Pacelli sends Gasparri a lengthy report about his detailed discussion with Minister President Hoffmann on the possible terms for a new Bavarian Concordat - Oct. 30, 1919
Source: Timeline
Oct. 30, 1919 Pacelli sends Gasparri a lengthy report about his detailed discussion with Minister President Hoffmann on the possible terms for a new Bavarian Concordat.
Pacelli seeks to maintain the government subsidies and privileges of the Church under the 1817 Bavaria-Vatican Concordat, while removing the State's “patronato” right to make appointments to Church offices. English translation
On the same day, Pacelli cables Gasparri about the pressing issue of resolving the appointment process to fill vacant parish pastor positions, in reference to his discussion with Hoffmann. English translation
Oct. 30, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri:
Re: Colloquy with Minister Hoffmann – About future relations between Church and State in Bavaria
Most Reverend Eminence,
Yesterday afternoon Mr. Hoffmann, President of the Council of Ministers and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Education and Cultural Affairs in Bavaria, finally invited me for today, to an advance discussion with him about future relations between Church and State in Bavaria. In conformity with the venerated instructions imparted to me by Your Most Reverend Eminence in the obsequious Dispatch No. 95238 of this August 23rd, I immediately accepted the invitation, and at 9:30 this morning (the hour indicated to me by the same Mr. Hoffmann) I was received at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The colloquy, marked throughout by courtesy, lasted precisely one hour, ending at 10:30.
Mr. Minister began by telling me that he had gone in the past week to Berlin, where various Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs had convened in the Interior Ministry for a Conference about relations between Church and State and the school question under the new Constitution. Under the current legal order, in fact in Berlin and not in Munich, the aforesaid Constitution is interpreted and the norms for its implementation run wild; which, indeed for Bavaria itself make the work of the Apostolic Nuncio much more difficult. As to what concerns the first point, that is the relations between the State and the so-called religious societies (Religionsgesellschaften), Mr. Hoffmann told me that, contrary to what he himself was expecting, the second clause of article 137 of the mentioned Constitution was declared there to have already come into effect, but not the third section, according to which “the societies themselves confer their offices without cooperation by the State or Communities.” For this is required (as Article (1) has been strangely interpreted) according to the final paragraph, a further regulation by legislation of the individual States; a regulation that, it seems to Mr. Hoffmann, can be effected either by means of a simple ministerial order, or by means of a law through intervention of the Landtag. Moreover, in the same Conference it was likewise declared that international treaties, among which the most numerous include the Concordats, remain in force, to the extent, however, that their provisions are not in opposition with those of the Constitution. According to this authentic interpretation and within the aforementioned limits, the Bavarian Concordat of 1817 thus still perdures, and Mr. Minister asked me “what would be the view of Rome in this regard,” and whether it would intend to consider the Concordat as in force or no longer in force, in other words, whether it would want to proceed toward a new Convention with Bavaria.
I responded by saying that I have not yet had occasion to receive instructions in this regard and that I was thus speaking exclusively in my own name, reserving my right to report, as I am obligated, to the Holy See. I did not deem it opportune to affirm the cessation of the aforesaid Concordat for the following reasons: 1st) because Your Eminence, in transmitting to me with the aforesaid dispatch no. 95238 a copy of the learned Voto of a Consultor to the Sacred Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, in which such cessation is maintained, did not say to accept its conclusions. 2nd) because such an explicit assertion could in practice bring most serious harms to the Church in Bavaria. I am certainly not expected to make a critical theoretical examination of the arguments put forth by the eminent Canonist who authored said Voto; it is nonetheless my duty to inform Your Eminence how declaring the Concordat no longer in force would result in the possible loss of the only, certainly the most solid and secure basis for saving what can still be saved of the rights of the Church in Bavaria. Indeed it is by virtue of the Concordat that it is possible to preserve the various subsidies of the State in favor of the expenses of the Bishops, the cathedral chapters, the parishes, the Seminaries, etc., contemplated in Article 138 of the Reich Constitution, of affirming the right of the Church to have its own schools of philosophy and theology in the Seminaries, and related matters. Moreover, to disengage the Church to the maximum extent possible from the State’s right of appointment and presentation to ecclesiastical offices, there is already a most efficacious argument in the Reich Constitution. 3rd) because it is confirmed to me that the fact of such an aforesaid assertion would be interpreted (albeit wrongly for sure) by the Government as a hostile attitude of the Holy See toward the new republican form of Government.
