Still all quiet on the Pius front 2013-2016

For all sorts of reasons I have not been able to post for the last couple of months.  My school is preparing for its Sesquicentenary next year and I am involved on various committees and projects that seem to take up more and more time.  Many have the moments been when I have thought I should sit down and write something, but more often than not, it has been a case of "tomorrow", the end of today has left me yearning only for the sofa!  

Now, back to it!

I have commented before that under Pope Francis there has been a serious "slow down" on talk and action on the possible canonisation of Pius XII.  It has not changed in the three years since I last wrote on this topic.  It is almost as though the academic world has adopted a "wait and see" approach, an approach I can well understand.  

Over the last ten or so years, after the high-water mark of the revisionist and apologists attempt to re-configure historical debate on Pius along non-historical lines, mainstream academia has, it would appear, reached the point where there is nothing more to be said at present.  Research continues, but, as in my case, I suspect it is moving into other related areas.  My own study has taken more and more into ADSS, and the "usual" work of historians, namely the little discoveries and nuances that help add a highlight on this point or a shadow on that point.  There have several major works published by serious historians - Coppa, Fattorini, Kertzer, Kornberg, Madigan, Ventresca, Wolf, to name some - that have, in their own field, added to our collective knowledge.

The "elephant in the room" has been and remains, the closed archives of Pope Pius XII contained in the Archivio Segreto Vaticano.  We have waited for years, and, I suspect, we will continue to wait.  2003, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2013 ... Whatever the reasons for the delays, most of us believe that there will be no major change in the general direction research has headed over the last half century.  This direction was confirmed when the archives for Pope Pius XI were opened between 2003 and 2006.

I will continue to post my reading of ADSS if only because I remain convinced that the published documents still contain many nuggets that shed light on the reasoning behind the many different layers of the Vatican diplomatic efforts firstly, to prevent a war, and secondly to contain it once it started.

Over and over again, the documents reveal patterns of diplomacy, negotiation and responsibility, that did not change over the course of the war years.  If I have reached only one conclusion from the ADSS, it is that Pope Pius XII while not knowing everything, was arguably the best informed person in Europe.  However, that knowledge grew incrementally, and in a non-consistent manner - he became aware of events from across Europe as they arrived in Rome, and often not in chronological order and often seemingly unrelated.  It was the responsibility of the Secretariat of State to attempt to create meaning and patterns out of the material that arrived, and that could often be devilishly difficult to do.  Only in one area did the Pope have as clear and consistent a picture of German intention as was possible.  That area was the evolution of German policy towards the Jews.

From a research point of view I have to thank so many people who have posted and maintained entire libraries of online resources.  My study of ADSS would simply not be possible without access to the mostly gratis resources that have been made available.  For that I am most grateful and offer my deepest thanks.

Pope Francis and Pope Pius XII

Francis and Pius

Pope Francis has been Bishop of Rome for the better part of two years.  Since his election in March 2013 he has taken the Catholic world by storm – by changing absolutely nothing, but doing just about everything differently.  His famous “Who am I to judge?” quote on the plane from Rio to Rome is probably the best way to see this extraordinary man who is returning the papacy to something more in line with the vision of Vatican II and more attuned to the needs of the modern world.

Francis instinctively “gets it”.  He is not a theologian or philosopher by trade although he is well versed and fluent in both disciplines.  He is not consumed by the “culture wars” that dominated much of western and first world Catholic discussion, debate and diatribe over the last twenty years although he is very familiar with the context and content of these movements.  He is not remotely interested in the liturgical angst generated among neo-conservatives and those determined to “reform the reform” of the Council, although he is clearly concerned that the liturgical life of the Church be executed with reverence, respect and, to use a common phrase, “noble simplicity”.

This pope made his agenda clear from his first appearance on the balcony of St Peter’s Basilica when he bowed in acknowledgement and reverence towards the thousands gathered in the piazza.  Francis takes very seriously the pontifical title – servus servorum Dei – servant of the servants of God.  People come first, everything else takes its turn after that.  Does this mean he is not interested in theology?  Of course not; but this pope has indicated in his words and actions that theology has to be linked to the lived experience of people and not the other way around.  His gestures, too many to even include a few examples, show a shepherd who loves being in the midst of his sheep, and everyone else’s too.

Papa Francesco the first Jesuit pope is also a shrewd operator.  He has shown in his gradual series of appointments a keen awareness of the need to reform the Roman curia and make it more transparent and accountable.  To those outside the Catholic Church and unfamiliar with Catholic “church speak” Francis’ actions in the area of reform may appear strange.  However, to those of us who grew up “on the inside” and “speak the language”, this pope has been gently rattling gilded cages, stirring a few pots and letting it be known that although he smiles and laughs more than any of his predecessors, he is pope.  The irony is that one of Francis’ major reforms is de-centralisation of papal power and the empowerment of local bishops’ conferences.

A good few neo-conservative groups around the English-speaking world are unhappy.  However they are in a bind.  Having proclaimed from the roof tops since the election of John Paul II in 1978 that devotion to the Holy Father, acceptance, often unquestionably, of papal statements, regardless of their provenance or intent, is one of the litmus tests of orthodoxy, they either have to accept that Francis is THE pope and so do as they have done, or move on.  Some have gone so far to say the church is heading towards schism.  This is the talk of fantasy and delusion.

One of the neo-conservative gripes is Francis’ perceived attitude towards the cause of Pope Pius XII.

