Aloysius Stepanic - to canonise or not to canonise - that is the question

Aloysius Viktor Stepinac (1898-1960)

Saint, martyr, collaborator, conspirator, antisemite or …?

Aloysius Stepinac has been a source of controversy for over 70 years.  Depending on who one listens to, or what one reads about this man, he has been either praised as a fearless bishop who defended to the best of his ability the Jews of Croatia who were slated for death by the Ustase; a Catholic martyr who gave his life in defence of the faith in the face of Communism; a pro-Ustase Croatian nationalist who was silent as Pavelic’s regime perpetrated some of the most horrible crimes against Jews, Orthodox Christian Serbs, Roma and more than a few of his fellow Croats.

The historical record is not clear.  There are sources from both sides that point to Stepinac’s protests at the murder of the Jews; but there is more documentation that demonstrates his intense dislike of Orthodox Christianity, a tacit approval of forced conversion, and, above all, the most significant historical fact of his relationship with the Ustase regime until the end of the so-called “Independent State of Croatia” in 1945. 

Stepinac’s defenders cite verified documentary evidence of the archbishop’s protests, but none are able to satisfactorily explain why he did not break with the Ustase once the enormity of their genocidal criminal actions became clear – which was virtually from day one of the regime’s life in 1941.  Attempts to explain his alliance with Pavelic as a way of mitigating the evils perpetrated are simply threadbare and hold no weight.  Further, arguments that Stepinac sought help from Pius XII are likewise weak, if only because Pius XII insisted on playing a diplomatic cat and mouse game with a regime he abhorred but considered a lesser evil to a communist alternative.  Even by the standards of the day – in the middle of a war – this logic was brutal and appalling. 

If Metropolitan Andrej Sheptysky of Lviv in the Ukraine who very quickly realized the German intentions towards the Jews and other “undesirables” could not only order his clergy and religious to open their doors to take in those fleeing for their lives but write forcefully to Hitler, Himmler and then the Pope protesting as strongly as he could denouncing the slaughter of the Jews and the enslavement of Ukraine begs the question why Stepinac could not have done the same? 

And while it is true that the murderers were, for the most part, fellow Croats not Germans, was it not the archbishop’s duty to speak the truth – “You shall not murder”?  And could he not speak to his fellow bishops, the clergy, religious orders and the Catholic people a word in the same way that bishops in France and Holland did?

After the war Stepinac was put on trial by the new communist regime charged as a collaborator and sentenced to life imprisonment.  After five years he was released to house arrest in his home parish of Krasic where he remained until his death in 1960. 

Pope John Paul II believed Stepinac was a martyr for the faith and declared him “Blessed” in 1998.  Catholic tradition allows a person to be beatified without the customary miracle if they are believed to have been a martyr.  In his homily the Pope said of Stepinac:

One of the outstanding figures of the Catholic Church, having endured in his own body and his own spirit the atrocities of the Communist system, is now entrusted to the memory of his fellow countrymen with the radiant badge of martyrdom.

Nothing was mentioned about the war years.

The cause for canonization proceeded slowly gaining pace under Benedict XVI.  By 2012 it appeared that canonization would indeed take place, a decision that was confirmed in early 2014.  The Serbian Orthodox Patriarch Irenij wrote a letter to Benedict asking that the canonization be halted until such time as all the evidence relating to Stepinac was studied.  A reply was received from Cardinal Bertone that made it clear that the matter was an internal Catholic affair, leading some to believe that Benedict did not see the letter.  Undaunted and with growing concern voiced by Serbs, Patriarch Irenij wrote again on 30 April 2014 to Pope Francis. 

In his letter to Pope Francis Patriarch Irenij wrote:

We are afraid that there are too many open questions and wounds which Cardinal Stepinac symbolizes. His canonization, to our great regret, would return the relations between Serbs and Croats, as well as between Catholics and Orthodox faithful, back to their tragic history… We ask you to remove the question of the canonization of Cardinal Stepinac from the agenda, and to leave it to the infallible judgment of God.

This time the reply was much different.  The canonization process was stopped in April 2016 on direction of Pope Francis.

