How did the catholic churches react to the deportation of Jews?
In February 1942, the German Catholic bishops received a report detailing the conditions
of the deportees in the Lodz Ghetto, where over 20,000 Jews from Germany and Austria
had already been resettled. It read in part:
“Housing in unheated rooms. Between 32 and eighty persons to a room ... Sustenance:
about 200 grams of bread a day, together with a watery soup once or twice a day ...
Indescribable cold. No possibility to change clothes. No flushing toilets; no running
water. Huge epidemics. Death rate in the first weeks was 35 a day, and, according to one
man, 200 a day in January.”
The bishops made no response to this report for over a year. In 1943, however, at bishop
Preysing’s request, Margarete Sommer drew up a draft petition which was intended to be
sent to Hitler and other top Nazis, under the signatures of all the bishops. Presented to the
bishops at the Fulda Conference that year, the petition read in part:
“With deepest sorrow - yes, even with holy indignation - have we German bishops
learned of the deportation of “non-Aryans” in a manner which is scornful of all human
rights. It is our holy duty to defend the unalienable rights of all men guaranteed by
natural law ... The world would not understand if we failed to raise our voice loudly
against the deprivation of rights of these innocent people. We would stand guilty before
God and man because of our silence. The burden of our responsibility grows
correspondingly more pressing as ... shocking reports reach us regarding the awful,
gruesome fate of the deported ...”
The draft then made five requests:
“We urge therefore:
1. Reverence for life and protection for the health of camp prisoners - hence, humane
living conditions, sufficient nutrition and tolerable working conditions.
2. The possibility of a regular exchange of letters with relatives and friends in Germany,
also the possibility of with their pastors in Germany.
3. With great urgency we urge above all the admittance of Catholic priests into the
displaced persons camps, who would be named by the German bishops in concert with
the competent bureaucrat, so that a regularised program for pastoral care will be assured.
4. Notification of all camps (or ghettos) in which deportees are presently living, and
notification of the camps (or ghettos) which have been evacuated in the meantime; in
addition, information regarding the destination of these people along with an explanation
for the reasons for the evacuation.
5. The assurance that a commission would visit the camps and meet personally with the
displaced persons.”
These requests were aimed at making living conditions in the camps humane and open to
public scrutiny, as well as seeing to the spiritual needs of Catholic deportees. It
concluded: “We would not want to omit to say that meeting these stipulations would be
the most certain way to deflate the crescendo of rumours regarding the mass death of the
deported “non-Aryans.”
Two aspects of the draft stand out. On the positive side are its clear moral outrage and its
concern for all Jews, not just those who were baptised. More problematic are its list of
recommendations, which essentially call for nice ghettos in Poland rather than lethal
ones. There is no call to cease deportations, or to return those deported. There is also no
objection to the forced placement of people it describes as innocent into ghettos, where it
itself describes them as “camp prisoners.” The real target of the draft would seem to be
the mass killings. It is unfortunate that, had it been sent and accepted, it would have
given a de facto acceptance by the German Catholics of the deportations and of the
ghetto system.
In fact, the draft was rejected by the bishops. The bishops found themselves unable to
directly ask Hitler even that the ghettos should be run humanely. After much argument,
the bishops did decide to repeat their statement of November 1942 that “other races”
should be treated humanely, and also sent a pastoral letter to their churches admonishing
them not to violate the right to life of others, specifying hostages, prisoners of war and
“human beings of alien races and origin.” They further stated that “Killing is wrong, even
when supposedly committed for the common good.” Commenting on this, Preysing told
von Moltke, the leader of the Kreisau resistance group, that the Sommer draft had been
rendered toothless. Jesuit Alfred Dlep spoke at this conference, asking “has the Church
forgotten how to say ‘thou shalt not?’ Has the church lost sight of the commandments.”
The only clear protest was delivered by the sixty six year old Provost Lichtenberg of
Berlin. He was arrested one week after the first mass deportation, and told his
interrogators that the deportation of Jews was irreconcilable with Christian moral law. He
asked to be allowed to accompany the deportees, and died during transport on November
5, 1943.
The average Catholic in Germany at this time would have received no indication from his
or her church that the deportations were wrong. Their bishops chose not to inform them
of the fate of the deportees, or to protest conditions which they knew to be horrific. Their
silence was deliberate. There were also no Papal protests to Germany at any time
concerning the deportations.
