So it seems like Pius XII got up to no good after all

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

WaPo link

The meme that comes to mind is "shocked Pikachu" (ETA: Either that or Don Blankenship saying "no surprise there"). I've never bought the "Pius XII the great protector of European Jewry" narrative, mostly because I don't think I've ever talked to a single Jewish historian or theologian who's advanced it, only Catholics with an obvious motive to defend the guy. It seems like Pius fell (or was led, by this Dell'Acqua guy, whom I'd never heard of but who sounds like a real piece of work) into the "muh credibility, muh he said she said" trap that a lot of people today fall into with claims of sexual misconduct--only with even higher stakes.

It looks like Giovanni Battista Montini (the future Paul VI) was one of the relative good guys in that he took a report (which turned out to be correct) seriously enough to forward it to his then-superiors, who proceeded not to do anything with it. I'd be interested to see if further research, whenever that ends up being possible, establishes that other figures in the mid-levels of the Vatican bureaucracy attempted to intervene or whistle-blow but didn't have the support of their superiors.

It definitely seems on the basis of this like Pius's canonization cause is dead now, at least until and unless the Church undergoes some sort of neoreactionary coup...

[afleitch]

Yes, the more the archives are opened up the less...genial a picture of him emerges.

The problem I think is the apologists, often not coming from the Church itself, but rather self appointed gatekeepers who cannot accept that as an institution, like many religious and secular institutions, the Catholic Church failed to stand up against Fascism (and in Spain and Portugal, this continued for thirty years after the war) and against the unveiling holocaust. There were notable and noble exceptions to this by individuals and groups but the Church itself closed an eye. Which of course, it distinctively didn't do when it came to perceived threats from socialist movements in Europe coterminous with the rise of Fascism.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The problem I think is the apologists, often not coming from the Church itself, but rather self appointed gatekeepers who cannot accept that as an institution, like many religious and secular institutions, the Catholic Church failed to stand up against Fascism (and in Spain and Portugal, this continued for thirty years after the war) and against the unveiling holocaust.

Yeah the cottage industry of self-ordained spin doctors who desperately scramble to deny or excuse past wrongdoings that the current leadership of the Church actually seems more willing to acknowledge and deal with drives me absolutely nuts. You see the same thing with Isabel of Castile, whom some right-wing Catholic historians seem to treat almost as if she's their waifu or something.

[Georg Ebner]

Prof.Wolf is - as author of books against celibacy aso. - well known to be an agitator.
His "spectacular findings" have been known for years, published by Blet (a member of 1 of the 3 commissions established by the Church so far [a fact also "forgotten" by Wolf]) or Hesemann.
Dell'Acqua was an unimportant figure and his personal "appunto" (=addition to the act) was made in order to "warn against careless actions, which could danger not only the Holy See, but especially the Jews in german hands" as Dell'Acqua continued (but this was also "forgotten" by Wolf).

So no reason to be abused for open apostasy by the I-am-so-sorry-I-am-a-catholic.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Prof.Wolf is - as author of books against celibacy aso. - well known to be an agitator.
His "spectacular findings" have been known for years, published by Blet (a member of 1 of the 3 commissions established by the Church so far [a fact also "forgotten" by Wolf]) or Hesemann.
Dell'Acqua was an unimportant figure and his personal "appunto" (=addition to the act) was made in order to "warn against careless actions, which could danger not only the Holy See, but especially the Jews in german hands" as Dell'Acqua continued (but this was also "forgotten" by Wolf).

If Dell'Acqua was an unimportant figure, then that makes the rest of what's described here look worse for Pius, not better.

So no reason to be abused for open apostasy by the I-am-so-sorry-I-am-a-catholic.

Who are you referring to? I'm a committed Catholic, about to be a godparent for the first time, who aspires to orthodoxy and is interested in the Catholic Church's actual past rather than self-justifying fanfictions. As Pope Francis teaches, "reality is more important than ideas".

[Mikeduke324]

The meme that comes to mind is "shocked Pikachu" (ETA: Either that or Don Blankenship saying "no surprise there"). I've never bought the "Pius XII the great protector of European Jewry" narrative, mostly because I don't think I've ever talked to a single Jewish historian or theologian who's advanced it, only Catholics with an obvious motive to defend the guy. It seems like Pius fell (or was led, by this Dell'Acqua guy, whom I'd never heard of but who sounds like a real piece of work) into the "muh credibility, muh he said she said" trap that a lot of people today fall into with claims of sexual misconduct--only with even higher stakes.