Pope Francis has said little on Pius XII.  I believe there are five main reasons for this.

1. Francis is the first pope in modern times to have no direct connection with Europe during the fascist and Nazi eras or World War II.  He was too young (born 17.12.1936) to be anyway involved.  Unlike his immediate predecessors Francis has had no experience of totalitarian regimes other than the military juntas in Argentina, which while unquestionably brutal, were not murderous in the same way the Nazis and Communists were in the 1930s through to the 1950s.  Francis is an “outsider” to the events that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI lived through.  I suggest that this gives him an objectivity that is needed in any discussion about Pius.  Francis is sympathetic to Pius, but he is not driven by a need to defend him or the institution of the papacy.

2. Francis has his priorities as bishop of Rome.  The canonization of Pius XII is not one of them.  He has canonized a number of women and men, but these cases were in the last stages of the process by the time he was elected.  This pope does not appear to see a need for a great number of canonisations – we have enough saints for the time being!  Indeed during his visit to Albania in September the pope’s embrace of Fr Ernst Simoni and Sr Marije Kaleta who had spent many years persecuted by the regime of Enver Hoxha summed up Francis’ priorities – he is here to be a shepherd; nothing else will stand in the way of his pastoral ministry.

3. Francis is content to allow historians and archivists to do their jobs.  There have been media reports suggesting that Francis is keen to get the archives opened up and the documents made available to historians.  It would be very odd if he had the opposite opinion.  Nonetheless, Francis respects conventions and protocols when they do not impinge on more important area.  The Secret Archives of the Vatican for Pius XII will be opened - eventually.  Pope Francis will not, I think, loose any sleep over the timing.

4. Francis does not fear or seem terribly worried about church history, good or bad.  He has said on many occasions that the church has to be open and honest about its past, seek forgiveness for past wrongs and make amends.  And while this is often seen within the context of the ongoing scandals related to sex-abuse by members of the clergy, I have no doubt that the pope believes it applies to all aspects of the church’s history.  That said, there is another dimension that comes from this Latin American pope, namely his non-European frames of reference.  John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI were modern men within the contexts of their times, but they were European men.  Their world-views were shaped through European lenses.  This in no way detracts from their significant contributions to the life of the church, especially that of John XXIII, but Francis brings a world-view shaped by life outside of Europe, where the majority of the world’s Catholics now live.

5. Francis values the adult relationship between Catholics and Jews and will certainly do nothing to damage it.  I believe he considers questions about Pius XII and the Holocaust are important and valid, but are not what the dialogue and friendship in 2014 is built on.  Catholics and Jews are now at a point where the trust between both sides on many levels is so strong that argument and disagreement is, and indeed, should be a part of the relationship.  I believe Francis is saying, as his predecessors also said in their own ways, “there is no going back, we will walk forward together side by side.”

These thoughts are things that have been floating around in my head for some time.  Internet traffic on Pius XII has virtually ground to a halt since Francis’ election – and there is some good in that.  Many of the neo-conservative sites have gone very quiet as well – there is simply nothing new to say; and if loyalty to the Holy Father is one of your group’s self-identifying traits, then you can’t say what he hasn’t said!  For those of us who have been waiting for the archives to open will just have to be patient.  What gives me a cheerful optimism is Francis’ cheerful optimism – all in good time!

I took this photo when I was in Rome last year.  

I confess that I am an unabashed Francis fan!

Back in the saddle.

I have been on study leave since mid-October 2013.  The time away from school was a great opportunity to re-charge the batteries, do some serious professional and personal development in areas of Liturgy, Christian art and architecture, history and travel.  Of the latter I did some pretty serious getting around.  Over the last three months I have spent time in different cities in Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Cuba and the United States.  Most of that time was engaged in various forms of "church crawling".  

I kept an eye on news concerning Pius XII but it has been pretty quiet.  The only significant piece of news has been the resurgence of hope that Pope Francis may speed up the opening of the archives for Pius' pontificate.  Much of the story appears to have been promoted by the visit to Rome by Francis' old friend, Rabbi Abraham Skorka of Buenos Aires.  And while Skorka was diplomatically reserved over the nature of his conversations with his old friend, he did suggest that Francis was keen to open the archives in order to "get it all out" about what Pius did and did not do.  Several articles appeared on 19 January and there has been a steady trickle over the last week.  Most appear to borrow from each other.

However, I tend to be rather sceptical having seen more than a few media reports that "it" was about to happen, would happen soon, that the new pope was committed to "it" and so on.  What I do think is solid fact is Francis' commitment to "hasten slowly" on the cause of Pope Pius XII.  His public statements demonstrate a much-welcomed caution that until all the relevant material is examined, Pacelli's cause for canonisation should wait.  This is good news.  For those who wish to read some of the news headlines I suggest these:


19 January: Gidon Ben-zvi writing in The Algemeiner,  Pope may open Holocaust era Vatican archives, possiblt shedding light on Pope Pius XII's role.

19 January: The Jerusalem Post picked up Pope Francis to examine Pius' wartime conduct before deciding on sainthood from the Sunday Times.

20 January: Catholic Culture, a conservative North American news service, reported Pope ready to open secret archives of Pius XII?

