Re: Complaint by Dermot O’Gorman (ref: DG/07/2019)

Date of complaint: 2May 2019

Article complained of: “Guardian view on Pius XII: a pope not a
saint” (online); “Opening up the Vatican archives will show a pope who had
to deal with evil (print)”
Date of publication: 10 March 2019 (Online); 11 March 2019 (print)

Decision

Introduction
1. The complainant in this matter is Mr Dermot O’Gorman. In this Decision, the
Review Panel will be referred to as “the Panel”, Mr O’Gorman as “the
Complainant” and the Readers Editor” as “RE”. The Panel’s remit is to
consider appeals where the complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome at
RE level. The Panel will only consider whether or not the complaint gives rise
to a breach of one or more of the provisions of the Press Complaints
Commission’s Code of Conduct (“the Code”).

The Article
2. The Article complained of was published online on 10 March 2019 with the
headline “Guardian view on Pius XII: a pope not a saint”. The stand first reads
“some have accused him of being Hitler’s pope. The decision to open the
archives will show if he was guilty of something more than indifference.”

3. The Article was also published in print on 11 March 2019 with the headline
“Opening up the Vatican archives will show a pope who had to deal with evil.”
Both the online and print versions of the Article are editorial pieces and
appear in the “comment” sections of the paper. There are no material
differences in the content of the print and online versions for the purposes of
this complaint and so for ease of reference they will be referred to collectively
as “the Article” throughout the Decision.

4. The Article is an editorial piece about the legacy of pope Pius XII. The Article
documents the various accusations levelled against Pius XII and in particular
his actions or inactions during the Second World War. Of particular relevance
to the complaint are the following passages:

“Compared with other popes, Pius XII was not an egregiously wicked man […] but he
was – unremarkably so by the standards of his time and class – anti-Semitic. He was
also a contemporary of Adolf Hitler’s, and one who occupied a position of
considerable moral authority.”
The Scott Trust Ltd
Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
“The historical record shows Pius did very little to condemn the Holocaust and
nothing effectual to stop it…Since his death he has been accused of crimes ranging
from active collaboration with the Nazis to passive acquiescence in their crimes and
indifference to the suffering of their victims.”

“Some German Catholics, including some he personally tried to help, did risk and
even lost their lives in the struggle against fascism. Most did not. All these claims
have been fought over by historians fro decades. But their arguments have been
hampered by the fact that the Vatican archives were mostly closed to scholars. Now
they are all to be opened, after 30 years of pressure. ‘The church loves history’, said
Pope Francis, announcing the move. The question is whether history will love his
church.”

5. The Article is premised on the impending opening of the Vatican archives and
whether this will shed further light on the criticisms leveled towards Pius and
in particular the accusation that he was an anti-Semite and did not do enough
to counter the rise of fascism in Nazi Germany. It ends by questioning whether
“the Jews of Europe” were not seen by Pope Pius as “quite as human or as
valuable as other people”.

Correspondence with the RE

6. The Complainant first wrote to the RE about the Article on 4 April 2019. His
complaint was that the accusation in the Article that Pius was “anti-Semitic” is
inaccurate on the basis that “historical evidence clearly refutes this
(allegation)””. The Complainant then set out a number of examples which he
considered as showing contrary opinion, including the comments of a Jewish
historian that Pius “was instrumental in saving at least 700,000, but probably
as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands.”

7. The Complainant alleged that the article was historically inaccurate and
prejudiced against the Catholic church. He also made reference to the
complaint upheld against the BBC by Lord Alton.

8. June Sheehan, assistant RE, responded by email on 19 April 2019. She

disagreed that the complaint by Lord Alton was of relevance as that had been
one which accused the Catholic church as a whole of silence whereas the
Article was concerned with Pius individually. She then sets out evidence
which in her view support the accuracy of the Article.

9. The Complainant responded by email on 20 April 2019. He was dissatisfied

with the RE response and set out a number of references which in his view
supported his complaint of historical inaccuracy.

The Scott Trust Ltd

Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
 10. On 20 April 2019, the RE informed the Complainant that, as he was not
satisfied with the RE response, he should refer the matter to the Panel.