It looks like Giovanni Battista Montini (the future Paul VI) was one of the relative good guys in that he took a report (which turned out to be correct) seriously enough to forward it to his then-superiors, who proceeded not to do anything with it. I'd be interested to see if further research, whenever that ends up being possible, establishes that other figures in the mid-levels of the Vatican bureaucracy attempted to intervene or whistle-blow but didn't have the support of their superiors.

It definitely seems on the basis of this like Pius's canonization cause is dead now, at least until and unless the Church undergoes some sort of neoreactionary coup...

You do know Pius saved many Jews in Rome during WWII right? So many that the head Rabbi of Rome became A CATHOLIC.

[Mikeduke324]

You do know Pius saved many Jews in Rome during WWII right? So many that the head Rabbi of Rome became A CATHOLIC.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You do know Pius saved many Jews in Rome during WWII right? So many that the head Rabbi of Rome became A CATHOLIC.

Yes, and he also let many other Jews in Rome be rounded up and carted off without a peep. Increasingly it doesn't seem like he was somebody with a principled stance either for or against the Holocaust. You might think that that's good enough, but you can't expect people without the phrase "Deus Vult!" in their signatures to agree with you.

Welcome to the forum.

[SNJ1985]

I've never bought the "Pius XII the great protector of European Jewry" narrative, mostly because I don't think I've ever talked to a single Jewish historian or theologian who's advanced it, only Catholics with an obvious motive to defend the guy.

This book was written by a Jewish historian (and rabbi):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Hitler%27s_Pope

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I've never bought the "Pius XII the great protector of European Jewry" narrative, mostly because I don't think I've ever talked to a single Jewish historian or theologian who's advanced it, only Catholics with an obvious motive to defend the guy.

This book was written by a Jewish historian:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Hitler%27s_Pope

I stand corrected.

However, to be clear, I don't think this new evidence suggests that Pius XII was "Hitler's Pope". The idea that Pius actively favored or "rooted for" Hitler is sensationalist tripe. The question is how benign--or otherwise--his public neutrality was. I think that people without Gimli-sized axes to grind ought to be able to agree that this new or possibly-new evidence doesn't suggest an especially heartening answer to that question.

[afleitch]

I've never bought the "Pius XII the great protector of European Jewry" narrative, mostly because I don't think I've ever talked to a single Jewish historian or theologian who's advanced it, only Catholics with an obvious motive to defend the guy.

This book was written by a Jewish historian (and rabbi):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Hitler%27s_Pope

I mean, he also wrote this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon_of_Evil

So he's not exactly approaching source material from a neutral perspective.

[Georg Ebner]

Prof.Wolf is - as author of books against celibacy aso. - well known to be an agitator.
His "spectacular findings" have been known for years, published by Blet (a member of 1 of the 3 commissions established by the Church so far [a fact also "forgotten" by Wolf]) or Hesemann.
Dell'Acqua was an unimportant figure and his personal "appunto" (=addition to the act) was made in order to "warn against careless actions, which could danger not only the Holy See, but especially the Jews in german hands" as Dell'Acqua continued (but this was also "forgotten" by Wolf).

If Dell'Acqua was an unimportant figure, then that makes the rest of what's described here look worse for Pius, not better.

So no reason to be abused for open apostasy by the I-am-so-sorry-I-am-a-catholic.

Who are you referring to? I'm a committed Catholic, about to be a godparent for the first time, who aspires to orthodoxy and is interested in the Catholic Church's actual past rather than self-justifying fanfictions. As Pope Francis teaches, "reality is more important than ideas".

Thank You for the unmasking quote - we Christians are well aware, whose "reality" and "life" people like His Holeness Pope Francis or You put above DIVINE faith - it's certainly not the innerTRINITarical one ...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Prof.Wolf is - as author of books against celibacy aso. - well known to be an agitator.
His "spectacular findings" have been known for years, published by Blet (a member of 1 of the 3 commissions established by the Church so far [a fact also "forgotten" by Wolf]) or Hesemann.
Dell'Acqua was an unimportant figure and his personal "appunto" (=addition to the act) was made in order to "warn against careless actions, which could danger not only the Holy See, but especially the Jews in german hands" as Dell'Acqua continued (but this was also "forgotten" by Wolf).

If Dell'Acqua was an unimportant figure, then that makes the rest of what's described here look worse for Pius, not better.

So no reason to be abused for open apostasy by the I-am-so-sorry-I-am-a-catholic.

Who are you referring to? I'm a committed Catholic, about to be a godparent for the first time, who aspires to orthodoxy and is interested in the Catholic Church's actual past rather than self-justifying fanfictions. As Pope Francis teaches, "reality is more important than ideas".