Reactions from some Croatians were not positive, but the Archbishop of Zagreb showed pastoral restraint and welcomed the opportunity for a joint study of Stepinac’s life.  One of the most balanced articles was the short piece in the Jerusalem Post written by Drago Pilsel who argues convincingly that Francis’ decision was a sound and prudent choice.

An Orthodox delegation from Serbia met with Vatican officials to begin a conversation.  This led to the formation of a commission under the Presidency of Fr Bernard Ardura, president of the Pontifical Committee of Historical Sciences. 

The commission was made up of equal representatives from the Catholic Church in Croatia and the Serbian Orthodox Church.

Members of the Catholic Church of Croatia: Cardinal Josip Bozanić, archbishop of Zagabria; Bishop Ratko Perić of Mostar-Duvno; Bishop Antun Škorčević of Požega; Dr. Jure Krišto, Croatian Institute for History; Dr. Mario Jareb, Croatian Committee for Historical Sciences.

Members of the Serbian Orthodox Church: His Eminence Amfilohije, Metropolitan of Montenegro and of the Littoral; His Eminence Porfirije, Metropolitan of Zagabria and Ljubljana; Bishop Irinej of Novi Sad and of Bačka; Bishop Jovan of Slavonia, Professor Darko Tanasković, ambassador and permanent delegate of the Republic of Serbia at UNESCO.

The first meeting of the Commission met over 12-13 July 2016 in Rome.  The mandate of the Commission is to clarify questions about Stepanic’s life that is to be done as a joint “re-reading” of the evidence.  The Commission is not an alternative canonisation process; the original cause remains a matter for the Holy See.

Both sides said the meetings were positive and respectful.  The next meeting will be in Zagreb on 17-18 October 2016.

Whatever the outcome will be, this shared re-evaluation of documentation is a positive step not only in sound history and historiography, but for Catholic and Orthodox Christians it is a valuable and precious opportunity to grow in understanding of one another.  For Catholic Christians the need to understand the deep hurt that still resonates in many parts of Orthodoxy over the past is essential.  For Orthodox Christians the need to come to a more full appreciation of the diversity of Catholicism and the attempts at reform of the institution are also necessary. 

"The Vatican, the Holocaust and the Archives" Gencocide Perspectives IV (2012)

I have posted an article that I wrote for Genocide Perspectives on the pages section of the blog.  Once again, it points to the enormous resource that ADSS is in our study of the Holocaust.

Sede vacante and papal resignations

For many Catholics and others around the world, the last two weeks have been extraordinary.  A papal resignation is, by any standard, an unusual event.  The media has deluged us with report after report on what it all means and what Pope Benedict XVI will or won't, may or may not do after 28 February 2013.  However, as the National Catholic Reporter reminds us, Benedict is not the first pope of the modern age to have considered resignation.  John Paul II left instructions for the government of the Church in the event he was unable to act independently and Pius XII left a letter with a trusted lay Vatican staffer that stated unambiguously that should he be forcibly removed from Rome the papal office was to be considered "sede vacante".

For those of us who have watched Benedict's announcement of intent to resign, last weeks, farewells and final departure from St Peter's it has been a mixture of "head and heart" reaction and responses.  Rationally I think he has made a wise and brave choice to leave the office of pope while he was still able to do so in relatively good health and with equal mental stamina.  However, there is a sadness at the end of a papacy that despite some set-backs in the area of understanding Pius XII has seen Catholic-Jewish relations continue to flourish.  

It is important to remember that it was under instruction from Benedict that the complete archival record of the papacy of Pope Pius XI was made available in 2005.  This of course released all the material concerning the then Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli.  Scholars have spent much time and effort exploring these files and producing important studies that continue to help shape our understanding of the Vatican's response to Nazi Germany.

I hope Pope-Emeritus Benedict XVI enjoys years of good health, and that the Bavarian academic who surprised the world after the death of John Paul II with his humility and gentle goodness, will continue to gift the world with his erudition and insight.



Here is the NCR article by Jerry Filteau:

In the wake of Pope Benedict's decision to resign from the papacy, journalists quickly recalled that Pope John Paul II had also prepared letters of resignation to take effect in the event that he lost his capacity to continue as leader of the church.

