The Hidden Encyclical of Pius XI

The Hidden Encyclical of Pius XI

by Georges Passelecq, Bernard Suchecky


$23.63 $25.00 Save 5% Current price is $23.63, Original price is $25. You Save 5%.
View All Available Formats & Editions


In June, 1938, after his attempts at diplomacy with Nazi Germany had failed, Pope Pius XI ordered an American Jesuit, Father John LaFarge, to compose an encyclical denouncing racism and anti-Semetism. but after Pius's death in 1939, his successor, Pius XII, stood by in silence as the Nazis began to carry out their Final Solution. The unpublished encyclical was bured in a secret archive, its authors bound by a vow of silence. And not until many decades later was the document's very existence discovered. Now that encyclical has finally been published, together with the incredible story of its discovery. Casting new light on the relations between the Vatican, state-sponsored anti-Semetism, and the Jews during World War II, The Hidden Encyclical opens the door to an important part of the century's history, revealing a disturbing tale of archival intrigue, historical investigation, and political maneuvering. It will be required reading for anyone interested in the greatest cataclysm of the 20th century and its ever-present reverberations.

Product Details

ISBN-13: 9780151002443
Publisher: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Publication date: 10/15/1997
Pages: 352
Product dimensions: 6.32(w) x 9.32(h) x 1.20(d)

Read an Excerpt


The Search for the Documents

In December 1972 and January 1973 a series of articles in the National Catholic Reporter (Kansas City, Missouri) raised for the first time the issue of an "unpublished encyclical of Pius XI attacking anti-Semitism." Jim Castelli, the periodical's associate editor, had unearthed most of the information relating to this case through meticulous and prudent investigation.

In June 1938, Castelli reported, Pope Pius XI had entrusted an American Jesuit at Fordham University, Father John LaFarge, S.J., with the drafting of preliminary documents for an encyclical condemning racism and anti-Semitism. Surprised, and a bit overwhelmed, LaFarge asked for assistance, and Gustav Gundlach, S.J., a German Jesuit, and Gustave Desbuquois, S.J., a French Jesuit nominated by the superior general of the Society of Jesus, Father Wladimir Ledochowski, S.J., were appointed as his collaborators. A second German Jesuit, Father Heinrich Bacht, S.J., joined them in order to translate their draft into Latin. The four men worked together in Paris throughout the summer, and toward the end of December, LaFarge went to Rome to give Ledochowski not one but three versions of the draft that had been asked for: three texts, then, written respectively in French, English, and German, one of which, at least, was titled Humani Generis Unitas, "The Unity of the Human Race."

And then ... nothing. Pius XI died in February 1939, Cardinal Pacelli succeeded him in March under the name of Pius XII, and the Second World War began in September with the invasion of Poland--without the encyclical's having seen the light of day.

What happened? Jim Castelli offered no definitive answer to that question. But basing his views on the correspondence between LaFarge and Gundlach after LaFarge's return to the United States, he speculated that the superior general of the Jesuits must have deliberately delayed the transmission of the documents as too obviously contradicting his strategic choices, which were more anti-communist than anti-Nazi. When these documents reached Pius XI--if they ever did--the old pope Ratti was already too near his end to be able to transform them into an encyclical. As for Pius XII, who does seem to have been aware of the documents commissioned by his predecessor, he was said to have simply decided to bury them in the "silence of the archives."

How did the National Catholic Reporter manage to break open such a delicate case? On what documentation were its revelations based? "Microfilmed copies of the encyclical and related documents," Castelli explained, had been given to his newspaper by a former Jesuit, Thomas Breslin, who as a seminarian had discovered them in 1967 while cataloguing the papers of John LaFarge. These papers, which had long been kept at the head offices of the Catholic weekly America, had been passed to St. Ignatius of Loyola Seminary in Westchester County, New York, where Breslin was studying philosophy. The closure of the seminary in 1969 interrupted Breslin's work, and the LaFarge papers moved to Woodstock College in Manhattan, where cataloguing was not pursued further for lack of an archivist.

