ADSS 8.153 Part 2

This post continues the report sent by Giuseppe Burzio to Cardinal Maglione on the promulgation of the Slovakian Jewish Code in September 1941.  It is not difficult to see the focus of the bishops' protest.  They protested in the name of converted Jews and Jews married to Catholics.  It is important to keep this in context.  As far as the bishops were concerned, converted Jews were Catholics, not Jews.  Marriage between Catholics and Jews was a sacred bond that had to be defended against intrusion by the state.

***************************

Since that time, I have not abandoned the occasion to suggest, politely, to their Excellencies the Bishops, the opportunity for a bishops’ conference. There were many issues of common interest to examine and, confined to the racist question, the earlier antisemitic laws had raised many problems of a religious order that required necessary study and resolve by mutual agreement.


Appeals and isolated protests to the Government made by diocesan curia remained without effect; joint action of the bishops would have greater chance of success. Unfortunately, if took several months for their excellencies to find the time to meet.

Finally, when I was confidentially informed on 3 September that the publication of the new laws against the Jews was only a matter of days away, and that the provisions relating to marriage were very serious and would have retrospective effect (they were later changed at the last moment), I went to Nitra to suggest at once, the prompt convening of a meeting of the bishops; moreover, I had heard that the Minister of the Interior, who was working on the Jewish Code, had expressed surprise that the bishops remained silent, and did not know the point of view of the Ministry, at least in matters that directly affect the interests of the Church.

In Nitra I was told that it was not so serious and urgent, and that the news received the news from the President of the Republic was reassuring. In view of this, I did not dare insist. A few days later on 8 September, Bishop [Andrea] Škrábik, [1882-1950] coadjutor of Bánská Bystrica wrote to me as follows:

[Original text in Latin] Reflecting on your visit to Nitra last week, I had an opportunity to have an interview with the President, who said to me: a) the published laws do not effect Jews who have already contracted ecclesiastical marriages; for future such marriages which do not present the matrimonial impediment but only hide it (such marriages are forbidden), will have no penal sanction for those who officially preside at such marriages, but the contracting parties will be subject to the penalties according to the laws regarding civil marriage. b) Aspects that go beyond the Nuremberg Laws. These laws, in relation to the Slovakian Jewish code will be tiresome for a few, mild for others. Under the new law the President will have the right to grant exemptions if the person concerned proves themselves worthy and their behaviour warrants the exemption. The President asks that we have confidence in him”.

Nevertheless, I thought it appropriate to ask, privately, for an audience with the President of the Republic, to see if he really was able to give a clear and authoritative word, which was strong enough to allay apprehensions about the extent of the antisemitic laws in preparation. Until that time no one imagined that the announcement of the Jewish Code would be made in such a surprising way by a simple Government decree. It was believed that there would be, at least a pro forma participation of the Chamber.

I was granted an audience on 10 September, the same morning the newspapers promulgated the Jewish Code. I had no choice, in my discussion with Dr Tiso, to complain about the laws, and to express my regret that in some points of the Code the rights of the Church and of Catholics were misunderstood and to vow the President of the Republic would take the appropriate measures to repair or mitigate the licensed injustices.

Bishop Škrábik immediately expressed his disappointment with a letter, which I include in part: (in Latin):

The feelings which have driven the government orders on the Jews, are scarcely in harmony with what was told me by the President and which I wrote to your reverence on 8 September. We seek the statements made by the Holy See and Italian and German bishops on this matter, that they may be studied in the conference which the Bishop of Nitra [Charles Kmetko 1875-1948] will probably convene in Bratislava on 7 October.

I replied to Bishop Škrábik, expressing the fear that some of the measures in the Jewish Code would be put into effect before the Bishops’ conference. For example the obligation to wear the Hebrew Badge (Star of David), would affect many Catholics (more than three thousand); that regardless of what is discussed and decided upon at the conference, it would be good to go immediately to the office of the President of the Republic, exercising their right under Paragraph 255 of the Code which exempts “Hebrew Catholics” from wearing the Badge. Bishop Škrábik wrote at once in this vein to the President.

The decree on the marking of the Jews was issued today (18 September) by the Ministry of the Interior. In paragraph 2 e) it said that the only exemptions from wearing the Jewish Badge were granted to Jews who belonged to one of the Christian Churches recognised by the State, provided they were baptised before the 10 September 1941.

The next bishops’ conference will also certainly have to deal with other problems associated with the promulgation of the “Jewish Code”, especially issues related to marriage and schools. I will not fail to inform your eminence.

Notes of Mgr Tardini


18/10/41

Monsignor Burzio protests with the note written.

Prepare a note for the Legation here. (ADSS 8.199 – Maglione’s protest to Slovakian minister Karel Sidor)

(Cf also ADSS 8.173 – Slovakian Bishops letter to Tiso.

