Updating current news on Pius XII and the Shoah

Work commitments have kept me away from the blog for much longer than I anticipated.  Some might think that a good thing!

Here in summary are some items of interest that have ended up in my email throughout September.

1.  It is always good to see that works of note still enjoy a wide readership.  Pius XII and the Holocaust: Understanding the Controversy (2002) by Jose Maria Sanchez is one of the best introductions to the whole topic.  Matt Mazewski's comments are proof that a sturdy, evidence based work will always contribute to helping us understand the past and look at shaping questions based on fact rather than polemic.

2. World Net Daily - WND - a conservative American news service, ran an article entitled Call Issued to stop Communist Smear Campaign. After I checked the date to be certain this article was written in 2013 and not 1953, since Stalin's picture glowers out from the screen, I read about an appeal from Chuck Morse, author of On the Jewish Question - Karl Marx, anti-Semitism and the war against the West, and host of "Chuck Morse Speaks", made to Yad Vashem to have Pope Pius XII honoured as a "Righteous Gentile".  The basis of his appeal lies in his enthusiasm for the new book, Disinformation, by former Romanian communist spy, Ion Mihai Pacepa.  The article contributes nothing new to the discussion about Pius nor does it give any evidence of being aware of the comprehensive "de-bunking" of much of Pacepa's allegations that have been posted earlier.

3.  William Oddie wrote another column in the Catholic Herald related to Pius XII in mid-September.  I have written about Oddie's journalism and use of history a number of times and do not feel the need to write it again.  It is time to move beyond the old chestnuts of "calumny" and "canonise him now".  Let's deal with accurate history, not with defensive jabs at largely imaginary enemies.  The interested reader can look at past posts.

4. Filip Mazurczak interviewed Gary Krupp and posted it on the First Things site.  Mr Krupp has not changed his position over the years, which in one respect is commendable, the man is consistent and persistent.  However, I think it rather silly to say this:

The debate is over. Those who attack Pius XII still do not have a shred of documented evidence to support their claims. They base their theories on the books and research of historical revisionists whose research is weak and faulty. Every charge against Pius XII can be proven wrong. The problem is getting this information out there so that fresh, neutral minds can review and process it and render an opinion.

I respectfully suggest that Mr Krupp along with the journalists at First Things engage in some serious contemporary reading.  I recommend starting with Robert Ventresca and Frank Coppa's books.  The debate is definitely not over.

5. Catholic Culture, a conservative Catholic website from Virginia, USA, published a detailed chronology of Pope Pius XII's opposition to Hitler.  Their reason for publishing what is in fact a handy timeline that would be of great use for students is something less than salutary.

Both the Nazis of 60 years ago and today’s accusers have one common goal—to destroy the moral authority of the Papacy. Because Pius was such a strong Pope, destroying his good name would weaken the confidence of many Catholics and increase hostility to the Church everywhere. Scripture describes the cruel logic of Pius’s detractors in a single sentence: Strike down the shepherd and the flock will be scattered. (Mark 14: 27)

I imagine I would be one of those the author/s would consider out to destroy the "moral authority of the Papacy".  If so, I am flattered to be thought of as someone with such great power and influence.  It smells a bit like old fashioned conspiracy theory to me, and not dissimilar to the pernicious Jewish conspiracy theories peddled by the Nazis and their fellow travellers.

6. In two weeks Italian Jews will remember the great raid on the community in Rome on 16 October 1943.  In her article in the Edmonton Journal "The complex Holocaust legacy of Pius XII", Susan Zuccotti writes in her usual clear and unambiguous prose.  Zuccotti sets out the historical circumstances of the raid and the position of the pope.  Her closing paragraphs leave us with the timely reminder that history is not relegated to the past.  It is always in a state of discovery, interpretation and dealing with new questions.  In that sense, the debate over Pius XII is most definitely not over.

What are we to make of this complex legacy? The errors and omissions of Pius XII are not more glaring than those of other national and religious leaders, unless one believes that the head of the Roman Catholic Church should be held to a higher moral standard.

Furthermore, the Church of the past is not the Church of today. But it is important to study the historical record carefully and dispassionately, to define those errors and omissions with a view toward understanding the past and improving our responses to humanitarian crises in the future.

