Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat is the point of moral authority if you are afraid to speak out? And who was the Pope protecting by saying nothing - the millions who were gassed regardless, or his own position? I think the Pope lost any claim to moral authority during the war - and a decsion to speak out against genocide does not need the wisdom of hindsight.
Why do those who do not accept the moral authority of the Roman Catholic Pope demand from him he should have used the same moral authority publically against organised criminals the world had never seen before ? Do they really think t ...[text shortened]... ver, clearly was, is and will be an enemy of the Nazi-ideology.
As for excusing the Pope by saying he would be ineffectual - the Pope was the spirtual leader of millions of people, including Nazis and ordjinary citizens. Many people were involved in the holocaust - including those who informed, those who made lists, those who arested and right through to the ones who threw in the gas and dragged out bodies. Even if only a few refused out of principle, or even worked less diliently, lives would have been saved.
It wasn't me who raised this thread or brought up the issue of active collaboration of the Church with the Nazis. I understand it is a fairly sensitive issue but I felt I could not stand by while the discussion presented what I see as rather unbalanced view of church involvement.
Now I will take all this back - as soon as I read a statement by Pius XII condemning racial murder and genocide by the Nazis.
Originally posted by steerpike
What is the point of moral authority if you are afraid to speak out? And who was the Pope protecting by saying nothing - the millions who were gassed regardless, or his own position? I think the Pope lost any claim to moral authority during the war - and a decsion to speak out against genocide does not need the wisdom of hindsight.
As for excusing the ...[text shortened]... - as soon as I read a statement by Pius XII condemning racial murder and genocide by the Nazis.
Steerpike: " Even if only a few refused out of principle, or even worked less diliently, lives would have been saved."
Do you have any knowledge at all about the resistance against Hitler ?
Have you any idea how many German political opponents were killed by the Nazis before they started the war ?
Have you read every post in this thread ?
Have you read the encyclical "Mit Brennender Sorge" ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeI must say my German is prety poor - so I skipped that bit, And the encyclical of 1937 (nveer posted ) was pretty dull reading. Here is an example:
Steerpike: " Even if only a few refused out of principle, or even worked less diliently, lives would have been saved."
Do you have any knowledge at all about the resistance against Hitler ?
Have you any idea how many German politic ...[text shortened]... read ?
Have you read the encyclical "Mit Brennender Sorge" ?
If, then, the tree of peace, which we planted on German soil with the purest intention, has not brought forth the fruit, which in the interest of your people, We had fondly hoped, no one in the world who has eyes to see and ears to hear will be able to lay the blame on the Church and on her Head.
A fair bit of rhetoric, you would agree?They were pretty concerned about a campaign against the confessional school in the 1937 Mit Brennender Sorge - but I must have missed the bit about it not being a good idea to kill every Jew in Europe when I was skimming through. Perhpas that was in Mit Brennender Sorge II?
Even those who spoke out against Nazi views were often tolerated. Clemens August Graf von Galen,as quoted in the first post, was never arrested and remained as a Bishop - even after he made his speech. Others involved in the holocaust asked to be transferred - and as the book "Hitler's Willing Executioners" makes clear, policeman who were killing Jews in occupied Russia and Poland were transferred out on their own request to other duties and were not punished.
So the excuse of cowardice for silence is pretty threadbare.
Originally posted by steerpikeYou picked a quote from the very beginning of the encyclical.
I must say my German is prety poor - so I skipped that bit, And the encyclical of 1937 (nveer posted ) was pretty dull reading. Here is an example:
[i]If, then, the tree of peace, which we planted on German soil with the purest intenti ...[text shortened]... .
So the excuse of cowardice for silence is pretty threadbare.
Indeed, the encyclical also adresses the breaking of the agreements in the concordat, the treaty, between the Holy See and the Reich. If you read further you will find passages which refer to the Nazi ideology and how the Church strongly rejects this.
I can assure you if the Pope clearly spoke out publically as you would wish he had and the consequenses would have been an intensifying of the persecution of the Jews, which undoubtedly would have been the case looking at the Nazis's reactions to criticisms of the Churche's lower echelons, you would be one of the first to criticise the Church for being so incredibly stupid.
However he did raise his voice :
"The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas....
He is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all."
- Editorial, The New York Times, Dec. 25, 1941
I searched for and could not find any reference to the murder of jews and other racial groups in the 1937 enclical. And I am still waiting for you to find even a single comment made about it by the Leader of the Catholic Church.
And I would not have criticised anyone who raised their voice. Many countries - including mine - raised not only their voices but took up arms against the Nazis in 1939. That may have increased persecution in the short term, but only the liberation of Europe stopped it.
Perhaps I am too harsh on the Church- what do others think?
Here is what Encarta says :http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761559508/Holocaust.html
When the Nazis took power in Germany, the German Catholic bishops believed that Hitler would protect Europe’s Christian civilization from Bolshevism. As a result, they accommodated the Nazi regime, supporting its nationalistic foreign policy. Despite their opposition to Hitler’s racial doctrine, Catholic and other Christian church leaders failed to take a public stand against his anti-Semitic policies. The major Christian churches gave pastoral care to Jewish converts to Christianity who were persecuted by the Nazis, but they failed to react when the Nazis introduced racial legislation, instigated physical attacks on Jews, or began the deportation and extermination of Jews.
