Journal of Modern Italian Studies ISSN: 1354-571X (Print) 1469-9583 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmis20 Transatlantic Catholic responses to Fascist antiSemitism: the Racial Laws of 1938 in the Jesuit press of America and Civiltà Cattolica Nina Valbousquet To cite this article: Nina Valbousquet (2019) Transatlantic Catholic responses to Fascist antiSemitism: the Racial Laws of 1938 in the Jesuit press of America and Civiltà�Cattolica, Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 24:1, 14-31, DOI: 10.1080/1354571X.2019.1550696 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1354571X.2019.1550696 Published online: 07 Feb 2019. Submit your article to this journal View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmis20 JOURNAL OF MODERN ITALIAN STUDIES 2019, VOL. 24, NO. 1, 14–31 https://doi.org/10.1080/1354571X.2019.1550696 Transatlantic Catholic responses to Fascist antiSemitism: the Racial Laws of 1938 in the Jesuit press of America and Civiltà Cattolica Nina Valbousquet Center for Jewish History, New York City ABSTRACT This article examines the Catholic responses to the Fascist Racial Laws in a transatlantic and comparative perspective. It looks specifically at two foremost publications of the Jesuit press in Rome and New York: Civiltà Cattolica and America, respectively. The comparative approach helps to comprehend the variety of factors behind editorial choices: readership, political context, Vatican directions, censorship, and silence. Jesuits on both sides of the Atlantic interpreted the anti-Semitic turn of the Fascist regime as an imitation of Nazi Germany and with the persistent hope that Italian policies would be milder and more ‘civilized’. The shaping of the myth of the ‘good Italian’ was an early process in which Church voices, including the Pope himself, took a significant part. This article argues that despite contextual differences, both Jesuit publications demonstrated a transnational pattern of Catholic relation to the Jews: endorsing Pius XI’s statements, they spoke out against racism but did not extend their condemnations to a full rejection of anti-Semitism in its religious and secular components. The disapproval of Italy’s Racial Laws was not a defense of the Jews of Italy. RIASUNTO Questo articolo prende in esame alcune risposte cattoliche alle leggi razziali in una prospettiva transatlantica e comparativa. Ci soffermiamo in particolare su due notevoli pubblicazioni gesuite a Roma e New York: La Civiltà Cattolica e America. L’approccio comparativo ci consente di individuare i vari fattori che animarono le scelte editoriali di entrambe le riviste: pubblico, contesto politico, direttive/indicazioni del Vaticano, censura e silenzi. Sulle due sponde dell’Atlantico i gesuiti interpretarono la svolta antisemita del regime fascista come un’imitazione della Germania nazista e con la speranza persistente che i provvedimenti italiani rimanessero più moderati e ‘civili’. La costruzione del mito dell’Italiano ‘brava gente’ fu un processo precoce nel quale le voci della Chiesa, incluso il Papa stesso, hanno avuto un ruolo significativo. Questo articolo sostiene che, malgrado differenze contestuali, entrambe le pubblicazioni manifestarono a livello transnazionale uno schema simile nelle relazioni fra cattolici e ebrei: sostennero le posizioni di Pio XI e si dichiararono contrarie al razzismo, senza tuttavia estendere la loro condanna ad un completo ripudio dell’antisemitismo nelle sue componenti religiose e secolari. La disapprovazione delle leggi razziali italiane non costituì una difesa a nome degli ebrei d’Italia. © 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group JOURNAL OF MODERN ITALIAN STUDIES 15 KEYWORDS anti-Semitism; Jesuits; Vatican; Pius XI; Fascism; press PAROLE CHIAVE antisemitismo; gesuiti; Vaticano; Pio XI; fascismo; stampa In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt considered that ‘the Jesuits had always best represented, both in the written and spoken word, the antiSemitic school of the Catholic clergy’ (as quoted in Bernauer 2017, pp.35– 36). This assertion, albeit exaggerated, bears witness to Jesuits’ special historical relation to the Jews, notably the lingering fear of Jewish converts since the 1593 decree that banned members of ‘Hebrew or Saracen stock’ and remained in effect until 1946 (Maryks 2010). The question of Jesuit antiSemitism deserves further investigation that needs to look closely at its variegated manifestations during the interwar period and to examine the tensions between national and transnational contexts (see Lebovitch Dahl [2016] on Austrian Jesuits). This article delves deeper into the positions of two foremost Jesuit publications toward Fascist anti-Semitism: Civiltà Cattolica and America. Civiltà Cattolica was founded in Rome in 1850 as a Jesuit journal to support the pontifical power and follow the directions of the Vatican Secretariat of State, which reviewed each issue before publication every two weeks (Martina 2003). The Jesuit journal was specifically designed for the purpose of defending ‘Catholic civilization’ against the ‘Church’s enemies’, namely forces that were identified with secular modernity such as the Italian national state, liberalism, and freemasonry. As demonstrated by Taradel and Raggi (2000, pp.103–104, p.115), Civiltà Cattolica was on the same line as the papacy in promoting a ‘cordial segregation’ with Jews. Recent studies have underlined the participation of Civiltà Cattolica in the polemics of modern anti-Semitism (Lebovitch Dahl 2003) – with a specific focus on the early conflict opposing the Church and the liberal Italian state (Di Fant 2007) – but without situating this stand in the broader transnational frame of the Jesuit press. America was founded in 1909 by the Jesuit John J. Wynne as a Catholic weekly with a popular outlook (McDonough 1992, p.12, p.124). Rev. Francis X. Talbot, editor between 1936 and 1944, was a supporter of the notorious anti-Semitic and pro-Mussolini priest Charles Coughlin (Gallagher 2014). However, America was also the tribune of Father John LaFarge, associate editor since 1926 and founder of the Catholic Interracial Council of New York in 1934 (Southern 1996). The Society of Jesus was indeed a complex intellectual reservoir of diverse social and political positions, from Jesuits in Fascist Italy openly hostile to the Jews (such as Enrico Rosa, main editor of Civiltà Cattolica from 1915 to 1931; Pietro Tacchi Venturi, the Pope’s emissary to Mussolini; and Wlodimir Ledochowski, Superior-General of the Jesuits in Rome), to pioneering figures such as 16 N. VALBOUSQUET LaFarge, Joseph Bonsirven, and the French Jesuit journal Etudes founded in 1856, which offered new ways of thinking on anti-Semitism, condemning its racial form and reassessing more