I am a secular Jew, whose father liberated one of the Nazi concentration camps, and investigated war crimes after the war. So yeah, this one is personal.

Strap in guys, this one's a doozy.

I see that our particular tract is one tied to a very dark section of ‘’modern’ history surrounding the genocide of the Jewish people under the regime of Nazi Germany. Given my… abilities and the topic at hand, this is not going to be the most enjoyable endeavour for me. But I will do as best as I can to keep myself in control.

Even though my reading of the tagline for this tract has me already thinking of how false the claims are going to be, especially if Chick’s most trusted source for all things Catholic is mentioned or indeed, present in the tract himself. And I have my doubts that the author of this tract is a “true Christian”, seeing as they may very well be bearing false witness against others. Which last I checked, is not something Christians are to do.

Considering the other materials published by this same author, it is almost like the author of the tract has not read the Bible at all, let alone understood it, or is being a hypocrite. Possibly both. I leave that to you to decide, dear reader.

*Sighs deeply* Let us commence…

You’d think that something like this would cause things to blow sky high, and perhaps back in the mid-80's they certainly would have. But these days? You turn on the news and you see pretty much the same sorts of stuff and it's all just treated as “business as usual”.

Why are the Nazis protesting the Daughters of the American Revolution? American Nazis have wrapped themselves in the flag since the beginning.

The JDL were pretty prominent when this tract was written, but have since faded into obscurity. And if this tract were updated, the guys in the truck would be more likely to be Proud Boys, or the Atomwaffen Division.

You pretty much never see American Nazis in this regalia any more. The guy on the right reminds me of Henry Gibson in this scene.

And to pre-empt the tract, considering that Rivera is cited as a primary source… the Pope actually condemned the Nazi practices, not supported them, including the Nazi ideologies regarding racism and antisemitism. And what is decreed by the Pope typically flows down to practice by most, if not all Catholics…

Perhaps you will ALL need to see yourselves for what you really are, so let me kindly give you a gift for your behaviour. I am positive you will greatly appreciate seeing your inner beauty:

Okay, okay… this is totally neither the time nor the place for this.

Whoever this individual is really needs to get his definitions straight. I understand Chick wrote this to use evocative language, but that is no excuse for misinformation and inaccuracy. So that we can all be singing the same music…

Definition of ‘holocaust’: a very large amount of destruction, especially by fire or heat, or the killing of very large numbers of people.
Definition of ‘the Holocaust’: the genocide of millions of Jews and others by the Nazis before and during the Second World War.
Definition of ‘inquisition’: a period of asking questions in a detailed and unfriendly way.
Definition of ‘the Inquisition’: The Inquisition was a Catholic judicial procedure where the ecclesiastical judges could initiate, investigate and try cases in their jurisdiction.

As to why I point out the definitions… first, specify that Mr Weiss was a survivor of ‘the Holocaust’, since that is the event you are referring to. Give the tragedy of the deaths of millions of people the respect it deserves, and do not simply call it ‘the holocaust’. Even if it is accurate by definitions, cheapening the event itself does not bode well.

Comparing the Holocaust to an inquisition based on those definitions is one of those things which will result in at absolute minimum, someone striking you in the face for the comparison, especially if they were there themselves, or have parents and grandparents who were involved.

Second, while the definition of ‘inquisition’ does mention a ‘period of asking questions in an unfriendly way’, do you notice a certain word is absent from the definitions I gave? The word ‘kill’. And before you try to say that “unfriendly ways” could mean murder, inquisitions ask questions for a purpose, such as in addressing apostasy, blasphemy, witchcraft and heresy. But one important note: “... the overwhelming majority of sentences consisted of penances, but convictions of unrepentant heresy were handed over to the secular courts for the application of local law, which generally resulted in execution or life imprisonment.”

This would mean government law at the time was responsible for the executions, kind of like how US law in certain states has the death penalty for crimes like murder as set by the Government. Or in the case of California (where you company is based), you have formally suspended it, but still have it in your statutes. Just in case you want to unsuspend it so that you can start executing criminals. How curious…

All right… I'll stop now.

