Vatican Commission agrees to disagree on Stepanic

The Catholic News Agency reported on 18 July, on the latest meeting of the international historical commission set up in 2016 to examine the war-time record of Aloysius Stepinac (1898-1960), Archbishop of Zagreb 1937-60.  Readers may remember an earlier post about the commission and some of the areas of concern expressed.  The outcome of this meeting does not appear to have resolved the areas of greatest concern, namely Stepinac's action or inaction regarding the genocidal behaviour of the Ustaše regime in war-time Croatia although the Serbian Orthodox delegation praised Pope Francis for the opportunity to meet and discuss the Archbishop's life and legacy.

Reaction to the commission's work has been generally positive, though some in Croatia have raised fears that the Serbian Orthodox Synod has presented a distorted picture of Stepinac.  

The CNA article:

A commission of Catholic and Orthodox leaders tasked with examining the wartime record of Bl. Aloysius Stepinac concluded their final session last week, agreeing to disagree about the Croatian cardinal’s cause for canonization.

The Secretariat of the Holy See prepared a joint statement, adopted by both sides, at the conclusion of the commission’s sixth and final round of meetings at the Vatican July 12-13.

The document states that the opinions of either side remain unchanged, but also acknowledges that ultimately the competency for approval of the cardinal’s cause falls under Pope Francis.

“It has come to the conclusion that various events, speeches, writings, silences, and views are still subject to different interpretations. In the case of Cardinal Stepinac, the interpretations that were predominantly given by Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs remain divergent,” it states.

It included their thanks to Pope Francis for establishing the commission, which he did in May 2016 after receiving a letter from the Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church Irinej, who stated his opposition to the cardinal's canonization.

They also expressed their gratitude for the atmosphere of the discussions which allowed “full freedom of expression.”

“From the commencement of the commission's work, the members were aware that the process of canonization of Cardinal Stepinac was in the exclusive competence of the Pope. They also admit that each Church has its own criteria for the canonization process,” it continued.

The Secretariat of the Holy See, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, accepted the outcome of the commission, which was led by Fr. Bernard Ardura, president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences.

With the conclusion of the commission, the path to the canonization of Cardinal Stepinac is fully open. The proper requisites in place, it is in the hands of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, and then will go to Pope Francis for approval. It is believed the announcement of his canonization could take place soon.

Cardinal Stepinac, who is hailed as a hero in Croatia, has been a target of decades-long communist smears and disinformation. Despite this, he was beatified as a martyr by Pope St. John Paul II in October 1998.

Many in the Serbian Orthodox community are deeply skeptical of the cardinal's wartime record. Though one researcher of the period says the facts counter false claims about the beatified cardinal's record.

“What you have is a false narrative created by Soviet agents,” Prof. Ronald J. Rychlak told CNA/EWTN News in 2016.

Cardinal Stepinac was the Archbishop of Zagreb from 1937 until his death in 1960 at the age of 61. In Yugoslavia during the Second World War, the pro-Nazi Ustashe movement came to power under leader Ante Pavelic after the Axis occupied the country.

“Stepinac's sermons against the Ustashe were so strong. They prohibited them from being published, because they were so strong against the Ustashe,” Rychlak said. Instead, his words were secretly printed and circulated and occasionally broadcast over the radio.

He also severely condemned the Ustashe’s destruction of Zagreb’s main synagogue in 1941 and in an October 1943 homily, the archbishop condemned notions of racial superiority.

In 1946, Stepinac was put on trial for allegedly collaborating with the Ustashe’s crimes. The trial drew critical coverage from Western media like Time and Newsweek and protests from those who saw it as a show trial.

Archbishop Stepinac was denied effective representation and only met with his attorney for an hour before the trial. The government’s witnesses were told what to say, and the archbishop was not allowed to cross-examine them.

In 1953, Pope Pius XII made him a cardinal, although he was never allowed travel to the Holy See to be officially elevated. He died in 1960 of an alleged blood disorder, which was said to have been caused by the conditions he endured in jail. Recent tests of his remains by Vatican investigators show evidence he was also poisoned.

