Archives Show Church Excommunicated Nazis

[Adeodatus]

The testimonies from Jewish leaders, diplomats and scholars in favor of Pius XII have been well documented. You can find the principal references in Rabbi David Dalin’s book The Myth of Hitler’s Pope. I went to the trouble of typing many of them out on one thread, but the anti-Catholic propagandists just went ahead and ignored them.

For those who bash Pius XII, the truth is hated and ignored.

 

[chosen_people]

The article is perfectly correct as to the situation between 1930 -1933. During this time there was Catholic opposition to the Nazi party.

Then came 1933:

The Catholic Zentrum party on orders from the Vatican becomes the deciding vote for the Hitler enabling act, bringing Adolph Hitler to power in Germany.

The Reichskonkordat is signed between the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany. Its leading proponent is the person who will become Pius XII. Following the pact not only are Catholic Nazis no longer excommunicated, the ban forbidding Catholics to join the Nazi party is rescinded.

The Catholic Church even cooperates with the Nazis in providing Church records to ascertain the religion of civil servants to weed out Jews.

You may also want to study Archbishop Konrad Grober and Bishop Hilfrich during this period.

Simple question: Name one single Catholic who was excommunicated from the Catholic Church after Hitler’s rise to power and the signing of the Reichskonkordat for joining the Nazi party?

 

[Dale_M]

This one ought to be in the NYT, but don’t expect it to.

It appears that no news organization, outside of Zenit, has reported on this finding.

 

[Dale_M]

The Pave The Way Foundation has helped the Vatican digitize many of its historical documents. They can be viewed here:
vatican.va/archive/atti-ufficiali-santa-sede/index_en.htm

Of particular interest to this thread is the material titled Acts and Documents of the Holy See Relative to the Second World War. This material does not contain the entirety of Vatican documents during the wartime, but reflect 16 years of research to defend the Church’s actions during the period.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1001275.htm

But…erm… you need to be able to read French.

 

[Lujack]

The most serious blow against the Church with regards to the Nazis was that they held the line for a long time, supporting the Catholic Centre Party against the Nazis, and then caved. I don’t believe in the Hitler’s Pope thesis, because it goes too far, but Pius XII ought not to get a free pass either. I think in the final judgment that what he did would have been good enough for Father Achille Ratti, hard-working priest, but it was not good enough for Pope Pius XII, head of the Catholic Church and successor to St. Peter.

 

[Adeodatus]

The most serious blow against the Church with regards to the Nazis was that they held the line for a long time, supporting the Catholic Centre Party against the Nazis, and then caved. I don’t believe in the Hitler’s Pope thesis, because it goes too far, but Pius XII ought not to get a free pass either. I think in the final judgment that what he did would have been good enough for Father Achille Ratti, hard-working priest, but it was not good enough for Pope Pius XII, head of the Catholic Church and successor to St. Peter.

According to Israeli diplomat and scholar Pinchas Lapide (Three Popes and the Jews), Pius XII himself through interventions on behalf of them saved about 870,000 thousand Jews.

That’s pretty good for just one man, not counting the work of all the others.

Of course, this and all the praises heaped on Pius XII on the time by prominent Jews is ignored in favor of baseless accusations and innuendo.

 

[Soutane]

It is well documented also that the Vatican during World War II urged the Allies not to have black troops stationed in Rome because they believed such soldiers were pre-disposed to raping European women. At the very least, that does not show a very informed or enlightened attitude.

Would you provide the documentation please,then start another thread and stop trying to derail this one.

 

[csuliman]

The article is perfectly correct as to the situation between 1930 -1933. During this time there was Catholic opposition to the Nazi party.

Then came 1933:

The Catholic Zentrum party on orders from the Vatican becomes the deciding vote for the Hitler enabling act, bringing Adolph Hitler to power in Germany.

