Long-buried Vatican files reveal a new
and shocking indictment of World War
II's Pope Plus XII: that in pursuit of
absolute power he helped Adolf Hitler
destroy German Catholic political
opposition, betrayed the Jews of Europe,
and sealed a deeply cynical pact with a
20th-century devil.
John Cornwell in 1999 published Hitler's
Pope.
The book was conceptualized when
Cornwell was having dinner with
a group of students, when the topic of the
papacy was broached, and the discussion
quickly boiled over. A young woman
asserted that Eugenio Pacelli, Pope Pius
XII, the Pope during World War II, had
brought lasting shame on the Catholic
Church by failing to denounce the Final
Solution. A young man, a practicing
Catholic, insisted that the case had
never been proved.
Cornwell raised as a Catholic during the papacy
of Pius XII wrote - his picture gazed down
from the wall of every classroom during
my childhood - I was only too familiar
with the allegation. It started in 1963
with a play by a young German author
named Rolf Hochhuth, Der Stellvertreter
(The Deputy) which was staged on
Broadway in 1964.
It depicted Pacelli as a ruthless cynic,
interested more in the Vatican's
stockholdings than in the fate of the
Jews. Most Catholics dismissed
Hochhuth's thesis as implausible, but
the play sparked a controversy which has
raged to this day.
Disturbed by the anger brought out in
that dinner altercation, and convinced,
as I had always been, of Pius XII's
innocence, I decided to write a new
defense of his reputation for a younger
generation. I believed that Pacelli's
evident holiness was proof of his good
faith. How could such a saintly pope
have betrayed the Jews? But was it
possible to find a new and conclusive
approach to the issue? The arguments had
so far focused mainly on his wartime
conduct; however, Pacelli's Vatican
career had started 40 years earlier. It
seemed to me that a proper investigation
into Pacelli's record would require a
more extensive chronicle than any
attempted in the past. So I applied for
access to archival material in the
Vatican, reassuring those who had charge
of crucial documents that I was on the
side of my subject. Six years earlier,
in a book entitled
A
Thief in the Night, I had
defended the Vatican against charges
that Pope John Paul I had been murdered
by his own aides.
Two key officials granted me access to
secret material: depositions under oath
gathered 30 years ago to support the
process for Pacelli's canonization, and
the archive of the Vatican Secretariat
of State, the foreign office of the Holy
See. I also drew on German sources
relating to Pacelli's activities in
Germany during the 1920s and 1930s,
including his dealings with AdoIf Hitler
in 1933. For months on end I ransacked
Pacelli's files, which dated back to
1912, in a windowless dungeon beneath
the Borgia Tower in Vatican City. Later
I sat for several weeks in a dusty
office in the Jesuit headquarters, close
to St. Peter's Square in Rome, mulling
over a thousand pages of transcribed
testimony given under oath by those who
had known Pacelli well during his
lifetime, including his critics.
By the middle of 1997, 1 was in a state
of moral shock. The material I had
gathered amounted not to an exoneration
but to an indictment more scandalous
than Hochhuth's. The evidence was
explosive. It showed for the first time
that
Pacelli
was
patently, and by the proof of his own
words, anti-Jewish. It revealed that he
had helped Hitler to power and at the
same time undermined potential Catholic
resistance in Germany. It showed that he
had implicitly denied and trivialized
the Holocaust, despite having reliable
knowledge of its true extent. And,
worse, that he was a hypocrite, for
after the war he had retrospectively
taken undue credit for speaking out
boldly against the Nazi persecution of
the Jews.
In the "Holy Year" of 1950, a year in
which many millions of pilgrims flocked
to Rome to catch a glimpse of Pacelli,
he was at the zenith of his papacy. This
was the Pius people now in their mid-50s
and older remember from newsreels and
newspaper photographs. He was 74 years
old and still vigorous. Six feet tall,
stick thin at 125 pounds, light on his
feet, regular in habits, he had hardly
altered physically from the day of his
coronation 11 years earlier. He had
beautiful tapering hands, a plaintive
voice, large dark eyes and an aura of
holiness. It was his extreme pallor that
first arrested those who met him. His
skin "had surprisingly transparent
effect," observed the writer Gerrado
Pallenberg, "as if reflecting from the
inside a cold, white flame." His
charisma was stunning. "His presence
radiated a benignity, calm and sanctity
that I have certainly never before
sensed in any human being." recorded the
English writer James Lees-Milne. "I
immediately fell head over heels in love
with him. I was so affected I could
scarcely speak without tears and was
conscious that my legs were trembling."
But there was another side to his
character, little known to the faithful.
Although he was a man of selfless, monk
like habits of prayer and simplicity, he
was a believer in the absolute
leadership principle. More than any
other Vatican official of the century,
he had promoted the modern ideology of
autocratic papal control, the highly
centralized, dictatoria1 authority he
himself assumed on March 2, 1939, and
maintained until his death in October
1958. There was a time before the advent
of modern communications when Catholic
authority was widely distributed, in the
collective decisions of the church's
councils and in collegial power-sharing
between the Pope and the bishops. The
absolutism of the modern papacy is
largely an invention of the late 19th
century It developed rapidly in the
first decades of this century in
response to the perception of the
centrifugal breakup of the church under
an array of contemporary pressures:
materialism, increasing sexual freedom,
religious skepticism, and social and
political liberties. From his young
manhood on, Pacelli played a leading
role in shaping the conditions and scope
of modern papal power.
Eugenio Pacelli was born in Rome in
1876, into a family of church lawyers
who served the Vatican. He had an older
sister and brother and a younger sister.
His parents, devout Catholics, shared an
apartment in central Rome with his
grandfather, who had been a legal
adviser to Pius IX, the longest-serving
Pope in history. There was only one
small brazier to supply heat for the
whole family, even in the depths of
winter. Eugenio was a modest youth, who
never appeared before his siblings
unless he was fully dressed in a jacket
and tie. He would always come to the
table with a book, which he would read
after having asked the family's
permission. From an early age he acted
out the ritual of the Mass, dressed in
robes supplied by his mother. He had a
gift for languages and a prodigious
memory. He was spindly and suffered from
a "fastidious stomach." He retained a
youthful piety all his life. Politically
and legally, however, he was capable of
great subtlety and cunning.
