It's reasonable bet that Pious XII wanted to ensure that the money from a cash strapped Reich fighting a super war would not dry up.
During the war the Vicar of Christ was an exemplar of conflicted and contradictory policies and thinking. He played with opposing Hitler to the point of dabbling in a plot against him with the British a violation of the canon against directly opposing tyrants as well as the neutrality of the Vatican nation -- while agreeing with the main Nazis project to destroy the Soviet Union. The self inflated Pious XII imagined he as God's main man on earth could negotiate with Hitler and the allies to end the war at least in the west, perhaps on terms that would allow the godly war against atheistic communism to continue. Despite his heavenly connections, he did not understand that the increasingly crazed Hitler was so pathological that he and his regime of horrors could only be stopped by an extermination campaign of counter conquest via brute military force of the kind Stalin was deploying against him (and only the Red Army was large enough to defeat Germany). How could the future candidate for saint be so obtuse to think that Hitler would agree to willing end of the war when doing so would put the great dictator at high risk of be deposed, exposed and executed? Or did Pacelli see a post war Hitler remaining unpunished and in control of Germany -- like Franco in Spain -- after the war came to a negotiated end? Someone else not deserving sainthood either but much more grounded Roosevelt, knew the score -- he demanded for unconditional surrender at Casablanca as the similarly realist Churchill happily went along.
By the norms of the time a standard anti-Semite -- except for those who converted to the one true faith -- Pious XII did not approve of the genocide he knew was underway to at least some extent via the extensive church intelligence network (likewise most Germans would have objected to the scale of the Holocaust if they entirely knew, that's one reason the regime hid it the project). In 1942 he issued a Christmas statement against Nazis atrocities that perturbed Hitler and company and gave some encouragement to the victims, but it was too bland, indirect and nonspecific to have the needed impact. Far from constantly warning about Nazis terror, to the dismay and anger of many further statements were not released in 1943 and 44 as the Holocaust reached its fantastic heights. When Germans began to remove Jews from Italy to send to the death camps the reaction of Pacelli was again mixed. Many Jews were successfully hidden by Catholic clerics and civilians some in the Vatican -- but over a thousand were deported without the Pope publicly protesting, or showing up at the train station to try and put a stop to the deadly transport.
Defenders of Pious XII fall back on two defenses to try to explain the mediocre performance of their saint-to-be. He would have been under direct threat if he had more directly opposed Hitler, and the Fuhrer would have targeted Germans Catholics like he did the Jews et al. Concerning the direct threat to the Pope, so what? One hopes the Vicar of Christ was not afraid to risk his freedom or even life in the defense of others.
As for the supposed threat to Catholics, it is hard to overemphasize how just plain ignorant this proposition is. Many imagine Hitler was free to do whatever he wished, but being a dictator is such a perpetually dangerous business that tyrants must carefully watch their every step lest it come back to harm or kill them. Hitler could pick on German Jews because the classic "others' made up a mere 1% of the population -- they were vulnerable and expendable. For the Austro-German Catholic Hitler to go after his fellow Austro-German Catholics would have been ethno-suicide directly contrary to his own beliefs and schemes. The two main points of his regime were too elevate all Deutsch Aryans Catholic and Protestant to the near godhood inherent to the race -- not to oppress or eliminate a big chunk of them -- and to use the limited numbers of Germans to conquer an super slave empire extending from the French frontier to the Urals. How was this supposed to work in practical logistical terms if the around 20 million German Catholics were somehow corralled and dealt by the 50 million followers of Luther? All the more so because many Protestants would not have gone along with targeting Catholics; an ecumenical Catho-Lutheran coup more effective than the nearly successful 44 plots would have been a serious possibility. Bad treatment of the third of Germans who were Catholics would have shrunk Hitler's desperately pressed army by the same amount and wrecked his dreams of conquests while leaving the nation vulnerable to attack, and would have risked an outright civil war because Catholic officers and soldiers had lots of weapons. Once the USSR was defeated Adolf needed every German to keep the huge Slavic population in their place as slaves (the central goal in Hitler's inane scheme was its fatal flaw, trying to hold Russia/Ukraine would have been Germany's Vietnam-Afghanistan on a vast scale). The need for as many Aryans as possible was why Hitler banned abortions and favored big German families Catholic and Protestant. Even going after the Pope down in Rome would have outraged the Catholic portion of his nation and army, crippling military moral at best and risking mutiny (the BBC and Soviet broadcasts would have made sure Germans knew what was happening), and gutted his war project. Socio-political historians have shown that Hitler ran a "popular dictatorship' that depended upon a high level of popular support to survive (as it was he barely lived through a long series of assassination attempts). The myth that a small Nazis clique captured a nation and forced an oppressed population to do things against popular will is bogus. The Gestapo was small by the standards of totalitarian states, surviving records show it relied on casual civilian informants to keep malcontents in line. Hitler was far less free to do what he wanted than most think, and he had to be very careful not to go to far against his fellow church members.