In the course of his investigation, Castelli had taken care to confirm, by means of various independent witnesses, the existence of this documentation. According to the memoirs of Father Walter Abbott, S.J., who had become friends with LaFarge in New York, LaFarge had never said a word about this project to any of his colleagues at Fordham. Shortly before his death in 1963, when persistently questioned on the subject by a former student of Father Gundlach's, he finally admitted, within community confidentiality, that he had taken part in this enterprise, but gave no further details. Abbott added that he had found the English and French copies of the encyclical among LaFarge's papers on the day of LaFarge's death. Another witness, Father Heinrich Bacht, S.J., the translator chosen to prepare a Latin version of the draft encyclical, and in 1972 the last surviving participant in the project, said that "Gundlach wrote the larger part of the draft, whereas LaFarge wrote most of the key sections on racism and anti-Semitism." Finally, the documentation was also attested to in an unqualified manner by Father Robert Graham, S.J., a coworker with LaFarge at America for twenty years and, in 1972, the co-director of the section of the Vatican archives devoted to the Second World War.

The National Catholic Reporter quoted in toto only paragraphs 126 to 130 of the draft encyclical itself, that is, solely the conclusions on racism in general. The paragraphs on anti-Semitism received only succinct mention.

Castelli concluded his vast investigation by remarking, in an accompanying editorial, that "the story of this encyclical draft means that the question of the Vatican's failure to denounce anti-Semitism at the proper time in the prewar period involved not an oversight, but a conscious refusal to work with a document outlined by a pope himself," and that this inevitably raised "many questions about the internal workings of the Vatican during World War II." Moreover, "an earlier, hard-hitting statement on racism might have meant that we would have less racially motivated strife in the U.S. today."

In a long scholarly article, Gordon Zahn, a specialist on the social encyclicals, judged the rediscovered encyclical "perhaps the strongest Catholic statement on this moral evil" of anti-Semitism. As such, "it resurrects the 'Hochhuth problem' in a new context, for now it is no longer a matter of Pius XII's failure to protest the systematic elimination of the Jews, but rather his apparent refusal to go along with the intention of his revered predecessor and sponsor. Add to this the fact that Pius XI would have protested early in the Nazi program while Pius XII maintained public silence long after it had escalated into the full horror of the Final Solution, and what once seemed a needless attack upon the memory of a beloved leader becomes a very real problem calling for serious study and reflection."

In addition, Zahn writes, "the newly 'discovered' encyclical adds a new dimension to the problem: It suggests that Pius XII, though no anti-Semite himself, did not share his predecessor's intensity of opposition to that moral evil and, as a consequence, did not place it as high in the order of priority in making his policy calculations as Piux XI probably would have. This, in turn, might reflect a personality difference between the two, Pius XII being less inclined to take a controversial stand and distancing himself from what he may have regarded as rash impulsiveness on the part of the other."

The Vatican's Clarification

The information published by the National Catholic Reporter immediately attracted the attention of several leading periodicals, but did not unleash a wave of polemics comparable to the one that had accompanied the production of Rolf Hochhuth's play The Deputy a dozen years earlier. Did this moderate response result from the celerity with which the Vatican reacted?

On 5 April 1973 the Osservatore romano published a clarification signed by one of the officials of the Vatican archives, Father Burkhart Schneider. Seizing the opportunity afforded by the publication of a new volume in the vast corpus entitled Acts and Documents of the Holy See Relative to the Second World War, Father Schneider explained, under the title "An Encyclical Manque," that in this new volume, which also included documents belonging to the end of Pius XI's pontificate, "a document is lacking which has recently attracted the attention of the international press. The latter has repeatedly asserted that there has been discovered in the United States an unpublished encyclical of Pius XI on racism whose publication would have had immeasurable consequences at the time. In fact, during the summer of 1938, the Jesuit Fathers Desbuquois, Gundlach, and LaFarge began composing, in Paris, on the pope's orders, a document that would have set forth Christian doctrine on the unity of the human race (the title was to be Unitas Humani Generis), in opposition to all racist ideologies. The result was a work of more than 100 very dense pages written in a speculative, theoretical, and laborious style that more resembled Gundlach's manner of thinking than LaFarge's. Three versions exist (French, English, and German), which are not always coherent or identical with each other. These texts, transmitted to Pius XI by the then Superior General of the Society of Jesus, W. Ledochowski, at the end of 1938 or the beginning of 1939, cannot be considered a true pontifical document, but at most the draft, requiring many revisions and redevelopments, of a future encyclical. The concrete situation at the time, the health of the pontiff, who died a few weeks later, and his wish to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the Concordat (the Conciliazione), caused the texts prepared, along with many others on different themes, to end up in the silence of the archives. Part of their content can easily be discovered in Pius XII's documents, beginning with the encyclical Summi Pontificatus, and this is explained by the fact that Pius XII later made use of the services of Father Gundlach for documents, speeches and messages devoted to social and political problems. Since it is therefore a private work, even though it is preparatory to a possible document of the Holy See, it has not been taken into consideration for the present edition."