The Pacelli's were fiercely loyal to the
injured merit of the papacy. From 1848,
the Popes had progressively lost to the
emerging nation-state of Italy their
dominions, which had formed, since time
immemorial, the midriff of the Italian
peninsula. Six years before Eugenio's
birth, the city of Rome itself had been
seized, leaving the papacy in crisis.
How could the Popes regard themselves as
independent now that they were mere
citizens of an upstart kingdom?
Eugenio's grandfather and father
believed passionately that the Popes
could once again exert a powerful
unifying authority over the church by
the application of ecclesiastical and
international law. In 1870, at a
gathering in Rome of a preponderance of
the world's bishops, known as the First
Vatican Council, the Pope was
dogmatically declared infallible in
matters of faith and morals. He was also
declared the unchallenged primate of the
faithful. The Pope may have lost his
temporal dominion, but spiritually he
was solely in charge of his universal
church.
During the first two decades of this
century, papal primacy and infallibility
began to creep even beyond the ample
boundaries set by the First Vatican
Council. A powerful legal instrument
transformed the 1870 primacy dogma into
an unprecedented principle of papal
power. Eugenio Pacelli, by then a
brilliant young Vatican lawyer, had a
major part in the drafting of that
instrument, which was known as the Code
of Canon Law.
Pacelli had been recruited into the
Vatican in 1901, at the age of 24, to
specialize in international affairs and
church law. Pious, slender, with dark
luminous eyes, he was an instant
favorite. He was invited to collaborate
on the reformulation of church law with
his immediate superior, Pietro Gaspam, a
world-famous canon lawyer. Packaged in a
single manual, the Code of Canon Law was
distributed in 1917 to Catholic bishops
and clergy throughout the world.
According to this code, in the future
all bishops would be nominated by the
Pope; doctrinal error would be
tantamount to heresy; priests would be
subjected to strict censorship in their
writings; papal letters to the faithful
would be regarded as infallible (in
practice if not in principle}: and an
oath would be taken by all
candidates for
the priesthood to submit to the sense as
well as the strict wording of doctrine
as laid down by the Pope.
But there was a problem. The church had
historically granted the dioceses in the
provincial states of Germany a large
measure of local discretion and
independence from Rome. Germany had one
of the largest Catholic populations in
the world, and its congregation was well
educated and sophisticated, with
hundreds of Catholic associations and
newspapers and many Catholic
universities and publishing houses. The
historic autonomy of Germany's Catholic
Church was enshrined in ancient
church-state treaties known as
concordats.
Aged 41 and already an archbishop,
Pacelli
was dispatched to Munich as papal
nuncio, or ambassador, to start
the process of eliminating all existing
legal challenges to the new papal
autocracy. At the same time, he was to
pursue a Reich Concordat, a treaty
between the papacy and Germany as a
whole which would supersede all local
agreements and become a model of
Catholic church-state relations. A Reich
Concordat would mean formal recognition
by the German government of the Pope's
right to impose the new Code of Canon
Law on Germany's Catholics. Such an
arrangement was fraught with
significance for a largely Protestant
Germany. Nearly 400 years earlier, in
Wittenberg, Martin Luther had publicly
burned a copy of Canon Law in defiance
of the centralized authority of the
church. It was one of the defining
moments of the Reformation, which was to
divide Western Christendom into
Catholics and Protestants.
In May 1917, Pacelli set off for Germany
via Switzerland in a private railway
compartment, with an additional wagon
containing 60 cases of special foods for
his delicate stomach. The Pope at that
time, Benedict XV, was shocked at this
extravagance, but PaceIli had favored
status as the Vatican's best diplomat.
Shortly after he settled in Munich, he
acquired a reputation as a vigorous
relief worker. He traveled through
war-weary Germany extending charity to
people of all religions and none. In an
early letter to the Vatican, however he
revealed himself to be less than
enamored of Germany's Jews. On September
4, 1917. PaceIli informed Pietro Gaspam,
who had become cardinal secretary of
state in the Vatican -- the equivalent
of foreign minister and prime minister
-- that a Dr. Werner, the chief rabbi of
Munich, had approached the nunciature
begging a favor. In order to celebrate
the festival of Tabernacles, beginning
on October 1, the Jews needed palm
fronds, which normally came from Italy.
But the Italian government had forbidden
the exportation, via Switzerland, of a
stock of palms which the Jews had
purchased and which were being held up
in Como. "The Israelite Community,"
continued Pacelli, "are seeking the
intervention of the Pope in the hope
that he will plead on behalf of the
thousands of German Jews." The favor in
question was no more problematic than
the transportation of Pacelli's 60 cases
of food-stuffs had been a few months
earlier. Pacelli informed Gaspam that he
had warned the rabbi that "wartime
delays in communication" would make
things difficult. He also told Gaspam
that he did not think it appropriate for
the Vatican "to assist them in the
exercise of their Jewish cult." His
letter went by the slow route overland
in the diplomatic bag. Gaspatti replied
by telegram on September 18 that he
entirely trusted Pacelli's "shrewdness,"
agreeing that it would not be
appropriate to help Rabbi Werner.
PaceIli wrote back on September 28,
1917, informing Gasparri that he had
again seen the Rabbi, who "was perfectly
convinced of the reasons I had given him
and thanked me warmly for all that I had
done on his behalf." Pacelli had done
nothing except thwart the rabbi's
request. The episode, small in itself,
belies subsequent claims that Pacelli
had a great love of the Jewish religion
and was always motivated by its best
interests.
