The decision of Pope Benedict XVI signed the decree of heroic virtues of two of his predecessors, Pius XII and John Paul II last December 19, unleashed known as a wave of comments (most critical and adverse) as regards the cause of beatification of Eugenio Pacelli, that this papal act, it was unlocked after more than two years of waiting since the unanimous favorable opinion of the commission of cardinals and bishops of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. The weekly France Catholique published on 24 and 26 December, an analysis of the issue that we think the best thing that has been written in a long time in the field. The author is a journalist and essayist Gérard Leclerc (Hirson, 1942), newspaper columnist (photo) , who kindly allowed us to translate your article to the blog of SIPA, for which we are grateful. The silence of Pius XII
By: Gérard Leclerc
Saturday, December 19: Surprise! Benedict XVI gave his approval at the same time to the process of beatification of Pope John Paul II and Pius XII. The adoption of the decree of heroic virtues of the former was expected and scheduled. The second was unexpected and raised the question asked by many about the reasons that led the pope to rush things with regard to his predecessor during the Second World War despite the huge lawsuit triggered suspicions from almost fifty years ago against him. On this I have my own hypothesis, which is quite simple. No reason to delay the decision on a process where the findings of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints are positive and have been unanimously approved by the relevant committee of cardinals and bishops. If not, should then be set aside permanently because of Eugenio Pacelli as incompatible with the current of public opinion and the veto imposed by the media. I reply that the real problem concerns the international Jewish community and relations between the Catholic Church and Judaism.
If indeed this were the case, I am of the opinion that a suspension would be the worst solution and that the Jewish-Christian dialogue would gain nothing at all a lamentable submission to an external imposition. Otherwise, it should be explained clearly that there are serious reasons to oppose beatification and that are of a completely alien to political expediency or media. So I hope strongly that it would tell me what these serious reasons, or "the decisive reason." As far as I'm concerned and after consideration of a "case" that lasts almost half a century, I do not see it. It all started with the play The Deputy, which premiered in 1963. The author, Rolf Hochhuth, puts on Pope Pius XII with the aim of shedding light on their intentions and their reactions to the tragedy of the extermination of the Jews. The least that It can be said is that Hochhuth has in mind a thesis that seeks to impose the viewer of the work and who is revealed as a process and a blatant totalitarian historic assembly.
If indeed this were the case, I am of the opinion that a suspension would be the worst solution and that the Jewish-Christian dialogue would gain nothing at all a lamentable submission to an external imposition. Otherwise, it should be explained clearly that there are serious reasons to oppose beatification and that are of a completely alien to political expediency or media. So I hope strongly that it would tell me what these serious reasons, or "the decisive reason." As far as I'm concerned and after consideration of a "case" that lasts almost half a century, I do not see it. It all started with the play The Deputy, which premiered in 1963. The author, Rolf Hochhuth, puts on Pope Pius XII with the aim of shedding light on their intentions and their reactions to the tragedy of the extermination of the Jews. The least that It can be said is that Hochhuth has in mind a thesis that seeks to impose the viewer of the work and who is revealed as a process and a blatant totalitarian historic assembly.
cares? Since 1963 this thesis is generally accepted as not only plausible, but as well as to the reality of events. What is already in itself is an object of reflection and bewilderment. Hochhuth has not only been taken seriously, but logged in as the most impartial interpreters of the attitude of Pius XII during the war. Without any critical distance most of the time. Certainly, a superabundant literature would emerge the controversy of The Vicar (photo poster) , but often founded on the same assumptions, the same ghosts and the absence of any serious historical examination. is for this reason that Pope Paul VI, who was the direct collaborator of Pius XII with the Secretariat of State, angered by the process launched against his predecessor, decided, without delay, to break the clause prohibiting the publication of war files before the deadline. Four Jesuit historians were put to the task, including P. Pierre Blet, that when he died on November 29 last, was the last survivor of the group. I was able to talk at length with him, that was really the most wise and full of historians. Refuted all allegations of genet which claimed that the Vatican was holding essential pieces uncomfortable for Pius XII. Everything had been carefully published (with respect to the Secretary of State) in the 12 volumes published by the Holy See between 1965 and 1982.
understand, of course, the impatience of researchers who would like to access the material parts of the files, but should not be under any illusions. Unpublished and not expect to find anything. Is somewhat surprising that many are bent on cultivating the myth of hidden files whose disclosure would at last light on a past ignored. Pure mythology! But it's all emotional nature from the origin of matter. It is as if the record itself, with its many pieces together, was secondary. I was stunned by the lightness of my esteemed colleagues, even one sentence in a newspaper editorial cartoonist reference. It is clear they do not know almost nothing about the facts and does not seem to want to know more.