The Reichskonkordat is signed between the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany. Its leading proponent is the person who will become Pius XII. Following the pact not only are Catholic Nazis no longer excommunicated, the ban forbidding Catholics to join the Nazi party is rescinded.

The Catholic Church even cooperates with the Nazis in providing Church records to ascertain the religion of civil servants to weed out Jews.

You may also want to study Archbishop Konrad Grober and Bishop Hilfrich during this period.

Simple question: Name one single Catholic who was excommunicated from the Catholic Church after Hitler’s rise to power and the signing of the Reichskonkordat for joining the Nazi party?

Goebbels was excommunicated- but because he married a protestant.
I think that the Church’s record in combating fascism is mixed at best. This is not to take away from the many heroic Catholics and Catholic priests prior and during the War.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Would you provide the documentation please,then start another thread and stop trying to derail this one.

Shucks, it is well documented. I’m not trying to derail this thread; I’m basically showing that the wartime Vatican archives show a lot of things.

"BRADLEY: And when Rome was finally liberated, John Cornwell says that Pius XII revealed another prejudice. He requested the Allies not to send any black troops into the Holy City. Father Gumpel claims that Pius did this because he had heard that black American GIs were raping Italian women.

(on camera): So he heard of no instances where white troops had raped women?

GUMPEL: Well, of course, this also happened, but it was…

BRADLEY (on-camera): But that was OK to send them in.

GUMPEL: No. No, no. I mean, it happened – no, of course not. You see, the Americans had to send in troops. It is also true that whites behaved like that, but the accusation was particularly directed against the blacks. Whether this was correct or not, I don`t know."

claremontmckenna.edu/hist/jpetropoulos/documents/sixtymin.htm

 

[utunumsint]

The Pave The Way Foundation has helped the Vatican digitize many of its historical documents. They can be viewed here:
vatican.va/archive/atti-ufficiali-santa-sede/index_en.htm

Of particular interest to this thread is the material titled Acts and Documents of the Holy See Relative to the Second World War. This material does not contain the entirety of Vatican documents during the wartime, but reflect 16 years of research to defend the Church’s actions during the period.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1001275.htm

But…erm… you need to be able to read French.

If anyone is interested, I’ve started reading through the Acts and posting my thoughts and translations of some of the French Quotes.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=448462

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Why would you need informers to tell you that Nazis should be excommunicated?

Quote:
“Pope Pius XII in 1939 instructed Cardinal Bertram to send a birthday message to Hitler: ‘warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany’ which was added, ‘fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars.’ These greetings became a tradition and were sent every April 20th.” “Hitler compared to God/Jesus/Christians”, by Jim Walker]

Diplomatic correspondance always included such language. Just look at the actual documents exchanged between the Vatican and every other power in those days.

Quote:
“Pacelli became a crowned Pope on March 12, 1939 (Pius XII). The following month on April 20, 1939, at Pacelli’s express wish, Archbishop Orsenigo, the nuncio in Berlin, opened a gala reception for Hitler’s fiftieth birthday. The birthday greetings thus initiated by Pacelli immediately became a tradition; each April 20 during the few years left to Hitler and his Reich, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin would send “warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany,” to which he added ‘fervent prayers which the Catholics in Germany are sending to heaven on their altars’.” [Cornwell, John, Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII, Viking, 1999, p. 209]

You should read some of my posts on my reading of the papal documents. From them you get the actual historical context of the Papacy’s attempt at a raprochement with the Nazies. After Mit brennender Sorge’s failure to change Nazi extremism or influence German Catholics to moderate Hitler’s power, the Pope, along with the original German Cardinals who helped draft the earlier encylcical, decided to do their best to foster peaceful relations with Hitler, simply because the German persecution and war mongering had gotten so out of hand, that they felt it was their Christian duty to use do their best to foster peace in general. Especially in days when everyone, both the Axis and the Allies, were gearing up for war.

