Talk:Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust

Holocaust in Slovenia

Has nobody noticed that all the contents of this section actually all refer to Slovakia? I'm going to move it into Slovakia. 78.86.25.78 (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Jews in Spain and Portugal

There should perhaps be an additional section on Jews in Spain and Portugal during the World War Two. As I recall, some of Pius XII's defenders have argued that since those countries were officially under the Roman Catholic leadership of Francisco Franco and Antonio Salazar, as opposed to the National-Socialist leadership in the rest of Europe, relatively few Jews from those countries were consequently deported. This is cited as plain evidence that Pope Pius and the Roman Catholic Church of his period were not really much at all supportive of the Nazi regime. ADM (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah? So, like, nobody died in Spain? That whole 'civil war' thing was basically a lunchroom disagreement, mirite?

JFC, NAzi apologists & Catholic revisionists are the worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD34:2400:387D:63CD:7563:534E (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Passports to South America

Another issue that should perhaps be included is the apparent distribution of fabricated passports to Jewish emigrants to South America by Church workers. Père Marie-Benoît of France, who came up with the plan, is thought to have been consulted with the diplomatic corps of the Holy See, including Pope Pius XII, who seems to have approved of the idea. Joseph L. Lichten of the anti-Defamation League appears to have been among the first to openly discuss this version of the events in a monograph he wrote in the 1960s. [1] ADM (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

One possible reason for which this story is hardly ever mentioned is that the Vatican is mostly remembered for having organized the Nazi ratlines, and therefore the existence of any kind of Jewish escape route tends to become relativized when the general public has already been told that the Church had given some kind of support to former Nazi collaborators and war criminals. ADM (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is covered in the main article. I was under the impression you had just copy-and-pasted from there... Savidan 00:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The article talks about passports for Jews in Hungary, but I was thinking about the case of Père Marie-Benoît, who had been frequently in contact with Pius XII. I'm not sure the passports that Benoît delivered were the same as those Hungarian passports. ADM (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As you can read in the razzia article, Benoît was not the pope. In fact, there is some very strong evidence that Pius XII discouraged his efforts. If you wish to write about this, please focus on the role of Pius XII (as this article will simply become unmanageable if it is about all Catholics during the Holocaust). Savidan 00:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, he did meet the Pope and clearly informed him about his plan, which is still significant. It's not like he had never heard of or met the sovereign pontiff. Also, I don't intend to confuse the actions of people like Benoît with those of Pius XII, such as what writers like Pinchas Lapide might have done. Even if the records show that Pius didn't support every thing Benoît did, I think it would still be of some notablility because it shows Pius's reactions to the rescue effort movement. ADM (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not opposed to you writing about this. I just asked that you focus on the role of Pius XII given the subject of the article. Savidan 01:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Historical moralism

I would like to make a comment on the historiographical debate surrounding the Pius XII question. I guess what strikes me the most about Pius XII's critics is that they seem to believe that history bears a definite moral message, and that anyone who dares contradict or oppose that message, at least whatever they deem it to be, can and must be condemned. It is a kind of historical idealism, similar to the writings of Hegel, which tends to oppose the notion of historical realism, where history assumes a passive character instead of an active one.

Regarding the Holocaust, I do not think it can be qualified in primarily religious or moral terms, because of the very nature of history, which is a-religious and non-judgemental in terms of personal moral values. History cannot be personified nor can it be impersonated. On the other hand, powerful men are the real authors of history, and they alone carry the burden of personal responsibility, since they cannot lay their blame to anonymous forces such as Nature or Power.

The Holocaust was certainly a conspiracy, but it was essentially a conspiracy of men, men who were acting out what they considered to be their definite moral ideal, which unfortunately involved killing Jews. Hence, we must not take it for granted that there is nothing intrinsically moral in history, lest we not repeat another drama like the Shoah.

ADM (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

First, I think that when you wrote "lest we not repeat another drama like the Shoah" you actually meant, "lest we repeat another drama like the Shoah". As you wrote it, you are calling for the Shoah to be repeated.

Second, one can and should speak of the Holocaust in moral terms, since it was profoundly immoral. If you meant something else, then I must have misunderstood you. JHobson3 (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm very interested in philosophical debates about the holocaust, but I do try to keep it out of my historical articles. Just the facts. Savidan 06:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the Holocaust was very 'unfortunate'.
What the fuck is wrong with this world? :(

Mit Brennender Sorge

Why is there no mention of Mit brennender sorge in this article. It was drafted by Pius XII when he was cardinal and it is a most significant and often overlooked official condemnation of Nazi leaders and ideology by the Church. I think this article is POV without a section for this important event which led to the persection of the Church and murder of many priests. NancyHeise ^talk 21:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have often wondered why there is so much ado about what Pius XII did or did not do for the Jews. He is the person who drafted the first official condemnation of the Nazi's and Hitler Mit brennender Sorge, he seems to be the only person in all of Europe to have actually done something on a major scale to save as many Jews as he could from certain death. (Pinchas Lapide conducted an investigation and concluded that he saved hundreds of thousands of Jews.) Now we have this article [2] that brings up the silence of those countries that could possibly have done more too. NancyHeise ^talk 20:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this should be in the article with a notation that Pius XII did not have armies at his disposal as these other countries did. A question that should be addressed here is why did everyone think that Pius could turn back the Nazis from their deeds? Historian John Vidmar points out that when the Dutch Bishops protested Nazi deportations of Jews, the Nazi response was to enhance their efforts and deport even more Jews, specifically, those hiding in convents and monasteries and including Edith Stein. NancyHeise ^talk 20:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are some excerpt from WP:RS sources that meet the highest qualifications set out in WP:reliable source examples:

• Bokenkotter, pp. 389–392, quote "And when Hitler showed increasing belligerance toward the Church, Pius met the challenge with a decisiveness that astonished the world. His encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge was the 'first great official public document to dare to confront and criticize Nazism' and 'one of the greatest such condemnations ever issued by the Vatican.' Smuggled into Germany, it was read from all the Catholic pulpits on Palm Sunday in March 1937. It exposed the fallacy and denounced the Nazi myth of blood and soil; it decried its neopaganism, its war of annihilation against the Church, and even described the Fuhrer himself as a 'mad prophet possessed of repulsive arrogance.' The Nazis were infuriated, and in retaliation closed and sealed all the presses that had printed it and took numerous vindictive measures against the Church, including staging a long series of immorality trials of the Catholic clergy."
• Rhodes, p. 205, quote "Mit brennender Sorge did not prevaricate. Although it began mildly enough with an account of the broad aims of the Church, it went on to become one of the greatest condemnations of a national regime ever pronounced by the Vatican. Its vigorous language is in sharp contrast to the involved style in which encyclicals were normally written. The education question was fully and critically examined, and a long section devoted to disproving the Nazi theory of Blood and Soil (Blut und Boden) and the Nazi claim that faith in Germany was equivalent to faith in God. There were scathing references to Rosenberg's Myth of the Twentieth Century and its neo-paganism. The pressure exercised by the Nazi party on Catholic officials to betray their faith was lambasted as 'base, illegal and inhuman'. The document spoke of 'a condition of spiritual oppression in Germany such as has never been seen before' of 'the open fight against the Confessional schools and the suppression of liberty of choice for those who desire a Catholic education'. 'With pressure veiled and open,' it went on, 'with intimidation, with promises of economic, professional, civil and other advantages, the attachment of Catholics to the Faith, particularly those in government employment, is exposed to a violence as illegal as it is inhuman.' 'The calvary of the Church': 'The war of annihilation against the Catholic Faith'; 'The cult of idols'. The fulminations thundered down from the pulpits to the delighted congregations. Nor was the Fuhrer himself spared, for his 'aspirations to divinity', 'placing himself on the same level as Christ'; 'a mad prophet possessed of repulsive arrogance' (widerliche Hochmut). ... The true extent of the Nazi fury at this encyclical was shown by the immediate measures taken in Germany to counter further propagation of the document. Not a word of it was printed in newspapers, and the following day the Secret Police visited the diocesan offices and confiscated every copy they could lay their hands on. All the presses which had printed it were closed and sealed. The bishops' diocesan magazines (Amtsblatter) were proscribed; and paper for church pamphlets or secretarial work was severely restricted. A host of other measures, such as diminishing the State grants to theology students and needy priests (agreed in the Concordat) were introduced. And then a number of futile, vindictive measures which did little to harm the Church..."
• Falconi, p. 230, quote "the pontifical letter still remains the first great official public document to dare to confront and criticize Nazism, and the Pope's courage astonished the world."
• Vidmar, p. 327 quote "Pius XI's greatest coup was in writing the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge ("With Burning Desire") in 1936, and having it distributed secretly and ingeniously by an army of motorcyclists, and read from the pulpit on Palm Sunday before the Nazis obtained a single copy. It stated (in German and not in the traditional Latin) that the Concordat with the Nazis was agreed to despite serious misgivings about Nazi integrity. It then went on to condemn the persecution of the church, the neopaganism of the Nazi ideology-especially its theory of racial superiority-and Hitler himself, calling him 'a mad prophet possessed of repulsive arrogance.'

