« Contagious GIRMS | Main | Papal appointments? »
August 27, 2003
Pius XII
Historian uncovers evidence of Pius XII's opposition to Hitler
In the America article, Gallagher focused on two diplomatic documents in particular -- a personal report by Cardinal Pacelli that he gave to Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, then U.S. ambassador to Britain, during an April 1938 meeting in Rome, and a 1939 report by Alfred W. Klieforth, then U.S. consul general in Cologne, Germany, following a three-hour meeting with the cardinal in Rome to discuss "the situation in Germany." Cardinal Pacelli was elected pope in March 1939.Gallagher quoted from Klieforth's report: "He (Cardinal Pacelli) opposed unilaterally every compromise with National Socialism. He regarded Hitler not only as an untrustworthy scoundrel but as a fundamentally wicked person. He did not believe Hitler capable of moderation, in spite of appearances, and he fully supported the German bishops in their anti-Nazi stand."
Yes, this an older post. But one of the commentors suggested that I move it back up because the discussion was continuing..
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/86193
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Pius XII:
» Pius XII and Hitler: Facts, not Fiction from DeoOmnisGloria.com
Was Pius XII really "Hitler's Pope"? Did he actually do enough to help the Jews? As Catholics, we should know the truth behind these fallacies, but more and more we are beginning to believe them. This is a call for you to learn facts, not the fi... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 26, 2003 5:19:43 PM
Comments
Pius XII's perception problem that he needs to overcome is not necessarily his dislike of the Nazi party but the Jewish issue. He clearly detested Hitler and Nazi party, but the impetus for that dislike primarily seems to be Hitler's contempt for the Catholic Church and not Hitler's anti-semitism.
What Gallagher has uncovered is still more evidence of Pius XII's antipathy to Hitler, but there still isn't much to show that Hitler's anti-Semitic policies were at the heart of Pius XII's objections.
Fair or not, the anti-semitism piece is what Pius XII has to overcome. It still appears that the anti-semitic issue was ancillary, even though perhaps important, than was the anti-Catholic issue.
It is clear that the lesson of Pius XII is that the hierarchy has to stop playing politics and learn to stick its neck out and take a stand on moral issues.
Posted by: Ono at Aug 22, 2003 9:47:28 AM
Don't think there's much question of his opposition to Hitler. It's just that he didn't
speak out publicly, using the words Jew and Nazi, while extermination of the Jews was being attempted.
His 'opposition' looks pretty flabby compared to that of some of the saints Amy recently featured. They spoke truth to power. And suffered for it.
Posted by: Oyes at Aug 22, 2003 10:43:23 AM
Peace, all.
Good comment, Ono. I might also point out that if a historian has to "uncover" Pius XII's stand on Hitler, it probably wasn't all that obvious to the pope's contemporaries. I think the Vatican has an even greater challenge today. Sixty, seventy years ago the pope could have said, "Everybody, help the Jews," and Catholics might have grumbled, but they would have complied, given the threat of eternal damnation. Today, nobody gives a sneeze. Even orthodox Catholics wiggle out of a reasonable pacifism.
Posted by: Todd at Aug 22, 2003 10:46:35 AM
I have to disagree with Ono, I think there IS a perception of Pius XII being pro-Hitler despite there being no evidence of it. I call it the Dan Brown Da Vinci code syndrome. Spread lies in a book about the RCC and then say you've researched everything thoroughly and people will believe it even though its not true.
Take a look at the Amazon reader reviews of Cornwell's "Hitler's Pope" - many of those reviewers say Pius was a Nazi sympathizer even though Cornwell (in one of his rare moments of honesty) admits IN THE BOOK Pius hated Hitler. But when you have a title like that and a picture of the Pope coming out of meeting with what seems to be SS soldiers on the cover (actually they were Weimar Republic era soldiers but Cornwell's American publishers have never corrected the assumption), then what do you think Cornwell wants his readers to think. Not to mention the fact that 60 minutes did a whole segment on Cornwell and his book by Ed Bradley in which all of Cornwell's accusations were never questioned, the only pro-Pius person was the Postulater for his cause, Fr.Peter Gumpel (whose family was persecuted by the Nazis themselves) whose words were taken out of context to seem anti-semetic. Later on a seperate CBS news report about the Pope Cornwell was introduced as a "Vatican Insider" despite the fact that not only there's no evidence of this but he lied about how often (rarely if ever) he spent at the Vatican Archives researching his book.
Sadly if you tell a lie often enough people believe it and thats whats happened to Pius XII.
Posted by: ita o'byrne at Aug 22, 2003 11:10:16 AM
The sad thing here is that Pius XII's contemporaries knew very well where he stood. However, history has been rewritten by people like Dan Brown and even Catholics just seem to believe it. It's amazing.
Pius XII doesn't have any problems, he stood firm. The New York Times (liberal even then) called him "a light in the darkness" and, as the evidence above shows, he was the only one who clearly understood Hitler from the beginning. Another point showing Ono's mistake: the chief Rabbi of Rome converted to Catholicism after he witnessed first-hand Pius XII's actions and comments. That speaks volumes about the man and about his critics.
I wish those who haven't actively researched the topic would do so before speaking. All of the evidence surrounding Pius XII shows he was a great Pope who saved more Jews than anyone else (including Schindler).
Jay
Posted by: Jay at Aug 22, 2003 11:45:55 AM
Jay is right. There's a superb piece by David Dalin on Pius that everyone should read, originally in the Weekly Standard and now on line at:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/dalin.html
In the non-Catholic world, many apparently reasonable people believe that Pius was not merely insufficiently assertive in his opposition to Nazism but actively approving. In the Washington Post some time ago Jonathan Yardley spoke very matter-of-factly about the pope's "sympathy" with Nazism, and more recently in the same paper a reviewer of "The Da Vinci Code" spoke of his "cooperation."
Posted by: Jim at Aug 22, 2003 12:10:24 PM
I think the point is that the uncovering of anything new--documents, letters, etc., does not mean much unless they show that the charge against anti-semitism was a significant factor in the Pius XII's dislike for Hitler. Right now, it seems that anti-catholicism was the primary factor. So there is obvious self-interest here which taints his motives, for better or for worse.
The other thing here is that the Church is going to have to live with this. Pius XII's support for the Jews was quiet, relatively safe, and was not characterized by the proper outrage. Now, if Bp. Gregory, in regard to the Gay Union issue, can call it "formal cooperation" not to "actively oppose" such legislation, or the if the Vatican can call it gravely immoral not to oppose such legislation, (note--not support, but "actively oppose"), then they should expect the Church to take some flak for not "actively opposing" the anti-Semitic and horrendous policies of the Nazis.
The quiet safe stashing away of a few hundred Jews, does not make up for the silence regarding millions killed. Pius XII's references to the Holocaust at the time were veiled and discreet. Even JPII has acknowledged "never again," should political expediency and personal safety hinder the proclamation of truth and justice.
Is it fair for Pius XII to be called cooperator with the Nazis? No. But we recognize that this is one of those mistakes that has done irreparable damage to the moral credibility of the Holy See. It still seems that to rehabilitate his image in the secular world, documents specifically addressing his moral condemnation of anti-semintism would have to be uncovered.
Posted by: Ono at Aug 22, 2003 1:05:19 PM
Well, duh! Pope Pius XII and the Catholic Church were regarded at the time by both the Nazis and their foes as being strongly anti-Nazi. Consider the praise of the Catholic Church in 1940 by Albert Einstein, for example, for its strong anti-Nazi stand. The historical record is crystal clear on this point. There is no valid historical argument on this point. The "controversy" has been made up out whole-cloth by those who hate the Church.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Aug 22, 2003 1:09:42 PM
I have a theory that Cornwell trashed Pius XII and did so on the basis of skimpy research because his carefully researched effort on the death of Pope John Paul I (A THIEF IN THE NIGHT)went unappreciated and was impeded in progress by numbers of clerics who wanted to keep up appearances.
But Italy saved 85% of its Jews, thanks to the moves Pius XII made.
Posted by: Sandra Miesel at Aug 22, 2003 1:10:51 PM
Todd,
Below is an excerpt about this new find from the LA Times.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pius22aug22,1,1927263.story
"A second document was found by Gallagher in June at Harvard University among the papers of U.S. diplomat Jay Pierrepont Moffat. One of the documents, written by U.S. Consul General Alfred W. Klieforth, recounted a 1937 meeting he had with Pacelli in Rome.
