How The Pope Of Peace Traded In Blood
The Red Pope
Edited by E. Haldeman-Julius
The Black International No. 2
- Chapter I - The Red Record Of The Holy Fathers
- Chapter II - Who Is This Pius XII?
- Chapter III - His Glorious Ally Mussolini
- Chapter IV - His Dear Yellow Brother In Buddha
- Chapter V - He Organizes The Plot In South America
The color chosen by the Popes is White. Their flag, it is true, White and Gold, to remind us that they are Kings and need a royal revenue of a billion a year, but that is, they say, necessary to a ruler of the world. Their personal color-theme is white, a flowing white cassock and a white-silk skull-cap: symbols of their purity life and purpose and their never-ceasing efforts to keep the world in peace and tranquillity. The vast economic organization over which they preside, the Black International, takes its name from the black-garbed clergy. For more than a hundred years after America had embodied the elementary rights, of man in a Constitution the priests called the claim of those rights in other countries Liberalism and waged a bitter, blood-soaked fight against it. This was the historic battle of the Blacks and the Whites (Liberals).
Toward the end of the nineteenth century a new color, Red, appeared in the arena. Whites and Blacks shuddered and got together to oppress it. Red meant blood, violence, war. As I explained in the last book, our folk are now educated in so false a version of history, because truth is offensive to our Catholic fellow- citizens, that few know the irony of this. Particularly in America men and women were persuaded to greet the new banner with hatred, rage, and disgust. These newcomers who preached violence, cruelty, and war were outside the pale of our Christian civilization. Shoot the dogs down, as Luther said about the rebel-peasants of his time. Let me here just outline the historical evidence that the real Reds, in this sense, are, and always have been, the Popes and their bishops.
We have read hundreds of times the prophecy of the famous British essayist, Lord Macaulay that when in some remote age a traveller comes from New Zealand to see the ruins of London the Papacy will still flourish. These literary men! Not only does it seem unlikely that New Zealand will ever support 5,000,000 people but the idea that an institution which has lasted 1800 years will last another few millennia, or even a century, is childish. In Macaulay's time the world was beginning to perceive that institutions which appeared thousands of years ago probably had their roots in ignorance. There were then twenty Kings in Europe. A century later there were ten, and most of them looked nervously upon a hostile world. In another ten years they will probably be reduced to one.
The Papacy is far more vulnerable than monarchy. As the supreme head of the western half of Christianity it was established about the middle of fifth century. It is quite literally what Hobbes called it, "the ghost of the Roman Empire sitting upon the grave thereof." As long as that Empire maintain civilization every branch of the Church, east and west, scorned the Pope's pretensions. But in a world of blind men the one-eyed man is king, and Rome ruled the ruins. The Popes were masters of a that was so debased that during the next seven centuries all Europe did not produce one book that any but a bookworm now reads or raise one building that any but an antiquarian would cross the street to examine.
The brilliant civilization which the Arabs meantime created in Spain and Sicily at last awakened Europe from its hog-like slumbers, and for the next eight centuries the power of the Popes was based upon violence and bloodshed. A distinguished German historian has estimated that their victims numbered more than 10,000,00 in 500 years. Certainly they numbered some millions. Until the American and French Revolutions these were frankly called Heretics. Then the world, under the lead of America, decided that it was a crime to put men to death for religion, so they were called Liberals, and the Church got half a million of them liquidated. By the twentieth century civilization generally had become Liberal so they were called Reds or Bolsheviks. Very few people are taught in school -- except in those disreputable Communist Schools -- that it is simply an historical truth that their flag is "red with martyrs' blood."
Is it credible that the Holy Fathers, clad in the symbols of peace and purity, were guilty of these things? I recently published in England a History of the Popes (1939) in which I could pay more attention to the characters of the Popes than in my larger True Story of the Roman Catholic Church (1930). Let me say shamelessly, that I read the original authorities in Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, German and French, and no Catholic has ever attempted to answer any of my historical work. And I say, coldly, that these Holy Fathers shed more blood in defense of their wealth and power than all the other historic religions put together and that the record of their vices is the worst in the whole history of religion.
There have been about 260 of these Vicars of Christ, as they call themselves. It is difficult to tell the exact number because in certain periods there were two or three truculently fighting for the holy title. In the tenth century there were 30 in 100 years -- there have been only six in the last 100 years -- and it is impossible to be sure how many were murdered by rivals. Let us say that there have been 260. We know nothing about the character of the great majority of these during the first thousand years of the Christian Era. Catholic literature gives the title of martyr to nearly every Pope to the year 310, though their most learned historian, Duchesne, admits that only two were martyred. It gives the title of Saint to all but one of them to the fifth century, whereas we have definite information about only three of them, and one of these (St. Victor) was at least shady, the second (St. Callistus) was definitely a crook, and the third (St. Damasus) was a forger, and an employer of murderous mobs and was charged under the civil law with adultery. In short, of the 150 or so Popes about whose characters we can be fairly sure at least 30 were sexually loose men (six or seven of them sodomists) and about a dozen murderers. Scores besides these were men of vile temper and great cruelty; and most of them were guilty of simony, nepotism, and protecting corruption.
So put out of your mind the conventional gush about "venerable heads of the great Church," and remember that even the best Popes were terrible shedders of blood. The holiest of them all, Innocent III, was responsible for about 500,000 victims in 18 years (1198- 1216). The question here is whether this is ancient stuff that throws no light or has no bearing on the conduct of the Papacy in modern times. That is what Catholics say and most people believe; but you will not understand the situation today unless you realize that the "Red Record" which is the title of this chapter, mainly refers to the record of the Popes from the fall of Napoleon (1814) to our own time.
I said in the last booklet that during this period about 500,000 men, women, and children were done to death by the Church and the feudal monarchs in alliance. With that disgusting meanness to which the difficulties of their case drives them, Catholic writers represent, and try to compel other writers and works of reference to represent, these martyrs as a sort of early type of Reds, or dangerous agitators against the social order as well as religion. On the contrary they were as a rule less radical than Washington and Jefferson. Republicanism was rare amongst them, and the had no idea of persecuting the Church or, even in most cases, of disestablishing it. They were just men and women who wanted kings to govern them constitutionally and the Church to suppress the horrible Inquisition and its vile dungeons. For this Kings and Popes fell upon them, through the armies, police, and fanatical mobs, with incredible savagery.
Do not listen to the excuse that it was still the Middle Ages. Napoleon had made an end of that horror. Some now put Napoleon on a level with our modern dictators, but with all his faults he was a clean fighter, only in one case accused of murder (the Duc d'Enghien), and he did magnificent work for Europe. He was a skeptic, of course, as Lord Rosebery shows in The Last Phase (1900), but he showered wealth and favor upon the Church -- on the usual terms: the priests must keep the old Republicans quiet for him. Yet after his fall the bishops joined with the royalists in a White Terror which was more brutal than the Red Terror.
Catholics represent Pope Pius VII as a "martyr" under Napoleon. They do not tell how under this Pius VII, when Napoleon was beaten, tens of thousands of Liberals were martyred and under his three successors hundreds of thousands. Well, what were these Holy Fathers, of modern times, like, and what were they protecting? If you want a serious and unchallengeable answer look up that highly respectable and most weighty authority the Cambridge Modern History (Vol. X). You will find that Leo XII, who succeeded Pious -- the Carbolic Encyclopedia admires his "intelligence and masterly energy" -- was a converted rake and a doddering old fool who was "hated by all, princes and beggars" (as the famous historian L. von Ranke who knew him, said) and his death was hailed by the Romans "with indecent joy" (the Prussian ambassador at Rome said). While he shot birds in the Vatican garden his troops, with a sanguinary cardinal in command, shot down his rebels, and many thousands of them suffered a living death in jails of a repulsive character.
At his death the cardinals, after invoking the light of the Holy Spirit, elected, to meet the grave problems of the new Europe a man in the last stage of senile decay, drooling at the mouth as they wheeled him round the Vatican garden in his baby-carriage. The carnage of rebels went on. He soon died, and the fierce contest of cardinals for the holy office was renewed. The ablest candidate Albani, but he was so notorious a rogue that they thought the heretics of England and Prussia might make ribald remarks if they elected him Vicar of Christ, so they made him Secretary of State (and real ruler of the Church) and elected a monk Gregory XVI.
Gregory was according to all Italian historians vulgar, sensual, and frivolous. As one of the more distinguished of them says, he "absorbed himself in ignoble interests while the country groaned under misrule." It was widely believed in Rome that he was intimate with the wife of his valet, and he was notorious for his love of strong wine and candy. His horrible jails were crammed with rebels -- 6,000 at one time -- and the best blood of Italy was poured out or driven abroad. His ignorance was weird. He refused to admit even gas and railways into the Papal States, as if that meant that the devil got his foot in the door.
