The Real Pius XII
Aug 2, 2011
William Doino Jr.
In 1939, on the eve of World War II, Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain published a book stating that anti-Semitism had become a “pathological phenomenon.”
Maritain’s warning was welcomed by concerned believers, and even the secular press. The New York Times praised Maritain’s insight that “hatred of Jews and hatred of Christians spring from a common source; and the same men who began persecuting Jews are now persecuting Christians, and more or less for the same reason.”
The “common source” Maritain was speaking about, of course, was the biblical heritage Jews and Christians shared, then under furious attack. Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin all wanted to annihilate it, one way or the other.
Standing against their aims was Maritain’s own Church -- and this in spite of the many failures and hesitations within its own community. “No matter what critics might say,” commented Time, in 1943, “it is scarcely deniable that the Church Apostolic, through the encyclicals and other papal pronouncements, has been fighting against totalitarianism more knowingly, devoutly and authoritatively, and for a longer time, than any other organized power.” Instead of the violence of Marxism, it went on, “the Catholic Church wants a conservative reconstitution of society in the name of God, justice, peace. Moreover, it insists on the dignity of the individual whom God created in his own image and for a decade has vigorously protested against the cruel persecution of the Jews as a violation of God’s Tabernacle.”
This is sometimes forgotten today, often by those who never miss a chance to throw barbs at the papacy. The New York Times—having largely abandoned its respect for the Judeo-Christian tradition—has taken the lead in this turn against the Catholic Church. In a mocking cover story for its Sunday Book Review (July 10th), Times editor Bill Keller endorsed John Julius Norwich’s shoddy Absolute Monarchs: A History of the Papacy, claiming Pius XI and especially Pius XII were “compliant enablers” of Hitler and fascism. Norwich claims absurdly that these popes “together cleared the way for the unobstructed advance of Nazism—and of its treatment of the Jews.”
If there is one person who should know about the papacy’s role against fascism and Nazism, it is Bill Keller. It was Keller, after all, who wrote the introduction to a coffee table size book and dvd set, The New York Times: The Complete Front Pages, 1851-2009. Surely, he is aware, then, of the front page, above-the-fold-headline of October 28, 1939, published soon after the War began? “Pope Condemns Dictators, Treaty Violators, Racism; Urges Restoring of Poland.” It hailed Pius XII’s first encyclical, Summi Pontificatus, followed by a story that read:
Presenting a picture of contemporary life as devastating as any of the Old Testament prophets could have drawn, the Pontiff proclaimed his determination to step forward boldly….Racism, the violation of treaties, recourse to arms, the forcible transfer of populations, the destruction of Poland—these and many principles dear to fascism are condemned….It is Germany that stands condemned above any country or any movement in this encyclical-the Germany of Hitler and National Socialism.”
This is the act of a “compliant enabler”?
Assuming Keller is familiar with the history of the Times, he would know that its wartime correspondents, Anne O’Hare McCormick and Camille Cianfarra, wrote many dispatches documenting the papacy’s stand against the dictators, and the Holy See’s assistance to their victims. In his book, The Vatican and the War, Cianfarra testified: “The covering of Vatican and Italian news for The Times gave me the opportunity of being an eyewitness to the struggle that both Pius XI and Pius XII waged against Nazism and Fascism….I heard those two pontiffs condemn time and time again the totalitarian system of government.” Reporting from liberated Rome, McCormick noted how Vatican City had become a sanctuary for Jews and others during the German occupation, crediting Pius XII: “What the Pope did was to create an attitude in favor of the persecuted and hunted that the city was quick to adapt, so that hiding someone ‘on the run’ became the thing to do.”
The Times was not alone in its favorable coverage of Pius XII. The Jewish War Veterans of the United States –among the oldest such organizations in the country—and its publication, the Jewish Veteran, took the lead. In its March 1939 issue, just as Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli became Pius XII, the Jewish Veteran welcomed the breaking news with an editorial entitled, “Hail Pope Pius XII!” Its April issue went further:
The anti-Semitic clique in the Fascist party, headed by Roberto Farinacci, was shocked by the election of Cardinal Pacelli by unanimous vote in the third ballot, as the new Pope. His election is however a source of great satisfaction to Jews. Pope Pius XII is known as a staunch friend of Jews and on several occasions expressed his strong opposition to the persecution of Jews in Germany and Italy. In accordance with his instructions, as Papal Secretary to the late Pope Pius XI, distinguished Jewish visitors to theVatican were served with kosher food. Known as a vigorous champion of the Vatican’s anti-Nazi policy, the anti-Semitic Fascists tried hard to prevent Cardinal Pacelli’s election. Their failure demonstrates the lack of influence of anti-Semites in the princes of the Catholic Church.
One reason Pacelli affirmed his Jewish brethren was because he shared the same religious vision of Dietrich von Hildebrand (1889-1977), the great anti-Nazi Catholic philosopher (condemned to death by Hitler), whom Pacelli befriended while serving as papal nuncio in Munich and Berlin. As the philosopher’s wife, Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, recently told me: “Pacelli, like my husband Dietrich, abhorred anti-Judaism—not just racial anti-Semitism-- recognizing that Old Testament Judaism is the foundation on which Christianity stands, and that the Nazi assault upon Judaism—profoundly evil in itself—was also an attack on the roots of Christianity.”
Significantly, she continued, when von Hildebrand travelled to Rome in 1935—by which time Pacelli had become Cardinal Secretary of State to Pius XI—“my husband went with the exclusive purpose to question His Eminence on his views about Nazism and its anti-Semitic philosophy. He requested, and soon obtained, a private audience. Dietrich immediately saw that the Cardinal totally shared his detestation of Nazism animated by a deadly hatred of the chosen people who, according to God’s divine plans, gave us the Savior of the world.”
In fact, in 1966, during the height of the anti-Pius campaign—provoked by Rolf Hochhuth’s notorious play, The Deputy—Dietrich von Hildebrand gave a moving statement to biographer G.M. Tracy, who was trying to set the record straight:
He was an open enemy of National Socialism as early as Hitler’s 1923 Putsch, and I spoke to him often in Munich about National Socialism. During my private audience in Rome with him, after he became a Cardinal, His Eminence told me that Nazism was as opposed to Catholicism ‘as fire and water’ and added ‘they could never be reconciled.’I am overjoyed that you have undertaken a biography of this great Pope, especially because of the atrocious caricature that Hochhuth created, aided by statements of the very dubious Bishop Hudal [a German collaborator]. Hudal wrote a book in which he tried to prove that National Socialism and Christianity could get along together. This book incurred the disdain of Pius XII and Hudal wanted to avenge himself on Pius by slandering him in a completely false way to Hochhuth. It would be impossible to create a more false depiction of Pius than the one created by Hochhuth.
Unless, of course, Dietrich had lived to read today’s New York Times.
William Doino Jr. is a contributor to Inside the Vatican magazine,
among many other publications, and writes often about religion, history
and politics. He contributed an extensive bibliography of works on Pius XII to The Pius War: Responses to the Critics of Pius XII.
RESOURCES
Alice von Hildebrand, The Soul of a Lion: Dietrich von Hildebrand
G.M. Tracy, Decouverté de Pie XII, ce qu’on n’a jamais dit
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
8.2.2011 | 12:35pm
William Doino says:
"Words are cheap."
Indeed, and none more so than those which are uninformed.
Pius XII not only spoke out, but was involved in a plot to overthrow Hitler, held in high esteem by the anti-Nazi resistance, remained in occupied Rome despite threats to kidnap him, and took many actions to protect and rescue the persecuted.
Von Hildebrand's testimony is not cheap, but borne out of his personal experience with Pius XII, before and after he became pontiff. It stands, and will not be undermined by those trying to resurrect "The Deputy" myth.
Indeed, and none more so than those which are uninformed.
Pius XII not only spoke out, but was involved in a plot to overthrow Hitler, held in high esteem by the anti-Nazi resistance, remained in occupied Rome despite threats to kidnap him, and took many actions to protect and rescue the persecuted.
Von Hildebrand's testimony is not cheap, but borne out of his personal experience with Pius XII, before and after he became pontiff. It stands, and will not be undermined by those trying to resurrect "The Deputy" myth.
8.2.2011 | 12:43pm
Don Schenk says:
Pius XII saved more Jewish lives than all of his critics put together; read Rabbi David G. Dalin's "The Myth of Hitler's Pope" if you doubt that.
Recently the Israeli ambassador to the Vatican said so. But which hater would listen to honest men like him?
Recently the Israeli ambassador to the Vatican said so. But which hater would listen to honest men like him?
8.2.2011 | 12:56pm
Wendy says:
Oddly enough, though, Fascism arose precisely, in Rome, with Mussolini; who in fact signed a mutual non-interference treaty with the Vatican, c. 1929: the Lateran Treaty. Thanks to countless accomodations between Catholicism and Fascism, Mussolini was able to reign in Rome, for quite some time.
Then too? Hitler himself, historians say, was a Catholic choir boy; he rose to power in the southern part of Germany (Munich, etc.), which is heavily Catholic. Worse? His message of hate against the Jews, closely matched a very common Catholic homily: the homily that sought to set up strong distinctions between Catholicism and Judaism, in part by saying that "the Jews killed Jesus." Demonizing Jews in a way which could be seen enacted in Gernany, in the Passion Plays.
So that? Catholicism did not interfere with Hitler's rise to power ... until partially. Only in isolated, misrepresentative (if much-quoted) individuals. And much too late. WHile overall? The prevailing pattern was ... overwhelmingly, accomodation between the CHurch, and Mussolini and Hitler.