20 January: Andrea Tornielli writing in Vatican Insider penned Skorka and the Vatican archives on Pius XII.

25 January:  A very enthusiastic Vaiju Naravane writing for The Hindu informs us the "Pope Francis appears to have taken another bold decision in favour of inter-religious harmony and transparency in the affairs off the Roman Catholic Church.  It has been reported that he has decided to throw open the Vatican's archives on the Holocaust and the role played by Pope Pius XII during Hitler's third Reich when an estimated six million Jews were exterminated".

An interesting start.  However, just in case his readers think this is really what is going on, Naravane goes on to write: "However, the Vatican has still to confirm that Pope Francis has in fact decided to open the archives".  Indeed.  

Personally, I find reading Sandro Magister's column along with more "left of centre" journals, such as the National Catholic Reporter, gives me what may be the best picture of what is happening.

All very quiet on the Pius front

Today is the feast of St Eugenio, name day of Pius XII.

Work commitments have made it difficult to keep posting  on the subjects related to Pope Pius XII.  However, given the significance of the day I thought it worth while making a few comments on what appears to have been a lull or even a "cease fire" in what has been about a decade and half of energetic polemic and a growing academic discussion over Eugenio Pacelli. 

Cyberspace has been very quite for about three months.  My google alerts have been getting  fewer and fewer and the content of what has been coming through has been fairly innocuous. I suggest a couple of reasons for this.

Firstly, Frank Coppa and Robert Ventresca's biographies of Pius XII have been published and the reviews are overwhelmingly positive.  The scope and scale of historical work done by both authors is impressive for its depth and detail along with balanced interpretation and analysis.  It is hard to argue against scholarship of this calibre.

Secondly, I believe that the arguments of those who have been very vocal in the recent past decrying and demonising those historians who did their job, and did it well, have been comprehensively answered and deconstructed.  To remain a proponent of the over-used and generalised statements "Pius did everything possible to save the Jews of Europe" and "Pope Pius XII saved 860,000 Jews" is to place oneself well and truly outside any form of mainstream discussion.  In effect, these positions have been shown to be effectively bankrupt and without historical basis.

Thirdly, the interest in the subject appears to have "gone off the boil".  The wait for the archives of Pacelli's papacy continues.  However, the energy to explore what is currently available has waned.  And this is a significant "reality check" for those who want clear answers now.  Research into the available material is only in the early stages.  It will take years to explore the archives of the pontificate of Pope Pius XI and his Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli.  Out of this will come new insights and nuances that will help shed light on Pacelli's papacy; but it demands great patience and discipline, something most of the apologists lack.

Fourthly, there is what I describe as the "Francis effect".  The new pope does not appear to have the interest that his two immediate predecessors had in the debates over Pius XII.  I do not believe this indicates disinterest, but rather it is not high on his priority list at present.  This many change, but current indicators seem to suggest that this will not likely be the case.  What may happen is a direction to the archivists to speed up the process, but this is moving into wishful thinking.

Thank you to those who have written to me with questions.  I hope to get answers for you shortly.

Will Pope Francis open the archives?

There is speculation in some quarters that the new pope, Francis, will speed up the opening process of the Vatican archives from the pontificate of Pius XII.  I suspect this is a bit of wishful thinking.  Francis needs time to settle into his new role and so far he has indicated that it will be "business as usual" for the time being until he is ready to make changes.  I doubt if the Archives are a major priority at present, but I am happy to be proven wrong.

This article was taken from Steve Lipman and Stewart Ain's article in The Jewish Week.  Whether or not the new pope speeds up the opening of the archives, his long and positive relations with the Jewish community in Argentina points to the ongoing, friendly development of relations between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people.  And this is a very good thing, following in the footsteps of the popes since John XXIII.

Opening Wartime Archives?

The selection of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina to be the new pope of the Roman Catholic Church is being seen as a move that will continue to cement Catholic-Jewish relations and perhaps end the debate over the Church’s actions during World War II.

Bergoglio, 76, who took the name Francis and is the first Jesuit ever to be chosen pope, has publicly called for the opening of the Vatican archives to learn the true role Pope Pius XII during the Holocaust. 

There have been allegations that Pope Pius XII, who is on track to be canonized by the Church, remained silent in the face of the mass extermination of Jews and that he was friendly to the Nazis. Others have claimed that he secretly instructed Catholic clergy to hide Jews and that he did so himself inside the walls of Vatican City.

Rabbi Abraham Skorka, who co-authored a book with the new Pope in 2010, “On Heaven and Earth,” told The Jewish Week that they devoted a chapter in which they “analyzed the attitude of Pope Pius XII during the Second World War. His answer was, in essence, that we have to wait to open all the archives and analyze all the details regarding this issue.”

Asked if he believes that with his new authority Pope Francis will order the opening of the archives, Rabbi Skorka replied: “I believe yes, that his attitude will be to search for all of the details and to open all the archives. He will use this opportunity to learn the truth.”

Rabbi Skorka said that during his discussion with Bergoglio about this issue, “I explained that I could not understand how a person — a spiritual leader — didn’t involve himself more and more during the Shoah [Holocaust]. His answer was, ‘Let us continue searching to reach the truth.’”

I have left the rest of the article out of this post as it is not directly related to the topic of the archives.

Pope Francis

Yad Vashem's mistake - Rabbi Yoffie in the Jerusalem Post

Rabbi Eric Yoffie is Emeritus President of the Union for Reform Judaism in the USA and a long-time significant promoter of dialogue, listening and understanding between the Abrahamic faiths.  He is a regular blogger for the Jerusalem Post  and Huffington Post.  Rabbi Yoffie posted this response to Yad Vashem's rewritten text for Pope Pius XII and the Shoah in The Jerusalem Post yesterday.