positively the legacy of post-Christian Judaism (Deffayet 2007; Connelly 2012). This range of diverse stances, the centrality of the Jesuits in the definition of Catholic teachings (notably through their press and universities), as well as the close relationship of the order to the papacy offer a case in point to examine Catholic reactions to Fascist anti-Semitism and their role in the shaping of the myth of the ‘good Italian’ (Bidussa 1994). In the wake of Michele Sarfatti’s recommendation (2000) to take into consideration the interpretations of Italian Fascism from abroad, further scholarly attention is needed toward international responses to the antiSemitic campaign of the summer and fall of 1938. This is especially true of Catholic reactions, which have been most often considered from a national point of view, in spite of the transnational scope of the Church. The existent scholarship on the topic has mostly examined the Vatican’s reactions with a focus on Rome, the papacy, and the curia’s inner politics (Miccoli 2000; Zuccotti 2000; Wolf 2010; Kertzer 2014) and some works have illuminated the increasing divide between Pius XI – outraged by the totalitarian ambitions of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany – and the more conservative stands of the Secretariat of State and the Vatican’s diplomacy (Fattorini 2007; Perin 2013). The diverse reactions of the broader Catholic world still remain, however, a significant and vast field to investigate (Facchini 2011; Mazzini 2013). In this sense, the comparative perspective offers a cogent reminder that the Church spoke for and within different contexts. Despite claims of universalism via the voice of the Pope – and a tendency of the historiography to sometimes assess Catholic statements in abstract terms – Church discourses were shaped by diverse constraints, strategies, audiences, and degrees of freedom of speech. The transatlantic approach sheds light on the interplay between censorship and silence and more broadly on the roles played by contextual specificities and limitations, on the one hand, and by a common culture shared within Catholic intellectual circles beyond national borders, on the other. I argue that despite different contexts, the comparison of Civiltà Cattolica and America shows that the outspoken protests of the Church against Fascist racism did not take the form of a defense of the Jews of Italy and left room for the persistence of anti-Semitic rhetoric. The Jesuit interpretations of the Racial Laws tended to dissociate Italian racism from its German counterpart by forging the image of a milder, Latin, and Christian form of anti-Semitism. In this article, I examine various instances, between the summer and the winter of 1938, in which the Jesuit responses to the Racial Laws demonstrate a general acceptance of Italian anti-Jewish propaganda and provisions: the publication of the Manifest of the Race; Pius XI’s JOURNAL OF MODERN ITALIAN STUDIES 17 statements against racism; the conflict on intermarriages; the Fascist instrumentalization of the Church’s own record of anti-Semitism; and the interplay between external censorship and voluntary silence in the face of antiSemitic persecutions. All these instances show the limited scope of the Church’s condemnation of racism with regard to the Jews as well as a pattern of Catholic anti-Semitic prejudices that was shared by Italian and American Catholicism despite their national differences. Catholic interpretations of the Manifesto of the Race: imitation of Nazi Germany? Jesuit ambivalent reactions to the Manifesto of the Race (14 July 1938) testified that Catholic disapproval of racism did not necessarily imply a condemnation of anti-Jewish measures and slogans. The Fascist propaganda phase (1937– 1938) that paved the way to the official anti-Semitic turn of Mussolini’s regime was either received positively (Civiltà Cattolica) or omitted (America) by the Jesuit editors. For America, the anti-Semitic shift of Fascist Italy was a completely unexpected replica of Hitler’s racist policy. Overlooking the antiSemitic press campaign of 1937 (with the publication of Paolo Orano’s Gli ebrei in Italia), the magazine asserted that ‘there was no preparatory propaganda, no slowly rising storm of hate’, a claim probably influenced by its proMussolini stand and its anti-Semitic blindness.1 It was less of a surprise for Civiltà Cattolica, which commented on several Fascist anti-Semitic publications, such as Gino Sottochiesa’s Sotto la maschera d’Israele, published at the end of 1937. The Jesuit editors praised the author’s ‘noble lecture against the double game of Jewry in general (the double nationality) and Zionism in particular’ and called for a ‘wise legislation, resulting from experience’.2 Furthermore, on 8 July 1938, just a few days before the publication of the Manifesto of the Race, Civiltà Cattolica published an article by Father Mario Barbera applauding the adoption of anti-Semitic provisions in Hungary at the end of May. A mere ‘defense of national traditions’, these measures were not to be mistaken for any sort of ‘vulgar and fanatic anti-Semitism, racist antiSemitism’, according to Barbera.3 In spite of its call for anti-Jewish legislation, the Jesuit journal of Rome rejected racism as a possible ‘solution’ to the Jewish problem. On 2 July, Civiltà Cattolica already asserted, before Pius XI’s statements of 15, 21 and 28 July against Nazi-inspired racism, that biological racism and universal Catholicism were incompatible. This article was emblematic of the journal’s ambivalent position on anti-Semitism: the condemnation of racism as an un-Christian ideology did not preclude anti-Semitic prejudices, both religious and secular, as the Jesuit writer reminded readers of the ‘continuous persecutions of Christians by the Jews, especially against the Catholic Church, and their alliance with Masons, socialists and other 18 N. VALBOUSQUET anti-Christian parties’.4 Given this backdrop, Civiltà Cattolica greeted with a mix of approval and caution the Manifesto degli scienziati razzisti, also called Manifesto della razza, which was published on 14 July 1938, and launched the official anti-Fascist campaign (Gillette 2001). The Jesuit journal quoted the document entirely and pointed the reader’s attention to the ‘noteworthy divergence’ between the manifesto and ‘German racism, materialistic and anti-Christian’, quoting especially the seventh point in which the ‘Racist scientists’ denied any plan to ‘introduce in Italy the theories of German racism’ and announced that Fascist racism ‘shall be essentially Italian’.5 By the end of August, the Jesuit editors turned more skeptical and lamented that this claim might have been just wishful thinking.6 Commenting on the manifesto from the other side of the