Catholic Church and Authoritarian State: Poland 1932

According to a Christian understanding, Church and State should coexist in a harmonious complementary relationship. But debates as to how such a relationship functions and where to draw the boundaries between one and the other “power” are as old as Christianity itself. 

At the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church's magisterium shifted from the Church-State dichotomy to emphasizing the role of Christian believers in civil society and in the international human family. Hitherto, however, the Holy See sought to manage the relationship with treaties or concordats aimed at protecting the liberties of Catholics and to accord the Church institution with certain advantages. This was especially true in countries where Catholicism was the majority religion. 

One such country was Poland, which, after having been partitioned between three Europeans Empires at the end of the eighteenth century, emerged as an independent state in 1918. Even after the end of imperial rule, a Josephist (or Josephinist) ideology remained among the civil bureaucracy. Named for Austrian Emperor Joseph II, this rationalist Enlightenment theory relegated religion to the private consciences of believers. Anything touching on religion in the public sphere was to be regulated by state functionaries as opposed to Church officials. 

Even the Concordat between Poland and the Holy See, ratified in 1925, was fraught with diverging interpretations. Prominent Polish statesmen considered certain guarantees to be formal courtesies lacking in juridical content. In their (Josephist) view, the clergy were like civic functionaries that should be submissive to government policy. This is why they demanded that the Concordat make the bishops and major clergy swear an oath of loyalty to the State upon taking office.

The Church interpreted this oath as a promise of loyalty to the institutional state rather than to a particular regime, government, or policy. Additionally, the Holy See conceived the oath to be that befitting the office of a bishop/priest; a loyalty which did not contradict Divine Law, Church Law, or his moral duty to defend from excessive state pretensions. Marshall Piłsudski’s authoritarian regime, which took over the State in a 1926 coup, considered the oath in maximum terms. Thus, it altered the wording, for Orthodox bishops, from an oath of loyalty to one of obedience.

The history of the Second Republic is often obscured by the history of Communist and Post-Communist Poland. This is more so when we think of the role of the Church and believers in Poland. For instance, not well known is the extent of the hostility by officials of the Sanacja regime to the influence of Catholicism in society. 

Authoritarian regimes seek ever greater control over every aspect of the nation and invariably find themselves in competition with the Church, especially if the clergy and laity are fulfilling their prophetic mission to speak truth to power. Such regimes seek to denigrate the Church’s moral authority and sometimes even attempt to usurp its preaching and teaching role. Secular officials tell the faithful that good Catholics are those who respect the civil leadership. Those who challenge are labelled with simplistic slogans. The regime activates useful idiots as well as honourable but naive patriots, who hesitate to believe evil of the leadership. In more recent contexts, new forms of Joseph[in]ism have made a comeback.

 

The following document was presented to Pope Pius XI by the Primate of Poland, Cardinal August Hlond, in March 1932. It certainly shows its age and mindset of the time. And yet it is valuable to understand s the historical situation only seven years before the beginning of the war which, de facto, ended the existence of the Second Polish Republic.

SECRET INFORMATION

on the Religious-Political situation in Poland

Rome, 14 March 1932

For some time now, unfortunately, one notes a certain tension between the Government and the Church in Poland. The causes? Government circles blame the Church, asserting that the Episcopate is aggravating the Government and that the lower Clergy is in political opposition to it. How do things stand in reality?

 

1- THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOVERNMENT CIRCLES

In the Government and its party, which makes up the majority in the legislative chambers, there are undoubtedly Catholics. However, the majority of the government’s parliamentary coalition is made up of people who are religiously indifferent and positively adverse to Catholicism. There are Socialists, free thinkers, sectarians, apostates and Freemasons, not to mention Protestants, schismatics and Jews. Among the Catholics, then, there are those who come from Socialism, which they remain infected with especially in those that concern public life and relations with the Church. This is also the case of Marshal Piłsudski.

The Government of today, with a few exceptions, is composed of legionary officers of not very high intellectual culture and of poor political preparation. Their government is dictatorial in principle and their way of perceiving and taking things is military. They do not make much effort to conform to the European standards and especially do not see the need to do so in internal administration.

 

2 – POLITICAL IDEOLOGY OF GOVERNMENT CIRCLES

The idea of ​​the State has not yet crystallized in the government’s program. It oscillates between fascist and bolshevik conceptions. The omnipotence of the State is however one of the cornerstones of the present political system. The citizen, the individual, no longer counts. The family is almost excluded from the influence on the spirit of education in state schools, which is based on the cult of Marshal Piłsudski. Nobody has an idea of ​​what normal relations with the Church should be. Government spheres feel harassed by the strong position of the Church, whose authority and influence are growing.

In particular, within the government’s parliamentary coalition there are various tendencies, strong divergences of ideas, and even struggles which become livelier and sharper as the personal influence of the Marshal decreases [due to age and infirmity]. Catholics in the government’s coalition have been unable to exert sufficient influence on the direction of affairs. And thus, unfortunately, the tendency within this coalition is secular. This explains a sad fact: the Nation remains faithfully attached to the great Catholic traditions of its past, called by Providence to successfully implement the Christian conception of the State. Nevertheless, it is generally governed in a sectarian sense and pushed towards a non-Christian future. The only obstacle in the way of the rush towards secularism is the firmness of the Episcopate.

One of the characteristics of the program to secularize the life of the Nation is a tendency to avoid open conflict with the Church, which would have serious political consequences in Poland. Conflicts with the Holy See are therefore carefully avoided and the letter of the Concordat is generally observed, thus avoiding persecution of the Church. At the same time, however, attempts are made to gradually implement the secular program, in ways that are invisible but insidiously effective. The soul of the Nation is being poisoned with a sectarian spirit. Its moral strength is being shattered with free rein being given to every kind of vice. The existence of the family and the institutions of the Church are being threatened by laws and decrees. Ways are being studied to undermine the authority of the Episcopate. Its work is being interfered with, the clergy is being harassed and accused of being opposed to the Government and an enemy of the State. [...]

 

4 – SECULARISM IN POLITICAL ADMINISTRATION

In the government, the political administration, in diplomacy, and in the army, free thinkers, atheists, bigamists, and apostates are given preference. Practicing Catholics are gradually kept back under one pretext or another. In general, personnel changes are unfavourable to Catholics. [...]

Political authorities usually look askance at State employees maintaining friendly relations with the Church. Several employees at the Ministries were expressly told that, to advance in their career, they should associate less with priests. In circles dependent on the Government, that kind of corruption reigns. In order not to get into trouble, one must maintain an unfavourable or at least reserved attitude towards the clergy. Whoever demonstrates the ability to harm the Church is protected against any misfortune. For this reason, State employees do not belong to Catholic Action and are beginning to absent themselves from the Marian Sodalities.

The correspondence of the bishops is secretly monitored, and the clergy are also meticulously monitored. The Governors’ political offices have introduced card files for each priest. These record not only their political conduct but also their private and priestly conduct, naturally based on unverifiable police reports and complaints of the clergy’s adversaries. Catholic Action and all the Associations that belong to it are specially monitored. Control is also extended to the confraternities, third orders, Marian sodalities, etc.

Since I repeatedly complained about the harassment suffered by Catholic organizations and their members, last November the Minister of the Interior issued a circular forbidding any harm to Catholic Action. Since that time the authorities have harassed it a little less. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the pro-government associations have intensified their work. They never tire of denigrating Catholic organizations, especially those for youth and charity. Even missions for the unemployed, introduced in the Dioceses following the Encyclical of His Holiness, were molested and persecuted by state organs, in various places.

The Government does little or nothing to hold back the flood of immorality, indeed it seems to encourage it. The ministerial commission for monitoring films permits real indecency to pass. Bad writers, who devastate [public morals], are supported and favoured. With the permission of the Minister of the Interior, eugenic consultation offices are being set up, whose purpose is to teach the most effective methods of contraception.

 

5 – THE SPIRIT OF SECULARISM IN EDUCATION

It is true that in accordance with the Concordat, religion continues to be taught in schools, but it is also true that there are continuous attempts to give the rest of the school a secular imprint.

Firstly, there are several cases where school authorities reduce the hours of religious teaching without reaching an agreement with the Bishops.

Practicing Catholics are systematically eliminated from offices of higher education and are replaced by unbelievers, Protestants and defrocked clergy. The number of unbelievers is growing in the ranks of teachers and professors, and they are always favoured. A few weeks ago, at the headquarters of the Superintendent of Education in Poznań, the Association of Freethinkers for School Employees was officially founded. This year, I noticed that, in my Archdiocese, atheist teachers are already beginning to be in the majority in certain secondary schools, where only good Catholics taught five years ago.

Teachers are forbidden to take part in Catholic youth associations. It is viewed with displeasure if they are on good terms with the clergy. The spiritual retreats that I organize annually for teachers are frowned upon. And they were not pleased when, last New Year's Eve, I presented to school officials, professors and teachers of the Poznań voivodeship (about 8,000 people) a special annotated edition of the Pope’s Encyclical on Christian Education.

They have started harassing the Marian Sodalities that are thriving in the middle schools. Instead, they organize clubs of various kinds in the same schools, in which unfortunately they propagate bad attitudes. They force the youth of the middle schools to read and comment on modern literary works, some of which are even pornographic, especially in high schools for girls.

A large-scale program is being launched against the Catholic character and spirit of Polish scouting, which hitherto has distinguished its ranks. Unfortunately, this program has already made inroads into the female section.

 

6 – SECULARIST TENDENCIES AMONG POLISH ÉMIGRÉS.

Unfortunately, the Government agencies are also bringing secularism to Polish émigrés, as I witnessed among emigrants in the United States, Brazil, London, and especially in France.

So far, in [France] has not been possible to have the schools organized by the Polish Government to be administered in a Catholic spirit. On the contrary, these schools are conceived as purely atheistic. The teachers sent there from the homeland were convinced not to teach religion and not to have contact with Polish priests. Only now, after my recent interventions, has the Polish Government promised to organize religious education in those schools. Certain Polish consular representations in France never weary of fighting Catholic organizations among the emigrants. They often hindered the work of Polish priests, who are carrying out a very important pastoral mission.

 

7 – THE “AGGRAVATING CONDUCT” OF THE BISHOPS.

Far be it for me to assert that everything the Government does is bad. Neither do I intend to infer that the Polish Government is always inspired by hatred towards the Church. I also willingly recognize all the good that it does for the Church. And I do not miss an opportunity to express my satisfaction and gratitude to the representatives of the State for the services they provide to Religion.

But is it any wonder that the Bishops, faced with anti-religious tendencies and the facts, take steps to defend the faith, morality, and rights of the Church? All these steps are now described by the Government and pro-government circles as “aggravating behaviour” and as a cause of tension between the two powers [Church and State].

More than once, the Government and its parliamentary coalition have invoked the principal of State sovereignty to convince the Bishops they must not interfere in any way in what the Government does. That is, they would like the Church to be completely uninvolved in what the State legislates and decrees, even if the laws, decrees, and orders intrude into the religious sphere, offend morality, and infringe upon the Church’s rights. Whenever the hierarchy does anything to oppose the wave of secularism, in such cases, we hear cries that the Bishops do not respect the State and are unfaithful toward it.

They convinced Marshal Pilsudski of this theory, and he became fixated with the idea that the Bishops hinder the work of the Government and show disrespect toward it. He usually expresses this with the motto that: ‘the Bishops want to bring back the Middle Ages to Poland.’

The Episcopate, on the other hand, understands very well that it must guard against even the appearance of being influenced by the opposition parties. The episcopate knows that that its actions, especially concerning the Government, must be well-founded, serious, dignified and respectful. And it is worth noting that, for years now, the Episcopate’s collective statements have been redacted in the style of calm gravity. Sometimes they are strong, as in questions of matrimony, but they are never offensive or lacking in respect. Except for a few exceptional (well known) cases, even the personal pronouncements of the Bishops are anything but exaggerated. Rather than a lack of respect for government authority, they might be faulted for not presenting Catholic doctrine in relation to the errors and unhealthy tendencies of the modern age with sufficient clarity.

I also believe it is my duty to point out that the Episcopate is in constant and cordial contact with His Excellency the Apostolic Nuncio, who is perfectly aware of what is happening in Poland and merits the full trust and great veneration of the Bishops.

 

8 – “THE POLITICS” OF THE LOWER CLERGY.

Pro-government spheres accuse the lower clergy of not being faithful to the Government according to the meaning of the Bishops’ oath. In the last parliamentary debates on the ecclesiastical issues (mentioned above), it was stated with regret that eighty-five percent of the clergy is not on the Government’s side.

If it is a question of convictions and feelings, I believe that not even 15% of the clergy have confidence in the present Government or hope that, over time, the positive elements in pro-government spheres will prevail in lending Christian direction to politics. The rest [remaining 85%] do not have confidence in the Government, especially because of the tendencies and facts mentioned above.

If we now take into consideration actual politics, it should be clarified that the phenomenon of the political priest is becoming increasingly rare. From year to year the number of priests who take an active part in political movements is decreasing. While previously there were thirty, forty, or more priests as deputies, in today's Parliament there are four priests in the government’s coalition and one in the national one. It is true that a certain number of priests, especially in the former Germanic regions, continue out of habit to belong to parties that have remained in opposition following the revolutionary events of 1926. But in general, this is a personal membership that does not try to propagate the party and without actions the oppose the Government.

Increasingly rare are priests who take an active part in politics to the extent permitted by ecclesiastical law and the laws of the country. Exceptional are the cases in which a priest abuses his office for political propaganda or fails to show obedience to the Government or to be faithful to the State. In such cases the Government invariably brings criminal charges, but all the cases end with acquittal, except for some singular cases concerned with the national minorities.

The Government’s irritation is based on fact that the clergy in general do not accept the government party’s policies, which naturally has a strong impact on the behaviour of the population.

[The Government] misinterprets the Bishops’ oath and thus accuses the Clergy of being unfaithful to the Government and the State, because they belong in part to political groups other than the pro-government coalition or because, obeying the Bishops’ orders, they preach against the dissolution of marriage, against infanticide [abortion], against the decline of the social morals, etc.

For example, the Governor of Poznan complained to me that, among my priests (there are a thousand of them), there are some who are not loyal to the Government. But when asked for concrete facts, he was never able to provide me with a single one that might be incriminating.

 

9 – CONCLUSION: THE REAL CAUSE OF THE “TENSIONS”

Leaving aside the well-known mistakes of certain Bishops, which in no way can be blamed on the collective Episcopate, if there is tension between the Church and the State in Poland, it is explained by the furious indignation of Freethinking Circles following their moral defeat on the issue of marriage. The strong protest of the Nation against the proposed marriage law, caused by the strong statements of the Bishops, was the hardest blow endured by the secular politics of the pro-government party in Poland. Hence the anger.

In fact, until November of last year, there was almost no talk of bishops or priests being politicians. Then suddenly they were all declared politicians, not deferential to the Government, unfaithful to the State, violators of the oath. This is a reaction and revenge of wounded sectarian hatred. 

In conclusion it is important to note:

a) The policy of the present Government involves manifestly secularist elements which prevent tasks of the State from being carried out in due conformity with Christian precepts.

b) It is the task of the Church and of Catholic Action to save the Polish soul from sectarian infection. The Church must find a way to do this while respecting the Government, maintaining fidelity to the State, and preaching to Catholics respect and obedience to public authorities.

c) The work of the Church, insofar as it corrects the aforementioned secular tendencies, is frowned upon by the Government and pro-government circles, and causes that state of unease which is called tension between the two powers.