Some Popes and other Catholics at times, tried to cover themselves, by making one or two statements, against racism, anti-semitism. But that was not the pattern that was to prevail.
Then too? Hitler himself, historians say, was a Catholic choir boy; he rose to power in the southern part of Germany (Munich, etc.), which is heavily Catholic. Worse? His message of hate against the Jews, closely matched a very common Catholic homily: the homily that sought to set up strong distinctions between Catholicism and Judaism, in part by saying that "the Jews killed Jesus." Demonizing Jews in a way which could be seen enacted in Gernany, in the Passion Plays.
So that? Catholicism did not interfere with Hitler's rise to power ... until partially. Only in isolated, misrepresentative (if much-quoted) individuals. And much too late. WHile overall? The prevailing pattern was ... overwhelmingly, accomodation between the CHurch, and Mussolini and Hitler.
Some Popes and other Catholics at times, tried to cover themselves, by making one or two statements, against racism, anti-semitism. But that was not the pattern that was to prevail.
8.2.2011 | 12:57pm
EWH says:
Uninformed? My thesis in this area would beg to differ.
The evidence in your article is threadbare. Encyclicals, statements and New York Times editorials don't show action.
The evidence in your article is threadbare. Encyclicals, statements and New York Times editorials don't show action.
8.2.2011 | 1:04pm
EWH says:
@Don Schenk
The Israeli ambassador to the Vatican said so? Now there's a guy with no motivation whatsoever to say nice things about the place where he's assigned to keep diplomatic relations.
And "hater?" Seriously, that's all you got?
The Israeli ambassador to the Vatican said so? Now there's a guy with no motivation whatsoever to say nice things about the place where he's assigned to keep diplomatic relations.
And "hater?" Seriously, that's all you got?
8.2.2011 | 1:19pm
Gabriel Sanchez says:
EWH,
You hide behind initials, so it's impossible for me or anyone else to read your alleged thesis. Do you have a citation? I assume a copy should be available through one of the commercial databases or, if not there, through interlibrary loan. I would be more than happy to read your thesis if you can supply me with the necessary information to locate it.
The problem with your terse replies is that they, too, are "threadbare." But more criticially, you are demanding a massive examination of the evidence concerning Pius XII on a blog post that was meant to suggest critical weaknesses in both the NYT's coverage of Catholics and Norwich's book. That's disingenous. There are enough pinpoints in this post to books, articles, and historical events to lead an interested reader to engage the sources. Moreover, Don Schenk has suggested one piece of secondary literature someone might want to consult on this topic.
Wendy,
Hitler ate steak. Ergo, all steak eaters are Nazis.
I'm not sure what another recitation of the reducto ad Hitlerum is going to prove or, for that matter, attempts to imply guilt by association. I'm not sure what the Catholic Church was supposed to do during Hitler's rise to power except exhort its faithful not to follow National Socialism while pointing out the manifest failings of totalitarianism and other troubling social movements. As Stalin once observed, the Papacy was light on divisions.
You hide behind initials, so it's impossible for me or anyone else to read your alleged thesis. Do you have a citation? I assume a copy should be available through one of the commercial databases or, if not there, through interlibrary loan. I would be more than happy to read your thesis if you can supply me with the necessary information to locate it.
The problem with your terse replies is that they, too, are "threadbare." But more criticially, you are demanding a massive examination of the evidence concerning Pius XII on a blog post that was meant to suggest critical weaknesses in both the NYT's coverage of Catholics and Norwich's book. That's disingenous. There are enough pinpoints in this post to books, articles, and historical events to lead an interested reader to engage the sources. Moreover, Don Schenk has suggested one piece of secondary literature someone might want to consult on this topic.
Wendy,
Hitler ate steak. Ergo, all steak eaters are Nazis.
I'm not sure what another recitation of the reducto ad Hitlerum is going to prove or, for that matter, attempts to imply guilt by association. I'm not sure what the Catholic Church was supposed to do during Hitler's rise to power except exhort its faithful not to follow National Socialism while pointing out the manifest failings of totalitarianism and other troubling social movements. As Stalin once observed, the Papacy was light on divisions.
8.2.2011 | 1:32pm
Brian English says:
"Uninformed? My thesis in this area would beg to differ."
You wrote a thesis on this issue and you are still this ignorant? Try reading Rabbi Dalin's book, or Michael Burleigh's Sacred Causes, or the Pius Wars book Mr. Doino served as the editor for.
"Hitler himself, historians say, was a Catholic choir boy;"
Which means what exactly? Hitler and his henchmen despised the Church, and looked forward to its eventual destruction. Catholic teachings had nothing to do with their views and actions towards the Jews.
"Demonizing Jews in a way which could be seen enacted in Gernany, in the Passion Plays."
Passion Plays had been performed since the Middle Ages. Suddenly, in the 20th century, they caused the Holocaust? You don't see a problem with your causation chain?
For an analysis of the relationship between the Church and Jewish communities in the early-Middle Ages, you should take a look at In the Year 1096 -- The First Crusade & the Jews, by Robert Chazan.
You wrote a thesis on this issue and you are still this ignorant? Try reading Rabbi Dalin's book, or Michael Burleigh's Sacred Causes, or the Pius Wars book Mr. Doino served as the editor for.
"Hitler himself, historians say, was a Catholic choir boy;"
Which means what exactly? Hitler and his henchmen despised the Church, and looked forward to its eventual destruction. Catholic teachings had nothing to do with their views and actions towards the Jews.
"Demonizing Jews in a way which could be seen enacted in Gernany, in the Passion Plays."
Passion Plays had been performed since the Middle Ages. Suddenly, in the 20th century, they caused the Holocaust? You don't see a problem with your causation chain?
For an analysis of the relationship between the Church and Jewish communities in the early-Middle Ages, you should take a look at In the Year 1096 -- The First Crusade & the Jews, by Robert Chazan.
8.2.2011 | 1:53pm
EWH says:
@Gabriel Sanchez - I "hide behind initials?" How is it that you, Don, and Doino cannot handle criticism without lashing out at the critic? I raise the thesis point to show Doino that he shouldn't assume that just because someone disagrees with him, that person must be uninformed. There are learned people out there who have varying opinions. Oddly enough, 1930-1940s Europe is my specialty as a trained historian, so Doino's remark is doubly mistaken.
More importantly, your criticism is disingenous. I do not in any way care for Doino to conduct a "massive examination of the evidence." I merely point out that his article is unconvincing. The point that the NYT's treatment has been inconsistent is well taken; but let's not beat around the bush here. Pius XII is in the news because it has been suggested that he be canonized. I think the latent purpose of the article is to rehabilitate Pius' legacy (e.g., Doino writes: "This is the act of a compliant enabler?"). I don't think the article gets there.
But Doino makes my point for me. In his response to my comment, he says:
"Pius XII not only spoke out, but was involved in a plot to overthrow Hitler, held in high esteem by the anti-Nazi resistance, remained in occupied Rome despite threats to kidnap him, and took many actions to protect and rescue the persecuted."
Evidence of this is what critics have been looking for. If the evidence for Doino's statements was as strong as he claims, I doubt the NYT would be making the claims it does. It would also be easy for Doino to cite to good sources for these actions in his article.
Let's lay it all out there. I would argue that the Christendom worldwide during the 1930s and 40s was insufficient. That said, there were some who risked all and gave all to fight Nazism. Bonhoeffer is a salient and known example. Hildebrand, for all the good he did, fled to America. Bonhoeffer actually left America to throw himself into the cauldron. What did Pope Pius XII risk? What did it cost him? There are many Christians who gave their lives during this period to save Jews and resist the Nazis. That the Catholic church would want to canonize a pope in the face of such examples is mistaken in my view and shows a misreading of history.
More importantly, your criticism is disingenous. I do not in any way care for Doino to conduct a "massive examination of the evidence." I merely point out that his article is unconvincing. The point that the NYT's treatment has been inconsistent is well taken; but let's not beat around the bush here. Pius XII is in the news because it has been suggested that he be canonized. I think the latent purpose of the article is to rehabilitate Pius' legacy (e.g., Doino writes: "This is the act of a compliant enabler?"). I don't think the article gets there.
But Doino makes my point for me. In his response to my comment, he says:
"Pius XII not only spoke out, but was involved in a plot to overthrow Hitler, held in high esteem by the anti-Nazi resistance, remained in occupied Rome despite threats to kidnap him, and took many actions to protect and rescue the persecuted."
Evidence of this is what critics have been looking for. If the evidence for Doino's statements was as strong as he claims, I doubt the NYT would be making the claims it does. It would also be easy for Doino to cite to good sources for these actions in his article.
Let's lay it all out there. I would argue that the Christendom worldwide during the 1930s and 40s was insufficient. That said, there were some who risked all and gave all to fight Nazism. Bonhoeffer is a salient and known example. Hildebrand, for all the good he did, fled to America. Bonhoeffer actually left America to throw himself into the cauldron. What did Pope Pius XII risk? What did it cost him? There are many Christians who gave their lives during this period to save Jews and resist the Nazis. That the Catholic church would want to canonize a pope in the face of such examples is mistaken in my view and shows a misreading of history.
8.2.2011 | 1:57pm
Jacob Morgan says:
"Catholicism did not interfere with Hitler's rise to power"
The Catholic Center Party opposed Hitler's election and supported Hindenburg, a Protestant, instead. That was in 1932.
Try reading Wm L Shrier's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich--he was there, he did not have an axe to grind, and no one can read that book and come away with the hidden-agenda driven conclusions of those who libel Pius XII. Those people only prove that any stick will do to beat the Church.
