Pope Pius XII and the Attitude of the Catholic Church During World War II
PART 4
This is the last part of the interview with Fr. Peter Gumpel, S.J., the relator of the cause of Pope Pius XII.
I’d like you to comment on one of the things that is often cited as an authority in the United States, Hitler’s Pope by John Cornwell. I’d like you to say a few words about your knowledge of the research done here, and then any background information you may have on this.
Well, I can do so, even though I am not very enthusiastic about publicly making any facts regarding this gentleman which are not certain. The thing is this: I read one of his books, called A Thief in the Night. It takes issue with another book, written by David Yallop, who accused the Vatican of having murdered–poisoned to be exact–Pope John Paul I. Now this is a fable. I know why this happened: this Pope died completely unexpectedly at seven o’clock in the morning. I was called over to the Vatican, where I found people in a chaotic panic. And the fact was that the tips of his fingers had begun to turn black, which was why people thought it was poison. It’s not–there is a medical explanation which would take too long to explain.
So if you read the book, you will see that Cornwell refuted Yallop. But there are also many sniping remarks in regard to Vatican officials. Now, I knew this. At a certain moment, in 1998, I got a telephone call from the chief of office of the Secretary of State–the head of the British department there–“Would you be willing to receive a certain Mr. John Cornwell, who has written a book in defense of the Holy See, an excellent man, a practicing Catholic, etc.?” I couldn’t say no.
With regard to recommendations, I am circumspect by nature. I never give recommendations unless I am absolutely certain of what I’m doing. But especially with regard to certain clerics, who, out of the goodness of their heart, want to help a person in need, recommend them for certain posts, without being certain that they are capable of filling that post. So I am very cautious with recommendations that come to me from these kinds of circumstances. Now with regard to Cornwell, I wanted to know more about him before receiving him. I have several scientific collaborators in Britain, as in other countries. I called two of them, both trained historians, and said, “I have been requested to receive a certain Mr. John Cornwell. Now, I expect from you to be informed within the next 24 hours regarding what kind of academic degree the man has. Has he a doctorate in history? In theology? Law? Something else? Secondly, what is the general opinion–if any–about this person?”
Within 24 hours, I had two independent judgments. (Neither one knew about the other.) The judgment was similar: they both said he had no degree in any of those disciplines. He was not a university professor. He was a senior fellow at Cambridge University, giving the occasional seminar on the relationship between natural science and philosophy. But in history–absolutely nothing. Both of them added, independently: “Be careful, because he is known to be a man who mixes facts and fiction.” Now, for an historian, that is a warning.
I received the man politely, as I do to everybody whom I receive, and I did something which I assure you was done without malice. I said, “You want to study these things? I can give you a series of documents if you are interested.” I gave him an office and gave him the series which I’ve mentioned, of 12 volumes. I gave him a series of German documents: Dieter Albrecht, Der Notenwechsel zwischen dem Heiligen Stuhl und der Deutschen Reichsregierung [The exchange of diplomatic notes between the Holy See and the German government]. There were volumes.
I also gave him, on the formal request of the Secretary of State, the hundred testimonies we had collected for the cause of Pius XII. He returned in an incredibly short time--I thought he would be sitting there for hours and hours! I said, “You can come back in the afternoon if you wish.” “No, I have finished.” Later on, I found out he didn’t know these languages. If I had done this on purpose, it would have been malicious and absolutely incorrect. But I frankly didn’t know this. I thought the man was giving a seminar. So I did it in good faith, not maliciously.
But then he left. In 1999, I read in the Sunday Times (published in Great Britain)–and nearly simultaneously in Vanity Fair because my correspondents send me all these things–page-long articles signed by John Cornwell, in which he claims he had worked in the archives of the Secretary of State for months on end. And among other things, he said he was the first ever to be allowed to work there. And thirdly, he said he had found documents that were kept in all secrecy lying there, as a time bomb. When I read that, as a pre-announcement of the book, I immediately called the director of the archive of the Secretary of State, a friend of mine. He said, “I will send you the photocopies of the book in which everybody who enters there signs.” And he did: he sent me photocopies right away by messenger. So, from these results it was evident that he wasn’t there for months on end. He was there for approximately three weeks. He didn’t go there every day–of course not on Sunday–and sometimes for a very short period of time; other days, for several hours.
