Posted on 04/12/2007 2:24:24 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
JERUSALEM -- The Vatican and Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial got into a public spat Thursday over the wartime conduct of Pope Pius XII during the Nazi genocide, threatening to upset fragile relations between the Roman Catholic Church and the Jewish state.
Separately, church officials announced new developments Thursday in the Vatican's case to make Pius a saint. A massive dossier on Pius' virtues -- some six volumes of 3,000 pages -- was handed over to a panel of bishops and cardinals earlier this month to study, they said.
At issue in the Yad Vashem-Vatican dispute is a photograph of Pius in Yad Vashem's museum in Jerusalem with the caption: "Even when reports about the murder of Jews reached the Vatican, the pope did not protest," refusing to sign a 1942 Allied condemnation of the massacre of Jews during World War II.
Pius "maintained his neutral position" with two exceptions, the caption reads, criticizing "his silence and absence of guidelines." The exceptions were appeals to the rulers of Hungary and Slovakia toward the end of the war, the caption says.
The Vatican's ambassador to Israel, Monsignor Antonio Franco, confirmed Thursday that he would not attend Yad Vashem's annual memorial service for Holocaust victims next week because of the Pius photograph.
"I don't intend to go to Yad Vashem if things remain the way they do," he said.
The memorial service is traditionally attended by all foreign ambassadors to Israel or their representatives. Yad Vashem said this would mark the first case in which a foreign emissary deliberately skipped the ceremony.
Yad Vashem is "shocked and disappointed" by Franco's decision, said spokeswoman Iris Rosenberg.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Yariv Ovadia said the Holocaust "was one of the most traumatic events to befall the Jewish people ... and it is their decision whether they want to pay respect to the victims or not."
The disputed photo caption first appeared in 2005, when Yad Vashem opened its new museum. Shortly after, the previous Vatican ambassador asked that the caption be changed.
Yad Vashem has not done so, insisting its research on the pope's role was accurate.
Yad Vashem said it would be ready to re-examine Pius XII's conduct during the Holocaust if the Vatican opened its World War II-era archives to the museum's research staff and new material emerged. Despite frequent requests from Holocaust researchers, the Vatican has denied access to major parts of its archives, including wartime papers.
Rosenberg said the museum "would continue to present the historical truth on Pius XII as it is known to scholars today."
The Vatican has struggled to defend its wartime pope, insisting Pius spearheaded discreet diplomacy that saved thousands of Jews.
Franco said in his letter to Yad Vashem that he found the Pius XII caption offensive to Catholics.
"I respect the memory of the martyrs of the Holocaust but also the memory of the pope," he said. "The right of one does not infringe on the right of the other."
In Rome, the Rev. Peter Gumpel, who is spearheading Pius' sainthood cause, said he was "shocked" by Yad Vashem's portrayal of Pius.
He maintained that historians "say they find it difficult to understand how people can say that Pope Pius XII did nothing for the Jews. To present him now this way, I find it very difficult to understand."
Gumpel said he hoped the panel of bishops and cardinals would decide on Pius' case this year. If the clerics approve the dossier, they will pass their recommendations on to Pope Benedict XVI, who could then sign a decree on Pius' virtues, the first major step toward possible beatification. The Vatican would then have to confirm a miracle attributed to Pius' intercession for him to be beatified, and a second miracle for him to be canonized.
Israel and the Vatican established diplomatic relations in 1994, after hundreds of years of painful relations between Catholicism and Judaism.
Rabbi David Rosen, who helped negotiate the 1994 agreement, said the relationship remains strong, despite Israel's failure to keep key promises to the Vatican on issues including taxation.
Rosen, in charge of interfaith relations at the American Jewish Committee, said the dispute over the pope should have been resolved quietly, not in public.
"It is certainly very regrettable and will leave a bad taste on both sides," he said, adding that he did not expect lasting damage to the relationship.
