Mission: Apostolic Nuncio in Prague 9788024646855, 8024646854

Citation preview

Cover

Marek Šmíd

Mission: Apostolic Nuncio in Prague Czechoslovakian-Vatican Diplomatic Relations between 1920 and 1950

KAROLINUM

Mission: Apostolic Nuncio in Prague Czechoslovakian-Vatican Diplomatic Relations between 1920 and 1950 Marek Šmíd

KAROLINUM PRESS Karolinum Press is a publishing department of the Charles University www.karolinum.cz © 2020 by Marek Šmíd Translation © 2020 by Zuzana Vrbová Foreword © 2020 by Charles Daniel Balvo Cover photo © 2020 by MÚA/AÚTGM AV ČR First English edition Translated from Czech by Zuzana Vrbová (original title: Apoštolský nuncius v Praze. Významný faktor v československo-vatikánských vztazích v letech 1920–1950. Brno: CDK, 2015) Designed by Jan Šerých Set in the Czech Republic by Karolinum Press On the cover: Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk with Papal Nuncio Clemente Micara, November 11, 1921, Masarykův ústav a Archiv AV ČR, v. v. i. (MÚA/AÚTGM), fund: Ústav T. G. Masaryka I (47/2), sign. 5835/1. The monograph was created within the OP EC program, “The development of postdoc positions at the University of South Bohemia,” which is co-financed by the European Social Fund and the state budget of the Czech Republic. ISBN 978-80-246-4685-5 ISBN 978-80-246-4696-1 (pdf)

Univerzita Karlova Nakladatelství Karolinum www.karolinum.cz [email protected]

Contents

Cover Contents Foreword11 1. Introduction Research of Apostolic Nunciatures in the Czech Lands and the Personage of the Apostolic Nuncio 15 2. Personage of the Apostolic Nuncio and His First Diplomatic Steps in Czechoslovakia23 2.1 A Brief Outline of the Religious Situation in Czechoslovakia after 1918 24 2.2 Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between Czechoslovakia and the Holy See 29 2.3 Election of the Apostolic Nuncio and Alternatives of This Choice. The Personage of the Apostolic Nuncio, His Shaping, Activities in the Roman Curia, Previous Contacts with Czechoslovakia and Reaction of the Czechoslovakian Side 35 Logical Choice of the Holy See: Clemente Micara 36 New Beginning in Czechoslovakian-Vatican Relations: Francesco Marmaggi 38 High Official of the Secretariat of State, Pietro Ciriaci 42 Saverio Ritter, a German-Speaking Nuncio 46 2.4 The Nuncio’s Arrival in Czechoslovakia; His Acceptance by Czechoslovakia; the Inaugural Audience and Presentation of Credentials to the President. The Question of Prestige of the Prague Mission 52 Clemente Micara 52 Francesco Marmaggi 54 Pietro Ciriaci 57 Saverio Ritter 60 The Prestige of the Prague Mission 65 2.5 Doyen of the Diplomatic Corps 68

3. Activities Apostolic Nuncios in Czechoslovakia 73 3.1 The Nuncio’s Instructions, Mission and Tasks in Czechoslovakia. Language Barriers 74 The Nuncio’s Instructions, Mission and Tasks in Czechoslovakia 74 The Nuncio’s Language Barrier in Czechoslovakia 82 3.2 Personnel of the Apostolic Nunciature. The Secretaries, Their Roles, Authorities and the Representation of the Nuncio in the Office of the Chargé d’affaires 84 3.3 The Nuncios’ Interest in Political Affairs in Czechoslovakia 90 Concerns about Strengthening Socialism in Czechoslovakia 90 Stabilization of Political Situation in the Country 101 Unrest in Europe and the Presage of World War 113 Transformation of Czechoslovakian-Vatican Relations and Czechoslovakian Internal Policy after 1945 125 3.4 The Nuncios’ Interest in Religious Affairs in Czechoslovakia 135 Too Many Unclarified Issues . . . 135 Reform Movement within the Catholic Clergy 149 The Way towards Modus Vivendi 159 Period of Religious Calm and St. Wenceslas Celebrations at the End of the 1920s 165 Resignation of Prague Archbishop František Kordač in 1931 167 Application of Modus Vivendi 172 Eucharistic Congress in Czechoslovakia 176 Retreat from Religious Activities after World War II 179 3.5 The Nuncios’ Interest in the National Question of Czechoslovakia 187 The Nuncios’ Interest in the National Question after 1918 187 Czechoslovakian Relations through the Lens of the Holy See and the Apostolic Nuncios’ Relationship with Slovakia 191 3.6 The Apostolic Nuncio in the Catholic Environment of Czechoslovakia 199 Personal Relationships with Czechoslovakian Ordinaries 199 The Nuncios’ Information Network and Their Confidants 205 3.7 The Nuncios’ Concluding Reports: Analysis, Interpretation and Description 213 4. The Nuncios’ Absences from Prague 217 4.1 The End of the Nuncio’s Mission and His Departure from Czechoslovakia 218 Clemente Micara and His Request for Transfer to a New Diplomatic Position 218 Francesco Marmaggi and the 1925 Jan Hus Celebrations 221 Pietro Ciriaci and the Pribina Celebrations of 1933 229 Saverio Ritter and Dramatic Days at the Turn of 1938–39 237 4.2 Other Diplomatic-Religious Activities of the Apostolic Nuncios and Secretaries of the Nunciature 246

Clemente Micara after 1923 246 Francesco Marmaggi after 1925 247 Pietro Ciriaci after 1933 250 Saverio Ritter between 1939 and 1946 and after 1948 252 Secretaries of the Apostolic Nunciature after the End of the Diplomatic Mission in Prague 257 4.3 Liquidation of the Apostolic Nunciature in Prague at the End of the 1940s 260 5. Conclusion 273 List of Abbreviations Bibliography A Few Words about the Author

279 280 299

To Zuzana, Nikodém and Dominik

Foreword

One hundred years have passed since the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Holy See and Czechoslovakia, when the first Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Clemente Micara, took up residence in Prague and the first Envoy of Czechoslovakia, Kamil Krofta, began his mission in Rome. As the current successor of Archbishop Micara, I express my gratitude and appreciation to Marek Šmíd for publishing this book about the history of the Mission of the Apostolic Nuncio in Prague during the period of thirty years between the establishment of the Apostolic Nunciature, in 1920, and the cessation of it functions, in 1950. I served as the Counselor of the Apostolic Nunciature, from 1996 until 1999, at the time when Archbishop, later Cardinal, Giovanni ­Coppa, was Apostolic Nuncio. After his arrival in Prague, in September 1990, he witnessed the unforgettable experience of the rebirth of both the country and the Church, after the Velvet Revolution. He served ­initially as Apostolic Nuncio to Czechoslovakia and then, after the first of January 1993, he continued his mission in Prague as the Pontifical Representative to the Czech Republic and at the same time as the first Apostolic Nuncio to the Slovak Republic. Following the appointment of a resident Apostolic Nuncio in Bratislava, in 1994, he remained as Apostolic Nuncio to the Czech Republic. When the Apostolic Nunciature reopened, after a  hiatus of forty years, the premises needed a great deal of restoration and repair. In the course of the works, Archbishop Coppa decided to honor his predecessors – Archbishops Clemente Micara, Francesco Marmaggi, Pietro Ciriaci and Saverio Ritter – by taking the time to make contacts with 11

people, including family members, to obtain their photographs and then displaying them in a prominent place. Yet, the extant files of the Apostolic Nunciature contained little or no information about them since whatever archives existed before 1950 had been sent to the Secretariat of State. In this light, Marek Šmíd’s  book, which is the fruit of extensive research, sheds invaluable light on the history of the relationship between the Holy See and Czechoslovakia and on the persons and activities of the Apostolic Nuncios who served in Prague from 1920 until 1950. The book offers interesting insights into a crucial period in history, beginning with the establishment and consolidation of Czechoslovakia, after the end of World War I, continuing with political, social and ecclesiastical developments in the nineteen thirties and during World War II, and concluding with the first years of the Communist government and the effective ending of the mission of the Apostolic Nunciature in 1950. The work also sheds light on some of the inner workings of the diplomatic activity of the Holy See, in the context of the evolving political and social situation between the wars, in Czechoslovakia and in Europe. At the same time, the monograph provides a rather comprehensive view of the life of the Church during those years and of the relationship between the Apostolic Nuncios and the bishops, priests, religious and lay organizations. At the beginning of the second century of diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the Czech Republic, the Mission of the Apostolic Nuncio remains much the same, namely, to make stronger and more effective the bonds of unity that exist between the Holy See and the local Churches as well as to promote and foster good relations between the Holy See and the authorities of the state. The context in which these relations exist has changed greatly. The Czech Republic is engaged not only in bilateral diplomacy but also, and if not more, in multilateral diplomacy, as a member of the United Nations Organization, the European Union and other international bodies. The life of the Church has been renewed by the Second Vatican Council and the diplomacy of the Holy See has become much more engaged as well in the multilateral field. Just before the concluding chapter, the author made mention of the Apostolic Nuncios who have served in Prague since the reopening of the  Apostolic Nunciature in 1990, namely, Archbishops Giovanni ­C oppa, Erwin Josef Ender, Diego Causero and Giuseppe Leanza. I consi­der it a privilege to follow in their footsteps and I thank Marek Šmíd for ­opening a window to a world that was heretofore unknown to 12

me personally, in the hope that his book can make its own contribution for the future of good relations in all fields between the Holy See and the Czech Republic.   Archbishop Charles D. Balvo  Apostolic Nuncio to the Czech Republic  January 6, 2020

13

1. Introduction Research of Apostolic Nunciatures in the Czech Lands and the Personage of the Apostolic Nuncio

While research into the Apostolic Nunciatures in the 16th and 17th centuries has more than a 100-year-old tradition in the Czech Lands, research into the Nunciatures of the 20th century is almost in its beginnings. It is thus a new phenomenon which logically—with respect to the unavailable Vatican archives—could not be studied before 2006, when Pope Benedict XVI (2005–2013) made the Vatican archives available up to the pontificate of Pope Pius XI (February 1922–February 1939). Although the first diplomatic representations were established in the th 15 century, when Spain, France and the Republic of Venice appointed their permanent Envoys to the Holy See and received the Pope’s Envoys (i.e., Apostolic Nuncios), representatives of the Holy See resided in Prague much later. The first residence was from the period of the Habsburg Imperial Court in Prague, i.e. from November 26, 1583, when the Apostolic Nuncio, Giovanni Francesco Bonhomini (1536–1587) relocated from Vienna to Prague to join Emperor Rudolf II (1576–1611). They remained there until November 11, 1612, when Nuncio Placido de Marra left Prague for Vienna, along with Matyáš’s Court. Altogether 12 Nuncios resided at the Court of Rudolf II in Prague between 1583 and 1612. However, Nuncios had temporarily resided in Prague already before 1583, in the times of Ferdinand I. Two of them, Bartolomeo Portia (1578) and Ottavio Santacroce (1581), even died there.1 At that time, the stay of Apostolic Nuncios in Prague was only temporary, dependent on

1

AMFA, Krofta’s archive, box file number 1, Novák January 1, 1931.

16

the presence of the Imperial Court. When the Court relocated to Vienna, so did the Nunciature. Nuncios did not reside in Prague until 1920. The number of representations of the Holy See increased during the 18th century, when numerous representations were established in important governments around the world.2 The establishment of Nunciatures did not follow rigid rules; it rather reflected the current priorities of the Holy See. The diplomatic representations of the Holy See expanded out of Europe during the 19th century, and their number significantly increased, mainly in South America where new Nunciatures were established in Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Columbia. Besides the above-mentioned Nunciature in Vienna, those in Madrid and Paris were among the oldest Nunciatures in Europe. The rank of Apostolic Nuncio was provided for in Article IV of the Protocol of the Congress of Vienna of June 9, 1815, known as the Vienna Reglement. The Nuncio was awarded the rank of Doyen of the Diplomatic Corps, making him the representative of the entire Diplomatic Corps in a host country.3 This divided the diplomatic representatives into three classes according to importance. Class I consisted of Ambassadors, (Papal) Legates and Apostolic Nuncios, all of the same rank. Class II comprised Envoys, Ministers and other persons accredited to a sovereign. Class III comprised chargés d’affaires, who were accredited to Ministers of Foreign Affairs. This title usually referred to diplomatic representatives in countries where the Envoy was temporarily absent.4 In 1818, this classification was extended by another class of ministerial residents (i.e., Plenipotentiary Ministers), whose rank was between Classes II and III. The Vienna Reglement was effective until 1961, when it was substituted by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.5 An Apostolic Nunciature denotes a historical form of a permanent representation of the Holy See abroad, whose titular head is an Apostolic Nuncio. The Heads of diplomatic missions are divided into three c­ lasses: 1. Ambassadors and Nuncios, 2. Envoys, Ministers and Internuncios, and 3. chargés d’affaires. These, however, have no influence on the rank of the diplomats as Heads of diplomatic missions. The difference is rather related to protocol, i.e. to the question of etiquette.6 The post of

2 3 4 5 6

De Marchi, Le nunziature apostoliche dal 1800 al 1956, XVI. NA, MFA-NCA I, box file number 1953, sign. 725, October 28 May 5 1925. Veselý, Diplomacie, 113. Ibid., 113–114. Ibid, 127.