Thus avoiding a direct response to the question of the permanence or cessation of the Bavaria Concordat after the recent political changes, I said to Mr. Hoffmann that, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to conclude a new convention or agreement, and I further indicated the points that, still according to my exclusively personal point of view, would be appropriate to touch upon in that regard. These points had already been prepared by me, taking them especially, with modifications and additions, from a Memorandum sent to me by the Archbishop of Bamberg after the Freising Bishops Conference of this September, and a copy of which I have the honor of transmitting here-enclosed to Your Eminence. This Memorandum was edited in the name of the Archbishops and Bishops of Bavaria; in fact, however, as it was said to me by the Archbishop of Munich – the reason why he had not subscribed to it – not all the Prelates, him included, fully agreed with the ideas stated therein as to what concerns governmental interference in the appointment to ecclesiastical offices. In it, indeed, there is an inclination in this regard, subject always, however, to the superior judgment of the Holy See, to allow an opportunity for concession to the current Bavarian Government, as also there is an inclination rather in this direction in the sentence supporting the passage to the same Government of the right of patronato concerning the parishes, as contemplated in article XI of the Concordat.
Turning to my colloquy with Mr. Minister Hoffmann, I started by saying that the Church, as a result of the new Reich and Bavarian Constitutions, has lost its privileged situation under norms contained in Article I of the Concordat; it thus certainly has the right to exact in compensation a greater freedom in the field to which it is entitled. After that I explained and illustrated, as the basis for a future agreement, the following points, which I carry out my duty to reproduce here below, adding explanations necessary for better understanding them: I. The Church appoints freely to all ecclesiastical offices without cooperation from the State or the Communities. The State continues to provide its subsidies as previously, including those called free or voluntary (freiwillige), which must be counted in their total amount for release.
This point does not need explanation beyond what I have explained about Articles 137 and 138 of the Reich Constitution (cf. Report No. 13822 of last August 18) and about paragraph 18 of the Bavarian Constitution (cf. Report 14369 of this October 6). I must only add that in the aforesaid Freising Bishops Conference the Bishops were of rather differing opinions, concerning the question of free contributions, corresponding to the differing circumstances of their respective Dioceses. The Prelates, in truth, in whose territory is found the Diaspora, that is to say especially Bamberg, Speyer and Würzburg, receive much more of these contributions than the Bishops in the purely Catholic Dioceses of Southern Bavaria. All were unanimous, however, in maintaining that, giving the increasing misery and the very seriously excessive burden of taxation to which the population is subjected, it would be absurd to expect them to supply by free offerings and ecclesiastic fees the seven million Marks per year that have been represented up to now by the aforesaid subsidies, and thus it is indispensable that they be calculated in the amount to be released.
II. For the appointment of professors of the Theological Faculties in the Universities, the State proposes one or more candidates acceptable to the Ordinary, whose advance consent is necessary before the appointment by the State itself can be effectuated. Moreover in the Philosophy Faculties of any of these Universities, there must be at least one professor of philosophy and one of history of sound Catholic doctrine in the judgment of the Ordinary.
III. Lyceums for philosophical and theological formation of clerics are established by the Dioceses, depending as such upon the Ordinary, who freely appoints the rectors and teachers. (That is: For the appointment of teachers in the Lyceums, the Bishop proposes the candidates to the State, which then makes the appointment).
IV. If a Professor of a Theological Faculty (or Lyceum) is judged by the Ordinary to be incapable of conducting his instruction by reason of doctrine or moral conduct, he shall be dismissed.
