Skip to comments.Pius Attacked For Not Confronting Evil; Benedict Attacked For Confronting Evil (Hypocrisy Alert)
Posted on 09/26/2006 2:43:26 AM PDT by goldstategop
Among the most heated debates of the last 40 years has been the debate over Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust. What did he do when the greatest evil of his day engulfed Christian Europe? Was he "Hitler's Pope," as the name of a widely read book about him charged? Was he too reticent in speaking out against Nazism and the Nazi extermination of Europe's Jews? Was he perhaps even a Nazi sympathizer? Or was he in fact a great friend of Europe's Jews who did whatever he could to save tens of thousands of Jews, especially in Italy, opening up the doors of Church institutions to hide Jews?
It is not my aim here to offer an answer to that debate. But the attacks on Pope Benedict XVI may help shed new light on some of the motives for the attacks on Pius XII. It is true that we have always known that most, if not all, of Pius's critics were/are on the political/religious Left. But this no more discredited their critiques of Pius than the fact that the vast majority of Pius's defenders were on the political/religious Right discredited their defense.
But recently the critics have lost credibility. If the same people who attack Pope Pius XII for his silence regarding the greatest evil of his time are largely the same people who attack Pope Benedict XVI for confronting the greatest evil of his time, maybe it isn't a pope's confronting evil that concerns Pius's critics, but simply defaming the Church.
After all, has not Benedict done precisely what Pius's critics argue that Pius, and presumably any pope, should have done -- be a courageous moral voice and condemn the greatest evil and greatest manifestation of anti-Semitism of his time?
Take The New York Times editorial page, for example. It is written by people who condemn Pius for his alleged silence and now condemn Benedict for not being quiet. According to the Times, Benedict will only create more anti-Western Muslim violence. But that was exactly the excuse defenders of Pius XII so often offered for why Pius XII did not speak out more forcefully -- that he was afraid it would only engender more Nazi violence. Yet Pius's critics have (correctly) dismissed that excuse out of hand.
Another example is Karen Armstrong, the widely read ex-nun scholar of religion. She has written of Pius XII that his "apparent failure to condemn the Nazis has become a notorious scandal." Moral and logical consistency suggest that she would welcome a pope who did confront today's greatest evil. But she has joined those condemning Pope Benedict. She wrote (putting these arguments in the mouths of affronted Muslims with whom she sympathizes): "the Catholic Church is ill-placed to condemn violent jihad when it has itself . . . under Pope Pius XII, tacitly condoned the Nazi Holocaust."
The argument is so illogical that only those who attended graduate school or Catholicism-bashers could find it persuasive. First, how do you condemn the silence of one pope when confronted with the greatest evil of his time and condemn another pope when confronting the greatest evil of his time? Second, if indeed the Church is guilty of condoning evil in the past, why does that render it "hypocritical" (her term for Benedict's condemnation of Islamic violence in God's name) to confront evil in the present? If my grandfather was a murderer, am I a hypocrite for condemning murder?
And as expected, the author of the above-mentioned critique of Pius XII, "Hitler's Pope," John Cornwall, has also condemned Pope Benedict, describing the pope's words about Muhammad and Islamic violence as "incendiary" and "abrasive" (presumably calling Pius XII "Hitler's Pope" is neither incendiary nor abrasive); and writing disparagingly of Benedict "having said that dialogue with Islam was difficult."
The pope could have chosen a better way to warn about Islamic violence in God's name than by citing a Byzantine emperor's sweeping indictment of Muhammad and Islam. But he had the courage to do precisely what the critics of Pius XII bitterly complain Pius XII did not do -- use the power of religion and the prestige of the papacy to focus the world's attention on the greatest evil and greatest outburst of Jew-hatred since the Holocaust.
I have followed the arguments surrounding Pius XII and his behavior during the Holocaust all my life, and as a newly appointed member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, I particularly feel the need to attain clarity on this issue. But the condemnations of Pope Benedict by virtually every major critic of Pius XII lead me to wonder whether the critics really want popes to confront evil or just want popes to think like they do.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
That sums it up. They really want popes (and everybody else) to follow the liberal line, which nowadays is very pro-Islamic. The author makes a great point, contrasting the cases of Pius XII and BXVI.
Congrats to Dennis for seeing it.
A devastating defense of the Pope.
The general theme of this article occured to me some time ago, the big difference is that I can't write and the author can.
Nothing the Church ever does will please the left because they are generally godless and despise anything Christianity does.
Jewish liberals are in no position to criticize imPius XII because they were equally silent and it was their brothers blood they stood by.
Also the NYT covereed up the Holocaust becuse the owner Sulzbergerkapo was too busy touches leching his goyish machateinim.
Most such criticism is anticlericalism. Totaliarian leftists object to "the power of religion and the prestige of the papacy", because it is competition, and they want all power thmselves in states they control.
Dennis also mentioned the Historian Martin Gilbert CLEARING Pope Pius XII of being "Hitler's Pope"!! I WISH he would have mentioned this man in this article!!
"Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...
Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.
Time Magazine, 12/23/40
The charity and work of Pope Pius XII during World War II so impressed the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, that in 1944 he was open to the grace of God which led him into the Catholic faith. As his baptismal name, he took the same one Pius had, Eugenio, as his own. Later Israel Eugenio Zolli wrote a book entitled, Why I Became a Catholic.
"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... the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism... he left no doubt that the Nazi aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christian peace."
The New York Times editorial
12/25/41 (Late Day edition, p. 24)
"This Christmas more than ever he is a lonely voice crying out of the silence of a continent... Pope Pius expresses as passionately as any leader on our side the war aims of the struggle for freedom when he says that those who aim at building a new world must fight for free choice of government and religious order. They must refuse that the state should make of individuals a herd of whom the state disposes as if they were lifeless things."
The New York Times editorial
12/25/42 (Late Day edition, p. 16)
I think the Jewish people were angry at the Chief Rabbi of Rome for turning Catholic because he was sooooo grateful to the Pope for all he did for the Jewish people. Re-write of history.
Just HOW was an Italian Pope supposed to stop Hitler in Germany from exterminating Jews?? I don't get it. What did JEWS do in America or Germany to stop Hitler??
I have never read that letter of Einstein's before. Thanks.
Sunday I stood up in my Presbyterian Church at the time for Prayer Requests and asked for the Pope to be added to the Prayer Requests and asked God's protection for the Pope since his speaking out has endangered him and other Catholics.
Afterwards the minister and other members thanked me for mentioning it.
Fabulous. Good on you.
Thanks for the ping.
Non-catholic kudos to Pope Benedict -- he called a spade a spade and has my respect!
A month or so ago I gave a sermon (minister out of town) and laid out the whole murderous history of Islam using the occasion to attack the "leadership" of the Presbyterian Church. It was scathing and pulled no punches. When I finished there was dead silence so I did not think it well received. Later people came up to me and complimented me even asked for copies of my talk.
The only reason I remain in the denomination is strictly because of my local congregation since I consider the National leadership to be despicable traitors and apostates to boot.
Actually the libels against Pius XII didn't originate with Jews, but with disaffected Catholics and other left-wingers.
The Jews who were actually in a position to know the story personally (and some of those who weren't, like Rabbi Dalin) were generally very thankful and appreciative of the Pope's help.
That was not a heated debate, was an audacious smear of the facts by enemies of the Roman Catholic Church.
I thank you too.
Again, GOOD on you.
Ain't that the truth!?
You mean the rabbi that abandoned his community to the Nazis?
He belongs with you.
Wow...sounds like anti-Christianity there, bub.