catholicism and the Jewish people - a test case for authority

I utterly agree!!

"The church’s own self-expressed understanding of the Concordat was that it gave moral
backing to a regime which it also explicitly knew had, and intended to continue,
discriminating against Jews."
Quotes from the Church on this? I believe Cdl Pacelli says the opposite, which I did quote.

"“He is a great spirit, he sees what a
halo his government will have in the eyes of the world if the Pope makes a treaty with
him.”"

This says Hitler saw the concordat as advantageous to him. I cant see anything more, except that it shows that the church was willing to do something which they knew he thought would improve his image.

He also said "With the concordat we are hanged, without the concordat we are hanged, drawn and quartered."

" In 1937, Cardinal
Faulhaber stated in a sermon: “at a time when the heads of major nations in the world
faced the new Germany with cool reserve and considerable suspicion, the Catholic
Church, the greatest moral power on earth, through the Concordat expressed its
confidence in the new German government. This was a deed of immeasurable
significance for the reputation of the new government abroad.”"
Hmmm....

See G. Lewy, 1965: 90., R. Modras, 134. See also S. Friedlander, 1997, 46-48 etc.

"He (Faulhaber) wrote Secretary of State Pacelli, describing the persecution of Jews as 'unjust and painful.'"
"In Munich, Cardinal Michael Faulhaber, rose courageously to the defense of his city, and came to called the Iron Bishop. Just as he opposed the Reds in the wake of World War I, so he would opposed the Nazis in 1933, delivering a lecture on 'Judaism, Christianism, Germanism.' throwing down a Christian gauntlet to the then triumphant National Socialists. He counseled against fascination with uniforms and the military. In retaliation, hes residence ws broken into and pillaged." (DF 19)

He defended the OT, not the present day Jews. His secretary wrote that "In his sermons last year, the cardinal defended the ancient biblical writings of Israel, but did not pronounce on the Jewish question today." Indeed, in those sermons, the cardinal told the Jewish people they had no right to those scriptures. "These books were not written by Jews"

"Here, the future pope acknowledges without censure the persecution of Jews in Germany,
and speaks only on behalf of those he no longer considers to be Jews."

Where did you get that from? I would be interested in your sources because they twist everything that I can verify. Either that or you do...I can't tell if you are quoting someone else's opinion or forming one yourself. Could you indentify what is a quote from a book or elsewhere and what is your opinion. Note--everything in my earlier posts other than obvious comments were quotes from books.

See references in this post above. I am happy to give references to the other posts above, which are taken from my masters thesis. This had over 270 references all up, dealing with the roles of the churches (prod as well) and the Holocaust.


"and at the same time saw the main benefit of the Concordat as providing support to his
anti-Jewish policy."

Where is your backing for this? This appears to be an opinion at odds with the facts. "When Hitler signed the racial laws, the Catholic Church sent fify-five protests between 1933 and 1939 signed by Secretary of State Cardinal Pacelli."

My backing was the statement by Hitler to his government, quoted above, “that one should
only consider it as a great achievement. The Concordat gave Germany an opportunity and
created an area of trust which was particularly significant in the developing struggle with
international Jewry.” Note that these protests only concerned baptised Jews. That is, people the catholic church did not consider to still be Jewish! Read what I wrote.
Upon ratification of the Concordat, Parcelli wrote to the German charge d’ affairs:

“The Holy See takes this occasion to add a word on behalf of those German Catholics
who themselves have gone over from Judaism to the Christian religion or who are
descended in the first generation, or more remotely, from Jews who adopted the Catholic
faith, and who for reasons known to the Reich government are likewise suffering from
social and economic difficulties.”
This first protest under the concordat is explicitly only for converts to catholicism "on behalf of those German Catholics". No word for the persecution of Jews as such. No non Catholic Jew could have taken any confort fromt his. As noted, the future pope acknowledges that jews are being persecuted, "are likewise suffering from
social and economic difficulties” but only asks for leniency for those he describes as German Catholics who have gone over from the Jewish religion. That is, ex Jews. They are suffering difficulties because they are, under the nazi racial definition of Jews, being accorded the same persecution as other Jews. Parcelli intervenes on their behalf alone.


"The Concordat helped protect Catholics and Jews in German controlled land."
What is your backing for that?

I think I was scrappy in this 'reply to above sentance' format. Will try to improve.
I hope we can have a useful discussion here, take care, Colin

 

I will try to answer this later,
Take care, Colin

 

"Concerning the rescuers, the following statistics have been found; Less than 1% of
people who were affiliated with Christianity were rescuers." I would be interested in where you got that quote.

Gushee, D., The Righteous Gentiles of the Holocaust (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1994). and Tec, N., When Darkness Pierced the Light: Christian rescue of Jews in Nazi-occupied
Poland (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).

