<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: I wish 0 stars were possible, for this litterary farce.
Review: "Godman has worked only with scant documents related to Pius XI's pontificate, how can he present a study on relations between the Vatican and Hitler?" The main thesis of Godman's book is that the Holy See did little against Nazism because the Holy Office and the Secretariat of State had divergent lines and lacked contact with one another. For those who know how the government of the Holy See functions, it is obvious that this is an absurd thesis. It is obvious that Godman has no idea how work is done in the Holy See. In expressing its opinion on such a delicate question as that of relations with the Nazi regime, how could the Holy Office not have first consulted the Secretariat of State? Moreover, Godman perhaps does not know that in those years the Pope also held the post of prefect of the Holy Office. Both Pius XI as well as Pius XII were "ex officio" prefects of the Holy Office.Initially, Pius XI declared himself in favor of the publication of a series of propositions against Nazism. In particular he sought to condemn totalitarianism, the idolatry of the Reich, the theories of race and blood and, even more so, policies contrary to the life of the weakest. Various schemes and plans of such condemnations were prepared by the Holy Office. At a given moment, the whole idea was shelved because Pius XI and Secretary of State Eugenio Pacelli [the future Pius XII] began to prepare the encyclical "Mit Brennender Sorge" [against Nazism]. Pius XI and Pacelli thought the propositions were not very effective, so they decided that an encyclical was better. Godman deplores the fact that the condemnations of the Holy Office were not published. Again, in this case Godman shows that he does not know how the Holy See functions. Godman thinks that a series of proposals of the Holy Office were more important than an encyclical. But there is another aspect that shows how Godman does not even know well the history of those years. The publication of "Mit Brennender Sorge" was kept secret for security reasons. The Nazis discovered it only on the afternoon of Saturday, March 20, 1937, shortly before it was read and distributed in churches. The Nazis were informed by an employee of the press that was printing the copies of the encyclical. "Mit Brennender Sorge" was read and distributed in all churches during the Mass on Sunday, March 21, 1937. For a while, the Nazis considered intervening in the churches, but they would have run the risk of a civil war. The Hitler regime was caught totally unawares. French intellectual Robert D'Harcourt, who was in Germany at the time, wrote in Etudes/Revue Catholique d'Interet General, of May 5, 1937, that the publication of "Mit Brennender Sorge" was like a bomb. The Catholic organization had not made a mistake; ... it succeeded in getting around the control of the Gestapo and had reached the churches. On that occasion, the Catholic community also showed notable moral solidity. The people were happy and Hitler was furious. He ordered the confiscation of the presses that had printed the encyclical and the arrest of those responsible. If it was so difficult to have the encyclical reach the population, how can Godman think that it would have been possible to send so many individual propositions of the Holy Office? The Holy See has always acted responsibly, considering all the possibilities. In every action, the pastoral concern was taken into account for the fate of the Catholic community, of the other communities, and of the population. Godman enormously underestimates the Nazi persecution against Catholics: arrested priests, destroyed churches, closed schools, arrested Catholic leaders sent to concentration camps. Between 1933 and 1937, in 36 months the Holy See sent more than 50 formal written protests to the Nazi regime, charging violations of the concordat. Hitler's government never responded. In Rome, protests were reported in three white books that were sent in a diplomatic bag to all the German bishops, to let them know what the Holy See was doing in defense of their faithful. All the protests of the Holy See were reported in a volume published in Germany in 1965: "Der Notenwechsel Zwischen dem Heiligen Stuhl und der Deutschen Reichsregierung - I. Von der Ratifizierung des Reichskonkordats bis zur Enzyklika 'Mit brennender Sorge.'" Bearbeitet von Dieter Albrecht. VKZ A 1, Mainz, 1965 [The Exchange of Notes Between the Holy See and the Government of the Federal Republic -- I. On the Ratification of the Federal Concordat of the Encyclical 'Mit Brennender Sorge'"]. Little is said about this aspect, but it is extremely relevant. It must also be for this reason that the German newspaper Die Welt, in the review of Godman's book, speaks about a decadent work and accuses him of having been negligent.