The Catholic Center Party opposed Hitler's election and supported Hindenburg, a Protestant, instead. That was in 1932.
Try reading Wm L Shrier's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich--he was there, he did not have an axe to grind, and no one can read that book and come away with the hidden-agenda driven conclusions of those who libel Pius XII. Those people only prove that any stick will do to beat the Church.
8.2.2011 | 2:13pm
David Nickol says:
Brian,
You say: "Passion Plays had been performed since the Middle Ages. Suddenly, in the 20th century, they caused the Holocaust? You don't see a problem with your causation chain?"
The issue of what Pius XII did and didn't do is a very difficult one that I won't comment on, but I hope you are not claiming that Christian anti-Semitism played no part in the Holocaust. Germany was roughly two-thirds Lutheran and one-third Catholic during the Nazi era. Hitler was responsible for stirring up a great deal of German anti-Semitism, but he certainly didn't start from scratch.
You say: "Passion Plays had been performed since the Middle Ages. Suddenly, in the 20th century, they caused the Holocaust? You don't see a problem with your causation chain?"
The issue of what Pius XII did and didn't do is a very difficult one that I won't comment on, but I hope you are not claiming that Christian anti-Semitism played no part in the Holocaust. Germany was roughly two-thirds Lutheran and one-third Catholic during the Nazi era. Hitler was responsible for stirring up a great deal of German anti-Semitism, but he certainly didn't start from scratch.
8.2.2011 | 2:14pm
Brian LeCompte says:
I am not well-read regarding Pius XII. However, there are paralleles in the actions of the everyday Catholics in Nazi Germany regarding non-resistance and contemporary Catholics in the Western world regarding popular culture. Historians will say that Catholics today did little to resist the culture, since so few of them who are baptized Catholic also follow all the teachings. Yet a few brave, even heroic, groups resist, though not yet to the point of death.
If that death should never come, well then, the most counter-culutural thing we can do is to have lots of babies.
If that death should never come, well then, the most counter-culutural thing we can do is to have lots of babies.
8.2.2011 | 2:27pm
Brian English says:
" Oddly enough, 1930-1940s Europe is my specialty as a trained historian, so Doino's remark is doubly mistaken."
What is your full name, trained historian with a specialty in 1930-1940s Europe, and where do you teach?
"I would argue that the Christendom worldwide during the 1930s and 40s was insufficient."
What should "Christendom" (as if such a thing hadn't ceased to exist centuries earlier) have done to stop the Nazis?
" If the evidence for Doino's statements was as strong as he claims, I doubt the NYT would be making the claims it does."
The NYT hurling baseless accusations at a Pope -- right, that never happens.
"Bonhoeffer actually left America to throw himself into the cauldron. What did Pope Pius XII risk? What did it cost him?"
And how many Jews did Bonhoeffer save with his sacrifice? Heroism comes in many forms, and martyrdom is not always its most effective form.
What is your full name, trained historian with a specialty in 1930-1940s Europe, and where do you teach?
"I would argue that the Christendom worldwide during the 1930s and 40s was insufficient."
What should "Christendom" (as if such a thing hadn't ceased to exist centuries earlier) have done to stop the Nazis?
" If the evidence for Doino's statements was as strong as he claims, I doubt the NYT would be making the claims it does."
The NYT hurling baseless accusations at a Pope -- right, that never happens.
"Bonhoeffer actually left America to throw himself into the cauldron. What did Pope Pius XII risk? What did it cost him?"
And how many Jews did Bonhoeffer save with his sacrifice? Heroism comes in many forms, and martyrdom is not always its most effective form.
8.2.2011 | 2:34pm
Karol J Gajewski says:
Pius himself never ever claimed that he had done 'everything' to help save the Jewish people from the Holocaust. When thanked by Holocaust survivors after the war (a fact to be noted in itself), he used to say: 'I wish I could have done more'.
As for 'EWH''s rhetorical question: What did it cost him? - this is a question that is impossible to answer in a short space - as is the case with so many of this type. The comparison between Pius's position vis a vis Bonhoeffer is quite ridiculous. Pius was the leader of all Catholics - many of whom were in positions of extreme danger themselves and whose fate could have been ended by one false word from Rome
Examples, among many, to consider are the priests who were interned in Dachau; the effects of the 1942 protest note from the Netherlands bishops which resulted in, among others, the death of Edith Stein; the witness of the Polish Cardinal Sapieha and his reluctance for Pius to 'condemn with words of fire' because of the devastating effect this would have on those living in what had become (in Poland) a gigantic concentration camp.
What too, about those Jews who themselves did not wish Pius to mouth hot words? As one whose family have known all too well what it means to live in a country with totalitarians in control, I welcome Bill Doino's attempts to set the record straight on this much-maligned pope.
As for 'EWH''s rhetorical question: What did it cost him? - this is a question that is impossible to answer in a short space - as is the case with so many of this type. The comparison between Pius's position vis a vis Bonhoeffer is quite ridiculous. Pius was the leader of all Catholics - many of whom were in positions of extreme danger themselves and whose fate could have been ended by one false word from Rome
Examples, among many, to consider are the priests who were interned in Dachau; the effects of the 1942 protest note from the Netherlands bishops which resulted in, among others, the death of Edith Stein; the witness of the Polish Cardinal Sapieha and his reluctance for Pius to 'condemn with words of fire' because of the devastating effect this would have on those living in what had become (in Poland) a gigantic concentration camp.
What too, about those Jews who themselves did not wish Pius to mouth hot words? As one whose family have known all too well what it means to live in a country with totalitarians in control, I welcome Bill Doino's attempts to set the record straight on this much-maligned pope.
8.2.2011 | 3:49pm
Brian English says:
"The issue of what Pius XII did and didn't do is a very difficult one that I won't comment on, but I hope you are not claiming that Christian anti-Semitism played no part in the Holocaust."
Played no part is a broad statement. The Nazis certainly played off of it to an extent, but that was not the basis for the Nazis' nationalistic/racial anti-semitism.
My point is, anti-semitism had existed in German-speaking regions for centuries, yet the Holocaust only happened in the 20th. Why do you think that was?
"Germany was roughly two-thirds Lutheran and one-third Catholic during the Nazi era. Hitler was responsible for stirring up a great deal of German anti-Semitism, but he certainly didn't start from scratch. "
Germany was a thoroughly secular society by the 1880s. Read Michael Burleigh's Earthly Powers for an excellent overview of the kulturkampf and its impact on German society.
Played no part is a broad statement. The Nazis certainly played off of it to an extent, but that was not the basis for the Nazis' nationalistic/racial anti-semitism.
My point is, anti-semitism had existed in German-speaking regions for centuries, yet the Holocaust only happened in the 20th. Why do you think that was?
"Germany was roughly two-thirds Lutheran and one-third Catholic during the Nazi era. Hitler was responsible for stirring up a great deal of German anti-Semitism, but he certainly didn't start from scratch. "
Germany was a thoroughly secular society by the 1880s. Read Michael Burleigh's Earthly Powers for an excellent overview of the kulturkampf and its impact on German society.
8.2.2011 | 3:54pm
William Doino says:
"It would also be easy for Doino to cite good sources for these actions in his article."
I have published an 80,000 word comprehensive, annotated bibliography on Pius XII for the anthology, The Pius War: Responses to the Critics of Pius XII (Lexington Books, 2004). Holocaust and Genocide Studies --which is often critical of the Church--called it "balanced" (Spring, 2006, p. 121); and The Catholic Historical Review described it as "the defining bibliography on this topic" (October 2005. p. 848). The references and documentation contained therein address the criticisms made above, and certainly those by Keller and Norwich.
Scholars of the rank of Michael Burleigh, Sir Martin Gilbert and Karl-Joseph Hummel (head of the Commission for Contemporary History in Germany) have all written and spoken favorably of Pius XII, rebutting his critics. Andrea Tornielli's massive biography of Pius XII, published several years ago (in Italian) also brings out much new evidence on behalf of Pius XII. It is also notable that Michael Tagliacozzo--the leading authority on the German round-up of Rome's Jews, and a survivor of the raid himself--as well as Robert Kempner, deputy chief US prosecutor at Nuremberg, have also praised Pius XII.
I have already made the point in my first comment that Pius XII did take risks, particularly by involving himself with the anti-Nazi resistance. Yes, Dietrich von Hildebrand, his great friend and supporter, came to America--after he was nearly assassinated by Hitler.
Also, there is no "lashing out" going on from my end. A comment I completely disagreed with was made, and I answered it, appropriately.
Pius XII's reputation does not need to be "rehabilitated." It is already well-known by those who knew him best, and that was one of the points of my article.
Finally one does not have to have any interest in sainthood to have a high opinion of Pius XII on historical and humanitarian grounds alone.
I have published an 80,000 word comprehensive, annotated bibliography on Pius XII for the anthology, The Pius War: Responses to the Critics of Pius XII (Lexington Books, 2004). Holocaust and Genocide Studies --which is often critical of the Church--called it "balanced" (Spring, 2006, p. 121); and The Catholic Historical Review described it as "the defining bibliography on this topic" (October 2005. p. 848). The references and documentation contained therein address the criticisms made above, and certainly those by Keller and Norwich.