Incidentally, at that time, the archives were only open up to 1922. Therefore, it only included the Pontificate of Benedict XV, not Pius XII. Therefore he could at most cover the period of Pacelli only when he was a young prelate working as a Secretary of State and for his first five years as Apostolic Nuncio in Germany, but not the more important parts of it. Secondly, was John Cornwell the first and only one to be admitted? No, absolutely not. I had been there myself, so this was not an issue. The director of the archive said, “This is ridiculous.” Third, the so-called “time bomb,” the document studiously “hidden,” lying there as a time-bomb, is a document which, in its entirety, had been published eight years before he ever went there, in the book of Dr. Fattorini, a female professor of history in a Roman University. It was published in its entirety.
What document is that?
It is a document in which Pacelli describes what happened during the uprising of the Communists in Germany at the end of the First World War. But Cornwell has seen fit, in this relatively short document, due to his lack of knowledge of languages, to introduce no less than four very serious mistranslations. The document was in Italian. Of course, if you don’t know the language properly, you ought not quote it, or else get some competent people to translate it for you. But to have four very grave mistranslations in a relatively short document! It’s rather serious. As I said, the whole thing had been published, and it is by no means compromising–unless and until you change the text. I will charitably attribute it to his lack of knowledge of languages. There could be–I don’t say is–a less charitable interpretation.
This is the last question that I have, which is a very emotional question for Jews worldwide. Certainly during the war years, there were a lot of Catholic families that took Jewish children in. Sometimes what they would do, I know that there were attempts to get baptismal papers for many of these children…
Yes, I know that story, because I was directly involved in it.
I’d like your comments on that.
Well, the whole thing really started–the upheaval started I can tell you–by an article published, I think it was exactly December 28th, 2004. An article published by the leading Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, an article written by Professor Alberto Melloni, who is professor at La Sapienza University, the one which recently came into publicity on account of the Pope’s visit. The whole university is very left. This is obvious. Before he published this kind of thing, or he claimed to publish, the document sent by the Vatican to the Apostolic Nuncio in Paris. At that time the Apostolic Nuncio was Roncalli, the future Pope John XXIII.
I read this article in the Corriere della Sera and immediately thought there was something very fishy. First, it is surprising that an Italian Secretary of State wrote to an Italian nuncio in French. This might have been something that happened during the war, as putting things into code was then common, but these were supposedly written much later, in 1947. There was absolutely no reason to put anything in code.
Secondly, there is no signature on the document. And thirdly, it seems to be very incomplete. So I decided to investigate this.
Now, this man did something that no trained historian should ever do: he did not precisely indicate his source. He merely cited “French ecclesiastical archives.” Well, what French ecclesiastical archives? There are dozens. This was a very serious handicap.
Fortunately, the next day, the French newspaper Le Monde published a furious article by a lady who wanted to be kept anonymous but who said, “I see Professor Melloni has published the documents which I found in the archives.” And she indicated the exact archive. She indicated that in this document a whole page was missing. Further, she had no idea how this professor came to have it since she had given it to a French scholar who intended to investigate the matter further.
It was a useful thing for me, that within 24 hours, without my doing, I was able to find out where exactly this document had come from. I was able to locate a telephone number, but when I called, I encountered my second setback: those who staffed the archive were on holiday and thus I had to wait!
In the meantime, I left a message for the Director to call me immediately. On January 7th, he did. He told me that he was not sure how even this lady obtained the document since the archives were closed. He said it must somehow have been stolen! Not necessarily by that lady, of course, but by someone. I told him that was all his business, but, under the circumstances, I inquired if I could have a copy. He replied, “Well, Father, it is a closed period. We have orders even from the French bishops not to hand out anything to anyone.” So I replied, “Well, you know, I am investigating for the Vatican and am a somewhat high-ranking personality so I have a right to see this.” He was hesitant and finally said he would make inquiries.
Finally he was convinced to release the document so that I could study it. We formed a team: Professor Napolitano, a professor of diplomatic history; Dr. Tornielli, a journalist with a solid scientific background; and myself. These two people published a book exposing the whole thing.
