Ads


Sign up for our
Email Newsletter

William Doino Jr.

view all featured authors »

Kevin Madigan’s Offenses Against History

At the end of the Second World War, when the Nuremberg prosecutors were gathering evidence for the upcoming trials, one of the many people they turned to for assistance was Pope Pius XII. They were not disappointed. The Holy See sent on massive documentation, recounting Nazi criminality, and the material given proved to be of great value. Pius XII made it a point to meet with chief prosecutor, Robert Jackson, and also announced: “Not only do we approve of the trial, but we desire that the guilty be punished as quickly as possible, and without exception.”

It is a measure of the misinformation that still surrounds Pius XII that almost no one knows about this today. Instead, many people believe his papacy turned a blind eye to Nazi war crimes.

Such misconceptions caused Father Robert Graham, the foremost authority on the wartime papacy, to caution:


Among the many legends about the Vatican inherited from World War II is the allegation that Pope Pius XII knowingly and willingly assisted hunted Nazi war criminals to escape from justice by taking flight overseas—particularly to Latin America. He is supposed to have regarded these ex-SS men as an elite to be preserved, for the ultimate world struggle against Communism. It is never asked why the Pope should lift a finger for a group of men who had apostasized from their religion and who were the chosen instruments of Hitler to ‘crush the Church underfoot like a toad.’ This is a way of thinking that comes naturally to a certain type of mind steeped in the literature of left-wing writers, according to which all Vatican policy is explicable by an ‘obsession’ with Communism.

But it’s not just the Left that has been misled. The Wall Street Journal recently endorsed a PBS documentary (“Elusive Justice”) which continued the charge; Max Hastings otherwise excellent new history of the War, Inferno, repeats it; and in its December issue Commentary magazine published an egregious piece entitled, “How the Catholic Church Sheltered Nazi War Criminals.”

The article is written by Kevin Madigan, a Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Harvard. Employing just the kind of narrative Graham warned against, Madigan depicts a grand conspiracy within the post-War Church, whereby the Vatican allegedly set up a network to recruit, fund, and protect fleeing Nazi war criminals.

The accusations are presented as new and explosive, when in fact they are staples of anti-papal literature, in circulation for decades.

Despite efforts to portray this all as a labyrinthine Vatican plot, the truth is much more mundane. At the end of the War, there were literally millions of displaced people in post-War Europe, in desperate need of aid. In response, Pius XII created the Pontifical Commission for Assistance (PCA), a humanitarian relief organization which helped displaced refugees. There were also several dozen separate Catholic agencies, usually for designated national groups, which operated on their own responsibility, though the pope tried to help each out as best he could, with the intention of helping the innocent and the good. Countless decent people were helped, but because of the chaotic post-War situation, a number of suspected or known war criminals exploited the system, and were abetted by a number of collaborationist clerics. Among the most notorious were Bishop Alois Hudal, head of the Austro-German Church and seminary in Rome; and the Croatian priest, Krunoslav Draganović. Neither were “Vatican officials” (as has often been claimed), and Graham described how they betrayed their faith, and flagrantly violated the pope’s commands.

For anti-papal ideologues, however, it is essential that they link Pius XII to these guilty priests, since exposing the sins of renegade clerics just doesn’t have the cache of a full-throated j’accuse against the papacy. The problem is that “there is simply no evidence against Pius XII,” as Guy Walters, an investigative authority, has recently written.

Still, Madigan tries. He outrageously writes that “the PCA viewed itself as a sort of papal mercy program for National Socialists and Fascists.” Hudal, we are told, was “someone dedicated to extending papal charity to ‘so-called’ war criminals,” but Hudal spoke of Christian charity, not papal directives; and while the two frequently and emphatically disagreed on how to implement it, Hudal and Pius XII did see eye to eye on one occasion—when they both rescued Jews during the German occupation of Rome, a fact Madigan leaves unmentioned.

As for Draganović and his fascist friends in Croatia, the gulf between their views and Pius XII’s can be seen in the Vatican’s repeated interventions for Croatia’s persecuted Jewish community, an effort amply praised by the Chief Rabbi of Zagreb.