And as to remedies? The Government seems the remedy in the Church ceasing to watch over the spirit of the Nation and not opposing any legislative or administrative acts, even when they are contrary to the Law of God and the Church. This is impossible. Instead, I believe that today's annoyance and other tensions can be alleviated and partly prevented:

a) by coming to a fair solution in the unfortunate disagreement between some Bishops and the Government, [...];

b) by clarifying the principles of the Christian concept of the State and the relations between the two powers. Such problems are being totally ignored even by Catholic politicians;

c) by persuading the Government to make the appropriate arrangements with the Episcopate before making decisions or establishing draft laws or decrees on mixed [Church-State] matters, such as Catholic schools, religious hospitals, marriage, etc.;

d) by instilling in  Catholics respect for the authorities of the State and obedience to the just laws and decrees of the Government;

e) by continuing to draw the clergy away from any active participation in politics;

f) by ensuring that no Bishop takes personal decisions in his relations with the Government which could have consequences for other Dioceses. Uniformity of conduct must be safeguarded in the interest of the common cause. Some indication from the Holy See in this regard would save us in future from certain troubles, such as have unfortunately already occurred, for example, regarding the Organizations of Catholic Youth.

Hlond's original report, typewritten in Italian, is in the Archive of the Second Section of the Papal Secretariat of State: ASRS, AES, Polonia, period IV, pos. 144. Cardinal Pacelli also sent a copy to the Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw: AAV, Arch. Nunz. Varsavia 257.

Andrey Sheptytsky and Oleksander Koshetz

Koshetz and Sheptytsky, Chicago 1922

On 21 September 2024 we mark the 80th anniversary of the death of the great Ukrainian composer, director, and musicologist, Oleksander Koshyts (often spelled Koshetz). Among his achievements are his Ukrainian folk, sacred, and religious choral compositions. The choral ensembles he directed made history under his baton. He was best known internationally for the performances of the Ukrainian National Chorus, commissioned by the fledgeling Ukrainian National Republic (UNR) to spread the good word about Ukrainian identity and culture to the world, during Ukraine’s struggle for independence from 1918–1923. 

Koshetz had a special link to the city of Winnipeg, where he spent his final years teaching and where his mortal remains are entombed, awaiting the trumpet call of the Final Resurrection. He was one of those, together with fellow musician, Dr Paul Matsenko, who worked to unite the Ukrainian community through music and cultural formation. The two men were Orthodox Christians who worked closely with Catholics and others for the greater Ukrainian cause. Their work gave rise to a number of choirs that fostered ecumenical collaboration in the Province of Manitoba and beyond. The most prominent among them is the O. Koshetz Choir.

Oleksander Koshetz died in 1944, two weeks before another of his great countrymen, Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky, whom he knew and much admired. The feeling was mutual. The two met had met in Chicago in 1922, when the maestro was touring with his UNR choir and Sheptytsky was visiting his own church communities in Canada, USA, Brazil, and Argentina. 

Koshetz remembered the grand success of his Chicago concert, after which a dinner was held at a fine hotel. His diary entry for 31 October 1922 recalled: “There were closed to 500 guests all Ukrainian organizations came together, even Catholics with Orthodox which, as they said, was the first such occasion in the history of Ukrainian emigration. Greek Catholic Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky gave a wonderful speech.” It took the work of those two men to achieve such a feat. Although they saw each other again the following day, this were probably the only occasion when they met.

When researching Sheptytsky’s visit to Canada, I stumbled upon correspondence between the Metropolitan and the Maestro. It consists of two letters about a concert which the Ukrainian community in New York had arranged in May 1936 to mark Metropolitan Sheptytsky’s 70th birthday and 35th episcopal anniversary. Koshetz had agreed to conduct a mass ensemble made up of eight Ukrainian choirs from New York and New Jersey. The community had booked Carnegie Hall, where he debuted the-famous Schedryk or Carol of the Bells performed in 1919. The leaflet for the event read as follows:  

 

UKRAINIAN CHOIRS IN A NEW YORK KEY

These are: Boyan Choir from Newark, directed by Teodoziy Kaskiv; Lysenko Choir from Jersey City, dir. Vasyl Hel; the Ukrainian Choir of New York, dir. Teodor Onufryk; Ukrainian Youth Choir from Brooklyn, dir. Vasyl Savytsky; Boyan Choir from Yonkers, dir. Mykhailo Fatyuk; Boyan Choir from Bayon, dir. Vasyl Melnychuk; Boyan from Elizabeth, dir. Mykhailo Yadlovsky; Boyan Choir from Passaic, dir. Stefan Grabar. 

Together, these choirs, forming a total of 300 voices under the general direction of the famous conductor and composer 

PROF. OLEKSANDER KOSHYTS,

will give a concert at New York's largest music hall, Carnegie Hall, 6th Ave. & 57th St., New York City, on Green Holiday (Pentecost), Sunday, 31 May 1936, at 8:15 PM.

The Concert will include a sample program of Ukrainian Church Music. Newspapers will provide details. Prominent American church and public representatives have been invited.

This concert is organized to honour

ANDRIY SHEPTYTSKY, METROPOLITAN OF HALYCH,

the greatest living Ukrainian, the true father of the nation, the founder of national Ukrainian institutions, a protector of youth, patron of Ukrainian art and scholarship, martyr of the sufferings of the Ukrainian church and people, well known throughout the world and highly esteemed by his own and others, in celebration of the 70th anniversary of his life and the 35th anniversary of his mission and important office.

We ask all Ukrainians, from near and far, to come en masse to this important holiday in order to honour one whom the world honours and esteems. […]

Metropolitan Andrey was not much honoured in Rome, during most of Pius XI’s pontificate, and congratulations were not forthcoming from the Roman Curia on this occasion. (This attitude began to change the month after the concert, when Cardinal Eugène Tisserant was appointed head of the Vatican department for the Eastern Churches).

