Pius XII cause continues to divide Catholics, Jews
The gates of heaven won’t be barred to Pius XII if the Vatican decides to put his cause for sainthood on hold. But Pope Benedict XVI and others in the Vatican keep putting it forward even though it divides Catholics and Jews. Most recently, the postulator for Pius’ cause was quoted in Italian media over the weekend as saying that Benedict would not visit Israel until a caption was removed from a photo of Pius at Yad Vashem, the Israeli Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem.The exhibit’s criticism of Pius is debatable – but that’s just the point. The debate over Pius’ wartime role has not been resolved. A group of scholars said as much in a letter today in The Times of London.The Vatican responded with damage control over the weekend, saying that Benedict would not delay a possible trip to Israel because of the caption conflict. But it should never have been necessary to say that.Pope John Paul II’s visit to Yad Vashem and the Western Wall was a powerful reminder of the ties that bind Jews and Catholics. The good will it created should not be squandered.
I don’t think the caption should stand in the way of the pope’s visit to Israel. People cannot be forced to change their feelings. As to the process for sainthood, I think the Pope’s response was appropriate. He really can’t move forward without the divine inspiration to do so, and of course the gates of heaven are open to Pius XII. If and when a decision is made as to the sainthood question, then at that time the current Pope can do a media campaign with Israel explaining its position in regard to the sanctity of Pius XII. Good article.
If my own personal feelings are relevant, this cause also divides Catholics. Why do we need a Saint Pius XII?
David said: “If my own personal feelings are relevant, this cause also divides Catholics. Why do we need a Saint Pius XII?”
In retrospect, Pius XII didn’t do enough for the Jews. On the other hand, in the 1930′s in most of Western Europe, there were weak and disorganized democracies with strong nationalisms on one hand and active Communism on the other. The Communists were against the Church and in the context of the times the Right looked to many like a good idea and a stronger choice than the liberal democracies. We have an opportunity here to look at ourselves and at some of the choices that we ourselves will be making in the current political context (and I am speaking of a wider context than just the United States). In other words, maybe instead of arguing about Pius XII we might learn from his situation and let God take care of the sainthood.
I agree with “Unagidon”. I think that we forget, the Church does not welcome souls into Heaven. God does! If one sees the Face of God—one is in heaven. One is a saint. It is only the “official” title of “Saint” that the Church claims the right to bestow. But only God can judge the soul and really see the strengths there.
It is easy to play ‘armchair quarterback’ and judge what Pius XII should or should not have done. We have the hindsight of history on our side. Did he have that? Given his knowledge, personality, background, understanding of political-social systems—could he have acted any differently?
Yes, he could have acted differently but deliberately chose not to. He may some day qualify to be named a saint. Now is not the time for a number of reasons:
a) Vatican archives are still sealed which will impact whatever steps are taken at this time;
b) Why move forward when part of the historical records are sealed?
c) Given current catholic-jewish dialogue, why push ahead?
d) Keep in mind – saints should be extraordinary people; as you note, given the times and the context, do we really know enough to move forward?
I agree that Yad Vashem needs to at least reflect what is known about this pope – their current stance does not accurately reflect the historical record but appeals to emotion.
“It is only the “official” title of “Saint” that the Church claims the right to bestow. But only God can judge the soul and really see the strengths there.”
Yup! We should remember that the church started to decline once it started naming saints. The real reason for naming saints in the fourth century was that the leaders especially were neglecting the faith completely as they went for the power and the glory. This is how every town had a copy of the saints body. The saints body brought holiness not the practice of the faith. The truth is the concept of the “holy person” corresponded to the neglect of pursuing the Christian way. So the “saints” fronted for the hypocrisy of those who worshipped Constantine and let the emperors call the first seven councils.
We have to stop the shrine business and get back to taking responsibility for the faith.
Couldn’t the Church do with a moratorium on canonizing popes? Whatever the actual motives of those who push for these canonizations, one need not be too jaundiced to think that these canonizations are at least as much part of the centralizing tendencies in Rome and the Curia.They seem to be communicating the idea that God makes sure that the popes we get are all. or mostly, so in tune with God that whatever decisions they make are surely expressions of divine guidance and favor. Being a native of Louisiana and knowing at least a smidgen of Church history makes all this rush to canonization strike me as, at best, a version of pomp and circumstance.