For example, important for the rest, as they try to understand what happened in Rome itself from the time when it was found that all the city's Jewish community which was in danger. A first convoy, it is true unfortunately left Rome toward the worst destinations. Is criticized Pius XII had not intervened to stop the convoy. But he could not help protesting a posteriori, because, although it was soon realized, was already accomplished fact. What is certain is that the Pope immediately intervened to rescue the entire Jewish community. Several thousand Jews would be welcomed in religious houses (especially contemplative, whose closure will be lifted for this purpose) and in the same Vatican territory in Castel Gandolfo, and even in the Apostolic Palace, close to the pope himself. Here we have counted four hundred and fifty refugees, even in the corridors of the palace, among whom was the chief rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli.
After the war, Israel Zolli (photo) will baptize with the name of Eugenio Maria Zolli. Eugenio, Eugenio Pacelli, who about that former Chief Rabbi should write: "The glittering charity of the Pope, bent over all the misery engendered by the war, his kindness to my fellow Jews were harassed for me as the hurricane swept me my scruples Catholic ". But his decision was of a strictly personal and intimate. Zolli was not converted out of gratitude to Pius XII, but his own spiritual journey led him to recognize Christ the heir of the promises and the figure of the Suffering Servant.
According to his daughter, Zolli had prophesied the role of scapegoat that would make Pius XII carrier. How could such evidence be ignored today? It is true that time passes and the data in mass memory were the postwar Roman have been blurred. Cardinal Paul Poupard, who is now one of the relays of that memory to have known well to people who lived through those times, remember that in Rome, at the time of Nazi occupation, many complained that Pius XII was doing too much Jews, to the point of endangering the Catholic community. Why
Why, then, this desire for revenge against the father of the war? Psychoanalytic grounds must exist in this violence constantly fed about the only great personality of the time that specifically objected to the persecution and came to the aid of the Jewish people. The unprecedented nature of the misfortune of an entire people is unbearable and it seems enough to leave on Hitler and his gang of criminals all the responsibility. Pius XII is a scapegoat provided to the enormity of evil, given the high position he lay on his back. Hochhuth it is washing his hands of the slaughter that was to occur, marking him forever with the shame of the most overwhelming of faults. Since that day, Pacelli is inscribed in the collective consciousness as the ultimate culprit, marked by the hot iron of shame. It is extremely difficult to fight a similar representation, which has crept into the depths of the collective imagination. The historical refutations seem tragically inadequate to clear the archetypal idea.
And yet, all that is exposed by way of accusation is false. I leave aside, temporarily, the issue of "silence", which is specific and deserves particular attention.
According to his daughter, Zolli had prophesied the role of scapegoat that would make Pius XII carrier. How could such evidence be ignored today? It is true that time passes and the data in mass memory were the postwar Roman have been blurred. Cardinal Paul Poupard, who is now one of the relays of that memory to have known well to people who lived through those times, remember that in Rome, at the time of Nazi occupation, many complained that Pius XII was doing too much Jews, to the point of endangering the Catholic community. Why
Why, then, this desire for revenge against the father of the war? Psychoanalytic grounds must exist in this violence constantly fed about the only great personality of the time that specifically objected to the persecution and came to the aid of the Jewish people. The unprecedented nature of the misfortune of an entire people is unbearable and it seems enough to leave on Hitler and his gang of criminals all the responsibility. Pius XII is a scapegoat provided to the enormity of evil, given the high position he lay on his back. Hochhuth it is washing his hands of the slaughter that was to occur, marking him forever with the shame of the most overwhelming of faults. Since that day, Pacelli is inscribed in the collective consciousness as the ultimate culprit, marked by the hot iron of shame. It is extremely difficult to fight a similar representation, which has crept into the depths of the collective imagination. The historical refutations seem tragically inadequate to clear the archetypal idea.
And yet, all that is exposed by way of accusation is false. I leave aside, temporarily, the issue of "silence", which is specific and deserves particular attention.