Eighteen months later he revealed his
antipathy toward the Jews in a more
blatantly anti-Semitic fashion when he
found himself at the center of a local
revolution as Bolshevik groups struggled
to take advantage of the chaos in
postwar Munich. Writing to Gasparri,
Pacelli described the revolutionaries
and their chief, Eugen Levien in their
headquarters in the former royal palace.
The letter has lain in the Vatican
secret archive like a time bomb until
now: "The scene that presented itself at
the palace was indescribable. The
confusion totally chaotic, the filth
completely nauseating; soldiers and
armed workers coming and going; the
building, once the home of a king,
resounding with screams, vile language,
profanities. Absolute hell. An army of
employees were dashing to and fro,
giving out orders, waving bits of paper,
and in the midst of all this, a gang of
young women, of dubious appearance, Jews
like all the rest of them, hanging
around in all the offices with
provocative demeanor and suggestive
smiles. The boss of this female gang was
Levien's mistress, a young Russian
woman, a Jew and a divorcee, who was in
charge. And it was to her that the
nunciature was obliged to pay homage in
order to proceed. This Levien is a young
man, about 30 or 35, also Russian and a
Jew. Pale, dirty, with vacant eyes,
hoarse voice, vulgar, repulsive, with a
face that is both intelligent and sly."
This association of Jewishness with
Bolshevism confirms that Pacelli, from
his early 40s, nourished a suspicion of
and contempt for the Jews for political
reasons. But the repeated references to
the Jewishness of these individuals,
along with the catalogue of
stereotypical epithets deploring their
physical and moral repulsiveness, betray
a scorn and revulsion consistent with
anti-Semitism. Not long after this,
Pacelli campaigned to have black French
troops removed from the Rhineland,
convinced that they were raping women
and abusing children - even though an
independent inquiry sponsored by the
U.S. Congress, of which Pacelli was
aware, proved this allegation false.
Twenty-three years later, when the
Allies were about to enter Rome, he
asked the British envoy to the Vatican
to request of the British Foreign Office
that no Allied colored troops would be
among the small number that might be
garrisoned in Rome after the occupation.
Pacelli spent 13 years in Germany
attempting to rewrite the state
Concordats one by one in favor of the
power of the Holy See and routinely
employing diplomatic blackmail. Germany
was caught up in many territorial
disputes following the redrawing of the
map of Central Europe after thc First
World War. Pacelli repeatedly traded
promises of Vatican support for German
control of disputed regions in return
for obtaining terms advantageous to the
Vatican in Concordats. The German
government's official in charge of
Vatican affairs at one point recorded
the "ill feeling" prompted by Pacelli's
"excessive demands." Both Catholics and
Protestants in Germany resisted reaching
an agreement with Pacelli on a Reich
Concordat because the nuncio's concept
of a church-state relationship was too
authoritarian. In his negotiations,
Pacelli was not concerned about the fate
of non-Catholic religious communities or
institutions, or about human rights. He
was principally preoccupied with the
interests of the Holy See. Nothing could
have been better designed to deliver
Pacelli into the hands of Hitler later,
when the future dictator made his move
in 1933.
In June 1920, Pacelli became nuncio to
all of Germany, with headquarters in
Berlin as well as in Munich, and
immediately acquired a glittering
reputation in diplomatic circles. He was
a favorite at dinner parties and
receptions, and he was known to ride
horses on the estate of a wealthy German
family. His household was run by a
pretty young nun from southern Germany
named Sister Pasqualina Lehnert.
Pacelli's sister Elisabetta, who battled
with the nun for Pacelli's affections,
described Pasqualina as "scaltrissima"--
extremely cunning. In Munich it had been
rumored that he cast more than priestly
eyes on this religious housekeeper.
Pacelli insisted that a Vatican
investigation into this "horrible
calumny" be conducted at the highest
level, and his reputation emerged
unbesmirched.
Meanwhile, he had formed a close
relationship with an individual named
Ludwig Kaas. Kaas was a representative
of the solidly Catholic German Center
Party, one of the largest and most
powerful democratic parties in Germany.
Though it was unusual for a full-time
politician, he was also a Roman Catholic
priest. Five years Pacelli's junior,
dapper, bespectacled, and invariably
carrying a smart walking stick, Kaas,
known as "the prelate," became an
intimate collaborator of Pacelli's on
every aspect of Vatican diplomacy in
Germany. With Pacelli's encouragement,
Kaas eventually became the chairman of
the Center Party, the first priest to do
so in the party's 60-year history. Yet
while Kaas was officially a
representative of a major democratic
party, he was increasingly devoted to
Pacelli to the point of becoming his
alter ego.
Sister Pasqualina stated after Pacelli's
death that Kaas,who "regularly
accompanied Pacelli on holiday" was
linked to him in "adoration, honest love
and unconditional loyalty." There were
stories of acute jealousy and high
emotion when Kaas became conscious of a
rival affection in Pacelli's secretary,
the Jesuit Robert Leiber, who was also
German.
Kaas was a profound believer in the
benefits of a Reich Concordat, seeing a
parallel between papal absolutism and
the FÜHRER- PRINZIP, the Fascist
leadership principle. His views
coincided perfectly with Pacelli's on
church-state politics, and their
aspirations for centralized papal power
were identical. Kaas's adulation of
PaceIli, whom he put before his party,
became a crucial element in the betrayal
of Catholic democratic politics in
Germany.
In 1929, Pacelli was recalled to Rome to
take over the most important role under
the Pope, Cardinal Secretary of State.