            In his citadel on Saint George’s Hill in Lviv (then under Polish rule), Sheptytsky was informed of the American celebrations and sent the following letter to Koshetz:

 

Lviv, 31 May 1936.

Dear Professor, I have heard that the Professor was kind enough to take the trouble to arrange a concert on the occasion of my anniversary, so I hasten to thank you for your efforts and wish you all the best on that occasion. May God bless you.

+Andrey M.[etropolitan]

 

            After the concert, the following article appeared in the American Ukrainian newspaper Svoboda:

 

TRIUMPH OF UKRAINIAN SONG AT CARNEGIE HALL IN NEW YORK

About 2,000 people from New York and the surrounding suburbs had the opportunity to experience the kind of musical pleasure that you can rarely experience in your life. And this pleasure was even more precious for them because it was evoked by enchanting Ukrainian music performed by Ukrainian-American youth with the masterful direction of the great Oleksandr Koshetz. And it was at the Concert of Ukrainian Church Music, which took place on Sunday, May 31, at B Carnegie Hall in New York on the occasion of the 35-year anniversary of the Halych Metropolitan Andrii Sheptytsky.

The grand choir consisted of eight smaller choirs. About 300 male and female singers performed on stage together, all in national Ukrainian costumes. […]

The celebration was opened by Dr. S. Demydchuk in English, and then in Ukrainian, and in the general introduction he explained the reasons for this festivity, as well as the role played by Metropolitan Sheptytsky in Ukrainian public life. Metropolitan Sheptytsky, the interlocutor said, is no longer the name of a person, but of a certain social and cultural movement. The reason is, that name is not only connected with the church, but also with the creation of various public institutions, schools, museums, hospitals, banks, etc. In gratitude, Ukrainians in emigration celebrate this festivity, "in the biggest city, in the biggest concert hall, under the artistic guidance of the greatest conductor, and for the greatest living "son of the Ukrainian nation."

Choral Performances

After the introductory speech, the curtain was opened, and something appeared before the eyes of the audience that touched Ukrainian hearts and filled them with national pride. Three hundred male and female choristers stood in exemplary order on the large stage. Professsor Koshetz then appeared after having been given a loud ovation by the audience during the introduction.

At the magical gesture of the great conductor's hand, the sounds of the music emerged from three hundred breasts, sometimes stronger, sometimes quieter, which immediately captivated the listeners and transported them into a realm of artistic bliss. Koshetz conducted while wonderful human harmonies flowed from his hands. Three hundred faces were turned to the hands of the conductor, and it seemed that they saw nothing else but him. Koshetz went through three hundred keys with his fingers and infused the listeners with a charm for which they will be inexpressibly grateful.

The choir performed ten pieces entirely of a religious character, among which were compositions by Koshetz himself, then Lysenko, Stetsenko, Bortnyansky, and finally a difficult composition from the 18th century by Vedel.

In addition to the performances of the choir, it was pleasant to hear the performance by Miss Luba Kaskiv, who played a composition by Nardini on the violin accompanied by Mr. Kuzmiak on the piano.

Greetings From Americans

Representing Americans was John Lafarge, co-editor of the National Catholic Weekly "America", and Monsignor M. Lavel also spoke on behalf of Cardinal Hayes of New York. Father Lafarge recalled his personal acquaintance with Metropolitan Sheptytsky and emphasized his services to the great Ukrainian people and the Catholic Church. At the end, he wished him a long life. Father Lavelle also remembered that he first met the Metropolitan in 1904 in Rome. His personality was so impressive, Fr. Lavelle remembered, that he was given more attention (here Fr. Lavel humbly apologized) than the Pope himself. Father Lavel also praised the beauty of the Ukrainian Catholic Rite and declared that the Roman Catholic Rite does not in any way want to Romanize Ukrainian Catholics but, on the contrary, wants Ukrainians concisely adhered to their rite, in which they can be just as good and perhaps better Catholics than in the Roman Rite.

 

            Oleksander Koshetz sent Sheptytsky an commemorative album of the event inscribed with a personal dedication. This prompted the following reply from the Metropolitan several months later:

 

Lviv, 29 October 1936.

Dear Maestro, Thank you very much for remembering me and for sending me such a beautiful album with your dedication. I apologize for responding so late but, for a month, a serious illness did not give me the opportunity to read and respond to letters. I would also like to thank all the Ladies and Gentlemen who worked to arrange of the concert on 13 [sic. 31] May 1936. May God bless your work and grant that you may achieve great success. With expressions of the highest regard

+Andrey M.[etropolitan]

 

Metropolitan Maxim Hermaniuk (1911–1996) was a pioneer of ecumenism and made great efforts to establish good relations and to work closely with Orthodox churchmen and laity for the good of the Ukrainian people. Shortly after becoming Archbishop of Winnipeg, he gave his blessing to the Redemptorist Fathers to open a minor seminary in Roblin, Manitoba, to foster priestly and religious vocations among high school boys. For many years, Professor Matsenko would teach the young men who frequented Saint Vladimir’s College and conduct their choir, and those of several Orthodox institutions. The Matsenko Choir and Hoosli Ensemble were founded by the college alumni. In March 1982, the Professor forwarded this Sheptytsky-Koshetz correspondence to Metropolitan Hermaniuk. Upon his death, Paul Matsenko was entombed in the mausoleum in Glen Eden Cemetery, very close to his friend and colleague Oleksander Koshetz.