17

chargé d’affaires is filled by a diplomat charged to head an office which is not held by any extraordinary or Plenipotentiary Ambassador. Unlike the Nuncio, he does not need to ask the host country for agrément — the Foreign Ministry of the country is only advised of his appointment. If a distinction is made between chargé d’affaires en pied and chargé d’affaires ad interim, it refers to the length of the mission. The former is appointed as a permanent Head of the office, while the latter temporarily heads the office in the absence of an extraordinary or plenipotentiary representative. The office of chargé d’affaires bears no relation to diplomatic ranks. The lowest diplomatic rank is Attaché. It denotes a diplomat charged with a specific task or special agenda. Therefore, the Apostolic Nuncio ranks among higher (senior) diplomats. Secretaries, chargés d’affaires and Attachés are lower (junior) diplomats.7 Apostolic Nuncios who, since the pontificate of Pope Pius XI, have been ordained as a titular (Arch)bishops before their diplomatic mission, enjoy a number of privileges and immunities as diplomats. The appointment of Apostolic Nuncios is determined by nomination letters, which are to be found in the Vatican Secret Archive. The host country was advised of the nomination of a Nuncio via personal ­correspondence or sometimes by telegram.8 In the case of the nomination letters not remaining preserved, specific information can be found in Diario di Roma, which often refers to the date of nomination letters, in Breve. This, however, often presents inaccurate dates of particular documents (e.g., credentials, communication with the Chancery of Apostolic Briefs, the date of departure or arrival of an Apostolic Nuncio, the date of his first letters to the Holy See). The beginning of the Nuncio’s diplomatic mission is determined by a Letter of Credence (lettere di richiamo), according to which the Nuncio is transferred to a new position or remains at the disposal of the Holy See.9 Before the outbreak of WWI, there were 5 Nuncios and 11 Internuncios and Apostolic Delegates with diplomatic missions representing the Holy See abroad. Some of these diplomats were, however, in charge of several missions at a time, so the Holy See maintained contact with a great number of countries. In 1933, the number of Apostolic Nuncios

7 8 9

Ibid., 128–129. De Marchi, Le nunziature apostoliche, XVII. Ibid., XVIII.

18

and Internuncios abroad amounted to 33; even more countries had their representatives to the Holy See.10 But who was the Apostolic Nuncio, and what was the nature of his diplomatic mission? The position of Apostolic Nuncios to Prague at that time and their agenda were based on the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which was largely the work of the former Secretary of State, P. Gasparri.11 The activities of the Legates of the Roman Pontiff are described in Chapter V, canons 265–270. The Pope has the right, independent of civilian power, to send Legates into any country of the world, with or without ecclesiastical jurisdiction (canon 265). Among these are Apostolic Nuncios and Internuncios who foster relations between the Holy See and the governments of host countries, supervise Church conditions in host countries, informing the Holy See about them, and have other authorities delegated to them (canon 267).12 Their mission does not end with the vacancy of the Holy See, as it does e.g. with the Secretary of State, but upon completion of their task, upon recall or resignation and acceptance by the Pope (canon 268).13 The length of their mission is not firmly fixed, depending on the diplomatic practice of a host country. Apostolic Nuncios and Internuncios leave the free exercise of their jurisdiction to local ordinaries. In the hierarchy of local ordinaries, Nuncios—from their title of Legate—take precedence over all ordinaries, even if they lack episcopal ordination; only Cardinals take precedence over them. If they have been ordained as bishops, Nuncios can, without the permission of ordinaries, e.g. hold pontifical masses in all their churches (canon 269).14 The mission of the Apostolic Nuncio was thus primarily to represent the Holy Father to all Catholics and to represent the Holy See in the host country. His task was, by his authority, to spread confidence in the Holy See, its sincerity and responsiveness, strengthen the local Catholic community, be in contact with the local clergy, and, by means of his authority, assuage any potential anti-Catholic feeling among the population. As a diplomatic Envoy of the Holy See, he was a Doyen, i.e. the spokesman of the Diplomatic Corps during ceremonial events. He protected the interests of the Catholic Church and informed the Holy 10 Hobza, Poměr mezi státem a církví, 134; Fuchs, Novější papežská politika, 286. 11 Filipazzi, “Missione ecclesiale e diplomatica dei nunzi apostolici,” 24. 12 The Code of Canon Law was created at the command of the Supreme Pontiff, Pius X, and promulgated by Pope Benedict XV; the Czech translation was carried out by František Kop et al., 92–93. 13 Ibid., 93. 14 Ibid., 8.

19

See about the position of Catholicism in the country. He assumed the role of observer and possible advisor of the local clergy. Without the Pope’s orders, he did not intervene in the religious life and management of dioceses. From his position of titular Archbishop and Nuncio, he took precedence over the local clergy (except for the Cardinal), which enabled him to preside at Episcopal conferences.15 He was also in active contact with representatives of various religious orders and congregations in Czechoslovakia, e.g. the Benedictines, Premonstratensians, Dominicans, Capuchins, Augustinians, Jesuits, Redemptorists, Basilians, Piarists, Barefoot Carmelites, Minorites, Salesians and Cistercians, in whose affairs he also intervened.16 The position of the Apostolic Nuncio was specific in that he represented the Holy See not only to the government, but also to bishops and priests, over whom he had extensive authority.17 It is thus obvious that the left-wing press repeatedly protested at the broad scope of authority of Apostolic Nuncios, and struggled for their exclusion from the Diplomatic Corps and for restriction of their intervention in Czechoslovakia.18 During discussions about modus vivendi in 1927, P. Ciriaci acted quite independently, mainly because he was also a high official of the Roman Curia—Under-Secretary of the Section for Relations with States—and he was personally interested in reaching an agreement. A role was possibly also played by the retreat of the aging Secretary of State, P. Gasparri, from the everyday agenda of the protracted dispute with Czechoslovakia.19 The Nuncio also formulated statements for the Czechoslovakian government in letters, which he was instructed or indicated to do by the Holy See, often in a brief or incomplete way. He mediated contacts between the Holy See and bishops, or, more generally, the faithful in Czechoslovakia; he reported on pilgrimages to Rome and helped to ­co-organize them.20 Unlike a  mere Secretary of the Nunciature, the Apostolic Nuncio enjoyed the substantial respect of the Church hierarchy in the country and embodied a dignified representative of the Holy Father in Czechoslovakia.21

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Zlámal, Příručka českých církevních dějin, 7:72, 75; Hrabovec, “Svätá stolica,” 7. Filipazzi, “Missione ecclesiale e diplomatica dei nunzi apostolici,” 3. AMFA, PR Vatican, 1922, Pallier August 15, 1922. České Slovo, September 9, 1922. AMFA, PR Vatican, 1927, Jelen July 22, 1927. Ibid., 1931, Radimský, May 19, 1931. MFA, PR Vatican, 1927, Jelen November 9, 1927.

20

Besides this “spiritual form of representation”, he also intervened in the political, religious and cultural affairs of the host country, pri­ marily informing the Holy See of its domestic and foreign policy and the policy of neighboring countries, and, if necessary, communicating with neighboring Apostolic Nunciatures.22 He dealt with topical questions of Church administration, was engaged in matters of Church education and the education of clergymen, and participated in Church events. In addition to the position of Catholicism in the country, he also informed the Holy See, or, more precisely, the Secretariat of State, of events in the country, the importance and influence of particular political parties and their representatives, the foreign policy, economic and cultural situation, the social “climate”, the position of national minorities in the country, the functioning of parliament, the composition of governments, everyday political events, and of the relation of representatives of the state, government, parliament and important personages to the Catholic Church and religion. If necessary, he sent translations of relevant newspaper or magazine articles to the Vatican.23 The Nuncio was also in personal and written contact with other diplomatic representations in Czechoslovakia, sending them greetings, condolences, publications and informing them about his arrival or departure from Prague, as a part of ordinary diplomatic practice; but he was also in contact with the faithful of all nationalities in Czechoslovakia, who often sent him correspondence.24 Sometimes they unloaded their problems on him; at other times they acquainted him with important Catholic events in their places of residence (masses, concerts, lectures, congresses, theatrical performances, newspaper articles, priestly anniversaries, etc.). Alternatively, they asked for financial support for Church repairs or other subsidies. The Apostolic Nunciature then informed the Secretariat of State of the most important events via letter, report, tele­ gram or telephone (although at first Vatican diplomats did not place much trust in the last). Given the too wide scope of his agenda and the demanding nature of his mission in the host country, many considered the Nuncio as the creator of confessional politics in Czechoslovakia, due to his influence on internal politics. Lawyer A. Hozba even stated that “with the 22 Fuchs, Novější papežská politika, 288. 23 Šmíd, “Co skrývají vatikánské archivy,” 55–62. 24 VSA, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 32, fascicolo 155, or busta 72, fascicolo 593, or busta 75, fascicolo 607.

21

knowledge and consent of governments and in breach of valid laws, the Pope has become co-ruler of the country.“25 If we could argue against this claim, Hozba admitted that there was an important factor to the Nuncio’s mission—prestige. We are aware of the breadth of the issues analyzed, and, thus, it is not our aim to cover the entire area of Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations comprehensively. This study rather represents the first major text on Apostolic Nuncios. Of course, our insight into these issues is only partial—in as far as the written sources allow. We realize that much in them has remained unwritten, that much information was conveyed orally, during personal meetings, or via telephone, and that we often cannot know what the attitudes and opinions of the representatives of the Czechoslovakian dialog with the Holy See were. If this monograph inspires other researchers, leading for example to the beginning of systematic processing of the materials on Apostolic Nuncios in Prague on a wider European level and within the international context of the time, it will have served its purpose.

25 Hobza, Poměr mezi státem a církví, 184.

22

2. Personage of the Apostolic Nuncio and His First Diplomatic Steps in Czechoslovakia

2.1 A Brief Outline of the Religious Situation in Czechoslovakia after 1918

During the 19th century, religious life gradually decayed in almost all parts of Western and Central Europe, and Church religiosity moved to the private sector. The ideas of rationalism, empiricism, and the enlightenment directed people towards their emancipation, from traditional Christianity to modern materialism, which was even intensified by the French Revolution, destroying the idea of Christian Europe and replacing it with the idea of nationality, instigated the awakening and creation of modern European nations. By a retreat from a religious position, the State lost a key principle of collective identification26. The liberal circles, socialists, atheists, and supporters of secularization attacked the Church and the Catholic block, labeling them as conservative, monarchist, and reactionary. After the annulment of concordat with Rome, the Church was in such subjection to the State that the Czech environment perceived it as a close interconnection of political and religious goals, and called it “Austrocatholicism.“27 The criticism of Catholicism, often passing into sharp attacks led mainly by political parties, was an everyday occurrence.28 By the end of the 19th century, the Church lost the support of wide classes of society, its influence on society weakened, and it lost the general authority it had enjoyed thus far. For many people, faith ceased to be a fundamental need, and the almost general affiliation with the Catholic Church, experienced through centuries, became a private matter. 26 Bensoussan, Europe—une passion génocidaire, 297. 27 Marek, “Ještě k problematice tzv. boje o kostely,” 2. 28 Marek, “Náboženství v období politické diferenciace,” 192.

24

As a result of this process, which was consequently rounded off by the emancipation of non-Catholic religions, the degree of confession of faith offered by the State to its population, was rapidly decreasing. What also contributed to emphasize nation over religion were European national revivals that continued to weaken the important and traditional identification principle of social groups.29 The Church was perceived as an obstacle on the way to “progress”: to the assertion of civil rights, arrival of modern techniques, and development of civic society. It thereby ceased to fulfill its role of guarantor of intellectual and artistic happenings. A common element characterizing the outbreak and course of this conflict of secular and spiritual powers in all countries was the effort to reach superiority in the character of life, thinking, and orientation of society. Whereas before the Church had held the primacy, or alternatively shared it with the State, the creation of a new form of national and centralized state of the 19th century brought about an entitlement to the monopolization of the social order, in which there was no space for an equal division of power. The Church, not willing to accept such a restriction of power, rejected it. The result of this clash between the secular and religious was thus a conflict between State and Church, a fight between the Catholic and liberal blocks, known as the cultural fight, e.g. in Germany, France and Austro-Hungary. Where does one seek the causes of the transformation of religious perception and the gradual discrediting of Catholicism in the Czech environment? Due to the Counter-Reformation after the Thirty Years’ War, the majority of Czechs claimed allegiance to the Catholic faith. Despite the Recatholization of the Czechs being outwardly successful, there is apparently no reason to believe that Czech Catholicism—except for South Bohemia and a large part of Moravia—since the 17th century had been superficial, forced, and thus lukewarm and, to a large extent, rational. The tradition of late Josephinism, the essence of which was the submission of Church to State, had been deeply rooted in Bohemia and often came alive in relation to Catholicism, yet following the 19th century was considered the most confessional. Although Czech Catholic priests were instrumental in the language and cultural advancement of the wider Czech population during the national revival, the Catholic and national interests were not intertwined as they were, for example,

29 Malíř, “Sekularizace a politika,” 13.

25

in Poland or Ireland.30 The declining influence of aristocratic classes was substituted by the growing influence of townspeople and their style. Universalism and integralism were replaced by particularism, not only of individuals (the emancipation of man), but also of nations, groups, and classes (the socialist movement). The general degree of religiosity was also low in the Czech Lands in the 19th century, unlike in Slovakia. Many mass events which retained religious dimensions rested on tradition and largely on social customs, and the outer, formal aspect obviously overshadowed real, inner religiosity. The formality of religious life had arisen from the fact that most of the religiously indifferent Czechs under Austrian conditions would not pull out of the Catholic Church. The person who spoke intensely against the superficiality and lukewarmness of Czech religious life at the end of the 19th century was T. G. Masaryk. He criticized especially those Czechs who remained enrolled in the Catholic register, but did not integrate their religiosity into their living practice. Faithlessness remained restricted to important socialist workers and groups of intellectuals, mainly in Bohemia.31 On the other hand, there were only a few faithful Catholics among lay intellectuals who consciously and openly proclaimed their faith. Slovakia, which, unlike the industrial Bohemia, was an agricultural landscape, was outside of the secularization movement, thereby maintaining its religiosity and vibrant religious tradition until the 20th century. The growing attacks by various liberal and socialist streams and other political opponents of the Latin Church in the Czech Lands from the early 20th century also had an impact on the results of the elections to the Imperial Council of the Viennese Parliament in 1911. These elections resulted in defeat to the Catholic block — in Bohemia, Czech Catholics did not win a single mandate; in Moravia, the national Catholics of Mořic Hruban together with the Christian socialists of Jan Šrámek won only seven seats.32 The favor of the Habsburg-Lorraine dynasty protected Catholicism, but also linked it too much with the Austrian Monarchy, a fact which was most evident after 1918. Bohemia was short of major spiritual efforts and important personages who would transcend the district format.

