>So the pope was far from unique in doing nothing. the role of a religious leader is different than the role of a national spokesman, even if the pope is confl

>So the pope was far from unique in doing nothing. the role of a religious leader is different than the role of a national spokesman, even if the pope is conflated to be both; so yes -- it's different. presumably the Vatican doesn't need to consider national wartime strategic assessment in the same fashion as does an industrialized world power that has the facilities for long-term national call-to-arms, so one would have hoped that the person in the position would have used it as a means to foster global communication and renunciation of the act to help gather international efforts against it. did that happen? no. in other words : it makes sense to feign ignorance if you're collecting forces and moving towards and end-goal of war dominance once the conflict has formally started; given that the Vatican doesn't generally deal with the world like any other country, I feel as if they were in a unique position to do something else, and they didn't capture that opportunity either due to fear of retaliation or whatever other motivations unbeknownst to others. It isn't like Pius stayed quiet after allied engagement, either.