Rev. Robert A. Graham, S.J. is a scholarand writer of distinction in the fields of international affairsand Vatican history. A former editor of Americamagazine, Father Graham has written numerous articles and severalbooks, his best known being Vatican Diplomacy. He writes aregular column on the Vatican for Columbia magazine. Hispast 17 years have been devoted to the monumental task of editingan 11-volume series containing the documents of the VaticanSecretariat of State during World War II.
How to Manufacture a Legend:
The Controversy over the Alleged Silence of Pope Pius XIIin World War II.
By Robert A. Graham, S.J.
DuringWorld War II (1939-1945) Pope Pius XII lent a strong hand insupport of the harassed Jews of Europe. The Vatican was one ofthe few remaining points of assistance left on theAxis-controlled continent. Increasingly, with the evidence oftheir own experience, local and world Jewish representativeslearned to turn to the pope for help. This confidence was neverdisappointed. Uninfluenced by anti-Semitic propaganda or overawedby the ruthless Axis power visible on all sides, the Vatican,that is, Pius XII, intervened on behalf of Jews, individuals andgroups, at strategic moments. This action it took either on itsown initiative or following representations coming to it fromnumerous Jewish rescue organizations keeping vigilance over theunfolding drama. Such assistance was not sporadic or incidentalor perfunctory but consistent — and persistent. It was notthe accidental product of some curious circumstance, but theresult of policy and principle. And the local Jewish leadership,with the world Jewish organizations, recognized this withgratitude. For as the war progressed, it was clear that in acontinent writhing in suffering, Jews were easily among the mostimperiled.
The fulltruth of what was happening would become known only later. Butenough was known to produce, on the Vatican's side, innumerableinterventions with governments still susceptible to admonitions.At the death of Pius XII, Jewish spokesmen, who knew the record,came forward with tributes to the late pontiff's services in thename of humanity, for the victims of the Holocaust.
At thispoint commences a stupefying paradox. The general assistance ofthe Vatican to Jews during World War II is fully documented, withchapter and verse, in the archives of both the Vatican and theJewish organizations, such as the World Jewish Congress and theAmerican Jewish Committee, not to speak of the official U.S. WarRefugee Board. How does it come about that, in later years, thewind changes abruptly and violently? The Pope is found violentlycriticized by those who a short time earlier had been effusive inpraise. For it was not until 1963, five years after the Pope wasin his grave, that the past was, so to speak, itself buried insilence, as if inconvenient. In the spring of that year, inBerlin, a theatrical piece written by a hitherto unknown youngGerman playwright roused enormous polemics inside and outside ofGermany. The debate is continuing, a quarter of a century later.
Hadsomething new been discovered? Had some secret aspect of the waryears come to light hitherto unknown? Nothing of the sort. But anew climate had developed which put the issue in a newpsychological rather than historical perspective. The calendarmay help us to discover what happened and, in the process, toimprove our understanding of the curious controversy over thealleged "silence" of Pius XII.
Theabove-mentioned play, called "The Deputy" (DerStellvertreter), by Rolf Hochhuth, was staged in February1963, barely a few months after the close of the first session ofthe epoch-making Second Vatican Council. As is well known, thishistoric assembly of all the Catholic bishops, called by PopeJohn XXIII, aroused unprecedented interest in world opinion.Within the Catholic body politic the council opened entrancingperspectives, particularly the relations of the Catholic Churchto other Christians — and to Jews. Ecumenism was on themarch, after repeated false starts.
Therewere other relevant events at this time. U.S. public opinion wasincreasingly disturbed by the mounting moral challenge opened bythe Vietnam war. The spectacles of lives and money consumed in aconflict seemingly without object raised profound moral scruples,not to say guilt complexes. Finally, shortly before, the trial ofAdolf Eichmann in Israel brought out, as never previously, thedestruction of European Jewry in all its somber and tragiccolors. Is it too much to suggest that perhaps, considering thisjunction of disparate circumstances, the figure of the Popeemerged as a sort of substitute, or surrogate, of the conscienceof us all? The hypothesis is unprovable, but it helps to explainwhy the Hochhuth play triggered a controversy that is still goingon, quite beyond the literary merits of "The Deputy".