1) Is it necessary to dwell on the assumption contrast between the intransigence of Pius XI (man who has maintained the image of the inflexibility) against Nazism and the alleged leniency of his successor? Both men had very different characters, which could determine different behaviors. But to infer a substantive difference on the assessment of Nazism does not hold, especially since there is not even an opposition of observable behaviors. The Pope and his Secretary of State walked always with the same step in dealing with the affairs of Germany and had the same aversion to Nazism. Do I need to remember that Pacelli was the chief editor of the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge? 2) The Eugenio Pacelli opponents claim that their attachment to German culture and explain its solidarity with a country that never wanted to be adversary. Specious and even false statement in all respects. Pacelli never had the slightest leniency towards Hitler, the Nazi party and its policies. And if it was united, by definition, of German Catholics and their bishops, was always close to the toughest and most intractable about Nazism. His closest friends among the German bishops were the hardest, as Bishop von Preysing, Archbishop of Berlin, and Bishop von Galen, the "Lion of Munster", some of whose speeches memorized Pope, such was their attachment and admiration for its author.
On the other hand, Pius XII was aware that the diabolical wickedness of Hitler led him to encourage the German resistance, civil and military, who had been planning a coup in early 1940 and wanted to negotiate with British. The Pope made twice as intermediary between the resistance movement and the war cabinet in London. It was the attack of the Wehrmacht on 10 May in the West that put an end to the agreed plan (cf. Xavier Monclar: Les Chrétiens et face au au Stalinism Nazism, Plon 1983).
3) Many times it has repeated the accusation that Pius XII obsessed with the Communist threat, it would have minimized the Nazi threat to the point of preferring the victory of Hitler to Stalin. While it is true that he did not underestimate the danger Stalinist (and had good reason for it), the pope never thought that Nazism was a lesser evil than Communism. No serious evidence has ever been able to present in support of such criticism. What is more, Pius XII opposed the condemnation of communism in the encyclical Divini Redemptoris serve legitimate argument against U.S. aid to the Soviet Union. Monclar says: "Pope informed the representative of President Roosevelt, Myron Taylor, that communism had been convicted and that conviction remained in force, but had not or could never warm shelter but fatherly feelings toward the Russian people ".
Is it appropriate at this point to revisit the issue of the "famous" encyclical against anti-Semitism, prepared under Pius XI and Pius XII is not published? I wonder if those who accused the Pope Pacelli's guilt had not taken up that text as their own that have actually read. I have serious doubts. I learned about the "encyclical" or rather the working paper in question since it was published in book form ( L'encyclique cachée de Pie XI, ed. La Découverte, 1994). Things became clear to me. Despite their good intentions, the unity of mankind to return to a number of reasons the old Christian anti-Judaism and justified even emergency legislation regarding the Jews in Western countries. Not quite the tone and, above all, the content of Nostra Aetate , the Vatican II declaration on relations between the Church and non-Christian religions, which operated a correction theological purpose of Judaism. The mentality of the American Jesuit John La Farge, whom Pius XI had commissioned a draft text against racism, was far from the conciliar doctrine. I should add that the editorial revelation of this project was accompanied and botched maneuvers designed to take over in the offensive against the memory of Pius XII.
Did Hochhuth-Hudal connection? Anyway, there is the enigma Hochhuth. Why his piece The Vicar marks a turning point that comes to change up and down the hitherto positive image of Pope Pius XII against Nazism? It would take one day a true historian rush the issue. Who inspired this young novice? Who provided the documents and told him lines of charge? I have no desire to fantasize about the role of the Soviet secret services, without prejudice to the controversy after many years, fueled by the confession of a former member of Romanian Mihai Pacepa Yon. This testimony was strongly disputed by experts, despite the disturbing elements involved. Serious historians I have consulted are, however, accord with the view that the role of the Soviets in the smear campaign against Pacelli is constant since the end of the war and explains the front of the Vatican opposed religious persecution in the communist world. What I know is that Bishop Alois Hudal, personaje turbio, sostenedor comprobado del régimen nacionalsocialista, se habría vengado de Pío XII por haberlo dejado de lado, inspirando directamente El Vicario. Decididamente ahí hay un libro para escribir.
4) Más de una vez me ha sorprendido que no se piense en recordar el papel heroico de Monseñor Angelo Rotta (foto) , nuncio apostólico en Budapest durante la guerra. Sin embargo, los medios de comunicación evocan regularmente –y a justo título– la extraordinaria figura de Raoul Wallenberg, hombre de negocios sueco misteriosamente desaparecido después de haber sido raptado por los soviéticos en enero de 1945. I remember a TV series in which he recalled significantly extraordinary company to save the Hungarian Jews. In the film does not cease to be associated with Monsignor Rotta, who never stopped working with him side by side, with the same purpose. But the nuncio of Pope Pius XII also exerted its mission independently, distributing thousands of certificates of baptism. Moreover, he was recognized as "Righteous Among the Nations" at Yad Vashem memorial. It is said that he stood between victims and executioners at the station in Budapest to prevent the departure of a train to the extermination camps. In the end, managed to extract a hundred people who Vatican had given passports. There were other representatives of Pius XII played a similar role in other countries: Monsignor Giuseppe Burzio in Slovakia, Monsignor Andrea Cassulo in Romania, Monsignor Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli in Turkey, Marcone priest in Slovakia. Both sides acted according to the instructions of the Pope and the Secretary of State, speaking before the governors to become the interpreters of the protests of the Church.
regard to the facts, here, then, at least some elements. But back to the question of silence, which is itself a separate chapter of criticism. I admit it more so by the fact that it is a particular order with respect to the personal conscience of a man placed in an exceptionally dramatic and not responding to its findings, but to God. In three centuries and more is always on the right to ask whether the decisions of the Pope of the Second World War were well founded. He said openly, in front of the Roman cardinals on June 2, 1943, why could not speak more clearly against the killing (which was, however, reported in his Christmas message, 1942). His obsession was not to aggravate the plight of the persecuted and not cause other persecutions against Catholics. I see that the Judeo-Christian friends also pitch in his silence face the pope by highlighting their mission "to enlighten the Christian people through his teachings, regardless of the circumstances, on behalf of the demands of the Word of God which is the first interpreter according to Catholic tradition ".
Pius XII also had to keep silent about the persecution against Catholics in the Wartheland (Poland)
confess that while I am sympathetic to the argument and I am perplexed by the specific case. As if it could fit any doubt as to the moral condemnation of the killing! The dilemma of Pius XII must restore them to the drama of a melee with the exterminator would have meant even more victims. This was true not only for the Jews. Pius XII was faced with an identical case of conscience when Poland was invaded and divided between Hitler and Stalin in 1939. Wartheland experience (pictured above) , a territory of 46,000 km2, was terrible. In the words of Xavier Monclar, "Hitler dropped his pack there" and that led to a terrible persecution of the Catholic Church. However, in this particular case Pius XII "was so prudent and reserved as in the Jewish genocide" .
However, at first, Radio Vatican had reacted strongly. But facing the prospect of retaliation, Pius XII gave to the public outcry: "We should strike down fiery words against this, the only reason that holds us to do is know that if we talked, the unhappy fate of the poor would become even more difficult ". Once again it may be a different opinion. But you can not ignore the reasons which prevented the Pope thunder words of fire. There remains always should distinguish between the file that is exclusively for the historians and corresponding to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, not necessarily because the same criteria.
However, at first, Radio Vatican had reacted strongly. But facing the prospect of retaliation, Pius XII gave to the public outcry: "We should strike down fiery words against this, the only reason that holds us to do is know that if we talked, the unhappy fate of the poor would become even more difficult ". Once again it may be a different opinion. But you can not ignore the reasons which prevented the Pope thunder words of fire. There remains always should distinguish between the file that is exclusively for the historians and corresponding to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, not necessarily because the same criteria.
For quite some time there is a complaint about the Vatican archives. I have evoked my telephone conversations with the Father Blet (photo) on this issue. I said: "We have published everything except the parts that were not interested or were redundant for others. Of course, it is always possible that a box is lost in some attic or a basement, but it will not add much to what we already know ". The 12 volumes published, the fruit of the four Jesuits appointed by Paul VI, do not represent all of the files of the Holy See concerning the Second World War. Are exclusively for the Secretary of State. It is, therefore, the most significant pieces of "politics" observed by the Pope and his direct collaborators. Files are still missing from all other Congregations, which undoubtedly have an interest, but do not have the degree of accurate, given the central government organization of the Holy See. Moreover, the rule in the Vatican is to publish all files a pontificate. Those that relate to the pontificate of Pius XII beyond the war period, reaching 1958. We're talking about 600,000 pieces. I think it's the same figure given by the head of the Vatican archives, which thus indicated the extent of the personal task of classifying the documents and is not large. The same official, moreover, has shot an arrow in the direction of historians and journalists, lamenting that the publication of the archives of Pius XI has attracted so few researchers. On one hand, energy demand with all the files, when it does, they are despised.
I have walked by a number of internet sites interested in the current dispute and found the worst and the best, the worst is expressed more often in a much more urgent as largely ignores the record. When the discussion is more serious, leaves one perplexed. Leo, for example, that the Father Blet be one of the few historians to defend Pius XII. But it does not specify that if our late compatriot felt so connected to the memory of the Pope of the war, had his good reasons for this, having had the privilege of working for years in parts of the dossier. What they have not made their opponents!
(Translation: RVR)
article in French: France Catholique .
0 comments:
Post a Comment