Baron Frankenstein VS Matthias Erzberger: Pacelli reports to Gasparri that Baron Frankenstein and others claim that Erzberger is not representative of the entire Center Party; yet Pacelli and the Vatican remain dependent on Erzberger as their main source of information in Germany - Dec. 8, 1917
Source: Timeline
Dec. 8, 1917 Pacelli reports to Gasparri that Baron Frankenstein and others claim that Erzberger is not representative of the entire Center Party; yet Pacelli and the Vatican remain dependent on Erzberger as their main source of information in Germany.
English translation
Dec. 8, 1917 Pacelli to Gasparri:
In my respectful Confidential Report of October 22nd, I had the honor to inform Your Most Reverend Eminence of the hostility and attacks that were targeting Deputy Erzberger, especially by distinguished Catholics and members of the Center Party. These oppositions have neither ceased nor diminished; and some Catholic political personages on the conservative side, among them Baron Frankenstein [usually spelled Franckenstein], notable member of the Reichstag, have come to visit me, asking me to make known to the Holy See that Mr. Erzberger, who has remained for a long time the principal source of information for the Nunciature and the Holy See itself, does not represent, from the viewpoint either of foreign policy or of domestic reforms, the entire Center Party delegation in the Reichstag, much less the entire Party. I have responded that undoubtedly Mr. Erzberger furnishes spontaneously and continually much important news, but he is neither the only nor the most important source of information, and that, moreover, I would be grateful also to members of the minority of the Reichstag, to which the aforementioned Gentlemen belong, if they too would like to favor me with reliable reports verbally or in writing about German’s various political events and express therein to me their point of view, since only with knowledge and discussion of various inclinations is it possible to make an exact and complete judgment of the situation. The discontent of the aforementioned Gentlemen against Mr. Erzberger was especially provoked by the famous peace resolution approved by the Reichstag this past July 19th. Voting against it was a minority composed of five members of the Center Party in addition to the Conservatives and the Nationalist Liberals: two other Center Party members abstained, since, notwithstanding their aversion toward it, they did not want to assume too harsh a posture with respect to peace. The majority of the Party was divided in two groups, of which one fully approved Erzberger’s thought, while the other had more or less serious concerns about it, and probably would have lined up against the proposal, had they not been taken by surprise and impressed by the speech of Erzberger himself in the Reichstag Committee.
This division in the Center Party delegation corresponds to the difference of opinions that has long existed within it over the question of the so-called war goals or Kriegsziele. All are in agreement that the territorial integrity of Germany is inviolable and must be defended at all costs; all are also, or at least say they are, united in the desire for an expeditious peace; all avow equally that the future economic development of Germany must be guaranteed in any case, and the security of the Fatherland must be enhanced to the maximum. Plans of conquest, yearnings for annexations, humiliation and annihilation of enemies, as goals in themselves, find no open followers in the ranks of the Center Party. Nevertheless, within these limits, a profound divergence of views is manifest. Not a few, in fact, maintain that without enlargements of territory and relative indemnities of war, it is impossible to assure to Germany political security and the necessary economic development; and in particular in the question of Belgium they deem unacceptable the restoration of that country to full independence. For this reason, Scheidemann’s formula “without annexations, without reparations,” encounters even in Center Party circles the strongest disapproval; and in the Reichstag resolution of July 19th it was above all the renunciation of annexations (“erzwungene Gebietserweiterungen”) that aroused the greatest opposition, opposition that then became ever stronger after the recent successes of the Central Powers and will probably increase even more if, freed up from the eastern front, they are able to launch (as is already expected here) a big offensive in the west against England and France.
Erzberger’s action had as a necessary consequence the formation in the Reichstag of a majority composed of the Center Party, the Progressives and the Socialists. The cooperative work among these three parties has become increasingly close; all important questions are discussed and resolved by their leaders (in many cases with the participation of the Nationalist Liberals) in joint meetings, in which the Center Party is represented by Erzberger with Trimborn or Fehrenbach. The result is that these parties are currently deciding and determining by joint accord the foreign and domestic policy of Germany.
Now Baron Frankenstein and his friends profoundly deplore this intimate alliance, not for its manner of acting for a particular goal [not per modum actus], but for its very essence [per modum habitus] – the Center Party with the other two aforesaid parties of the left which want the parliamentarization and centralization of Germany, two tendencies which the Center Party has combatted up to now on fundamental principle. Nor is this all; the Center Party (these Gentlemen also observe) has united itself in cooperative work with those parties that want to eliminate the Christian idea from the State and direct their forces to separate schools and the State from the Church and go so far as to oppose the adoption of legislative enactments directed to the protection of youth from irreligious and immoral literature.
