The 'Secret Encyclical'

The Pope's Last Crusadeby Peter Eisner

William Morrow. 304p $27.99

John LaFarge, S.J., is one of the best known Catholic advocates for racial justice in the 20th century. Born to an aristocratic family in Newport, R.I., in 1880, Father LaFarge graduated from Harvard in 1901 and then traveled to Austria, where in 1905 he was ordained and joined the Jesuit order. He worked for several years on a Jesuit mission in southern Maryland and then moved to New York, where he became an editor of the Jesuit weekly America. During this time, Father LaFarge came to be convinced that racism was the result of ignorance rather than, for instance, the result of adherence to dogmas of racial inferiority. He accordingly advocated a gradualist response to the race problem that focused on education. In 1937 Father LaFarge summarized his views in a book entitled Interracial Justice: A Study of the Catholic Doctrine of Race Relations.


Though LaFarge’s book was primarily aimed at an American audience, it was well received across the Atlantic. The reigning Pope Pius XI (1922<\!a>39) was so impressed by the text that in the spring of 1938 he asked the American Jesuit to prepare a draft encyclical on the unity of the human race. Doubtless, Pius XI’s concern with race was exacerbated by events on the European continent. Since 193, the pope had been hearing about Germany’s “war of destruction against the Jews” from Edith Stein, a convert from Judaism, whose pleas for papal intervention, however, received no official response. In 1937, Pius XI issued a partly theological, partly political condemnation of Nazi Germany, through the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge. Though the text tackled the issue of Nazi racism, it tellingly stopped short of a full denunciation, condemning only its most extreme forms. The following year, Pius XI admitted that there was “room for special races” and that “some races are more fitted and others less gifted”—arguments that considerably undermined the promise of a full Catholic turn against racism.

At the same time, however, the pope engaged the American John LaFarge and asked him to write an extended exploration of Catholic attitudes toward race. The Jesuit—who agreed with the pope and most of the people in the Vatican at the time that Communism, not Nazism, posed the greater threat to the church’s survival—welcomed the prestigious assignment. After having asked the Jesuit superior general for assistance, LaFarge traveled to Paris, where he collaborated with the German Jesuit Gustav Gundlach and the French Jesuit Gustave Desbuquois. The three men toiled away for several months, sworn to absolute secrecy. The resulting draft encyclical, titled “The Unity of the Human Race,” argued that because of the existence of one natural law and one Creator, the human race was also one. Ten pages were dedicated to the Jews, including a section justifying the church’s right to protect itself against the “active hostility of the Jewish people to the Christian religion,” and yoking Jews to the promotion of “revolutionary movements that aim to destroy society and obliterate from the minds of men the knowledge of God.”

As the journalist Peter Eisner narrates in a new, engrossing narrative history, the work of Father LaFarge, Gundlach and Desbuquois never saw the light. By the time the draft encyclical reached Pius XI on Jan. 21, 1939, the pope was on his deathbed; when Eugenio Pacelli (Pius XI’s secretary of state) became Pius XII on March 2, 1939, he chose to keep the encyclical secret. Only in 1963 did John LaFarge—in the final year of his life—share the remarkable story of the secret encyclical with fellow Jesuits at the residence of the editors of America in Manhattan. The story went public in 1969 and has since been the object of several newspaper articles, doctoral theses and scholarly monographs.

The most recent addition to this literature is Eisner’s colorful account, The Pope’s Last Crusade: How an American Jesuit Helped Pope Pius XI’s Campaign to Stop Hitler. An editor and reporter at The Washington Post, Newsday and the Associated Press, Eisner’s previous monographs have focused on the history of U.S. intelligence prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and on the heroic rescue of a downed Allied plane by French resistance fighters. This latest book does a fine job bringing the central characters to life by reporting a flurry of conversations and letter exchanges.

The book adds little that is new, however, to the major interpretations already available in the scholarly literature. Concurring with the authoritative work on the topic by Georges Passelecq and Bernard Suchecky (The Hidden Encyclical of Pius XI), Eisner argues that LaFarge and Pope Pius XI were groundbreaking clerics, ahead of their times; their strong opposition to racism in all forms was silenced by Pope Pius XII and a group of conservative churchmen within the Vatican, who worried about the potential effects such a revolutionary statement might make.

Eisner’s history thus squarely situates itself (without saying so explicitly) within the Pius wars, which have been raging for the better part of 40 years. The debate revolves around the relationship of Pius XI and, more important, Pius XII to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. As one well-established line in the literature has it, Pius XI opposed the Nazis, while Pius XII, out of caution or conviction, did not get in the way of the imposition of the Nazi new order. From the time of its discovery in the late 1960s, the secret encyclical has been, for evident reasons, a central element in the debate surrounding the papacy’s relations with European Jewry between World War I and World War II.

Eisner’s account sides with the defenders of Pius XI and the accusers of Pius XII and oversimplifies some important historical nuances. First, Pius XI had a more ambiguous relationship to Judaism and racism than Eisner allows, as a close reader of Mit Brennender Sorge and Pius XI’s subsequent statements on German racialism is forced to conclude. Second, it is a mistake to assume that John LaFarge’s somewhat enlightened views on white-black relations in the United States (for an important corrective, see David W. Southern, John LaFarge and the Limits of Catholic Interracialism), would translate into a defense of Judeo-Christianity. As the historian John Connelly has reminded us in his important recent book From Enemy to Brother: The Revolution in Catholic Teaching on the Jews, 1933-1965, even the watershed Vatican II statement on Jewish-Christian relations was, in the 1960s, highly contested and the result of heated internal debates.