Yoffie's comments are representative of many people who share the frustration of many historians who are waiting for the opening of the archives for the war years, and I take his comments very seriously.  I do not agree with the oft-expressed hope or belief that the archives will tell us everything.  I remain convinced that the broad or big picture is known and has been known for nearly fifty years and made more clear through the publishing of ADSS.  The opening of the archives for the 1939-1945 war will add detail and nuance, but not, I believe, alter the generally accepted history of the period.  Nor will it silence those who indulge in conspiracy fantasies and the like, or those who believe Pius should be canonised by the Catholic Church without further delay.


Yad Vashem's mistake.

The following are some uncontested historical facts about the role of Pope Pius XII during the Holocaust:

  

Pius XII never condemned Hitler or the Nazis by name.

 

He never mentioned specifically the suffering of the Jews, though many people, both clergy and lay diplomats, pleaded with him to issue a public condemnation.

 

In October, 1943, the Jews were rounded up in Rome itself; the cattle trucks drove past St. Peter’s, with the tiny, shivering hands of the incarcerated children hanging through the slats. The Pope, sitting in St. Peter’s, still said nothing at all.

 

I mention these facts because I have just learned of the decision of Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust Museum and Memorial, to change the wording of an exhibit on Pope Pius XII’s actions during World War II. The changes were meant to soften the criticism of the original wording, which was neither inaccurate nor overly harsh to begin with. 

 

We are all familiar with the arguments put forward to explain the behavior of the Pope: that he feared a furious reaction from the Nazis if he were to speak out publicly; that Nazi retaliation might have made things worse for the Jews; that church interests in Europe would have been harmed, surely a legitimate papal concern; that the Pope encouraged help for the Jews in secret, and that this help was forthcoming in innumerable cases.

 

I have done my best to understand these points. They are weighty arguments, and the history of the period is not simple. But I keep coming back to those Jewish children in Rome, being transported past St. Peter’s, and I simply cannot understand the failure of the Pope to speak out. This failure is a great moral stain that can never be wiped away.

 

I write as someone who is an enthusiastic advocate of Jewish-Catholic dialogue and cooperation, and as someone who believes—and has publicly stated innumerable times—that more progress has been made in Catholic-Jewish relations in the last 60 years than was made in the previous two millennia. Led and inspired by John XXIII and John Paul II, the Church has taken vigorous and daring steps to promote a new relationship with Judaism and the Jewish people. Indeed, I doubt if we could find any other example in history of a church initiating a process of such profound repentance, acknowledging the sins of its members over a 2000 year period against the practitioners of the religious tradition from which it sprang.

 

But I remember the words of my teacher and friend, the late Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg. Rabbi Hertzberg was both liberal in outlook and a fervent bridge builder; he believed that the values of the Jewish tradition and the realities of the modern world required that the Jewish people and the State of Israel cultivate strong relations with the Catholic Church, as well as with the Moslem world and all major faith traditions. Yet he was also a serious historian who had studied the actions of Pius XII during the Holocaust and had been repelled by them, and he had been infuriated by the refusal of the Vatican to open to scholars its archives of the period. 

 

By all means, he would say to me, let us look to the future and build strong ties with the Church. But, he warned me, let no one alter the historical record, and above all, don’t forget those children.

 

Rabbi Hertzberg, I believe, would not be pleased by the actions of Yad Vashem. If he were here, he would protest, and so do I.  

Rabbi Eric Yoffie

 

Martin Gilbert on Pius XII

This is a re-publication of an article written by Sir Martin Gilbert in 2008 on the website of the St James Vicariate for Hebrew speaking Catholics in Israel.  Often employed as a supporter of one or other sides in the debate on Pope Pius XII, Gilbert's own position is more nuanced and moderate.  The article is an example of this moderation.  


Distinguished English Jewish historian, Sir Martin Gilbert, has published an editorial in HaAretz (5.12.2008) urging all to wait patiently until the Vatican archives are opened so that the truth about Pope Pius XII's wartime activity can indeed be revealed. Gilbert, who is also an authority on Christians who saved Jews during the Shoah, reveals himself again as a voice of moderation.

The archive holds the answersBy Martin Gilbert
Four years ago, Pope John Paul II invited me to the Vatican to discuss the proposed canonization of Pope Pius XII from a historical perspective. After careful consideration, I decided I could not go. As a Jew, I did not feel able to comment on whether or not a pope should become a saint. That is an internal Roman Catholic theological issue, entirely within the competence of the Church. 

This does not mean that as a Jewish historian I do not have an opinion on what the Pope did or did not do; indeed, I have written about it in my book "The Righteous: The Unsung Heroes of the Holocaust" (2002), in which I discuss, for example, positive aspects of his activities in Rome in October 1943. 

Pope Benedict XVI asks that the public debate about the canonization of Pius XII wait until he makes an official statement. As, however, the Vatican has cited me as a supporter of Pius XII's candidacy on this issue, I feel I should explain my view. It is this: 

If the Vatican feels today, as Pope John Paul II felt, that the Pope's behavior during the Holocaust merits particular recognition, it should send - as I have several times urged - to the Righteous Among the Nations Department at Yad Vashem the notarized material - the evidence in the Vatican archives - on which to base an application for him to be made a Righteous Gentile. 