After fifteen years of this the cardinals elected what Catholics call a Liberal Pope, Pius IX. But when he found that Liberals wanted real freedom and a share in reforming his corrupt kingdom he fled in disguise and called upon the Catholic powers to kill his rebels for him. Then the jails were crammed again. In Civita Veechia, which had once been enlivened by the orgies of medieval Holy Fathers, rebels with a life-sentence were chained to the wall and not released even for relieving themselves. So the brutality continued until the Italians bought off the Pope's French protectors and took over, with an overwhelming vote of the inhabitants, the Papal Kingdom.
What was this kingdom (the Papal States) which they had shed so much blood to protect? There is no dispute amongst non-Catholic historians, and some Catholic historian's agree, that it was "the most corrupt, backward, vicious, and inept in Europe." The British ambassador publicly declared it "the opprobrium of Europe." The leading monarchs of Europe in 1832 publicly warned the Papacy -- which is now pressed upon us as the most profound and serene oracle on political morality -- that unless it cleaned up its Augaean stable they would clean it themselves. Rome was described by a devout French priest as "the most hideous sewer that was ever opened up to the eye of man;" and this is approvingly quoted by a Catholic historian in the Cambridge Modern History (X, 164) in which all this is admitted. The real ruler or Secretary of State, Cardinal Antonelli, who had been born in a peasant's hut, died worth $20,000,000, and left a bastard daughter, the Countess Lambertini clamoring for it.
South Italy, the Kingdom of Naples, was virtually an extension of the Pope's Kingdom in respect of Papal influence; and it rivalled the Papal States in corruption and viciousness. Its monarchs, the Pope's beloved sons, were veritable Neros. From 1790 to 1860 they slaughtered, sometimes with revolting barbarity, about 200,000 "Liberals." And since the Kings of Spain and Portugal were just as servile to the Popes we are entitled to bring their misdeeds also under the heading of the "moral influence" of the Popes. Their "Butcher's bill" in 50 years was between 50,000 and 100,000. The savagery was so indiscriminate that no one can get nearer to the truth.
Well, well, the Catholic says, this is still ancient history -- less than a century ago -- and with the glorious pontificate of Leo XIII a new era was inaugurated; the era of those beautiful encyclicals on socio-political matters which are quoted in every Catholic apology that is put before the American public. For an understanding of the present situation it is very important to realize that there was no change of policy whatever at the Vatican. That is why I have given this very slight outline of the bloody history of the past, which is fully described in my earlier works. The policy of violence was merely suspended until it could once more be applied.
Leo XIII could not, if he wanted, maintain the vile practices of his predecessors. Italy and France witnessed a rapid growth of skepticism in high quarters after 1870 and would not tolerate Papal interference or advice. Poland was under Russia, which treated the Pope as an Italian monkey. Austria, brought down by its defeats was becoming very Liberal. The horrors of the dead Papal Kingdom and of Naples were told by hundreds of writers and orators in Europe and America. Moreover, the, Vatican had begun to see remarkable possibilities of wealth in "converting", America and Great Britain, and the Catholics in those countries had as yet not the least influence on the press and education and could not have concealed atrocities as they now do. So the wolf put on sheep's clothing for a few years.
Then the menace of the Reds began and gave them their opportunity. There was still only one country in which the "right to kill", which (we saw in the last book) was solemnly reaffirmed by Leo XIII, could be made the basis of policy. Spain was geographically isolated and few people abroad took much notice of it. In fact, in the last decade of the century the ruling and wealthy classes everywhere were beginning to sniff at this Red menace and would not inquire too closely. So in Spain the hierarchy, which was more intimately connected with Rome than that of any other country, began to cooperate with the corrupt state on the old lines. From 1895 to 1909, when Ferrer was murdered and I roused so much public attention that the policy had again to be suspended, hundreds of rebels were shot and thousands tortured in jail.
They were not "anarchists." I became an intimate friend of one of them, Professor Tarrida del Marmol, who fled to London and was under sentence of death in Spain. He was a fine scholar and a spanish gentleman of the best type, a man of aristocratic family. loathed violence and was an anarchist only in the Tolstoian sense. His great crime was that he was a rebel against the Church. In the vile dungeons of Montjuich, where he was imprisoned, he saw what was done. Men were fed for days on salt fish and dry bread and refused water. Cords were tied tightly on their genitals. It was afterwards proved that most of the "anarchist plots" were police plots, and the Church was fully implicated. This want on under Leo XIII and Pius X, and it brings the Red Record of the Popes down to our own time. It continued in the only country in the world in which it could be continued.
The present Pope Pius XII, is hailed throughout the Catholic world as the Pope of Peace. Cardinal Hinsley explains in his introduction to The Pope Speaks (1940) that the beautiful motto of his ancient and aristocratic family is (translated): "Peace is the Fruit of Justice." Yes; Mussolini has said that hundreds of times, with the accent on the word justice. Hitler merely wants justice and then he will give what is left of us peace. I am going to show that Pius XII above any other Pope of modern times, even Pius IX, is entitled to be called the Red Pore, the Pope of War.
One of the flatterers of "the venerable Church" has called him "the Greatest Neutral." He never has been neutral. For at least five years he has openly called for war on Bolshevism in Mexico, Spain, China, and Russia. Does anyone suppose that he was thinking of ancient Jericho and merely wanted the priests to blow their trumpets? He was summoning Italy, Germany, Japan, and the United States to war. Leaving out the United States, which was unwilling to draw the chestnuts out of the fire for the Pope and Wall Street, in this slogan which Pacelli, as Secretary of State, sent echoing through the Catholic world he was shrieking for just that war on Spain, China, and Russia which we have seen.
I am sometimes asked what Catholic apologists reply to these very serious historical and actual charges which I make. They never reply. They forbid their people to read me, which is much easier. But do not Catholics regard that maneuver with suspicion? Listen. The Catholic Truth Society of Ireland published a cheap booklet by the Jesuit priest D.A. Lord with the title I Can Read Anything. It meets the natural wish of many Catholics to read both sides, and it takes the usual line that the books they are forbidden to read are filthy and mendacious but dangerously clever. Catholic young men and women are asked to be too sensible to "pit their minds" against "the trained, clever, brilliant minds" of the Church's critics. And lest the Catholic should ask if the Church and its 350,000,000 followers does not include a few equally brilliant writers to reply the priest goes on (p. 22)
And when they [the anti-Church writer's] are utterly unscrupulous, as let's say, Joseph McCabe is, and will twist any little bit of history to make a case, and pile yarn on yarn to construct a proof, and use fable for fact and supposition for solid argument, what chance has the average reader against them?
The English Catholic Truth Society dare not publish this -- as my friend Haldeman-Julitis shares the Jesuits' opposition with me I gather that the book is of American origin -- because the British libel courts are the straightest in the world. In an Irish court I would get as much justice as a Jew in Berlin, So when folk in England write to ask for the Catholic reply to me the officials send them an address in Dublin where they can get this cowardly little rag. Inquirers have reported this to me.
If anybody is unaware, which hardly seems likely, that the present Pope has for the last five or six years used all his influence to get Italy, Germany, and Japan to make war, respectively, on Spain, Russia, and China, which would mean a world-war, he will have ample evidence later. First let us see how this Red Pope became what he is.
Eugenic Pacelli comes of what is commonly called an ancient an Italian noble family which had lost its wealth but not its piety. His father was a Papal lawyer and, as is usual in such cases, one son was destined for the clerical career; especially as in the last century government or military service was closed to good Catholics in Italy, the Papacy still branding the government or the royal family "robbers." More than four-fifths of the inhabitants of the Papal States had voted to be transferred from Papal rule to that of the Kings of Italy but that meant nothing to the "democratic" Leo XIII. He was "the prisoner of the Vatican", eliciting golden sympathy from America, and the Italian statesmen were robbers. So careers for Catholic youths of noble birth and little money were few in Italy.
I do not suggest that Pius XII does not believe his theology, as probably half the clergy do not in one degree or other. No one is likely to know except himself what he believes. Priests hardly ever tell each other. Zeal is no criterion, however. The Catholic priesthood and hierarchy are an immense economic corporation centered in Rome just as Christian Science is, in its official framework, a business with headquarters in Boston. Naturally its members are zealous; and the more responsibility they have (which is won by the extent of their zeal) the more zealous they are. The Catholic who imagines its Pope and his cardinals regarding money as a mundane affair with which they have to soil their white fingers occasionally should hear two or three priests talking about them when they get to the second bottle.