30 Kořalka, Češi v habsburské říši, 87. 31 Ibid., 88. 32 Doležal, Politická cesta českého katolicismu, 7.

26

Czechoslovakia came into existence as a successor state to AustriaHungary in October 1918. Its population was strongly radical due to the terrifying experience of WWI and its consequences, which significantly contributed to a harsh, often unfair, and sometimes even violent stance against the Catholic Church and the symbols of Catholicism in the Czech Lands. The liberal and socialist streams perceived the Church as an accomplice of the several-hundred-year Austrian oppression and they associated the Church’s organization with the former monarchy. The first anger of a part of Czech society thus flared up after the creation of Czechoslovakia, against the backdrop of the reminders of the Habsburg’s power and the influence of the Catholic Church, resulting in many valuable historical landmarks falling victim to this. Besides the most famous Marian Column in the Old Town Square in Prague, these also included the Holy Trinity Column in Slané, other statues of saints and memorials, churches, and chapels. During the coup d’état in Prague, Prague Archbishop Pavel Huyn was on his visitation journey across West Bohemia when he became ill with Spanish Flu, and—considering his options in the new Republic, taking into account also the interests of the Church—did not return to the Czech metropolis after his recovery.33 The leading ideas of Czechoslovakia were based on the political, religious, and social beliefs of a trio of Czechoslovakian politicians, Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, Edvard Beneš and Milan Rastislav Štefánik, who during WWI tirelessly agitated within a foreign political movement for the Czechoslovakian matter, trying to persuade the world’s politicians about the need to break Austria-Hungary: for republicanism against the obsolete monarchism, for social radicalism supporting the economic upswing of the poorest classes, for anti-Catholicism focused against the “outdated” religion, and for Czechoslovakism based on the existence of a compact majority Czechoslovakian nation in the new Republic.34 It was no surprise that, despite the declared and sometimes real claims of allegiance of the lower Catholic clergy to the national program, the creation of a new Czechoslovak Republic in the fall of 1918 was in no way positive for Catholicism. The harsh, forced, and often unfair actions towards the Church and everything Catholic filled faithful people with fear of the 33 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1921, Krofta July 3, 1921; AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 567, fols. 16–17, Maglione to Gasparri November 5, 1918; Trapl, “Pryč od Říma,” 18f. 34 Balík, Hloušek, and Holzer, Politický systém českých zemí 1848–1989, 45.

27

progressive movement which, in the independent state, could strongly turn against Catholicism. If this was accepted with understanding in certain circles in the Czech Lands, in Slovakia it raised consternation. After WWI, one million faithful left the Church, particularly in Bohemia. A part joined the newly formed national Czechoslovak Church, and a part became permanently irreligious. Strong groups of the population were in an anti-Catholic mood. Interest in studying Theology declined. Prague Archbishop Paul von Huyn and the Archbishop of Olomouc, Lev Skrbenský z Hříště, were forced to resign. The most frequently supported idea of the anti-Catholic movement was the separation of Church and State which, however, was never realized due to the resistance of Slovak Catholics and indecisiveness of some Czech political parties.35 In spite of that, the Czechoslovakian parliament passed several laws restricting the influence of the Church in education and relaxing religious education, embodying the idea of separation in the 1920 Constitution. In Slovakia, no such anti-Catholic block existed, and apostasy was rather sporadic. On the contrary, traditional Slovak religiosity weakened the strength of attack against Catholicism.

35 Marek, Církevní krize, 14.

28

2.2 Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between Czechoslovakia and the Holy See

T. G. Masaryk and M. R. Štefánik in particular contributed to the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the emerging Czechoslovakia, doing so through the agency of London Archbishop, Cardinal Francis Bourne. Štefánik then took care to foster relations.36 The person who substantially contributed to the unification of different viewpoints of the American Catholic Czechs and Slovaks, and the formation of an attitude to the Czech liberating resistance and its direct financial support was Oldřich Zlámal, Priest and Pastor of Our Lady of Lourdes Parish in Cleveland, Ohio.37 American Catholics turned to the Holy Father, Benedict XV, in November 1917, asking him to support the struggle for the liberation of the Czechs and Slovaks and the independent Czechoslovakian State, adding a financial gift of $5,000 dollars. A memorandum from 26 Czech Catholic priests living in the USA, among whom were Bishop Josef M. Koudelka and the Abbot of the Czech Benedictines, Jan Jaeger, was delivered to the Apostolic delegate in the USA on November 21, 1917, in New York; yet it received no response.38 They undertook this step not only due to their love of their home country, but also because they felt the need to respond to the Czech anti-Catholic elements which blamed the clergy for not being interested in the wellbeing of their country. Innocent Kestl, an American Catholic priest of Czech origin and the 36 Masaryk, Světová revoluce, 44; Drábek, Z časů nedlouho zašlých, 193. 37 Zlámal, Příručka českých církevních dějin, 7:14–15. More about O. Zlámal in detail: Koníček, “Mons. Oldřich Zlámal,” 146–154. 38 AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 497, fol. 29.

29

President of the National Union of Czech Catholics in Chicago, headed this movement. The Vatican Secretariat of State also received information about the situation in Czechoslovakia during the war from Štefánik and Beneš.39 The first step to establish diplomatic relations between the Holy See and Czechoslovakia was taken on November 8, 1918. Pope Benedict XV recognized the legitimacy of the successor states in Central Europe and called their representatives to establish diplomatic relations with the Holy See, namely through the agency of the Apostolic Nuncio to Vienna, Teodor Valfré de Bonzo.40 Two months later, Bonzo expressed his interest in a personal audience with the Czechoslovakian President or Prime Minister, which Masaryk gladly promised.41 By the end of February 1919, Bonzo arrived in the recently created Czechoslovakia to meet with President Masaryk on March 3.42 Their first friendly meeting reflected a number of problems which subsequently became the subject of difficult Czechoslovakian-Vatican talks and kept the elites of both sides occupied over a long period. At the same time, these problems reflected the priorities of the Vatican policy in relation to the new State after 1918. The Holy See wanted to discuss mainly the following questions with Czechoslovakia: the filling of the Slovakian bishopric thrones and the management of Slovakia, the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Holy See, the status of the field clergy, the fate of unseated bishops, the relations of the Holy See with Hungary, the filling of the Prague Archbishopric throne, the radicalism of the Czech press, the establishment of a new Faculty of Theology, relations between the Czech and German clergies, etc. Obviously, the Holy See was rather well informed about the situation in Czechoslovakia, and the Viennese Nuncio was well prepared for the meeting with Czechoslovakian political representatives.43 By the end of September 1919, the Holy See decided to send the former Secretary of the Apostolic Nunciature in Vienna, Clement Micara, to Czechoslovakia, where he was to represent the Holy See at the

39 Zlámal, Příručka českých církevních dějin, 7:28. 40 Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Commentarium officiale 10 (1918): 478–479; Buell, “France and the Vatican,” 36; Gajanová, “O poměru Vatikánu k předmnichovské republice,” 155. 41 APO, record A (audience), n. 16, nr. D3/182/19. 42 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 12, fascicolo 44, fol. 8, Bonzo to Gasparri February 25, 1919, or 17–42 Bonzo to Gasparri March 8, 1919. 43 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 12, fascicolo 44, fol. 15; Doležal, Český kněz, 66; Hájková, Quagliatová, and Vašek, Korespondence T. G. Masaryk—Edvard Beneš, 81.

30

Czechoslovak Episcopate for Religious Affairs.44 Official relations between Czechoslovakia and the Holy See were established on October 24, 1919 when Bonzo, the Apostolic Nuncio to Vienna, arrived for the second time in Prague, accompanied by uditore Micara.45 On the same day, they were received by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, E. Beneš, and the next day by President T. G. Masaryk, to whom they submitted the official recognition of the “sovereign and independent” Czechoslovakia by the Holy See.46 On October 26, both men attended the c­ eremonial consecration of the new Prague Archbishop, F. Kordač, in St. Vitus Cathedral, in which many important personages in the political and religious life of the country participated. Thereafter, the Nuncio introduced the new representative of the Holy See to the bishops present.47 Micara did not return to Vienna, but remained in Prague, where he, as a  representative of the Holy See at the Czechoslovak Episcopate, became a  mediator for establishing proper diplomatic relations.  He remained in that position until his appointment as Apostolic Nuncio to Prague in 1920.48 President Masaryk was also aware of the importance of Czechoslovakian representation to the Holy See. Already in June 1919, he informed Foreign Minister Beneš of the necessity for the establishment of a permanent legation in the Vatican and to fill it with a reliable man, a nonpriest. His reasons were, of course, pragmatic, respecting the interests of the young Republic: “Much politicizing is carried out there, and also because of the situation in our country, especially in Slovakia, Ruthenia,“49 he stated. In January 1920, Beneš informed Pietro Gasparri, Secretary of State, of his intention to establish Czechoslovakian diplomatic representation to the Holy See. He requested Gasparri to establish an Apostolic

44 AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 527, fols. 2–3, Gasparri to Bonzo September 27, 1919; Helan, and Šebek, Československo a Svatý stolec, 86, document n. 6. 45 The English equivalent to the Italian term “uditore” could be “councillor.” 46 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 5, fascicolo 16, fol. 6, Beneš to Bonzo October 24, 1919, or 8, Beneš to Bonzo October 23, 1919. 47 Ibid., busta 10, fascicolo 39, fols. 50–55, Micara to Gasparri October 27, 1919; Helan, and Šebek, Československo a Svatý stolec, 86, document n. 6. 48 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 5, fascicolo 16, fol. 36, Bonzo to Micara October 29, 1919; AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 527, fol. 45; ASV, Segreteria di Stato, rubrica 289, fascicolo 1, fol. 11, Gasparri to Bonzo October 22, 1919; AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 544, fol. 80, Kordač to Gasparri January 30, 1920; Národní politika, October 25, 1919. 49 Hájková, Quagliatová, and Vašek, Korespondence T. G. Masaryk—Edvard Beneš, 196.

31

Nunciature in Prague, which he considered as the next step to intensify Czechoslovakian-Vatican diplomatic relations.50 The establishment of the Apostolic Nunciature in Prague meant that the Holy See maintained diplomatic relations with the new State on the same level as had been the case with the former Habsburg monarchy.51 Until his proper appointment as Apostolic Nuncio to Czechoslovakia in May 1920, Micara acted as an unofficial diplomatic representative of the Holy See in the country. The historical first Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Holy See was the diplomat Kamil Krofta, who launched his mission in Rome in March 1920.52 Krofta left Prague for Rome on Saturday, March 6, 1920 and launched his diplomatic mission in the Italian metropolis six days later. The official Czechoslovakian office was located in Rome at 15 Virginio Orsini Street.53 His journey was preceded by Micara’s letter of March 4, in which the Nuncio advised the Vatican circles of Krofta’s arrival, mentioning the main points the new Envoy wanted to discuss with the Holy See. These points included the stabilization of mutual diplomatic relations, the filling of the positions of the dioceses in Slovakia (Nitra, Spiš, Banská Bystrica), and the appointment of new bishops, mainly in Slovakia. The latter was perhaps the most acute problem at that time of the country in relation to the Holy See. Other unresolved issues remained the demarcation of boundaries of dioceses, which were to correspond with the State borders, Church education (founding of Faculty of Theology in Bratislava54), separation of Church and State, creation of the Czechoslovak Church, attitude of the Czechoslovakian government towards the Catholic Church, etc.55 Krofta’s  first diplomatic letter in Italy was written in French and was addressed to the Secretary of State, dated March 12, 1920. In it, he informed the Holy See of his arrival in Rome, and requested an audience with the Secretary of State of the Holy See, Cardinal P. Gasparri.56 On March 16, Gasparri received him and six days later Krofta met 50 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 5, fascicolo 17, fol. 17, Beneš to Gasparri January 28, 1920; AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 544, fol. 82, Micara to Gasparri February 4, 1920. 51 Halas, Fenomén Vatikán, 542. 52 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1920, Krofta March 31, 1920. 53 ASV, Segreteria di Stato, rubrica 239, fascicolo 2, fol. 74, Micara to Gasparri March 3, 1920; Dejmek, “Počátky diplomatických vztahů,” 226. Later, the Czechoslovakian legation resided at 28 Mercadante Street. 54 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1920, March 31, 1920. 55 ASV, Segreteria di Stato, rubrica 239, fascicolo 2, fol. 74, Micara to Gasparri March 4, 1920. 56 ASV, Segreteria di Stato, rubrica 239, fascicolo 1, fol. 20, Krofta to Gasparri March 13, 1920.

