Benedict XVI praises Pius XII for helping the Jews during the war. But "La Civiltà Cattolica" criticizes his actions as cardinal, when he reacted feebly to the racial laws. Here is the article from the journal, published with the imprimatur of the Vatican authoritiesReceiving the representatives of the Jewish foundation Pave the Way – in Rome for a symposium on Pius XII – last Thursday Benedict XVI expressed a very positive view of the figure and work of Pope Eugenio Pacelli, and especially about what he did "to save the Jews persecuted by the Nazi and Fascist regimes."
This is the first time that Joseph Ratzinger, as pope, has spoken out so directly about his great and controversial predecessor. He will speak about him again next October 9, at the Mass that will be celebrated on the 50th anniversary of his death.
The address by Benedict XVI made an even greater impact in that his judgment of the actions of Pius XII coincides with the relatively positive views expressed by the Jews of the Pave the Way Foundation.
Also during these same days, a book has been released in Italy by Andrea Riccardi, a professor of Church history and the founder of the Community of St. Egidio. His book is also very positive, and documents the actions of Pope Pacelli to help the persecuted Jews. The 424-page volume, published by Laterza, is entitled "L'inverno più lungo. 1943-44: Pio XII, gli ebrei e i nazisti a Roma [The longest winter. 1943-44: Pius XII, the Jews, and the Nazis in Rome]."
But on the same Thursday, September 18, on which Benedict XVI expressed himself in such favorable terms about Pius XII, an article was published in "La Civiltà Cattolica" that draws Pacelli – secretary of state under Pope Pius XI at the time – in more muted tones.
"La Civiltà Cattolica" isn't just any journal. By statute, all of its articles are reviewed line by line by the Vatican secretariat of state before they are printed. And this supervision has been even more stringent since Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone became secretary of state.
It was therefore somewhat startling that the author of the article, the Jesuit historian Giovanni Sale, attributed to Pacelli in 1938 – the year of the promulgation of the anti-Jewish racial laws in Italy – a diplomatic prudence that "today it is embarrassing to defend."
More precisely, this is what Sale says in one passage of his reconstruction:
"It now seems embarrassing for the Catholic historian, especially after the openness of Vatican Council II in this matter, to defend this kind of viewpoint and manner of proceeding in moral or religious categories."
The article in "La Civiltà Cattolica" does not directly criticize secretary of state Pacelli. But it demonstrates how the caution of Vatican diplomats at the time, in reacting to the racial laws, not only exposed itself to legitimate criticisms, but didn't even produce the hoped-for results.
On the other hand, the article highlights Pius XI's desire to defend the Jews more energetically and condemn the racial laws more drastically. Pius XI, nonetheless, found himself muzzled twice over. His most incisive words and writings never saw the light of day, both because of the censorship of the Fascist regime, which banned the Italian Catholic press from publishing the pope's speeches against racism, and because of the caution of the secretariat of state, which prevented "L'Osservatore Romano" itself – the newspaper of the Holy See – from printing any papal texts that were believed to be too imprudent.
As proof of this, Sale has gathered numerous documents from the Vatican archives and from those of "La Civiltà Cattolica." For example, from an unpublished memoir by Monsignor Domenico Tardini, at the time a close collaborator of secretary of state Pacelli, it emerges that Pius XI was extremely irritated over the fact that "L'Osservatore Romano" did not publish, on November 15, 1938, a strongly worded protest that he had written against the racial laws, addressed to the king of Italy, Vittorio Emanuele III, together with the reply from the king. Instead of these two documents, there was only a listless article that said little or nothing. A few days later, the pope also failed to have published in "L'Osservatore" a text that he had dictated seeking to revive the essence of his protest. In both cases, it was Pacelli who blocked the printing of the papal tetxs in the newspaper of the Holy See.
Sale will recount these and other actions on the part of Vatican authorities at the time in other articles scheduled for publication in "La Civiltà Cattolica," for the 70th anniversary of the anti-Jewish laws of 1938.
But here are the principal passages of the article published in the latest issue of the authoritative journal, dated September 20, 2008:
The first anti-Jewish measures, and the Declaration of the Fascist Grand Council
by Giovanni Sale S.I.