• Bokenkotter, Thomas (2004). A Concise History of the Catholic Church. Doubleday. ISBN 0385505841.
• Chadwick, Owen (1995). A History of Christianity. Barnes & Noble. ISBN 0760773327.
• Rhodes, Anthony (1973). The Vatican in the Age of the Dictators (1922-1945). Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Vidmar, John (2005). The Catholic Church Through the Ages. Paulist Press. ISBN 0809142341.

NancyHeise ^talk 21:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The article also fails to mention the new developements put forth by the Pave the Way Foundation, these reports [3] merit at least a sentence at the end of the article, perhaps a paragraph on the ongoing academic debate and the findings of new information not previously researched by Pius Xii detractors like Michael Phayer whose book is denounced in the Cambridge Journal of Ecclisiastical History as relying too much on Nazi sources and presenting unsourced scholarly opinion instead of facts that come from actual documents. NancyHeise ^talk 21:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added these to the article. I also omitted a statement made in the last sentence about a French organization that was not found in the cited source. I also object to the use of Michael Phayer's book "The Church and the Holocaust" which as been denounced by a major academic journal as incorrect, relying too much on Nazi documents and making statements that are not backed up with solid evidence. There must be better sources that do not have such criticism that WP:reliable source examples asks us to avoid. NancyHeise ^talk 22:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to this on the Pius XII talk page and will not reply again here for fear of fragmenting any discussion that may arise. Savidan 21:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's hard for me to see how an encyclical by his predecessor (admittedly, very likely with his input) written several years before the Holocaust started, that made no mention of Jews or Judaism can be relevant to Pius XII and the Holocaust. The same goes for the Reichskonkordat, the violations of which Mit brennender sorge was protesting. These would be relevant to an article on Pope Pius XII and Germany, and both are relevant to the biography of Pius XII generally, but I doubt they have much to do with the focus of this article (which is expansive enough). Savidan 16:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support creating such an article, I think that the focus on the Reichskonkordat and Mit brennender sorge is a bit out of touch with the overall information that relates to the Holocaust. Another possible article would be Pope Pius XII and Italy in order to show his relations with Fascist regime and the subsequent democratic governments of that country. ADM (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Surprised - well kind of - that a sentence or two is devoted to PIUS participating in the conversion of nonbelievers to Christianity ( actually to Catholism). I thought that was his job. Maybe the deletion of these sentences would change the tone there - just seems odd tonal quality, peevish?159.105.80.141 (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I assume that the Vatican keeps voluminous records - maybe wrong on this. Has any attempt been made to search these archives, etc by a competent - and unbiased - researcher?159.105.80.141 (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Any article that has a sentence: “ As Secretary of State, he had been a critic of Nazism and helped draft the 1937 Mit brennender Sorge anti-Nazi encyclical, but he ordered all copies destroyed upon the death of Pius XI, before the text was distributed[8]” Is deeply flawed. I have tried to remove it but it keeps getting put back.

Daniel Goldhagen

I object to the use of Goldhagen's book, it contains factual inaccuracies and the man is an anti-catholic, the book is absolutly not NPOV and if your read his other works he goes into rediculous extremes like saying every single german is responisble for the holocaust (different book but im proving my point). read more here A_Moral_Reckoning#Critical_reception there is source which say Goldhagen is wrong and scholarly. Smitty1337 (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I object to your objection. This is an area where there is much disagreement. Were we to only use sources that all editors agreed with, we would be left with nothing. As it happens, Goldhagen was a Professor at Harvard and his books are very influential in Holocaust studies. It is expected at any book with such influence will generate a certain degree of criticism, but such criticism has not been overwhelming. Indeed, the section you link to evinces much praise as well as criticism. To allow pseudonymous users to insist on the exclusion of the well-known works of professors is quite perverse indeed. Savidan 00:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

how is it perverse to point out that the man is biased and his work is questionable. He has printed factually erronius material previously and the book in question contains errors too. I did not remove it from the article i just began a discussion. As for saying he is a professor at harvard, that carries zero weight as an arguement other then elitism, and saying his book is influential does not mean they are correct. Please refrain from attacking me directly with accusations of perverse motives, I simply stated a fact that the book is considered by some sources to be of questionable accuracy, and the author of being blatently bias. Smitty1337 (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not and do not attack you, but I must continue to disagree. WP:RS easily includes books published by university professors at major publishers. This is not elitism, as it does not categorically exclude non-professors or minor publishers. However, Wikipedia simply has no good mechanism to do what you ask us to do. We are not in a position to decide objectively that you are correct and that Goldhagen is wrong and therefore Goldhagen is banished from the article. As I see it, you have two remedies to vindicate your views. First, you may seek out published criticisms of Goldhagen's work and include them in his article or (more likely) the article about his book. Second, you may seek out other reliable sources on this topic, and include their views. Savidan 17:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The man is an anti-catholic bigot who wrote it from a moral rather then historical perspective, his opinions....(Goldhagen asserted that it is accurate in "central contours", noting that the title and first page of the book reveal its purpose as a moral, rather than historical analysis) taken from the article cited above. as for your statement "We are not in a position to decide objectively that you are correct and that Goldhagen is wrong and therefore Goldhagen is banished from the article" Wikipedia:Verify#Questionable_sources there is plenty of evidence to show a violation of this:

"errors of fact combine to create a set of historical theses about the Nazis and the Catholic Church so tendentious that not even Pius XII's most determined belittlers have dared to assert them. And, in Goldhagen's final chapters, the bad historical theses unite to form a complete anti-Catholicism the likes of which we haven't seen since the elderly H.G. Wells decided Catholicism was the root of all evil"

"misinterpreting the record" "Ronald Rychlak, author of Hitler, the War, and the Pope, decried it as factually incorrect, releasing a lengthy catalog of corrections to Goldhagen's essay "What Would Jesus Have Done?" in the summer of 2002." The Weekly Standard denounced it as failing "to meet even the minimum standards of scholarship" and "filled with factual errors". In his review, Paul Collins indicated that the purpose of the book was undermined by poor editing, incoherence and redundancy Mark Riebling of National Review, who described himself as an admirer of Goldhagen's first book, called A Moral Reckoning "a 352-page exercise in intellectual bad manners" and "a spree of intellectual wilding" "errors of fact combine to create a set of historical theses about the Nazis and the Catholic Church so tendentious that not even Pius XII's most determined belittlers have dared to assert them. And, in Goldhagen's final chapters, the bad historical theses unite to form a complete anti-Catholicism the likes of which we haven't seen since the elderly H.G. Wells decided Catholicism was the root of all evil" ...suggested that Goldhagen avoided original research, as "[s]uch methodological and factual considerations would definitely get in the way of the demonic portrait of the Church that he seeks to paint"

Rabbi Dalin accused Goldhagen of engaging in a "misuse of the Holocaust to advance [his]...anti-Catholic agenda". Dalin also described the book as slanderous bigotry, noting "That the book has found its readership out in the fever swamps of anti-Catholicism isn't surprising. But that a mainstream publisher like Knopf would print the thing is an intellectual and publishing scandal."