Here is some interesting information about the higher clergy of Rome which came to me a few years ago from a priest through one intermediary, a friend of high character. When Rome obliged English Catholics a few years ago by making a Saint of witty old Thomas More it sent them, to their stupefaction, a bill for $65,000 (costs) and of $20,000 for a little present to the Pope! This present was a gold chalice which, as the price of gold rose, would be just a lump of pure gold worth about $50,000. The ceremonies at Rome were a close monopoly of the Italians -- at least under pressure they let one English priest hold a candle and charged him $50 -- and every cardinal had his fixed price.
But understand that I suggest nothing whatever about the Pope's belief or unbelief. He has a job of work, and this was his apprenticeship for it. In college he discovered an ability for learning languages and a special zeal for learning Canon Law, so he was drafted into the Secretariat of State very soon after he became priest, and there he would find himself on the fringe of the mysteries of Vatican diplomacy. He also, being of noble birth, joined and became a professor in The Academy of Ecclesiastics of Noble Birth of course, the less said about that the better in America, where one has to protect the legend that all his life -- when the great ones of the earth kissed his ring during his tours of the world, when he occupied a gorgeous suite in the Vatican as Secretary of State, and even now that he sits on the golden throne -- his one ardent desire was that he could become a humble parish priest amongst the poor. He is an aristocrat to his finger-tips. He loathes democracy. He doubles Leo XIII (in his crooked diplomacy) and Innocent III (who virtually founded the Inquisition).
Pacelli made such progress in the department that at the comparatively early age of 41 he was sent out on a very important mission. Pope Benedict XV, who had notoriously intrigued with the Germans and the Austrians against the Italians, during the war recollected that he was a Pope of Peace when, in 1917, it became doubtful if the Germans would win. He then wanted to have the world-prestige of bringing it to a close, and he sent Pacelli as Nuncio (ambassador) with plans of peace to Germany. Pacelli was announced as Nuncio to Bavaria, but within a week he was in Berlin seeing the Chancellor. He even saw the Kaiser, who told him to take his plans home because he was sure to win the war. Why doesn't the Pope rather, he said, detach Italy from the Allies and link it with Austria, as they are both Catholic countries? Because, said Pacelli, there is a very strong patriotic movement in Italy in favor of continuing the war led by a fiery young journalist named Benito Mussolini. The Pope's biographers say that the Kaiser told Pacelli to take no notice of "that scum" but to go ahead and detach Italy from England. It is a neat little picture.
The gaunt, grim, swarthy young Nuncio next year saw the fall of the Kaiser and the riots in Munich. He met the "mob" with simple heroism, of course -- in Catholic literature -- but the important point is that this was the beginning of his knowledge and hatred of the Reds. He remained in Munich until 1925, so he saw, with what feelings he has not told us, the rise of a similar "scum" in Bavaria and the comic-opera "March on Berlin," when Hitler made the record run of his life -- backwards. In 1925 he was sent as Nuncio to Berlin, and as this was the beginning of the best period in recent German history, the five years of peace and comparative prosperity under a Liberal-Socialist coalition, Pacelli must know better than any man in Italy that the excuse which was later made for Hitler in the world-press, the flattery under shelter of which the Nazis created their formidable power, the plea that they had saved Germany from chaos and distress, is a lie.
As part of the evidence, if evidence is required, that Pius XII has only one aim in all his policy -- not the peace of the world but the power of the Church -- the twelve years he spent in Germany are important. He acquired a thorough knowledge of German, thought he speaks it (and French) with, a marked accent, and as far as German affairs are concerned he has never been at the mercy of bigoted And muddle-headed Vatican officials. He saw the years of confusion after the War end in a working compromise and a new Germany rising cheerfully from the ruins. Lamentable as the feud of Communists and Socialists was, it was a domestic squabble and did not seriously disturb the national economy after 1924; and the Catholic Church had more freedom and prestige than ever. Pacelli knows as little about economics as he does about history and science, but at least he was intelligent enough to see, during his four years in Berlin, that under a predominantly Socialist rule Germany was making all the progress that could be expected with so crippling a debt, and it was not internal confusion but its share in the world-slumps and the cessation of fat loans from America and Britain from the end of 1929 that led to the comparative distress of 1930-32 of which the Nazis took advantage. We shall see that Pacelli at one time (1934) in a fit of temper wrote the sharpest condemnation of Hitler that ever came from a clerical pen, He always loathed Hitler as a plebeian upstart and an apostate from the Church, even when he was compelling the German bishops to bow humbly before him and beg to be allowed to have a share in his dirty work. But Hitler promised to make an end of Socialism, and that-not (outside of Russia) Communism or Bolshevism -- is the Big Bad Wolf in the eyes of the Vatican. Socialism has not only a constant anti-Papal tradition, which will surprise nobody who knows the facts I summarized in the last chapter, but to oblige its wealthy supporters the Vatican has been compelled for half a century to condemn it as immoral on the ground that private ownership is a right based upon natural moral law.
It was, however, not until Pacelli had left Germany that the Nazis showed any prospect of ever attaining power, and he regarded them as a vulgar and disorderly rabble led by a bunch of unsavory apostates and "pansies." Three years later he would, as Secretary of State, compel the proud German hierarchy, against their very decided will, to greet Hitler as the Savior of Germany and the White Hope of the Church, Let us remember, when we get to that point in the next booklet, that Pacelli did not act from ignorance. He was less innocent than Chamberlain. If he had any ability at all -- and he has considerable ability -- he knew Germany thoroughly. Will Catholics call it a wicked suspicion if we assume that this observer of events, who lived eight years in Munich and four in Berlin, had read Mein Kampf? He knew the program: the glorification of the German race, the domination of Europe, the annexation of the Ukraine, the massacre of the Jews, the annihilation of France -- in a word, war on a stupendous scale. Catholics do not obtrude today his intimate knowledge of Germany.
He was recalled to Rome in the summer of 1929 while Germany was still cheerfully recovering and the Catholics cooperated amiably with the Socialists and Liberals. Pacelli had been head of the diplomatic corps at Berlin. The French ambassador had the real right to that position and the Papal ambassador no right. But the Germans hated the French too much to let the honor fall to them. It is another point to bear in mind about this pre-hitler Germany, which Pacelli helped to ruin, that it genially tolerated a Papal Nuncio at the head of the diplomatic corps and a Catholic Chancellor in the Wilhelmsstragse. German Catholics had never before seen such things.
Pacelli's patron, the Secretary of State Cardinal Gasparri, was now 80 years old and unfit for office. He seems to have marked out Pacelli as his successor, and he brought him back to the Vatican for a few months of final training. Even Catholic literature is a little confused here. Pacelli became Secretary of State, which is the highest position in the Church after that of the Pope, in February, 1930. In 1931 a gossip-paragraph appeared in the Italian press to the effect that it was expected in Rome that the new Secretary of State was about to be dismissed and old Gasparri reinstated. Clearly the old men were conspiring against Pacelli, but the same Catholic writers who say that it was because he was too lenient to Mussolini had already said that Gasparri had always been in favor of alliance with that brutal adventurer. We will return to the point in a moment, but it will be useful first to run a cursory eye over the ten years' activity of Pacelli as Secretary of State.
He took up residence in the gorgeous suite of rooms, with heavy gilt furniture and magnificent decorations, in the Vatican Palace. Just at the time when the Pope and Mussolini, who had in the previous year signed the infamous compact by which (in effect) the Papacy undertook to condone all Mussolini's crimes in return for $90,000,000 and a royal independence, had begun to quarrel fiercely, as crooks are apt to do, over the bargain. Pacelli smoothed out the quarrel, got the Duce to bend his knees in St. Peter's, and got the Pope to have a cordial chat with him. So Mussolini was safely launched on his bloody career.
In the same year, 1931, Japan seized Manchuria and began to debauch the Chinese. While all the world looked on with disgust at the brigandage Pacelli accepted the overtures of Japan and the more Japan advanced and became a menace to half the world, the deeper Pacelli made the Vatican's alliance with the callous and unscrupulous bandits. In 1932 Hitler made his supreme bid for power and failed, and Pacelli then ordered the German hierarchy to withdraw their opposition to him so that he secured power and enter upon his career of blood.
In 1934 Pacelli went to South America to preside at a Eucharistic Congress and saw the heads of each "Republic and their bishops; and by a remarkable coincidence, if you can think it that, Fascism began to sweep the country, rebels against the Church went to jail in tens of thousands, and the Germans and Italians in South America entered upon their audacious plans. In the same year the Christian Socialists of Austria, after their leaders visited the Pope, treacherously crushed Socialism and prepared the way for Hitler. In the same year Mussolini began the slaughter of Abyssinia and the whole Italian Church made whoopee, and at the end the Pope gave the Queen of Italy as Empress of Abyssinia Golden Rose, which is the highest mark of Papal approval.