"His views, while they are well known, surprised me by their extremeness," Klieforth wrote. "He said that he opposed unalterably every compromise with National Socialism [Nazism]. He regarded Hitler not only as an untrustworthy scoundrel but as a fundamentally wicked person. He did not believe Hitler capable of moderation, in spite of appearances, and he fully supported the German bishops in their anti-Nazi stand."
I would say that Pius' opposition wasn't as covert as one is lead to believe. Notice: "His views, while they are well known, surprised me by their extremeness," Klieforth wrote."
Pius was considered to be anti-Nazi at his death in 1958 and his role during WWII was praised by Jew and non-Jew alike. Since then, history has been maliciously revised so that the (incorrect) common knowledge today is that Pius was sympathetic to Nazism, even pro-Nazi, motivated by anti-Semitism and a naive, irrational anti-Communism. Communism is painted as benign, benevolent socialism, when it had already slaughtered/starved millions by the era of these newly-found documents.
Posted by: Michael at Aug 22, 2003 1:32:53 PM
Sandra,
The theory that John Paul I was murdered. Is that nonsene, or solid?
_
Posted by: AB at Aug 22, 2003 4:28:08 PM
Peace, Michael.
I think we have two intertwined, but possibly separate issues. First, it is possible for a person to be anti-Nazi and anti-Judaism. Pius XII may well have thought Hitler to be evil, and he may have resisted him conservatively at every turn. FDR was a bit more active, but Roosevelt also turned away boatloads of Jews to the alarm of his wife and other Americans.
The "revisionism" is raised because Pius XII sainthood supporters have come to the forefront. Pius XII may have been a good man. He probably was. He did a great deal for Jews. A sure path to sainthood would have been far more dangerous for him than a papacy that dodged material horrors others had to suffer. I think his canonization cause is premature. Surely there are saintly heroic lay people from that era who would be great role models.
Posted by: Todd at Aug 22, 2003 9:41:30 PM
Don't forget, too, that when the Church did speak out against the Nazis, the Nazis reacted by specifically rounding up Catholics who had converted from Judaism. That was how Edith Stein wound up in the camps.
Posted by: Berni at Aug 22, 2003 11:11:35 PM
Berni:
Bingo. It's all well and good to say now that Pius XII shd. have spoken up, and that he was more worried about Catholics than Jews. When you're sitting in the curial office, however, knowing that a stroke of your pen can wipe out thousands of innocents, it's probably a lot more complicated.
Also, regarding the Vatican's call to actively oppose gay marriage and such. Are thousands of people going to die if we do so? Do we bear the guilt of the thousands who will be marched and trained off to the crematoriums for our actions?
I think inferring that Pius XII was more interested in the health and salvation of Catholics than of Jews requires a less charitable construction of his actions than the Catechism allows us.
Posted by: Brian at Aug 23, 2003 10:35:43 AM
No John Paul I was not murdered. A pulmonary embolism is a reasonable guess, although heart attack was listed as cause of death by a doctor who had never examined him, did not examine the body nor question witnesses and remains JP II's personal physician. John Cornwell's book on that, A THIEF IN THE NIGHT, is excellent. David Yallop's IN GOD'S NAME, the book that cried murder, is worthless. See my recent CRISIS article at www.crisismagazine.com
Posted by: Sandra Miesel at Aug 23, 2003 10:37:09 AM
Sandra,
Thanks,
_
Posted by: AB at Aug 23, 2003 10:48:36 AM
Folks, documents from 1937, 1938, 1939, etc, cannot justify Pius XII's silence toward the fate of the Jews in the years 1940-1945. You're grasping at straws here.
Cornwall's conclusions in "Hitler's Pope" seemed reasonable to me. Probably as well researched as "Thief in the Night", Sandra.
Those darn 'infallibility' claims prevent too many people from looking objectively at this.
Posted by: CB at Aug 23, 2003 11:49:51 AM
CB read the New York Times editorial about the Pope's Christmas message of 1942. The darn contempt many people have about the Catholic Church prevent them from looking objectively at this.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Aug 23, 2003 12:04:08 PM
A THIEF IN THE NIGHT is presented as a record of research. Cornwell is personally interviewing witnesses and comparing their statements against each other. In HITLER'S POPE, he paid a few visits to the Vatican archives and found one document that he made sound incriminating. There's no comparison. And for less effort he sold a lot more books.
Posted by: Sandra Miesel at Aug 23, 2003 3:16:32 PM
CB,
Documents from 1937, 1938, 1939, etc, DO counter the bill of goods being sold to us that Pius XII was fundamentally an anti-Semite and was favorable towards Hitler/Nazism. Remember how we were told that Cornwell (not Cornwall) was shocked, shocked, shocked about uncovering a diplomatic memo in the Vatican archives describing Pacelli's impressions of a group of Marxist revolutionaries in Munich in the 1920's and how this was evidence of a deeply-rooted anti-Semitism. Cornwell and his ideological compatriots are out to align Pius XII with Hitler. They want to say that Pius ignored the Holocaust because he and Hitler were both Jew haters. The Kennedy/Klieforth documents are useful in countering this idea. Here we have another confirmation that Pius called Hitler evil, that he thought he was a liar, that the Pope was utterly opposed to Hitler, not "Hitler's Pope". Ask yourself if Cornwell is a reliable source if he was so fundamentally wrong on this issue.
Posted by: Michael at Aug 23, 2003 5:33:29 PM
Michael, Cornwell made none of the assertions you claim. Have you read his book? Read the last brief summary chapter, if nothing else.
Maybe more to the point, IN THIS VERY FORUM (Amy's column) a few months ago, John Allen noted and marveled at the prevelence and openness of anti-semitic thought and expression within the Vatican. Nothing much has changed since 1941. Or 1641.
Posted by: CB at Aug 24, 2003 9:01:11 PM
Catholic anti-Semitism is an old story. It's something I've exposed, always to people who will not recognize it when they see it (in the writings of Maria Valtorta, for instance).
But let's limit ourselves to what Pius XII did or didn't do. We know he was opposed to Hitler before the war, as the newly discovered documents demonstrate. It's strongly believed that he wrote Puis IX's letter MIT BRENDENER SORGE whichpowerfully cndemned Naziism. The Nazis were enraged when this anti-Nazi pope was elected, as they said in their own newspapers. The NY TIMES did praise the Pope's wartime satements. He did arrange for Jews to be hidden in religious houses and the Vatican and Castel Gandolfo. He has been ably defended on all these points by the 11-vol set of wartime Vatican documents, nby Fr. Gramham, by Fr. Blet, by Fr. Gumpel, by Fr. Rylchak, by Sr. Marchione and others who are personally familiar with the primary sources or lived through the events.
As a personal note, my Jewish father, to whom the Holocaust was a fervent personal cause, was proud to have had an audience with Pius XII at the close of the war. He has served in the Army Air Corps during the Italian campaign. This is witness to what Jewish opinion thought about this pope in those days
Posted by: Sandra Miesel at Aug 25, 2003 2:34:15 PM
1938 wasn't the key year for Pacelli's record regarding the Nazis. Ten and 12 years before, he was instrumental in negotiating state to state agreements between the Vatican and the German states, including Bavaria (the original Nazi stronghold), and as essentially the Pope (his predecessor's) foreign minister, he INSTANTLY negotiated a deal with Hitler. So the big year for his reckoning is 1933 -- when the Vatican could certainly have excommunicated all Catholics in the Nazi party, as they did later (under Pacelli as Pope) with all Catholics in Communist governments. Pacelli's partisans cannot claim he didn't know what and who the Nazis were, nor what they intended to do -- yet his reaction wasn't to fight 'em, but to over-rule the German bishops who DID want to fight.
Pacelli's political achievement in working with Nazism except insofar as such negotiation hurt the RCC's temporal interests is precisely his moral failing. Every statement I've ever seen which seeks to praise this Pope, pretty much confirms the indictment. Did he excopmmunicate Nazis? Nope. Did he honor the Catholics (like von Papen) who put Hitler in power? Yup. Just how DID this guy consider the interests of the Roman Catholic Church. QED.
Dunno why this is so hard for folks to see -- confusing power with purpose, perhaps.
