Summary
Title: Pius XII and the Holocaust: Understanding the Controversy
Author: Jose M. Sanchez
Publisher: Catholic University of America Press
ISBN: 081321081X
Pro:
• More even-handed and balanced than most books on the subject
• Good summary of most of the issues and arguments
• Short and easy to read, aimed at a general audience
Con:
• Not really as even-handed and balanced as it appears
Description:
• Analysis of the choices and actions of Pope Pius XII during World War II
• Explores the arguments of critics and defenders, explaining strengths and weaknesses
Book Review
Because more balanced presentations of the cases for and against Pope Pius XII are rare, Jose M. Sanchez's Pius XII and the Holocaust: Understanding the Controversy is especially valuable despite its flaws. Himself a practicing Roman Catholic, Sanchez says that he was undecided before launching his investigation, and ultimately didn't decide it even in his own mind at the end.
A relatively short book, Sanchez lists and explains basic arguments of each side of several issues: Pius' fear of communism, preference for diplomacy, favoritism towards Germans, anti-Semitism, knowledge of what was going on, etc.
He explores their strengths and weaknesses in a non-polemical and very readable manner. This makes Sanchez' book a good place to start any investigation of the subject because you'll be better prepared to evaluate the arguments you see elsewhere when they are presented in more detail. You'll be able to evaluate whether the authors are just glossing over the weaknesses in their arguments or if they are making a good-faith effort, build a strong argument despite the weaknesses.
Sanchez is, however, a bit less even-handed than he at first appears — he tends to lean towards the side of excusing Pope Pius XII, though it's not always easy to see this if you aren't familiar with the events he discusses. For example, he mentions how the pope sent letters of sympathy to the leaders of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxemburg after they were invaded. What he doesn't say is that these letters do not mention, much less condemn, the nation which invaded them: Germany. Sanchez also doesn't compare this to Pius' much more vociferous and explicit condemnation of the Soviet Union's invasion of Finland.
As another example, defenders of Pope Pius XII frequently argue, on the basis of almost no evidence whatsoever, that he reasonably thought that speaking out would cause them even more harm than they were already suffering. Like those defenders, Sanchez references how after the protest of Catholic leaders in the Netherlands, the Nazis began rounding up Jewish converts to Catholicism.
Although Sanchez does point out that a similar response didn't happen after French Catholic bishops protested Nazi treatment of Jews, he never discusses how Danish Catholics successfully protected most Jews in their country. Lutherans in Norway as well as Eastern Orthodox Christians in Bulgaria took action to protect Jews, all without causing more harm or reprisals. To say that these facts undermine defenders' arguments is an understatement and there is no good reason for Sanchez not to have included them in even a relatively short work such as his. Did he simply not want some of the strongest evidence against Pius to be included?
The most important part of his book occurs near the beginning and is something not explicitly examined in almost any other book on this subject. Sanchez explains that a pope has two roles, one political or social and the other spiritual. He is head of a church institution and as such is responsible for maintenance of the church as an institution so it can keep serving the religious needs of Catholics. He is also the Vicar of Christ and as such is responsible for representing Christ on Earth — to do and say the things Christ would.
When those two roles conflict, he is in trouble, and Sanchez argues that they came into irreconcilable conflict during World War II. For this reason, then, Sanchez believes that the debate is also ultimately irresolvable. However much it might be true that Pius failed to live up to his role as Vicar of Christ, it's just as arguable that doing more would have caused him to fail to uphold his role as an institutional leader. It's not much of a defense of Pius and doesn't clear him morally at all, but it's the best defense I've read yet.