In 1936 General Franco visited the Vatican, and his revolt, which had the most open and solemn blessing of the Papacy, was the first serious step of the Axis bregands in their projected campaign. In 1938 Hitler annexed Austria with the full support of the Austrian Church, which is one of the most docile to the Vatican in the world. In the same year the Sudeten Catholics at one end of Czecho-Slovakia and the Slovak Catholics at the other betrayed their country and put Hitler in a position to defy the rest of Europe and prepare for his insane attempt to dominate the world.
A remarkable ten-year record for the Pope of Peace, the Greatest Neutral, the Friend of Democracy, and the Black International which carried out his instructions! That record we have to examine in detail, proving it by public acts and published utterances, and then to consider the Pope's first two years of pontifical activity. But, as we go into detail, do not lose sight of the fact that Pacelli-Pius's ruling idea throughout is "the extinction of Bolshevism" by the peaceful bombs and bayonets of the Germans, Italians, Japanese; to which, in furtherance of the work of peace, he now wants to add the bombs and bayonets of Vichy France, Franco Spain, Salazar Portugal, and Horthy Hungary.
It was on March 12, 1939, that Eugenio reached the summit of ambition and was crowned in St. Peter's. Next day a man who lived on the frontier of Italy and France sent to the most respected newspaper in Great Britain, the Manchester Guardian, a letter which it -- and probably it alone of the British or American press -- had the courage to publish. The writer reminded people that March 12th was also the last day for Jews to remain in Italy. He described from personal observation the appalling sufferings of the 70,000 Jews who, robbed of their goods, were racing for frontiers which to a large extent were sealed against them. He saw old men, women, and children panting up the Alpine slopes to France and says that the carabineri and frontier-troops had "orders to facilitate their migration if necessary with the help of a bayonet." He saw elderly folks "collapse on the way up the vast acres of the Italian slope"; little children "stagger, their feet bleeding, into the frontier villages"; women try to throw themselves under the traffic when the French at last put up the barriers; babies abandoned or lost by the wayside.
This had gone on for a week and it was continuing in a last frantic rush of the robbed Jews while the bells of St. Peter's and all the churches in Italy rang out joyously over the sunny land. What did the Pope of Peace do? The writer of the letter says that the Italian carabinieri and soldiers were so moved that they forgot their instructions about the bayonet and carried children tenderly to the frontier. What did the Pope do? Nothing: except receive the splendid congratulations of Mussolini and his ministers. Catholic biographers boast that during the week which followed his coronation Pacelli-Pius, sinking under the burden of work, slept only three hours every night. Very heroic, but a little puzzling, because as Secretary of State he had been doing just that work for ten years. Why the arrears? But what did he do for the Jews, for crushed and bleeding democrats of Italy, for the heart-broken and suffering Czechs? Nothing, just nothing.
The Italian problem had, as I said, been the first to engage Pacelli when he became Secretary of State. I have told elsewhere (Little Blue Book No. 1501 and ABC Library No. 2) the story of the rise of Fascism and its early relation to the Church, In 1917 Mussolini and his cut-throats were, as the Kaiser had said, "scum." They were atheists, republicans, and gangsters until 1921. Then, to the surprise of many, Mussolini asked Cardinal Ratti for permission for the Black Shirts to make a solemn procession to the tomb of the Unknown Warrior in Milan Cathedral and the cardinal gladly accepted and gave them a place of honor," says the Catholic Teeling (p. 106). Next year was the march on Rome (with Mussolini 100 miles away), and the Duce pompously declared St. Peter's and all church property under his special protection and ordered a thanksgiving service with the King in attendance, At one of the principle churches of Rome for the salvation of Italy. From Scum to Savior of his Country in two years!
There is no secret about it. It is one of the most painful features of the American literature of the subject that the respected head of a great university, Nicholas Murray Butler, dupe of American Catholics, lent his pen (Looking Forward) in that glorification of Mussolini which was as useful as a smoke-screen to the Fascists while they prepared for war, Professor Salvemini (Under the Axe of Fascism, 1936) has given Dr. Butler a chastisement such as few scholars ever give each other for his gullibility in accepting Catholic lies about the "confusion and ruin" caused by the Communists from which Mussolini saved Italy. The author Selde's shows that Mussolini later confessed that he invented the Communist boogie to help the loan he had floated in America. The danger was Socialism which was conquering Italy, and so politicians, royalists, generals, and industrialists put Mussolini in the saddle, after fumigating him of his atheism and republicanism.
But in spite of this powerful support of throne, army, and capital the seat in the saddle remained very insecure for seven years. Mussolini had not dared to extinguish the democracy for which italians had fought so nobly from 1790 to 1870. Liberals and Socialists were powerfully organized and, as in Spain, commanded the majority of the votes in the cities, where the most intelligent and the best-informed of the Italians lived. When, in 1924, Mussolini was believed to have had the most respected leader of the Socialists, Matteotti, removed by murder -- his public utterances on the murder were so gross and callous that his guilt seemed clear -- so many turned against him that at the elections of 1926 his power was ominously shaken. He needed just one element to turn the scale in his favor.
The peasants and a certain number of the urban workers were organized in a powerful Catholic Democratic movement. The Pope had, as in Germany and Austria, allowed this bastard Socialism to grow up under their eyes as one way to cheek the loss of so many millions to the Socialists and Communists. These Catholic democrats fought the Fascists as truculently as the Communists did and while they equally detested the Socialists and Liberals and would not cooperate with them, they at least represented further millions in opposition to Mussolini.
As Pacelli was in Germany during these years we do not suppose that he had much to do with Vatican policy in Italy and will dismiss events with a brief notice. Both sides, Blackshirts and Black International, saw that they must sooner or later enter into alliance against Socialism, and Mussolini's backers, the throne, army, and capital, insisted on it. Mussolini on his side sacrificed his convictions and restrained his anti-Papal followers with all the ease of an adventurer. He, as I said, ordered a superb thanksgiving service in church for his accession to power and presented a very valuable, old library to the Vatican. He then complained to the Vatican about ending the conduct of the Catholic democrats under the priest Sturzo. The priest disappeared because of obscure Fascist threats of reprisals against the Church. Seldes says (The Vatican, p. 331) and the party was weakened. But the opposition went on and Mussolini made little progress. The Vatican knew the strength of its hand and wanted a price that Mussolini feared his followers would never agree to pay.
Seldes says that the revelation of the Pope's prestige in America the Chicago Eucharistic Congress in 1926 at length stirred Mussolini to bold action. It was more probably the menace of Italian elections. Secret negotiations began at that time but the Pope's terms were so exorbitant that they dragged out for two years. In 1926 Farinacei, Mussolini's bulldog and leader of the anti-clerical Old Guard of the Fascists, publicly declared that the alliance was necessary. Mussolini, he said -- Seldes gives his words -- was ready to deal with the Pope "in return for the moral support of the Vatican for his policy." What the policy was" every child knew -- the final extinction of liberty in Italy and, as a minimum, the recovery of Savoy and Corsica from France, Malta from England, Dalmatia from Yugo-Slavia -- and, instead of talking about peaceful recovery by negotiation Mussolini was thundering about his millions of bayonets whenever he opened his elegant mouth.
In 1928 the Maltese got up a kind of revolt against Britain. There was a trial of strength between the civil and the clerical authorities, and the Premier, Lord Strickland, though a Catholic, bitterly resented the interference of the clergy in the elections. It was proved that they even used the confessional to intimidate voters. Mussolini watched with great interest, and, when the British Government in the end began its historic policy of appeasement and Strickland was sacrificed, the Duce had a new proof of the utility of the Church. A high Anglican official in Malta at the time informed me, privately, that the Governor of the island, who let, down Strickland, was "grossly deceived by the Papal Delegate, Msgr. Pascal Robinson"; and he added "more mischief- making in Dublin." The Black International won first blood for Mussolini.
So Fascists had to swallow the condition's, and in 1929 the Blackshirts and the Blackmailer signed their compact. The Pope got nearly $100,000,000, the independence and sovereignty of the Vatican City, the control of all Italian education except in the universities, and the enforcement of the Canon Law, the establishment of the Church and endowment of the priests. The Duce got a hand for the complete destruction of democracy in Italy and the silence of the Pope while he murdered democrats and get out on his glorious campaign to make Empire by selecting weak countries for aggression.