Shortly after the Germans took over [France], Pius XII sent a secret letter to the Catholic bishops of Europe entitled Opere et Caritate (By Work and by Love). In it, he instructed the bishops to help all who were suffering racial discrimination at the hands of the Nazis. They were instructed to read the letter in their Churches in order to remind the faithful that racism is "incompatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church." (HPW 142)

Yes, he protested racism! He The catholic church has descriminated against Jews for religious reasons. Therefore, it opposed the persecution of baptised Jews, not of other Jews.

...in October 1942, when deportations had removed some 14,000 Jews, the Primate of Belgium addressed a clandestine meeting of the Action Catholique in Brussels as follows: “It is forbidden for Catholics to collaborate in the foundation of an oppressive government. It is obligatory for all Catholics to work against such a regime.” (TPJ 205)

Yep, this was a great protest. It did not occur elsewhere.

Some protests.....
Pope Pius himself weighed in on the matter with a letter, dated April 7, 1943, to the Slovak government: "The Holy See has always entertained the firm hope that the Slovak government...would never proceed with the forcible removal of persons belonging to the Jewish race...The Holy See would fail in its Divine Mandate if it did not deplore these measures, which gravely damage man in his natural right, mainly for the reason that these people belong to a certain race." (HPW 188)

No word of displeasure was made publicly, as a guide to the slovak people. As seen also, the vatican rep on the spot begged the pope to make a public protest. The Vatican expressed its concern over the legislation by quietly retiring Tiso’s title of monsignor, effectively demoting him. As Monsignor Tardini remarked, although everyone understands that the Holy See cannot
displace Hitler, that it is unable to restrain a priest, no one will understand. M. Phayer,
The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 2000: 46. The extent to which this demotion
was noticed, or connected with Tiso’s anti-Semitism was not great. Other European
bishops (let alone the laity) were not informed, so that, after the war, Cardinal Faulhaber
of Munich intervened with the American occupation forces on Tiso’s behalf, informing
them: “I feel duty bound to notify the Holy Father of [your] arrest of Dr. Tiso, since as a
prelate in good standing he is a member of the papal family.” M. Phayer, The Catholic
Church and the Holocaust, 2000: 46. So slight and silent a reprimand was obviously
insufficient for one who would later be tried and hung as a war criminal.

In August 1944, the retreating German army moved through Slovakia, and deported another 14,000 Jews. This deportation also remained publicly unprotested, by either the Vatican or the Slovakian churches. The Vatican received urgent warnings of the deportations on September 15 from its Slovak and Swiss Nuncios. It did intervene
diplomatically, through its Nuncio, Burizio and via the Slovak ambassador to the
Vatican. By September 23, it was clear that these interventions had not been successful.
The Nuncio asked Tiso to stop the deportations “at least on behalf of the baptised Jews,” but was rebuffed. On November 4, acting on a Papal telegram, Burizio told Tiso that his
decisions must “conform to his dignity and to his sacerdotal integrity.” As a result, Tiso
wrote directly to the pope. In his letter he affirmed his loyalty to the pope, and then
defended the “measures” against the Jews as being designed to “eliminate the noxious
influence” of their presence in Slovakia. He then went on to defend both his dignity and
his sacerdotal integrity. The pope did not reply to this letter, but the original has the
words “24 December 1944. Seen by the Holy Father” written on it by Monsignor
Tardini. 14,000 Jews could be “eliminated” by a government headed by a priest, who
informed the pope both of his plans and his respect, and the pope did not even bother to
reply. Once again, there was no public rebuke, no public calls to the bishops and people
of Slovakia, no public censure of a priest engaged in mass murder.

As also noted, the vatican quashed a plan to save 20,000 Jewish children from Slovakia.

Public protests in allied catholic lands may well have been sucsessful - they were never tried. Eichmann arrived in Hungary with just 200 men. had the hungarian catholics opposed deportation, it would never have happened. They did not oppose it, and 437,000 died.

Take care, Colin

 

Thess, get a grip!!
I used over 270 sources in my thesis, am happy to give sources for any specific quote.
German Baptists were generally useless. The ukranian baps get high praise for their efforts, but I have been unable to get any details.

For evangelical views in America, see Ross, "so it was true". Unhappy reading.

Now thess, if you dont want to discuss catholic responses to the holocaust, thats OK. The prod were at least as bad, we can discuss that also if you wish, but in the light of 6,000,000 dead, saying "you guys were jerks, so shut up" is not really very helpful. To be honest, their is enough guilt and sin to go around.

The German baps have made public declaration of guilt (1995).