And this “rumors in the camps” is complete fabricated nonsense. Nothing like that existed. Though some scholars did put God on trial.

In Peter Longerich’s book, Heinrich Himmler: A Life (pg 265) we read:

“In his efforts to develop a Germanic myth for the SS, Himmler sought in particular to portray the pre-Christian world of the Germans as exemplary and their Christianization as a fatal error, even a crime. His aim was to demonstrate that the true heart of medieval German history was Germanic, obscured by the restrictive facade of Christianity. … In 1937 he (Himmler) wrote down the following thoughts: We are living in the era of the final confrontation with Christianity. It is up to the Schutzstaffel to install in the German people ideological principles of life other than Christian ones over the next fifty years.”

The full article on Hitler’s religious views is here, but an assertion by Speer bears quoting here:

“Hitler …  viewed Christianity as the wrong religion for the "Germanic temperament": … Hitler would say: "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the fatherland as the highest good? The Mohameddan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

“For more information about what I'm saying, read this other thing, which I also wrote!” It's like you guys are all reading from the same playbook or something.

As for the Council of Trent, that is something I will delve into later, when Chick details which specific canons he has issue with. Diving into and reviewing every single canon from the Council of Trent, let alone other Councils would in of itself be a much larger and separate task to this dissection.

I will try to clarify the Council of Trent items as best as I can (and if you do happen to wonder how I am seemingly versed on theology, consider the events that I have lived through), so that you might see that the ‘paraphrasing’ is not as accurate as Chick and Rivera would want you to believe. The Council of Trent also was prompted by the Protestant Reformation, which is worth considering as to why their decrees are what they are. Or in other words, context matters:

1. This section details that the often prideful, and indeed boastful claims (such as the ones that Chick loves to end every tract with) are heretical, as it is far too often based on simple human confidence and often masquerades as “faith”. The idea of sheer confidence that you are saved is antithesis to the notion of humility that is common in Christian teaching and indeed, expected of all those who consider themselves believers of Christ. An individual who believes in Christ is expected to be afraid and apprehensive concerning their salvation, as no individual can know with confidence that they are to be saved prior to Judgment by God. This is especially true if you subsequently sin and do not seek forgiveness (by say, writing a bunch of little booklets that are done to assert a supposed superiority over those who do not think like you), and failing to emulate the teachings and life of Christ in your day to day (such as judgment of others, bearing false witness and so on).


2. Pardon the language, but turning a section of your reference source that spans four pages into a single sentence, particularly since you seem to be focused on one specific canon (rather than all the canons for that entire section, aptly titled “Canons Concerning Justification” is a hell of a disservice. The actual canon you refer to out of that entire section also is an argument against sola fide (“faith alone”). Paraphrasing the section accurately (as it also talks about sins in your earthly life as well) would probably be “Anyone who claims that after acknowledging and accepting Christ as Lord and Saviour is immediately saved from Hell forevermore, regardless of any sins they may commit in future (and thus do not have to repent for said sins while alive, or even after death via purgatory) is a heretic.”.


3. This paraphrasing by Chick is heavily misguided and is arguably one (of many) issues present with his particular set of Christian beliefs. The actions of Jesus in John 20:21-23 and gracing and empowering the apostles (via the Holy Spirit) to be able to forgive the sins of those who approached the apostles, confessed their sins and asked for mercy and forgiveness from God would not be a “man-made contrivance”, since it was by God’s Will that the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles in the first place as written in the Bible. And yes, while I am aware that Jesus can be considered both ‘fully human and fully divine’, the idea that because Jesus was a man and therefore confession is a “man-made contrivance” is unabashedly disrespectful to God. You may want to clarify your paraphrase there, since unless the people reading this tract know absolutely nothing of the Bible, that is the implication of your paraphrase.