Sister Pasqualina arrived uninvited and
cunningly, according to Pacelli's
sister, and along with two German nuns
to assist her, took over the management
of his Vatican residence. Almost
immediately Kaas, although he was still
head of the German Center Party, started
to spend long periods -- months at a
time -- in Pacelli's Vatican apartments
Shortly before Pacelli's return to Rome,
his brother, Francesco had successfully
negotiated on behalf of Pius Xl, the
current Pope, a concordat with Mussolini
as part of an agreement known as the
Lateran Treaty. The rancor between the
Vatican and the state of Italy was
officially at an end. A precondition of
the negotiations had involved the
destruction of the parliamentary
Catholic Italian Popular Party. Pius XI
disliked political Catholicism because
he could not control it. Like his
predecessors, he believed that Catholic
party politics brought democracy into
the church by the back door. The result
of the demise of the Popular Party was
the wholesale shift of Catholics into
the Fascist Party and the collapse of
democracy in Italy. Pius XI and his new
secretary of state, Pacelli, were
determined that no accommodation be
reached with Communists anywhere in the
world - this was the time of persecution
of the church in Russia, Mexico, and
later Spain -but totalitarian movements
and regimes of the right were a
different
matter.
Hitler, who had enjoyed his first great
success in the elections of September
1930, was determined to seek a treaty
with the Vatican similar to that struck
by Mussolini, which would lead to the
disbanding of the German Center Party.
In his political testament, Mein Kampf,
he had recollected that his fear of
Catholicism went back to his vagabond
days in Vienna. The fact that German
Catholics, politically united by the
Center Party, had defeated Bismarck's
Kulturkampf- the "culture struggle"
against the Catholic Church in the
1870s--constantly worried him. He was
convinced that his movement could
succeed only if political Catholicism
and its democratic networks were
eliminated.
Hitler's fear of the Catholic Church was
well grounded. Into the early 1930s the
German Center Party, the German Catholic
bishops, and the Catholic media had been
mainly solid in their rejection of
National Socialism. They denied Nazis
the sacraments and church burials, and
Catholic journalists excoriated National
Socialism daily in Germany's 400
Catholic newspapers. The hierarchy
instructed priests to combat National
Socialism at a local level whenever it
attacked Christianity. The Munich-based
weekly Der Gerade Weg The Straight Path)
told its readers, "Adolf Hitler preaches
the law of lies. You who have fallen
victim to the deceptions of one obsessed
with despotism, wake up!"
The vehement front of the Catholic
Church in Germany against Hitler,
however, was not at one with the view
from inside the Vatican -- a view that
was now being shaped and promoted by
Eugenio Pacelli.
In 1930 the influential Catholic
politician Heinrich Briining, a First
World War Veteran, became the leader of
a brief new government coalition,
dominated by the majority Socialists and
the Center Party. The country was
reeling from successive economic crises
against the background of the world
slump and reparations payments to the
Allies. In August 1931, Briining visited
Pacelli in the Vatican, and the two men
quarreled. Brüning tells in his memoirs
how Pacelli lectured him, the German
chancellor, on how he should reach an
understanding with the Nazis to "form a
right-wing administration" in order to
help achieve a Reich Concordat favorable
to the Vatican. When Brüning advised him
not to interfere in German politics,
Pacelli threw a tantrum. Brüning parting
shot that day was the ironic
observation- chilling in hindsight--
that he trusted that "the Vatican would
fare better at the hands of Hitler ...
than with himself, a devout Catholic."
Briining was right on one score. Hitler
proved to be the only chancellor
prepared to grant Pacelli the sort of
authoritarian concordat he was seeking.
But the price was to be catastrophic for
Catholic Germany and for Germany as a
whole.
After Hitler came to power in January
1933, he made the concordat negotiations
with Pacelli a priority. The
negotiations proceeded over six months
with constant shuttle diplomacy between
the Vatican and Berlin. Hitler spent
more time on this treaty than on any
other item of foreign diplomacy during
his dictatorship.
The Reich Concordat granted Pacelli the
right to impose the new Code of Canon
Law on Catholics in Germany and promised
a number of measures favorable to
Catholic education, including new
schools. In exchange, Pacelli
collaborated in the withdrawal of
Catholics from political and social
activity. The negotiations were
conducted in secret by Pacelli, Kaas,
and Hitler's deputy chancellor, Franz
von Papen, over the heads of German
bishops and the faithful. The Catholic
Church in Germany had no say in setting
the conditions.
In the end, Hitler insisted that his
signature on the concordat would depend
on the Center Party's voting for the
Enabling Act, the legislation that was
to give him dictatorial powers. It was
Kaas, chairman of the party but
completely in thrall to Pacelli, who
bullied the delegates into acceptance.
Next, Hitler insisted on the "voluntary"
disbanding of the Center Party, the last
truly parliamentary force in Germany.
Again, Pacelli was the prime mover in
this tragic Catholic surrender. The fact
that the party voluntarily disbanded
itself, rather than go down fighting,
had a profound psychological effect,
depriving Germany of the last democratic
focus of potential noncompliance and
resistance: In the political vacuum
created by its surrender, Catholics in
the millions joined the Nazi Party,
believing that it had the support of the
Pope. The German bishops capitulated to
Pacelli's policy of centralization, and
German Catholic democrats found
themselves politically leaderless.
After the Reich Concordat was signed,
Pacelli declared it an unparalleled
triumph for the Holy See. In an article
in L 'Osservatore Romano, the
Vatican-controlled newspaper, he
announced that the treaty, indicated the
total recognition and acceptance of the
church's law by the German state. But
Hitler was the true victor and the Jews
were the concordat's first victims. On
July 14, 1933, after the initialing of
the treaty, the Cabinet minutes record
Hitler as saying that the concordat had
created an atmosphere of confidence that
would be "especially significant in the
struggle against international Jewry."
He was claiming that the Catholic Church
had publicly given its blessing, at home
and abroad, to the policies of National
Socialism, including its anti-Semitic
stand. At the same time, under the terms
of the concordat, Catholic criticism of
acts deemed political by the Nazis,
could now be regarded as "foreign
interference." The great German Catholic
Church, at the insistence of Rome, fell
silent. In the future all complaints
against the Nazis would be channeled
through Pacelli. There were some notable
exceptions, for example the sermons
preached in 1933 by Cardinal Michael von
Faulhaber, the Archbishop of Munich, in
which he denounced the Nazis for their
rejection of the Old Testament as a
Jewish text.