Rating: 
Summary: Another interesting theory about Pius XII
Review: All of a sudden it seems that a "cottage industry" of books on the subject of Pope Pius XII and the Nazis has arisen. There are the books that condemn him, and the Church by implication, for not doing more (or, in some books, anything) about the Nazi threat. There are others that state the Pope and the Church did all that it could, given the circumstances of the time. This book seems to fall somewhere in the middle, giving the reasons why more was not done, but also showing that, behind the scenes, many things were being planned that did not come to fruition. The reason for this appears to be that both Pius XI and his successor were concerned with the Concordat which had been signed by the Vatican and Nazi Germany, and they wished to avoid any action that might cause Hitler to abrogate it. While this may have made perfect sense to them, at this remove of time it appears to be rather short-sighted. It's difficult to condemn folks who acted more than 60 years ago, given what they knew of the situatuon in front of them. Hindsight is always 20-20, you know, so perhaps this book has the right approach, the middle ground necessary to allow us to see both sides of the questions before the Church leaders. It may not make them less suspect for their inaction, but it perhaps explains why they didn't do what we feel should have been done.
Rating: 
Summary: More Propaganda from the Shakedown Artists
Review: Basically this build on the anti-Catholic bias of "Hitler's Pope", in continuing the assault on the Church's attitude toward Nazism.
In fact, the Church rightly believed the bigger threat was godless Communism, synonymous with Jewish Bolshevism. If it weren't for the Nazi devastation of the Soviet Union in WWII, the Communist evil would have been far more widespread across Europe. Fortunately, the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union checked this menace, even though it led to the Nazis' demise. What would have happened without Operation Barbarossa? The potential destruction of European Christianity. With this in perspective, I think these attacks on the Catholic policies in the 1930's and 1940's are one-sided views, and there only purpose is to help perpetuate the great "Holocaust" shakedown of European banks and companies by half of the victims of WWII, and I don't mean the Gypsies either.
Rating: 
Summary: This book is not for neophtye readers. Read the Introduction
Review: Being an excellent reader, I was pleased when I read the Author's Introduction. The quip about "HOT AIR" was cute and true. Mr. Godman did not stoop to complaining that people prefer their own simple conclusions to the results of study. He merely mentioned that some might have excuses for what they think.
The rest of the book seems to have lived up to the introduction, but good golly, I can't know for sure until I have investigated what Mr. Godman wrote. At least He's told me where to look. If I do look, my opinion will matter. Until then I will be satisfied with saying that the book is exceptionally well written.
Rating:
Summary: A balanced view
Review: The real issue is not whether one agrees with the Vatican and papal caution in not denouncing the Third Reich. The issue is simply whether the author has sufficent evidence to explain the topic that has aroused so much ire and defensiveness. There is no question that the work presented here does just that. It shows a rather mature understanding that the Vatican did not speak with one voice, that there were serious differences of opinion about what would be effective and what for the Church's future would be prudent. Whether Pius XII and his predecessor should have been more courageous publicly is another matter. For those seeking to understand the Vatican's hesitations, this volume is a well researched must.
Rating:
Summary: A balanced view
Review: The real issue is not whether one agrees with the Vatican and papal caution in not denouncing the Third Reich. The issue is simply whether the author has sufficent evidence to explain the topic that has aroused so much ire and defensiveness. There is no question that the work presented here does just that. It shows a rather mature understanding that the Vatican did not speak with one voice, that there were serious differences of opinion about what would be effective and what for the Church's future would be prudent. Whether Pius XII and his predecessor should have been more courageous publicly is another matter. For those seeking to understand the Vatican's hesitations, this volume is a well researched must.
Rating:
Summary: a caveat
Review: to the reviewer above. I've only glanced at the book, but I disagree that an encyclical and a denunciation from the holy office would have carried the same weight. While an encyclical does not have the force of canon law, the holy office denunciation would have declared, in no uncertain terms, that nazism constituted a heresy. It would have been quite a bit stronger, and might have even led to an interdict against Germany, stopping services and ministration, and would have therefore been a tremendous source of social unrest.
<< 1 >>
|
