ADSS 8.111 Angelo Rotta, Hungary to Cardinal Maglione
Reference: report
nr 5706/41 (N. Pr 386), AES 5596/41
Location and
date: Budapest, 06.07.1941
Summary
statement: Racial laws in Hungary; steps
taken by the nuncio and opposition of representatives of the clergy.
Language: Italian
Text:
I have just
received last Monday, 30 June, your Eminence’s dispatch number 48/41 of 26 June
concerning the unhappy draft laws concerning marriage, the discussion of which
was urgently requested of and granted by the Parliament.
On the preceding
Saturday, 28 June, I had asked for an audience with the President of the
Council (2), which was granted to me on Tuesday 2 July. Thus I was able to state not only in my name,
but also expressly on behalf of the Holy See, our valid grievances about the
proposed laws, which are prejudicial to the rights of the Church and to
conscience.
I reported to
His Excellency Mr Bardossy the exact words of your Eminence’s dispatch about
the pain of the Holy Father and the mind of the Holy See in respect of these
proposals: Words which Mr Bardossy has noted, as well as the date of the
encyclical Casti Connublii (3) to
which I referred as the most comprehensive and authoritative exposition of the
doctrine of the Church concerning marriage.
As you may well
believe, Mr Bardossy found this incorrect, but it seemed he was on horns of a
dilemma as he attempted to justify the position of the Government. To speak frankly, it was not a pleasant
situation having to speak of the Hungarian legislation concerning
marriage. Although I did not use the
word “divorce”, I had to speak of it, since as they say, “don’t speak of rope
in the house of the hanged”.
The practical
result, at least for now: the law that
was already being discussed in Parliament was approved on Friday 4 July with
some modification but nothing that effects the substance. Towards the middle of the month the law will
be presented to the Upper House, where I think it will be approved, if only to
avoid embarrassing the government with the risk of a crisis where no one would
be sure of where it would lead.
While not
lessening the pace suggested by Your Eminence with the government, it was no
longer necessary because the priest, Közi-Hovráth (4) made a statement opposing
the law on behalf of the priests in the Chamber of deputies, as can be seen in
Annex A which I have enclosed (5). In
the Upper House, his Eminence, the Cardinal Primate (6) is preparing to protest
further, lest the silence of the Holy See be misinterpreted.
I have also
added another clipping from “Pester Lloyd”
which contains the speech of the Minister of Justice given in the Chamber on 2
July. (7)
I have not been
able to meet with Cardinal Seredi, who is absent from Budapest; but I will see
him before the start of the debate in the Upper House. I will not fail to report to him the
benevolent and encouraging words from your Eminence contained in your
aforementioned dispatch.
References:
(1) See ADSS
8.95, note 5
(2) Ladislas
Bardossy, (1890-1946), Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
1941-1942.
(3) Pius XI, Casti Connubii, 31.12.1930 AAS 22
(1930), pp 539-592.
(4) Jozsef
Közi-Horváth (1903-1988), United Party deputy, 1939-1945. Fled Hungary in 1948;
eventually settled in West Germany.
(5) Not
published in ADSS.
(6) Cardinal Justinian
Seredi
(7) Not
published in ADSS.
No comments:
Post a Comment
You are welcome to post a comment. Please be respectful and address the issues, not the person. Comments are subject to moderation.