ADSS 8.153 Giuseppe Burzio's report on the Slovakian Jewish Code 18.09.1941

Volume 8 of ADSS is the first volume that deals with the victims of the war in considerable detail.  It is here that we find much of the documentation that gives us insight into what the Vatican knew of the persecution of the Jews in Europe.  The two parts of Volume 3 also cover much of the persecution of the Jews in Poland and the Baltic States, but it is not as explicit as the material from the rest of Europe. 

The Nazi puppet state of Slovakia was created in 1939 from the remains of Czechoslovakia.  Extreme right-wing and nationalist priest, Jozef Tiso was President throughout the life of the Republic and implemented anti-Jewish laws and oversaw the deportation of the Slovak Jews.  Appeals from Rome to Tiso's priestly vocation and respect for the authority of the Pope and bishops fell on deaf ears.  His trial and execution as a Nazi collaborator in 1947 elicited no appeal from the Vatican.

Traditionally, the Holy See did not, and does not, recognise states created during a time of war or in unusual situations.  Consequently there are no formal diplomatic relations between the two entities.  Pius XII appointed Giuseppe Burzio (1901-1966) as a charge d'affaires in Bratislava.  A similar arrangement was made for Croatia under Ante Pavelic.  Burzio's reports indicate a very high level of awareness of the political and social realities in Slovakia and, in particular, the rising tide of Jew-hatred promoted by the Tiso government.

In September 1941, Tiso's regime promulgated the Jewish Code which enacted wide-reaching Nuremberg style laws.  Burzio reported the news to Cardinal Maglione in an extensive report on 18 September.  He went into detail about the new laws as well as the reaction of the Slovakian bishops, which while slow to begin with, soon expressed their negative views on the laws.  However, their disapproval was voiced at the interference of the state in the marriage laws which now outlawed marriage between Jews and non-Jews as well as for converted Jews.

The text must be read in its context.  The mass murder campaign in the Soviet Union was only just underway.  It is fair to say that there would have been very few in Slovakia who could have imagined the fate of the Slovak Jews.  Within six months, however, that fate would become very clear.

The Slovakian experience is interesting for the reports from Burzio which detail the unfolding of the anti-Jewish persecution and the responses from Rome.  The Pope certainly knew of the reports and equally certainly, approved of the responses to them.

Giuseppe Burzio 1901-1966

Papal charge d'affaires Slovakia 1941-1945



This is the first part of my translation of the document:

Volume and Document Number: ADSS 8.153


Reference: Rap nr. 577 (AES 8303/41, orig)

Location and date: Pressbourg (Bratislava) 18.09.1941

Summary statement: Racial legislation; first steps of the chargé affaires

Language: Italian

Text:

As I had the honour to inform Your Eminence on 9 September 1941 Slovakia promulgated a government regulation, the so-called “Jewish Code”. Paragraph 270 the legal, social and economic situation of Jews has been fixed on racist principles and strict adherence to the Nuremberg Laws.

Notwithstanding the importance and gravity of the provisions enacted giving them the character of true law, this legislation was processed outside the Parliament and was published without a vote or approval of the Chamber. It does not bear the signature of the President of the Republic [Fr Josef Tiso 1887-1947], but only the Head of the Government [Adalbert Tuka] and the government ministers. Dr Tiso was against and opposed until it was introduced as law, but the internal pressures and especially those outside were very loud and he had to yield, but only on condition that he reserved the right to exempt; in which is in fact established in paragraph 225 of the Law.


The essential points of the “Jewish Code” are as follows:


A Jew is considered, regardless of sex, to be a Jew if: 1) a person had at least three ancestors of the Jewish race; 2) if a person is a “cross” (“mongrel” literal translation of the Slovak word miešanec) that is if a person is a Jewish descendant of two ancestors of the Jewish race, if a) on 20 April, 1939 a person embraced the Israelite confession, b) after 20 April 1939 a person married a Jew; c) a person is descended from a mixed extra-marital union, and is born as an illegitimate child after 20 February 1940.


The Law shall consider that those who hold the Jewish confession shall be considered Jews.

Paragraph 4 fixes the notion of a legal Jewish person.

According to Paragraph 8, Jews are obliged to wear a distinctive badge (the Star of David), the wearing of which, along with any dispensation will be determined by the Minister of the Interior.

In accordance with Paragraph 9, marriage between Jews and non-Jews is prohibited, as is marriage between Jews and “cross-Jews” who do not fall under the dispensation granted in Paragraph 1. Those who contravene this law are punished with imprisonment up to three years and the loss of civil rights. Extra-marital affairs between Jews and non-Jews are forbidden.

According to Paragraph 12, Jews do not have the right to vote and may not be elected to Parliament or the governing boards of government controlled corporations. Likewise, they cannot function as state officials or government controlled institutes.

Paragraph 13 states that Jews cannot be members of the Hlinka Slovak Peoples’ Party, or of recognised minority parties; no are they able to be part of the Hlinka Guards, the Young Hlinka etc.

According to Paragraph 15, Jews cannot serve in the army or the police force. They are forbidden to work as public notaries, lawyers and engineers (Para 16). They cannot practice medicine, veterinary medicine (Para 18) nor in the pharmaceutical industry (Para 20).

Jews between 16 and 60 are required to work at the disposal of the Central Economic Office. (Para 22) Jews and their homes are subject to search by the organs of public safety (Paras 25-26). All correspondence of Jews is subject to censorship and possible seizure (Para 27).

According to Paragraph 28, the Central Economic Office, in agreement with the Minister of the Interior, may force Jews to leave certain towns and take up residence in other places. Likewise the same office can determine that Jews should be removed from a particular part of a city. Jews may be prohibited from staying spas, holiday resorts etc, visiting trade fairs, exhibitions etc.

They cannot form organisations, outside of religious communities. The only Jewish organisation is the “Central Jewish Organisation” based in Bratislava. (Para 30). They cannot hold meetings or demonstrations or take part in public events (Para 33).

They cannot be publishers, editors and contributors to newspapers except for those that will be published by the “Central Jewish Organisation”. In addition, no intellectual property of Jews can be released in Slovakian territory (para 34).

Members of the Jewish confession and Jewish communities can worship only in those buildings which, from the exterior, do not appear to be intended for religious purposes. Synagogues and prayer houses must, therefore, be adapted by 10 July 1942, otherwise they will be forfeit to the State (Para 36). Paragraph 37 prohibits Jewish ritual slaughter.

According to Paragraph 38, Jews are excluded from study in all schools and institutes of learning. Foreign degrees are not recognised. Jews are permitted to complete primary education only and only in classes permitted by the Minister of Public Instruction.

Jews may only be represented by Jewish lawyers before the courts (Para 50). They cannot bear arms, hold licenses for hunting and fishing, they cannot drive cars; are only permitted to travel third class on trains, but cannot use sleeping-cars or restaurant-cars; they cannot posses radios (Paras 50-54) etc etc. In short, the Slovakian “Jewish Code” is a collection of “They cannot”.

The following paragraphs relate to reports on inherited property and the economic situation of the Jews, and established special rules for their progressive and complete elimination from the political, economic and social life of the nation.

Comparing the Slovakian “Jewish Code” with the Nuremberg Laws one can make the following remarks:

The term “Jew” corresponds to that set by the Nuremberg Laws with two exceptions. First, the classification of the “half-Jew” is different; it applies if a person has married a Jew. While the Nuremberg Laws consider a person a Jew, regardless of the date of marriage, the Slovak Code considers the person Jewish if they married after 20 April 1939 when the first anti-Jewish law was passed. On the other hand, the Slovak Code is most severe, in that it considers a person to be a “mongrel” Jew if they have converted to the Israelite religion.

According to the intent and purpose of the Nuremberg Laws a convert is not considered to be a Jew. But the most important difference between the Slovakian Code and the Nuremberg Laws assurances that seemed to me unconvincing.consists in the fact that in Slovakia mixed marriages already contracted are not affected, and diversity of race is not grounds for divorce or separation.


Since last May (1941) there was talk of imminent and serious measures to be taken against the Jews; including the prohibition of marriage between Jews and Aryans. As I had the honour to report in my report No 371 of 19 May 1941, I then went to see the President of the Republic about the matter, and received propositions of assurance that I did not find convincing.

ADSS 8.141 Gabrielle Apor's response to Cardinal Maglione's protest over changes to Hungary's marriage laws.

Following the previous post which set out Cardinal Maglione's protest to the Hungarian government, I present the reply written to Maglione by the Hungarian Minister to the Holy See, Gabrielle Apor.

Apor's response is couched in the customary diplomatic language, makes general and sweeping statements, vague and non-committal.  The Vatican was no threat as far as the Hungarian government was concerned.

Volume and Document Number: ADSS 8.141

Reference: without number (AES 7410/41, original)
Location and date: Rome 06.09.1941
Summary statement: Justification for the race laws in Hungary.
Language: French.

Text:

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

The Hungarian Government has noted with sincere regret, the fears Your Eminence expressed about the reforms introduced in Hungarian marriage laws.

The Hungarian population is – as is generally known – divided into different religions. Therefore after 47 years the Hungarian State was required to regulate the institution of marriage by statue and introduce legislation to make civil marriage mandatory.

From 1894 the Hungarian government has been, therefore, consistently of the view that the regulation of the institution of marriage is a task for the state: the Hungarian Government has not – after that time – changed its point of view

Vital political interests of the country oblige the Hungarian Government to introduce into the marriage laws new prohibitive measures. These important interests which result as a consequence, in part, of the general European situation, in part special social conditions in Hungary, which have been raised several times by qualified representatives of the Government before the Parliament and expressed by the President of the Council [László von Bardossy] to His Excellency, the Apostolic Nuncio [Angelo Rotta].

During the discussion of the bill in question, the Hungarian Government sought to take account of the views expressed by His Excellency, the Apostolic Nuncio and His Eminence, the Cardinal Prince Primate [Justinian Seredi] to the extent that the political circumstances that have made reform inevitable, allowed them.

The Hungarian Government, on its part, assures the Holy See that the framework of the law will not lose sight of the considerations which the Church places, with great importance, when the law is promulgated and in its implementation.

The Hungarian Government would sincerely regret if these concessions were not entirely satisfactory to the Holy See, but it expresses the hope that this circumstance will not affect the friendly relations that have traditionally existed so well between the Holy See and Hungary since the time of our first king, St Stephen [King of Hungary 1000-1038]

ADSS 8.128 Cardinal Maglione's protest to Gabrielle Apor over the Hungarian race laws

When confronted with difficult situations the main avenue available to the Vatican was the diplomatic protest.  This case is from August 1941.  Throughout the war, the style of the official protest changed little.

When the Hungarian government of Laszlo Bardossy proposed and then presented changes to the marriage laws, outlawing marriage between Jews and non-Jews, Cardinal Maglione issued a formal protest to the Hungarian minister to the Holy See.  The protest is directed at potential violations of Catholic teaching on marriage which has an indirect appeal for Hungarian Jews. 

The language reflects not only the formal diplomatic use of the time, but the powerlessness of the Vatican to influence areas that would normally fall under its jurisdiction.  Maglione would have discussed the protest note with the Pope, and, as was Pius' manner, tried to word the note in such a way that the Hungarians would not be so offended as to consider a complete refusal to consider the Vatican's position.

The Hungarian response will be presented in the next post.

Volume and Document Number: ADSS 8.128

Reference: AES 6145/41 minute)

Location and date: Vatican City, 10.08.1941
Summary statement: Protest against the Hungarian race laws.
Language: French.

Text:

The Cardinal Secretary of State has the honour to communicate to His Excellency the Hungarian Minister [Gabrielle Apor] the following:

As soon as the Holy See learned that the Hungarian Government had presented bills on the marriage laws to the Parliament, it presented its concerns to the Hungarian Government in confidence through His Eminence, Cardinal Seredi, and also His Excellency the Minister and the Apostolic Nuncio in Budapest [Angelo Rotta].

The official projects concerning the obligatory medical examination before marriage and the defence of marriage between Jews and non-Jews, despite the explicit and legitimate opposition of the Catholic bishops of Hungary were, with minor changes, approved by the Parliament.

The Cardinal Secretary of State is obliged, therefore, to express to the Hungarian Government the concerns of the Holy See, with regard to respect for the Catholic doctrine of the sacrament of marriage.

The impact of the two proposals, if not felt immediately, will at least, indirectly, as a result of the civil act, which must precede the religious ceremony or lead to legal penalty, prevent the marriage. This is, properly, a matter for the Catholic Church.

It is only too evident that these two projects affect Catholic doctrine, in that they establish impediments to the celebration of marriage where neither the Law of God, nor ecclesiastical law have such restrictions.

The Cardinal Secretary of State, being forced to make these remarks to the Hungarian Minister, does however not wish to miss the opportunity to express confidence that the Hungarian Government would wish to introduce in the regulations related to the matter in question, mitigations and provisions that capable of satisfying the requirements of Catholic conscience.

ADSS 8.139 Cardinal Maglione to Abbot Giuseppe Marcone

This is my translation of the letter of instructions sent to the Apostolic Visitor to Croatia, Abbot Giuseppe Marcone by the papal Secretary of State, Cardinal Luigi Maglione on 3 September 1941. Marcone had written to Maglione on 23 August 1941 about the marking of the Jews with a metal disc that was to be worn on the sleeve of their coats.  Maglione's response is very interesting for gauging something of the atmosphere in the Vatican's understanding of what was now happening to the Jews.  The invasion of the Soviet Union was still in its early stages, but reports of terrible killings were reaching centres of government in the "free world", and in all likelihood, rumours may have even reached Rome.

The Jewish badge worn in Croatia and the former Yugoslavia.

Marcone's August note is found in the first footnote.  I apologise in advance for the quality of the translation.  If a reader finds a serious error, please let me know.