Atlantic, America announced with circumspection the Fascist racial campaign with some ‘biding developments that might indicate a trend to the Nazi theory which summarily divides all humans into the elect and pariahs’. America was more pessimistic than Civiltà Cattolica and noticed the attempts of the Italian Catholic press to distinguish Mussolini from Hitler: ‘Catholic papers in Italy commented moderately . . . Idolatry of pure blood, they point out, has been already repudiated by Mussolini, while it remains the fetish of Hitler, who is plainly heretical’.7 The resonances of Pius XI’ statements On several occasions, Pius XI denounced Fascist Italy’s adoption of racial policies. Even though these statements hardly mentioned Jews (the speech of 7 September 1938 being a notable exception), the Pope was outspoken against racism, regarded as an anti-Christian ideology. The Pope’s arguments against racism were entangled with the defense of Catholic Action and missions. Both matters were indeed central to Pius XI’s government of the Church since the beginning of his pontificate in 1922. A national association of lay organizations under the supervision of a director appointed by the Pope, Catholic Action was the only non-Fascist mass movement authorized under Mussolini’s dictatorship. For that reason, the definition of its prerogatives and realms of action fostered tensions between the Fascist regime and the Vatican, which culminated in an open conflict in 1931, only two years after the Lateran agreements (Pollard 1985; Ceci 2013). Pius XI condemned Fascist totalitarian ambitions as a ‘real pagan worship of the State – the “Statolatry”’, in his encyclical Non abbiamo bisogno issued on 29 June 1931. On 29 July 1938, a Vatican news section of Civiltà Cattolica, entitled ‘Dangers of Nationalism and Racism in a Speech of the Holy Father’, quoted Pius XI’s speeches of 15 and 21 July, which denounced ‘exaggerated nationalism’ as an ‘apostasy’ and a ‘malediction’ that only fostered ‘apostolic JOURNAL OF MODERN ITALIAN STUDIES 19 sterility’. In putting specific emphasis on these terms, the Jesuit journal accurately interpreted the condemnation of racism as a defense of both Catholic Action in Italy and apostolic missions in the world, but did not mention the anti-Semitic turn of the regime. Fascist racism was mentioned only at the end of a brief Italian news section and the Pope’s utterances were interpreted exclusively as a warning not to introduce Nazi theories in Italy.8 The following issue, on 13 August, established more explicitly a direct link between Pius XI’s repeated condemnations of racism and the concurrent Fascist campaign. Indeed, in his speech of 28 July in front of the students of the College Propaganda Fide, the Pope bluntly questioned the rationale behind Mussolini’s decision to ‘unfortunately imitate Nazi Germany’. Civiltà Cattolica quoted the Pope’s reprobation of German influence upon Fascist Italy explaining that his concerns originated from a deep commitment to a Latin worldview: ‘The Latins did not say race or something similar. Our ancient Italians have more beautiful and pleasant words: gens italica, italica stirps, Iapeti genus. To the Holy Father these words seem more civilized, less barbaric’.9 Pius XI’s statement participated in forging a stereotype of the ‘good Italian’ and an interpretation of Italian racial views as more civilized and human than German racism. In front of students whose vocation was missionary work and speaking of their Congregation (for the Propagation of the Faith), the Pope identified one ‘good’ version of racism: ‘Propaganda [Fide] is the true and fair and healthy practice of a racism that can comply with human dignity and reality’.10 In the pontiff’s view, the unity of humankind under the direction of the universal Church was not incompatible with racial differentiation: ‘the human genre is one unique, universal, Catholic race. One cannot deny however that in this universal race there is room for special races, as many diverse variations, as many nationalities which are even more specialized’ (as quoted in Civiltà Cattolica). America made the choice to cite this specific sentence as representative of the Pope’s thought on race in the issue of 13 August. The American Jesuits interpreted both speeches of 21 and 28 July as a pontifical condemnation directed primarily at Nazi Germany: His Holiness was referring to the Nazis of Germany and was warning the Fascists of Italy. . . . His Holiness has most vigorously condemned the racist, nationalist, separatist theories that had gripped Germany and were spreading in Italy. . . . The Holy See continues in open conflict with Hitler in his racial war; it will be as defiantly opposed to Mussolini if he adopts, or permits to become ascendant, the Nazi doctrine and its ruthless consequences.11 America condemned racism essentially as a German disease that was contaminating Italy. At the same time the American Jesuits were able to go a bit further than their Italian counterparts and to expand the scope of Pius XI’s statements as a universal fight against racial persecutions everywhere: ‘The 20 N. VALBOUSQUET Pope, and with him the universal church, is definitely opposed to all attacks, all penalties, all persecutions visited upon individuals or peoples because of their blood or their heritage’. America appropriated Pius XI’s criticism of Mussolini’s imitation of Hitler with a more sarcastic tone: ‘[the Pope] found it strange that Italy should have to ape Germany’. In spite of Fascist censorship, America implied that the Pope’s speech had a significant impact upon the Italian press: ‘Despite a broadside by Roberto Farinacci in his extremeRightist paper, most of the press showed a tendency to modify their racist stand, retreating somewhat from their anti-Semitic position with the statement that there is no intention of harming Jews in any way’.12 At this point during the summer of 1938, America’s confidence was representative of the hopes of the Catholic opinion abroad that Italy’s racism would be at least milder and not persecutory. The Racial Laws and the conflict on intermarriages After the initial bewilderment in the face of the manifesto of 14 July, the adoption of anti-Jewish provisions in September–November 1938 fostered less attention in the Catholic press in Italy and in the U.S. for both internal and external reasons. In September, the Catholic press primarily focused on international tensions, especially the Munich Crisis provoked by Hitler’s expansionist plans in Czechoslovakia. The role played by Mussolini in the Munich Agreement (which temporarily calmed fears of a new world conflict) reinforced the positive image of the Duce in Italy and abroad. Additionally, the Vatican and Fascist diplomacies reached a modus vivendi on 16 August implying