Jan. 1933 L’Osservatore Romano’s coverage of Hitler coming to power, Jan. 29 - Feb. 5, 1933:
Jan. 29, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, page one:
“In the Politics of the Reich: Arduous Negotiations Among Party Leaders of the Right and the Center”
Dateline Berlin, Jan. 28
The Reich Council, as previously reported, has decided that the Reichstag will convene on January 31. All attention is concentrated on the colloquy that von Hindenburg will have today at 12:15 with von Schleicher, who, it is said, will ask him to sign a decree of dissolution in order to oppose the no-confidence motion in the Reichstag. If von Schleicher does not obtain such a decree, he will probably submit his resignation before the Reichstag meets. Some political circles are squarely stating that von Hindenburg will refuse the Chancellor’s proposal, influenced as he is by the violent campaign of the German National Party and the opposition from the Agrarian Party. It is possible, however, that no decision will be made today and that it will be held off pending the termination of negotiations between Hitler, Hugenberg and Kaas. Some predict the reconstituting of the Harzburg front and the formation of a coalition government of the German National Party and the National Socialists, tolerated by the Center Party and thus having a parliamentary majority: von Hindenburg would thus have no reason to refuse Hitler the Chancellorship.
If the Center Party were to refuse its support, the two Nationalist parties might propose to von Hindenburg the formation of a Presidential Government, probably led by von Papen, with the participation of the National Socialists and the German Nationals.
The Nazi Völkischer Beobachter states that in the discussions at the Reichstag the National Socialists will vote in favor of the no-confidence motion against von Schleicher presented by the Communists.
It concludes by affirming that the decision whether to dissolve the Reichstag on February 4 depends on President von Hindenburg.
“We do not know,” it says, “if von Hindenburg will be convinced in the meantime that the crisis can be resolved only by entrusting the Reich Chancellorship to Hitler.”
For the moment, however, the official press of the Nazi Party states that the party is always disposed to cooperate with the government, provided that it obtains offices proportionate to its importance.
Hitler arrived yesterday morning in Berlin and participated in the negotiations among the Nazi Party, the Center Party, and the German Nationals.
Hugenberg had a long colloquy with Msgr. Kaas, leader of the Center Party.
“Von Schleicher Resigns His Office to von Papen”
Dateline Berlin, Jan. 28, p.m.
The von Schleicher Cabinet has submitted its resignation.
President von Hindenburg accepted it, charging von Papen to begin negotiations with the parties to clarify the political situation and determine the possibility of forming a new cabinet.
Jan. 31, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 30-31, 1933, page one:
”Hitler Appointed Chancellor: Has Formed a Presidential Ministry”
Dateline Berlin, Jan. 30, p.m.
Hitler has been appointed Chancellor by the Reich President, Marshal von Hindenburg.
This is the composition of the Cabinet Ministry: Chancellor, Hitler; Vice Chancellor and Reich Commissar for Prussia, von Papen; Interior Minister, Frick; Minister of Commerce and Agriculture, Hugenberg; Finance Minister, Schwerin von Krosigk; Labor Minister, Seldte, leader of the Steel Helmets; Foreign Minister, von Neurath; Reich Army Minister, von Blomberg; Minister Without Portfolio, in charge of aviation and works of the Interior Ministry, Goering, Nazi President of the Reichstag.
“Arduous Negotiations for the New Reich Ministry”
Dateline Berlin, Jan. 30
Von Papen continued the discussions to determine the basis for the formation of the new cabinet ministry. He met with key confidantes in the Nazi Party and the German Nationals, making indirect contact also with the Center Party.
Ex-Chancellor von Papen held a discussion yesterday with the President, whom he informed of the negotiations, saying that they would have to end today at noon, and that the President will have to make a decision in light of their result.
According to reports from well-informed circles, von Papen, in his negotiations, which moreover are still continuing, sought to revive the Harzburg front coalition, which appeared to result in difficulties.
In the meantime, they are attributing a high probability of success to the contemporaneous negotiations among the Nazi Party, the Center Party and the Bavarian People’s Party for the formation of a government with a parliamentary majority, led by Hitler, with the support of the Popular Party and the Christian-Socials, and excluding the German Nationals and von Papen.
But these negotiations have also encountered difficulties, as to guarantees demanded by the Center Party in case of conflicts, and as a result the formation of a government appears that it will require more time than was originally thought.
“The Chancellorship Offered to Hitler?”
Dateline Berlin, Jan. 30
According to reports from generally well-informed sources, von Papen and his friends have established a list for presentation to Hitler after approval by von Hindenburg.
The list is the following: Chancellor, Hitler; Vice Chancellor and Commissar for Prussia, von Papen; Reich Army Minister, General von Stuelpager; Minister of Foreign Affairs, von Neurath; Minister of Crises (Ministries of Labor and National Commerce), Hugenberg. The other portfolios were to be given to Nazis. Hitler, after a long discussion with his lieutenants, supposedly reserved a response.
Jan. 31, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 30-31, 1933, page one:
“The Significance and the Hopes for the Holy Year: Statements of the Archbishop of Paris”
Dateline Paris, Jan. 26, from our correspondent
In an interview given to F. Sergente of the Petit Journal, and reported in part by La Croix, the Archbishop of Paris expressed his hope for the efficacy of the upcoming Holy Year for the crises of society.
“We live in this time of ferment, in a tempest, in which pessimists and weaklings are uniquely predicting irreparable collapses and catastrophes,” the Cardinal said.
“One must fearlessly get one’s bearings. To be better on guard, consider the rainbow that foretells salvation. Yet to catch sight of it, it is necessary to prioritize contingencies, to perform one’s duties as a Christian and as a Frenchman, come what may. The future, that is salvation, belongs to the strong, and as to this jubilee year, I conceive it not only as a year of prayer, but as a year of action, of realization, of conscience, of reconciliation. The malaise that our country suffers is certainly profound. All the more reason to act with greater energy by the light of loyalty with the certainty that personal and collective force is never in vain.
“But it is essential to realize some things. It is indispensable to possess intense life in oneself before one can give it to others. With all life, moreover, which is a matter of body, mind and spirit, man can only give what he has already developed in himself, what he has already experienced. And that is what gives every human influence its true greatness and beauty.”
To interlocutors who have asked how to inspire enthusiasm, passion, and hope in those who suffer, the Cardinal responded:
“The problem of suffering is the order of the day. For a long time I was weighed down by misery. I know the physical and moral anguish of those for whom I have spiritual responsibility.
“I raise them up as best I can in every way. Don’t think I am indifferent to all these wounds, many of which are profound. My task is not only to direct the conscience but also to relieve suffering, to give bread to those who lack it, and to give also the paternal word that comforts and vivifies. Even on my knees before my Crucifix, I hear the rumors on the street, and my prayer is always accompanied by action.
“This is why I hope. Faith that acts can realize great things. The destinies of France rest upon a past of force and peace, which must not be denied, and which equally permits us to look to the future with the assurance of better days to come, with that serene confidence that illumines sad days. Yes, the future belongs to the strong, for men of good will, in candor, sacrifice, and courage.
“The 19th centennial of the Redemption recalls all of that for us.
“Prayer is action, sacrifice is hope, the extension of a life more vast and more strong, the restriction of egotism ...”
Feb. 1, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, page one:
“After Hitler’s Coming to Power”
Subheads: “The First Council of Ministers – The Reichstag Convened by February 7 – The Constitution Will Be Respected – Demonstrations by Berliners – Decisions by the Center Party Are Awaited – Comments of the Press” ...
Feb. 2, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, page one:
“Awaiting Hitler’s Government Program - Official Reassurances – The Impressions in Various Camps”
Feb. 3, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, page one:
“A Response from Hitler to Mons. Kaas, Leader of the Center Party”
Dateline Berlin, Feb. 2, p.m.
Hitler has responded with a personal letter on the problems that the Head of the Center Party laid out also in a letter. An official note specifies that the Chancellor considered that the problems laid out by the Center Party showed that the party would not lend itself to a one-year adjournment of the Reichstag. As a result of this confirmation, the Chancellor has decided to present for von Hindenburg’s signature a decree of dissolution. The note adds that the government has taken a loyal attitude from the first days and that it does not aim at any modification of the electoral system. Afterwards, government circles are affirming that there could occur circumstances whose details on the whole could prevent elections from being carried out normally to a good conclusion.
It will be considered on this point, that all depends, in the final analysis, on the parties themselves.
Two adjacent articles:
On the right: “A Cordial Appeal from a Converted Jewess to Her Ex-Coreligionists” from our correspondent in New York, dated January
On the left:
“The Dispositive Pontifical Bulls for Achieving the Jubilee”
As we already announced, beyond the Bull Quod Nuper, which signaled the Extraordinary Holy Year and universal Jubilee, three other Bulls or Apostolic Constitutions establish the arrangements, the faculties, and the inherent dispensations for achieving the Jubilee itself. These will be published soon in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis...
The three Bulls, which we have briefly summarized here, will bear the date of January 30 of this year.
Feb. 4, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, page one:
“The Political Events in Germany: Presidential Decree on the Next Elections”
Dateline Berlin, Feb. 3
The President has issued a decree that slightly modifies the electoral law. To present a list of candidates for the second scrutiny, groups that have not gained enough votes in the first scrutiny will have to get at least 60,000 signatures, the figure necessary to have a legislative mandate in a district...
“Bloody Conflicts in Cologne and Königsberg” ...
“Student Demonstrations in Vienna” ...
“Under the Bolshevik Yoke”
Dateline Moscow, Feb. 1 – The People’s Commissar for Finance, Hrynko, has presented his report for the 1933 budget. It provides for the sum of 34 billion 600 million rubles in revenue and the sum of 33 billion 500 million rubles in expenditures. The military budget has been increased by 230 million rubles, that is 19 per cent, over that of the previous year.
“Complaints of Great Severity Against the Opposition”
Dateline Riga, Feb. 1 ...
“The Price of Newspapers Is Doubled”
Dateline Moscow, Feb. 1 ...
Feb. 5, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, page one:
“The Political Events in Germany”
Subheads: “Forty-five million voters are preparing for March 5th” - “If the Prussian Legislature Does Not Dissolve Itself It Will Be Dissolved by Others”
The Prussian legislature will meet today to debate the National Socialist motion for dissolution, which depends for approval in great part on the Communists, who refused to disclose their game...
“State Legislative and Provincial Elections in Prussia”
Dateline Berlin, Feb. 4
Contemporaneously with the Reichstag elections there will probably also take place elections to the Prussian legislature and the Prussian provincial councils ...
“The Fears of the Social Democrats”
Dateline Berlin, Feb. 4
The Social Democrat newspaper Vorwärts was suspended yesterday for three days as a result of a public manifesto.
Social Democrat circles fear that the three-day suspension of Vorwärts is related to the suspension of numerous other newspapers that have published the same manifesto, which the Prussian authorities see as a call for rebellion.
The Social Democrats say this manifesto is simply an appeal to Socialist voters for the next elections...
March 1, 1933 Cardinal Faulhaber's notes on Papen's visit:
He arrived very suddenly. Forcefully kissed my ring. At the end he asked for my blessing and again kissed my ring. At the beginning: In these difficult hours, which sometimes weigh overly heavy on his shoulders. His voice failed him and tears welled up in his eyes, as also at the end. Otherwise in the discussion he made a very strong impression.
How everything came to pass. He has had the trust of the Reich President. Schleicher had always said he would bring over a portion of the National Socialists and create a parliamentary majority. Then it turned out that Gregor Strasser did not have a single Reichstag member behind him, let alone 60. The President summoned him again: Is there no way out? Yes, if Hitler becomes Reich Chancellor. He figured the hour: between 11 and 12.
Hitler was very moderate in his demands. An authoritarian government, but Hitler wanted to know nothing of the Center Party, and nevertheless, if Kaas, instead of posing 13 questions, had said to him: Yes, but we will keep ourselves from withdrawing. The elections now had only one purpose, clarifying as a matter of intellectual history, not real elections.
I said: Never doubted his good will. Distrusted only Hugenberg, whether he would become too overbearing toward the Church...
The history of recent days: The fire in the Reichstag building, 40 burn places. In Liebknecht’s house, where an underground passage was not discovered until now, there was evidence that the Center Party was befriending the [Independent] Social Democrats and was never well-intentioned. The Communist revolutionaries would not, like before, storm government buildings, but would wear down the people, setting fires simultaneously in a hundred places ...
Source: Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol. 1, pp. 651-654.