But those two are not the only modern popes who prepared to resign.

In the 1940s, Pope Pius XII wrote a letter of resignation that would take effect immediately if Adolf Hitler ever had him arrested, according to a Jan. 28, 1988, report by John Thavis of Catholic News Service (then National Catholic News Service).

Here, from the CNS archives, is that 1988 story:

PIUS XII PREPARED TO RESIGN IF ARRESTED BY NAZIS, SAYS OFFICIAL

By John Thavis

VATICAN CITY -- Pope Pius XII planned to resign to avoid a crisis of church leadership in case Adolf Hitler made good a plan to arrest the pontiff and remove him from the Vatican, a top Vatican official said.

"If he were arrested and conducted beyond the walls of Rome, he would have been immediately considered to have given up the throne of Peter,'' said Cardinal Pietro Palazzini. Thus "the prisoner would be Eugenio Pacelli (his baptismal name) and not the pope,'' he said.

The cardinal said Pope Pius left the written resignation with a Vatican lay official.

Cardinal Palazzini said the pope was aware of a plan by Hitler to arrest him. He said the pope was afraid of putting the church in a crisis similar to that of the late 18th century, when Pope Pius VI was seized by French forces and the church had to await his death in captivity before restoring church government.

Cardinal Palazzini commented on the papal plan in an interview in the February issue of the Italian magazine, Trenta Giorni (30 Days). The magazine made excerpts from the interview available in advance of publication. A spokesman for the cardinal confirmed the remarks.

Cardinal Palazzini, 75, is prefect of the Congregation for Sainthood Causes. During World War II, he helped political refugees as an official at Rome's major seminary, according to a Vatican biography.

Pope Pius' conduct during the war has long been a subject of controversy. Some commentators said the pontiff could have spoken out against the Nazi persecution of Jews, but elected to remain silent.

Defenders say the pope quietly did what he could to help Jews, and early in the war relayed a message to the British from a group of German generals who sought to depose Hitler.

A key to Pope Pius' public silence about Nazi atrocities was Hitler's campaign to crush the German Catholic Church, along with his other opponents, a Vatican historian has said. The pope feared public criticism would accelerate the dictator's effort, the historian said.

Brian Freedman: Pius XII and "the other"

This is an interesting article written by Brian Freedman in the Jerusalem Post on 13 June 2012.  It points, yet again, the many levels of complexity surrounding any serious study of Pius XII, the Catholic Church and Judaism, Jews and the Holocaust.  The author is a graduate student studying at Hebrew University, Jerusalem and is active in inter-faith dialogue.  Freedman's conclusions are not new, but are, nonetheless, apt and timely - authentic dialogue is not served when hard truths are avoided.


**************************


If the Catholic Church and World Jewry were in a Facebook relationship, their status would doubtless read: “It's Complicated.”

This was never more evident than at a recent meeting in Jerusalem about Jewish-Catholic relations, in which a Swiss cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church addressed the issue along with two rabbis. But before putting in my two shekels, first a personal anecdote.

At dinner a few nights ago, a Catholic friend of mine put forth the following claim: the Jewish curators of Yad Vashem purposely tarnished the image of Pope Pius XII as revenge on the Catholic Church for its long and macabre history of persecuting Jews.

Any attempt to refute his claim would miss the point.

As Rabbi David Bollag said at the meeting on Jewish- Catholic relations, which took place on May 25 at the Jerusalem Center for Israel Studies: “The importance of the dialogue is to listen what the other side has to say.”

And so, after listening to my friend, I realized that he believes unequivocally that Pope Pius XII was a righteous man who did everything in his power to save Jewish lives during the Holocaust. Therefore, any claim to the contrary must be a malicious smear campaign against his virtuous pope.

It is therefore understandable that my friend, a religious Catholic, is indignant toward how Yad Vashem portrays Pius XII, under whose picture there is a caption that explicitly condemns the pope’s silence during the Holocaust.

One sentence reads: “Even when reports about the murder of Jews reached the Vatican, the Pope did not protest either verbally or in writing.”

It is not my intention to argue for or against the virtue of Pope Pius XII. Suffice it to say that it is a good example of the complex and mercurial relationship between Jews and Catholics.