Likewise, the German and Austrian Catholic bishops declared in 1995 that "the church ... is also a sinful church" The Hungarian Catholic church likewise acknowledged the "negligance and ommission" of many of its menbers. The Catholic bishops of Poland also issued a declaration on this in 1995. The bishops in the Netherlands, in their statement, "supported by one root" praised their fellow German and Polish bishops for recognising "co-responsibility for the persecution of Jews in the past", and added that, "in all sincerity, we join them in this sentiment." In 1997, the French bishops declared that the time had come for the church "to submit her own history to critical examination and to recognise ... the sins committed by members of the church, and to beg forgiveness of God and mankind" They also explicitly decried the inaction of their own leaders, and acknowledged their own silence "in the flagrant violation of hman rights ... leading the way open to a death-bearing chain of events." They affirmed that the church did have considerable power and influence, and that, "in the face of the silence of other institutions, its voice could have echoed loudly by taking a definitive stand against the irreparable."

Lets discuss history, and do it as adults, OK?

Take care, Colin

 

Hi Dan, looking up Modras, he cites Documentation Catholique, 39 (1938): 1460 as his
source for the spiritual semites quote.

I also thought a few comments on sources in general might be usefull. On Hungary, Braham, R., The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1981) is excellent. More primary source detail is given in Herczl, M.,
Christianity and the Holocaust of Hungarian Jewry (New York: New York University
Press, 1993), and it makes depressing reading. The Nazis Last Victims: The Holocaust in
Hungary. Editor R. Barham (Detroit: Wayne University Press, 1998) is also worth a look.

Concerning France, Marrus, M., Vichy France and the Jews (New York: Schocken
Books, 1983) and Zuccotti, S., The Holocaust, the French and the Jews (Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, 1999) are useful, as are articles in the general books given
later.

For Poland, the best for historical research is Modras, R., The Catholic Church and
Antisemitism, Poland 1933-1939 (Jerusalem: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1994).
Ringelblum, E., Polish-Jewish Relations during the Second World War (Evanston:
Northwestern University Press, 1992) gives the views of a Jewish historian at the time.

Anything by Rothkirchen, L., is worth reading, see, for example “The Churches and the
‘Final Solution’ in Slovakia.” in Judaism and Christianity under the Impact of National
Socialism. Also in this area, Vago, B., The Shadow of the Swastika: the rise of fascism
and anti-Semitism in the Danube Basin, 1936-1939 (Farnborough: Saxon House for the
Institute of Jewish Affairs, 1975).

Concerning Italy, the folowing are good, with the provisos given later. Zuccotti, S., The
Italians and the Holocaust (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1987) and Zuccotti,
S., Under His Very Windows (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000).

Turning to Germany, while some of his conclusions have been challenged, Scholder, K.,
The Churches and the Third Reich. (trans. J. Bowden; 2 vols; Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1988) remains helpful. The humanity and compassion of the author is on every
page. Two more recent books which are both indespensable are Phayer, M., The Catholic
Church and the Holocaust (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000) and
Friedlander, S., Nazi Germany and the Jews: Vol 1; The years of persecution 1933-39
(London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1997).

Two general texts with articles on diferent countries are Judaism and Christianity under
the Impact of National Socialism Edited O. Dov Kulka, P. Mendes-Flohr (Jerusalem: The
Historical Society of Israel, 1987) and Judaism and Christianity under the Impact of
National Socialism Edited O. Dov Kulka, P. Mendes-Flohr (Jerusalem: The Historical
Society of Israel, 1987).

Concerning rescuers, Gushee, D., The Righteous Gentiles of the Holocaust (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1994) is brilliant. Tec, N., When Darkness Pierced the Light: Christian
rescue of Jews in Nazi-occupied Poland (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986) is
also a classic.

The field of appologetics are well covered in R. Rychlak, Hitler, the War and the Pope
(Indiana, Our Sunday Visitor: 2000). He contributes usefully to the debate re Italy,
showing three areas Zucotti did not give sufficient weighting to, namely, the hiding of
Jews in Castel Gandolfo, the afidavits of Roman Catholics, and better research into the
date of the pope's meeting with the US rep. His general treatment is far more
problematic, possibly due to his training in law. He simply presents one case, ignoring
vast scholarly work which would detract from his case. This is not history. His section on
Hungary, for example, makes no reference to Braham, the acknowledged doyen of
Hungarian Holocaust studies, or to the more recent work by Herczl, both of which give
mountains of primary documentation. His reader is not told that the Hungarian Catholic
church voted 3 times to descriminate against Hungarian Jews, that they also called for
their deportation, and that the Vatican paper praised the anti-Jewish laws, and likewise
expressed the hope that all Jews would leave Hungary.

To quote from my thesis, On April 7, 1944, the following memorandum was sent to the
appropriate government bodies by Laszlo Baky, the director general of the interior
ministry:

"The Royal Hungarian Government will shortly purify the state of the Jews. I order this
purification to be carried out on a regional basis. To this end the Jews must be
concentrated.. [this] is to be carried out by the gendarmerie or the police in charge of the
area being purified. The German security police will be present in the regions being
purified, and will serve in an advisory capacity ... All government agencies will be placed
at the disposal of the gendarmerie and the police."

