Last
Sunday night I sat down and watched the Intelligence Squared debate from
London. To be frank, the topic did not
inspire much in the way of confidence for a solid historical debate. I was not greatly disappointed.
I
mentioned in the previous post that the two apologists, Professor Ron Rychlak
and William Doino would be up against two seasoned and professional masters of
debate in the public forum, Lord Norwich and Geoffrey Robinson. Norwich and Robinson provided great
entertainment but not all that much history.
Rychlak and Doino provided a lot of historical data but not much by way
of context.
How did
the debate pan out?
John
Julius Norwich opened with a general overview that relied too greatly on some
poor history – forcefully rebutted by Doino – and which detracted from what I
think his thesis was, namely that despite numerous opportunities that presented
themselves, Pius XII did not speak out at all.
His comments on the Christmas 1942 address demonstrated a very poor grasp
of the situation Pius found himself in and showed that Norwich had not done
sufficient reading of the available material.
The strongest point I think Norwich made was related to the Holocaust in
Hungary, but even here he showed a lack of historical context. Citing nuncio Angelo Rotta’s comments to the
Hungarian government “not to continue its war against the Jews beyond the
limits prescribed by the laws of nature and God’s commandments” without the
necessary and relevant context makes for poor argument. Viscount Norwich should know better.
Historically,
Norwich made a weak show that would prove relatively easy to demolish.
William
Doino began speaking at the twelfth minute.
I found it irritating that he spent quite a bit of time correcting
Norwich and allowed himself to delve in tangential issues such as the story of
Roi Ottley, an Afro-American journalist who had an audience with Pius XII in
1944.
From
here Doino reverted to his customary style which is to bury your opponent in
facts. And there was no shortage. However, as has been my criticism of Doino
for some time, he is able to produce facts by the cart load but does not place
them into context. Facts without context
are dangerous to the point of being misleading.
The questions raised by Norwich were not addressed except in saying that
Pius did speak out and had done for many years.
The grey zones of nuance and varying historical circumstance did not get
much of a mention here.
One
would expect a magisterial performance from a silk such as Geoffrey Robinson,
and I was not disappointed. As speakers
went Robinson was the superior orator on the night, but his history was weak
and polemical.
Opening
with the stirring statement that he was about the “dissecting the soul of a man
who could not bring himself to speak out publically against the Holocaust”
Robinson then cited Elie Wiesel: “Take sides, neutrality helps the oppressor,
never the victims. Silence encourages
the tormentor, never the tormented. And
this is a truth that applies to the silence of Pope Pius XII in face of the
most heinous crime against humanity ever committed even when it was taking
place under his very windows.” There
was little variation from then on. How
Robinson could jump from his perception that Pius did not speak to papal
silence being the “license to the Catholic SS to kill…” rather escaped me. There was eloquence, there was masterful
rhetoric and there was entertainment, but there was little history. I got the distinct feeling that Robinson was
there to enjoy himself at the expense of his opponents. Robinson’s final
argument that Germany needed papal neutrality and silence in order to preserve
hope in German victory was astounding for its brazen audacity. “Mr Pacelli, the bad Samaritan” ended the Queen’s
Counsel’s time at the podium.
I was
ready to hear Professor Rychlak.
If
Robinson was the most entertaining speaker, Rychlak was certainly the best
historian of the evening, and I believe, the most convincing of the speakers
for the motion. He kept his presentation
simple, spoke calmly and did not rise to take the bait proffered by Norwich and
Robinson. However, I found Rychlak’s
arguments to be unsatisfying because they were highly selective and avoided the
thornier problems surrounding events such as the 1943 Rome Juednaktion, the
post-war statements of Angelo Roncalli and Giovanni Battista Montini and the German
plans to kidnap the pope.
At the
end of the presentations the vote taken at the beginning of the night was
announced. 146 had voted in favour of
the motion, that Pius XII had been silent, 41 against the motion, and 171
undecided.
Questions
followed. Most of these were populist
questions that could have led the speakers to delve deeper into the issues, or
at least allude that there were depths that could not be plumbed in the context
of the debate. It was disappointing that
this was not done. I will leave it to
the reader to make up their own minds about Question Time.
During
the questions I thought that Norwich and Robinson were enjoying themselves
particularly at Doino’s expense. They
made outrageous statements and Doino “bit” responding far too seriously and
with no intimation that he was over-reacting.
Norwich’s dismissal of American phobias about communism was one
example. I must admit I did laugh a
little at it – it was so silly. And Robinson
kept the joke alive with ongoing digs at Doino.
Once
again, it was Rychlak who responded best I believe. He is clearly quite at home with debates and
can carry himself with the thrust and parry that goes on. “How do we assess Pius XII? He did the best he could. Did he do too little? He didn’t stop the Holocaust; he tried, he
wanted to … he wanted to end the war.” These are fair statements. They need further expansion, but they are a
start.
The
final vote of the night was interesting:
227 voted in favour of the motion that the pope did too little, and 103
against the motion. It marked a shift in
thinking of a large number of people.
Did the evening change anything? I suspect not.
Posts
