Pacelli reports to Gasparri on the Bavarian government’s negative response to the Vatican’s latest Concordat proposal - Oct. 27, 1922
Source: Timeline
Oct. 27, 1922 Pacelli reports to Gasparri on the Bavarian government’s negative response to the Vatican’s latest Concordat proposal.
English translation
Oct. 27, 1922 Pacelli to Gasparri, re Negotiations for the Bavarian Concordat:
Most Reverend Eminence,
Last Monday, October 23rd, I went to make a visit to the Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs, in order to accelerate the concluding of the Concordat negotiations and to learn confidentially his views about the new proposal presented by me, as I had the honor to report in my respectful Report No. 25205, on the 26th day of this past month of September.
From the conversation with Mr. Matt, I immediately realized how serious a problem lies in Article X regarding the State’s financial obligations. Nonetheless, considering the note on page 7 of the printed proposal [from the Vatican in August 1923] transmitted by Your Eminence with venerated Dispatch No. 6380, I was able to calm down the Minister sufficiently on this issue.
I recounted, in truth, that the first schema proposed by the Holy See contained only general principles, but the Minister himself did not accept that edition and requested that, instead of referring back with a general formula to the old Concordat of 1817, which in its implementation had given rise to many doubts and controversies, the new Convention should indicate exactly and clearly each individual obligation of the State. Dr. Matt admitted that fully, confirming that is what he desires. I then added that the new proposal includes that to which the Church has a right in virtue of the above-mentioned Concordat; where, however, that would result in an impossibility of the State fulfilling one or another of these obligations, I had reason to believe that the Holy See would not be opposed to according the necessary waivers, especially in view of the current economic situation. That (I also made known) will also facilitate the Minister’s defense of the Concordat in the Landtag, since it will show how the Holy See, while it has affirmed its rights in principle, as was certainly natural, has still not refused to condescend generously to those diminutions that were required by the sad condition of the Land. Unfortunately, the point that seems to run up against insurmountable obstacles in the matter of finances is that regarding the Seminaries, upon which the Holy See for good reason has particularly insisted in the note on page 9 of the above-cited printed proposal, especially so that the Most Reverend Bishops establish complete courses in philosophy and theology. In fact it appears extremely difficult for the Bavarian State, which for more than a century under the monarchical regime, due to a false interpretation of Article V of the Concordat of 1817, did not carry out its obligations in this regard, to begin to do so after the revolution under the democratic-republican regime, at a time so economically unfavorable, and to introduce for this purpose relevant increases in the public budget. The Most Eminent Cardinal Archbishop of Munich and Freising, and the Most Reverend Archbishop of Bamberg, questioned by me in this regard in compliance with the instructions contained in the above-mentioned note on page 7, deem that it would actually be a most notable benefit if the Government would effectively assure the entire payment of the expenses for the final year, called the Alumnatsjahr or Seminary Practicum, and would guarantee the preservation of the present-day Lyceums for the study of philosophy and theology, nor do they believe it possible to attain more than that. It is sad to think that in this way, rationales of an economic character will still persist for an indefinite time, in opposition to introducing the full two-year requirement under the Code of Canon Law for the philosophy curriculum, and that the Diocese of Speyer will likewise most probably remain with only a Seminario Pratico, as I had occasion to point out in the obsequious Report No. 23649 of April 5th of this year. And that is why it is necessary for me, in a matter so grave and important, to implore further instructions from Your Eminence.
Mr. Minister observed moreover that, while the State must assume a long series of many obligations, the concessions by the Holy See appear instead rather limited; in other words, that while the obligations of the old Concordat continue to weigh upon the State, on the other hand almost all the rights recognized for the former King of Bavaria are removed, “seeking to implement that what remains in the Concordat is what pertains to matters of the Church and religion” (art. IX). This will make it, as it seems to him, extremely difficult to have these proposals accepted by the Parliament; indeed I must add that the two above-named Archbishops, while so jealous for the freedom of the Church, consider some further concessions to be nearly inevitable, if shipwrecks of the entire Concordat are to be avoided. In particular, Dr. Matt noted: 1st) that in Article XIV § 1 the words “before the publication of the Bull” will create fears that the notification of the name of the candidate will be made at the last minute, so that perhaps the Government will not have the possibility to make known its eventual objections. I therefore ask Your Eminence to indicate to me if the proposed edition could be modified to this end, putting in, for example, “before the appointment.” 2nd) that it would be somewhat desirable if at least concerning the presentation of benefices some concession were to be made to the Government. Therefore I submit to Your Eminence’s superior judgment , if it is not perhaps possible, in an extreme case, to admit a similar right for those benefices which, after the concluding of the Concordat of 1817 and up to the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law [in 1917] were actually founded by donations not from the Crown but from the State; however, a) with an exception for limitations included in the Act of foundation, in virtue of which, for example, the presentation by the Government takes place only after the Bishop’s free collation; b) with the obligation of that Government to choose the candidate from among a list of three freely designated by the Bishop from among the candidates for the benefice; c) with an exception for honors that are held as patronage under Canon 1469; and finally d) on the condition of abandoning the unacceptable terminology used up to now by the Bavarian Government, according to which the “presentation” is called the “collation” of the benefice. It is true, in fact, that, according to the doctrine recently espoused in Civiltà Cattolica (71st year, 1920, vol. 2, page 319 and vol. 3 page 123), the right of presentation does not pass to Governments arising through revolutions, even though they may become legitimate later through the passage of time; nonetheless it seems difficult, along these lines, to manage to have the Bavarian Government continue to perform the aforesaid honors, without them being newly recognized, even if the corresponding rights of presentation are restricted within the limits described above. It is also useful to note that the benefices in question, founded with donations from the State in the aforesaid period, constitute (so far as I have been assured) a relatively small part of those as to which the Bavarian Government has exercised up to now the right of presentation, while there would remain all the others, rather more numerous, for which that right formerly belonged to the King of Bavaria in virtue of the apostolic indult conferred by the Concordat (art. XI).
As to the clause of Article XII in the new proposal, “if the political-territorial situation of Bavaria does not undergo changes,” Dr. Matt spontaneously informed me that he does not see serious objections in this regard, it being clear that, for example, in case the Saar District were to be lost to Germany, a change in the diocesan administration would become difficult to avoid; the Government is interested primarily in having a guarantee that the current status will not be affected before the plebiscite and the definitive decision about this district. This clause is also justified, moreover, by the German Constitution, which in Article 18 provides for the possibility of changes in the territories of the individual States (as has already been verified for Bavaria with the admission of Saxony-Coburg), changes that could bring with them corresponding modifications in the diocesan boundaries. This consideration will also be able to serve to render less difficult and painful to national sentiment the acceptance of the clause in question.
Mr. Minister further recognized that in regard to other points (schools, theological faculties, etc.) the new edition took large account of his observations.
Finally, he let me know that the proposal is now, as to what concerns the economic part, being studied by the competent Cabinet Ministries, and I instantly asked to have it accomplished in the shortest possible time, avoiding procrastinations and delays, which were to be lamented in the past. I made the same strong recommendation to Finance Minister Dr. Krausneck and to various deputies of the Bavarian People’s Party.
In conclusion, in expectation of the venerated instructions from Your Eminence, I humbly bow to kiss the Sacred Purple ...