Within Poland, emigration was the solution most commonly proposed by the Catholic
church for the “Jewish problem.” The Endeks, whose official slogan was “Poland
without Jews” were supported by the Catholic Church, and commended in the 1936
pastoral letter of Cardinal Hlond. In 1936, the Polish Catholic daily, the Maly Dziennik
declared: “we want the Jewish enemies of Christian Poland to leave our country.”
Writing in Pro Christo and Maly Dziennik in 1937, Monsignor Trzeciak’s plan was first
for the Jews to be deprived of their civil rights, and then for them to be removed from
Poland. Father Wisniewski (who would later become editor of Pro Christo) was an
“ardent” exponent of expulsion, describing Jews as a gangrenous limb on the body of
Poland, and as unjust aggressors. Jews, he wrote in 1933, must be deprived of their rights
and removed from Christian society. This, however, should be done in a Christian
manner. The Christian Democratic paper, Dziennik Bydgoski and the Maly Dziennik
agreed that the Jews would not leave voluntarily, and that they would need to have their
rights revoked to encourage them. In 1939, the Maly Dziennik would echo Luther, and
suggest that confiscating Jewish wealth would be an acceptable way to finance the
proposed forced emigration. Contrasting this proposed “planned, organised economic
action” with “physical violence,” the paper was able to make a clear distinction between
their proposal and the “methods of the Nazis.” “Jews” it wrote “must be compelled to
emigrate ... there is no other way.” In 1937, Kultura noted that Polish anti-Semitism was
a “healthy reaction against a foreign body” that required expulsion. In the same year,
bishop Pradzynski called for “an accelerating deportation of the tribe of an alien race.” In
1938, the Jesuits published a pamphlet which quoted Thomas Aquinas, who said that
“Jews should be expelled from Christian societies.” The Maly Dziennik stated that Polish
colonies for Jews were not merely a necessity, but a “moral right.” Concerning this, the
Mlodziez Katolicka wrote: “like Jesus, Poles must drive away Satan and all those who
aided him.”
From the above quotes from official Catholic papers, it can be seen that the Catholic
Church in Poland did not view its policy of boycotts as an end in themselves, but desired
a drastic decrease in the number of Jews living in Poland. Emigration and or expulsions
were their suggested ways to their desired means. That is, the Catholic church in Poland
did not oppose deportations, but instead, actively promoted the idea of them. A Catholic
paper advocated robbing the Jews before they were thrown out.
Turning to Hungary, the deportations were carried out by the Hungarian police under the
orders of the Hungarian government (led by a strong catholic). 437,000 Jews were
deported to their deaths with no protest from the catholic church. While the catholic
leadership knew death awaited the deportees, to chose neither to protest or to inform the
Jews (who did not know) about it. As Eli Wiesel notes, the information itself could have
saved thousands of lives. Speaking of the Hungarian deportations, Elie Wiesel said: “We
were taken just two weeks before D-Day, and we didn’t know Auschwitz existed. How is
that possible? Everybody knew except the victims. Nobody cared enough to tell us ... we
listened to the radio. I don’t understand it.” The cardinal did finally issue a written
protest over the deportations. It concerned only baptised Jews - the rest could go to their
deaths.
“We do not deny that a number of Jews exercised a wicked, destructive influence upon
Hungarian economic, social and moral life ... We do not doubt that the Jewish question
must be solved in a legal and just manner. And so, we do not voice any opposition to the
steps which have been taken against them until now in the economic field in the interests
of the state. Similarly, we lodge no protest against the eradication of their undesirable
influence. On the contrary, we would like to see it disappear. Nevertheless, we would be
neglecting our moral roles in the church, were we not to speak up against the damage to
justice and the harm to Hungarian citizens of our own Catholic faith who are being
harmed only because of their racial origin.” Again, only catholics were included in his
protest. for the Jews as such, he had no concern.
The deportations from France began on July 16, 1942, when 12,884 stateless Jews were
rounded up in Paris to await deportation. The cruelty with which this was done, and the
separation of the children from their parents, shocked the French population. This wave
of deportations continued until December, and in all, 42,000 Jews were sent to
Auschwitz. The French police and administrators were “conspicuously involved.” The
Catholic hierarchy considered, but voted against a public protest, as they feared that it
might lead to government retaliation against church institutions.
While no bishops in the Occupied Zone protested the deportations publicly, six in the
Unoccupied Zone did so. At a time when there were around one hundred bishops in
France, these protests were nevertheless significant. Thousands of Catholic clergy and
laity responded with acts of kindness towards the Jews. Unfortunately, the hierarchy
received no backing in this from the pope, and did not again speak out. Laval indeed used
the Papal silence when he visited the Cardinal Suhard in Paris. Noting that the pope had
stayed silent over the deportations, he advised the cardinal to do the same.
