COMMENTARY: Pope Pius and Hitler

c. 1999 Religion News Service (Andrew M. Greeley is a Roman Catholic priest, best-selling novelist and sociologist at the University of Chicago National Opinion Research Center. Check out his home page at http://www.agreeley.com or contact him via e-mail at agreeaol.com) UNDATED _ The critics of Pope Pius XII and his defenders often seem to talk […]

c. 1999 Religion News Service

(Andrew M. Greeley is a Roman Catholic priest, best-selling novelist and sociologist at the University of Chicago National Opinion Research Center. Check out his home page at http://www.agreeley.com or contact him via e-mail at agreeaol.com)

UNDATED _ The critics of Pope Pius XII and his defenders often seem to talk past one another.


The critics argue that the Holocaust was perhaps the greatest moral evil of human history and that the most important religious leader in the world ought not to have remained silent.

The defenders say that the Pope was afraid to denounce Hitler because a denunciation would have lead to even more Jewish and Christian deaths. They point out that the church was responsible for saving tens of thousands of Jews, that the pope followed the Vatican practice of favoring quiet diplomacy instead of public denunciations, and that he did not even condemn the murder of millions of Poles because he feared more deaths.

They might add that the pope was not a personal coward. His involvement with the failed November 1939 plot to overthrow Hitler led by Gen. Ludwick von Beck demonstrated his courage.

They argue then that the pope followed his conscience and made very difficult decisions in good faith and with good will during very bad times.

Let us acknowledge that everything the defenders say is true. Let us assert that he was not a monster, that he did what he thought was right and that he made his decisions only after long and tormented agonizing.

Let us admit that there was nothing in his background, training, spirituality, personality or vision of the papacy that would have inclined him to strong public action (however much private bravery he displayed in the von Beck affair). Let us even grant that the present form of papal elections does not often put strong men on the Chair of the Fisherman.

Having said all these things, can we not argue that we want to absolve Pius of personal guilt and leave decisions on that matter to God who alone discerns human hearts?


Does such a defense put to route his critics? It seems to me that it is most unrealistic to expect that it would. The more responsible critics may well be prepared to concede all these points to the defenders. They may admit that he acted in good faith. They might even be willing to leave final judgments to heaven.

However, they will insist that the defenders have not really responded to them.

It seems to me that they have not. The critics are perfectly right to demand that the most important religious and moral leader in the world speak out against overwhelming immorality. Whatever his good intentions, Pope Pius did not do so.

In the objective order this was a terrible failure.

It is not the first failure in the history of the papacy and it probably won’t be the last, though one hopes that in the future will mistakes will not be so monumentally tragic.

I suspect that in their heart of hearts many of Pope Pius’s defenders would feel better about the whole era if he had at least said something. The credibility of the Roman Catholic Church even today still suffers because of that failure.

Could the pope have stopped the Holocaust? Only those utterly ignorant of Nazi fanaticism could possibly believe that a papal condemnation would have made the slightest difference.

Yet should he have condemned it just the same? How could he not have?

In the absence of his strong public condemnation, do not the very stones speak out against his failure? What is the point in having a papacy unless the man who sits on the Chair of the Fisherman cries out in rage when evil stalks a continent?


In all good conscience, in the belief that he was doing the right thing, Pope Pius failed. How can we deny that?

Many Catholics are too eager to defend popes against every charge of mistake or failure. Owen Chadwick, the Anglican historian, has written that there have been no bad popes since 1700. He quickly adds, however, that it does not follow that all popes since then have been able or wise.

We would do much better to admit the mistakes and the failures, even the horrendous ones, and then ask ourselves how and why they happened. The only way any person or human institution diminishes its future mistakes is to learn from its past mistakes.

It would appear that some people in the Vatican are determined that Pius should be beatified; that they are willing, so to speak, to shove beatification down the throats of protesting Jews. I think that would be another terrible mistake.

IR END GREELEY

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!