This was the year of Pacelli's return to Rome, but his biographers are not lavish with detail at this point and do not enable us to say definitely -- and I refuse to go on suspicions -- what, if any, share he had in this sordid business. I have to recall it, as briefly as possible, because it was the first great triumph of the Black International in our time, and it was one of the most important steps in the advance of the brigands toward the realization of their, plot. It finally established the power of Mussolini. It caused Catholic papers and writers (and sympathizers like Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler) to take the lead in that praise of Fascism in italy -- had not the Pope blessed it? -- which was of the greatest importance to the brigands in preparing their armaments. And it gave Mussolini's imitator in Germany the idea that after all it would pay to come to terms, hypocritically, with the Black International.
But, whatever share Pacelli may have had in drafting the treaty of alliance with Mussolini, he had a full share in securing that the alliance was not wrecked. The Fascist Party was still so bitterly anti-Papal that Mussolini had, in soothing his followers, to use language which the Pope angrily described (in the Osservatore, May 30) as "heretical, and worse than heretical." Blackshirts in Rome and the country insulted the priests and the Church. The Pope spoke publicly of the possibility that he would repudiate the Treaty, and in that case, he said, "Vatican City itself would fall together with the state that is dependent on Vatican City for its being" (same letter in the Osservatore). The Catholic world and the world-press were alarmed. If Mussolini fell, they said, Socialism would capture Italy. As Cardinal Hinsley, head of the Church in Britain, said at a later date, Fascism was "in many respects unjust" but it "Prevented worse injustice -- if it goes under, God's cause goes with it." (Catholic Times, October 18th, 1935). God's cause is, in the mouth of a cardinal, the power of the Church: and the end justifies the means.
Pacelli to the rescue. Old Gasparri, who was stirring the Pope to resist, was pushed aside, and the Saint George -- who wanted to save the world -- the world of wealth and privilege -- from the Dragon, Socialism donned his shining armor. Friction continued, of course. Most of the leading Blackshirts hated the Pope, and the Pope and his new Secretary of State heartily hated them. But the alliance was indispensable. Mussolini now roared like any sucking dove about the beauty of religion. "I wish to see religion everywhere in the country," he said; "let us teach the children their catechism" (Manchester Guardian, June 19, 1931). He, as I said, publicly prayed in St. Peter's. Cardinal Gasparri at the Eucharistic Congress of 1932 hailed him as "the man who first saw clearly in the present world chaos" the man who is "getting the State to work in accordance with the moral law of God" (Catholic Herald, September 16 1932). The, friction was reduced and the world was officially assured that the last Census had proved that 99 percent of the, Italians were Catholics.
It was an insincere alliance. The organization of lay dupes known as Catholic Action now gave Mussolini trouble. He demanded that the Pope check it, and something seems to have been done, but secretly Pacelli got the pope to write glowing praise of the international Catholic Action and knowing that in spite of the sacred independence of the Vatican City Mussolini's spies watched it closely he sent the document by two priests to Paris for publication. The old trickery of Vatican diplomacy was cultivated. When, as in the case of the annexation of Austria, local prelates, who would not dare to stir a finger against Papal policy, acted in support of the Axis, the Vatican Radio would announce to the world that the Pope disapproved. When this angered Axis supporters they were assured that the radio message was unauthorized and sent out without consulting the Vatican. Sometimes the Papal newspaper, the Osservatore, was used and, to please both sides, was then declared unauthorized. Neither the Radio nor the Osservatore would dare to send out or print an unauthorized message on an important point. Foreign correspondents in Rome received telephone messages from the Vatican which were later declared unauthorized. Ambiguous utterances, as in the case of Abyssinia, were put into the mouth of the Pope, and Axis Catholics were encouraged to read them one way and democratic Catholics to read them in the opposite way. And every Easter and Christmas the beautiful message of Peace rolled out, while between those festivals the Catholic world was inspired everywhere to demand war on Spain, Russia, China, and Mexico.
There was another aspect of the alliance. While Cardinal Gasparri assured the Catholic world that Mussolini was "getting the state to work in accordance with the moral law of God" and Cardinal Hinsley was warning it that "God's cause" would be lost in Italy if Mussolini fell, it was open to anybody to ascertain what social improvement, if any, the Duce had actually accomplished. Reference books like the Statesman's Year Book which were in every good library gave year by year the official Italian returns of crime, education, production, trade, debt, etc.
It is astonishing today to reflect how very few people thought of testing in this simple and positive way what truth there was in almost universal press admiration of the efficiency and national service of Fascism. It must, at least, seem astonishing to any man who does not accept my suggestion that Mussolini's work in crushing a great Socialist movement was so appreciated in the world-press that it would not inquire whether his boast of efficiency was true or not. It reproduced everything that its correspondents in Italy, generally, Catholics, cared to send it about finer rail-services (on some lines), new buildings, great farms on reclaimed land, and so on, and it refused to see in works of reference, which were at every editor's elbow that production was decaying and the internal debt (chiefly due to forced loans) was increasing at so formidable a rate that bankruptcy loomed ahead -- unless Mussolini brought off, and brought off successfully, the aggressive war he promised his people, and founded an Italian Empire by murdering and looting other peoples.
On the religious side it was worse. The only definite test weather a nation is or is not getting more in accord with "the moral law of God" is to examine its criminal statistics. In the Papal States, before the Kingdom of Italy had been established, there had been no statistics of any sort, but not a single authority questions the statement of contemporary Italian statesmen and foreign visitors that crime and corruption were appalling. Italy then, from 1870 onward, had a very fair success in reducing crime, though the success was not nearly so great as in less- Catholic countries. But from the time of the accession to power of Mussolini crime increased amazingly. Convictions rose from about 500,000 a year in the period which Dr. Nicholas Murrak Butler describes so darkly, the Socialist-Communist-Liberal period (before 1923), to 800,000 a year in the period of Mussolini's remarkable efficiency.
It makes it rather worse that this was due to some extent to the poverty and distress he had brought upon both the workers and the middle class while the Church, as I said, got an enormous accession of wealth. Other causes were the impoverishment and prostitution of education and the preparation of the people for the wanton bloodshed of aggressive war. It was at the very time when Pacelli, the future Pope of Peace, was bringing the Pope and the Duce to have a cordial meeting in the Vatican that Mussolini was writing the most official statement of the nature of Fascism for the new Encyclopedia Italiana (article, "Fascism")
When Fascism looks to the future, the general development of humanity, apart from considerations of present polities, it rejects the idea that perpetual peace is either possible or desirable. It repudiates Pacifism, which means a renunciation of struggle, a refusal to make sacrifices, War alone raises the energy of man to the highest pitch and impresses a seal of nobility upon the nations which have the manliness to undertake it. All other trials of strength are substitutes which never prove a man's worth by confronting him with the alternative of life and death.
That was taught to every child in every school in Italy. Didn't the Vatican know it? Are we supposed to find documentary proof that the Vatican knew what was going on in every part of Italy?
Pacelli had come from Germany where he had seen Socialism as a mighty power already in control of more than one-third of the country, dreaded by the Catholic hierarchy because, though the Social Democrats now worked with the Catholics, they drew millions from the Church, dreaded by imperialists, militarists, industrialists, and landowners. He came to Italy where he saw how just such a powerful Socialist organization had been completely destroyed as it was from 1928 onward by just such a coalition of royalists, industrialists, militarists, and landowners taking up a brutal spearhead resembling the German Nazism and consolidating its position by an alliance with the Church just as in the good old days of the early nineteenth, century. His grand idea, war on Socialism, gradually took shape. How in its interest he kept the Pope silent and the Italian Church wildly patriotic when Mussolini began his imperial brigandage in Abyssinia we shall see later. Other problems meantime confronted him and the Black International.
the year 1899 the democratic Pope Leo XIII had made the ears of American Catholic's burn. Their apologists and prelates had begun to put before the public that conception of the Church of Rome as the devoted ally of democracy and freedom with which we have grown very familiar in recent years. Leo smote them hip and thigh. That was "Americanism" not sound Catholicism. The arch- bishops writhed but were silent. Leo was not very far from death, and "from that time to this no Pope has spoken out." So says the Catholic Teeling, and he adds: "The reason would seem to have been that America has provided an ever-increasing supply of funds and an ever increasing supply of missionaries." (The Pope in Polities, p. 150). Certainly a golden reason; though why, on Catholic principles, a particular version of Catholicism not backed by gold Should be so humiliatingly denounced and then tolerated when it was gold is not clear. If I assigned that reason for the Vatican's change of policy in regard to American Catholic propaganda I would be angrily accused of wicked suspicions and suggestions where I could not give positive evidence.
