Justice for the Living AND the Dead

[3DOP]

I think most of us here would agree that there are important rules for how people that are accused of crimes should be judged. One of the most basic rules is that before a decision is made by a judge or jury, the accused must be given an opportunity to tell their side of the story in an effort to establish that they are innocent, or at least to cast a reasonable doubt upon their guilt. We are rightly outraged if we should hear of someone who is subjected to a criminal procedure when it is obvious that for one reason or other, the outcome is certain regardless of the evidence. This is what makes a story like Harper Lee's, To Kill a Mockingbird so compelling. When not aroused by our passions, most of us know that it is better for the guilty to go free, than for the innocent to be punished. We can see for instance in Lee's story, the plausibility of an all white jury convicting an accused individual, not so much because of the certainty of the evidence, but because of racial bigotry, or prejudice. Prejudice can cause those who believe in these basic rules, to reject them for practical purposes.

So far so good? No one here would say anyone should be punished without a proper examination of both sides of the story. 

My question has to do with historical figures. My question is about the justice of condemning dead people, ordinarily historical figures who have no way of defending themselves. I would acknowledge that false judgment of the dead seems less of a tragedy than the unjust punishment of a living person. But I am suggesting that we are nevertheless obliged to do everything we can to avoid making accusations against dead persons unless we have made a reasonable examination of evidence that is claimed to exonerate the individual. I am afraid that many of us, myself included, have at times been as guilty as the fictional jury in To Kill a Mockingbird of being pleased to discover the worst about historical figures with whom we have disagreed, usually in my case, because of a religious or political prejudice. There are some villains in history who are almost universally without defendants on their behalf. I am not saying that we may not hold it as certain that there have been villains who deserve to be "vilified". But they are few

People like me, who strongly disagree with the politics of Franklin Roosevelt, or the religion of Martin Luther, need to be very careful lest we become like Harper Lee's jury. There are reasonable defenders of the lives of both figures. It is debatable whether either of them deserve to be vilified. I haven't really examined both sides.

--------------------------------------

Recently, an historical figure, who for religious reasons I am inclined to admire, has been accused of gross negligence to duty and callous indifference to human suffering. I sent a private message to the individual, who made the charges here on this forum offering evidence that counters the claims that was made against him. I offered, in the interest of justice, to let him present some of the replies of the many defenders of Pope Pius XII which I shared with him. It appears that he would prefer that I do that instead of him. The party in question learned about Pius XII on the History Channel. I am not saying that there might not be an appearance of impropriety, especially for those who would vigorously oppose the theology of Pope Pius XII. I am not familiar with the episode in question, but I assume there is some basis for the claims against him. Here is the charge:

Quote

Around 2/3's of the "SS" and death camps leaders in the Germany were Catholics in name only...even the Pope who would entertain Germans while Jews were outside in boxcars. But their were many Catholics who truly believed in God and his commandments that hid and sheltered Jews.

I am not an expert on this, but I am aware that there were many Jewish witnesses who at the end of the war spoke with overwhelming gratitude for the role of Pope Pius XII in ransoming and sheltering Jews threatened with deportation from the Nazis. Why would the former chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, convert to Catholicism in 1945, and take the baptismal name of Eugenio, Pope Pius XII's Christian name? Strange fruit that if Pius XII in reality hated Rabbi Zolli's people. His public condemnations of Nazism are not explicit, but every time a bishop would denounce Hitler, it seemed that the reprisals were far more damaging to those being persecuted than any aid brought by the knowledge that a Catholic bishop vocally opposed Hitler. His relative silence may have been motivated by fear. I think it was motivated by prudence. But the evidence of his public actions just doesn't seem to easily allow that he was indifferent to the plight of the Jews.

As I admitted, I am inclined to believe that this pope was a good man, even perhaps a great and magnanimous man. I am not asking anyone to agree, or even take the time to do research. I would only have those who might be interested know that there are defenders of Pius XII and they are not all Catholic. Although I tend to think he was a saint, I am satisfied with non-Catholics if they will merely concede that it is debatable that he was a villain. That is my modest purpose with this thread.

For those who might have just two minutes to consider that Pius XII has been possibly maligned by the History Channel, I offer a sermon from the son of the son of a Jewish rabbi who fled Germany at the accession of Adolf Hitler in 1933. The two minutes of the talk that concern Pius XII and the Jews are between the 14:08 and 16:08 minute mark. There will be three talks available. Listen to the one from July, 19, 1915. 

https://onedrive.lie.com/?authkey=!AIa3x_YqQ0-V_eQ&id=FB895AC3F4FDB37C!540&cid=FB895AC3F4FDB37C

Thanks for your consideration.