In his effort to recycle discredited charges, Madigan relies upon two books, David Cymet’s History vs. Apologetics and Gerald Steinacher’s Nazis on the Run. The first might be charitably called a mix of history and anti-Catholic fables; the second, a pseudo-scholarly mess.

Cymet claims that when Pius was serving as papal nuncio to Germany, before becoming pope, he was so impressed with Hitler’s anti-Communist zeal that he personally gave the future dictator a contribution, blessing him with the words, “Go, quell the devil’s works.” This sounds like something out of piece of lurid fiction, and sure enough, it is. The two never met. Cymet accuses the pope of refusing to return Jewish children, rescued by Catholics during the Holocaust, to their rightful Jewish guardians—a hoax that was exposed many years ago, but which Madigan repeats as fact. Following Cymet, Madigan also rails against Pius XII for allegedly seeking “pardons” for condemned Nazi war criminals—as if he wanted them to go free—when, in reality, what the pope did was ask they be spared the death penalty (while remaining locked-down in prison), just as he appealed for the Rosenbergs, when they, too, faced execution. Pius believed in tempering justice with mercy, even for the worst criminals, be they Nazis or Communists, knowing God would have the final say, for eternity. That is not a universally accepted view, but it is certainly a Christian one.

Though less polemical than Cymet, Steinacher is no less misinformed. Nazis on the Run posits a close friendship between Hudal and Pius XII, missing entirely Pius’s call for Hudal’s censor, even before he became pope. Steinacher also peddles the image of Pius as a blind anti-Communist, ignoring the pope’s intervention for American lend-lease to Russia, and his numerous statements calling Nazism an even graver threat than Bolshevism. Given his cynical, secular views, it’s not surprising to find Steinacher also mocking baptism, repentance and conversion, depicting them as mere techniques to foster Pius’s supposed political agenda. But nothing Steinacher says about Pius XII equals his treatment of Giovanni Battista Montini, Pius’s wartime assistant and the future Pope Paul VI.

Evidently unaware that Paul VI oversaw Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate –the most important declaration on Catholic-Jewish relations in the history of the Church—Steinacher insinuates Montini was an anti-Semite, a caricature Madigan faithfully relays: “For his part, Montini simply lacked sympathy for the victims of the Holocaust. He had, Steinacher tells us, no interest in Christian-Jewish reconciliation. And ‘he even seemed to have expressed doubts about the extent of the genocide.’”

Put aside, for the moment Steinacher and Madigan’s outrageous views about Paul VI. How could the editors of Commentary—who presumably know something about interfaith relations—have allowed the pope who promulgated Nostra Aetate to be depicted as hostile to Catholic-Jewish reconciliation?

As for the notion that Paul VI had doubts about the magnitude of the Holocaust, that doesn’t quite square with Paul’s 1964 visit to the Holy Land, when his delegation “lit six candles in memory of the six million killed, expressing on behalf of the Pope ‘our sympathy and participation in the anguish and sorrow at the terrible destruction wrought on the people of Israel.’”

That description comes from none other than the American Jewish Committee, the original publisher of Commentary magazine.

Not content with attacking Pius XII, Madigan attempts to disparage his defenders, endorsing Cymet’s claim that they are “cousins of Holocaust-deniers.” The charge is as offensive as it is inaccurate (modern historiography is moving in favor, not against Pius); and a man in a position to know—Robert M.W. Kempner, who helped convict the guilty at Nuremberg—has said that it is Pius XII’s opponents, not his defenders, who traffic in toxic revisionism.

At a key point in his polemic, Madigan tries to employ Nazi-hunter Serge Klarsfeld in the campaign against Pius XII. Klarsfeld, however, has emerged as one of the wartime pope’s principled defenders, telling the French journal Le Point, “Pius XII had a decisive role against Hitler, but also in the fight against Communism in Eastern Europe.” Noting how the pope helped save thousands of Jews in Rome, Klarsfeld remarked: “There is no reason why Pius XII should not become a saint.”

In the end, an article purporting to be about truth and justice is undone by its own falsehoods and prosecutorial misconduct.

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

The Nuernberg Trial by Nicholas Doman, Bulletin of American Association of University Professors, Spring, 1946.