Finally, another review of A Cross Too Heavy has been published in Holocaust and Genocide Studies.  Mark Ruff, Associate Professor of History at St Louis University, has written a fair and balanced critique of the book.  I think he is right to criticise my lack of reference to many of the available German sources, something I am now more than well aware of and engaged in redressing.   

John Pollard, Pope Pius XII, and Paul O'Shea

Serious and critical comment is expected and appreciated in book reviews.  Colleagues learn from one another, are guided in further research and stimulated to explore other avenues of enquiry from a well-written and accurate review of their work.  I have read several reviews of my own work and I have also reviewed the work of others. 

When I undertake a review I do so believing in the intellectual and academic honesty of the author unless it is proved otherwise.  I ensure that I read the complete text carefully usually twice.  The first “read” is to get a broad picture of the work and make some preliminary notes.  The second “read” is a combination of external checking and clarification of sources along with the process of writing the draft review.

Over the years I have read my fair share of excellent reviews as well as a number of reviews where I had to wonder if the reviewer had read the book. 

Dr John Pollard is a member of the History Faculty at Cambridge University.  He has written extensively on the papacy, fascism and various intersections between the two.  His published works include “Benedict XV: The Unknown Pope and the Pursuit of Peace” (2001 / 2005) and “Money and the Rise of the Modern Papacy” (2008).  I have read the biography of Benedict XV and regard it as the standard text on this significant but largely unknown pope.

Pollard’s review of my book is, I believe, harsh and unfair in a number of areas.  The review follows with my comments in the text in red.

A Cross too Heavy: Pope Pius XII and the Jews of Europe, O'Shea, P. (2011)

Reviewed in “Diplomacy and Statecraft”

Every time I see another "Hitler's Pope" book I groan. There have been so many of them, for and against Pius XII, since the publication of John Cornwell's original Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII in 1999. The ensuing debate, which is essentially a re-run of that triggered by Rolf Hochhuth's play The Representative of 1963, has never struck me as constituting a serious historiographical controversy: historians of the papacy are almost entirely agreed about what Pius XII knew about the Holocaust, when he knew, what he did or not say publicly, what he did to help Jews, and the reasons for his behaviour. Much of the debate has effectively been "political"-between Jews and Catholics or between liberal Catholics like John Cornwell and conservative Catholic apologists for the reputation of Pius XII. Rabbi David Dalin, who has written in support of Pius XII, is the exception that proves the rule. In any case, the debate has been conducted not only through the medium of dozens more books and hundreds of articles, but very largely through other media-TV and radio chat shows, documentaries and journalistic articles and reviews. O'Shea is a Catholic, and an historian, but he does not come out roaring for one side or the other from the outset, though, despite his sympathy for Pius XII's wartime predicament, he ends up being highly critical of him.

I think it is disappointing that a review opens with a statement such as Pollard’s opening line.  It is also disingenuous to neglect to mention at least some of the significant historians who are writing in this field today.  To reduce the study of Pius XII to a “debate” between “liberal” and “conservative” Catholics is not helpful.

Sadly, his shaky understanding of modern European and papal historical contexts does not inspire confidence. Referring to Hitler as "Il Duce" rather than "Der Fuehrer" (p. 154) is a terrible solecism.

This is my first cause for concern.   Taking the sentence out of context can lead the reader to believe that I am so ignorant that I could have written that Hitler was referred to as “Il Duce”!  However, that is not at all what the context suggests.  If Pollard had looked up the reference on page 154 – number 54 – and then checked the notes, he would have found a reference to this article published in the Rome based news service Zenit. Matteo Luigi Napolitano is an historian who specialized in diplomatic history.  He has also spent time in the ASV.  In an interview with Zenit in May 2003 Napolitano said that in document he had read he had found explicit instructions from the pope through Cardinal Pacelli to avoid all use of the word “leader” in his New Year Address.  The Italian word for “leader”, in this context, is “duce”.  In fact the most commonly used title for Hitler that I have found in the ASV was “Signor Cancelliere del Reich”.  Pacelli wrote to Orsenigo in Italian.  The relevant section follows:

In the draft of an address for year-end 1936, Archbishop Orsenigo described Hitler as "'Duce' [leader] of the German people."

In the coded reply, which Cardinal Pacelli sent on behalf of the Pope, the nuncio was told to "eliminate the words 'Duce of the German people'" and to "delete" all the part that praises the Führer's activity.