But the Vatican only changed its tactics not its policy. Pius XI, says Teeling, was particularly zealous to bring the oriental Churches into his fold -- "so that the growth of democratic Catholicism in the New World be counter-balanced." At the Vatican, he says (p. 3), "Western influence is not considered very good for the Church." That we shall see, is one reason why, Mussolini was encouraged in the rape of Abyssinia and his design of becoming Emperor of the East, why the Vatican flirted for years with Russia, and why it approved the savage aggression against Yugo-Slavia and Greece. To sustain this policy the Secretary of State had to do some very neat tight-rope balancing. For British opinion, in spite of all the "Lords" and aristocrats the Jesuits have captured, he seems not to have cared much. If for once I cared to indulge in a conjecture I should say that he detests England. Whether that is connected with his chilly experiences when he was sent to represent the Papacy at the coronation of George V or whether he sees through the Catholic pretense that they are "converting England" I don't know, but Teeling, who made a number of visits to Rome, says that after Pacelli became secretary of State English Catholics found a reception at the Vatican and could with difficulty get an audience with the Pope. They were told to see Pacelli, and they discovered that they were "not popular," though doubtless they left the customary purse with Pacelli.
But American Catholicism was a very different matter. It claimed 20,000,000 members and said that it would have the majority in America by the end of the century. Its wealth is already in the billions of dollars; its annual income $800,000,000. Imagine Pacelli's eyes rolling as he turned these sum's into Italian lire! In 1936 he visited America, Did he encourage the efforts as described by Seldes, of American Catholics, in cooperation with Mexican refugee priests, to get an alliance with Wall Street in order to secure the liquidation of Bolshevism in Mexico? Had he any meetings with the Italian and German plotters in America? Did he harden that feeling against Russia which Germany counted as one of its favorable conditions? But we must not be suspicious. There is no Proof. We know one thing that he did do. Instead of rebuking the American propagandists who represented the Church as spontaneously democratic and a lover of freedom and peace he went out of his way everywhere to leave the impression that he cordially admired the American spirit of freedom and democracy. He certainly did not mention that the Vatican policy was to augment the oriental elements in the Church so as to counter-balance "western influence" which was "not considered very good for the Church, in the mild language of a Catholic writer. And he certainly did not call the attention of Americans to the fact that the Vatican had entered into a close alliance with Japan.
This alliance with Japan ran the usual course in Catholic literature. At first it was indignantly denied. Where was the proof? When the Osservatore itself proudly announced on May 5, 1935, that the Pope was to send an ambassador to Tokyo and that Tokyo was to appoint a representative at the Pope's court in Vatican City a new note was struck. It was the Pope's duty to enter into negotiation with any government to protect the spiritual interests of Catholics under that government. Had not even England sent a representative to the Pope's court? Yes: but "poor rich powerful England" as Ambassador Dodd called it, was up to its eyes in a policy of appeasement, while in 1936 Japan had started on its full career of aggression and of the massacre, debauching, and exploiting of hundreds of millions of weaker folk. That is some difference. And when, in the spring of 1941, Pacelli-Plus had a most cordial interview with that other Man of Peace Matsuoka, the most brazen liar in a world of fluent liars, in the Vatican and, just when Japan was plotting to take advantage of the heavy burden of America and Britain to defy them by worse aggression and more insolent outrages than ever, the Pope smilingly presented him with a gold medal . . .
The story of the Japanese share in the world-crime is now fairly well known -- see ABC Library No. 6 -- and cannot be repeated here. All the world has seen its steady aggression for ten years, and all the world ought to have known from the start that Japan meant to conquer the whole eastern half of Asia and all islands in the Pacific. That the truth of this depends upon the disputed authenticity of some memoir by Baron Tanaka in the year 1927 is nonsense. I have described, largely from American journalists and authors (like Upton Close's Challenge. 1933), the very open growth of the plot since the later years of the last century. America was in fact so well aware of it that it alone of the democracies began years ago to take defensive naval measures, but there was, under the usual trade-interests, a lamentable lack of warning in the Press an almost general failure to see that Japan's were part of a world-plot and in this case a very mischievous appeasement-policy in religious periodicals on account of Japan's threats to the Christian missions.
To state events very briefly up to the time when the Japanese criminals, the American and European encouragement of modernization in Japan (while it paid better not to encourage it in China), the disbanding of the old Samurai swashbucklers (which sent vicious elements into the army, politics, and journalism), and the successful wars of Japan on easy victims like China (1895) and Tsarist Russia (1904) gave the yellow men inflated ideas of their ability and importance. The Black Dragon Society, which wanted the conquest of north-eastern Asia, was founded in 1901 and inspired aggressive fanaticism in naval and military circles. Advantage was taken of the European War of 1914-18 to get a strangle-hold on China but a terrible earthquake and the quick recovery of the Allies checked the ambition, though propaganda continued. By 1931 there were patriotic societies enthusiastically preaching it and running to two or three million members. General Hayashi, who had led the invasion of Manchuria in defiance of the civil government, said in a speech to foreign correspondents; at the close of the campaign:
Japan's desire for expansion on the Eastern Asiatic Continent manifested in her Manchurian police has been her unalterable policy since her foundation.
The development of the gangrene differed little from the development in Europe. In Japan the army and navy were the nucleus and source of infection. The score of rich families which mainly represented capitalism were easily persuaded to see that it was the destiny of the Yamato race to extend its culture to (or exploit) China. The Emperor hardly needed persuading that soldiers know best. The politicians and the heads of the Buddhist and Shinto religions were bought. For the quite open share of these religions and their sudden enrichment by the imperialist brigands see the speeches at the Chicago International Conference on Religion in 1934 (edited by A.E. Haydon, Moderit World-Trends in Religion).
The occupation of Manchuria in 1931 was the first step in the realization of what would prove to be a plot of Germany and Japan to control and exploit the world: a crime which in future history dwarf every other crime that was ever committed or attempted. The world now pays a ghastly price for the obscene squabbling of trade- interests which prevented the destruction of the plot at this early stage by an economic ostracism of Japan, but few people still seem to understand that the Black International at once moved to the support of the aggressor.
This is no matter of "suspicion." It was done quietly and in such a form that it could, if the world's attention was drawn to it, be represented as an inevitable exercise of the Vatican's religious functions. It was first disclosed, as far as I can trace, in an article by a French priest in the Catholic Review des Deux Mondes in 1935 (January 15). The negotiations which were then going on at the Vatican for mutual ambassadors with Japan made it clear that some years of cordial cooperation had preceded; and in any case the French had played as sordid a part in the matter as the Black International and they were disposed to boast about it.
The facts are now so well known that Catholic writers like Teeling discuss them freely. It appears that the Vatican had approached Japan, seeking favored-nation treatment, in 1922, but the Buddhist authorities, already brought (or bought) to the convention that the Yellow Race would sweep all White influence out of eastern Asia, successfully resisted the application. Buddhist monks might take that view but Japanese statesmen knew that the White Race was not to be turned down too openly until the plot was far advanced. It was to be duped by smooth assurances that it would have its share in a regenerated China and its enormously increased capacity for consumption. It was particularly necessary to do this after the first rape of China, so the Vatican got its opportunity.
The French clerical writer says:
"A short time after it had given birth to the new state of Manchukuo the Japanese government advised its ward to turn to the Holy See with a request that it should be officially recognized; an event of some importance seeing that the Powers refused to recognize it and Japan had left the League of Nations. These Japanese-Manchukuoan overtures did not secure formal recognition but, as the Catholic missions in Manchukuo supported them the Vatican appointed a French Vicar Apostolic to negotiate with the government of Manchuktio about religious affairs." (p. 297).
He further explains that it was the French missionaries in Japan who persuaded the Japanese government to approach the Vatican. France was at the time, for reasons which will be given later, working very amiably with the Vatican, and French missionaries would not be ignorant of the golden rule that trade and the evangelization of the heathen go together. The Vatican was to get a monopoly of missionary work in Japan and China, which it fully expected to be taken over by Japan (Teeling), and France would be rewarded with trade.
It was a nice problem for Pacelli, the new Secretary of State, and he solved it in his characteristic manner. Formally to recognize the annexation of Manchuria just when merely secular governments all over the world were condemning it as an outrage and a danger to the peace was out of the question. Even the American apologist would hardly be able to explain away that. So the Papal organ announced quietly, as a matter of routine, that a Vicar Apostolic had been set up in Manchukuo at the request of its government. That was for the Japs a sufficiently clear recognition of that government by the Vatican as a sovereign power. Does any man suppose that the Japanese statesmen and military leaders nearly all of whom are skeptics, cared the toss of a coin about the spiritual interests or the immortal souls of the Manchurian peasants? Or that the Vatican supposed they did? The brutalized condition to which the Japs soon reduced the natives is answer enough.
