That's an excellent question, especially since it's asked of a religious leader of millions. Here's a line from another book (which I haven't read nor own) that seems to ask the same question you do...
"If the Catholic Church is merely considered as a political institution that has to calculate the outcome of its decisions in terms of instrumental rationality, then Pius's choice may be deemed reasonable in view of the risks entailed. If, however, the Catholic Church also represents a moral stand, as it claims, mainly in moments of major crisis, and thus has to move on such occasions from the level of institutional interests to that of moral witnessing, then of course Pius's choice should be assessed differently."From "The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945" by Saul Friedlander:
If you look at the resume of Pius XII prior to 1940, his appointments were mostly political. He negotiated treaties with the various European political entities on behalf of the Vatican to protect the property and the educational institutions of the Roman Catholic Church, much like what is going on at this moment with Saudi Arabia.
It is rather apparent that the Pope was politically astute. But it seems to me the high office of the Pope should be more than anything else a spiritual one - that his greatest responsibility would be to Jesus and His Church, the Faith.
In a world torn apart by hate and war, people everywhere should be able to look to the Pope as a rock - one who particularly loves God surpassingly above all else, believes Him and trusts Him despite walking in "the valley of the shadow of death."
If he failed, it was in blinking.
I pray that as this world is falling into worldwide hate and terror, that Pope Benedict will not blink.
Interesting point. Political vs. moral. A church that owes it's success to being a part of the state will probably never be able to act with out taking the political consequences into account.