Posted on 04/20/2002 11:13:03 AM PDT by Romulus
Supporters of Pope Pius XII took a firm and impressive stand at a major Holocaust Conference, and in so doing, demonstrated that the debate on the wartime pontiff's role during the Holocaust may be shifting in his favor. On April 14-15, Millersville University, in Millersville, Pennsylvania, USA, hosted the Twenty Second Annual Conference on the Holocaust, which was devoted this year to the theme, "Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust." The Conference hosted lectures by a virtual Who's Who of the Popes supporters, detractors and those who fall somewhere in between. Among the presenters at Millersville were authors James Carroll (Constantine's Sword), Ronald Rychlak (Hitler, the War and the Pope), Susan Zuccotti (Under His Very Windows: The Vatican and the Holocaust in Italy), John Jay Hughes (Pontiffs: Popes Who Shaped History), J. Michael Phayer (The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930-1965), John Morley (Vatican Diplomacy and the Jews During the Holocaust, 1939-1943), Stewart Stehlin (Weimar and the Vatican, 1918-1933), Jose Sanchez ( Pius XII and the Holocaust: Understanding the Holocaust), Sergio Minerbi (The Vatican and Zionism), John S. Conway (The Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 1933-1945) , German scholar Michael Feldkamp (Pius XII and Deutschland [Pius XII and Germany]), and Rabbi David Dalin (author of the watershed article, "Pope Pius XII and the Jews," published in The Weekly Standard). Ecumenical leaders Fr. John Pawlikowski, A. James Rudin and Seymour Reich were also in attendence and contributed to the debate.
A number of prominent philosophers and theologians also spoke, including Richard Rubinstein (Professor Emeritus of the University of Bridgeport) who opened the Conference with a startling--many said shocking--speech, saying of Pius XII: "The question is, whatever he did, did he regard the elimination of the Jews as a benefit, and the answer to that, I think, is yes." The statement was so wild, so beyond the pale that it created a backlash: no one else among the panelists (or in the audience) dared to defend it, and it badly damaged the authority of Pius XII's critics for the rest of the Conference. James Carroll was deeply critical of the Vatican's role during the Holocaust, and drew a connection between the current pedophilia scandals (involving homosexual priests) and the cause of Pope Pius XII. "The same people who want to canonize Pius XII are the same people who have covered up for these priests," he said.
But this charge was undermined by Carroll's own admission that many conservative Catholics who have a favorable opinion of Pius are equally horrified by the sexual scandals and cover-ups in the Church. Moreover, after it was pointed out to Carroll that many of the scholars in attendance who had a high opinion of Pius were neither Catholic nor conservative, he admitted that people of good will, from all different perspectives, can and do disagree about the wartime pontiff. As if to prove that point, David Dalin, a distinguished American Rabbi and historian, delivered an address which detailed the Pontiff's wartime assistance to Jews, the testimonies of those who worked with him and loved him, and described Pius's outspoken denunciation of Nazi atrocities (showing that they were clearly understood by both the Nazis, who hated them, and the Catholic rescuers, who were inspired by them). He ended by asserting that the Jewish leaders who hailed Pius XII both during the War, and at the end of his life, were objectively right, and that the Pontiff was indeed a "Righteous Gentile."
None of Dalin's fellow-panelists answered any of his major points, except for one minor challenge which questioned whether the Israeli Philharmonic actually honored Pius XII or the Italian people in general. (It turns out that Dalin is correct: the Philharmonic played a special Concert for Pius, on May 26, 1955, in gratitude "for the immense work of humane assistance taken by the Pontiff to save a great number of Jews during the Second World War," to quote "The Tablet" of London, July 30, 1955)
The debate became polemical when Susan Zuccotti assailed Jose Sanchez (for criticizing her) Ronald Rychlak (for using quotes from John XXIII and Paul VI in defense of Pius XII) and "Inside the Vatican" magazine (for publishing an article on the late Msgr. John Patrick-Carroll Abbing, whose rescue efforts on behalf of Jews she questioned).
Sanchez, who is considered a Pius XII moderate, and who delivered one of the best received speeches of the Conference, stated that when Pius XII's wartime actions are looked at "in context," his defenders have the stronger case. A disgruntled member of the audience, who obviously was on the side of the critics, asked Sanchez incredoulously, "Are you saying that if we examine all of Pius XII's activities in context, then we must all cast our lot with the defenders?"
Sanchez paused a moment and then delivered his answer: "Well, yes--that's exactly what I am saying." A moment later, he said he wasn't trying to be flippant but had reached his conclusion after condiderable study and reflection.