that Mussolini’s regime would release the pressures exerted on Catholic Action if the Pope refrained from commenting publicly on Fascist racial policy (Miccoli 1988; Fabre 2012; Sarfatti 2017). After this agreement, and because of increasing censorship targeting Catholic publications, Church voices against racism turned soft-spoken. The Jesuit press barely commented on the first anti-Jewish measures concerning education and foreign Jews. America briefly alluded to its initial hopes that Fascist provisions would have provided intermediate ‘solutions’, for instance on 17 September about the order to expel foreign Jews and those who had acquired citizenship after 1919: ‘It was believed Jews would be allowed to settle in Ethiopia’.13 In its Italian news section, Civiltà Cattolica quoted without any comments the anti-Jewish decrees adopted by the Fascist government presented as ‘limitation to the rights of the Jews’.14 Similar to the Vatican’s reactions, the only racial provision to which the Jesuits objected was the prohibition of marriages between ‘Aryans’ and ‘non-Aryans’ because it infringed on article 34 of the Lateran Concordat of 1929, which granted full civil validity to marriages celebrated by the Catholic Church, including unions between Catholics and converted Jews. On this sensitive issue, Civiltà Cattolica relied JOURNAL OF MODERN ITALIAN STUDIES 21 utterly on an article published in Osservatore Romano on 13–14 November and in large part drafted by Cardinal Secretary of State Pacelli.15 While defending marriages with converts, the Osservatore Romano’s article as well as Vatican internal reports on this issue reiterated that canon law prohibited unions with non-converted Jews and that the Church always tried to deter them (although papal exemptions existed). The Jesuits endorsed the point of view of the Vatican’s semi-official newspaper, which denounced the ‘very serious and concerning juridical innovations about the institution of marriage’.16 Civiltà Cattolica just acknowledged that ‘in spite of the cited complaints, the decree has been promulgated on the 19th’. Such was indeed the conclusion of the conflict opposing the Church and the Fascist regime: the Vatican had uttered a formal disapproval but did not pursue further actions in front of Mussolini’s intransigence. Conversely, America hardly mentioned the interdiction of intermarriages in Fascist Italy. This was not surprising for America did not often address questions pertaining to the temporal prerogatives of the Italian Catholic Church, which were not regarded as a primary concern for an American Catholic journal. It is also likely that the Jesuit magazine did not explicitly fight the Vatican’s battle in order to avoid lending credence to nativist anti-Catholic stereotypes. Indeed, allegations of ultramontane conspiracy and double allegiance against American Catholics were still widespread in the U.S., in particular since the controversial excommunication of Father Edward McGlynn in 1887 and again during the anti-Catholic press campaign against Democratic Candidate Al Smith in 1928 (Fogarty 1985, pp.243–246). Consequently, the Catholic Church in the U.S. tended to deploy evidence of its patriotism, adherence to democratic values, and independence from Rome (McGreevy 2003). In this perspective, it was logical that America, representing a religious minority, would not openly defend the power of the mainstream Italian Church and its status of state religion in a dictatorship, which contrasted with American principles of religious pluralism and separation of Church and State. Only one short sentence in America in March 1939 mentioned vaguely the deterioration of the relations between the Italian Church and the Fascist state: ‘The scene moves fast now. The violation of the Concordat and the late Holy Father’s protest!’.17 A previous article of 1 October published on the front page and written by Benedict Mulligan, an American Catholic student in Rome, discussed at length the rationale of the Racial Laws. Among various hypothesis, the author suggested a ‘psychological explanation’ that viewed the Jew as a scapegoat: ‘An enemy of some sort seems essential to the smooth functioning of modern dictatorships. It serves as a safety valve for the emotions of the people’; and the author added that, after the invasion of Ethiopia especially, ‘it is generally admitted today Italy has reached or is slowly reaching the stage where such an enemy is absolutely necessary’: 22 N. VALBOUSQUET When the Italians were solemnly proclaimed Aryans, they laughed. But today, laughter has given way to indignation. Many an Italian will tell you of charming and beloved Jewish friends, and ask with true Italian passion: Why should they be treated in this way? There’s So-and-So, he fought in the World War and fought in Ethiopia. He was decorated for bravery. He’s as good an Italian as I am. . . . And after all, wasn’t Christ a Jew – and the Madonna?18 Ultimately, the author remained puzzled by the lack of ‘utilitarian’ motives behind the racial campaign. Because of the small number of Jews in Italy, it could not be ‘a punitive measure, nor even a preventive measure’. The Racial Laws seemed even more irrational given the stature of brilliant statesman allegedly attributed to Mussolini, especially in his relations with the Church: ‘The only effect thus far has been the danger of a serious rift with the Vatican. And the Duce has always been most cautious in his relations with the Holy See’. The racial shift of Italian Fascism was therefore perceived as an aberration in comparison with Mussolini’s previous ‘achievements’: Whatever may be the real explanation of the present madness, it is decidedly not in keeping with the mentality and ideals of the Italian people, with the tenets of Italian Fascism, or with the past record of the Duce. . . . The Duce’s system in the past may not have met with the full approval of lovers, or socalled lovers, of democracy; but only prejudice will deny that he had worked marvels for Italy and the Italian people. Few men in all history have had such opportunities for achieving lasting greatness; and it is impossible not to feel the keenest regret that he should thus definitely set his face toward failure in following the erratic footprints of a German madman.19 In the same vein, the article of March 1939 lamented that the situation in Italy had changed abruptly and contradicted the ‘work of reconstruction’ accomplished by Mussolini since 1922, especially in matters of social services and religion: ‘The people seemed not only contended but proud. Religion has returned to a place of respect and honor’. The author argued that even though American readers might not approve Italians’ ‘choice’ of dictatorship as a form of government, it was the fittest to suit