Robert Ventresca points to the complexities surrounding Pius

I have referred to Professor Robert Ventresca of University of Western Ontario in a previous post.  His work on Pius XII is balanced, critical and highly nuanced.  This interview came from Charles Lewis of the Canadian National Post.  Ventresca makes several highly significant points about context, points that have been argued on this blog since its inception.  I commend the interview.

Taking another look at Pope Pius XII's 

actions during the Holocaust

Charles Lewis, July 6, 2012

Pope Pius XII reigned between 1939 to 1958, a period of catastrophic events. But history seems mainly concerned about his behaviour around the Holocaust. Pius has been accused of being a German sympathizer or at best failing to do his moral duty to help save the Jews of Europe by keeping silent. For others he was a saint who used his skill as a diplomat to save thousands of Jews from Nazi terror. But this week in Jerusalem, Yad Vashem, the world’s most foremost Holocaust museum, softened its criticism of the wartime pope, allowing that despite faults he did help save Jewish lives. The changes in an exhibit on the pope seem subtle, but given the divisions between Roman Catholics and Jews over Pius’ actions, even small changes are considered important. For example, Yad Vashem now acknowledges the 1942 Christmas radio message in which Pius speaks of “the hundreds of thousands of persons who, without any fault of their own, sometimes only because of their nationality or ethnic origin, have been consigned to death or to a slow decline because of their ethnicity.” The National Post’s Charles Lewis spoke to Robert Ventresca, a professor of history at King’s University College at University of Western Ontario in London, Ont., who is completing a biography of Pius XII called Soldier of Christ.

NP: What does the Yad Vashem decision signify?

RV: This rewording constitutes a minor diplomatic victory for the Vatican and the defenders of Pius XII insofar as it seems to correct what was considered to be the decidedly one-sided and inaccurate original description. I think that it’s unfortunate that this decision has sparked the predictable range of polarized opinion — such as saying the exhibit now vindicates Pius. I do think the new wording is remarkably balanced and nuanced not just about Pius but of the Church in general. It conveys clearly there is a range of opinion on this subject.

NP: When Pius died in 1958, he was widely praised by Jewish leaders, including Golda Meir, later Israeli prime minister. Then came Rolf Hochhuth’s 1963 play The Deputy, which vilifies Pius and started the decline in his reputation. Did anyone question his role before?

RV: There was a clear and consistent criticism of his policies, and especially of his diplomatic style and choices, beginning as early as 1939 and continuing through the war years and beyond. It’s important to stress that some of the strongest and most consistent criticism came from within the Catholic world. The lines of the debate have remained fairly constant over the years but intensified after The Deputy. There was the feeling that Pius as the Vicar of Christ was expected to raise his voice in protest. Even after the war, there were Catholics who wanted him to say something explicitly about what had happened to the Jews. The matter always comes back to the nagging doubts about what felt to many like excessive papal caution in the face of unspeakable atrocities.

NP: Was the Jewish leaders’ praise misguided?

RV: It was not so much misguided, as only partly informed, especially considering that when he died in 1958 the historical understanding about the Holocaust was in its early stages. It’s a matter of record that in the months after the war Jewish delegations went to Rome to thank the pope for what the Church had done on their behalf. But as we learned more about the Holocaust, it allowed us to approach the story of rescue with a greater degree of differentiation among the various layers of the Church. In effect, the pope’s indirect role in these efforts has receded into the background, while the courageous efforts of the Catholic rescuers on the ground have moved to the forefront.

NP: For most people Pius is either a saint or the worst sinner. What’s wrong with that analysis?

RV: The problem arises from the tendency to think of Pius XII the way he was presented in The Deputy — as “less a person than an institution.” Thinking of Pius XII that way works only if your intention is to render the man a myth, which can never correspond to the more complex reality of a man who struggled, often unsuccessfully, to reconcile his very human attributes and foibles with the demands of leading a global community whose self-ascribed nature and mission were not of this world. When we approach Pius XII as a person, we find a man of considerable talent, intelligence and imagination, who nonetheless often could not free himself from the norms and conventions of his upbringing and clerical training to grasp fully how the times in which he was living required an extraordinary courage and originality.

