Did Cardinal Pacelli (later Pope
Pius XII) and the Vatican City turn a blind eye to the Holocaust?
Before returning to Rome from his
nuncio position in Bavaria, Pacelli had completed a total of 16 concordats and
treaties with Nazi Germany as well as other European states, which enforced
traditional Christian beliefs to maintain in Nazi Germany as well as other
European countries. Once returning to Rome in 1929, Pacelli was assigned to the
position of Secretary of State for the Vatican until becoming Pope in March 1938.
The International role of the Vatican in terms of international diplomacy had
been independent and neutral from communism in the east and socialism and
fascism Europe. Because the Vatican wished to remain neutral but at the same
time keep traditional Christian ties to each country, the Vatican, through
Pacelli’s nuncio from 1922 to 1929, was able to keep concordats with a verity
of countries in Europe. The atheism of the USSR had caused fear among the
Vatican of communist expansion and an eventual dissolution of Christian
authority in Rome. The neutrality of the Vatican City therefore, would have to
take an opportunistic approach when it came to protecting itself from the East
expansion. This approach lead to Pacelli signing the Reichskonkordat, signed on the 20th of July in Rome, 1933.
The Reichskonkordat, signed by both von Papen and Pacelli, wished, as
the document states: “to permanently
regulate the relations between the Catholic Church and the state for the whole
territory of the German Reich in a way acceptable to both parties”, recognizing
previous concordats Pacelli completed in Bavaria, in 1924, Prussia in 1929 and
Baden in 1932 to remain in force. In the Reichskonkordat,
the Secret Supplement made clear that any clergy of the Christian faith would
inevitably, unless otherwise stated, would join the military in the case of
mobilization[1].
Through this, the Vatican acknowledged Hitler’s plans for mobilization or war.
The concordat also shows how the Vatican positioned itself to side with who
they thought most likely to defeat any threats from the communist East.
Though the
freedom of worship and the practice of the Christian faith had been agreed
upon, the Reichskonkordat also would also demand that the Vatican would become
less politically active. As Nazi Germany became more powerful and idealistic,
the Reichskonkordat was continually
neglected and disregarded by the Nazis. Between the years 1933 and 1939, Pius
XII sent 55 protests of violations of the concordant with assistance from
Cardinal von Faulhaber, Archbishop of Munich. Between this period the Church
took an active opposition to the Nazi regime for disregarding the concordat.
Von Faulhaber and Pius XII published an encyclical titled Mit Brennenden Sorge (With Burning Anxiety). This was secretly sent
to many churches and read by a variety of priests on Palm Sunday, one of the
busiest days of the church. The Nazi response to the encyclical was that the
encyclical was, as F. Coppa says, “a call to battle against the Reich”.
Through the Christian values and principles were accepted by the Third
Reich, The Nazis were able to promote anti-Semitism through propaganda and “mainstream
Catholic publications”[2].
However at the same time, there were also many publications also
concerning themselves with anti-Semitism. These publications were on the other
spectrum of the Church’s opinion on the Jewish faith. Scriptures would be
pro-Nazi, naming them to have “killed
Jesus” and their wish to “destroy the Church.”
:
[1] http://www.ibka.org/artikel/ag97/reichskonkordat.html
[2] Gregory S. Paul’s The Great Scandal: Christianity’s
Role in the Rise of the Nazis, Free Inquiry, Volume 23, Number 4,
October-December 2003
To
what extent could Pope Pius XII have protected Jews during the German
occupation of Italy?
Luka Lucic
Mr. Heath
Bavarian International School
Word Count:
Abstract
This
investigation will focus on the extent to which Pope Pius XII could have saved
Jews during World War Two, specifically during the nazification of Italy and
the Roman Razzia of October 16, 1943. I have thus phrased the question as “To what extent could Pope Pius XII have
protected Jews during the German occupation of Italy?”
