Below please find Peter Sean Bradley's Amazon review of the
book "Confronting the Nazi War on Christianity."
***
Amazon review by Peter Sean Bradley
"Confronting the Nazi War on Christianity" is a
compilation of the "Kulturkampf Newsletter" from 1936 - 1939. The
Kulturkampf newsletter was a newsletter put together anonymously by Germans who
were monitoring developments in the Nazis religious policies. The newsletters
were written anonymously and published in German and French. They had a limited
circulation, apparently about 400 subscribers, but one of the subscribers was
Osservatore Romano, so the information in the newsletters got a broader
circulation than one might think.
These newsletters are in fact a kind of "blog,"
covering an area of topical interest for the authors, written for a general
audience and written by individuals who have a great deal of knowledge and
insight.
The newsletters have three virtues for those interested
in the issue of Nazi religious policy. First, the newsletters are written
contemporaneously with events so that the reader can see the evolution of Nazi
policy and the development of the internal logic of Nazi ideology as one policy
led to another policy. Second, the newsletter pays attention to the sources
where the Culture war was fought, such as the newspapers that were fronting for
Goebbels, Rosenberg and Goring. In this area, the articles of the Schwarz Korps
and Der Sturmer are as important as speeches by Hitler. Similarly, Rosenberg
and Baldur von Schirach are important players for all that they get relegated
to the "B list" in the typical narrative. Third, the reader
experiences the qualia - the feel - of what it was like for Catholics and
orthodox Protestants in a culture that was going religiously and culturally
insane, where the madmen were running the asylum.
The text covers four years of the Kulturkampf - 1936,
1937, 1938 and 1939. Like modern bloggers, the authors wrote more newsletters
in the early years,than the later, perhaps because of losing interest, perhaps
because everything had already been said, perhaps because of life interfering,
or perhaps because of the Gestapo.
What I got from the newsletters was several things.
First, was the undoubted feeling of oppression that
Catholics and Confessional Church Protestants experienced. The newsletters
constantly report arrests of priests,
attacks on bishops, and closing of Catholic schools and demands that
Protestant pastors take a loyalty oath to Hitler. On top of that, the official
"semi-official" press was constantly ginning up anti-Christian and
anti-Catholic hatred. Catholics and Protestants must have felt like they were
under a constant state of siege, which they were.
Second, the newsletter develops some interesting insights
about the religious sociology of National Socialism. The newsletter authors
discerned three "tendencies" or "wings" in National
Socialism, which may provide a useful way of keeping track of the many strands
of religiosity found in National Socialism:
"Amidst the complexity of National Socialist policy,
the extreme wing, on the edge of, or outside the Party, embracing the organized
'German Believers,'all the way to the Ludendorff adherents; and openly hostile
to Christianity. Second, the 'neo-pagans': Rosenberg, the Schwarze Korps
review, practically the whole of the SS men and the Hitler Youth - the most
influential grouping in the Party. This describes itself as anti-denominational
rather than anti-Christian. And third, the "German Christians':not the
small sect of that name, but those who hold the conception of a peculiarly
National Socialistic Christianity, subserving the dictatorship, as expressed in
article 24 of the Party programme and represented by Hitler, Frick and others.
All three tendencies are in fact equally wide divorced from Christianity. We
are not discussing their standing from this angle, however, but their relative
political weight and their position in relation to the Kulturkampf." (2
Nov. 1937, p.267.)
And:
"In a recent issue of Kulturkampf, we sought to
describe the various currents in National Socialist circles with regard to
religion; and we assigned to the Schwarze Korps and to the Black Guards'
organization generally a considerable position between the self-declared pagans
to their left and the small group to their right, generally described as
"German Christians." We also stated that this right wing - which
includes Hitler himself, Frick and now, Reich Church Affairs Minister Kerrl
-was taking over direction of the war on the Churches and intends either
liquidating or "co-ordinating" the Left." (23 Dec. 1937, p.
292.)
And:
"As concerns the campaign against the Churches, the
Sturmer would appear to belong to the Right, the German Christian wing of the
Nazi Party. The name of Jesus Christ is frequently invoked in the paper, but
only as the father of anti-semitism. The Sturmer stands by the thesis that
Christ was an "Aryan" and leader of anti-Semitism who suffered
crucifixion because of his anti-Semitism, that the New Testament has as little
connection wht Old as Hitler has with Rathenau or Bruning.
A pensioned municipal official from Leipzig - an
"Aryan" - recently laid charges of blasphemy against the Sturmer
before the prosecuting attorney of the Nuremberg district court. In an article
on a modern statue in the Lubeck Cathedral, the Sturmer had written that the
"God Jehovah, to whom the Jews pray, is the greatest of all criminals."
"Such a statement", wrote the official in his letter to the
prosecutor, "offends my deepest feelings as a Christian. Jehovah is the
name of the holy, almighty and beneficent God according to the original text of
the Old Testament, which, as generally recognized, forms an essential part of
the Bible, the foundation of the Christian religion. The national courts have
already rendered judgement that blasphemy of God under the name of Jehovah is a
punishable offense.
But the Sturmer is quite certain of winning its case.
"The Herr Official," it writes, "is acting in accordance with
the wishes of the Sturmer. The Sturmer is desirous that this question of the
jewish God Jehovah shall finally be judged in the courts of the Third Reich.
This has long been necessary. It is true that hitherto the God Jehovah has also
been comprehended in the blasphemy statutes. It will, however, be easy to prove
that those statutes have been protecting a "God" who has always been
a criminal and who continues to teach crimes. Thus, our accuser has rendered
Jehovah a poor service. His charges have created the necessary conditions for
finally unmasking the face of this "holy," "almighty" and
"all-good" God." There is no need to be excited about the
outcome of this case. The Nazi judges have always been ready to kiss the boots
of the Nuremberg despot." (12 Jan. 1938, p. 308.)
Interesting how
thoroughly modern the Nazis appear when that kind of writing is compared to
Richard Dawkins' popular applause line about the God of the Old Testament.
And:
"It is quite true that there are two wings within
the National Socialist Party, with regard to the question of religion. However,
these two wings do not disagree as to whether National Socialism should be the
state religion. They disagree only as to whether Christianity should be
entirely excluded from the state religion or only subordinated to it. The more
moderate wing envisages a solution such as that adopted in Japan: the state
religion is set up as a state service, above all other religions, which are only
tolerated inasmuch as they show respect for the state religion and limit their
own religious activities to the churches themselves and the private life of
their members." (6 July 1939, p. 525.)
[Sidenote: Karl
Barth observed that "one cannot understand National Socialism except by
seeing it as a new Islam, with its myth of a new Allah, and with Hitler as its
prophet." (10 August 1939, p. 532 - 522.)
Third, the newsletter puts Hitler in the third group,
that of the small "right-wing" of so-called German Christian (who, as
noted, hold a view of the God of the Old Testament that is indiscernible from
that of Richard Dawkins):
"Until now, it has been the second tendency which
has led the attack upon religion. But now the third is pushing forward - the Fuhrer
advances to the lead. Adolf Hitler never really desired the fight with the
Church. He wanted a pliable Church, a Church which would pay him homage. The
"positive Christianity" in his programme, the government's statements
which were friendly to the Church - these were sincerely intended. But sincere
only when measured by the sole standard which applies to all his acts - his
inordinate lust for power. At the state ceremony in the Potsdam Barracks on 21
March 1933, the generals bowed before the former corporal. Prussia surrendered
to the Austrian. In order to complete the symbolic act, the Church should also
assist at the enthronement.
The Concordat was one more attempt to secure this
recognition by bartering peace with the Church. how could he have overlooked
the Church - he who with such incomparable acuteness perceived every means
which would bring him more power, which would consolidate his power in the
minds of his subjects? Both Mein Kampf and his later speeches have shown that
he coveted power over the Church more than any other institutions. He, whose
method it is to possess himself of the existing mechanisms of power and
influence, can never have despised that of the Church. Only the superficial
will deny this. He has expressed himself drastically against the Church, you
will say? His speeches against Hindenburg were a hundred-fold more hostile.
Those words were afterwards buried as, with full honours, was later the old man
himself; and, in his place, now sits his erstwhile reviler, a thousand times
more powerful. That the Kulturkampf ever came about was not through Hitler's
design, but his mistake. He forgot that in Germany and the Church belong to
Christ.
He looked first upon the dispute with the Churches as a
struggle for political power. It was not that, however; it was a spiritual
conflict. Then he withdrew, to wait, and left the field almost entirely to the
second tendency we have described. He was not satisfied as, bit by bit, the
standing of the Church in public life was destroyed. Nor was he satisfied with
the increasing sei-divine magnification of his own personality. he wished to be
honoured by the existing, established Church. He wanted to possess the Church
and therefore did not with to see destroyed that which he hoped to make his."
(p. 267 - 268.)
The Kulturkampf newsletter suggests that the second
tendency was subjected to "co-ordination" in the interests of the
Party. (p. 269.)
Fourth, by 1939, the newsletter authors had concluded
that the objective of the Nazis was the establishment of an "Anti-Christian Theistic State" (6
July 1939, p. 522.) and that Nazism was already a religion.