Bernard said: “Being a native of Louisiana and knowing at least a smidgen of Church history makes all this rush to canonization strike me as, at best, a version of pomp and circumstance.”
Could be. Could also be that we lost touch with sainthood down here on the ground and the last two popes are trying to remind us that it is still possible to become one. So they pick people that they think might be likely (admittedly using their own criteria) who are well known and to a degree contemporaries of people who are still alive.
“The debate over Pius’ wartime role has not been resolved.”
This statement says it all!
Open the secret archives to historians so that “saint-makers” might make an informed decision.
I thought the purpose of canonization was to propose role models. Surely there are many more saints than canonized people. Could Pius serve as a role model for, say, heads of state? Dubious.
Canonizations are more to do with politicking, or old-fashioned pious causes, than with establishing historical truth. But if the Vatican, in their usual style, brush aside the eminent names on the Times letter, they will be rubbing salt in the wounds inflicted on Jews by Christian contempt and negligence.
STOP CANONIZING POPES. Is it not a sign of the dismal and depressive atmosphere of Ratzinger’s Rome that this obsession with sainting the Pope who more than any other symbolizes the world before the Council goes on and on and on…
It does seem that Popes who take that name “Pius” are likely to be promoted for canonization. Pius, V, X, IX, XII. Is this the power of suggestion? John XXIII is a notable exception, but than he was a notable exception all round among the Bishops of Rome.
Yes, there is still scholarly debate whether Pius did enough on behalf of the Jews and the others murdered by Hitler. Keeping the archives sealed hardly speaks in favor of whatever might be there.
However, let me ask this: isn’t the fact that there’s debate AT ALL over whether he did enough evidence that he did not? In other words, think how clearly the leader of the Catholic Church has spoken on contraception, abortion, the non-ordination of women, homosexuality, etc. It should have been unequivocally clear and unmistakeable where the leader of the Church stood. The fact of debate over Pius’ actions proves the point of those who say he did not do enough.
Am I being too harsh? Well, if the Church leadership cannot take a clear position on systematic and wide-spread genocide (which a subsequent pope would deem to be intrrinsically evil,) why on earth should people take the pope seriously on other issues?
Would it have been politically, and perhaps personally risky to do so? Sure, but don’t we worship a man who was crucified by the State? And who knows what the effect might have been if the pope had spoken strongly against the actions of the Nazi regime?
Nope–the fact of the debate shows that the Pius didn’t say enough. There is also no evidence that he sponsored an organized system of evacuating Jews, which, as far as I can see, would have been the only justification for the pontiff’s delicate silence in public. There were individucal monasteries, convents, etc., that acted to rescue Jews, but Pius’ only act was one of toleration (or at best personal support.) There are responsibilities–and risks–that go with authority, and Pius didn’t live up to them in this situation. Sainthood?? You must be kidding!!
The question is not whether Pius could have acted differently but whether he should have acted differently. In fact he dropped the ball when he did not unequivocally condemn the German attack on Poland in 1939.
Actually the church in Germany should have defended the Jews in Germany back in the 1930s.
I think the posts above make clear we have too many canonizations, that it’s too soon to think about Pius, and that we should all admit his record concerning Hitler and the Jews is a mixed bag for which he should neither be exalted or vilified.
How BXVI will handle this will be interesting and, again, question his credibility in dealing with internal issues.
I don’t have strong opinions on this topic – honestly, I don’t care if Piux XII is never canonized. If I may, though, I’d like to share a thought about Piux XII and the Holocaust. I should preface by saying that I’m not well-read in the controversy – have never managed to plow all the way through any of the books that have come out on this in recent years, and have not cracked most of them at all.
My overall impression, though, is this: Piux XII did do some things to help the Jews, and for those things he should be given credit. I believe it is not for me – it is for others, particularly victims and survivors, and most especially God – to judge whether or not he did enough. I suspect he could have done more, perhaps much more.