he was even sued successfully for mislabeling a photo in the book painting Michael Cardinal von Faulhaber as associating with nazisSmitty1337 (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The policy that you link to is meant to apply to pamphlets, websites, and blogs, not books published by professors. Nor do any of the points you raise have any relevance to Goldhagen as used in this article. Take this to the article about the book. Savidan 22:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. (See below.) Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." where in there does it say it only pertains to "pamphlets, websites, and blogs, not books" it says websites and publications. it does not exclude books. And yes all of my points are relevent as a result of this, the book is highly biased and it outright lies in many places, even the author says its not relaying on the historical record but his moral interpretation which is by his own admission, that makes it based heavily on opinion. Smitty1337 (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing the book Smitty1337 (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing the book from the bibliography is not the right approach. Your comments, even taken at their full value, do not demonstrate that the book is so unreliable that it should not even be included in a list of books on a topic. It's one thing to disagree with an author; it's another thing to pretend that they don't exist. The notability of the book alone justifies its inclusion in such a section. If you seriously believe that the book does not qualify as a WP:RS please start a WP:RFC. Whether or not some book out there might qualify under the policy you quote, this current one is not even close. Savidan 04:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as the book is note inline cited anywhere in the article, fine let it be listed in the Bibliography, I cant really dispute a claim if no claims are even made from his book within the article. I still object but I will drop the issue because i realize i face an uphill battle because of the notability of his book despite its obvious anti-catholic bias. Smitty1337 (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if the story about the Pope telling a guy to be proud to be a Jew is verifiable enough to be on Wikipedia

1. Effectively, the only source is one ANONYMOUS article by a person who claims to have been directly involved. Technically, there are two articles, but the one from 2006 relies only on the one from 1944 as its sole source, and does not indicate that the author of the 2006 did any independent research beyond finding the 1944 article on the Internet. Generally, Wikipedia does not consider a single unverified first-person account to be sufficient, and that should be especially true when it is anonymous.

2. According to the 1944 article, there should be many, many witnesses. After 69 years, neither the Pope, nor any of the Vatican officials there with him, nor any of the 80 or so visitors waiting has confirmed that this incident ever happened. Some of the witnesses, especially the German soldiers, might have died before the story was first published. However, if it was true, there should have been at least some surviving witnesses. The lack of any independent verification makes the entire story rather doubtful.

71.109.150.229 (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Revert today

I reverted this edit[4] on the basis that is grossly distorts. I don't have my books at hand but see this link[5] for the issues involved. I have now seen a few edits in other articles which have used Pave the Way Foundation, directly or through RC advocacy sources, and I think their distortions go beyond an enthusiasm for a single cause: they seem to willfully distort the historical record, traduce those who don't share their bias and invent sensational discoveries that are no discoveries at all. They do this to promote peace! In short they, or those who use them, are not reliable sources. Yt95 (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Jewish Chronicle (March 10 1939) on Pius XII 'election

"POPE PIUS XII - DEMOCRACIES APPLAUD CARDINALS' CHOISE -WHEN NAZIS ATTACKED MGR PACELLI

"Cardinal Pacelli's elevation as Pope in succession to Pius XI has evoked general approval in the democratic countries, where it is believed that he will follow closely in the footsteps of Pius XI and continue the stand against totalitarian attacks on the Church. Among the congratulations receveid are messages frome the Anglo-Jewish Community, the Synagogue Council of America, the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Polish Rabbinical Council. It is widely recalled that the new Pope has shown himself in the past to have shared Pius XI's hostility to Nazi paganism and racialism.... The Nazis in Germany appear to have been taken by surprise... It is interesting to recall.. that not very long ago, on January 22, the Voelkisher Beobachter, published picture of Cardinal Pacelli and other Church dignitaries beneath a collective heading of "Agitators in the Vatican against Fascism and National Socialism".source:click search--Domics (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Desperate people, as the Jews where in 1939, sought to cling to any encouraging sign, no matter how slender, from religous leaders that would fan the flame of hope. Much of what you read from this period, and later relating to the formation of a Jewish state, is driven by such motives. The reality is that the Vatican had done a deal with Nazi Germany with the Concordat, and this was after the persecutions of the Jews in Nazi Germany had begun (They had also done a deal with the fascists in Italy) They continued to hope in this arrangement with the Nazi's right to the bitter end. That didn't mean they supported the Nazi racial ideology, though there were influencial voices who thought it could be done, but the main focus was saving the Church through the usual earthly powers, hence the emphasis on "sensitive" diplomancy and, by and large, public silence regarding the Holocaust. Yt95 (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

the Jewish Chronicle is published in London; Jews in London were not in danger. Anyway in Wikipedia we must deal with historical sources and not with our personal opinions.--Domics (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That Jews feel a strong bond of kinship that transends any nations boundries isn't news to most people but in the realm of common sense and pity that humans can normally identify with. Further, what I wrote above isn't just my opinion but drawn from scholarly sources. What points do you doubt? Yt95 (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

there are scholarly sources that states the opposite: do not forget!--Domics (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Which points do they dispute? If you are making ref to "public silence" show me a document in which the Holocaust and Jews (remembering the title of this article) is specifically mentioned during the period in question. The best I know is a vague allusion during a Christmas radio broadcast by Pius XII. I can give you several examples from British, U.K and Polish diplomatic messages continuously pressurising the Pope to speak out publicly. Remember the Reich was over 50% catholic during this period, over 20% of the people who worked in the extermination camps were Nazi Roman Catholics. Sure Hilter and Co would bluster about what they would do if and when the Pope spoke out but they couldn't do this in reality because they depended on the loyalty of its Catholic population. The only two occasions when Catholics in Germany took to the streets over Nazi policy Hitler backed down and one of those related to Jews married to Catholics Yt95 (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

On March 4, Joseph Goebbels, the German propaganda minister, wrote in his diary: "Midday with the Fuehrer. He is considering whether we should abrogate the concordat with Rome in light of Pacelli's election as pope."--Domics (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

So? The Church wanted to hang onto to the Concordat they signed with the Nazis. Your comment would have been more relevant if you had said the Church wanted to terminate the Concordats they had signed with the Nazis and Fascists - they didn't Yt95 (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

that demonstrates Pacelli was not a friend of Hitler or a filonazi if Hitler disagreed with his election. Where is the "Hitler's Pope" if Hitler was unhappy for his election? --Domics (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see, you are relishing the straw man argument that was engendered by the title of a modern book (Hitlers Pope) when the reality is the issue relates to the public silence of the Pope. That was the issue which characterised the debate up until that book with a sensationalist title was published. The name of that book was a "blessing" for R.C apologists, who now had a straw man to attack and ignore the real issues. Yt95 (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

WP is not a forum; I posted a historical source that gives a Jewish point of view of Pacelli' election; if anyone has sources from the same period with a different Jewish opinion could post them.--Domics (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Then why are you posting this material as if it is a forum? If you were seeking an opinion then I gave mine based on scholarly opinion. Let me elaborate: You highlighted the following sentence from the publication "it is believed that he will follow closely in the footsteps of Pius XI and continue the stand against totalitarian attacks on the Church.. What is the direct connection to the subject of this article? You also highlighted the following sentence "It is widely recalled that the new Pope has shown himself in the past to have shared Pius XI's hostility to Nazi paganism and racialism. He was indeed hostile to Nazi "paganism", as he was to Judaism (see quotation below given earlier today), and their extreme forms of race theory but that didn't stop them signing an agreement with "Nazi paganism". Do you feel the article doesn't emphasise enough this point or would you like me to expand upon it using scholarly sources? Yt95 (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

what is "racialism" if not racial policy against Jews and others? Do you know Jewish source of the same period speacking about Pacelli's antijudaism? or Pacelli's antijudaism was "discovered" only after the war? --Domics (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Judaism isn't the same as anti-jewishness or anti-semitism. Cardinal Pacelli only reflected the traditional anti-judaism of the Church for reasons that the modern Church now firmly rejects. Yt95 (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I should add that the distinction I made above regarding anti-Judaism and antisemitism is that which members of the Roman Catholic Church have traditionally made but it is not by any means universally accepted. Early in 1942 (I.e the time-period you specify), and just before the totality of the extermination process became known to them and the general public, a collection of essays was published by a group of scholars in the U.S under the title “Jews in a Gentile World”. In the chapter written by Dr. Carl Mayer “Religious and Political Aspects of Anti-Judaism” (p. 311-328) he writes “The final problem that presents itself in any serious discussion of the Jewish people is undoubtedly antisemitism, which should more precisely be called “anti-Judaism”. It would take too long to type out the reasons why here he treats them as the same thing. He deals with the forms of anti-Judaism/Semitism which do give the theological background to the comments made by Cardinal Pacelli at the Hungarian Eucharistic Congress (at a time Hungry was formulating it's first antisemitic laws) and as Pope Pius XII to the College of Cardinals in 1942:

“The point of departure in the Christian interpretation is, of course , the fact that the Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah. The Jews are the people chosen by God; yet it is they who have failed to acknowledge Jesus. What is the meaning of this fact in terms of Jewish destiny? The answer to the question does not follow one uniform pattern. At least two essentially different interpretations can be discerned. The first is that which is usually accepted as “the” [authors emphasis] Christian interpretation. It stems in the main from the Church fathers and has ever since exercised an enormous influence among theologians as well as laymen. According to it, the Jews have definitely been rejected by God because they rejected Him. Once they were the chosen people, yet now they are condemned. The destruction of Jerusalem is the open manifestation of divine punishment. With the Heathens they belong now to the “massa perditionis”; yet, compared with them, their destiny is even worse. For the heathens there is still hope; the destiny of the Jews, however is definite. If they still exist today, it is only because, according to Augustine, God has put the brand of Cain upon them “lest any finding them should kill him.” He goes on to describe the second approach based on Pauline theology which I won't type out here but it approximates to the position of the modern church in many ways. In this light it now becomes understandable that when the Archbishop of Canterbury, speaking in the House of Lords on 20 March 1939, offered Pope Pius XII the presidency of a proposed Christian Conference to deal with war issues and gospel values he was refused for the “usual theological reasons” The point is that the words attributed to Cardinal Pacelli/ Pius XII clearly fall into what was the traditional and mainstream viewpoint up until the Second Vatican Council (not a discovery by biased modern scholars as you seem to suggest) and it took the Holocaust to bring about that change. As it stands the 1942 quotation of Pius XII as reported by Guido Knopp is “incomprehensible” to the modern reader who then quite reasonably asks how the head of the RCC could utter such words when Jerusalem was indeed “being killed by the millions”? How could they be expected to speak out loudly and explicitly against the Holocaust when believing in their heart that “they carried the guilt for the murder of God”? (n.b Kopp does give credit to Pius for saving Jews in Hungry) It would interesting to read the views of other modern Holocaust scholars regarding these comments attributed to Pius XII and if they feel that perhaps they reveal one of the inner conflicts, at a barely conscious level, that made Pope Pius reluctant to speak out explicitly over and above the “standard” reasons given: i.e maintaining a policy of neutrality, fearing Communism as a greater threat to the Church than Nazism, wanting to be a post-war mediator, not wanting to make things worse and so on. The nearest I can find to this issue is Michael Phayer reporting that after the war a joke of Pope Pius XII was based on scene in heaven where Hitler and Moses now are together. Phayer believes this was as an “unsuitable topic for humor” and it shows that the “Vatican had still not internalized the meaning of the Holocaust.” Yt95 (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I see; you write very much and accuse me of spamming? anyway I'm waiting for jewish sources of this period speacking about Pius's XII antijudism/semitism/jewishness.--Domics (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You are the one who posted here, not me. I assumed good faith that you were seeking opinion, I gave it. I am not spamming when replying to you. Go away and there won't be anymore posts from me. As for Jewish sources being critical of Pius in 1942: I don't know , I have never purposely looked out information based on such a criteria (i.e looking to use a Jew as an Uncle Tom figure), but the question does arise, would desperate people attack the single most influencial moral leader at a time like that if they could avoid it? More likely they would praise and encourage any hopeful sign rather than condemn. The same goes for the formation and recognition of the Jewish state. However, using the material set out by a scholar of the period given above, the words to the College of Cardinals and the Eucharistic Congress in Hungry, then its clear there would be Jews who viewed them as anti-semitic/Judaism. It's unlikely the Jews of period in the wider world would have know of these remarks of Pius XII so would not be able to comment anyway Yt95 (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Allied diplomats pressed Pius XII to be silent on Nazi deportations and to destroy documents about rescue of Jews

"U.S. and British diplomats discussed exerting pressure on Pope Pius XII to be silent about the Nazi deportations of Hungarian Jews, according to newly discovered documentation. The British feared that the wartime pope might make a "radio appeal on behalf of the Jews in Hungary" and that in the course of his broadcast would "also criticize what the Russians are doing in occupied territory." Sir Francis D'Arcy Osborne, the British ambassador to the Vatican, told an American diplomat that "something should be done to prevail upon the pope not to do this as it will have very serious political repercussions."....
Another letter made public by the foundation discusses help for Jewish fugitives, with Osborne telling Harold Tittman, another of Taylor's aides, that it must be destroyed because it might endanger the life an Italian priest who was rescuing Jews if it fell into enemy hands. It was dated May 20, 1944, barely three weeks before Rome fell to the Allies and, according to the Pave the Way Foundation, shows how the work of rescuing Jews was conducted in secrecy, with most documentary evidence of such activities destroyed almost instantly."
source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domics (talk • contribs) 09:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you are the same person who tried to place such material in the article last week but the reason why it was reverted is given above in the section "Revert today". The Pave the Way orginization grossly falsify the position of the British diplomat Darcy Osborne who was a defender of the Jews and pressed Pius to make an explicit public stand, which he never did, against the Nazi genocide. Later in the week I will add material, from scholarly sources, that substantiate this claim. If you are trying to make the point that little documentary evidence for Pius helping the Jews in a physical way is due to safety consideration of others then get it from a better source than Pave the Way advocacy group who have extremely tenuous and elastic notions about truth. If you are trying to suggest that Pius kept silent about the Jews and the Holocaust because it would only make matters worse then, as others have pointed out, what could be worse that the total extermination of men, women and children which became fully effective from 1942?

In the source quoted there is an image of the letter: are you saying that this is false? anyway your personal opinion about the letter does not matter in WP. The letter and all the artocle is validated by historian Michael Hesemann. If you know historians that says the letter is false you can quote them.--Domics (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that D'arcy Osborne exerted pressure on the Vatican to denounce Nazi attrocities (citations below) and what he objects to in his reported conversation isn't the Pope speaking out against the deportation of Hungarian Jews as your summary extracts seem to suggest but rather against the Pope muddying the water, (and risking a break down of relations between the allies at a key point in the war), by also criticisng the alleged wide spread rape and summary executions Soviet troops were supposed to be engaged in. The Soviets didn't have extermination camps in an attempt to wipe out the Jewish race (the Gulags is another story) but the Nazis did. The Pope stuck to his policy of neutrality and this was indeed the basis for his silence on the Holocaust, but, as the R.C priest-scholar who wrote the article for the Encyclopedia Britannica commented, is it possible to take a neutral position in such matters when the morals involved are anything but neutral, i.e (my words) the extermination of an entire race? Yt95 (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As promised I have noted below the comments of Darc'y Osborne. Do you think they in any way support the spin put out by the Pave the Way advocacy group: “A November 1944 letter from Franklin C. Gowen, an assistant to the U.S. special representative to the Vatican, indicates that U.S. and British diplomats had pressured Pope Pius XII to remain quiet about Nazi deportations of Hungarians.” ?

“The Holy Father appears to be adopting an ostrich like policy toward these notorious atrocities. It is felt that as a consequence of this exasperating attitude, the great moral authority enjoyed by the papacy throughout the world under Pius XI has today been notably diminished” (memorandum n.85, 16 June 1942,

“[the] continued silence of the Pope on the moral issues of the day, especially in the face of one notorious Nazi atrocity after another, has alarmed many local Catholics” (1942, VkZ series)

“By desiring to be [a] mediator, Pope Pius XII has given up moral leadership. Thus he has jeopardized his chances of being listened to as the peace advocate.” (Summer of 1942)

“In December of 1942, the British minister to the Vatican , Francis d'Arcy Osborne, had an audience with Pius XII in which he gave the pope the English-American-Soviet report on the systematic starvation and massacre of Jews”

“Minister Osborne put it to the Vatican Secretary of State more bluntly on December 14, 1942: “Instead of thinking of nothing but the bombing of Rome, [the Holy See] should consider [its] duties in respect to the unprecedented crime against humanity of Hitler's campaign of extermination of the Jews”.

“In the final months of 1942, President Roosevelt's special envoy to the Vatican, Myron C. Taylor, and England's minister Francis d'Arcy Osborne put considerable pressure on the pope to denounce the Holocaust. Osborne was outraged: “Is there not a moral issue at stake which does not admit of neutrality? After his audience with the Holy Father, Taylor had a more explicit discussion with Monsignor Tardini , during which Taylor said, “I'm not asking you to speak out against Hitler, just about his atrocities “. Tardini wrote in his diary, “I could not but agree”... This he [Pius XII] did in his 1942 Christmas address. Pope Pius's radio talk contained twenty-seven words about the Holocaust out of twenty-six pages of text. The part about the Holocaust, buried in a sea of verbosity, did not mention Jews”

“[In November 1943] British minister Osborne told Pius that many people thought “he underestimated his own moral authority and high respect in which it was held by the Nazis because of the Catholic population of Germany; I added that I was inclined to share this opinion and I urged him to bear it in mind if push came to shove during the transition period.”

