Pope and Devil - The Unholy Alliances Of The Vatican

There has been considerable controversy surrounding Pope Pius XII and his refusal to condemn the Nazi extermination of the Jews.  Most critics believe that he was not a Nazi sympathizer, but simply placed the salvation of Catholics over any other priority – including saving millions of Jews from extermination. In a book review of Pope and Devil – The Vatican’s Archives and the Third Reich in The New Republic (2.8.11), John Connelly writes:

The British writer John Cornwell calls Pius “Hitler’s Pope.” His failure lay not so much in supporting Nazism—Pius was neutral—but rather in his refusal to speak out against mass murder, in particular the mass murder of the Jews. Why did Pius not use his moral authority to inform Catholics of the unprecedented crime happening in his own city in Rome and across Europe? Why did he not excommunicate Hitler, the baptized Catholic, or at least place Mein Kampf on the Index of Forbidden Books? His defenders say that he feared confrontation would make things worse. But worse for whom? What could have been worse than the Holocaust?

The story revealed from these new sources and a review of Church history is in many ways a predictable one – religious faith often trumps other considerations, involving as it pretends, the human soul – but this refusal to confront one of the most horrific crimes in human history is still perplexing and shocking. Yet, an examination of the historical record helps to explain, if only imperfectly, the Vatican’s position:

“In case of the same degree of need,” [German monk] Heribert Jone specified [in his pastoral guide], Catholics had the greatest duties toward those “most closely connected to us.” Examples of such connections were lineage, race, and religion. “Those related by blood (at least of the first degree) receive highest preference before all others, assuming the need is the same.” Pastoral guides said little about what constituted “need,” but it was assumed to exist in relation to eternity. Thus getting one’s child to Mass on Sunday (in order to avoid mortal sin) was of incalculably greater urgency than assisting persons whom one had no blood relation to. The greatest act of charity toward such people was to make them Catholic.

This survivalist view of life and humanity may seem surprising, given Christ’s charity, but it reflects the experience of both religious and secular history for centuries – protect your own, expand your perimeters to assure this protection, and fight the enemies of faith or crown with your life.  In fact, the Gospels are very clear that Jesus' principal intent was to strengthen, expand, and increase the influence of his new church.  The disciples, in considering their immediate brethren first, would set an example for the rest of the world; but Christ was unmistakably political.

The Church has always had an anti-Jewish policy; and as much as the Vatican might have presented a more ecumenical faith, Jews were ‘Christ killers’, and that was enough to consolidate an antipathy which has lasted through the ages.  More recently, however, and nearer to the pre-War time period being discussed, this sentiment was codified into a clear policy:

On March 25, 1928, Pius XI condemned Antisemitism as a false teaching of the modern age.  Two years previously a group called Amici Israel had emerged within the church advocating improved relations with Jews, and demanding, among other things, an end to a Good Friday prayer for “perfidious Jews.” Soon Amici had over three thousand members among the priesthood, including scores of bishops. The men of the Roman Curia became concerned.

An internal memorandum excavated by Wolf tells us all we need to know about their attitudes. Rafael Merry del Val, a Spanish Cardinal acting as Secretary of the Holy Office, recommended closing down the organization, reasoning from Paul’s letter to the Romans 10:21 (“All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people”). Hebraism, he wrote, “continues perfidiously to oppose Christianity; and today, after the war, attempts more than ever to reestablish the Kingdom of Israel in opposition to Christ and his Church.”

There were other sources of sentiments against the Jews derived from Catholic theology:

Yet there was a deeper and more debilitating level of belief that kept Christians from acting as brothers toward Jews, and it was the conviction that history was the arena where God enacted his will. Great events—such as the outbreak of war or the rise of a political movement—reflected the dictates of Providence, and believers had to make peace with them. When Germany annexed the Czech lands in March 1939, Pacelli [Pope Pius XII) refused to protest, because to do so would have been to “interfere in historical processes.” A similar reasoning applied to the fate of the Jews. If they were persecuted, it was for a reason—and the reason seemed self-evident in the anti-Judaic mind of European Christians: the Jews had rejected Christ as Messiah.