To date more than 21,000 Righteous Gentiles, almost all of them Christians, many of them Roman Catholics, have been recognized by Yad Vashem, which - as I know from my own work in its archive - makes extraordinary efforts to give honor where honor is due. 

Yad Vashem's response to such a request with regard to Pius XII would depend on the material the Vatican provided from its wartime archive. At the moment only archival material up to 1939 is accessible to scholars; for later material, they will have to wait until 2013. 

Like many historians, Jewish and non-Jewish, including a distinguished international panel initially welcomed by the Vatican, I have long urged the Vatican to open its wartime archive. The British government long ago opened its files with regard to Britain's response to the Holocaust, and has accepted whatever the documentation reveals. 

There are many historical episodes in which the evidence of the Pope's positive involvement will be confirmed or negated by the documents in the Vatican archives. One is the refuge given to 477 Jews in Vatican City and its enclaves on the eve of the German roundup of Jews in Rome in 1943. A further 4,238 Jews were saved when they were given sanctuary in monasteries and convents throughout the city. Among those in Rome at that time already recognized by Yad Vashem was Father Pietro Palazzini, later a cardinal. Only the Vatican archives can reveal what part the Pope himself played in these two acts of rescue, which saved four-fifths of the Jews of Rome. 

On December 17, 1942, the British, American and Soviet governments issued a declaration denouncing the "bestial" Nazi crimes against the Jews. When asked to support the declaration, the Pope declined. A week later, in his annual Christmas message, he denounced racial crimes, but did not mention the Jews by name. This has been held against him ever since. But in Berlin, we now know, from the German records, Nazi leaders felt that this papal message aligned the Pope with the Jews, as their supporter and advocate. What is the truth? The Vatican archives will show what the Pope intended: perhaps various drafts of the message, and the Pope's comments on them, and his hopes for the message. 

When senior Roman Catholic Church leaders in Vichy France denounced the deportation of Jews and urged their flocks to hide and save them, did Pius initiate that, or support it? Only the Vatican archive holds the answer. 

When the papal nuncio in Budapest worked tirelessly in 1944 to help save Jews from Arrow Cross massacre, did Pius XII initiate this act of rescue, or support it? Only the Vatican archive holds the answer. 

When - encouraged by Chaim Barlas of the Jewish Agency - the papal nuncio in Istanbul, the future Pope John XXIII (we take the liberty to correct a print error in the HaAretz text that wrongly identifies the nuncio in Istanbul), successfully pressed the Bulgarian king not to deport Jews to Germany, did Pius XII initiate this act of rescue, or support it? Only the Vatican archive holds the answer - for it contains the complete two-way correspondence between the Vatican and its emissaries overseas. 

Once we can see Pius XII's personal involvement, those who wish to see him honored will be able to make a case, if indeed there is a case to be made. At the moment, the evidence for the many historical episodes in which he must have been involved, consulted or given advice to his cardinals and senior clergy - each episode of crucial importance in the Jewish story - is still locked away. As a historian whose instinct is to credit people like Pius with a desire to help, even I cannot predict what the archives will hold. 

The Vatican should have confidence in the outcome, allow the world to see the evidence, and let truth prevail. Surely the time to do so is now. 

Sir Martin Gilbert's book "The Righteous: The Unsung Heroes of the Holocaust," which includes material on Pius XII, is published in paperback by Holt (U.S.) and Doubleday (U.K.).

To go the article on the HaAretz site: View and read

Sir Martin Gilbert

Lux in Arcana - The Vatican Archives Exhibition

Lux in Arcana is one exhibition I would dearly love to see, but Australia is not called “Down Under” for nothing!  On Wednesday 29 February, a six month exhibition of a selection of texts from Archivio Segreto Vaticano went on display in Rome’s Capitoline Museum. Amongst documents which include the Bull of Excommunication of Martin Luther, the appeal from the English Parliament for the Annulment of Henry VIII’s marriage to Katherine of Aragon, a letter from St Teresa of Jesus and the transcripts of the interrogations of the Knights Templar, there are several documents from the archives of Pius XII.  It is these that are of particular interest to me.

Reading the news reports on the exhibition several things stand out. 

Firstly, there is the general level of ignorance in the mainstream media about the archives.  They are not “secret” in the sense of hidden or deliberately withheld.  The Italian word “segreto” can be translated to mean “private”, which is what in fact, they are.  The ASV is the private or personal archive of the pope.  The terminology is understandably confusing, but a simple question seeking clarification would remedy the confusion, a point made by one of the exhibition organisers, archivist, Pier Paolo Piergentili, author of TheVatican Secret Archives (2009).

Secondly, there is the oft repeated assertion that the Vatican has been engaged in “covering up” unpalatable aspects of its past – ancient and modern – and this exhibition is an example of greater transparency!  Journalist, Charlie Angela, needs to do some research.  After making the "revelation" that the Catholic Church put Galileo to death (he died in his bed in Florence at the age of 77) because he “discovered that the earth revolved around the sun” (with no apology to either Aristotle or Copernicus), she appears to go on to assert that the exhibition is in part a response to the child abuse scandals and that the Church is doing all this to appease public opinion “who want the Church to reveal all its secrets”.  This is not journalism worthy of the name and the Daily Mail were Ms Angela’s report was published should be ashamed. 

Thirdly, the customary positions taken on Pius XII remain alive and kicking.  The media, it seems, has little or no interest in acknowledging the realms of gray about the war-time pope.  The old chestnut of “wait until the archives are opened and all shall be revealed” still attracts attention.  No acknowledgement was made of the work that has been done so far, or to at least recognise that the exhibition makes new assertions regarding Pius XII.

