Pius XII: Good, Bad, Indifferent?

In the last two years, nine books have been published that either attack or defend Pope Pius XII's response to the Holocaust during World War II. An April 4, 2001, Center seminar, "Pius XII and the Jews," examined his complex and controversial tenure, as well as the interest it has recently generated.

Lining up squarely with Pius's defenders, Joseph Bottum of The Weekly Standard charged those who vilify him with a "massive failure" of understanding, both of the courageous man himself and of the perilous position of the Catholic Church during the Nazi era. to judge PIus fairly, Bottum argued, historians need to study not only his actions, but also "how they were perceived" at the time. Jews who lived through the period rightly recognized Pius as "one of the good guys," and better in many ways than Churchill, roosevelt, and other churchmen. Bottum also suggested that the current criticism of Pius is part of a larger, inter-Catholic debate, and represents a liberal offensive against church traditionalists.

Ronald Rychlak of the University of Mississippi, one historian Bottum actually praised for his new book Hitler, the War and the Pope, focused on "what Pius did not do." He did not "use the bully pulpit" to condemn Hitler explicitly, Rychlak said, because he believed such a statement would bring retaliation against Catholics, jeopardize rescue efforts of Jews, diminish what little leverage he had with the Nazis, lead to an invasion of the Vatican, and never be widely heard because of censorship. While most critics dismiss or denounce such such calculations, and give Pius little credit for the anti-Nazi stands he did take, they avoid a crucial question: "would a statement by the pope have diminish jewish suffering?" Rychlak concluded that it would not have, and that Pius XII's decision to use action instead of political posturing was indeed correct. All evidence shows that Pius--as well as most Jewish leaders, German religious leaders, the International Red Cross, and other resuce organizations at the time--thought that this "approach would best serve Jewish victims of the Nazis."

Marc Saperstein of George Washington University agreed that any reassessment of Pius XII should be done with fairness and respect, but he defended the legitimacy of the enterprise. While contemporary accounts and opinions are important, historians need not take them as "the final word." Recent interest in Pius is "part of a natural process of questioning and revision." Roosevelt's actions regarding the Jews have also come under new scrutiny. And with the passage of time, large issues can become clearer. Given what we now know about the Holocaust, Saperstein suggested, it is appropriate to ask how things could have been any worse for the Jews, and whether the Church may have committed "a sin of omission" by not mounting a more vigorous defense of the powerless. The Nazis were not impervious to German public opinion, and "a grand symbolic gesture" by Pius "might have done some good." No argument should ever be allowed to obscure the fact, however, that the Nazis were the villians.

The intense discussion that followed was moderated by Center vice president Michael Cromartie.