Posted by: theAmericanist at Aug 25, 2003 9:31:41 PM
Also, in 1933 Edith Stein wrote the Pope (PiusXI) begging for a public condemnation of Nazi persecution of the Jews (" ... for which the whole world waits.")
You can find this letter on the web.
Even our Catholic saints condemned papal silence and inaction on this matter.
Americanist, some look but strive not to see, for ideological reasons.
Posted by: CB at Aug 26, 2003 12:13:45 PM
CB, Re: Edith Stein's letter to the Pope, this is from the Catholic League's website. http://www.catholicleague.org/research/rychlakcomm.htm
Stein wrote in April, 1933. Mit brennender Sorge was written in 1936-37, delivered to Germany in March of 1937.
As you can read below, Mit brennender Sorge, was a very powerful critique of Nazi ideology, especially its glorification of the German nation and the bogus notion of a separate German race. Is this not part of what Edith Stein was asking for? To quote her letter, "Is not this idolization of race and governmental power which is being pounded into the public consciousness by the radio open heresy?" http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/news/News_Feb2003.htm#Stein
You wrote in an earlier comment about "silence toward the fate of the Jews in the years 1940-1945". Read Rychlak's entire essay, how is it silence when the pope protested against the treatment of Jews in Vichy France, to give one example. "Silence" means nothing, the Vichy protests were concrete actions, not "silence".
Right back at you when you say, "some look but strive not to see, for ideological reasons". The ideology is "the pope was silent" and nothing anyone documents is ever enough to shake that faith.
To theAmericanist: You can see how Mit brennender Sorge obviously hurt "the RCC's temporal interests" vis a vis Germany. How does that fit into your thesis?
Catholic League quote begins now:
[Question from the joint International Jewish-Catholic Historical Commission]
#27.In 1933, Edith Stein wrote to Pius XI asking him to issue an encyclical condemning anti-Semitism. This may have been the first of many appeals made to the Vatican for intervention on behalf of the Jews. Though the date falls beyond the parameters of our mandate, the document is relevant because of its content. How was this letter received? Is the letter itself in the archives, and if so may we see it?
Point: [Rychlak's response]
Her letter resulted eventually in Mit brenender Sorge. Mit brennender Sorge was one of the strongest condemnations of any national regime that the Holy See ever published. It condemned not only the persecution of the Church in Germany, but also the Neo-paganism of Nazi theories. “Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State... above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God,” wrote the Pope. There was even a brazen swipe at Hitler:
“None but superficial minds could stumble into concepts of a national God, of a national religion; or attempt to lock within the frontiers of a single people, within the narrow limits of a single race, God, the Creator of the universe, King and Legislator of all nations before whose immensity they are ‘as a drop of a bucket’ (Isaiah XI, 15).”
The encyclical concluded that “enemies of the Church, who think that their time has come, will see that their joy was premature.”
Unlike most encyclicals, which are written in Latin, Mit brennender Sorge was written in German for wider dissemination in that country. It was smuggled out of Italy, copied and distributed to parish priests to be read from all of the pulpits on Palm Sunday, March 14, 1937. No one who heard the Pontifical document read in church had any illusion about the gravity of these statements or their significance. Certainly the Nazis understood their importance.
An internal German memorandum dated March 23, 1937, called Mit brennender Sorge “almost a call to do battle against the Reich government.” All available copies were confiscated. German printers who had made copies were arrested and the presses were seized. Those convicted of distributing the encyclical were arrested, the Church-affiliated publications which ran the encyclical were banned, and payments due to the Church from the Government were reduced.
The day following the release of Mit brennender Sorge, a Nazi newspaper, the Voelkischer Beobachter, carried a strong counterattack on the “Jew-God and His deputy in Rome.” Das Schwarze Korps, official paper of the SS, called it “the most incredible of Pius XI’s pastoral letters; every sentence in it was an insult to the new Germany.” The German ambassador to the Holy See was instructed not to take part in the solemn Easter ceremonies, and German missions throughout Europe were informed by the Nazi Foreign Office of the “Reich’s profound indignation” They were also told that the German government “had to consider the Pope’s encyclical as a call to battle... as it calls upon Catholic citizens to rebel against the authority of the Reich.”
Hitler verbally attacked the German bishops at a mass rally in Berlin, and he dictated a letter of protest to the Pope, complaining that the Vatican had gone to the people instead of coming to him. Vatican Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII), rebuffed German protests, noting that the German government had not been cooperative in the past when the Vatican complained about the various matters (including the Nazis treatment of Jews). In May, Hitler was quoted in a Swiss newspaper saying, “the Third Reich does not desire a modus vivendi with the Catholic Church, but rather its destruction with lies and dishonor, in order to make room for a German Church in which the German race will be glorified.”
Posted by: Michael at Aug 27, 2003 1:01:19 AM
Actually, with the opening of certain Vatican files in February of this year, we now know more about the Edith Stein letter. It was only recently made public (though it had been known about for some time). The letter makes a strong case for a bold statement regarding Nazi persecution of the Jews and Catholics. It has been used to argue that Stein was angry about the papal approach to the war (the letter was written to Pius XI, though critics use it against Pius XII). It was long thought, however, that Stein requested an encyclical. As explained by John Allen, the Vatican analyst for CNN:
"She wrote this letter in April of 1933, complaining about Nazi persecution of the Jews to Pius XI. Now a lot of people have long believed that in that letter she asked the Pope to write an encyclical letter. That’s a major papal document condemning the Nazis. And the fact that Pius didn’t do it has been used as part of the campaign against him. What we now know, as of yesterday morning, once that letter is on the record, is that the she did not make any such request. So at least in that way, it resolves a historical debate in favor of the Vatican’s position."
The reply from the Vatican conveyed a papal blessing to Stein (who was a layperson, not yet a nun, at the time of this letter) but did not mention the letter that the Pope had already sent to the papal nuncio in Berlin on April 4, 1933, instructing him to intervene with the new government on behalf of the Jews.
Stein must not have been too upset with the Vatican. She did, after all, become a nun after this letter was sent. Also, later in 1933 she sent a gift to the Holy See–her new two volume translation of St. Thomas Aquinas’s writings.
Stein first met Pacelli in the 1920s, when he gave a speech in Speyer, Germany, at St. Magdalen’s convent. Stein was teaching there at the time, and she warmly saluted Pacelli in the welcoming speech. In her collected letters is one dated November 17, 1940, in which Stein
wrote “Next Sunday we will be united with the Holy Father in the prayer campaign.” In other words, she was working with Pius XII, not against him. Also in Stein’s collected letters there is one dated July 10, 1940, in which she writes of the tremendous Church struggle and “fight” against Nazism and her prediction of the ultimate “victory” of the Church over Nazism.
In her July 10, 1940 letter, Stein recommends a pastoral letter by Bishop Lemmens (her bishop). It was dated February 11, 1939, right after Pius XI’s death, and it repeatedly quoted from papal encyclical Mit brennender Sorge (released in the name of Pius XI, but which we know Pacelli helped draft). In the letter, Stein mentioned that Bishop Lemmens was interrogated by the Nazis, who had just overrun Holland, and she praised him for giving this pastoral letter (written a year earlier) to the Nazis who interrogated him. Stein marveled at his courage, and said how right he was to give this pastoral, so that the Nazis might learn from this letter which repeatedly invoked Mit brennender Sorge.
There have also been other new discoveries this year - all of which show tremendous papal concern for all victims of the Nazis. Among the most important are two letters sent on behalf of Pius XII to a bishop in southern Italy. They contained Vatican money to be spent on behalf of Jewish internees in a concentration camp in the area.
Posted by: Ron Rychlak at Aug 27, 2003 3:59:22 PM
Great points and analysis, Michael.
Ultimately what we have is an attempt to tie the Pope to Hitler for some ulterior motive. These attempts didn't start until far after the war - probably because they had to wait until those who couldn't remember WWII were adults. I think we should all keep in mind some telling quotes and facts:
1) The main Rabbi in Rome converted to Catholicism after WWII because of the Pope's work. Would this be reasonable if the Pius XII was an anti-Semite?