The first deportations occurred on May 15, 1944. Over the next seven weeks, 437,000
Jews were deported from Hungary. While the Germans clearly desired and co-ordinated
this work, the success of the operation was in large part attributable to the Hungarian
commitment to it. Eichmann’s entire team in Hungary numbered only two hundred men.
It was the enthusiasm of the Hungarian civil service and the population at large that made
the scale of the deportation possible. As regards the identification of who was Jewish, in
the first six weeks of the German occupation, over 35,000 denouncements of Jews were
made to the German authorities. A Hungarian statesman investigated the attitudes of the
Hungarians after the war concluded:

“if during the persecutions a Jew was to have
knocked randomly on any door, the odds were that he would have been handed over to
the authorities; in exceptional cases he could hope that the door would be slammed in his
face and no denouncement be made to the authorities, but he had just about no chance at
all of being offered refuge, even temporary refuge.” A German report noted that “in every
town and in every village the local population accepted the steps taken for the
de-Judification of their settlement with open support and undisguised rejoicing ... In most
places the people placed at the disposal of the authorities, and at no cost whatever,
vehicles to speed up the removal of those who, by their very presence in the immediate
vicinity, detracted from the ability of the Christians to survive.”

Indeed, the Hungarian methods were more brutal than the Germans wished, and the goals
they set for the number of Jews to be deported in the time span were far higher.
Eichmann testified at his trial that: “Hungary was the only European country to
encourage us relentlessly. They were never satisfied with the rate of deportations; no
matter how much we speeded it up, they always found us too slow.” The Hungarians
wanted six trains per day, the Germans offered two, but were negotiated up to four. It was
also at Hungarian orders that the number of Jews per train was set at 4,000, rather than
the usual military load of 1,600-1,800. The Hungarian government minister Laszlo Endre
intervened at Paks, where he gave a personal order that, after sixty Jews had been loaded
into each carriage, that each Jew should raise his arms, so that another twenty Jews per
carriage could be loaded. It was at this time that Endre sent the prime minister a
memorandum stating that “the agencies under my authority have received instructions to
act humanely and according to the spirit of Christianity both while separating the Jews
and while transporting them.” In a public speech on the first day of the deportations,
Endre had stated that “the popes, as well as our own ancient and saintly kings, legislated
draconian laws and imposed severe decrees upon this parasitic race. Thus no one can
complain that we are not acting in accordance with the spirit of Christianity when we
enact draconian regulations against the Jews so as to protect our nation.” The government
leaders publicly approved the expulsions in the name of Christianity, “and not a single
priest objected.”

The identification, rounding up, accommodating in temporary shelters and the loading of
the Jews onto the trains were all carried out by the local authorities with the support of
the local populations. Both at the time and after the war, German authorities also saw the
Hungarian cooperation as vital. On August 2, 1944, Goebbels wrote “The deportations
were carried out in the shortest period of time, with amazing perseverance and obstinacy.
A vital factor in the success of the operation was the fact that the steps against the Jews
were found acceptable by most of the Hungarian nation.” After the war, the German
ambassador to Hungary, in reply to the question “what would have happened if the
Hungarian government had decided that it was not prepared to meet the German demand
concerning the deportation of the Jews” by saying “It would not have taken place. The
fact is that nothing happened when Horthy announced that they would not continue with
the deportation.” The Hungarian leadership and population were thus very much involved
in the deportation of their Jewish citizens. S. Lazai noted: “the procedure could not have
been carried out if the Christian population had shown resistance.” Cohen commented
that “The testimony of most survivors and all existing contemporary
literature-not just that of Jewish origin-is united in the evaluation that not only did most
of the Christian population view calmly the removal of the Jews, but it even participated
willingly in the entire process, including the final expulsion ... Most of the population
viewed the deportation of the Jews calmly or even with joy.”

The church leaders were aware of the planned deportation before it occurred, and were
also aware of what deportation to Auschwitz signified. One of the roles of the churches
in Hungary was as moral teachers and shapers of public opinion. Reflecting on this many
years later, Father Jozsef Elias, who in 1944 was the secretary of the Good Shepherd
organisation, wrote:

The gendarmerie and the police were trained in a religious spirit to view obedience to the
church as an obligation ... Had all these people who took a direct part in the deportation
of the Jews been informed that neither they nor their families would be permitted to
partake of any sacred ceremony, their transgressions would not be forgiven them, they
would not be eligible to receive the final sacraments in case of death, and their new-born
children would not be baptised; furthermore, had they been aware that the churches
would be locked in the face of their guilt, and even the church bells would cease to
ring-all this would have generated a severe crisis in those people engaged in the
deportation day by day. Had the churches adopted such a position ... I am sure that many
people who
assisted with the Jewish expulsion would have announced that they were unwilling to
take upon themselves the dispatch of their neighbours to their deaths ... Their
consciences would be sensitive to the horrible aspect of their deeds.
For churches that had referred to Jews as “sewer rats,” who had initiated and voted for
legislation aimed at eliminating Jews from social and economic life, and who had not
objected to the preliminary stages of earlier deportation legislation, such a course would
have been unthinkable. With good reason, the Hungarian people believed that their
churches approved of the deportations. In a newspaper interview on August 12, 1944, a
priest declared: “Ever since the Jews crucified Jesus, they have been the foes of
Christianity. May the Jews be expelled from Hungary, and then the church too, will be
able to breath more freely.” Had the churches objected to such a statement, or felt
concern that such guidance was being given in their name to their people, then surely
they would have disciplined the priest, and informed the readers that his views were
abhorrent to them. As Braham notes: “The Christian Churches must bear a great
responsibility for the Hungarian Jewish catastrophe.”