If you can see the alleged document coming from the Holy See, and you can compare it to the real document found in the archives, and you can compare it to the Italian version in the Vatican archives, you see that the whole thing is a mystification.
Substantially, the orders given by Rome and sent to Roncalli, the Apostolic Nuncio in France, amount to this: Many Jewish children, even infants, have been entrusted to Catholic institutions. If the parents or close relatives reclaim them and can prove that they are the close relatives, the children have to be returned immediately, especially if they have not been baptized. If they have been baptized, of course, there is a problem. According to Catholic doctrine, a person who has been baptized in the Catholic Church becomes a member of the Catholic Church and has a right to be educated in the Catholic Faith. However, it is also a fair question to ask whether these children were legitimately baptized. The French bishops had given orders to all the convents, etc., not to baptize any child unless the parents had formally requested it or given permission. Unfortunately, some less educated and overenthusiastic Sisters went against this order and baptized some children.
So what should be done with them? So the question became whether this illegitimate baptism was sufficient reason not to return these children to their relatives. But the real question was much deeper: what will happen to these children if nobody claims them? This was the intervention of the Chief Rabbi, Isaac Herzog. He visited the Pope and asked that all these children be returned to Israeli institutions. The Pope said he would study the matter and that he would do what he could, but the issue needed careful reflection.
The reason it needed careful reflection was the following: Take, for example, a newborn baby. Let us say it has been entrusted to a Roman Catholic family. He begins to grow up and believes the two adults taking care of him are his parents. The other children in the family he considers his brothers and sisters. Once a child reaches the age of four or five, can you tell him, “No, these are not your parents. You are going to be taken to an orphanage.” That was the proposal.
After the terrible losses they had suffered in the Holocaust, the Jewish community understandably wanted as many Jews as possible to go to Israel to increase the population, etc. This is all very understandable. It is the right attitude. On the other hand, you must understand that, from a simply human point of view, there is this question: Can you do this to children? Will you not traumatize them? To take them out of a safe environment which they consider natural, tell them they do not belong, and put them into an institution. Therefore the solution was not to force the issue; each case was to be determined on its own merits. Let these children continue to live with their families—those without relatives who were on the verge of being sent to institutions—
These are the children who were not claimed?
Right. So it was decided to let them be until they were a certain age, perhaps 10 or 12 years old. Then, explain the situation to them very honestly without exercising any pressure and explain the advantages and disadvantages. Even a rabbi was called in to speak to them so they could hear the other side. And then, in those cases, let them decide.
Coincidentally, I happen to know two men, one of whom is in Rome, who found out they were a Jewish baby and who converted back to Judaism. The other is the Chief Rabbi of Serbia in Belgrade. He was raised in the Orthodox faith only to find out he was Jewish, so he became an Orthodox Jew.
Yes, there is a great variety in these possibilities. If one of these children, however, after having lived in a Catholic family and being treated well, heard about his roots being so different, and after studying more about Judaism and having the opportunity to speak with a rabbi or other Jewish authorities, decides to return to Judaism, well, he is old enough to make these kinds of decisions now. He is not a little child who will be traumatized. This was the proposal.
In practically all circumstances, however, the children were returned at least to their parents. The famous French Nazi hunter Serge Klarsfeld, when this book was published and caused such a storm, said in his experience there were hardly any Jewish children who had not been returned to Jewish environments. And he, a Jew, is not particularly favorably disposed to the Roman Catholic Church.
There was one case, that of the French Finaly brothers, whose foster parents did not want to give them up after developing such an attachment to them. The matter was taken to court; the parents were condemned by the French court, and they were ordered to return them to relatives. And they refused. Then these children were taken to Spain. By order of the French bishops, they were returned, and it caused much sorrow to the Brun family. But obviously the relatives had the first right.
This was really something that could have been avoided if Melloni had taken care to investigate the matter properly. And not to rush to print based on a document of very dubious origin, mutilated, not written in the proper language, without a signature, etc. The assumption is that a less capable person who received the Vatican document made a summary of it in French, etc.
Current Issue