Rory

 

 

 

 

   

Edited March 6, 2016 by 3DOP

[Russell C McGregor]

I have read the views of some of Pius's critics, who seemed to regard him as a man whose personal courage and compassion were unexcelled, but who was concerned about the risk to German Catholics if he were to speak out. Their criticism is based upon the belief that, had his institutional courage been just a little greater, to the extent of being willing to speak out on the issue of the Nazi treatment of Jews (and his discreet personal intervention to help those who came within his immediate reach demonstrates that he understood the nature of the problem) then such outspokenness, given the number of Catholics in Germany, must have put irresistible pressure on the Nazi regime.

It is, of course, a belief that can now never be tested.

The irony of it is that Pius was refusing to use the "temporal sword" first forged by the autocratic Gregory VII; the historical use of which is almost universally denounced -- including by Pius's critics -- as either morally wicked or objectively harmful. Or both.

The other criticism I have heard is that, during his pontificate, too many Pacellis had too many fingers in too many lucrative pies (or pizzas) in Italy.

Which criticism seems to have some merit.

 

[bluebell]

I took an advanced class specifically on the Holocaust as part of getting my history degree in 2012. It was not a fun four months. 

I've read quite a few sources and papers about Pope Pius Xll.

My conclusion is that he was not an evil man, and that he did not support anti Semitism and privately tried to help the Roman Jews.  He even saved a few hundred.

However, he did not do anything publicly to stop Hitler from deporting the majority of Roman Jews, and he never publicly denounced Hitler's actions or tried to convince the Nazis to stop, and he met with them on a few occasions. He was likely worried about Mussolini taking over the Vatican if he did not stay in line. 

Like many Christians during the Holocaust, I think he did not do enough, but that doesn't mean he didn't do anything. It wasn't because he himself wanted the Jews killed. He was afraid of crossing the Nazis, and it was easier to publicly look away than take a hard stand. 

[Glenn101]

Whatever the case, I would not want to judge Pope Pius Xii on that question or any other question. We just do not know all of the facts and cannot read the Pope's mind. His judgement lies in God's hands. It always has.

There are historical figures for whom there is pretty solid evidence of wrongdoing. Hitler is one of them. Yet, the actual judgement is in God's hands. Had Hitler been captured alive, some mortal judgement would have almost assuredly been meted out.

I do believe that prejudices, bigotry, and biases do badly color human judgement in general. We have far too many people convicted of crimes who have later been exonerated by science. People who were alive and protested their innocence, yet were convicted anyway.

Whatever the deeds of anyone who has passed through the portals into the next life, their judgement is in the hands of God.

Glenn

[3DOP]

15 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

I have read the views of some of Pius's critics, who seemed to regard him as a man whose personal courage and compassion were unexcelled, but who was concerned about the risk to German Catholics if he were to speak out. Their criticism is based upon the belief that, had his institutional courage been just a little greater, to the extent of being willing to speak out on the issue of the Nazi treatment of Jews (and his discreet personal intervention to help those who came within his immediate reach demonstrates that he understood the nature of the problem) then such outspokenness, given the number of Catholics in Germany, must have put irresistible pressure on the Nazi regime.

It is, of course, a belief that can now never be tested.

The irony of it is that Pius was refusing to use the "temporal sword" first forged by the autocratic Gregory VII; the historical use of which is almost universally denounced -- including by Pius's critics -- as either morally wicked or objectively harmful. Or both.

The other criticism I have heard is that, during his pontificate, too many Pacellis had too many fingers in too many lucrative pies (or pizzas) in Italy.

Which criticism seems to have some merit.

 

I read a biography years ago but I don't have any recollection of the Pacelli family. My thread is only secondarily about Pius XII. I am also interested in discussing how we judge all of those who are dead and whether or not we give them a "fair shake".

But back to Pope Pius for now, people of the 21st Century still seem to think that popes, even in the 20th Century were capable by mere word, of bringing about whatever social changes they wanted. Another Pius, in only the previous century (19th) had been imprisoned and exiled by Napoleon for some kind of political failure from Napoleon's point of view. Pius XII had no armies! Sure it is a good thing to stand for the truth, but do we have to deliberately court exile or even death without regard for whether our words will have any unwanted effect. Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts, but I think it is doubtful German Catholics could have put "irresistible pressure" on the Nazi regime. Most westerners, in their usual zeal for lauding the wise choices that are the inevitable result of the democratic process, forget that Hitler rose to power through just such a process. To be sure, Southern Catholics, and Bavaria in particular, did not support Hitler, but he had overwhelming support in the north, the Protestant parts of Germany. Catholicism carried little moral force in 20th Century Germany.

[3DOP]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

I took an advanced class specifically on the Holocaust as part of getting my history degree in 2012. It was not a fun four months. 