The Chinese in Shanghai sent me copies of bitter complaints of the Protestant missionaries in China about the way in which the Japs were persecuting them in favor of Catholic missionaries, but a more important feature of the matter is that from that time the Pope damped down in the whole Catholic world all criticism of his dear Yellow Brother in Buddha. By 1934, the clerical writer in Revue des Deux Mondes said, the cordial relations of the two had gone so far that "no Japanese prince or mission now passes through Rome without paying its homage to the Sovereign Pontiff." And to Mussolini, of course, who was now in prayerful communication with the Vatican. Again, does anyone suppose that Japanese diplomats and princes called upon the Pope to thank him for caring for the immortal souls, in which they did not believe, of Manchurian peasants?
But the alliance was brought into full light in 1935 when the Obsservatore announced the proposal of an exchange of ambassadors. There seems to have been some hard bargaining, but in 1936 a Roman Catholic prelate appeared, incongruously enough, at the Mikado's court and a yellow man in the Vatican City. By this time the Japanese pretense of merely wishing to civilize Manchuria was a mockery. It had now advanced far into China, having taken Jehol in 1933 and broken through the Great Wall in 1935. The mask was cynically thrown aside just when the diplomatic relations with the Vatican were put on the most respectable footing. By the customary Axis method of brazen lying excuses for further aggression upon the weak Chinese were invented, the "incident" was conducted with appalling outrages, and a trail of misery and demoralization spread in the wake of the Japanese armies. Japan was now as deadly a menace to civilization as Germany and Italy, and the bland lies with which it met every inquiry were nauseating.
During these years very little was said in the world-press about this beautiful friendship of the supreme head of the Church of Rome and the supreme head of the degenerate Shinto and Buddhist religions. Catholics had won their claim and censorship of the press on the edifying principle that it was not right to print anything that was "offensive to Catholics"; and to obtrude this cordial alliance of the Vatican with the Japanese government, which had by this time incurred the loathing of every decent man and would be decidedly offensive to Catholics. Yet the cordiality continued through all the years of mendacity, hypocrisy, outrage, and increasing menace to the world.
On December 26 Matsuoka, who was particularly used for some years to dupe Americans because he was a Christian, said in the Japanese Diet, dropping the mask of lust now that Japan could take advantage of the war in Europe, that there would be peace only if America agreed that Japan should "dominate the mainland and occupy a preferential position in Indo-China and the Dutch Indies," and to "dominate the Western Pacific"; not for its own profit, of course, but for "the good of humanity." In March, 1941, this slimiest of the yellow reptile-group went to Moscow and signed a cynical pact with Russia. We will not call that hypocrisy because Stalin was certainly not duped, but that was not for lack of intention on Matsuoka's part. He went on to Berlin and Rome to discuss with the other gangsters the real plan for the summer, the sudden attack on Russia and the question of Japanese intervention, and he had also a long cordial talk with the Pope, who presented him with a gold medal. All this can be verified in Keesing's admirable day-to-day survey of the world-press. Are we asked to believe that with the Pope Matsuoka discussed only the spiritual interests of the Chinese who were under the loving care of the Japanese army of occupation?
What exactly the situation is today it is impossible to ascertain. Japan will, of course, soon or later double cross the Vatican, as those super-crooks always do. Has it already done so? The latest news is that the Japanese are organizing a National Spiritual Mobilization Campaign in which three recognized religions, Shinto, Buddhism, and Christianity are to cooperate. But the Christian Church is to be purely Japanese. It must receive no funds from abroad -- which opens up a nice prospect for the American Protestant missions -- admit no foreign influence, and make minute reports of all its services and activities; and the worship of the Son of Heaven must be included in the cult everywhere. Has Pacelli-Pius swallowed that pill?
In the eighteenth century Rome made it, one of its chief counts in its indictment of the Jesuits that, in order to win more converts than other missionaries, they had mixed heathen rites with Christian. Pacelli has done just that. An Anglican prelate who was present at the large International Conference on religion in India in 1938 wrote me that the representatives of the Protestant Churches learned with a shock that "the Papacy, after much wavering, has finally given permission to Japanese Papists to indulge in Emperor worship." Presumably they do not tell their Japanese converts how early Christians died rather than worship the Roman Emperor.
It should prove, when the details are known, a picturesque development, but to most of us trifle in comparison with the Vatican's moral apostasy and betrayal of civilization. For an exhibition of greed, hypocrisy, and condonation of crime its alliance with Japan would be hard to beat. During these ten years when Pacelli was vilifying Russia, which was building up in peace and with a sense of international honor what most people now call great civilization, he was cultivating friendly relations with and giving aid and encouragement to one of the real blackguard-nations. It is futile to protest that we must look at the Situation from the Papal angle. The most respectable light in which you can put it is that a Churchman would be bound to consider that a prospect of bringing into the Roman sphere of influence, which is so much more morally effective than any other, all the missionary work in eastern Asia, outweighs all other considerations. So much the worse for the Churchman's creed or policy. It puts the increase of the power of the Church above all decency of international intercourse, above the appalling sufferings of hundreds of millions of Chinese and their right to a national life of their own, above the ghastly and very imminent chances of a world-war. it means that the Black International tramples on those social, moral, and humanitarian principles which are said by its apologists in America to be just what the Church holds most sacred.
Pacelli-Pius was rightly selected for the Papacy as the ablest cardinal in the Church of Rome. That does not imply genius. Half of these cardinals would not successfully run a large grocery store. Pacelli has considerable ability. He is also the most widely- informed cardinal on the world-situation. His immediate predecessors were of the type that asks: What are Keats? Even Leo XIII was amazingly duped by his Vatican 'specialists' about the state of affairs in England -- they persuaded him that if he recognized the validity of Anglican "orders" the whole Church of England would join up under the Papal banner -- in France, and elsewhere. Pacelli has travelled more than any. Besides spending twelve years in Germany he has made three visits to England, travelled all over North and South America, and visited France, Hungary, and other countries.
Upon which boast of his biographers we may make two comments. First that in very few of his acts can any apologist make the excuse of ignorance or misinformation, the common Catholic excuse for Papal misconduct. Matsuoka might deceive some people with his bland assurances that his country sought "not the good of the good of Japan but the good of humanity" and (in the spring of 1941) that it had "not the slightest idea of taking advantage of the misfortunes of France," but he no more deceived Pius XII than he deceived Stalin. The Pope knew well that Japan was pledged to a course, in its selfish interest, which would lead inexorably to war math America and Great Britain. So it was in every other part of his policy.
The second comment is that, instead of flowers springing up wherever Pacelli trod, as is told of holy men in earlier ages, the path might generally be traced by blood and misery. The violence had occurred in Italy before he returned to it, but he took care that it was not relaxed. He compels the Church in Germany to help to power the most dangerous psychopath in Europe. He goes to South America, and his visit is followed by the triumph of Fascist violence everywhere. He goes to the United States, and there is a fresh demand for the extinction of Bolshevism in Mexico and Russia. He goes to Paris in 1937 and France prepares to betray Czecho- Slovakia and, when the time comes, to betray itself. He goes to Hungary in 1938 and it is ready to see Austria and Czecho-Slovakia enslaved and to march itself against Russia and help in every way the destroyers of civilization.
The visit to South America was in 1934, when the usual excuse for Papal intrigue was given: he must preside at the Eucharistic Congress at Buenos Aires. Twenty years, even thirty years ago, the priests of Buenos Aires would not have dared to hold such a function. When it was proposed to hold one in London Protestants appealed to me to cooperate in getting Catholics forbidden to have a procession of their Eucharist in one street. I said that I would rather encourage them to do so -- and take care that the crowd understood what it meant. The doctrine is so monstrous and incredible that the journalists who every year write with profound respect about the holding of the Eucharistic Congress cannot have the least idea what it means.
You see a priest carrying a star-shaped golden vessel in the center of which, enclosed in glass, is the white disk of a wafer of wheaten flour. To the Catholic it was a thin wafer until the priest breathed his magic wards over it, but there is no longer any flour there. The substance of the cake has been annihilated: only the accidents (the color, shape, feel, etc.) remain. As I have hid to swallow it -- the wafer, I mean, as well is the doctrine -- thousands of times I can assure that the "accidents" are very much like those of a dry cracker. It sticks to the pilate, etc. And on the strength of this prehistoric theory of substance and accidents, begot by the genius Aquinas out of Aristotle, the Church today sternly insists that the wafer has been annihilated, and the living divine-human person of Jesus has taken its place -- quite literally -- that if you broke it into a hundred crumbs the living and entire body of Jesus would be present in each, and that this is true of each one of the millions of wafers (Eucharists) which are stored in little safes on the altars of all the Catholic Churches in the world. Pfew!
