Mit brennender Sorge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Mit Brennender Sorge)
Jump to: navigation, search

Mit brennender Sorge (English: With Burning Anxiety) On the Church and the German Reich is an encyclical of Pope Pius XI, issued on 10 March 1937 (but bearing a date of Passion Sunday, 14 March).[1] Written in German, not the usual Latin, it was smuggled into Germany for fear of censorship and was read from the pulpits of all German Catholic churches on one of the Church's busiest Sundays, Palm Sunday (March 21 that year).[2] It condemned breaches of the Reichskonkordat agreement signed between the German Reich and the Holy See[3] in 1933, criticised Nazism and its elevation of one race above others.[4] It criticised essentially those parts of Nazism that contradicted Catholicism, and condemned pantheistic confusion, neopaganism, "the so-called myth of race and blood", and idolizing the State. It contained a vigorous defence of the Old Testament out of belief that it prepared the way for the New,.[5] The encyclical states that race is a fundamental value of the human community which is necessary and honorable but condemns the exaltation of race, or the people, or the state, above their standard value to an idolatrous levels.[6] There is no explicit reference in the encyclical to National Socialism, Hitler or the Nazi Party. Cardinal Faulhaber, who wrote a first draft, was adamant that the encyclical should be careful in both its tone and substance and should avoid explicit reference to Nazism or the Nazi Party.[7] Though Hitler is not mentioned in the encyclical some have asserted that it does attack him.[8] It was reported at the time that the Encyclical "Mit Brennender Sorge" was somewhat overshadowed by the anti-communist encyclical Divini Redemptoris which was issued on the 19th of March in order to avoid the charge by the Nazis that the Pope was indirectly favoring communism.[9]

Thus the encyclical was primarily concerned to confront the Nazis' anti-Catholic propaganda: to defend the Church in the face of totalitarian dictatorship. Pacelli wrote to Cardinal Faulhaber on April 2, 1937 explaining that the encyclical was theologically and pastorally necessary “to preserve the true faith in Germany.” The encyclical also defended baptized Jews, considered still Jews by the Nazis because of racial theories that the Church could not accept. The encyclical does not discuss the Jewish people in general, however, the Nazis framed their position against the Jewish people in terms of the Germanic race and the Jewish race, i.e., racism.[10]

The leader of the German Bishops conferance, Cardinal Bertram, sought to blunt the impact of the encyclical by ordering that critical passages be not read out.[11] The large effort to produce and distribute over 300,000 copies of the letter was entirely secret, allowing priests across Germany to read the letter without interference.[12] The letter brought swift and long-lasting reprisal from the Nazi regime. The Gestapo raided the churches the next day to confiscate all the copies they could find, and the presses that had printed the letter were closed. The regime then constrained the actions of the Church and harassed monks with staged prosecutions.[13]


The Reichskonkordat (English: Reich Concordat) was a treaty, signed on 20 July 1933, between the Holy See and Germany. The Nazi's saw the treaty as giving them moral legitimacy and prestige whilst the Catholic Church sought to protect itself from persecution through a signed agreement.[14] A common view within Church circles at the time, and one proven to be correct, was that Nazism would not last long and the favorable Concordat terms would outlive the current regime (the Concordat remains in force today).[15] A Church handbook published with the recommendation of the entire German Church episcopate describe the Concordat as "proof that two powers, totalitarian in their character, can find an agreement, if their domains are separate and if overlaps in jurisdiction become parallel or in a friendly manner lead them to make common cause".[16] As Guenter Lewy noted "The harmonious co-operation anticipated at the time did not quite materialize" but that the reasons for this "lay less in the lack of readiness of the Church than in the short sighted policies of the the Hitler regime."[16] Violations of the Concordat by the Nazis began almost immediately and were to continue such that Falconi described the Concordat with Germany as "a complete failure"[17] In August 1936 The German episcopate asked Pius XI for an encyclical that would deal with the current situation of the Church in Germany.[18] In November 1936 Hitler had a meeting with Cardinal Faulhaber which he indicated that more pressure would be put on the Church unless it collaborated more zealously with the regime.[19] On December 21, 1936 the Pope invited, via Cardinal Pacelli, senior members of the German episcopate to Rome. On 16 January 1937 five German prelates and Cardinal Pacelli agreed unanimously that the time had now come for public act by the Holy See.[19] Pope Pius XI was gravely ill but he was convinced of the need to publish an encyclical about the Church in Germany as soon as possible.[20]