The Holy See’s Declaration on Nazi Refugees after World War II (Vatican Information Service, February 14, 1992).

“The Roman ‘non possumus’ and the Attitude of Bishop Alois Hudal Towards the National Socialist Ideological Aberrations,” by Johan Ickx, in Religion Under Siege: The Roman Catholic Church in Occupied Europe (1939-1950) edited by L. Gevers and Jan Bank (Peeters, 2007), pp. 315-344.

The Truth About Pius and the Nazi “Ratlines” by Guy Walters (The Catholic Herald, August 14, 2009).

Serge Klarsfeld. “Il n’ya a acune raison pour que Pie XII ne devienne pas saint.Le Point, December 24, 2009.

Mission in Croatia on Behalf of Pius XII, L’Osservatore Romano, August 10, 2011.

Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.


 

Comments:

2.20.2012 | 5:15am
I am so glad to hear a response to Madigan's article. His writing is a little more than egregious in Commentary. He wrote as though he were near-gleeful that he 'found' such evidence against RC during the Nazi era. I could see him running down his Harvard hallway to find Jon Levinson seeking validation that he had done 'a good thing.' I would call Madigan's approach to the data contrived it the topic wasn't so serious.
2.20.2012 | 10:45am
A robust and, given the brevity of the column, completely convincing rebuttal of Kevin Madigan's attempt to smear Pius XII.
Professor Madigan is really clutching at the thinnest of straws when he imputes a kind of ideological connection between Holocaust Deniers and defenders of Pius.
In at least one documented case, the exact opposite is true. David Irving, the notorious British Holocaust Denier, has been friendly (perhaps even 'ideologically friendly') with Rolf Hochhuth, the author of 'The Deputy' since the 1960s. For those who wish to pursue this link further, I can recommend Carlos Thompson's book: The Assassination of Winston Churchill.
2.20.2012 | 11:54am
Thank you for William Doino's rejoinder to Madigan's unseemly assault on Pius XII. Since Hochhuth's "The Deputy,"—a work of fiction—a small industry has grown around the effort to defame Pius' wartime behavior. It was dismaying to see Commentary breathing new life into a 40-year-old slur that discounts the testimony of those closer to events: Golda Meir, Pinchas Lapide, Isaac Herzog (Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem), Israel Zolli (Chief Rabbi of Rome), Albert Einstein, and the secretary general of the World Jewish Congress, among others. A New York Times editorial on Christmas, 1942, called Pius a "lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas."

One question that emerges from Madigan's enthusiasm for a post-Sixties calumny is why Commentary chose to run with it.
2.20.2012 | 12:02pm
Cbalducc says:
I enjoy reading Commentary, but I can't understand why they give voice to people who view Pius XII as a Holocaust enabler.
2.20.2012 | 1:24pm
Fremwell says:
C:

Possibly it was because of Pius' support not for Hitler, but his at least passive acceptance of ... Mussolini?

Think of Mussolini; Hitler's co-fascist partner. Who dominated Pius' Italy and Rome, for many years. All without Pius mounting effective objection.

The focus on Hitler is not quite honest, or Christian: the real question is Pius and Mussolini.
2.20.2012 | 3:33pm
"The real question is Pius and Mussolini."

No, the real question specifically addressed here is answering Commentary's unjust article about the Catholic Church and Nazi war criminals. Casually avoiding that inaccurate and offensive piece, and changing the topic with unjust new charges about Pius XII allegedly not "mounting effective objection" to Mussolini and Italian Fascism, doesn't prove anything. For a comprehensive documentation of the Holy See's opposition to both Fascism and Nazism, however, please see my 80,00 word annotated bibliography in The Pius War: Responses to the Critics of Pius XII, pp. 97-280 (Lexington Books, 2004).

Even a cursory reading of Vatican statements and publications during Mussolini's reign disproves the charge about "effective objection." A.C. Jemolo, a noted enemy of Italian Fascism, writes: "It may be recognized without qualification that there was no heretical principle, no proposition against dogma, against orthodox history or against morals which was even tentatively advanced by fascist men or journals of any authority, which was not immediately refuted by pontifical acts, by very authoritative ecclesiastical reviews or by the Osservatore Romano" (Chiesa e stato in Italia negli ultimi cento anni [Turin: Einaudi, 1948], pp. 680-681.