Karol Wojtyła appears in Vatican Archives

Karol Wojtyła (1920–2005) is arguably the most famous Pole in history but he also made a major impact on Ukrainian history, especially on the fate of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church. Even before his election to the papacy as John Paul II in October 1978, Wojytła had become a pivotal pubic figure in his homeland where, as Archbishop of Kraków, he held the highest offices in the Church, second only to that of Polish Primate. A few days ago, I stumbled upon a letter written in September 1946, which might represent the first time he was brought to the attention of the Vatican.*

Wojytła’s path to leadership was anything but standard, and is perhaps better described by the old Christian proverb “The ways of Providence are infinite.” To be sure, his call to priestly service came about during a period of wartime terror, where millions were slated for destruction by racial hatred and totalitarian dictatorships.    

The Nazis not only sought to destroy the body, they also sought to destroy the soul. While the Jewish people were their particular focus, they also targeted others for destruction, and among the first victims of Hitler’s racist plan was Poland. Hypothetically, it would be interesting to observe the reaction of a Holocaust denier faced with the mountain of testimonies in Vatican archives. Combing through the Foreign Affairs section of the Archive of the Secretariat of State, a researcher is overwhelmed by reports from diplomats, military chaplains, church and civic leaders, many of which were eyewitnesses to the genocides and ethnic cleansings being perpetuated in the name of the Third Reich.

From 1942, reports began to observe that German atrocities against the Jews pointed towards an intention to bring about their complete annihilation. But Hitler’s eventual plans for the Slavic peoples were not entirely dissimilar. While the Catholic Church was barely tolerated in western Europe, in the east it was being destroyed. Polish bishops, clergy, and religious were imprisoned and killed, seminaries and universities were shut. Church leaders had to find creative ways to provide ministry to their suffering flocks. The Archbishop of  Kraków, Adam Sapieha, demonstrated fearless strength in dealing with the occupiers, who were perhaps a little in awe of a man who held the rank of prince of the Holy Roman Empire.

Unlike like his protégé Wojtyła, who was of humble origins, Sapieha came from an ancient noble line and was groomed for the highest offices in the Church from an early age. He studied in Vienna, Kraków, Lwów (Lviv), Innsbruck, and Rome. From 1905 to 1911, he worked in the Roman Curia as consultant on Polish affairs. In November 1911, he succeeded Cardinal Jan Puzyna, as Prince-Bishop of Kraków. In the normal course of things, the Austrian Emperor would have asked the pope to name Sapieha a cardinal (as per the imperial prerogative). Then came the First World War, the fall of Austria-Hungary and Polish Independence. Together with his friend Archbishop Teodorowicz, Sapieha went against Vatican’s plans for the Polish Church and opposed the papal nuncio, Achille Ratti. After Ratti was elected Pope Pius XI, in February 1922, Teodorowicz and Sapieha were forced to resign their seats as senators, and remained under a partial cloud, as far as Rome was concerned, until the end of the pontificate. The two prelates were also in opposition to the Piłsudski dictatorship and Sapieha had his windows broken by devotes of the late dictator, when he moved the latter’s tomb to a less prominent part of the Wawel cathedral crypt. In 1939, Pius XI and his successor Pius XII refused Sapieha’s resignation. Then, the outbreak of the Second World War changed everything. 

The Archbishop of Warsaw had died in 1938 and the Primate, Cardinal Hlond, was prevented from returning from abroad. Sapieha remained the senior churchmen with the burden of acting as the leader of the bishops within the country. This brought him up against German authorities, who had slated his church and his people for destruction. His reputation quickly changed from unpopular or unpatriotic to being considered a national hero.

On 2 November 1942, Sapieha appealed directly to the governor of German-occupied Poland, Doctor Frank and, the following year, convinced the bishops still at liberty to join him in a second appeal. In the name of humanity, the episcopate decried the killings, arrests, and restrictions on church ministry. They asked for Roman Catholic seminaries to be allowed to reopen, but a response from Berlin was not forthcoming. Their pleas were heard by Pius XII, who first instructed his nuncio in Berlin to submit a diplomatic protest to the German Government but the note was sent back. Further messages elicited a dismissive reply from Joachim von Ribbentrop, the German Foreign Minister.

Having failed to influence the German government directly, Pius XII protested on behalf of the Church in Poland in an allocution to the College of Cardinals in June 1943. Translated into Polish, it was read from the pulpit in Warsaw Cathedral. His messages received effusive thanks from the episcopate, from Prime Minister Sikorski, and President Raczkiewicz, who declared himself “profoundly moved by Your Holiness’s words.”

In the meantime, imprisoned and murdered priests had to be replaced, Sapieha opened a clandestine seminary and informed Rome of the situation. When Pius XII learned of the seminary, he instructed the Secretariat of State to send the following message to the Archbishop: “The August Pontiff, with good wishes and fervent prayer, supports this initiative, which is so important for the future of the Church in those regions.” Little did the pontiff know how important the underground seminary would become for the entire world it was already preparing his successor in the Chair of Peter.

No sooner had the Nazis been defeated when Poland, abandoned by the European Allies, was forced by the victorious Soviets to accept another totalitarian regime. Adam Sapieha was finally created cardinal in February 1946 and, undeterred, remained at his post until his death, in 1951. In the meantime, he began to prepare the Polish Church to bring forth new laborers for the spiritual harvest.

On 22 September 1946, Sapieha sent the following letter to Monsignor Domenico Tardini, head of the Secretariat of State’s section for Extraordinary (Diplomatic) Affairs: 

 

Most Illustrious Monsignor,

You will easily understand that we very much want to send our seminarians to Roman universities in order to give them the possibility to perfect their studies and to live, for a time, in the capital of the Church. However, in order to enter Italy, it is necessary to have permission from the Italian Government and to be provided for financially. Wherefore, I am asking if, in some way, You could obtain this permission for us. As to being looked after, they would stay at a College that would provide for them. 

For the moment, we hope to be able to obtain passport for two students, that is, Karol Wojtyła and Stanisław Starowiejski, students of Kraków Diocesan Seminary. I apologize, Monsignor, for disturbing You, but it was necessary to take advantage of the occasion. 

(translated from the Italian original)

 

With the two seminarians' curricula vitae enclosed, Cardinal Sapieha’s letter arrived at the Vatican on 1 October 1946, although the official charged with the correspondence , Monsignor Antonio Samoré [future Cardinal Archivist and Librarian of he Holy Roman Church] was at a loss to explain how it had been delivered. On 4 October, Tardini presented a nota verbale to the Italian Ambassador to the Holy See, asking for his assistance and mentioning the names of the two students. 

For a seminarian to be ‘mentioned in dispatches’ by name is a rare thing. And this letter might well represent the first mention of Wojtyła in correspondence with the Apostolic See, contained in Vatican archival collections.* Sapieha had not specified but, in fact, neither seminarian had yet been ordained. Wojtyła was to receive minor orders and subdiaconate on 13 October, diaconate on 20 October, and priestly orders on 1 November. He was already in Rome on 15 November and registered at the Pontifical Athenaeum (later University) of Saint Thomas Aquinas (known as the Angelicum) on 26 November. This author, who studied Philosophy and Theology at the same university, was privileged to have been present in 1994, when John Paul II came to the Angelicum’s aula magna, which had been renamed in his honour.

* Update  (28.10.2020): The director of the Archive of the Second Section of the Secretariat of State, Dr Johan Ickx, has recently released his new book: Le Bureau: Les Juifs de Pie XII. Upon acquiring a copy today, I discovered that the correspondence pertaining to Wojtyła is mentioned. Ickx also reproduces a photo of the cv sent to Rome but does not provide the text of Sapieha's letter, as I have above, nor mention some of the other details, regarding the incident, mentioned here in this blogpost. The book had not been released at the time I published my findings.

On 27 October 2020, John Burger published an article about this post on Aleteia.

Audiences with Cardinal Pacelli and the Defence of Kosher

The critical edition of Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli's handwritten minutes, from audiences with Pope Pius XI and the Diplomatic corps, is being prepared by historians of the Vatican Archives. To date, two volumes have been released, the audiences of 1930 and 1931.

Throughout the 1930s, Pacelli repeatedly drew the attention of the diplomatic corps to the fact that Hitler and his racist ideology was a huge problem for humankind. After a number of sensational articles appeared in the press, I thought it was time to publish English translations of the audience minutes and other documents which I transcribed several years ago, from two Vatican archival collections.    

Minutes taken by papal Secretary of State, 
Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli 
from his daily audiences with Pope Pius XI 
and from his audiences with the Diplomatic Corps  

Pius XI–Pacelli, 13 May 1933

Re. Possible Audience for Minister Göbbels 

The Holy Father regrets that he is not able to receive him.

Pacelli–von Bergen, 18 May 1933

            The upcoming visit to Rome of Minister Göbbels was discussed.  The Ambassador has written to Baron Neurath to ensure that the Minster does not ask for an Audience with the Holy Father, something to be avoided [as it would require] and official refusal.

Pacelli–Charles Roux, 6 July 1934

He spoke about the situation in Germany and the barbaric killings that happened there, saying that a government like that represents a great danger for the peace of Europe. He made me read the report of the French Ambassador in Stockholm, in which the latter recounts that the Archbishop of Uppsala, Dr Eidem, travelled to Berlin to speak with Hitler in defence of the Protestant churches. Hitler gave a speech for three-quarters of an hour to explain that he was the greatest and most beloved man in Germany and with a single word was capable of destroying the Protestant religion, and also the Catholic one. The Archbishop said to the Ambassador that Germany is being governed by a “madman.” 

Pacelli–Charles Roux, 27 July 1934

He spoke about the very serious events in Vienna. [Attempted Nazi coup] I told to him that, in my view, it would be opportune for the [European] Powers to take vigorous steps in order to put a stop to such a serious cause of disorder in the heart of Europe.

Pacelli–Charles Roux, 9 August 1934

            He also told me that, in Berlin, the idea of a common initiative of the three Powers (Italy, France, Britain) had not succeeded, following the events in Austria. Britain generally does not like to become involved in the affairs of the continent. ... Everyone knows the role that Germany actually played and its responsibility; but it was impossible for France to propose a joint intervention, when the other two parties did not intend to participate.

Pacelli–Skrzyński, 14 September 1935

Returning from a brief stay in Germany […] He complained about the attitude of many priests, especially the elderly which, in their opposition to the new regime. They will not accept even that which is truly good and don’t want to allow the salute ‘Heil Hitler’, etc. I responded that it while it is very true that there is a strong religious revival in Germany, […] that is certainly not to be attributed to the Government, which persecutes the Church and keeps as Reichsleiter of German Culture someone like Rosenberg. […] So it is not surprising if priests are show little support to a Government which makes the Church suffer so much.