Following the German occupation, the Cardinal did issue a number of protests, but these
focused solely on the question of Jewish converts to Christianity. Thus, the wearing of
the yellow star was not protested, but the definition that would have required converts to
wear it was. The government relented on this, and in a follow up letter, the cardinal
again made it utterly clear that his sole concern was for the converts, whom he described
as the government’s “co-religionists.” On April 16, Cardinal Seredi submitted a
memorandum in the name of his fellow bishops to the government. In it, he made five
specific demands, all affected only baptised Jews. On May 10 and 17, Seredi wrote
again of the need to defend “the rights of our Catholic brethren.” The protest of May 10
is particularly significant, as, when speaking of “Christians of Jewish origin” he
comments “most of all it must be prevented that they, as a consequence of indiscriminate
deportation, suffer loss of life.” Here the cardinal accepts the notion that deportations
will involve deaths. His protest did not include these Jews, however, but was made only
on behalf of those he considered to be his fellow Christians.

On May 15, 1944 the cardinal sent a circular to his bishops detailing the efforts of the
church on behalf of converts. When Laszlo Ravasz suggested a joint public declaration,
and the Nuncio expressed the Pope’s wish that the “Hungarian bishops take a public
stand in defence of Christian principles and in support of those compatriots who were
unjustly affected by the racial laws, and especially in behalf of the Christians,” the
Cardinal released a pastoral letter (which he had already been working on) to be read in
all of the churches. Seredi sent a draft of his proposed letter to five of his bishops. Only
Bishop Czapik, who was the second ranking Catholic in Hungary after Seredi, responded
in detail. He replied:

"We must mention the deprivation of the rights of the Jews only in a general fashion.
While it is true that everyone is aware of the horrors and everyone knows what happens
to them at their final station, it would not be right to put this before the public in writing
... We will be criticised because the epistle presents the Jews
only as persecuted beings who are suffering, without mentioning the fact that many of
them sinned against Hungarian Christianity ... We must avoid going into details on the
question of the deprivation of Jewish rights-as I have already noted above. Such details
would be the first source which could be interpreted as an admission of the facts. Let the
Synod of Bishops not do this!.. I am opposed to the suggestion that we criticise the
government publicly and break off all contact with them."

This is clearly a significant document. It suggests that the Bishop is aware that mass
murder is occurring, but that the church should not inform the community, or appeal for
sympathy on their behalf. Mass murder was not a reason for the church to forget Jewish
sinfulness, or a cause sufficient for the church to criticise those whom were carrying out
the deportations. As will be seen, Seredi heeded its counsel. In a not unrelated
development, on June 23, Seredi refused the request of Budapest’s Jewish leaders that he
appeal to Regent Horthy to stop the deportations.

In all, the letter was six weeks in the making, during which time, the majority of
Hungary’s Jews were deported. It was released on June 29, 1944. After an detailed
introduction stressing the compassion and generosity of the church throughout history,
and a lengthy condemnation of Allied bombing, it protests the negation of “the natural
rights of a certain section of our society, including even the rights of those who accept
the holy faith we accept-all because of their origin.” It then continues:

"We do not deny that a number of Jews exercised a wicked, destructive influence upon
Hungarian economic, social and moral life ... We do not doubt that the Jewish question
must be solved in a legal and just manner. And so, we do not voice any opposition to the
steps which have been taken against them until now in the economic field in the interests
of the state. Similarly, we lodge no protest against the eradication of their undesirable
influence. On the contrary, we would
like to see it disappear. Nevertheless, we would be neglecting our moral roles in
the church, were we not to speak up against the damage to justice and the harm to
Hungarian citizens of our own Catholic faith who are being harmed only because of their
racial origin."

As suggested by Czapik, no mention of atrocities or mass murder was made. Jews were
only mentioned specifically when condemning them. Indeed, the letter is remarkable for
what it gives official Catholic approval to. The church, it states, has not objected to steps
taken against the Jews “in the economic field.” These had already included the loss of
jobs, lands and houses. Likewise, it noted that it would like to see Jewish influence
disappear from Hungary. This at a time when the church leaders, but not the people,
knew that the Jewish people themselves were being eliminated, and in a letter supposedly
addressing that very issue. Rather than protesting the deportations, one can only conclude
that, through this Pastoral Letter, written during the height of the deportations, the
Catholic church reaffirmed both the motivation for it (the “wicked, destructive
influence”) and the desirability of it (the “eradication” of Jewish influence). No
Hungarian who was involved in the deportations could find in such a letter a reason to
stop.