The influence of the Vatican
has historically played an immense role in global affairs, ranging from
influencing the mindset of millions of followers of the Roman Catholic Church,
to impacting the political and social landscape of continents. One such example
is evident during World War Two, on October 16th 1943, when the
Italian government implemented a Razzia to round up Jews en-masse, Pope Pius
XII largely fell silent and refrained from clear public condemnation of the
Nazis, therefore, my investigation will attempt to answer the question “To what
extent could Pope Pius XII have protected Jews during the German occupation of
Italy?” This response of the Pope has been the topic of numerous debates
regarding the Vatican’s stance of the holocaust, and to what extent the Pope
failed to use his vast influence to potentially save countless lives. This
essay will seek to examine the various factors involved in the determining the
reasons for the Popes conduct, and analyze the range of perspectives
illustrated by historians in regards to the extent to which the Pope both knew
preemptively of the Razzia, what (or if any) means he took to protect the Jews,
and what measures he took to speak out against the persecution of Jews. The
relevance of this question is still of great importance today, because although
there were some 400 million Catholics by the end of the Second World War, there
are currently over 1.2 billion member of the Catholic Church who look up to the
Pope, meaning his actions still hold great political influence.
On May 2nd, 1945,
fascist Italy fell to the Allied Powers as American troops made rapid advances
to take Turin and Genoa. Pope Pius XII, then patriarch of the Catholic Church,
was widely criticized after the liberation of Rome to have been unjustly silent
regarding the fascist and Nazi persecution of Jews. More vocative critics even
accuse him of outright anti-Semitism, and declare he step down from the papacy.[1]
Those in defense of Pius XII cite his efforts as a Cardinal, during which he
co-authored works such as “Mit Brennender
Sorge” as well as “Divini Redemptoris”,
the former of which was a condemnation of Nazism, highlighting it as being a
pagan ideology with no place in Western Europe, and the former encyclical
criticizing the rise of fascism in Italy. The Pope however never made
amendments to the Nostra Aetate, an
encyclical which essential blames the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ,
despite requests from various bishops to have it examined by His Holiness.[2]
Supporters of the Pope are typically quick to point out the seemingly wise and
calculated political maneuvering of His Holiness. His generosity and sympathy
is illustrated by the fact that when the Nazis completed their occupation of
Italy on the 8th of September, 1943, Pius XII offered to loan 15
kilo of gold to the Jewish community in Rome, who were ordered to produce 50
kilo to the Nazis, or 300 hostages would be murdered.[3]
This investigation will examine, then analyze, the claims and perspectives of
various records, historians and other sources in order to obtain a broad and
balanced perspective of the question at hand. These sources will include “The
Catholic Church and the Holocaust” by Michael Phayer (PhD historian, LMU) whose
purpose is to educate its readers on the link between the Catholic Church and
its policy and relations with the Nazis. The tone is generally critical of Pius
XIIs actions, as illustrated by the central theme of the book. The value is
immense, as it is a widely cited and credible source, with a unique thesis and
an abundance of primary sources. The limitations include it being written many
decades after the events of the holocaust and the Third Reich, meaning that the
book may be short on eyewitness accounts, as well as a need to support the
thesis, and perhaps therefor being selective of the information he chooses to
present, in order to better solidify his perspective. To contrast this, I will
examine an article by Robert A. Graham who writes for the Jewish Virtual
Library, and is far more of an apologist for the Pope. This source is highly
credible as it cites various historians as sources, and the origin of the
author (being Jewish himself) provides an alternate and perhaps unique
perspective on the matter. I will also analyze “Under His Very Windows” by
Susan Zucotti (PhD Modern European History from Columbia) who, like Phayer, is
largely critical of the pope. Zucotti won the National Jewish Book Award, and
lectures at both Barnard and Trinity College, making her a very reputable and
reliable source. Her novel is well documented and supported, however
limitations arise when one considers the bias nature of the book, starting with
the accusatory connotation of the title. Other sources that will be referred to
in this investigation will include Martin Gilberts “The Holocaust: The Jewish
Tragedy”, the Jewish Virtual Library, The Catholic League for Religious and
Civil Rights, and the Reichskonkordat treaty signed by the Holy See and Nazi
Germany.
Michael Phayers thesis is that
Pope Pius XII refused to speak out against Nazism because he found it to be the
lesser evil between fascism and communism.[4]
Phayer supports this claim by citing the that on December 1942, the allies made
a declaration entitled “Nazi Policy of Extermination of the Jewish Race”, in
which it stated that there would be repercussions to those involved in the
genocide of the Jews. When the U.S Secretary of State was asked weather Pius
XII could issue a similar declaration, Magilone insisted that the Pope couldn’t
“denounce publicly particular atrocities”[5].