This belief did not remain within the walls of the Vatican where it was debated by Catholic scholars.  This bit of obscure piece of teleology – that history was not a product of Man but God – became popularized and common in the lay Catholic population.  Catholic theologians did not believe, as did Shakespeare and many political philosophers after him, that history is an amoral predictable cycle of events caused by Man’s immutable, aggressive, and self-preserving nature.  Historical events happened because God wanted them to happen.  

Catholics were less likely than other Germans to vote for Hitler, and many abhorred the Nazis. Yet in this anti-Judaic view they shared an assumption with Hitler’s followers: that the Jews were fated to suffer. Though many Nazis were deeply anti-Christian, their leader claimed to be executing God’s will in the measures that they took against Jews, and Catholics had no received vocabulary with which to dissent.

Throughout the Nazi period the Vatican struggled to come to peace with it – acknowledging its danger, but yet still operating within a belief system that really, at heart, had a two millennia antipathy to the Jews.

The issue was complicated by the fact that while Nazism was bad, godless Communism was far worse. 

Pacelli [Pius XII] considered banding with the fascists, something he imagined as “useful.” It was certainly more useful against godless Bolshevism than alliances with liberal democracy. He rejected the idea because some fascists were bent on destroying religion. Still, he did not condemn fascism, because other fascists defended Church interests. In 1939, Pacelli as Pius XII congratulated General Franco for his “Christian Heroism” and welcomed over three thousand soldiers of the Italian-Spanish Arrow Division to the vestibule of the Hall of Benediction, blessing their rosaries and allowing them to kiss his ring.

It is interesting to read this modern history of the Popes against the backdrop of history.

The Popes of the Middle Ages became powerful and highly influential. This was the period of the crusades where thousands of Medieval people from all walks of life travelled nearly three thousand miles to the Holy Land. The Militant religious zeal of the popes and the promise of redemption from sins made the crusades popular. The Catholic church became the universal and unifying institution. The religious fervor of the Popes of the Middle Ages transferred into medieval culture. A centralized Catholic church was realized under Pope Innocent III. (www.middle-ages.org.uk)

The Popes in Elizabethan times continued their powerful reign, for the threat of excommunication in a very faithful and fundamental world was real.  Using this implicit power and the wealth generated from its believers, the Vatican challenged Henry VIII in an unvarnished attempt to save its English riches and and sovereignty.  Henry might rule over English citizens; the Pope ruled over their souls.  The fight for control of the monasteries and their vast treasuries was over power, influence, and sovereignty; and souls were secondary.  The Vatican lost out to Henry, but not without a fight.

Much earlier in the times of Henry II, Thomas Beckett challenged the king on the same issue of church sovereignty – church property, territory, and religious authority were inviolable, argued Beckett; and that no civil authority could supersede the Church.

Political and religious history of the Catholic popes are indistinguishable.  The Church, like any other large and powerful institution wants above all to preserve, protect, and expand its empire.  Pope Pius XII was doing just that when he participated in the debates about Nazism, Communism, and the Jews.  Theology and empire coincided with, as these newly opened archives confirm, an accommodation of Hitler.  The ineluctable conclusion, regardless of its cynicism, is reflective of a world of power, influence, and authority. A world led by the Nazis would be one without Jews and without Communists.

A generation later, bishops from across the world assembled in Rome for the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), and drew lessons that had eluded the men of the Roman Curia thirty years earlier. It was wrong to imagine the world as divided between the good of the church and the evil outside it. “Many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside its visible structure.” And contrary to the memorandum of Cardinal Merry Del Val, a special blessing rested upon the Jewish people.

The words of an Episcopalian council cannot be contravened even by the Pope, but the current Pope Benedict XVI has tried.

In 2008, Benedict resuscitated a Good Friday prayer [a prayer for “perfidious Jews], and last year he raised the cause of canonizing Pius XII to a higher stage.

This all should be an eye-opener for those who believe that the Catholic Church is not political.  For centuries it has used its power and influence to do exactly what the kings of Europe did – expand, consolidate power and enrich themselves; and it still is trying.  Although the Catholic Church is expanding its reach into Africa and Latin America, it is hemorrhaging congregants in the US and Europe.  To retain whatever influence and credibility it has, it has made unholy alliances with Protestant fundamentalists (heretofore unheard of) to promote a ‘values’ agenda, and has been unceasing in its fight against abortion, gay rights, and contraception.  Yes, these issues relate to Catholic teaching and Biblical reference, but make not doubt, the real reason is political.