The Pope Did It?

[Paul Serup]

(02-13-2016 01:46 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 09:16 PM)Paul Serup Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 11:13 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Paul, this may be difficult to answer briefly, but what is the major difference between your new book and a similar book written by Burke McCarthy in 1922
https://archive.org/details/suppressedtrutha02mcca

and one written by Thomas Harris in 1882
https://archive.org/details/romesresponsibil00harr

I don’t know if I have the time to answer these questions very effectively. I would say that my book is more of an investigation of Charles Chiniquy’s allegations and the McCarthy book is more about the Roman Catholic Church in history, particularly the Jesuits, as well as American history. General Harris’ book deals with the Roman Catholic Church in the US and covers much of the same ground that my book does.
Emmett McLaughlin’s book deals with some world history, and the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, it compares the words and actions of Abraham Lincoln to those of Pope Pius IX, pontiff during Lincoln’s presidency, and also covers much of the ground my book does about the assassination.

It's a different type of theme than those three and perhaps yours, but have you read Kenneth Zanca's book on the Catholic Church and Mary Surratt? Comments if you have?

Yes I have read what historian and evidently, Catholic apologist, Professor Kenneth Zanca said in The Catholics and Mrs. Mary Surratt. I dealt with some of what he said in my volume and I have a few comments.

His sympathy for Mary Surratt is obvious as he began his work by saying that her prosecution for conspiring to murder Abraham Lincoln were her “troubles” and “her ordeal”. He also declared, contrary to the evidence that competent historians like Edward Steers Jr. and Kate Clifford Larson declared point to her guilt that: “The case against Mrs. Surratt was circumstantial. It will never be known for certain what Mrs. Surratt knew for certain about the assassination or kidnapping plot.”
I haven’t done a complete fact check of his book but I noticed he made interesting statements in it such as, “In 1861, for example, the New York Times said, ‘the war has silenced forever the charges against the naturalized citizen and the Catholic as being worthy of citizenship.’ ” That sounded quite intriguing so I looked it up. The quote was, as the footnote indicated, in the November 19, 1861 issue of the Times. Professor Zanca did not give the page number but I found the statement on page 8. I expected to find this quote in an editorial but it actually was a statement of a man named William E. Robinson. He gave it in a speech he made on the occasion of a stand of colors presented to the Third Regiment of the Irish Brigade.
That is quite a mistake, to state that the New York Times had itself declared that the Civil War had ended ‘forever the charges against the naturalized citizen and the Catholic as being worthy of citizenship’ ” when it was the statement of an individual quoted in the Times, with no endorsement of the newspaper.
Is Professor Zanca just incompetent or might this be something else?

He made another remarkable statement in The Catholics and Mrs. Mary Surratt when he reported on the nineteenth century state of affairs that faced the Papacy on the European continent. As I stated in my work:
“According to Zanca, the mid-point of the 19th century found Pope Pius IX struggling for power with those fighting for ideals that had been part of the French revolution, such as democracy and liberalization.”
Zanca also declared: “In this context, one can appreciate the publication of the controversial papal encyclical Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors attached to it in December 1864, which expressed not only the pope’s views but those of conservatives in the Church as well”. Pius IX railed against freedom of religion and freedom of speech and democracy essentially. Zanca then made the following amazing statements:

The complete text of Quanta Cura and the Syllabus did not appear in New York papers until January 13, 1865, when America was distracted by the ongoing Civil War. Yet, the documents were noticed, and Protestant and Catholic press commented. Characteristic of the Protestant response was the conclusion that “…this Encyclical is a covert declaration of war against the American Republic.’ Anti-Catholics had a field day pulling quotations from the documents as ‘proof-texts’ that the Roman Church was bigoted and arrogant and bent on imposing its will and religion on everyone.
Catholics in the United States recognized that the document put them at odds with traditional principles of American democracy, and looked to Rome for clarification. What came back was a brilliant piece of selective editing and benevolent interpretation of the documents by the bishop of Orleans, Felix Dupanloup. Basically, the author explained away the obvious, and made the document mean what it did not say, by distinguishing between stated principles and their application in specific cases.

As I also stated:

In Zanca’s eyes, apparently it was wrong for “anti-Catholics” to be “pulling quotations” from the papal documents as “proof-texts” of the bigotry and arrogance of the Church of Rome and its interest to impose its will on others, no matter how true this actually was. To Zanca however, the editing of the bishop of Orleans was “brilliant”, by which he committed ecclesiastical fraud by making the same document “mean what it did not say”, thereby deceiving honest Americans as to what the Church actually taught.

Brilliant? Wouldn’t this be better expressed as lacking in veracity? It is very interesting enthusiasm for dishonesty by this apparent Catholic apologist, Professor Zanca, which really shouldn’t be, one would think.