Quote:
Adolf Hitler died a Catholic in good standing within the Catholic Church, was never excommunicated, and was supported by the Vatican even after the war! Rome established and operated an escape route through Italy for former Nazi officials that has become known as the “Vatican Rat Lines” “Unholy Trinity”, by Mark Aarons and John Loftus]

I haven’t gotten through the historical documents to make any kind of comment on this subject. Hopefully it isn’t true. Does your source provide any evidence for this allegation?

God bless,
Ut

 

[ChadS]

Why aren’t historians talking about these records? I think the Zenit article says it best:

When asked why this information is not currently known by many historians, Pave the Way chairman Elliot Hershberg noted that "according to the archives sign-in sheets, most of these historians and scholars have simply not come to the open archives to research 65% of Pacelli’s ministry.”

If you’re a historian and you’re looking in the wrong places for answers then of course you won’t find them. If historians aren’t signing out the relevant files and doing the leg-work to read them, then by definition they’ll go unread and nobody will know about them. If you think the only relevant period of Pope Pius’ papacy was the 1940s then those are the only documents you’ll read. For historians to have that attitude and neglect large parts of the record is very lazy and does a dis-service to the historical record and an accurate understanding of the period.
chosen people:

The article is perfectly correct as to the situation between 1930 -1933. During this time there was Catholic opposition to the Nazi party.

Then came 1933:

The Catholic Zentrum party on orders from the Vatican becomes the deciding vote for the Hitler enabling act, bringing Adolph Hitler to power in Germany.

The Reichskonkordat is signed between the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany. Its leading proponent is the person who will become Pius XII. Following the pact not only are Catholic Nazis no longer excommunicated, the ban forbidding Catholics to join the Nazi party is rescinded.

The Catholic Church even cooperates with the Nazis in providing Church records to ascertain the religion of civil servants to weed out Jews.

You may also want to study Archbishop Konrad Grober and Bishop Hilfrich during this period.

Simple question: Name one single Catholic who was excommunicated from the Catholic Church after Hitler’s rise to power and the signing of the Reichskonkordat for joining the Nazi party?

Yes, the Zentrum Party supported Hitler in the Enabling Acts, but this was a last ditch effort to stave off persecution from the Nazis. They felt that by doing this they would show they were loyal Germans and not a threat. After that vote though the Zentrum Party and BPP promptly dissolved themselves seeing that there was little more for them to do in the state and hoping for the protection of the state. The Nazis never took this Concordat seriously and arrested members of the Zentrum Party, shut down Catholic publications, and arrested priests and religious. The relationship between the Holy See and the Nazis was never cozy. Pius XII felt that he was taking the best deal he could get with the Concordat. He didn’t want to be seen as ignoring the legally elected authority in a country.

People keep asking for proof to show that the Nazis were excommunicated or claim Hitler was still “in good standing.” Many Bishops in Germany refused to allow their members join the party and the Nazis took it upon themselves to forbid party members and especially the SS from taking part in Church ceremonies. Excommunication isn’t always something that happens to you but something you do to yourself. The Church made it clear that Nazi ideology was incompatible with Church teaching, by being a Nazi and supporting Nazi ideology you excommunicated yourself. You won’t find long lists of excommunicated Germans, but you can be sure they’d already excommunicated themselves.

See: catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0033.html and claremontmckenna.edu/hist/jpetropoulos/church/tamerpage/index1.htm

ChadS

 

[utunumsint]

Quote:
Originally Posted by csuliman
Why would you need informers to tell you that Nazis should be excommunicated?

Quote:
Quote:
“Pope Pius XII in 1939 instructed Cardinal Bertram to send a birthday message to Hitler: ‘warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany’ which was added, ‘fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars.’ These greetings became a tradition and were sent every April 20th.” “Hitler compared to God/Jesus/Christians”, by Jim Walker]

So even after Czechoslovakia, Kristallnaght and the persecution of the opposition, the Jews, those who were born handicapped, etc, the Church send in its “warmest regards”.