New York Times wartime correspondent Camille Cianfarra wrote: "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, and witnessed the birth and rapid growth of very close cooperation between the Vatican and Washington." (The Vatican and the War [New York: E.P Dutton and Company, 1944], pp. 6-7.

Pius XII hired Guido Gonella, a leading anti-Fascist writer, once jailed by Mussolini, to write articles for the Osservatore, and Gonella later published his commentaries in a book on Pius XII's Christimas addresses (The Papacy and World Peace: A Study of the Christmas Messages of Pope Pius XII (London: Hollis and Carter, 1945). The latter were described well by French correspondent Charles Pichon: "Full and precise, the annual Christmas allocutions which so exasperated the Duce (particularly that of 1942), constantly reminded the world of the moral laws which the triumphant Axis violated more brutally every day. They also pointed out the principal foundations on which the future peace of the world should be built....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." (The Vatican and its Role in World Affairs (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1950), p. 167.

Lt. Col Samuel Derry, an Allied prisoner of War, wrote in his memoirs that "Pope Pius XII had been fearless in his outspoken denunciation of Fascist excesses" (The Rome Escape Line [New York: W.W. Norton, 1960], p. 55; and in his wartime diaries, Rumor and Reflection (New York Simon and Schuster, 1952), Bernard Berenson, the famous art historian, praised Pius XII and his faithful bishops for denouncing the Fascist-Nazi alliance: "Both the pope and the Cardinal of Florence have spoken courageously and clearly." (entry for December 26, 1943)."
2.20.2012 | 3:45pm
Constantine says:
Supporters of Doino/Graham et. al. have to account for the fact that General Clay and John McCloy were "peppered" with requests for leniency from German Catholics for Nazis who had already been convicted of murder!

Professor Michael Phayer of Marquette (Emeritus) notes the following about the onslaught of Catholic support for Nazi criminals:

"In making their appeals, Catholic leaders split hairs and produced unsupportable arguments. The bishops urged, for example, that Victor Brack’s death sentence be commuted to a lesser penalty on the grounds that his implementation of the euthanasia program was based on rational, not avaricious, convictions. Brack, they said demonstrated this when he represented the Nazis in a discussion with church leaders who opposed the euthanasia program. Brack killed purposefully, not capriciously. The argument was specious." Phayer, Michael. The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930-1965. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2000. P. 142.

So, how do you account for this type of behavior? Were the bishops acting independently of Rome, even though they had previously been forbidden from doing so by the Concordat enacted by Pius? It seems Mr. Doino has to account for an independent German episcopacy (in violation of Catholic teaching) or he has to affirm the conspiracy of which he laments. Which will it be?

Peace.
2.20.2012 | 6:35pm
ROB says:
Constantine, you're shifting the goal posts. The question always has been the conduct of Pius, at least since The Deputy and not the actions of miscellaneous Catholics in post war Europe. One would be hard pressed not to find Germans, of all sorts, seeking leniency, escape routes etc for friends, relations or even those, human conduct being as it is, people who somewhere along the line did a good turn or two. As we all know it's a big Church of sinners, think of John Hughes castigating his brother southern bishops for their positions during the Civil War. The conduct of those bishops hardly makes Hughes a secessionist. The conduct of various German Catholics doesn't make Pacelli a pro Nazi.
2.20.2012 | 6:38pm
Don Roberto says:
Constantine, all men—even bishops—are endowed with free will, And Mr. Doino already accounted for the kind of appeals you mention insofar as he pointed out that Catholic theology calls for mercy, e.g., life in prison can be acceptable even for the most wicked criminals. I myself struggle against the thought that sending the Charles Mansons and Nazis dumbfounded to Sheol would be best, but I bow to my betters.

Be proud of your given name.