32

with Pope Benedict XV.57 During their courtesy talks, Krofta spoke to Gasparri about the political and religious situation in Czechoslovakia. When Krofta asked him directly about the personage of the future Apostolic Nuncio to Prague, Gasparri replied evasively. However, he confirmed that the matter had been agreed upon by the Holy See. During the audience with Krofta, Pope Benedict XV also confirmed the early appointment of a Vatican diplomat to Prague.58 On April 21, 1920, Krofta tele­graphed to Prague that—at the request of the Holy See—C. Micara, Secretary of the Nunciature in Vienna, had been chosen as the first Apostolic Nuncio to Prague, and asked the Czechoslovakian government to grant their agreement.59 In the afternoon of the same day, he received a quick response from Foreign Minister Beneš: “Give the Vatican our consent to the appointment of Micara.“60 The Vatican regarded the agreement of the Czechoslovakian govern­ ment with Micara’s  mission as so formal that they counted on his announcement as Archbishop of Apamea in the consistory on the same day (April 21). When, however, the response from Prague had not come, they decided to postpone this act, ordaining Micara the titular Archbishop of Apamae in Syria on May 7, 1920.61 On the same day, the Holy See also charged him with leading the diplomatic mission in Czechoslovakia. However, due to the indiscretion of a journalist of the Il Corriere d’Italia religious paper, this information became public, and the Vatican was forced to deny it.62 Krofta informed Czechoslovakia about Micara’s appointment as the first Apostolic Nuncio to Czechoslovakia in his telegram of May 10, 1920: “The agrément for Micara submitted. Micara appointed.“63 Micara’s appointment was officially announced in the Vatican paper, L’Osservatore Romano, on May 17. The Apostolic Nunciature in Prague was established on May 7, 1920. After several weeks, the Czechoslovakian Envoy, Krofta, launched discussions with the Holy See about the current political and religious questions of Czechoslovakia, the most important of which was the question of the filling of the bishopric thrones in Slovakia, as well as in

57 58 59 60 61

AMFA, PR Vatican, 1920, Krofta March 31, 1920. Ibid.. Ibid., Krofta April 21, 1920. Ibid. Pejška, Církevní právo se zřetelem k partikulárnímu právu československému, 2:172–173; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1920, Krofta August 17, 1920. 62 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1920, Krofta April 21, 1920, or May 21, 1920. 63 Ibid., Krofta May 10, 1920.

33

Bohemia (České Budějovice).64 At the time of the creation of Czechoslovakia, the Bishop of Nitra was Vilmos Batthyány; the Bishop of Banská Bystrica was Wolfgang Radnai. When these Church dignitaries refused to resign their posts after 1918,65 the Czechoslovakian government took harsh measures against them. Without any prior agreement with the Holy See, both were expelled from Czechoslovakia as supporters of Magyarization in the spring of 1919 upon the intervention of Beneš and Vavro Šrobár.66 Regarding the other Slovakian bishops of Hungarian origin, the Bishop of Spiš, Alexander Párvy, died in 1919, the Bishop of Rožňava, Lajos Balás, a year later. Only one of the former Hungarian bishops, Augustín Fischer-Colbrie, was not unseated after the creation of Czechoslovakia, despite the Czechoslovakian government striving for this, and served as Bishop of Košice until his death in 1925. During the course of several weeks, Krofta met with important Church dignitaries of the Roman Curia and diplomatic agents of other states to the Vatican, including the former Apostolic Nuncio to Vienna, T. Valfré di Bonzo and French Envoy Jean Doulcet.67

64 Ibid., Krofta April 21, 1920. 65 In reality, both bishops submitted by the end of 1918—allegedly after an agreement with the Hungarian Prime Minister, Mihály Károloyi (1875–1955)—the resignations of their posts to the Holy See. V. Batthyány, however, submitted his letter of resignation to the Apostolic Nuncio in Vienna, T. Valfré di Bonzo, through the agency of the Hungarian government, which refused to hand it in to the Holy See due to political reasons. Mulík, “Prenotifikácia a jej politický aspekt,” 230; AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 567, fol. 56. 66 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1921, Krofta December 15, 1920, or Krofta December 18, 1920, or Niederle September 1, 1921, or Krofta September 30, 1921, or Niederle April 3, 1922, or Pallier August 1, 1922 etc.; AMFA, II. section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 34; Krofta, Diplomatický deník, 143; AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 592, fol. 58, Micara to Gasparri November 16, 1921, or 59, Gasparri to Micara December 2, 1921; Čechová, “Nitrianska diecéza,” 267. 67 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1920, Krofta April 21, 1920.

34

2.3 Election of the Apostolic Nuncio and Alternatives of This Choice. The Personage of the Apostolic Nuncio, His Shaping, Activities in the Roman Curia, Previous Contacts with Czechoslovakia and Reaction of the Czechoslovakian Side

If the election of the Apostolic Nuncio was the question of the Secretariat of State of the Holy See, with the Holy See having the final word about his appointment, to accede to the office of titular, i.e. head of the mission, he had to receive the approval of the host country, known as the agrément. The Nuncio ordinarily took up office after submitting the credential letters primarily to the host country, which could, without giving a reason, refuse to grant its agrément, and declare the titular or other member of his mission an undesirable person, i.e. persona non grata.68 The head of the mission, the Apostolic Nuncio, was responsible for carrying out the instructions of the dispatching country, in which he was assisted by members of his mission, mainly the Secretaries of the Nunciature.69 Some of the Apostolic Nuncios had gained their former diplomatic experience with missions in Czechoslovakia in lower diplomatic posts in Prague, where they had served as Secretaries of the Nunciature. This was the case of P. Ciriaci and Saverio Ritter. Others gained experience and insight into Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations in the offices of the Roman Curia, or through personal contact with Czechoslovakian agents in the Vatican. For example, the Under-Secretary of the Section for Relations with States, F. Marmaggi, in the absence of Cerretti, addressed the possibility of establishing a Faculty of Theology in Bratislava and

68 Veselý, Diplomacie, 125. 69 Ibid.

35

its status.70 A few years later, P. Ciriaci, Deputy to the Secretary of the Section for Relations with States, F. Borgongini-Duca, during the many absences of Borgongini, dealt with the question of Church conditions in Czechoslovakia, namely with the appointment of Priest Melchior Takács by the Prior of the Premonstratensians in Jasov.71 He also dealt with Pavel Jantaush’s appointment as Apostolic Administrator in Trnava, the question of financial compensation of the former Bishops of Nitra and Banská Bystrica, and the issues of the German Redemptorists in České Budějovice and of other religious orders in the country.72 While dealing with his agenda, Ciriaci also gained insight into some older religious and political questions in Czechoslovakia.73 The questions of negotiations were subsequently assumed by the Apostolic Nuncio to Prague.

Logical Choice of the Holy See: Clemente Micara Clemente Micara was born on December 24, 1879 in the town of Frascati near Rome. After studying Theology at the Roman institution of Collegio Capra­ nica, he was awarded a PhD degree in Philosophy, Theology and Law from important Roman papal institutions. He was ordained as a Priest at the age of 22 on September 20, 1902. Four years later, the talented Micara graduated from the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy (Accademia dei Nobili Ecclesiastici) in Rome, and entered the service of the Secretariat of State of the Holy See. He gained his first diplomatic experience in the Nunciature in Argentina. Later he was transferred from Buenos Aires to Brussels, where he witnessed the invasion by German troops and subsequently experienced years of hardship during WWI.74 In 1916, Micara was transferred to Vienna where he became Secretary to the new Apostolic Nuncio, Teodoro Valfrè di Bonzo. On October 31, after the presentation of his credentials in Schönbrunn Palace, the Nuncio 70 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1920, Krofta July 24, 1920. 71 The Holy See promoted, without the knowledge of the Czechoslovakian government, the Premonstratensian Abbey in Jasov in the Diocese of Rožňava to prelature nullius, which de facto meant the establishment of a diocese on the Slovak-Hungarian border. The government sharply protested against this action. The nullius abbey subsequently became a serious matter of protracted Czechoslovakian-Vatican talks. 72 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1922, Pallier July 19, 1922, or Pallier August 1, 1922; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 2, Pallier July 23, 1922. 73 Ibid., Pallier August 1, 1922. 74 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 5, fascicolo 17, fol. 59, Day October 1, 1920.

36

introduced Micara to Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph I.75 Although not very experienced in diplomacy, Micara quickly became acquainted with the Czech and Slovak agendas at the Nunciature in Vienna, and gradually penetrated into the religious situation of the country of his future activities. After the creation of Czechoslovakia, he served in the country as a representative of the Holy See to the Czechoslovakian bishops.76 Due to his youth and extensive education, including his diplomatic functions, he was predestined to his new mission in Czechoslovakia, the new successor state of Austria-Hungary. Although not very experienced in diplomacy, he showed “diplomatic skillfulness, openness, and the ability to rise above social and ideological barriers and to establish effective contacts,” during discussions with the representatives of new successor states after 1918.77 Although it seems that his diplomatic mission was a  logical and straight path, as is often described today, this was not the case. Many Czechoslovakian politicians saw no continuity between his diplomatic mission in the Czechoslovakian government in the fall of 1919 and the official beginning of his mission as Apostolic Nuncio to Prague in the summer of 1920. In fact, when Foreign Minister Beneš thanked the Holy See for recognizing the independence and sovereignty of the new Czecho­slovak Republic in November 1920, he invited the Vatican to establish an Apostolic Nunciature in Prague and to arrange its staffing. He apparently assumed that the new Nuncios would be some of the important representatives of the Holy Church in the country.78 After a few months of hesitation, the Holy See nominated Micara, who, out of all the Vatican diplomats, was most acquainted with the conditions in Czechoslovakia.79 The Vatican sources do not mention any other alternative of the Holy See for Apostolic Nuncio to Prague; the Czech sources are exceptionally brief. It may be that Micara was not chosen by the Secretariat of State of the Holy See at the beginning of 1920, but that the motivation

75 AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 472, fols. 21–23, Bonzo to Gasparri October 31, 1916. 76 Hrabovec, Slovensko a Svätá stolica 1918–1927, 36. 77 Hrabovec, Andrej Hlinka a slovenskí katolíci, 43; Hrabovec, Slovensko a Svätá stolica 1918–1927, 36. 78 AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 546, fol. 40, Beneš to Gasparri January 28, 1920. 79 Ibid., fols. 41–42, Gasparri to Beneš April 14, 1920; Helan, and Šebek, Československo a Svatý stolec, 117, document n. 7.