ANOTHER MANIFESTATION of this controversial issue was witnessed in 2009 after current Pope Benedict XVI bestowed Pius XII with the title of “Venerable” which, according to the Catholic canonization process, declaimed his Heroic Virtue and moved Pius XII one step closer to sainthood.

Many leaders of prominent Jewish organizations were flummoxed, and some,including the president of the World Zionist Congress, the founder of Simon Wiesenthal Center and the chairman of Yad Vashem, were incensed. As they viewed it, it was an insensitive and provocative gesture that offends Jewish memory and, more importantly, living Holocaust survivors.

Other critics of this move said it was premature to grant Pius XII such an honorific because the documents in the Vatican Secret Archives that pertain to the life of Pius XII had not yet been opened. The Vatican releases documents 75 years after an event occurs, meaning documents about Pius XII will open in 2014.

This debate also takes place in scholarship. On one side, there is a book entitled Hitler’s Pope: the Secret History of Pius XII, which was written in 1999 by British journalist John Cornwell, whose general argument is that Pius XII could have done more to save Jewish lives.

On the other side, there is a book published in 2008 and written by German historian Michael Heseman, which bears the title The Pope who Defied Hitler: The Truth about Pius XII. In 2010, after gaining privileged access to Vatican archives, Heseman revealed that Pius XII, then a cardinal, requested that 200,000 Jews be allowed to leave Germany after Kristallnacht.

Another book, written by none other than a rabbi and historian, David G. Dalin, carries the title: The Myth of Hitler’s Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from he Nazis. The book was published in 2005.

The point is that the Holocaust remains an open wound in Jewish-Catholic relations, which explains clearly the reason Swiss Cardinal Kurt Koch, who is also the head of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with Jews, expended much breath on the issue during his 10-minute, prepared address on May 25 at the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies.

On one hand, he said that the Catholic Church must admit that Christians were complicit in the perpetration of the Holocaust. However, he took great pains to renounce Adolph Hitler as a Catholic, thus isolating him as a pariah and doubtless not a representative of the Church.

More importantly, Koch noted that the Holocaust was a turning point in Jewish-Catholic relations, forcing the Catholic Church to reconsider its attitudes toward the Jews. This resulted in the Second Vatican Council, which took place from 1962-1965 and produced the document, Nostra Aetate, which was a manifesto for the Church’s new attitude toward non-Christian religions.

Among other noteworthy comments, it exculpates Jews from the murder of Jesus. It also recognizes the similarities between Jews, Muslims and Christians, as all being sons of God. In the spirit of this document, Koch notes in his address “Christianity couldn’t exist without its Jewish roots” and that “with Judaism, we have a relationship that we do not have with any other religion.”

He also admitted that there may be two parallel paths to salvation, and that the Jewish path may be just as legitimate as the Christian one.

RABBI DAVID Bollag, a senior researcher at the Institute of Jewish-Christian Research in Lucerne, Switzerland, was asked to respond to Cardinal Koch’s remarks.

In them two thing were apparent.

First was the refusal of Jews to disassociate the Catholic Church from the Holocaust. Bollag argued that there was a strong connection between the development of Nazism and centuries-old Christian anti- Semitism. He further argues that Nostra Aetate would not have been born had the Catholic Church not felt responsible for the Holocaust. The idea that the Catholic Church played a central role in the Holocaust reverberates in Jewish dismay at the sanctification of Pius XII and also Yad Vashem’s negative portrayal of him and the Catholic Church.

The second issue that was apparent was hypocrisy.

Bollag took advantage of his audience with the cardinal to air his consternation with the Catholic Church’s “Good Friday” prayer for the Jews.

Having undergone many revisions, the prayer in its most current version, as articulated by Pope Benedict XVI reads: “Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men.

Almighty and eternal God, who wants that all men be saved and come to the recognition of the truth, propitiously grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.”

Bollag criticized this version as a major step backward in Jewish-Christian relations, as the prayer clearly exhibits a lack of respect for the Jewish religion. Bollag was suggesting the Church has not learned the lessons of the Holocaust, and that rather than extricating anti-Semitism from its roots, the Church through this prayer is actually disseminating anti-Semitism throughout the Catholic world.