4. This one is half complete - the actual canon says if anyone denies that the sacrament of the Eucharist (via transubstantiation) becomes the true blood, body, soul and divinity of Christ and says that Christ is only in it as a sign, figure or force, then consider that person a heretic. Which is something you often do to other Christian denominations whose practices differ from yours, hypocrite. Did you not write several tracts attacking the Catholics for aspects of their belief that is different from yours?


5. *sighs in exasperation*... so you are complaining that the Catholic Church made a canon that allows them to call you a heretic because a bunch of Protestants were running around at the time, attacking and demonising them for an aspect of their faith by calling them idolators and heretics? Something that I have pointed out in Item 4 that you also have done in modern day? So yet again, you are being a hypocrite.

The relationship between Popes Pius XI and XII and the Third Reich is hotly debated by historians. The Concordat basically said that the Church would stay out of politics, in exchange for Hitler leaving the Church alone. It should surprise no one that Hitler almost immediately violated it. As pointed out earlier, Pius XI responded with the Mit brennender Sorge, complaining about this treatment and rejecting aspects of the Nazi agenda as regards human rights.

A reasonable summary is that the Catholic Church was somewhat constrained in how they could act, but also trusted Hitler more than they should have, and remained silent when to speak out might have had an impact. They performed some redemptive acts, like saving some Jews from execution. But on the other hand, a number of priests and bishops set up ratlines to help Nazis escape to South America.

Under Francoist Spain, Roman Catholicism was the state religion (as part of what was called National Catholicism), and Franco himself was often depicted as a fervent Catholic. Which would have put him at odds with the attempts made by Hitler to manipulate Christianity at the time, and was one of the avenues which resulted in the "Mit brennender Sorge", as pointed out earlier. Indeed, Hitler’s views on religion were not in line with the teachings of Catholicism.

You might have to forgive my misunderstanding of the politics of countries, or even dare I say, humanity in general, but when you persecute people for things like say religious belief, does it not mean that you despise them because of said belief? Or are you legitimately attempting to say that persecution of others is showing your love?

I would recommend that you think about your answer very carefully. After all, to paraphrase Luke 6:31: “Treat others as you yourself wish to be treated”.

Though for whatever reason, Chick chose to cut out Councilor Klee (who was the Reich Interior Ministry and the German Embassy councilor at the time) from the very right of the photograph. As you can see in the full version of the photograph in question.

I checked your source and you are basing your entire premise on the fact that your source says that they had a name change to the “Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” and that “the original functions have not substantially changed”. And while it does say that “as a tribunal, it judged heresy and all offenses leading to a suspicion of heresy”, I do not see where that says they were collaborating with Nazi Germany to exterminate the Jewish people in the source you provided. As for the Holy Office (or rather, The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith as they are called now), I am guessing you have twisted their intentions when it has been identified that their purpose is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on faith and morals, including investigations into what they consider ‘grave delicts’, such as crimes against the Eucharist and the sacrament of Penance (such  as Item 3 and 4 on Page 9) as well as *smirks* crimes against the Sixth/Seventh Commandment committed by a member of the clergy against a person under the age of eighteen, as well as cases in which confessors either solicit or provoke sex from penitents.

So if I understand this correctly… *scowls heavily, such that the growing darkness suffocates the lights until they are mere embers amidst the swallowing abyss, as whispers and screams can be heard surrounding you* you are upset that they have an institution of their church that tries to function as a sort of ‘Internal Investigations’, policing their own clergy for violations against church teaching and possible sexual abuse of believers? And you actually believe they are responsible for The Holocaust?

Whether they are actually effective or not as an entity is a different matter (there have been numerous cases over the years), and even one of their declarations on Catholic doctrine (Dignitas Infinita) is not without controversies (case in point, some of the things it condemns include discrimination against migrants and homosexuals, but then also condemns things like gender theory, sex reassignment and abortion). As for why I mention it… you and others that think like you are condemning them for believing different to you, trying to present yourself as the morally superior ones, yet are failing at seeing your own hypocrisy.

