Showing posts with label silence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label silence. Show all posts

Thursday, December 22, 2016

Pope Francis and the BBC

School has closed for the summer holidays and I have time, for the first time in a while, to resume posting!  This post came about after a conversation in my parish a week or so ago.  I was unaware of any of the events that follow which points to just how few ripples this news story generated.

The Pope and the BBC

One of my favourite TV programs has been, and still is, The Golden Girls.  Its waspish humour, deft handling of issues that, for the 1980s at least, were considered somewhat “delicate” for mainstream entertainment, and dealing with the realities of four women of a “certain age” still gives me great laughs.  Estelle Getty’s character  - Sophia Petrillo – was probably the glue that held the show together.  Sophia had a great one liner that would launch her into one of her stories – “picture this … Sicily 1910 …” – and would often earn her the incredulous look of her daughter, Dorothy, Bea Arthur, and the remark, after a suitable pause, “ma, you’re making it up”.  She usually was.  However, what is funny on a sitcom, is not funny when it is presented as historical fact.

In July 2016 Pope Francis visited Poland to join with millions of young people in World Youth Day.  As a part of the journey he made a visit to the former death camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau on 29 July. Francis followed in the footsteps of John Paul II and Benedict XVI who also stood in what is the largest Jewish cemetery in the world.  And like his predecessors, he stood in silence.

That evening in its regular news broadcast the BBC reported on the pope’s visit.  In language that points to the growing gulf between people of faith, good people of different faith, good people of little or no faith, well-meaning journalists under pressure to produce the seconds of “sound bite” for the editors, the news said quite clearly that the Pope’s silence at Auschwitz reflected the “silence” of the Catholic Church during the Holocaust.  I want to believe the journalist was, as David Alton described in a blog entry, simply lazy and had not done their homework. 

I have not heard the BBC report and have not been able to find it, a point the blogger Catholic Voices made reference to as they re-posted Lord Alton’s blog entry.

Reading the text version of the pope’s visit to Auschwitz I was generally impressed by the level of awareness of Catholic Christian practice, even if the reporter did seem impressed by the pope’s “white robes and skullcap”.

It was this sentence that caused considerable offence:

“Silence was the response of the Catholic Church when Nazi Germany demonised Jewish people and then attempted to eradicate Jews from Europe”

Several generations of gradual historical amnesia and sloppy reporting meant that many people were probably not aware of the import of the journalist’s words.  Certainly there was no worldwide upset.  Reactions, such as that of Anne and Ian Dawson, have been few and far between.

The contentious statement is bald, generalised and historically inaccurate.  It demonstrates a lack of basic knowledge that could have been remedied by some equally basic research work online.  I wholeheartedly agree with Lord Alton.  This is the mark of lazy journalism.

I mention Lord Alton because within twenty-four hours he had written a measured and restrained rebuttal of the BBC’s report, especially when he referred to the comment made by the same reporter immediately after the statement about “silence”.

The BBC’s reporter clearly didn’t see the irony of stating that the Catholic Church had remained silent in the face of a genocide only to then describe how Polish Catholics were arrested and killed for sheltering Jews and how Fr. Maximilian Kolbe was executed at Auschwitz after taking the place of another prisoner. Why was he in Auscxhwitz [sic] in the first place? He had been arrested for publishing a denunciation of the Nazis in his magazine, Knight, which had a circulation of around one million people. Hardly silence, then.

I can only agree.  Lord Alton continued outlining the very familiar and accessible history of the church and its condemnation of racism and anti-Semitism along with references to action during the war.  My only complaints are to do with the references to Pinchas Lapide’s unverifiable assertion regarding the rescue of 860,000 Jews and citing Gary Krupp’s work.  Since I have written a length on both Lapide and Krupp I suggest the interested reader look for themselves.

Lana Adler, writing in The Forward on the same day penned a more perceptive article than the BBC but remained firmly positioned in the “the Catholic Church has come a long way, but there is much more to be done” camp; a position that does have validity especially when dealing with the question of the Archivo Segreto Vaticano files on Pius XII.  Adler’s criticism is a timely reminder that the last major opening of files was in 2006 but also a challenge to historians to keep looking through material that is already available.

Formal complaints were made and on 9 December the BBC admitted the report was biased and unfair.  The Editorial Complaints Unit said in its judgement:

The reporter said “Silence was the response of the Catholic Church when Nazi Germany demonised Jewish people and then attempted to eradicate Jews from Europe”. In the judgement of the ECU, this did not give due weight to public statements by successive Popes or the efforts made on the instructions of Pius XII to rescue Jews from Nazi persecution, and perpetuated a view which is at odds with the balance of evidence.