“Osborne provided London with a not altogether different but fuller explanation for why the Pope turned down the request to make a radio broadcast [direct to the Hungarian people to save the Jews, as the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury did]. Osborne said that if he [Pius XII] made such an announcement about Jews in Hungry he would have to make a similar statement regarding “Russian treatment of Poles and Baltic populations.” This was surely a hollow excuse. Pius knew very well that the Soviets were not engaged in a Nazi-style genocide or anything like it, and that the Soviets treatment of Poles could not begin to compare with the bestiality of the Nazis from 1940-1943 in occupied Poland.”

“Like the Germans, Pope Pius refused to look at the pictures that Tittman and Osborne had prepared for him that demonstrated the complicity of ordinary Germans in the Holocaust.”

“In his postwar report to the British Home Office, Minister Francis Osborne said that Pius had at his disposal two strong weapons against Nazi criminality- “excommunication and martyrdom.” Pius did not use these, Osborne said, because he wanted to be the mediator of a negotiated peace. Thus the Englishman, Osborne, a close observer of Pius, and the German, Leiber, his trusted adviser, are in full agreement on this point.” Yt95 (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that Phayer is the only scholar in the world; you can't fill WP with his quotations! I could do the same with others.--Domics (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Virtually all I have taken from the above books is based on direct quotations of Darcy Osborne, not a single author, and they say the exact opposite of what Pave the way has asserted. If you have aother authors who dispute what Darcy Osborne, as quoted by Phayer, is saying then put up the evidence or else stop causing a great of work to others Yt95 (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

As for the opinion of Pius in 1942 the article states:

"In the summer of 1942, long after the Roman curia had become aware of the mass murders, Pius explained to his college of Cardinals the reasons for the great gulf that existed between Jews and Christians at the theological level: "Jerusalem has responded to His call and to His grace with the same rigid blindness and stubborn ingratitude that has led it along the path of guilt to the murder of God." Historian Guido Knopp describes these comments of Pius as being "incomprehensible" at a time when "Jerusalem was being murdered by the million"".Yt95 (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't repeat things present in the voices. Anyway Knopp is a journalist and not an historian according WP both English and German. --Domics (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Guido Knopp is a Professor who advises mass media in the making of programs that are founded on history not fiction.[6] The book in question has a foreword written by Ian Kershaw who, like Guido Knopp, received much praise for overseeing documentaries about the Holocaust. What does "Please don't repeat things present in the voices" mean? I would be happy to see any evidence that Pius didn't say this, and include it in the article, because it does seems beyond all belief, save that it is similar to what he said publicly at a Eucharistic Congress in Hungry just before he became Pope. Yt95 (talk) 11:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have now checked the book in question. After praising Guido Knopp and the work of his research team which contained several named “prominent experts” Ian Kershaw concludes the foreword of the book with: “Hitler's Holocaust is a well researched and graphically written account of how the people of a civilized and cultured country could become involved in the perpetration of inhumanity on a gross scale. It deserves the widest possible readership. I am grateful for the opportunity to add this foreword to the English edition, and wish Guido Knopp's book every success.” Yt95 (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Pius XI and Cardinal Pacelli were well aware of the evil of Nazism that's why they prohibited membership in the Nazi party under pain of automatic excommunication. Some of the German Bishops opposed doing so but the Vatican prevailed upon the German Bishops conference.

The ban was known in the United States because the Associated Press reported on it. The Vatican was criticized by anti-Catholic bigots in the United States.

Pius XI prohibited Cardinal Pacelli from travelling to Germany afterwards due to fears of Cardinal Pacelli's assassination by the Nazis.

Attempts were made upon Cardinal Pacelli's life prior to the prohibition when he was in Germany, and after the prohibition, the Nazis and the Communists (also banned) tried to assassinate Cardinal Pacelli in Rome. In 1932-1933, 3 attempts on Cardinal Pacelli's life were made by the Nazis (2) and the Communists (1) while he was saying mass in the Lateran. Only one of the three bombs detonated though and the one that detonated missed killing the Cardinal because he shortened his sermon by 10 minutes due to a meeting he had to attend afterwards.

The attempts on the Cardinal's life were reported by the AP and printed in the New York Times and other American newspapers.

The Concordant between the Vatican and Germany was signed after German President Paul Von Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor. Goebells was described as a "Minister without Portfolio" because he had just been brought in by Hitler. German President Paul Von Hindenburg pushed for the immediate signing of the Concordant in order to prevent protests by Pope Pius XI and the Catholic church. 2603:9000:6213:3A00:644A:451E:7155:4EF6 (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

a journalist can write a great book of history but not for this he becomes a "historian".--Domics (talk) 07

18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

accusations to the Pave the Way Foundation

I'm new in WP Englhis but I don't think that a simple WP user could say that this Foundation and an accredited German historian as Michael Hesemann "grossly falsify the position of the British diplomats" or "they seem to willfully distort the historical record". Has this user an external source for these serious accusations or this is his personal opinion?--Domics (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't rebuke Michael Hesemann, I don't have any of his works to form an opinion. Anyhow though you seem to be seeking opinions by posting chunks of information on talk pages derived from advocacy groups, and I'm trying to answer them, I suggest you take your issues to the web sites of those groups rather than use Wikipedia as a spamming forum. I can forewarn you however that when I tried to point out to their experts that supposed comments from period sources had been altered by them (I checked the original) I was ignored. If you wish to engage in dialogue and are genuinely seeking to find out the truth, as best as we can know it, then you are of course welcome to contact me by mail or if you wish to continue it here then do so by using reliable sources and cut-out the threats of incivility. I speak plainly and I like others to do the same even though they may have a radically different point of view.Yt95 (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

you confirm my doubts: "I can forewarn you however that when I tried to point out to their experts that supposed comments from period sources had been altered by them (I checked the original) I was ignored". This is orginal and personal research and I do not think that this is in according WP rules. Pave foundation publish his research which are validated by historian Hesemann as in the article I submitted [7]; in the article there is the immage of the letter. Your personal opinion; your personal research are not valid sources for WP. Can you cite accredited historians against Pave Foundation's research? --Domics (talk) 10:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's now pretty clear you have no real interest in contributing to the article. You spammed the talk page with an article from a Catholic Newspaper which carries the sensationalist healine "Allied diplomats pressed Pope Pius to silence on Nazi deportations" and begins with "U.S. and British diplomats discussed exerting pressure on Pope Pius XII to be silent about the Nazi deportations of Hungarian Jews, according to newly discovered documentation". I assumed, wrongly, that you sought opinion on this before adding to the article. OK I gave my opinion using reliable sources and now you object to me not letting you have your way by acting as a propagandist by posting direct quotations from Darcy Osborne which verify what other scholars say about him. I have explained to you in quite some detail why the spin being placed on this letter is unfounded based on all the available evidence I have posted above but you are not listening. Because you have a source who states erroneously a certain view point you want to hang on to an untruth rather accept what other scholars have written and backed up with direct quotations from the original documents. You haven't tried to understand, discuss, only to insist this is what Pave the way through popular Catholic sources say. What is it you want exactly? I spent several hours last night doing homework in order to explain all this to you but you have just ignored it. Yt95 (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

and I thank you for your opinion and for the material you provided. Anyway the sources you gave was written before the Pave The Way Foundation findings. I'll return on the subject next.--Domics (talk) 07:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to what Pave the Way declare this isn't a "newly discovered document". Michael Phayer notes the letter in his book first published 2007, USA. (F. C Gowen, Vatican City, to Myron C. Taylor, November 7, 1944, Entry 1069, Box 4, RG 59, location 250/48/29/05, National Archives and Records Administration). They seem prone to making sensationalist claims like this. I recall them making similar kinds of claims for material that had been long known to Holocaust scholars and publiched by people like Falconi in the 1960's but without the spin or distortions of Pave The Way. Unlike them, and the scholars they (mis?)use, Phayer gives the context - see all the quotes direct from Darcy Osborne given above. Do you think that on reading these that Pave the Way are acting in a moral manner by traducing the memory of Osborne whom they insinuate blocked the saving of Jewish lives when the exact opposite is the case? The word calumny comes to mind:

Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.(Catechism of the Catholic Church, ccc 2480) Yt95 (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the Catechism. It's untrue that Pius XII was silent on Hungarian Jews: for example read this. Anyway let's remember that Osborn criticized also Allies for theyr silence on Jews and for their decision to not destroy tracks carrying the deportees. --Domics (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Who said he was silent? In fact it was pressure from people like Darcy Osborne and allied Governments that in end pushed Pope Pius to use back door diplomatic influences to save lives. If you read the link you provided Pope Pius acknowldges it is outside sources who are appealing to him for intervention. You can see from the Osborne quotations posted above the type of appeals he and others were making over a long period of time, not just about Hungarian Jews , but all Jews. Pius stuck to his policy of neutrality and thus never made any explicit public condemnation of the murder of Jews, and thus the debate if ever such grievous wrongs can ever be handled within a framweork of neutrality. Yt95 (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"Who said he was silent?"Alleged silence.
let's remember also this: "the World Jewish Congress extended its thanks to the Holy See and to the governments of Sweden, Switzerland and Spain, for the protection they gave under difficult conditions to the persecuted Jews in German-dominated Hungary"[8].--Domics (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The article section you link said he was publicly silent but privately he did intervene through diplomatic channels for Hungarian Jews (though only through persistent outside pressure to do so). Do you think this is incorrect based on all of the above? Yt95 (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"only through persistent outside pressure" is an opinion; we can not know what Pius would have done without those "pressures". Sorry, you sayd that Phayer cites the Pave the Way's letter; could you be more precise? what he says exactly?--Domics (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not my opinion. There would be no history books written at all if scholars didn't weigh up the evidence and reach conclusions, no matter how provisional they be. In the case of Michael Phayer he writes on this link to my user page (3 pages of A4 text) only about the extermination of Hungarian Jews and the background to the letter sent. Hopefully there is enough in these excerpts to reach your own conclusion as to who was doing the pressurizing and who was receiving it. I used the web browser zoom function to enlarge the copy of the Gowen letter contained in your link above. Though I still cannot make out the handwritten annotations it does pose a number of questions over and above the spin interpretation given to it in the newspaper article, i.e Pius being pressurized not to save Jews. Does any of the sources in your own country state clearly where the location of the letter is to be found, e.g is it part of the Taylor collection in the U.S National Archives that Phayer examined, is it a draft etc.? Yt95 (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"Pius being pressurized not to save Jews": where do you read this? Pius wanted to make the message but now were the Allies preoccuped for the political impact. (Gowen writes about an opposite impression than 10 days before). Well, Phayer writes "In early November, Gowen, as assistant to Myron Taylor, sent word that "it was fear of communism that in the fall of that year dissuaded Pope Pius from making a radio broadcast," ...[fn. 131. p. 286, F. C Gowen, Vatican City, to Myron C. Taylor, November 7, 1944, Entry 1069, Box 4, RG 59, location 250/48/29/05, NARA). But in the letter shown by Pave the Way Foundation there is nothing about Pope's "fear" or the quote given by Phayer; in the letter we see rather the fear of the diplomats. Is Phayer writing about an other letter written in the same day or what? --Domics (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't quoting anyone but summarising what the Pave The Way Article says: "U.S. and British diplomats had pressured Pope Pius XII to remain quiet about Nazi deportations of Hungarians" and "U.S. and British diplomats discussed exerting pressure on Pope Pius XII to be silent about the Nazi deportations of Hungarian Jews" and "Allied diplomats pressed Pope Pius to silence on Nazi deportations". Do you think my words are unfair to anyone? Re the quotation from Phayers book - yes, hence my question as to where the letter PTW comes from. As best I know the Taylor letters are held at NARA. The date of the letter is the same, the sender and receiver are the same, the subject is the same but Michael Phayer directly quotes something that doesn't appear in the PTW letter. This could be because he is seeing something in the NARA files not present in what PTA are presenting, e.g cover note with further info or he could, less likely, be quoting someone else who has looked at the RG59 file, i.e the reference cited in the following sentence. Either way PTW, (and their scholars?), have attemted to distort history by suggesting Darcy Osborne tried to stop the Pope making a radio broadcast that would have helped stop the deportations of Hungarian Jews. If their scholars have indeed a specialist interest in Holocaust history why didn't they quote what Darcy Osborne had said on the run up to this letter? Is it because that if they did then it would be transparently obvious to any reader what Darcy Osborne is asking the Pope not to do, i.e dilute the central message relating to the extermination of the Jews by treating it as comparable to the alleged crimes of some of the Soviet troops? Is it also that by the disclosing the Osborne correspondence, copied above, it wouldn't show Pius in a good light? Instead they chose to put out a letter the result of which was to deceive people, as witnessed by your own misunderstanding. Instead of explaining the background they choose to rely on the ignorance of the average reader and an ambiguity in the letter which never existed in the minds of the original sender or receiver. Yt95 (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I see, you're trying to reconcile Phayer's quotes with the letter presented by PTW making various assumptions; fortunately we all can read the letter. The position of the diplomats is clear: either the Pope's speech makes no reference to Russians or it is better no message at all.--Domics (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you are unwilling to listen to anything I have said but would rather start "nit-picking" ambiguities in book references. I have given direct quotations from Darcy Osborne on the need for the Pope to speak out publicly. That is the background of the Pave the Way Letter. How do you reconcile the comments of Darcy Osborne otherwise? If Darcy Osborne was putting pressure on the Pope not to speak out against the deportations of the Jews why is he in several documents now in the public domain stating the exact opposite? Is it not the case that any historian who reads all this, as distinct from a person who sets out to make an idol of Pius by proving he never did any wrong, will have no problem seeing that Osborne wants the Pope to speak out against the deportation of the Jews by radio but not to use the Russians as an excuse for the sake of neutrality and thus risk spoiling the realtionship between the allies (as if there could be any comparison between what the Russians and Nazis were doing). Anyhow this is all getting too repititious, all I'm doing is repeating the same things over and over but there is no understanding. Unlike you I'm willing to listen to any information that shows the Government papers of Osborne are falsified or that he spoke with a forked tongue but so far you haven't done that. Instead you are pushing the Pave the Way spin that Darcy Osborne put pressure on the Pope that stopped him speaking out about saving the Jews and you, or they, haven't come up with any information to support that point of view. Yt95 (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

1942 Address to College of Cardinals

Can someone who has the Knopp's book tell me/us which is the source of this discourse used by Knopp? I'm very interested in reading all the papal address. --Domics (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The book I have is an English un-footnoted translation which presumably formed the script for the TV programms. If I can find out anymore information then I will post it here. I would like to think it was out of context quotation (but yet it echoes what he said just before he became Pope) because it seems beyond all belief that anyone, never mind the Pope, could even think such a thing at that point in time never mind say it to the College of Cardinals. It is an utterly stunning quotation and if anyone finds out any information from reliable sources that discredits it in any way then they will have my full support in deleting the text. As for your insinuations about the source I will not repeat what I have already written save that you seem to be adopting a hypocrtical standard when you cite Michael Hesemann. No? Yt95 (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Phayer conclusion about Pius anti-Semitism and the 1938 Eucharistic Congress

in the main article we can read: "Before the Holocaust began an International Eucharistic Conference took place in Budapest in Hungary during 1938. Cardinal Pacelli addressed the congress and described the Jews as people "whose lips curse [Christ] and whose hearts reject him even today". Michael Phayer asserts that the timing of the statement, during a period when Hungary was in the process of formulating new anti-Semitic laws, ran counter to Pope Pius XI's September statement urging Catholics to honour their spiritual father Abraham".
The book quoted is from 2000.
It would be very interesting to remember what Phayer writes in a 2003 article responding to the Corwell accusations.
"Cornwell found scant confirmation of his assertion that Pope Pius was an anti-Semite. Corwell overlooked an address that Pacelli delivered in Hungary in 1938 on the occasion of the International Eucharistic Congress held in Hungary.... This statement indicates that Pacelli shared the predominant Catholic religious anti-Semitism of the day. But the address must be read in the context of the time, not in the context of the Holocaust.
There is, to conclude, little evidence suggesting that Pope Pius was anti-Semitic and no evidence suggesting that he was vociferously anti-Semite. Furthermore, if such evidence were at hand, one could not conclude from it that Pius acted on anti-Semitic sentiments during the Holocaust".
Phayer M., "The Priority of Diplomacy: Pius XII and the Holocaust During the Second World War" in Donald J. Dietrich, "Christian responses to the Holocaust: moral and ethical issues", Syracuse Univ Pr, 2003, p. 92.--Domics (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Michael Phayer in the above is drawing a distinction between anti-Semitism (which the Church never promoted) and anti-Judaism which is reflected in the words of Cardinal Pacelli and 1942 College of Cardinal speech. Not everybody accepts this distinction, see a passage from a 1942 book I posted above. For many people Jews are so much associated with Judaism that they regard an attack on one as an attack on the other. Of course in theological ivory towers this distinction could be made but too often at ground level anti-Judaism became an attack on Jewish people. At the end of WWII Jews were pleading not to be sent back to Poland by the allies, not because they feared the now deposed Nazis or the Soviets but because of Polish Catholics who had long been subjected to anti-judaism sermons by many of its priests. Their fears were well founded, several hundred Jews were murdered by the Poles in the immediate aftermath of WWII. Yt95 (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

