Pius XII and Jewish children revisted

[Grolsch]

It seems as though my suscpicions about the supposed holy office directive concerning Jewish children was bogus.

From Zenit:

But after careful research, ZENIT discovered that the document, in fact, was not of the Holy Office and did not bear evidence of the reported date. Nor did it state what the article in Il Corriere said it did.

The document, whose original is in French, was written under the oversight of the then apostolic nuncio in Paris, Angelo Roncalli, the future Pope John XXIII.

It was meant to explain to the French clergy the instructions he had received from the Holy See, specifically, from the secretary of the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, Monsignor Domenico Tardini.

In his newspaper article, Alberto Melloni did not quote the archive from which the document came.

In fact, the document, in full, was published last Tuesday after being tracked down by Italian journalist Andrea Tornielli of the Milan newspaper Il Giornale.

Tornielli revealed that the original is kept in the Centre National des Archives de l’Église de France, archive of the secretariat of the French episcopate, position “7 CE 131.”

ZENIT obtained by fax a copy of the original and verified that the text has the seal of the apostolic nunciature of France – as opposed to what Il Corriere della Sera published, which attributed it to the Holy Office.

ZENIT also verified that the document is dated Oct. 23, 1946, three days later than that mentioned by Il Corriere, and that the terms of the Vatican proposal are very different from what the Italian newspaper had reported.

The original document contradicts Melloni’s version. It states, in fact, that the children should be returned to their original Jewish families.

Pius XII Jewish Children

 

[Grolsch]

Argh, I should say my suspicions were confirmed. I gotta get some sleep. Anyways, here’s some more reactions from the Vatican at the newspapers attempt at deception and slander:

“The search for the historical truth is not helped by fueling controversies and suspicions,” he added.

The controversy, which impinges on the reputation of Pius XII, “must be judged in a severe manner,” said Cardinal Cottier.

“It is a calumny to make public the suspicion that Pius XII acted, at the height of World War II, moved by anti-Semitic feelings,” affirmed the theologian, a close aide of John Paul II and former secretary of the Historical-Theological Commission of the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000.

“To accuse Pope Pius XII of anti-Semitism is unjust and undue,” the Swiss cardinal said. “And the accusations that for some time have been launched against the person of Eugenio Pacelli go beyond the field of historiography and enter that of sterile controversy.”

zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=64660

 

[katherine2]

So a total forgery? I’m personally offended that a unsigned piece of plain paper (not on letterhead) was ever reported as legitimate.

I’m also disappointed that a few Catholics rose to the “defense” of Pius XII beleiving this crass forgery.

 

[Island_Oak]

I read an article on this in the last week in the NY Times, my attention grabbed because it was captioned with a highly negative headline about the Pope and a refusal to return Jewish children to their families after the war. However, upon reading the text that was provided, the source of which is now a matter of dispute, I didn’t find it supported the headline touting the article.

In effect, many Catholic institutions received Jewish children for safe-keeping during the war. Many were left by their own familes for protection. After the war, the Church was, in my view, understandably cautious about turning children over to people without first verifying their identity and relationship to the child. There certainly may have been instances where this process was unduly delayed or even bungled, but it seemed the Church was exercising that level of care and judicious caution we would expect of any instituion responsible for the care of children.

There was also extensive mention of the fact that many of these children were baptized in their parents’ absence. However, given the conditions (war time) and time in history, I hardly think this was done with malice or caused the children involved some sort of trauma.

 

[Grolsch]

Island Oak:

There was also extensive mention of the fact that many of these children were baptized in their parents’ absence. However, given the conditions (war time) and time in history, I hardly think this was done with malice or caused the children involved some sort of trauma.

According to the article I posted, during WWII the Holy See issued specific orders NOT to baptize children who were not at the age of reason or who did not have their parents consent.