implausible on its
face. One is a British diplomatic memo from Oct. 17, 1947, cited in the 1991
book Unholy Trinity by journalist Mark Aarons and former Justice Department
Nazi-hunter John Loftus. According to the memo, a San Giralomo priest named
Father Mandic was a "liaison to the Vatican" who was involved in converting
Ustasha gold, jewelry, and foreign exchange into Italian lire.

Other reports mention Ustashas meeting with Vatican officials or even living
in the Vatican. The British Foreign Office reported in January 1947 that
Pavelic himself, by that time a wanted war criminal, was living "within the
Vatican City." An earlier report by Gowen, in October 1946, noted that Pavelic
was in Rome and in contact with Draganovic.

Documents include accounts of Ustashas being hidden at the pope's summer
residence at Castel Gandolfo and being seen driving in Rome in cars with
Vatican license plates. The recently declassified Golik memo reports that
Ustashas ate at the papal mess and that Father Golik was "declared to be in
close contact with the Vatican."

The Vatican's tolerance of the Ustasha during the war was no secret. On the
recommendation of Zagreb Archbishop Alojzije Stepinac--who had blessed Pavelic
at the opening of the Croatian parliament--the pope established informal
diplomatic relations with the independent state of Croatia, and his envoy made
regular rounds of Ustasha headquarters. In 1941 and in 1943, at a time when
his excesses were known, Pavelic was granted two private audiences with Pius
XII. The pope explained that he received the Ustasha leader simply as a
Catholic, not as head of the Croatian state. The pontiff's decision was widely
reported--and widely deplored--at the time. In July 1941, Francis D'Arcy
Osborne, the British ambassador to the Vatican, wrote: "[Pius's] reception of
Pavelic . . . has done more to damage his reputation in this country than any
other act since the war began."

Bound to silence. What all this intelligence means is at the heart of the
State Department-led investigation. Vatican officials insist they are hiding
nothing because they have nothing to hide. But they say they cannot allow
outside researchers free access to their archives because the collection
contains sensitive personnel files. As a general rule, the Vatican releases
church documents only after about 75 years. "I am bound to silence," said the
Rev. Marcel Chappin of the Vatican Secretariat of State, when pressed to
comment. Chappin said that the Vatican has already published a voluminous
account of its role in World War II, including a discussion of the controversy
surrounding Pius XII, who kept silent on the Nazi atrocities because he
believed provocation of the Nazis would lead to more persecution and because
he considered the greater enemy to be atheistic communism. Vatican defenders
note that the church saved tens of thousands of Jews during the war, and they
urge that current suspicions be viewed in the context of the chaotic times:
Refugees were streaming into Vatican City after the war, and it is quite
possible that funds intended for these refugees were used to help war
criminals without the pope's knowledge.

"The question is what did the Vatican's own leadership know?" says William
Slaney, the State Department's historian and author of the Nazi gold reports.
"We want the Vatican . . . to deal with [its] share of this dreadful event."


SubDJoseph

unread,
Sep 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/6/98
to
>Gerard F. Bugge

>I don't accept that at all. I am not aware, personally, of Franciscans
>or Jesuits dismembering or disembowelling *anyone!*

OK, they handed them over to secular authorites to have it done, and asked that
they be merciful.
Feel better now?

Joseph

Fr. John Morris

unread,
Sep 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/6/98
to
Actually, I have done a great deal of study of the Second World War. I have
taught courses on Nazi Germany and the Second World War on the university
level and have written two books on the subject. The collaboration between
the Croatian Roman Catholic Church and the Ustashe (sp) regime is well
documented. That the leader of the Croatian Roman Church was not involved or
did not know the crimes that were being committed under his leadership is
impossible to believe. The man gave a blessing to the pro-Nazi Croatian
government and its leaders.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Gerard F. Bugge

unread,
Sep 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/6/98
to

Fr. John Morris wrote

Historical documentation please!

The articel I posted mentions that at first Stepinac did indeed support
the new Government---but quickly, by the Spirit of God, saw through their
veneer and became an opponent--mentioned in detail by the article. So, yes,
at first he may have "given his blessing" but that was withdrawn and he
became an enemy of the neo-Nazi Utashe government.

If you wrote books on this topic, I'm surprised you couldn't quote
documentation, and point us to verifiable sources (e.g. not
communist-inspired "histories" about Cardinal Stepinac, who was most
certainly on their unwanted list and it would be to their advantage to paint
Stepinac as a Nazi).

I am quite certain, as is an Orthodox priest I had lunch with today,
that the Vatican offices and the Pope himself have done a thorough job
researching the virtues and the criticisms levelled at Stepinac (you've
heard of the role of "the devil's advocate?"). You would show yourself
quite uninformed and out of touch with reality if you deny a basic integrity
to Pope John Paul II, and to his approach to things like this.

At any rate, you still have not done anything more than you have in
other cases: it could have happened, therefore it *did* happen..... That is
not history! And, of course, as an historian you know that....

Gerard F. Bugge

unread,
Sep 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/6/98
to
Nektarios asked:

>Is there any RC opposition to the canonization of Cardinal Stepinac?
>What stage is the process at?

Haven't heard of any--*BUT* don't think there's anything in the Catholic
Church that won't find some one opposing it...both within and without.

So it always has been, so it is, so it will be.....(and John Henry
Newman has some great things to say about this phenomenon!).

Evan Kalenik

unread,
Sep 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/6/98
to
ferg...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> Having interent computer problems so not sure if this one made it in.
>
> Evan
>
> I think you know this isn't correct. Do you have any evidence that it is
> correct?
>
> Nektarios
>
> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> wrote:
> > Roman Catholics have no choice. When their pope tells them what they are to
> > believe they must. Case closed.

It is absolutely correct. If you don't believe me read the dogma on Papal
infallibility, and here I mean read the actual document and not what they tell you
is in the document.

Now can they ignore what the pope says? Sure. Look at birth control as an easy
one that it is difficult to find many Roman Catholics who follow what their church
tells them to do.

Choice is not being disobedient. When the pope declares some new dogma they are
obligated to believe it. It is "infallible" teaching. Sometimes, just like a
broken clock, the pope may be correct. Other times he may be consistent with
Roman Catholic teachings, teachings that are contrary to the beliefs of the
Orthodox Catholic Church, but consistent with Rome's theories. They have to
accept it.

Remember that for Rome the Holy Spirit guides the pope. We still believe what
Christ said about the Holy Spirit guiding the Church.

Evan

ferg...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Sep 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/7/98
to
Is there any RC opposition to the canonization of Cardinal Stepinac?
What stage is the process at?
Nektarios


"Fr. John Morris" <frj...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Actually, I have done a great deal of study of the Second World War. I have
> taught courses on Nazi Germany and the Second World War on the university
> level and have written two books on the subject. The collaboration between
> the Croatian Roman Catholic Church and the Ustashe (sp) regime is well
> documented. That the leader of the Croatian Roman Church was not involved or
> did not know the crimes that were being committed under his leadership is
> impossible to believe. The man gave a blessing to the pro-Nazi Croatian
> government and its leaders.
>

> Archpriest John W. Morris
>
>


--

ferg...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Sep 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/7/98