Recount the Catholic Churchs Responses to Nazi Anti-Semitism - Term Paper Example

The Catholic Church’s Response to Nazi Anti-Semitism OUTLINE: I – Introduction The Holocaust was a horrific tragedy that present generations stilldo not fully understand. 2. The blame is cast on those who some believed should have done more, especially the Catholic Church. II – The prejudice of the Catholic Church 1. Anti-Judaism, upon which general anti-Semitic attitudes have been founded, was borne out of Christian beliefs and teachings. 2. Despite their prejudice, the Catholic Church do not espouse racial discrimination against Jews. 3. Nazi anti-Semitism was unique in that it was founded on neo-pagan beliefs, not Christian; it was, however, justified to a certain extent by anti-Judaism. III – The response of the pope was the response of the Catholic Church 1. Pope Pius XII was credited with saving Jewish lives through diplomacy and interventions through his nuncios. 2. Critics refute the wisdom of Pope Pius XII’s diplomacy and claimed his alleged silence meant anti-Semitic sympathies. 3. Others decried the criticisms on the pope’s actions and claimed that his work behind the scene was more effective than openly confronting the Nazis. 4. The Catholic Church’s intention to negotiate peace through diplomacy was shaped by past experience that a more aggressive stance against the Nazis led to worse persecutions. IV – Conclusion 1. The Catholic Church’s response was justifiable in light of the Nazi’s threats. 2. History should teach modern generations to be wary of prejudices that have remained prevalent in society. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S RESPONSE TO NAZI ANTI-SEMITISM Introduction The Holocaust was one of the greatest horrors of the 20th century, if not the greatest. What made the tragedy all the more malevolent was the fact that it was perpetrated by mankind on mankind. Over the decades, it is still difficult for us to grasp the very logic behind that contemptible act. Despite the numerous historical accounts on the matter – studies aimed at understanding what Adolf Hitler was trying to accomplish with the extermination of the Jews – the enormity of injustice and evil done still eludes us. This may be because we live in a time purchased for us by this tragedy in history – that we enjoy protection against the violation of our human rights because the Holocaust has bought it for us. So we look back not without a measure of disbelief and revulsion, but maybe also with guilt. The questions that subsequent generations could not seem to find the answer were these: why was it allowed to happen? And why did we not stop it in time? It is easier for us to put the blame on various quarters who could have done something more – a retrospective viewpoint gives us that advantage. But despite the voluminous researched articles on the matter, do we really understand the position of those who could have done something? The Catholic Church has particularly taken the heat for what a lot of present-day scholars believed to be a remission of their religious and moral duty even going so far as to accuse the wartime pontiff – Pope Pius XII – of anti-Semitic inclinations. The prejudice of the Catholic Church In light of the seeming theological foundation of Anti-Semitism – which most believed to have stemmed from Anti-Judaism – it is understandable that the Catholic Church would be suspected of being prejudiced against, if not altogether racially discriminating of, the Jews. Although Christian beliefs were born out of Jewish beliefs – and that Jesus, Mary and Joseph were Jews – the Bible have often criticized Jews in the New Testament (e.g., Judaism’s rejection of Christ as the Messiah, the hypocrisy of Pharisees, etc.). Moreover, Christians blamed the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ. For centuries, the Catholic Church has openly taught Anti-Jewish beliefs and attitudes that, although it did not advocate the persecution of Jews, it had unwittingly condoned the prejudice, the hatred, the degradation and, sometimes, the demonization of Jews (Valois). The Catholic Church, however, contended that its prejudice against Jews involved “attitudinal anti-Judaism rather than doctrinal anti-Semitism” (Valois). There is a distinction: anti-Judaism is the subjective antagonism towards the Jews whereas anti-Semitism is the “philosophical belief in the inferiority of the Jewish people” (Valois). The former is a form of prejudice and which has existed since the beginning of Christian faith, while the latter is racial discrimination. This discrimination was what fueled Hitler’s campaign to murder the Jewish people. Nazi anti-Semitism was not founded on Christian doctrines; on the contrary, it was based on the occult vision of the superiority of race advocated by Alfred Rosenberg. Hitler held the belief that the German Aryan race is in a struggle against the Jews and that the latter is the reason for the degeneracy of the modern society (Valois). Obtaining the total supremacy of German race was thus equated to redeeming humanity, and the only course of action acceptable was the total annihilation of the Jewish race. The uniqueness of Nazi anti-Semitism, therefore, lies in the neo-pagan belief that made a religion of blood and race – and this was what made Nazism genocidal (Valois). While it is regrettable that Christian hostility towards Jews and Judaism may have been culpable for making the genocide tolerable to those who carried out those extreme measures and to those who passively condoned them, Christian prejudice did not motivate such actions. Hitler himself made the break from Christianity when he articulated in his 1942 Gott und Volk: “We Germans have been called upon by Fate to be the first to break with Christianity…The age of Christian civilization is past. Only German civilization has anything to say. We are Germans. Therefore we cannot be Christians” (in Valois). It is in this light that makes accusations of the Catholic Church’s anti-Semitic sympathies seem preposterous specifically during the time that Jews were actively persecuted and which persecution eventually led to concentration camps and the ovens of Auschwitz. The response of the Pope was the response of the Catholic Church The papacy is the symbol of power and authority of the entire Catholic Church. Pope Pius XII, formerly Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli and Secretary of State to his predecessor, took over the papal office from Pope Pius XI in the advent of World War II. The Church under his leadership was credited with saving an estimated 860,000 Jewish lives through diplomatic pressure and the direct actions of his