Was this clarification judged sufficient? It seems, in any event, to have put a stop to this first effort to publicly exhume the documents in question. One thing had nevertheless been learned: the Vatican archives preserved many documentary traces of this case.

"Perhaps this is not the right moment"

One of the present authors, Georges Passelecq, a monk at the Benedictine abbey of Maredsous in Belgium, learned of the articles in the National Catholic Reporter shortly after they appeared, and decided to undertake his own investigation. As secretary since 1969 of the Belgian National Catholic Commission on Relations with the Jewish World, he had reason to believe that his hope of achieving his goal was not wholly chimerical. His first reaction was to write, on 11 October 1974, to Father Robert Graham, in Rome:

   Reverend Father,

      Some time ago Father Roger Braun, S.J., who edits the 

   journal Rencontre--Chretiens et Juifs in Paris, and myself were 

   trying to collect some documentation concerning the encyclical on 

   racism that was to be published by Pius XI, but which his rather 

   sudden death caused to be placed among the papers of the 

   Vatican. Recently Father Braun, who is not in good health, asked 

   me again to pursue this matter, and he suggested I write to you, 

   for he says that he learned from you yourself that you possess a 

   certain number of interesting documents on this important 


      Might I be permitted to appeal to you, and ask whether these 

   documents could possibly be made available to us, with a view to 

   the eventual publication in Rencontre of an article on this subject?


      If necessary, I would be willing to travel to Rome.


      I know something about the question. Through American 

   publications, I have already collected a good deal of information, 

   particularly concerning Father LaFarge (whom I met personally in New 

   York in 1950, if I remember correctly).


      I would be extremely thankful for anything you could do to help us in 

   this area, and I beg you to consider me, Reverend Father, your 

   fraternally devoted and grateful, Georges Passelecq

Here is Father Graham's reply, dated Rome, 21 October:

   Dear Reverend Father,


      I have received your letter of 11 October and I hasten to tell you 

   that I do not have the text of the encyclical Generis Humani Unitas. 

   Around 1959, I sent a photocopy to Action populaire in care of Father 

   Bosc, asking his advice concerning the possibility of publishing it. 

   The reply was that as a provisional document, it was not of interest as a 

   whole, although certain parts might be publishable. Then I heard 

   nothing more. Nothing, that is, until Father Edward Stanton, a Jesuit in 

   Boston, went to work. He had written a doctoral dissertation (1972) in 

   Ottawa, Canada. To my shame, I cannot give you its title, or tell you 

   whether the dissertation was brought out by a publishing house. In any 

   case, I have not seen the final text.[...]


      The documentation of which Father Braun speaks [...] consists of 

   my own notes taken in New York after my conversations with him or 

   others that I received from Father Abbott (who is in this house, but is 

   gone on vacation). At a certain time I wrote up an account of these, but 

   it remains unfinished. It is no more than an account, and not a 

   discussion. I inform you that just before his death Father LaFarge--a 

   great soul to whom I owe a great deal--had sent an article on racism to 

   the New Catholic Encyclopedia. For that purpose he had dug the old 

   "encyclical" out of his closet. 


      I wonder what value ought to be attached to the document, which 

   was intended for the pope, to be sure, but which represents in itself only 

   what Father LaFarge and Father Gundlach (and perhaps Father 

   Desbuquois) thought at the time. The German Jesuits here believe they 

   can discern Gundlach's hand everywhere in the document, a possibility I 

   do not exclude, even though the pope's mandate was entrusted to 

   Father LaFarge. In order to prepare a document for Pius XI they would 

   have had to consult, of course, the many statements on racism made by 

   the pope during the preceding months and years.--Why don't you 

   write a study on these documents?


      Could you let me know if I can help you in any other way? For I am 

   eager that my master and benefactor "Uncle John" be duly recognized 

   as a person who was early on sensitive to the needs of our time.


      I am currently rereading some Catholic works on the Church and the 

   Jews. I find it curious that no one mentions the audience Pius XII 

   granted Jules Isaac, which nevertheless had one consequence about 

   which Isaac said he was very happy. It had to do with nongenuflection 

   during Holy Week. Today this amounts to little, no doubt. But then it 

   was all the greater a gesture because it was the first.

      May God bless you in your apostolic love!


