More Evidence Pius XII Was Not Hitler's Pope - German Files Point to a Russian Plot

Zenit News Agency ^ | April 2, 2007

[NYer]

ROME, APRIL 2, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Adolf Hitler's No. 1 enemy was the Vatican's secretary of state, Eugenio Pacelli, future Pope Pius XII, according to documents recently found in Europe.

In an article published last Thursday by La Repubblica, reporter Marco Ansaldo announced that he has a dossier on Pius XII that complements documentation found in the Vatican Archives.

According to the newly discovered documents, Pius XII was considered an enemy of the Third Reich. Memos and letters unearthed at a depot used by the Stasi, the East German secret police, show that Nazi spies within the Vatican were concerned at the Pope's efforts to help displaced Poles and Jews.

One document from the head of Berlin's police force tells Joachim von Ribbentrop, the Third Reich's foreign minister, that the Catholic Church was providing assistance to Jews "both in terms of people and financially."

Russia's motives

In a commentary on the new documents, Sister Margherita Marchione, author and expert on Pius XII, explains the campaign against the Pope was the work of the Soviets.

"Russia's plans were to control Europe after the war. The only outspoken obstacle to Russia's plan in Europe was the Catholic Church," Sister Marchione wrote.

"The first attacks claiming that the Church had endorsed silently the atrocities of the Nazis came from Communist Russia," she explained. "Soon to control Poland, and other vast areas in Eastern Europe, Russia saw the need to break the loyalty to the Pope of Catholic majorities in those countries.

"The plan was a simple one: convince everyone that the Pope supported the hated Nazis during the war and, therefore, neither he nor the Church could be trusted after the war. The destruction of the Church would leave the field wide open for Russian influence and control."

[Petronski]

Eugenio Pacelli, Pius XII, was one of the few unalloyed heroes of World War II. At great personal risk, he saved some 800,000 Jews from extermination by the Nazis. Jewish refugees were given asylum in the Vatican, swelling the number of Swiss Guards. No Allied leader can match his glorious record. Golda Meir lauded Pius XII after the war, and the chief rabbi of Rome became a Roman Catholic, taking the name of Eugenio in tribute to Eugenio Pacelli.

This book restores Pius XII to the rank of hero, demolishes the ludicrous charges against him, and identifies the true target of this infamous calumny: the Church, the papacy, and Christian moral teaching, which confronts/condemns the Culture of Death.

“Now Ralph McInerny, in The Defamation of Pius XII, documents a compelling story. . . . Using the tools of deductive reasoning he has given Father Dowling, McInerny shapes the case for Pius’ innocence and believes he has unearthed the motives for the attacks against him.

“McInerny presents an intriguing body of evidence, as well as corroborating testimony from world leaders, many of whom are Jewish. If you’ve read The Deputy or Hitler’s Pope, you owe it to yourself to read The Defamation of Pius XII.” – Gerald Etter, The Philadelphia Inquirer

“Despite a rash of vilifications of Pius XII, McInerny’s The Defamation of Pius XII proves that the Pontiff actually saved the lives of a million Jews during the holocaust. Pius XII was anything but silent about the murders committed by Hitler as shown in numerous Vatican Radio transcripts and speeches given by Pius XII. The Holy Father knew that a complete repudiation of Hitler or the Germans would result in the deaths of many more Jews and Catholics as well as the ultimate failure of any shepherd, the abandonments of his flock. . . . McInerny critically rights these false attacks with historical fact, dispelling the myth that Vatican correspondence with Hitler meant Nazi sympathy. . . . McInerny shows how Pius saved the lives of nearly one million Jews armed only with Faith, and the moral courage of the world’s moral leader. The leader of Christ’s Church, in fact, did more than any other. . . . McInerny draws a startling but accurate conclusion: that many of the very people who condemn Hitler’s atrocities, make up what Pope John Paul II calls The Culture of Death.” – ForeWord

[Titanites]

Let's make a minor correction to your recap:

Soon after his promotion as Secretariat of State in 1930, Pacelli began negotiations with Germany regarding the Concordat which has sparked much controversy over the years pertaining to the motives of the Vatican.

As you note, Pacelli began negotiations with Germany in 1930. That was not with the Nazis. Hitler didn't come into power until 1933 and negotiations began with the Nazis in April of that year, which is what I noted.

No correction required.

[Titanites]

Passage of the Enabling Act and dissolution of the Catholic Center Party were the preconditions for Hitler's signature on the Concordat

Passage of the Enabling Act was not a precondition. That is absolutely false. The Nazis didn't even involved with the negotiations on the concordat until April 1993, after this Act had already been signed.

Pacelli ordered the Centre Party to dissolve itself

This is patently false. He made no such order. Let's see you prove it.

It is history. Face it.

It is revisionist history, nothing more.

[Petronski]

The Nazis didn't even involved with the negotiations on the concordat until April 1933...

Should that be 1933?

[Titanites]

See #788

See #802.

[Petronski]

Does that make Cornwell a revisionist Holocaust profiteer, or a Holocaust-profiteering revisionist?

[Titanites]

For example Pacelli negotiated a Concordat with Nazi Germany. As part of that deal, the huge Center Party (the Catholic party) reversed its long-term opposition to the Nazis.

Since you say you are aware of the chronology, then you know the Nazis didn't enter negotiations on the concordat until April of 1933, after Hitler was already in power due to the Enabling Act signed in March. Any "deals" in the concordat had no effect on Hitler coming to power.