Scholars of the rank of Michael Burleigh, Sir Martin Gilbert and Karl-Joseph Hummel (head of the Commission for Contemporary History in Germany) have all written and spoken favorably of Pius XII, rebutting his critics. Andrea Tornielli's massive biography of Pius XII, published several years ago (in Italian) also brings out much new evidence on behalf of Pius XII. It is also notable that Michael Tagliacozzo--the leading authority on the German round-up of Rome's Jews, and a survivor of the raid himself--as well as Robert Kempner, deputy chief US prosecutor at Nuremberg, have also praised Pius XII.
I have already made the point in my first comment that Pius XII did take risks, particularly by involving himself with the anti-Nazi resistance. Yes, Dietrich von Hildebrand, his great friend and supporter, came to America--after he was nearly assassinated by Hitler.
Also, there is no "lashing out" going on from my end. A comment I completely disagreed with was made, and I answered it, appropriately.
Pius XII's reputation does not need to be "rehabilitated." It is already well-known by those who knew him best, and that was one of the points of my article.
Finally one does not have to have any interest in sainthood to have a high opinion of Pius XII on historical and humanitarian grounds alone.
8.2.2011 | 4:25pm
JDD says:
EWH,
You'll understand the snowballing interest here in reading your thesis. I understand you might not want to reveal your name and all that... but by laying out your credentials right away as a means to silence your critics, I really think you've brought that on yourself. I see a number of sources given here for further research. I would be interested in a link to your thesis.
"The evidence in your article is threadbare. Encyclicals, statements and New York Times editorials don't show action."
Well, that's you topic thesis for this exchange, at least. I don't agree with it and I think you're going to have a hard time defending it. What you're saying, essentially, is that unless you're the infantry, you don't matter. By that reasoning, any person who spoke out but didn't bear arms shirked their duty to their fellow man; they should have been physically making midnight runs to get people out of the country. Doesn't matter if they were Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Atheist, whatever. Doesn't matter if their position was one of bringing political and cultural, rather than military, pressure against an aggressor. Or if their gift was speaking. Or if they were 63 years old on the eve of the War.
"Evidence of this is what critics have been looking for. If the evidence for Doino's statements was as strong as he claims, I doubt the NYT would be making the claims it does."
Then what drove the contrary claims of the NYT in 1939?
You'll understand the snowballing interest here in reading your thesis. I understand you might not want to reveal your name and all that... but by laying out your credentials right away as a means to silence your critics, I really think you've brought that on yourself. I see a number of sources given here for further research. I would be interested in a link to your thesis.
"The evidence in your article is threadbare. Encyclicals, statements and New York Times editorials don't show action."
Well, that's you topic thesis for this exchange, at least. I don't agree with it and I think you're going to have a hard time defending it. What you're saying, essentially, is that unless you're the infantry, you don't matter. By that reasoning, any person who spoke out but didn't bear arms shirked their duty to their fellow man; they should have been physically making midnight runs to get people out of the country. Doesn't matter if they were Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Atheist, whatever. Doesn't matter if their position was one of bringing political and cultural, rather than military, pressure against an aggressor. Or if their gift was speaking. Or if they were 63 years old on the eve of the War.
"Evidence of this is what critics have been looking for. If the evidence for Doino's statements was as strong as he claims, I doubt the NYT would be making the claims it does."
Then what drove the contrary claims of the NYT in 1939?
8.2.2011 | 5:04pm
patricksarsfield says:
Now that the Israeli Ambassador has acknowledged that Pius XII did all he could to save the Roman and Italian Jews ( http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=33&idsub=124&id=56002&t=Israeli+diplomat+praises+Pope+Pius+XII+for+saving+thouands+of+Jews+during+the+Holocaust ),
the attack on Pius reduces to a claim that he should have spoken up to save the Jews of Europe from the Holocaust. There are two problems with that: 1) there was no easy way to get an effective message out to the people of Europe on the Holocaust; and 2) the Pope had seen what happened when the Dutch bishops protested the deportation of Dutch Jews in August 1942 while their Protestant colleagues kept silence.
First, it is wrong to suppose that Europe was a wide open environment in which protests could be made against the state. Those who continue to maintain the attack on Pius, in light of the recent proof that he had tried to do what he could to save the Jews who came to Catholic churches apparently believe that an ongoing debate was going on in Europe on the seemliness of the Holocaust and that the Pope's silence was somehow a tellling absence from the debate. In fact, though, there was no debate going on because the Germans exercised iron control over the public media throughout Nazi-occupied Europe. The Jews of Europe couldn't speaking up for that very reason; likewise, anyone opposing the Nazis couldn't do so openly.
Second, what happened in Holland was an object lesson in what the Germans would do against those protesting their actions. They were not worried about the Free Speech rights of anybody and their answer was MORE persecution not less when protests were made. Thus, when the Dutch Catholic bishops spoke up, the Germans did not back down. Instead, they punished the Catholic Church by deporting any Dutch Catholics who had converted from Judaism. By contrast, as a reward to the Protestants for their silence, the Germans did NOT deport Protestants who had converted from Judaism.
This idea that the Pope should have spoken out stems from an anachronistic view of the state of free debate in Europe during the Second World War. In truth, not even the allies--who certainly had a propaganda reason to stir up a revolt in Europe--were protesting the Holocaust in any loud or continuing fashion. If Roosevelt and Churchill--who were outside the control of Hitler and Mussolini-- (or perhaps a Jewish-owned extra-European newspaper like the NY Times) did not launch a campaign in Europe against the Holocaust, why would anyone think that the Pope, whose 108 acre state was surrounded by Fascist and then Nazi occupied Rome could have launched a condemnatory campaign that would have gotten to the attention of the European populace and produced anything other than a Nazi backlsah of the sort the Dutch Catholics faced?
In fact, of course, Festung Europa was a "Fortress" that Hitler controlled very closely, and the attacks on Pius ignore that reality.
the attack on Pius reduces to a claim that he should have spoken up to save the Jews of Europe from the Holocaust. There are two problems with that: 1) there was no easy way to get an effective message out to the people of Europe on the Holocaust; and 2) the Pope had seen what happened when the Dutch bishops protested the deportation of Dutch Jews in August 1942 while their Protestant colleagues kept silence.
First, it is wrong to suppose that Europe was a wide open environment in which protests could be made against the state. Those who continue to maintain the attack on Pius, in light of the recent proof that he had tried to do what he could to save the Jews who came to Catholic churches apparently believe that an ongoing debate was going on in Europe on the seemliness of the Holocaust and that the Pope's silence was somehow a tellling absence from the debate. In fact, though, there was no debate going on because the Germans exercised iron control over the public media throughout Nazi-occupied Europe. The Jews of Europe couldn't speaking up for that very reason; likewise, anyone opposing the Nazis couldn't do so openly.
Second, what happened in Holland was an object lesson in what the Germans would do against those protesting their actions. They were not worried about the Free Speech rights of anybody and their answer was MORE persecution not less when protests were made. Thus, when the Dutch Catholic bishops spoke up, the Germans did not back down. Instead, they punished the Catholic Church by deporting any Dutch Catholics who had converted from Judaism. By contrast, as a reward to the Protestants for their silence, the Germans did NOT deport Protestants who had converted from Judaism.
This idea that the Pope should have spoken out stems from an anachronistic view of the state of free debate in Europe during the Second World War. In truth, not even the allies--who certainly had a propaganda reason to stir up a revolt in Europe--were protesting the Holocaust in any loud or continuing fashion. If Roosevelt and Churchill--who were outside the control of Hitler and Mussolini-- (or perhaps a Jewish-owned extra-European newspaper like the NY Times) did not launch a campaign in Europe against the Holocaust, why would anyone think that the Pope, whose 108 acre state was surrounded by Fascist and then Nazi occupied Rome could have launched a condemnatory campaign that would have gotten to the attention of the European populace and produced anything other than a Nazi backlsah of the sort the Dutch Catholics faced?
In fact, of course, Festung Europa was a "Fortress" that Hitler controlled very closely, and the attacks on Pius ignore that reality.
8.2.2011 | 5:11pm
patricksarsfield says:
EWH writes:
"I would argue that the Christendom worldwide during the 1930s and 40s was insufficient. That said, there were some who risked all and gave all to fight Nazism."
Ridiculous. Christendom is not a government. The US is a government. But the forces that fought WWII on behalf of the US were overwhelmingly Christian. Just take a look at any WWII American Military Cemetery. Row after row primarily of crosses.
"I would argue that the Christendom worldwide during the 1930s and 40s was insufficient. That said, there were some who risked all and gave all to fight Nazism."
Ridiculous. Christendom is not a government. The US is a government. But the forces that fought WWII on behalf of the US were overwhelmingly Christian. Just take a look at any WWII American Military Cemetery. Row after row primarily of crosses.
8.2.2011 | 6:18pm
TeaPot562 says:
In the late 1930s, a papal encyclical was published in German, under the title "With burning sorrow", addressed to the German people. It strongly condemned the racism espoused by the Nazi party. It was read from the pulpit in a number of Catholic churches in Germany. Since many Germans had stopped going to church on a regular basis, they did not hear it. If Cardinal Pacelli didn't write this encyclical for Pius XI, he (Pacelli) substantially contributed to it.
The encyclical had about as much effect on German politics as a statement by the US Bishops against abortion has on "Catholic" Democrats serving in the US Congress.
in January 1937, the Nazis closed all Catholic schools in Germany (See NY Times, page 1, Jan 30, 1937).
At one time, Dachau had 4000 Catholic priests imprisoned in a barracks originally designed for 600 men.
To the nearest million, the Nazi concentration camps murdered eleven million: six million Jews, three million Polish Catholics, one million misc. Christians and one million "others".
Those who dislike the Church's stands on abortion, euthanasia and homosexual conduct will use any stick to beat the Church, including dubious claims against Pius XII.