      I beg you, Reverend Father, to accept my respectful good 


Since Father Graham's reply seemed evasive, Passelecq asked Father Ambroise Watelet, O.S.B., also a Benedictine at Maredsous, who was then rector of the St. Anselm Pontifical College in Rome, to try again. It was no use. On 18 September 1976, Father Watelet wrote Passelecq from Rome:

   My dear Father,


      I have just had an hourlong interview with the charming Father 

   Graham, S.J. I set forth your considerations. He immediately told 

   me that he feared you had arrived too late; in fact, a certain Father Nota, 

   a Dutch Jesuit, published at the beginning of the year a study on this 

   business of the draft encyclical. You will find this study in the 

   Internationale Katholische Zeitschrift, no. 2, 1976. Father Nota had 

   access to a German text of the draft encyclical, and gave an analytical 

   summary of it.


      Father Graham has already indicated in his letter of 21 October 1974 

   that a photocopy of the French text must be at the offices of Action 

   populaire in Paris (Father Bosc); Graham himself no longer has the text.


      He emphasized two points:


      1. This draft encyclical, which Pius XI personally entrusted to Father 

   LaFarge (to the surprise of Father General Ledochowski), was no more 

   than a first draft which does not necessarily represent Pius XI's thought. 

   The document reached the Vatican, but did Pius XI see it? 


      2. The draft encyclical is not primarily concerned with the Jews, but 

   rather with the general problem of racism.


      That said, there is a dossier on this matter in the Vatican archives, 

   but it is still in the secret part of the archives, and thus not accessible 

   through the ordinary avenues.


      Father Graham added that the central ideas in the encyclical were 

   adopted by Pius XII, who published the document Summi Pontificatus 

   in October 1939. 


      Father LaFarge's ideas--as Father Graham wrote to you--were 

   expressed in his article on racism in the New Catholic Encyclopedia.


      A final consideration: Father Graham thinks that so far as this draft 

   encyclical is concerned, the Vatican would probably not wish to draw 

   attention to the publications on the Jews at this moment of tension in 

   the Near East.


      In conclusion, Father Graham advises you first to look into Father 

   Nota's recent article; you will see whether there is still anything new and 

   interesting to say. He himself does not think he can help you 

   very much; it might be worthwhile to contact Father Nota in Holland 

   and Father Bosc in Paris.


      He did not tell me that it would be impossible to gain access to 

   the dossier in the Vatican archives, but perhaps this is not the right 

   moment. I can inquire if you wish.


      There you have, dear Father Georges, the information I have 

   been able to collect for you. Let me know if you want to know 


Father Graham's "advice" was sufficiently imperative that Passelecq pursued the matter no further. He nevertheless resumed his research thirteen years later, after meeting Bernard Suchecky. In the course of their correspondence, avenues of approach to the problem appeared that circumvented the Vatican archives, which were apparently inaccessible: for example, the archives of the Jesuits at Action populaire in Paris; and the documentation that was probably in the possession of Father Nota, the author of the article mentioned by Father Watelet--and, of course, the microfilm that the National Catholic Reporter said it had acquired.

"God be praised that this draft remained only a draft!"

It was in July 1987, in a doubly polemical context--the dispute concerning the Carmelite convent at Auschwitz, and the beatification of Edith Stein in April 1987--that, looking through various files preserved at the library of the American Jewish Committee in New York, Bernard Suchecky learned about the article by Father Johannes Nota.

Titled "Edith Stein and the Draft for an Encyclical Opposing Racism and Anti-Semitism," this article had appeared in 1975 in the Freiburger Rundbrief, a German periodical on Judeo-Christian relations. In it Father Nota, a Dutch Jesuit who devoted his life to studying and teaching the thought of Edith Stein, discussed the unsuccessful efforts made in 1933 by German philosophers to obtain an audience with Pius XI in order to persuade him to publish an encyclical condemning anti-Semitism. Edith Stein is quoted by Father Nota: "... my efforts in Rome led me to conclude that because of the large number of visitors (during the holy year 1933), I could not obtain a private audience. I could be given only a 'little audience' (that is, as part of a small group). This was useless to me. I therefore gave up my trip and transmitted my request in writing. I know that my letter was sealed when it was given to the Holy Father; some time later, I even received his blessing on me and those near me. But nothing more came of it. Is it impossible that he often thought of this letter afterward? My fears with regard to the future of German Catholics were gradually confirmed in the course of the following years."

