When Eugenio Pacelli defended the Cardinal who criticised Hitler

Andrea Tornielli

Among the most significant episodes of Eugenio Pacelli’s years alongside Pope Pius XI as Secretary of State was his defence of the Archbishop of Chicago, Cardinal George William Mundelein, who on 18 May 1937, during a closed-door address to his priests, delivered a blistering condemnation of Adolf Hitler:

“You may ask how it is possible that a nation of sixty-six million—and intelligent people at that—should submit itself to a foreigner, an Austrian paperhanger, and, I am told, a poor specimen at that, together with a few associates such as Goebbels and Göring, who decide every move of the German people.”

The cardinal went so far as to suggest, polemically, that the brains of sixty-six million Germans must have been removed without their noticing it. It was an extraordinarily severe intervention, delivered without diplomatic restraint by a churchman living thousands of kilometres from Europe. His remarks made front-page headlines across the United States.

On 24 May, German Ambassador Diego von Bergen requested and obtained an audience with Cardinal Pacelli, to whom he delivered an unsigned and undated note on German Embassy letterhead containing a sharp protest from the Berlin government over Mundelein’s remarks.

Pacelli replied orally, but later that same day sent von Bergen a written transcript of his response:

“In response to the communication just made to me regarding a speech by His Eminence Cardinal Mundelein, permit me to reply with one observation and one counter-question.

1. I am not accustomed to commenting on speeches for which—as in the present case—there is not yet an unquestionably reliable text.
2. Even if such a text were available, I would not be in a position to take a stand on the communication made to me before receiving a clear, definitive, and satisfactory answer to the following question: What has the German Government done, and what does it intend to do in the future, regarding the vile insults and defamations, the disgraceful calumnies repeated daily in German newspapers and periodicals, as well as in the speeches of prominent figures, against the Church, ecclesiastical institutions, the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, priests, and so forth?

To lighten Your Excellency’s task, I shall answer the first part of the question myself: the German Government—despite protests—has done nothing against such conduct. On the contrary, it bears responsibility for it, because State and Party offices, and especially the Ministry of Propaganda, largely organise and direct such behaviour in publications and speeches, or at the very least favour and promote it by every means.

As for the second part of the counter-question concerning the future, only the German Government can answer. The Holy See awaits, as I have said, a clear, definitive, and satisfactory reply.”

The Holy See thus forcefully returned the protest to its sender, demanding an accounting from the Reich government for the many unanswered Vatican protests over violations of the Concordat.

On 29 May, Fritz von Menshausen, chargé d’affaires of the German Embassy, delivered a second and more threatening note to Cardinal Pacelli, seeking a public Vatican disavowal of Mundelein.

“The German Government,” the document stated, “is compelled to observe that the Holy See allows to remain uncorrected these unqualified public attacks by one of its highest dignitaries against the person of the Head of the German State, thereby effectively covering them before the eyes of the world.”

This latest formal protest could not go unanswered. Pope Pius XI, therefore, convened a meeting of the cardinals of the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, held at Castel Gandolfo on 20 June 1937 and presided over personally by the Pontiff. The introductory report was entrusted to Cardinal Pacelli.

A transcript of his remarks records him as saying:

“The Holy See cannot itself correct or deplore the speech of Cardinal Mundelein. Such an act of weakness would only make the leaders of National Socialism and Hitler himself still more arrogant, for in his self-delusion, he believes that the whole world must immediately bow before him.

Certainly, the portion of Cardinal Mundelein’s speech concerning his words against the head of the German State was not particularly felicitous. He could perhaps of his own accord, offer some public clarification. However, since the German Government has published the Note of the Ambassador to the Holy See of 29 May, the public would in that case easily conclude that such a declaration by Cardinal Mundelein had been made at the order and suggestion of the Holy See, which would thus appear to have yielded to the imposition of the Government.”

The passage is highly revealing, once again shedding light on Eugenio Pacelli’s view of Hitler. It also demonstrates the skill with which he presented the matter to the Pope and to the officials of the Secretariat of State, ensuring that the Archbishop of Chicago would not be compelled to retract a single word.

Pius XI fully endorsed Pacelli’s judgment, describing him as “our Cardinal Secretary of State, for whom no praise is sufficient.”

In the response sent by Pacelli to the German Embassy four days later, the Holy See stated that Cardinal Mundelein neither represented nor spoke on behalf of the Vatican, and that his speech had not been public. It further noted that the Archbishop of Chicago was a free citizen who had exercised the right guaranteed by his country’s Constitution to express his judgment concerning persons and events in Germany offensive to the Pope and to the Church.

The Vatican did not refuse to discuss the Mundelein affair, but reiterated that such discussion required conditions of equality. The Reich government, therefore, first had to provide adequate explanations and responses to the many protests previously submitted by the Holy See without result.

The German protest ultimately came to nothing.

Indeed, on 17 July 1937, receiving a group of pilgrims from Chicago, Pius XI praised the American city and “their magnificent Cardinal Archbishop, so prompt and zealous in defending the rights of God and of the Church for the salvation of souls.”