37

arose from Czechoslovakian circles. It was allegedly Slovakian priest and future Bishop of Banská Bystrica, M. Blaha, or K. Kašper, Canon of the Metropolitan Chapter by St. Vitus in Prague, through the agency of the Canon of the Vyšehrad Chapter, F. Zapletal, who pointed out his suitability as Apostolic Nunciature in Prague.80

New Beginning in Czechoslovakian-Vatican Relations: Francesco Marmaggi Francesco Marmaggi was born on August 31, 1876 in the Trastevere district of Rome.81 He studied at the University of St. Apollinare in Rome, and was ordained as a Priest in the St. John Lateran Archbasilica in 1900. Prior to his entry into the service of the Roman Curia, he had taught at the University of St. Apollinare in Rome.82 In 1904, he served as an articled clerk at the Secretariat of State of the Holy See; from 1908 to 1917, he held the post of Under-Secretary of the Section for Relations with States. Before WWI, he participated in the codification of the new Code of Canon Law, and substantially contributed to the conclusion of the concordat with Serbia in 1914, for which he was awarded the Order of St. Sava.83 The high Vatican circles apparently liked his decisive, energetic character, profound education, and sincere social sensitivity. At the same time, he did not neglect pastoral care — he attended to the poor of Rome, including the youth, in the working-class Trastevere district.84 In October 1920, he was appointed titular Archbishop of Hadrianopolis (the present day Turkish town of Edirne). From 1920 to 1923, he served as Apostolic Nuncio to Bucharest85 and extraordinary representative of the Holy See to Turkey (1922), which undoubtedly made him “one of the best diplomats the Holy See had at its disposal at the time.“86

AMFA, PR Vatican, 1923, Pallier April 30, 1923; Krofta, Diplomatický deník, 214. Most Czech historians date his birth incorrectly as 1870. Lidové listy, April 12, 1925. Slovák, August 26, 1923; Fellows, “The New Code of Roman Canon Law,” 239–244; Hrabovec, “Die Nuntien in der Tschechoslowakei,” 185. 84 Slovák, August 26, 1923; Zlámal, Příručka českých církevních dějin, 7:48, 73. 85 More about his activities in Romania in detail: Snagov-Dumitriu, La Romania nella diplomazia vaticana, 31; Iijima-Binder, Löwe, and Volkmer, Die Hohenzollern in Rumänien, 49. 86 As an extraordinary representative of the Holy See he was entrusted with organizing Greek religious refugees in Constantinople after the Greek-Turkish conflict had ended. Hrabovec, Slovensko a Svätá stolica 1918–1927, 71; Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Commentarium officiale, annus XII, volumen XII, Romae 1920, 454. 80 81 82 83

38

During his mission in Romania, he showed a deep interest in the political and religious situation of the country, made numerous visitations, and, during his many visits (for example to Bukovina), would encourage the Catholic faithful of the country. At the pilgrimage site of Čačica, he even went into the mines, holding an improvised mass in front of a cross made of salt.87 After Micara’s transfer to Brussels, Marmaggi became the second Apostolic Nuncio to Prague in the summer of 1923. The Holy See apparently expected that the arrival of the new Nuncio in Prague would improve mutual diplomatic relations. That is the reason why the Secretary of State stated to the Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Holy See on May 18, 1923 that: “Marmaggi is a very good diplomat. The Vatican was very satisfied with him in Romania. The Romanians treated him very kindly, both the government and especially the royal family.“88 Like Micara, the first Nuncio to Prague, Marmaggi was also an important informant of the Vatican circles and Pope Pius XI himself (1922–1939). Between 1923 and 1925, Marmaggi informed him about events in dioceses, particularly in the east of the country, the religious atmosphere and political events in Czechoslovakia, religious and political attitudes of important politicians, etc. Marmaggi’s aversion to the anti-Catholic statements of the Czechoslovakian President, T. G. Masa­ ryk, was already evident in his letters before 1925: “I believe,” he wrote to the Secretary of State, Gasparri, in November 1924, “that some statements of the President addressed to the public in the past, support neither the Church’s authority nor a sound tradition which we currently need. The Republic has only briefly been in existence... They still say today: ‘The President said—Rome must be judged and condemned by the Czechs! And Vienna fell, Rome must as well!’.”89 The Holy See decided to transfer Marmaggi from Romania to Czechoslovakia in the first half of June 1923, appointing Angelo Maria Dolci from Constantinople to his post in Bucharest.90 The Vatican thus apparently replaced Micara, moderate and compliant, but also exhausted and disgusted by the situation, with the determined and resolute Mar­ maggi: the difference in their characters was also reflected in the differ-

87 Slovák, August 26, 1923. 88 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1923, Pallier May 31, 1923. 89 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 5, fol. 64, Marmaggi to Gasparri November 10, 1924. 90 Ibid., fascicolo 40, fol. 3, Gasparri to Tacci June 11, 1923.

39

ent approach of the Holy See to Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations in spring 1923. We believe that the Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Holy See, V. Pallier, met with Apostolic Nuncio Marmaggi in Rome in June 1923, before the beginning of Marmaggi’s new diplomatic position. The Romanian Envoy to the Holy See also spoke well of Marmaggi, noting that his transfer to Prague was a great loss to Romanian-Vatican relations.91 After the face-to-face meeting, Pallier described Nuncio Marmaggi as follows: “My personal impression is positive. Marmaggi seems to me uncomplicated, serious, and calm. He is looking forward to his mission in our country, and is convinced that he will earn our affection. He assured me he will do his best to settle all outstanding questions between us and the Vatican by way of peaceful agreement.“92 On the other hand, the left-wing press in Czechoslovakia spared him no criticism, even before his arrival in Czechoslovakia. On June 7, 1923, an article on Marmaggi was published in Večerník Práva lidu with the sarcastic headline: “Even shrewder than Micara.“93 Marmaggi’s optimism about an amicable settlement of existing disputes was also shared by Foreign Minister Beneš.94 Before his departure for Czechoslovakia, Marmaggi, while on a vacation of several weeks in Rome, was informed in detail about the situation in the country by the Czechoslovakian Envoy, and was equipped with basic literature to study. There he also probably met with Micara, who was staying in the Eternal City at that time, before starting his new mission.95 Perhaps he wanted to be better prepared for his new mission; perhaps he still felt bitterness from the recently ended mission in Romania, where, during the coronation of King Ferdinand I in Alba Iulia in Transylvania in 1922, he came into conflict with part of the Romanian Greek Orthodox clergy.96 Before Marmaggi left for Czechoslovakia, Pallier organized a lunch in honor of the new Nuncio in the Grand Hotel Excelsior, which important 91 This claim was contradicted by Roman correspondent of Journal des Débats, Maurice Pernot, in November 1923, who stated in front of Pallier that: “Marmaggi has not been popular recently in Bucharest and his leaving was welcomed. They say he is too Italian, of anti-French opinions, and very ambitious. . . . He, allegedly, was not happy to go to Prague. The Nunciature in Prague is not of a higher level than in Bucharest, and thus it is not promotion, but just transfer.” AMFA, PR Vatican, 1923, Pallier November 30, 1923. 92 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1923, Pallier June 30, 1923. 93 Večerník Práva lidu, June 7, 1923; Pehr, and Šebek, Československo a Svatý stolec, 1:138. 94 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1923, Pallier September 1, 1923. 95 Ibid. Pallier June 30, 1923. 96 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1927, Jelen September 7, 1927; Čech, July 18, 1924.

40

representatives of the Church hierarchy attended, including Secretary of State, P. Gasparri; Secretary G. Pizzardo; Apostolic Nuncio C. Micara; and other Envoys to the Holy See.97 However, the Pope’s words, addressed to Marmaggi before starting in his new diplomatic position in August 1923, “Monsignor, you like Rome, now also love Czechoslovakia,” do not express much enthusiasm about the Nuncio’s future task.98 Marmaggi’s departure for Czechoslovakia, due to Masaryk’s absence from Prague, was postponed for a few weeks, so the new diplomat left Rome and started his mission on August 21, 1923.99 Based on studying the relevant materials with respect to the Czech archives, we consider that the start of his new position in Czechoslovakia was mostly cordial, modest and conflict-free. The Envoy to the Holy See, Václav Pallier, who had greatly appreciated the new Apostolic Nuncio already from the spring of 1923, allegedly said to Chancellor Přemysl Šlámal in the summer: “Marmaggi gives a very good impression, he is a democratic man.“100 However, from the autumn his enthusiasm decreased and he spoke more critically about him.101 The Romanians also praised him in the summer of 1923, saying that: “Marmaggi was very popular in Romania. He is gentle, tactful, educated and warmhearted; he was fond of the Romanians, did not side with the Hungarians, and was oriented towards the Little Entity,“102 although some papers (e.g., Lupta) claimed that his departure from Bucharest was due to the actual tensions between the Holy See and the Romanian government.103 We consider it more probable that the appointment of Marmaggi as Apostolic Nuncio to Prague indicated a new era in CzechoslovakianVatican relations, when the Holy See endeavored through the agency of this higher official of the Roman Curia—the former Deputy-Secretary of  State, Gasparri—to launch intensive talks with the Czechoslovakian government about the demarcation of boundaries of the

97 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1923, Pallier July 20, 1923. 98 Ibid., Pallier September 1, 1923; Pehr, and Šebek, Československo a Svatý stolec, 1:137. 99 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1923, Pallier September 1, 1923; Pehr, “Marmaggiho aféra pohledem Eduarda Jelena,” 13. 100 APO, fund T, sign. T 32/21 The Vatican-The Legation’s  Reports, box file 22, 1923–1926, August 11, 1923. 101 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1923, Pallier November 30, 1923. 102 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 2, Pallier May 18, 1923. 103 Some Czech papers asserted the same thing. AMFA, II. section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 27, without signature and date; NA, MFA-NCA I., box file 1595, sign. 726.

41

Czechoslovakian dioceses. Thus his appointment was rather the result of the Czechoslovakian-Vatican quarrel than the Romanian-Vatican one.104

High Official of the Secretariat of State, Pietro Ciriaci Pietro Ciriaci was born on December 2, 1885 in Rome to Josef and Marie Ciriaci. In 1902, young Pietro started studying at the University of St. Apollinare in Rome. On December 18, 1909, at the age of 24, he was ordained as a priest, prior to which he had earned a PhD degree in Philosophy (1904) and Theology (1909). Two years after his consecration, he also graduated in Canon Law (1911).105 After his consecration, he was appointed as pastor of San Rocco Parish and started lecturing on moral philosophy (later also fundamental theology) at his former university in Rome. Before WWI, he served in the Roman Curia: until 1911 he worked as a recorder at the Apostolic Court of Justice and officer of the Congregation of the Council. Already in June 1917 he entered the Secretariat of State, headed by Cardinal Gasparri, remaining there for the following ten years.106 In May 1921, at the age of 35, Ciriaci was appointed Under Secretary of the Section for Relations with States,107 and, less than a year later, Prelate of the new Pope, Pius XI.108 Besides his pedagogical activities, Ciriaci also participated in the Apostolic Penitentiary and the Congregation of the Council. To the function of Under Secretary of the latter congregation, he added the function of Under Secretary of the Section for Relations with States in the first half of the 1920s. At that time, the Secretariat of State was even considering Ciriaci as a possible successor to the first Apostolic Nuncio to Prague, Micara. Czechoslovakian papers

104 AMFA, II. section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 27, without signature and date. 105 Palazzini, “Un profilo del Card,” 6–9. 106 Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Commentarium officiale 9 (1917): 374. More about P. Gasparriho in detail: Taliani, Vita del Cardinale Pietro Gasparri; Fiorelli, Il Cardinale Pietro Gasparri; Spadolini, Il cardinale Gasparri; Sandfuchs, Die Aussenminister der Päpste, and in Czech Šmíd, “Kardinál Pietro Gasparri,” 101–114; Hronek, Papež Pius XI. 107 Acta Apostolicae Sedis 13 (1921): 276; Palazzini, “Un profilo del Card,“12–13. 108 Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Commentarium officiale 14 (1922): 315; Hronek, Papež Pius XI., 56.

42

had already informed on the personage of Ciriaci after his first arrival in Prague on March 29, 1927.109 The fact that this highly positioned man of the Roman Curia was entrusted with negotiating with Czechoslovakia shows the importance which the Holy See attached to good relations with Prague. On the other hand, his mission in Czechoslovakia in 1927 was only a temporary task, when the Holy See had not yet decided about his transfer to Prague; the Secretariat of State did not fill the post of Under Secretary of the Section for Relations with States and continued to hold it for Ciriaci.110 Ciriaci’s  appointment as Apostolic Nuncio to Prague emerged as a logical step only due to the events of 1927–1928. This was undoubtedly the result of successful talks with the Czechoslovakian side that led to the signing of modus vivendi. To show their gratitude to Ciriaci, who, on behalf of the Vatican had significantly contributed to the conclusion of modus vivendi, they appointed this chargé d’affaires, who in any case had a very good reputation due to difficult negotiations both on the Czechoslovakian and the Vatican sides111, as Apostolic Nuncio to Prague. His Czechoslovakian mission was allegedly the result of discussions in the Secretariat of State and perhaps a compromise, as he himself had expected a different post in the Roman Curia. According to his words, Prague was the only place for which he was willing to leave Rome.112 On February 15, 1928, Ciriaci was appointed Apostolic Nuncio to Prague, and a day later, L’Osservatore Romano released the information about his new mission.113 Ciriaci was certainly not the only candidate of the Holy See for the vacant post at the time of the actual interregnum in the Nunciature in Prague. The name of the first possible new Nuncio emerged at the turn of March and April 1926, but it was probably not known in Czechoslovakian political circles: Giuseppe Nogara, who was 54 years old in 1926. Nogara was ordained as a priest in 1895 and subsequently lectured on Philosophy and the Bible in a Milan seminary. Here he got acquainted

109 NA, MFA-NCA I., box file 1597, sign. 726, Pražský Večerník, March 29, 1927, or Čech, March 30, 1927, or Právo lidu, March 31, 1927. 110 Právo lidu, March 31, 1927; Národní listy, April 2, 1927. 111 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 130, fol. 29, Ciriaci to Gasparri May 12, 1928; Palazzini, “La Cecoslovacchia a quarant’anni di distanza,” 261. 112 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1928, Jelen February 18, 1928. 113 L’Osservatore Romano, February 16, 1928; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1928, Jelen February 16, 1928; ÖSW, Archiv der Republik, Gesandtschafts- und Konsulatsarchive 1918–1938, Gesandtschaft Rom-Vatikan, Box file 5, Pastor February 18, 1928.

