Msgr. Stephen M. DiGiovanni of St. John the Evangelist Roman Catholic Church in Stamford, CT, documented what the New York Times wrote during the War years about Pope Pius XII and the Jews: PIUS XII AND THE JEWS: The War Years as reported by the New York Times

One of the best accounts ever is the book by Pinchas Lapide, "The Last Three Popes and the Jews."

Lapide was an American soldier who landed in southern Italy where he saw Jewish children looked after by Vatican agencies, such as Caritas, even to the point of receiving Jewish education!

He later became a Professor of English at Tel Aviv University and still later an Orthodox Rabbi, spending his life defending Pius XII.

He reposed in the Lord not too long.

May he rest on the bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!

Alex

This might be a topic in which I should just shut up, but here it goes.

May I offer my somewhat unique view of the question of Pius XII and Nazi genocide? As a non-Catholic, I think I am somewhat objective.

I think both his accusers and his more strident defenders are both full of beans.

In fact, I think while the holocaust must be seen as the greatest horror of the 20th century, I think the concept of western guilt might be over done.

The falsity of the accusations against Pius XII I think are well known to people on this forum. But his critics are dependent on one well worn Catholic sterotype to give their claims some appeal -- namely that the Pope is this powerful figure who can wave his hand and million of Catholics robotically obey.

But it is on this point that some of Pius' defenders cannot bring themselves to admit. In many ways, they prefer to suffer the criticism than to note that it is both true that Pius did very little to save the Jews AND that Pius did all he could to save the Jews.

The role of the papacy in the affairs between nations is an interesting one, historically. But the period from Napoleon to 1945 would be the papacy's low point as far as influence. Pius XII should be given credit for creating the current role - an important and effective voice for world peace and human rights. But his creation did not reach adulthood until after the war ended. During the war years, the papacy was a fairly powerless player.

The other great myth of his accusers relates to their constant reference to his "silence". His defenders claim quiet diplomacy was more effective. In truth, neither was effective. We are using modern reference points -- demonstrations and petitions and civil actions to sway public opinion and then governmental action.

By the begining of the "final solution", the democracies of the world were already at war with the Axis. And the Axis nations were all police states with no regard to democratic action. Any words by Pius were mostly wasted breath.

The political left, having been through Vietnam and now with Iraq, does not like to be reminded that in the Nazi ear, they were the warmongers.

And the political right does not like to be reminded that when faced with the Nazism, they were the isolationists and compromisers and facilitators of fascism.

Axios

Alex,

I've also found Margarita Marchionne's books in this regard to be quite helpful. She cites, inter alia, Pierre Blet, whom one must read (as I have not done), it seems, to get at the actual archival sources. Ralph McInerny of the Maritain Centre at Notre Dame also has a book out recently on this topic--but I've not read it.

Please forgive me, but I fail to see the relevance of this thread as to the topic it is posted under.

That being Byzantine News.

Dear Irenaeus,

I always found it satisfying to know that one of the primary reasons that Hitler distrusted his Navy was that, he said, "it is filled with Catholics." For him, this religious affiliation was synonomous with a lack of absolute dedication to National Socialism.

It is also interesting to note that the great majority of the conspirators in the unsuccessful plot to kill Hitler in July 1944 were Roman Catholics.

Thank you for posting this excellent reasearch! I learned quite a bit!

In Christ.

Axios,
This point, IMO, is very well taken. And I think that it comes up in many contexts. Some folks who are very disquieted by the perceived dictatorial nature of the papacy are often simultaneously outraged by the fact the limited manner in which papal power can be exercised. This paradox is not only seen the diatribes against Pius XII for not stopping the Nazi genocide (and the Ustashe genocide), but also, for example, in his actions during the re-establishment of the Greek Catholic Church in the Ukraine, etc.

I have mentioned before that most extreme critics and fans of Papal power ironically share an extreme and exagerrated sense of it. And have wondered: which bothers the former more, their perception of dictatorial Papal power, or the reality that this power is exercised with collegiality and with real limitations?

Dear Axios,

Forgive me, but you know not what you speak . . .

This issue is very close to me as my father was a member of one of Pius XII's organization that helped save Jews, the Roma and homosexuals - all of which were condemned by Nazism as you know.

Pius XII's detractors have, from my viewpoint, one thing in common - they base their conclusions on ideology, bias and/or skewed research without ever really interviewing those who were helped or those who were eye-witnesses to Pius XII's assistance to those persecuted by Nazism, such as Rabbi Pinchas Lapide or the former Chief Rabbi of Rome, Eugenio Zolli - who became a Catholic, a Franciscan and took the name of the Pope or "Eugene."

But now that the Vatican archives are opened, let's see what the scholars will find there.

What do you base your conclusions on, Big Guy? Were you there or did you know people who were there and saw?

If not, read the accounts of those who were. And wait for what will soon clarify things.

For my part, I am proud to have developed legislation that has now been enacted that publicly commemorates the victims of the Holocaust, including Jews, the Roma and homosexuals.

Sorry, but I guess I'm not exactly objective on this topic either.

I'd be happier if I could get you in a head-lock and make you recant your views democratic-like .

Alex

Actually Axios seems to be taking a "Third Way" to use that awful Blairite term between Pius' most extreme detractors or supporters. Certainly Pius did see Communism as a greater threat and tended to neglect the Fascist powers and was certainly not as strong as his predecessor in condemning both terrible systems.

Dear Brian,

Again, comparing the two Piuses is wrong since both lived at different times and came from different backgrounds.