2.20.2012 | 7:30pm
William Doino Jr. writes:

"At the end of the Second World War, when the Nuremberg prosecutors were gathering evidence for the upcoming trials, one of the many people they turned to for assistance was Pope Pius XII. They were not disappointed. The Holy See sent on massive documentation, recounting Nazi criminality, and the material given proved to be of great value. Pius XII made it a point to meet with chief prosecutor, Robert Jackson, and also announced: 'Not only do we approve of the trial, but we desire that the guilty be punished as quickly as possible, and without exception.'"

The only "resource" you provide to corroborate the facts in your first paragraph doesn't do so. As far as I can tell, Nicholas Doman's "The Nuernberg Trial" has only this to say about the Vatican, Pius XII, and the Nuremberg prosecutors:

"The Vatican, which strictly preserved its role of neutrality during the war, has established contact with the prosecution. Pope Pius XII has more than once received in private audience Justice Robert H. Jackson, the American chief prosecutor. An American Catholic priest, a high ranking adviser to Jackson, has been searching all over Europe for evidence to prove the criminality of Germany in the persecution of religion. A correspondent of the Swiss 'Gazette de Lausanne,' who was received in private audience by the Pope, quoted the following statement made by Pope Pius: 'Not only do we approve of the trial, but we desire that the guilty be punished as quickly as possible, and without exception.'"

You get the statement from Pius exactly right, but:

1.) I see no evidence in Doman that "one of the many people they [the Nuremberg prosecutors] turned to for assistance was Pope Pius XII." Doman only writes that the Vatican "established contact with the prosecution." Perhaps Pius XII was offering assistance at this time, but Doman doesn't say that.

2.) I see no evidence in Doman that "The Holy See sent on massive documentation, recounting Nazi criminality, and the material given proved to be of great value." In terms of documentation Doman only writes that a high-ranking adviser to Jackson, an American Catholic priest, had "been searching all over Europe for evidence." There is no mention of the quantity ("massive"?) or quality ("of great value"?) of that evidence, or that any evidence had in fact been provided by the Holy See.

What I see here is a whole lot of "spin" based upon almost no historical documentation. Perhaps there are other references to the relationship between the Vatican and the Nuremberg Trial prosecutors that corroborates the points you made. If so, please post them.
2.20.2012 | 8:01pm
I don't know the details of the issue, but I see no difficulty with pleas for commuting death sentences. I would do the same today. Odd that Pope John Paul II should be called too liberal by some for believing that death sentences were unchristian in the First World, that the commandment, "Thou shall not murder" applies.

Constantine makes that most common of errors, assuming that what he, personally, would have done is morally the only defensible action. But that is only the surface. Maybe he might notice that views among individual Catholics are anything but unified

Phayer's claim that "the bishops" (which ones?, where?) argued that "avaricious euthanasia" was the only kind that should warrant capital punishment, has a wrong feel to it -- not in feeling morally ambiguous, but in inflating what looks like a technical argument to achieve an end (no death penalty) into support for the the Nazi euthanasia program.

Constantine, "Prove my claims wrong," is the demand of a conspiracy theorist. Rather the theorist must make the argument in favor of his theory. Pulling out another canard in the face of overwhelming evidence to the negation of the theory is not an argument.
2.20.2012 | 8:20pm
Steve says:
I'm not an expert, but it seems Constantine's question has been answered. According to his own quotes, the Church leaders pressed for leniency and mercy. This isn't only the Christian thing to do, but the pragmatic. Accountability and punishment: Yes. Requiring the pound of flesh begets further requirements of same.

It is also far different than spiriting off criminals to safe haven in Latin America.
2.20.2012 | 11:18pm
"Perhaps there are other references to the relationship between the Vatican and the Nuremberg Trial prosecutors that corroborates the points you made. If so, please post them."

Yes, certainly: Here are three excellent references:

Pius XII and the Holy See provided extensive documentation to the American Jesuit Edmund A. Walsh to assist the prosecutors at Nuremberg; and the documentaion given Walsh proved to be "of great value" he stated. This, and other information surrounding the Holy See's support for the Nuremberg prosecutors, is documented in Patrick McNamara's excellent book, A Catholic Cold War: Edmund A. Walsh and the Politics of American anti-Communism ( Fordham University Press).

For more, see Louis Gallagher's biography, Edmund A. Walsh (Benziger).