Faulhabers draft of the encyclical, consisting of eleven large single sheets and written in his own hand, was presented to Pacelli on the 21 January.[20] Falconi noted that the encyclical "was not so much an amplification of Faulhaber's draft as a faithful and even literal transcription of it" whilst "Cardinal Pacelli, at Pius XI's request, merely added a full historical introduction on the background of the Concordat with the Third Reich."[20] According to John-Peter Pham Pius XI credited the encyclical to Cardinal Pacelli.[21] According to historian Frank J. Coppa, Cardinal Pacelli wrote a draft that the Pope thought was too weak and unfocused and therefore substituted a more critical analysis.[22] Pacelli described the encyclical as "a compromise" between the Holy See's sense that it could not be silent set against "its fears and worries".[22] According to Paul O'Shea the carefully worded denunciation of aspects of Nazism was formulated between January 16–21, 1937, by Pius XI, secretary of state Pacelli, and German cardinals Bertram, Faulhaber and Schulte, and Bishops von Preysing and von Galen.[23]


In sections 1-8 of the encyclical Pius XI wrote of "deep anxiety and with ever growing dismay" as he observed the travails of the Catholic Church in Germany with the terms of Concordat being openly broken and the faithful being oppressed as had never been seen before.[24] Pius then affirmed the articles of faith that Nazi ideology was attacking. He stated that true belief in God could not be reconciled with race, people or state raised beyond their standard value to idolatrous levels.[25] National religion or a national God was rejected as a grave error and that the Christian God could not be restricted "within the frontiers of a single people, within the pedigree of one single race." (sections 9-13).[25] Pius then went on to describe how people were obliged to believe in Christ, divine revelation, and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.(sections 14-24)[25] The Nazi principle that "Right is what is advantageous to the people" was rejected on the basis that what was illicit morally could not be to the advantage of the people.[25] Human laws which opposed natural law were described as not "obligatory in conscience". The rights parents in the education of their children are defended under natural law and the "notorious coercion" of catholic children into interdenominational schools being described as "void of all legality."(sections 33-37)[25] Pius ends the encyclical with a call to priests and religious to serve truth, unmask and refute error with the laity being urged to remain faithful to Christ and to defend the rights which the Concordat had guaranteed them and the Church.[25]

Condemnation of racism[edit]

The encyclical condemned particularly the paganism of the national-socialist ideology, the myth of race and blood, and the fallacy of their conception of God. It warned Catholics that the growing Nazi ideology, which exalted one race over all others, was incompatible with Catholic Christianity.[26]

Martin Rhonheimer writes that whilst Mit brennender Sorge asserts "race" is a "fundamental value of the human community", "necessary and honorable", it condemns the "exaltation of race, or the people, or the state, or a particular form of state", "above their standard value" to "an idolatrous level".[27]

"None but superficial minds could stumble into concepts of a national God, of a national religion; or attempt to lock within the frontiers of a single people, within the narrow limits of a single race, God, the Creator of the universe, King and Legislator of all nations before whose immensity they are 'as a drop of a bucket' (Isaiah 40:15)."

According to Martin Rhonheimer, it was Pacelli who added to Faulhaber's milder draft the following passage:

"Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the state, or a particular form of state, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community—however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things—whoever raises these notions above their standard value and raises them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God."[28]

Against this background to the encyclical, Faulhaber suggested in an internal Church memorandum that the bishops should inform the Nazi regime "that the Church, through the application of its marriage laws, has made and continues to make, an important contribution to the state's policy of racial purity; and is thus performing a valuable service for the regime's population policy."[28]

Historian Garry Wills, in the context of Jews having traditionally been described as deicides, points out that the encyclical affirms " 'Jesus received his human nature from a people who crucified him' - not some Jews, but the Jewish people" and that it was also Pius XI who had disbanded the Catholic organization "Friends of Israel" that had campaigned to have the charge of deicide dropped.[29] The charge of deicide against all Jewish people was later dropped during the Second Vatican Council.