2) The famous quote by Einstein is electrifying because of his earlier remarks: "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 by 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 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 in Kampi und Zeugnis der bekennenden Kirche
3) All of the "evidence" against Pope Pius XII seems to be based on a lack of knowledge. I have yet to hear one person who has something Pius wrote or said that backup these assertions. It's interesting that every discussion on this topic begins from the point of view that Pius was guilty as charged; try 'proving' his guilt if you assume from the start that he was innocent. It's not possible.
As Catholics we should be aware that Christ was persecuted, so His Church (the Body of Christ) will be persecuted likewise. And, therefore, the committed followers of His Church will be persecuted. This is a illegitimate claim against Pius, but ultimately it is a simple persecution of the Church. In the end, Truth will prevail.
Jay
Posted by: Jay at Aug 27, 2003 4:01:57 PM
I recommend caution with that Einstein quote. Note the source: Kampf und Zeugnis der bekennender Kirche. Looks like a reference to the protestants--Bonhoeffer the most famous among them perhaps--who broke with the German state church to oppose the Nazis. In other words, I wonder whether it's the RCC that Einstein is praising here.
I don't have time to check into this point (new baby in the house) but maybe someone else does. A quick internet search shows the quote being used by Catholics to show that the RCC is great and also by Protestants to support Protestantism! We need the original source, I guess.
Posted by: MG at Aug 27, 2003 5:20:02 PM
Pius XII may not have been forceful than he should have been. I have great doubts on whether he should be canonized. But he was not a villian, nor even a bad man, certainly not as Peretz (the guy in charge of the New Republic mag when the bigoted Goldhagen piece ran)charged an "evil man". It is safe to attack Pius XII because a) he is dead and cannot defend himself b)anti-catholic comments can almost always be made without condemnation c) elites expect don't like the RCC and expect the worst of it.
I think it's very telling that Ron Rychlak says "the letter was written to Pius XI, though critics use it against Pius XII" which comes to the crux of the matter. By the time Pacelli came to power the Nazis already ruled Germany. The pope had no army to dislodge him...and yet he is villified more than any person of that era with the exception of Hitler himself. Roosevelt and Churchill also knew of the death camps and they had the armies Pius did not yet there are not books called "Hitler's President" or "Hitler's PM". No one is calling for archives of everything concerning Roosevelt and Churchill bein open and then crying "cover-up!" when they are not. Pius presided over an occupied Rome, Hitler would have had no problem ordering a take-over of the Vatican (and removal of all the Jews within it) yet he is the bad guy...because it is fashionable and acceptable to attack a conservative ascetic cleric where it would not be for a British hero and stirring speaker like Churchill or a liberal American hero like Roosevelt.
Another part of the attack on Pius is that it is a not-so subtle attack on the critic's real enemy the very alive John Paul II. Anyone who has read "Hitler's Pope" knows the last chapter of that book has several sections comparing JP2 to Pius XII, calling them the same kind of man...and this from a book that condemns Pius and makes him partly responsible for the rise of the Nazis. Those so-called Catholic that attack Pius the most Wills, Carroll and Cornwell et al. make no attempt to hide their loathing or contempt for Pope John Paul. But there's nothing they can attack him with other than his conservatism (which is part of his appeal for some) so they compare him to Pius the Twelth who is either (depending on who you read) an Anti-Semite and Nazi appeaser/sympathiser. It was no acccident that 60 minutes aired it's Ed Bradley heavily biased "report" on Pius XII with interviews by Cornwell on the eve of JP2's visit to Jerusalem. Even the show itself admitted they were airing this segment (which uncritically called Pius an anti-semite and a racist as well to boot) to coincide with the greatest pro-Jewish gesture by any pope of modern times. Thats says it all I think. Much of the "Catholic" attacks on Pius have more to do with anti-papal contempt. The jones some Jewish groups have for Pius (there are exceptions like the courageous Rabbi Dalin) I don't know the reason behind.
Posted by: ita o'byrne at Aug 27, 2003 5:46:46 PM
"Silence" seems to be what some people want you to believe was Pius XII's entire reaction to the Jews' suffering during WWII.
2 examples:
During Pope John Paul's historic visit to Israel in March of 2000, Ashkenazi chief rabbi of Israel, Meir Lau, said, "His silence (Pius) is standing on our blood without saying one word to prevent the bloodshed. This has to be condemned by the Church,”. http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2000/03/13/current/fpage_0.htm
Secondly, in a press release from the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the dean and founder of the Center, Rabbi Marvin Hier is quoted as saying, "The facts are that Pius XII was the best informed leader on what was happening in Europe during the Holocaust. Yet unlike many priests and bishops who risked their lives and showed great courage in defying Hitler, the Pope sat in stony silence as millions of Jews were murdered in the death camps,”
http://www.wiesenthal.com/social/press/pr_item.cfm?ItemId=7212
Now I will give a quote from the Catholic League's website, detailing what Pope Pius did when Jews were deported from Vichy France.
"On August 6, 1942, a New York Times headline proclaimed: “Pope is Said to Plead for Jews Listed for Removal from France.” Some writers have questioned this protest, but it is confirmed in a telegram sent from the German ambassador to France. Ambassador Abetz in Paris to the Office of Foreign Affairs, dated August 28, 1942, Akten Zur Deutschen Auswärtigen Politik, 1918-1945, Series E, Band III, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in Göttingen (1974) no. 242 (discussing a protest from the Nuncio regarding the treatment of the Jews, instructions from the Archbishop of Toulouse telling priests “to protest most vehemently from the pulpit against the deportation of the Jews,” and Laval’s protest to the Vatican). Three weeks later, a headline in the New York Times told the story: “Vichy Seizes Jews; Pope Pius Ignored.”
The Pope issued a formal protest to Pétain, instructed the nuncio to issue another protest, and recommended that religious communities provide refuge to Jewish people. In fact, the American press reported that the Pope protested to the Vichy government three times during August 1942, but Vichy officials tried to keep this from the public. This same month, Archbishop Jules Gérard Saliège, from Toulouse, sent a pastoral letter to be read in all churches in his diocese. It said: “There is a Christian morality that confers rights and imposes duties.... The Jews are our brothers. They belong to mankind. No Christian can dare forget that!” L’Osservatore Romano praised Saliège as a hero of Christian courage, and as soon as the war was over, Pope Pius XII named him a cardinal."
I ask you are Pius' actions "silence", worse yet, "stony silence"? Was this "not one word"? When two prominent people use such loaded words that are so obviously contrary to historical fact, what is going on? Even stories from the "newspaper of record", the New York Times, are ignored, dismissed.
Please everyone educate yourself. The Catholic League's website is a great place to start www.catholicleague.org, then go to Research papers. The "silence" characterization of Pius XII is becoming an accepted fact, an urban legend. Counter this evil lie every opportunity you get.
Posted by: Michael at Aug 27, 2003 9:53:49 PM
I had stopped reading this thread a while back. Someone drew it to my attention again.
Brian, you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was not implying that Pius XII cared more for Catholics than Jews. I was saying that his caution in not sending flaming denunciations of the Nazis was understandable: it was more likely to put even more people at risk and not likely to save many, as far as he knew.
And Pius XII was still a man, despite being the Holy Father. He wasn't omniscient. He was doing the best he could with the information he had to work with.
My husband and I went to Italy last year. My husband is Jewish, so we visited synagogues as well as churches. In the synagogue in Florence (the only synagogue in Florence), the guide told us that none of the Florentine Jews died. The citizens of Florence hid and protected the Jews and their religious artifacts. The case in Rome was not so happy, but the Roman people did protect as many of the Jews as they could.
There is so much still coming out about this part of history. St. Anthony Messenger magazine had a piece a few months ago by a man who had been a Catholic youth leader in Germany at the time. He told of how difficult the Nazis made life for Catholics.
And look at all the saints and blesseds from that time. My parish is run by the Marianists and we just celebrated the feast of Blessed Jakob Gupta who the Nazis were so anxious to capture that they lured him from Spain into France to get him. He had been speaking forcefully against the Nazis. And there's St. Maximilian Kolbe. And the Carmelite brother -- I'm blanking on his name -- who was put in a concentration camp because he refused to run Nazi propaganda in the magazine he edited.
In the best of all possible worlds, it would be terrific if Pius XII had a little more courage *and* that this proved to save lives, not endanger even more. But to me, he did the best he could with what he had.
Posted by: Berni at Aug 27, 2003 10:25:20 PM
Peace, all.