The complete interview may be found here:

 Worse is come when he gives the impression that (Italian) Fascism and German National Socialism were the same thing (p. 99): Fascism was not racialist and anti-Semitic until the mid to late 1930s.

I am not sure how Pollard comes to this conclusion.  My treatment of fascism was to outline the central components of the ideology and ideologies with particular emphasis on the quasi-religious elements.  Italian fascism and its German mutation were similar in much of the ideology that drove them.  It was the German variety that developed into a more extreme form.  I also argue that fascism is inherently racist because of the ideology of nationalism: who belongs and who does not, is essential to the fascist worldview.  Much of my understanding of fascism and National Socialism draws from the work of Michael Burleigh.  Impressions are important; but to take a statement out of context creates an entirely different impression that, in this case, is somewhat inaccurate.

Equally inaccurate is the terminology he uses about the Catholic Church and Catholics-referring to the "Catholic Far Right" (p. 3) is dangerously misleading for those who understand what the term "Far Right" means in contemporary Europe.

I agree that there may be a level of misunderstanding over the use of the term “Catholic Far Right” but I do not accept it is misleading – that implies a deliberate attempt to pervert the historical record. That said I am not quite sure what the contemporary European understanding of the term means.  If it is some sort of alliance or companionship with political elements from the political far right with groups such as “neo-nazis” or other such organisations, then I would probably agree that the term needed more nuance.  However, I doubt that many serious Catholics would lend their aid to groups that pine for an imaginary fascist past.

The Collegio Capranica in Rome was not "known as the starting place for many Vatican diplomats" (p. 81); arguably it was the Pontifical Academy of Noble Ecclesiastics.

This is an example of hair splitting!  Yes, the Pontifical Academy of Noble Ecclesiastics was the diplomatic training place for many of the future Vatican diplomats, but a quick examination of some of the alumni from the Capranica would at least suggest that more than a few diplomats also began their Church careers there. I do accept that the use of the phrase could be “misleading”.

I could list other inaccuracies but the one which is most alarming is his statement that "Pius (Pius XI) expressed a similar attitude to the Catholic political parties. It pertained to the Pope and bishops alone to govern the Church" (p. 85). This is confusing for the uninformed reader: these parties only operated in the secular, political sphere, not inside the Church.

Context!  This is what I wrote:

The long-term strategy employed by Pius X was consistent with the gradual Roman centralism that had begun under Pius IX and continued during the pontificate of Leo XIII. Cornwell summarized it well: “Pius X was determined to exert untrammeled primacy over the Church as a spiritual, doctrinal, legal, and administrative entity. This was the clear-eyed papal vision of total separation of sovereignties: the Church with the Pope unquestioningly at its head, and the world mediated through the papal diplomatic service and the bishops.” Pius expressed a similar attitude to the Catholic political parties. It pertained to the pope and bishops alone to rule and govern the Church. There was no governing role for the laity. Eugenio Pacelli was to follow in very similar patterns in the 1930s.

That would appear to be somewhat different to what Dr Pollard suggested I said.

Finally, it is simply not true that "Pius named almost every victim group except one-Jews" (p. 10). He rarely mentioned Catholic Poles by name either and never other victims of Nazi racial policies like those other Slav untermenschen, the Russian POWs, or homosexuals, or gypsies or, for that matter, the Serbian Orthodox victims of the Croatian Ustasha.

Throughout the course of the war, evidenced in ADSS the pope spoke on many occasions lamenting the loss of life of “innocents”.  While not mentioning individuals or national groups, careful reading of the pope’s addresses demonstrates references to Poles, the people of the Low Countries, hostages, refugees, prisoners of war, indiscriminate taking of life in war zones, victims of euthanasia and other forms of violence.  Pius XII’s commitment to public neutrality was official Vatican policy, a point Cardinal Maglione understood well.  When Maglione wrote to nuncios and other diplomats he echoed the voice and intention of the pope. It is, therefore, safe to say that in ADSS 8.207 (cited 179) Maglione’s comments faithfully represented the views of Pius XII.   

Nonetheless, I will accept Pollard’s criticism that what I have written is, on face value, may not be entirely accurate.  However, context is important.