Historian Michael Burleigh views the following passage as a rejection of the Nazis conception of collective racial immortality:[30] 24. "Immortality" in a Christian sense means the survival of man after his terrestrial death, for the purpose of eternal reward or punishment. Whoever only means by the term, the collective survival here on earth of his people for an indefinite length of time, distorts one of the fundamental notions of the Christian Faith and tampers with the very foundations of the religious concept of the universe, which requires a moral order. [Whoever does not wish to be a Christian ought at least to renounce the desire to enrich the vocabularly of his unbelief with the heritage of Christian ideas.] The bracketed text is in Burleighs book but not on the Vatican's web site version as of July 2014.

Historian Michael Phayer wrote:

"In Divini Redemtoris, he [PiusXI] condemned communism once again, while in Mit Brennender Sorge he critized racism in carefully measured words. As Peter Godman has pointed out, this was a political decision that ignored the immorality of Nazi racism as it had been discerned by in-house committees at the Vatican." and that "the encyclical stepped lightly around the issue of racism so as to keep the Concordat intact."[31]

Nazi Philosophy[edit]

The encyclical dismisses "[Nazi] attempts to dress up their ghastly doctrines in the language of religious belief.":[30]

28 "Grace," in a wide sense, may stand for any of the Creator's gifts to His creature; but in its Christian designation, it means all the supernatural tokens of God's love... To discard this gratuitous and free elevation in the name of a so-called German type amounts to repudiating openly a fundamental truth of Christianity. It would be an abuse of our religious vocabulary to place on the same level supernatural grace and natural gifts. Pastors and guardians of the people of God will do well to resist this plunder of sacred things and this confusion of ideas.

Burleigh also notes the encyclicals rejection of Nazi contempt for Christian emphasis on suffering and that, through the examples of martyrs, the Church needed no lessons on heroism from people who obsessed on greatness, strength and heroism.[32]

27. Humility in the spirit of the Gospel and prayer for the assistance of grace are perfectly compatible with self-confidence and heroism. The Church of Christ, which throughout the ages and to the present day numbers more confessors and voluntary martyrs than any other moral collectivity, needs lessons from no one in heroism of feeling and action. The odious pride of reformers only covers itself with ridicule when it rails at Christian humility as though it were but a cowardly pose of self-degradation.

Burleigh views the encyclical as confounding the Nazi philosophy that "Right is what is advantageous to the people" through it's defense of Natural Law[32]

31.. The believer has an absolute right to profess his Faith and live according to its dictates. Laws which impede this profession and practice of Faith are against natural law.

The encyclical also defends Catholic schooling against Nazi attempts to monopolize education.[33]

31..Parents who are earnest and conscious of their educative duties, have a primary right to the education of the children God has given them in the spirit of their Faith, and according to its prescriptions. Laws and measures which in school questions fail to respect this freedom of the parents go against natural law, and are immoral.

Claimed attacks on Hitler[edit]

There is no mention of Hitler by name in the encyclical but some works claim that Hitler is described as a "mad prophet" in the text. Anthony Rhodes was a novelist, travel writer, biographer and memoirist and convert to Roman Catholicism.[34] He was encouraged by a Papal nuncio to write books on modern Church history and he was later awarded a Papal knighthood.[35] In one of his books (The Vatican in the Age of the Dictators) he wrote of the encyclical "Nor was the Fuhrer himself spared, for his 'aspirations to divinity', 'placing himself on the same level as Christ'; 'a mad prophet possessed of repulsive arrogance'".[36] This has subsequently been cited in works which repeat Rhodes claim that Hitler is described as a "mad prophet" in the encyclical.[37]

Historian John Connelly writes:

“Some accounts exaggerate the directness of the pope’s criticism of Hitler. Contrary to what Anthony Rhodes in The Vatican in the Age of the Dictators writes, there were oblique references to Hitler. It was not the case that Pius failed to “spare the Fuhrer,” or called him a “mad prophet possessed of repulsive arrogance.” The text limits its critique of arrogance to unnamed Nazi “reformers”.[38]

Historian Michael Phayer wrote that the encyclical doesn't condemn Hitler or National Socialism, "as some have erroneously asserted".[39] Historian Michael Burleigh sees the passage as pinpointing "the tendencey of the Fuhrer-cult to elevate a man into god"

"17....Should any man dare, in sacrilegious disregard of the essential differences between God and His creature, between the God-man and the children of man, to place a mortal, were he the greatest of all times, by the side of, or over, or against, Christ, he would deserve to be called prophet of nothingness, to whom the terrifying words of Scripture would be applicable: "He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh at them" (Psalms ii. 3)."[40]