I disagree with those who paint opposition to Pius XII as part of an emerging anti-Catholicism. The distress over the man is indicative of a hope. Yes, a hope, that our leaders would be more bold and courageous when confronted by evil.
Spiritually, the problem with Pius's detractors might be uncovered by this question: would you have the courage to go to the camps yourself if confronted by the Nazis? We're all burdened by the notions we hold that our hero, be it Gandhi, Dorothy Day, or Cardinal Ratzinger, will singlehandedly stand down evil and make the world safe -- not for democracy, but our own little chicken farm. I think Pius XII is doubted because he wasn't a hero in the inspirational way other leaders of his day were. But this kind of hero worship can be a danger, for it relieves us from our own need to make a difficult moral stand.
Pius XII was pope for almost twenty very dark years. Was the Church better off in 1958 than in 1939? Was the world? Would the Holy Spirit have inspired a council if we were not in grave trouble after this papacy? Who can know for sure in sorting out all this? Who can know for sure a decision to publicly oppose Hitler and his Italian allies would have been better or worse?
Any person subjected to the process of canonization must have their life scrutinized in great detail. I think eventually the pendulum will rest in the middle on Pius XII: clearly a man something less a martyr and less than a silent collaborator with evil. The worthiness of his sainthood will be seen in the people who revere his memory and seek his intercession. A billion Catholics will decide, not the few grabbing headlines (or looking through archives for them).
A thousand years from now? Anybody remember all the popes from the years of the Black Death? Didn't think so. Pius XII will be a nearly forgotten name on a long list of popes much longer than he will be attacked or defended with this kind of fervor.
Posted by: Todd at Aug 28, 2003 4:16:19 AM
If Pius XII had spoken out forcefully against the Holocaust, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Mit brennender Sorge does not contain the words
Nazi or Jew. He could have been talking about American extermination of the amerindians or
oppression of blacks in the US South.
Oversimplified, the proposition is this:
While the crime of the century was being committed, how could the world's most prominent moral arbiter not condemn this action directly, id-ing perp and victim?
How could Hitler attempt his crazed scheme of world domination and genocide from a nation
whose population was 30% Catholic?
Cornwell's book should have been titled "Hitler's Ideal Pope," since Hitler had the good fortune to face the oppositon of a pope who was by temperament and training not given to decisiveness and confrontation. And that, no more, was Cornwell's conclusion. Why should anyone dispute that?
Pius Xii, Stein, Hitler are dead; the war is long over. But thousand of Holocaust survivors remain, as well as tens of thousands of Jews who lost family and friends. Discretion, prudence, respect, are generally virtues - why not wait a generation after they're all gone before honoring Pius XII and the Holocaust saints. In this, MS O'byrne, JPII is tone-deaf. And there's still the problem of all that Vatican anti-semitism John Allen noted, isn't there?
Posted by: CB at Aug 29, 2003 11:23:43 AM
I find that American Catholics, being Americans, are sorta two beats behind the measure when they think of Vatican policy in Europe 70 or 80 years ago -- or even earlier. Which makes it all the more curious when they want to rush the beat to get Pacelli canonized, or attack his critics or (heaven forfend!) being right.
Going back to Bismarck and even before, the Vatican had fought against German nationalism. The peculiarities of Germany -- all the independent states, like Bavaria, and Germanic countries, like Austria -- make this somewhat different than, say, France, but the basic Vatican policy was simple: the powers the Vatican had, it wanted to hold (like the role of bishops in ruling German states), the powers OVER the Church which medieval authories had and which Bismarck used (like appointing bishops), it wanted to eject.
It was Pacelli who negotiated those deals with German states in the 1920s. In a sense, he took advantage of a defeated Germany to do that -- which is how he thought of it. So it was only natural that he grabbed at the brass ring for the Church in Germany, whcih it had wanted since Bismarck: and got under Hitler. The man who made Hitler chancellor, von Papen, was a Catholic and quote close to Pacelli -- that the Vatican was the first to sign a treaty with Hitler was not an accident.
Mit Brenneder Sorge is VERY late in the process. German bishops had refused to let Catholics wearing swastikas take communion; Pacelli overruled them, in 1933: part of his deal with Hitler.
The point is just simple: there was a chance for the Vatican to respond to a simple and vast moral choice. It failed.
Posted by: theAmericanist at Aug 29, 2003 9:08:20 PM
I should explain the 'being Americans' crack. No Pope has ever determined who would be President in this country, but of course every nation in Europe has a millenia or so of experience with Popes bicking Kings, Queens, barons and whatnot, with bishops scheming with said royalty to become Popes, and so on. The notion of the Church has a primary political player, with territory, taxes and armies, is pretty alien to us -- but is central to the Vatican's policy toward Germany in general, and Pacelli's approach to Hilter in particular.
MANY German Catholics saw it differently. That's why it was such a big deal that Pacelli overruled the German bishops in 1933 who had refused communion to Nazis, why it is so telling that even as Pope, he NEVER excommunicated a single Nazi -- and, in fact, long after the war honored the guy who wangled Hitler into power: von Papen.
MBS was little enough in its own right -- measured in the real context of Pacelli's careeer, raising it as a defense is downright shameful. The Vatican issued it because it HAD to -- because it had so obviously and outrageously miscalculated in 1933.
Yet even at the height of Hitler's power, in 1940-1, the Church PROVED it could have done so much more and chose not to. When Goebbels' euthenasia program, which the Church rightly regarded as evil, began to kill CATHOLICS, German bishops spoke against it -- and it stopped.
But -- not for the Jews. QED.
Posted by: theAmericanist at Aug 29, 2003 9:28:08 PM
I disagree with CB's characterization of Mit brennender Sorge "could have been talking about American extermination of the amerindians or oppression of blacks in the US South". It was written in German when most encyclicals are written in Latin. That in itself is a message to the Nazis. In my previous posts I documented how the Nazis reacted to it. They were furious. No one was wondering who the Pope was writing about, especially not Hitler.
I have to do research on the issues that theAmericanist brought up since they cover a good deal of history from Bismarck to 1940's.
Let me say this, though, my ultimate goal is not to canonize Pius XII. I don't think that sainthood is the mark for me and other pro-Pius posters. Unfortunately I feel that the bar has been set much lower. As I documented in my previous posts, the Wiesenthal Center and the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel claim that he was silent during WWII. I would settle for the man being given a fair shake and not being maligned as some sort of anti-Semite walled off in the Vatican whose chief concern was the Church's power.
Posted by: Michael at Aug 30, 2003 12:28:58 AM
"I would settle for the man being given a fair shake and not being maligned as some sort of anti-Semite walled off in the Vatican whose chief concern was the Church's power."
Fair enough. Pacelli made fashionably anti-Semitic remarks early in his adult life, he lived in the Vatican as Pope (not that this means much, the job does come with a home) and I doubt you can find a single incident throughout his Papacy and before in which his goals or methods can be seen as anything BUT the Church's interests.
Consider a simple test: throughout Europe, a key way the Nazis would round up Jews in a town was to check baptismal records. Obviously, making those records available to the SS was a way to protect Catholics AND, not incidentally, extend the unhealthy relationship Pacelli had established with the Nazis through the 1933 treaty.
Just as obviously, cooperating with the Nazis by providing baptismal records was literally filing the death sentences for the Jews. Did Pacelli deny the Nazis access to baptismal records all over Europe -- which he could easily have done, by simply requiring them all to be sent to Rome. Nope -- with few exceptions (notably by Roncalli, later John XXIII), the Vatican handed 'em over to the SS.
Contrast the King of Denmark who reacted to the Nazi order that Danish Jews wear the yellow star -- by putting one on.
Posted by: theAmericanist at Aug 30, 2003 7:14:25 AM
Pius XII to the Slovak Nazi puppet state in April 1943: "The Holy See has always entertained the firm hope that the Slovak government, interpreting also the sentiments of its own people, Catholic almost entirely, would never proceed with the forcible removal of persons belonging to the Jewish race. It is therefore with great pain that the Holy See has learned of the continued transfers of the Jewish residents of Slovakia, not even sparing women and children. The Holy See would fail in its Divene Mandate if it did not deplore these measures, which gravely damage man in his natural right, merely for the reason that these people belong to a certain race. The pain of the Holy See is even more acute, considering that such measures are carried out among a people of great Catholic traditions, by a government which declares it their follower and custodian."