their Latin temperament; besides, the dictator was ‘good’: ‘the one man on whom all depended, seemed to be a real leader, intelligent, extremely broad in his interests and his sympathies’.20 Such views in October 1938 and March 1939 echoed the support of a significant part of both Italian American and American Catholic communities for Mussolini’s regime until the Racial Laws. The first took pride in the image of regained power and prestige projected abroad by Fascist Italy, while the latter praised Fascism as a bulwark against communism (Luconi 2004; Kertzer and Visani, 2012). With this backdrop in mind, the American Jesuits played down the fate of persecuted Jews and presented Italians as the real victims of Mussolini’s imitation of Hitler. JOURNAL OF MODERN ITALIAN STUDIES 23 It is a sad situation for the Jews; but it is no less sad for the Italian people. They have no anti-Jewish bias, but they in the long run must suffer. [. . .] While sympathizing, and praying for, the persecuted Jews, should we not, too, like the greatest of Jews, pray for the persecutor – both for his own sake, and for the sake of a lovable people who do not share their leader’s views?21 America was more concerned about the repercussions of the Racial Laws on the refugee crisis and envisioned that the expulsion of all Jews from Italy would fuel anti-Semitic feelings: the Jesuit magazine dreaded that an influx of Jewish refugees from Italy would inevitably ‘complicate still more an already vexing economic situation, stir up the feelings of American or English or French unemployed who will be or will consider themselves passed over by some Jewish refugee, and sow the seeds of a Jewish problem in nations where such may not at present exist’.22 America’s fear of Jewish refugees was probably not impervious to homegrown anti-Semitic and nativist prejudices as those blatantly propagated at the same time by the ‘Radio Priest’ Father Coughlin (Feldman 2001). In the case of America, the interplay between domestic political factors and a transnational culture of Church anti-Semitism influenced an ambivalent stance in which Catholic anti-racism did not foster a complete condemnation of anti-Semitism. The limited scope of the Catholic condemnation of racism As the Vatican hierarchy refrained from taking issue with the regime on the first anti-Semitic provisions announced in August and September, the Italian Catholic press made a point of demonstrating that the Church’s stand against racism was not to be mistaken for a defense of Jewish rights. On 14 August, Osservatore Romano, recalled that the Church had always favoured measures that could stem Jewish influence upon Christian society.23 At the same time, the Fascist instrumentalization of Church anti-Semitism drew extensively upon articles in which Civiltà Cattolica had advocated ad nauseam for the reinstatement of Church anti-Jewish provisions. This position was consistent with the tradition of the ‘double protectorate’ according to which the Church provisions that separated Jews from Christians aimed to safeguard the integrity of the Christian faith against Jewish ‘contamination’ as much as to protect Jewish communities from ‘legitimate’ outbursts of popular violence. On 27 August, the Jesuit editors noted that they had been ‘cited with honor’ (‘citati ad onore’) by La Difesa della Razza, the new official magazine of Fascist racism. Again, on 9 September ‘regarding the current fight against the Jews’, Civiltà Cattolica ‘was given credit by the daily press’.24 Father Rosa provided the most articulated response to the Fascist use of Jesuit anti-Semitism on 23 September. Far from ‘disowning’ (according to Taradel and Raggi, 136) the Fascist strategy, Rosa seemed instead 24 N. VALBOUSQUET flattered that the Fascist press had recognized the precedence of the Church on this matter. The only criticism he made was against the Fascist misinterpretation that Pius XI’s statements against racism seemed at odds with the Church’s traditional attitude toward Jews. Rosa designated ‘Protestant and Nazi Germany’ as uniquely responsible for the current racial persecutions against Jews, exempting therefore the Roman Church and Catholic governments from any influence in contemporary anti-Semitism. Drawing upon this strict distinction, Rosa asserted that his journal’s stand on the ‘Jewish problem’ had been always inspired by Christian principles: Its thought has been misinterpreted and completely twisted by those who represented it as a program of revenge and retaliation. . . . It is instead a warm and well-intentioned call for vigilance against a danger and a religious, moral as well as civil disorder, and for the defense, efficient but pacific, of modern society threatened by Judaism.25 The propaganda use of Church anti-Semitism in the Fascist anti-Semitic campaign in Italy was far from the immediate and local concerns of America. Notwithstanding, the American Jesuits ridiculed the ironical situation of anti-clerical Fascists giving lessons on Catholic orthodoxy: ‘Fascist leaders with a sanctimonious air are becoming Doctors of the Church, preaching unadulterated Catholic doctrine and Catholic duty to the Holy Father, the Cardinals, the clergy, the laity’.26 America’s acerbic comment was probably a veiled reference to the conference given by Roberto Farinacci, ultra-Fascist editor of Regime Fascista, at the Fascist Institute of Culture of Milan on 7 November 1938. Entitled ‘The Church and the Jews’, the conference aimed to legitimize the Racial Laws by stressing the legacy of Church anti-Semitism (De Felice 1993, pp.322–325). Censorship or silence? Ultimately, the comparative perspective on the Jesuit press raises questions about the extent to which censorship had been an influential factor in the silences of the Church on anti-Semitic persecutions. Fascist censorship also affected the Church, and Pius XI’s speech of 28 July, which denounced Mussolini’s imitation of Nazi racism, triggered a strong reaction from Fascist authorities to muzzle the Catholic press. Documents from the Vatican archives reveal several examples of local Fascist intimidations and even sequestrations against the parish and diocesan press that had published articles from Osservatore Romano and Civiltà Cattolica quoting the Pope’s statements against racism. On August 5, Felice Rinaldi, director of Civiltà Cattolica, wrote to the Vatican Secretariat of State that he had just received injunctions from the prefecture of Rome to publish only articles utterly compliant with the directives of the government about the racial JOURNAL OF MODERN ITALIAN STUDIES 25 campaign. On October 9, he wrote again that the owner of the printing press publishing his journal had been threatened with sequestration by the prefecture on the grounds of publishing articles opposed