nuncios (Lockwood). His was also the strongest voice – and often the only voice – against Nazism in all of Europe. Throughout his lifetime, during and after World War II, Pope Pius XII was praised for maintaining crucial Vatican neutrality in the face of a war-torn Europe even as he sustained his criticism of Nazi terror and their National Socialist ideologies and even as he attempted diplomacy (Lockwood). But the wisdom of Pope Pius XII diplomacy was refuted by Cornwell. In modern times, Pope Pius XII and the Catholic Church have been accused of complicity because it was perceived the silent by-stander amidst the seemingly unstoppable atrocity perpetuated by the Nazis. Phayer attributed the pope’s meekness and unwillingness to engage the Nazis to what Phayer perceived was the pope’s hope that peace could be negotiated with a powerful Germany who will be Europe’s defense against the aggressive communism of the Soviet Union (in Lockwood). Phayer however did not substantiate this assertion – which was an underlying theme throughout his book – with documentary evidence (Lockwood). Contrary to other critics, however, Cornwell did not believe that the pope’s silence was due to cowardice or pro-Nazism. According to Cornwell, the evidence he gathered pointed to the idea that Cardinal Pacelli was a power-hungry manipulator whose ecclesiastical purpose it was to protect not the Catholic Church but the power of his papacy and to even further it. Phayer, however, admitted that the Catholic Church was not idle at those trying times; Pope Pius XII may not have made public declarations against the Nazi but he did intervene through his nuncios (in Lockwood). Rychlak, in defense of the Church leader, has maintained that Pope Pius’ work behind the scene was arguably more effective than confronting the Nazis head on. Phayer also acquiesced that there was little the pope could have done to force the Nazi to relent (in Lockwood). The pope’s use of diplomatic remedy to the Nazi threat has been defended by the Catholic Church as the only means to negotiate peace that would save lives. Vatican’s neutrality was the only way it can be allowed to harbor and protect refugees. Phayer also criticized the Concordat between Hitler and Pope Pius XI, the formulation of which was largely the work of Cardinal Pacelli, as linking the Vatican with the Nazi regime (in Lockwood). But it was concluded at the time when Vatican had to face the realities of Hitler’s rise to power and safeguards had to be installed to provide a basis for the protection of the Catholic faithful’s civil and religious rights. For the Holy See, it was choosing between two evils – the Concordat being the lesser – or leave the German faithful to draconian restrictions (Gajewski). Even though the Nazis violated most of its articles right after it was signed, the Concordat provided the Vatican with the legal basis to protest such violations. Without that legal protection, more Jews would have been killed. Even prominent members of the Jewish community praised the efforts of the pontiff and credited him with saving hundreds of thousands of Jews (Bokenkotter, 480-481) Phayer also contended that if the pope has issued a formal bombshell, instead of maintaining papal silence and neutrality, more lives would have been saved (in Lockwood). Furthermore, he lamented that the Church’s role would have been more aggressive had Pope Pius XI lived five more years citing the 1937 encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Mit brenneder sorge, which condemned the religion of blood and race advocated by National Socialist movement, as an example. It was credited as the first official document that dared to condemn Nazism and was in fact one if the greatest criticisms issued by the Vatican (Bokenkotter, 389–392). Phayer, however, overlooked the fact that Cardinal Pacelli drafted the encyclical. The less aggressive approach Vatican employed in Pope Pius XII’s time should be understood by the Nazi’s reaction to open confrontation. Hitler was aware that the Church was a pernicious opponent and an implacable foe (Rychlak, 95) and has, thus, singled out the clergy for ridicule, humiliation and punishment (Gakewski). The “immorality” trials in 1935 to 1936 where priests were wrongfully accused of immoral and perverted lifestyles were but an example of the campaign to defame clerics, the real object of which was to strangle Catholicism and undermine the credibility of the Catholic Church (Gajewski). Conclusion As pointed out in Bokenkotter (480–481), targeting Pope Pius XII for moral outrage is failing to understand history. His alleged silence was not a passive tolerance or acquiescence to Nazi anti-Semitism or the actions that were justified by such distorted ideologies. The Pope’s upfront diplomatic response may have left his critics wanting but in light of the capability of the Nazis for downright atrocity and their blatant disrespect of the clergy and Christianity, it’s easy to conjecture what would have happened had the Vatican took on a more aggressive stance. As the seat of the highest authority of the Catholic Church, the pontiff’s response to Nazi anti-Semitism is regarded as the entire Catholic Church’s response. Just as Pope Pius XII was not merely silent and idle, so the Catholic Church was not ambivalent or tolerant of anti-Semitism. Admittedly, the latter is a rather broad assertion and may even be regrettably inaccurate where a portion of the Catholic population is concerned. Unfortunately, prejudice against Jews had been deeply entrenched in the consciousness of most Christians that some don’t even stop to ask why. It is important, however, that we do examine the basis of these prejudices and be mindful, even fearful, of its possible racist consequences. History has taught us a lesson, it bought us freedom and rights; it would be the height of ingratitude to those who paid the price if the present and future generations maintain a fertile soil for anti-Semitism to thrive. WORKS CITED: Bokenkotter, Thomas. A Concise History of the Catholic Church. New York: Doubleday, 2004. Caroll, James. “The Holocaust and the Catholic Church.” The Atlantic Monthly. October 1999. 18 April 2010 Gajewski, Karol Jozef. “Nazi Policy and the Catholic Church.” Inside the Vatican. November 1999. 17 April 2010 Lockwood, Robert P. “Review of Michael Phayer’s The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930-1965.” The Catholoc League. N.D., 18 April 2010 Rychlak, Ronald J. Hitler, the War and the Pope. Our Sunday Visitor, 2000. Valois, Helen M. “Anti-Judaism vs. Anti-Semitism Was Christianity Itself Responsible for the Nazi Holocaust?” Lay Witness. October, 1998. 17 April 2010 Read More