Thank You for the unmasking quote - we Christians are well aware, whose "reality" and "life" people like His Holeness Pope Francis or You put above DIVINE faith - it's certainly not the innerTRINITarical one ...

Genuine question: what on earth are you talking about?

[Georg Ebner]

Prof.Wolf is - as author of books against celibacy aso. - well known to be an agitator.
His "spectacular findings" have been known for years, published by Blet (a member of 1 of the 3 commissions established by the Church so far [a fact also "forgotten" by Wolf]) or Hesemann.
Dell'Acqua was an unimportant figure and his personal "appunto" (=addition to the act) was made in order to "warn against careless actions, which could danger not only the Holy See, but especially the Jews in german hands" as Dell'Acqua continued (but this was also "forgotten" by Wolf).

If Dell'Acqua was an unimportant figure, then that makes the rest of what's described here look worse for Pius, not better.

So no reason to be abused for open apostasy by the I-am-so-sorry-I-am-a-catholic.

Who are you referring to? I'm a committed Catholic, about to be a godparent for the first time, who aspires to orthodoxy and is interested in the Catholic Church's actual past rather than self-justifying fanfictions. As Pope Francis teaches, "reality is more important than ideas".

Thank You for the unmasking quote - we Christians are well aware, whose "reality" and "life" people like His Holeness Pope Francis or You put above DIVINE faith - it's certainly not the innerTRINITarical one ...

Genuine question: what on earth are you talking about?

I am talking about the evident fact, that already hic et nunc mankind can be split in those, who accept, and those, who reject the offer of the snake.
Those, who are finally part of Christ, and those, who are finally part of the AntiChrist.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Prof.Wolf is - as author of books against celibacy aso. - well known to be an agitator.
His "spectacular findings" have been known for years, published by Blet (a member of 1 of the 3 commissions established by the Church so far [a fact also "forgotten" by Wolf]) or Hesemann.
Dell'Acqua was an unimportant figure and his personal "appunto" (=addition to the act) was made in order to "warn against careless actions, which could danger not only the Holy See, but especially the Jews in german hands" as Dell'Acqua continued (but this was also "forgotten" by Wolf).

If Dell'Acqua was an unimportant figure, then that makes the rest of what's described here look worse for Pius, not better.

So no reason to be abused for open apostasy by the I-am-so-sorry-I-am-a-catholic.

Who are you referring to? I'm a committed Catholic, about to be a godparent for the first time, who aspires to orthodoxy and is interested in the Catholic Church's actual past rather than self-justifying fanfictions. As Pope Francis teaches, "reality is more important than ideas".

Thank You for the unmasking quote - we Christians are well aware, whose "reality" and "life" people like His Holeness Pope Francis or You put above DIVINE faith - it's certainly not the innerTRINITarical one ...

Genuine question: what on earth are you talking about?

I am talking about the evident fact, that already hic et nunc mankind can be split in those, who accept, and those, who reject the offer of the snake.
Those, who are finally part of Christ, and those, who are finally part of the AntiChrist.

Okay. What does that have to do with Pius XII or with the Holocaust?

[Georg Ebner]

Prof.Wolf is - as author of books against celibacy aso. - well known to be an agitator.
His "spectacular findings" have been known for years, published by Blet (a member of 1 of the 3 commissions established by the Church so far [a fact also "forgotten" by Wolf]) or Hesemann.
Dell'Acqua was an unimportant figure and his personal "appunto" (=addition to the act) was made in order to "warn against careless actions, which could danger not only the Holy See, but especially the Jews in german hands" as Dell'Acqua continued (but this was also "forgotten" by Wolf).

If Dell'Acqua was an unimportant figure, then that makes the rest of what's described here look worse for Pius, not better.

So no reason to be abused for open apostasy by the I-am-so-sorry-I-am-a-catholic.

Who are you referring to? I'm a committed Catholic, about to be a godparent for the first time, who aspires to orthodoxy and is interested in the Catholic Church's actual past rather than self-justifying fanfictions. As Pope Francis teaches, "reality is more important than ideas".

Thank You for the unmasking quote - we Christians are well aware, whose "reality" and "life" people like His Holeness Pope Francis or You put above DIVINE faith - it's certainly not the innerTRINITarical one ...

Genuine question: what on earth are you talking about?

I am talking about the evident fact, that already hic et nunc mankind can be split in those, who accept, and those, who reject the offer of the snake.
Those, who are finally part of Christ, and those, who are finally part of the AntiChrist.

Okay. What does that have to do with Pius XII or with the Holocaust?