Historian Susan Zuccotti sees the above passage as an umistakable jibe at Hitler.[41]


The encyclical was written in German and not the usual Latin of official Catholic Church documents. Because of government restrictions, the nuncio in Berlin, Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, had the encyclical distributed by courier. There was no pre-announcement of the encyclical, and its distribution was kept secret in an attempt to ensure the unhindered public reading of its contents in all the Catholic churches of Germany.[42] Printers close to the church offered their services and produced an estimated 300,000 copies, which was still insufficient. Additional copies were created by hand and using typewriters. After its clandestine distribution, the document was hidden by many congregations in their tabernacles for protection. It was read from the pulpits of German Catholic parishes on Palm Sunday 1937.[43]

Nazi response[edit]

The Catholic Herald's German correspondent wrote almost 4 weeks after the issuing of the encyclical that:

Hitler has not yet decided what to do. Some of his counsellors try to persuade him to declare the Concordat as null and void. Others reply that that would do immense damage to Germany's prestige in the world, particularly to its relations with Austria and to its influence in Nationalist Spain. Moderation and prudence are advocated by them. There is, unfortunately, no hope that the German Reich will come back to a full respect of its Concordat obligations and that the Nazis will give up those of their doctrines which have been condemned by the Pope in the new Encyclical. But it is well possible that a definite denunciation of the Concordat and a rupture of diplomatic relations between Berlin and the Holy See will be avoided, at least for the time being.[44]

The Catholic Herald reported on the 23rd April:

It is understood that the Vatican will reply to the note of complaint presented to it by the German Government in regard to the Encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge. The note was not a defence of Nazism, but a criticism of the Vatican's action at a time when negotiations on the relations between the Vatican and Germany were still in being. It would seem that the Vatican, desirous of finding a rnodus vivendi, however slight the chance of it may appear, wishes to clear up any possible misunderstanding. On April 15 Cardinal Pacelli received Herr von Bergen, the Reich Ambassador at the Holy See. This was the first diplomatic meeting since the publication of the Encyclical.[45]

The Tablet reported on the 24 April 1937:

The case in the Berlin court against three priests and five Catholic laymen is, in public opinion, the Reich's answer to the Pope's Mit brennender Sorge encyclical, as the prisoners have been in concentration camps for over a year. Chaplain Rossaint, of Dusseldorf; is, however, known as a pacifist and an opponent of the National Socialist regime, and it is not denied that he was indiscreet ; but he is, moreover, aceused of having tried to form a Catholic-Communist front on the plea that he baptized a Jewish Communist. This the accused denies, and his defence has been supported by Communist witnesses.[46]

The (censored) German newspapers made no mention of the encyclical. The Gestapo visited the offices of every German diocese the next day and seized all the copies they could find.[42] Every publishing company that had printed it was closed and sealed, diocesan newspapers were proscribed, and limits imposed on the paper available for Church purposes.[47][48]

Historian Frank J. Coppa wrote that the encyclical was viewed by the Nazis as "a call to battle against the Reich" and that Hitler was furious and "vowed revenge against the Church".[22]

Klaus Scholderwrote "Whereas the reading of the encyclical was widely felt in German Catholcism to be a liberation, state officials and the Party reacted with anger and disapproval. Nevertheless the great reprisal that was feared did not come. The concordat remained in force and despite everything the intensification of the battle against the two churches which then began remained within ordinary limits." (Scholder, p. 154-155)

According to John Vidmar, Nazi reprisals against the Church in Germany followed thereafter, including "staged prosecutions of monks for homosexuality, with the maximum of publicity".[49] One hundred and seventy Franciscans were arrested in Koblenz and tried for “corrupting youth” in a secret trial, with numerous allegations of priestly debauchery appearing in the Nazi-controlled press, while a film produced for the Hitler Youth showed men dressed as priests dancing in a brothel.[50]

Catholic response[edit]

The Catholic Herald reported that it was a "great Encyclical in fact contains a summary of what most needs preserving as the basis for a Christian civilisation and a compendium of the most dangerous elements in Nazi doctrine and practice."[51] and that:

Only a small portion of the Encyclical is against Germany's continuous violations of the Concordat; the larger part refers to false and dangerous doctrines which are officially spread in Germany and to which the Holy Father opposes the teaching of the Catholic Church. The word National Socialism does not appear at all in the document. The Pope has not tried to give a full analysis of the National Socialist doctrine. That would, indeed, have been impossible, as the Nazi movement is relatively young and it is doubtful whether certain ideas are " official " and essential parts of its doctrine or not. But one thing is beyond any doubt: If you take away from the National Socialist " faith" those false dogmas which have solemnly been condemned by the Holy Father in his Encyclical, the remainder will not deserve to be called National Socialism.[52]

Austrian Bishop Gfoellner of Linz had the encyclical read from the pulpits of his diocese. The Catholic Herald reported:

The Bishop of Linz (Mgr. Gfoellner) who has always taken a very strong antiNazi and anti-Socialist stand in the district of Austria where there has been most trouble with both views, said before the reading of 'the document: "The fate of the Church in Germany cannot be a matter of indifference to us; it touches us very nearly." After indicating the reasons the Bishop added that the dangers of German Catholics were also the dangers of Austrian Catholics: "What I wrote in my pastoral of January 21, 1933. It is impossible to be at once a good Catholic and a good National-Socialist,' is confirmed today." Mgr. Gfoellner asked all Catholic parents to keep their children away from any organisation which sympathised with the ideology condemned by the Pope.[53]

In April 1938 The Vatican newspaper Osservatore Romano would display for the first time "the historic headline" of "Religious Persecution in Germany" and reflect that what Pius XI had published in Mit Brennender Sorge was now being clearly witnessed: " Catholic schools are closed, people are coerced to leave the Church..religious instruction of the Youth is made impossible.. Catholic organisations are suppressed..a press campaign is made against the Church, while its own newspapers and magazines are suppressed.."[54]


The historian Eamon Duffy wrote:

"In a triumphant security operation, the encyclical was smuggled into Germany, locally printed, and read from Catholic pulpits on Palm Sunday 1937. Mit brennender Sorge ('With Burning Anxiety') denounced both specific government actions against the Church in breach of the concordat and Nazi racial theory more generally. There was a striking and deliberate emphasis on the permanent validity of the Jewish scriptures, and the Pope denounced the 'idolatrous cult' which replaced belief in the true God with a 'national religion' and the 'myth of race and blood'. He contrasted this perverted ideology with the teaching of the Church in which there was a home 'for all peoples and all nations'. The impact of the encyclical was immense, and it dispelled at once all suspicion of a Fascist Pope. While the world was still reacting, however, Pius issued five days later another encyclical, Divini Redemptoris denouncing Communism, declaring its principles 'intrinsically hostile to religion in any form whatever', detailing the attacks on the Church which had followed the establishment of Communist regimes in Russia, Mexico and Spain, and calling for the implementation of Catholic social teaching to offset both Communism and 'amoral liberalism'. The language of Divini Redemptoris was stronger than that of Mit brennender Sorge, its condemnation of Communism even more absolute than the attack on Nazism. The difference in tone undoubtedly reflected the Pope's own loathing of Communism as the ultimate enemy."[55]

Carlo Falconi wrote:

"So little anti-Nazi is it that it does not even attribute to the regime as such, but only to certain trends within it, the dogmatic and moral errors widespread in Germany. And while the errors indicated are carefully diagnosed and refuted, complete silence surrounds the much more serious and fundamental errors associated with Nazi political ideology, corresponding to the principles most subversive of natural law that are characteristic of absolute totalitarianisms. The encyclical is in fact concerned purely with the Catholic Church in Germany and its rights and privileges, on the basis of the concordatory contracts of 1933. Moreover the form given to it by Cardinal Faulhaber, even more a super-nationalist than the majority of his most ardent colleagues, was essentially dictated by tactics and aimed at avoiding a definite breach with the regime, even to the point of offering in conclusion a conciliatory olive branch to Hitler if he would restore the tranquil prosperity of the Catholic Church in Germany. But that was the very thing to deprive the document of its noble and exemplary intransigence. Nevertheless, even within these limitations, the pontifical letter still remains the first great public document to dare to confront and criticize Nazism, and the Pope's courage astonished the world. It was, indeed, the encyclicals fate to be credited with a greater significance and content than it possessed."[56]

