text: "Being a lover of freedom, when the [Nazi] revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks.... Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly." 
  -- Albert Einstein. 
  
  What I'm getting at here is that you can propogate anyone to look bad, that's easy. When you have two sources contradicting each other so heavily, you may want to consider the source; i.e a protestant british author writing over fifty years after the fact, vice a prominent and liberal jewish figure who lived through the holcaust and has no biased motive to either slander or praise the beforementioned institution.
  
  Or maybe Israel Zolli, chief rabbi of Rome whose conversion to Catholicism immediately after the war was prompted by the church's reaction to the plight of the jewish people. 
  
  This book is extremely propagated and heavily editorialized. It is important to read a work like this however, in order to better understand the manipulation of truth and half truth in the author's motive
  