The attitude of the top leadership of the Roman Catholic Church under Pope Pius XII largely paralleled that of the German Catholic bishops. The pope never criticized the persecution of the Jews in an encyclical, nor did he ever threaten to excommunicate Hitler, nominally a Catholic, or other Catholics involved in the Holocaust. Moreover, although the pope and his advisers were fully informed about the extermination of the Jews during World War II, they refused to condemn it on the grounds that Vatican City, the tiny independent state under the authority of the pope, had to maintain strict neutrality in international affairs.
Originally posted by steerpikeJust a point to note about the author of the Encarta article - Prof. David Bankier. Based on some poking around on the Internet, it's not difficult to see that Prof. Bankier's opinions on the Pope are less than charitable:
I searched for and could not find any reference to the murder of jews and other racial groups in the 1937 enclical. And I am still waiting for you to find even a single comment made about it by the Leader of the Catholic Church.
And I ...[text shortened]... ad to maintain strict neutrality in international affairs.
[/i]
http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%203642.pdf
"The Church behaved as a political institution. ... When it came to the "Jewish question," ... the church knew very well it would have no support on that point, and that is why it did not protest. Here the church acted as politicians, not as theologians ... I do not believe that Pope Pius XII was a fanatic antisemite of this sort; he was simply a coward."
Given such strong views about the Church and the Pope, it's not difficult to see why the Encarta article would make no mention of Mit Brennender Sorge or the (potentially) extenuating circumstances the Pope found himself in. With 20/20 hindsight vision, one can always argue that the Pope did not do "enough", but one would be well placed to at least check both sides of the argument before rushing to a conclusion.
EDIT: Not to mention that, for an academic, his language about the Church is surprisingly emotive.
Originally posted by lucifershammerHere are the strictly factual statements made by Prof. David Bankier.
Just a point to note about the author of the Encarta article - Prof. David Bankier. Based on some poking around on the Internet, it's not difficult to see that Prof. Bankier's opinions on the Pope are less than charitable:
http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%203642.pdf
[b]"The Church behaved as a political institution. ... ...[text shortened]... IT: Not to mention that, for an academic, his language about the Church is surprisingly emotive.
"The pope never criticized the persecution of the Jews in an encyclical, nor did he ever threaten to excommunicate Hitler, nominally a Catholic, or other Catholics involved in the Holocaust. Moreover, although the pope and his advisers were fully informed about the extermination of the Jews during World War II, they refused to condemn it"
Now given these facts - and no-one has so far disputed them - I think Prof. David Bankier is justified in having an uncharitable view of Pope Pius XII.
As for Mit Brennender Sorge - it was published in March 1937. Over the next eight years whole communities were exterminated -without a single word of protest. In Catholic Poland, three million Jews were murdered - and the Pope said nothing. A coward is a charitable interpretation of his actions.
Originally posted by steerpikeWe can go around this in circles - the evidence strongly suggests that the Pope's motivation for not "publishing an encyclical" about the Holocaust was to prevent harm (to the Jews themselves!) and to avoid attention being drawn to Church institutions that were actively involved in saving Jews. After all, we aren't talking about a person who refused to condemn Nazi racism when he wasn't Pope!
Here are the strictly factual statements made by Prof. David Bankier.
"The pope never criticized the persecution of the Jews in an encyclical, nor did he ever threaten to excommunicate Hitler, nominally a Catholic, or other Catholics involved in the Holocaust. Moreover, although the pope and his advisers were fully informed about the extermination of t ...[text shortened]... re murdered - and the Pope said nothing. A coward is a charitable interpretation of his actions.
This reminds me of the situation Jose Mourinho finds himself in at the moment. When you're in a public position and your statements can have potentially disastrous consequences, sometimes the best thing to do is to remain silent.
If you're going to condemn the absence of a public statement, why don't you pick on the ICRC and the World Council of Churches as well? Come to think of it, why don't you pick on the US Govt (that stayed clear till Pearl Harbour) as well?
Originally posted by lucifershammerPresumably, he is not picking on the World Council of Churches because it wasn't formed until three years after WW2 ended.
If you're going to condemn the absence of a public statement, why don't you pick on the ICRC and the World Council of Churches as well? Come to think of it, why don't you pick on the US Govt (that stayed clear till Pearl Harbour) as well?
Presumably, he is not picking on either the ICRC or the US Gov't because these organizations are not churches, and this thread is devoted to the question of whether "the church" was silent concerning the Holocaust.
Originally posted by bbarr
Presumably, he is not picking on the World Council of Churches because it wasn't formed until three years after WW2 ended.
Officially, yes. Unofficially, the WCC was in existence since 1937-38.
Presumably, he is not picking on either the ICRC or the US Gov't because these organizations are not churches, and this thread is devoted to the question of whether "the church" was silent concerning the Holocaust.