NP: So how do you see him after all your research?

RV: There are things about him that are so admirable, but other things at the end of the day that leave me ambivalent. There was an intelligence, an unmistakable spirituality, a keen mind at work. At the same time, he could be very narrow-minded and unyielding. [In terms of the Holocaust during and after] he could be excessively diplomatic rather than evangelical in his criticism. After the war he didn’t appear to want to come to terms with what happened and did not want broach the important question of the role of historical Christian anti-Semitism in leading to the Holocaust.

NP: Was he an anti-Semite?

RV: Much of what we say about Pius and the Jews has to be inferred. There is nothing I recall seeing in the way of a letter or an encyclical or speech that tells us much about what he thought about Jews and Judaism. He was a man of his times. He would have had an appreciation of the Jewish roots of Christianity and a great love of the biblical heritage of Judaism. But there would have been a certain measure of ambivalence, especially of Jews in the social and economic life of European societies. I don’t think he had any special appreciation of sense of duty toward contemporary Jews or Judaism. But he was not indifferent to Jewish suffering. He would have seen the suffering Jews as akin to the suffering of many others who were suffering as a result of destructive modern ideologies, including communism.

NP: What did he think of Nazis?

RV: I think he saw Nazism as a kind of heresy. He saw the nationalism and the racial theories incompatible with Christian teaching.

NP: Why couldn’t he have said just once directly the actions against the Jews were wrong and no Catholic should be a party to them?

RV: That’s the nagging question. There was always this vague allusion to people who were targeted for no reason other than their ethnicity. After the war, for instance, he spoke directly about the persecuted clergy of Poland and the sad fate of German youth, but there is no explicit mention of what happened to the Jews. There it is. When we come back to the question of his relations to Jews, there remains many nagging questions. One of the problems I have with the certain defenders is that they don’t want to deal with the uncomfortable questions.

NP: But did he save Jews?

RV: There are some exaggerated claims made by certain defenders that Pius XII helped to rescued tens if not hundreds of thousands of European Jews, albeit indirectly through the work of papal institutions or other Catholic organizations and religious orders. These claims are not tenable in my view, nor especially instructive, since they would credit the pope with efforts that took place often without his specific knowledge, approval or encouragement This is not to say that his general policy, as well as the work of certain Vatican-related institutions in Rome itself with the Pope’s approval, did not help to save lives. Clearly, Pius XII knew of and approved of initiatives by his representatives or other Catholic individuals and institutions in Italy and parts of Europe to rescue Jews and other civilians. Near the war’s end, the Vatican itself boasted of having helped to save at least 6,000 Jews in Rome alone during the Nazi occupation. Some scholars put that number at closer to 4,000.

Then there is the case of high-level papal intervention with leaders in Hungary and Slovakia during the war to prevent the deportation en masse of tens of thousands of Jews. In the end, the Pope’s intervention was only partly successful, but undoubtedly his direct intervention helped to save lives, though it is difficult to say with great precision just how many.

Pius XII: Poliakov versus Pave The Way

One of the claims made by organisations such as Pave The Way is that criticism of Pope Pius XII did not begin until well after his death in 1958.  In this short editorial from The Jewish Week Eric Fettmann makes the pertinent and historically accurate comment that criticism of Pius XII was made during the pope's lifetime.  The isolation of historians such as Poliakov speaks more of the general lack of interest in the study of the Holocaust in the 1950s as well as a reluctance in the English-speaking world to publically criticise the most vocal anti-communist on the planet.  This "old fashioned" historical research is what is sorely needed in the study of Pius XII.  I have added Gary Krupp's after Fettmann's editorial with the contentious paragraph highlighted in red.

Early Criticism Of Pius XII



Tuesday, November 15, 2011


Eric Fettmann


It is simply not true, as Gary Krupp of Pave the Way Foundation asserts, that criticism of Pope Pius XII’s public behavior during the Holocaust was “artificially created” and unknown until Rolf Hochhuth’s play “The Deputy” (Letters, Nov. 11 - sic).