[...] It is sometimes said that the anti-Jewish legislation adopted in Italy beginning in September of 1938 was, in comparison with that in force in other totalitarian countries, more mild and perhaps more humane. This is a myth that must be debunked. On the contrary, some of the measures enacted by the Fascist government were even more severe and persecutory than the ones in effect in Nazi Germany: for example, Germany did not have a law on the generalized expulsion of Jewish foreigners; moreover, the wholesale expulsion of Jewish students from the public schools was enacted by the government in Berlin two months after it came into effect in Italy, and it was put into effect gradually. [...]
The anti-Semitic legislation, especially regarding schools, was received by the majority of Italians, especially by the Catholics, with great regret and sometimes with anger; many letters were sent to the Vatican by private individuals or by groups and associations (including non-Jewish associations), calling upon Church authorities, and upon the pope in particular, to intervene with the Duce in defense of the "beleaguered Jews." [...]
The day after the adoption of the decree-law on the schools, September 6, 1938, Pius XI delivered a memorable address against racism and anti-Semitism: it was the first time that this had been done in such an explicit and direct manner. Unfortunately, it was not released in Italy – in fact, on August 5, minister Alfieri had instructed the prefects to prevent the pope's statements against racism from being published in Catholic journals and newspapers – and this tremendously favored the racist cause and gave the impression that the pope, for political reasons, was not taking a position on such a grave matter. Many Catholic intellectuals, including Dossetti, learned about this by reading Catholic journals from outside of Italy.
The famous address was delivered in Castel Gandolfo, where the pope had been staying for some time, before a group of Belgian pilgrims, many of whom worked in the media. The complete text, published by "Documentation Catholique," was transcribed by a member of the group while the pope was speaking. The Vatican newspaper, "L'Osservatore Romano," published the text but removed the part concerning the Jews, while the "current events" section of "La Civiltà Cattolica" didn't even mention it. The pope's words are reported by the Belgian Catholic journal in a rather lively manner: "At this point, the pope was unable to contain his emotion . . . and, weeping, he cited the passages from Paul that demonstrate our spiritual descent from Abraham [...] Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the sublime thought and the reality evoked in this text. Anti-Semitism is a hateful movement, with which we Christians should have nothing at all to do [...] It is not permissible for Christians to participate in anti-Semitism. We recognize that everyone has the right to self-defense, and can take the necessary action to safeguard his legitimate interests. But anti-Semitism is inadmissible. Spiritually, we are all Semites." The pope's words condemning anti-Semitism, spoken in an emotional voice, were strong and clear.
The secretariat of state took a rather prudent approach to this matter, thinking that in this way it could obtain some sort of concrete benefit for the Jews, especially for the ones who had converted to Catholicism. Fr. Pietro Tacchi Venturi, the pope's emissary to Mussolini, was charged with handling the delicate matter of the Jews with the governing authorities. A note from the secretariat of state dated September 8, 1938, suggested that the Jesuit draw the attention of the authorities to the Jews who had converted to Catholicism and had been baptized: "Would it not be fair," asked the writer, "that, independently of their origin, Jewish converts who have entered mixed marriages in keeping with canon law [...] should be considered Catholics, and not Jews always and no matter what, simply because their parents were Jewish?" In other words, they were asking the Fascist government to make its criterion of discrimination not biological-racial, but religious, meaning membership in a particular religious faith, in this case Judaism.
It now appears embarrassing for the Catholic historian, especially after the openness of Vatican Council II in this matter, to defend this kind of viewpoint and manner of proceeding in moral or religious categories. But the task of the historian is to reconstruct, as much as objectively possible, the historical narrative, seeking to understand the mentality and culture of the subject in question, without ideological bias. According to the Catholic culture of the time, although not everyone agreed with this principle, it seemed that the Church's duty was to protect its own faithful first of all, but without neglecting the sense of justice and charity due to all human beings.
In the light of this principle, one can better understand the later interventions by Church authorities in this matter. Fr. Tacchi Venturi's efforts on behalf of the Jews did not achieve much success, in part because Mussolini was strongly determined to carry forward his racial policy, and he did not want to be in second place in this after his German ally. In an audience on September 9, before the first anti-Jewish decree-laws, the pope explicitly told the Jesuit to send Mussolini the following message: "As an Italian, the pope is truly saddened to see an entire history of Italian good sense forgotten, in order to open the door or the window to a wave of German anti-Semitism." Two days before this, on September 7, Fr. Tacchi Venturi had told the Duce that "because of news and information that, unfortunately, is reliable, the Holy Father is very concerned that this aspect or appearance of anti-Semitism attributed to the measures taken in Italy against the Jews could provoke the Jews and the entire world to retaliations that may not be insignificant to Italy." [...]