The encyclical had about as much effect on German politics as a statement by the US Bishops against abortion has on "Catholic" Democrats serving in the US Congress.
in January 1937, the Nazis closed all Catholic schools in Germany (See NY Times, page 1, Jan 30, 1937).
At one time, Dachau had 4000 Catholic priests imprisoned in a barracks originally designed for 600 men.
To the nearest million, the Nazi concentration camps murdered eleven million: six million Jews, three million Polish Catholics, one million misc. Christians and one million "others".
Those who dislike the Church's stands on abortion, euthanasia and homosexual conduct will use any stick to beat the Church, including dubious claims against Pius XII.
8.2.2011 | 6:42pm
Rev. John Jay Doyle, OFM says:
A few comments:
1) Gabriel--Hitler was a vegetarian and opposed smoking. (No, this doesn't make vegetarians and anti-smoking advocates Nazis.)
2) Wendy, Mussolini and the Fascists took power in 1922--seven years before the Lateran Pact which resolved long-standing disputes between the secular Italian government and the Church. If the pope(s) could stop Mussolini (who was an atheist) and Hitler from taking power, then how come Pius IX couldn't stop the dissolution of the Papal States in 1870? A few decades earlier, Napoleon occupied the Papal States. Excommunication had no effect on him. Why would it have worked on Hitler, who never went to Mass, never received the sacraments, and had nothing but contempt for the Church and Christianity. According to Goebbels' Diary, Hitler considered Christianity a "branch of the Jewish race.'
3) The attacks on Pius XII and the larger church also need to be placed in the context of the Cold War. The Communists in the USSR and Yugoslavia waged a propaganda campaign against the Pope, the Vatican, and the Church in order to discredit them in the then-occupied territories. All critics do is repeat what is basically communist propaganda.
4) EWH claims to have written a thesis. I don't doubt it. But let us know that college students often write theses, which usually draw from secondary sources and in this case English. So we shouldn't be impressed with his implication of having scholarly credentials.
5) It should be noted that Catholics were only one-third of the German population in the 1920s and 1930s. Most already voted with their own political party, the Center, which declined after the 1930s and finally went out of business. (You'd think the separation of church and state crowd would be pleased that a religious political party would cease operations.) The idea that Pius XI (1922-1939) could have mobilized all German Catholics have them to impose their will on the rest of the German nation is a little cooky. Who here believes that the same pope could have gotten Al Smith, a Catholic, elected U.S. President in 1928 when Catholics were only one-fifth of the U.S. population if only he "tried harder" and "did more"?
6) The Nazis polled only in the low single digits during the 1920s. They began to gain strength only after the onset of the Great Depression. At this point, religious issues were on the back burner. Again, Catholics voted with the Center and played little role in Hitler taking power. (Yes, the Center deputies did vote for the Enabling Act, which enabled Hitler to consolidate his power, but where's the evidence that the Vatican sanctioned it? The archives from the 1930s have open for years. Has the Vatican ever controlled every vote in an elected legislature by its Catholics members since the beginning of time? No.
1) Gabriel--Hitler was a vegetarian and opposed smoking. (No, this doesn't make vegetarians and anti-smoking advocates Nazis.)
2) Wendy, Mussolini and the Fascists took power in 1922--seven years before the Lateran Pact which resolved long-standing disputes between the secular Italian government and the Church. If the pope(s) could stop Mussolini (who was an atheist) and Hitler from taking power, then how come Pius IX couldn't stop the dissolution of the Papal States in 1870? A few decades earlier, Napoleon occupied the Papal States. Excommunication had no effect on him. Why would it have worked on Hitler, who never went to Mass, never received the sacraments, and had nothing but contempt for the Church and Christianity. According to Goebbels' Diary, Hitler considered Christianity a "branch of the Jewish race.'
3) The attacks on Pius XII and the larger church also need to be placed in the context of the Cold War. The Communists in the USSR and Yugoslavia waged a propaganda campaign against the Pope, the Vatican, and the Church in order to discredit them in the then-occupied territories. All critics do is repeat what is basically communist propaganda.
4) EWH claims to have written a thesis. I don't doubt it. But let us know that college students often write theses, which usually draw from secondary sources and in this case English. So we shouldn't be impressed with his implication of having scholarly credentials.
5) It should be noted that Catholics were only one-third of the German population in the 1920s and 1930s. Most already voted with their own political party, the Center, which declined after the 1930s and finally went out of business. (You'd think the separation of church and state crowd would be pleased that a religious political party would cease operations.) The idea that Pius XI (1922-1939) could have mobilized all German Catholics have them to impose their will on the rest of the German nation is a little cooky. Who here believes that the same pope could have gotten Al Smith, a Catholic, elected U.S. President in 1928 when Catholics were only one-fifth of the U.S. population if only he "tried harder" and "did more"?
6) The Nazis polled only in the low single digits during the 1920s. They began to gain strength only after the onset of the Great Depression. At this point, religious issues were on the back burner. Again, Catholics voted with the Center and played little role in Hitler taking power. (Yes, the Center deputies did vote for the Enabling Act, which enabled Hitler to consolidate his power, but where's the evidence that the Vatican sanctioned it? The archives from the 1930s have open for years. Has the Vatican ever controlled every vote in an elected legislature by its Catholics members since the beginning of time? No.
8.2.2011 | 6:56pm
Brian English says:
"Those who dislike the Church's stands on abortion, euthanasia and homosexual conduct will use any stick to beat the Church, including dubious claims against Pius XII."
That is what this is all about. The communists started it with The Deputy, and progressives ever since have kept it alive to use in their attacks on the Church.
The "case" against Pius XII has been so thoroughly refuted at this point that anyone who asserts that he was "Hitler's Pope" immediately identifies themselves as being a fool or a liar.
That is what this is all about. The communists started it with The Deputy, and progressives ever since have kept it alive to use in their attacks on the Church.
The "case" against Pius XII has been so thoroughly refuted at this point that anyone who asserts that he was "Hitler's Pope" immediately identifies themselves as being a fool or a liar.
8.2.2011 | 7:17pm
Jack Perry says:
Wendy: Oddly enough, though, Fascism arose precisely, in Rome, with Mussolini...
You don't seem well acquainted with Italian history. Mussolini wasn't from Rome; he was from Milan, which styled itself no less then as the cultural capital of Italy as it does now. He founded the movement (I Fasci di Combattimento) in Milan. The Lateran Treaty was not until 10 years later.
True, the Fascist Party was founded some years after the Fasci in Rome, but using that to say that Fascism arose in Rome is like saying the Lega Nord arose in Rome just because il Senatür was serving in the Italian Parliament (in Rome) when the union was made between Lega Lombarda, Liga Veneta, and other regionalist parties.
Thanks to countless accomodations between Catholicism and Fascism, Mussolini was able to reign in Rome, for quite some time.
Let's try some variants on this.
(1) Thanks to countless accommodations between Protestantism and Nazism, Hitler was able to reign in Berlin, for quite some time. (Note that Germany was more Protestant than Catholic.)
(2) Thanks to countless accommodations between the Left Wing of Western countries and Communism, Stalin (& others) were able to reign in Moscow (& other capitals), for quite some time.
(3) Thanks to countless accommodations between adherents of scientism and secularism and the French Directory, Robespierre (and later Bonaparte) was able to reign in Paris, for quite some time.
I could go on, but hopefully you see the emptiness of the argument, no matter how effective it has been.
You don't seem well acquainted with Italian history. Mussolini wasn't from Rome; he was from Milan, which styled itself no less then as the cultural capital of Italy as it does now. He founded the movement (I Fasci di Combattimento) in Milan. The Lateran Treaty was not until 10 years later.
True, the Fascist Party was founded some years after the Fasci in Rome, but using that to say that Fascism arose in Rome is like saying the Lega Nord arose in Rome just because il Senatür was serving in the Italian Parliament (in Rome) when the union was made between Lega Lombarda, Liga Veneta, and other regionalist parties.
Thanks to countless accomodations between Catholicism and Fascism, Mussolini was able to reign in Rome, for quite some time.
Let's try some variants on this.
(1) Thanks to countless accommodations between Protestantism and Nazism, Hitler was able to reign in Berlin, for quite some time. (Note that Germany was more Protestant than Catholic.)
(2) Thanks to countless accommodations between the Left Wing of Western countries and Communism, Stalin (& others) were able to reign in Moscow (& other capitals), for quite some time.
(3) Thanks to countless accommodations between adherents of scientism and secularism and the French Directory, Robespierre (and later Bonaparte) was able to reign in Paris, for quite some time.
I could go on, but hopefully you see the emptiness of the argument, no matter how effective it has been.
8.2.2011 | 8:30pm
patricksarsfield says:
EWH writes:
"That said, there were some who risked all and gave all to fight Nazism. Bonhoeffer is a salient and known example. Hildebrand, for all the good he did, fled to America. Bonhoeffer actually left America to throw himself into the cauldron. What did Pope Pius XII risk? What did it cost him? There are many Christians who gave their lives during this period to save Jews and resist the Nazis."
This makes as much sense as to criticize Obama (or GW Bush) for not putting on battle gear and jumping out of planes into firefights in Afghanistan or Iraq since there have been heroes who clearly have risked all. Or to put it into a WWII context, why didn't FDR lead the tanks attacking the Siegfried Line? Yeah, I know he was a cripple but he could drive a car. Thus, he could have driven a tank with modified controls. Then he could have risked all and maybe become a hero instead of the stay at home sluggard he apparently was. Harrumph, he should have been impeached for hiding behind Eleanor's skirts (or was it Lucy Rutherford's?) inst3ead of risking all.