11. However, on 24 April 2019, the RE responded again in light of a request by

the Complainant for reconsideration of his complaint. The RE indicated that it
would be “disproportionate to embark on the kind of study that would equip
me to determine which view ought to prevail over others on the complex
question of whether Pius XII did enough to combat the evils of Nazism.” The
RE pointed out that there was a difference of opinion amongst scholars on
this question and that the editorial, as well as the views expressed by the
Complainant in response were both reasonable and properly the subject of
fair debate. The RE informed the complainant that the better way for those
who hold views contrary to those expressed by the Guardian in its editorials
was to submit a letter for consideration by the RE.

12. The Complainant responded on 26 April 2019 setting out in further detail the
basis for his disagreement with the RE and the views expressed in the Article.
He also expressed surprise that it would be “disproportionate” not to
investigate whether the allegation was defamatory. He expressed concern
that the article “betrays an anti-Catholic prejudice and is defamatory to the
good name of Pius XII”.

Complaint to the Panel

13. The Complainant appealed to the Panel on 2 May 2019. He complains that
the statement Pius “was – unremarkably so by the standards of his time and
class – anti-Semitic” breached Clause 1 “Accuracy”. The Complainant also
says that this allegation is defamatory and ought to have been properly
investigated by the RE.

Relevant aspects of the Code

14. Clause 1 of the Code is headed “Accuracy” and provides as follows:

“Accuracy

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or

distorted information, including pictures;

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once

recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence,
and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving
the Commission, prominence should be agreed with the PCC in
advance.”

The Scott Trust Ltd

Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
 iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly
between comment, conjecture and fact;1

[…]

15. Although not referred to explicitly in the complaint, the Panel has also
considered Clause 2 “Opportunity to Reply” which provides as follows:

“A fair opportunity to reply to inaccuracies must be given when

reasonably called for”

Discussion
Panel Remit
16. The Panel (and the RE) are tasked only with consideration of breaches of the
Code. It is not within their remit to consider any issues of legality such as
defamation or privacy (save as provided for by the Code). In this regard, it
notes that one of the complaints raised by the Complainant is that it was not
“disproportionate” to investigate more fully the points he raised about the
historical evidence he says undermines the views expressed by the Guardian
in the Article. He says that the allegation is defamatory. As set out above,
questions of legal liability are not the function of the RE or the Panel.
However, the Panel notes that the allegation cannot be defamatory because it
is not possible to defame a deceased person. Accordingly, the Panel will
consider this matter in relation to Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code.

Alleged Inaccuracy
17. The Panel notes that the Article is an editorial. Although the Article sets out
the author’s view on the matter, the Article makes reference to the fact that
there are views to the contrary and that this is a matter of ongoing debate and
discussion amongst historians. While in some cases, an opinion piece may
give rise to a significant inaccuracy requiring a correction, the Panel does not
agree that in this particular case there is such a historical “consensus” on this
matter that it was unreasonable for an editorial piece to express the views in
the Article. Indeed, the Article is premised upon the fact that the Vatican
archives will shortly be opened and that further evidence – either way – is
then likely to emerge. It is clear that views differ on this matter but the Panel
agrees with the RE that it is not within the remit of the RE office to act as
arbiter on matters of debate amongst historians. It follows that the Panel is
also unable to resolve such complex matters of historical or academic debate
that arise in this particular case.

1 Emphasis supplied.
The Scott Trust Ltd
Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
 18. The Panel further notes that, as suggested by the RE, the Guardian’s editorial
pages offer a right of reply insofar as it is possible for readers, such as the
Complainant, to set out any position to the contrary by way of a letter to the
RE who will then consider whether or not to publish the letter as a
counterpoint. The Panel makes clear in this regard that the final decision as to
publication rests with the Guardian and expresses no views or
recommendations as to whether or not the Complainant should be given a
right of reply in the form of a published letter in this case. The Panel further
notes that this will not be appropriate in every case and that in some
circumstances, opinions expressed in editorial pieces will give rise to a breach
of the code because they are based on inaccurate information.

19. In the circumstances therefore and on the basis of the evidence before it, the
Panel cannot conclude that there has been a breach of the Code on the
grounds of inaccuracy.

Dated: 30/07/19

Signed:

John Willis, Chair review panel.

Signed:

Elinor Goodman, panel member.

Signed:

The Scott Trust Ltd

Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
Richard Danbury, panel member

The Scott Trust Ltd

Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG