As mentioned back in October, international debating forum Intelligence Squared invited John Julius Norwich, Geoffrey Robertson, Ronald Rychlak, and First Things regular William Doino to speak on the contentious motion, “Pius XII did too little to save the Jews from the Holocaust” on November 14 in London.
Each speaker was given about ten minutes to make his argument (with Norwich and Robertson in the affirmative and Doino and Rychlak in the negative), after which audience members were allowed to pose questions. A vote was taken both before and after the debate: before any arguments were made, the count stood 146 in the affirmative, 41 in the negative, and 170 undecided, and afterward 227 in the affirmative, 103 in the negative, and 28 undecided.
You can watch the entire debate below:
or just Doino’s remarks (he spoke directly after Norwich, and so first spends some time rebutting some of his claims):
Doino, author of The Pius War: Responses to the Critics of Pius XII, has written in defense of Pius XII for First Things here and with Professor Rychlak here. Much has been written about the controversial WWII primate, some of which can be found right here in our archives.
December 3rd, 2012 | 1:26 pm
The fact that Prof. Rychlak and Mr. Doino “lost” does not necessarily mean that the other side–neither of whom are scholars or serious historians–delivered a stronger case. “Intelligence Squared” debates in London are usually frequented by hard left and anti-religious types who can be expected to vote for their side.
December 3rd, 2012 | 3:41 pm
I don’t put anything into the public vote at the presentation. One hour of “balanced” argumentation a la Fox makes for only a beginning on the topic.
I am distressed by the grandstanding by the pro side. Their argument is empty based on what was not said. The pope condemns the exterminations and is condemned for not explicitly using the words “Jew” or “gas chambers”. No doubt, if he used the word “Jew”, he would have been condemned for not naming any. He is condemned for not specifically holding a Requiem mass for the Jews. Hunh? is my only response. Non-Catholics think it is immoral not to hold Requiem masses for non-Catholics? I can’t but wonder had he held such masses, he would be condemned for defaming the Holocaust by seeking the post facto conversion of those who died.
Perhaps the biggest surprise was the claim that the pope’s uncertainty about Palestine as the Jewish homeland makes him complicit in the Holocaust. What does that say about those today who think that Israel should stop “oppressing” the Palestinian Arabs? The pope seems prescient in retrospect.
And then there is the big surprise that Hitler was a Catholic. It is true that he was raised in the Church, but also clear that it didn’t take as he attempted to establish a neo-pagan (his words) religion of the Aryan people. The idea that infant baptism is a magical life-long conversion is just ludicrous especially given these times.
All that said, Doino would have strengthened his argument for the audience had he not become so vehement on certain points. But then, he spoke out against the nonsense offered.
December 3rd, 2012 | 4:07 pm
The Englishmen were lacking in data, but eloquent in conspiriacies. They obviously had a bug about the Catholic church. The left touts themselves as fact driven, only when the facts benefit their cause. Doinio was whipping out facts, the twin Englishmen were whipping out fee-fi-fo-fums.
Nevertheless, it is a hard debate, since the Englishmen can still move the goalposts. At least they admit he is no longer “Hitler’s Pope”, but he will never have said “enough”, even with each document that shows he was saving Jewish lives, well, yeah but he didn’t do this or that. . . it is like a woman in an abusive relationship who never does good enough and is locked in a cycle of trying to do better but never meets expectations.
John Julius and Geoffy had much better hair than the Yanks. Maybe that is why they won.
December 3rd, 2012 | 4:55 pm
In the prefaces to his books, John Julius Norwich states that he is not a professional historian. He is a lively writer and his books on Norman Sicily and the Byzantine Empire are a joy to read. However, he is anti-Catholic and makes no secret of it. His prejudice sticks in his craw.
December 3rd, 2012 | 8:55 pm
@Meg,
I have John Julius Norwich’s book on the Byzantine Empire on my shelves, but I have not yet read it. I couldn’t have been less impressed with his performance in this exchange, however. I was about to toss it, but after reading your comment I thought I would ask you if it is truly worth the read as history. (FWIW, I am Eastern Orthodox)
December 3rd, 2012 | 9:37 pm
Sorry, I meant that for Peg, not Meg.
I have not studied this topic in the least and so I was quite open to either side. I was very impressed with Mr. Julius’ opener…until hearing Mr. Doino. I would have voted against the motion.
I would just like to hear what other commenters think about the presentation of the various speakers. Obviously, Mr. Doino is impassioned and talks quickly and without polish, especially when compared to his opponents. But the applause lines and sentimentality that Mr. Robertson and Mr. Norwich reached for I found unbearable. It stuck me as rather oily. Again, I’m just talking about presentation here and not the question of the debate, but I regarded the affirmative side as especially unlikeable. And yet, that kind of presentation is regarded with some pride among my English friends. Just curious what folks think.
December 4th, 2012 | 5:55 am
Dimitri is right: Doino could have produced verified video of Pius XII standing athwart the railroad tracks into Birkenau, and much this crowd would have been unswayed. Best to watch the video, ignore the vote, and make up your own mind.