Since Pius XII was the head of Catholicism (which is almost four times larger than the US) and his role was to run the Worldwide Catholic Church, it makes even less sense to compare him to local pastors.
"That said, there were some who risked all and gave all to fight Nazism. Bonhoeffer is a salient and known example. Hildebrand, for all the good he did, fled to America. Bonhoeffer actually left America to throw himself into the cauldron. What did Pope Pius XII risk? What did it cost him? There are many Christians who gave their lives during this period to save Jews and resist the Nazis."
This makes as much sense as to criticize Obama (or GW Bush) for not putting on battle gear and jumping out of planes into firefights in Afghanistan or Iraq since there have been heroes who clearly have risked all. Or to put it into a WWII context, why didn't FDR lead the tanks attacking the Siegfried Line? Yeah, I know he was a cripple but he could drive a car. Thus, he could have driven a tank with modified controls. Then he could have risked all and maybe become a hero instead of the stay at home sluggard he apparently was. Harrumph, he should have been impeached for hiding behind Eleanor's skirts (or was it Lucy Rutherford's?) inst3ead of risking all.
Since Pius XII was the head of Catholicism (which is almost four times larger than the US) and his role was to run the Worldwide Catholic Church, it makes even less sense to compare him to local pastors.
8.2.2011 | 10:18pm
Mary De Voe says:
Gary Krupp's Pave the Way Foundation has proved that Pope Pius XII sent over 880,000 Jews to Haiti, saving their very lives. The Passion Play in Germany was a promise made to God to end the plague. The plague ended. The people forgot their promise, forgot the Passion Play and the plague returned with a vengeance. Again, the people took up the Passion Play and the plague abated. The Passion Play is more about serving Christ and saving the communitiy's life than about bashing the Jews. The High Priests in Christ's time were the first anti-Catholics, fueled by small mindedness, jealousy, and a garden variety of hatred of God and man as all prejudices are. Hitler and his ilk are the High Priests of our time.
8.3.2011 | 12:13am
Brendan McGrath says:
I've been reading this thread with much interest -- one thing that interests me, which I think anyone should find interesting, regardless of how they view Pius XII on this: really, just how and why did the New York Times and other media outlets change their tune so dramatically on Pius XII? And even more interesting, was there ever any sort of moment where they said, "wow; we used to think Pius XII was great, but now that we've seen XYZ pieces of evidence, we're changing our view"? Was there ever any actual conscious re-assessment of Pius XII on the part of people in general, or did people just suddenly start saying negative things, as if they'd always been said?
Another related point -- how do criticis of Pius XII at the NY Times respond when confronted with past statements of praise? How do current Israeli officials respond when confronted with past statements of praise from people like Golda Meir?
Another related point -- how do criticis of Pius XII at the NY Times respond when confronted with past statements of praise? How do current Israeli officials respond when confronted with past statements of praise from people like Golda Meir?
8.3.2011 | 8:05am
Brian English says:
" the Pius Wars book Mr. Doino served as the editor for."
Actually, Joseph Bottum and Rabbi Dalin edited The Pius Wars. Mr. Doino contributed the annotated bibliography to the book, which compiles sources on both sides of the issue.
Actually, Joseph Bottum and Rabbi Dalin edited The Pius Wars. Mr. Doino contributed the annotated bibliography to the book, which compiles sources on both sides of the issue.
8.3.2011 | 9:39am
patricksarsfield says:
Brendan McGrath asks:
"one thing that interests me, which I think anyone should find interesting, regardless of how they view Pius XII on this: really, just how and why did the New York Times and other media outlets change their tune so dramatically on Pius XII? "
The slander did not begin until Pius was in his grave for four years and Catholicism was proving a tenacious holdout behind the Iron Curtain. So Khruschev apparently ordered the KGB to go on the offensive against the Church by sponsoring the writing of the Deputy, which was first performed in Early 1963 shortly after the October 1962 start of the Second Vatican Council. Ion Pacepa, the former head of the Romanian Secret Service, laid out the conspiracy in 2007 in a National Review article:
http://www.ptwf.org/Downloads/Ion%20Mihai%20Pacepa%20on%20Soviet%20Union.pdf
The (London) Times account of that revelation can be found at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1400670.ece
Interestingly, the director of the first production of the Deputy was an old-time German Communist named Erwin Piscator (a buddy of Bertolt Brecht) who spent some time in Russia in the 1930s and then went off to the US until the 1950s HUAC era. That is when he went back to Germany along with Brecht.
"one thing that interests me, which I think anyone should find interesting, regardless of how they view Pius XII on this: really, just how and why did the New York Times and other media outlets change their tune so dramatically on Pius XII? "
The slander did not begin until Pius was in his grave for four years and Catholicism was proving a tenacious holdout behind the Iron Curtain. So Khruschev apparently ordered the KGB to go on the offensive against the Church by sponsoring the writing of the Deputy, which was first performed in Early 1963 shortly after the October 1962 start of the Second Vatican Council. Ion Pacepa, the former head of the Romanian Secret Service, laid out the conspiracy in 2007 in a National Review article:
http://www.ptwf.org/Downloads/Ion%20Mihai%20Pacepa%20on%20Soviet%20Union.pdf
The (London) Times account of that revelation can be found at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1400670.ece
Interestingly, the director of the first production of the Deputy was an old-time German Communist named Erwin Piscator (a buddy of Bertolt Brecht) who spent some time in Russia in the 1930s and then went off to the US until the 1950s HUAC era. That is when he went back to Germany along with Brecht.
8.3.2011 | 9:54am
Peg says:
"Those who dislike the Church's stands on abortion, euthanasia and homosexual conduct will use any stick to beat the Church, including dubious claims against Pius XII."
Yes, I agree with this comment. I have read John Julius Norwich's previous large tomes on Norman Sicily and Byzantium. For the most part, i have enjoyed them---he has a light touch, a sense of humor, and inspires his readers to pursue the topics by reading works by real historians (in his introductions, Norwich usually includes the caveat that he is not a serious scholar). However, his books stink with his anti-Catholic prejudice---gratuitous mockery and put-downs are not hard to find in any of his works. I am sorry to read about this book on the popes, but not surprised.
I also want to support Jacob Morgan's recommendation of William L. Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the THird Reich". It's a massive work, well-researched, well-written, well-respected and, as far as I can tell, the author had no dog in the fight regarding the World War II papacy. Shirer was there, living through it, and I don't remember anyone questioning his account of the European Christian churches during the war.
Yes, I agree with this comment. I have read John Julius Norwich's previous large tomes on Norman Sicily and Byzantium. For the most part, i have enjoyed them---he has a light touch, a sense of humor, and inspires his readers to pursue the topics by reading works by real historians (in his introductions, Norwich usually includes the caveat that he is not a serious scholar). However, his books stink with his anti-Catholic prejudice---gratuitous mockery and put-downs are not hard to find in any of his works. I am sorry to read about this book on the popes, but not surprised.
I also want to support Jacob Morgan's recommendation of William L. Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the THird Reich". It's a massive work, well-researched, well-written, well-respected and, as far as I can tell, the author had no dog in the fight regarding the World War II papacy. Shirer was there, living through it, and I don't remember anyone questioning his account of the European Christian churches during the war.
8.3.2011 | 11:33am
David Nickol says:
Mary De Voe,
You say: "Gary Krupp's Pave the Way Foundation has proved that Pope Pius XII sent over 880,000 Jews to Haiti, saving their very lives."
This cannot possibly be factual. Haiti, in an extreme act of generosity, offered to take in 50,000 Jewish refugees at the Evian Conference in July 1938. However, the United States said no. No more than a few hundred Jewish refugees made it to Haiti. The population of Haiti in 1938 was under 3 million. The addition of 880,000 Jewish refugees would have made almost 25% of the population of Haiti Jewish. There is no way Haiti took in 880,000 Jewish refugees. In fact, although figures are difficult to come by, I don't believe the number of Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis to all countries combined added up to 880,000.
You say: "Gary Krupp's Pave the Way Foundation has proved that Pope Pius XII sent over 880,000 Jews to Haiti, saving their very lives."
This cannot possibly be factual. Haiti, in an extreme act of generosity, offered to take in 50,000 Jewish refugees at the Evian Conference in July 1938. However, the United States said no. No more than a few hundred Jewish refugees made it to Haiti. The population of Haiti in 1938 was under 3 million. The addition of 880,000 Jewish refugees would have made almost 25% of the population of Haiti Jewish. There is no way Haiti took in 880,000 Jewish refugees. In fact, although figures are difficult to come by, I don't believe the number of Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis to all countries combined added up to 880,000.
8.3.2011 | 1:50pm
Mike Carson says:
Last week on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, I heard JJ Norwich give the opinion that ono of the big negatives to come out of Vatican II was ending the Latin mass. Correct me if I'm wrong, but ending the Latin mass was not part of Vatican II. It actually happened after the council. If that's correct, Norwich is on the sidelines when it comes to being a serious and credible historian.
8.3.2011 | 2:24pm
David Nickol says:
Mike Carson,
I think it is accurate to say that the revision of the Mass, and its widespread use in the vernacular rather than Latin, is attributable to Vatican II. The Novus Ordo Mass (as opposed to the earlier Tridentine Mass, in Latin) was not introduced during the time the council was meeting, but it was called for in the document Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) issued by the council.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html
So he was correct that it came out of Vatican II, but it would be a matter of great debate whether it was a "big negative."
