One who opposed Pius XII’s policy of silence from within the Vatican was the first American to achieve the rank of nuncio, or papal ambassador, Joseph P. Hurley. As the first biographer of Hurley to have full access to his private archive, the Jesuit priest Charles R. Gallagher recreates the internal debates that went on in St Peter’s over the question of what the Church should say about the Nazis’ maltreatment both of Jews and of Catholic priests. Hurley believed that the Pope should say in public what he thought in private, that Hitler was ‘not only an untrustworthy scoundrel but a fundamentally wicked person’. (According to Gallagher this was ‘the only known time he ever personally expressed disdain for Hitler’.)
Hurley was — possibly rightly — thought of as President Roosevelt’s placeman in the Vatican, which is one of the reasons that his views were not adopted, and this book relates the discussion that took place between Roosevelt and Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli at FDR’s upstate New York home, Hyde Park, in 1936. According to the President’s recollection in 1943, the future Pope — then Vatican secretary of state — had said that the United States was ripe for a Communist take-over. FDR disagreed, saying that in fact the genuine peril was of America going Fascist. ‘No,’ said Pacelli. ‘Yes,’ said Roosevelt. ‘Mr President, you simply do not understand the terrible importance of the Communist movement,’ said Pacelli. ‘You just don’t understand the American people,’ FDR claimed to have replied.
This book also makes the plausible case that in the Twenties, Pacelli originally ‘saw Hitler’s Nazism as merely a political ruse. Aware that Hitler’s earliest ostensible political alliance was with the German Workers’ Party in 1919, Pacelli remained suspicious of Hitler as a politician of the left.’ He certainly told the US consul in Cologne, as late as 1939, that Hitler was not a true Nazi and that he ‘in spite of appearances would end up in the camp of the left-wing Nazi extremists where he began his career’. With such thinking, it is hardly surprising that Pope Pius XII failed to appreciate the true threat that Hitler posed to Christendom, and to respond to it effectively. These two books — both written by devout, lifelong Catholics — will not aid the Pope’s adherents’ hopes for his canonisation.





Comments
Chris Inwien
July 20th, 2008 6:26pmAh, the last refuge of a bigot is anti-Catholicism. I can't wait to see this commentator publish a cartoon mocking Mohammed -- using the same modernist lens, there's plenty to complain about, isn't there?
Report this comment
bruce
July 20th, 2008 11:26amThe single greatest issue during the life of Pius XII was the seemingly imminent prospect of the collapse of civilisation and the consequent possibility of many holocausts. That was how events of the early to mid 20th century were seen by those who lived them: How to avoid a new Dark Age, for which the WWII genocide would have been just a prelude?
Report this comment
JohnA
July 19th, 2008 3:27pmEllen Vosbury - many thanks for your correction: it was indeed Pius XI, not Pius XII who wrote 'mit brennender Sorge' and in 1937 not 1939. Apologies for my mistake.
I agree with Denzil that many true saints go unrecognised. But - for all we know at this stage of the canonisation process - that category might include Pius XII.
Report this comment
Denzil
July 18th, 2008 9:54pmMy attention was drawn to the halucinations suffered by the Pope and the blood curdling screams emanating from the papal apartments.My conclusion is that there are no known saints, only very ordinary good and bad men. The saints live unnoticed and unknown.
Report this comment
Andrew Azzopardi
July 18th, 2008 6:10pmOf course non-Catholics can have their opinions on candidates for canonisation, but such opinions should not be permitted to influence the outcome in any way. Especially when they deride 'sainthood proposals' as 'silly'.
Pius XII was acclaimed by all (including Holocaust survivors and personalities such as Golda Meir) after the war and at the time of his death.
The dark myth spread only after Hochhuth's play - a work of fiction.
Report this comment
Ellen Vosbury
July 18th, 2008 2:33pmThe encyclical "Mit Brennender Sorge" was written in 1937 by Pius XI,not by the pope under discussion, who shouldn't be canonized. And yes, non-Catholics are allowed to have opinions with regard to silly sainthood proposals.
Report this comment
aloysiusmiller
July 18th, 2008 2:30pmHow exquisitely presumptuous (and pompous) to use such narrow hindsight to judge a man.
Report this comment
Anthony Ozimic
July 18th, 2008 2:03pmFirstly, Pinchas Lapide calculated that Pius XII's actions saved 800,000 Jews, more than all the governments and humanitarian agencies put together. Secondly, for those of us who read Gerard Noel's articles in the Catholic Herald, we are well aware of his factual and historical errors and his Whig-like prejudices against the pre-Vatican II Church. Thirdly, it is not the place of Andrew Roberts, a non-Catholic, to tell the Catholic Church which of its Popes it should not declare to be a saint.
Report this comment
KARL ROLEWICZ
July 18th, 2008 2:00pmIF YOU REALLY THINK THAT THE CONGREGATION FOR THE CAUSES OF SAINTS IN THE VATICAN IS GOING TO TAKE ANY NOTICE OF YOUR BIASED 'WISE WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT' OPINIONS,THEN YOUR EGO HAS MOST DEFINTIELY OUTGROWN YOUR COMMONSENSE AND YOUR REALLY HAVE STARTED TO BELEIVE YOUR OWN SELF-PROPAGANDA!
Report this comment
Joseph Wilson
July 18th, 2008 1:45pmOne name: Edith Stein. One of hundreds of people of Jewish lineage dragged out of their homes and killed because the Dutch bishops publicly denounced the Nazis. Pius XII saved thousands of Jews. The Vatican and Castel Gandalfo were sanctuaries for them; rules of cloister were lifted in hundreds of Italian convents and monasteries to shelter them. At Christmas 1942 the NY Times referred to him as the lone voice for justice raised in a dark continent. It is astounding how short the memory of our society is.
Report this comment