Cardinal Koch responded to Bollag’s criticism, arguing that Bollag took the prayer out of its eschatological context. He said that the prayer refers exclusively to Judgment Day, during which Jewish tradition states that their Messiah will come and save them.

According to Koch, their Messiah, although currently unbeknownst to Jews, will actually be Jesus Christ, whom the Christian hope the Jews will accept at that time.

The hypocrisy in Bollag’s statement was revealed by an audience member, of which there were about 200.

The man rightly noted that the Jewish prayer of “Aleinu,” which is the second most recited prayer in Jewish liturgy after the Kaddish, is read in Israel with the following verse: “It is our duty to praise the Master of all to ascribe greatness to the Author of creation; who has not made us like the nations of the lands nor placed us like the families of the earth; who has not made our portion like theirs, nor our destiny like all their multitudes. For they worship vanity and emptiness, and pray to a god who cannot save.”

The audience member noted that in many American synagogues this verse is omitted, but he was pointing to the fact that both religions, Judaism and Christianity, are particularistic and view their path as the only path. It seems the only difference is that some Christians feel obliged to “save” non-Christians from deviating from the path, while some Jews view their religion more as an exclusive club. You want in, great! If not, it’s your problem.

In the end, it is my opinion that while I applaud Rabbi Bollag’ s call to “listen to what the other has to say,” each side must also engage in self-reflection and, in a sense, listen to what “his or her own side” is saying.

This is what led me not to dismiss outright my Catholic friend’s indignation at his beloved pope’s portrayal at Yad Vashem. While I believe the charge of deliberate besmirching is a bit far-fetched, it is entirely possible that the Jewish attitude toward Pius XII is jaundiced. Maybe when the Vatican archives open in 2014, Jews worldwide will do some self-reflection and reconsider their views on “Hitler’s Pope.”

The author is a master’s student at the Hebrew University, studying Islam and the Middle East. He also has a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Maryland.

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

Genocide and the Church/es

Racism, Genocide and Holocaust Seminar

Monday, 26 March 2012

Sydney Jewish Museum 0900-1600

I will be presenting at this seminar.  This is part of the presentation.  Other references will be made to resources that are linked on the homepage of the blog.

Genocide and the Church/es.

Type in the words “genocide and church” into Google and look at the results.  My initial search scored 23.9 million hits with these words.  And many of the results focused on recent genocidal activity in Rwanda, possibly the first genocide of the digital age.

How to proceed with such an unwieldy topic?

There are some basic definitions that need to be made in order to address the topic.  The most important one is the word “church”.  We must have a clear working definition in order to avoid the pitfalls arising from generalization and misinterpretation.

The word “church” is a Christian term, deriving from the Greek εκκλησία, meaning “assembly” or “congregation” and is applied to any liturgical gathering of Christians, the formal structures or institution of the Christian people/s and the theological and religious beliefs that flow from it.  From earliest times there has been a religious profession of faith in one church, but a lived experience of many different ways of being that one church. 

Given its size and global spread, the term “church” is often, in the popular imagination, equated with the Catholic Church, and in particular with the Roman Catholic Church, the largest body within the Catholic family of churches.  Historically, it has often been difficult for those with a limited understanding of the realities of the different variants within Christianity to discern with accuracy just which part of the Christian Church, which denomination, which cultural variant of a denomination and whether people acting or otherwise were clergy or laity.  The potential for confusion is, I hope, self evident.

If we are able to discern which part of the Christian church/es we need to examine, we can then proceed to distinguish the differences between the institutional forms of the church/es and those who claim adherence to them in varying degrees of intensity.  It is historical fact that many anti-Christian leaders have used Christian religious language to persuade the Christian leaders to support aspects of policy.  Hitler’s “professions” to the Catholic and Lutheran bishops in early 1933 are one typical example.  It is also historical fact that the institutions of the church/es and their leaders are as susceptible to the ebb and flow of economic, social and political movements as the rest of the human society.  By their own self-definition, the church/es claim a divine mandate and reliance on the grace of God, but this is interpreted through very human agencies, and mistakes are made – sometimes with horrific consequences.