Very well, let's start another thread on this and see what he has to say.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes, we are going around in circles. When the Pope criticised the Nazis in 1937, you say the Roman Catholic church was doing the right thing. When a Bishop criticised Nazi actions against the disabled, you say the Roman Catholic church was doing the right thing. And when the Pope said nothing while in Catholic Poland three million jews were slaughtered, you say the Roman Catholic church was doing the right thing. When he refused to deal with Church members actively involved in killing millions of defenceless civilains, you say the Roman Catholic church was doing the right thing
We can go around this in circles - the evidence strongly suggests that the Pope's motivation for not "publishing an encyclical" about the Holocaust was to prevent harm (to the Jews themselves!) and to avoid attention being drawn t ...[text shortened]... ick on the US Govt (that stayed clear till Pearl Harbour) as well?
Now I have yet to see this evidence which strongly suggests that the Pope's motivation for not "publishing an encyclical" about the Holocaust was to prevent harm to the Jews. In the Nazi occupied East, the only jews to survive fled, or were worked as slaves to near death before liberation. Exactly which Jews was Pius XII preventing from harm?
I make no apology for discussing the Catholic Church. From the first line in this thread:
"A lot of people assume "The Church", and they are usually referring to the Roman Catholic Church, was alltogether silent about what happened in the Third Reich." It was not me that first lifted this stone on this part of church history.
Originally posted by steerpike
When the Pope criticised the Nazis in 1937, you say the Roman Catholic church was doing the right thing.
Yes.
When a Bishop criticised Nazi actions against the disabled, you say the Roman Catholic church was doing the right thing.
Not necessarily. This point was raised to illustrate the fact that the Church was not completely silent about Nazi atrocities. As with the case of the Dutch bishops, it's not clear whether this action did more harm than good. However, we can certainly infer that the Bishop in question would not have been so outspoken if he suspected his actions might have that effect.
And when the Pope said nothing while in Catholic Poland three million jews were slaughtered, you say the Roman Catholic church was doing the right thing.
Even with the 20/20 hindsight we now possess, it is extremely difficult for us to say we wouldn't have done the same had we been in Pius XII's shoes. Whether it was absolutely the best course of action, we'll never know. All we know are the political climate at the time when he had to make this decision and the fact that he was not averse to helping Jews in any way he could - before and after he was elected Pope. I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you don't.
Oh, and while we're on the topic of Poland:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html
The Pope did speak generally against the extermination campaign. On January 18, 1940, after the death toll of Polish civilians was estimated at 15,000, the Pope said in a broadcast, "The horror and inexcusable excesses committed on a helpless and a homeless people have been established by the unimpeachable testimony of eye-witnesses."(14) During his Christmas Eve radio broadcast in 1942, he referred to the "hundreds of thousands who through no fault of their own, and solely because of their nation or race, have been condemned to death or progressive extinction."
When he refused to deal with Church members actively involved in killing millions of defenceless civilains, you say the Roman Catholic church was doing the right thing.
Same reasoning as above.
Now I have yet to see this evidence which strongly suggests that the Pope's motivation for not "publishing an encyclical" about the Holocaust was to prevent harm to the Jews. In the Nazi occupied East, the only jews to survive fled, or were worked as slaves to near death before liberation. Exactly which Jews was Pius XII preventing from harm?
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html
The Pope did act behind the scenes on occasion. During the German occupation of Hungary in March 1944, he, along with the papal nuncio in Budapest, Angelo Rotta, advised the Hungarian government to be moderate in its plans concerning the treatment of the Jews. Pius XII protested against the deportation of Jews and, when his protests were not heeded, he cabled again and again.(23) The Pope's demands, combined with similar protests from the King of Sweden, the International Red Cross, Britain and the United States contributed to the decision by the Hungarian regent, Admiral Miklos Horthy, to cease deportations on July 8, 1944.(24)
In the later stages of the war, Pius XII appealed to several Latin American governments to accept “emergency passports” that several thousand Jews had succeeded in obtaining. Due to the efforts of the Pope and the U.S. State Department, 13 Latin American countries decided to honor these documents, despite threats from the Germans to deport the passport holders.(25)
The Church also answered a request to save 6,000 Jewish children in Bulgaria by helping to transfer them to Palestine.
Note - this from an essay which, like you, felt the Pope did not do enough. Other essays on the same site indicate that the Pope's intervention may have saved upwards of 800,000 lives.
I make no apology for discussing the Catholic Church. From the first line in this thread:
"A lot of people assume "The Church", and they are usually referring to the Roman Catholic Church, was alltogether silent about what happened in the Third Reich." It was not me that first lifted this stone on this part of church history.
You asked, "Perhaps I am too harsh on the Church- what do others think?"
The only way to answer that is to see if you apply the same standards in judging the Church to judging the actions of other humanitarian bodies that took similar positions - such as the ICRC and the WCC. If your standards for the RCC are more stringent for the others then, yes, you are being too harsh on the Church.
EDIT: If you are truly interested in seeing both sides of the coin, then please read the articles at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/piusdtoc.html