43

with the then director of the Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Achille Ratii, who, after being elected as Pope in 1922, called Nogara to Rome. Afterwards, Nogara became Secretary of the Congregation of Propaganda and the Commission for the Holy Year of 1925. As a domestic prelate, he was greatly in favor with Pope Pius XI. He, however, chose to pursue a career in the domestic hierarchy in preference to his diplomatic mission, and became Archbishop of Udine in 1928. Considerations about his possible appointment to Prague also appeared in Italian papers.114 In August 1927, Lidové listy ran a detailed report on the normalization of the relations between Czechoslovakia and the Holy See, which also contained information about the future Nuncio. According to the article’s author, it should be the Secretary of the Nunciature, S. Ritter.115 The report was also noticed by the German Envoy to Prague, Walter Koch, who informed Berlin of Ritter on August 10, 1927.116 The name of the third candidate for the post of Nuncio to Prague appeared in Italian papers (Il Messaggero and Il Corriere della Sera) in September 1927. Allegedly, it should have been diplomat and priest Luigi Faidutti, an alumnus of the Faculty of Theology in Vienna, who, before WWI, had held the post of Imperial Deputy of the Viennese Parliament for Gorizia. Faidutti spent the first half of the 1920s in Rome, where he became slightly acquainted with Italian fascism. The Holy See appointed him Secretary of the Nunciature in Kaunas in 1924. After the conclusion of the concordat with Lithuania in 1927, he was transferred not to Czechoslovakia, but to Germany, where he died in 1931.117 The Vatican apparently realized that this priest, closely connected with the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, was not the best candidate for the Prague post. German and Austrian papers ran numerous reports on his nomination, which, however, Italian papers immediately refuted as incorrect or premature.118 The fourth person being considered on the eve of the appointment of the new Apostolic Nuncio to Prague was a man who was called “an exceedingly intelligent head, quick-witted observer, and active Apostolic diplomat”—Ermenegildo Pellegrinetti.119 After his consecration to the 114 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1926, Jelen April 12, 1926. 115 Lidové noviny, August 8, 1927. 116 PAAA, Berlin, II Vatikan (38), Politik 3, Beziehungen Vatikan-Tschechoslowakei, R 72211, Koch August 10, 1927. 117 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1927, Jelen September 7, 1927. 118 Ibid. 119 Ibid., 1928, Jelen February 9, 1928.

44

priesthood in 1898, he studied Paleography, Diplomacy, and Canon Law in Rome. In 1905, he was appointed Professor at the Archbishop’s Seminary in Lucca. He deepened his extensive knowledge of languages, (including Slavic languages, German, English, French, Spanish, Greek, Russian, Polish, Hungarian, Czech, Bulgarian and Slovene) through self-study. During WWI, he had served as a military chaplain, attending to the spiritual “life” of prisoners of war, and, thanks to his linguistic knowledge, censored the letters of foreign soldiers.120 In 1922, he became Apostolic Nuncio to Belgrade, and in December 1937 was created Cardinal.121 E. Jelen pointed out the fact, with respect to the interest of Czechoslovakia, that since his Polish mission, Pellegrinetti had been close friends with Pope Pius XI and had at that time an excellent position in the Roman Curia.122 The question is to what extent Ciriaci’s career was predetermined by the high position of his brother in the Roman Curia. The key to understanding this is probably Ciriaci’s extraordinary relationship with the Roman Pontiff. In literature, he is often called an ally and confident of Pope Pius XI. This he indeed was, as the two men had known each other from their long cooperation in the Secretariat of State. Besides this fondness and collegial closeness, there was also a certain family kinship; Pietro’s brother, Augusto Ciriaci, had been general manager123 of the Central Commission of the Italian Catholic project since 1929, i.e. head of the organization much favored by the Pope and an influential man in the Vatican hierarchy.124 His person might have made the Pope hope that his brother, Pietro, would continue expanding Catholic activities in a country where there would be suitable conditions, namely by the local clergy.125 The first confidential information about Ciriaci’s  appointment as Apostolic Nuncio to Prague was obtained by the German Envoy to the Holy See, Diego von Bergen, in October 1927. Back then, he reported to Berlin that Ciriaci would probably become Marmaggi’s successor.126 It was certainly good news for Prague as Ciriaci had had a good reputation 120 More about Pellegrinetti’s notes in detail: Cavalleri, L’Archivio di Mons. Achille Ratti. 121 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1937, Radimský November 19, 1937. 122 Natalini, I diari del Cardinale Ermenegildo Pellegrinetti; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1928, Jelen February 9, 1928. 123 In Italian his post was termed il Presidente generale. 124 Fuchs, Z boje o “modus vivendi”, 44; Chiron, Pio XI., 236; Confalonieri, Pio XI visto da vicino, 114 or for example ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 76, fascicolo 4. 125 Palazzini, “Pio XI e il Messico,” 646. 126 PAAA, Berlin, II Vatikan (38), Politik 3, Beziehungen Vatikan-Tschechoslowakei, R 72211, Bergen October 11, 1927.

45

in the Czechoslovakian Church and political circles over a long period, as is borne out by the fact that he was appointed Nuncio to Prague without waiting for the agreement of the Czechoslovakian side (!).127 The appointment of this influential man of the Roman Curia unequivocally reflected the improvement of Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations and perhaps also the prestige of Prague in the eyes of the Vatican elites. E. Jelen labeled the period immediately after the signing of modus vivendi as “a new period of relations with the Vatican.“128 Simultaneously with his Czechoslovakian mission, on March 18, 1928, at the age of 42, Ciriaci was ordained as Archbishop of Taurus (Turkey) by Gasparri, in the Church of St. Lawrence at Lucina in Rome.129

Saverio Ritter, a German-Speaking Nuncio Saverio Ritter was born on January 24, 1884, in Chiavenna, Lombardy on the Swiss-Italian border, but spent his youth in Milan. After being ordained as a priest on September 9, 1906 in Rome, he served in the Biblioteca Amborsiana in Milan, replacing Achille Ratti after he had left for Rome and become Pope Pius XI. From 1924, Ritter was active in the Secretariat of State, and from 1927 served as Secretary of Nuncio Pietro Ciriaci in the Prague Nunciature, becoming, besides A. Arata, one of the best officers of the Vatican legation in Czechoslovakia.130 Between 1925 and 1927, he significantly intervened in the negotiations on the form of modus vivendi, pointing out its possible political complications.131 After unexpectedly leaving Czechoslovakia, Ritter served from the 1930s as Secretary in the Nunciature in Bern; in fact, he headed the Nunciature instead of the ill Nuncio Pietro Di Maria.132 127 Ibid., Jelen February 18, 1928. 128 Ibid. 129 Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Commentarium officiale 20 (1918), 123; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1928, Jelen February 18, 1928; Hronek, Papež Pius XI., 55. Taurus is, besides other things, the birthplace of Paul the Apostle. 130 ANM, fund Eduard Jelen, box 2B, the concept of Jelen’s  unpublished typescript “Československo a Vatikán za první republiky,” 157–158; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1927, Jelen April 5, 1927; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1927, Jelen March 31, 1927; Dejmek, “Československo-vatikánská jednání o modus vivendi,” 269. 131 ANM, fund Eduard Jelen, box file 12, Charakteristiky vatikánských hodnostářů ve st.  sekretariátu Pia XI… (1937). 132 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 56, fascicolo 500, fol. 130, Gasparri to Ritter September 27, 1929; Hronek, Papež Pius XI., 56–57; Kukánová, “Od tolerance k nepřátelství,” 53.

46

Ritter returned to Czechoslovakia in the mid-1930s. On August 11, 1935, he was appointed titular Archbishop of Aegina133 and, at the age of 51, became the fourth Apostolic Nuncio to Czechoslovakia. His selection was also a result of Pope Pius XI’s favor, who preferred him to other candidates in the summer of 1935. The men had already been linked by friendship from the time of their collaboration in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in the early 20th century.134 Ritter himself repeatedly expressed his pleasure that: “he can come back to the CSR, which he knows so well and of which he has so many pleasant memories.“135 The speculations about the new Apostolic Nuncio to Czechoslovakia already emerged before Ciriaci’s transfer to his new diplomatic post in Lisbon. Based on the Czech and Vatican archives, it is obvious that the selection of Ritter, the former Secretary of the Nunciature in Prague, was not a clear-cut choice after Ciriaci left. In the first quarter of 1934, two men were considered for the post of Apostolic Nuncio to Prague: the first was D. Tardini, high official of the Roman Curia, member of the Section for Relations with States and the Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas, from 1935 Under Secretary of the Section for Relations with States and two years later Secretary of this congregation, who had dealt with Czechoslovakian matters, especially modus vivendi, for some time; and the second was A. Arata, the then Secretary of the Nunciature in Lithua­nia, who had already served as Secretary of the Nunciature in Prague in the 1920s.136 On May 4, 1934, the Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Holy See, V. Radimský, reported on possible candidates for the post of Apostolic Nuncio to Prague, about which he had learned from the Deputy Secretary of extraordinary religious affairs, A. Ottaviani. He stated that the Vatican was considering three candidates, who were also acceptable to Czechoslovakia: besides the above-mentioned D. Tardini and A. Arata, he presented the name of another possible successor to Ciriaci—Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Deputy Secretary of extraordinary religious affairs and Pope Paul VI.137 Radimský perceived all three of the high Vatican officials positively. According to him, D. Tardini was a man

133 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1935, Radimský October 12, 1935; AMFA, II. section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 27, Messány August 13, 1935. 134 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1935, Radimský October 12, 1935. 135 AMFA, II. section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 27, Messány August 13, 1935. 136 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1934, Radimský April 3, 1934; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 2, Radimský March 28, 1934. 137 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 2, Radimský May 4, 1934.

47

“of middle age, with an extraordinarily healthy appearance, generally popular for his heartiness and kindness. He stands well with the local office and we could have no objections to him. He has not been abroad yet and speaks French very well.“138 The second man was A. Arata, who “is well-known in Prague from the past. He is one of the oldest diplomats whose turn it is now to be appointed as Nuncio. He has done well in his current post and his popularity is proved by the fact that the Lithuanian chargé d’affaires stated that Lithuania would resist his removal.“139 He therefore believed that the Holy See would not transfer him, but leave him in his current post. Among the above-mentioned trio, the third man was the least known: a  young officer of the Secretariat of State, G. B. Montini, who was only 37 in 1934. As Radimský stated, Montini “speaks French well; his reserved behavior contrasts with the lively nature of Mons. Tardini. He has always been very obliging towards the local office and the legation has a cordial relationship with him.“140 Besides this trio of possible candidates, the Czechoslovakian Envoy also considered S. Ritter, but the fact that the Pope would have the last word in electing the new Nuncio to Prague made it more difficult to guess the most suitable pretender. By the end of June 1934, the relatively well-informed papers—Venkov, Pražský Večerník, and others—presented names of two possible candidates for the post of Apostolic Nuncio to Prague: D. Tardini and G. B. Montini.141 Christian papers—Našinec and Lidové noviny142, besides these two officials of the Roman Curia, presented another three names: the former Nuncio to Prague, P. Ciriaci, Secretary of the Prague Nunciature, S. Ritter, and the former Secretary of the Prague Nunciature, A. Arata. By the end of July 1934, the Czechoslovakian chargé d’affaires reported from Rome that he had obtained confidential information from a highly situated prelate that currently the only candidate of the Section for Relations with States for Nuncio to Prague was S. Ritter. He also believed that the congregation would convince Pope Pius XI of his suitability. According to this prelate, another candidate, D. Tardini, was to become Nuncio to Brussels, replacing C. Micara there, who was

138 139 140 141

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. NA, MFA-NCA I, box file 1599, sign. 726, Venkov, June 26, 1934, or Pražský Večerník, June 25, 1934. 142 Ibid., Lidové noviny, June 17, 1934, and Našinec, June 17, 1934.

48

to become Nuncio to Paris.143 Already in November 1933, the former Nuncio to Prague, F. Marmaggi, had also expressed his opinion about Ritter as the most suitable candidate for Prague.144 The same information was received by the Czech Church circles from Catholic intellectual and diplomat, J. J. Rückl, who in September 1934 said to the Archbishop of Olomouc, L. Perčan that: “the future Nuncio to Czechoslovakia will be—as has been 99 percent decided—Mons. Ritter. He will probably take up his office in January next year.“145 In March 1935, a  new candidate for the vacant post of Apostolic Nuncio to Prague emerged—Alfredo Pacini. A  native of Tuscany, he was ordained as a priest on July 25, 1913, at the age of 25. After WWI, he served in the Apostolic Nunciature in Belgrade as uditore. During this time, he learned Serbian and developed a cordial relationship with Yugoslavia.146 At the same time, he pursued Czechoslovakian matters and penetrated the agenda of modus vivendi. He had never acclimatized himself in Warsaw, where he had been recently transferred, so he would not object to his possible transfer to Prague. According to the Czechoslovakian Envoy to Poland, V. Girsa, A. Paciny was a man of sympathetic nature, who had a good comprehension of the religious conditions in Czechoslovakia.147 Even in the summer of 1935, the Czechoslovakian press did not have a clear idea of the new Apostolic Nuncio to Prague. Polední list even wrote that to fill the Nunciature in Prague was currently not on the agenda of the Holy See. The possible candidates were, according to the paper, the current and former Secretaries of the Nunciature in Prague, G. Panico and S. Ritter, who were well acquainted with the Czechoslovakian conditions. As the paper wrote “Mons. Panico, who recently during his stay in the Saarland showed he is not able to suppress his political feelings at a  turning point, has—unfortunately— a greater chance.“148 Other papers repeated the traditional candidates’ names: G. B. Montini—G. Panico—S. Ritter.149

143 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 2, Messány July 24, 1934; AMFA, II. section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 27, Messány July 24, 1934. 144 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 2, Radimský November 12, 1933. 145 PAO, the Olomouc Branch, fund AO, box file 679, n. 2533, Rückl September 19, 1934. 146 AMFA, II. section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 27, Girsa March 27, 1935. 147 Ibid. 148 NA, MFA-NCA I, box file 1599, sign. 726, Polední List, June 21, 1935. 149 Ibid.