Lord Alton wrote a response to the ruling under the heading BBC owes us the truth on the Church and the Nazis. And while much of his article is well written, I am not convinced by references, again, to Lapide and the oft-toted theories of KGB plots ordered from the Kremlin to smear the memory of Pius XII.

Is there anything to be learned from one line made by a harried and hurried journalist who had not checked their facts before speaking?  Yes, there is.  My senior history students will share their wisdom: “If in doubt, check it out!”  Or as Dorothy so often said to her mother, Sophia: “Ma, that’s not true, you just made it up!”








-->





Wednesday, July 8, 2015

ADSS 1.68 Valeri to Maglione: French criticism of the Pope


ADSS 1.68 Valerio Valeri, France to Luigi Maglione, Sec State.

Reference: Report 8495/194 (AES 4035/39)

Location and date: Paris, 21.06.1939

Summary statement: Certain sections of French public opinion are critical of the Pope’s initiative for peace – cite lack of papal protest when Albania was bombed earlier in 1939 – attaches press clippings.

Language: Italian

Text:

As your Eminence has had occasion to observe, a certain change has taken place in French public opinion, including unfortunately, some Catholic circles, regarding the Holy See.

It had already been murmured that the Holy Father had not said anything when Albania was bombed on Good Friday and that he showed disproportionately high favour to Franco. (1) The displeasure has increased when the Pope’s initiative on behalf of the threatened peace leaked out.  The public, badly informed about the real intentions and the exact contents of the Holy See’s proposals by a hostile Press, are generally not inclined at the present moment to accept with sympathy any offer of mediation has seen in them an endeavour to help the totalitarian States.  The Government, for their part, have not contradicted such interpretation probably to use it in support of their attitude against proposals considered inopportune, at least for the moment.

A characteristic example, of this way of thinking is the speech pronounced by M. Prezet, Vice-President of the Foreign Affairs Committee, before the Assembly of the National Council of the Popular Democratic Party (2), sent by me to your eminence with my yesterday’s report (No. 8484/190) (3) M. Pezet, in fact, has no qualms, as your Eminence must have noticed, to criticise with short but irreverent phrases, the Holy See’s proposals for a peaceful solution of the issues that imperil the peace in Europe.

This morning I had the opportunity to show to Canon Desgranges (4), a deputy sympathising with M. Pezet’s group, how painfully surprised I was at such a statement made by Catholics and how wrong it is to give such an interpretation to the Holy See’s action.

There have been also, here and there, a few articles appearing in the Press meant to twist the ideas and the intentions of the Holy See.  Leaving aside the Juvenal - a weekly Parisian satirical publication – followed by an insolent article against the Pope, I shall mention especially the last issue of the magazine Mercure de France which I enclose together with the April issue. (5) I do so with great regret because both two are really shocking articles.  But your Eminence has read many others … and therefore will not be surprised. Cardinal Baudrillart, whom I say on this subject, came last evening to tell me that M. Canet wrote these articles. (6) The Cardinal was quite certain.  To tell the truth, I had this suspicion myself, but I did not care to voice it.  Certain onomastic and technical errors, therefore, were inserted to conceal the author.

In any case, there is no doubt, all told, that this attitude towards the Holy See must stem from the secret powers of Freemasonry and of the extremist currents, still very potent in the country.  These powers exploit the patriotic and nationalist spirit of the French people, that lately has awakened again in all sectors of the population, including Catholic ones, which explains why, amongst the latter, there are a few who criticise the Holy Father’s efforts, wrongly believed to be against France’s interests.

On my part, it is not necessary to tell your Eminence that I do not miss any opportunity to repeat, both to Bishops and clergy and to the laity, the necessity to support and defend the Pope’s efforts on behalf of peace, efforts that are prompted by him only through care for the well-being of the people and not be vested interests.

In any case, as I wrote in my report number 8346 of 30.05.1939 (7), it is comforting to see that notwithstanding these campaigns in more or less political circles, the Holy See’s initiative in favour or peace has impressed the people in general who look to the Holy Father with hope and confidence, and look only to him for a comforting word in these moments of grace danger.