March 10, 1933 Cardinal Faulhaber’s notes on his Audience with Pope Pius XI, March 10, 1933:
White talar (rochet) of moirée silk, white zucchetto (skullcap), red shoes. Spoke mostly Italian with some German interspersed.
The Holy Year: I came before, because the Holy Father had so much work. A good sign about his health that he had undertaken so much work. He has gotten healthier since the recent Holy Year than before. Welcome, I am happy to see you and to see you looking so good. He was long in doubt whether little [St.] Therese [of Lisieux] had given him an inspiration after Holy Mass. He was only concerned that the Pan-Protestantism of [Lutheran Archbishop] Söderblum [of Uppsala, Sweden] would come before him. We could not have said: No.
The nicest thing about my reception was that we heard about his health. The Pope also looked really good and very ruddy, only just at the conclusion, I felt tired. “You look better in Rome than in Munich.” “For everyone who is saved by the blood of Christ” – ready! Pious souls do not understand: Salvation without ceasing – comes next year [Holy Year of 1933].
Bavaria: How is [Bavarian State President, 1924-1933] Held? A good man, a true Catholic. Early today I read – I’m helping: von Epp as Commissar, he is intended for Bavaria. I said: Not for the state police. I said: Thus kept from the revolution. Minister Stützel and a journalist [editor’s note: Fritz Gerlich, editor of anti-Nazi newspaper Der Gerade Weg, “The Straight Way,” in Munich] maltreated. “That is hateful – brutal.” Hindenburg is an upright man.
Hitler: He has pleased me, he is the first statesman who has spoken against Bolshevism. “For political reasons.” I said: He speaks very piously, in Königsberg about Providence and how he prays. He has read or heard everything. The Bolsheviks themselves have written of him: They will find a way to kill the Pope. He is certainly threatened, he must be well protected, a bodyguard is essential. I said: He does not say anything contrary to Rosenberg and the others hostile to the Church, because he fears to be considered as a Rome-ling, a lackey of the Pope. Papen has the trust of von Hindenburg and he is a true Catholic. He will not do anything against the Church as long as Hindenburg is alive, thus ... [ellipses of L. Volk, ed.]
Bolshevism: Very long. They have their money only for their own purses and for propaganda. A Father Neveu, Redemptorist, consecrated Bishop, sends a long letter every month, very brave, who knows how long he will live. He stands up and takes from a small bookshelf three heavy packages, not yet opened. These are secret reports from the “East Help.” In Berlin, we receive everything that goes out “Strictly Confidential” or “Secret.” Likewise in Spain, Mexico. Here on this table lie pamphlets, exact translations of Russian pamphlets. Mussolini said to him: In Italy they are surveilled, he promised not to do anything in Italy, but in the harbors they expect ships, also in Spain ... [ellipses of L. Volk, ed.]
I said: Klausener promised no longer to allow radio messages like the one of Christmas 1931, before turning them on, but now he has been removed from his post.
Toward Russia, I said: St. Therese must help. At that he livened up. Here on the table is a relic of hers. She has often helped me. In the Holy Year I was often tired, did not want to keep going. – With a relic in my pocket I went out. Inspirations too, from the Holy Year. Many thoughts on serious issues. I recounted: The reliquary helped me in innumerable occasions. He said: Me repeatedly too.
The “Senza Dio” forbidden in Germany, naturally also its newspapers. But there is a spiritual hatred that only pastoral care can attack, to that no answer. But he continued: One should not make martyrs in Germany, and quiet propaganda can accomplish just as much as loud. All money sources coming out of Russia. The people are dying of hunger, the old and the young, because everything is going for propaganda.
To us the question, whether to do something toward “Senza Dio.” He has received several answers to that (as it appears, he has not yet read them, perhaps even mine). Protestant propaganda: They are exploiting the sad state of the people. Our people are very poor. He holds printed statistics about all the dioceses of Italy: Only just a few parishes where there are no Protestants. Totally remote dioceses and parishes. Fortunately no more money is coming from America. He leafed all the way through the statistics. Rome has grown and seeds have been sown that the Protestants use also. There is so little in the new suburbs, we are a mission territory. And now six (editor’s ?) churches built. I saw them in the “Vatican Illustrated.” “Good people help me, the need is so great, they write me: They are going to the Protestants.” I said: Also many letters to me, people leaving the Church, if not . . . [editor’s ellipses] He gave every month 50,000 Lire for bread for people who eat only once a day, and only bread and water. The Bourbons in Italy have exhorted the Bishops to keep the people under control. No streets are built. 84% [editor inserted a ? mark here] illiteracy. One typical person says: I believe in God, but there is a difficulty for me in believing in him, that he has left the Bourbons in power so long.
They have built no parish churches. Now there are still 4,000 parish churches to build, we have built 600. With new methods it goes so fast. When good people help me. In Germany there are parish churches everywhere. We should have 400 built per year in order to have 4,000 in 10 years. But in my view there should be more built. He spoke long and expansively about this.
We want to work through “Deus Scientiarum” so far as possible. It did not come to the point that we gave “relazione.” If universities are built among us, then Catholic universities become doubly essential. I should say a word about the Catholic university at the Catholic Congress. That is good.
He became animated again and held a printed statistic: All the dioceses, all the parishes, gave 3 million for the Sacred Heart University in Milan, not less than before. I have not lost trust in our people, but this horrible state of things, it made a deep impression on Mussolini.
Here Sardegna: He read the name aloud. Totally impoverished villages and they gave. I will say that in the Consistory.
I said: If there is unrest at home, one must start travel earlier. Half standing, he asked: Whether a restoration is coming. I said: Some from the coalition want it, others not. With us it was earnest, but still impossible. Whoever comes must provide work and bread, and that he [editor’s note: Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria] cannot do.
In conclusion: “Don’t work so much!” Nothing compared to the work of Your Holiness. “Munich alone would give enough work for a Bishop.”
Dr. Weissthanner was called in, very quickly: My blessing upon everyone. Standing to talk, very sincerely. Pulled on the tablecloth. They work a lot. I read your speeches. He himself had read a manuscript between the audience of Cardinal Rossi, a Carmelite, and me.
Source: L. Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol. 1, pp. 659-662.
March 12, 1933 German Flag Decree of March 12, 1933:
“Decree of the Reich President on the Provisional Regulation of Flag Hoisting”
Upon this day when, throughout Germany, the old black-white-red flags fly at half-mast to honor our war dead, I order that from tomorrow until a final regulation of the Reich colors, the black-white-red flag and the swastika flag shall be hoisted together. These flags connect the glorious past of the German Reich with the vigorous rebirth of the German Nation. Together they shall embody the power of the State and the inner agreement of all national elements of the German Volk!
Military installations will hoist only the Reich War Flag.
Berlin, March 12, 1933.
Reich President von Hindenburg
Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler
German original from online German document archive
Mar. 23, 1933 Hitler’s speech to the German Reich Parliament, March 23, 1933 (excerpts):
... The National Government perceives in the two Christian denominations the most important factors for the preservation of our Volk. It will respect any contracts concluded between these churches and the states...
... It will be concerned for an upright coexistence between Church and State; the fight against materialistic ideology and for a real Volk community [Volksgemeinschaft] serves equally the interests of the German nation and the well-being of our Christian faith...
The National Government, seeing in Christianity the unshakable foundation of the moral and ethical life of the Volk, attaches utmost importance to the cultivation and maintenance of the friendliest relations with the Holy See ...
Source: http://archive.org/details/Hitler_Speeches and Max Domarus, ed., Hitler’s Speeches and Proclamations, 1932-1945, trans. M. Gilbert (1990-1997).
March 28, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, March 27-28, 1933, page one, on Catholic parties voting for the Enabling Act:
“The Statements of the Center Party and the Bavarian People’s Party on the Law of Full Powers”
German journalists have reported the statements made by representatives of the Center Party and the Bavarian People’s Party on the 23rd of this month, debating in the Reichstag the law about expanded powers to be conceded, as then were conceded, to Hitler’s government [the Enabling Act].
According to certain newspapers, Monsignor Kaas made the following statement in the name of the Center Party in favor of the program of Hitler’s government.
“For us this is not the time for words. The only law incumbent upon us at this moment is that of prompt, constructive, salvific action. Such action is possible only through concord. The German Center Party, which has long served vigorously the great idea of concord, out of shame for disappointing transient measures, rises up at this moment, in which all miserable and mean-spirited ideas must remain silent, based on a consciousness of its national responsibility, which outweighs any hesitation. It places less importance on some concerns that in normal times might not be disregarded. In the face of burning necessities that the people and the State are now experiencing, we of the German Center Party offer our hand to all, even to our past adversaries, to assure the continuation of the work of national salvation. (Applause from the Center, from the right and from the podium).
In this way we want to accelerate the return to ordinary governmental and legal conditions and put up a solid bulwark against chaotic developments.
The statement today by the Chancellor contains many ideas that we accept, and that idea – might I be allowed to say with all candor – which, in the interest of concord – the law of the hour – we conscientiously do not want to dispute.
We trustingly expect the serene judgment of history upon the governors we are now supporting. (Approbation of the Center).
Several of your statements, Mr. Chancellor, concerning certain essential points of gpvernmental, legal and cultural life, viewed also in relation with confirmations during the preceding negotiations, offer us the possibility of modifying our judgment about various important doubts that the duration and content of the law of full powers [Enabling Act] had aroused in us and could not fail to arouse in us.
On the premise that the Chancellor’s statements will define the practical foundation and orientation for the legislative work of the future, the German Center Party give it consent to the Enabling Act. (Applause from the Center and the right).
“The Statements of the Bavarian People’s Party”
The speaker for the delegation of the Bavarian People’s Party, Ritter von Lex, stated that even the most expanded powers given to the government have their limits in fundamental Christian legal principles. The Bavarian People’s Party concedes the full powers requested by the government, in trust that – in conformity with the Chancellor’s statement – the application of the Enabling Act will always observe the signal limits of Christian moral law. No law – said the speaker – can dispense of this duty of governments and individuals. The responsibility for the particular provisions will weigh upon the government that issues them, before God, before the people, and before history.
March 27-28, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, page one, on the Holy Year:
“The Second Promulgation of the Bull of Jubilee”
Yesterday morning, “Laetare Sunday,” there took place in the Portico of the Vatican Basilica the second public reading of the Bull of Announcement for the Extraordinary Holy Year and Sacred Jubilee. The ceremony occurred in the same way as the first promulgation. A little before 11 a.m., the Vice Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, His Excellency the Most Reverend Boncompagni-Ludovisi, accompanied by the Clerics of the Chamber, the Secretary and the Sostituto of the Apostolic Chamber, together with the Auditors of the Sacred Rota, Monsignors Eard and Janasik, as well as the Prefect of Apostolic Ceremonie, Mons. Respighi, went into the Vatican and were received in special audience by the Holy Father. They requested of the August Pontiff permission to be able to promulgate for the second time – as is prescribed – the Bull “Quod Nuper.” Obtaining the assent of His Holiness, the aforesaid Prelates went down to the Portico of the Basilica of St. Peter where already waiting were the Most Reverend Capitolo and the clergy with the text, the Vicar of the Patriarchal Basilica, His Excellency Mons. Vicentini and His Excellency Mons. Pellizzo, Economo and Secretary of the Fabbrica of St. Peter. Two pulpits had been prepared in the Portico: the two Auditors of the Rota read the Bull from them; Monsignor Eard in Italian and then Mons. Janasik in Latin.
After the reading, the Pontifical Ceremonialists, Mons. Dante and Mons. Calderari, went to the other Patriarchal Basilicas of St. Paul, St. John and St. Mary Major, where they repeated the reading of the great Pontifical Document at the appointed hour.
March 30, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, page one:
“A Statement by the German Bishops about National Socialism”
Dateline Cologne, March 29
His Eminence Cardinal Schulte, Archbishop of Cologne, published a statement of the Fulda Bishops Conference, in which the thought and attitude of the Catholic Church are expressed, following the government program reflecting the thought and attitude of National Socialism in consequence of events of recent days.
Explaining the reasons for the positions previously taken with respect to National Socialism, the German Bishops, taking account of the statements of Chancellor Hitler, also as the leader of National Socialism, observed that the Chancellor himself has expressly assured that Christian doctrine will not be violated, and that the concordats concluded by the German States with the Church will remain in full effect as to all their provisions.
Hence, without revoking their previous condemnations of the striking religious-moral errors, the Bishops deem that their general prohibitions and warnings are no longer necessary.
The warning to political associations to avoid anything that could appear to be a party demonstration inside a church remains in effect.