Whateverits origins, a psychological transformation does not justifydistortion of the historical reality. Facts remain facts and arenot to be relegated to insignificance as if they did not happen.Yet this is what is happening: all that the Pope did for theJews, and also all that the Jews said in praise of Pius XII, hasbeen covered with a curtain of oblivion. The real silence hasbeen the silence of polemicists who have succeeded in closing oneeye to the reality, thereby leading the public into a grotesqueconception of the role of Pius XII in World War II.
Thelanguage itself has suffered from this misinformation. PlaywrightRolf Hochhuth criticized the pontiff for his (alleged) silence,but even he admitted that, on the level of action, Pius XIIgenerously aided the Jews to the best of his ability. Today,after a quarter-century of the arbitrary and one-sidedpresentation offered the public, the word "silence" hastaken on a much wider connotation. It stands also for"indifference", "apathy","inaction", and, implicitly, for "anti-Semitism".
Theimage presented today is that of a Pope immobilized in the faceof atrocities. Hence the self-revealing question, "Why didnot the Pope do something?" Or, tendentious allusionsto the "inaction" of the Vatican, as if the only actionconceivable is that of making public and provocative statementsregardless of their real and possibly disastrous and perniciousconsequences for the Jews themselves. This is to cancel out tooeasily the factual record of the continuing real assistance ofthe Vatican to European Jewry, of which the appropriate documentsand declarations of those concerned are convincing (butsuppressed) witness.
It maysurprise the contemporary generation to learn that the localJewish communities, and the world Jewish bodies did not, for themost part, urge the Pope to "speak out." Theirobjective was far more concrete and down-to-earth. They invokedthe real or supposed influence of the Holy See on governments inrespect to certain situations arising at one or other points ofthe tragedy. Appeals to world opinion, high-sounding though theymay appear, would have seemed cheap and trivial gestures to thoseengaged in rescue work. (There were many Allied propagandisticappeals, and threats, which had no effect and possibly hastenedaction by the Eichmann crew.) The crying need in those years wasfor effective pressure on persecuting governments, pressure thatoften enough could only be exercised by discreet and evenroundabout methods.
The needto refrain from provocative public statements at such delicatemoments was fully recognized in Jewish circles. It was in factthe basic rule of all those agencies in wartime Europe who feltkeenly the duty to do all that was possible for the victims ofNazi atrocities and in particular for the Jews in proximatedanger of deportation to an unknown destination. In Geneva atthis time, for instance, the World Council of Churches founditself obliged to refrain from any public statements about Naziatrocities, on the grounds that this would bring to naughtwhatever real good they were presently accomplishing. Yet, behindthe scenes, without fanfare, the Council, under the SecretaryGeneral Visser 't Hooft, deployed, like the Vatican, effectiveassistance to the Jews.
Thedrama faced by the International Committee of the Red Cross, withits seat likewise in Geneva, is perhaps even more striking. TheCommittee is officially charged by international agreement withsupervising the application of the Red Cross Conventions onPrisoners of War. But the needs of civilian internees (read,Jews) increasingly alarmed the members of the committee. The RedCross had no real knowledge of the extermination camps at thistime (in the autumn of 1942) but the harshness of Germanprocedures, and even more so the sinister disappearance of somany thousands into the maw of deportation, suggested thenecessity of an open and public protest on the part of theCommittee. With profound regret, the Geneva Red Cross decidedthat a public protest, a) would have no effect, b) wouldcompromise what real good the Committee was already doing for theinternees, without benefit of public declarations. And indeed inthe following war years, the International Committee of the RedCross was able to achieve a great deal in its efforts atalleviating suffering.
There isno one who today questions the reasonableness of the silence ofthe World Council of Churches, or of the Committee. But the samefactors were operative in like manner for the Vatican: no goodwould be accomplished by public protests, and on the contrary,what good was yet possible would be compromised by provocations.In his own reaction to the negative decision of the Red Cross,the Geneva representative of the World Jewish Congress, GerhartRiegner, accepted its validity. If something could yet be done tosave the threatened Jews, then this should be followed up, inplace of a protest: "I believe — he (Carl Burckhardt)told the Committee representative — a protest is necessaryonly in the case where there is really nothing more to be done atthe time. But if one can still exercise some influence and if onewishes to refrain from a protest, it is necessary to act and notto satisfy oneself with passively recording news of deportees.Riegner's stand, preferring action to words, is in contrast withthe contemporary prevailing obsession with open protests, as ifthey were an end in themselves.