Protected by German Catholic and world opinion, Pious XII was much freer to take on Hitler than the reverse. We will never fully know what would have happened had Pacelli issued ringing denouncements of Hitler, and it is true that the Fuehrer would not have personally cared if he were excommunicated for wiping out Jews and the like. But a stark rejection by Pacelli and exposure of the Holocaust machine would have done grave and perhaps crippling damage to the Nazi regime. This may help explain why Pious XII avoided being too explicit -- doing so would have demoralized the Catholic soldiers fighting atheistic Stalinism. Apologists argue that the Nazis really were close to seizing the Pope if he dared go to far. But Hitler never actually dared touch the Pious because Adolf understood that doing so would have shortened the war by speeding up the collapse of Germany, forcing Hitler to kill himself in 43 or 44. It is in that sense it is too bad Pacelli was probably unable to get himself seized by Hitler even if he tried, doing so could have saved a few million.
Again it comes to the money. If Hitler did not need to keep Germany's and the world's Catholics and the international community thinking that the Pope accepted the existence of his regime, then why didn't he cut off the church megapayments when he desperately needed all available cash for the war as it went bad and the noose tightened around his neck? Because Hitler DID fear the condemnation of the man he not only could not touch, but had to buy off. In other words, keeping the Papal criticism sufficiently low was less costly to the war and extermination efforts than sending the churches all the money. And why did Pious XII never reject the transfers of tax revenues from Hitler's treasury -- much of which was looted from the Jews and conquered peoples, and made upon the backs of slaves who suffered under deadly circumstances -- as a moral protest? He did quite the opposite, being careful to never say or do anything that would cause his financial benefactor Hitler so much discomfiture that he cut off the funds. Instead the birthday greetings continued. Whatever the exact motives of both, it was craven mutual back scratching.
As for the performance of the Euroclergy under the rule of Pious XII before and during the war, it was all over the moral map. Some Catholic officials opposed the Nazis to varying degrees, others aided it the same amount. For photographs of clerics in smiling meet and greats with Hitler, getting his autograph, giving Nazi salutes, having the SS and SA in attendance at church events and the like see http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm. Catholic military chaplains encouraged the men to fight the allies western and Soviet - the soldiers' belt buckles proclaimed "God is With Us," and the tanks and aircraft bore the Teutonic Christian Cross. There is evidence that the German wing of the Roman church employed slave labor in accord with the Nazi norm (http://www.concordatwatch.org/showkb.php?org_id=858&kb_header_id=752&kb_id=10191), the high death toll included infants discarded when their mothers were forced back to work.
A particular issue that cannot invoke Nazis threats as an excuse is the little known Pacelli's apologists don't bring it up if they don't have to -- yet fantastically terrible Holocaust of the Balkans. The Catholic Church never accepted that much of the land just across the other side the Adriatic had come under the sway of the Orthodox Serbs and Muslims. During the war the Catholic Croats launched a genocidal campaign against Serbs, Muslims, Jews and leftists the out of control ferocity of which managed to exceed that of the more carefully crafted Nazis slaughter of the Jews. Hundreds of thousands were eliminated by the vicious Ustashe regime of the Fuhrer of the Balkans, Pavelic -- there were even attempts to skip the gassing stage by pushing the victims directly into furnaces, it did not work. Unlike the nominally Catholic Hitler, Pavelic was a dedicated papist, and major Catholic clerics were members of his government and aided the killings. That the church bears considerable responsibility for this debacle is verified by an apology issued by John Paul II. When pressed apologists try to excuse Pious XII by claiming his ignorance and/or impotence. That the leader of the faith did not have a good idea of what was going on the other side of the little Adriatic is beyond the plausible, and if he could not control his own clergy he was incompetent.
After the war Pious XII was unable or unwilling to prevent the escape from justice of many notorious fascists, Pavelic, Barbie, Eichmann included, aided by Catholic clerics (it was no more moral than efforts to save Nazis for Cold War purposes by the allies, most prominently the rocketeer von Braun). Yet another pernicious concordat was arranged with Franco (who by then was also getting along with the western powers). Instead of allowing the infamous concordat he should have been ashamed to have signed back in 1933 drop, Pious XII remained so proud of his work that he followed the standard church practice of not acknowledging a mistake, and succeeded after great effort to integrate the agreement into the new democratic constitution so it is impractical to revoke even as Germany deChristianizes (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html; http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP07398441_c.pdf). The Pope did not turn over the great sums he received from Hitler to Germany, or better to its victims. Nor is the bulk of the money coming from Germany and elsewhere used for charity, most taxes and donations (almost 20 billion from Germany, the US and Brazil alone) are used for church operations and global investments. While Hitler and other top fascists were not excommunicated even after the war, Pacelli did exclude all communists from the church, including those who fought against fascism and for its victims. And the slander against the Jews continued to be a normal part of the Catholic liturgy when Pacelli was Pope.