Volume and Document Number: ADSS 8.139

Reference: AES 6660/41 minute
Location and date: Vatican City, 03.09.1941

Summary statement: Instructions from the Sec State, Cardinal Maglione, for the charitable work of the Apostolic visitor to Croatia, Giuseppe Marcone, OSB.

Language: Italian

Text:

I received the report of 23.08.1941(1) where your reverence reported his first impressions of the religious and political situation in Croatia.

I thank your reverence warmly for providing information for the Holy See, and I hope that communication with other countries becoming more difficult, you will be able to keep me regularly informed of the progress of the mission entrusted to you. I would be grateful if you would, in future, report on individual arguments with separate reports.

I gladly express to your reverence, my appreciation for your kindness working in favour of the Serbian people, and which I am sure will continue with prudence and tact required by the circumstances, to develop your charitable work with the intention to prevent the spread of these lamentable facts. (Possible reference to the forced conversion program undertaken by the Ustasha)

I noted with satisfaction how much His Excellency, the Archbishop of Zagreb (2) has done, as much as he can, to alleviate, the suffering of the Slovenian priests and exiled Catholics. In encouraging your paternity to continue to be more effectively involved, I am pleased to inform you that the Holy Father himself has deigned to favourably grant your request and advance a subsidy to provide for the most urgent needs. (3)

In this regard, however, as to the use of the money, I intend to send you instructions as soon as possible.

Given the opportunity, your paternity is to procure, confidentially and always ensuring in every case that your acts do not have an official character, to recommend proper restraint concerning the treatment of Jews living in Croatian territory.

As for the attitude of the clergy, both secular and religious, towards political issues, your paternity is to continue the ensure that they remain outside and above all party contests, while giving the civil authority their loyal and disinterested collaboration.

I have noted that your paternity reported of the real possibility for the Archbishop of Zagreb to continue to assist the faithful of the territory of Murakös. (4) I do not need to add that, in the current circumstances which may possibly persist, the Holy See does not intend to take away those faithful from their current jurisdiction to which they are subject.

I have the honour, finally, to inform your paternity that the Holy Father, with regard to the current difficulties communicating with the Holy See, has deigned to concede to you the use of faculties which are usually granted to Papal representative.

Notes:


1. Marcone had written this report on 23.08.1941:

The Jews of Croatia are required to wear on their sleeves, a yellow metal disc, ten centimetres wide, with the letter “Z” (Zidov = Jew) written in the centre. This evil badge is tolerated, the hatred of the Croats and the economic disadvantages towards the Jews, often results in the souls of the Jews the desire to go to the Catholic Church. Do not exclude this a priori supernatural reasons and the silent work of divine grace. Our clergy facilitates their conversion, thinking that at least their children will be educated in Catholic schools and then will be more sincere Christians. (AES 4951/41)

There are several notes from Tardini:

This badge has been worn by the Archbishop of Zagreb. It is the same as those created for the Jews of Croatia. They [Croatian gov’t] also wanted to impose them [the badges] on converted Jews. The Archbishop was unable to prevent it. (I have not been able to verify this statement. I think it would be highly unlikely that Stepinac would have worn the Jewish badge.)

2. Archbishop Alojzije Stepinac (1898-1960).

3. A note from Cardinal Maglione – 25.07.1941 (AES 5795/41) said: The Holy Father has deigned to distribute:

1. for the 8 seminarians from Maribor at Propaganda College, as indicated by Cardinal Pietro Fumasoni (1872-1960; Prefect of Propaganda)

2. and for the other Maribor seminarians, for whom he [Fumasoni] asked for a subsidy, you are given 50,000 lire.


3. for the priests of Maribor and Ljubljana driven from their homes, you are given a subsidy of 150,000 lire (75,000 for the diocese).

The total sum could be sent to the bishop of Ljubljana [Gregorio Rožman, 1883-1959] with the request that he send to his colleague in Maribor [Ivan Josef Tomazic, 1876-1949), the amount indicated.

All these amounts are to be taken from the US$200,000 recently placed at the disposal of the Holy Father by the American bishops.

4. A territory in neighbouring Hungary. Under canon law no change to a diocese was made during a time of war or before formal international recognition of a new country’s borders.

Croatian Jewish children wearing a form of the badge.

Abbot Marcone and Croatia

I have been rather busy of late and been kept away from blogging.  Just before work commitments went into top gear, this article appeared in L'Osservatore Romano.  It looks at the Apostolic Visitor to Croatia, Abbot Giuseppe Marcone OSB, (1882-1952).  The Ustasha dictator, Ante Pavelic (1889-1959) desperately wanted Vatican recognition of his regime.  His visit to Rome in May 1941 (See ADSS 4.348, 351, 352, 356, 358) was a tight-rope exercise for the Vatican.