The concordat immediately drew the
German church into complicity with the
Nazis. Even as Pacelli was granted
special advantages in the concordat for
German Catholic education, Hitler was
trampling on the educational rights of
Jews throughout the country. At the same
time, Catholic priests were being drawn
into Nazi collaboration with the
attestation bureaucracy, which
established Jewish ancestry. Pacelli,
despite the immense centralized power he
now wielded through the Code of Canon
Law, said and did nothing. The
attestation machinery would lead
inexorably to the selection of millions
destined for the death camps.
As Nazi anti-Semitism mounted in Germany
during the 1930's, Pacelli failed to
complain, even on behalf of Jews who had
become Catholics, acknowledging that the
matter was a matter of German internal
policy. Eventually, in January 1937,
three German cardinals and two
influential bishops arrived at the
Vatican to plead for a vigorous protest
over Nazi persecution of the Catholic
Church,
which had been deprived of all forms of
activity beyond church services. Pins XI
at last decided to issue an encyclical,
a letter addressed to all the faithful
of the world. Written under Pacelli's
direction, it was called Mit Brennender
Sorge (With Deep Anxiety), and it was a
forthright statement of the plight of
the church in Germany. But there was no
explicit condemnation of anti-Semitism,
even in relation to Jews who had
converted to Catholicism. Worse still,
the subtext against Nazism (National
Socialism and Hitler were not mentioned
by name) was blunted by the publication
five days later of an even more
condemnatory encyclical by Pins XI
against Communism.
The encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge,
though too little and too late, revealed
that the Catholic Church all along had
the power to shake the regime. A few
days later, Hermann Göring, one of
Hitler's closest aides and his commander
of the Luffwaffe, delivered a two-hour
harangue to a Nazi assembly against the
Catholic clergy. However, Roman
centralizing had paralyzed the German
Catholic Church and its powerful web of
associations. Unlike the courageous
grass-roots activism that had combated
Bismarck's persecutions in the 1870s,
German Catholicism now looked obediently
to Rome for guidance. Although Pacelli
collaborated in the writing and the
distribution of the encyclical, he
quickly undermined its effects by
reassuring the Reich's ambassador in
Rome. "Pacelli received me with decided
friendliness," the diplomat reported
back to Berlin, "and emphatically
assured me during the conversation that
normal and friendly relations with us
would be restored as soon as possible."
In the summer of 1938, as Pius XI lay
dying, he became belatedly anxious about
anti-Semitism throughout Europe. He
commissioned another encyclical, to be
written exclusively on the Jewish
question. The text, which never saw the
light of day, has only recently been
discovered. It was written by three
Jesuit scholars, but Pacelli presumably
had charge of the project. It was to be
called Humani Generis Unitas (The Unity
of the Human Race). For all its good
intentions and its repudiation of
violent anti-Semitism, the document is
replete with the anti-Jewishness that
Pacelli had displayed in his early
period in Germany. The Jews, the text
claims, were responsible for their own
fate. God had chosen them to make way
for Christ's redemption, but they denied
and killed him. And now, "blinded by
their dream of worldly gain and material
success," they deserved the "worldly and
spiritual ruin" that they had brought
down upon themselves.
The document warns that that to defend
the Jews as "Christian principles and
humanity" demand could involve the
unacceptable risk of being ensnared by
secular politics--not least an
association with Bolshevism. The
encyclical was delivered in the fall of
1938 to the Jesuits in Rome, who sat on
it. To this day we do not know why it
was not completed and handed to Pope
Pius XI. For all its drawbacks, it was a
clear protest against Nazi attacks on
Jews and so might have done some good.
But it appears likely that the Jesuits,
and Pacelli, whose influence as
secretary of state of the Vatican was
paramount since the Pope was moribund,
were reluctant to inflame the Nazis by
its publication. Pacelli, when he became
pope, would bury the document deep in
the secret archives.
On February 10, 1939, Pius XI died, at
the age of 81. Pacelli, then 63, was
elected Pope by the College of Cardinals
in just three ballots, on March 2. He
was crowned on March 12, on the eve of
Hitler's march into Prague. Between his
election and his coronation he held a
crucial meeting with the German
cardinals. Keen to affirm Hitler
publicly, he showed them a letter of
good wishes which began, "To the
Illustrious Herr Adolf Hitler." Should
he, he asked them, style the Führer
"Most Illustrious"? He decided that that
might be going too far. He told the
cardinals that Pius XI had said that
keeping a papal nuncio in Berlin
"conflicts with our honor." But his
predecessor, he said, had been mistaken.
He was going to maintain normal
diplomatic relations with Hitler. The
following month, at Pacelli's express
wish, Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, the
Berlin nuncio, hosted a gala reception
in honor of Hitler's 50th birthday. A
birthday greeting to the Führer from the
bishops of Germany would become an
annual tradition until the war's end.
Pacelli's coronation was the most
triumphant in a hundred years. His style
of papacy, for all his personal
humility, was unprecedentedly pompous.
He always ate alone. Vatican bureaucrats
were obliged to take phone calls from
him on their knees. When he took his
afternoon walk, the gardeners had to
hide in the bushes. Senior officials
were not allowed to ask him questions or
present a point of view.
As Europe plunged toward war Pacelli
cast himself in the role of judge of
judges. But he continued to seek to
appease Hitler by attempting to persuade
the Poles to make concessions over
Germany's territorial claims. After
Hitler's invasion of Poland, on
September 1, 1939, he declined to
condemn Germany, to the bafflement of
the Allies. His first public statement,
the encyclical known in the
English-speaking world as Darkness over
the Earth, was full of papal rhetoric
and equivocations.
Then something extraordinary occurred,
revealing that whatever had motivated
Pacelli in his equivocal approach to the
Nazi onslaught in Poland did not betoken
cowardice or a liking for Hitler. In
November 1939, in deepest secrecy,
Pacelli became intimately and
dangerously involved In what was
probably the most viable plot to depose
Hitler during the war.