On the other hand, he is right to draw attention to the fact that neither did Pius name victims of Soviet atrocities-like the thousands of Polish officers massacred at Katyn in 1940. In both cases, he did so for largely diplomatic reasons; he did wish to upset either the Axis or the Allied powers.

He gets better once he has focussed on Pacelli, Hitler, Germany, and the Jews, and his explanation of the complex, tortured personality of the future Pius XII is compelling and convincing. Surprisingly, however, he limits his treatment of the War and the fascist genocides to only one chapter-just 38 pages out of over 200. Here he tackles all the usual issues around Pius XII's responses to the Holocaust and rehearses the reasons why he thinks that papa Pacelli did not carry out the moral functions of his papal office as the Vicar of Christ and the infallible "oracle of God" by publicly and repeatedly condemning the enormity of the crimes of the Nazis, the Italian Fascists, the Croatian Ustasha and other "lesser evils."

The construction of the book is designed to try and explain the “why” of Pius XII’s action or inaction during the war.  In order to understand Pacelli’s responses or lack thereof, I spent most of the book examining his pre-papal life and the context of late Tridentine ecclesiology.  To try and to otherwise would have achieved nothing.  The first several chapters set out the parameters of the Catholic theology of contempt and Supercessionism that found it ultimate expression in the tragic neglect and abandonment of Europe’s Jews during the Third Reich and the war.

And I, with tongue in cheek, take the reviewer to task for appearing not to understand “infallibility”!

His explanation is certainly not original: it stresses Pius XII's determination to do nothing to prejudice Vatican neutrality during the conflict, his obsessive fear of Communism, and his concern that the Church and Catholics-especially German Catholics-would suffer if he spoke out. Above all, he argues that Pius genuinely believed that if he spoke out, this would impede rescue work, and more Jews would suffer. In particular, he was concerned that the work which Vatican envoys, apostolic delegates, and nuncios, were engaged in to save Jews in Hungary, Italy, Romania, Slovakia, and Vichy France, and even further afield, should not be adversely affected. So he arguably prioritised the international diplomatic dimension of the papacy over its prophetic functions. But, as O'Shea himself admits, that does not really explain or excuse his failure to do more to save the Italian Jews caught in the round-up of October 1943 in his own see city, Rome.

The last chapter in the book brings us back to the "Hitler's Pope" debate; whether it is opportune for Eugenio Pacelli to be beatified by the Church as Pope John Paul II wanted. He emphatically says "no." This suggests to me that O'Shea's book is directed at a largely Catholic audience, rather than the wider world and this is confirmed by the last statement in the book: "The sins of the Catholic Church during the Holocaust must rest upon the whole Church, not only the Vicar of Christ..." Maybe so, but let us not forget the complicity and connivance of other so-called "Christians," Protestants and Orthodox, in the crimes against humanity during the Second World War.

On the question of for whom the book is best suited, I suggest it is directed at a broad audience.  Dealing with ignorance of the whys and wherefores of Catholicism is a regular part of my own teaching both at secondary and tertiary levels as well as with some colleagues.

John Pollard

Trinity Hall

University of Cambridge

Cambridge, UK

What disturbed me most about this review was the impression, accurate or not, that the reviewer had not read the complete text.  I hope this was not the case.

Presentation on Pius XII at ADL 10 January

In an earlier post I mentioned that I would be speaking at the Anti-Defamation League's New York office on Thursday 10 January.  It was a very successful evening and although the group was on the small side - about 50 people - the quality of the questions was excellent and the conversations that followed were encouraging for those of us who try and maintain the integrity of the historical process with regard to Pope Pius XII.

It was a pleasure to meet people who had only been known to me via email, especially Professor Deborah Dwork who came down from Clark University, MA for the presentation.  It was also great to meet people from a wide range of inter-faith groups, education and other professions who share an interest in getting to understand the historical and contemporary issues surround Pius XII.

I repeat my thanks to Abe Foxman and all the ADL who made the evening possible and who have shown once again their commitment to ongoing professional dialogue on issues that cause concern between Christians and Jews.  I have to again thank Rabbi Eric Greenberg and Lynne Rabinoff for their support and friendship.  These evenings are very important in ensuring that the voices of the "via media" are heard and understood.

ADL has posted the recording of the presentation via YouTube.  I invite you to view it here.