ADSS makes it clear that the pope wanted to avoid anything that would create an impression that the Holy See recognised the Croatian state or that is endorsed the policies of the Ustasha.  It is not difficult to see how these impressions were possible.  It mattered little that Pavelic's visit had none of the trappings associated with diplomatic visits; the fact remained that the pope received him.  To be fair to Pius, he had little choice.

One of the outcomes of the Pavelic visit was the appointment of Marcone as an Apostolic Visitor, a promise Pius made to Archbishop Stepinac in June 1941 (ADSS 4.392).  It was not until July 1941 that the pope appointed Marcone as Apostolic Visitor (ADSS 5.21), and August when the Visitor arrived in Zagreb (ADSS 5.36).

Marcone held no formal diplomatic credentials and was a guest of the Croatian government, nothing more.  His role was to watch the concerns of the Church in Croatia.  Nonetheless, Marcone not only watched Catholic interests, but also the growing rabid antisemitism in Croatia.  On 23 August 1941 he wrote to Cardinal Maglione, the Secretary of State, about the marking of Jews that had just begun in Croatia.  He also mentioned the hatred Jews were exposed to.  Maglione's instructions to Marcone (ADSS 8.139) were basically to do whatever he could to help while keeping out of anything that could compromise his official status.  I will post my translation of this document in the next post.  The Cardinal also added that Marcone was to ensure that the clergy kept out of politics and remain neutral.

Archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

and

Abbot Giuseppe Marcone,

Apostolic Visitor to Croatia

****************************

The papers of Apostolic Visitor, Giuseppe Ramiro Marcone reveal the Holy See’s commitment to helping Jews persecuted by Nazis

2011-08-09 L’Osservatore Romano

While the Second World War was blazing on the European continent, Benedictine abott, Monsignor Giuseppe Ramiro Marcone, was sent, in the summer of 1941, by the Holy See to the Croatian episcopate, as an Apostolic Visitor, to look after the Catholic interests in that country.

Detailed instructions from the Secretary of State of the Holy See clearly state that Abbot Marcone’s mission had “a completely spiritual and religious aim…from which it follows that the Most Reverend Abbot Marcone visiting the Kingdom of Croatia…will endeavor to avoid official contact with the governing authorities, in such a way that his mission be, and appear to be, in accordance with the desires of the Holy See, of a strictly religious nature...Particularly, the Most Reverend Prelate will advise and support Monsignor Stepinac and the Episcopate in combating the evil influence of neo-pagan propaganda which could be exercised in the organization of the new state.”

Only three weeks after his arrival, the diligent Apostolic Visitor sent a detailed report to the Holy See in which he described, in an abundance of detail, the precarious condition of the Jews in Croatia. The Roman Curia did not delay in replying, and on September 3rd, a letter from the Secretariat of State reached him containing precise directives which the Pope’s representative was advised to follow scrupulously: “Moderation is recommended regarding the treatment of Jews who reside in Croatian territory.” I

In reality, as Marcone’s secretary, Don Giuseppe Masucci, writes in his diary of the events, beginning on February 10, 1942, Abbot Marcone was asked to approach, with a certain swiftness, the Ustasa authorities to plead the cause of the Jews who were about to be taken to concentration camps; the prelude to the wicked “final solution to the Jewish problem.” S.S. Captain, Franz Abromeit, had been sent to Croatia to oversee the transfer of 5,500 Jews who – between August 13-20, 1942 – were removed from Croatian concentration camps and put on five trains destined for Auschwitz.

Seriously worried for the precipitation of events, Chief Rabbi of Zagreb, Miroslav Shalom Freiberger, in the late afternoon of February 10, 1942, decided to immediately call on the Pope’s representative. In Don Giuseppe Masucci’s diary the entry reads, “Chief Rabbi Dr. Freiberger presented himself to me at 6 pm, out of breath, and communicated to me that the city is full of notices announcing that all Jews, without distinction, must present themselves to the police. I told him that I would ask to speak with the Chief of Police the following day, and ask for an explanation. He added that the situation was very urgent because they would have already arrested everyone that night. So I telegraphed Dido (Eugen Kvaternik) saying that I had an extremely urgent matter to discuss with him and that there was no time to waste; he told me that I could come at 7 pm. At 7 pm I went to him and at length spoke, implored him and begged on behalf of these unfortunate Jews. I told him that mixed marriages should not be considered Jewish, but as part of the Catholic Church.”

The Police Chief , “was fairly pensive and immediately gave the order to publish in the newspapers that the notices were annulled. That all Jews in a mixed marriage should not be further disturbed, and that those who were still alive in concentration camps should be immediately released.” Abbot Marcone then took it upon himself to organize the transport of a small group of Jewish children – among whom was the son of the Chief Rabbi of Zagreb – through Hungary and Romania to safety in neutral Turkey.

As a sign of his gratitude, Rabbi Freiberger sent a letter to the Pontiff, on August 4, 1942, in which he expressed his deepest thanks for the sacrifice of many Catholic religious in assisting the Jews, and hoped that the Vatican would continue in this direction: “Full of respect, I dare come before the throne of Your Holiness to express, as Grand Rabbi of Zagreb and spiritual head of the Jews in Croatia, my most profound gratitude, and that of my congregation for the goodness, without limits, that the representatives of the Holy See and the heads of the church have shown to our poor brothers.”

By Giovanni Preziosi

Harry Schnitker: Pope Pius XII and Germany

This is an interesting article from the Catholic News Agency on the relationship of Pacelli with Germany.  While it does not reveal anything new, it does present a balanced portrayal of Pacelli that is in accord with what is known from the historical record.  Schnitker's thesis is simple: Pacelli had a great love for Germans and German culture, but no love for German Nazis and Nazism.  There is a difference.  This article is part of a series called Inside the Church during World War II, which while being on the conservative side, are thought provoking and stimulating.  Harry Schnitker has taught at the University of Edinburgh and the Maryvale Institute in Birmingham.  I have made a couple of comments in red.

__________________________________________
 Pope Pius XII and Germany

By Harry Schnitker, Ph.D.


It is frequently said that Eugenio Pacelli had a profound love for Germany. This is rarely an innocent statement: it usually means to imply that he was biased towards the Germans. That Pope Pius XII liked the country is beyond doubt; he had spent many years there, spoke the language very well, and had many close German friends. Whether that also caused him to favor Germany during the war is another matter, though. Let us consider the stance of one of the most influential of his German friends, the Jesuit priest and professor of Church history, Robert Leiber. Between 1924 and 1929, Leiber worked closely with Pacelli when he was the Nuncio, first in Munich and then in Berlin.


In 1930, he moved to Rome and became professor at the Gregorian University. From this post, he maintained his links with Pacelli, now Secretary of State of the Vatican. He was his main researcher and would read all his letters, speeches, radio talks and encyclicals. This fact is important, as we recall the critical attitude of Pius towards Nazism in his first Encyclical, Summi Pontificatus. After the war, Leiber would repeatedly defend those Germans and members of the Church who supported Zionism, in the face of opposition from the Holy Office.


Leiber was also an influential lynch-pin in the final, frantic pre-war attempt to overthrow Hitler and the Nazis and thus end the slide towards war. He was approached by Joseph Müller, a lawyer who had helped Pope Pius XII to define the legal protection left to the German bishops after the Nazi take-over after the concordat. Müller was the spokesperson of an influential group of German military men, who wished to remove Hitler. They wanted the Pope to approach the British to persuade them to declare peace once Hitler was gone, which message was conveyed to London by the British ambassador to the Vatican, Sir Francis D’Arcy Osborne.


The first approach was made in September 1939, immediately after the outbreak of war in Poland, and the British reply, that peace would, indeed, follow a coup d’état, was related to the German opposition in February, again through the mediation of Pope Pius XII. As we all know, nothing came of the plans, but it is significant that the Holy Father wished the “voice of the German opposition to be heard”. Leiber and Pius would later repeat their contacts with the German resistance when they supported the 1944 plot against the dictator. Yes, Pope Pius XII loved Germany, but the episode shows that he had little time for the Nazis. In all of this, one of his often maligned German friends, Robert Leiber, was the conduit between Pope and German opposition to Hitler.

The 1939-40 overtures to the Pope are well known, but I have not come across anything in ADSS to support the idea that Pius colluded with the July 1944 conspirators.  Dr Schnitker needs to provide the evidence.  It is not inconsistent with what we know about Pius, but documents need to be cited.

The one shadow hanging over Leiber is his supposed involvement in the so-called ratlines, the escape route for Nazis fleeing Germany when the war was lost. There were, indeed, several priests, including some leading bishops in Austria and France, who were responsible for facilitating the fleeing of criminals from justice. Yet Leiber’s link with the organization is, at best, tenuous. It is true that he corresponded with Bishop Hudal, a leading ‘light’ of the movement, but the nature of this correspondence is unknown. If Leiber did support the exodus of Nazis to South America, it mirrors the role played by Nazi leader, Hermann Goering, in saving Jewish friends from the Holocaust: an act of kindness that went against the grain of their personal convictions.  I have to interrupt here.  Goering was a part of the machinery of the Holocaust.  Claiming he saved "Jewish friends" is simply without historical foundation.  It is known that Goering's brother, Albert, was involved in rescuing Jews.