Remember that bit of strangeness from earlier? *smirks* You might actually want to address it... time is precious after all, and you are burning through it kind of quickly...

As for the revisions between editions (the left panel specifically), what exactly is surprising about a Catholic actor being praised for his acting by Catholics, particularly since he had several television shows and theatrical performances BEFORE he was cast as Archie Bunker? Or are you ignoring all of his past work because this one specific depiction seemingly hurt you that much?

For this “Archie Bunker” character, I am once again reminded of words I had said in an earlier dissection. If the character is intended to be an angry male bigot and just happens to be a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant, then why does this bother you if it is untrue? Or is it perhaps one of those things, where you actually are upset that it is true and you felt insulted by it being true to life?

For the right panel… I was unable to find that exact quotation as written in the America Magazine. But interestingly enough, I found one particular short article in Volume 104, Issue 5 on page 134 in that magazine titled "New Anti-Catholic Drive" from October 1960. The article itself details that there were plans to mail in “tens of millions of pieces of anti-Catholic literature”, and that it was being driven by… *smirks* the National Association of Evangelicals, the Southern Baptist Convention and the Protestants and Other Americans United. And that the actions were being funded by “wealthy conservatives” via “tax-deductible contributions”. It was speculated that they wanted to keep a liberal away from being President.

Two things stand out to me… One, for such a drive to occur in the first place would mean that Ewin’s quotation is either not true or if true, heavily taken out of context; seeing as there seems to be several Protestant organisations planing to mail in anti-Catholic literature for a presidential election. So I doubt the US has “virtually ceased to be Protestant”. And two, if you are getting that worked up over earthly politics, is that not a contradiction against Christ’s teachings, such as John 18:36? Or what about the one recounted in three separate gospels, that being Matthew 22:15 - 22, Mark 12:13 - 17 and Luke 20:20 - 26?

One final thing to consider… you know that Second Vatican Council you seem to be attacking so fervently? Within that Council, they also made a decree titled Dignitatis humanae and one major element of it is that 'religious freedom is a civil right and should be recognised in constitutional law’. Now it might just be me, but if the supposed goal of the Catholics is to make the entire USA a Catholic state… why would they have a decree that promotes religious freedom? If anything, they would have said something like: “Religious freedom is not a civil right and should not be recognised in constitutional law.”

So is America about to be turned into a Catholic dominated theocracy, or a Muslim-run Shiara Caliphate? Which is it, Jack? What shadowy cabal is about to overthrow our nation and install a sympathizing puppet government, exactly?

As for the right panel… back in 1984, when the tract says it was copyrighted, the Notre Dame university was (funnily enough) debating about how Catholic they ought to be, along with other Catholic universities, such as Fordham and Georgetown. And this was following the Second Vatican Council, and its broader approach for relations with the world and other Christian branches. I see you removed the claim in the revised version, to which I would ask, why? You seem quite adamant on leaving in other things between versions that are arguably very serious accusations, but accusing Notre Dame University was apparently too dangerous to retain?

I learn something new every day it seems.

BAH-HAH-HAH-HAAAA! You remember when people actually used to ask questions like this? How positively quaint.

I assume that Chick is referring to this practice, in which states can propose amendments to the Constitution as per Article V of the US Constitution. I did try to look into records to see if the US Government ever considered changes to the Constitution that would allow it to be changed without voting from the general public and somehow not violate the Constitution, but I was not able to find such a thing.

So I am going to have to ask for a citation and source for this, including the supposed pro-Catholic Congress of the United States.

That said, I do admit confusion as to what the relevance of Canon Law has to do with your claim that the Catholic Church has to set up tribunals to record names of those under suspicion. Especially since the 1983 Code of Canon Law predominantly (as does earlier canon law) is intended to serve a set of ordinances and regulations made by church leadership for adherents of a church and its members, including penitents and clergy. But for the sake of argument, let us say it is actually a record of names that are under suspicion by the Catholic Church. Why would you make such a list publicly available? That seems quite asinine and contrary to that purpose, as what is to stop people reading it, checking if they are under suspicion and then altering their behaviour to deflect suspicion?