Historian Klaus Scholder observed that Hitlers interest in church questions seemed to have died in early 1937 which he attributes to the issuing of the encyclical and that "Hitler must have regarded the encyclical Mit brennender sorge in April 1937 almost as a snub. In fact it will have seemed to him to be the final rejection of his world-view by Catholicism".[57] Scholder wrote:

"However, whereas the encyclical Divini Redemptoris mentioned Communism in Russia, Mexico and Spain directly by name, at the suggestion of Faulhaber the formulation of the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge was not polemical, but accused National Socialism above all indirectly, by a description of the foundations of the Catholic Church....As things were every hearer knew what was meant when it mentioned 'public persecution' of the faithful, 'a thousand forms of organized impediments to religion' and a 'lack of teaching which is loyal to the truth and of the normal possibilties of defence'. Even if National Socialism was not mentioned by name, it was condemned clearly and unequivocally as an ideology when the encyclical stated 'Anyone who makes Volk or state or form of state or state authorities or other basic values of the human shaping of society into the highest of all norms, even of religious values...perverts and falsifies the divinely created and divinely commanded order of things'"[58] and that "The time of open confrontation seemed to have arrived. However, it very soon emerged that the encyclical was open to different interpretations. It could be understood as a last and extreme way by which the church might maintain its rights and its truth within the framework of the concordat; but it could also be interpreted as the first step which could be and had to be followed by further steps..The leader of the German Bishops conference, Cardinal Bertram, sought to blunt the impact of the encyclical by ordering that critical passages be not read out". He took the view that "introductory thoughts about the failure of the Reich government to observe the treaty are meant more for the leaders, not for the great mass of believers."[11]

Martin Rhonheimer wrote:

"The general condemnation of racism of course included the Nazis' anti-Semitic racial mania, and condemned it implicitly. The question, however, is not what the Church's theological position with regard to Nazi racism and anti-Semitism was in 1937, but whether Church statements were clear enough for everyone to realize that the Church included Jews in its pastoral concern, thus summoning Christian consciences to solidarity with them. In light of what we have seen, it seems clear that the answer to this question must be No. In 1937 the Church was concerned not with the Jews but with entirely different matters that the Church considered more important and more urgent. An explicit defense of the Jews might well have jeopardized success in these other areas." He further writes "Such statements require us to reconsider the Church's public declarations about the Nazi concept of the state and racism in the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge. Not only were Church declarations belated. They were also inadequate to counter the passivity and widespread indifference to the fate of Jews caused by this kind of Christian anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism, especially when it was combined with newly awakened national pride. The encyclical, then, came far too late to be of any help to Jews. In reality, however, the Church's statements were never really designed to help the Jews. The "Catholic apologetic" described above is something developed after the fact and has no roots in the historical record. Indeed, given the dominant view of the Jews in the Nazi period, it would have been astonishing if the Church had mounted the barricades in their defense. As we shall see, the failure of Church statements about Nazism and racism ever to mention the Jews specifically (save in negative ways) corresponds to an inner logic that is historically understandable--but no less disturbing to us today."[59]

Guenter Lewy wrote:

"Many writers, influenced in part by the violent reaction of the Nazi government to the papal pronouncement, have hailed the encyclical letter Mit Brennender Sorge as a decisive repudiation of the National Socialist state and Weltanschauung. More judicious observers have noted the encyclical was moderate in its tone and merely intimated that the condemned neopagan doctrines were favored by the German authorities. It is indeed a document in which, as one Catholic writer has put it, "with considerable skill, the extravagances of German Nazi doctrine are picked out for condemnation in a way that would not involve the condemnation of political and social totalitarianism..While some of Pius' language is sweeping and can be given a wider construction, basically the Pope had condemned neopaganism and the denial of religious freedom - no less and no more"[60]

Catholic holocaust scholar Michael Phayer concludes that the encyclical "condemned racism (but not Hitler or National Socialism, as some have erroneously asserted)".[61] Other Catholic scholars have regarded the encyclical as "not a heatedly combative document" as the German episcopate, still ignorant of the real dimension of the problem, still entertained hopes of a Modus vivendi with the Nazis. As a result the encyclical was "not directly polemical" but "diplomatically moderate", in contrast to the encyclical Non Abbiamo Bisogno dealing with Italian fascism.[62]

See also[edit]

External links[edit]