In fact, the letter was not released. The government found out about it, and halted its
distribution (although some copies got through and were read out). In the meeting
between the Cardinal and the government concerning the letter, the government agreed to
exempt Christians from the anti-Jewish measures, and to work for the return of those
converts who had already been deported. In return, the Cardinal agreed to not release his
earlier letter. Instead, a brief statement, agreed to by the prime minister, was read from
the pulpits: “[the cardinal] has repeatedly intervened with the Royal Hungarian
Government on behalf of the Jews, especially those who have been baptised, and is
continuing his negotiations in this direction.” The Bishop of Csanad wrote concerning
this to Seredi on July 15: “The honourable prime minister’s promise that the Jews of the
Christian faith will not be expelled from Budapest is extremely calming.”

If no word came from the bishops during the weeks that the Jews were deported,
members of the church were not left entirely without guidance. When all the Jews had
been expelled from Veszprem, the town’s residents were invited to attend a thanksgiving
ceremony in the local Franciscan church. The public announcement for this read: “With
the help of Divine Providence our ancient city and province have been liberated from that
Judaism which sullied our nation ... We are following in the footsteps of our fathers in
coming to express our thanks to God ... Come and gather for the thanksgiving service
which will take place on June 25, at 11:30 A.M., at the Franciscan Church.” When the
bishop heard of it, he expressed concern as “those deported included some converts,”
but after a discussion, agreed to hold thanksgiving prayers as long as the Te Deum was
not recited. The service was held before an overflowing church, with a monk in festive
green vestments offering the mass.

A newspaper article written by a Catholic monk and reprinted in a Catholic journal in the
summer of 1944 stated that “the Christian doctrine of brotherly love is not violated by
what is being done at present with the Jews. On the contrary, it is realised by means of
those deeds.” Likewise, another journal in 1944 quoted from the writings of Bishop
Prohaszka: “the Christian nations must not give the Jews equal rights. They must defend
themselves from them and must constantly get rid of them, at every opportunity, and in
any way they are able.” When a town magistrate was troubled because he was required
to give his official stamp to the list of the town Jews, so that they could be deported, he
approached his priest for confession and guidance. The priest counselled him that “You
need suffer no pangs of conscience for sending these Jews to their fate. They have sinned
so greatly that whatever befalls them is actually a light punishment for them.”

Looking at the diplomatic representative of the Vatican in Hungary, the Papal Nuncio in
Budapest, Angelo Rotta, directed a number of protests to the government. On May 15, he
protested the failure to “discriminate between baptised and Israelite Jews” in the
government’s legislation, stating that it was his duty “to demand that the rights of the
church and its flock be respected.” He also noted that he was not acting “out of a false
sense of compassion.” Of his three specific requests, one asked for the exemption from
the anti-Jewish measures for converts, one that Church institutions and persons be
respected while raids against Jews were conducted, and one that government policy be
carried out in a humane way. While hardly a ringing denunciation of deportations as
such, it has increased historic interest, as it was the first protest made by the Vatican
against the deportation of Jews. His protest of June 5 was more inclusive, demanding,
along with exemptions for baptised Jews, that all Jews should receive humane treatment,
and that they should not be deported. In his discussion with Sztojay on July the sixth
concerning this protest, according to Sztojay: “The nuncio agreed that there is indeed a
Jewish danger, and that it is vital to eradicate this danger, but stressed that it must be
carried out while taking into consideration Christian morality and church rights.” In his
letter concerning the conversation to the interior minister, Sztojay summed it up by
recommending that the Hungarian government give ground concerning converts, as a
“positive response to this modest request from the nuncio will have a desirable effect
upon his attitude toward us.” In all, it seems that the Nuncio’s main concern was for the
converts to Catholicism, and the government was able to contemplate a positive
relationship with him even as it deported hundreds of thousands of Jews to their deaths.