to Nazi racism.27 America referred to these specific conditions on various occasions. According to the Jesuit magazine in August 1938 Italian public opinion could not grasp the full extent of the conflict opposing the Pope and Mussolini. The Duce’s speech of July 30, in which he rebutted the accusation of imitation of Nazism (thus making a veiled reference to Pius XI’s speech of July 28), was not completely intelligible to Italians, according to America: “Most people in Italy were unaware of his meaning because they have no knowledge of the Pope’s speech, due to the press censorship”.28 In October, America pointed out that Italians were not aware of the pressures exerted upon the Church: ‘They did not know, for instance, that some at least of the ecclesiastical authorities had received an intimation that clerics should not touch the race question in the pulpit or in the press’. These conditions gave more perspective on the scope of the Pope’s utterances: ‘The Holy Father has bluntly and courageously called the Duce’s move an imitation of Hitler’.29 The same courage was not extended to the Catholic press however and America did not praise its Italian counterpart: ‘The Catholic press, sad to tell, is not a great help to the people at such a time. The Osservatore Romano alone speaks out boldly’.30 This vision was too simplistic, for after 1929 the Vatican newspaper was considered the organ of a foreign state and not directly subjected to Fascist censorship; the regime attempted nonetheless to pressure the journal via its ambassador to the Holy See (Dalla Torre1967, p,139, p.141). Because of censorship, America justified that the Church had to remain cautious to protect all of its members: It seems more prudent to be silent on one or other topic than to be forced into silence on all. . . . The Church never wishes to force an open rupture. Only when every other means has failed, will the Church expose her children, strong and weak, to the dangers of open persecution. The Church might perhaps cut a finer figure before the world with a bolder policy; but the Church is not in the world to cut a figure. She is in the world to save souls.31 This reasoning prevailed among significant segments of the Vatican Curia, which were hostile to any outspoken statement that would antagonize secular governments against the Church, as exemplified by Pacelli and Ledochowski’s attitudes toward Nazi Germany. These conservative and diplomatic positions aimed to preserve the status quo of the 1933 Concordat with the Reich and to prevent any open conflicts that could have negative repercussions on German Catholics. Yet, censorship and fear of retaliation are just one component in the equation that led to a certain anti-Semitic blindness in the Catholic press. The silence was selective and the Jesuit publications turned more vocal on some issues pertaining to Church 26 N. VALBOUSQUET prerogatives. Despite the differences of context, Civiltà Cattolica and America put forward the same argument: racism was a question that the Church had the right to address. In Civiltà Cattolica of January 1939, Father Messineo reminded readers that the Church had officially protested against the prohibition of intermarriages and argued that the ‘disagreement’ between the Catholic conscience and the Fascist racial policy demonstrated that racism was also a religious issue.32 America had expressed similar views on September 10, 1938: ‘despite the Fascist press’ continual assertion that racism is a political issue outside the province or censure of the Church, the Pope, on every occasion offered, condemns exaggerated nationalism as a withering curse and its offspring racism as un-Christian’. The Jesuit magazine explained the Fascist attacks on Church prerogatives as a form of rivalry: the Church being the only ‘supra-national’ and ‘perfect society’, ‘it encounters the opposition of tyrants, demagogues and dictators in every age and especially today’.33 In March 1939, America urged its readers to refrain from expressing too overtly an admiration for Mussolini that was damaging for the Church: Many Catholics do not know of the change that has come over Italy and without realizing it, they may be harming the Catholic cause by continuing to extol the Duce as though he were still the Duce of several years ago. . . . Some even go to the extreme of watering down the words of the Holy father or placing the emphasis where the Holy Father did not place it. That is not quite fair. 34 Some silences were significant. The fact that both Civiltà Cattolica and America omitted Pius XI’s speech of 7 September 1938 is indicative of a certain reluctance to fully address anti-Semitism. Pronounced during a private audience (commonly misdated to September 6, see Rigano 2014, p.284) with Msgr Picard, leader of a group of pilgrims from Belgian Catholic radio, the speech was the only one in which Pius XI mentioned specifically the fate of Jews. The Pope uttered that: ‘it is not possible for Christians to take part in anti-Semitism. We are spiritually Semites’. As noted by Miccoli (1988, pp.879–880) and Rigano, this groundbreaking statement was not – with one local and partial exception – publicized in the Catholic press in Italy. First published in La Libre Belgique, the excerpt of the speech regarding Jews was then cited in some French, English, Spanish and German-speaking journals. Despite the growing international echo of Pius XI’s declaration, America chose not to mention the specific quote about anti-Semitism. Unlike its Italian counterpart, there was however one component of the American Catholic magazine that could break this silence: its readership. Indeed, some readers of America took issue with the omission of Pius XI’s speech. Laurence Kent Patterson, a Jesuit from Woodstock, Maryland, wrote to the editors that he ‘would like to note in your columns the words of the Holy Father to a group of Belgian pilgrims’, and quoted precisely the excerpt JOURNAL OF MODERN ITALIAN STUDIES 27 regarding anti-Semitism that he had read in the London Catholic journal The Tablet on 24 September. Patterson made a point in demonstrating that the Pope’s words were particularly timely: ‘I note with alarm the growth of crude anti-Semitic feeling in certain Catholic quarters. Even a section of our press is tainted by it’.35 The publication of the letter triggered a full range of responses from other readers, a significant part of them in support of Patterson. On the other side of the spectrum, some readers persisted in denouncing the ‘Jewish peril’ that was allegedly threatening the Vatican and Christian societies, as exemplified by a letter from New York: ‘If by antiSemitism we mean opposition to the Jewish efforts to permeate the world with materialism and to pervert our Christian faith, then every