The noted Holocaust historian Leon Poliakov first raised concerns in his article, “The Vatican and the ‘Jewish Question’: The Record of the Hitler Period — and After,” which appeared in the November 1950 issue of Commentary. While dealing extensively with the “glorious record of the Catholic Church in its efforts to save [individual] Jewish lives from the Nazi murderers,” he also bemoaned the Pope’s failure to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor, the stridently anti-Nazi Pius XI.

“What led the present Pope, Pius XII, to adopt a less forthright policy than Pius XI?” Poliakov asked. “The fact is that during Hitler’s lifetime, the present Pope never clearly condemned the criminal policy of the Third Reich, and that the diplomatic relations between Berlin and the Vatican, although cold and reserved, remained correct.”

Indeed, he wrote, “Nothing similar to certain statements of Pius XI (let us recall his famous words: ‘We are all Semites spiritually ...’) was said at Rome under the pontificate of Pius XII.”

Despite “resounding protests made at the local [church] level, the Pope did not consider it wise to add to these protests the authority of his own voice; or if he did make a public statements, it was with such caution that his words had no effect, or were misunderstood.”

True, Poliakov’s was a lonely voice during this period. But his essay, besides being the first, continues to be one of the most insightful on this painful and complicated subject.


Here is Gary Krupp's letter to the editor - 8 November 2011. My own opinions and evaluation of Pave The Way's methodology are well known and I have written about the organisation on my blog and mentioned it in my book.  I see no reason to reiterate them here.

Countering Cardinal Koch


Tuesday, November 8, 2011



I believe Cardinal Koch, in his sincere attempt to quell the controversy, may have misspoken. Pave the Way Foundation does not support the canonization of anyone (“New Dialogue Leader Off To Bad Start,” Nov. 4). PTWF is a nonsectarian organization that impartially moves to identify and eliminate non-theological obstacles between religions. We never endorse specific religious processes such as canonization. Personally, speaking as a Jew, canonization is Catholic concept. Just as we would not favor Catholic intervention or commentary of our prayers and traditions, we should simply allow the Catholic Church to follow its canon law to determine who is or is not a saint.

Pave the Way is far from alone in its assessment of discovered documentation. There are literally dozens of true historians both Jews and non-Jews, who believe that our findings are quite real and legitimate. These include Hans Jansen of the Netherlands, Pierre Blet and Philippe Chenaux, Michael Feldkamp and Sister Margherita Marchione, among others. Jews who have defended the wartime pope include Albert Einstein, Rabbi David Dalin, Rabbi Chaim Herzog, Rabbi Toaf of Rome, Golda Meir, Nazi hunter Serge Klarsfeld and Sir Martin Gilbert, to mention a few.

To date we have posted on our website (www.ptwf.org) over 46,000 pages of original documents, news articles and video eyewitness testimonies, which clearly show that the current opinion of Pope Pius XII is wrong and was artificially created. We discovered that literally every Jewish leader and every Jewish organization of the day (including Rabbi Eric Greenberg’s Anti-Defamation League), showered affection, and praise upon Pius XII up until five years after his death. What happened to change this? Where are the documents that prove these new allegations? How did this happen?

The fictional play “The Deputy” was produced, translated into 20 languages, and strategically played worldwide by the Soviet disinformation department in an operation called “Seat Twelve.” This was specifically planned to isolate the Jewish people from the Catholics timed to discredit Vatican II and its new relationship with the non-Catholic world. It also was intended to discredit the Holy See and Pius XII personally.

Instantly the positive well-earned expressions of Jewish gratitude changed. The new accusations took hold, and a slew of new biased, historically incorrect books were written to feed into the controversy and to make a fortune for their authors. This effort was at the cost of legitimate Jewish gratitude. As Jews, we bought these allegations hook, line and sinker and the demonization moved forward.

Then we discovered the real “smoking gun.” Those who we have come to trust for historical accuracy have not attempted original firsthand research nor have they visited the open Vatican archives up to 1939.