Rychlak took the high ground and treated Zuccotti's criticisms with humor; he pointed out that there is far more evidence than just the quotes Zuccotti cited to demonstrate that John XXIII and Paul VI both attributed Jewish rescue to Pius XII. He did not spend further time responding to her specific claims, since he has a major forthcoming article in "The Journal of Modern Italian Studies" (to appear in June) which does just that.
Instead, he delivered a speech entitled, "A Lawyer Looks at History," in which he demonstrated how the prosecuters of Pacelli withhold or manipulate evidence which would never be accepted in a court of Law. "If the charges now made against Pope Pius XII ever actually did reach a court, they would be thrown out for a lack of evidence," he said.
"Inside the Vatican" will publish a forthcoming article which will cover the Millersville Conference in depth, and give a detailed reply to Zuccotti's criticisms. But for now, it must be said: Dr. Zuccotti made a serious (but no doubt unintentional) error when she denied that Msgr. Carroll-Abbing ever wrote about his rescue efforts on behalf of Jews in his memoirs, "But for the Grace of God" (Delacorte Press, 1965). In fact, Carroll-Abbing, who was in Rome during the German occupation, writes that after the Nazis rounded up Rome's Jews in October of 1943, "I went back to my desk that October morning and wondered why my colleague, Monsignor Vitucci, had not yet put in an appearance. It was one o'clock before he did arrive and he was visibly agitated.
"On entering the convent of Our Lady of Sion that morning to say Mass he had found the place in an uproar. A crowd of Jewish women and their children had sought refuge there from the round-up and were in a state bordering on hysteria. Some of them had their menfolk taken away; others did not know where their husbands and sons had gone to seek a hiding-place.
"Almost immediately, word came from the Vatican that, because of the emergency, nuns would be allowed to give hospitality in their convents to Jewish men as well as their families....With each day that passed, Monsignor Vitucci [Carroll-Abbing's assistant] and I found ourselves becoming increasingly involved in the problems of the hideaways. The word had passed from one good sister to another, from one convent to another. Soon we were in touch with many of the more than a hundred and fifty religious institutions that were sheltering Jews." (emphasis added, p.56)
The issue of the Vatican's sealed Archives and the recent Jewish-Catholic panel (now-defunct) which studied the wartime role of Pius XII was also discussed. Seymour Reich, one of the two coordinators of the Pius XII study group, expressed his view (shared by everyone at the Conference) that the Holy See should open up its wartime archives as soon as possible. To his credit, he accepted some responsibility over the failure of the Pius XII study group which, he acknowledged, had leaked sensitive information, and ended in discord. But he thought the whole affair, in its own way, drew attention to the importance of the Vatican archives and may have played a part in the Vatican's recent announcement that it will release new archival material beginning in 2003.
John Conway seconded Reich's desire to see all the relevant archives, but defended the Vatican's archival policies and politely questioned the conduct and competency of certain members of the disbanded study group. He also emphasized that most historians have never even heard of, much less read, the enormously important 12 volumes of "Acts and Documents of the Holy See Relating to the Second World War," which have already been published. Fr. Hughes gave a strong address explaining the difficulties of cataloguing and releasing the Vatican's archives, which contain millions of documents and need to be meticulously analyzed and organized before they are released. He pointed out that many countries, including our own, have kept many of their archives sealed, and that these will remain sealed long after the Vatican opens theirs.
Hughes effectively demolished the arguments of those who claim that the Vatican is hiding incriminating documents, and made a stirring call for mutual respect among scholars and the Holy See as they move forward in pursuit of historical truth.
Particularly impressive was Dr. Michael Fedkamp of Germany, who sytematically refuted the thesis embraced by John Cornwell (author of Hitler's Pope) and other extreme critics, who accuse Eugenio Pacelli (the future Pius XII) of engaging in reactionary policies, as Pius XI's Secretary of State, which enabled Hitler to aquire power. As Feldkamp proved, citing unimpeachable evidence from German and Church archives, there is not a shred of truth to these charges, and that, if anything, Pacelli was a moderate realist who was open to progressive thinking, and always pursued a path compatible with an honorable Christian conscience.
By the end of the two day affair, the extreme and bitter comments made by Rubenstein and Carroll were largely forgotten, and the supporters of Pius XII came out ahead, as intelligent and well-informed scholars who had solid reasons for their views.
Fr. Morley ended the conference with a note of grace, by calling for moderation, sensitivity and humility among the practicioners of historical research.
The Conference was put together by Dr. Jack Fischel, Chair of the History Department at Millersville University, and Director of Millersville's annual Holocaust Conference, who won high marks from all involved.