The plot centered on a group of
anti-Nazi generals, committed to
returning Germany to democracy. The coup
might spark a civil war, and they wanted
assurances that the West would not take
advantage of the ensuing chaos. Pius XII
agreed to act as go-between for the
plotters and the Allies. Had his
complicity in the plot been discovered
it might have proved disastrous for the
Vatican and for many thousands of German
clergy. As it happened, leaders in
London dragged their feet, and the
plotters eventually fell silent. The
episode demonstrates that, while Pacelli
seemed weak to some, pusillanimity and
indecisiveness were hardly in his
nature.
Pacelli's first wartime act of reticence
in failing to speak out against Fascist
brutality occurred in the summer of
1941, following Hitler's invasion of
Yugoslavia and the formation of the
Catholic and Fascist state of Croatia.
In a wave of appalling ethnic cleansing,
the Croat Fascist separatists, known as
the Ustashe, under the leadership of
Ante Pavelic, the Croat Führer, embarked
on a campaign of enforced conversions,
deportations, and mass extermination
targeting a population of 2.2 million
Serb Orthodox Christians and a smaller
number of Jews and Gypsies.
According to the Italian writer Carlo
Falconi, as early as April, in a typical
act of atrocity, a band of Ustashe had
rounded up 331 Serbs. The victims were
forced to dig their own graves before
being hacked to death with axes. The
local priest was forced to recite the
prayers for the dying while his son was
chopped to pieces before his eyes. Then
the priest was tortured. His hair and
beard were torn off, his eves were
gouged out. Finally he was skinned
alive. The very next month Pacelli
greeted Pavelic at the Vatican.
Throughout the war, the Croat atrocities
continued By the most recent scholarly
reckoning. 487,000 Orthodox Serbs and
27,000 Gypsies were massacred; in
addition, approximately 30,000 out of a
population of 45,000 Jews were killed.
Despite a close relationship between the
Ustashe regime and the Catholic bishops,
and a constant flow of information about
the massacres, Pacelli said and did
nothing. In fact, he continued to extend
warm wishes to the Ustashe leadership.
The only feasible explanation for
Pacelli's silence was his perception of
Croatia as a Catholic bridgehead into
the East. The Vatican and the local
bishops approved of mass conversion in
Croatia (even though it was the result
of fear rather than conviction), because
they believed that this could spell the
beginning of a return {?} of the
Orthodox Christians there to papal
allegiance. Pacelli was not a man to
condone mass murder, but he evidently
chose to turn a blind eye on Ustashe
atrocities rather than hinder a unique
opportunity to extend the power of the
papacy.
Pacelli came to learn of the Nazi plans
to exterminate the Jews of Europe
shortly after they were laid in January
1942. The deportations to the death
camps had begun in December 1941 and
would continue through 1944. All during
1942, Pacelli received reliable
information on the details of the Final
Solution, much of it supplied by the
British, French, and American
representatives resident in the Vatican.
On March 17, 1942, representatives of
Jewish organizations assembled in
Switzerland sent a memorandum to Pacelli
via the papal nuncio in Bern,
cataloguing violent anti-Semitic
measures in Germany and in its allied
and conquered territories. Their plea
focused attention on Slovakia, Croatia,
Hungary, and unoccupied France, where,
they believed, the Pope's intervention
might yet be effective. Apart from an
intervention in the case of Slovakia,
where the president was Monsignor Josef
Tiso, a Catholic priest, no papal
initiatives resulted. During the same
month, a stream of dispatches describing
the fate of some 90,000 Jews reached the
Vatican from various sources in Eastern
Europe. The Jewish organizations' long
memorandum would be excluded from the
wartime documents published by the
Vatican between 1965 and 1981.
On June 16, 1942, Harold Tittmann, the
U.S. representative to the Vatican, told
Washington that Pacelli was diverting
himself, ostrichlike, into purely
religious concerns and that the moral
authority won for the papacy by Pius XI
was being eroded. At the end of that
month, the London Daily Telegraph
announced that more than a million Jews
had been killed in Europe and that it
was the aim of the Nazis "to wipe the
race from the European continent." The
article was re-printed in The New York
Times. On July 21 there was a protest
rally on behalf of Europe's Jews in New
York's Madison Square Garden. In the
following weeks the British, American,
and Brazilian representatives to the
Vatican tried to persuade Pacelli to
speak out against the Nazi atrocities.
But still he said nothing. In September
1942, President Franklin Roosevelt sent
his personal representative, the former
head of U.S. Steel, Myron Taylor, to
plead with PaceIli to make a statement
about the extermination of the Jews.
Taylor traveled hazardously through
enemy territory to reach the Vatican.
Still Pacelli refused to speak.
Pacelli's excuse was that he must rise
above the belligerent parties. As late
as December 18, Francis d'Arcy Osborne,
Britain's envoy in the Vatican, handed
Cardinal Domenico Tardini, Pacelli's
deputy secretary of state, a dossier
replete with information on the Jewish
deportations and mass killings in hopes
that the Pope would denounce the Nazi
regime in a Christmas message.
On December 24, 1942, having made draft
after draft, Pacelli at last said
something. In his Christmas Eve
broadcast to the world on Vatican Radio,
he said that men of goodwill owed a vow
to bring society "back to its immovable
center of gravity in divine law." He
went on: "Humanity owes this vow to
those hundreds of thousands who, without
any fault of their own, sometimes only
by reason of their nationality and race,
are marked for death or gradual
extinction."
That was the strongest public
denunciation of the Final Solution that
Pacelli would make in the whole course
of the war.
It was not merely a paltry statement.
The chasm between the enormity of the
liquidation of the Jewish people and
this form of evasive language was
profoundly scandalous. He might have
been referring to many categories of
victims at the hands of various
belligerents in the conflict. Clearly
the choice of ambiguous wording was
intended to placate those who urged him
to protest, while avoiding offense to
the Nazi regime. But these
considerations are over-shadowed by the
implicit denial and trivialization. He
had scaled down the doomed millions to
"hundreds of thousands" without uttering
the word "Jews," while making the
pointed qualification "sometimes only by
reason of their nationality or race."