The fact remains that, beginning with the publication of the "Race manifesto," relations between the Italian government and the Holy See – or better, between Mussolini and Pius XI – gradually deteriorated, so much so that the Duce said in private that the pope was a disaster for Italy and for the Church. For its part, the international press made an exaggerated caricature out of this antagonism, to the point of speculating that the pope might leave the Eternal City and Italy: "Following the recent conflict of ideas," the nuncio to Paris, V. Valeri, wrote to the secretariat of state, "that has manifested itself between the authorities of the Italian Fascist regime and the Holy See concerning racism, certain French press outlets, which have followed the episode widely and up close, have gone to the point of forecasting nothing less than the future possibility of an exile of the papacy from Rome, and, even more frequently, the election of a non-Italian pope." This fact, which was also reported by the Parisian Catholic newspaper "La Croix," demonstrates the seriousness of the conflict between the Fascist government and the Holy See because of the racial question and the anti-Jewish legislation universally condemned by Catholics.
But for reasons of prudence, the Holy See organized its attack against the new discriminatory legislation not by making reference to motivations of a rational character, founded on natural law – like, for example, the right of all men not to be discriminated against for reasons of race or religion, in the same way in which Pius XI had done on various occasions – but by resorting to its own legal firepower, in particular canon law and the Concordat of 1929, in order to defend first of all the rights of Jewish Catholics, without pre-judging those of the others. What was gained by following this approach?
Very little, although the Holy See hoped to obtain much more. Through the work of Fr. Tacchi Venturi, with the circular issued by the national education ministry dated October 23, 1938, baptized children of the Jewish race were permitted to attend private Catholic schools, even state-certified ones. "As far as unbaptized Jews are concerned," a Vatican note says, "the Rev. Fr. Tacchi Venturi has revealed that, as far as he remembers, in the past Catholic schools usually did not admit Jewish or unbaptized students, for obvious religious and moral reasons. This norm seems all the more compelling now that acting differently could seem like opposition to government policy." The Jesuit's mediation was also able to bring a few baptized Jewish teachers to teach in state-certified Catholic schools, prompting a sharp warning from the authorities. This provision had previously been granted by minister Bottai for religious sisters of Jewish origin. The Fascist government already considered this a very special concession, in that it impinged upon the biological principle underlying the legislation.
More conflict between the Fascist government and the Holy See was created by certain statements made by R. Farinacci while he was in Nuremberg on the occasion of the national Nazi congress. In remarks published on May 15 in the newspaper of the SS, "Das Schwarze Korps," Farinacci criticized Pius XI's frequent speeches on racism. [...] The interview was received with great displeasure at the Vatican; Pius XI was personally offended by it [...] On September 21, 1938, the cardinal secretary of state sent to the Italian ambassador to the Holy See a note of protest over Farinacci's disrespectful and offensive comments toward "the august person of the Holy Father."
Meanwhile, the Vatican was receiving dozens of requests from Jews affected by the government regulations, asking the pope to do something for them. The Vatican documentation now made available shows that the Holy See did what was possible, frequently intervening through its own intermediary with the governmental authorities to meet the needs of the Jews, especially those who had been baptized. It should be remembered, in fact, that from the humanitarian point of view, baptized Jews were in dire need of papal support, because they no longer benefited from the protection of their community of membership, which had rejected them, nor from the support given by international Jewish communities. The soul of this action on behalf of the Jews, now facing social discrimination, was Fr. Tacchi Venturi, who in spite of his limitations – above all his propensity to understand and often accept the "reasons" of the regime – exerted himself with great generosity for this cause.
After the government measures of September 5 and 7, the second step in the journey toward the introduction in Italy of legislation apparently discriminatory toward Jewish citizens was constituted by the deliberations adopted by the Fascist Grand Council of October 6-8, 1938, destined to establish the fundamental pillars of later anti-Jewish legislation. [...]