In trying to find this letter of Edith Stein's, Father Nota had learned for the first time of Humani Generis Unitas: "As early as 1968, Father Robert Graham, S.J., told me how, while he was doing research for the publication of documents in the Vatican archives, he had found a draft encyclical against racism and anti-Semitism." Subsequently, the articles in the National Catholic Reporter complemented his information and strengthened his desire to learn more. But, Nota writes, "At first, it was extraordinarily difficult to obtain the whole text; the National Catholic Reporter had published only a few extracts from Father John LaFarge's draft. Letters sent to Rome, Paris, Germany, and North America generally elicited a few friendly words, but not the text. They did not have the text, my correspondents said, but they advised me to look in ... where the text was in fact, but it had to remain secret, etc. I nevertheless learned that four versions existed: in English, French, German, and Latin. Fathers Gundlach, LaFarge, and Desbuquois had apparently worked in concert.

"Finally, I received the English version from Father Edward Stanton, S.J., of Boston College--who had just completed a doctoral thesis, as yet unpublished, on Father LaFarge. [...] My efforts to find the other versions have unfortunately been unsuccessful, even though Dr. Johannes Schwarte--who was getting ready to publish his doctoral thesis on Father Gustav Gundlach--was also of enormous help to me. But his 'hands were tied' ... He nonetheless gave me a precious bit of information: 'Up to the passages on racism and anti-Semitism, [the two versions] are on the whole identical.'"

Having obtained the English version, Father Nota proceeded to analyze it. He found the part concerning the unity of the human race "very good," and the one on racism in general "excellent." But the sections on the Jews and anti-Semitism seemed to him so mediocre--the all-too-traditional theology used in them led to positions he described as "deplorable"--that he exclaimed: "If one puts these sentences back into the context of the racist legislation adopted in Germany at that period, one can say today: God be praised that this draft remained only a draft!"

Upon learning of this article and, shortly afterward, of the National Catholic Reporter's investigation, Suchecky began to question American specialists in Judeo-Catholic relations, both Jewish and Christian, academics and non-academics. At that time, he obtained two kinds of replies. Either a lapidary "Never heard of it!" or "It's like the Loch Ness monster. Every time the Church is embarrassed by the `silence of Pius XII,' someone tries to play it down by resorting to this story about the encyclical. The 'good' Pius XI was going to speak out but he didn't have time; the 'unfortunate' Pius XII thought it preferable to do as much as he could to save Jews, but silently. However, no one has ever been able to produce these documents...."

Nevertheless, the Nota and National Catholic Reporter articles were sufficiently precise for Suchecky to find this story about an encyclical credible, and he in turn set out in search of Humani Generis Unitas. First he contacted the editors of National Catholic Reporter. They assured him that the paper's archives contained nothing on this subject, and that the microfilm Jim Castelli had acquired in 1972 "could not be located." A similar approach to Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., which has held the LaFarge papers since the closure of Woodstock College in the 1970s, proved equally fruitless, as is shown by this letter from Nicholas B. Scheetz, manuscripts librarian at Georgetown University, dated 21 August 1987:

   Dear Mr. Suchecky,


      Thank you for your letter of 7 August concerning an unpublished 

   encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Unitas Humani Generis, preserved in the 

   papers of Reverend John LaFarge, S.J.


      I have looked through the two catalogues of the LaFarge papers 

   without finding the slightest reference to the encyclical. I have also 

   checked the cartons that are supposed to contain these materials, 

   unfortunately without success. Moreover, I have asked the person 

   who catalogued the LaFarge collection whether he remembered 

   having seen such materials while he was doing the cataloguing. 

   Alas, he does not remember anything. He added that some time ago, 

   in response to a request similar to yours, he had thoroughly searched 

   this collection without positive results. It therefore seems to me that 

   I can state that the materials you are looking for are not in the 

   LaFarge papers stored at Georgetown.


      The newspaper article that you sent me dates from 15 December 

   1972, well before the LaFarge papers were entrusted to us. It is 

   possible that we did not receive everything; it is even possible that 

   the documents relative to the encyclical were never put back in the 

   archives after they were microfilmed for the National Catholic




      I think the best thing to do would be to write to Mr. Jim Castelli, 

   the author of the article, to see if he still has the microfilm. If that is 

   the case, or if you find the missing materials, could you inform me? 

   I would very much like to put copies of these documents back into 

   our LaFarge archives. In any case, I am truly sorry not to be able to 

   provide you with the documents you desire.