  1. ^ "Church and state through the centuries", Sidney Z. Ehler & John B Morrall, pp. 518-519, org pub 1954, reissued 1988, Biblo & Tannen, 1988, ISBN 0-8196-0189-6
  2. ^ "Before 1931 all such messages [encylicals] were written in Latin. The Encyclical Non abbiamo bisogno of June 29, 1931, which condemned certain theories and practices of Italian Fascism, particularly in the realm of education, and denounced certain treaty violations of Signor Mussolini's Government, was the first document of that kind that appeared in a language other than Latin.", The Catholic Herald, "FIRST ENCYCLICAL IN GERMAN", PAGE 3, 9TH APRIL 1937 [1]
  3. ^ Robert A.Ventresca - p.iv of photos, Soldier of Christ
  4. ^ Courtois, p. 29: "... Pope Pius XI condemned Nazism and Communism respectively in the encyclicals Mit brennender Sorge ... and Divini redemptoris ... ."
  5. ^ Paul O'Shea, A Cross too Heavy, p.156-157
  6. ^ Martin Rhonheimer ,The Holocaust: What Was Not Said, First Things 137 (November 2003): 18-28
  7. ^ Robert Ventresca, Soldier of Christ, p.118; "The word National Socialism does not appear at all in the document.The Pope has not tried to give a full analysis of the National Socialist doctrine. That would, indeed, have been impossible, as the Nazi movement is relatively young and it is doubtful whether certain ideas are "official" and essential parts of its doctrine or not.", The Catholic Herald, PAGE 3, 9TH APRIL 1937 [2]
  8. ^ McGonigle, p. 172: "the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge was read in Catholic Churches in Germany. In effect it taught that the racial ideas of the leader (führer) and totalitarianism stood in opposition to the Catholic faith; Bokenkotter, pp. 389–392: His encyclical Mit brennender Sorge was the 'first great official public document to dare to confront and criticize Nazism' and even described the Führer himself as a 'mad prophet possessed of repulsive arrogance.'"; Rhodes, pp. 204-205: "Mit brennender Sorge did not prevaricate... Nor was the Fuhrer himself spared, for his 'aspirations to divinity', 'placing himself on the same level as Christ': 'a mad prophet possessed of repulsive arrogance' (widerliche Hochmut)."
  9. ^ The Church And Germany, The Catholic Herald, "The Church And Germany",PAGE 8, 16TH APRIL 1937 [3]
  10. ^ Martin Rhonheimer, What was not Said
  11. ^ a b Scholder, Requiem for Hitler, p. 159
  12. ^ The Roman Catholic periodical The Tablet reported at the time "The Encyclical, which took the Nazi Government completely unawares, had been introduced into Germany by the diplomatic bag to the Nunciature, and Monsignor Orsenigo, Apostolic Nuncio in Berlin had arranged for its secret distribution all over the country so that it was read in every Catholic church of the Reich last Sunday, before the Government had time to confiscate and suppress it", The Tablet, 3rd April 1937, p.10 [4]
  13. ^ The Roman catholic periodical The Tablet reported shorty after the issuing of the encyclical "The case in the Berlin court against three priests and five Catholic laymen is, in public opinion, the Reich's answer to the Pope's Mit brennender Sorge encyclical, as the prisoners have been in concentration camps for over a year. Chaplain Rossaint, of Dusseldorf; is, however, known as a pacifist and an opponent of the National Socialist regime, and it is not denied that he was indiscreet ; but he is, moreover, accused of having tried to form a Catholic-Communist front on the plea that he baptized a Jewish Communist. This the accused denies, and his defence has been supported by Communist witnesses", The Tablet, p. 13, 24 April 1937 [5]
  14. ^ Three Popes and the Jews, Pinchas Lapide, 1967, Hawthorn Press, p. 102
  15. ^ Lewy, 1964, p. 92
  16. ^ a b Lewy, 1964, p. 93
  17. ^ Falconi, 1967, p. 227
  18. ^ Lewy, 1967, p. 228
  19. ^ a b Falconi, 1967, p. 228
  20. ^ a b c Falconi, 1967, p. 229