Throughout our investigation and our effort to post the evidence online for public consumption, we have not been able to locate one document to support the calumnies leveled again Pius XII.

I reiterate that we do not support the canonization of Pope Pius XII, but we do emphatically support his recognition by Yad Vashem as “Righteous Among Nations.”

Founder and President Pave the Way Foundation

Bob Keeler of Newsday: Deciphering the latest from Pope Benedict

Bob Keeler contacted me via the Anti-Defamation League early in the week for some comment on the pope's comments on Pius XII.  Bob was upfront with me writing that the column was fairly short - he wasn't wrong!  Nonetheless, I think it is a solid piece of writing.  He tells me he has had a lot of positive response along with a few less than positive comments.  I can not over-emphasise the role the historian plays in the process of analysing the story of Pius XII.  It is a slow and painstaking process.  And it was ever so.

Newsday (New York)

December 2, 2010 Thursday

ALL EDITIONS

Deciphering the latest from Pope Benedict; Statements on condoms and Pius XII lead observers and the faithful to seek clarity

BYLINE: BOB KEELER.

Bob Keeler is a member of Newsday's editorial board.

The world knows Pope Benedict XVI as a quiet and careful theologian. But he also knows how to kick up a fuss now and then, like the buzz for his new book.

No, the pope himself didn't set up a publicity campaign around two newsy quotes from the book, a long interview with German journalist Peter Seewald. But those were the bits the news cycle gave us, and they sure got our attention.

The biggest flap was over condoms. The hot issue now is their use in preventing AIDS. But four decades ago, it was about preventing pregnancy.

In the 1968 encyclical "Humanae Vitae," about "the transmission of human life," Pope Paul VI affirmed the church's opposition to contraception - even though the 1966 majority report of a papal commission recommended easing the ban.

So, what did Benedict just say? "There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization."

That odd example triggered much debate over how much Benedict intended to signal. Bottom line: It may make it easier for some bishops to accept condom use against the spread of AIDS, but the basic directive to families is unchanged.

"If you were going to change the fundamental teaching, no pope is going to do it in a book," said the Rev. Charles Curran, a moral theologian at Southern Methodist University, who lost his right to teach as a Catholic theologian over "errors" in his work on sexuality. Benedict, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was his inquisitor.

In his other buzz-maker, Benedict said we must acknowledge that Pope Pius XII "was one of the great righteous men and that he saved more Jews than anyone else." The result: pained statements from the Anti-Defamation League and other key Jewish groups.

It's a fight we need to avoid.

This issue didn't heat up until a 1963 play, "The Deputy," demonized Pius as silent in the face of the Holocaust. Then in 1967, a book by Israeli journalist Pinchas Lapide offered a counter view, saying Pius had saved 800,000 Jewish lives.

Those are the issue's broad boundaries. But we won't know the whole story until all of the Vatican's World War II-era archives are made available.

A group of Catholic and Jewish scholars seeking a more definitive answer to Pius' role in the Holocaust studied the 11 volumes that had been released so far and in the year 2000 raised 47 questions. Answering them would have required more documents. But the Vatican said it wouldn't release the other documents soon, partly for lack of archival staff. So the scholars suspended work in 2001.

Last year, it heated up again, when Benedict recognized the "heroic virtues" of Pius and John Paul, putting both on the path to canonization. On Pius, Jewish leaders said, "Whoa!"

And they're right. We made too much real progress on Catholic-Jewish relations under John Paul - with Ratzinger's collaboration - to damage it now.

And what's the big rush? "My plea to the 'canonize him now' people is to show some patience, admit he made mistakes and wait for the material to be analyzed professionally," said Paul O'Shea, an Australian historian who wrote a book on Pius, "A Cross Too Heavy."

Whatever the final verdict - probably a lot softer than "The Deputy" - moving Pius' sainthood too fast is unnecessary and insensitive to our elder brothers in the faith, to use John Paul's lovely phrase.

Instead, let's move fast on candidates who evoke more fervid devotion: Dorothy Day, Oscar Romero, and the four church women martyred in El Salvador 30 years ago today. And let's tone down the Pius rhetoric, on both sides.