Christian must be an anti-Semite’.36 Epilogue: Humani Generis Unitas Despite America’s traditionalist mindset regarding the ‘Jewish question’, some voices in the Jesuit magazine took the opportunity of the crisis brought about by the Fascist Racial Laws to wrestle with another issue that weighed heavy on American Catholic souls: segregation and discriminations against African Americans (McGreevy 1996). On 6 August 1938, an editorial, unsigned but likely written or inspired by LaFarge, transposed Pius XI’s speech of 21 July into the American context: ‘While we condemn “racialism” abroad, let us remember to whoever fosters discrimination against the Negro in America fosters a spirit that is un-Christian and inhuman’.37 These might have seemed only voices in the desert. Yet, it is no accident that during a private audience on 22 June, Pius XI entrusted LaFarge (who was on a European trip for America) with the drafting of an unprecedented encyclical against racism (Passelecq and Suchecky 1997). The Pope had read LaFarge’s Interracial Justice (1937) and congratulated the American Jesuit for his advocacy against racism. Together with two other Jesuits, the German Gustav Gundlach and the French Gustave Desbuquois, LaFarge worked feverishly on the encyclical in the Parisian offices of Etudes, during the summer of 1938, while the Fascist anti-Semitic campaign was unfolding. Before returning to New York, LaFarge delivered the draft to Ledochowski in Rome at the end of September in the midst of the Munich crisis. The General of the Jesuits and Father Rosa obstructed the handover of the draft to the Pope and after the death of Pius XI, the new elected Pius XII, Pacelli, preferred to dismiss the draft. Proclaiming with force the ‘Unity of the Human Race’, the ill-fated encyclical bears witness to some of the patterns of Catholic thought visible in the responses of America and Civiltà Cattolica to the Fascist racial turn. The first point made by the encyclical ‘The Church’s right to speak based on her pastoral mission’ reiterated that racism was a 28 N. VALBOUSQUET religious concern. The draft once more justified the ‘Church’s reservations’ toward Jews and the ‘need to safeguard her children against spiritual contagion’ and against ‘revolutionary movements’ inspired by Jews. But the text of LaFarge (who became editor-in-chief of America from 1944 to 1948), also mobilized a new language in denouncing explicitly the ‘present persecution of the Jews’: ‘innocent persons are treated as criminals though they have scrupulously obeyed the law of their native land’; the contemporary persecution of Jews was no less than a ‘flagrant denial of human rights’ (as quoted in Passelecq and Suchecky 1997, pp.246–252). Because of differences of political and cultural contexts, America could, unlike Civiltà Cattolica, display a nuanced range of different opinions (including those of its readership). This diversity allowed the Jesuit magazine to sometimes offer more progressive views and go further in the condemnation of racism. Nonetheless, America’s interpretations of the Fascist Racial Laws were still embedded in anti-Jewish prejudices shaped by both local factors (notably anti-refugee feelings) and transnational patterns of the Church’s traditional anti-Semitism. The case of America demonstrates that even in the absence of censorship, the Catholic journal was not willing to clearly condemn anti-Semitism and to renounce the usual hostile mindset and ‘reservations’ of the Church toward Jews. To be sure, Fascist pressure on the Catholic press in Italy conditioned Civiltà Cattolica’s treatment of the Racial Laws, but censorship alone cannot explain the Church’s partial silences and general acceptance of the antiSemitic turn of Mussolini’s regime. Notes 1. Mulligan, B. 1938. “Why Should the Jews be Crowded Out of Italy? Does Hitler’s Influence Extend Over Italy’s Policy?” America 59, 1 October: 604– 606. 2. “Bibliografia. Gino Sottochiesa, Sotto la maschera d’Israele,” Civiltà Cattolica 1, 25 February 1938: 460. See also in the same issue, “Gli ebrei in Italia dinanzi alla legge” (471–472) quoting the Informazione diplomatica of February 16 which denied any Jewish question in Italy. 3. Barbera, M. 1938. “La questione dei giudei in Ungheria.” Civiltà Cattolica 3, 8 July: 146–153; also his previous article: “Intorno alla questione del Sionismo,” April: 76–82. 4. “La teoria moderna delle razze: impugnata da un acattolico.” Civiltà Cattolica 3, 2 July 1938: 62–71. 5. “Cronaca, Italia, Proposizioni sul “razzismo fascista.” Civiltà Cattolica 3, 29 July 1938: 277–278. 6. “Cronaca, Italia, Temi di studio per la difesa della razza.” Civiltà Cattolica 3, 27 August 1938: 465–466 JOURNAL OF MODERN ITALIAN STUDIES 29 7. “Chronicle: Italy. Aryanization Policy Initiated by Fascists.” America 59, 30 July 30 1938: 400. 8. “Cronaca, Santa Sede, Spirito missionario; pericoli del nazionalismo e razzismo in un discorso del Santo Padre.” Civiltà Cattolica 3, 29 July 1938: 269. 9. “Cronaca, Santa Sede, Nuovi moniti del Santo Padre contro il nazionalismo e razzismo esagerato.” Civiltà Cattolica 3, 13 August 1938: 371. 10. Ibid., 374. 11. “Comment: Pius XI Denounces Racism.” America 59, 13 August 1938: 434. 12. “Chronicle: Italy. Pius XI assails Italian racism.” America 59, 13 August 1938: 447–448. 13. “Chronicle: Italy. Fascists Order Expulsion of Jews.” America 59, 17 September 1938: 568. 14. “Cronaca, Italia, Limitazione di diritti agli ebrei.” Civiltà Cattolica 4, 15 November 1938: 474. 15. Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Nunziatura Italia, b. 9, f. 5: draft of the Osservatore Romano article. 16. “Cronaca, Italia, Limitazione di diritti agli ebrei.” Civiltà Cattolica 4, 15 November 1938: 470–474. 17. “Fascist Trends Show Evidence of Nazi Influence. Italians Sense Hitler’s Domination of Mussolini.” America 60, 4 March 1939: 508–509. 18. Mulligan, B. 1938: 605. 19. “Ibid.” 20. “Fascist trends . . .”: 508. 21. Mulligan, B. 1938: 606. 22. Ibid., 605. 23. F. Capponi. “Gli ebrei ed il Concilio Vaticano.” Osservatore Romano, 14 August 1938, quoted in “Come i Papi trattavano gli ebrei.” Il Tevere, 16 August. 24. “Cronaca, Italia, Temi di studio per la difesa della razza.” Civiltà Cattolica 3, 27 August 1938: 465; “La Civiltà cattolica e la ‘Questione ebraica.” 9 September: 560–561. 25. E. Rosa. 1938. “La questione giudaica e La Civiltà Cattolica.” Civiltà Cattolica 4, 23 September: 3–16 (10). 26. “Fascist trends . . .”: 509. 27. Archivio della Congregazione per gli Affari Ecclesiatici Staordinari [Vatican equivalent to a Ministry of Foreign Affairs], IV, Italia, 1054 PO, fasc. 733: letters from Felice Rinaldi to the Secretariat of State, 5 August and 9 October 1938. 28. “Pius XI Assails Italian Racism,” 1938: 448. 29. Mulligan, B. 1938: 604–605. 30. “Fascist trends . . .”: 509. 