ADSS 9.22 Proposals of Chaim Barlas to the Holy See

 In the last few posts I have added the continued exchange of documents over attempts to rescue the remnant of Slovakian Jewry.  Early in 1943 Angelo Roncalli, the Apostolic Delegate to Turkey, met Chaim Barlas who worked with Jewish groups in Turkey to try and save Jews trapped in Europe.  Reaching out to Roncalli Barlas made a series of suggestions asking the Holy See to intervene with the Germans, the neutral states and America to help get Jews out of Europe.  Barlas' final request was for a public statement on the radio telling Catholics that helping Jews was a good thing to do.

Was Barlas naive?  Possibly; but the desperate situation evidently compelled people such as Barlas to make dramatic demands.  The appeal of Catholic religious sister Margit Slachta in March 1943 is a similar example from a non-Jewish source.

What surprises most is the footnote mentioning a note sent from the British Ambassador to Washington, Lord Halifax echoing the rumour that Germany might let the Jews go.  Halifax's concern seems to lie more with the risk that Germany might flood other countries with "aliens".  This theme was to occupy more time later during the year in the Vatican.

The Pope was kept informed of developments throughout the Slovakian intervention and rescue proposals.  His responses were not made public outside of notes that Pius had seen notes and reports and expressed a continued sympathy for the Jews.  I believe the closest we come to a papal opinion is found in the responses made by Cardinal Maglione and Monsignori Tardini and Montini who repeated "the Vatican has done and is doing all it can".

 ADSS 9.22 Angelo Roncalli, Apostolic Delegate to Turkey to Cardinal Maglione

Reference:  Report number 4129 (AES 1036/43)

Location and date: Istanbul, 22.01.1943

Summary statement: Requests HS intervention in favour of Jews to be permitted to leave Germany and the occupied countries.  Attaches proposition of Chaim Barlas, Jewish Agency for Palestine given to Arthur Hughes, charge d’affairs, Ap Del Egypt who handed it to Roncalli in mid-January.

Languages: Italian and English

Text:

The other day I was introduced to Mr Bader (1) of the “Jewish Agency for Palestine”.  I thought it best to put him in touch with Father Hughes (2) who governs the Apostolic Delegation of Palestine and more so as this man only speaks English.  He understood and appreciated this and the result of that conversation is in the accompanying memorandum. (3)  I sent the manuscript to Father Hughes, upon whose recommendation I send it to your Eminence.  The report only contains Mr Bader’s comments and questions and no other.(4)

Questions to the Holy See, through Father Hughes, from Mr Bader of the Jewish Agency for Palestine. (5)

1)  We understand that the governments of neutral nations are willing to grant temporary asylum to Jews found in Nazi-occupied countries, if the United States would provide for their maintenance of the Jews and would guarantee that they would not remain in the host countries after the war;

2) We understand the German government is willing to grant permission to Jews to leave occupied countries (approximately 5,000 people and also 700 women and children currently in Poland could move to Palestine where they have husbands and fathers).

3) the a declaration made over the radio that the Church considered any help given to persecuted Jews is a good deed.

Attachment:

No number (ASS 1036/43)

Istanbul 20.01.1943

(English – as printed in ADSS)

It is with great pleasure that I heard of the expressing of your sympathy towards the Jewish victims of terror in Europe and that you are prepared to raise the question in High Quarters of the Holy Seat.  The facts are summarised in the joined declaration of the Allied Nations, which declaration ws announced by Mr Eden in Parlament on the 18.12.1942 (7) (the text published in “Informations de Palestine” of the 24.12.1942 is attached herewith). (8)

In this connection I beg to submit to your Eminence the following proposal:

1) In view of the terror and slaughter of Jews that goes on unintermittenly in the occupied territories, it would be of great importance to undertake an action to save the Jews before it is too late, with a veiw to enabling them to leave the countries of persecutions, where they are threatened to be wholly exterminated.  It would be, therefore, appreciated if an effort could be made to secure a temporary asylum for Jews from the mentioned countries in some of the neutral countries: Portugal, Sweden etc.  The suggestion has been made that the Vatican should be approached with a view to sounding the Governments of neutral countries, as to whether they would be prepared to admit a certain number of Jews from Nazi occupied territories, if the United States guaranty to provide for their feeding and gives an assurance that after the war they would not become a charge on these countries.  The conditions under which the refugees might stay in the neutral countries would, of course, depend on the decision of their respective Governments.  They might be put in refugee camps, such as Switzerland has set up for this purpose since the war, unless the Governments agree to more liberal terms.  This would mean that the neutral countries would not have to provide for the refugees anything beyond the air which the refugees breath and the soil on which their camps would be set up.  The financial side, the provision of food etc, would, of course, have to be borne by the Jewish Communities of the free countries, especially the United States.  It is anticipated that social and philanthropic bodies such as the International Red Cross etc, might be induced to give assistance on the technical side.