The Concordat of 1817 established in Article V: “[paragraph in Latin]”
These provisions, however, were not observed by the Bavarian Government, which did not provide the appropriate funds; it obligated the students of the Seminaries to complete their studies in State institutions, over whose direction the Bishops could expect to have little influence and whose teachers could not be appointed by them or in case of need freely dismissed by them; it presumed to supervise and to limit the appointment of rectors and vice-rectors of the Seminaries, the admission of students and the administration of property. As a result of that, even today the Seminaries of Bavaria do not have their own schools subordinate to the Bishops. Students pursue their studies of the humanities for nine years in the public Gymnasiums of the State. For their study of philosophy and theology they must attend either a State University, where a Theological Faculty is established, or the so-called Lyceums. Theological Faculties in Bavaria are established in Munich and Würzburg. Instruction in philosophy in these Universities, even for future students of theology, is not a part of the theological faculty, but the lay philosophical faculty; nevertheless, in the response of the Royal State Ministry dated March 29, 1889 to the Memorandum of the Bavarian Bishops, the Government committed that in each one of these there would be, both for philosophy properly so called and for history, a professor (lay) of sound Catholic sentiments. In the University of Munich this chair of philosophy was previously held by the now decease Count von Hertling, and today by Professor Baeumker, a good Catholic, even though a layman, well known for the “Contributions to the History of Philosophy of the Middle Ages,” (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters) founded by him and of which there more than a hundred issues have already been published. The Catholic instructor for history in the Philosophy Faculty of Munich is now the illustrious Prof. Grauert. The Lyceums “are higher schools for the study of Catholic philosophy and theology and as such have especially the purpose of providing for the formation of Clerics who are not attending a University” (Organic Provisions for the Bavarian Lyceums § 1). They are thus instituted by the government, established alongside the Clerical Seminaries, and they supplement the schools of philosophy and theology that according to the norms of the Concordat should have been established in the Seminaries themselves. They do not enjoy the authority to confer academic degrees, so that the Bishops provide for sending the best students to the Universities for this purpose. There are five of these in Bavaria, being located in Bamberg, Dillingen (Diocese of Augsburg), Freising, Passau and Ratisbon.
Although the aforesaid Lyceums, as has been mentioned, are intended primarily for the academic formation of priests, nevertheless lay students can also attend the philosophy course of study ...
As to what concerns in particular the aforementioned appointment of professors, the Bishops of Bavaria, in a Memorandum sent to the King dated October 20, 18150, asked that in the implementation of the Concordat there be given by the State funds to establish in the Seminiaries schools intended for the formation of clerics and that, at least, the Lyceums would be declared institutes of the Bishops and indissolubly united with the Seminaries, and that therefore the appointment of professors in the same would be left to the free decision of the Bishops under the norms of Article V of the Concordat. They further asked that, for the appointment of professors of the Theological Faculties in the Universities, there would be a requirement of a prior opinion and consent from the Ordinary.
Although this most just request of the Bishops did not achieve the desired effect, nevertheless, by virtue of the sovereign decree of March 30, 1852 and by the consequent ministerial decision of April 8th of the same year, the Government declared that in the appointment of Lyceum professors it would have regard to the desires of the Bishops; and this assurance was repeated in the later supreme decision of October 9, 1854, which also expressly affirmed that it applied to all Lyceum professors, and not only to those in theology, and that for confirming the seats of theology in the Universities there would have to be a request for the opinion of the Ordinary concerning the theological doctrine and moral conduct of each candidate.
Then, when during the time of the Kulturkampf, the above-referenced concession was revoked by the ministerial decision of November 20, 1872, a violent campaign commenced, especially in the press, which did not succeed, however, in inducing the Government to yield. Only after the Memorandum of the Bavarian Bishops dated June 14, 1888, which asked His Royal Highness the Prince Regent of Bavaria “that on the occasion of appointments of teachers in the Lyceums and of theology professors in the Universities, the Royal State Ministry would communicate to the respective Ordinaries the names of the candidates or those persons taken under consideration , and that the opinion of the Ordinaries would be given due weight,” was the right of the Bishops in this regard recognized anew. In fact, in the response of March 28, 1889 to the aforesaid memorandum, the von Lutz Ministry declared in the name of the Sovereign that “in the appointment of teachers in the Lyceums the greatest possible regard would be taken to the opinions and desires of the Bishops,” and that likewise “in the collation of the seats of theology in the Universities, there would be taken into account not only the opinions of the Theological Faculty and of the University Senate, but also that of the Bishop as to what concerns the doctrine and moral conduct of the candidate.”