This group of strictly conservative tendencies in domestic politics and pan-Germanic ones in foreign policy, and which therefore inclines toward the new Fatherland Party (Vaterlandspartei) headed by the famous Admiral von Tirpitz, is favored and supported by a notable part of the clergy whether secular or religious, and His Eminence Cardinal Hartmann, Archbishop of Cologne (as I have been assured and had occasion to report it to Your Eminence in my aforementioned Report). That is why all, as a natural consequence, could not succeed in accepting the work of this Nunciature directed to supporting with devoted zeal the Holy Father’s action in favor of peace in conformity with the proposed bases in the Pontifical Appeal and which thus coincided rather with the program of Erzberger and with the Reichstag resolution rather than with the postulates of the Fatherland Party. The aforesaid distinguished conservative and pan-Germanistic Catholics undoubtedly greeted the aforesaid Appeal with dutiful respect; nevertheless, in reality, they were discontented, since it appeared to be contrary to their aspirations and favorable to the Entente. For that reason they kept maintaining that the Pontifical Note did not constitute a question of conscience, nor a resolution in a matter of faith or morals, nor a measure of internal Church government; and even as some of its individual points expressed reservations especially concerning the question of Belgium. (Cf. also Fr. Ehrle, S.J., “Die päpstliche Friedensnote an die Häupter der Kriegsführenden Völker vom 1. August 1917,” [The Papal Peace Note to the Heads of the Warring Nations of August 1, 1917], in Stimmen der Zeit, Vol. 94, 1st Issue, October 1917). As to Alsace-Lorraine, according to them such question no longer existed for Germany.
I come now to the particular question of the person of the aforesaid Cardinal Hartmann. Already before I arrived in Germany, the Most Eminent Archbishop of Cologne honored me, as Your Eminence undoubtedly recalls, with a frequent and large correspondence, and this continued uninterruptedly after my arrival here, remaining always courteous and indeed, if this word on my part is not too bold, cordial. His Eminence often asked me about questions of law (cf., for example, my Report no. 1762 dated this October 9th); and I, in my turn, just recently submitted to him my proposal of Instructions to the Bishops and Religious Superiors of Germany Concerning the Military Clergy, to which he solicitously replied, giving it ample praise and calling it a “vortreffliche,höchst begrüssenswerte Instruktion.” [outstanding, extremely welcome instruction]
On the occasion of my first trip to Berlin and General Headquarters, I planned to go also to Cologne, as stated in my obsequious encrypted cable of this June 19th, and I had respectfully given advance notice to this Highest Eminence; but at the last moment, His Majesty the Emperor of Austria having come to Munich for a few hours, where he also received the Diplomatic Corps, I was obliged to put off that visit to a more opportune time (cf. Report no. 440 of June 30th). And in fact, on the first of September, anticipating perhaps a break of several days from the continuing work of this Nunciature, I hastened to communicate to Cardinal von Hartmann my proposal to effectuate the desired trip; but I received the response that his Highest Eminence, while having a strong interest in speaking to me, was however at that moment far from Cologne for a cure at the baths. From then on, because of the ever more pressing work that had to be attended to, I did not believe I could in conscience absent myself, even for a very brief time, except for the four and a half days I devoted to the visits to the prisoner of war camps of Puchheim and Ingolstadt. But also of this impossibility, I gave most obsequious timely notice by letter to the oft-lauded Archbishop, asking Him to excuse the involuntary delay and assuring Him of my continuing desire to express in person my sentiments of most profound veneration and hear from Him such important information and wise counsel as He might be pleased to impart to me.
Despite all that, according to what has just been reported to me, the Most Eminent von Hartmann is complaining of not having any meeting with me up to now and has deplored that, while I am dealing continually with Erzberger, I have still not spoken with him, who could inform me, rather than hearing from said Deputy and his followers, about the true sentiments of the intelligent and sensible part of the Catholics of Germany. Even though, after all I have been permitted to express here about the political opinions of the Archbishop of Cologne, his statements, if also corresponding fully to the truth, do not seem to me surprising, nevertheless I believed it my duty to inform Your Eminence, and most of all to request, to the extent You may deem it useful, permission to absent myself for several days from Munich and go to Cologne, and secondly to implore from Your Eminence any instructions that are deemed in order.
In conclusion, while I take this parting occasion to humbly give Your Eminence my best wishes for all the best in the now approaching recurrence of Most Holy Christmas, I bow to kiss the Sacred Purple ...
Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 225.