2) The actual position with regard to the possibilities of emigration is that the Jews in Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland are not allowed to leave the country.  On the other hand there is no objection to Jews leaving Holland, Belgium and the Balkan countries.  The position in France is still undefinite.  That at least is the latest information in our possession. (9)

The Jewish Agency for Palestine have at their disposal a number of immigration certificates granted by the Government of Palestine, which would enable the entry of about 5,000 immigrants (including children) into Palestine.  Besides there are about 700 Jewish women and children, mostly in Poland, whose husbands and fathers respectively, are residing in Palestine.  For these families the Government of Palestine approved entry into Palestine to join their relatives.  We would appreciate it very much, if the High Authorities of the Holy Seat would agree to approach the German Government with a view to grant the exit permission for those Jewish immigrants, who have the opportunity of immigrating into the Holy Land.

3) The highly humanitarian attitude of His Saintety [sic] expressing His indignation against racial persecutions, was a source of moral comfort for our brethren.  May we venture to suggest that an opportunity should be found by radio, or as it may be deemed useful, to declare that rendering help to persecuted Jews is considered by the Church as a good deed.  This would, undoubtedly, strengthen the feelings of those Catholics, who, as we know and appreciate, render help to Jews doomed to starvation in the occupied territories in Europe.

In submitting these suggestions we do not underestimate the difficulties which are evident enough.  We feel, however, the position is so terrible, that anything that may offer an avenue of escape to even a fraction of the Jewish Communities in Europe will be considered as a great humanitarian action towards the Nation of Israel. (10)

Chaim Barlas

References: 

(1) Should read Chaim Barlas.

(2) Arthur Hughes (1902-1949), charge d’affaires of the Apostolic Delegation in Egypt was in Istanbul from 12.01 – 21.01.1943 on request from Cardinal Maglione in order to collect Vatican mail.  See ADSS 7.72, 90, 182.

(3) See the attachment.

(4) See ADSS 9.241

(5) See Peter Hebblethwaite, John XIII Pope of the Century,(Continuum, 2000), pp 91-92.

(6) See ADSS 9.270 & 352.

(7) See ADSS 8.578.

(8) Not published in ADSS.

(9) At the same time Viscount Halifax (1881-1959) British Ambassador in Washington DC (1940-1946) wrote to the State Department that there was a possibility at that time there may be a possibility of freeing the Jews.  “There is a possibility that the Germans or their satellites may change over the policy of extermination to one of extrusion and aim as they did before the war at embarrassing other countries by flooding them with alien immigrants”. (FRUS 1943, I, p134).

(10) See ADSS 9.60.

David Marx on Paul O'Shea!

David Marx has written a book review of "A Cross Too Heavy".  It is a positive assessment of my work, even if I think the reviewer has made me out to be more critical of Pius than I was.  Nonetheless, it is rather nice to read positive things about oneself!

A Cross too Heavy: what David Schutz said (wrote)

This is the media release written by David Schutz, from the Melbourne Catholic Archdiocesan Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission.  David blogs on Sentire cum ecclesia.  While David and I would probably agree to disagree on somethings, he is one of those people in the "blogosphere" who really does make the cyber-world a better place.  Listening to him speak at the seminar in Melbourne on the Catholic understanding of beatification and canonisation to a largely Jewish audience who had just sat through a presentation on Pius XII in his gentle, polite and firm manner was very impressive.  As David writes in the opening paragraph of the article the true test of inter-faith discussion lies in the ability to speak honestly and frankly on matters of great sensitivity and disagreement.

Pius XII discussed in Synagogue Symposium

In interfaith dialogue, everyone enjoys meeting one another and sharing good times. But the quality of interfaith dialogue and the relationship between dialogue partners is often best gauged by the way and the extent to which they are able to discuss issues of sensitivity and disagreement.