In addition, in his book, Judgment on Nuremberg (Univ. of North Carolina Press), William J. Bosch has an entire chapter on "Men of God" in which he discusses the debate among the Churches over how to proceed at Nuremberg, and notes that numerous Catholics opposed the trials (believing they would be one-sided and unfair, especially with the Soviets--who were also guilty of horrendous crimes-- not in the dock), whereas Pius XII, in contrast, "publicly and repeatedly voiced his approbation of the war-crime trials." (p. 128). Bosch further adds, "Some American prosecutors made a point of having conferences with the Pope before the trials started."

Thanks to the many other posters for contributing thoughtful comments.
3.6.2012 | 3:55pm
For a very different and perhaps more credible view of Madigan and his article, see the introduction by Australian historian Paul O'Shea to the post below.

http://paulonpius.blogspot.com/2011/12/kevin-madigan-pope-pius-xii-church-and.html

Dr Robert Gerwath, the director of the Centre for War Studies at University College Dublin, Ireland, thought Steinacher, so far from being "misinformed" (Doino), has set the bar for future research in this area. FT readers ought to ask themselves who is likelier to express an authoritative opinion.

For a critical view of Doino's writings on Paul XII, a through which which all FT readers should filter Doino's writings, and which Paul O'Shea regards as apologetical rather than historical in nature, see http://paulonpius.blogspot.com/2011/07/william-doino-jews-and-pius-xii-more-of.html.
3.21.2012 | 2:30am
The post above by "CradleCatholic" did not address a single one of my main criticisms, nor do the references recommended and linked to.

(Dr. Gerwarth, it should be noted, specializes in war studies, not Catholic history, and this shows in his uncritical review of Steinacher's anti-papal book. Further, the blog cited as a purported "critical view" of my work is misinformed about it and filled with the kind of outdated anti-Pius polemics I answered in The Pius War).

How is one to take as credible authors and reviewers who write about the Vatican and Nazi war criminals without once ever mentioning Pius XII's public support for their prosecution, or the assistance he provided prosecutors at Nuremberg? And how "historical" is the claim, made by Steinacher (Nazis on the Run, p. 106), and not challenged by Madigan, that Pope Paul VI "lacked a desire for Christian-Jewish reconciliation"?

The late Rabbi Marc H. Tanenbaum, a pioneer in inter-faith dialogue, hailed Paul VI's historic contributions to Jewish-Catholic relations, and Cardinal Edward Cassidy, who served as the Vatican's key official for them, said the same. Anyone who reads Vatican II's Nostra Aetate, which Paul VI promulgated, can see this impact.

As for the claim that my writings are "apologetical rather than historical in nature"--that is somewhat amusing, given that those who make this claim are invariably "apologists" for the anti-Pius establishment--which is now losing momentum throughout the scholarly world. If First Things's readers want to get an idea of the changing nature of the Pius XII debate, please note the review essay for the Literary Review,"Rent-a-Moralists at Bay," by prize-winning British historian Michael Burleigh (available online at: http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/burleigh_02_06.html), in which he reviews two important works supporting Pius XII, concluding: "As these two excellent books show, people are growing weary of the self-righteous ignorance of his critics who have lost the 'Pius War.'"

That news appears not to have reached everyone. Before his latest outburst in Commentary, Madigan had published a number of articles against the wartime papacy, including a largely positive review of John Cornwell's Hitler's Pope (H-Net Reviews, April, 2000), which Madigan called "profound" and a work of "devastating success." It is, of course, neither, and has been completely discredited. (For additional criticism of Madigan's flawed historical writings, see Justus George Lawler's observations in Were the Popes Against the Jews? Tracking the Myths, Confronting the Ideologues [Eerdmans, 2012], pp. 186-192)

I'm hardly along in challenging myths about Pius XII, as the sources cited at the end of my article reveal. In addition, Professor Ronald Rychlak has just posted online a thorough refutation of Steinacher and Madigan's writings on this subject, entitled, "Shoddy Scholarship in the Study of Pope Pius XII," showing how primary documents obtained from archives and other key evidence disprove their claims. (Rychlak's article is available at: http://www.catholicleague.org/persecution-stories/).

