Pacelli explains to Gasparri why a separate Bavarian Concordat will not encourage a Bavarian separatist movement - Dec. 9, 1921
Source: Timeline
Dec. 9, 1921 Pacelli explains to Gasparri why a separate Bavarian Concordat will not encourage a Bavarian separatist movement.
English translation
Dec. 9, 1921 Pacelli to Gasparri:
I have received the obsequious Dispatch No. 28059 dated November 25th, the subsequent Personal Letter from Your Reverend Eminence of November 29th, and finally, today, the other also personal one of December 4th, concerning the question of the Relationships between the future Bavarian Concordat and the Concordat for the Reich. In obedience to the orders from Your Eminence and in response to these proposals, I am carrying out my duty of submitting to Your superior judgment the following considerations:
The greater part of the Bavarian population – with the exception, that is, of the Socialists and in some sense also the Democrats – are federalist, which is to say that, while wanting to remain German and continue to be part of the German Reich, they are tenaciously attached to their particular rights. The unitary and centralizing tendencies that have dominated in the Weimar National Assembly and the Government in Berlin, and which have caused for Bavaria the loss of many of its aforesaid rights, have provoked strong discontent in the Bavarian people and have exacerbated their traditional antagonism toward North Germany. The crisis became even more acute, when Bavaria, having emerged from the revolutionary period, decisively oriented herself toward the establishment of a purely bourgeois Cabinet Ministry, presided over by Mr. von Kahr, while the various Reich Cabinets up to the current one have always been more distinctly republican and left-wing. Despite that, the Bavarian population is not currently thinking of separating from the Reich, all the more since such a separation would clash, in the common judgment, against insurmountable political and economic difficulties. In one case, however, such a separation would come to pass, that being if in northern Germany revolutionary and Bolshevik tendencies were to end up taking hold. Such a hypothesis is not entirely improbable in the near future. From various parties it has been recently reported to me, in truth, that serious agitations are expected in Berlin, and, what is more, Chancellor Wirth, who indeed being rather left-wing and until now seeing only the danger of agitation by the reactionary and monarchist elements, revealed to me instead, to my surprise, on the evening of December 1st, his concerns and fears about revolutionary movements of the left. Even in that case, nonetheless, the separation would only be provisional, for as long as a Bolshevik or Bolshevizing Government were to last there. This is undoubtedly the sentiment of the mass of the Bavarian population. In this regard it is also noteworthy that particularist sentiments are rather more pronounced in the south than in the north of Bavaria, and this difference is revealed in the Episcopate itself, in which, for example, the current Archbishop of Bamberg is less disfavorable to Berlin than the Archbishop of Munich. Alongside these varying federalist sentiments, there are then the separatist aspirations, represented more or less covertly by a rather small group composed of elements of the right, and this tendency, which up to now cannot be properly called a “movement,” has become all the more intense in consequence of the forced suppression of the exceptional status of Bavaria and the subsequent resignation of Minister President von Kahr (Report No. 21936 of October 3, 1921). The Most Eminent Archbishop here confided to me one day that the (former hereditary) Prince Rupprecht two times in the past had affirmed to him that Bavaria cannot be separated from the Reich, but at the end of September, after the fall of von Kahr (on whom many were counting for a future restoration of the monarchy), Baron Cramer-Klett presented himself to him one evening to indicate himself, at the charge of the aforementioned Prince, to be at this time in favor of separation. His Eminence maintained a reserved attitude and limited himself to taking notice of the communication.
Given this, it does not seem to me that, at least for now, the separate Concordat for Bavaria would be or appear in Germany as a step and a push toward the aforesaid separation, or that it could thus expose the Church to the consequences justly highlighted and feared by Your Eminence. – In fact, 1st) The Concordat under consideration need not contain provisions contrary to the Reich Constitution, and in this regard, before it is submitted to the Bavarian Landtag, the Central Government in Berlin has the right to examine it (Report No. 18532 of November 14, 1920). This implies a positive recognition that Bavaria is part of the Reich and an explicit negation of the separatist principle. And in fact the Education Minister in Bavaria, Dr. Matt, in a letter of August 26, 1920, by which he commenced his responses to the points for the Bavarian Concordat (Report No. 17896 of September 11, 1920), expressed himself thus: “First of all, allow me to call to mind a principle that I have always emphasized in our repeated discussions. Bavaria is part of the German Reich, and as such wants and is required to respect and apply the current Constitution and legislation of Germany. A new accord between the Holy See and Bavaria must thus remain within the limits set for the Bavarian Republic by the Constitution and legislation of the Reich. Therefore any type of formula or expression that would constitute inadmissible modifications or additions to the legislative provisions of the Reich must be avoided.” 2nd) The separate Concordat is undoubtedly an affirmation of federalism, and is therefore so strongly desired by Bavaria that it sees in it an exercise of its (now rather reduced) state rights; but no one in Germany who I know would interpret this as a step toward separation. Even in Berlin, nothing like that has been said to me up to now. The reasons that the Reich Government would want Bavaria also to be included in a Concordat for all Germany (apart from its own particular Agreement), are, so far as I am aware, both its centralizing tendencies and the reason I will express as follows. – I said however: at least for now; since, if subsequently during the negotiations new unforeseen events were to place the unity of Germany in peril, or (what is unlikely) a serious separatist movement were truly to appear in Bavaria, or if indeed the rash actions of Prof. Sachs came to be publicly known (a person, moreover, so far as I have been able to determine up to now, who is unknown here in Munich in Catholic circles), perhaps the situation could change and the separate Concordat rather probably could take on, especially in the eyes of the Socialists and the Democrats, the appearance of a stimulus in those directions. Then indeed the Holy See could eventually find a necessity to retreat from such an idea.
But there is furthermore, in my humble opinion, a way to make the Church henceforth secure from all suspicion: for the future as well. – In this regard, it is my duty to report to Your Eminence that, after the Reich Concordat negotiations began in Berlin (Report No. 22353 on November 16th), I was asked both by Count von Lerchenfeld, President of the Ministerial Council in Munich, and by some members of the Bavarian People’s Party, if on the part of the Holy See there would be changes concerning the separate Concordat for Bavaria. I stood on the instructions received up to that moment and responded no, and all of that calmed down. In Berlin, on the other hand, my support was sought to be obtained for Bavaria being included in the aforementioned sense in the Reich Concordat, but I, while avoiding leaving any hopeful impression in that regard (cf. cited Report No. 22353), made it known that it was too delicate a matter for me to enter into the debate and I thus preferred to remain apart from it...