The Symposium held at the Temple Beth Israel synagogue in St Kilda on 29 April 2012 - "A Cross Too Heavy: Pius XII and the Jews of Europe" – therefore testified to the health and maturity of the Christian Jewish dialogue in Melbourne. Hosted by the B'nai B'rith Melbourne Mitzvah Lodge and the Council of Christians and Jews - Victoria,  it addressed an issue that has been of great concern to both Jews and Catholics for some time now.

Approximately 300 people, the majority from the Jewish community, attended the event to hear Sydney-based historian Dr Paul O'Shea speak. The author of the book "A Cross Too Heavy: Eugenio Pacelli: Politics and the Jews of Europe, 1917-1943", Dr O'Shea is the Dean of Mission at Rosebank Catholic College and has also taught for Jewish centres of education. Following his presentation, Rabbi Fred Morgan of Temple Beth Israel and Mr David Schütz, the Executive Officer of the Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission of the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne, both spoke briefly on issues pertaining to the topic.

The symposium was harmonius. Despite the headline of a newspaper report of this symposium, there were no “raised voices”. The speakers were palpably amicable. The addresses were scholarly, frank, honest and thought-provoking. The subjects addressed are confronting but there was no antagonism.

Dr Paul O’Shea presented an epitome of his four years of research in the Vatican archives and other historical records into the relationship of Pope Pius XII with the Jews. He described the vastness of those archives and their limitations. He referred to the theological and political constraints within which the pope worked. He spoke of efforts to help the Jews and raised questions as to whether more could and should have been done. He concluded that the more one delves into the archives, the white does not get whiter, the black does not get blacker, the grey just gets murkier. Dr O'Shea did not offer an opinion on the cause for the canonisation of Pope Pius XII, but limited his remarks to the results of his historical research.

Rabbi Fred Morgan spoke about the effect of the Holocaust on post Holocaust Jewish thinking. He said, first, Jews recognised the need for their own country as a safe haven for Jews as there were almost no open doors for Jewish refugees in the late 1930s; secondly universal ethics had been challenged as people were killed because the Nazis declared Jews were not people; and thirdly genocide should never occur again to Jews or any other ethnic group.

David Schütz explained the criteria for, and process of beatification and canonisation. This has been an area of some misunderstanding. It is sometimes incorrectly thought that to declare someone 'a saint' is a mark of approval for all that that person did (or did not do) in their life. Mr Schütz explained that 'sainthood' has to do with holiness, and that the Catholic Church believes it is God who makes saints, not the Church.

Following the speakers, there was an opportunity for questions from the floor, sometimes raising confronting issues and concerns. Clearly at this time there remain many questions which cannot now be answered (and may in fact never be). But all three speakers agreed that the historical study must proceed unimpeded, that the cause for beatification or canonisation of Pope Pius was a matter for the Catholic Church to determine on its merits, and that this is a topic on which both Jews and Christians must continue to dialogue to overcome misunderstandings or any possible offence in the years to come.

Many thanks are owed to the vision and efforts of the organising committee: Philip Bliss, Penny Jakobovits, Thilo Troschke, and Walter Rapoport of the Council of Christians and Jews, and Janice Huppert, Bernard Korbman, Sue Newman and Faye Dubrowin of B'nai B'rith.

(By David Schütz  with contributions from Michael Cohen. A transcript of the three presentations will be posted on the websites of the Council of Christians and Jews and B'nai B'rith.)

David Schutz

A Cross Too Heavy: this is what I said.

The previous post described one of the ongoing problems of speaking and writing in fields that can not be covered in a simple short article.  It takes skill to write a piece of copy for the newspaper that captures what the speakers said accurately and appropriately.  Unfortunately that is not what happened with the article from the Australian Jewish News (Melbourne).  


On a separate page I have placed what I said - it is somewhat different to what Peter Kohn suggests I said.


The page can be found on the right side of the homepage above the "followers".

A Cross too Heavy: What the media said I said

On Sunday 29 April about 300 people gathered at Temple Beth Israel in East St Kilda for an afternoon of presentations on aspects of Pius XII.  It was a gathering organised by the Victorian Council of Christians and Jews and the B'nai B'rith Mitzvah Melbourne with support from the Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission of the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne.  It was a very successful engagement.  


