Examining Pope Pius XII and Print Media Coverage in the U.S.

Over the last few decades there has been an overflow of publications and discussions regarding Pope Pius XII in realtion to the Holocaust and World War II. Originally stemming from Rolf Hochuth’s “The Deputy,” the controversy was reignited more recently with the book “Hitler’s Pope” by John Cornwell. Most literature centers on either a defense or an attack of Pius, while others attempt to be neutral, with varying success. One of the central arguments that appears again and again is the supposed vagueness of Pius’ messages. Some argue that his encyclicals and radio messages did not speak out clearly enough against the atrocities of the war, while others argue that a clear and deliberate message would have been devastating for the Church and its members.

Many articles would use Pius and the Vatican, or Pius and the Church interchangeably. For this research a focus on comments regarding Pius the person, were emphasized. Where pertinent, the distinction between the two is noted so as not to confuse the interpretation of the institution, for interpretation of the man.

Several key dates are important in understanding why and how coverage of Pius changed throughout the war. This paper will examine articles that were written from the election of Pius XII March 1939, to the end of the war in Europe, January 1945. The outbreak of WWII began with the invasion of Poland on September 2, 1939. Many papers begin to change their discourse, from discussing Germany to discussing Hitler, Nazis, and the Axis. Of particular interest to Catholic publications, is June of 1941, when the U.S. began supporting the Soviet Union through the Lend Lease Act. Because communism was seen as a specific threat to Catholicism as indicated by Pius XI in Divini Redemptoris, many Catholics would not want to support the U.S. aid. However, through some backchannel negotiations, Pius XII allowed a clarification to be made by Bishop McNicholas of Cincinnati who stated that Divini Redemptoris referred to communism and not to the Russian people, who would be the recipients of aid. Though many still opposed the decision it allowed many Catholic publications to support the U.S. The last important date is December of 1941 and the bombing of Pearl Harbor; an event which led to U.S. military engagement in the war. Looking at how publications shift and change their interpretations and support of Pius during these years provide interesting insight into the attitudes toward Pius in America at the time.

AMERICA

Run by Jesuits and published weekly, America was a liberal publication with a history of fighting for social and racial justice. One of its key contributors and later editors was John LaFarge, a priest who had been called to the Vatican to assist Pius XI with his encyclical, On the Unity of the Human Race, while Pius XII was still Eugenio Pacelli, Secretary of State. LaFarge would be a key analyst of Vatican diplomacy throughout the war for America. Shortly after Pius XII’s election, LaFarge wrote an article entitled, “Pius XII as Christ’s Vicar is Not a Political Pope”. In it, LaFarge points out that Pius XII is “first and foremost a man of God, that he is a spiritual man, that he will treat the political issues of the day in a spiritual manner, and, finally, that such a treatment is the only one which will bring peace and order into the world today”.1 The idea that Pius’ message is the ‘only’ message that will ‘bring peace’ is a pattern which emerges in many papers. Later, just before news of the invasion of Poland was realized, an article states “There is nothing, absolutely nothing, political in these teachings of the Holy Father” in regards to Pius XII’s plan for peace with justice. The article goes on to say that “There is nothing partisan in the Pope’s pleas, rather an impartial appeal to all nations”.2

America would seem to support the Pope’s message of peace and justice without partisanship when a month after the invasion of Poland they write, “The Pope’s words are spoken to all; and it would be both unjust and idle to try and to wrest them to the advantage of any regime in the present conflict”.3 Yet a week later LaFarge writes, “The disorders which the Pope signalizes have run their logical course and burst out into full flame in certain countries which are belligerents or near-belligerents (such as Russia)” and it is “by a repeated assurance, that the Church is taking up with no political issue, no partisan side.”4 Though America writes that the Church and the Pope take no partisan side they feel that they must intervene and add Russia’s name as a belligerent. It is important to note that America attaches Russia’s name to a comment regarding the Pope’s actions while non-partisanship is attributed to the Church. Many publications use Pius and the Church interchangeably, but often, support for the war is attributed to the Pope’s comments while the neutrality of the institution is emphasized.

At this point Catholics were still very opposed to Communism and Russia was seen as the embodiment of Communism. In January America writes, “He [Pius XII] has never left a doubt that he believes Soviet Russia to be a threat to Western culture and to the reign of Christ”.5 After the Lend Lease Act is put into action and the National Catholic News Service had distributed Bishop McNicholas’ letter reconciling support of Russia and support of Communism, America abandoned it’s denouncements of Russia for which they had used Pius’ messages to advocate. Meanwhile, America continued to criticize the Nazis and Hitler

From the outbreak of the war to the completion of the Lend Lease Act with Russia, America openly criticized both the Nazis and Communism. However, their condemnation of Nazis never manifested itself as the direct message of Pius the way their denouncement of communism did. The article which stated, “He [Pius XII} has never left a doubt that he believes Soviet Russia to be a threat to Western culture and to the reign of Christ” assumed to interpret Pius’ peace messages into a direct denouncement of Communism by the Pope himself. America’s criticism of Nazism, at least until the U.S. entered the war, did not assume to be direct statements by Pius

Covering a meeting that took place between Herr von Ribbentropp and Pope Pius America writes, “As Pope Pius, he began to counsel once more in peace with the Nazi Regime. But there is no lasting peace possible between Nazi paganism and Christian sanctity”.6 Though this statement does not proclaim that Pius believes there is no possible peace with the Nazis, by putting the statement in the same article it suggests that Pius is strongly opposed to Hitler and the Nazis; especially when earlier in the article it states, “the German diplomat’s ears were chilly when he was escorted over the Vatican border-line”.7

Once the U.S. enters the war America begins to take the same liberties with Pius’ messages that it did when condemning communism before June of 1941. After the Pope’s Christmas Message of 1941 America covers the Pope’s five point peace plan, concluding that “It is to the Axis powers directly that Pius speaks, as it were, face to face in their stronghold” even though the Axis was not mentioned in the message.8 By May of 1942 America states “No voice of political indifference is heard over the Vatican Radio; no phrases of balanced caution, measured by surmises as to where the victory may lie. The Pope speaks to America with a voice vibrant with consciousness that truth and justice will triumph”.9 America has taken the Pope’s radio address to be speaking in direct support of the Allied effort; that “truth and justice will triumph”. No longer were Pius’ messages mere blanket statements of peace and justice.