The history behind this topic is, quite, simply, enormous and goes beyond anything I could hope to cover in a short essay.  What I propose is to make several points and then provide directions for further reading.  If one begins with an idea of the huge scale behind the questions, then one will move carefully.  If students are led to discover that the involvement of Christians and aspects of Christian church/es is complex and tangled, it will be a step towards creating a more inclusive and authentic narrative.

What does the Church teaches about genocide?

The Hebrew Bible is held as sacred text by Christians.  The prohibitions against unlawful killing – murder – are valid and without exception.  Exodus 20.13: “You shall not murder” and its repetition in Deuteronomy 5.17 are unambiguous; murder is wrong and a direct violation of God’s will for humanity.  And lest there be any sense that the prohibition could be conditioned by cultural or social norms, the scriptures have multiple references to the care and protection that must be afforded to the stranger and alien (e.g. Deut 1.16-17, 24.17-18, 26.5-11).  The evangelist Luke has Jesus tell the parable of the Good Samaritan which makes it beyond doubt that all people are neighbours for the Christian; it is immoral and unethical to not go to the help of someone in need. (Luke 10.25-37)

The high ethical principals contained in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament have never changed.  That parts of the Christian church/es and many Christians have not abided by them is a cause for serious reflection.

John Paul II & Benedict XVI

Pope John Paul II (1920-2005) publicly spoke about the culpability of many Catholics who remained silent or were part of the machinery of the Holocaust in his letter “We Remember – a reflection on the Shoah” (1998).  In 2000 he led a service of repentance in St Peter’s Basilica within the Mass asking for forgiveness for the sins of Catholics against Jews throughout Christian history.  Perhaps lesser known were his constant appeals for the end of genocidal killing in other places.

1. Condemnation of the killings in Bosnia during the 1992-1995 war and “ethnic cleansing” 

2.  Condemnation of the killing in Rwanda on 27 April 1994.  John Paul was the first world leader to use the word “genocide” to refer to the murders. 

3. Condemnation of the Armenian genocide in November 2000. 

The weakness in John Paul’s condemnations lay in refusal to accept that the Church itself was responsible in any way for the killings, only members of the Church.  The stories of professional religious people including nuns, ordained ministers including at least one Anglican bishop, and several priests, engaged in genocidal activity make for disturbing reading.   

And there is no shortage of material on line and in print that has attempted to grapple with the issue.  

However, I argue that despite the theological nuances over institutional and individual responsibility, the clear papal condemnation of genocides since the Holocaust are positive steps and point to the Catholic church’s preparedness to speak out and speak out loudly.  It is a significant movement from the guarded and extremely cautious approach of Pius XII during the 1939-1945 war.

Benedict XVI has had a troubled record on sensitivity to genocide.  Comments made during his visit to Brazil in 2007 suggested a lack of awareness of the brutal reality of the conquest of Latin America and the destruction of indigenous civilizations. 

Reaction from indigenous groups was understandably less than impressed with Benedict’s Euro-centric world view.  The current pope has also refrained from using the word “genocide” with regard to Armenia.

Conclusion

The Christian church/es are complex realities with equally complex histories.  That some Christians participated in genocidal activity is undeniable.  It is also undeniable that some Christians took seriously their call to be neighbour to the people they saw in need, and were prepared to risk their own life to try and help.  Looking at human history and our blood-spattered record of treating each other, perhaps we should study not only why genocides occur, but why do some Christians seek to prevent them, others participate and most are somewhere on the sidelines.

For information about the Seminar please contact the Museum: +61 2 9360 7999 or email via the website: http://www.sydneyjewishmuseum.com.au/Contact-Us/default.aspx

Latest news on opening of the Archives of Pius XII

The Vatican Information Service reported on 5 July 2011 that the process of cataloging the papers related to the papacy of Pius XII was nearly completed.  The announcement was made during a press conference for an exhibition from the ASV that will open in early 2012.

Another report on the same press conference appeared in the Washington Post.  It contained several comments that are not found in the Vatican report.  The most curious comment regarded Bishop Pagano, the senior archivist, who said that historians could look forward to some "juicy" documents. The reader is invited to look them up.