I guess Shirer doesn't know what he's talking about either.

I don't know if he knows what he's talking about or not. But the clip of his that you posted does not say what you are trying to imply it says.

[Titanites]

If all these library lurkers would simply buy this book for six bits they could see for themselves just how lax Cornwell really was on Pacelli.

Do you own it? I thought you said earlier you had to go to the library to get it to see what the dust cover said. If so, then why criticize others who used the library?

[Uncle Chip]

Soon after his promotion as Secretariat of State in 1930, Pacelli began negotiations with Germany regarding the Concordat which has sparked much controversy over the years pertaining to the motives of the Vatican. ------- As you note, Pacelli began negotiations with Germany in 1930. That was not with the Nazis. Hitler didn't come into power until 1933 and negotiations began with the Nazis in April of that year, which is what I noted.

No --- your conclusion fails to take all the facts into account.

All previous German chancellors had rebuffed Pacelli's request for a Concordat. So unless and/or until Hitler, who was amenable to a Concordat, came into power, there would be no Concordat.

Therefore, if Pacelli was going to get his Concordat, then he had to make sure that Hitler came into power, and that was accomplished by getting the CCP to vote for the Enabling Acts.

Did you answer my question yet? Was the Enabling Act passed with the votes of the Monsignor Kass's Catholic Center Party? Yes or No.

[Religion Moderator]

what you are trying to imply it says

Attributing motives - or otherwise reading another poster's mind - are "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

This thread is on zero tolerance.

[Titanites]

Certainly there is no person naieve enough to believe Hitler signed a one sided treaty, one that had nothing which he wanted. Is there?

Well, no, and nobody has claimed that. There were compromises on both sides, which is why they negotiate. Hitler just didn't abide by the compromises he conceded.

Was it a coincidence that the Catholic Centrist Party ceased to exist? Written or unwritten it happened.

Is it a coincidence that all other opposing political parties ceased to exist before the Catholic Centrist Party? Do you understand that the Centrist Party was seriously weakened when they decided, on their own, to dissolve, before the concordat negotiations had concluded. Do you have a hint of understanding of the persecution that was going on at this time? Read up about Gleichschaltung.

[Titanites]

Yes, of course, 1933. Thanks for the correction.

[Titanites]

Does that make Cornwell a revisionist Holocaust profiteer, or a Holocaust-profiteering revisionist?

I believe he'd be proud of either title.

[Titanites]

Therefore, if Pacelli was going to get his Concordat, then he had to make sure that Hitler came into power, and that was accomplished by getting the CCP to vote for the Enabling Acts.

You make that accusation but you have no proof that Pacelli got Hitler into power. No proof and it is pure slander.

[Titanites]

How would you have worded it to meet your guidelines?

[Titanites]

Was the Enabling Act passed with the votes of the Monsignor Kass's Catholic Center Party? Yes or No.

The Enabling Act was passed with votes from members of a lot of different parties, including members of the Center Party.

[Titanites]

Because some members of the Catholic Center Party voted for the Enabling Act does not mean Pacelli forced them to, any more than it means Pacelli forced some members of the other parties to vote for it. To claim that is just silly.

[OLD REGGIE]

As you note, Pacelli began negotiations with Germany in 1930. That was not with the Nazis. Hitler didn't come into power until 1933 and negotiations began with the Nazis in April of that year, which is what I noted.

The quote below is what I responded to.

Since the concordat was not agreed to until July (and negotiations didn't even begin until April), it is impossible for the concordat to have resulted in the passing of the Enabling Act of March.

Do you expect any sane person to believe a complicated treaty negotiation began and ended in less than 4 months?

We have no idea what was added, deleted, or changed in the few months between April and July and it makes no difference concerning the impact of the Concordat with Hitler. Pacelli is the one constant in this equation. The question is what was the RCC looking for, what was the Germant Government looking for. One thing is certain, the last powerful political party left in Germany was dissolved. Quid pro quo!

I'm sure the following articles made Hitler sad.

Article 16
Before bishops take possession of their dioceses they are to take an oath of fealty either to the Reich Representative of the State concerned, or to the President of the Reich, according to the following formula: "Before God and on the Holy Gospels I swear and promise as becomes a bishop, loyalty to the German Reich and to the State of . . . I swear and promise to honor the legally constituted Government and to cause the clergy of my diocese to honor it. In the performance of my spiritual office and in my solicitude for the welfare and the interests of the German Reich, I will endeavor to avoid all detrimental acts which might endanger it.

Article 32
In view of the special situation existing in Germany, and in view of the guarantee provided through this Concordat of legislation directed to safeguard the rights and privileges of the Roman Catholic Church in the Reich and its component States, the Holy See will prescribe regulations for the exclusion of clergy and members of religious Orders from membership of political parties, and from engaging in work on their behalf.

[Petronski]

...then he had to make sure that Hitler came into power, and that was accomplished by getting the CCP to vote for the Enabling Acts.

Hitler's rise to power was NOT accomplished by the Enabling acts.

[OLD REGGIE]

Do you understand that the Centrist Party was seriously weakened when they decided, on their own, to dissolve, before the concordat negotiations had concluded.

On their own? Not pushed? Not pressured?

The thing we might agree on is they dissolved and shortly thereafter the Concordat so important to the Vatican was signed. Quid pro quo?