The real question raised by my piece was: why is Commentary magazine publishing incredibly biased pieces against Pius XII and the Catholic Church in the first place? It was not always so. In the past, Commentary has published thoughtful pieces on Jewish-Catholic relations, and fair-minded analysis of the Catholic Church's historical record by scholars such as Will Herberg and Leon Poliakov; and one hopes the magazine will return to that honorable tradition soon.

A voice of integrity in this regard was the late Supreme Court Justice Arthur J. Goldberg. In 1964, following the debut of Rolf Hochhuth's anti-Pius play, The Deputy, Justice Goldberg gave a talk in which he affirmed: "I am one who, having read the full text of Rolf Hochhuth's controversial play, 'The Deputy,' and who having lived through those terrible days, believe that the dramatist did not do justice to that great and good Pontiff, Pope Pius XII. Jews are and should be grateful for what the Pope and the Cathoiic Church did to rescue innocent Jewish victims of Nazi insanity and barbarism." (Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Daily News Bulletin, April 6, 1964).

Not long after he gave that address, Justice Goldberg gave up his seat on the Supreme Court to become the United States representative at the United Nations, and then became president of the American Jewish Committee--the original founder and publisher of Commentary magazine.
4.8.2012 | 10:26am
Disappointed says:
http://paulonpius.blogspot.com/2012/03/apologists-pius-wars-rest-of-us-do.html

Doino claims he he has responded to Dr. Paul O' Shea's attempt to instruct him in the crucial distinction between apologetics and history. Yet this post and his latest on FT demonstrate, to the contrary, that he has not grasped the distinction at all.


Here is O'Shea's first paragraph: http://paulonpius.blogspot.com/2012/03/apologists-pius-wars-rest-of-us-do.html


"This post was prompted in part by the article written by William Doino in First Things which is a thinly veiled attack on the scholarship of Kevin Madigan, Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Harvard. Somehow, I doubt Madigan has remained in his position for want of historical ability and skill. Doino's article is a clever mix of slightly twisted fact with a heavy handed bashing of historians with whom he disagrees. Doino engages in just enough smokescreening of historical fact to leave a lay audience seriously wondering if Madigan's take on the post-war trials and the Vatican's responses is a poor attempt at smearing the good name of the Catholic Church. For the reader who wishes to make up their own mind, I suggest bypassing First Things and go straight to the books Madigan mentions - David Cymet History vs Apologetics and Gerald Steinacher Nazis on the Run. I have read Steinacher's excellent work and do not understand how Doino cannot accept the fundamental thesis, namely that elements within the Catholic Church were active in helping Nazi war criminals escape justice."

That's just a taste. The rest is well worth dwelling over carefully, though it will permanently change your once-favorable view of Doino and the usual suspects (Rychalk especially, but Sr. Marchione and colleagues in apologetics). You will see they have employed EVERY ONE of the tactics identified by O'Shea in their recent posts. I thought we were being give history by Doino and Rychlak and especially my former hero Justus George Lawler. Actually, O' Shea proves they have been ladling out great dollops of apologetics. One feels misled. Very disappointing.

John 8:32.
4.9.2012 | 2:52pm
Mr. Doino,

You comment that Steinacher's well-received book is a "pseudo-scholarly mess."

You must have read it very closely to have come to so harsh a conclusion, and its deficiencies, which must be many, must be fresh in your mind.

Would you kindly indicate, _specifically_ and _at length_ what parts of the book are "pseudo-scholarly"? I would really like chapter-and-verse from you, so that I, who am no expert, am not misled. It really would also be the fair thing for Professor Steinacher and his publisher, Oxford University Press, who may learn from your detailed critique.

With many thanks,
DicensVeritatem
4.18.2012 | 11:10pm
1. Like a previous poster, "Disappointed" did not address, much less disprove, a single one of my criticisms of Madigan's Commentary piece, but instead references an author who similarly fails to acknowledge the major errors and omissions of Madigan, Steinacher and Cymet, but nonetheless takes strong exception to my work. Since the same author once wrote a review praising John Cornwell's Hitler's Pope as "particularly satisfying in most respects" (see Patterns of Prejudice, volume 34, no. 4, 2000, p. 68), that is hardly surprising.