In early October, Cardinal Saliege distanced himself from his own earlier protest, and
publicly renewed his “most complete loyalty to the Marshal and the government of the
country.” Cardinals Suhard and Gerlier followed suit, and at the end of October, as
representatives of the Church in both zones, they appeared with the Vichy leaders at a
military review. Never again did Catholic Church officials speak out on behalf of the
Jews. During this time, Petain himself never visited a provincial city without receiving a
public welcoming ceremony in the local cathedral. In January 1943, Cardinal Suhard of
Paris visited the Vatican to discuss the relationship between France and the Vatican. The
French ambassador attended these talks, and reported that the Pope “warmly praised the
work of the Marshal [Petain] and took a keen interest in government actions that are a
sign of the fortunate renewal of religious life in France.” The fate of the 42,000 deportees
was apparently not raised.
When the deportations resumed in 1943, they did so without protest from the Catholic
hierarchy. Suhard stated in early 1943: “Our bishops refuse to join certain protests which
are currently going around certain Catholic circles.”
Within Slovakia, Jewish leaders appealed to the Pope on March 10 to exert his influence
to cancel the planned deportations. On March 19, the Jewish Agency for Palestine and
the World Jewish Congress also appealed for papal intervention. The Archbishop of
Westminster was also asked to request that the pope use his “influence with the Catholic
ruler of the Slovak state” to halt the deportations. On March 13, an appeal from the
Jewish community in Bratislavia was also sent to the Pope:
“Most Holy Father! The Jewry of all Slovakia, 90,000 souls, has recourse to your
Holiness for help and salvation. We are condemned to destruction ... No one can help us.
We place all our hope and confidence in Your Holiness as the safest refuge of all the
persecuted.”
A second appeal was sent a week later. The Pope chose not to respond in person, but his
Secretary of State met the Slovak ambassador, and gave him a protest concerning the
reports, and expressed the hope that “such information does not correspond to the truth.”
One month later, in April 1942, the Vatican again issued a protest over the deportations
to the Slovak legate. While these protests were prompt, they were never made public, and
were therefore ineffectual. The Vatican was capable of discerning that quiet protests
were not working, and of increasing its pressure. It chose, however, not to do so, even
after, in his letter of May, the Nuncio begged the Vatican for a public protest:
“I have decided to act because it is impossible for me to remain a mute witness to the
horrible suffering with which my Jewish fellow creatures are afflicted. I am distressed to
the depths of my heart ... I would like to raise the conscience of the whole world against
these persecutions, but, unfortunately, I have no way to make my voice heard outside this
small circle. It is you I am asking to rouse the conscience of the world; do everything to
alleviate the cruel suffering of the Jews of Slovakia.”
The pope chose not to act on this appeal, and the Vatican remained mute. The Slovak
Rabbis also appealed to Tiso to halt the deportations, noting that “in existing
circumstances, the deportations meant physical extermination.” Appeals to the churches
were also disappointing, as the Catholic and Protestant letters of protest to the
government were “concerned only with obtaining privileges for baptised Jews.” In April
1942, the Catholic episcopate issued a pastoral letter concerning the situation. It declared
that the Jews were a cursed people because of their deicide:
“Also, in our eyes has the influence of the Jews been pernicious. .. Not only
economically, but also in the cultural and moral spheres, they have harmed our people.
The church cannot be opposed, therefore, if the state with legal actions eradicates the
dangerous influence of the Jews.”
The majority of the Catholic hierarchy thus officially and publicly supported the
government decision. When in 1942, Archbishop Kametko of Slovakia was approached
by the Nitra Rebbe, asking for the church to intervene to try and halt the deportations, he
stated: “This is no mere expulsion. You will not die there of hunger and disease. They
will slaughter all of you there, young and old alike, women and children, at once. It is the
punishment that you deserve for the death of our Lord and Redeemer, Jesus Christ.” In
general, the population and priests of Slovakia watched the deportations with
indifference. President Tiso, without public contradiction from the churches, declared on
August 15, while preaching at Mass, that it was a Christian deed to expel the Jews, and to
thereby rid Slovakia of “its pests.” When questioned about the deportations, Prime
Minister Tuka replied that he was a practising Catholic, and that he had the consent of
his confessor.
Reports (later found to be false) that the Germans were deporting Jewish girls to serve in
brothels at the front line led to the pope personally instructing his minister of state to
deliver a protest. Burizo wrote to the Vatican further on this issue, noting that the girls
were deprived of all personal belongings (pens, rings, foodstuffs and so on), and beaten
and kicked if they protested. “These poor children” he wrote: “are destined for
prostitution or simply for massacre.” A meeting with the Slovak ambassador led to
exemptions being made for baptised Jewish girls.