In June 2011 Pope Benedict XVI praised Cardinal Stepinac as a courageous defender of those oppressed by the Ustashe, including Serbs, Jews and gypsies.

He said the cardinal stood against “the dictatorship of communism, where he again fought for the faith, for the presence of God in the world, the true humanity that is dependent on the presence of God.”

Breaking news on Pope Francis and Pope Pius XII - another canonisation?

This news has just broken in Australia via the Catholic News Agency. I tend to be rather sceptical when "anonymous" sources are quoted, but when the weight of an academic of the stature of Matteo Luigi Napolitano is thrown into the mix I sit up and take notice. 

Nonetheless, I remain non-committal on this story in much the same way I have tended to stay away from the "canonise him now" camp.  On first reading it looks as though Napolitano is supporting the canonisation, but a more careful review suggests that there are three components to this story.  The first is the "anonymous" source with the surprising "scoop" on Pope Francis - who has said nothing publicly on Pius. The second is the insertion of a the "historical reason" for the pope's interest, namely the Jesuit editors of Actes et Documents.  However, this "reason" is not explained.  It appears to be left to the reader to wonder if the pope has an interest because the editors of ADSS were Jesuits and the pope is also a Jesuit.  In any case, undeveloped, this component is irrelevant.   The third component is Napolitano. As a sound and professional historian Napolitano is simply recounting the process of canonisation and the lines of jurisdiction taken by historians and theologians in the cause.  Nowhere does Napolitano say "yes" or "no" to the canonisation of Pius XII.

The sceptic in me considers this report to be a show of smoke and mirrors.  As an historian I do not see anything new added here except for an unsubstantiated claim the Pope Francis may wish to canonise Pius XII "in the same way" that he has done for John XXIII.  As a Catholic I am not comfortable with canonising popes, with the exception of John XXIII, until at least 100 years after their deaths.  I may be proved wrong and if so, I am happy to retract.  However, experience and history make me, yet again, rather sceptical.

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

Vatican City, Jul 31, 2013 / 11:05 am

Pope Francis is considering whether he will make Pope Pius XII a saint, in the same way that he approved the cause of John XXIII.
 
A source who works at the Vatican’s Congregation for Causes of Saints, who asked for anonymity, told CNA July 25 that “just as Pope Francis moved ahead with John XXIII’s canonization, he is considering the same thing for Pius XII.”

According to the normal procedures, Pius XII would be beatified once a miracle attributed to his intercession is officially certified by a team of doctors and recognized by a commission of cardinals.

But if Pope Francis decides to go ahead without a miracle, he could “even canonize him with the formula of scientia certa (certainty in knowledge), thereby jumping over the step of beatification,” the source said.

“Only the Pope is able to do it, and he will, if he wants to.”

Pope Francis is very interested in Pius XII because “he considers him ‘a great,’ in the same way as John XXIII is, even if for different reasons,” the source explained.

But there is also a historical reason that Pope Francis is interested in Pius XII.

When Pope Paul VI started the beatification and canonization process in 1967, nine years after Pius XII’s death, he formed a committee of historians to conduct an in-depth study of his predecessor’s life and behavior, giving particular attention to the events of World War II.

The committee was made up of four Jesuits: Fathers Pierre Blet (France), Angelo Martini (Italy), Burkhart Schneider (Germany), and Robert A. Graham (United States).

Their work led to the publication of “Actes et Documents du Saint Siège relatifs à la Seconde Guerre Mondiale” (Acts and Documents of the Holy See related to the Second World War), an 11-volume collection of documents from the Vatican’s Secret Archive about Pius XII’s papacy during that tumultuous time.

Yet, the remainder of the documents from Pius XII’s papacy is not expected to be released until 2014 – the time it will take to organize the papers.

The completed catalog will include approximately 16 million documents from Pius XII's papacy (1939-1958).

Pope Benedict XVI initially decided to postpone Pius XII's cause for sainthood and advocated waiting until the archives would be open for researchers in 2014.

But Benedict changed his mind and declared Pius XII Venerable on Dec. 19, 2009, based on the recommendation of the committee investigating his cause.

The decision was met with criticism from some Jewish quarters, which charged that Pius XII was silent about the Holocaust and did not do enough to resist the Germans.