TheVatican, too, had to face the possibility — even theprobability — that its own direct protests against thedeportation of Jews would undermine the slender basis it hadalready for effective interventions. Any one who pretends to passmoral judgment on the actions of persons and institutions duringthe stress of World War II owes it to the truth to consideradequately the real margin left for action. This courtesy, orjustice, has demonstrably not been extended to Pius XII. Theresult has been the construction of images totally out ofrelation to reality. It is significant that the argumentationagainst Pius XII is uniformly of a negative nature: the Pope didnot do "enough." He did not say "enough."This open-ended approach can be applied, at will, to almost anyother institution of personality, and it reeks with subjectivityand arbitrariness. Under such a formula of enough, nobody isimmune from criticism.
Even theword "silence" is relative. Pius XII was not"silent" during World War II. He was not even"neutral." In this the Holy See differed from theabove-mentioned World Council of Churches and the InternationalCommittee of the Red Cross, which found themselves unable to makeany statements, even the most generic, protesting Naziatrocities. The Pope's public statements, from his firstinaugural encyclical of October 1939, were clearly directedagainst the National Socialist regime, and were so understood onboth sides.
It istrue that the papal language, in these circumstances, wasindirect, round-about and imprecise. But there was no doubt, forthose who cared to read, as to what he meant. Take, for instancethe Papal discourse of June 2, 1943. Pius XII first assured hislisteners that he regarded all peoples with equal good will."But" — he went on — "do not besurprised, Venerable Brothers and beloved sons, if our soulreacts with particular emotion and pressing concern to theprayers of those who turn to us with anxious pleading eyes, intravail because of their nationality or their race, beforegreater catastrophes and ever more acute and serious sorrows, anddestined sometimes, even without fault of their own, toexterminating constraints."
The Popewent on to say that the rulers of nations (that is, the Nazis)should not forget that they could not dispose of the life anddeath of men at their will. Such words, despite theirindirectness and circumlocution carried a message we should beable to understand and appreciate today. They are fully confirmedin the record, as we know it.
A yearlater, on June 2, 1944, the Pope returned to this theme. The toneof concern is obvious: To one sole goal our thoughts are turned,night and day: how it may be possible to abolish such acutesuffering, coming to the relief of all, without distinction ofnationality or race. This is not indifference, or apathy orinaction.
It is sometimes said that Pius XII should have been more propheticduring World War II. If what is really meant is that he shouldhave excommunicated Hitler and be done with it, the proposal isanything but "prophetic". Such an idea could emanateonly from someone with an outmoded, simplistic concept of therole of the papacy, drawn from some overblown literary tradition.But, in the real sense, Pius XII, standing in the heart of theAxis world when Britain stood alone and the United States was faraway and frozen in isolationism, did exercise a real propheticmission with his inspiring discourses to a world disoriented anddispirited by the apparent triumph of evil. For a world hungryfor guidance Pius XII was far from silent or lacking in theprophetic quality.
A greatinjustice has been done to the memory of Pope Pius XII. An evengreater wound has been administered to history. The controversyover the wartime role of the Pope is riddled withmisrepresentations and falsehoods, expressed too often in bittertones that surprise and disappoint those who perhaps mistakenly believed an era of détente and a mutual desire for understanding had arisen. We have been witnessing a staggering disregard and abland, unembarrassed disavowal of formal statements of those in the best position to know the facts. In the process a mountain of fantasy has been created, without any real foundation in the record.
Sooner or later, the facts will assert their rights. With time, the wheel will come full circle and return to the point from which it departed in 1963. This was the time when in his lifetime as well as after his death Pius XII was recognized by the most authoritative spokesmen for what he was in reality, one of the best friends the Jews had, in one of the most tragically dark days of the long, long history of the Jewish people.
Which Holocaust ??
<
One can't help but notice how often "The Holocaust" is mentioned in the
Mass Media. Probably not a week goes by without hearing of it. What is very
sad is that society in general is led to believe the only massacre of
humans this century which is worthy of repeated commemoration is the
"Jewish Holocaust".