Interestingly, the pro-Nazi writings of Bishop Hudal are
offered as proof in that they were rejected by the Nazis as intruding into
their spiritual space.(Cf. 10 Aug. 1939, p. 532 with 15 April 1938, p. 362:
"After the publication of the Papal Encyclical, Mit
brennender Sorge, and after the case of Bishop Hudal - it can no longer be said
that National Socialism is a purely political creed. Hudal wrote a book which
was friendly to Hitler and his aims. Yet it was later prohibited in Germany -
precisely because the writer had restricted National Socialism to the political
field only. And on 30 March, in an address to some Austrian artists in Vienna,
Dr. Goebbels said: 'there can be no greater error than to believe that National
Socialism is only a political doctrine. National Socialism is a new,
all-inclusive conception of human life, and therefore it embraces every aspect
of human thought, sentiment and activity in its sphere of action. National
Socialism is not concerned solely with the state, or with economics, with
military or foreign policy, with social policies or with culture." (Id.)
Fifth, the 20 March 1939 newsletter documents the
"National Socialist fury at the election of Cardinal Pacelli to the
Papacy; Expectation that Pius XII will share the "Burning Anxiety" of
his predecessor with regard to Christianity in Germany." The editor of the
book notes that "none of this is noted in John Cornwell's "Hitler's
Pope"...the evidence of this newsletter vitiates the title of Cornwell's
book." The newsletter observes:
"Officialdom in Germany has not sought to conceal
its opinion of the election of Cardinal Pacelli to the Papacy. And it would
indeed have been difficult for it to assume gratification or even indifference.
both before and after the death of Pius XI - and also now, after the election
of the new Pope - the National Socialist press advertises and recommends an
official Nazi Party pamphlet entitled, The Men Around the Pope: Who Decides the
Vatican's Policy? This pamphlet was published last year and has already sold
340,000 copies. In this pamphlet - the sale of which is vigorously pushed by
the various Nazi Party organizations - the heaviest attack is made upon
Cardinal Pacelli, State Secretary at the Vatican at the time of its
writing." (p. 493.)
So much for Hitler's Pope.
Sixth, the newsletter addresses the issue of a
"peace agreement" with the Nazis and the accusation that such a
hypothetical agreement would "sanction" the Nazis:
"There is one error, in which credence is readily
placed in lay circles, which should be corrected at once. If the Catholic
Church were to enter into an agreement with the National Socialist government -
even an agreement which were completely favourable - she would not thereby be
"sanctioning Hitler," as some say, but would be legally establishing
the oppression of the Church by the dictatorship. Through this "peace
treaty" she would be definitely assuming the role of persecuted - a role
of which she need not be ashamed. For example, in order that she may continue
with her mission, the Catholic Church is compelled to accept the governmental
regulation of religious life imposed by the Japanese government. But by so
doing, she does not "sanction" the heathen Japanese Government and
still less Shintoism but secures the necessary preconditions for the
continuation of her missionary work and to render possible the exercise of
their faith by Japanese Catholics. As we shall alter see, this example,
apparently too exotic to be applicable to the West, is by no means irrelevant,
but highly pertinent in the existing case.
But when she signs a treaty with the National Socialist
government, does not the Church recognize as right all the injustices that has
been done to her and does she not therewith abandon all claim to a reparation
of this injustice? No, the Church merely accepts the situation which has been
imposed upon her by the rulers as the pre-supposition of her legal attitude an
her religious activities, and thereby establishes nothing more, morally and
legally, than that this situation arises from the forcefully imposed laws of
the dictator, but not that it is just.
The Catholic Church ought not to refrain from any efforts
to secure an agreement which, while not rendering any lighter the burden which
German Catholics must wear, might protect them from a yet heavier burden. She
would be prepared to adopt a modus vivendi arising out of necessity. She has
not the earthly weapons with which to avert this; and it is not disgraceful for
those who accept it but only for those who impose it. The Church's struggles in
an unequal conflict with power have never harmed her." (6 July 1939, p.
525.)
The bottom line is that
for anyone who has been infected by the virus of disinformation - who thinks
that the German Catholic Church supported the Nazis or that Pius XII was
"Hitler's Pope"- this book is going to open your eyes, if you can
open your mind.
Amazon review by Peter Sean Bradley
Thanks for this. It is fascinating, and quite vivid.
ReplyDeleteThis serves as an answer to the propaganda, emanating from some atheistic and Jewish circles, that slanderously tries to connect Nazism with the Catholic Church.
For an example of the Nazi German war on Catholicism just in Poland--and that in just the first few months of the German occupation--of Poland, please click on my name in this specific posting.