Nowhere was the term "Nazi'' mentioned.
Hitler himself could not have wished for
a more convoluted and innocuous reaction
from
the Vicar of Christ to the greatest
crime in history.
But what was Pacelli's principal
motivation for this trivialization and
denial? The Allies' diplomats in the
Vatican believed that he was remaining
impartial in order to earn a crucial
role in future peace negotiations. In
this there was clearly a degree of
truth. But a recapitulation of new
evidence I have gathered shows that
Pacelli saw the Jews as alien and
undeserving of his respect and
compassion. He felt no sense of moral
outrage at their plight. The documents
show that:
1. He had nourished a striking antipathy
toward the Jews as early as 1917 in
Germany, which contradicts later claims
that his omissions were performed in
good faith and that he "loved" the Jews
and respected their religion.
2. From the end of the First World War
to the lost encyclical of 1938, Pacelli
betrayed a fear and contempt of Judaism
based on his belief that the Jews were
behind the Bolshevik plot to destroy
Christendom.
3. Pacelli acknowledged to
representatives of the Third Reich that
the regime's anti-Semitic policies were
a matter of Germany's internal politics.
The Reich Concordat between Hitler and
the Vatican, as Hitler was quick to
grasp, created an ideal climate for
Jewish persecution.
4. Pacelli failed to sanction protest by
German Catholic bishops against
anti-Semitism, and he did not attempt to
intervene in the process by which
Catholic clergy collaborated in racial
certification to identify Jews.
5. After Pius XI's Mit Brennender Sorge,
denouncing the Nazi regime (although not
by name), Pacelli attempted to mitigate
the effect of the encyclical by giving
private diplomatic reassurances to
Berlin despite his awareness of
widespread Nazi persecution of Jews.
6. Pacelli was convinced that the Jews
had brought misfortune on their own
heads: intervention on their behalf
could only draw the church into
alliances with forces inimical to
Catholicism. Pacelli's failure to utter
a candid word on the Final Solution
proclaimed to the world that the Vicar
of Christ was not roused to pity or
anger. From this point of view, he was
the ideal Pope for Hitler's unspeakable
plan. His denial and minimization of the
Holocaust were all the more scandalous
in that they were uttered from a
seemingly impartial moral high ground.
There was another, more immediate
indication of Pacelli's moral
dislocation. It occurred before the
liberation of Rome, when he was the sole
Italian authority in the city. On
October 16, 1943, SS troops entered the
Roman ghetto area and rounded up more
than 1,000 Jews, imprisoning them in the
very shadow of the Vatican.
How did Pacelli acquit himself'?
On the morning of the roundup, which had
been prompted by AdoIf Eichmann, who was
in charge of the organization of the
Final Solution from his headquarters in
Berlin, the German ambassador in Rome
pleaded with the Vatican to issue a
public protest. By this stage of the
war, Mussolini had been deposed and
rescued by AdoIf Hitler to run the
puppet regime in the North of Italy. The
German authorities in Rome, both
diplomats and military commanders,
fearing a backlash of the Italian
populace, hoped that an immediate and
vigorous papal denunciation might stop
the SS in their tracks and prevent
further arrests. Pacelli refused. In the
end, the German diplomats drafted a
letter of protest on the Pope's behalf
and prevailed on a resident German
bishop to sign it for Berlin's benefit.
Meanwhile, the deportation of the
imprisoned Jews went ahead on October
18.
When U.S. chargé d 'affaires Harold
Tittmann visited Pacelli that day, he
found the pontiff anxious that the
"Communist" Partisans would take
advantage of a cycle of papal protest,
followed by SS reprisals, followed by a
civilian backlash. As a consequence, he
was not inclined to lift a finger for
the Jewish deportees, who were now
traveling in cattle cars to the Austrian
border bound for Auschwitz. Church
officials reported on the desperate
plight of the deportees as they passed
slowly through city after city. Still
Pacelli refused to intervene.
In the Jesuit archives in Rome, I found
a secret document sworn to under oath by
Karl Wolff, the SS commander in Italy.
The text reveals that Hitler had asked
Wolff in the fall of 1943 to prepare a
plan to evacuate the Pope and the
Vatican treasures to Liechtenstein.
After several weeks of investigation,
Wolff concluded that an attempt to
invade the Vatican and its properties,
or to seize the Pope in response to a
papal protest, would prompt a backlash
throughout Italy that would seriously
hinder the Nazi war effort. Hitler
therefore dropped his plan to kidnap
Pacelli, acknowledging what Pacelli
appeared to ignore, that the strongest
social and political force in Italy in
late 1943 was the Catholic Church, and
that its potential for thwarting the SS
was immense.
Pacelli was concerned that a protest by
him would benefit only the Communists.
His silence on the deportation of Rome's
Jews, in other words, was not an act of
cowardice or fear of the Germans. He
wanted to maintain the Nazi-occupation
status quo until such time as the city
could be liberated by the Allies. But
what of the deported Jews? Five days
after the train had set off from the
Tiburtina station in Rome, an estimated
1,060 had been gassed at Auschwitz and
Birkenau - 149 men and 47 women were
detained for slave labor, but only 15
survived the war, and only one of those
was a woman, Settimia Spizzichino, who
had served as a human guinea pig of Dr.
Josef Mengele, the Nazi medical doctor
who performed atrocious experiments on
human victims. After the liberation, she
was found alive in a heap of corpses.
But there was a more profound failure
than Pacelli's unwillingness to help the
Jews of Rome rounded up on October 16.
Pacelli's reticence was not just a
diplomatic silence in response to the
political pressures of the moment, not
just a failure to be morally outraged.