31. Ibid. 32. Messineo, A. 1939. “Alla ricerca di una soluzione. Chiarimenti e distinzioni.” Civiltà Cattolica 1, 25 January: 203–211 (209). 33. “Comment: Pius XI Replies to Fascist Misrepresentations.” America 59, 10 September 1938: 530. 34. “Fascist Trends.” cit. 1939: 509. 35. “Correspondence: Pope and Jews.” America 60, 29 October 1938: 89. 36. “Correspondence: Jews and Catholics.” America 60, 12 November 1938: 137, letter signed Arbogastus. 37. “Editorial Racialism at Home and Abroad.” America 59, 6 August 1938: 420– 421. 30 N. VALBOUSQUET Notes on contributor Nina Valbousquet has, for two years (2016–2018), been a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Center for Jewish History and Visiting Scholar at the Skirball Department of Hebrew and Judaic studies at NYU. She was awarded a fellowship at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C. (fall 2018) and a New York Public Library-Fordham University fellowship in Jewish studies (spring 2019). She completed her Ph.D. in history at Sciences Po Paris in 2016 and her dissertation will be published in 2019 (CNRS editions): Catholique et antisémite: Le réseau transnational de Mgr Benigni (1918–1934). Her book proposal for a second monograph entitled Rome, Zion, and the Fasces: Italian Catholics and Antisemitism in Europe (1918–1946) won the 2017 Peter Lang Young Scholars Competition in Modern Italian Studies (forthcoming 2019). Her published and forthcoming articles appear in Revue d’Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine (2015), Cahiers de la Méditerranée, Modernism, Passato e Presente (2017), and Archives Juives and Modern Italy (2018). References Bernauer J. 2017. “Anti-Semitism.” In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Jesuits, edited by Thomas Worcester, 35–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bidussa, D. 1994. Il mito del bravo italiano. Milan: Il Saggiatore. Ceci, L. 2013. L’interesse superiore. Il Vaticano e l’Italia di Mussolini. Rome: Laterza. Connelly, J. 2012. From Enemy to Brother. The Revolution in Catholic Teaching on the Jews, 1933–1965. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dalla Torre, G. 1967. Memorie. Milan: Mondadori. Deffayet L. 2007. “Le Père Joseph Bonsirven: un parcours fait d’ombres et de lumières.” Archives Juives 40 (1): 30–44. De Felice, R. 1993. Storia degli ebrei in Italia sotto il fascismo. Turin: Einaudi. Di Fant, A. 2007 “La polemica antiebraica nella stampa cattolica romana dopo Porta Pia.” Mondo contemporaneo 3: 87–118. Facchini, C. 2011. “Antisemitismo e chiesa cattolica in Italia (XIX–XX sec.). Ricerche in corso e riflessioni storiografiche.” Storicamente 7: 2–5. Fabre G. 2012. “Un ‘accordo felicemente conchiuso’.” Quaderni di storia 76: 83–153. Fattorini, E. 2007. Pio XI, Hitler e Mussolini. La solitudine di un papa. Turin: Einaudi. Feldman, E. 2001. Catholics and Jews in Twentieth Century America. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Fogarty, G. 1985. American Hierarchy from 1870 to 1965. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. Gallagher, C. 2014. “‘Correct and Christian’: American Jesuit Support of Father Charles E. Coughlin’s Anti-Semitism, 1935-38.” In “Tragic Couple”: Encounters between Jews and Jesuits, edited by James Bernauer and Robert Maryks, 297–315. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill. Gillette, A. 2001. “The Origins of the ‘Manifesto of Racial Scientists’.” Journal of Modern Italian Studies 6 (3): 305–323. Kertzer, D. 2014. The Pope and Mussolini. The Secret History of Pius XI and the Rise of Fascism in Europe. New York: Random House. Kertzer, D., and Visani, A. 2012. “The United States, the Holy See and Italy’s Racial Laws.” In Pius XI and America, edited by Charles Gallagher, David Kertzer and Alberto Melloni, 329–343. Berlin and London: Lit Verlag. JOURNAL OF MODERN ITALIAN STUDIES 31 Lebovitch Dahl, J. D. 2003. “The Role of the Roman Catholic Church in the Formation of Modern Antisemitism: La Civiltà Cattolica, 1850–1879.” Modern Judaism 23 (2): 180–197. Lebovitch Dahl, J. D. 2016. “Antisemitism and Catholicism in the Interwar Period. The Jesuits in Austria, 1918-1938.” S:I.M.O.N. Shoah: Intervention. Methods, Documentation 3 (1): 104–114. Luconi, S. 2004. “Fascist Antisemitism and Jewish-Italian Relations in the United States.” American Jewish Archives Journal 56: 151–177. Martina G. 2003. Storia della Compagnia di Gesù in Italia (1814–1983). Brescia: Morcelliana. Maryks R. 2010. The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews. Jesuits of Jewish Ancestry and Purity-of-Blood Laws in the Early Society of Jesus. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Mazzini, E. 2013. Ostilità convergenti. Stampa diocesana, razzismo e antisemitismo nell’Italia fascista (1937–1939). Naples: Edizioni scientifiche italiane. McDonough, P. 1992. Men Astutely Trained. A History of the Jesuits in the American Century. New York: The Free Press. McGreevy, J. 1996. Parish Boundaries. The Catholic Encounter with Race in the Twentieth-Century Urban North. London and Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. McGreevy, J. 2003. Catholicism and American Freedom: A History. New York: W. W. Norton. Miccoli, G. 1988. “Santa Sede e chiesa italiana di fronte alle leggi antiebraiche del 1938.” Studi storici 29: 821–902. Miccoli, G. 2000. I dilemmi e i silenzi di Pio XII. Milan: Rizzoli. Passelecq G. and Suchecky B. 1997. The Hidden Encyclical of Pius XI. New York: Harcourt Brace & Company. Perin, R. 2013. “Pio XI e la mancata lettera sugli ebrei a Mussolini (agosto 1938).” Rivista di storia del cristianesimo 1: 181–206. Pollard, J. 1985. The Vatican and Italian Fascism, 1922–1932. A Study in Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rigano G. 2014. “‘Spiritualmente semiti’: Pio Xi e l’antisemitismo in un discorso del settembre 1938.” Römische Quartalschrift für Christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte 109 (3–4): 281–308. Sarfatti, M. 2000. Gli ebrei nell’Italia fascista. Vicende, identità, persecuzione. Turin: Einaudi. Sarfatti, M. 2017. Mussolini contro gli ebrei. Cronaca dell’elaborazione delle leggi del 1938. Nuova edizione ampliata. Turin: Silvio Zamorani editore (original edition 1994). Southern D. 1996. John LaFarge and the Limits of Catholic Interracialism 1911–1963. London and Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press. Taradel, R., and Raggi, B. 2000. La segregazione amichevole. “La Civiltà Cattolica” e la questione ebraica 1850–1945. Rome: Editori Riuniti. Wolf, H. 2010. Pope and Devil: The Vatican’s Archives and the Third Reich. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Zuccotti, S. 2000. Under His Very Windows: The Vatican and the Holocaust in Italy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.