The American Jewish soldier, Pinchas Lapide (who later became a professor of Hebrew and an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi), described Pius XII as the best man for the job of "Pope" in those terrible times since he was actually the Vatican ambassador to Germany and a scholar of all things German!

As Lapide says, Papa Eugenio knew how far he could go with Hitler and his cronies, what to do and say - but he sometimes made mistakes that resulted in the Nazis taking their revenge by killing more Jews and Catholics to make their point, as they did in Holland.

As Lapide also wrote, Pius XII had an entire secret army of priests, nuns, monks and laity who used Catholic institutions and churches as safe havens for Jews and others threatened by the Nazis.

The Catholic Church even had Jewish teachers for Jewish children being protected.

The Nazis refused to entire building with the papal seal, and many Jews were hidden behind it.

My father would bring Jews to such "safe havens" during the war.

After he died, we received condolence letters from two families whose ancestors were helped by him and who dedicated two trees for him at Yad Veshem - I believe these were student-colleagues of his whom he helped get to safety.

Before he died, my father revealed to me that he had to take an oath not to reveal the locations of the safe havens for 25 years after the end of World War II. The organization he worked with was "Caritas."

No, Brian, Axios - and you - are approaching this from a cold, academic perspective, trying to make an analysis of this period fit in with a comfortable intellectual paradigm that suite the somewhat left-wing bent you both share.

I'm not saying you don't have a right to have that perspective.

I'm saying that it skews what Pope Pius XII really did.

As Pinchas Lapide said, "Pius XII deserves to be a 'Righteous of the Nations' and he deserves to have more than 840,000 trees planted at Yad Veshem, one for every Jew he helped save."

Alex

Alex,

i have sorry you have chosen to characterize my views as simply "cold" and "intellectual" and trying to fit an "ideology" I was sorry to see those words used as I never tried to personalize this. Agree to disagree, once again??

Peace,
Brian

Dear Brian,

I didn't say YOU were cold etc.

I said that the USE of historical paradigms in this case is the use of what is cold etc.

You, I surmise, are as warm as a cuddly teddy bear!

(Pius XII is a sore spot with me and I guess it shows, huh?)

Forgive me, as I prostrate myself in spirit before your magnanimity!

Alex

Alex,

I don't think we are in great disagreement and yes, I know what I speak from first hand sources. And yes, this is very personal to me as well.

Obviously the terms of measurement used in this can only be subjective. Did Pius XII do enough? Did he do all he could? Did he do a lot or a little? Who can measure such things?

I have no criticism of Pius XII. He created a new role for the papacy in international affairs. But the papacy he entered was not the papacy he left. I do not believe issuing press releases is what was needed at the time, which I note you did not address yourself. But that is what his detractors talk about, the 'silence' of Pius XII.

Alex, you write: "Pius XII's detractors have, from my viewpoint, one thing in common - they base their conclusions on ideology."

That is exactly why one must consider political ideologies, as they are what motivates Pius XII's detractors.

The European situation of the 30s & 40s was a secular ideological fight. The democratic right likes to supress this. They forget the appeasement of the British Tories, the alliance with Hitler of the German conservative party (which put him in power), the isolationism of the American conservatives and the sympathy for Nazism of the French and Spanish right.

Churchchill was the lonely voice within his own party to stand up against Hitler and was able to come to power in coalition with Labour. FDR was attacked by Lindberg and others for his opposition to Nazism.

Socialists, liberals and progressive Catholics were the political opposition against Hitler and for warfare. Today's secular Left likes to forget they were the warmongers.

I don't think it is irrelevant to note the political divisions of the time in order to understand the situation in context.

Another myth is that the West abandoned the Jews. In fact, 75% of German Jews were evacuated from Germany. Never before in history was such an act carried out. After the Russian revolution, even with a sympathetic Tory government was in power, the blood relation between the Russian and British monarchs, the fact most White Russians were upper class and the British economy was healthy, only 700 Russians were accepted to the UK. 52,000 German Jews wre accepted to Britian at the height of an economic depression.

Sadly, once the war started, the UK and the Commonwealth were closed to receiving refugees and those Jews accepted by France (30,000), Austria, the Low Countries (42,000), Czechoslovakia (5,000), Denmark and Norway (2,000 each)were now under Nazi oppression, as well as the native Jews of Poland and the 25,000 German Jews accepted there.

I am sure since we both have first hand knowledge of the situation of this period, you were already aware of this.

Axios

Dear Axios,

Excellent analysis . . .

I was referring more to the political motives of those who seem to want to blame Pius XII - as if he COULD do more than he did - and he did a great deal.

Lapide deals with the so-called "silence" of Pius XII in his book and, from his point of view, Pius knew that nothing could be gained from grand-standing with Hitler.

Instead, he reiterated the condemnations of Nazism by his predecessor and proceeded to do all his Church could do to save lives.

In the end, it was about saving lives, not about moral-sounding statements that would have resulted in retaliatory massacres and would not have changed the West's attitudes at that time one iota.

Pius XII was a saint and a great friend to the Jewish people and to others who were slated for extermination by the Nazis.

And I'll defend that until the cows come home.

Alex

Alex,

I don't think we disagree. My point would be that I think the focus on Pius XII is excessive. What we rarely hear is the commendation of the greatest friends of the Jews in the 1940's, the brave boys of the American, British, Soviet, Free French, Canadian, Chinese and other allies.

Attempts at rescue are commendatory. The armed defeat of fascism is what was necessary.

Axios