In his Christmas broadcast for 1942, Pope Pius XII spoke of the ‘hundreds of thousands of innocent people who have been killed or condemned to a slow extinction only because of their race’. As part of a wider denunciation of the Holocaust this would have been brave and useful, but in fact it was to be his only public wartime mention of it, and he did not even identify Hitler, the Nazis or the Jews by name. This failure publicly to denounce the greatest single crime in the history of mankind has unsurprisingly led to a major debate on the wartime role of the Pontiff, of which this well-researched, very well written, sane and thoughtful book is the latest and one of the most distinguished contributions.
Few people are better qualified than Gerard Noel to disinter the subtle diplomacy conducted by the prewar and wartime Vatican. A translator of the first volume of the official documents relating to the Holy See in that period and a former editor of the Catholic Herald, Noel had a private audience with Pius XII at the Castel Gandolfo in 1948, partly because he is collaterally descended from three saints, including Sir Thomas More. Yet far from being biased towards the Pontiff, as one might expect from this ultra-papabile curriculum vitae, this book lands some heavy blows against him.
Since Pius’ death in 1958 the debate on his actions — or inaction — has been dominated in the media by the case for the prosecution, principally Rolf Hochhuth’s 1963 play The Representative, Constantine Costa-Gravas’ film Amen, Daniel Goldhagen’s A Moral Reckoning, David Kerzer’s The Pope Against the Jews, David Cornwell’s outrageously titled Hitler’s Pope, Robert Katz’s Fatal Silence and other important and more nuanced books by Ralph McInery, Susan Zuccotti and José Sanchez. The case for the defence was best put by Professor Owen Chadwick in his succinct study Britain and the Vatican During the Second World War in 1986, but Pierre Blet S.J., Eamon Duffy, Clifford Longley, Cardinal Winning, Michael Burleigh, Paul Johnson, Ronald Rychlak and Denis Mack Smith have all landed blows that have tended to undermine the prosecution’s more extreme positions.
Comments
Julian T Rowe
January 10th, 2009 6:16pmIt is true that viewing the past in today's perspective is liable to error.
As a practicing Catholic I found the book shocking, but seemingly well grounded.
What came over for me was the arrogance of the Vatican, the lack of 'street level understanding', a misguided belief that Catholics were somehow to be more valued, and Vatican neutrality (alleged impartiality to good and bad).
Jesus was never arrogant. He always sided with, and spoke up, for the downtrodden and marginalised. "Whatever you do for the least....you do to me". Were not the unjustly persecuted Jews the least? Noel makes the point that the Centre Party (strongly Catholic) together with the 23m Catholics had the power to stand up and potentially halt the maniac A. Hitler, but the Vatican's actions dispersed them. The Vatican seems to have had little understanding of itself or its influence on the World's stage i.e. a Papal encyclical had power beyond merely the written word and paper it was printed on. The Pope could have done something...the only question is what, and what effects would it have had. When is violence justified? Answer - in self defence, and defence of the downtrodden, surely? Did not Jesus speak out regardless of the consequences? Pope Pius XII is not a saint, but full of human weakness. A saint for me, is someone who lays down his life for his friends, and authentic Christians are asked to love their enemies let alone their friends (the Jews). Pope Pius XII did not do this, perhaps with a misguided loyalty to an institution which is only in existence to follow Christ and do what He did...give His life and speak up for the Truth.
Lastly, the issue of Italian aristocracy - 450 years of Italian popes - and a German ‘super nanny’ nun.
What makes a pope, Italian Aristocratic blood? I was scandalised to read how the Papacy behaved, arriving (...Pope Pius XII in his former life) as Papal Nuncio in Bavaria. This was a time of global depression...such insensitivity - shameless.
I loved the part of the book describing how this German nun glided into the Sistine Chapel when the Cardinals were gathered to choose a successor to Pius XI. The Vatican needs a shake up. It has still lost touch with the people. It should not be a case of 'them and us' but rather 'we' which includes all mankind not merely card carrying Catholics - a rich dialogue of interfaith and nations, promoting universal brotherhood by example.
I apologise in advance if I have inadvertently offended anyone with my views.
Report this comment
Nicolas Bellord
August 16th, 2008 10:12pm"silly sainthood proposals" - ironically "silly" meant "holy" in earlier times.
More seriously it is useful to remember that the Catholic Church is a world-wide organisation and one has to be careful not to judge matters from just one point of the compass. The anti-fascist fascist Bernanos (as Camus described him) wrote in the "Les Cimetieres sous la Lune" of the shock waves that "Mit Brennender Sorge" caused in Spain during the Civil War when it implied that God was not on the side of Franco let alone Hitler.