Apr. 1, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, April 1, 1933, page one:
“The Antisemitic Campaign Sharpens”
Dateline Munich, March 31, as reported:
The Nazi campaign to defend against tendentious foreign propaganda will not be trimmed back under any circumstances, given that up to now the threat of a boycott has had no visible effect on those who are giving rise to such an anti-German campaign.
According to statements from competent news sources, the defensive action will begin tomorrow, Saturday, at 10 a.m.
Under the presidency of Reichstag deputy Julius Streicher, the central boycott committee of the Nazi Party is addressing an appeal to the population of Munich for a demonstration that will take place today on the Königsplatz. The Bavarian Interior Minister, Wagner, will open the boycott campaign.
The Nazi newspaper in Berlin, the Angriff, writes about the threat of a boycott, that the last warnings have not been taken seriously by international Jewry. They still have 48 hours of time to make the smear campaign stop; if those hours pass in vain, Jewry will recognize that the Israelites’ war against Germany will strike with full force the German Israelites themselves.
In Breslau, Israelite citizens had to turn in their “passports of faith” by April 3rd. After having their validity limited to domestic travel, the passports will be returned to their owners.
In Kiel, the Nazi student association has addressed an open letter to the rector, stating that the students, with the beginning of the new semester, will make it impossible for Israelite students and teachers to come into the University. At the same time, they are demanding the canceling of all facilities for Israelite students.
At Hindenburg the new community council has approved a resolution for the temporary suspension of orders to the aforesaid Israelites and to shops associated with them.
“How the Boycott Will Occur Against Jews Even if They Are Converts”
Dateline Munich, March 31
The central committee for the boycott against the Israelites published yesterday a manifesto giving instructions for the campaign.
The boycott will be directed against all shops, business houses, stores and offices of owners who are members of the Israelite race, even those who have gone over to Christianity. Fixed price stores and stores owned by foreigners are excluded from the boycott. This exclusion is applied to the notable house of Woolworth, which is expressly declared in the manifesto to be “American and not Israelite.”
Pickets posted in front of the boycotted shops will warn anyone who wants to shop, but will refrain from disturbing anyone with physical violence and from causing damage to goods.
All Israelite shops will be indicated by posters bearing yellow spots on a black background.
Boycotted businesses will not be able to lay off their employees.
“In the German Nationals Camp”
Dateline Berlin, March 31
Dr. Oberfohren, for many years the president of the German Nationalist faction in the Reichstag and a close collaborator of Hugenberg, has resigned his mandate.
While no personal explanation has been given, it is believed however that the resignation was due to an apparent change in the direction of the party with regard to relations toward the Nazis.
“The Launch of the Second Pocket Battleship”
Dateline Berlin, March 31
the second German “pocket battleship” will be launched tomorrow at Wilhemshafen and will be named “Skaggerack” in memory of the famous naval battle during the Great War.
It predecessor “Deutschland” was ordered built at the same time.
“English Concerns over the Fate of the Israelites in Germany”
Dateline London, March 31
There was discussion yesterday in both Chambers about the treatment in Germany of the Israelites. During a discussion of foreign affairs in the House of Lords, Viscount Cecil stated that many thousands of Israelites are subjects of the King and are among the most peaceful and orderly citizens in Britain. It is obvious that events in a foreign nation that have caused worry and anxiety in a large part of the British population should be a matter of interest to the government.
If the government will not be able to do anything, that is another question; but will be grateful if the government will be able to give some assurance.
The words of Lord Cecil were supported by Lord Ponsonby, who also recognized that the government is in a difficult position in this regard.
Apr. 4, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, Apr. 3-4, 1933, page one, on the Holy Year and the German Bishops’ rationale:
Banner headline: “The First Day of the Holy Year: The Faithful Crowd into the Basilica and Receive the Blessing of the Vicar of Jesus Christ” ...
Headline: “After the Statements of the Fulda Conference”
Dateline Munich, April 1
Concerning the news of the Fulda Bishops Conference relative to National Socialism, it has been learned that the conference itself has taken account of the following statements by Chancellor Hitler, leader of the German Government and of the Nazi Party.
In the proclamation of the German Government on February 1, 1933, the following passage is contained:
“The nationalist government will consider first and foremost its duty to reestablish the unity of spirit and will of our people. It will safeguard and defend the foundation on which the strength of our nation rests.” It will take under its firm protection “Christianity, as the foundation of all our morality,” the family, as “the basic cell of our body as a nation and a state.”
One of the points condemned by the Bishops was precisely the one positing as the norm of morality “the sentiments of the German race” (Art. 24 of the Nazi Party program). In place of this criterion has now been substituted, fortunately, Christian morality as the only foundation of German morality.
Another important statement was made by Chancellor Hitler in his programmatic speech of March 23, 1933, in the new Reichstag hall:
“In order to accomplish the liberation of public life from poisons today, as to politics and morals, there is a need for religious life. The national government sees in the two Christian denominations elements for preserving our people. It will respect the accords agreed between them and the German States. It likewise expects, however, and hopes, that its work for the renewal of the customs and morals of the German people will find equal consideration also on the part of the same Christian denominations.
“It will act with complete justice toward all the other religious confessions; but it cannot allow membership in one particular confession or race to signify a dispensing from general legal obligations or a granting of a privilege of impunity for crimes committed or tolerated.
“In the schools there will be guaranteed and protected the right of cooperation of religious denominations.”
This declaration establishes a difference between the Christian confessions and “all others” and just by the word “others” admits the possibility of a conflict, if they do not instill national discipline.
Beyond respect for the Concordats, the Chancellor also assured, in the same statement, that the Reich Government attaches maximum importance to the preservation and further development of amicable relations with the Holy See.
The proclamation of the Bishops could thus conclude from these assurances the results stated in the proclamation. The condemnation of doctrinal errors remains unchanged, but trust is necessarily accorded to the new solemn promises, which do not exclude diligence in their application.
The exact text of the Bishops’ proclamation is the following:
“For well-founded reasons the diocesan pastors of Germany have taken a contrary attitude in recent years toward the National Socialist movement, expressed in prohibitions and warnings.
“Now it must be recognized that the supreme representative of the Reich, who is also the authoritative leader of that movement, has made public, solemn statements that recognize the inviolability of the teachings of the Catholic faith and the immutable tasks of the Church...”
Apr. 5, 1933 Cardinal Faulhaber’s Pastoral Instructions for the Clergy, April 5, 1933:
The principles of the pastoral letter are not affected by the vagaries of political life. Concerning the application of these principles, however, inquiries have been directed to the office of the Archbishop from the ranks of the pastoral clergy, since the new Reich Government has promised, in a public policy speech, to honor the rights and freedom of the Church, and these inquiries are answered comprehensively in what follows . . .
1. Masses for special occasions can only be authorized by the diocesan authorities...
2. A special mass for individual associations or assemblies inside a church or in the open can only be scheduled, therefore, if the same prerequisites are fulfilled that were previously stated for masses such as those for the army or those for large regional congresses or national Catholic congresses. Such exceptional cases have been allowed when the mass was requested for religious reasons, and the pastoral and personal relationships of the priests allowed for a perhaps unavoidable bination [celebration of mass by a priest twice on the same day]. Open-air masses therefore come into the question only when a church is physically too small and diocesan approval is obtained on a case-by-case basis. Diocesan approval must likewise be obtained whenever special masses are to be celebrated by a priest not assigned to the place.
3. The ringing of church bells on the occasion of a governmental or political ceremony may only occur upon the order, or at least permission, of the Bishop’s office. And here the responsible pastor may not allow himself to be intimidated by threats. No one may appeal to the precedent of the church bell ringing of 1919, because on that occasion, the cremation of Eisner, the ringing of bells was compelled by members of the red army by force of arms.
4. Attendance at mass in uniforms and formations may be allowed only under the following preconditions: The parade in the church may not degenerate into a disturbance of the community mass for the other members of the parish. Participants in the church parade must obviously remove their head coverings; also outside the church, when they are participating in a procession with the Eucharist, they must proceed with heads uncovered, as was required some years ago in a diocesan decree for the Bavarian Warrior League. Loud commands and forms of the parade ground must be forbidden in the church. Only that previously customary command, “To Prayer,” may be allowed at the consecration and the doxology. In all events the pastor, as the master of the house of the church, remains responsible for order in the church.
5. Bringing in flags not consecrated by the Church and not bearing religious insignia contradicts traditions that date to the pre-War period. Nevertheless the celebration of the mass should not be suspended on this account, if on the whole the conduct of the participants does not violate the dignity of the house of God, and if disturbances would be anticipated in the event of an outright refusal. For the honor guard in the Corpus Christi procession, up to now only flags consecrated by the Church have been allowed, and that shall remain the case also for the future.
There can be no consideration of a consecration of political flags, according to previous decisions of the Bavarian Bishops Conference...
Source: Appendix to the Munich Amtsblatt [Official Bulletin for the Clergy], no. 7 of April 13, 1933, pages 2-5, reprinted in Stasiewski, German Bishops’ Papers, vol. 1, pp. 35-38.
Note: The strict control over ringing of church bells on governmental or political occasions has significant historical context. Not only did Cardinal Faulhaber disapprove the ringing of church bells in honor of the assassinated Minister President of Bavaria in 1919, he also refused to allow ringing of bells in honor of German President Friedrich Ebert when he died in 1925, in honor of German President Paul von Hindenburg on his 80th birthday in 1927, and in honor of the Weimar Constitution on August 11th each year.
April 16, 1933 Papen’s Memoirs on his audience with Pope Pius XI around Easter in 1933:
After I had discussed these questions [about the Concordat] thoroughly with the Cardinal Secretary of State, I was received by Pope Pius XI. His Holiness greeted my wife and me with great fatherly kindness and with words about how happy he was to see in Hitler a personality at the summit of the German Government who had inscribed on their banner [“auf ihre Fahne geschrieben”] the uncompromising struggle [Kampf] against communism and nihilism.
Note: The authorized English translation of Papen’s autobiography omits the phrase “inscribed on their banner,” using instead a paraphrase.
Apr. 26, 1933 Hitler’s words to Bishop Berning at meeting in Berlin on April 26, 1933:
... I have been attacked on account of my handling of the Jewish question. For 1500 years the Catholic Church regarded the Jews as pestilent, sent them into the ghetto, etc., since the Jews were recognized for what they were. In the time of liberalism this danger was no longer recognized. I am going back to the time of what was done for 1500 long years. I do not place race over religion, rather I recognize the pestilence of the representatives of this race for State and Church, and perhaps I am rendering the greatest service to Christianity; that is the reason for their expulsion from the universities and governmental positions...
Source: “Minutes by Negwers of Conference of Representatives of the Church Provinces, April 25-26, 1933,” Rottenburg Diocesan Archive, reprinted in Stasiewski, German Bishops’ Papers, vol. 1, pp. 87, 100-101. Nuncio Orsenigo’s report of the meeting to Cardinal Pacelli, dated May 8, 1933, is reprinted in G. Sale, Hitler, la Santa Sede e gli Ebrei [Hitler, the Holy See and the Jews] (2004), pp. 362-364.
June 18, 1933 Invitation to Hudal’s consecration as Bishop by Cardinal Pacelli on June 18, 1933:
The Priests’ College of the Anima has the honor to inform Your Grace / Your Reverence that our Holy Father Pope Pius XI, on the 1st of June this year, deigned to appoint the right reverend Herr Rector of the Anima, Prelate Hudal, as Bishop of Ela.
The High Protector of the Anima, His Eminence Lord Cardinal State Secretary Pacelli will, on Sunday the 18th of June at 8:30 a.m., perform the consecration…
Source: Nachlass Faulhaber [Faulhaber Estate], File No. 1395/2, Archive of the Archdiocese of Munich.
June 30, 1933 Memorandum from Cardinal Pietro Gasparri to unidentified addressee at the Vatican, June 30, 1933:
So that Hitler does not declare war on the Holy See and on the Catholic hierarchy in Germany,
1. The Holy See and the Catholic hierarchy in Germany are to refrain from condemning Hitler’s party.
2. If Hitler wants the dissolution of the Catholic Center as a political party, he is to be obeyed without making a noise.
3. Catholics are free to join Hitler’s party, as the citizens of Italy are free to join the Fascist Party.
4. I believe that Hitler’s party is responding to nationalist sentiment in Germany: therefore, a political-religious struggle in Germany over Hitlerism must absolutely be avoided, especially while Eminence Pacelli is Secretary of State.
Source: G. Sale, Hitler, la Santa Sede e gli Ebrei [Hitler, the Holy See and the Jews] (2004), p.380, citing Vatican Archives, AA.EE.SS., Germania, Pos. 645 P.O., fasc. 163 fo. 20r.