Fortunately the European Jewish Press has a more nuanced approach.  I have copied the relevant section and made notes throughout the text.

The documents are part of an unprecedented exhibition in Rome of rare Vatican archives spanning centuries of history and include a report from a papal envoy on the conditions inside seven internment camps in southern Italy.   

There are many documents found in ADSS that record visits made by the Italian nuncio, Francesco Borgongini Duca to internment camps throughout southern Italy.  The internment camp at Ferramonti Tarsia in Cosenza operated between June 1940 and September 1943.  The nuncio visited the camp on 31 August 1941 (ADSS 8.142) and maintained contact throughout the rest of the war. (See ADSS 8.294, 329, 335, 371, 471; 9.55).  The nuncio was also involved in interventions on behalf of converted and stateless Jews throughout Italy at times, in order to prevent their possible deportation into German hands. (See ADSS 6.13,18, 22, 32, 246, 247; 8.473; 9.57, 122, 146, 228)

Another document is a letter from a formerly interned rabbi in 1942 who thanks the then head of the Roman Catholic Church for sending aid to the camp including clothes and linen. 

Letters of thanks are found throughout ADSS.  They came from individuals, families and communities across Europe, the UK (ADSS 9.346) and even Uruguay (ADSS 9.364).  The Church, in the person of the pope, was thanked for efforts made on behalf of the Jews of Europe.  Most come from after the summer of 1941 when news of the mass murder began to reach to the world at large. (This is a sample: ADSS 8.495 – Rabbi Freiberger, Zagreb, 30.09.1942; ADSS 9.52 – Rabbi Alexander Safran, Bucharest, 15.02.1943; ADSS 10.226 – the Jews of Rome, 10.06.1944, 10.288 – Jewish families in Rome, 05.08.1944. The archives of the internment camp in Campagna also contain a number of letters of thanks from internees expressing their thanks to the pope for material help.

A third document is from former Jewish detainees who met with the pope for an audience in 1944 and expressed their gratitude for his support. 

They said the pope had sent "substantial and generous gifts and demonstrated his keen and paternal interest in our physicial, spiritual and moral wellbeing" and said he had saved them from the threat of deportation to Poland in 1942.   

The Vatican's second in command, Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone, visited the opening of the exhibition on Wednesday and said he had been most struck by the documents relating to the papacy of Pius XII.   

Bertone said the documents were part of efforts for "historical truth", adding: "The research on the period of Pius XII has so far generated more than two million files and information about prisoners of war". 

The head of the Vatican archives, Sergio Pagano, also said the full archive from Pius XII would be made available "within one or two years".   

"The final decision however depends on the pope," he told reporters.   

Another document included in the exhibition is a letter from the nuncio to the Netherlands, Paolo Giobbe, dated 18(?) September 1945 informing Rome of the death of Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein) and her sister, Rosa.  The video on Rome Reports was too faint for me to read the text in its entirety.

While the selection of documents is interesting, it breaks no new ground, but reinforces what has been known from the available material that Pius XII was not inactive in working to provide help where he could.  It is also imperative to remember that the Secretariat of State, the nuncios and other Vatican diplomats acted in the pope’s name, so many of the letters of thanks are expressed to the pope because people may not have known who was directly responsible for getting the relief to the camps.  Thanking the pope was a natural thing to do, and Pius should be credited for this basic “work of mercy”.  It is also important to recall that the most work of this kind was done in Italy where Pius had greater ability to act.

Emma Fattorini: Hitler, Mussolini, and the Vatican

A number of weeks ago I posted a link to Richard Bosworth's review of Fattorini's book published on the Times Higher Education on 20 October 2011. 

Bosworth's review is generally positive with a number of cautions and criticisms.  He asserts that Fattorini needed to go deeper into issues and that she has not been served well by the translation of the Italian into English. However, what Bosworth does not make clear is Fattorini's attempt to give a global portrait of the pontificate of Pius XI and place Germany and Italy within that context.  This is, I believe, her strength.  Nonetheless, I do agree with him that she needed to work more on Eugenio Pacelli and provide greater analysis of his role as Secretary of State. 

Book titles can be deceptive.  The Italian title - Pio XI, Hitler e Mussolini - is better, and Fattorini's work would have been better served by retaining it.  And yet, her work encompasses much more than this. 

I found her greatest strength in the recognition that any fruitful study of the papacy and the Vatican has to be seen through the matrix of religion and religious identity.  This is something I argued forcefully in my own work.  Pius XI was first and foremost a religious leader.  He viewed the world through the Tradition of Catholic Christianity, through his life-long religious practices and his strong devotion to Therese of the Child Jesus (1873-1897) the Discalced Carmelite nun from Lisieux he canonised in 1925.  The "little way" of Therese profoundly marked the religious life of Pius XI.  Her "Autobiography of a Soul" published shortly after her death taught that the spiritual path consisted not in doing great things, but in serving God in the ordinariness of everyday life, and doing the little things well.  Serving Christ in those around her, pondering on his life in the Gospels and remaining faithful to her religious duties in the Carmel, was Therese's antidote to a popular religious piety that often drew people away from the core essentials of the faith and ran the risk of becoming superstitions.  Pius saw in Therese's spirituality a pattern for Catholic Action - the movement that would empower lay Catholics to engage in the world around them, a world often hostile to institutional religion - and be a tool for the re-evangelisation of Europe.  This became part of the way the pope sought to provide Catholics with tools to combat anti-Catholic movements of the right and the left from the early 1920s.  Along with the very deliberate creation of the feast of Christ the King to demonstrate that the loyalty of the Catholic church was to Christ first and foremost, Pius XI endeavoured to lead the Church through a "rebirth of Christian Society" (title of Chapter 1).