The Lyceum professors receive their stipends from the State, as also by means of these subsidies the maintenance of the Institutes themselves is provided for, although for this purpose there is also contributed the income, albeit relatively small, of special foundations. Thus, for example, the annual expenses of the Lyceum in Bamberg amount to about 80,000 Marks; the income from the foundation bring in a little more than 16,000 Marks; the remaining 64,000 Marks are given by the State.
In recent times it has often been proposed, and sometimes indeed tumultuously demanded, that the Lyceums be suppressed, which by their nature have few students; but since the Center Party had the majority, these attempts were in vain.
The Lyceum of Eichstatt finds itself in an exceptionally favorable situation, founded in 1838 with the consent of King Ludwig I by Cardinal Carl August von Reisach, then Bishop of that Diocese and later Archbishop of Munich...
With this being said, it can be easily understood why the Bavarian Bishops are deeply concerned for the future of the Theological Faculties and the Lyceums. The Memorandum of the Archbishop of Bamberg indeed observes what very grave dangers the academic formation of the clergy would be exposed to if in the sensitive professorial positions such as theology and philosophy in these institutes, the Government were to name teachers with sentiments hostile to the Church, or with the modernist spirit, and he adds to this the fear that the current Minister Mr. Hoffmann might propose to give the Lyceums the additional function of popular higher schools, perhaps constituting for that purpose a greater number of philosophy professors, who probably imbibe anti-religious tendencies and doctrines. Therefore the Bishops are requesting that the negotiations obtain that no Lyceum professors be appointed without the prior consent of the ordinary. They make the same request also concerning the appointment of professors of philosophy in the Universities themselves, requesting that no one be appointed without being of sound doctrine in the judgment of the Ordinary.
Being an elementary norm in any negotiation to present at the outset the maximum program, except then to fall back from it in case of need into the limits of the possible, as in Points II, III and IV going beyond what the Bishops themselves have requested as the minimum. For the appointment of professors in the Theological Faculties, I adopted the formula of the Memorandum of the Bavarian Bishops in 1850, repeated moreover in the recent Memorandum of the Archbishop of Bamberg, and requesting the prior consent of the Ordinary; and as to two Catholic professors in the Philosophy Faculty, I have abided by the current practice, ordained by the aforementioned response of the Royal State Ministry in 1889. For the Lyceums, it has seemed opportune to me to require what is based in the Concordat, - as the Bavarian Bishops also did in the same Memorandum of 1850, - that these are to be no longer the government’s institutions, but the Bishops’, and thus subordinate to the Ordinary, who can thus freely appoint the rectors and the professors; something all the more necessary now, because of the recent school legislation. In this case, for the sum to be released as subsidies from the State to the Church there must be also included the expenses for the Lyceums in question, both because otherwise the Bishops would be totally lacking the financial means to sustain them, and because the matter of subsidies is expressly contemplated in the above-cited article of the Concordat and thus goes into Article 138 of the Reich Constitution…
Finally I deemed it necessary to fix also a point regarding the removal of professors of the Theological Faculties (as also of the Lyceums, even if these were to remain governmental institutions) whom the Ordinary might judge incapable of conducting their instruction by reason of doctrine or moral conduct. A similar provision is found already express as to what concerns the Universities of Bonn, Breslau and Münster in Prussia in the respective Statutes (cf. Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht, vol. 40, 1908, pp. 386 et seq.) and it was also in the Convention concluded between the Holy See and the Imperial German Government on December 5, 1902 for the University of Strasbourg.
V. – Also the teachers of religion in the middle schools are appointed by the State according to the proposal by the Bishop and will be dismissed upon request by the Bishop for reasons indicated in the preceding numbered section.