In the years between World War I and World War II, staunch Catholic defenders of the equality between Jews and Catholics were few and far between, and most came from the margins of the Catholic world (many, in fact, were Jewish converts), rather than from the institutional centers of power. Judged by the standards of the works on race that these Catholics were writing in the 1930s, Pius XI’s statements, and John LaFarge’s unpublished encyclical, appear cautious, antiquated and tinged with a variety of Catholic anti-Judaism that had for centuries been an accepted doctrinal view. Eisner may well be right to sing LaFarge’s praises, but he should be wary of doing so without properly situating LaFarge within his historical context, and without taking into account the considerable differences in approach between the Catholic Church in the United States and the European churches to the knotty question of race in the interwar years.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Christopher Rushlau
5 years 9 months ago
There is more here than setting the record straight. I would boil down Thomism, the official doctrine of the Catholic church, to "you know it when you see it" ("there is no knowledge without the phantasm" is my first brigade of artillery, if you're interested), which is tied necessarily to the idea that, as Karl Rahner puts it, but as Thomas seems to require on his own, knowing is being. Which is also God. Leaving us with the notion of participation to clarify why and how we are not all God completely. Rahner uses the term "intensity of being" in "Spirit in the World", e.g.: the more intense your being, the more you are "present to yourself", and God is totally present to Godself--whereas humans are only present to themselves in a particular act of knowledge via the senses--"here I am looking at this apple." So the question arises, what is the natural relationship betwen two human persons? What does it take, to pose the question negatively, for one person not to recognize another as human? I note the theory in the article that "dogma" are not the cause of racism, but merely "ignorance". My theory of "denial" is that one element of it is ideation, fantasizing, which distracts the knowing person from knowing (in this case) the other person--so rapt up, pardon the pun, is the first person in her fantasy. How strong must this ideation be for the one to fail to notice the other? This raises the idea of the party line and the view that society is a matter of authority as opposed to free mixing, encounter, advent, what you might want to call the evangelization of the moment. "I only see what I'm supposed to see"? Thomas: "authority is the weakest form of argument". I would define hatred under the same rubric: it is an unnecessary ideation whereby the hater blocks the hated from perception. "Sorry, I didn't notice you there dangling from that noose I was playing with here in my field with my friends all dressed in their best sheets." What basic attitude do hatred and prejudice require? It is the idea that God can be divided, as Isaiah's metaphor divides the block of wood into the fuel source and the idol. On one side, I know being as such by participation in God, such as the being of my fantasy about this person before me, but on the other, I reject this person's actual being, conveyed to me by my senses, in preferring my fantasy, my delusion, my party line conformity, my rationale (about master races, perhaps), which is palpably my own creation: over the sight of this person, who palpably is God's creation.
5 years 9 months ago
It is fortunate, many would say providential, that the "secret encyclical" (one draft of which was by LaFarge) was never published by Pius XII. It contained then traditional anti-Judaic statements that would be deeply embarrassing today, were they on the historical record. The article mentions an example: "a section justifying the church’s right to protect itself against the “active hostility of the Jewish people to the Christian religion,” and yoking Jews to the promotion of “revolutionary movements that aim to destroy society and obliterate from the minds of men the knowledge of God.” And the idea that Pius XII was in any way anti-Semitic is absurd. There are many examples of his friendliness, kindness, and concrete help to Jews -- far too many to list here.
5 years 9 months ago
" Eisner argues that LaFarge and Pope Pius XI were groundbreaking clerics, ahead of their times; their strong opposition to racism in all forms was silenced by Pope Pius XII and a group of conservative churchmen within the Vatican, who worried about the potential effects such a revolutionary statement might make." Lest anyone take Eisner's contention too seriously, please appreciate how John LaFarge himself in the pages of this wonderful magazine welcomed Summi Pontificatus, Pius XII's first encyclical published only weeks after Hitler invaded Poland. LaFarge called the encyclical “dangerous.” And he took for granted that it addressed racism in Europe. Indeed, LaFarge wrote that he worried that Americans would conveniently overlook that “German Racism as applied to the Jew is but a match for American Racism as applied to the Negro.”


The latest from america

In her new memoir, The Truths We Hold: An American Journey, Senator Kamala D. Harris, Democrat of California, positions herself as an underdog, a savvy “top cop” and, most of all, Shyamala Gopalan’s daughter.
Brandon SanchezJanuary 18, 2019

The fascinating premise of Mary Gordon’s lovely little book On Thomas Merton is that, except for his extensive correspondence with Evelyn Waugh and Czeslaw Milosz, Thomas Merton was without literary peers who could perceptively judge, critique and improve his writing.

Ron HansenJanuary 18, 2019
Sagal knows what it is to run away from problems, to need to be needed, and how much can be achieved through stubborn persistence.
Emma Winters January 11, 2019
The simple lessons of Jean Vanier on humility and Christian love always bear repeating.
Colleen DulleJanuary 11, 2019