Pius XI's relationship with Cardinal Pacelli is described clearly as that of two opposites who respected each other enormously, were close workers and who shared a common vision of the Church and a passion for the faith.  They were also two men marked by two very different ways of approaching issues.  Pius was forthright, blunt and spoke his mind forcefully without fear of favour.  He was known to have a fiery temper and was not above displaying his emotions, even in public. He was a deep thinker, read widely in many disciplines, especially theology, social justice and history, had a considerable grasp of world affairs, discussed strategies with Pacelli, but at the end of deliberations, he made decisions and acted accordingly.  He was also pope and expected his decisions to be obeyed. 

Pacelli was reticent, guarded and spoke his mind only after long considerations and usually in complex and highly refined diplomatic language.  He rarely lost his temper or showed emotion, and never in public. He was a deep thinker, read widely in many disciplines, but remained conservative in his opinions, had a phenomenal grasp of world affairs, discussed strategies with the pope, but found decision making to be an agonising process.  He was the servant of his master, the Vicar or Christ, and executed the pope's decisions faithfully.

Together Pius XI and Pacelli made a partnership between 1930 and 1939 that served the Catholic church well. 

Fattorini's use of the material from the Archivio Segreto Vaticano is detailed and covers a considerable part of the pontificate of Pius XI.  The use of recent projects such as Hubert Wolf's digital presentation of the Pacelli nunciature reports from 1918 and contemporary scholarship makes this book an important addition to our understanding of this period.

It is the use of archival material that provides another strength to Fattorini's work.  Her survey of the complex realities within the Roman curia, and the role played by the "black pope", the General of the Jesuits, Ledochowski, helps bring into perspective the responses of the Vatican to the "proffered hand" of the French communists, the Spanish civil war and then to Italy and Germany.

The chapters on Germany and Italy are the heart of the book.  But, they are enhanced through the survey of Vatican diplomacy from 1918 onwards and especially the awareness of realpolitik shared by Pius and Pacelli as well as the treatment of France, Spain and Mexico.

I share the conclusion that Fattorini makes about Pius' planned speech on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Lateran Accord.  It was looking more and more certain that Pius was convinced that a "show down" with Hitler and Mussolini was inevitable and he was more than ready for it.  The pope's death literally hours before he was to speak is one of those moments which tempt us with a "what if" speculation.  Pacelli's destruction of the speech is both testament to his obedience to papal protocol in his role as caretaker after Pius' death as well as a piece of circumstantial evidence pointing to a hope for a new direction.  It would be presumptuous to think that Pacelli hoped or believed he would be elected pope, so his actions as caretaker cannot be construed as a pre-emptive papal strike.

At the end of the book I had a far better understanding of Pius XI and a greater admiration for this pope who worked tirelessly to steer the Church without compromising to the dictators of whom he had a clear and accurate understanding.

I always begin reading a book with a quick look at the chapter headings, a glance at the index, and then go to the notes.  Here is where one finds evidence of scholarship.  There are 33 pages of detailed notes at the end of the text.  Of 380 notes, 94 or 25%, are references to Vatican archival material.  Many of the archive notes are accompanied by further details.  Fattorini is an historian who knows the importance of archives and also knows of their importance to other historians who wish to delve further into aspects she has opened up.

Does Fattorini add to the body of knowledge?  Much of the "big picture" is already well known.  Fattorini does what other historians do, and deepens our understanding of aspects of the period under study.  There is more work to be done on Pius XI.  Emma Fattorini has helped us come to a more complete appreciation of this highly significant man and his forceful voice that was heard between 1922-1939.  It is a book well worth reading.

The Policies and Politics of Pope Pius XII, Frank Coppa

Frank Coppa's new book, The Policies and Politics of Pope Pius XII (Peter Lang Publishing), arrived last week.  It was a delight to sit down and read what is, in my opinion, a book of the same importance and high standard as Jose Maria Sanchez 2002 work, Pius XII and the Holocaust: Understanding the Controversy (CUA Press)

Coppa provides a well-documented summary of the life of Eugenio Pacelli and his rise in Vatican service drawing heavily on, the now readily available, documentation from Archivio Segreto Vaticano.  As was the case with Sanchez, there are no surprises with Coppa.  For those of us who have been studying the man and the period for more than a few years, the well-trawled document trails, the steady publication of academic and professional books, monographs and conference papers has reached a point where I can only agree with Coppa's final analysis: 

The controversy swirling about Pius XII and his pontificate is no longer primarily due to the lack of sources - many of which have recently been made available with the opening of the papers of Pius XI.  Rather it seems to stem from the commotion of the period, the need to assign responsibility for the atrocities committed during those turbulent years, and on the a priori positions taken by many of the authors in the Pius War.  For many the policies pursued by Pius XII remains controversial and this may have delayed but has not derailed the movement for his canonisation ... It may take years, perhaps decades before the Pius War is brought to an end, and a more objective picture of this Pope achieved.  Hopefully, the present study will serve as a step in that direction. (176)

The book is slim - 177/205 pages of text.  At the end of each of the chapters is a comprehensive set of notes.  The reader is encouraged to read them carefully, Coppa has set up a valuable tool for students and teachers to go further along related lines of interest.