I've read quite a few sources and papers about Pope Pius Xll.

My conclusion is that he was not an evil man, and that he did not support anti Semitism and privately tried to help the Roman Jews.  He even saved a few hundred.

However, he did not do anything publicly to stop Hitler from deporting the majority of Roman Jews, and he never publicly denounced Hitler's actions or tried to convince the Nazis to stop, and he met with them on a few occasions. He was likely worried about Mussolini taking over the Vatican if he did not stay in line. 

Like many Christians during the Holocaust, I think he did not do enough, but that doesn't mean he didn't do anything. It wasn't because he himself wanted the Jews killed. He was afraid of crossing the Nazis, and it was easier to publicly look away than take a hard stand. 

Fair enough. By the way, if I was unclear, I think Russel's contribution is "fair enough" as well. I would suggest that one can be a coward without being a villain. Cowardice is not malice. It would seem that what you learned, as opposed to what the History Channel teaches, adheres to the spirit of what I am calling for with regards to Pius XII, and indeed with most prominent historical figures whose characters have been held up for judgment. It is debatable that he was a villain who was indifferent to human suffering in general and the persecution of Jews in particular. Thanks bluebell. 

Edited March 6, 2016 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

8 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Whatever the case, I would not want to judge Pope Pius Xii on that question or any other question. We just do not know all of the facts and cannot read the Pope's mind. His judgement lies in God's hands. It always has.

There are historical figures for whom there is pretty solid evidence of wrongdoing. Hitler is one of them. Yet, the actual judgement is in God's hands. Had Hitler been captured alive, some mortal judgement would have almost assuredly been meted out.

I do believe that prejudices, bigotry, and biases do badly color human judgement in general. We have far too many people convicted of crimes who have later been exonerated by science. People who were alive and protested their innocence, yet were convicted anyway.

Whatever the deeds of anyone who has passed through the portals into the next life, their judgement is in the hands of God.

Glenn

Again. Sure. Its debatable isn't it.

I do think it sometimes incumbent upon us while acknowledging that only God knows all the facts, to make a judgment. I had Hitler in mind when I suggested that there are some who I labelled as villains that have few defenders. He was a bad guy I would say. Still, in such an instance, it seems wise to remember warnings about how "power tends to corrupt." Who among us has not been indignant about a perceived misjustice to the point where if we had the power, we might have done something quite drastic to people who had unwittingly crossed us. Have you never been angry on the highway? It seems to me that Hitler and the Germans who supported him were persuaded that a very great injustice had been done to Germany at the close of the first war. Unfortunately, what starts as an effort to right wrongs, can end up as atrocities if we actually have the power to do what we imagine.

Was Hitler the only German who could have led such a movement as Nazism? Hitler had many opportunities as a "runner" to have been killed in World War I. His survival was numerically improbable. But did other factors create a scenario where if he had died, someone else would have stepped into the gap and done the same things? I do not know. God knows. 

I will perhaps get into trouble for suggesting that even with the most heinous of criminals, like Hitler, we should ultimately attempt to realize that their malice is to some degree influenced by their environment.

The main thrust with my post Glenn, is to suggest that we tend to have slight concern for maligning prominent dead people with whom we disagree, when we would be much more careful and fair if they were sitting in front of us alive.  Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after justice.

Yes we want justice for wrongs done. But no more than that. If one is guilty of a hundred murders, we must be pleased to discover that it wasn't a hundred plus one. Justice does not extract an ounce more than what is required to balance the scales. If we come to the place where we are pleased to discover that a person was bad, if we are disappointed that a person was not worse, if we think it permissible to exaggerate malice...even if it is Hitler, or some serial killer...it is we who are corrupted by the evil which can so easily overcome us, and it is our own souls we unwittingly destroy by our own unjust malice.

Edited March 6, 2016 by 3DOP

[volgadon]

Interestingly enough, I was just reading an article about Zolli yesterday.

[volgadon]

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/196727/the-apostasy-of-rabbi-zolli?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=post&utm_content=The+Apostasy+of+Rabbi+Zolli&utm_campaign=mar2016

[Five Solas]

I'm afraid my view of the Catholic Church during that time period was colored by, of all things, an album cover of a British New Wave band I liked in high school--Killing Joke.  The album (a compilation, actually) "Laugh? I Nearly Bought One!"  (Out of respect for 3DOP, I won't link to it.)

I've never seriously considered the question, but figured with an image floating around like that--the story couldn't be good.  It just goes to show it can take a whole lot less than a program on the History Channel to unfairly create a perception or indict someone.  

Appreciate the post, 3DOP

:0)

--Erik 

 

[volgadon]

I think that if the pope had been less circumspect, then it would have been much harder for others in the church to save Jews.