Despite the conclusions of the committee, the debate that followed the initial criticism brought Pius XII’s canonization process to a halt.

According to Matteo Luigi Napolitano, a member of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Science who wrote several books about Pius XII, “for what concerns the historical judgment, the dossier on Pius XII is almost complete.”

Napolitano added in his July 29 interview with CNA, “theological judgments on Pius XII’s life and behavior” are “not competence of the historians.”

His remarks referred to what is known as a “positio,” a document that is compiled for every person being considered for canonization, after they have been declared “venerable” – the second step in the process.

The study is comprised of two parts: the first deals with the history of the person and is sketched by a commission of historians, while the second contains a  “theological judgment” on the life and works of venerable, which is handed down by a theological committee.

At the moment, according to the source from the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, Pope Francis has said he wants Pius XII’s cause to move ahead.

Since there are several miracles attributed to Pius XII’s intercession, the source explained that Pope Francis might decide that he will sidestep the normal process and declare him a saint.

“It is not impossible that the Pope would act in the way he did for the canonization of John XXIII.”

When Pope Francis decided to approve the canonization of John XXIII, he submitted his case to a vote by the members of the congregation, despite the fact that “a miracle attributed to the intercession of John XXIII was discussed,” the source said.

But “the miracle would have needed further checks,” the saints expert explained, so Pope Francis “opted to canonize him without waiting for the certification of the miracle.”

The source maintained, “this seems to be possible for what concerns Pius XII.”

Matteo Luigi Napolitano acknowledged that the possibility of the Pope pushing the cause forward. There are “several (saints) causes that, for several reasons, are the object of pressures,” he remarked.

What remains to be seen is whether Pius XII being declared a saint will result in a new debate about the emerging historical record of the wartime Pope or a recycling of the claims that he was “Hitler’s Pope.”

Napolitano noted, “the debate about Pius XII is more widely a debate about the Shoah, i.e. the biggest tragedy of the Second World War.”

So, Napolitano said, “it is normal to investigate what the Vatican did during that period.”

This investigation involves several areas of interest: the choice of the Holy See to remain neutral, the way Christian values were lived during that period, the choices of Catholics who confronted the tactics of the Nazis, and what dioceses and clergy in countries involved in the war did.

Napolitano underlined that “the ‘positio’ on Pius XII is made up of all of these aspects, with a collection of sources that agreed the Congregation for the Causes of Saint should carry their job forward.”
 
For what concerns a historical judgment of Pius XII's behavior, “interpretations can vary, but I can say that the most authoritative Jewish, Catholic and lay historians agree on one key point: Eugenio Pacelli never was, and he never could be, ‘Hitler’s Pope.’”

Memories, and "Framing" - Pius XII

1. Clerical Whispers reported on 96 year old Cardinal Fiorenzo Angelini's memories of Pius XII during the war years.  It is a very short article.  Does it add to the historical record?  No.  It is a "human interest" story focused on the cardinal's memory of Pius' presence in a Roman suburb after an air raid.  It could by San Lorenzo, but there are no details given.  Fr Z's blog contains a little more information on the same story but nothing that adds to the record.  Both Clerical Whispers and Fr Z sourced their story from the Catholic News Agency that ran the story on 2 August 2012.

2.  The big news on Pius XII is the resurfacing of the story that the pope was the subject of a KGB inspired "framing".  I have commented on this before in March and November last year.  The National Catholic Register's article re-tells the story of Ion Mihai Pacepa a former Romanian secret policeman who alleges that the Soviet secret police orchestrated a smear campaign against Pius XII that has become known as the "Black Legend".  The former general wants to present his work to Professor Dan Michman at Yad Vashem in order to present his case.  Part one is linked above and part two can be found here.

In the last article on the Pacepa claims long-time apologist for Pius XII, Ronald Rychlak has written how he moved from scepticism to believing the "framing" campaign. I will leave it to the reader to make up their own mind. 

It is curious to note that no major news service has taken up the story.  It is also worth remembering that Pacepa's story was seriously debunked several years ago by Professor Thomas Brechenmacher of Potsdam University, a Holocaust and Pius XII expert with a significant published record in the field.