49

The election of the Apostolic Nuncio remained solely the matter of the Holy See and the Czechoslovakian side was apparently presented with a fait accompli: on August 3, 1935, Ritter was granted the agreement.150 According to Radimský, Ritter was pleased with his nomination as Nuncio to Prague as he stated during a meeting in the Secretariat of State in early August that this nomination was an honor for him, and promised to do his best not to let the Holy See and the Czechoslovakian government down.151 Czechoslovakia was also pleased with his appointment.152 The Vatican’s top officials apparently believed that, after his recent activities in Czechoslovakia, he would cause no trouble to the government, just as they reckoned that—after his experience from 1927 through 1930—he would quickly orient himself in the country and start actively working after the temporary interlude. His appointment and the restoration of normal diplomatic relations followed the end of CzechoslovakianVatican negotiations about modus vivendi, when the handing over of the properties to the Church was ended by July 1, 1935, and the plenipotentiary of the Holy See, the Apostolic administrator to Trnava, P. Jantausch, formally took over the administration of the Church’s property from the Czechoslovakian administrative commission, which was, together with the liquidation commission, dissolved.153 Based on the confidential communication of the French Envoy to the Holy See, E. Charles-Roux, to the Czechoslovakian Envoy, V. Radimský, there were two candidates for the post of Apostolic Nuncio to Prague in 1935: Giovanni Panico and Saverio Ritter. If the former was the favorite of Paris Archbishop, J. Verdier, who had recently stayed in Czechoslovakia during the Eucharistic Congress, and of some other Czechoslovakian Church representatives, the latter was the choice of Pope Pius XI. The Pope had apparently already decided, being persuaded by those around him, about G. Panico’s more suitable next diplomatic destination—which was eventually realized.154 On August 11, Ritter was ordained as titular Archbishop of Aegina, and two days later, the Pope received him and

150 APO, fund PO, n. 1974, Inaugural Audience—The Apostolic Nunciature, n. P925/35, illegible signature, August 5, 1935; Kukánová, “Od tolerance k nepřátelství,” 52. 151 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1935, Radimský August 5, 1935. 152 L’Osservatore Romano, August 12–13, 1935; Hachey, Anglo-Vatican relations, 311. 153 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1935, Radimský October 12, 1935; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 20. 154 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1935, Radimský August 5, 1935; APO, fund PO, n. 1974, Inaugural Audience—The Apostolic Nunciature, n. P924/35, Strimpl August 3, 1935; ATGM, fund EB—sec­ tion I, box file 239, sign. R366 (Vatican 1934–1938), July 18, 1935.

50

gave him a decorated pastoral cross as a token of his friendship. This was regarded by the Czechoslovakian Envoy as the highest manifestation of Pius’s favor of the Nuncio.155 After his Episcopal ordination, Ritter went on a short vacation to Switzerland, which was unwillingly approved by the Secretary of State, by E. Pacelli; he returned to the Eternal City on September 23, 1935. Before taking up his new diplomatic post, he attended a ceremonial dinner at the Czechoslovakian Legation on August 15, where he expressed his joy at his Czechoslovakian mission, calling it an honor. He allegedly stated that he had: “always been fond of Czechoslovakia, but now he likes it even more.“156 On September 28, Pope Pius XI received him in a short audience. On October 2, 1935, Ritter departed from the Roman train station, where the Legation Councilor, Vladimír Brauner, deputizing for the Czechoslovakian Envoy to Italy, František Chvalkovský, came to bid him farewell. He traveled through Tuscany and Lombardy to Prague. He emphasized to Czechoslovakian Deputy Brauner that he was leaving: “believing fully in the future, for there is now no single dispute between Czechoslovakia and the Vatican.“157 After WWII, in April 1946, the Holy See asked—through the Prague representation—for agrément for Ritter so that he could continue in his Czechoslovakian mission. The affirmative answer of the Czechoslovakian side was sent on May 5, 1946, to the Czechoslovakian representative to the Holy See, František Schwarzenberg, and a few days later also to the Secretariat of State. On May 11, 1946, the Vatican announced the appointment of Ritter as Apostolic Internuncio to Prague.158

155 L’Osservatore Romano, August 11, 1935, August 13, 1935; AMFA, II. section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 27, Messány August 16, 1935. On the other hand, the Pope gave the mentioned pastoral cross to all three Apostolic Nuncios, not only to Ritter. 156 AMFA, II. section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 27, Messány August 16, 1935. 157 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1935–1936, Radimský October 12, 1935, or January 10, 1936; AMFA, II. section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 27, Messány October 2, 1935. 158 APO, fund PO, n. 1974, Inaugural Audience—The Apostolic Nunciature, n. D13225/46, Beneš May 4, 1946, or n. D7074/46 Masaryk April 30, 1946; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Schwarzenberg April 17, 1946, or May 21, 1946.

51

2.4 The Nuncio’s Arrival in Czechoslovakia; His Acceptance by Czechoslovakia; the Inaugural Audience and Presentation of Credentials to the President. The Question of Prestige of the Prague Mission

Apart from C. Micara, who had resided in Prague before the official start of his mission, all other Nuncios had arrived in Prague from Rome. The arrival of the Apostolic Nuncio—chief of the diplomatic mission and Doyen of the Diplomatic Corps—always gained a substantial attention of the public, mainly of the faithful. His arrival would be announced in advance to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and he would be ceremonially welcomed by political, religious and cultural representatives when he arrived in Prague, usually at Wilson Station. Sometimes he was welcomed on the borders and spontaneously greeted by people during his train journey. After arrival, he was accommodated in the Archbishop’s Palace at Hradčany or in the Apostolic Nunciature in the New Town. Within 14 days, the Nuncio usually submitted his credentials to the Czechoslovakian President, either at Prague Castle, Hluboš, or Lány—depending on where the President was currently residing. Thereafter, as the Doyen of the Diplomatic Corps, he would receive the protocol visits of other diplomats accredited to the Czechoslovakian government. Sometimes, he would pay visits to important personages in the political and religious life of the country.

Clemente Micara C. Micara became the first Apostolic Nuncio to Czechoslovakia. He had served in Prague already since October 1919. Because of the procrastination by both sides, however, he officially took up his office after the delay of a  few months. When he finally received his credentials 52

from Rome on July 16, 1920, Foreign Minister Beneš had just gone on a three-week journey to France. Therefore, with regard to the age of his mother, Micara asked the Secretary of State, Gasparri, for permission to go to Rome to participate in the forthcoming ceremonial consecration as Archbishop of Apamea in the Eternal City.159 After his return to Czechoslovakia, he ceremonially submitted his credentials to President T. G. Masaryk, which he had already had at his disposal in Prague for several months.160 Micara’s inaugural audience, associated with the submission of the credentials, was held on Thursday, September 9, 1920, at 12 noon in Masaryk’s summer residence, Hluboš Castle near Příbram. The Nuncio was taken there by car from his residence in the Archbishop’s Palace in Prague. Besides President Masaryk and Apostolic Nuncio Micara, the ceremony was also attended by Foreign Minister Beneš, the President’s Chancellor, P. Šlámal, the Deputy Chief of the President’s Military Office, Lieutenant Colonel Václav Rejholec and other officials of the President’s Office.161 Micara gave the following speech in French to the assembly: Mr. President! With an inner feeling of deep satisfaction, it is my honor to submit today into the hands of Your Excellency the Letter of Credence, by which I have been accredited by the highest spiritual leader to the Czechoslovakian government as Apostolic Nuncio. I am even more touched that the Holy Father has entrusted this honorary mission to me, who had the privilege of getting acquainted with the Czechoslovak Republic during several months and appreciate the high moral and civil values as well as the capability of its people.162

President Masaryk welcomed him warmly during the audience, pronounced his confidence in him, and informed him about the intended separation of Church and State: “Your Excellency, first of all I thank His Holiness Benedict XV for sending you as a representative to our Republic. The Holy Father warmly recommends you and fully trusts you. Your

159 ASV, Nunziatura Apostolica in Cecoslovacchia, busta 5, fascicolo 17, fol. 28, Micara to Gasparri July 17, 1920. This consecration was carried out on August 8, 1920. 160 Čech, September 10, 1920. 161 Ibid.; Československá republika, September 10, 1920. 162 Čech, September 10, 1920.

53

Excellency, we also fully trust you and promise you help in establishing regular relations between our Republic and the Holy See.“163 After the ceremonial speeches and the presentation of the credentials, the new Apostolic Nuncio, Micara, had an informal conversation with President Masaryk, attended lunch, and returned to Prague in the late afternoon.

Francesco Marmaggi The almost 47-year-old Catholic priest and native of Rome, Francesco Marmaggi, appointed simultaneously with his Czechoslovakian mission as titular Archbishop of Edirne,164 arrived in Prague on Thursday evening, August 23, 1923. His departure for Czechoslovakia had been postponed due to Masaryk’s absence from Prague, so it had even been considered that the inaugural audience of the new Nuncio would be held at the President’s summer residence, Topolčianky Castle and not in Prague Castle, similarly to that held in 1920 at Hluboš. Finally, it was Foreign Minister Beneš who expressed a wish to hold the Nuncio’s inaugural audience at Prague Castle, which eventually happened.165 At Wilson Station, important representatives of the political, religious and cultural life of the country awaited the new Nuncio. Among others were Prague Archbishop František Kordač, Prague Auxiliary Bishop Antonín Podlaha, the Chairman of the provincial executive commission of the Czechoslovak People’s Party in Bohemia, Bohumil Stašek, Canon of the Metropolitan Chapter of St. Vitus, Mořic Pícha, Canon of Vyšehrad, František Zapletal, Secretary of the Apostolic Nunciature, Antonino Arata, Deputy Foreign Minister, Václav Girsa, representatives of many Catholic societies and organizations of Czechoslovakia and many priests.166

163 Masaryk, Cesta demokracie, 1:339; ATGM, fund TGM—section I, box file 9. Typewritten copy of Masaryk’s speech, September 9, 1920, and a copy of the Czech speech of C. Micara; APO, fund PO, n. 1974, Inaugural Audience—The Apostolic Nunciature, n. D4283/23, illegible signature July 21, 1923; L’Osservatore Romano, September 26, 1920. 164 Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Commentarium officiale 12 (1920): 591. 165 APO, fund PO, n. 1974, Inaugural Audience—The Apostolic Nunciature, n. 5005/23, illegible signature August 30, 1923. 166 Lidové noviny, August 24, 1923; Čech, August 24, 1923; Šmíd, “Marmaggiho československá mise,” 400.

54

After introducing the attending guests, Prague Archbishop F. Kordač ceremonially welcomed the new Nuncio on behalf of the Czechoslovakian episcopate, clergy, and the Catholic people, giving a speech in Latin: Your Excellency! Upon your arrival in Prague, the capital of the Czechoslovak Republic, we welcome you warmly on behalf of the Czechoslovakian episcopate and the Catholic people. We sincerely wish you the best results in fulfilling your noble mission, entrusted to you by the Holy Father. Your Excellency is preceded by the reputation of a man enlightened and experienced in diplomatic questions, and of a  devout priest, seeking in everything the greater glory of God, the salvation of immortal souls, and the true blossoming of the Republic. Thus we gladly hail you: “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Evviva il Santo Padre! God bless our Republic!“167

Marmaggi thanked all the guests present for the warm welcome, assured them that he would discharge his office to the benefit of the Church and Czechoslovakia, and conveyed Pope Pius XI’s greetings and blessings to them. Then he left the station, accompanied by Archbishop Kordač.168 The inaugural audience of the second Apostolic Nuncio to Prague, F. Marmaggi, was even more ceremonial than the first one in 1920. The President’s Office had two cars driven in front of the Nunciature to the Archbishop’s Palace at Hradčany, accompanied by a horse-drawn carriage that went along with them through a double row of guards into the Castle. The new Nuncio sat with the President’s Chief of Protocol, General Viktor Hopp, in the first car, and the Secretary of the Nunciature, A. Arata, was in the second car. After alighting from the cars, the men walked between the guards of honor and upstairs into the hall, where they were welcomed by President Masaryk. The ceremony held in the Castle, was attended by, besides the Nuncio and the President, the Deputy Plenipotentiary Foreign Minister V. Girsa, and the President’s Chancellor, P. Šlámal.169 The new Nuncio submitted his credentials to President Masaryk in Prague Castle on Thursday, September 20, 1923, at 12 noon. His speech

167 Lidové noviny, August 24, 1923. 168 Čech, August 24, 1923. 169 APO, fund PO, n. 1974, Inaugural Audience—The Apostolic Nunciature, n. D5339/23, Kordoš September 15, 1923; Čech, September 21, 1923; AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 40, fols. 9–11, Marmaggi to Gasparri September 21, 1923.