For the Vatican being the Whore of Babylon, which according to you is detailed in Revelation 17 and 18, I shall address this as briefly as I can, but since I do not know whether you interpret the Bible literally or not and to what extent, I will do both.

The easiest of the two to address first - if it is a strict literal reading, then I do not see the Catholic Church ever turn up in the supposedly non-corrupted KJV translation, much less in those Chapters, which is linked previously.

The second of the two is next. Even if I give a concession that you are using the historical-grammatical method of biblical literalism (rather than based on the dictionary definition of literalism), then let us address some of these claims:

• The seven heads are representative of seven hills on which the woman sits does not mean that the cathedra is located there, nor that the Pope has a seat there. In a metaphorical sense, mountains are often used as a reference to entire kingdoms (such as in Psalms 68:15 or Daniel 2:35). It could be seven kingdoms that she reigns over for example, or that it is a complete reign over all of earth’s kingdoms. In a historical sense, the description is significantly more applicable to ancient Rome (the pagan Roman Empire, responsible for persecuting Christians). The seven hills of Rome are on the east of the Tiber river, and Vatican City is on the west of the Tiber River. There is a picture that shows this for you.


• The power of a name indeed. I will refer to my earlier words about the significance of the name Babylon, though it may also Jerusalem, if you are to believe the words of Revelation 11, particularly verse 8 (the city where Jesus was crucified), and the symbolic references to Sodom, such as in Isaiah 1:10 and Ezekiel 16:1-3, 46-56.


• The statements regarding whoredom and earthly kings committing fornication would apply to two cities at the time - Jerusalem and Rome. Of these two cities, it may very well fit the Roman Empire at the time, as the way kingdoms were typically governed in Ancient Rome was often based on paganism and emperor worship.


• The blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus is far more likely to be applicable to either pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem, who were notorious persecutors of Christians in their time periods. In addition, the implied ‘forced conversion’ aspect has been condemned by the Catholics, such as in the Mystici Corporis Christi and Dignitatis humanae. Side note here, but the former also expresses opposition to Nazism and their practices. How quaint…


• The spoiler that the woman is a great city that has reigned over the kings of the earth (Revelation 17:18) is also far more applicable to pagan Rome, which held literal power (politically, but also militarily) over other kingdoms. The premise that Vatican City holds any degree of power over other nations is laughable, and Vatican City itself did not exist as a separate city until 1929.


• Colours have meaning, both to the faithful and as per God’s instructions for the vestments of the priests (examples include Exodus 28:4-8 and Exodus 39:1-8) to be purple and scarlet yarn. Meanings-wise, purple is repentance and red honors the blood of Christ and the martyrs. Why would God instruct those colours to be worn if it was to be worn by the Whore of Babylon? Or is it perhaps that the Whore of Babylon would wear those colours as a form of mockery to its adversaries, that being the faithful and penitent?

I would hope that you would remain civil and not resort to pointless accusations of witchcraft and other such things. But I have my doubts that you will remain civil.

And this No True Scotsman crap is disgusting. Protestants have harmed people, including Jews, in Jesus’s name, as long as the religion has existed. The Nazi anti-semitism can be traced back to Martin Luther, who was a virulent anti-semite. But I guess he, and those who followed in his footsteps, weren’t True Christians(™).

I am wondering if you notice certain elements with these. Such as the fact that they all generally believed their own interpretations of the Bible and generally eschewed most governing structures (unlike the other major denominations). Something that is commonly done by some Protestant churches (like the Fundamentalists and Independent Baptists, which my sources say is what you are, Jack), though there are some among you who actually have a degree of governance that is sometimes compared to those of the other major denominations and have governance.