Notes: 
(1) Italy invaded Albania on Good Friday, 07.04.1939. On 16.04.1939 Pius made a radio broadcast sending the Apostolic Blessing to Franco’s newly triumphant forces in Spain.
(2) Ernest Prezet (1887-1966), co-founder of the Popular Democratic Party (1924), was Vice-President of the Foreign Affairs Committee 1928-40.
(3) The nuncio’s letter of 19.06.1939 to the Secretariat included the text of Pezet’s speech where he said: “The Vatican also, it is said, would be prepared to make great gestures and to launch proposals about which the least one can say is that they can assist only the States which claim to be menaced.  The Vatican is carrying out soundings, more or less secretly, which embarrass London, Paris and Warsaw.”  Pezet had sent a copy of the speech to Valeri.
(4) Jean-Marie Desgranges (1874-1958), priest of Limoges diocese (1891), deputy for Morbihan 1924-40.
(5) “The Last Conclave”. Mercure de France, 01.04.1939, pp43-48; and “Pius XII”, Mercure de France, 15.06.1939, pp599-605.  The two article maintain that Pius XI and Cardinal Pacelli’s policies had always been carried out in favour of German nationalism and against French nationalism.
(6) Alfred-Henri-Marie Baudrillart (1859-1942), Rector of the Catholic Institute of Paris 1907-42, auxiliary bishop of Paris 1921-42.  He was created Cardinal in 1935. Louis Canet (1883-1958), Religious Affairs advisor to the French Foreign Ministry 1920-46. Canet was a devout Catholic with a strong Gallican leanings, i.e. asserting French independence from Rome in many aspects of Church life.

(7) Valeri’s report contained another selection of French media comments: Jean Le Cour Grandmaison (1883-1974), “Avec le Pape pour la Paix”, Figaro, 29.05.1939.  The Pope is a father who tries to reconcile his children, not a judge to condemn some for the benefit of the others.”

ADSS 1.66 Valeri to Maglione: tensions in France


ADSS 1.66 Valerio Valeri, France, to Luigi Maglione, Sec State

Reference: Report 8493/193 (AES 4037/39)

Location and date: Paris, 20.06.1939

Summary statement: Nuncio has met Ambassador Charles-Roux who regrets the Holy See’s attitude towards Germany.  Nuncio pointed out the Holy See’s need for impartiality.

Language: Italian

Text:

On the 12th June the Ambassador Charles-Roux called on me and spoke about several questions. (1) I think it right to report about this to your Eminence because on some questions he was undoubtedly voicing the Quai d’Orsay’s ideas, or of some of its officials, and, on the other hand he will probably never voice these ideas with the same frankness in his conversations with your Eminence.

The Ambassador told me that in political circles here there is the common impression that the difference of attitude (“reaction” – he said) of the present Pontificate, in comparison with the previous one, is excessive.  “Without doubt – so he expressed himself – all expected a change, because each one has his own temperament and his own methods; to many however, the difference seems excessive.”  And he particularly mentioned the fact that the Holy See has become silent regarding the religious persecutions in Germany.

I replied to M. Roux [sic] that probably this was due to the fact that the persecutions had decreased and therefore prudence, if not justice, suggested waiting while helping the growth of better attitudes on the part of the German rulers.

The Ambassador replied that the persecutions were still rampant and he had recent news, especially from Austria, that things were as before,  He admitted, however, that in the German Press the attacks against the Holy See had diminished and were less violent.  This, however, was the only improvement.

I then drew attention to another aspect of the question, pointing out to the Ambassador that the Holy See, in a moment so grace in international life, has to make the last attempt on behalf of peace and this would be impossible if the Holy See did not keep some contact with the two blocs in which Europe is now divided.  To this remark M. Roux replied that the Holy See can perform its activity in two ways, either through diplomacy or be asserting the principles which stand against the theories now in fashion; and this second mode of action , according to his opinion, seemed to him safer.

I tried to make clear to him that in this case only war would remain to sort out the issues, but he did not appear frightened by this prospect,  I could have added that on other occasions the same French Government had asked the Holy See to intervene by using diplomacy, I the interest of peace, but the Ambassador knew this better than I. (2)

The conversation ended with discussion of the filling of vacant sees.

Notes: 
(1) Francios Charles-Roux (1879-1961), French Ambassador to the Holy See 1932-40.
(2) Jean Verdier (1864-1940), Cardinal Archbishop of Paris 1929-40, had brought a request to Pius XI in February 1939 on behalf of the French Government.  See Paul Duclos SJ, Le Vatican et la seconde guerre mondiale. Action doctrinale et diplomatique en faveur de la paix, 1955, p104n4.