The historical record is clear: Pius XII, and the Catholic Church, spoke out again and again against the Nazis. The World, as is often the case, did not heed the Church. May I also note the irony, to say the least, that those who chastise Pius XII for allegedly not speaking out, are often the same individuals who pay no heed today to the Church when it speaks out against grave deprivations of human rights, such as abortion.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Aug 30, 2003 7:40:00 AM
As for MIT BRENNDENER SORGE being too bland, it wasn't bland to the Nazis! Copies had to be smmugled into Germany. Priests read it at Mass and some were arrested on the spot. The German printers were arrested and the whole thing suppressed domestically as much as possible.
The suggestion of calling in all the baptismal certificates from all of occupied Europe to deny them to the Nazis is possibly the most bizarre comment to emerge in these discussions. Logistics, anyone? Has the commentator ever seen a German baptismal record? Has he ever seen the ones made under French occupation where the preists were forced to use the Revolutionary calendar? Short of destroying them all there was no way to deny the Nazis these records. But the Church did allow false records to be made that saved lives.
The Concordat of 1933 allowed the Church to name its own bishops and run schools etc. Idf the Church had refused to sign, the Nazis would have had a powerful propaganda tool and yet they knew that signing would protect nothing. The Nazis violated the terms almost immediately.
Please show evidence that the Church was indifferent to the killing of non-Catholic handicapped people.
The religious complexion of a country has very little braking effort on what horrors the powers on charge wish to unleash: genocide in 70% Catholic Rwanda for instance.
Posted by: Sandra Miesel at Aug 30, 2003 9:29:32 AM
"The Concordat of 1933 allowed the Church to name its own bishops and run schools etc. "
Yup, it was a good deal for the Church. What did Hitler get out of it?
I'm not big on shoulda coulda woulda history, but it's simple enough: most preiests and bishops were EAGER to hand baptismal records over to the Nazis, because it was a way to (marginally) protect Catholics, like I said before.
Speaks for itself, don't it?
Posted by: theAmericanist at Aug 30, 2003 2:00:13 PM
Sandra asked: "Please show evidence that the Church was indifferent to the killing of non-Catholic handicapped people."
And Americanist replied, " ".
An oversight, no doubt.
Posted by: Mark Shea at Aug 30, 2003 3:01:04 PM
Could someone care to comment that this whole controversy really got going with the production of Hoschut's (not sure of correct spelling) play "The Representative" in the 1970's which I believe was an attempt to displace the sense of guilt held by the post war generation of Germans about the Holocaust onto the Papacy. If this is correct I find it hard to understand why the Jewish "chattering classes" would jump onto the bandwagon despite the obvious facts of Pius XII's personal efforts on behalf of the Jews during the war, facts attested to by no less an authority than the then Chief Rabbi of Rome. The controversy has now reached the point where one would think that Pius XII was "solely" responsible for the holocaust, as if a maniac like Hitler and his genocidal regime would have "saluted" and stopped their program simply because the Pope asked them to do so. And why is the persecution of the Church under Nazism particularly in Poland never brought into the equation (anyone remember Maximilian Kolbe and Edith Stein???)
Posted by: P borg at Aug 30, 2003 9:10:44 PM
LOL -- Mark, you're just too dumb not to fall for a sucker argument, aren't you?
What I said was, the Church proved in 1940-41, the peak of Nazi power, that it could have been much more effective by being aggressive against the Nazis, which it did -- finally -- when Goebbels euthenasia program started killing crippled Catholics. German bishops spoke out against the Nazis then, and -- unlike 1933 -- Pacelli and the Vatican did not stop 'em.
What Meisel did is known as a transferral, in an argument -- . Rather than speak tthe point I made (the Vatican could have done better with a more aggressive moral stance) and the evidence I cited (what they did, and why, in 1940-41), she changed the subject by asking for evidence that they had failed to speak out against euthenasia against NON-Catholic cripples.
That wasn't my point. And it wasn't my evidence.
LOL -- meanwhile, the guy who agrees with you is concerned about "the Jewish chattering classes".
This ain't complex: Pacelli wanted a straightforward deal with the various German states that the Vatican could appoint its own bishops, etc. He LEAPED at the opportunity to cut a deal with Hitler, to get it -- and even 25 years later, he honored the German Catholic von Papen who quite literally put Hitler into power. He never excommunicated a single Nazi -- not even Hitler himself. But he excommunicated EVERY Catholic who worked for a Communist government.
It was Hitler, not Pacelli, who murdered Europe's Jews, and it was the Nazis, not the Catholic Church, which were primarily responsible. (ANother sucker argument)
But to make sucker arguments to dodge what the Vatican DID do (like overrule the German bishops who had banned swastikas from the communion rail in 1933) is just...
Evil. Get it now?
Posted by: theAmericanist at Aug 30, 2003 10:40:47 PM
Translation: "I can make cavilier historical claims and when asked for documentation I can call people dumb and still not provide any documentation for my claims."
Why so windy, Americanist? Why not just write, "Puny humans. I mock you!"?
Posted by: Mark Shea at Aug 30, 2003 11:51:26 PM
From the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Museum of Tolerance Online, the entry for Pius XII in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust.
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/text/x24/xr2471.html
It seems there is some discrepancy between the Wiesenthal Center's press releases where they describe Pius XII's "stony silence" and this quote (below) "Undoubtedly, the papal protest, along with those of King Gustaf V of Sweden, Anthony Eden, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt, contributed to his decision to stop the transports."
Read the entire entry; it's not favorable towards the pope in many areas, but neither does it support the bogus "silence" charge that has become the accepted wisdom today.
Papal Rescue Activities in Hungary
Throughout the period of the German occupation of Hungary, which began on March 19, 1944, the papal nuncio in Budapest, Angelo Rotta, as well as the pope himself, took measures to help Hungarian Jews. As early as March 24, Rotta advised the Hungarian government to be moderate in its plans concerning the Jews. When this admonition was not heeded, he continued throughout April to approach the Hungarians about their treatment of the Jews. Speaking in the name of the pope, Rotta protested against the planned deportation of the Jews--as it happened, on the very day that they began (May 15, 1944)--but again to no avail. On June 25, the pope himself cabled the Hungarian regent, Miklos Horthy, asking him to reverse Hungarian policy on the Jews. The cable read:
We have been requested from several sides to do everything possible to ensure that the sufferings which have had to be borne for so long by numerous unfortunate people in the bosom of this noble and chivalrous nation because of their nationality or racial origin shall not be prolonged and made worse. Our fatherly heart, in the service of a solicitous charity which embraces all mankind, cannot remain insensitive to these urgent wishes. Therefore I am turning personally to Your Excellency and I appeal to your noble feelings, in full confidence that Your Excellency will do everything in your power to spare so many unfortunate people further suffering.
On July 1, the regent replied to the pope's message:
I received your Holiness's telegraphic message with the deepest understanding and with thankfulness, and I beg you to be convinced that I am doing all in my power to see that the demands of Christian and humane principles are respected. May I be permitted to ask that in the hour of grievous trial Your Holiness may continue to look with favor on the Hungarian people.
Shortly thereafter, on July 7, Horthy ended the first wave of deportations from Hungary. Undoubtedly, the papal protest, along with those of King Gustaf V of Sweden, Anthony Eden, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt, contributed to his decision to stop the transports.
After the Arrow Cross party seized power in Hungary on October 15, Rotta again registered numerous protests on behalf of the Jews. Many of his actions were taken jointly with the representatives of several neutral states. Like them, Rotta issued letters of protection (Schutzpasse) in the name of the Vatican to Jews. These letters helped safeguard some twenty-five hundred Jews from the Arrow Cross reign of terror. All of these acts were significant contributions toward the rescue of the remaining Hungarian Jews.
Posted by: Michael at Aug 31, 2003 12:42:09 AM
The silence of Pope John Paul II in the face of the abortion holocaust in Canada is a disturbing fact of history. While it is true, as some note, that JPII made frequent statements condemning abortion, few of these made specific reference to Canada, one of the first jurisdictions in the world to usher in state-sanctioned abortion; a country where, by the year 2000, more than 100,000 children were being murdered each year. Millions perished this way.
It must be asked: why did not JPII more forcefully condemn Canada and its Prime Ministers of the day, Trudeau, Mulroney and Chretien, by name? Why did he never excommunicate even one of them?