Its funny, after posting on this topic, I just read about it in the archives. It does not say that Pius instructed Cardinal Bertram to send a birthday message to Hitler, althrough this would not have been inappropriate in an of itself. Bertram, who was the president of the Fulda Council of Catholic Bishops, sent the message on behalf of his council. When the bishop members of the council found out about the letter, they were really angry at its positive tone. So there was dissension among the ranks of bishops of that council.

A bishop Preysing sent three letters to Pius to explain to him the situation, and offered three possible solutions:

1-Disolve the Fulda council!!!
2-Remove Bertram from his Presidency.
3-Remove Bertram as bishop of Berlin.

The Pope decided to do any of these actions would show that Catholics were divided amongst themselves and show weakness to the Nazis. His decision was to accept the bad situation, and to have the council members discuss the issue internally, and to come to a united front on how to deal with the gaff.

In no way did the Pope order the letter, or at the very least, he had no knowledge of what Bertram was going to write. His discision to not punish Bertram was to maintain a united front.

Check it out yourself if you would like. I’m not sure where Jim Walker got his information though. When was his book writen? Could it be that he did not have access to the archives, or perhaps misinterpreted something?

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Never mind. I found the quote from his website.

nobeliefs.com/ChurchesWWII.htm

Did you know he only quotes from Cornwell, and Cornwell did not have full access to the papal archives when he wrote Hitler’s Pope? Check out this quote from Wikipedia.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler’s_Pope

The author has been praised for attempting to bring into the open the debate on the Catholic Church’s relationship with the Nazis, but also accused of making unsubstantiated claims and ignoring positive evidence. Some commentators have characterized the book as having since been “debunked”. [2][3][4],[5][6] The author, himself, has since retracted his accusations in substantial part[3][7][8], saying that it is “impossible to judge the motives” of the Pope.[5][6] but that “Nevertheless, due to his ineffectual and diplomatic language in respect of the Nazis and the Jews, I still believe that it was incumbent on him to explain his failure to speak out after the war. This he never did.”

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Its funny, after posting on this topic, I just read about it in the archives. It does not say that Pius instructed Cardinal Bertram to send a birthday message to Hitler, althrough this would not have been inappropriate in an of itself. Bertram, who was the president of the Fulda Council of Catholic Bishops, sent the message on behalf of his council. When the bishop members of the council found out about the letter, they were really angry at its positive tone. So there was dissension among the ranks of bishops of that council.

A bishop Preysing sent three letters to Pius to explain to him the situation, and offered three possible solutions:

1-Disolve the Fulda council!!!
2-Remove Bertram from his Presidency.
3-Remove Bertram as bishop of Berlin.

The Pope decided to do any of these actions would show that Catholics were divided amongst themselves and show weakness to the Nazis. His decision was to accept the bad situation, and to have the council members discuss the issue internally, and to come to a united front on how to deal with the gaff.

In no way did the Pope order the letter, or at the very least, he had no knowledge of what Bertram was going to write. His discision to not punish Bertram was to maintain a united front.

Check it out yourself if you would like. I’m not sure where Jim Walker got his information though. When was his book writen? Could it be that he did not have access to the archives, or perhaps misinterpreted something?

God bless,
Ut

Correction: Bertram was bishop of Breslaw within Fulda, not Berlin. Preysing was bishop of Berlin.

Note also that Preysing had the Pope’s ear. The archives show that Preysing was almost always consulted on affairs in Germany within the church at the time. Althoug Pius did not follow Preysing’s advice in the above instance, there is much correspondance that is on record between the two.

Here is what wikipedia has to say about Preysing.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_von_Preysing

Views
Nazi regime
A stern opponent of the Nazi regime, he said “We have fallen into the hands of criminals and fools” when the party came to power.

Arrested Lutheran clerics
In 1940, Preysing ordered that prayers be offered in all of his diocese’s churches for thirty Confessional clerics who were arrested in Prussia[5].