Pious XII was not "Hitler's Pope," nor did he match the fantastic level of evil of the Hitler he sometimes collaborated with when it seemed convenient and advantageous, and at other times opposed and despised when he thought that was a good idea. And he often faced difficult problems and choices that most would be hard pressed to deal with. But the historical evidence shows that he was nowhere near being a deeply moral or highly competent and strong leader deserving of honors. He was seriously compromised and weak man who often made foolish and harmful moral and practical decisions, usually in the perceived interests of his Papacy and church rather than the greater global good. The main moral reason he is being promoted for sainthood is that the church saved a number of Jews. This is equivalent to showering honors on the incompetent and ethically dubious architect whose defective construction collapses and kills almost all of the thousands inside, but he kindly provides instructions for rescuing the small minority who survived the implosion he helped come to pass. Had Pacelli been sufficiently moral and sensible to sabotage the project to make Hitler dictator the Holocaust could not have happened, and the need to save the Jews he is to be rewarded for would have been avoided in the first place. Instead he personally signed a treaty that bonded the clergy of his church to Hitler's regime while ensuring that his church received huge sums of cold cash. At best the Vicar of Christ saved only a small fraction of the millions of Hitler's victims -- any Pope could and should have achieved at least that minimum if not much more. As Hitler and his cronies killed millions Pious XII not only continued to accept the depraved tyrant's dirty money, he took careful steps to avoid terminating the stream of Nazis cash when he should have powerfully denounced the Nazi madness and refused the bank transfers. The Pope did nothing to revoke the Vatican I doctrine that contributed to his errors while he opposed democratic freedom and kept on excellent terms with Franco. Nothing about the famously and unjustifiably arrogant Eugenio Pacelli warrants great honors, the project to make him a beloved saint being a propaganda effort by conservative Catholics to bolster their own ideology and fortunes by boosting the reputation of past conservative church leaders while use the cover of political correctness provided by sainthood to hide their grave defects so THAT'S why they have no shame in their hyperbolic praise and evasion of obvious facts. It will offend many Jews, as well as decent Catholics and others, who understand that sometimes people with power just have to do the right thing.
A number of those who oppose sainthood for Pacelli are making mistakes. Many tend to focus their criticism towards peripheral issues, such as whether he made the right moves concerning the Italian Jews in 1943. The defenders of Pious XII are often seen as merely overenthusiastic rather than grievously wrong. And critics are often too polite about censuring Pious XII. The more diffident critics are requesting that Benedict hold off the sainthood until Vatican records are fully opened for examination. Time for a reality check. The evidence needed to decide that Pacelli was no where close to being some sort of saint is already publicly available -- it is like asking that Huey Long not be officially honored by his admirers until newly found secret files are examined. On practical and especially moral grounds critics should concentrate on and boldly condemn the worst mistakes of Pacelli, especially his work to make Hitler a tyrant and then back up the great dictator with a mutually aggrandizing treaty while taking all that Nazi money. It should be made clear that those who work to make Pious XII a saint are committing an obscenity. This is unlike the effort to similarly honor John XXIII -- whether he should be made a saint can be challenged, but the idea is not a moral outrage.
It is also necessary to hold those promoting sainthood for Pacelli to account. Most especially the person most responsible for this travesty, the Pope. Benedict should issue an apology for fobbing this project on the world.
As for those hardcore Protestants who have not gotten the message that you are supposed to cooperate with right wing Catholics in the modern war on secularism and still exploit the failings of the Roman Church to attack the sect, the Protestants of Germany were just as responsible for the Nazi disaster as I detail in the FI articles cited at the beginning of this piece. Likewise, some of the issues not dealt with above that critics may refer to in the comments are likely to have been addressed in the FI pieces.
The larger take home message is that the modern sex scandal is not an unusual failure of the Catholic Church, it being one among a multitude. Among other items it invented oppressive theocracy and virulent anti-Semitism, wiped out the Cathars, mounted the brutal Crusades, participated in slavery, opposed modern democracy, sided with Fascism, and has been cozy with international criminal elements (http://www.thememoryhole.org/states-v-vatican.pdf; http://www.thememoryhole.org/states-v-vatican.htm). The church gets away with its serial sins because every time something goes wrong the body politic looks at the latest outrage as an isolated incident that requires limited corrections to the system, which remains widely considered a major moral force because most people still cut traditional religions a lot of ethical slack. This is strange in that the reverse should be true -- organizations that make high moral claims about their doctrine should be held to equally high standards. One thing the public should no longer allow is for the church to get away with its standard and remarkably effective tactic of complaining that it is the victim of its critics. Also obtuse and unacceptable is how many accept the argument that the autocratic nature of the church is acceptable because it is a religion, as though that is an excuse. Nondemocratic organizations are doomed to experience serious ethical failures. Despite the fairly progressive economic policies it encouraged, the reforms of Vatican II did much little to correct the political flaws, and the overly centralized institution requires a massive reform that would radically alter its configuration, including making it an open and democratic system with women sharing equal power, and the Vatican made subject to Italian law. Specific to the latter, attempts to render the Vatican state subject to legal actions need to be pursued through the American court system (http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=125639602). Because change of this scale would gut core Catholic doctrine and theology, and challenge the entrenched power system, the likelihood of such a grand transformation cannot be ranked as high. In the demographic sense the Roman church is suffering for its transgressions. Catholicism has essentially collapsed in Europe due to long term socioeconomic trends (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html; http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP07398441_c.pdf), is losing ground in the US for similar reasons, and the latest scandals are not going to help.