It was a stunning religious and
ritualistic silence. To my knowledge,
there is no record of a single public
papal prayer, lit votive candle, psalm,
lamentation, or Mass celebrated in
solidarity with the Jews of Rome either
during their terrible ordeal or after
their deaths. This spiritual silence in
the face of an atrocity committed at the
heart of Christendom, in the shadow of
the shrine of the first apostle,
persists to this day and implicates all
Catholics. This silence proclaims that
Pacelli had no genuine spiritual
sympathy even for the Jews of Rome, who
were members of the community of his
birth. And yet, on learning of the death
of AdoIf Hitler, Archbishop Adolf
Bertram of Berlin ordered all the
priests of his archdiocese "to hold a
solemn Requiem in memory of the
Führer."
There were nevertheless Jews who gave
Pacelli the benefit of the doubt. On
Thursday, November 29, 1945, Pacelli met
some 80 representatives of Jewish
refugees who expressed their thanks "for
his generosity toward those persecuted
during the Nazi-Fascist period." One
must respect a tribute made by people
who had suffered and survived, and we
cannot belittle Pacelli's efforts on the
level of charitable relief, notably his
directive that enclosed religious houses
in Rome should take in Jews hiding from
the SS.
By the same token, we must respect the
voice of Settimia Spizzichino, the sole
Roman Jewish woman survivor from the
death camps. Speaking in a BBC interview
in 1995 she said. "1 came back from
Auschwitz on my own. . I lost my mother,
two sisters and one brother. Pius XII
could have warned us about what was
going to happen. We might have escaped
from Rome and joined the partisans. He
played right into the Germans' hands. It
all happened right under his nose. But
he was an anti-Semitic pope, a
pro-German pope. He didn't take a single
risk. And when they say the Pope is like
Jesus Christ, it is not true. He did not
save a single child."
We are obliged to accept these
contrasting views of Pacelli are not
mutually exclusive. It gives a Catholic
no satisfaction to accuse a Pope of
acquiescing in the plans of Hitler. But
one of the saddest ironies of Pacelli's
papacy centers on the implications of
his own pastoral self-image. At the
beginning of a promotional film he
commissioned about himself during the
war, called The Angelic Pastor, the
camera frequently focuses on the statue
of the Good Shepherd in the Vatican
gardens. The parable of the good
shepherd tells of the pastor who so
loves each of his sheep that he will do
all, risk all, go to any pains, to save
one member of his flock that is lost or
in danger. To his everlasting shame, and
to the shame of the Catholic Church,
Pacelli disdained to recognize the Jews
of Rome as members of his Roman flock,
even though they had dwelled in the
Eternal City since before the birth of
Christ. And yet there was still
something worse. After the liberation of
Rome, when every perception of restraint
on his freedom was lifted, he claimed
retrospective moral superiority for
having spoken and acted on behalf of the
Jews. Addressing a Palestinian group on
August 3, 1946, he said, "We disapprove
of all recourse to force...Just as we
condemned on various occasions in the
past the persecutions that a fanatical
anti-Semitism inflicted on the Hebrew
people." His grandiloquent
self-exculpation a year after the war
had ended showed him to be not only an
ideal pope for the Nazis Final Solution
but also a hypocrite.
The postwar period of Pacelli's papacy,
through the 1950s, saw the apotheosis of
the ideology of papal power as he
presided over a triumphant Catholic
Church in open confrontation with
Communism. But it could not hold. The
internal structures and morale of the
church in Pacelli's final years began to
show signs of fragmentation and decay,
leading to a yearning for reassessment
and renewal. In old age he became
increasingly narrow-minded, eccentric.
and hypochondriacal. He experienced
religious visions, suffered from chronic
hiccups, and received monkey-brain-cell
injections for longevity. He had no love
for, or trust in those who had to follow
him. He failed to replace his secretary
of state when he died and for years he
declined to appoint a full complement of
cardinals. He died at the age of 82 on
October 9, 1958. His corpse decomposed
rapidly in the autumnal Roman heat. At
his lying-in-state, a guard fainted from
the stench. Later, his nose turned black
and fell off. Some saw in this sudden
corruption of his mortal remains, a
symbol of the absolute corruption of his
papacy.
The Second Vatican Council was called by
John XXIII who succeeded Pacelli, in
1958, precisely to reject Pacelli's
monolith in preference for a collegial,
decentralized, human, Christian
community, the Holy Spirit, and love.
The guiding metaphor of the church of
the future was of a "pilgrim people of
God." Expectations ran high, but there
was no lack of contention and anxiety as
old habits and disciplines died hard.
There were signs from the very outset
that papal and Vatican hegemony would
not easily acquiesce, that the Old Guard
would attempt a comeback. As we approach
the end of this century, the hopeful
energy of the Second Vatican Council, or
Vatican II, as it came to be called,
appears to many a spent force. The
church of Pius XII is reasserting itself
in confirmation of a pyramidal church
model: faith in the primacy of the man
in the white robe dictating in solitude
from the pinnacle. In the twilight years
of John Paul II's long reign, the
Catholic Church gives a pervasive
impression of dysfunction despite his
historic influence on the collapse of
Communist tyranny in Poland and the
Vatican's enthusiasm for entering its
third millennium with a cleansed
conscience.
As the theologian Professor Adrian
Hastings comments, "The great tide
powered by Vatican II has, at least
institutionally, spent its force. The
old landscape has once more emerged and
Vatican II is now being read in Rome far
more in the spirit of the First Vatican
Council and within the context of Pius
XII's model of Catholicism.'' A future
titanic struggle between the
progressives and the traditionalists is
in prospect, with the potential for a
cataclysmic schism, especially in North
America, where a split has opened up
between bishops compliant with Rome and
academic Catholicism, which is
increasingly independent and dissident.
Pacelli, whose canonization process is
now well advanced, has become the icon,
40 years after his death, of those
traditionalists who read and revise the
provisions of the Second Vatican Council
from the viewpoint of Pacelli's ideology
of papal power -- an ideology that has
proved disastrous in the century's
history.