It can be seen to be both sad and contradictory, even hypocritical, to
hear talk of "compassion" and "sympathy" with protests against "hate
crimes" and "racism" while society has virtually no commemoration or
mention of those non-Jews, mostly Christian, who have been slaughtered
before, during and after the early 1940's by both Hitler and the
Communists, and whose total casualties far exceed the number of Jews who
have been killed during Word War II. Many more millions of non-Jews have
been massacred, and there is silence.
Where is the real compassion and sympathy for human suffering? Are the
deaths of Jews the only ones worth mentioning repeatedly, commemorating
with a special day, building museums and suggesting that the only
"survivors" are Jewish?
What implications are there when President Clinton in public ceremony
holds the torch with Elie Weisel and Budd Meyerhoff to light an "eternal
flame" at the dedication of the "Holocaust Museum" in Washington D.C. to
commemorate "the millions of Jews who perished in the Holocaust."?
What implications are there when now and again we hear reports of an
ex-Nazi living peacefully in old-age, for example in France or America, and
is hunted down and prosecuted for being involved decades ago in the ranks
of the Nazis; YET ex-Communists whose crimes far exceed that of Hitler both
in severity and in number, still active in governments, are allowed to live
in peace - no ex-communist hunts - no prosecution - no demands of
restitution for all the lives taken and ruined, and all the lands and
property stolen?
Suffice is to say that this perpetual fixation on Jewish deaths to the
exclusion of the far worse documented massacres of non-Jews this century
plainly smacks of a serious imbalance in justice and compassion. Justice
and compassion demand that it is time to balance the scales of justice:
While we have standing museums, movies, documentaries and archives full of
years of newspaper clippings focusing on the Jewish deaths between 1940-45,
we need to focus our sights on, and commemorate in detail the massacre of
non-Jews, mostly Christian, who have been persecuted and systematically
slaughtered from 1917-1965 by both the bolshevists/Communists and Hitler.
What both Communists and Hitler had in common was "Socialism" and a
"deep-seated hatred for Christians". They were kindred spirits indeed. They
both persecuted, incarcerated and killed thousands of priests, nuns and laity.
This socialism and anti-Christian hatred, which they both had in common,
are today alive and well in both the governments and Mass Media throughout
the world. And here we meet another contradiction: while some "Jewish
Holocaust" coverage and "hate crime" protests will paint you a picture of
another imminent Jewish Holocaust, the real imminent danger today is a
continued Christian holocaust stemming from the kindred souls of Hitler and
Communism, that is Socialism and the anti-Catholicism spread through the
Mass Media today.
In connection to this, is the insult that is added to this injury of
justice: Now that the dignitaries of the Church living during WWII are dead
or very old and incapable of defending themselves, the Mass Media today is
spreading the lie that the Catholic Church was partially guilty for this
"Jewish Holocaust". Now and again comments are slipped into holocaust
coverage that the Catholic Church and the Pope were partly responsible by
their silence and inactivity for this "holocaust of the Jews".
Pope Pius XII was concerned not only for his prime responsibility - the
spiritual welfare of Catholics - but his solicitude extended to all people.
In his own words to an official of Hungary:
"We are being beseeched in various quarters to do everything in our power
in order that, in this noble and chivalrous nation, the sufferings, already
so heavy, endured by a large number of unfortunate people, because of their
nationality or race, may not be extended and aggravated. As our Father's
heart cannot remain insensitive to these pressing supplications by virtue
of our ministry of charity which embraces all men, we address Your Highness
personally, appealing to your noble sentiments in full confidence that you
will do everything in your power that so many unfortunate people may be
spared other afflictions and other sorrows."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabbi Herzog, Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem:
"The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his
illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion which
form the very foundations of true civilization, are doing for us
unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history,
which is living proof of divine Providence in this world."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeno Levai, the foremost scholar of the Holocaust in Hungary, said that
Pope Pius XII "did more than anyone else to halt the dreadful crime and
alleviate its consequences."
AND
"From that day on, acting in accordance with the instructions of the Holy
See and always in the name of Pius XII, the Nuncio never ceased from
intervening against the disposition concerning Jews, and the inhuman
character of the anti-Jewish Legislation."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Emilio Zolli, chief rabbi in Rome during the German occupation:
"no hero in all of history was more militant, more fought against, none
more heroic, than Pius XII."