For the moment, the Holy See decided not to intervene directly: it is known, in fact, that any public intervention, in addition to exasperating Mussolini, who was now completely unsympathetic toward the elderly pope, would certainly have harmed the cause of the Jews, and not only those who had been baptized. So the decision was made to wait for the legislative measures that would follow the declarations of the Grand Council, in such a way as to be able to intervene practically with the government authorities for the mitigation of the anti-Jewish legislation, which was already promising to be harsh and oppressive.
We are convinced that at that moment, an intervention by the Holy See and by the pope against the declarations of the supreme body of Fascism would have unleashed an open conflict between the regime and the Vatican, thereby playing the game of those who, like Farinacci, may have wanted a sort of reckoning between the two institutions, to show the world "who's really the boss in Italy." We also know that at that time, Mussolini was determined to block any maneuver by the Vatican on behalf of the Jews, and to oppose the pope's appeals forcefully: the problem of race, or better of the Jews, had to be resolved with determination, as his Nazi colleague had done in Germany, without caring about the opposition of the Christian confessions, and in particular of the Catholic Church.
For this reason, the prudence that the Holy See demonstrated at that moment was determined by the desire to save what could be saved, and in any case not to make the anti-Jewish legislation even more strict while it was still being finalized. It must be added to this that the dominant mentality regarding the Jewish problem in part of the Italian Catholic world at that time was marked by a certain anti-Judaism rooted in past and even recent religious and political-cultural differences: we recall that for many, it was not easy to shed this mindset and pass directly to the other side, seeing the Jew as an "elder brother" to be loved and, especially at that delicate moment, to be helped.
So the only question that was presented to the authorities at the time was that of "mixed marriages" [between Catholics and Jews], because this matter directly concerned the rights of the Church and the Concordat: in this matter, in fact, the Holy See could intervene without the fear of provoking a backlash from the public authorities. It was noted that the disposition of the Grand Council concerning this matter introduced into the Italian legal system a new and absolute impediment to the celebration of marriage, harming one of the rights of the Church, in particular that of granting dispensations for disparity of worship, considered absolutely necessary for the salvation of souls. So the legislators were asked not to establish an absolute and general ban on the celebration of mixed marriages, but if anything to work with Church authorities on how to keep these under control, through a special joint permit from the government and the Holy See.
In any case, it is not true, as is sometimes repeated, that the Holy See responded passively to the anti-Jewish legislation, or that it intervened only, as in the matter of mixed marriages, to protect specifically Catholic and confessional interests: instead, albeit with discretion, it sought to prepare hearts for the future battle against the new regulations issued by the regime.
A Vatican document drafted immediately after the statements from the Grand Council informs us in this regard about the "secret" directives from the secretariat of state. The action of the Holy See, the document says, should follow two directions: "Persuasive action toward the government. By means of suitable persons equipped with the right qualities, it would be good to try to sway influential persons in the regime – and not only the head of the government – to make them understand the sad consequences of an exaggerated racial policy that does not limit itself to measures intended to fortify the populace, but goes to the excess of racism with provisions that harm justice and the Church's rights. [...] It should also be explained that in the case of discord with the Holy See, fascism would be at the greater disadvantage." The other direction concerns action toward the clergy. First of all, it was asked that all metropolitan archbishops should be sent special private instructions, to be communicated to the other bishops, "to see that the clergy not show any support for the magazine La Difesa della Razza [The Defense of the Race]," considered harmful and not in keeping with the Church's teaching on this matter.
In particular, all of the Italian clergy were urged "not to pass up any opportunity to emphasize, with the appropriate prudence of course, the harm and the consequences of extreme nationalism and racism. This could be done with special meetings of the clergy, without giving the impression that any action against the government is intended. [...] This seems necessary above all at the present moment, when there is no freedom of the press, and often even the few and feeble Catholic newspapers are obliged to publish certain foolish things about racism." It was also asked that the same action be carried out in the major seminaries, being attentive however not to violate the letter of the agreement signed on August 16 by the Holy See and the Fascist government.
As has already been said, the Holy See, at that time, chose to act against the new anti-Jewish regulations by discreet means, and relying on the effectiveness of its "domestic diplomacy," a choice not shared by many, but one that in the near term seemed the only one possible, and even the most effective.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce
(Source: Chiesa)