Bishop Lingg of Augsburg replies to Faulhaber about Pacelli’s 10 points that the Bishops and their commission cannot change them without being blamed for failing to follow Vatican instructions - Dec. 2, 1919
Source: Timeline
Dec. 2, 1919 Bishop Lingg of Augsburg replies to Faulhaber about Pacelli’s 10 points that the Bishops and their commission cannot change them without being blamed for failing to follow Vatican instructions. English translation
Dec. 2, 1919 Lingg to Faulhaber
Your Excellency!
Most reverend Herr Archbishop!
I have the honor to answer Your Excellency’s gracious letter of Nov. 27 as follows:
1. If the Lord Nuncio has the impression as though we Bishops were dissatisfied with the provisional arrangement for appointments to parishes, it is certainly not my fault. I am glad that this matter has found a solution, and I have never said otherwise. I have recently just expressed to Your Excellency the fear that the Minister might now consider putting off the final resolution, but I am not in the least dissatisfied with the interim arrangement on that account.
2. The Fulda declaration is in my opinion not a “protest” against the German Reich Constitution, as has been maintained. A “protest” would have had to be made against the outline of the Constitution and a protest against the now finished Constitution would have something anti-State about it. The Fulda declaration is merely a precaution against certain articles of the Constitution being implemented without involvement of the Church, and it contains in its conclusion, to my delight, the assurance that an agreement with the Church is to be achieved in most of the points…
3. I have already authorized Your Excellency to make a later statement in my name as well against Stahler’s State League of Diocesan Priest Associations…
4 and 5. Today I received the 10 points shared by the Lord Nuncio, which, as approved by the Holy See, should be the foundation for Concordat negotiations, and which the Nuncio already indeed on October 30th discussed with the Minister President. The points contain throughout strict Canon Law. Since there were already approved by the Holy See and made known to Hoffmann, the delegates will not be able to do anything but accept them as “substance” and “instructions.” We Bishops also cannot give any other instructions under such circumstances, and I consider even the introduction of the commission as a delicate matter. If the commission lets one or another of the 10 points fall by the wayside because hopeless in full session, then the fault falls upon the Bishops, that they did not hold to the instructions of the Holy See. As to the members of the commission that Your Excellency has in mind, I would have absolutely no reservations, but to give them or Dr. Heim any other instructions than the Nuncio’s 10 points would be wrong in my view…
6, 7 and 8. I took notice of this with satisfaction and I express my special thanks to Your Excellency for the concern in the matter of the bell-ringing. I am still being severely attacked, disconsolate over the development of things, and many days almost unable to work. Commending myself therefore to Your Excellency’s prayers, I remain Your
most devoted Servant
+Maximilian
Bishop of Augsburg
Source: Nachlass Faulhaber, No. 4320