JohnA

The Pope did not need to excommunicate members of the Nazi Party in 1944: they had already been publicly and lastingly excommunicated by the German Catholic bishops in 1932, before Hitler came to power, and all German Catholics were solemnly forbidden on pain of excommunication to vote for them. Nor do you mention Pius's 1939 pre-War encyclical 'mit brennender Sorge' - 'With vivid anxiety/alarm' - one of the first acts of his papacy, and written in German, not in Latin; although it addresses the problems of the Church in Germany, it also clearly attacks the Nazis' racial and racist policies.
As for fearing in December 1942 that the Church 'might suffer', even by 1939 Pius was well aware that the Catholic Church in Germany had been in grave difficulties since 1933, its churches forcibly closed, many of its members (particularly those associated with the Zentrumspartei) thrown into concentration camps or imprisoned (e.g. the courageously outspoken Dean of Berlin's Catholic Cathedral) for their anti-Nazi sermons. Anything he said across the air waves to a victorious and bloodthirsty Hitler was unlikely to have a calming effect, and as a diplomat, Pius realised that. Many of his actions (or inactions) look pusillanimous by modern papal standards, but they stem from his decision to maintain neutrality, and his disapproval of the punitive allied treatment of Germany after 1918.

Larry

The great Winston Churchill didn't mention the Holocaust in his autobiography? Neither did Eisenhower or De Gaulle? How did the greatest crime in Human history not rate a mention by these great Statesmen?

David Short

Jews were treated very badly in just about every European country in those days, and many people in Britain even after the war and the knowledge of the death camps didn't care very much.

It was in America where Jewish people could reach their potential, even if that didn't include entry to country clubs.

This article smacks a little too much of judging yesterday's events by today's values.

KARL ROLEWICZ

That you have made your biased anti-Pius XII comments based on the 'wise with hind-sight' 20-20 vision so common to 'merchant' banker' (rhymes with...)journalists , I am not surprised but that such a respected figure such as Gerard Noel should also sit in judgement with the also 'wise with hindsight' approach is an absolute disgrace.As you yourself say,the Germans would not have stopped their persecution of the Jews by one iota if the Pope had said something but in an unsavvy non-media age he quietly sent out orders that Jews were to be sheltered everywhere possible by Catholic monasteries,nunneries etc. etc..So please no more of this total bull---- about Pope Pius XII WHO WAS PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR SAVING OF COUNTLESS TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JEWS!...I AM ALSO SURE THAT THE VATICAN CONGREGATION FOR THE CAUSES OF SAINTS DOES NOT NEED ANY ADVICE FROM A VERTICALLY CHALLENGED IDDIOT OF A JOURNALIST!!!

Joseph Wilson

One 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.

KARL ROLEWICZ

IF 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!

Anthony Ozimic

Firstly, 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.

aloysiusmiller

How exquisitely presumptuous (and pompous) to use such narrow hindsight to judge a man.

Ellen Vosbury

The 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.

Andrew Azzopardi

Of 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.

Denzil

My 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.

JohnA

Ellen 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.

bruce

The 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?

Chris Inwien

Ah, 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?

Joe Camel

It 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.

John T.

The 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.

Canonisation at $6,000,000

It 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?

John T.

'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.

Jude Fonseka

Only 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.

Vinny Olmstead

As a part-time Catholic and more devoted history buff, I thought Charles Gallagher's "Vatican Secret Diplomacy" was an interesting read on the subject.

Tristram Coffin Dammin MD

Excellent 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.

Richard

The 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.

Nicolas Bellord

"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.