European Jews
A January 1941 letter from bishop von Preysing to Pope Pius XII indicated that he was aware of the dire situation of European Jews and that he had been seeking help from the Holy See on the question. [6]

Hans Globke
Preysing later admitted that Hans Globke had become an official of the Interior Ministry through the German episcopate in order to serve as an agent for the resistance movement.[7]

Communist National Front
The German prelate later denounced the Communist National Front, which subsequently called him a “gladiator for American imperialism”.[8]

Nazi euthanasia program
In a sermon in March 1941 Preysing supported and lauded Pius XII’s opposition to the killing of the sick or otherwise infrm on either economic or eugenical grounds.[9]

God bless,
Ut

 

[Roy5]

While I don’t pretend to be an expert in the field, some years ago I tentatively came to the following conclusions.

1. The Papacy was not pleased with Hitler before he came to power. The Catholic party helped him do that. Hitler’s enemies included many left-wing enemies of the church. Hitler emphasized (strange as it now sounds) traditional family values.
2. The Papacy began to view Germany more favorably because it was seen as the main bulwark against Communism, which Pius XII saw as the biggest threat to the church. The USSR, of course, was officially atheistic and against religion generally.
3. The Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) was seen by the Papacy as a war between a communist/atheist government against a Catholic-led insurgency under Francisco Franco. This was in part due to the suppression of Catholicism, including the execution of some clergy and nuns, in Spain. Hitler and Mussolini (both baptized Catholics) gave military and other support to Franco.
4. While Pius XII was against the war in the west, he favored a German victory in the east once Hitler invaded the USSR. In 1939, he had been deeply troubled by Hitler’s attack upon Poland, a strongly Catholic country.
5. It’s important to remember that Pius XII was an Italian, and it would not be unexpected that he had some nationalist identification with his country, especially since Mussolini had signed a concordat with the Vatican.
6. The idea that Pius XII excommunicated Nazis is rather preposterous. It would have been known and could have helped undermine Hitler early on. At least a third of Germany was Catholic, and Hitler’s earliest successes were in places like Bavaria where Catholicism was dominant. The main opposition to Hitler - before and during the war - came from Prussia, where Protestantism was stronger.
7. There likely is an overemphasis on all sides in this debate. Pius XII was not pro-Hitler, and evidence suggest that the Papacy did save some Jews. A much stronger message against the holocaust should have been delivered publicly by the Pope. The greater concern of the Papacy was the interest of the church, tragically more important than the fate of the Jews. There also seems to be considerable evidence that the Papacy helped some Nazis escape to Catholic countries in Latin America.
8. Pius XII was in a difficult, almost impossible, position, pressured from various sides, located in the heart of an Axis nation. This tended to mute his voice. He also didn’t want to alienate Catholics anywhere, whether in Italy or Germany or in such allied nations as the USA,
9. One footnote that has always interested me. Ireland remained neutral, many Irish (even in this country) initially hoped for a British defeat, and there are reports that German U-boats received aid at Irish ports. Is this true? I haven’t researched the subject. Ireland and Poland were the two most avid Catholic nations in Europe at the time - plus the Franco regime in Spain, though Spain retained underground anti-clericalism and today only 59% of the Spaniards say they believe in God!

 

[Theophorus]

1. One footnote that has always interested me. Ireland remained neutral, many Irish (even in this country) initially hoped for a British defeat, and there are reports that German U-boats received aid at Irish ports. Is this true? I haven’t researched the subject. Ireland and Poland were the two most avid Catholic nations in Europe at the time - plus the Franco regime in Spain, though Spain retained underground anti-clericalism and today only 59% of the Spaniards say they believe in God!

The reasons why Ireland stayed out of the war had more to do with nationalism than Catholicism (I’m Irish btw).
Firstly we never aided the axis powers; any German personnel caught in the republic were interred in a military POW camp till after the war, allied personnel were quietly ferried over the border. In fact London was informed when U-boats were sighted.

