862.404/129
The Ambassador in Germany (Dodd) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 26.]
Sir: I have the honor to report that a sharp attack has been opened against the Catholics, recent official speeches and measures being possibly the forerunner to a new and wider offensive against the Roman Church which seems to be desired by certain Party elements.
The scene of the first assault was Munster where Herr Rosenberg spoke at a meeting of the Westphalian Gau on July 7 (thus showing that the month’s prohibition on political meetings does not apply with respect to leading Party chieftains). After reproaching the Catholics for their earlier willingness, through the Center Party, to make common cause with the “Marxists” in the Reichstag against the National Socialists who were the real defenders of the Faith against “Bolshevist atheism”, Herr Rosenberg read a letter addressed by the Bishop of Munster, Count von Galen, to the Superior President of Westphalia, stating that while Rosenberg’s presence would be greeted by a “small minority of misguided and inflamed followers of neopaganism”, his coming to Munster would be regarded by the Christian population as a “provocation”. The Bishop asked that Rosenberg be prevented from making a public appearance in Munster, stating that if his request were refused he might have to consider issuing a public appeal to take this provocation calmly.
Rosenberg pointed to the Bishop’s letter as an example of what “certain circles” understood by religious freedom. He said that a great deal of attention had been paid abroad to the more sensational aspects of the German Church question, but that a person who had made such an attack upon a Reich leader should not be arrested, was surely proof of the Government’s tolerance. He warned against the continued activity of the Center Party, and ended by attacking the Roman Church’s stand on race hygiene.
Count von Galen’s letter was admittedly bold but what Herr Rosenberg omitted to mention, and what has subsequently been learned from a reliable source, is that the Catholics in Münster had planned to celebrate a local religious festival on the same date, and that consequently they regarded Rosenberg’s presence in the city as a provocative [Page 355] intrusion. It is learned from a journalist source that the Bishop of Münster replied to Herr Rosenberg in a speech made from the balcony of his residence before some 6,000 people gathered in the street. The Bishop is reported to have stated that no threats would prevent him from performing his duty, reminding his audience that a bishop of Minister had dared to protest against Napoleon’s actions and that another of his predecessors had been persecuted some 60 years ago when the Kulturkampf was at its height.
Speaking at Münster the following day, Minister of the Interior, Frick, carried the assault further into what may prove to be the Catholics’ most vulnerable territory, namely, their dogmatic opposition to the National Socialist race and sterilization laws. He reminded them of their obligations under the Concordat to respect the State laws, and then apparently forgetting Catholic rights under the same Concordat which has up until now remained without practical effect, he demanded a complete “deconfessionalization” of public life, implying, by asking what real purpose they served, that Catholic officials, professional and youth associations, as well as the Catholic daily press, should be abolished.
Two days later Dr. Frick issued an order to his subordinate officials that they must proceed with the greatest energy against new campaigns, apparently systematically organized, which threatened the sterilization laws. Again invoking the Concordat, the Minister of the Interior stated in particular that exhortations to persons falling under the law not to comply voluntarily with the requirements, but to submit only to direct compulsion by the police, must be regarded as an attack upon the law itself and should be punished by the Law for the Prevention of Malicious Attacks on the State and the Party (see Embassy’s despatch No. 1817 of March 1, 19359).
The following day, the Minister of the Interior issued a second decree forbidding the continuance of confessional motherhood courses, on the ground that such courses (which are principally a Catholic institution) endangered similar training given National Socialist groups, and “threatened to prevent the National Socialist order of life from producing its full effects.”
The anti-Catholic offensive was carried out on other fronts within the same week. As happened in Wurttemberg recently, the city of Bremen issued an order forbidding the Catholic Youth Organization from wearing uniforms, carrying flags, and continuing their field exercises, stating openly: “There is no longer need for the existence of the uniformed Catholic Youth Associations, as the Hitler Youth is responsible for the training of young Germans.…”10
[Page 356]National Socialist papers made capital out of the fact that the first condemnation for conscientious objection to military service should be pronounced (in the form of a four months prison sentence) upon a twenty-year old mission deacon in Neuköln. This young man had written to the local military commander that “Jesus would not wish to see youths carrying swords”, and the general character of the letter convinced the judge that “it must have been dictated from certain higher sources.”
Herr Lutze, Chief of Staff of the S. A. has just issued a warning against diffamation [defamation] of the S. A., evidently started at confessional instigation. He notes that “it is no accident that this criminal slander should have begun its course in Munster and in Westphalia.”
There seems to be little doubt that elements of the party and of the government under Herr Rosenberg’s influence are eager to come to conclusions with the Catholics, particularly as, with the plebiscite over, repercussions from the Saar are no longer to be feared. In addition to the events described above, another of the some fifty members of Catholic orders charged with currency smuggling—representing a plentiful supply of culprits to tap for propaganda purposes—was brought to trial and sentenced this week to the accompaniment of the usual Nazi press furore. In these embarrassing cases, as well as in the Catholic opposition to the sterilization laws, and the danger also that the Church may be used as a shield under which opponents of the regime may carry on their activity, the radical Nazis possess an extremely powerful lever to bring pressure upon the Catholics. It remains to be seen, however, whether the State, driven by the extremist wing, will dare to jeopardize internal calm by forcing an issue which may precipitate not only a grave conflict with the Roman Church but with the Christian community generally. During the darkest days of the Evangelical strife this winter, prayers were offered in many Catholic churches for “our Protestant brethren”, and it is considered not inconceivable by Churchmen that the Protestants in their turn may be willing to lend active support, should the emergency take the form of a common danger.
An interesting situation has arisen incidentally with respect to the nomination by the Holy See of Count von Preysing, now Bishop of Eichstätt, to the Bishopric of Berlin left vacant in March by Bishop Bares’ death. Count von Preysing is understood to be a follower of Cardinal Faulhaber of Munich. His agrément by the Government has not yet been formally announced, the delay resulting, it is learned, from the fact that his attendance at certain Austrian universities has been mentioned as an objection to his appointment in view of the terms of the Concordat, stipulating that German Church authorities must be trained in Germany. Count von Preysing once belonged to the [Page 357] Bavarian diplomatic service and, after entering the Church, attended Cardinal Pacelli, now Papal Secretary of State, on various missions. In view of these qualifications, his nomination is taken to mean that an effort may be made to bring to a conclusion the suspended negotiations concerning the manner of application of the Concordat.
Respectfully yours,