Oh my God what's happening? free speech at a state affiliated college - Where will it end? Who let this happen!!!
This is permitted. A Pope and the Catholic Church is the target. Try holding a debate on the role of Trotsky,Morel,Dushanski and Kaganovitch in a mass murder even worse than the Holocaust and see what happens.
"Nothing in the bleak, cold, unfeeling universe was remotely concerned with human aspiration and longing," he (Rubenstein) said at the time. "I found it impossible to believe in a providential God."To this day, Rubenstein's position remains unchanged. The words of 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, he says, best describe modern life as it is increasingly stripped of the constraints of social responsibility: "Short, nasty and brutish."
"I believe in the God of the mystics," he (Rubenstein) says. "The Holy Nothingness whence we came and where we shall return." Belief in the God of the Bible, on the other hand, gave birth to what he calls "the secularization of consciousness which, when carried to an extreme entirely unintended in the Bible, can lead to mass murder."
There's something of a half-truth in this; both the mass-murdering mass-movements of the last century had messianic tendencies; yet their god was on the one hand race and on the other absolute human freedom, defined economically.
Here is a LINK to the historical document, written by Pius XII's OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE to President Roosevelt, urging Roosevelt to oppose the creation of Israel, or failing that, to re-settle the Jews into some OTHER piece of land OTHER than the one God GAVE ISRAEL FOREVER.
My position is that I cannot see how someone, who considers themselves a Christian, would oppose the clearly written Will of God that Israel was to posess the land He promised to Abraham FOREVER.
If Roosevelt had acceeded to Pius's will and re-settled Israel into some random piece of land in, say, Morroco or Tunisia, it would have provided Bible critics with all the ammo they needed to discredit God's Holy Word, and would have provided a rationale to disregard the Holy Bible.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've a few more things I'd like to add to this or the previous thread, but I'm quite pressed for time at the moment. My charity is also sorely strained, so I'd rather turn my attention to preparing the music for tomorrow's liturgy.
For now, though, I'd remark that James Carroll is equally a disgrace. His thesis in Constantine's Sword is that Christianity (I presume he cannot justly confine this criticism to Catholic Christianity) is inherently antiSemitic, since the Gospels clearly indicate that the Romans crucified Christ at the behest of the Sanhedrin. At the end of his execrable tome, he proposes the "solution" to this problem: that Christians abandon the notion that Christ's death was a redemptive sacrifice in expiation of our sins. Reducing Jesus to just another moderately-interesting "philosopher," in his thinking, automatically absolves the Jewish people of the charge of deicide.
The problem with this line of "thought", of course, is that if the Crucifixion was simply the unjust execution of a good man, then it was a crime attributable to the Sanhedrin. If, on the other hand, Christ's death was a redemptive sacrifice, and he really did rise from the dead, then the eternal benefit of that event to all mankind trumps any inherent injustice in the temporal means by which it occurred. The consistent teaching of Catholic Church, as well, is that guilt is not generational; that is, each individual is morally responsible only for his own acts. Any guilt for the injustice of the Crucifixion is at most attributable to Judas, Herod, and the Sanhedrin (if even to them in light of the transcendent nature of the event), and not to anyone else, most especially not to the Jews of our time. This is a necessary result of our theological understanding of the nature of free-will.
So, to put it bluntly, Carroll has it precisely ass-backwards. It is an embarassment that such an obviously illogical argument should have been given a moment's credence by anyone with pretentions to scholarship. Further reading in Constantine's Sword reveals that his prescription for an ideal Church is that it deny its own central tenets of belief. Carroll's solution to the supposed problems of Christianity is that it cease being recognizably Christian. (The Unitarians have already accomplished this feat, so he ought to simply satisfy himself with them.) Carroll also, perhaps unwittingly, reveals that his motivation for the destruction of the Church arises from his own psychic anxiety resulting from incidents in his upbringing.
In short, his book is an extended airing of personal dirty linen, but since its propaganda value is of immeasurable to the Left, he had no trouble finding a publisher for his tripe. Scholarship must always be motivated by a search for objective truth instead of a quest for the confirmation of one's personal prejudices. If anything, I'm more incensed by the assault on rationality Carroll's oeuvre represents than I am by its obvious antiCatholic bias.
I am too busy right now to flame further but I will be back before too long to deal with the specifics.
Speaking from a SPIRITUAL point of view (NOT a human p.o.v., with our limited, geopolitical sense of reality) you have to wonder why someone would oppose Israel being in a position to have all the prophesies in Revelation come about. What would be the AGENDA of someone who does not WANT the events of Revelation to transpire?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.