December 4th, 2012 | 8:04 am
@Douglas Johnson,
Sure, read and enjoy Norwich’s book on Byzantium (I take it you have the “shorter” version, not the multi-tomed set). I think it can give a useful introduction to a 1,000-year Christian empire of which most of us know little.
He is not and does not claim to be a professional historian, though, so I would not cite his work in a scholarly paper.
He writes with a stereotypical English understated humor that sometimes made me laugh out loud. He can describe beauty and art in a way that made me want to hop on a plane to see the place or the mosaic myself.
Norwich is the son of Duff and Diana Cooper, who were proto-celebrities in the early to mid-20th century—aristocratic socialites who hobnobbed with diplomats and the literati. They figured often in the private correspondence of Evelyn Waugh and Nancy Mitford. That is where I came across references to their son, John Julius. I think he intended a diplomatic career for himself, and studied Russian at Oxbridge.
I wanted to like him, but his prejudice against Catholicism seeps out here and there in his books, and then I have read interviews with him in which he clearly expresses a contempt that borders on hatred. I remember thinking he needed an intervention before he popped a vein or something. Pity.
December 4th, 2012 | 9:27 am
In answer to Douglas,
I cringed a number of times during the affirmative presentations. There is, of course, the emptiness arguments. But first, were the forced emotions, that is, they told us, the audience, what we should feel. My automatic reaction when I hear that in ads is “Cut that out. I’ll feel for myself, thank you.” More important, was the framing. Rather than start with data and show how it leads to a conclusion, they stated with conclusions and then presented data that didn’t contradict the conclusion. That’s a form of propaganda.
I am sorry to say, I also cringed when Doino became impassioned. I understand why and his motives are admirable, but it is counter persuasive as it seems knee-jerk, which the affirmative played up.
Which leads to the ugliest stream in the whole show. The negative noted the witness who claims the Soviets supported Hochhuth’s play. In reply, the affirmative argues that the negative must be McCarthyites for suggesting the point. Talk about underhanded ad hominem, doing the very thing you accuse your opponents of doing. They did it with some subtlety, but they did it none the less.
December 4th, 2012 | 12:15 pm
@Peg,
Wow, anything messy in England always seems to include the Mitford sisters somehow. What a mess. They must have been beautiful.
December 4th, 2012 | 12:19 pm
@Mike Melendez,
I forget who, but someone on the affirmative said all the leading Nazis were Catholics (and the implication wasn’t that they were only baptised as such, but were Catholics though and through). I listened to it last night and that’s the point that sticks with me today. Whoever said it, there’s just no need to listen to anything else once he’s made that point.
December 4th, 2012 | 1:32 pm
@Douglas,
It is pretty absurd, isn’t it. I only remember that Goring was supposedly a churchgoer according to the affirmative. The bulk probably made no pretensions at all that they were Catholic. The statement fits the “Big Lie” approach to propaganda.
December 4th, 2012 | 2:09 pm
Writing as a member of the audience at the Pius debate, I detected from the very first moments of the evening – even before the protagonists had appeared – that large sections of the audience had come with anti-Catholic, indeed, anti-papal assumptions. I was informed by a lady sitting next to me that she had been a student of Fine Arts, had written a dissertation on aspects of the Italian Renaissance and was, therefore, justified in her opinion ie that the popes were ‘a bad lot’.
The motion itself, I felt, was unfortunately worded as the phrase ‘too little’ carries a message that suited the affirmative argument before a word was uttered. Even Pius XII had said when congratulated on what he had done for Jews during the war, that he wished he had been able to do more.
In that sense, the motion was a stalking-horse, disguising the real intent of Messrs Norwich and Robertson. It was obvious from the outset that they had been mesmerised by the now-outdated thesis of John Cornwell: that Pius was indeed ‘Hitler’s Pope’ and his papacy had provided fertile ground for the abominations of Nazi racial ideology.
The fact that John Cornwell himself later retreated from his original condemnatory opinions did not appear on the affirmative radar.
As you can gather, I was delighted with the combined efforts of Bill Doino and Professor Rychlak in combating rhetorical flourishes with hard fact, bolstered by the use of contemporary documents when needed to back up a point. That they ‘lost’ the motion is not the main issue here. Their arguments certainly provided food for thought and further reflection among those who had assumed, from the outset, that Pius was guilty of silence and inaction during the ravages of the the Holocaust.
December 4th, 2012 | 4:22 pm
Do we know what Pius XII himself thought of his actions during World War II and the Holocaust? Did he think he did too little, just enough, or did he think his actions were heroic?
Check out The Vatican and the Holocaust: A Preliminary Report by the International Catholic-Jewish Historical Commission, which begins:
December 4th, 2012 | 8:04 pm
In retrospect, how many leaders of the time did “enough”? Churchill? Roosevelt? The French, before or after Vichy? Orwell complained that many in England, weary of the war, were saying that the war worked only to the benefit of the Jews. Orwell was outraged, since these were fellow leftists saying these things, but it may be that Norwich and friend were simply expressing subconscious guilt at their own ancestors’ insufficient efforts.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact