Pius XII was no saint

Ten years ago, on a cold winter morning in New York City, the Catholic-Jewish Historical Commission, established to investigate Pope Pius XII’s response to the Holocaust, met for the first time to discuss its future work. I was the only Israeli historian among the six scholars (three Catholics and three Jews) designated by the Vatican and leading Jewish organizations to study this hotly contested issue.

A little under two years later, the project was abandoned as a result of the Holy See’s unwillingness to release materials from its own archives that could help clarify issues that our team of scholars raised in our provisional report. Already at that time, in the last years of Pope John Paul’s pontificate, there were moves afoot to place Pius XII on the fast track to sainthood, but they were probably slowed down by Israeli and Jewish protests and a desire by church authorities to prevent a serious rupture in Catholic-Jewish relations.

At issue was the silence of Pius XII during the Holocaust and his indirect complicity in the Nazi mass murder of Jews. These allegations, which first emerged around 1964, had prompted the Vatican to publish 11 volumes of its own documents (edited by four trusted Jesuit scholars), most of them appearing in the 1970s. It was these documents in Italian, German, French, Latin and English that we were originally asked to review. The million or so unpublished documents from the pontificate of Pius XII (1939–1958) according to the Vatican’s most recent estimate, will only be available in about four years’ time.

It is in this context that we need to see the recent decree on the “heroic virtues” of Pius XII, just signed by Pope Benedict XVI. Most Jews have interpreted this act as yet another signal that the Vatican is determined to beatify the controversial wartime pope — whom some even consider to have been anti-Semitic — regardless of what the historical evidence may indicate.

The sharp response of Jewish leaders to Benedict’s decree prompted the Vatican’s press office director, Father Federico Lombardi, S.J., to release a conciliatory note distinguishing between the historical judgment of Pius XII’s actions (still an open question) and the saintly Christian life he apparently led. In particular, Father Lombardi was concerned to disclaim any notion that this decree was “a hostile act towards the Jewish people,” or an obstacle to Catholic-Jewish dialogue.

Nevertheless, the decree on Pius XII still raises concern not only about the continuing drive to beatify the wartime pontiff but also about the present pope and the state of relations between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people.

Regarding Pius XII, I personally have never seen him either as “Hitler’s pope” (the theory of British historian John Cornwell — a “lapsed” Catholic), or as the “righteous gentile” evoked by Rabbi David Dalin. My own provisional conclusion drawn from the study of thousands of documents is that the mass murder of Jews was fairly low on his list of priorities. Of course, much the same could be said of Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, but they did not claim to be the “Vicar of Christ,” or to represent the Christian conscience.

Pius XII strikes me as a polished diplomat far more worried about the Allied bombing of Rome than about the thousand Roman Jews who were being deported by the Germans to their deaths in Auschwitz, virtually under the windows of the Holy See. True, other Roman Jews were discreetly given sanctuary in ecclesiastical establishments in and around Rome after October 1943, but it remains unclear if this was the result of a direct papal instruction.

In some instances we know that Pius XII did try to intervene against Nazi or racist anti-Semitic legislation, but in general this was almost always on behalf of baptized Jews since they were protected by the church as Catholics. Pius’s rare references to the mass murder of the Jews were invariably veiled and very abstract, as if he found it difficult to utter the word itself. Was it fear of further German reprisals? A latent anti-Semitism? Was it his visceral anti-Communism which also led him to hope for a Nazi victory in the East? Or perhaps the desire to spare German Catholics a conflict of conscience between their loyalty to Hitler, the fatherland, or their church? Whatever the reasons, this was hardly heroic conduct.

So why has Benedict XVI chosen to take this step now? Why risk unnecessary damage to Catholic-Jewish relations? My own inclination is to think that the present pope regards Pius XII as a soulmate — both theologically and politically. He shares with the wartime pontiff an authoritarian centralist world-view and a deep distrust of liberalism, modernity, and the ravages of moral relativism. He was 31 years old when Pius XII died in 1958, and already then regarded him as a venerated role model.

Moreover, the German-born Joseph Ratzinger (today Benedict XVI) certainly knew that Pius XII (an aristocratic Roman) was also a passionate Germanophile, surrounded by German aides during and after the war, fluent in the German language, and a great admirer of the German Catholic Church. Not only that, but Ratzinger probably also knows that Pius XII personally intervened after 1945 to commute the sentences of convicted German war criminals. This solicitude for Nazi criminals contrasts sharply with Pius XII ignoring all entreaties to make a public statement against anti-Semitism even after the full horrors of the death camps had been revealed in 1945.

In this context it is profoundly unsettling to think that the ultraconservative Benedict XVI and his entourage can identify so completely with Pius XII as a man of “heroic virtue.” The present pope, no doubt, deplores anti-Semitism, though his statements on the subject have been noticeably less robust than those of his predecessor, John Paul II.

At Yad Vashem last summer he expressed no personal regret as a German for the unspeakable horrors of the Shoah, even though he had once been a member of the Hitler Youth. True, he had little choice in the matter. However, he was disturbingly vague about the truly monstrous German role in the Holocaust. Earlier in 2009, Benedict also showed remarkably poor judgment (to put it charitably) in reinstating an unrepentant Holocaust-denying British bishop into the mainstream Catholic Church, an action he only retracted after worldwide Jewish and Catholic protests.

These mistakes appear to follow a pattern and may even indicate a regression from the real progress in Catholic-Jewish relations under Benedict’s predecessor. One can only hope they are not irreversible since the stakes are high and no sane person can be interested in undermining the bridges across the abyss that have been so painstakingly constructed.

Robert S. Wistrich is director of The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the author of A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad (Random House, January 2010).

On 5/7/97, Pope John Paul II dedicated his general audience to “the Virgin Mary” . . . noted the words spoken by Jesus on the cross to Mary and to John — “Woman, behold thy son!” and “Behold thy mother!” (John 19:26,27), and he claimed that in this statement “It is possible to understand the authentic meaning of Marian worship in the ecclesiastical community ... which furthermore is based on the will of Christ” (Vatican Information Service, May 7, 1997).

HORRIFIC. There we have it in the Pope's own words. Should be interesting to see how folks will rationalize out of that one. The rest of those quote were outrageous as well. Thanks for every word of your fine, historically accurate post. Sobering to the max. God, please have mercy.

Minor little problem here Quix. I looked up his general audience of May 5, 1997. the words "Marian worship" were never used in that audience.

Not once.

In fact, a Google search of John Paul II's words as recorded on the Vatican web domain (all of .va, not just vatican.va) show that he not once uttered the phrase "marian worship" in all the millions of words that were recorded during his almost 27 year pontificate.

The text of all the talks he gave during each and every general audience is recorded for posterity.

So what I did, instead, is I Googled some of the phrases that you replicated in your post, to see if I could unravel how you could have made such a grievous error as to write something that had the effect of spreading calumny.

Here's what I came up with, Quix.

First, there was Biblelight.net -- not exactly a Catholic-neutral site (they have a prominent 'mystery Babylon' section). It appears to be a site run by a Seventh Day Adventist.

Then, a bunch of discussion forums on Topix.

Then we have a site called "Bible Discernment Ministries" (John & Kathy Beardsley) -- this is a personal web space hosted by Golden West Internet. Again, not exactly a Catholic Neutral website: it groups Catholicism in with cults like Eckankar, Scientology, and the like.

Then we have that wonderful, pro-Catholic site, http://www.remnantofgod.org/. For those not familiar with that site, it features a whole section called "Babylon Exposed." Reveals such great truths as the Evils of EWTN.

And then we have that paragon of accuracy, www.jesus-is-savior.com.

Immediately followed by that wonderful personal site of Thomas Williamson, that prominent Independent Baptist who is a true expert on what Roman Catholics believe.

But I saved the best for last: babylonmysteryreligion.com. I think we all know what that one is about, don't we?

Amazingly enough, not a single Catholic website.

By the way, it is patently obvious what the site owner at Biblelight (as reproduced by stargate) did (Or whoever started this circular firing squad of tin-foil-hatters). What was actually said in the audience was this (emphasis mine to show where the fraud occurred):

2. In the light of this entrustment to his beloved disciple, one can understand the authentic meaning of Marian devotion in the ecclesial community. In fact, it places Christians in Jesus’ filial relationship to his mother, putting them in a condition to grow in intimacy with both of them.
The Church’s devotion to the Virgin is not only the fruit of a spontaneous response to the exceptional value of her person and the importance of her role in the work of salvation, but is based on Christ’s will.
The words “Behold, your mother!”, express Jesus’ intention to inspire in his disciples an attitude of love for and trust in Mary, leading them to recognize her as their mother, the mother of every believer.
At the school of the Virgin, the disciples learn to know the Lord deeply, as John did, and to have an intimate and lasting relationship of love with him. They also discover the joy of entrusting themselves to the Mother’s maternal love, living like affectionate and docile children.
The history of Christian piety teaches that Mary is the way which leads to Christ and that filial devotion to her takes nothing from intimacy with Jesus; indeed, it increases it and leads to the highest levels of perfection.

A link to the text of the talk given at the audience was provided earlier in my post.

It is patently obvious that the person who initially presented the VIS press release on his website decided to substitute "devotion" with "worship."

And by the way, the word "devotion," in a Catholic sense, means the following: Devotion, in the language of ascetical writers, denotes a certain ardour of affection in the things of God, and even without any qualifying prefix it generally implies that this ardour is of a sensible character. On the other hand, by the term "devotions" in the plural, or "popular devotions", we commonly understand those external practices of piety by which the devotion of the faithful finds life and expression.

Now, Quix. I am not accusing you of calumny and I want to make that absolutely clear. It is obvious that you plagerized somebody's words without giving proper attribution, but you didn't calumniate...whoever actually did that is the one who committed the calumny, not you.

The most grievous thing, though, is a whole lot of intellectual laziness. You see the Pope's own words on an obviously anti-Catholic website and you don't bother to verify that they are, in fact, accurate before posting them. Now that is a tactic that I would, frankly, expect from other folks who post on the FR religion forum, but I am honestly hurt and very, very upset that you would do something like that.

Would you tolerate that from one of your students?

I highly doubt it. I bet that if a student took a misquote from a third party source and attempted to cite an original source for it, you would mark that entire paper as a zero. I would imagine you would also weigh heavily turning the student in on an honor violation.

I know you have opinions that don't agree with mine, Quix, and I am not criticizing you for holding those opinions. I always try to be tolerant when you mis-state Catholic doctrine, because I realize that you may have been taught something incorrectly. But this, this, is beyond the pale.

Thanks for the post. The Church makes a very clear distinction between latria and dulia, the one referring to the worship of God, and the other referring to devotion to a saint or saints. The two are different in kind, and not merely in degree. Only God may be worshipped, and that is what the Church has always taught.

Your research confirms this, but it was hardly necessary. It is simply inconceivable that PJP II, or indeed any other Pope, could have confused the two. There may, of course, have been a mistranslation somewhere from Latin into English by some careless or trouble-making reporter, but certainly not by the official Vatican translators, who are also be fully aware of this basic and elementary distinction.

So, this is simply another canard.

And it’s a pity. One of my students wrote a book about the Puritan Milton’s admiring and respectful treatment of the Virgin Mary in his last poem, “Paradise Regained,” and in the course of his research confirmed what I had noticed myself—that Martin Luther always spoke highly of the Virgin Mary. He accorded her all the titles given her by Catholics except “Queen of Heaven,” which he thought illitimate because the term is deprecated in the Old Testament—but of course referring to the pagan goddess Ishtar, whom the pagans and some backsliding Jews called the queen of heaven.

He also noted that much the same was true of Calvin (in the Institutes), who also spoke highly of Our Lady. She was, after all, the Mother of our Lord. It was later Protestants who, filled with rage against the Church, started badmouthing the Virgin Mary or deprecating her role in the Gospel accounts, or accusing Catholics of worshipping her. But that attitude was by no means in accordance with the early Lutheran or Calvinist attitudes. And Luther was perfectly well aware that Catholics did not worship the Virgin Mary.

I’m eager for THE TRUTH . . . regardless of who’s side it seems to favor.

I ONLY WANT TO DEAL IN THE TRUTH.

I know that. And that is why I was so shocked. Like I said earlier, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody else did that.

I know that your main issue is religious institutions and the group-think that they can inspire (there are others, but that is the MAIN one)...and, with the Catholic Church being the largest religious institution in the world, that is why you appear to be an anti-Catholic and align with some folks who are pretty nasty pieces of anti-Catholic bias. But, on the other hand, I seem to recall you making some fairly pointed statements against other institutional religious bodies as well when the subjects have come up. Those subjects don't seem to come up as often with other bodies as they do with Catholics, therefore, perhaps some wrong conclusions are drawn.

And I perceive that another big concern of yours is that people substitute religious ceremonialism with true personal piety (i.e., a close personal relationship with Jesus Christ).

There is one other issue that I will go into subsequently.

On those two issues above, to the extent that you agree with what I said, you might be surprised as to the number of Catholic FReepers who actually agree, at least in part, with the above.

There are a lot of us complain about the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, about "social justice Catholics," and so on, we are complaining about the liberal groupthink that has crept into the Institution of the Church at all levels, to include many parts of the Vatican bureaucracy. There are a LOT of us who are desperately concerned about that.

There are likewise plenty of us who complain about folks who are just into the ceremonialism. If the subject was to come up, I am 100% confident that you would hear the majority of us complain about folks who go through the ceremonials of the sacraments without having the heart behind it. I don't know of a single Catholic FReeper who would support the parents who just get their kid baptized and then show up for Mass once or twice a year (believing that these are some magic that will keep them out of hell). Nor do I think you would find any of us supporting somebody who repeatedly went to confession without having any true contrition for their sins, fully intending to do the same thing over and over again. And so on and so on.

Now, while I fully admit that we don't agree on the issue of the sacraments, in of itself, I think you would find that we DO agree on the subject of ceremonialism, in of itself, vice having a true heart for Christ. (Note to Catholic FReepers: if you look at Canon Law, you will see words for this: "properly disposed" and "correct intent")

There is one other subject that I know you stress on, but I think that should wait for a subsequent post.

What separates you from a lot of folks is the fact that I've heard you express agreement where you perceive agreement. There are those who will never agree with Catholics on anything, even if they agree. (Sort of like the French Revolution, where they attempted to change their calendar so that it wouldn't agree with the calendar established by the Vatican) You have also taken the time to read at least a few of the actual documents themselves. Such as your breakdown of Populorum Progressio. I may not have agreed with your analysis, but at least you took the time to read the document itself. And that says something.

Here's the bottom line: I am not trying to turn you into some type of Crypto-Catholic or anything. But I'd far rather deal with the Quix who takes the time to read the sources and draws a conclusion (that I probably won't agree with, but anyway...) rather than not being able to trust what you assert as factual and having to back-check every fact you assert. (Or worse yet just to begin blowing you off as a rabid baiter, like I've had to do with some other folks). I regard our discussions better than that, my friend.

I've got to run to get some new brakes for my truck (while fondly remembering my military days with the Auto Hobby Shop on the base, from the pre-ABS days when a person didn't require a computer science degree to work on a vehicle). So I'll address the rest in a subsequent post later on today.

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.