If the people of Hungary in general had no idea that death awaited the deportees in
Poland, the same was not true either for the Church leaders in Hungary, or for the
Vatican. The Holocaust was not a seamless undifferentiated massacre, but a series of
campaigns. The last of these, the extermination of Hungarian Jewry, occurred when the
Catholic Church, but not the Hungarian Jews, knew the truth behind the deportations.
Had the Vatican simply broadcast this information on the radio to Hungary, many Jewish
lives would have been saved. They chose not to inform either the Jewish community or
their own people concerning this. As Eli Wiesel notes, the information itself could have
saved thousands of lives. Speaking of the Hungarian deportations, Elie Wiesel said: “We
were taken just two weeks before D-Day, and we didn’t know Auschwitz existed. How is
that possible? Everybody knew except the victims. Nobody cared enough to tell us ... we
listened to the radio. I don’t understand it.” Barham affirmed that “most Christians, like
most Jews, had no inkling about the ultimate scope of the Final Solution program. The
press and radio were silent on the deportations.” Equally, while the Allies were
suspected of simply spreading propaganda to further their own cause, the Vatican radio
might well have been believed. On March 24, the US War Refugee Board asked the pope
to intervene to protect the Jews of Hungary. On May 22, the Chief Rabbis of Palestine
also requested that he use his “great influence to prevent the diabolical plan to
exterminate the Jews of Hungary.” Towards the end of June, the Archbishop of
Westminster, acting on behalf of the World Jewish Congress, also asked him to
intervene. On May 26, the Americans asked the pope to intervene and remind the
Hungarians “of the spiritual consequences that must flow from indulgence in the
persecution and mass murder of helpless men, women and children. To that end we
earnestly suggest that the His Holiness may find it appropriate to express himself on this
subject to the authorities and people of Hungary, personally by radio and through the
Nuncio and clergy in Hungary, as well as through a representative of the Holy See
especially dispatched to Hungary for that purpose”46 The pope did not find this
appropriate. He kept quiet about them until after they were made public in the Swiss
press. The Pope then sent an open telegram, on June 25 (after the virtual completion of
the deportations from all areas of Hungary except Budapest) to the Hungarian Regent,
Horthy asking him “do everything in your power to save as many unfortunate people [as
possible] from further pain and sorrow.” The telegram did not mention the word “Jew.”
The motivation for this late protest seems not to have come from any moral outrage of
the Pope. It was rather his tardy response to a barrage of appeals which had been directed
toward him concerning these people. His protest was not carried on the Vatican radio, so
neither Christian nor Jewish Hungarians received its council or warning. Between the
Vatican being aware of the plan, and its dispatch of a single telegram, over 300,000
people died.

The Chief Rabbi of Palestine tried repeatedly to obtain an audience with the pope
concerning the lives of these people, but without success. He was, however, finally able
to meet with the papal delegate to Egypt and Palestine, Monsignor Hughes, on September
5. At this meeting, when Rabbi Herzog asked that “the Pope make a public appeal to the
Hungarian people and call on them to place obstacles in the way of deportation; that he
declare in public that any person obstructing the deportation will receive the blessing of
the church, whereas any person aiding the Germans will be denounced,” he was told that
the Pope would not do this. Likewise, when he asked what would happen if the
“Hungarian Bishops were to go into the camps and publicly announce that, if deportation
of Jews went on, they would go and die with them,” he was dismissed as naive.

A number of bishops did protest. These protests were usually private, and directed
either towards their own Cardinal, urging him to speak out, or to the government. Bishop
Vilmos Apor of Gyor petitioned the Cardinal on many occasions to protest to the
government, but without success. He wrote to him of Christians asking him if it was
permitted to take pity on the Jews, and of those who had fearing that, in doing so, they
had sinned. On May 27, he wrote to Seredi, complaining that the Cardinal had
renounced his decision to publicly defend human rights. “The multitude of our believers
do not know and cannot know our views, and thus we are responsible for the fact that
many Hungarians are taking part, more or less in good faith, in the enforcement of
merciless regulations and are applauding doctrines which are to be condemned.”
Likewise, on June 17, he again wrote to Seredi: “We must give our flocks definite and
unequivocal information and guidance on the questions that are now topical. ... They
must learn that sin cannot be condoned even when it is committed by the authorities.”
Three bishops publicly protested the deportations. Bishop Apor, in his Whitsunday
sermon, anathematised racial hatred. Bishop Hamvas, in his sermon of June 25, asked:

What is happening nowadays? In the name of Christianity, hundreds and hundreds
of thousands of people are deprived of their property and homes and are deported
because of their race ... God’s laws protect the right of every man, even the Negro
and the Jew, and defend their right to property, liberty, dignity and health and life.
We do not say this as friends of the Jews, but as friends of truth. The awkwardness in
these appeals was due again to the conflict between ethics and teaching. These men were
not well disposed towards Jews, but neither could they
stomach such cruelty as was directed towards them. Note also that they stated that it was
in the name of Christianity (not Nazism) that these deportations were taking place.
During his interrogation after the war, the Hungarian Minister of Interior stated:

"The leaders of the priesthood made declarations on behalf of the converts only.
Cardinal Seredi requested that they be exempted from the obligations of the
anti-Jewish legislation, while the Reformed Bishop Ravasz himself, in a speech
delivered in the Calvin Square Church in Budapest on Good Friday, stated that
‘the Jews are now receiving their punishment from God for having crucified
Jesus.’"