A reporter from the Australian Jewish News (Melbourne) was present at the seminar and wrote an account for the press.  


One of the main reasons I began this blog was because of the frustration at being misquoted in certain parts of the media.  Nothing seems to have happened to warrant a serious review of that position.


This post presents what journalist Peter Kohn said happened that afternoon.  In the following posts I will present what I said, what the hosts of the event wrote in response to the media article and, finally, the account of the afternoon made by David Schutz from the Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission.  I am doing this because it is so important to ensure accuracy.  Inaccurate reporting, done for whatever reason, is bad reporting.  Presenting the series of posts in chronological order helps establish what in fact was said and by whom.


This is a copy of the article by Peter Kohn in the Australian Jewish News published on 4 May 2012.

If Peter Kohn did speak with me, he did so without identifying himself.  Mr Kohn has included things I did not say and suggested that I stand opposed to the canonisation. This is curious, since I did not mention the beatification or canonisation process at all.  That was left to David Schutz and Rabbi Fred Morgan to discuss.  The next post will be what I did say, as opposed to what Mr Kohn imagined I said. 

A Cross Too Heavy Panel Discussion Melbourne

This should be a great afternoon of serious history and inter-faith dialogue.  I will be speaking on Pius XII based on the latest research from archival resources alongside the readily available material as well as making some observations about the so-called "Pius Wars" and the problem of denialism among some of those people determined to see Pius canonised at any cost.  If you are in Melbourne I hope you will come and join me for what will be a stimulating afternoon.

"Catholic in America" video - viewer beware!

I came across this video in one of the news services I subscribe to.  It's headline title catches the attention - The Church vs The Nazis.  However, that's about it. 

The organisation Catholic Tube defines itself thus:


Catholic Answers is an apostolate dedicated to serving Christ by bringing the fullness of Catholic truth to the world. We help good Catholics become better Catholics, bring former Catholics "home," and lead non-Catholics into the fullness of the faith.





As I watched I found myself growing more and more unhappy with the "stuff" being pedalled.  The two speakers and priest host (all unnamed, so no idea of qualifications etc) make so many half-baked assertions, use mismatched images and quotes and seem to be blissfully unaware of the decades of solid historical work done by historians and researchers over the years, that it is truly worth watching if only to see how history is not done.

The first speaker talks of a written order from Pius XII to the bishops (of Italy?) ordering them to open the convents - where is this text and why has it not been published?


The image that follows has a cover with a quote from Cardinal Pacelli but the photo is of the nuncio to Germany, Cesare Orsenigo meeting Hitler at a reception (no date given). As doyen of the Diplomatic Corps it was Orsenigo's duty to greet the head of state in the name of the all the diplomats. His address was vetted by Pacelli and Pius XI well in advance. Nonetheless, the image could be misleading - it is not Pacelli.

Next - the Swiss Guard story - evidence please. I have read numerous primary and secondary sources and this is news to me.


Next: Image of Pius XII over "wrote 1937 encyclical" - he co-edited it with the German cardinals - Faulhaber of Munich, Bertram of Breslau and Schulte of Cologne. The pope had the final word. Of course, Pacelli was not elected pope until 3 March 1939, so the problem with a misunderstanding over the image and quote could arise again.

Forging documents: the illustration used is the Vatican passport for Enrico Galeazzi who was sent on a personal mission by Pius XII to FDR to plead for the City of Rome. The great irony is, if the pope could send a representative during war time across German-occupied Europe to plead for Rome, could he have not done the same for the Jews of Europe who were dying in their hundreds of thousands? Galeazzi's trip is published in Actes et Documents Volume 7 - http://paulonpius.blogspot.com/2010/10/story-of-enrico-galeazzi-1943.html

Again - evidence of the forgeries please.

The use of Einstein's 1940 quote is fine, except it must be placed in context. It was made before the mass killing of Europe's Jews had started and made by a man who spoke of what he had witnessed in Germany up until his departure in 1933. Using Rabbi Zolli is something of a "red herring" because his abandonment of the Jewish community in Rome still leaves a host of unanswered questions. To suggest that he would not have become a Catholic if he had seen "moral flaws" in the Church is a nonsense. Clearly the priest commentator does not know his history either.

In summary - no evidence, no references, no context, disjointed timelines and images ... Not a very helpful video on the subject of the role of the Church during the Holocaust.