Phayer interpretation of this is that the highly anti-communist Pope couldn’t
condemn the Nazis without involving the Soviets, so he only made general
condemnations of human rights violations. He asserts that the Pope did
relatively little for Jews throughout the Nazi persecution, although this is
somewhat of a contradiction as he later goes on to credit the Pope for using
the Vaticans institutions in order to save hundreds of Jews during the Razzia of
October 16th 1943[6].
One of Phayers most prominent examples highlighting what he calls the “sloth”
and “lassitude” regarding anti-Semitism is a situation that occurred in Vichy
France. When the first discriminatory laws arose around 1940, banning Jews from
being public employees, Phayer notes that the Vaticans response was not only
passive, but several priests and bishops even endorsed the law.[7]
The French consular to the Vatican, Léon Bérard, informed top Nazi officials in
his government that he had “spoken to competent authorities, and that the Holy
See had no insurmountable difficulties with this statute and did not intend to
become involved in the matter”.[8]
He goes on to quote the diary of John Österreicher, who wanted to better
Christian-Jewish relations. He remarked that Pius XII was highly fearful of the
Nazis, and that his insistence of keeping a diplomatic tone in regards to the
persecution of Jews was evidence of his laissez-faire and carefree attitude. He
mocks the Pope, claiming that if he were “still trying to get the Führer to
abide by the Concordat (referring to the Reichskonkordat of 1933, which
effectively attempted to stabilize Catholic-German relations in German
politics), then it would be time to start either crying or laughing”.[9]
Phayer continues his criticism of Pius XII, as he notes that he was a major
component for negotiating the aforementioned Concordat with Germany on behalf
of his predecessor, Pius XI. Various historians and revisionists take issue
with this, including the British minister for the Vatican, F. Osborne, who said
of the Pope “The Father acts like an ostrich, burying his head in the sand in
the face of atrocious crimes against humanity. He has shamelessly contorted the
Reichskonkordat as a guise for his passiveness, using it to support his
outright refusal to intervene in these political maters”. Phayer clearly made
extensive use of archival records and has conducted extensive research on the
topic. In order to explore the question at hand, he broadens the scope of the
Popes policies and actions. He frequently points out that Pius XII only poorly
challenged the nationalist Croatian Ustasha, who infamously waged genocide
throughout modern day Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina. While he does provide
balance between accusing the Pope of not having done enough to save Jewish
lives, the majority of his accreditation goes to various priests and monks who
made personal sacrifices not under the direct order of Pius XII to save lives,
a claim that is central to Zucotti thesis, which will be explored later in
greater detail. There is immense value in Phayers seemingly in-exhaustive
database of records and transcripts, which largely originate from figures that
are either close to the Pope, influential government officials, or respected
historians.
The
Vatican and the Holocaust: Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust occasionally vouches for Pope
Pius XII, crediting him and his constituents with generously and promptly
offering refuge to hundreds of persecuted Jews, most notably on the day of the
Razzia in Rome. The Jewish Virtual Library notes that on the month that the
Pope was elected in March 1939, he acquired 3,000 visas for European Jews to
enter Brazil and Argentina.[10]
The article however also provides balance, stating that Papal representatives
in Chile, Bolivia and Argentina wrote to Pius XII, complaining that the Jewish
immigrants were “invasive”, “disrespectful” and “exploitative and cynical”.[11]
Since Pius XII never replied to these comments, it is unknown to what extent
this influenced his view, although he made no further attempts to secure visas
into foreign countries on behalf of persecuted Jews. Rosenberg also refutes the
claim that the Pope was simply unaware of the extent to which Jews were being
persecuted, citing Bishop Preysing of Berlin, who wrote in 1941 to Pius himself
“Your Holiness is certainly informed of the situation of the Jews in Germany
and neighboring countries. I have been asked from the Catholic and Protestant
side alike if the Holy see could not do something on this subject / in favor of
these unfortunates.” The letter hadn’t garnered a response from the Pope, nor
did a first hand account of an archbishop in 1942, who witnessed the slaughter
of Jews in Lwow. The author notes that the Popes policy of neutrality was
rather ironically broken after 1942, when U.S Generals made clear to the
Vatican that total victory was going to be the objective for the allies (and at
the time, it seemed like it was the likely outcome). Based on assumption,
Rosenberg argues that the change of policy for the Papacy was more the result
of practical advantages instead of a moral drive to condemn the Nazis.