July 20, 1933 Excerpts of the Vatican-Germany Concordat of 1933:
Selection of new German Bishops by the Vatican (with opportunity for the German Government to object to a selection on political grounds) rather than by local cathedral chapters, or clerical committees.
The Vatican-Germany Concordat applied to the entire Reich the change in the selection procedure for German Bishops which had already been instituted in Bavaria, Prussia and Baden pursuant to the three state-level Concordats. The Pope, rather than local cathedral chapters, would henceforth select new Bishops. The Vatican-Germany Concordat conferred on the German Government a power to object to individual Bishop selections by the Vatican, a power previously conceded to other governments, whether totalitarian (e.g., Mussolini’s Italy, 1929) or republic (e.g., Poland, 1925).
Article 14(2) of the Vatican-Germany Concordat states: “Before the bull is issued for the appointment of Archbishops, Bishops, for a Coadjutor Bishop with right of succession, or for a Prelate with a physical jurisdiction, the name of the appointee will be communicated to the Reich Governor in the corresponding state and it will be ascertained that there are no objections of a general political nature.”
The Supplementary Protocol to Article 14(2) states: “It is understood that when objections of a general political nature exist, they shall be presented within the shortest possible time. If no such declaration has been presented after the passage of twenty days, the Holy See will be justified in considering that no such objections to the candidate exist. Until publication of the appointment, the names of the persons in question will be kept in complete confidence. This provision does not create a governmental veto right.”
Note: This translation and the following Concordat translations are made from the German version of the Concordat and the Italian version. Article 34 of the Concordat states that the German and Italian versions are equally authoritative. We have followed the general rules for treaty interpretation in such cases, which are well described in an article by Enrico Zamuner, “International Treaties Authenticated in Two or More Languages,” LexALP (“When a comparison between the authentic texts reveals a discrepancy of meaning and the divergence of interpretation still persists, the interpreter has to individuate the meaning that best reconciles the texts, having regard to the object and purpose of the treaty. As a result, it is of primary importance to give preference to an interpretation that is compatible with both texts and not an interpretation that, although compatible with one of the texts, is in contradiction with the other. Consequently, a comparison of all authentic versions is necessary in order to find the meaning that reconciles all versions of the treaty.”)
Defining which Catholic associations would be allowed to exist in Nazi Germany. Article 31 of the Concordat was an “agreement to agree” on which of the extensive array of Catholic associations – ranging from youth groups to spiritual and charitable groups in virtually every parish, to nationwide labor unions and professional associations, to Catholic newspapers numbered in the hundreds – would be protected:
Article 31 states: Those Catholic organizations and associations which serve exclusively religious, pure-cultural and charitable purposes, and, as such, are placed under the Church authorities, will be protected in their institutions and in their activities.
Those Catholic organizations which, in addition to religious, cultural and charitable purposes, also serve other purposes, such as social or professional tasks, shall, without prejudice to their eventual incorporation into State organizations, enjoy the protection of Article 31, paragraph 1, to the extent they provide a guarantee to conduct their activity outside all political parties.
The identification of organizations and associations that fall within the provisions of this Article remains to be agreed jointly between the Reich Government and the German episcopate. To the extent that the Reich and the individual states take charge of athletic or other youth organizations, care will be taken that their members be enabled to regularly fulfill their religious obligations on Sundays and Holy Days, and that they not be required to do things that would not be compatible with their religious and moral convictions and obligations.
Loyalty oath to be taken by Bishops at the time of their installation: The oath for Catholic Bishops in Germany required them to state as follows. “Before God and on the Holy Gospels I swear and promise, as befits a Bishop, loyalty to the German Reich and the state of _______. I swear and promise to honor the constitutionally formed government and to cause the clergy of my diocese to honor it. With dutiful concern for the welfare and the interest of the German State, I will endeavor, in the performance of the sacred office entrusted to me, to prevent everything injurious that could threaten it.”
Prohibition of political activity on the part of priests. Article 32 of the Concordat provides: “By reason of the currently existing particular circumstances in Germany, and in consideration of the guarantees created by the provisions of the foregoing Concordat for legal preservation of the rights and freedoms of the Catholic Church in the Reich and its states, the Holy See will issue instructions to exclude clergy and members of religious orders from membership in political parties and activity for such parties.”
Aug. 19, 1933 Ivone Kirkpatrick’s report to the British Foreign Office, Aug. 19, 1933:
... Cardinal Pacelli equally deplored the action of the German Government at home, their persecution of the Jews, their proceedings against political opponents, the reign of terror to which the whole nation was subjected...
These reflections on the iniquity of Germany led the Cardinal to explain apologetically how it was that he had signed a concordat with such people. A pistol, he said, had been pointed at his head and he had had no alternative. The German Government had offered him concessions, concessions, it must be admitted, wider than any previous German Government would have agreed to, and he had to choose between an agreement on their lines and the virtual elimination of the Catholic Church in the Reich...
Source: Kirkpatrick to Vansittart, Aug. 19, 1933, Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919-1939, 2d Ser. (1956), vol. 5, pp. 524-525.
Sept. 9, 1933 Confidential Promemoria of the Holy See, Sept. 9, 1933, from Cardinal Secretary of State Pacelli to the German Chargé d’Affaires, Dr. Klee, around the time of the exchange of ratification decrees for the Reich Concordat:
Far be it from the Holy See to involve itself with internal German governmental affairs. It would like, nevertheless, at this moment when an amicable understanding has been established with the Reich Government by the concluding of the Concordat, to express the following request.
Very many Catholic officials and employees have been dismissed from civil service and employment, according to information transmitted here, because it is feared that they were not reliable from a nationalist standpoint. This concerns particularly those who, up to the time the Nazi movement came to power, stood in opposition to it as the result of another political persuasion, and because they deemed themselves obligated as Catholics to observe, for reasons of conscience, a reserve or distance from the doctrines of Nazism. After the Herr Reich Chancellor’s declarations in March, and even more after the concluding of the Concordat, useful collaboration in the new State was thoroughly possible for them, and they were to a large extent ready for that. It is painful for the Holy See to have to see that these officials and employees, even though the obstacles to useful collaboration in the new State have fallen away, are being harmed by their rejection.
On this occasion the Holy See allows itself to intercede with yet another word for those German Catholics who have themselves converted from Jewry to the Christian religion or who are descended in the first generation or more remotely from such Jews converted to the Catholic faith, and now, for reasons known to the Government, suffer likewise from societal and economic difficulties. It would contribute very much to amicable agreement between the Holy See and the Reich Government if the here-mentioned measures of recent months were re-examined and were, to the greatest extent possible, reversed or ameliorated in their burdensome effects.
Source: Dieter Albrecht, ed., Der Notenwechsel Zwischen dem Heiligen Stuhl und der Deutschen Reichsregierung (1965-1980), vol. 1, pp. 396-397 (hereinafter cited as Albrecht, Note Exchange).
Oct. 15, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, page 2:
“The Voice of the German Bishops After the Reich Concordat”
“The Words of Cardinal Schulte, Archbishop of Cologne”
Sunday, the 10th of this month, the day of youth, a pastoral letter from His Eminence Cardinal-Archbishop Schulte was read in all the churches of the Archdiocese of Cologne, on the tasks and duties of contemporary youth.
“Youth,” writes the Cardinal, “always take a lively part in all that is new, bustling, strong. The country needs youth more than adults to provide the necessary work for its reconstruction and defense. Also our Master Jesus Christ spoke from the Cross to the youngest of his Apostles, John. We appropriately commemorate in this Holy Year the last moments in the earthly life of Jesus Christ. In those extreme moments, in the agony of Good Friday, youth, represented by John, was the closest to the Cross. In the present hour the Church speaks indeed first and foremost to youth, with the care and love of a mother.
The new State has solemnly recognized Christianity as the religious foundation of the State. It wants to confirm in the people the religious force of faith and of Christian charity. Without doubt, the rebirth of the people and of the State will be better served than otherwise if their entire life is fed with the energy of faith. The country will thereby have the maximum yield of youth who combine German nationalist energy with Christian faith. All those who are in concord as to this goal, without distinction of groups or society, are now called to form up with the Bishops and the clergy around the Cross, ready to defend it with apostolic zeal and a spirit of sacrifice, to carry it courageously in their own life and to seek in it their own happiness in this world and the next.
The new State has assured in a solemn form in the Concordat not only the existence of Catholic youth associations, but has also promised them its special protection. It knows the conserving and useful energies for the State that characterize these youth; it knows their courageous unceasing campaign against the deleterious spirit of liberal religion and of the organized atheism of Bolshevism. It knows that Catholic youth constitutes an irreplaceable guarantee of fidelity and abnegation, in service to the country, the people, and the State.
The Church has received a promise from the new State; it trusts in this promise. Therefore your Bishop calls all the faithful of the Archdiocese of Cologne and exhorts all of them, clergy and laity, male and female youth, to remain in concord, in a unity of iron; to carry the force of the love of God and of neighbor into all fields of the life of the people and the State. Our Catholic youth will not let themselves be outdone by anyone in active fraternal charity, especially during the upcoming months of winter.
A special word to parents and teachers: The new times impose new tasks, especially on youth. How much greater becomes the responsibility, and the more sacred the obligation of parents toward right education. Your hand, o parents, protects the sanctuary of your family. Boys and girls frequent our good Catholic associations. The State has guaranteed the defense of freedom for these associations and their fruitful work, and has also expressly and repeatedly assured that members of these shall not suffer any harm, in the school and in the State, from their membership in Catholic societies.
Give, therefore, everyone, your offering for these youth societies; the offerings will serve to furnish the means to continue systematically pastoral care for youth, for the mutual benefit of Church and State.
“A Speech by Mons. Groeber, Archbishop of Freiburg”
... The Concordat between the Holy See and the German State will be a surge of new life for all Catholics; the regenerative force of this agreement will be the same as what flows from the symbol of the Cross; the same roots feed the greatness and prosperity of the State, the people and the Church. Homage to the Cross has the value of an oath of fidelity to the Cross and is truly an act worthy of the Jubilee of the Redemption that we are now celebrating. It was not a long time ago that the Crucifix was mocked in a public procession on the streets of Dresden and a Mass of atheists was celebrated. Today our old God is revived and extends his arms in blessing over the people who are returning to the faith ...
“Statements by Mons. Berning, Bishop of Osnabrück”
... In the Catholic Church, the principle of the authority of the leader is nothing new. It was indeed introduced into the church by its founder, Jesus Christ. The Gospel teaches us that the Holy Spirit instituted the Bishops, in order to guide and govern the Church. . . Catholics uphold the new State, not indeed for reasons of political calculation, nor fear of reprisals, nor illusions of utility, but by obligation of conscience. Also the State wants to posit Christianity as the foundation of its government and that should please us. Experience has taught us that materialism and liberalism ruin a people, and that States do not prosper if God is not with them.
The Concordat, concluded between the German State and the Church, assures it of its rights and its freedom, guarantees the Catholic school and the freedom of the Catholic press. We must be grateful to the Holy Father and to our government for the gift they have given us in this agreement, directed at pacification of souls and the common good of the entire people.
“Arab Agitation in Jerusalem”Dateline Jerusalem, Oct. 14
Despite the prohibition on public demonstrations, about 10,000 Arabs paraded yesterday through the streets of the city as an act of protest against the immigration of Jews in Palestine. The police filed various charges against demonstrators, also making use of nightsticks in efforts to disperse the gathering. Various persons were left injured. Finally the streets were cleared and order was restored: the Arabs remained agitated, however, by the measures taken by the authorities.
“For the Protection of the Jews”
Dateline Breslau, Oct. 14
A severe warning against those who molest Jews has been issued by the prefect of police in the industrial region of Silesia, adding that those who are found guilty of molesting or maltreatment against Jews will be transferred immediately to concentration camps. The statement adds that this has occurred up to now by acts of irresponsible elements, but also now the units of the SA will bring a halt to these abuses and arrest those who are guilty.
Nov. 4, 1933 Civiltà Cattolica, Nov. 4, 1933, vol. 4, p.217:
“Concerning the Concordat Between the Holy See and Germany”
We do not believe the heat of general enthusiasm for Concordats is obligatory. We understand Concordats as special measures that appeared in history at the end of the Middles Ages and at the threshold of the modern era that progressively split away princes and civil governments from the Church, a schism that was the precursor and provoker of the subsequent distancing of peoples from their Princes and Governments. These Concordats, that is, marked concessions or compromises extracted from the Church by princes and governments, as from a mother afflicted by riotous and arrogant children: Concordats, in which the laicistic power of the former absolutist and royalist governments took advantage of precarious and particularly difficult circumstances to obtain the greatest temporal or political advantages, at the expense of the spiritual rights and universal interests of the Christian family.
These could have seemed like a sort of humiliation for Holy Mother Church; indeed it pertained to the mother per se to dictate laws and require her children to observe them, for their own good; not indeed to give in to them or descend to their level by way of “bilateral” agreements or pacts, as they call them. But, in truth, when these come about without violence, under particular historical circumstances, out of concern for the greater common good, and are actuated by mature deliberation according to the inspiration of charity and condescension of the Church herself, this type of agreement with her children cannot be seen as a detriment or humiliation, even as these contracting parties are in a lower and subordinate spiritual order to hers; these also being bonds that are not owing, in appearance anyway, to her supreme spiritual authority; an aspect that induced many theologians, at an earlier time, to deny the propriety of strictly “bilateral” obligations in what is an essentially “contractual” act, made in the manner of agreements, considered rather as benevolent concessions.
Indeed, in the historical circumstances of our times, among the successively formed and growing new types of nationalities, parties, governments, institutions and dynasties that are undermining the Christian spirit, cutting or loosening the bonds of Catholic unity, disadvantaging or overshadowing the rights and the credit or “prestige” of the Church itself and of its Pastors, Concordats, including those that are bilateral pacts, have become today a religious and social necessity.
These are a necessity, we say, for the Church, which is a perfect society within its sphere, but bound to necessary relations with the State; and these relations are also necessary for the State itself, which in its sphere is likewise a perfect society and independent as to what properly pertains to it; but in other matters, i.e., those that pertain to spiritual matters, it must deal with the Church as to rights and obligations, especially if the State is not Catholic, but neutral.
Concordats are not just a necessity in the way that some others consider them, as a lesser evil to the extent they remedy or prevent more or less serious violations of the rights of the Church and of the people, which would indeed have real merit, but in a rather negative way; they are also, more often, a positive good, the greatest that can be obtained under certain historical circumstances and contingencies in the Christian nations themselves. And a great good indeed, if even better could not be attained, as they make clear, by means of a proper contract under international law, totally analogous to international treaties, and thus confirming, in the view of modern society, the proper “legal status” of the Church; a condition that is certainly not created by Concordats, while they are within the ambit of divine right, but recognizing this, assuring the free exercise of the Church’s rights and obligations, at least as to what is essential to its divine mission.
This is especially true of the many Concordats concluded in the first decades of this century, and especially after the upheaval of the world war, which forced almost everywhere a profound social reordering and thus a new and radical rearrangement of the nations.
This reordering was observed by the farsighted mind of the Pontiff of peace, Benedict XV, and as the first to have made allusion to this in many allocutions, such as the strong emphasis in his Encyclical Pacem Dei, which we remember but which is too often forgotten, in which he desired to modify the old protocol for the visits of Catholic sovereigns to Rome, for the sole purpose of facilitating, after the war, mutual diplomatic contacts and negotiations for restoration and peace.
Even more repeatedly and intensively, harvesting the heritage of his Predecessor, succeeded the reiging Pontiff, Pius XI. And not only did he mention this same ideal of reconciliation in the strong exhortations of his first Encyclical, Ubi Arcano, but then insisted ever more on practical and constant applications of it. Thus, despite all the difficulties, and right before our eyes, all that vast and arduous design of restoration was being actualized, which his Predecessor had already yearned for, and which had become all the more necessary and urgent in the aftermath of the war, following the sad experiences and sorrows of an ill-negotiated peace agreement. So we see, in fact, amicable relations between the Church and many States being re-established, recognizing essential rights and enabling the people to feel again the beneficial effects of spiritual restoration; in such a way, in the end, according to the phrase of the same Pontiff, that God is restored to the nations and the nations are restored to God. For what has been said about Italy was intended and sought by the Pope, without any partiality, for all peoples and nations, because He is equally the Father of all.
It is indeed the rights of God and of his Church, the rights of souls and of the human person itself, the rights of the most basic society, namely marriage and the family, and those of other natural and positive institutions, religious and civil, to the extent they are in relation with the appropriate ecclesiastical legislation; all of this is, indeed, an organic system of religious jurisprudence, which the Pope governs for the common good of each of these societies, that is, for the salvation and spiritual and temporal well-being of individuals, of families and of civil interaction itself. From this, according to the selfsame diversity and multiplicity of cases and circumstances of nations and governments, there follows the breadth and variety of what is proper matter for such Concordat agreements, as well as the diversity of their nature and extent, according to whether just one aspect is being regulated, or the totality of relationships, and thus dealing with purely religious matters, or even just temporal ones, or matters more accurately called “mixed.”
Yet, together with this diversity there is always the unity of goals and the commonality of concepts and the similarity of solutions, given in law and expressed in by legal formulas, as others have already well observed, almost identical but always more sharp and precise than the rigor of the written provisions. In this one must recognize the part that can be played by the noteworthy philosophical preparation and legal competence of the ministers and staff of the Pontiff, who by nature are inclined to give emphasis, quite rightly, to the original imprint of genius as well as the personal preferences of the august contracting party; an imprint and preferences that are manifest, for example, in the points of the Concordat that deal with the family and the school, with Catholic Action, with politics, and so forth.
Each Concordat, therefore, is not to be considered as a solitary event, but as an act in the context of other similar ones; each has rather a rightful continuity; it is like a new link that is inserted, without interruption, into the long chain of other Concordat agreements. This series of acts - which are not merely political acts in the life, in the considerations, and in the purpose of the Church, but much more religious acts - will order and form as an integral whole, and as a corpus juris, all its questions of the present hour, like its most vital points about many religious and civil institutions; a complete legal and juridical statute, that is, of Catholicism, even in countries where it is not the State religion, but has all the more need to find an equitable order, as in so many contemporary countries and nations that have only just emerged from the abyss of war.
The present series of Concordats, therefore, does not just initiate, but continues, carries out, and consolidates a recognized juridical “position” of the Church. Indeed, as such, it may well be, and has already been rightly pointed out, that this is a principal part of the more general “evolution” of contemporary institutions, which we see advancing more rapidly in the second and third decades of the century. But what is more, and better, we might add: it is a partial, if you will, and gradual but effective, penetration of the Christian spirit into secular legislation of modern society.
III. Nor is this, in substance, a new event in the history of the Church: considered in its essence, as a force of Christianization not only in private and individual life, but also in social and public life, and in the highest of all manifestations of social and public life: legislative and juridical life.
This is indeed a force or tendency that is inherent in the mission of the Church, and it is also, in the order of events, in the entire course of the Christian centuries, one of the most constant features of the Church itself and of the Roman Pontificate. We see it shining already in the aftermath of the cataclysm of the great persecutions, afteer the first three centuries with the advent of the first Christian emperors; and we see it in the penetration that soon occurred, of the Christian spirit into the ancient Roman laws, leding to the implicit or explicit introduction of the Church’s Canons themselves into the legal provisions of the imperial authorities, as exemplified by the Justinian Code. And even more, after the barbarian inundation that destroyed ancient Roman civilization, the Church taking up again the work of Christian civilizing, pursued it throughout the Middle Ages, procuring even more widely the introduction of its Code of Canon Law into secular legislation. Nor was this all at one stroke, or by means of violent imposition, but rather little by little, by means of sage character and necessary adaptability; preserving in this the essential immutability of principles, while following a variety of contingent applications, in conformity with the varied and changing needs of the times and of the people. Hence the agreement, and often indeed the interpenetration, of ecclesiastical jurisprudence with civil jurisprudence; and by the international nature of the Church, from which also derived the formation and then the enduring character of an international jurisprudence, which was the boast and the energy of that too often misunderstood age.
In this way the relations between State and Church came to universally governed and differences resolved; thus assuring the union, without detriment to the necessary distinctions, of the two powers, in the field of law and in the theoretical order. That there still remained in the practical order too many disagreements and even frequent disputes - as there would be among men - was a deplorable evil; but there was a ready remedy in the opportunity to call upon the considerable unity as to principles, upon the “force of law,” which prevailed over the supposed “law of force.”
By the light of these truths were illuminated the controversies and struggles, the reconciliations and peaces of the Middle Ages, as States recognized in law, even if they did not always honor in fact, the juridical framework and social function of the Church.
Royalism and laicism, on the other hand, conspired and overshadowed, with sophisms first from Protestantism and then from naturalism and rationalism, and most of all in their crudest and most universal form in liberalism. And there appeared in great part in the modern era that witnesses the conspiracy of princes and governments against God and his Christ, and then the official apostasy of nations, with the denial of the legal recognition of the true religion and decreed separation of the State from the Church, or a supposed religious neutrality and indifference, which then results practically in a more or less moderate hostility, or even open persecution.
In these historical conditions of society, Concordats represent an implicit annulment or condemnation of the dominant errors, of liberalism and laicism in particular, in that these Concordats are a solemn recognition of the Catholic religion and its social and public rights. And they are also a recognition produced by “reason of State,” or merely political interests on the part of the temporal authorities; they will always be a form of homage, even if forced, to the social power and authority of the Church; nor will the fact of a political interest be able to destroy all the moral and spiritual good that is associated with the Concordats.
We do not at all say - we are preventing any exaggerated interpretation to this effect - that in the Concordats the State recognizes the truth of the Cathoic Church per se; just as it is likewise obvious that the Holy See per se says nothing about the proper merit of the State with it concludes a Concordat, nor about its theoretical principles nor about its practical methods of governing or the like; far less does it approve it in any way at all, as has been explicitly adverted to in the case of the Concordat with the German Reich.
These may seem, more than one, elementary and obvious truths, and we do not deny that. Nor was it necessary, certainly, to draw out a recollection of them, had we not only found them forgotten or debated, but also strangely obfuscated and distorted by many, even among Catholics, who were motivated by prejudice or political passions, nationalistic or partisan, concerning recent Concordats, and especially the one concluded with Germany. It is painful to recall what has been said and written, and is still being whispered, even by those who profess to be Catholics; which makes the discussion even more annoying. (footnote: A full response to the opposition in the French press in particular has been given by our valorous confrère Yves de la Brière, in Etudes of September 5, 1933, with an erudite and limpid article (pp. 600-614) about the preliminaries and enactment of the Concordat.)
Therefore, instead of insisting, we repeat, on what has been too often forgotten: it is a matter of the basic doctrine and tradition of the Church that the reigning Pontiff has just followed and applied in the Church’s relations with civil States, whether in particular agreements and conventions, Concordat treaties or pacts, or the like. And this one, as we have outlined above, with its great consistency, felicity and constancy, as it appears to us, this is one of the most beautiful glories of the present Pontificate: a reaffirmation of its sovereignty and supreme spiritual authority.
There are already more than a dozen such Agreements signed by him, in addition to particular issues such as the two agreements concluded with Portugal in 1928 and 1929, concerning the Dioceses of Meliapur, and the double accord with France in 1926, concerning the controvery over the liturgical honors pertaining to the representatives of France in mission countries, already established or proposed as French protectorates; others much more general and important, such as those that govern in full or in part the relations of States with the Church, of which our readers have found succinct but sufficient summaries in our periodical, corresponding to the dates of their publication, and the authentic text in the official compilation of the Holy See (Acta Apostolicae Sedis). (footnote: See also, for an opportune compilation and chronological list, La Documentation Catholique, no. 653 of April 8, 1933, Paris, 5 Rue Bayard.)
The first, signed on May 30, 1922, was the Concordat with the new republic of Latvia; then in the next year the Concordat signed Bavaria on March 29th and ratified the following January. then came, in 1925, the Concordat with Poland, signed February 10th and rtified June 2nd; with Lithuania in 1927, signed September 27th and ratified December 10th; with Czechoslovakia under the form of a Modus Vivendi, accepted February 2, 1928; with Italy under the name of the Lateran Agreements, which comprised the Treaty and the Concordat, for not only the resolution of the Roman Question, but for everyone a new social restoration; with Romania, signed May 10, 1927 and ratified September 7, 1929, which was followed by an agreement that determined the interpretation of article IX of the same concordat, signed on May 30, 1932; finally those concerning German-speaking States: Austria in 1933 (June 5), Baden in 1932 (October 12), Prussia in 1929 (June 14), and then followed, as the fulfillment and crown, the Concordat mentioned above with the German Reich, signed July 20th and ratified September 10th.
The latter Concordat more than the others, as we have outlined, has encountered objections, and we could also say “misunderstandings,” on the part of many, even Catholics. But it has equally inspired great admiration and encomiums, even from non-Catholics, together with manifold comments of publicists and jurists of various schools of opinion that debate in today’s juridical field.
Nonetheless everyone, even adversaries, is unanimous in recognizing the extraordinary importance of the Concordat. This can be seen, for example, in the whole chorus of German journalists, Catholic and Protestant. (footnote: Cf. Weekly Review of the Foreign Press, rome, August 24, 1933, pp. 33-34. But see especially the many extensive excerpts and copious quotations in the commentaries of the press, not only German press, in Documentation Catholique, special edition, October 7, 1933, 15th year, volume 30, no. 672.) Some of them hope, as a result, “for a general reconciliation of souls and the elimination of all unnecessary conflicts”; others exalt its special importance in domestic politics, as in foreign politics, as “extraordinarily great”; the first for the domestic development of the new Reich and for the internal coordination and incorporation of German Catholics into the new State system; the other for the moral effects, indeed highly beneficial, against the difficulties that have been accumulating in international relations and international conferences against the new German Reich concerning its “interstate” order. Others note, emphatically but rightly, that “the Concordat creates - ... and Others note its historical importance, in that “for the first time in the modern era, the relations between the German Empire and the universal Roman Church are governed by a lasting formula, and the boundaries that separate our State and the greatest spiritual power are neatly defined.” Finally, not to go on at great length, there is a general recognition that “the Concordat will be of benefit at the same time to the Church and to the State, to Religion and to the Nation.”
For good reason, therefore, our German confrère (footnote: Ivo Zeiger, S.J., Das Reichskonkordat, in the periodical Stimmen der Zeit, October 1933, p.1) affirms that “the Concordat was welcomed by the German public with a unanimity of agreement that is not easy to find in other similar events.” And to this can well be attributed, he adds, the eager commitment with which the new government undertook to gain popularity and favor for its public provisions; but even better evidence that this is “such a great thing” is furnished by the ability of this Concordat to attract to itself the admiration even of adversaries. The two powers, surmounting many prejudices and difficulties, were in fact in agreement with each other to initiate a new and profound social re-ordering with such a legislative work that bears in itself the noble imprint of its origins and its authors; the clarity and legal sagacity of a legislator of the people, breadth of thinking and Roman patience on the one hand, and on the other sound Germanic realism and a new daring ideal for the nation.
In this encounter of the two powers, ecclesiastical and secular, it is not entirely the case that the religious ideal of the great Ivo of Chartres is coming true: “what good prevails in the world when the kingdom and the priesthood stand in agreement between themselves.” But at least a program of concord is being started on its way which indeed Leo XIII in his Encyclical Immortale Dei wanted to carry out forcefully by his then-questioned but actually perspicacious and not merely political conduct towards the German Empire, which was then under the dictatorship of Bismarck, indeed the fierce enemy of Catholicism and the author of the notable persecution mitigated under color of civilization, the famous Kulturkampf.
Now here it has been exactly an interval of 30 years - precisely on the 20th of July, the thirtieth anniversary of the death of Leo XIII - that the first signature was placed on this Concordat, in which the entire substance of his teaching and program were revived, as our confrère well observes. A coincidence, not planned, we believe, but thus all the more significant.
But however noteworthy these considerations may seem, the preparatory and drafting steps of the Concordat are only of secondary consequence. What is primary is the national re-organization, from a religious perspective especially, as well as the social restoration, which is most urgent since the worldwide upheaval of these past two decades and the fearsome advance of the Bolshevik and Communist tempest, which already broke upon Germany, threatening European Christian civilization itself with the peril of a new barbarism.
To this peril of Bolshevism the German Chancellor himself alluded rightly, in his forceful speech broadcast recently (October 14) to the entire German people in an hour of great trepidation for the new Reich, pulling out of the League of Nations at Geneva: “A long-civilized people like ours,” Hitler proclaimed, “found ourselves, with more than six million Communists, on the brink of catastrophe; if the Red revolution had passed over Germany, the civilized countries of the western world would absolutely not have looked with indifference upon outposts of the Asiatic Empire on the Rhine and the North Sea, instead of farmers and German pacifist workers.”
The conclusion is not denied even by those who deplore the abuses and reminders of this as in other revolutions; certainly it was recognized in the face of the horde of the invading “Godless ones” by the impartial judgment of the visible Head of the Catholic Church. And thus the Holy Father also not only believed it was lawful in itself, but obligatory to carry out in the best way possible, announcing even with all Catholic forces, for the same essential purpose of social salvation; and so he condescended to conclude agreements with the constituted authorities of the new Republic.
In this, the reigning Pontiff certainly gave proof of his generous loyalty; he who receives reproofs from adversaries suspicious of Germany and of its new regime. But wrongly; and while little bits of it might come true in the future, no sane man, no man of State or Government, would hold him guilty. Well did he rely, and with good reason, on that sense of loyalty and honor that everyone must assume in civil relations, and much more in those of public international law: the sense that Hitler himself, in his speech mentioned above, had to proclaim in front of the world, with the vigorous protest that “the world can only be interested in negotiating with men of honor, but it must also take account of the sense of honor of such a Regime,” that is his own, the renewed German Republic.
And this is exactly what the reigning Pontiff has done in the present Concordat with the German Reich, in this respect consideration has been given to the Concordat itself: as a full and fair program of religious reconciliation and restoration; thus also in order with, and in relation with, the other Concordats already concluded, namely those above-mentioned with the three German states, Baden, Bavaria and above all Prussia; of which this is meant to be, as we already mentioned, a synthesis, and in part a fulfillment. And it must also be considered as a well-understood code of ecclesiastical legislation, which can be applied to a mostly Protestant nation, with these Protestants divided into innumerable sects, enemies to each other, and agreed in being adversaries of the one true Church, the Catholic Church.
But of this more presently, with a view to the individual articles of the Concordat, in our next issue.
Nov. 18, 1933 Civiltà Cattolica, Nov. 18, 1933, vol. 4, p.331:
“The Concordat of the Holy See with Germany”
It is a unique event, more than extraordinary, in the history of the last four centuries since the explosion of the Protestant heresy and the resulting division of Christian Europe, as we noted in the preceding issue, that there is now a formal and solemn Concordat between the Government of the majority-Protestant German Reich and the Holy See.
But its inestimable importance derives not so much from the event itself as from its expanse and circumstances: not so much from the Concordat as from the close concord between the Holy See and Germany, from the scope and totality of the questions embraced in this concord. And now we are recalling indeed the distinction that we already outlined in our previous article: between Concordats concerning particular matters of controversy between Church and State, and those that rather settle the totality of relations between the two powers, religious and civil. These latter have been the object of our study (footnote: Civiltà Cattolica 1933, vol. IV, pp. 217-229), because they provide the occasion for a fundamental law and a sort of general “map” for the State in all religious questions and in all the actually mixed civil-religious questions.
As to what this is, and how it should be evaluated above all other considerations, the Concordat of the Holy See with the German Reich appears to have already been explained as to extrinsic matters as well as the many testimonies we outlined. But even better results should follow here from an examination of the document itself, in its content and its tone. About this, we have already spoken of a religious and civil “program of reconciliation and restoration” in Germany. To that we now add that this is a most opportune and eloquent example for other civilized nations that find themselves in similar straits as they strive for a sound reordering of their internal state and at the same time dependable protection against external threats, such as those of modern Communism or Bolshevism, which are indeed raging in our era, and which are threatening the very life of Europe and the civilized world.
This would require a lengthy juridical study, which the topic certainly deserves, but this is not the place: it is enough to took at the individual articles of the Concordat, as promised at the end of the preceding article. And from these it appears, in light of the status accorded to the Catholic Church and her sons by the State of a country that is majority Protestant, that it will be all the more obvious that the objections raised against the Concordat are groundless, as we will discuss presently. What we say also supports the hypothesis, which is not far-fetched, that fears may come to fulfillment in the practical order, concerning speculative possibilities that are encouraged and expressed today from many quarters, about the future observance of the current provisions. However, just as an abuse does not have the effect of eliminating a right, so, and much more, the violation of a law does not have the effect of rendering the law itself invalid or inapplicable, nor can it invalidate juridical and moral norms in the social life of a people.
Consequently the juridical status of the Church and the legal recognition of the essential rights of its pastors and the faithful in the midst of a majority non-Catholic people remain safeguarded under all possible contingencies by means of the Concordat; these are underway in fact and are well founded in law, even if the desired religious reconciliation has not yet been fully realized in practice.
We find the cornerstones of this reconciliation in the first articles of the Concordat (1-4), which show us precisely the concept and the general foundation of the agreement as a statutory law of the Church in Germany. The German Reich there guarantees in fact the liberty of preaching and public exercise of the Catholic Religion, and recognizes the right of the Catholic Church itself, consistent with the laws generally in effect, to freely regulate and administer is own affairs and to promulgate laws and ordinances that bind its members, withing the sphere of its competence (article 1). And this guarantee and recognition, properly considered, is no small matter for the development of Catholic life in a majority Protestant country. The Concordats previously concluded with three German States already mentioned - Baden, Bavaria, Prussia - remain in effect; whereby the rights and the liberty of the Catholic Church remain unchanged in these States; in the other States, from now on, the provisions agreed in the present Concordat will apply completely; while in the three aforesaid States they are binding to the extent they cover matter not treated in the previous Concordats or provide a desirable complement to the system of rules already established (article 2). The diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the German Reich are thereby confirmed, consisting of an Apostolic Nunciature located in the capital of the German Reich, and a German Reich Ambassador to the Holy See (article 3). Then in the “final protocol,” which “forms an integral part of the selfsame Concordat,” it is added that, in conformity with previous agreements (of March 11 and 27, 1930), the Apostolic Nuncio to the German Reich is the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps accredited there: this is an international norm, it is true, but it did not come into effect, or was not accepted so formally in the past, except in Catholic States, for which it was recognized also by the Congress of Vienna, by the Act of June 9, 1815.
Equally guaranteed to the Holy See is full liberty of communication and correspondence with Bishops, with clergy and with those that belong to the Catholic Church in Germany. And the same liberty is similarly accorded for Bishops and other Diocesan Authorities in their communicatoins with the faithful, concerning all that pertains to their pastoral ministry (article 4).
These four articles thus contain everything essential that establishes the rights and guarantees the exercise of the necessary dignity and independence of the Church. In this manner the last provisions (of article 4) break off the old shackles of of the royal exequatur and placet rights [to approve papal pronouncements or block their implementation within the realm], which were often like a noose in the despotic hands of former absolutist or regalist governments to the detriment of ecclesiastical liberty. Actually, this was already included in the Weimar Constitution, article 137 of which aims to end the purported placet right of the government; and while this may be stated less explicitly, it is completely consistent with the substance of article 2 of the Italian Concordat, which provides for the formal abolition of the placet. But the newly-imposed suppression of the placet by the cited article of the present German Concordat adds to what was included in the Weimar Constitution adds a new and more solemn guarantee by contract, independent of the Weimar Constitution as well as following the example of other States.
And the same has to be said about the stipulation that is indeed contained in the first article, concerning the Church’s right of autonomy. It repeats in fact, in similar terms, the same provision from the Weimar Constitution (article 137): “Each Church orders and administers its own affairs autonomously within the limits of generally applicable laws”: but reinforces that provision and applies it with the new obligatory strength of a bilateral agreement: no longer just an internal Constitution, but rather an agreement under international law, similar to the international treaties, according to the particular nature of Concordats between the Holy See and civil States, as we have explained elsewhere.
There is no need to demonstrate how advantageous, therefore, these juridical conditions are for the Catholic Church, for its Pastors and its faithful, over the preceding conditions - though simultaneously supported and restricted by the limits of “the generally applicable laws” rather than by the divine dignity proper to the constitution of the Church - for the spirit of the Concordat itself and its intrinsic validity do not depend on feared contingencies or passing developments as to its observance in the order of events. But these matters are clarified and confirmed by the subsequent provisions, which we will see faithfully covered here, most often by means of the words themselves from the official document.
In accordance with the cited fundamental articles, the entire legal circumstances of the clergy are regulated in general, along with the organization and circumstances of the Catholic Church itself, no less than the circumstances of the diocesan clergy, and thus the religious Orders and Congregations, the property of diocesan and religious order clergy, as ecclesiastical patrimony, and of the Church’s own ministry, especially that related to teaching.
First and foremost, ecclesiastics are promised, in the exercise of their priestly activity, the same State protection that is given to State officials themselves, so as to prohibit, as a norm of general State law, offenses against their persons and against their dignity as ecclesiastics, as well as any disturbance of their ministry. This is not simply a matter of protection under generally applicable law, as appears in the Bavarian Concordat, but a special application of the sanctions set forth in the German Code for those who resist officials of the State (article 5). Also, ecclesiastics are exempted from obligations to assume public offices and duties, which according to the norms of Canon Law are incompatible with the ecclesiastical and religious state, especially in the Offices of taxation and financial tribunals (article 6). Indeed they are forbidden to take any assignment or office from the State or from public entities dependent on the State without the permission of their Bishop, which can always be revoked for serious reasons of ecclesiastical interests (article 7). And both of these provisions are of course consistent with Canon 139 of the Code of Canon Law, to which we alluded; but more generally they are comparable to those in article 5 of the Italian Concordat. The revenue of the clergy, which they enjoy by reason of their office, is given an exemption from distraint in the same measure as the pay and allowances of the employees of the Reich and the States (Article 8). Exemption is also updated for ecclesiastics from any questioning, even by magistrates and other authorities, about information and matters that have been confided to them in their exercise of pastoral care (article 9); this exemption already having been recognized in the German Code of Civil Procedure. In a similar manner the unauthorized wearing of ecclesiastical or religious order garb is punishable in the same way as that of military uniforms (article 10); as already covered under the Penal Code of the German Reich (article 360).
Let us proceed to the particular provisions about the organization and boundaries of the Catholic Church in Germany: the present organization and boundaries of the dioceses are preserved; changes that may appear necessary in the future are reserved to agreements with the competent Government of the respective State, together with the Reich Government if the changes go beyond the confines of a particular German State. And in the case of changes in the territorial structure of the German Reich, no re-ordering of the diocesan organization and boundaries shall be done before the Reich Government is consulted and is in agreement with the Holy See (article 11)... For each nomination to a Bishopric, notification of the name of the selected person is given to the Reich Lieutenant, to ascertain if there are any objections to the nominee of a general political nature (article 14).
This last point, a very delicate one - which is found in other Concordats, as has been noted - is now more explicitly clarified in the “final protocol”: it does not mean a veto right for the State, but simply a process for presenting political objections, as to which the Holy See remains entitled to make the final judgment; and if such objections are not communicated within the space of twenty days, the Holy See will be entitled to conclude that there are none. Similarly inspired by the amicable spirit of concord are all the subsequent provisions concerning religious Orders and Congregations, allowed by the State without being subjected to any special restrictions, whether as to foundations, residences, the number and character of the religious order members, whether concerning their activities of pastoral care, of teaching, of aid to the sick and of other works of charity, of the regulation of their affairs and of the administration of their property; except for the provision that religious order superiors residing in the German Reich must have German citizenship; but other superiors including foreign citizens have the right to visit their houses situated in Germany. The Holy See alone will see to it that religious houses existing in the territory of the Reich are not, so far as possible, subject to foreign provincial superiors, save for possible exceptions with the agreement of the Reich Government (article 15).
Then comes a notable concession by the Church: this is article 16 regarding the oath that Bishops will swear before taking possession of their Dioceses, administered by the Reich Lieutenant for the State concerned, or by the Reich President himself. But the formula of the oath of loyalty, similar to those in other recent Concordats, especially those with Italy and Poland, excludes all danger or uncertainty about the limits of the obligations undertaken. The limits, that is, are already implicit and sufficiently included in the nature of the act itself, originating in the explicit meaning of these words: “as befits a Catholic Bishop.” This is a comprehensive formula that says it all.
Very significant for our times, moreover, are the two subsequent articles about the ecclesiastical patrimony, which guarantee, as a norm of the general law of the State, the property and other rights of entities under public law, including the goods of institutions, foundations and associations of the Catholic Church. Nor is it permitted to demolish a building dedicated to worship without the agreement of the competent ecclesiastical authorities (Art. 17), and it is likewise prohibited to discontinue services provided by the State to the Catholic Church, founded on laws, conventions or special juridical statutes, except by amicable agreement between the Holy See and the Reich, and including appropriate compensation as to provision of services by right to those currently served by the State (article 18).
But by far the most important are the subsequent articles (19-25) that cover at least the essential points of the entire legal status of Catholic teaching at all levels. And when these articles are observed, they will ensure in the future a good state of school legislation for the Catholics of Germany; if not completely ideal and perfect, certainly much better than in other European countries, including Catholic ones such as France, not to speak of those in which religious war rages more openly, as in Spain. First and foremost, the faculties of Catholic theology in the State universities are preserved; they are duly governed and guaranteed in conjunction with the ecclesiastical authorities, and secured with the uniform practice for all (Article 19); finally constituted as a “fundamental rule” in the recent Apostolic Constitution “Deus Scientiarum Dominus” of May 24, 1931, and the subsequent Instruction of Jully 7, 1932, as is provided in the “final protocol” addendum.
Also recognized is the Church’s right to erect, for the formation of clergy, its own schools of theology and philosophy, dependent exclusively upon the ecclesiastical authorities, who have sole discretion as to the erection, direction and management of ecclesiastical Seminaries and Convents (article 20). And the above-mentioned “final protocol” adds that such Convents, alongside high schools and gymnasiums, are recognized, with regard to taxes, as essential institutions of the Church and constituent parts of the organization of the diocese. The teaching of the Catholic religion is estblished in the elementary schools and in the professional, middle and high schools, as part of the regular curriculum, and will have to be imparted in conformity with the principles of the Catholic Church and with special care, in the teachings, to educate students in a consciousness of their patriotic, civic and social obligations, according to the maxims of the faith and of Christian moral law; the program and the selection of textbooks will be determined in agreement with the higher ecclesiastical authorities, who are given the role of supervising, in agreement with the school authorities, the conformity of this religious instruction with the doctrines and needs of the Church (article 21). Hiring of Catholic religion teachers will occur by mutual understanding between the Bishops and the Governments of the particular States, thus excluding those teachers that the Bishop will have declared unsuitable by reason of their doctrine or moral conduct, for as long as such impediment lasts (article 22).
Moreover, conditions prevailing already in almost all of Germany are confirmed as to denominational State schools, with the additional guarantee, which was lacking, for the erection of new denominational Catholic schools, which will be built by the State itself in all communities where the families so request and where the number of students is sufficient for a regular course of studies (article 24). In these schools, then, only Catholic teachers suitable to the purpose will be employed, and for their training there will have to be special institutes within the framework of general professional teacher training institutes, in order to meet the particular needs of Catholic denominational schools (article 24). And further, in the “protocol” addendum, it is formally declared that for the new organization of teacher training schools, there will be private institutions meeting the other requirements of the State for the training of male and female teachers, and there will be a recognition of the proper respect due also to the existing institutions of the Religious Orders and Congregations. With this is accomplished a great step for the just liberty of education, as against the former monopoly of liberalism and laicism in the schools, which prevails to this day for example in the French legislation, despite the mitigations of the Falloux law with some rights recognized for private schools. Nor can it be said that unjust pretensions of Hitlerism are involved here, as some have written, in the provision about taking care to “educate students in a consciousness of their patriotic, civil and religious obligations”; because this too is a proper subject of Catholic pedagogy, and the Church is well pleased, on all occasions, to give place to the civil power. May this always be met with a reciprocal loyalty!
The article on marriage (article 26) contains a lesser fullness of concessions [to the Church], while leaving better hope for the future, in the form of a proviso that the steps of the present agreement are without prejudice to a further and fuller regulation of the questions of marriage law, in order to reconcile civil law completely with Canon Law. For now, the agreement is limited to providing that a religious marriage can be celebrated before the civil act, besides the case of terminal illness of one of the spouses, as well as cases of serious moral necessity, the existence of which is to be identified by the competent authority of the Bishop. And “serious necessity” means, moreover, a difficulty that is insurmountable or not removable without excessive inconvenience, and that prevents the procuring of the necessary documents in time for the celebration of the marriage. It remains the obligation of the Catholic parish priest, however, to inform the state registry office forthwith, and this is something quite reasonable and also necessary for good governance as well as for the mutual understanding of the parties.
Very opportune and in no need of clarification are the subsequent provisions (article 27) regarding the spiritual care of the army and the Military Ordinariate, which are quite similar, though not an exact copy of what has been established for Italy; but all the more significant for a country where Catholics are in the minority. Not only is pastoral care provided for Catholic soldiers, officers, functionaries, and their families, but it is regulated and directed as a whole by its own military Bishop, whose appointment will be made by the Holy See after communication with the Reich Government for the designation of the appropriate person. He will be entitled then to appoint military pastors and other military clergy who have first obtained the permission of their diocesan Bishop and the corresponding certificate of suitability, after having heard from the competent authorities of the Reich. Finally, there is a promise that precise standards for a set of rules governing Catholic spiritual assistance in the Army will be issued with an Apostolic Letter, where the regulation of the circumstances particular to military chaplains, as officials of the State, will be set forth by the Reich Government.
The provisions about the organization of religious assistance in hospitals, penitentiaries and other establishments that are public entities, i.e., dependent on the State (article 28) appear less precise to us. It is set forth there explicitly, however, that the Church will be admitted into the framework of the general schedule of the institutions to provide for the spiritual needs of souls and to carry out religious functions, and that the regular spiritual assistance and the hiring of clergy for such purposes shall be done in accord with the higher ecclesiastical Authorities.
An issue particular to Germany is that which concerns non-German ethnic minorities, governed by article 29. Catholics belonging to such minorities will receive, for the use of their native language in worship, in religious education and in ecclesiastical associations, treatment no less favorable than that which corresponds to the circumstances in law and fact for citizens of German origin and language in the territory of the respective foreign state. Then, in the “final protocol” addendum, the Holy See also declares that, in conformity with principles it always defends concerning the right to use the mother tongue in pastoral care and in the religious life of Catholic organizations, it will procure, upon entering into future concordat agreements with other states, a mandatory equivalent provision for the protection of the rights of German minorities. These declarations and dispositions of one side and the other, which undoubtedly have a great intrinsic importance, as they should have a particular efficacy for the future international protection of the rights of ethnic minorities in various States.
Without difficulty we then find (in article 30) the provisions, concerning finally the main religious services of Sundays and designated feast days, the provisions that set forth the liturgical prayer for the well-being of the Reich and the German people: whose substance is in complete conformity with ancient traditions, doctrines and liturgical usages of the Church. And did not the prince of the Apostles prescribe prayer even for the pagan States and their governors, even in the first century of persecutions? Nor was this just some sort of recommendation, it was policy!
Some difficulty, however, comes to mind concerning the practical order at least, in the two subsequent articles, with their concordat provisions or legal status as to Catholic Action. Certainly protection is promised and assured for Catholic organizations and associations that have exclusively religious, cultural and charitable purposes, or those of Christian beneficence, and which are under ecclesiastical Authority: the others, or those that have other purposes as well, including social and professional ones, are only to be given security to the extent they conduct their activities apart from any political party; and there is a commitment to draw up a list of the protected groups in agreement with the Reich Government and the German Bishops. They will also then be able to be incorporated into unions of the State that have a similar social or vocational purpose. With regard to youth organizations, supported by the Reich or the individual States, care shall be taken to enable their members to fulfill their religious obligations on Sundays and holy days, and not to force them to do things that are incompatible with their faith and with their religious and moral obligations (article 31).
And these principles, as the “final protocol” adds, apply also for organizations of obligatory work, which shall therefore not be incompatible with obligations, for example, to observe the holy days. Finally, in light of the current particular circumstances of Germany and the corresponding guarantees in the provisions of the current Concordat for legislation protecting the rights and the liberty of the Catholic Church in the Reich and in its States, the Holy See promises to take measures that exclude priests and religious from membership and activity in favor of political parties.
This last provision is certainly serious as it appears to restrict the range of civil rights belonging to priests and religious considered as citizens under laws applying equally to all; but it is quite obviously justified by the particular circumstances of the German Empire, be it for the convenient protection that the current provisions introduced by the Concordat assure us for the rights and the liberty of the Catholic Church: protection that priests and religious must have before all else in their civil and religious conduct. But this, as we are told in the final addendum, will not restrict only the Catholic clergy in regard to abstention from political militancy, but will also be imposed on the ministers of other, non-Catholic denominations with the same provisions about partisan political activity. And finally it is explicitly declared that the abstention from militant political activity itself, or partisan activity, does not mean restriction of any sort in teaching and public preaching, which is the obligation of priests and religious, as to the doctrines and maxims of the Church, not only dogmatic but also moral. Thus the abstention is quite reasonable and healthy, particularly under the present circumstances, and it is an abstention from partisan politics, so-called militancy, not actually from that which is an aspect of lawful justice, be it a matter of cooperating in the common good, applying and promoting genuine Christian morality, that is, in social and public life itself; for this type of politics is the essential obligation of citizenship; nor is it being renounced.