Archives from the Armenian Genocide (1915-1922) will also be made available.

From VIS:

The Vatican archives for the period of World War II and the pontificate of Pope Pius XII will be ready for scholars’ scrutiny within 2-3 years, according to the prefect of the Vatican Secret Archives.


During a July 5 press conference—called to announce plans for a public exhibition of treasured documents from the archives, Bishop Sergio Pagano told reporters that the task of sorting and cataloguing thousands of documents from the pontificate of Pius XII will soon be completed. At that point, he said, the Pope will decide whether or not to open the archives for public inspection.

Jewish leaders have pressed for the prompt release of files from the World War II era, saying that a thorough inspection of the Vatican records could resolve questions about the efforts by Pope Pius XII to oppose the Nazi regime and spare Jews from the Holocaust. Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have indicated that they, too, hoped that the documents could soon be released. But Vatican archivists have said that the sheer volume of material makes it difficult to respond quickly to requests for access.

Bishop Pagano revealed that the Vatican archives also important documents on the genocide of Armenians under Ottoman rule in the World War I era. These documents, which will soon be published in a single volume, cause an irrepressible sense of pain and horror,” Bishop Pagano said. The reports of inhuman brutality, he said, “make me ashamed to be a man.”

Michael Berenbaum on John Paul II and a reference to Pius XII

Michael Berenbaum's thoughtful reflection on the significance of John Paul II to Jews is a serious article which deserves a wide readership.  Pope Benedict XVI will beatify his predecessor on 1 May 2011, the Sunday after Easter Day.  Berenbaum has a long history on Holocaust scholarship.  In this article he demonstrates the significance of John Paul in the re-creation of the relationship between Jews and Christians in light of the horror of the Shoah.  Making a passing mention of Pius XII, Berenbaum uses a rabbinic maxim to speak honestly and charitably of the late pope: "there is no righteous person without sin".   While there are many Catholics who have serious reservations about the beatification of John Paul II (declaration of sanctity one step before canonisation) there is no serious person of good will who does not see in the Polish Pope a man who did more than anyone else to take Christian-Jewish relations into a new era where both sides have learned to sit, listen, discuss and argue together as friends.  For this reason on its own, John Paul II is surely one of the "Righteous of the Nations".  May his memory be a blessing for all - Jew and Christian.

*********************

There have been few times in the two thousand years of Christian Jewish relations when Jews have shed genuine tears at the death of a Pope;when Pope Jon Paul II died, I – and many other Jews – cried. Building on the work of Pope John XXIII has done more to improve on Catholic Jewish relations than any Pope in history. And Jew should react with joy at the beautification of Pope John Paul II on Sunday May 1st.


It is a paradox of the Holocaust that the innocent feel guilty and the guilty innocent.

Nowhere is this paradox more pronounced that in the post-Holocaust behavior of the Roman Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II made confronting the Shoah and the fight against antisemitism a centerpiece of his papacy. He brought Roman Catholic-Jewish relations to a new level of respect. Like his predecessor Pope John XXIII, Pope John Paul II was directly touched by the Holocaust and has assumed responsibility for its memory. Both men were changed by the history they experienced and as leaders changed the institution they headed, even an institution so conservative and seemingly so reticent to change as the Roman Catholic Church.

Pope John XXIII accepted the ongoing life of the Jewish people after the arrival of Jesus rejecting supercessionism, the doctrine that Christianity had come to replace Judaism and thus that there was no reason for the people of Israel to remain Jews; he eliminated the charge of deicide and removed it from Catholic teaching and liturgy, he stopped to greet Jews leaving a Rome Synagogue on Sabbath, yet neither he nor his two immediate successors accepted the renascent State of Israel, the very form of Jewish life since 1948. He had come to terms with 1878 years of Jewish life – the years of Jewish exile from 70 C.E. to 1948