My comment:
I suspect that some of the people who complain that Pius XII didn't speak more forcefully to the Europeans who were ignoring him are busy ignoring JPII today on the question of abortion.
Posted by: Jack Archer at Aug 31, 2003 3:53:34 AM
Mark, this was the "claim" which I made: "Yet even at the height of Hitler's power, in 1940-1, the Church PROVED it could have done so much more and chose not to. When Goebbels' euthenasia program, which the Church rightly regarded as evil, began to kill CATHOLICS, German bishops spoke against it -- and it stopped.
But -- not for the Jews. QED."
Ain't a word in it that's false.
This was the counter which Meisel made: "Please show evidence that the Church was indifferent to the killing of non-Catholic handicapped people."
She wants me to prove a charge I did not make, which if I tried would shift the terms of discussion from what DID happen -- the point I made (which no one disputes, not even you) and the evidence I cited (ditto).
It is a very curious thing when defenders of a Pope wriggle that much on the hook. Makes one wonder about motivation -- what do you know, deep down, which alarms you so?
Let's just tick off what's true: Pacelli knew all about what Hitler and the Nazis were about, well before 1933: he was the Vatican's chief diplomat in the Nazi heartland all through this period -- and, of course, Hitler was himself a Catholic (baptized, anyway) as were others, notably von Papen. So ya can't plead Pacelli's ignorance. He knew... very early.
So the correspondence I'd like to see isn't between Joe Kennedy and Pacelli in 1938, but between von Papen and Pacelli in 1933. From the facts, it surely went more or less like this:
"Eminence, I think Hindenburg will accept Hitler as Chancellor."
Would he accept a concordat with the Church?
"Yes, but there's a problem. He thinks the Church is anti-Nazi.
Why?
"Because the bishops have forbidden those in Nazi uniforms from receiving communion."
Well, I can overrule them. Tell Herr Hitler I will expect something in return..."
All of that happened, in that order: nobody disputes it, cuz it's true. So why don't folks recognize that it's important?
So you can't claim the guy was ignorant, and ya can't claim he wasn't instrumental in Hitler's rise. So his "defense", that a few years later he bitched that you can't trust Hitler, is actually an indictment: PACELLI OVERULED THE GERMAN BISHOPS WHO WANTED TO DRAW A LINE BETWEEN CATHOLICISM AND HITLER WHEN IT WOULD HAVE DONE THE MOST GOOD.
And why did he do that? For the Vatican's temporal power. Get it now?
And even as late as 1940-1, the peak of Nazi power, the Church proved it could do important things -- stopping Goebbels' euthenasia program. Why did it stop THAT one? Because it killed Catholics. Serious historians don't spend time chasing refinements of what folks didn't do, unless it proves something about causality for what they DID do. This one is not a tough call.
And even long after (1957, if memory serves), this Pope honored von Papen. What the hell FOR?
I don't mock 'puny humans', Mark. I call out bullies and cowards, though: as you know. If you have nothing productive to add to a discussion, I suggest you stay out of it -- and when you DO have something to add, say to this one, kindly focus on the point.
If you can. (which I doubt -- your cheering or jeering engine doesn't have a thoughtful gear.)
Posted by: theAmericanist at Aug 31, 2003 7:50:43 AM
Excommunicating Nazis is a red herring inasmuch as Party men had withdrawn from the Church by their beliefs and acts years earlier. Excommunication only works when the target wants to be in the Church.
So why was Jewish opinion so favorable to Pius after the war and up to his death (including praise from Golda Mier) and suddenly once Hochuth's play (THE DEPUTY in the US) comes out, suddenly everyone just knows that Pius was "silent?" What it comes down to now is: he didn't make a grand gesture and get himself martyred so he must have been evil.
As someone in this discussion has mentioned, the real target of HITLER'S POPE and SWORD OF CONSTANTINE is JP II and normative Catholic belief. So the present pope's enemies are trying to smear him, too, for "living a quiet life" as one rabbi put it in an interview. Yes, so quiet as a starving conscript laborer and as a seminarian in a secret program where he could have been shot and participating in cultural activies outlawed by the Nazis. Yes, very quiet.
Posted by: Sandra Miesel at Aug 31, 2003 1:31:00 PM
For shame.
One thing excommunicating Nazis would have one IN 1933, is shown that you could NOT be a Nazi AND a Catholic. But all the Bishops wanted to do was bar swastikas at the communion rail.
Why, WHY, are you trying so hard to deny the obvious?
Posted by: theAmericanist at Aug 31, 2003 4:48:50 PM
The Nazis already taught that you could not be a Nazi and a Christian. They waged a war on the Church from the time they took power. Excommunication would have accomplished nothing other than expanding the body count of the victims of the Nazi. Making an issue of it betrays an astonishing ignorance of the Nazis and the time period.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Aug 31, 2003 7:47:19 PM
theAmericanist: You're saying that Pius XII did not speak up when Jews were being killed, but spoke out effectively against euthanasia and stopped it because Catholics were being killed. Correct me if I am wrong.
Below is an excerpt from an encyclopedia entry written by Michael Marrus, one of the Jewish scholars on the contentiuous, now-defunct joint Catholic-Jewish Vatican Committee.
"Notably, the papacy maintained its reserve not only against Jewish appeals but in the face of others as well. The Holy See turned a deaf ear to anguished calls from Polish bishops to denounce the Nazis' atrocities in Poland; issued no explicit call to stop the so-called euthanasia campaign in the Reich;"
Please interact with the following:
What is your evidence that Pius' appeal stopped the euthanasia program, when Marrus says he didn't even speak out on this?
I assert that Pius clung to an ineffective diplomatic approach and thought if he remained neutral he could mediate a truce. It wasn't as simple as an indifference to Jews' death and speaking up only when Catholics being killed. If that were the case, why did he ignore Cardinal Hlond's appeal?
Marrus says, "Rather, the Vatican's communications, along with other evidence, suggest a resolute commitment to its traditional policy of reserve and conciliation. The goal was to limit the global conflict where possible and above all to protect the influence and standing of the Church as an independent voice."
I have read your comments on the other Pius XII article posted today on Amy's blog. Remember I am not saying Pius was a saint. I do not think criticizing him makes you an "unorthodox" Catholic, but, from all the evidence I have seen, I think that it is inaccurate to call Pius XII silent, anti-Semitic -- that is the false notion I am trying to counter.
The entire Marrus entry is entitled "Understanding the Vatican during the Nazi Period". It says its source is Yad Vashem. http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Holocaust/Marrus.html
Posted by: Michael at Aug 31, 2003 8:09:10 PM
I didn't say Pacelli (I call him that -- it was his name, after all -- to be consistent with his career before the Papacy, and also to make the distinction clear that it is HIM, not the Papacy as such, that we're talking about) stopped the euthenasia program. I said the church did -- notably Bishop von Galen of Munster. Pacelli simply didn't overrule 'em, as he had earlier.
I don't think you and I disagree, exactly: I'm certainly not arguing (as the cracked defenses offered by folks here imply) that Pacelli's approach was EFFECTIVE. Nor do I think "simple" explanations are generally fair.
But I DO believe that what somebody called 'the great tragedy of science: a beautiful hypothesis murdered by an ugly fact', applies to history. Folks arguing for Pacelli have a theory -- that the Vatican did the best it could, that it didn't know, that they did, too, do a lot.
It's all a crock.
The simple facts are that Pacelli knew what the Nazis were. A poster in this thread says in a later one that he is sure that Saint Pius XII is a matter of time (putting his faith in the Vatican where I would think God's judgment counts), citing the views of Pacelli's "contemporaries", notably the Chief Rabbi of Rome, who converted. (I would hope because of Christ, not the Pope: but some folks DO confuse 'em.)
So consider this contemporary judgment of Pacelli: in 1937, Cardinal Faulhaber of Munich said of the 1933 treaty: "At a time when the heads of the major nations in the world faced the new Germany with reserve and considerable suspicion, the Catholic Church, the greatest moral power on earth, through the Concordat, expressed its confidence in the new German government. This was an act of immeasurable significance for the reputation of the new government abroad..."