Report this comment
Richard
August 11th, 2008 2:41amThe Encyclical "Mit Brenneder Sorge" (unique in regards to being composed in German rather than in Latin, and in having to be smuggled into Germany for reading from the pulpits) was released in 1937, by Pius XI, not Pius XII - but the record is clear that the Secretary of State , Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli - soon to be elected at Pius XII - had the key role in its composition.
Report this comment
Tristram Coffin Dammin MD
August 5th, 2008 4:44pmExcellent review. Look forward to more work from the newly ordained Jesuit, Gallagher. My father was a medical consultant at the Nuremberg Trials and imbued in me a keen interest in the after shocks to the Church and the Western European States from the War.
Report this comment
Vinny Olmstead
July 27th, 2008 5:13pmAs a part-time Catholic and more devoted history buff, I thought Charles Gallagher's "Vatican Secret Diplomacy" was an interesting read on the subject.
Report this comment
Jude Fonseka
July 26th, 2008 1:38amOnly a person of an ill and informed mind would publicly do stupid things as denouncing Hitler when Hitler was about to go marching into countries to evict powerful leaders who could make a difference. Denouncing Hitler was useless. The Church officials in Germany and The Netherlands did that only to note a difference in the deaths of clergy as well as the rest of the Jewish population.
What well-informed mind would think that Hitler would change his stance because of a speech from a Pope? We have already been through this. The evidence from the speeches of the Jewish leaders from that time is enough to overturn various conjectures and speculations. The Jews LOVED Pius XII for what he did, as noted by the Chief Rabbi of Rome, the Chief Rabbi of Israel and Golda Meir and Albert Einstein.
Going through pictures in google images would help find images of refugees in the vatican and castelgandolfo, a look at youtube shows refugees sheltered in the vatican. Who came to the vatican to 'discuss' issues with the pope? HITLER. Did the Pope stay to chat? Why not? The the confessions by hitler's S.S guards tell us why: that they were 'ordered' to kidnap Pius XII? I guess the servant of Hitler needs capturing -.-
Action speaks louder than words and indeed, jumping on the bandwagon of "condemning" did little. Social action was needed, charity was needed, and that's what Pius XII and the rest of the Vatican did, including his successor John XXIII.
Pius XII and Hitler had already met each other much before, not to mention the Vatican already had failed experiences with the Reich government well before 1940. The Reich government broke the terms of the concordat and the Vatican warned France and Britain in 1938, but did they listen? NO, they signed the concordat with Hitler. So I guess this mean they supported Hitler! (sarcasm)
Pius XII knew exactly what to do, and was far a better leader than the rest of the squabbling vultures in Europe who were holding and talks and spending time deciding which countries to declar war against.
Report this comment
John T.
July 24th, 2008 7:12pm'Canonization at $6,ooo,ooo' reports, 'anecdotely' that the going rate for sainthood is stiff indeed. The only pronblem with the story is that it is what was once called a 'schoolboy howler' The $6,ooo,ooo referred to is the cost associated with building a new college in Sydney, Australia: remote as you can get from the idea of fees for sainthood. Seems that bloggers are as fallible and sloppy as the rest of the media. Maybe Snopes will pick it up.
Report this comment
Canonisation at $6,000,000
July 24th, 2008 6:14amIt is difficult not to be cynical about any canonisation. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the promoters in Australia of the canonisation of a nun called Mary McKillop needed to raise something like $6,000,000 to get started. Because Pope Benedict has this month concluded a highly successful visit to Australia, because he apparently views Australia as a fertile source of Catholic renewal, because Australia has no canonised saint, is seems likely that McKillop will get up. But what are her claims compared with those of Pius X11's? In an age sceptical of miracles, are the miracles being attributed to McKillop any more believable than the apparitions claimed by Pius and now described by the author as hallucinations?
Report this comment
John T.
July 23rd, 2008 11:24pmThe devil's advocates who offer arguments against the sanctity of Pius XII are unwittingly doing excellent work in his cause. The process of canonization examines everything and the pious detractors of the Pius XII are part of it. Pacelli lived a life of significant virtue which no amount of second-guessing can modify in the historical record. In the end, Truth will prevail. It always does.
Report this comment
Joe Camel
July 22nd, 2008 8:51pmIt now looks pretty unlikely that Pius XII will ever be canonised. The proposal seems to have arisen, at least in part, as a counterweight to the move for canonisation of his immediate successor. But now it's John Paul II who is being cast in that role, the conservative pope to be canonised in tandem with liberal John XXIII.
Report this comment