Msgr. Schioppa, in charge of Munich Nunciature during Pacelli’s 10-week absence, reports on recent disclosures implicating Germany in causing World War I - Nov. 28, 1918
Source: Timeline
Nov. 28, 1918 Msgr. Schioppa, in charge of Munich Nunciature during Pacelli’s 10-week absence, reports on recent disclosures implicating Germany in causing World War One. English translation
Also on Nov. 28, Schioppa sends Gasparri an urgent request from Munich Archbishop Faulhaber for a Papal decision about how to fill certain parish vacancies that were previously filled by the King under the Bavaria-Vatican Concordat of 1817. English translation
Nov. 28, 1918 Schioppa to Gasparri:
Re: Immediate Guilt for the War
Most Reverend Eminence, Following up report No. 3269 of December 30, 1917, I believe it my duty to report to Your Most Reverend Eminence concerning an event that for some days has occupied all the German press, which certainly will have a large echo abroad as well, and which has produced and undoubtedly will produce notable political consequences.
The Bayerische Staatszeitung (No. 275 of Nov. 26th) reproduced the following official note: “Bavarian Minister President and Foreign Minister Eisner recently presented to the Central Government a proposal to publish the files about the origins of the war. This proposal is dictated by the conviction that only by means of the full truth can the people possess that trust which is the precondition for a peace according to the desire of the people themselves. The Bavarian Minister President, for his part, will undertake to publish from the Bavarian diplomatic documents those files that will clarify the prehistory of the world war. First of all will be published some details taken from reports by the Bavarian Ambassador in Berlin, Count Lerchenfeld. In a report of July 18, 1914, the Bavarian Ambassador in Berlin, Count Lerchenfeld, speaks of the relations of the Berlin Government and the most unfortunate Austrian Ultimatum to Serbia.”
The text of said report follows, a text which I have the honor to enclose herewith (Attachment I). According to it, Germany appeared directly culpable for the outbreak of the war, since it was perfectly aware of the content of the Austrian Ultimatum to Serbia.
This publication by the Bavarian Government was greeted by the majority of the press with the strongest reprobation, although it conformed to the necessity of the people being illuminated about the origins of the war. “But it is another thing,” wrote Germania, “if a single State or the representative of a single State should do it by its own policy, which, more or less directly, leans on that man of State among our enemies who undoubtedly wishes the worst upon us, and who will certainly want to frustrate any political and diplomatic action by the Central Government in the interest of the German people.”
And here the newspaper makes an attack on Mr. Kurt Eisner, which is worth the pain of reproducing: “The question is posed (says Germania): who really is Mr. Kurt Eisner.” The public knows him only recently as Bavarian Minister President, as this representative of the people pridefully proclaims himself. We do not want to attack his person if we are tempted to verify that east-Galician Jewish origin hiding under the German-sounding name Eisner and those grand lordly manners this representative of the proletariat assumed in a salon-car.” (In fact Mr. Eisner, in his recent excursion from Munich to Berlin and back again, traveled in a special royal train.) “But we must give greater importance to the fact that he is in continuous relations with the Prime Minister of the French Republic, Clemenceau, as Eisner himself declared yesterday in the conference of the Federated States of Germany, saying that he knows the situation of the Entente not from the newspapers, but from personal relations.”
In addition to the reprobation by the press, there are other facts to note concerning the aforesaid Bavarian publishing, including
1st) The Bavarian Legation to Berlin has communicated that the published report was not written by Ambassador Count Lerchenfeld, but by Dr. Hans von Schön.
2nd) The then Bavarian Ministers of Education, of Justice, of Finance, and of Communications have declared to the current Minister President of Bavaria that until now they had no knowledge, either officially or privately, of the mentioned report and the facts contained in it.
3rd) The Foreign Minister of Berlin has published in this regard the following: “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has protested against the publication made in Munich about the prehistory of the war...”
Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 3042.
Nov. 28, 1918 Schioppa to Gasparri:
Re: Transmission of a petition from the Archbishop of Munich
Report no. 11066
Most Reverend Eminence,
The Archbishop of Munich has interested me in making his here-enclosed petition come to the August Throne of the Holy Father, concerning the right of appointment to Parish Churches that the current revolutionary Bavarian Government might presume for itself as successor to the rights of the former Monarchy.
The petition was accompanied by a letter addressed to me in which Archbishop von Faulhaber says: “We Bishops are all convinced that it would be too broad a power to concede to the new Government the patronal rights of the Royal Government. Moreover, we are no less convinced that without tolerance and restraint, the separation of State and Church will be immediately required in Bavaria, and the clerics in these times of misery would be condemned to extreme poverty... It would be very important for the discussions to be held in the upcoming Conference of the Bavarian Bishops schedule for the 10th and 11th of December, to have the decision of the Holy Father, or at least a ‘provisoinal instruction.’”
Beyond this letter, there is associated with the petition an opinion from the Bishop of Regensburg, which Archbishop von Faulhaber has requested that I hold in the Nunciature Archives, but which I believe it my duty to send, here-enclosed, to Your Most Reverend Eminence for a complete understanding of the issue. Concerning this opinion, Archbishop von Faulhaber has told me that it cannot be taken into consideration, because the Ministry has already been wary of the intention of the Bishops to play for time.
In a conversation I then had with the aforesaid Archbishop of Munich, he said to me that, since the Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs is pushing for the appointment to vacant parishes, he will make it known to him that the Bishops do not have the right to make a decision on their own in this regard, that the issue has already been carefully explained to the Holy See and that one needs to await the decision that the Holy Father will deign to make.
Meanwhile Archbishop von Faulhaber urgently requests to care be taken to make the implored decision as soon as possible, even though he assured that there will not be any harm if the Parishes remain vacant for yet some time, but that this time could not be prolonged to more than three or four weeks.
In asking Your Eminence to be pleased to place the aforesaid petition in the venerated Hands of the Holy Father, I have the honor to bow humbly to kiss the Sacred Purple ...
Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt No 251