Rosenberg ends his investigation with mixed descriptions of the Pope, as he demonstrates
in the conclusion that the reaction of the Pope was highly inconsistent. It
states that although he was responsible for saving some Jews, it might not
necessarily be proportional to the amount of influence he had, and also that he
was privy to many factors that didn’t allow him to more openly condemn the
persecution of Jews; fear of falling out of favor with German Catholics, fear
of repercussions that the Nazis might impose, and a belief that private
intervention could accomplish more. He concludes by asserting that despite his
motivation, he, and so many other prominent and influential figures, could and
should have done more to save Jewish lives.
As the title suggests, Susan
Zucotti revision of Pope Pius XII is largely scathing. “Under His Very Windows”
is a reference to a telegram the German representative to the Vatican wrote in
the midsts of the Roman Razzia during October of 1943. Zucotti herself is a
professional in studying the Holocaust with respect to Franc and Italy, and her
underlying thesis is that the increasingly popular assumption of Pius XII
rescuing Jews is just a myth.[12]
She does, however, aknowledge the works of various clergy and bishops who,
thorough individual initiative, decided to rescue Jewish lives.[13]
Zucotti devotes an entire chapter on establishing what the Pope knew about the
Holocaust. She begins by listing various affiliates of the Pope, such as Pius
XII’s secretary during WWII, Father Robert Leiber, who passionately criticized
Rolf Hochhuth’s play “Der Stellvertreter”
(which was very critical of the Popes actions throughout the war). They all
echo the claim that no one in the Vatican knew that six million jews were
killed during the holocaust, although Zucotti notes that the official Papal
declaration of what the Papacy knew during the Second World showcased that the
Vatican knew of countless times that massacres of Jews had occurred in both the
Soviet Union and the Third Reich,[14]
second perhaps only to British intelligence reports. She supports this by
asserting that and understanding of the distribution of Papal diplomats and
bishops would confirm this assumption. The author also rebuts assertions that
the Pope is to be credited with saving hundreds of Jews by making it easier for
them to escape Europe once the Nazis invaded Italy and got to Rome. Her counter
is that the Papal networks are equally responsible for establishing ratlines
throughout Europe and into South America which SS officials will use after the
war to avoid standing trial at Nuremburg.[15]
Prominent Nazi members, such as Josef Mengele, lived out the rest of their
lives in relative peace and never faced a court for the crimes they committed
throughout the war. It should be noted that Zucotti does not provide evidence
that Pius XII himself was at all aware of the flight of these Nazis, however,
Father Robert Leiber does prove his knowing of these ratlines in 1946, when he
made mention of the Nazis in hiding in Brazil.[16]
She goes on to criticize the fact that hundreds of Jews who escaped the Nazi
Germany were taken from Italy and placed in Polish internment camps when they
couldn’t produce visas within 42 hours. Given that this anecdote is provided by
Father Dominic Pérez, who frequently reported to Pius XII on issues regarding
Italian politics, “it can be assumed”, says Zucotti, “that although the Pope
most certainly knew of these cruel deportations (given that they were reported
on Allied radio broadcasts and made headlines in Britain) he was simply
disinterested and unwilling to get involved, despite his extensive influence in
Italian politics”.[17]
She states that Pius XII seemed to only have a singular moment of earnest
sympathy for the Jewish plight, when he chose to facilitate some 140 Jewish
immigrants that were German and had promised to convert to Catholicism.[18]
This claim supports her assumption that Pius XII was fond of Germany as a
nation, and selectively chose to save those who he believed could bolster his
image and reputation in his surroundings.
[1] Kareem
Masoud, The Palestine Post (The
Jerusalem Post, 1944).
[2] Gabriel
Wilensky, Pope Pius XII Conception of
Jews (Friedlander, 2007) p. 620
[4] Michael Phayer. The Catholic Church and the Holocaust 1935-1960 (Indianapolis:
Indiana University Press, 2000) xii.
[6] Michael Phayer. The Catholic Church and the Holocaust 1935-1960 (Indianapolis: Indiana
University Press, 2000) 102.
[7] Ibid, 5.
[8] Ibid, 5.
[9] Ibid, 6.
[10] Martin
Rosenberg. The Vatican and the Holocaust:
Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust (The Jewish Virtual Library, 2004)
[11] Ibid.
[12] Susan
Zucotti. Under His Very Windows (Yale
University Press, 2000) vi.
[13] Ibid, 14.
[14] Ibid, 94.
[15] Ibid, 96.
[16] Ibid, 95.
[17] Ibid, 72.
[18] Ibid, 73.