Secondly given the very bloody relationship between our two countries, (Britain and Ireland) there were real fears that there would be a second civil war if we joined the allies. extremist groups such as the IRA thought that ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ policy was the best way forward and they did collaborate with the Nazi’s. This was NOT the policy of the Irish government of the time and Indeed the IRA were an illegal group by this point.

Lastly in 1939 we could not have defended ourselves against invasion by either side (both allies and axis had devised plans in case the had to invade us) nutrality was our only option.

 

[Cetil]

Shucks, it is well documented. I’m not trying to derail this thread; I’m basically showing that the wartime Vatican archives show a lot of things.

"BRADLEY: And when Rome was finally liberated, John Cornwell says that Pius XII revealed another prejudice. He requested the Allies not to send any black troops into the Holy City. Father Gumpel claims that Pius did this because he had heard that black American GIs were raping Italian women.

(on camera): So he heard of no instances where white troops had raped women?

GUMPEL: Well, of course, this also happened, but it was…

BRADLEY (on-camera): But that was OK to send them in.

GUMPEL: No. No, no. I mean, it happened – no, of course not. You see, the Americans had to send in troops. It is also true that whites behaved like that, but the accusation was particularly directed against the blacks. Whether this was correct or not, I don`t know."

claremontmckenna.edu/hist/jpetropoulos/documents/sixtymin.htm

This is not the case, and what you posted here is hardly “documentation” but an erroneous point of view spread by 60 Minutes. The Catholic League has clarified it:

“Actually, confusion about this situation stems from a report the Pope received about French Algerian troops. The report said that these troops had raped and pillaged in other areas where they were stationed, and the Pope did not want these specific soldiers stationed in Rome. Pius expressed his concerns about these specific men to British Ambassador Osborne who broadened the statement in his cable back to London, saying that the Pope did not want “colored troops” stationed at the Vatican. Bradley said that Pius was talking about African-American troops, which is clearly not correct.”

catholicleague.org/research/60minutes.htm

C.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

This is not the case, and what you posted here is hardly “documentation” but an erroneous point of view spread by 60 Minutes. The Catholic League has clarified it:

“Actually, confusion about this situation stems from a report the Pope received about French Algerian troops. The report said that these troops had raped and pillaged in other areas where they were stationed, and the Pope did not want these specific soldiers stationed in Rome. Pius expressed his concerns about these specific men to British Ambassador Osborne who broadened the statement in his cable back to London, saying that the Pope did not want “colored troops” stationed at the Vatican. Bradley said that Pius was talking about African-American troops, which is clearly not correct.”

I’m willing to give the Vatican the benefit of the doubt on this one, but the issue has been described differently by others. One should note that in the famous movie “Two Women” (for which a young Sophia Loren got an Oscar), the rapists in Rome were Moroccan troops. So, I guess this was a fixation for the locals.

 

[Adeodatus]

I’m willing to give the Vatican the benefit of the doubt on this one, but the issue has been described differently by others. One should note that in the famous movie “Two Women” (for which a young Sophia Loren got an Oscar), the rapists in Rome were Moroccan troops. So, I guess this was a fixation for the locals.

I’ve read that the Moroccans were notorious for this. Evidently in the Monte Cassino region “Moroccanned” is/was a synonym for gang rape. One of the several sins perpetrated by the Allies at Monte Cassino (a very weird battle which in some ways seems like World War II in reverse… where each side behaved the opposite of how you would expect them to behave), to say nothing of the incidents earlier in the Italian/Sicilian theatre.

It would be unfortunate if some people got our (the USA’s) black troops confused with French colonial troops… as far as I’ve ever read, American black fighting units had an altogether exemplary record. Naturally any fighting unit whatsoever might have criminal individuals, but as far as I know they were corporately model units.