The posts of teacher of religion in the middle schools were always until now instituted by the proposal of the Government by the Landtag, which voted the necessary funds. As a result of this the State exercised also the right of appointment of priests to the said offices and treated them as its employees. Nonetheless the appointment took place by agreement with the Bishop. The Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs inquired of the respective Ordinary in advance, if he had against the candidate in question any objections from an ecclesiastical point of view, and the practice in this regard varied: sometimes the aforesaid Ministry presented to the Bishop a list of all the candidates for a post of religion teacher and requested that his view be given in that regard; other times, only some were communicated; other times, finally, it requested the judgment of the Ordinary about a sole candidate proposed for such instruction.
A similar procedure corresponded, moreover, all to the public statements of the Bavarian Government. Such as indeed expressed, for example, by Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs Dr. Müller in a letter to the Archbishop of Munich on December 9, 1891: “Already now, before the appointment of a religion teacher, there will always be communicated to the Most Reverend Archbishops and Bishops the list of all candidates and it is given in such a way that they will express their observations in this regard. The Government does not intend in any manner to modify or restrict this practice.” Similarly Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs Dr. von Wehner stated in 1904 in the Finance Committee of the Chamber of Lords: “Currently the list of candidates for posts of religion teacher in the Gymnasiums are always communicated to the Ecclesiastical Authorities, and the names of the candidates that the Government has in view are indicated. But the aforesaid Ecclesiastical Authorities could also propose another candidate, and the Government would give great importance to such a proposal, all the more as it would be a better way to govern with good judgment in this regard.”
Other than the above-mentioned participation in the appointment of the mentioned teachers, the State recognized moreover the right of the Ordinaries to oversee, also by means of special Episcopal Commissions, ...
VI. – The Church is authorized to administer its property freely...
VII. – The buildings and funds of the State that currently serve ecclesiastical purposes are transferred into property of the Church ...
X. – The Religious Orders and Congregations`
Mr. Hoffmann listened attentively to my exposition ...
As to what concerns the Lyceums ...
In departing, I expressed my lively hope that, despite the profound theoretical differences, a practical way might be found to govern appropriately the relations between Church and State in Bavaria and I demonstrated to Mr. Hoffmann how that would succeed in ...
I would therefore be most grateful to Your Eminence if you would deign to have sent to me with the greatest possible expedition the instructions that you may deem appropriate in Your superior judgment. Meanwhile I am continuing to pay attention also to the activity of some among the better Catholic Deputies of the Bavarian Volkspartei, whose attention I have focused upon yet another point of capital importance for the future of the Church in Bavaria, namely the teacher training schools or Lehrerseminare, where future teachers are formed. It is a very sad fact that young instructors who emerge from these institutes are for the most part of radical ideas and tendencies, which constitutes a most serious danger for the future education of youth in Bavaria. And the matter is of all the more urgent concern in that Mr. Hoffmann, who with stubborn obstinacy pursues his deleterious work in the schools issue, has recently reported as the official (Referent) in the Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs responsible for the aforesaid teacher training institutes, Mr. Vogelhuber, a Socialist, and as I am told, an extremely radical one.
In expectation ..., I humbly bow to kiss the Sacred Purple ...
Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 4127
Oct. 30, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri, encrypted cable:
I have received encrypted cable 195. Today, pursuant to his invitation, I had a colloquy with the Minister of Foreign Affairs; he discussed with me the question of parish patronato; article 137, section 3, of the Reich constitution concerning the free appointment to ecclesiastical offices is not yet in effect, as it needs to be implemented by legislation in the individual States according to the last section of that article: and thus no Education Minister could put it into effect before now. He therefore proposes that until a definitive resolution of the question, the former right of State presentation remain as the formality, although as concerns the Bishops they will freely exercise the provision insofar as the Government will not present any candidate without the previous consent of the Bishop. I asked if this might constitute a precedent affecting the future resolution of this question. He responded in the negative, saying he was prepared to accept a statement in this regard. Since it is impossible to predict when there can be a definitive resolution, and with the parish administrators in vacant parishes not having parish stipends, which under current economic difficulties produces a grave disadvantage for the clergy, I ask Your Eminence to tell me if, as to the parish patronato, the Bavarian Bishops can proceed in the same way the Holy See has adopted for Prussian canons under dispatch 97515. Pacelli
Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 9710