I say that in the earlier part of this century priests in Buenos Aries or Rio or Lima would not have made a parade of that belief in the streets The historic conflict of the Blacks and Whites in Latin America had ended in an incomplete but considerable victory for the Liberals. The middle-class was substantially skeptical. In 1906 the Freethinkers of South America held a Congress in Buenos Aires. The delegates crowded the Teatro Argentino. Argentinians of high position (Vice-Admiral Howard, Soto and Alvarez of the Council of War, etc.) supported them. The Presidents of Guatemala and Uruguay sent telegrams of congratulations in the name of their republics. The Women's Committee, of 50 members, included some the most brilliant writers in South America. The leading papers treated the Congress with respect . . .
And in 1934 the public men of Argentina were falling Over each other to kiss Pacelli's ring. What had happened? The Reds, of course. Socialism spread through South America with extraordinary rapidity after the last war, and the news of the revolution in Spain in 1932 gave a powerful impetus to the movement. So impartial an observer as the famous woman traveller Rosita Forbes said in 1933 after a prolonged visit that "it is possible that the organization and method's of Soviet Russia may be destined to provide the machinery necessary to liberate the South American Republics" (Eight Republics in search of a Future, p. 7.) In Peru, she found that "the educated youth of Peru is in the hands of Moscow." A minister who introduced an anti-Communist law in the Chilean Congress was compelled to resign, and the government refused to recognize degrees granted by Catholic universities. An American merchant who had lived 25 years in Chile reported that "Communism of the intellectual type" was very widespread. The Alianza Popular Revolutionaria Americana (Apra) swept the continent, and its leader would have become President of Peru but for Black corruption of the vilest kind. The Rev. Dr. McKay, a Protestant missionary in the Argentine, said that the Trade Unions turned out any worker who supported the Church, that the workers now commonly called a man they wanted to vituperate "you poor Christ" (equivalent to the American "son of a lady-dog"), and that one of their leaders said publicly that the sound of the word God made him spew. I was editing the Militant Atheist in 1933 and gave plenty of details of this sort.
Pacelli to the rescue. Returning to the subject in the 'Appeal to Reason' Library (No. 3) in 1935 I gave the symptoms of spreading reaction and asked: "Will the struggle end as in Italy, Spain, and Poland, in a coalition of all political parties with the Church again Labor?" At the time Pacelli was still an obscure emissary of the Vatican whose position as Secretary of State was according to the Italian Press, not very secure. How bitterly we pay for not watching the Black International more closely! In South America, as in America and Britain and Italy and Germany, there were Socialist leaders who said that the fight against the Church was over -- some wanted friendly alliance with it -- and all attention must be concentrated on the politico-economic struggle. And in the whole of South America as in Italy, Germany, France, Austria, Spain, Czecho- Slovakia, etc., within a year or two Socialism was bloodily trodden underfoot and the Church was triumphant.
The change did not begin in 1934. The Blacks were already organizing and intriguing everywhere, and futile revolts strengthened their hands. But after 1934 the clerical-capitalist revolution proceeded at a great pace. I have not a shred of proof to offer that, Pacelli counted in the organization of this. Just naughty suspicion, and you may please yourself whether you accept it. I do not say that Pacelli intrigued to bring closer together the heads of the Church and the heads of the army and state who in every part of South America were shuddering before the Red Menace. The only facts we know are that the situation was completely transformed after 1934; that within a few years six of the ten Republics of South America including Brazil and Peru, were truculently Fascist, and even Argentina (where the priests have no millions of Indians to stir up) and Chile were semi-Fascist; that most of the Liberals had in fact lined up with the Church; and that this coalition was first revealed on a large scale when Pacelli, the arch-intriguer and hater of Socialism in every form had gone from capital to capital and soldiers and statesmen knelt for his blessing. You may want to go father than I do and believe that Pacelli not only promoted the entire cordial of Liberal statesmen and their traditional enemies, but encouraged also the leaders of the millions of Italians and Germans, who, as the duped statesmen have now found, were already secretly weaving their great plot. Please yourself.
The upshot was that not only was "the menace of Bolshevism" destroyed in South America but the Church got between ten and twenty million apostates bullied into silence and their leaders flung into jail. Figures are farcical in Latin America. In Mexico a high official warned me privately that their published statement that their population consisted of 4,000,000 Indians and 12,000,000 Mexicans might be turned the other way round. A careful recent estimate is that there are 90,000,000 Indian's in South and Central America. Few people seem to realize that these provide about one- third of the total number of the Pope's real subjects. As in Mexico, the majority of them would turn against the priests as soon as they got encouragement to do so from their government. The situation was closely parallel to that of Russia. Within another ten years the great bulk of the 90,000,000 would be lost to the Vatican. Are we asked to think that Pacelli scrupulously avoided political maneuvers that promised to avert that tragedy? Remember the Irish revolutionaries confiding their plot to the Pope; remember Dollfus's, Franco, Henlein, and others.
But we are concerned with actualities. The cream of the Indians, of the millions of workers of such mixed blood that it is time we dropped these racial distinctions, are the industrial workers. The majority, we saw, had abandoned Rome, Add the university youths and a large number of their professors and other middle-class men and Liberals of the old school, and it will be seen that Rome had to envisage an actual secession of between ten and twenty millions. They are now back in the fold -- on paper. They are bullied into silence and their most active representatives are in jail. By the end of 1935 there were 10,000 political prisoners in jail in Brazil alone. Yes, says the Catholic, the scum who had recently organized a rebellion. So it was reported in America. But the very impartial British 'Annual Register' (1935) which gives the above figure adds: "Among these were university professors and many other distinguished Brazilians belonging to the best society" (p. 312). They were victims of the Black International.
And by one of those blunders into which the brutally and callousness of the agents of these Fascist governments are always betraying them we learned that this Church-Wealth coalition is not only using force but, as it has always done, using it savagely. The Brazilian police arrested as spies two ladies of the British aristocracy, Lady Hastings and Lady Cameron, who were visiting Rio. Viscount Hastings wrote a letter to the London press (News- Chronicle, July 14, 1936) on what they saw. It contained such things as:
In the prison they saw men and women who had been so badly beaten that they could only move with the greatest difficulty; a man's wife had been beaten insensible in front of him to make him confess; the hands of another man had been mutilated by having iron spikes driven underneath the nails ... The day before my wife and sister were arrested, the American boy Victor Baron was found dead in prison after 'questioning' . . .
Immutable Rome! So it was in France in the thirteenth century, all over south Europe in the nineteenth, in Spain forty years ago, and is now in many countries. If a mere working man, or even a professor, had reported these things, moat people would say "Red lies." There is obviously some use in Aristocrats.
In Mexico the struggle with the Church and the attempt of Catholics in America to get intervention, which would certainly mean war and annexation, had begun long before Pacelli became Secretary of State. I am tracing the action of the Black International not of Pacelli alone but I have written this earlier history so fully elsewhere that I will not return to it. I need repeat only about the acute conflict of 1926 that I was then in Mexico and saw with what remarkable indifference the people accepted what was mendaciously called the persecution of the Church, and read articles by Mexican Catholic journalists in the leading Havana paper a little later expressing deep disgust with the lies (executions of priests etc.) sent by the priests to the Knights of Columbus, who zealously enlarged them and circulated them in Wall Street. If you want a Catholic (or at all events pro- Catholic) witness to this close alliance for years of American Catholics. and Wall Street read George Seldes' 'The Vatican' (1934, pp. 278-86). There was, of course, an outcry and the American Catholic bishops published a letter denying that they were working for armed intervention." They merely felt it their duty to "sound a warning to Christian civilization that its foundations are being attacked and undermined." God, they said would find a way to, destroy the evil. By priests blowing trumpets, I suppose. A thinner pretense of pacifism it would be hard to find. It has a Japanese ring.
Pacelli did not go to Mexico, but the brilliant Church-Fascist success that followed his visit to South America had echoes in the north. In 1935 F.V. Williams, Al Smith's publicity agent, had a revolting article in 'Liberty' (Aug. 24) calling for intervention. A Mexican Catholic annihilated his statements in the 'Forum;' in fact, they had been answered in advance by various visitors to Mexico (World-Telegram, June 8, 1935, etc.) The Catholic Teeling also admits that Catholics intrigued at Washington to get intervention and that Msgr. Burke served as intermediary.
It is, at all events, true that from 1936 Pacelli included Mexico in the list of countries in which he invited the great powers to "extinguish" Bolshevism. It was so clearly a war-program that I have never read even a Catholic attempt to give his words, the slogan he sent through the whole Catholic world, any other meaning. An innocent young nun or a Lord Halifax might suggest that he "extinguish it by prayer." Is that what he meant when he sent Cardinal Faulhaber, as we shall see, to beg Hitler to allow the Church to cooperate with him in the good work? It was a war program; a call to, as it has proved, the bloodiest war in history. So who are the real Reds?