One reason the Vatican wanted the treaty so badly is pretty decisive that Pacelli knew what Hitler was going to try to do. The Concordat had a secret clause exempting priests from military service -- although, of course, Germany was barred from having an army. And didn't have one -- yet. But hey, the Vatican wanted this treaty: such a deal!
Hard to defend that -- no wonder folks want to make stuff up.
I've already said -- over and over -- the obvious contrast with the German bishops fight against the euthenasia program in 1940-1 (which Pacelli did not overrule), and the support of the church heirarchy (notably von Papen, Bornewasser and Pacelli) for the Nazis in 1933.
But I dunno as I'd hold up Hlond as a model. This is the Pole who said -- at the very lip of the Holocaust! -- that "There will be a Jewish problem as long as the Jews remain."
Brrr.
Posted by: theAmericanist at Aug 31, 2003 9:24:55 PM
LOL -- and as for "astonishing ignorance" of the Nazis and the time period, German bishops HAD voted to ban Nazi Party members from the Catholic Church in 1933. Those wearing swastikas were forbidden to receive Communion.
Of course, not ALL German bishops agreed. Some, like Bornewasser, were bluntly pro-Nazi. Other prominent Catholics, specifically von Papen, were decisive in getting Hitler into power -- despite the fringe minority status of the Nazi Party in the Reichstag.
And what did the Vatican do?
Did Pacelli -- who knew the Nazis through his work in Bavaria -- say these anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic barbarians cannot possibly be Catholics; the anti-Nazi bishops are right, let's take a decisive stand against 'em, no swastikas at the communion rail, lead the world in the path of righteousness for His Name's sake?
Nope.
Pacelli over-ruled the German bishops who denied Communion to those wearing swastikas. He never excommunicated a single Nazi Catholic -- and, puhleeze, let's stop with the notion that the point of excommunication is moot if somebody (like Hitler) is lapsed. (Swastikas at the COMMUNION RAIL?)
That's like saying the point of canonization is to determine if somebody's soul achieved salvation -- what planet are you living on?
Posted by: theAmericanist at Aug 31, 2003 10:17:48 PM
Dear TAm,
As there is no reaching you in the fortress/prison that you have made of your mind, and as you seem to be bent on "having the last word" on this subject in some sort of mechanics of exhaustion, I see no real need to counter your many spurious claims and arguments here. But one thing that does stand out from the historic records of the time is that the Church and Pius XII were universally hailed by those who actually fought and suffered under real Nazis (as apposed to the creampuffs between your ears). I have yet to see any evidence of your heroism, but that has not kept you from judging men and woman who, for all of their possible mistakes, have faced dangers that would make you seek your underwear draw - you who can't even bring yourself to state your real name online! Why don't you go crawl back under your rock?
Posted by: John Hearn at Sep 2, 2003 1:31:20 PM
LOL -- you haven't been around here long, have you, John?
I use "theAmericanist" because it denotes the only U.S.-based heresy ever formally condemned by the Vatican. If you have any particular desire to know me personally, just use the email address, which (as it happens) is my real name.
If there IS any of this which you find spurious (I doubt it), it'd help if you said what it is: did NO German bishops ban swastikas from the Communion rail in 1933? That would be news to William Shirer, who wrote about it at the time, and later in his definiative history.
Are you claiming that there was no Vatican Concordat with Hitler? Odd.
Or perhaps you dispute that von Papen was the power broker for Hitler becoming chancellor -- take that up with Shirer, if you like, or any other historian I know of.
Do you find it 'spurious' that there was a secret provision to the Concordat whcih exempted Catholic priests from military service? No one else does: kindly explain why?
LOL -- I appreciate that some Catholics' faith is SO shaky that it cannot allow for any reality checks regarding the Vatican's record, but this is really too much.
And, of course I should think Bishop Faulhaber (who was in Munich throughout this time) qualifies as someone acquainted with "real Nazis", wouldn't you?
Posted by: theAmericanist at Sep 2, 2003 4:13:31 PM
Oops -- CARDINAL Faulhaber. (It's an unknown, of coruse, but I'd be curiuos if he voted for Pacelli to become Pope.)
Posted by: theAmericanist at Sep 2, 2003 4:19:46 PM
I know very well why you use that silly/sad moniker and every single one of your "points" has been answered many times by many different people on many different blogs, but don't you think that it is a rather strange occupation for a man to make an avocation out of attacking the memories of other men who, being dead, cannot fight back? What is your point? If all that slander you peddle, as historic truth was just that, would it show that the Church has taught error? Our Lord never said that His Church would be impeccable only inerrant in its doctrine. And yet the Church actually did save hundreds of thousands from the clutches of the Hitler's minions - more than any government or any other group. What makes you think that you would have done half as good if you had been pope in that dark and dangerous time? I sincerely doubt it, and I don't think that I would have done as well either.
Why don't you take some time to step back from all of this disputation and spend some time with Our Lord? Is what you are doing here really worth the precious time that He has given you? I detect in you an anger that is tending towards bitterness - is that any way to live? Remember what Jesus said about those who are heavily laden, "come onto me and I will give you rest."
Posted by: John Hearn at Sep 2, 2003 4:53:40 PM
Hmm... methinks you project a bit.
I'm not aware I've said anything libelous at all (except, I suppose, noting in public that somebody who posts here is a bully and a coward, but for libel as for slander: truth is a valid defense).
But your question deserves an answer, and I don't know why you didn't answer your self: These things are true -- the most prominent German Catholic not ordained, von Papen, brokered Hitler's entry into power. (This doesn't mean he made him dictator, just Chancellor: von Papen, too, thought he could handle the guy.) No sooner had Hitler become Chancellor, than the Vatican cut a deal with him, the Concordat which Pacelli had sought for a decade. Kinda thing that makes you say, Hmmm.... and, of course, a quarter century or so later (after all that unpleasantness), Pacelli as Pope actually HONORS von Papen. (The kinda thing that makes ya puke.)
That all being historic fact (and, I note, undisputed by anybody here), JH's question becomes acute: " [W]ould it show that the Church has taught error?"
Depending of course on what ya mean by 'taught', the short answer is: of course not. Conservatives more than liberals are famous for picking on priests and bishops (although not Popes, for the same historical reasons) for knuckleheaded notions of economic or social justice, yet many of these folks remain resounding Catholics and orthodox as an icon. To take a leftist example, I dunno many Catholics who think joining a union is a sin.
Which is why I have (with Amy's generosity), used her blog to test-drive "theAmericanist" concept. Leo XIII was the Pope who condemned the Americanist heresy, but he was remarkably coy about what, exactly, the heresy WAS. So after a fair amount of research (including a biography of Hecker, and considering the Marian aspects of it all), I take the conservative view that "Americanism" at the time (1899) denoted the idea (which Leo condemned, remember) that the separation of Church and State, free speech, religious liberty and the like, are at all compatible with Catholic doctrine. If you believe that, you're a heretic.
(Technically, I'm not. But Jack Miles encouraged me at a key moment: Why be merely lapsed when you can revive a distinguished heresy? LOL -- he wasn't serious, and neither -- entirely -- am I.)
But when I realized what the heresy was, I thought: That's me. I'm an Americanist. And so are most Catholics I know -- including a # of folks who post here, who are downright horrified at the Notion. (Rod is more alarmed by the hour, some days.)
But you see it all the time, including not only the vast #s of Catholics who don't buy the idea that condoms (or fellatio, for that matter), for example, are the moral equivalent of abortion, but also a good many conservative Catholics who are all for the sexual teachings of the Church yet (like Scalia) are happy to support the death penalty and oppose social justice teachings.
Which comes back to Pacelli -- not so much his record, but the move to canonize him. It's just weird -- I agree with Amy who agreed with somebody who wondered, just what DO passionate proponents of his canonization see in this guy?
I think Donald Mac nailed it: he (like Hearn) doesn't want to be bothered defending Pacelli's actual record as Pope, much less as diplomat. Everything said in Pacelli's defense is a bald and false assertion about secondary issues -- what he said in in 1935 or 1938, not what he knew in 1933, and did anyway -- and why. (The conversion of the Chief Rabbi in Rome, oy gevalt.)
Instead, Pacelli's defenders want all this to be about JPII and abortion.
I doubt there COULD be a more telling criticism of the Roman Catholic Church than that.
John: why would you ask me a question you've never asked yourself?
Posted by: theAmericanist at Sep 2, 2003 5:18:46 PM