Coppa helps us see Pacelli in the context of his whole life, and particularly in his years working with the diplomatically astute Cardinal Pietro Gasparri, secretary of state to Benedict XV (1914-1922) and Pius XI (1922-1930) where Pacelli learned much in the art of statecraft and dealing with unsavoury characters.  Upon his own appointment as secretary of state in 1930, Pacelli continued in the manner of Gasparri, opting wherever possible for a "public truce" to avoid damaging the Church or her institutions. (119)

Professor Coppa's "big picture" of Pacelli's life leads him to discuss the war years - in chapters 7 and 8 - with a focus on defining "impartiality", "neutrality" and the vexed question of "silence".  In the hands of a lesser able writer, this could be potentially dangerous as the amount of material on the war years is staggering. Coppa is deft and masterful.  He is at pains to make clear what words mean in their contexts and, I believe, he is successful.  By re-visiting the available evidence, he establishes a balanced conclusion about Pius XII's activities during the war, which include his responses to the Holocaust.

The record clearly reveals that Pius XII followed a diplomatic policy vis-a-vis the Nazis, issuing no clear public condemnation of their aggression, expressing no explicit public outrage against their racism which violated Christian principles and culminated in genocide.   Nor did this Pope assign responsibility for provoking the war.  Pius XII defended this decision to those inside and outside the Church time and time again.  he deemed it unwise to denounce the Axis regimes' racist policies publicly, providing them with the pretext to dismantle the Concordats and thereby endangering the institutional Church.  Furthermore, he apparently feared that if it weakened Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, it might aid Soviet Russia or make worse the plight of the people it sought to rescue and prove detrimental and disturbing for German Catholics.  For these among other reasons, he did not issue his predecessor's encyclical denouncing anti-Semitism and alerting the faithful to the sin of racism, fearing the diplomatic problems its assurance would undoubtedly unleash.  These same concerns prevented the Pope form explicitly denouncing the Nazi aggression and genocide he vehemently opposed.  Only at war's end did Pius XII formally and publicly condemn Nazism. (145)

One of the strengths of Coppa's book is its dispassionate tone and fidelity to a balanced interpretation of the available material.  In a similar manner to Sanchez, Coppa leaves it to the reader to come to their own conclusions.  I do not agree with some of the Professor Coppa's conclusions, but I am indebted to him for the wealth of substance in his arguments that make them so compelling.  I find it hard to reconcile the obligations of the papal office as understood by Pius XII, in particular, speaking the truth in the face of evil, with his determination to pursue a diplomatic path that was, at least as I see it, so incapable of dealing with escalating horrors that cried out for a public word from the only person in Europe or the world with the moral authority to do so.  Nonetheless, Coppa has challenged me to keep at the sources and keep reading.  And so I will do.

I was honoured to note that Coppa considered my own work worthy of reference at several points in his own work.  I accept the criticisms - especially on the 1938 unpublished encyclical - and the praise with thanks.  On one point thought, I do take issue. 

In the last chapter of my book I conclude my study of the question of Pius XII's responsibility for his actions during the Holocaust with the observation that the Pope did not act alone nor can he be seen as acting alone.  He is a part of the Universal Church - not apart from it.  He has a role of leadership that sets him apart from other believers in the execution of that role, but it does not excuse or exclude him from the obligations of the faith incumbent on all Catholics. I spend time looking at the role of anti-Judaism or Judeophobia throughout my work and what I believe the impact of this "longest hatred" had on Catholic thought and practice.  Pius XII was not immune to it.  I believe that the good Pius did along with the good that was not done is shared by the whole Church, and not only the Pope. 

Coppa writes: 

Elsewhere in the volume O'Shea indicates that factors other than anti-Judaism influenced the course Pius XII pursued during the Holocaust,  Indeed he writes that the reason this Pope did not say more was not because he did not care for the victims - which would exclude both anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism - but because he had other priorities: mainly his obligation to defend the Church and Catholicism, and his perception of the Soviet Union as a greater threat than Nazi Germany ... However, he returns to the role of anti-Judaism within the Church as an underlying cause of papal silence in his ninth and concluding chapter "Blessed Eugenio?" which blames the entire Church, not only the Vicar of Christ for the policies pursued during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. (168)

This is what I wrote:

Pius XII was brought low, not in his lifetime, but by history - a patchy and often speculative history that more often than not followed political and religious agendas than a passion for the truth.  The fatal flaw lay in the centuries-old fear and hatred of Jews and Judaism.  Combined with the currents of racist theories and practices that bubbled throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and which had permeated much of the Church, Jews were the ever-present "lesser victims".  If Pius XII committed a sin with regard to the Jews of Europe during the Holocaust, it was the sin of consistency in thought, word and deed.  And if Pius is guilty of that, he does not stand alone.  The sins of the Catholic Church during the Holocaust must rest upon the whole Church, not only the Vicar of Christ, just as the deeds of the righteous must be shared by the whole Church, including the Vicar of Christ.
(2008 edition, p334; 2011 edition p224)

Throughout the book there a number of typographical errors, such as the reference to Innocent III in 1721 (113) but these do not detract from what is a "good read". 

Professor Frank J Coppa