Pope Pius (XII?)(Eugenio Pacelli), has been criticized in some quarters, for his reluctance to criticize the Nazis. In Rolf Hochuth’s play (“THE DEPUTY”), Pius was slammed for being too compliant with the fascists. Without debating that point, what might have happened, had Pope Pius made a speech like this (say in 1940)?
“To all priests and all the faithful of Europe: You are all sternly reminded that the Jewish people are our spiritual brothers, and have a convenant with God. Therefore, I remind the faithful that NO ONE may mistreat or persecute the jews, without imperilling his own soul. I do make the following decree:
Anyone who mistreats, or harms , a person of the Jewish faith is AUTOMATICALLY excommunicated from the Holy Church, and is immediately in a state of MORTAL sin. Such a person must be denied the sacraments of the Church, until such time as he makes a full confession and makes restitution.
Ant, to the rulers of Germany, Hungary, Roumania, and Italy: you must follow the law of God, and refrain from acts of murder and persecution. You are under the threat of excommunication, should you abuse the rights of all human beings.”
Would it have made any difference?
… you have no idea what Excommunication means, do you?
Back in the day a lot of people took excommunication mighty seriously, in a fate worse than death way because it meant the death of your soul.
In the short term it probably would have gone against Pius and the Catholic Church. The Reich was a secular power that was mostly immune from moral censure. And it was capable and willing of taking retribution against Pius or other church members.
But it the long term it would have been the right thing to do, not only morally but politically. The church would have survived any attacks the Nazis could have made and Germany lost the war. So the church would have been putting itself clearly on the winning side. And more importantly, it would have established itself as a moral authority that was willing to speak out even when it placed itself in danger, which would have greatly enhanced the church’s reputation in future public declarations.
It may have also helped a bit at the time, while the state was secular the Catholic population may have taken this as a sign that the Nuremburg laws and boycotts were seen as a sin by the church. There may have been a little more resistance to the persecution of the jews by that community.
If you look at fascist Italy, there was no real desire by the population to round up the jews and get rid of (though many may not have known that meant exterminate) them. Even though there were laws in place it was only when German troops were in Italy and pressure was brought to bear was anything ever started.
That speech in 1940 would have had little effect. The Catholic political organization in Germany had been destroyed by that stage, the way was underway (very successfully) and the Nazis were massively popular.
An earlier critique of fascism by the Catholic Church might have made a difference, in particular if it could have played a role in the creation of a popular front against fascism with the parties of the center-left. Stopping Hitler was not going to be possible without the support of the SPD and their unions.
Unfortunately, the Catholic heirarchy saw the real danger as coming from communism, and looked at the SPD as equivalent to the KPD. The KPD, through their Societ puppetmasters, saw the SPD and centrist parties as being the equivalent of Hitler.
By the time the communists and RC Church realized the true danger, the only group with sufficient support to draw a line in the sand against facism, the SPD, was destroyed. As was the KPD. And certainly by 1940, I don’t think it would have made any difference at all.
Had the speech been made after the Nazi takeover, but before the final solution, it might have increased the secrecy imposed on the Final Solution. But given that the mass murder started in a time of pretty much total war, was portrayed as actions against partisans, and necessary harsh measures to protect Germany against outside threats, and was implemented against Eastern Jews, in places outside of Germany, I don’t think it would have been overly impactful. What it might have done is improved the lot of German Jews in the short run, and possibly other Western Jews.
Well, seeing that all “mit brennender Sorge” and Pius XI’s criticisms didn’t do much other than cause a crackdown of Catholics, I don’t think the proposed speech would have done much.
“How many divisions has the Pope?”
– attributed to Josef Stalin
None, but as of November 1932, 12% of the German vote, and 70 seats in the Reichstag through the Centre Party.
In 1932, maybe, but not in 1940.
Unfortunately, they saw themselves as Germans first and Catholics second.
I repeat, however, that the OP has no idea what Excommunication means.
I think excommunication is what the OP was going after. Hitler was raised as a Catholic so he would technically be eligible for being excommunicated. And while he probably wouldn’t care, it would have the wider effect of excusing Catholics from following him - IIRC Catholics are not bound to any oath they made to a person who is excommunicated.
As a more practical answer to the OP, the German press would not have covered such a speech. If the remaining Catholic hierarchy tried to get the word out, they would have been suppressed or even martyred.
I don’t recall who said it, but sometime after the rise of Solidarity and the fall of the Berlin Wall, some commentator provided the following answer: “More than you have. More than you can imagine.”
I like that.
Well, the German Bishops Conference forbade Catholics from being members of the Nazi party under pain of excommunication, in 1930. So, from 1930 to 1933, when the Reichsconcordiat was signed and the ban was lifted, Hitler was excommunicate by virtue of his membership in the party. Hitler was functionally excommunicate before that, though, by virtue of his beliefs.
I know. Which is why in my initial response I said no effect in 1940, possible effect earlier.
How about enlightening us then? This is an interesting thread so far.
Excommunication from the Catholic church means the person can’t serve as a minister in the liturgy and can’t receive the sacraments (except for Confession/Reconciliation).
There was also, at the time, excommunication vitandus, which I think a lot of people are calling for in this thread. It could only be declared by the Pope, and, in addition to the penalties provided, forbade Catholics from associating with the excommunicant under penalty. By the 1930s/40s, vitandus excommunications were pretty much extinct. I don’t know for sure, but the most recent vitandus I could find was the excommunication of Matthew Arnold.
Yes, but more serious than even that. It says that the individual is outside the church’s grace. Usually, it’s been a punishment for heresy in some fashion. What it isn’t is a tool to ensure correct political thinking, or to make people be actively good. Ordinary sin, even really terrible ones, are not excommunicable offenses. The Nazis were excommunicated because of their active offense to the Church and her teachings.