I think it is accurate to say that the revision of the Mass, and its widespread use in the vernacular rather than Latin, is attributable to Vatican II. The Novus Ordo Mass (as opposed to the earlier Tridentine Mass, in Latin) was not introduced during the time the council was meeting, but it was called for in the document Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) issued by the council.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html
So he was correct that it came out of Vatican II, but it would be a matter of great debate whether it was a "big negative."
8.5.2011 | 3:28am
edmond says:
"This cannot possibly be factual. Haiti, in an extreme act of generosity, offered to take in 50,000 Jewish refugees at the Evian Conference in July 1938. However, the United States said no." So why put the thumbscrews on PPXII when good ol' government after all that turned away 50,000 jews?
8.5.2011 | 8:04am
David Nickol says:
edmond,
The gross failure of the United States to do what it could to save Jews fleeing from the Nazis has little bearing on what Pius XII did or did not do. It seems to me the major question is whether he spoke out enough against the Nazis, and I am not sure there is any way to demonstrate that he did or did not. The Vatican was neutral during World War II (as it was during World War I). Should it have been? If Pius XII had repeatedly and consistently denounced the Nazis, there were significant risks involved. Should he have taken those risks and possibly been responsible for more killing rather than less, for the sake of speaking out against an evil he could not actually stop? Should the protests against Nazi actions made privately by the Vatican through diplomatic channels have been made publicly? Was Pius XII too cautious? If somehow the question could be debated without any hint of Catholic defensiveness and anti-Catholic prejudice, I think the conclusion would still be in the form "on the one hand X, but on the other hand Y."
The gross failure of the United States to do what it could to save Jews fleeing from the Nazis has little bearing on what Pius XII did or did not do. It seems to me the major question is whether he spoke out enough against the Nazis, and I am not sure there is any way to demonstrate that he did or did not. The Vatican was neutral during World War II (as it was during World War I). Should it have been? If Pius XII had repeatedly and consistently denounced the Nazis, there were significant risks involved. Should he have taken those risks and possibly been responsible for more killing rather than less, for the sake of speaking out against an evil he could not actually stop? Should the protests against Nazi actions made privately by the Vatican through diplomatic channels have been made publicly? Was Pius XII too cautious? If somehow the question could be debated without any hint of Catholic defensiveness and anti-Catholic prejudice, I think the conclusion would still be in the form "on the one hand X, but on the other hand Y."
8.5.2011 | 10:42pm
Michael says:
David,
“If somehow the question could be debated without any hint of Catholic defensiveness and anti-Catholic prejudice, I think the conclusion would still be in the form "on the one hand X, but on the other hand Y.”
I agree with both your conclusion and your recognition that it is very hard to debate this issue without defensiveness or prejudice. Still, I hear in this debate odd echoes of the old Novationist and Donatist controversies. Just as those controversies asked whether Christians could accept those who denied their faith to escape persecution, there is the lingering feeling that if any leader could have made an inspiring and strong, unambiguous stand it would have been the pope.
The Roman Catholic Church has long prided itself on its long list of martyred popes and its longer list of martyrs to the faith, and it has long asked ordinary people to make the great sacrifice, and yet at the ugliest moment in the twentieth century, when so much of Europe was still faithful, the leader of the world’s largest Christian body acted like a statesman, an heroic statesman, but a statesman nonetheless. He provided ordinary, prudent leadership rather than any dramatic Christian witness.
I can’t help but wonder whether the history of Christianity would have dramatically changed direction if the pope had stood up to Hitler and Mussolini. Would either have had the courage to kill or imprison him? Would ordinary Germans and Italians have continued to follow them? Would large roundups of bishops have created an indelible image of the counter-cultural force of Christianity? The annihilation of 6 million Jews has created great sympathy for a mistreated people. What would have been created by the imprisonment or execution of bishops and the pope?
The pope acted liked a prudent statesman instead, and history moves on, so I can’t blame him, but I do wonder.
“If somehow the question could be debated without any hint of Catholic defensiveness and anti-Catholic prejudice, I think the conclusion would still be in the form "on the one hand X, but on the other hand Y.”
I agree with both your conclusion and your recognition that it is very hard to debate this issue without defensiveness or prejudice. Still, I hear in this debate odd echoes of the old Novationist and Donatist controversies. Just as those controversies asked whether Christians could accept those who denied their faith to escape persecution, there is the lingering feeling that if any leader could have made an inspiring and strong, unambiguous stand it would have been the pope.
The Roman Catholic Church has long prided itself on its long list of martyred popes and its longer list of martyrs to the faith, and it has long asked ordinary people to make the great sacrifice, and yet at the ugliest moment in the twentieth century, when so much of Europe was still faithful, the leader of the world’s largest Christian body acted like a statesman, an heroic statesman, but a statesman nonetheless. He provided ordinary, prudent leadership rather than any dramatic Christian witness.
I can’t help but wonder whether the history of Christianity would have dramatically changed direction if the pope had stood up to Hitler and Mussolini. Would either have had the courage to kill or imprison him? Would ordinary Germans and Italians have continued to follow them? Would large roundups of bishops have created an indelible image of the counter-cultural force of Christianity? The annihilation of 6 million Jews has created great sympathy for a mistreated people. What would have been created by the imprisonment or execution of bishops and the pope?
The pope acted liked a prudent statesman instead, and history moves on, so I can’t blame him, but I do wonder.
8.6.2011 | 9:41pm
William Doino says:
Thanks to everyone for their comments.
I would like to add a few more about the modern papacy.
There is an almost 900 page volume entitled Principles for Peace, published by the National Catholic Welfare Conference during World War II, with a preface by the-then Archbishop of Chicago, Samuel Stritch, which contains extracts from the speeches and teachings of Popes Leo XIII to Pius XII, covering the late nineteenth and early-to-mid twentieth century.
Anyone who reads it will see that the papacy did indeed speak out and take a strong stand against the evils of the day, which gave birth to totalitarianism (fascism, Nazism, Communism), and the two World Wars: racism, anti-Semitism, class warfare, militarism, warmongering, exaggerated nationalism, hatred of minorities, scapegoating and the denial of individual human dignity. The problem is not that the modern popes did not "speak out" against evil and properly warn the world--the problem is that they emphatically did, and not enough people, including certain Catholics, listened.
This is still true today, when even many prominent leaders who call themselves Catholic reject and violate Catholic principles by their words and acts.
What is so impressive about the modern popes, particularly Pius XI and Pius XII, is that they were able to rise above the madness and temptations of their times, and speak out in a clear, sane, truly Christian voice, and in a way that was recognized and appreciated during their lives, whatever else is said about them today (often innacurately, and unjustly).
At the end of the Second World War, the Conference of Jewish Relations in New York published an important collection entitled, "Essays on Anti-Semitism" (1946), which explored the reasons for this perennial evil, and how it came to reach the terrifying proportions it did during the Holocaust. The contributors, all distinguished scholars, held nothing back, and criticized those elements of society, including within Christendom, that sanctioned, or at east did little to oppose, anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. It is all the more remarkable, then, that the book's editor, Professor Koppel S. Pinson, an authority on Nazi Germany, exempted the two modern Pius's from such guilt, and wrote in the book's opening essay:
"We may agree or disagree with the general lines of political policy of the Vatican. But this much is undisputed fact: never has the papacy spoken in such unmistakable terms against racialism and anti-Semitism as in the words and deeds of the present pope, Pius XII, and his predecessor, Pius XI. In papal encyclicals and in public speeches these two pontiffs have unequivocally denounced anti-Semitism as dangerous and un-Christian." (p. 6)
Some examples of this:
--On February 16, 1939, shortly after Pius XI passed away (February 10th of that year), The Jewish Post published a long tribute by David Kleinlerer, which commented: "In courageous language and in energetic tone, eighty-two-year old Pope Pius XI recently condemned the racial theory, the persecution of the Jews and the new 'course' followed by Mussolini in Italy....This was not the first occasion on which the aged head of the Roman Catholic Church spoke out thus vigorously on an issue of paramount importance to the Jews. Some days previously, he had, addressing a group of pilgrims, condemned persecution of people of different blood or race as not only un-Christian, but as 'inhuman.' And repeatedly since the establishment of the Hitler regime, the Pope has voiced his resolute opposition against the new idol of 'blood and race.'
"Cardinal Pacelli [the future Pius XII], who succeeded the late Cardinal Gasparri as Papal Secretary of State, had been Papal Nuncio to Berlin before Hitler assumed power. In his reports to the Vatican he described in detail the situation and the danger to Catholicism from Hitler's movement, his racial theories and his anti-religious teachers. The war proclaimed by Hitler's theoreticians against the Old Testament and its 'Jewish spirit' naturally caused much concern to Cardinal Pacelil and to the Pope himself.
"It was on instructions from Cardinal Pacelli that Cardinal Faulhaber delivered his three famous sermons in the Munich Cathedral refuting the Nazi critics of the Bible and stressing the great influence of the Jewish Bible on the New Testament and the Christian religion." (To read Kleinlerer's entire article, see Pope Pius XI and American Public Opinion, edited by Robert J. Cuddihy and George N. Schuster (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1939, pp. 221-224)
After Pius XI's death, Cardinal Pacelli succeeded him as Pius XII, and early in his pontificate, he not only published the outstanding encyclical Summi Pontificatus, mentioned in my piece above, but also personally confronted Germany's Foreign Minster Ribbentrop about Hitler's persecution of Jews. The New York Times covered the meeting with this headline: "Pope is Emphatic About Just Peace: Jews' Rights Defended," reporting: "The Pontiff, in the burning words he spoke to Herr von Ribbentrop about religious persecution, also came to the defense of the Jews in Germany and Poland." (New York Times, March 14, 1940).