And even after the Japanese attack, we waited for Hitler to declare war on us before formally entering the European conflict.
Thanks. That was my point.
This just gets sadder by the minute.
Most every comment by the Catholics on these threads is some variation of "So what?" "Who cares?" "No, he didn't," "What could he do?" and "You're mistaken."
Apparently Jerusalem doesn't see it that way.
Thank God.
The Encyclical couldn't have been issued as it was with the expectation that there would be criticism of the "problematic" sections? I'm certain the RCC is/was very expert in handling the expected criticism and "clarifying" the meaning.
The Enclyclical couldn't have been modified and issued by Pius XII?
No, the solution was to round file it.
Are you saying that they did what Americans elected and expected them to do in this situation?
I was just thinking the reverse about Protestants except I didn't want to stereotype all Protestants on this thread. Here goes... However, most every comment by the Protestants on these threads is some variation of "cool, let's bash the Pope" or "great, another opportunity to take something out of perspective and slam the Catholic Church".
This is the big problem with FR. There is no shortage of anti-Catholic bigots waiting to jump on any story, whether true or not, and launch into their tirades against the Church.
I believe most Protestants and Catholics are level headed and fair people and my statement only applies to a few on FR. Since we both claim to be Christians let's remember not be make kneejerk statements. "Do not bear FALSE witness against thy neighbor". In this case the Pope or the Church. (From the 10 commandments - its in the bible!)
My understanding is that it basically said something like "we know the Jews killed Christ and are an accursed people, but despite that, people oughta treat them nicely"
You can't "clarify" that or "improve" it.
The Pope's opinion on the treatment of the Jews was well known in Berlin. You don't get the moniker "mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals" by being unclear.
Let's set the record straight however. The United States was providing Armed Escorts, and had lost a few ships, for the Lend Lease convoys prior to Pearl Harbor.
AmericanMother is a historian. Maybe she could help you out with your history.
Out of the names that you pinged (all of whom I've included in this post), which do you believe that your statement applies to?
I agree. Your crowd has no interest or time for any portion of the massive amount of evidence exonerating Pius XII. You have thus far not identified a single inaccuracy or falsehood in Lapide's work, Dalin's work, Rychlak's work, or Sr. Marchione's work. You merely dismiss it with one ad hominem after another.
Pathetic and shameful.
Does this mean I get an apology from those "kneejerk RC's" who insist on misrepresenting comments?
Not likely.
I do remember, however; he very strongly condemned the treatment of the Jews. It was not wishy washy, no beating around the bush, but a very strong statement.
You can't "clarify" that or "improve" it.
Certainly you can. Leave the offending references out. Simple isn't it?
Sorry. It was directed toward Dr. Eckleburg
That's why I said "formally entered".
It would be interesting to know what would have happened if Hitler had not declared war. He was not obligated by his treaty with the Japanese to do so.
As we've already explained on the other thread, strong statements like that frequently got more innocent people killed.
Its not likely, your’re right. You probably won’t get any apology from kneejerk RC’s who misrepresent comments, but you should. We have just as many idiots.
I am saying that many of these statements on this topic are defamatory beyond comprehension on a good man and Pope. They are also quite gratuitous in nature by the same people who slam the RC Church with any opportunity on FR.
My point is I have only been on this site for one year yet have watched it degenerate. I don’t know if you agree, but it seemed more civil and intelligent a while back and not “kneejerk” or reactionary like now.
FWIW, it ebbs and flows.
I was interested in this discussion because of the parallels I see to today, but as strong as the criticism may have been the support was even stronger that this Pope is a "saint and never did anything wrong". I suspect the truth is somewhere in between. IOW, he did some things admirably and some things he regrets.
When you vote for someone, assuming you vote, do you know in advance every situation that will occur and each candidate's position on that potential situation?
If one had made the same type of statements concerning the Vatican how quickly would you have attacked with the usual "hater", "basher", language.
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.