Pius XI–Pacelli, 29 December 1935

Re. Yesterday’s words of the Pope to the German Ambassador. 

The Holy Father said, with profound emotion: We did not expect to be treated this way by Germany. There is someone who says, like Napoleon said in Russia, that in a few years the Catholic Church will disappear in Germany. It is not the Church that is to disappear, others will disappear.

Pius XI–Pacelli, 30 December 1935

The Holy Father once again explained his words to the German Ambassador. He said: “There have always been those who have said that the Church is destined to disappear. But it has always been those people who have disappeared, not the Church.”

Pacelli–Skrzyński, 7 March 1936

            Exposition of the World Press […] Ferociously anti-Semitic papers were represented but a very Catholic paper like Czas was not. 

Pacelli–Charles Roux, 20 March 1936

In the morning he had an audience with the Holy Father to whom he presented his recent historical work on Napoleon. The Holy Father conversed with him for a long time and with much benevolence. The Ambassador revealed to His Holiness the motives for which it was opportune that the Holy See express itself about the aforementioned concept in the interests of its own situation in France, where silence would not be understood. The Holy Father thanked him having spoken in a  kindly way and said to him: If you would have immediately gone into the Rhineland with two-hundred thousand men, you would have done everybody a favour. (His Eminence the Cardinal Vicar [of Rome] came to see me this morning after his own audience, and told me that the Holy Father had said the same thing to him). The Ambassador responded that it was not done because of the love of peace; and His Holiness replied that he appreciated  such sentiments but repeated: If you would have immediately gone into the Rhineland with two-hundred thousand soldiers, you would have done everybody a favour. You are being told this by the Pope that Maurras calls “the most German in history.”

Pius XI–Pacelli, 4 April 1936

Re. the German Ambassador insisting on an Audience for Minister Frank.

            Not possible — if it were conceded, he would return to Germany and say that he had been received by the Pope and that everything is fine.

Pacelli–Pignatti Morano, 8 January 1938

            He came at my summons. I explained to the Ambassador that, after the Holy Father on Christmas Eve made that lofty and wise protest against religious persecution in Germany, it would have been distressing for Him to read in yesterdays and this morning’s papers (for example in Il Messaggero) an exaltation of Hitler and of National Socialism to the level of delirium. And this when, there not a single comforting piece of news from Germany regarding the Government; neither from the nuncio nor from the Bishops nor from other sources; not a single obstacle removed, not a single one of the Holy See’s protests is heard with the slightest deference!

Pacelli– Pignatti Morano, 25 March 1938

He came at my summons by order of the Holy Father, in order to speak with him about what the papers published regarding the illumination of buildings on the occasion of the upcoming visit of Hitler to Rome, and of the measures published regarding the extension of such illumination to the Via della Concilazione and perhaps even religious houses and Catholic institutes. This would greatly displease the Holy Father, to Whom it was promised [by whom?] that nothing would ever be done which would cause him displeasure. His Holiness asks if this apotheosis to the point of excesses, of a confessed enemy of the Catholic Church and of the Christian religion, is not contrary the first article of the Concordat, as well as against good sense. That which the Head of the Government [Mussolini] sent the Ambassador to say made the Holy Father frown. The Holy Father is tempted to doubt his [Mussolini’s] sincerity.

            The Ambassador said that he will deal with the matter immediately and hopes to be able to promptly put the matter in order. He added that the Governor of Rome had even prepared a letter to obtain the consent of Vatican authorities for an illumination with large reflectors on Saint Peter's Basilica, on the occasion of the arrival of Hitler, but he stopped it. The Ambassador has cause to believe that this union with Germany, in which the Italian Government is entangled out of necessity, will not last long. For the moment and by necessity, external appearances make up for lack of solid content. The Osservatore Romano does well to hammer against the abuses of Nazism. He [the Ambassador] immediately shows all those articles to the [Foreign] Minister. After the annexation of Austria, everyone was apparently against the Minister, but now things have calmed down. 

Pacelli–Menschausen (chargé d’affaires), 7 September 1938

            I believe even less that Ambassador [von Bergen] speaks with the mandate of the Government in as much as, for two years, our relations have become purely formal; so much so– an example which I believe to virtually unique – although there is an Ambassador, I no longer receive any response to my diplomatic Notes. 

            Herr Menschausen replied that we should also have been able to understand the opinion in Germany from the press. I answered that, in Germany (as in Italy) the press carries but a single view; those who have a different opinion kommen nicht zum Worte [do not speak].

From correspondence between Cardinal Pacelli and the Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw, Archbishop Filippo Cortesi, Regarding Anti-Semitic regulations

Pacelli–Cortesi, 26 April 1938.

            According to information received here and that which was reported in the press: in Poland an anti-Semitic law was introduced, which no longer permits butchering by slitting the jugular vein, which the Israelites are obliged to perform according to their religious precepts.

Wherefore, the August Pontiff, inspired by a noble sense of benevolence toward all who suffer persecution, desires Your Excellency, after ascertaining the veracity of such news, to explain to the Polish Government, in the form and under the circumstances you deem appropriate, that it would be inopportune to interfere […] in matters which are of a strictly ritual character.

Cortesi–Pacelli, 7 May 1938.

That law was indeed debated and approved by the Chamber of Deputies but was suspended in the Senate and will not be reintroduced. […] As your Eminence rightly notes, every anti-Semitic act of persecution or violence must be condemned.