      With my best wishes for the success of your project...

The next logical step was to locate Father Nota, since he had stated in his article that he possessed at least the English version of the encyclical draft. After some research, Suchecky learned that Father Nota was living in Thorold, Ontario, not far from Niagara Falls. Unannounced, Suchecky visited him on 29 October 1987. The old Dutch Jesuit told him that he could do no more than what had been done for him--that is, he could let Suchecky see a fragment of the English version of Humani Generis Unitas that he had earlier obtained from Father Edward Stanton. The fragment in question, about fifteen typed pages, contained paragraphs 131 to 152 of the document, which dealt specifically with the Jews and anti-Semitism. Suchecky thus had a first piece of the document.

On the occasion of Suchecky's visit, Father Nota gave him a few examples of the "extraordinary difficulties," as he had called them in his article, which he confronted when he tried to obtain the entire document. Following is one such example, and one not without importance for the research undertaken by the authors of the present work. It is a letter from Father Lamalle, S.J., dated Rome, 30 July 1973, asserting that nothing on this subject exists in the general archives of the Jesuits in Rome:

   Dear Father Nota, Pax Christi.


      Father Bumpel transmits to me with warm recommendation a 

   twofold request from you: 1) the text of the encyclical planned but 

   not published by Pius XI, Humani Generis Unitas, against racism,

   included in part in Pius XII's encyclical Summi Pontificatus; 2) the 

   confirmation or disconfirmation of the claim that Father Ledochowski tried 

   to delay publication in order to avoid further irritating the German 



      I greatly regret that I cannot directly satisfy you in this twofold request. 

   First, because the text of this planned encyclical is certainly not in our 

   archives. I believe I know them well enough to be able to say that. Second, 

   as for the correspondence registered between Father Ledochowski and the 

   Holy See, there is nothing on this subject.


      This negative result is in my opinion completely normal. I knew Father 

   Ledochowski well, and I worked for him on several occasions and with him 

   during this period. I always noted his extreme concern not to leave behind 

   writings that might be compromising in the event of persecution, 

   perquisition, etc., especially when it was not a matter of things directly 

   concerning the Society (in matters that concerned us directly, registration 

   might become necessary). Of the little we had, the traces disappeared 

   during the war, when the presence of hostile authorities in Italy and in 

   Rome led us to fear that our papers would be seized. I remember having 

   seen in recent years an article in which this "suppressed" encyclical of Pius 

   XI was mentioned, in some journal, La Civilta cattolica or another. But 

   since it is a subject outside my professional specialty, I kept no notes. You 

   would have a better chance of finding it by addressing yourself to one of 

   the priests involved in publishing Pius XII's documents: Father Burkhart 

   Schneider (Universita Gregoriana, Piazza della Pilotta, 4, 00817 Roma), Father 

   Angelo Martini, or Father Robert Graham (both at La Civilta cattolica, Via 

   di Porta Pinciana 1, 00187 Roma).


      [...] sincerely yours in [X.sup.0], Edmond Lamalle, S.J.


      N.B.: The limit of accessibility of the documents in our archives, 

   without very special authorization, is the year 1900. But this time, the 

   question does not even arise: deest materia. 

Deest materia. In other words, these materials are not in the Roman archives of the Society of Jesus. Two Doctoral Theses and a Microfilm

Toward the end of the summer of 1987, Georges Passelecq and Bernard Suchecky, who had met in Brussels a year earlier, decided to join forces in order to pursue their search for these documents. Between November 1987 and January 1988, they obtained without excessive difficulties the doctoral theses by Edward Stanton and Johannes Schwarte mentioned by Father Nota in his article.

Edward Stanton's 1972 dissertation, "John LaFarge's Understanding of the Unifying Mission of the Church, Especially in the Area of Race Relations," is based almost exclusively on LaFarge's numerous publications. Only the section devoted to Humani Generis Unitas is based on archival documents. But while Stanton mentions that he "was able to obtain from the LaFarge dossier a French version and two English texts" of the draft encyclical, he does not explain where these dossiers were stored or how he was able to gain access to them.

Table of Contents

Introduction: Fumbling toward Justiceix
I. The Search for the Documents1
II. The Commissioning of Humani Generis Unitas24
III. The Composition of Humani Generis Unitas41
IV. What Happened to the Draft?67
V. A Few Supplementary Documents Concerning93
VI. Conclusion155
Humani Generis Unitas. The Complete Text169

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See All Customer Reviews