Zolli was so moved by Pius XII's work that, when he became converted to
Catholicism after the war, he took the Pope's name as his baptismal name.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Christmas eve of 1941 and 1942, the New York Times praised Pius XII as a
"lonely voice crying out of the silence of a continent."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Einstein noted that to prevent the Holocaust, "only the Church
stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing the
truth."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chaim Weizmann, first president of Israel (1949-52), writing during the war:
"The Holy See is lending its powerful help wherever it can, to mitigate the
fate of my persecuted coreligionists."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Sharett, Israel's first foreign minister and second prime
minister, upon meeting Pope Pius XII during the war:
"I told [the Pope] that my first duty was to thank him, and through him,
the Catholic Church, on behalf of the Jewish public, for all they had done
in various countries to save Jews, to save children, and Jews in general.
We are deeply grateful to the Catholic Church."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinchas E. Lapide, Israeli consul in Italy for a number of years:
"The Catholic Church saved more Jewish lives during the war than all the
other churches, religious institutions, and rescue organizations put
together. Its record stands in startling contrast to the achievements of
the International Red Cross and the Western Democracies....The Holy See,
the Nuncios and the entire Catholic Church saved some 400,000 Jews from
certain death."
[The latter figure has been recognized by the state of Israel with the
planting of over 400,000 trees in remembrance of the efforts of the Vatican
and the Catholic Church.]
"When an armed force ruled well-nigh omnipotent, and morality was at its
lowest ebb, Pius XII commanded none of the former and could only appeal to
the latter, in confronting, with bare hands, the full might of evil. A
sounding protest, which might turn out to be self-thwarting - or quiet
piecemeal rescue? Loud words or prudent deeds? The dilemma must have been
sheer agony, for whatever course he chose, horrible consequences were
inevitable. Unable to cure the sickness of an entire civilization, and
unwilling to bear the brunt of Hitler's fury, the Pope, unlike many far
mightier than he, alleviated, relieved, retrieved, appealed, petitioned and
saved as best he could by his own lights. Who, but a prophet or a martyr
could have done much more?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pope Pius XII, in fact, showed admirable prudence in his decisions to
help suffering souls. He was faced with the dilemma of protesting too much
and thereby increasing the persecutions of hostages and prisoners as he
actively worked to prevent more people from being incarcerated. The words
of Pope Pius XII reflect this:
"Every word that We addressed to the responsible authorities and every one
of Our public declarations had to be seriously weighed and considered in
the interest of the persecuted themselves in order to not make their
situation unwittingly even more difficult and unbearable."
Of course, the cynical anti-Christian who is against the Catholic Church
will not look at the prudence of the over-all picture. They will find some
isolated negative incidents and seek to blame the Church. When Jews are
incarcerated and killed they ignore those who are saved and immediately
blame the Church for not protesting enough. Yet, when the Church makes some
protests and evil men take it out on some who are imprisoned, others will
blame the Church for protesting too much, rather than putting the blame on
the evil men doing the actual persecuting! A Jewish couple, and a Catholic
priest, both at one time in a concentration camp, can attest to this
dilemma which can never be avoided when dealing with an evil enemy:
Mr. & Mrs. Wolfsson of Berlin, a Jewish couple who, after being in
prison and concentration camps, took shelter in a German convent of nuns.
Pope Pius XII had an audience with them and arranged for them to escape to
Spain. Long afterwards the Wolfssons declared:
"None of us wanted the Pope to take an open stand. We were all fugitives,
and fugitives do not wish to be pointed at. The Gestapo would have become
more excited and would have intensified its inquisitions. If the Pope had
protested, Rome would have become the center of attention....We all shared
this opinion and this is still our conviction today."
A former inmate of Dachau, Mgr. Jean Bernard, who later became Bishop
of Luxembourg, said:
"The detained priests trembled every time news reached us of some protest
by a religious authority, but particularly by the Vatican. We all had the
impression that our warders made us atone heavily for the fury these
protests evoked....whenever the way we were treated became more brutal, the
Protestant pastors among the prisoners used to vent their indignation on
the Catholic priests: 'Again your big naive Pope and those simpletons,
your bishops, are shooting their mouths off...why don't they get the idea
once and for all, and shut up. They play the heroes and we have to pay the
bill.'"