The expulsion and murder of Hungary’s Jews continued without Christian protest until
only the Jews of Budapest remained. Protests were then made (as noted) by the Vatican,
America, England and Switzerland. As a result of these protests, and of the general
course of the war, the government changed its policy, and decided to confine the Jews of
Budapest in 2,681 apartments (up until then, the 250,000 Jews of Budapest had lived in
21,250 apartments). This was to be carried out in eight days, and to be completed by June
21. Jews were then allowed out of these buildings for only three hours a day, were
forbidden to receive visitors or to have conversations through windows that faced the
street. During their three hours out, they were forbidden to visit Christians, or go to parks
or esplanades. The churches registered no protest concerning this treatment. The
government still had hopes of renewing the deportations, and along this line, noted that
“by giving in on the question of converts, it might be easier to expel the Jews.” As a
result, a number of Jews sought out conversion as a means of saving their lives. The
churches did not react positively to this. Cardinal Seredi published new guidelines for
conversions on July 24. In these, he called for the period of dogmatic instruction “to be
prolonged,” and that baptism should not be administered until after the “conscientious
observance of a term of probation.”

Likewise, Catholic institutions were not to be used as refuges. On the fifth of August, the
Inspector General of the Roman Catholic educational institutions sent out an internal
circular based on the instructions of the Cardinal. In it, he ordered that all employees of
the institutions should be examined to see if they were Jewish. On September the second,
he followed this up with another, which stated: “with regard to the circular I sent out on
August 23, I hereby inform you that a pupil required to wear a yellow Star of David is not
permitted to study in our educational institutions.”

While Horthy had suspended the deportations, in October 1944, Ferenc Szalisi and the
fascist Arrow Cross party took government, and the deportations resumed. On October
14, the World Jewish Council asked for a public appeal to prevent this. On October 17,
the American representative handed the pope a letter asking him to “issue in the name of
humanity an appeal to stop this appalling tragedy.” On October 19, Archbishop
Cicognani cabled the Vatican that Jewish leaders were asking for a radio appeal to the
Hungarian people, and on October 28 Myron Taylor handed the pope a message drawn
up by the War Refugee Board, entreating the pope to give a radio message, urging the
Hungarian clergy and people to hid Jews, and thereby save their lives. The pope again
chose not to make a public broadcast, and instead, sent a telegram to the Hungarian
government asking it to help “people exposed to persecution and violence because of
their religious belief, their race, or their political convictions.” While singled out by the
government for death, Jews were not singled out, or even mentioned in the pope’s
protest.

The Nunciature at this time, which was not under the Cardinal’s authority, issued about
15,000 safe conduct certificates, without checking whether the baptismal certificates
used to do this were genuine or not. At this time, Cardinal Seredi apparently changed his
policy and allowed Jews to hide in Catholic institutional buildings. On October 29, he
also called for prayers and organised collections for the deportees. The pope publicly
commended him for this, although it refrained from condemning the Hungarian
government policy which made these measures necessary. This aid continued until the
capital’s capture by the Soviets in February 1945.

On November 8, following the start of the Hegyeshalom death marches, the Cardinal
protested to the government, demanding the safeguarding of the deportees right to life.
Bishop Ravasz also protested at this time, and demanded the termination of the
deportations and the security of the Jewish lives. On November 26 Cardinal Seredi
turned down a suggestion from Ravasz that the churches make a joint protest, just as he
had refused a request on November 14 from the Jewish Council requesting his
intervention with the government on their behalf. On December 1, a joint Protestant
memorandum was given to the government, stating that the treatment of the Jews “mocks
God’s eternal laws which prescribe humane treatment even of one’s enemies.” The
Nunciature likewise supported the distribution of pre-signed safe conduct passes for
those caught up in the death marches.

The deportations from Hungary were carried out openly with the general support of the
local government, population and churches. Church leaders who knew the final
destination nevertheless uttered no word of protest, but one even allowed a church to
hold a thanksgiving service. The Catholic press printed articles which can only be
described as supportive, as was the Shepherd’s Epistle written by the Cardinal. Ways
existed for the churches to help the victims, through the issuing of baptismal certificates
or the hiding of Jews in their institutions. These ways were closed off, not by the state,
but by the churches themselves. The churches in Hungary served as a spur to hatred, and
as an impediment to compassion. As Barham notes: “Their primary concern even during
the concentration and deportation of the Jews was the fate of the converts and non-Jews.”
After the majority had already been murdered, a papal word was uttered, and was for a
time effective. It was not until late in October 1944, long after the majority of Hungary’s
Jews had already been deported, that strong protests were made by the local churches,
and even then, these remained in private correspondence between the churches
and the government.

Speaking of the leaders of the Catholic and Protestant churches in Hungary,
Barham concluded: “their common silence emboldened the enemies and discouraged the
rescuers of Jewry.”

Now, if Rychlak wants to interact with the existing, documented research, that would be
great, he made a good start re Italy. Unfortunately, in Hungary and elsewhere, he has
simply not done so.