What haunts me is that most of us go into adulthood expecting to live normal lives, however we define “normal”; we have expectations about how life will play out, and try to shape our lives accordingly. For some of us, though, circumstances beyond our control create extraordinary situations. And we may find ourselves in the midst of such situations, perhaps unexpectedly and with little or no preparation. Such situations may call for responses on our part that go beyond ordinary virtue. They may call for extraordinary virtue – perhaps virtue that entails tremendous suffering. Even death.
My uneducated impression is that Pius XII did some things for Jews that for a pontiff would be virtuous in an ordinary way. For example, he criticized the Nazis. There is some merit in ordinary virtue. Perhaps he even took some unusual risks, and did some extraordinary things. (Didn’t he manage to save the lives of hundreds of Jews in Rome?)
The great question seems to be, Did he rise to the occasion of an unprecedented situation? Did he fully meet an extraordinary situation for which he could not have been fully prepared, for which he most likely could find no precedent in his life experience? And what should we expect of leaders in such situations? Are we within our rights to demand nothing short of sainthood and martyrdom in confronting monumental evil?
I don’t know the answers.
A few examples from people who were there:
“*The Israeli government planted 800,000 trees in a forest near Jerusalem to commemorate the 800,000 Jews they estimated Pope Pius XII saved from Hitler.
*The Chief Rabbi of Rome became Catholic and took Eugenio, the first name of Pius XII, as his Christian name because he was so inspired by the Pontiff’s work in saving Jews from the Nazis.
*Dr. Jeno Levai, an eminent Jewish historian, said that during the 1930′s while serving as Vatican secretary of state, then Cardinal Pacelli lodged no less than 60 protests on behalf of the Jews and as Pius XII “did more than anyone else to halt the crime (the Holocaust) and alleviate its consequences.”
*Leo Kubwitsky, then-secretary general of the World Jewish Congress, had a private audience which was rare even for Catholics. He gave the pope a huge sum of money for “charity works” and expressed his gratitude for his “work in support of persecuted Jews”. Pius XII decided that “the sum should go exclusively to needy persons of Jewish origin”.
*Albert Einstein praised Pius XII for encouraging German bishops to denounce Hitler’s inhumane policies.
*Pinchas Lapide, Israeli diplomat and scholar, said, “The Catholic Church under the pontificate of Pius XII was instrumental in saving the lives of as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands.”
*Father Pierre Blet, one of four experts appointed by Pope Paul VI to compile the Holy See’s Acts and Documents of the Second World War, said that at least three of the twelve volumes contain “all the official documents in which the Jewish communities, the rabbis of half the world, and other refugees thank Pius XII and the Catholic Church for all the help and work in their favor”.
[deleted.]
Children, we are not talking about childish things here.
[quote deleted]
Oh, Gabriel, how I wish you had not written this paragraph, and particularly this last sentence!
[Agreed, Jim - facts are fine, but ugly and inflammatory statements are out of bounds. We can do better than that. - MWO]
We should not stop making saints! Just think: the Vatican could begin to emulate Harry & David’s “Fruit of The Month Club” with a Saint of The Month Club. Relics! Holy Cards! Books; Apparitions! Just what every good Catholic needs ….
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4982334.ece
“The Catholic Church under the pontificate of Pius XII was instrumental in saving the lives of as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands.”
That is the Catholic Church as a whole. I have heard (I do not know how accurate it is) that in France most of the bishops were collaborators whereas the majority of parish priests were silently, and sometimes actively, resisting the German occupation. Who exactly were those Catholics who “were instrumental in saving the lives of as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands”? What role was played by Pius XII in those heroic endeavors? Not clear.
I confess that I do not keep copies of my postings so cannot tell what was censored. I suspect it was the part about Our Lord being Almighty God, the Lord of Hosts, the Maker of Heaven and Earth.
I am sad that many Catholics do not realize what a loss it is to them, that so many Jews not only do not receive the Good News, but fight against it. Are we not meant to be saddened by this? It raises the interesting question of whether we believe that Our Lord is God.
Jewish attitudes toward Christ, and our attitudes toward their attitudes, are not relevant to the discussion of whether Pius should be canonized.
Comments closed.