  21. ^ Pham, Heirs of the Fisherman: Behind the Scenes of Papal Death and Succession (2005), p. 45
  22. ^ a b c The Papacy, the Jews, and the Holocaust, Frank J. Coppa, pp. 162-163, CUA Press, 2006, ISBN 0-8132-1449-1
  23. ^ Paul O'Shea, A Cross too Heavy, p.156
  24. ^ Lewy, 1967, p. 156
  25. ^ a b c d e f Lewy, 1967, p. 157
  26. ^ Vidmar, pp. 327–331
  27. ^ Faulhaber's original draft of this passage read: "Be vigilant that race, or the state, or other communal values, which can claim an honorable place in worldly things, are not magnified and idolized."
  28. ^ a b "The Holocaust: What Was Not Said". First Things Magazine. November 2003. Retrieved 30 June 2009. 
  29. ^ Wills,Papal Sin, p. 19
  30. ^ a b Burleigh, 2006, p. 191
  31. ^ Phayer, Pius XII, The Holocaust, and the Cold War, 2008, p. 175-176
  32. ^ a b Burleigh, 2006, p. 192
  33. ^ Burleigh, 2005, p. 192
  34. ^ "Anthony Rhodes Cosmopolitan travel writer, biographer, novelist and memoirist", The Independent, Wednesday 25 August 2004 [6]
  35. ^ "Anthony Rhodes: Cosmopolitan and well-connected man of letters who write a deeply researched three-volume history of the Vatican",Obituary, The Times, September 8, 2004 [7]
  36. ^ The Vatican in the Age of the Dictators, pp 204-205
  37. ^ e.g see Bokenkotter, pp. 389–392
  38. ^ John Connelly, Harvard University Press, 2012, “From Enemy to Brother: The Revolution in Catholic Teaching on the Jews, 1933–1965”, p. 315, fn 52
  39. ^ Phyaer, 2002, p. 2
  40. ^ Burleigh, p. 191-192
  41. ^ Under His Very Windows, p. 22
  42. ^ a b Piers Brendon, The Dark Valley: A Panorama of the 1930s, p. 511 ISBN 0-375-40881-9
  43. ^ Bokenkotter 389
  44. ^ "FIRST ENCYCLICAL IN GERMAN", Catholic Herald, 9 April 1937[8]
  45. ^ "German 'Traitor' Priests",Catholic Herald, 23 April 1937[9]
  46. ^ "The Church Abroad", 24 April 1937, The Tablet[10]
  47. ^ Rhodes, p. 205: "The true extent of the Nazi fury at this encyclical was shown by the immediate measures taken in Germany to counter further propagation of the document. Not a word of it was printed in newspapers, and the following day the Secret Police visited the diocesan offices and confiscated every copy they could lay their hands on. All the presses which had printed it were closed and sealed. The bishops' diocesan magazines (Amtsblatter) were proscribed; and paper for church pamphlets or secretarial work was severely restricted. A host of other measures, such as diminishing the State grants to theology students and needy priests (agreed in the Concordat) were introduced. And then a number of futile, vindictive measures which did little to harm the Church..."
  48. ^ Falconi, p. 230: "the pontifical letter still remains the first great official public document to dare to confront and criticize Nazism, and the Pope's courage astonished the world."
  49. ^ Vidmar, p. 254.
  50. ^ Rhodes, Anthony. Vatican in the Age of the Dictators, 1922-1945. pp. 202–210. ISBN 0-340-02394-5. 
  51. ^ "The Church And Germany", Catholic herld, 16 April 1937[11]
  52. ^ "FIRST ENCYCLICAL IN GERMAN", Catholic Herald, 9 April 1937[12]
  53. ^ "AUSTRIAN BISHOP'S PLAIN WORDS " Can't Be Good Nazi and Good Catholic "", Catholic Herald, 16 April 1937[13]
  54. ^ "HISTORIC HEADLINE 'Religious Persecution in Germany'", Catholic Herald, 6 May 1938[14]
  55. ^ Duffy, Saints and Sinners, a History of the Popes. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07332-1. (paperback edition) p. 343
  56. ^ Falconi, 1967, pp 229-231
  57. ^ Scholder, p. 152, p. 163
  58. ^ Scholder, p. 154-155
  59. ^ "The Holocaust: What Was Not Said", First Things 137 (November 2003): 18-28.
  60. ^ Lewy,Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, 1964, p. 158-159
  61. ^ Phayer 2000, p. 2
  62. ^ Church and state through the centuries", Sidney Z. Ehler & John B Morrall, pp. 518-519, org pub 1954, reissued 1988, Biblo & Tannen, 1988, ISBN 0-8196-0189-6