D'Arcy Osborne's last judgment on Pius XII

D'Arcy Osborne was Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Holy See 1936–1947. His messages are often quoted as critizing the conduct of Pius XII during the WWII in particular about the Holocaust. See the previous discussion [9]in which a WP user has provided us with many of these citations mainly from Phayer's books.
In 1963 Osborne send a letter to The Times in order to defend Pius XII from the attack made by the play "The Deputy" by Rolf Hochhuth which indicts Pope Pius XII for his failure to take action or speak out against The Holocaust.
Let's read his letter:
"So far from being a cool (which, I suppose, implies cold-blooded and inhumane) diplomatist, Pius XII was the most warmly humane, kind generous, sympathetic (and incidentally saintly) character that it has been my privilege to meet in the course of a long life. I know that his sensitive nature was acutely and incessantly alive to the tragic volume of human suffering caused by the war and, without the slightest doubt, he would have been ready and glad to give his life to redeem humanity of its consequences. And this quite irrespective of nationality or faith." (The Times, 20 may 1963) If Osborn had considered Pius XII responsable for the death of the Jews would have written this?--Domics (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Who said Darcy Osborne claimed that Pius was responsible for the death of the Jews? Nothing I have posted above has claimed that. Michael Phayer also is critical of the so called cold heartedd portrait in "The Deputy", so was Carlo Falconi. What all three have in common, Osborne, Phayer, Falconi, and a lot of other people, is a less than flattering opinion of the public silence of Pope Pius XII during the Holocaust. You are mixing up how Pius was perceived by people he met on a personal basis with his job as head of the Roman Catholic Church. I'm not making any comparision between the two, but to take an extreme example, look at how many people could regard Hitler as being a tender and compassionate man in personal relationships yet look at what he did as leader of the Nazi's. If the source you are quoting for The Times letter is "A Question of Judgment: Pius XII & the Jews" Dr. Joseph L. Lichten, which was published in 1963[10], note the part which has been missed out by the multitude of Catholic apologetic sites who quote it. "Sir D'Arcy Osborne, Msgr. Alberto Giovanetti, Father Robert Leiber, and Harry Greenstein, who represent three faiths and four nationalities — point to two elements of the Pope's personal philosophy in addition to the pragmatic reason "for his decision to refrain from an explicit condemnation of the Nazis....." You also make mention of "citations mainly from Phayers books". Are you suggesting that Darcy Osborne didn't make these critical remarks about the Popes refusal to make a public stand on the extermination process? :

“The Holy Father appears to be adopting an ostrich like policy toward these notorious atrocities. It is felt that as a consequence of this exasperating attitude, the great moral authority enjoyed by the papacy throughout the world under Pius XI has today been notably diminished” (memorandum n.85, 16 June 1942

“[the] continued silence of the Pope on the moral issues of the day, especially in the face of one notorious Nazi atrocity after another, has alarmed many local Catholics”

“By desiring to be [a] mediator, Pope Pius XII has given up moral leadership. Thus he has jeopardized his chances of being listened to as the peace advocate.” (Summer of 1942)

“Instead of thinking of nothing but the bombing of Rome, [the Holy See] should consider [its] duties in respect to the unprecedented crime against humanity of Hitler's campaign of extermination of the Jews”.

“In the final months of 1942, President Roosevelt's special envoy to the Vatican, Myron C. Taylor, and England's minister Francis d'Arcy Osborne put considerable pressure on the pope to denounce the Holocaust. Osborne was outraged: “Is there not a moral issue at stake which does not admit of neutrality?[12] After his audience with the Holy Father, Taylor had a more explicit discussion with Monsignor Tardini , during which Taylor said, “I'm not asking you to speak out against Hitler, just about his atrocities “.(all citations given above) Yt95 (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Reported Meeting with German-Jewish visitor in 1941; there is the name

regarding the 'Reported Meeting with German-Jewish visitor in 1941'[11] researcher William Doino (coauthor of the book 'The Pius War: Responses to the Critics of Pius XII) has found the protagonist of the episode. The episode is confermed by Howard “Heinz” Wisla’s memoirs.[12]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.47.176.125 (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Summi pontificatus

I reverted today the following edit[13] because it contains the editors own orginal research e.g "It criticized the use of the Nazi term "Fatherland" as a distraction from spiritual obligations and as undermining the virtue of charity, and reminded readers of the "common origin".." The encyclical not only doesn't mention the Nazis but actually defends the notion of "Fatherland" e.g "Nor is there any fear lest the consciousness of universal brotherhood aroused by the teaching of Christianity, and the spirit which it inspires, be in contrast with love of traditions or the glories of one's fatherland, or impede the progress of prosperity or legitimate interests." and goes to give the example of Jesus who "Himself gave an example of this preference for His Own country and fatherland, as He wept over the coming destruction of the Holy City." All this is to be done in spirit of charity and not forgetting the heavenly country. Furthermore any material shoulld be given a citation that includes the page number of the book. If an author is giving an opinion then it should be made clear and not presented as fact. Finally there is already a section dealing with this encyclical within the article which is set out in chronological order. The deleted text was placed at the top of the article, if anybody wishes to expand on this encylical then please do so in the correct section Yt95 (talk)

I was the author of that section, and I have now taken on the user name Matthew C. Hoffman -- my real name. This reversal is clearly unjust. If User Yt95, who eliminated my section, had a problem with a phrase in it, he could have simply eliminated the phrase. The fact that the encyclical is mentioned in another part of the page in a different context is a flimsy and insufficient basis for eliminating this important section, which takes its proper place in a chronology of actions by Pius in relation to the Nazi regime. Yt95's statement is factually incorrect. I cited the encyclical itself, and then put the text in the bibliography, so a citation IS provided to the text itself.

I have restored the page, this time with all quotes cited according to paragraph, and linking directly to the encyclical from the citations themselves, rather than referring to the bibliography. I have modified the statement disputed by Yt95 to be more precise and provide the paragraph number for verification. I The quote, from paragraph 67 is as follows "Undoubtedly, that formation should aim as well at the preparation of youth to fulfill with intelligent understanding and pride those offices of a noble patriotism which give to one's earthly fatherland all due measure of love, self-devotion and service. But, on the other hand, a formation which forgot or, worse still, deliberately neglected to direct the eyes and hearts of youth to the heavenly country would be an injustice to youth, an injustice against the inalienable duties and rights of the Christian family and an excess to which a check must be opposed, in the interests even of the people and of the State itself." This clearly indicates what my revised text says, which is that the "fatherland" cannot be used to turn people away from their spiritual ("heavenly") obligations MatthewCHoffman (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Matthew, Your revised edit is definately moving in the right direction but the following needs to be resolved.

My response:

1) Your text reads "Pius XII's first encyclical contained several implied attacks on anti-semitism and racial ideologies in general, seen as so clearly critical of Nazism that the Royal Air Force and the French air force dropped 88,000 copies of it over Germany during World War II." The reference you give doesn't support your text in respect of "anti-Semitism" and "racial ideologies in general". I can help you with reliable sources next week if you wish to link to racial anti-semitism but not religious anti-semitism of which many sources assert the Church did support.