2. This quote is a serious misrepresentation: "I have read Steinacher's excellent work and do not understand how Doino cannot accept the fundamental thesis, namely that elements within the Catholic Church were active in helping Nazi war criminals escape justice."

In fact, nowhere did I deny the truth that there were "elements within the Catholic Church" who assisted Nazi war criminals. My article explicitly states that Nazi war criminals were "abetted by a number of collaborationist clerics," like Bishop Hudal and Krunoslav Draganovic, who "betrayed their faith." What I objected to, among many other unfair allegations or insinuations, was the attempt to implicate Pius XII in this underground network, and the failure of Pius XII's critics to mention that he supported the prosecution of Nazi war criminals.

3. My 80,000 word annotated bibliography in The Pius War: Responses to the Critics of Pius XII, was judged "balanced" by Holocaust and Genocide Studies (Spring, 2006, p. 121), published in association with the United States Holocaust Museum; and described as "the defining bibliography on this topic" by The Catholic Historical Review (October, 2005, p. 848).

But the new research and attitudes supporting Pius XII go far beyond my own work on the subject. In addition to the writings of Burleigh and Lawler, they are reflected in the interview with Sir Martin Gilbert, "The Untold Story: Catholic Rescuers of Jews," Inside the Vatican, August 2003, pp. 26-33; Eugenio Pacelli-Pius XII (1876-1958): In the View of Scholarship, edited by Peter Pfister (Schnell and Steiner); Andrea Tornielli's acclaimed 2007 biography, Pius XII: A Man on the Throne of Peter; and the many invaluable volumes of the Commission for Contemporary History in Bonn, headed by Dr. Karl-Joseph Hummel.

4. It is the anti-Pius establishment, not those who support Pius, who profoundly and strikingly misunderstand the nature of true apologetics. Properly understood and advanced, apologetics is not a contradiction of sound history, for they are both rooted in a sincere pursuit and defense of objective truth--not evasion or an unwillingness to face uncomfortable facts, as is now routinely alleged by Pius's detractors. (For an excellent corrective to this defective understanding of apologetics, see Cardinal Avery Dulles's classic work, A History of Apologetics, Ignatius Press). Strongly defending an impressive historical figure, on the evidence, against unjust and inaccurate charges is indeed a form of apologetics--and it is also the right and decent thing to do, as well as an act of responsible history.

5. The reason that Pius XII continues to gain ground in scholarly circles is not because these scholars have failed to seriously consider the arguments and evidence on all sides, but precisely because they have carefuly examined them, and decided in Pius XII's favor.
6.12.2012 | 12:47pm
http://paulonpius.blogspot.com/2012/04/first-madigan-now-kertzer-open-season.html

For a definitive refutation of Doino and Lawler, as well as reflections on the sources and meaning of their uncivil tone, which will be of interest to all Catholics troubled by the uncivil tone of these two authors (as well as Ronald Rychlak) see Dr. Paul O' Shea's perceptive reflections at the link above.
8.31.2012 | 10:37am
Peter Paul says:
See Paul O' Shea's morally serious critique at http://paulonpius.blogspot.com/2012/04/first-madigan-now-kertzer-open-season.html: "In February William Doino took aim at Harvard's Professor Kevin Madigan in _First Things_, penning a particularly nasty and grossly inaccurate piece of historical revisionism and apologia. Why? Because Madigan had the nerve to pen a review of two books he found to add substance to the ongoing historical discussion about the Catholic Church and its role/s during the Holocaust. Doino believed Madigan’s positive assessment of both works - David Cymet History vs Apologetics and Gerald Steinacher Nazis on the Run - was, historically distorted and flawed to the point that suggested Madigan was operating from a more insidious agenda, namely supporting the white-anting of the Catholic Church through “pope bashing”.

Curiously, while dismissing Steinacher’s work as “a pseudo-scholarly mess” with no examination of how he reached this conclusion, Doino spends most of his time creating so much smoke..."

Too true: uncivil, inaccurate, unworthy of a Catholic writer like Doino and the usual suspects.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact