ADSS 8.141 Gabriel Apor to Cardinal Maglione: Hungarian government reply to Vatican protest

ADSS 8.141: Gabriel Apor, Hungarian Ambassador to the Holy See to Cardinal Maglione

Reference:  No number; AES 7410/41

Location and date: Rome 06.09.1941

Summary statement: Justification for the Antisemitic laws in Hungary

Language: French

Text:

In reference to the letter of 13.08.1941 (1), I have the honour to communicate to Your Eminence the following:

The Hungarian Government has read, with sincere regret, the concerns Your Eminence expressed related to the introduced reforms to Hungarian marriage legislation.

The population of Hungary is – as is commonly known – is composed of different religions.   Therefore there has been a need for forty-seven years for the Hungarian State to regulate the institution of marriage by law and introduce legislation for obligatory civil marriage.

Since 1894 (2), the Hungarian Government has thus, invariably, taken the point of view that the regulations of the institution of marriage is a task that falls to the State, and therefore the Hungarian Government has never – since then – amended its point of view on this principle.

Political interests vital to the country require the Hungarian Government to introduce new prohibitive measures to matrimonial legislation.  These important interests have emerged from consequences, in part, from the general European situation, and in part, from special social conditions in Hungary, which have been exposed repeatedly by qualified representatives of the government to Parliament and have been expressed by the Prime Minister (3) to His Excellency the Apostolic Nuncio. (4)

During the discussions of the proposed law in question, the Hungarian Government endeavoured to take into account the points of view expressed by His Excellency the Apostolic Nuncio and His Eminence the Cardinal Prince-Primate (5) insofar as the political circumstances that made the reforms inevitable, allowed it.

The Hungarian government, for its part, ensures the Holy See, that within the framework of the law, has not lost sight of the considerations the Church attaches – on its part, a very high importance – when it comes to the execution and practice of the law.

The Hungarian Government sincerely regrets if these concessions have not entirely satisfied the Holy See, but expresses the hope that this matter will not affect the traditional friendly relations that have existed with Hungary since the time of our first king, St Stephen. (6)

References: 

(1) ADSS 8.128

(2) “In 1894-1995, a severe domestic conflict erupted in Hungary. The Liberal government then in power introduced legislation aimed at separating church and state.  The reforms with regard to the tole of the Catholic Church made civil marriage and birth registry obligatory, legalised divorce, granted Judaism equality with other faiths, and left it to parents in an interfaith marriage to decide what religious their children should follow.  These secularisation laws were strongly opposed by the Catholic clergy and conservative magnates in the upper house of the Hungarian parliament.  The laws finally were passed when Emperor Francis Joseph, who had disliked the secularisation laws and procrastinated in his support of the Hungarian government, finally put pressure on the magnates to vote for the bills in order to avoid a prolonged crisis”. Solomon Wank (2009), In the Twilight of Empire: count Alois Lexa von Aehrehthal (1854-1912) Imperial Hapsburg Patriot and Statesman, Volume 1, p 146.  See too Paul Hanebrink (2006), In Defense of Christian Hungary:religion, Nationalism and Antisemitism 1890-1944,  pp 23-28. Many of Hungary’s senior clergy had been young priests during the bitter clash over the introduction of civil marriage in 1894 and most saw it as a major loss for the rights of the Church.

(3) Laszlo von Bardossy (1890-1945), Prime Minister 1941-1942

(4) Angelo Rotta (1872-1965), Nuncio 1930-1945

(5) Justinian Seredi (1884-1945), Cardinal Primate 1927-1945

(6) St Stephen I, Duke (997-1000) and first King of Hungary (1000-1038).

Arms of the Regency of Hungary

ADSS 8.116 Angelo Rotta to Cardinal Maglione: Race Laws approved by Parliament

ADSS 8.116. Nuncio Angelo Rotta to Cardinal Luigi Maglione.

Reference: Report number 5763/41 (N Pr 391), AES 5898/41

Location and date: Budapest, 19.07.1941

Summary statement: Race Laws were approved by Hungarian parliament despite the opposition of the Catholic bishops and Protestant leaders.

Language: Italian

Text:

I refer to my report Number 5706/41, N. Pr 386 on 06.07.1941 (1) concerning the new racial laws.  As I expected the law was passed, although only with a slight majority (65 votes to 53).  The law was also approved by the Upper House with some mitigation on Article 9 (Annex 2) (2) concerning requirements that will come under the provisions of the law.  As Your Eminence can see from the articles from “Pester Lloyd” which I enclose, modifications of the law were passed against the wishes of the government expressed by President Bardosy himself, who insisted on the original text of the bill with the votes 50 in favour and 7 against.

His Eminence, Cardinal Seredi, both in the Committee (Annex 1) and in the plenary session of the Upper House (Annex 3) has nobly and accurately expressed the principle reasons for opposition to the acceptance of the project.

I will not go into particular details, because they can be found in the three annexes attached to this report, which includes an account of the developments of the extensive discussions, and in the simple statement of the Cardinal made in the committee and his long speech in the plenary session.

Even the so-called Protestant bishops, as your Eminence can easily see, took a stand against the motion.

The bishops and the clergy of the Upper House were well represented at the session, but there were absences, some justified, some not.  If there had been some work prior to the vote in order to organise opposition, perhaps the outcome could have been different.  Unfortunately people who pass as good Catholics, but who are linked more or less to the government, voted in favour of the law.

Now, any amendment to Article 9, approved by the Upper House, will have to go before the House of Deputies.  They will probably not find a conciliatory way, and then the decision will be up to both houses meeting together in order to vote.  In this case the Government will in all probability, according to its stated aim, reject the modification appeal, and will formulate a more strict interpretation of the original article, because the vast majority of the house favourable to the Government will have the upper hand over the weak majority of the Upper House.

Of course, the rejection of the law would have been a magnificent act, although perhaps not without dangerous repercussions, given the atmosphere in which we live.  On the other hand, the fact that the Government did not ask the opinion of the Cardinal Primate before the presentation of the proposal, and that, in spite of the protest of the bishops and the Protestant ecclesiastical authorities, the bill was passed, are ugly symptoms of the times.  Already there are rumours of a new law regarding institutions for the young, which would be nationalised, striking a major blow to religious organisations: in this atmosphere it would be no wonder if you are not able to arrive at a concrete solution in the field of education, creating difficulties for confessional schools.

In such a short time one can be a little perplexed about the future of Hungary, even if one continues to speak about a Christian state and a national and Christian legal base.  It is certainly not a good omen that the current [German] minister, Dr Erdmannsdorff (4) has been recalled to Berlin, and will be replaced by von Jagow, a party man and a leader of the SA; who, like the ministers in Bucharest and Sofia, have been replaced by members of the National Socialist party. (5)

We see that Berlin wants to exert pressure on these nations we might refer to as “vassals”.

Note of Tardini:

26.07.1941.  After audience with Cardinal Maglione. 

Repeat in writing comments made earlier against the proposal … (6)

References: 

(1) ADSS 8.111

(2) Cutting from Pester Lloyd 15.07.1941.

(3) Cutting from the same journal, 13.07 and 19.07.1941.

(4) Otto von Erdmannsdorf (1888-1978), German ambassador 1937-1941, was replaced by Dietrich von Jagow (1892-1945) on 31.07.1941. Von Jagow was ambassador July 1941 to September 1944.

(5) Herbert Freiherr von Richtofen (1879-1952), German ambassador (1939-1941) was replaced in Sofia by Adolf Beckerle (1902-1976) on 06.07.1941, and Wilhelm Fabricius (1882-1964) in Bucharest was replaced by Manfred von Killinger (1886-1944) on 13.12.1940.

(6) See ADSS 8.128.

ADSS 8.111 Angelo Rotta to Cardinal Maglione: Race laws in Hungary

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.

ADSS 8.95 Angelo Rotta to Cardinal Maglione - Race laws in Hungary

ADSS 8.95: Nuncio Angelo Rotta to Cardinal Secretary of State, Luigi Maglione

Reference: 5563/41 (N. Pr. 375) AES 4888/41

Location and date: Budapest, 14.06.1941

Summary statement: Racial legislation in Hungary and the intervention of Cardinal Seredi.

Language: Italian

Text:

I am sending to you a clipping from the “Pester Lloyd” (1) of 11 June, which refers to the draft laws concerning marriage in Hungary, which will worsen the already bad legislation. (2)

As Your Eminence can see one proposal makes a premarital medical certificate mandatory, and the other forbids, under pain of severe penalties, marriage between Christians and Jews, using the word “Jew” as it has been indicated in the proposed law.

The attack on the rights of conscience and canon law is heightened by the fact that the bond previously required of civil and religious marriages, and protected with severe penalties, practically introduces an impediment to religious marriage.

Since Cardinal Seredi was here in Budapest for confirmations, I went to see him to deal with this thorny issue.

It was only natural that his Eminence the Cardinal was grieved, especially when he told me that he had discussed the matter three days ago with the President of the Council, Mr Bardosy (3).  The President, while recognizing the justified opposition to the laws by the Cardinal and bishops, would not desist from presenting them as he claimed they are supported by public opinion.  The conviction of the Cardinal is that Bardosy and the Justice Minister, [Laszlo] Radocsay (4), both of whom are considered good Catholics, are, more than anything else, acting under German pressure.  His Excellency Barczy, Undersecretary to the President, has confirmed this confidentially to me.  There are two reasons that this project was presented: German pressure and the desire to disarm the Arrow Cross (the Hungarian National Socialists) who exploit dislike of the Jews living among the population.  Cardinal Seredi then told the President that it was his duty to publicly oppose the proposed laws in the Upper House, either in committee or in the plenary session.

Meanwhile, the Cardinal has already written to the bishops to warn them that he will speak in the name of the episcopate in the Upper House on the two bills to defend the rights of conscience and the Church.

As I have said, public opinion is very much against the Jews, and therefore it is difficult to account for any opposition to this law, opposition that has a solid basis, but not easily understood by the masses.

The warm acceptance and approval of the projects from within the ruling party of the Government, as can be seen in other extracts from “Pester Lloyd” (5) over the last year or so, shows the dominant mentality.

However, even if the opposition of the bishops does not produce any practical effects, and leaves them open to criticism, misunderstanding and slander, it will always be an honourable thing that they did.

Although the Protestants are quite liberal, with a sad marriage legislation for about fifty years with regard to mixed marriages, which has clouded many minds, with the result that the true idea of Christian marriage is either lost or weakened.  This has lead to the sad consequence of the weakening of the sense of family and the casual ease with which this serious and delicate subject is treated.

I take the occasion to point out that, as per the second cuttings from Pester Llyod which I have attached, the President of the Council in his report on his trip to Rome (6) spoke of his visit to the Holy Father.  On this subject of Bardosy’s trip, the newspapers have, generally, made simple reports.

Note of the Secretariat:

21.06.1941 (on instructions of His Eminence [Maglione])

The attitude of the Cardinal Primate is good.  The nuncio has, in turn, made known to the government that this attitude is not displeasing to the Holy See. (7)

References: 

(1) Not published in ADSS.

(2) See ADSS 6 passim.

(3) Ladislas Bardossy (1890-1946), Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs 1941-42.

(4) Laszlo Radocsay (1878-1968), Minister of Justice 1939-1944.

(5) Extract from Pester Lloyd 14.06.1941, not published in ADSS.

(6) See ADSS 4.395.  The audience was held on 05.06.1941.  See ADSS 4.388n1.

(7) The Secretariat wrote to the Nuncio on 26.06.1941. (AES 4888/41)