The leftextreme-utopistical immanentism of people like His Holeness Pope Francis or You has indeed nothing to do with His Holyness Pope Pius XII.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Prof.Wolf is - as author of books against celibacy aso. - well known to be an agitator.
His "spectacular findings" have been known for years, published by Blet (a member of 1 of the 3 commissions established by the Church so far [a fact also "forgotten" by Wolf]) or Hesemann.
Dell'Acqua was an unimportant figure and his personal "appunto" (=addition to the act) was made in order to "warn against careless actions, which could danger not only the Holy See, but especially the Jews in german hands" as Dell'Acqua continued (but this was also "forgotten" by Wolf).

If Dell'Acqua was an unimportant figure, then that makes the rest of what's described here look worse for Pius, not better.

So no reason to be abused for open apostasy by the I-am-so-sorry-I-am-a-catholic.

Who are you referring to? I'm a committed Catholic, about to be a godparent for the first time, who aspires to orthodoxy and is interested in the Catholic Church's actual past rather than self-justifying fanfictions. As Pope Francis teaches, "reality is more important than ideas".

Thank You for the unmasking quote - we Christians are well aware, whose "reality" and "life" people like His Holeness Pope Francis or You put above DIVINE faith - it's certainly not the innerTRINITarical one ...

Genuine question: what on earth are you talking about?

I am talking about the evident fact, that already hic et nunc mankind can be split in those, who accept, and those, who reject the offer of the snake.
Those, who are finally part of Christ, and those, who are finally part of the AntiChrist.

Okay. What does that have to do with Pius XII or with the Holocaust?

The leftextreme-utopistical immanentism of people like His Holeness Pope Francis or You has indeed nothing to do with His Holyness Pope Pius XII.

Facts don't care about your (or the late Pope Pius's) feelings.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, the more the archives are opened up the less...genial a picture of him emerges.

Yeah. Even before this last batch of archives was opened, it was already public knowledge that Pius XI had, shortly before dying, been drafting preparing to circulate an overt and unambiguous denunciation of Nazism. Soon after his death, however, and before even the new conclave, then-Secretary of State Pacelli took it upon himself to suppress it. And of course this silence would be his policy throughout his papacy. If anyone wants to argue in good conscience that this was the right thing to do, I'm not interested in arguing with them.

I'm sure he had no sympathy for Hitler privately, but well, people like that are the reason that quote about good men doing nothing exists.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yes, the more the archives are opened up the less...genial a picture of him emerges.

Yeah. Even before this last batch of archives was opened, it was already public knowledge that Pius XI had, shortly before dying, been drafting preparing to circulate an overt and unambiguous denunciation of Nazism. Soon after his death, however, and before even the new conclave, then-Secretary of State Pacelli took it upon himself to suppress it. And of course this silence would be his policy throughout his papacy. If anyone wants to argue in good conscience that this was the right thing to do, I'm not interested in arguing with them.

I'm sure he had no sympathy for Hitler privately, but well, people like that are the reason that quote about good men doing nothing exists.

Moreover, the more mealy-mouthed anti-Nazi encyclical that does exist, Mit brennneder Sorge, according to some historians had to be strengthened beyond what Pacelli wanted (although, to be fair, according to Pius XI himself it was basically Pacelli's work in its entirety).

I've never understood why a certain kind of conservative Catholic is so dead-set on defending this aspect of Pius XII's pontificate. Is it because he's the Last True Blue Conservative Pope according to trad/sede historiography*? Is it knee-jerk "the libs don't like him, so we should"? Do some of these people secretly think the Holocaust was maybe not so bad but know they can't get away with saying so? What's going on here? Why can't we just draw a line under him as a Pope who made an incredibly serious moral and political mistake and move on?

*which isn't even true, btw; he produced the apostolic constitution that's still normative for Catholic teaching on immigration and he started the piecemeal introduction of vernacular languages into the liturgy

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've never understood why a certain kind of conservative Catholic is so dead-set on defending this aspect of Pius XII's pontificate. Is it because he's the Last True Blue Conservative Pope according to trad/sede historiography*? Is it knee-jerk "the libs don't like him, so we should"? Do some of these people secretly think the Holocaust was maybe not so bad but know they can't get away with saying so? What's going on here? Why can't we just draw a line under him as a Pope who made an incredibly serious moral and political mistake and move on?

I think the issue is less trads who are outright crypto-Nazis (although those do exist, let's not kid ourselves) and more trads who fundamentally agree with the Church in the 1930s that coming to an understanding with Nazis, however distasteful, was necessary to advance their broader agenda. This is always the default attitude of "respectable" conservatives, of course.