Pope Pius XII’s own love for Germany had deep roots. As early as 1915, he had been part of a Vatican delegation in Vienna, trying to negotiate a peace treaty to end the First World War. Two years later, in 1917, he became the Nuncio in Munich, the Bavarian capital. Since the German Empire had no diplomatic relations with the Vatican, this post in the largest Catholic state in the Empire was the de facto link between Berlin and Rome. This position became official in 1920, when the Weimar Republic opened official relations with the Church.


Another of Pius’ friends who sheds much light upon his views on Germany is Ludwig Kaas. Few people ever deserved the title of ‘turbulent priest’ as did Kaas. Ordained to the priesthood in the Rhineland city of Trier, he was undoubtedly a brilliant scholar, who held a PhD in theology and one in philosophy. From this theoretical basis, he applied his extensive knowledge of Canon law and Church history to the problems facing the Church in modern Germany. This turned him into one of Catholicism’s most prominent political figures, to the acute discomfort of many in the German hierarchy.


As with so many Germans, the defeat of 1918, and particularly the chaos that enveloped Germany subsequently, appalled Kaas, who now became a politician. He joined the overwhelmingly Catholic Centrum Party and was elected to the first Parliament of the Weimar Republic. Kaas showed his great love for Germany by opposing partition, but at the same time was an advocate for reconciliation with France and the other Allies. In 1920, he became an advisor to Pacelli, when the latter became the Nuncio to Germany. Kaas was to provide the information on Prussia, the largest constituent part of Germany, which Pacelli lacked.


In 1929, Kaas achieved the greatest political goal of his life, when he was instrumental in helping Pacelli to negotiate a concordat between Prussia and the Holy See. It seemed as if the Kulturkampf – the battle between the German Empire and the Church under Bismarck - and its nefarious aftershocks had finally been buried. Yet this triumph was followed closely by his greatest mistake. The Centre Party had always been an uneasy coalition between Catholics enthused by the Church’s social teaching, monarchists, and those espousing an authoritarian regime. Franz von Papen was one of the latter, and fell out with Kaas. In an attempt to unseat von Papen, Kaas reached out to the Nazis and Hitler: it was a fatal mistake.


We all know the results: in spite of losing seats in the Parliament in the elections of 1933, Hitler came to power as the result of a political deal in which Kaas played an important role. The major question is: did Pacelli endorse him? There is some evidence that Pacelli, by now the Secretary of State in the Vatican, was furious with his old friend, who had allowed the Centrum Party to be dissolved. It had robbed the Vatican of its negotiation power during the Concordat discussions, in which Kaas, ironically, played a major role. The so-called Reichskonkordat was eventually signed and gave the Church some protection, but only in theory. Nazi hostility to the Catholic Church was deep-seated and the Concordat proved ineffective. Just after his election in 1939, Pope Pius XII met the German episcopate and told them:


“They [the Nazis] always responded, "sorry, but we cannot act because the concordat is not legally binding yet". But after its ratification, things did not get any better, they got worse. The experiences of the past years are not encouraging”.

As a result, Kaas became a persona non grata amongst Germany’s embattled bishops, and Pope Pius XII seems to have agreed. He maintained his friendship with Kaas, but put him in charge of the excavations of St. Peter’s tomb under the Vatican Hill, his political role finished. Kaas, unlike Leiber, did not share Pope Pius XII’s inherent distrust of the Nazis, and this ensured that his influence came to an end. The Pope would never let friendships come between his vision of the Church and society as enumerated in Summi Pontificatus. The same is also true for his love of Germany: that the Holy Father liked the country is beyond doubt, but he would never allow this to cloud his judgment of the regime that had come to power in 1933.

Kass knew that Pius XI and Pacelli had no time for priests in politics.  He also knew that both men had promised to ban all clerical involvement in politics as part of the price for the Reich Concordat.  None of this was new; it has been part of Pius XI's modus vivendi since he was elected pope in 1922.  The demise of the Zentrum was a tragedy that lay both in the muddle of the internal life of the party and the abandonment of the party by the bishops of Germany and the Vatican.  I think Schnitker's analysis is rather too romantic.

_________________________________

Harry Schnitker, Ph.D. was born in Holland to a secularized family with Catholic, Calvinist and Lutheran roots. He moved to Scotland at the age of 18, and attended the University of Wales, College Cardiff (then the Jesuit University of Antwerp, Belgium), and the University of Edinburgh, where he gained a masters. Schnitker completed his Ph.D. in medieval history at the same university. During college and through the study of the Middle Ages, he regained contact with his own Catholic roots.


Since graduating, Schnitker has taught at the universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, before moving to the Maryvale Ecclesiastical Institute, where he is the senior supervisor of Ecclesiastical History. The institute specializes in long-distance learning, and this allows Schnitker, his wife, son and daughter to live in the countryside of Perthshire, Scotland.

Dr Harry Schnitker