2) Your revised text now reads "It noted that the "fatherland," a term used often by the Nazis, should not be seen as conflictive with spiritual obligations" but this is your own original research. Somebody could easily turn the text around by stating that Pius affirmed the term "fatherland", a term commonly used by the Nazis, and recalled how Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem (see Guido Knopp on the destruction of Jerusalem later in article) and only cautioned that the heavenly kingdom shouldn't be forgotten nor the the need for charity. My suggestion is to simply delete this text.

3) Please also merge the sections that deal with the encyclical as it doesn't make sense having them separate. Yt95 (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Response:

1) Your behavior seems to me to be a violation of Wikipedia civility and editing policies. You are not editing the parts you find problematical, but rather using any defect you argue is in the text to eliminate whole sections, multiple citations and quotes etc. You also seem to be engaged in edit warring, based on Wikipedia's stated polices, by repeatedly eliminating textual elements wholesale, rather than making particular edits.

For example, you simply removed the citation I included from a book on Pius XII, which is cited in another Wikipedia entry, without any explanation.

I made modifications to the text as it stood in order to address a concern you expressed about them, and left intact the previous citation and quote that you defend, but apparently you do not believe that you are under a similar obligation to work with other users on a consensus. This does not seem to be to be in compliance with the Wikipedia policy on civility.

2)The other major mention of Summi Pontificatus is regarding the invasion of Poland and the aspects of the encyclical that discuss that matter, which is a different topic. By the way, that section is terribly impoverished, as is much of this entry (too much dependency on one historian). Please do not continue to eliminate whole sections of text based on your disagreement with certain elements.

3) You have done nothing to show how my entry contains original research. It is simply a citation that supports the anti-Nazi understanding of the encyclical, one that I back up with several citations of reputable sources. Original research, according to Wikipedia policy, consists of novel interpretations unsupported by sources. The interpretation I present is supported with quotes directly from the encyclical as well as statements by other authoritative sources (including the German ambassador to the Holy See), so clearly this is not a novel interpretation.

4) You falsely state that "The reference you give doesn't support your text in respect of 'anti-Semitism' and 'racial ideologies in general'" but anyone can see that I provide quotes with precise citations (the more precise citations were requested by you, and I fulfilled that request).

I am restoring the reverted text again, after what I believe is a clearly unjustified reversal on your part. Please cease edit warring with me and work within Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. MatthewCHoffman (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

International Catholic-Jewish Historical Commission

If the "Jewish Virtual Library" of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise is correct, then this section needs to be seriously reworked as this source provides documents after the present write up states that no documents were found. Will work in this in future(http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.181.248 (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Assassination attempts on Hitler section

this section was overwritten in this dif:

old text:

On 10 November 1939 a letter from Pius to Hitler was delivered containing the Pontiff's special congratulations on the Führer's miraculous escape from a failed assassination attempt. Pius didn't like Hitler and in the same month secretly passed on to the British representative at the Vatican information of another intended German plot against Hitler that sought support from the allies, but Pius "did not wish in the slightest degree to endorse or recommend it."

References

new text:

The Vatican opted to answer the critical allegations by releasing a series of documents aiming to refute the growing perception of the Vatican having been conniving in the Holocaust. One Jesuit priest answering Lewy's text on behalf of the Vatican suggested that Lewy's conclusions were based "not on the record but on a subjective conviction... This ready acceptance of a Nazi-inspired wartime legend is a measure of Lewy's inability to plumb the motives of Pius XII... There is no proof, in this book or anywhere else, that Pius XII thought Nazism was a 'bulwark' in defense of Christianity."

References

In my view, both of these texts are terrible. the new content is not even about the section. I reverted the overwrite and deleted the section, for discussion here. Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Referencing

The referencing on this article is appalling. We have refs like "Cornwell, 1999" and "Rychlak, Doino 2010" but no explanation of what works they refer to. Because of this I shall downgrade the quality ratings to C. DuncanHill (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I shall attempt to bring some order to the referencing. Darrend1967 (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

The very first paragraph of the lead states, without any hint of controversy: "Pius employed diplomacy to aid the victims of the Nazis during the war and, through directing his Church to provide discreet aid to Jews and others, saved hundreds of thousands of lives." zzz (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC) ...and reading on, paragraph #2 states authoritatively that he saved "800,000 Jewish lives". Now, the editor(s) with access to all this data should add the non-Jews for a grand total saved. Somewhere in the region of 10 to 50 million (= the entire WWII death toll of combatants and non-combatants)? zzz (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted the reference to 800,000 lives saved as it was obviously from an unreliable source (catholic advocacy group the National Association of Catholic Families). I left the tag in place for someone with more knowledge on the subject to assess.AlwaysUnite (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Content was identified as copied verbatim from How Pius the XII Protected Jews. Removed text must not be restored. (Content copied from other sources, including [14] and [15], has evidently already been removed.) For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

He did know about the Holocaust and the other awful stuff that happened...

New research is showing he was up to date with what happened and he ignored a letter about this. The article will need some extra sentences on this. Currently I can only found an article in German, just posted, but I am sure English versions will pop up soon as this is rather big news. Original German article: https://www.zeit.de/2020/18/papst-pius-xii-holocaust-akten-information or https://religion.orf.at/stories/3001739/ Garnhami (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I have long wondered whether Pius XII (or Pius XI) had ever considered excommunicating some or all Catholic members of the Nazi Party, which likely would have had an especially dramatic effect in Bavaria (where the Party started) and in Austria. (It might have stopped or slowed Hitler's "Final Solution".) Of course, the Party likely would have tried to assassinate Pius XII in response, but that came with the territory - he would have known that long before implictly accepting the implicit nomination to the papacy. Does any literature exist discussing such? Acwilson9 (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Pius XII was likely concerned about saving Catholic lives, I don't think that you'll find any evidence that he was more concerned about saving his own. Check here before you conclude that Pius XI should have done more. Jzsj (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Pius Wars - merge or separate?

The article Pius Wars overlaps greatly with the content of this "Historiography" section of this article. I think it makes sense to either

• clearly define article scopes and reduce overlap,
• fold a lot of the non-duplicated content into this article and delete Pius Wars, or
• merge much of this page's content into Pius Wars and trim content here for length.

I have added a {{main|Pius Wars}} tag to the Historiography section and added a link to this page at the top of Pius Wars. I have no preference about the outcome. Pinging @Randomalphanumericstring: @Elinruby: who were major contributors to that article for their input.-Ich (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I think my article (Pius Wars) is clearer, more complete, and better organized than the Historiography section of Pius XII and the Holocaust. Also, the term Pius Wars is well-known and useful - very likely to be googled. And the Pius XII and Holocaust article is a bit of a shaggy dog already, making it a difficult read. Finally, the Pius Wars are ongoing, dying down periodically and then being raised again - my article is organized by dates so it will be easier to add to as more is published. With respect, I say that, where necessary, the unique sections of Historiography should be folded into my article. Randomalphanumericstring (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I note also that there are many Wikipedia articles on Pius already, including on individual books such as “Hitler’s Pope.” Are all these articles going to be folded into one big article on Pius XII? Much better, for the sake of readability, to have multiple articles of manageable size. Randomalphanumericstring (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I will put this on my list of things to look at but don’t have strong feelings about how to reorganize, except that I feel very strongly that this important point (collaboration) should not be omitted from any article about this man. Where we put the most detail is not important to me. I actually do not recall working on this article, but I no doubt came across it while working on Liberation of France, which still needs a lot of work I would prioritize over this. Apparently something about the article annoyed me enough to trigger an edit for English or readability, but as long as we don’t whitewash him I am not particularly invested in this version of this article Elinruby (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I folded most of the information in the above "Historiography" section into the "Pius Wars" article. I left out a few things that I thought were redundant, problematical, or seemed to stray too much from the consequential, such as, in the 3rd paragraph: the "E.W. Bockenforde" non-quote from an obscure publication, and the quote from Pinchas Lapide's "Three Popes and the Jews" in which Lapide quotes another author who strongly criticizes Pius XII. I left it out partly because it's a quote of a quote, and partly because Lapide goes on from there to defend Pius XII, saying that Pius and the other popes had much less power over German and other Catholics than their critics imagine. I own a copy of Lapide's book: "If one lesson can be learned... it is that none of [the Papal bulls, edicts, etc., written in defense of the Jews] ever turned out to serve its declared purpose - unless papal words were backed by papal troops; and even then, some of them were totally ignored." (p. 242) (And of course Pius XII had no real papal troops.)Randomalphanumericstring (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)