A law giving retroactive legality to the deportations was passed in May. It excluded from
the deportations baptised Jews, and, while a number of priests in parliament voted for it,
none voted against it. While the deportations continued, with the law excluding converts,
the Vatican protests stopped.
When baptised Jews were again threatened in 1943 with deportation, the Catholic
bishops wrote to the government, stressing that the converts had made a complete break
with their Jewish past. Nearly five months after the main deportations were completed,
and in this context of baptised Jews being deported, the bishops issued a second pastoral
letter. Without mentioning Jews, it condemned persecution that was race based. It was
written in Latin, and read out from the countries’ pulpits. The German minister in
Bratislavia noted that many priests refused to read it, and indeed, due to clerical
opposition to it, it was published without the official seal. With the 20,000 Jews
remaining in Slovakia under threat, Burzio informed the Vatican of the situation. Writing
in early 1943, he also included a statement from a priest stating that the Germans were
engaged in mass murder in Poland. The Pope was also visited personally at this time by
Margit Slachta who informed him of the immanent deportation of the remainder of
Slovakia’s Jews. The next day the Vatican Secretary of State Manglione promised her
that the Holy See was doing and would do all that it could to help.
It was at this time that the British government informed the Vatican that it would be
willing to allow Jewish children access to Palestine. Coming from two different sources,
one proposal (sent via Archbishop Roncelli, and including an appeal from the Jewish
Agency for Vatican intervention in this matter with the Slovak government) specifically
mentioned children from Slovakia, the other, (delivered in person by a British official at
the Vatican) referred to Jewish children from all over Europe. Given that the pope had
already expressed concern for the fate of Jewish girls from Slovakia, and when increasing
evidence was reaching the Vatican about the German policy of mass murder, with the
Vatican’s help, the proposal had a real chance of success in a Catholic country like
Slovakia, which remained determined to expel its Jewish population. In light of Secretary
of State Maglione’s recent word that “the Holy See has done and is doing all that which
is in its power on behalf of the Jews ... and particularly, in regard to the case at hand, on
behalf of Slovak Jews,” there was every reason for optimism.
The deputy in charge of Extraordinary Affairs (foreign relations), Monsignor Domenico
Tardin, made the first Vatican response to this proposal when he wrote on the British
offer that “The Holy See has never approved the making of Palestine a Jewish home ...
And the question of the Holy Places? Palestine is by this time more sacred for Catholics
than ... for Jews.” Maglione, the second highest official in the Vatican, waited nearly two
months to respond to the offer. On 4 May, he replied to the British that the Vatican had
done all it could to aid the Jews, especially Jewish children. The Vatican however
opposed the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, as it was land sacred to Catholics.
Writing to the apostolic delegate in Washington two weeks later, Maglione detailed his
thoughts. Control of Catholic holy places was his first concern, and the second was that a
Jewish predominance in Palestine would offend Catholic piety. “Palestine, under a
Jewish majority ... would displease Catholics throughout the entire world, would provoke
the justifiable protest of the Holy See.” He concluded asking that the delegate make these
objections known to the President through Roosevelt’s personal representative to the
Pope, and that he also alert the American bishops to be aware of any change in the public
opinion of the American people toward Palestine which could be harmful to Catholic
interests.
The Vatican response to a plan to rescue Jewish children’s lives was not to embrace it, or
even to ignore it, but rather, to take active steps to block it. Jewish children were a lesser
priority than Catholic holy places, and Catholic piety would be offended if there were too
many Jews in Palestine. Maglione’s earlier words to the nun were revealed as a lie.
Catholic ideas of holiness were better served if Jewish children died in Poland than if
they lived in Palestine. A strange way to serve the one who said: “permit the little
children to come unto me.”
The Vatican never gave the people of Slovakia reason to believe that a policy, carried out
by a priest in the name of Christianity, was anything but what it claimed. Summing up
Vatican policy in this area, John Morley wrote: “The failure of Vatican diplomacy in
Slovakia must be attributed as much to its own indifference to the deportation of Jews as
to any other factor. The unique conditions presented to the Vatican in the case of this
truly Catholic nation were not exploited ... Vatican diplomacy, however, was content to
limit itself to the narrow confines of strictly Catholic interests, and an opportunity for a
great moral and humanitarian gesture was lost.”
</font>[/QUOTE]Lisa,