A final epilogue, and the most comprehensive, we find in the penultimate article, as regards comprehensively all the matters that concern ecclesiastical persons and things which are not treated in the preceding articles; and with this generic comprehensiveness of understanding, we are promised that all of it in the ecclesiastical field will be governed according to the Canon Law currently in effect, and if in the future any disagreements arise as to the interpretation and application of the present Concordat, the Holy See and the German Reich will proceed by common understanding to reach an amicable solution (article 32). Such comprehensiveness, we say, should assure well into the future the consistency of civil legislation with applicable ecclesiastical legislation, and thus the application in future Concordat provisions of the Code of Canon Law in all its fullness, according to the provisions of the present Concordat. And of that there is already a good sign in the accomplished ratification and thus the entry into force of the Concordat itself, as anticipated by the final article (article 34), in spite of all the difficulties that have arisen, and confirmed, as we have already said, with the exchange of the instruments ratifying it on September 10.
Thus German Catholics had good reason to celebrate the extraordinary event, and to celebrate it indeed with religious ceremonies of thanksgiving, arranged in all the dioceses of Germany, and with the greatest crowds of people. The Catholic people, more than the politicians, so yearn for the new era promised for religion in Germany, and thus also for domestic peace and unity, no less than for the external prosperity of the nation.
There was no actual reason, but only rather a pretext motivated by non-diverse considerations, for journalists of other rival nations, and even Catholic writers, to deplore and criticize the Concordat, especially in France. Thus an issue of the Temps (August 31st) came to perceive a canonization of Hitlerism, with a whole series of dogmatic errors and moral travesties, which it enumerated, such as to make them clamor for the extreme remedy of an ecumenical council. This outcry brings too much “anxiety,” but still more sorrow for the lack of basic catechetical, historical and juridical understanding that it signifies! And such a lack, or ignorance, is a strange thing to find in any journalist, but especially in one who professes the Catholic faith. A Frenchman should certainly remember the example of other Concordats that turned out advantageous for the nation, but far less favorable to religion, like that of Pius VII, on the morrow of the bloody and ungodly revolution. It made the monarchical party indignant for giving an appearance of weakness towards the “satanic” arrogance of revolutionary idolatry. But the monarchists were wrong, despite the “organic articles” that proceeded to disclose the hypocrisy of the men of the revolution who were attenuating or withdrawing the concessions. On the contrary, as the mild-mannered Pontiff, far from approving, with his condescending Convention, the doctrinal errors and the moral excesses of the Jacobin revolution and the Napoleonic dictatorship, set up a powerful bulwark at least, if not a complete refuge, according to the possibilities of the time.
Less excusable than the old monarchists are the modern French critics, even if sincere, like the two writers in the Correspondant (September 10 and October 10, 1933): one of whom insists on scrutinizing “the Catholic perspective and the future of the Concordat” from so far away; the other, the dangers of failure and the probability of violation of the Concordat itself, to the detriment of Catholics and of religion in Hitler’s Germany.
Unfortunately we cannot deny the foundation of their fears, at least not now; but we deny the merit of the reasoning they use to deduce illogically the lack of utility or worse, the harmfulness, of the Concordat. And on this point alone we have insisted, without “optimistic” illusions, up to the first echo that the current discussions caused to arrive here, and to the response, historically and legally incontestible, there could be no reply. However, we now conclude, to be brief, with our confrère from France, after recalling the noted objections, how “we believe that the Holy See has considered the matter more and better than anyone else, but may have equally good reasons that are firm and wise and weighty to pass over a concern, for the purpose of a great good.”
For the purpose of this good it is therefore the obligation, for every honest citizen, and more so for every Catholic, to cooperate with all their energy, promoting better understanding along with the application of the terms and laws of the Concordat, without which the simple promulgation of a new legal statute would certainly not be a great thing. And we have said “new” not because all the ecclesiastical rights and liberties that it recognizes were given to the Church for the first time in Germany: those, as we well know, were for the most part recognized in other Concordats made with the various provinces or individual States (Länderkonkordate), as was mentioned above; but because a new and more solemn recognition was added to the former juridical status - on the schools question, for example, the rights of Church organizations, etc. - thus new force and range throughout the German Reich, and with this, hope is established for the future, if the rulers are not lacking in a sense of good faith and integrity, which must be assumed in all honest contracting parties, and much more in the men of the German Government, who are well aware of the terrible “present hour.” Nor should one vainly skip by the “great hour” that is passing, for we can truly call it “a historical and providential hour” for Germany. But why not also add: for Christian Europe and for all the civilized world?
Nov. 24, 1933 Bishop Bornewasser of Trier, Germany to Cardinal Bertram, Prince-Archbishop of Breslau, Germany and Chairman of the German (Fulda) Bishops Conference, Nov. 24, 1933:
Your Eminence, Reverend Lord Archbishop,
Upon my return from Rome, where I had gone on account of Saar District matters, I received Your Eminence’s letter. In response to this letter, I can say the following:
A letter from von Papen to Bishop Gröber [of Freiburg, Germany] arrived in Rome on Friday of last week. In this letter von Papen expresses his desire that we bishops take the initiative to lead our young people into the Hitler Youth. The Bishops of Cologne, Rottenburg, and Trier, who were in Rome at the time, heard from Kaas about this letter. All three of us spoke up strongly against Papen’s request. Cardinal Pacelli was immediately informed by Kaas of the letter, which Archbishop Gröber had faithfully sent to Rome without yet having taken any kind of step. Cardinal Pacelli had Kaas inform Archbishop Gröber by telephone that this had to do with a Causa major [Stasiewski, ed., footnote: referring to Canon Law section 220*), which could only be handled between Rome and Berlin.
*Note: The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1909 describes “causa major” as “one of those important matters in which the bishop possesses no authority whatever and which the pope reserves exclusively to himself.” A. Van Hove, “Diocese” Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 5, republished and available online.
Source: Trier Bishop’s archives, reprinted in Stasiewski, German Bishops’ Papers, vol. 1, p.463.
Archbishop Gröber to Cardinal Bertram, Nov. 24, 1933
Your Eminence, Reverend Lord Archbishop,
Concerning your esteemed letter of November 22, 1933, I am responding to your position as follows:
1. It is entirely unknown to me that four German Bishops have agreed to the dissolution of Catholic organizations ...
3. I have been informed from Rome by telephone that no negotiations may be conducted by the German Bishops on this matter, because it is a question of a Concordat issue, which concerns solely the Holy See and the German Government. For me that settles the whole matter. At the same time I emphasize that this is a question that involves not only the Catholic associations but the entire Catholic youth. I personally have no opinion on the matter, but I can understand if particular Bishops discuss not only the reasons contra dissolution but also pro. Once Rome has spoken, however, the issue no longer rests with us...
Source: Freiburg Archbishop’s archives, Nachlass Gröber, reprinted in Stasiewski, German Bishops’ Papers, vol. 1, p.865.
Note: The ability of Fr. Kaas to give orders to German Bishops in the name of Cardinal Pacelli and to have those orders accepted unquestioningly, as seen in Bishop Bornewasser’s letter to Cardinal Bertram above, was related to Kaas’s long-term work with Nuncio Pacelli in Germany and their long-term friendship. As seen in the following letter, Kaas let on to at least one German Bishop that he was on a first-name basis with Cardinal Pacelli:
Ludwig Kaas to Conrad Gröber, Archbishop of Freiburg, Germany, from Rome, Dec. 21, 1933:
Heartiest thanks for your good reports. Also for the letter about the German student group, etc. Albert’s [Hackelsberger, a Nazi Party member in the Reichstag] visit was very significant in my opinion. He made his case excellently. In the very thorough discussion with Eugen [German for Eugenio], such rich and clarifying light was shed on your activity and your fundamental evaluations of the situation and themes, that I was very satisfied with the entire result, which was consistent with your outlook...
Source: Archdiocese of Freiburg archive, Nachlass Gröber, reprinted in Stasiewski, German Bishops’ Papers, vol. 1, p.484.
Nov. 24, 1933 report of Bishop Berning’s words to Catholics in Hamburg, Germany after the Nov. 12, 1933 nationwide referendum:
In the new German State, German Catholics joyfully stand behind the Führer, whom the German Volk unanimously affirmed as it was called upon this past Sunday to stand up for unity and unanimity in Germany. For German Catholics, true adherence to the Führer and responsibility for the well-being of the State is a patriotic and religious duty. Catholics bring with them valuable cultural assets for the upbuilding of the Volksgemeinschaft [Volk community]: a strong optimism and belief in progress, a lively sense of community, a warm love for German Volk-ness, for the blood and the soil, for our language and traditions, for the formation and fate of the German Volk.”
Source: Klemens-August Recker, “Wem Wollt Ihr Glauben?”: Bischof Berning im Dritten Reich [“Who Do You Want to Believe?”: Bishop Berning in the Third Reich] (1998), p.69, quoting from Nachrichtenblatt für die Kath. Gemeinden von Hamburg, Altona und Umgebung [Newspaper for the Catholic Communities of Hamburg, Altona and Vicinity], November 24, 1933.
December 1933 Excerpts of Cardinal Faulhaber's Advent sermons on the Old Testament:
Sections sometimes quoted for their affirmation of the Jewish people:
The German Classicists held the Holy Scripture of the Old Testament in honor... We would have to give the lie to our German Classicists if we wanted to disrespect the Old Testament and ban it from the schools and the bookshops of our people. We would have to strike many expressions from the verbal treasury of the German language. We could no longer speak of the forbidden fruit and sins that cry out to heaven ... We would have to deny the intellectual history of our people. Let us hold the Holy Scripture of the Old Testament in honor!
It is a fact of cultural history: Among no other people of pre-Christian antiquity is such a great number of intellectually pre-eminent men to be found, who stand up for the religious order of their people with their words and their whole personality, as among the people of the Old Testament...
Source: Advent 1933 sermon of Cardinal Faulhaber, reprinted in Hans Lamm, Von Juden in München: Ein Gedenkbuch [On the Jews of Munich: A Book of Remembrance] (1958), pp. 340-341.
Other portions, translated from Cardinal Faulhaber, Judentum, Christentum, Germanentum: Adventspredigten [Judaism, Christianity, German-ness: Advent Sermons] (Munich: Huber, 1934):
After the death of Christ, Israel was dismissed from the service of Revelation... She had repudiated and rejected the Lord's Anointed ... The daughter of Sion received her bill of divorce, and since that time the eternal Ahasuerus wanders restless over the earth... (p.10)
Other portions, excerpted from the translation by George D. Smith, published in 1934 with an imprimatur from the Cardinal-Archbishop of New York:
... a priceless heritage from the sacred books of pre-Christian Judaism. This wealth of thought is so unique among the civilized nations of antiquity that we are bound to say: People of Israel, this did not grow in your garden of your own planting. This condemnation of usurious land-grabbing, this war against the oppression of the farmer by debt, this prohibition of usury, is not the product of your spirit... Either we believe in the inspiration of the sacred books, or else we must say to the Jewish people: "you are the cleverest people in the world's history." We believe in inspiration. (Smith trans. pp. 68-69)
But it is an extraordinary thing that the reproaches which are leveled at Charlemagne for the compulsory baptism of the Saxons are not made with the same indignation against the Emperor Julian the Apostate, who in the fourth century with a much more brutal abuse of political power, and in league with the Israelites, tried to destroy Christianity and to set paganism once more on the throne. (Smith trans. p.103)
From the Church's point of view there is no objection whatever to racial research and race culture. Nor is there any objection to the endeavour to keep the national characteristics of a people as far as possible pure and unadulterated, and to foster their national spirit by emphasis upon the common ties of blood which unite them. From the Church's point of view we must make only three conditions: First, love of one's own race must not lead to the hatred of other nations. Secondly, the individual must never consider himself freed from the obligation of nourishing his own soul by the persevering use of the means of grace which the Church provides... Thirdly, race culture must not assume an attitude of hostility to Christianity... The Christian, so long as he observes the above conditions, is not forbidden to stand up for his race and for its rights... (Smith trans. pp. 107-109)
Source: Judaism, Christianity and Germany, trans. G. Smith (New York: Macmillan, 1934).
Go to Overview-Contents
Published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License by Stephen H. Galebach. Non-commercial reproduction, use and sharing of the Timeline and linked Translations and Notes are permitted, provided attribution is given to the author and a hyperlink is made to the Timeline.