So humor me, but what makes your belief set the ‘right’ set? I am quite positive that all of these people I mentioned in the first paragraph believed their interpretations were the ‘right’ one and believed they were within the ‘Grace of God’. And they all somehow knew via sheer human confidence that they were ‘saved’ from Hell, since that is part of the Protestant way that you decried the Catholics for opposing in the Council of Trent.

I also see they added a statement at the bottom of the page in the revised version, some relatively simple ‘call to arms’ type of deal about stopping the Inquisition *frowns*. Though I feel kind of bad that you seem to have discredited God and his implied omnipotence. Why does your statement say “... IF God …”? There is no IF about God - either He chooses to, or chooses not to do something, as per His will. This wording of yours would imply God is just as indecisive as a human, which is quite disrespectful to a deity that you supposedly believe in.

I would normally be somewhat charitable and give input as to how you could phrase things better, but considering the earlier pages and their messages, my sympathy and goodwill are mostly extinguished. What remains of them tells me to leave you to your fate, as a broken, misguided, pitiful wreck.

Chick tries to make this a Protestants Good, Catholics Bad narrative, with respect to the Holocaust. All the Protestant Christian denominations, save one, tried to accommodate Naziism, to a greater or lesser degree. That one sect was the Jehovah’s Witnesses. While certainly the JWs can be criticized, they refused to compromise their faith. As a result, around a quarter of them were sent to concentration camps, and many of those died. Other protestant sects took a different approach, ranging from making concessions, to full on Nazi support, as with the Seventh Day Adventists and the German Church. The latter, definitely Protestant, was created by the Nazi party. After the Jehovah’s Witnesses, it is easy to determine which denomination suffered the most executions per capita due to their faith. And that was the Catholics. This fact alone should render Chick’s arguments demonstrably false. Surely if the Nazi party was run by Jesuits as Chick claims, they could have prevented the murders of thousands of priests and nuns.

All in all, one of his more odious tracts, as it trivializes the Holocaust by turning it into an anti-Catholic screed. This might be one of the few tracts that manages to offend three faiths: Judaism, Catholicism and mainstream Protestantism. I would be surprised if a single Jew was prompted to convert by this tract. But then, they are not the target market for it.

I promise y'all something better next time. Stay tuned.

Even if I were to accept that the Catholic Church is planning to enthrall the USA and turn it to a Catholic country, and that Protestants are seemingly being persecuted by them, it would be wise to not flatter yourself, Chick. Your specific set of Protestant beliefs (Independent Baptists last I checked) has significantly less adherents in number than the adherents of the other two major denominations (Catholicism and Orthodoxy), let alone the numbers of adherents in other Protestant denominations, such as the Anglicans. And yet, in some strange thought process, you and others like you decided this Tract would be a good idea to publish, that understating the suffrage of the Jewish people by Nazi Germany to push a false narrative of “Catholics want to rule the world” was acceptable.

This tract is one of those that is close to Lisa in terms of blatant disregard and disrespect for people who have suffered such actions by other humans. And you wonder why I mourn, weep and lament, why I often seclude myself away from others. This is but one aspect - and you were given glimpses of another throughout both this dissection and in others I have been present for. But do not mistake my seclusion for inactivity; I am very much engaged in activities intending to address what I can in the world, even if it is not overtly visible. As Jessica alluded to, however, it often takes the inaction of good people to allow those with aspirations of furthering their own selfish interests to do so.

To the people from much earlier in the dissection, I hope you were able to get a good look at the inner beauty of your personalities and how you look to others. Hopefully you have taken steps to address those personality elements and actually become better people for it. As should anyone else who might have similar personalities. And if you did not… then I shall be looking forward to welcoming some new residents to the lands around my abode. Life flourishes in many beautiful and mysterious ways after all.

There is little more that I can add that I have not already said, nor that others have said, so I shall take my leave, dear readers. Until the next time, whenever that may be, may the roads of your lives be straight, with nary an adversity to trouble you. *begins to hum a sorrowful threnody, as I curtsey, before turning to leave*.