The phrase "burning words" has relevance here, because three years before this, Pacelli, while still Cardinal Secretary of State to Pius XI, helped draft Pius XI's famous anti-Nazi encyclical, "Mit brennender Sorge," which translates as "With Burning Concern."
1940 also saw the passing of one of the Holy See's greatest Allies, Cardinal Jean Verdier, the archbishop of Paris. In its obituary of him, on April 9, 1940, the New York Times stated: "Cardinal Verdier, like Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII, was the especial champion of persecuted Jews."
1940 also marked the beginning of Pius XII's contacts with the anti-Nazi German Resistance, and although the plot to overrow Hitler never succeeded-because of events outside Pius's control--"it was significant that the Pope had throughout been willing to give encouragement to the German Resistance at great risk to himself and the Church." (John Waller, in his book, The Unseen War in Europe, New York: Random House , 1996, p. 373)
All of which was surrounded by Pius XII's many interventions, appeals and public addresses, which were recorded by those who covered his pontificate.
On October 1, 1942, The Times of London editorialized: "A study of the words which Pope Pius XII has addressed since his accession in encyclicals and allocutions to the Catholics of various nations leaves no room for doubt. He condemns the worship of force and its concrete manifestation in the suppression of national liberties and in the persecution of the Jewish race."
Charles Pichon, a French correspondent who wrote one of the best works about the Holy See's wartime record, affirmed that Pius XII "gave very generously of his own personal efforts to those services which he had established in the Vatican for the relief of all War victims, without distinction of religion or race." (The Vatican and its Role in World Affairs, New York: E.P. Dutton, 1950, p. 167). Commenting on the pontiff's wartime Christmas addresses, he added:
"The pontifical texts condemned most strongly the anti-Semitic persecutions, the oppression of invaded lands, the inhuman conduct of the war, and also the deification of earthly things which were made into idols: the Land and the Race, the State and the Class."
Against these evils, Pius XII championed the restoration of family life and education, the harmonious reconstruction of society, the equality of nations and all people, and the restoration of a just peace.
I would like to add a few more about the modern papacy.
There is an almost 900 page volume entitled Principles for Peace, published by the National Catholic Welfare Conference during World War II, with a preface by the-then Archbishop of Chicago, Samuel Stritch, which contains extracts from the speeches and teachings of Popes Leo XIII to Pius XII, covering the late nineteenth and early-to-mid twentieth century.
Anyone who reads it will see that the papacy did indeed speak out and take a strong stand against the evils of the day, which gave birth to totalitarianism (fascism, Nazism, Communism), and the two World Wars: racism, anti-Semitism, class warfare, militarism, warmongering, exaggerated nationalism, hatred of minorities, scapegoating and the denial of individual human dignity. The problem is not that the modern popes did not "speak out" against evil and properly warn the world--the problem is that they emphatically did, and not enough people, including certain Catholics, listened.
This is still true today, when even many prominent leaders who call themselves Catholic reject and violate Catholic principles by their words and acts.
What is so impressive about the modern popes, particularly Pius XI and Pius XII, is that they were able to rise above the madness and temptations of their times, and speak out in a clear, sane, truly Christian voice, and in a way that was recognized and appreciated during their lives, whatever else is said about them today (often innacurately, and unjustly).
At the end of the Second World War, the Conference of Jewish Relations in New York published an important collection entitled, "Essays on Anti-Semitism" (1946), which explored the reasons for this perennial evil, and how it came to reach the terrifying proportions it did during the Holocaust. The contributors, all distinguished scholars, held nothing back, and criticized those elements of society, including within Christendom, that sanctioned, or at east did little to oppose, anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. It is all the more remarkable, then, that the book's editor, Professor Koppel S. Pinson, an authority on Nazi Germany, exempted the two modern Pius's from such guilt, and wrote in the book's opening essay:
"We may agree or disagree with the general lines of political policy of the Vatican. But this much is undisputed fact: never has the papacy spoken in such unmistakable terms against racialism and anti-Semitism as in the words and deeds of the present pope, Pius XII, and his predecessor, Pius XI. In papal encyclicals and in public speeches these two pontiffs have unequivocally denounced anti-Semitism as dangerous and un-Christian." (p. 6)
Some examples of this:
--On February 16, 1939, shortly after Pius XI passed away (February 10th of that year), The Jewish Post published a long tribute by David Kleinlerer, which commented: "In courageous language and in energetic tone, eighty-two-year old Pope Pius XI recently condemned the racial theory, the persecution of the Jews and the new 'course' followed by Mussolini in Italy....This was not the first occasion on which the aged head of the Roman Catholic Church spoke out thus vigorously on an issue of paramount importance to the Jews. Some days previously, he had, addressing a group of pilgrims, condemned persecution of people of different blood or race as not only un-Christian, but as 'inhuman.' And repeatedly since the establishment of the Hitler regime, the Pope has voiced his resolute opposition against the new idol of 'blood and race.'
"Cardinal Pacelli [the future Pius XII], who succeeded the late Cardinal Gasparri as Papal Secretary of State, had been Papal Nuncio to Berlin before Hitler assumed power. In his reports to the Vatican he described in detail the situation and the danger to Catholicism from Hitler's movement, his racial theories and his anti-religious teachers. The war proclaimed by Hitler's theoreticians against the Old Testament and its 'Jewish spirit' naturally caused much concern to Cardinal Pacelil and to the Pope himself.
"It was on instructions from Cardinal Pacelli that Cardinal Faulhaber delivered his three famous sermons in the Munich Cathedral refuting the Nazi critics of the Bible and stressing the great influence of the Jewish Bible on the New Testament and the Christian religion." (To read Kleinlerer's entire article, see Pope Pius XI and American Public Opinion, edited by Robert J. Cuddihy and George N. Schuster (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1939, pp. 221-224)
After Pius XI's death, Cardinal Pacelli succeeded him as Pius XII, and early in his pontificate, he not only published the outstanding encyclical Summi Pontificatus, mentioned in my piece above, but also personally confronted Germany's Foreign Minster Ribbentrop about Hitler's persecution of Jews. The New York Times covered the meeting with this headline: "Pope is Emphatic About Just Peace: Jews' Rights Defended," reporting: "The Pontiff, in the burning words he spoke to Herr von Ribbentrop about religious persecution, also came to the defense of the Jews in Germany and Poland." (New York Times, March 14, 1940).
The phrase "burning words" has relevance here, because three years before this, Pacelli, while still Cardinal Secretary of State to Pius XI, helped draft Pius XI's famous anti-Nazi encyclical, "Mit brennender Sorge," which translates as "With Burning Concern."
1940 also saw the passing of one of the Holy See's greatest Allies, Cardinal Jean Verdier, the archbishop of Paris. In its obituary of him, on April 9, 1940, the New York Times stated: "Cardinal Verdier, like Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII, was the especial champion of persecuted Jews."
1940 also marked the beginning of Pius XII's contacts with the anti-Nazi German Resistance, and although the plot to overrow Hitler never succeeded-because of events outside Pius's control--"it was significant that the Pope had throughout been willing to give encouragement to the German Resistance at great risk to himself and the Church." (John Waller, in his book, The Unseen War in Europe, New York: Random House , 1996, p. 373)
All of which was surrounded by Pius XII's many interventions, appeals and public addresses, which were recorded by those who covered his pontificate.
On October 1, 1942, The Times of London editorialized: "A study of the words which Pope Pius XII has addressed since his accession in encyclicals and allocutions to the Catholics of various nations leaves no room for doubt. He condemns the worship of force and its concrete manifestation in the suppression of national liberties and in the persecution of the Jewish race."
Charles Pichon, a French correspondent who wrote one of the best works about the Holy See's wartime record, affirmed that Pius XII "gave very generously of his own personal efforts to those services which he had established in the Vatican for the relief of all War victims, without distinction of religion or race." (The Vatican and its Role in World Affairs, New York: E.P. Dutton, 1950, p. 167). Commenting on the pontiff's wartime Christmas addresses, he added:
"The pontifical texts condemned most strongly the anti-Semitic persecutions, the oppression of invaded lands, the inhuman conduct of the war, and also the deification of earthly things which were made into idols: the Land and the Race, the State and the Class."
Against these evils, Pius XII championed the restoration of family life and education, the harmonious reconstruction of society, the equality of nations and all people, and the restoration of a just peace.
8.8.2011 | 5:23am
edmond says:
Ok David, ad arguendo, I'll let the US "off the hook" just to get to make a point. Jesus Christ did not lead the essenes or the zealots against the roman occupation at all. SUre, He was highly abrasive against the pharisees and the sadducees because of their hypocrisy. He did not speak out against the romans who occupied jewish territories at that time. So why would you expect PPXII to "rise higher than the source"? Is it also your view that Christ was too cautious? Did He denounce the romans when He was tormented in their prison?
9.8.2011 | 8:38pm
Dollarhide Carolann says:
"one thing that interests me, which I think anyone should find interesting, regardless of how they view Pius XII on this: really, just how and why did the New York Times and other media outlets change their tune so dramatically on Pius XII? " Another related point -- how do criticis of Pius XII at the NY Times respond when confronted with past statements of praise? How do current Israeli officials respond when confronted with past statements of praise from people like Golda Meir?
Hildebrand, Bonhoeffer, and Moltke laid it all on the line. Focus on these people, instead of trying to rehabilitate the reputation of a pope whose legacy will remain muddled.