Enter Pope John Paul II who as a young man in Poland witnessed the Shoah. Three million Jews of Poland were killed in the Holocaust. After the war, Polish cities, which were once the home of large and thriving Jewish communities, were bereft of Jews and the Pope’s hometown was the site of a large ghetto whose Jewish population was deported to death camps. As a young university student, and when he worked in the theater Karol Wojtyla had Jewish friends. Some remained his friends throughout his long and distinguished life. As a recently ordained young priest, he was asked to baptize children born of Jewish parents who had been raised by Polish Catholics, who had sheltered them during the Shoah, thereby saving their lives. When their Jewish parents did not return after the war, the Polish family that had raised them lived them as their own children and wanted to raise them in their faith. On these occasions, the future Pope insisted that Jewish children first be informed of their Jewish origins and only then could they be baptized. It was an act of courage – political, religious and pastoral in post-war Poland, a deed of profound respect for memory. It was not an act popular with his congregants who were unable to tell young Jewish children of their origins during the war for such information could be lethal of both the child and his adoptive family, and who were reluctant to do so after the war for fear of reprisal from the local population and for complicating their relationship.

As Pope John Paul II, he recognized the State of Israel. He visited a synagogue for prayer and treated the Rabbi and the Congregation of Rome with every religious courtesy. Instead of dividing the world between Christians and Jews, he spoke of the commonality of religious traditions/ He spoke with reverence of the Torah. He spoke out against antisemitism again and again. He visited the sites of Jewish death and acknowledged on numerous occasions the centrality of the Shoah.

His visit to Poland in 1979 was perhaps the moment for which he was elected Pope. He delegitimated Communism in Poland and played a pivotal role in its demise. And Communism was the strongest enemy of Jewish nationalism and of Judaism.

In March 2000, Pope John Paul II visited Israel – the State and not just the Holy Land. From the moment he arrived at Ben-Gurion Airport near Tel Aviv to the moment he departed, it was clear to Roman Catholics and Jews, and to the international media, that this was an extraordinary gesture of reconciliation in the shadow not only of two millennia of Christian antisemitism but in the massive shadow of the Holocaust. Even if Pope John Paul II did not say everything that could be said – he apologized for the antisemitism of Christians not of Christianity—his bowed head at Yad Vashem and his note of apology inserted into the Western Wall said more than could be said by words alone. In the Third Millennia, The Pontiff was determined that Roman Catholics act differently, behave differently and believe differently. An eyewitness to the Holocaust, he had come to make amends. He took all-important steps to make certain that the full authority of the papacy was brought to bear against antisemitism. His theology was quite simple: antisemitism is a sin against God. It is anti-Christian. These are welcome words to every Jew and one could sense their power by the manner in which the Israelis received Pope John Paul II. Even ultra-Orthodox Rabbis, opposed by conviction to anything ecumenical and raised on the stories transmitted through the generations of confrontations between Priests and Rabbis, were deeply impressed by the Papal visit to the offices of the Israel’s Chief Rabbis.

Pope John Paul II’s record was not perfect. He attempted to canonize Pope Pius XII, the war-time Pontiff, he did not open the Vatican Archives from World War II for researchers on the Holocaust to let the true record of he Vatican be known, he canonized (sic - should be beatified)  Pope Leo IX (sic - should be Pius) who had forbidden he return of a forcibly baptized Jewish child, he welcome Yasir Arafat and President Kurt Waldheim to the Vatican, the former before he recognized Israel and the later after his Nazi past was exposed and he had flamed Austrian antisemitism during his presidential campaign.. The most charitable thing that can be said of his handling of the pedophile scandal in the Church was that it was inadequate. Jewish tradition teaches that “there is no righteous person without sin.”

Yet none of this can obscure the overriding substance of his papacy. He demonstrated that true religiosity – devout, orthodox and pious as it may be—need not demonizes another religion and disparager other faiths and the right of another religion to worship their God as they believe. The innocent ones who felt guilty have led contemporary Roman Catholicism to renounce antisemitism and to accept the integrity of the ongoing religious life of the Jews. This behavior should serve as a model for Jews and Muslims as well as for other religious leaders as to the ethical requirements of religious doctrine.

1979 John Paul stands before the memorial in Birkenau

1986 John Paul with Rabbi Elio Toaff makes the first ever papal visit to the Rome Shul

2000 John Paul at Ha Kotel, The Western Wall, Jerusalem