55

reflected his enthusiasm for his Czechoslovakian mission. Marmaggi stated: Mr. President! I have the honor to present to Your Excellency the letter by which the Holy Father, Pius XI, my noble sovereign, has accredited me as Apostolic Nuncio to the Czechoslovak Republic. I am greatly pleased by being entrusted with a mission, the purpose of which is to strengthen even more the friendly relations so happily existing between the Czechoslovakian government and the Holy See. I am going to enthusiastically devote all my strength to this mission, which will surely have a beneficial impact on the goals aimed at by both the powers that have a sovereign wish to provide the best spiritual and material welfare for this nation which has, through the centuries, become famous for its kindness, heroism, brilliance, and its love of work and beautiful art. . . . I am sure that I will always find kind and valuable cooperation from the government as well as from all those who appreciate the kindness following from civil and religious concord.170

To his ceremonial speech Masaryk answered: Your Excellency! Firstly, I would like to thank His Holiness Pius XI for sending you as a representative of the Holy See to our country. . . . We promise you, Monsignor, all the support in carrying out the noble task you take up. Monsignor, you mentioned civil and religious concord. I have always believed that the life of individuals as well as of nations should rest on truly religious grounds. You can rest assured that the government will not omit anything in its cooperation with Your Excellency in this way.171

A  humorous detail of the ceremony was the fact, noticed apparently only by Marmaggi, that President Masaryk, while reading his letter in French—perhaps because of his nervousness or poor sight—changed the ordinal number after the Pope’s name, so instead of Pius XI he read Pius IX.172

170 Masaryk, Cesta demokracie, 2:450; Lidové noviny, September 21, 1923; Národní listy, September 21, 1923; Čech, September 21, 1923; Československá republika, September 21, 1923. 171 Československá republika, September 21, 1923. 172 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 40, fol. 10, Marmaggi to Gasparri September 21, 1923.

56

Pietro Ciriaci Pietro Ciriaci was officially appointed as Apostolic Nuncio to Prague on February 15, 1928; on March 18, he was ceremonially ordained as titular Archbishop of Tarsus (Turkey). Soon after, a ceremonial reception was held in his honor, which was attended by important representatives of the Roman Curia, such as the Secretary of State, P. Gasparri, the Secretary of the Nunciature in Prague, S. Ritter, and members of the papal court and Czech priests living in Rome. This was a clear confirmation of the improvement of mutual diplomatic relations and of the extraordinary importance Ciriaci enjoyed in Vatican circles.173 He was replaced in his post of Under Secretary of the Section for Relations with States by the existing President of the Czech College in Rome and an official of the Secretary of State, A. Ottaviani.174 Ciriaci initially intended to depart for Prague by the end of March 1928, precisely a year after his first journey to the capital of Czechoslovakia in 1927.175 Why did he eventually postpone his departure for a month? What held him in Rome? The main cause for the postponement of his journey to Prague was Beneš’s absence from Prague. They therefore agreed that he would travel to Czechoslovakia by the end of April 1928.176 In the second half of April, the precise date of Ciriaci’s departure from Rome was set: May 2, 1928, with a one-day stopover in Munich.177 Ciriaci arrived in Prague on Saturday, May 5, 1928, at 6.30 p.m.178 Despite the instructions regarding Prague he had been given the evening prior to his departure179, he was enthusiastically welcomed in Prague— his new diplomatic post. At the train station, he was awaited by the Deputy Foreign Minister, K. Krofta, the Envoy to the Holy See, V. Radis-

173 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1928, Jelen April 16, 1928. 174 After Ottaviani, the General Secretary of the Italian Catholic Action, Fernando Roveda, was appointed new president of the Czech College AMFA, PR Vatican, 1928, Jelen March 2, 1928; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 16, Jelen February 29, 1928. 175 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1928, Jelen February 18, 1928. 176 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 130, fol. 23, Gasparri to Ritter April 20, 1928; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1928, Jelen March 3, 1928; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1928, Jelen April 21, 1928. 177 ASV, Nunziatura Apostolica in Cecoslovacchia, busta 56, fascicolo 500, fol. 94, Gasparri to Ciriaci April 21, 1928; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1928, Jelen April 21, 1928. 178 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 130, fol. 29, Ciriaci to Gasparri May 12, 1928; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1928, Jelen May 2, 1928. 179 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1928, Jelen May 2, 1928.

57

mký, the Prague Auxiliary Archbishop, A. Podlaha, the Secretary of the Nunciature, S. Ritter, and a large delegation of personages from political, religious and cultural life (F. Světlík, B. Stašek, J. Dostálek, and others).180 After the ceremonial speech delivered by A. Podlaha on behalf of the Prague Archbishop, F. Kordač, Ciriaci thanked all those present. After the lively welcome, the Nuncio, accompanied by the aforementioned A. Podlaha, went by car to the Archbishop’s Palace.181 We do not know with what expectations he had set out, but we can assume that he looked forward to his new post. To a considerable extent, it was a continuation of the course entered upon at the beginning of 1927. He had got to know Czechoslovakia and its Church and political elites during the negotiations on modus vivendi, so it was not a completely strange environment for him. Moreover, the young and ambitious priest perhaps knew that diplomatic service could be a  way towards higher posts in the Vatican hierarchy. The Czech Press informed the public about his arrival, for example Lidové listy, Národní listy, Pražský večerník, České Slovo, and others. Fourteen days after the arrival of the new Nuncio, Ciriaci, in Prague, President Masaryk received him at Prague Castle. On Friday, May 11, 1928, at 12 noon, the Vatican diplomat submitted his credentials to the President. The ceremonial event was held in compliance with the protocol of the times: the Nuncio was, along with Secretary S. Ritter, picked up in front of the Archbishop’s Palace by a car with the Chief of Diplomatic Protocol, L. Strimpl. After a short circuit around Hradčany Square, the men alighted, passing through a double row of soldiers. In the first courtyard, at the Matthias Gate, they were awaited by a Castle guard of honor, headed by the Military Commander of the Castle and important Castle officials. After listening to the Papal anthem, performed by No. 5 Infantry Regiment, the Nuncio saluted the Castle Guard flag and thanked them for the military greeting. Then they walked through the main entrance into Prague Castle. At the entrance into the audience hall, the Nuncio was greeted by General Stanislav Čeček, who ushered him and his procession into a hall to President Masaryk. The audience

180 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 130, fol. 26, Ciriaci to Gasparri May 7, 1928. 181 Lidové noviny, May 6, 1928.

58

was attended by Chancellor P. Šlámal and Deputy Foreign Minister K. Krofta.182 During the ceremonial inaugural audience, Ciriaci stated: Mr. President! I have the honor to submit into the hands of Your Excellency the letter by which His Holiness Pius XI accredits me as Apostolic Nuncio to the Czechoslovakian government. Accepting such an honorable and pleasant mission, I  am happy that I  can again express to Your Excellency my total affection for this noble nation, which I have had the opportunity of getting to know closely and to admire. Although only recently established as a State, this country is rich with national traditions, not less ancient than famous. Situated in the heart of Europe, by its location it is a kind of bridge connecting different nations, and, indeed, it seems predestined by Providence to become an element of peace and balance. . . . I hope that I may count upon the support of Your Excellency and the government in carrying out this mission of mine. The numerous proofs of grace I have received here are, after all, a safe guarantee for me.183

President Masaryk replied to the ceremonial speech of Nuncio Ciriaci with these words: Your Excellency! Receiving from your hands the letter by which His Holiness, the Pope, accredits Your Excellency as Apostolic Nuncio to the Czechoslovakian government, I would like to thank you for the kind words you have just delivered to me and this country. Your Excellency is not quite unknown to us as you spent several months among us last year, during which time you gained a deep knowledge of our national life, a knowledge that you used during negotiations which passed off in a manner I deeply appreciate. . . . I can assure Your Excellency that it is the sincere wish of the government and myself to cooperate with you so that the relations between the Holy See and our country become closer and more cordial.184

The formal speeches were followed by half an hour’s informal conversation between President Masaryk and Apostolic Nuncio Ciriaci. The President praised the Nuncio for his speech and talked with him about 182 Lidové noviny, May 12, 1928; AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 130, 29–36, Ciriaci to Gasparri May 12, 1928. 183 Lidové noviny, May 12, 1928. 184 Ibid.

59

general affairs in Czechoslovakia, not touching on any specific problem. Masaryk allegedly called this day historic. The event ended by photographs being taken of the whole group. The new Apostolic Nuncio to Prague informed the Holy See about the reception by President Masa­ ryk in a telegram on May 11, and in a detailed letter on May 12, conveying his excellent impression of the cordial meeting. The inaugural audience was also covered by the Czechoslovakian newspapers, for example, Lidové listy, Večerní listy, Prager Presse či Rudé právo.185

Saverio Ritter Ciriaci’s successor, Saverio Ritter, the new Apostolic Nuncio, already the fourth since the creation of Czechoslovakia in 1918, was appointed on August 5, 1935.186 After a short vacation in Italy and an audience with Pope Pius XI, Ritter arrived in the capital of Czechoslovakia on October 16, 1935, at 6.05 p.m.187 He was enthusiastically welcomed at Wilson Station in Prague, and prior to that crowds of Czechs ceremonially greeted him after he crossed the border, mainly in Cheb, Mariánské Lázně and Plzeň.188 L’Osservatore Romano also informed the public about the cheerful welcome for the Nuncio in Czechoslovakia on October 20, 1935. In fact, Ritter, the former Secretary of the Nunciature in Bern, was not a novice in Czechoslovakian affairs, but had been known in Prague from his previous work in the Nunciature in the late 1920s (1927–1929). Choosing such an excellent personage indicated that the Holy See truly cared about good relations with Czechoslovakia. Proper relations between the Holy See and Czechoslovakia were renewed in 1935 after two years, and Ritter was granted agrément at the beginning of August 1935.189

185 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 56, fascicolo 500, fol. 102, Ciriaci to Gasparri May 11, 1928; AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 130, fols. 29–36, Ciriaci to Gasparri May 12, 1928; Doležal, Politická cesta českého katolicismu, 31; Koníček, Modus vivendi v historii vztahů Svatého stolce a Československa, 92. 186 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1935, Radimský August 5, 1935. 187 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1935–1936, Radimský October 12, 1935, or January 10, 1936; AMFA, II. section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 27, Radimský October 11, 1935; Lidové noviny, October13, 1935, or October 16, 1935; ÖSW, Archiv der Republik, Bundeskanzleramt / Auswärtige Angelegenheiten, Neues Politisches Archiv, Prag, box file 57, Marek October 17, 1935. 188 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1936, Radimský January 10, 1936; PAAA, Berlin, II Vatikan (38), Politik 3, Beziehungen Vatikan-Tschechoslowakei, R 72213, Der Angriff October 18, 1935. 189 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 173, fol. 6, August 3, 1935.

60

Ritter was the only Nuncio to Prague to have undergone two inaugu­ ral audiences. The first was held at Lány Castle on October 21, 1935, and the second at Prague Castle on June 18, 1946. The presentation of the credentials and the reception of the Nuncio by President Masaryk in the autumn of 1935 was also thoroughly covered by the Vatican paper, L’Osservatore Romano on November 2, 1935.190 Ritter’s first inaugural audience was held in Lány on Monday, October 21, 1935, at 3:30 p.m. The Nuncio was accompanied from Prague by the Chief of Diplomatic Protocol of the Foreign Ministry, Ludvík Strimpl. Apart from the aforementioned men, the audience with President Masaryk was also attended by Apostolic Nuncio Ritter, and Chief of the Protocol Strimpl, Foreign Minister Beneš and the President’s Chancellor, P. Šlámal.191 Nuncio Ritter said: Mr. President, I am presenting Your Excellency with the letter by which the Holy Father accredits me as Apostolic Nuncio to your country. The circumstances under which I take up this office are especially fortunate. Mainly, I have learned about the extraordinary success of the last Catholic Congress, the course of negotiations on the implementation of modus vivendi, and the satisfaction with which this noble country has accepted my appointment to Prague. Allow me, Mr. President, to see in these circumstances, to which I  have gladly pointed, a  guarantee of the closest cooperation of Your Excellency on implementing the program that I intend to carry out, that is the maintenance and development of cordial relations between Czechoslovakia and the Holy See, and the maintenance and development of a spirit of understanding between the Catholics of this country and the State.192

President Masaryk answered the Nuncio: Your Excellency, in receiving from you the letter by which His Holiness Pius XI accredited Your Excellency as Apostolic Nuncio to Czechoslovakia, I would like to thank His Holiness for the kind words that you dedi-

190 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1936, Radimský January 10, 1936. 191 APO, fund PO, n. 1974, Inaugural Audience—The Apostolic Nunciature, n. A609/35, illegible signature October 22, 1935, or A608/35 Strimpl October 18, 1935. 192 APO, fund PO, n. 1974, Inaugural Audience—The Apostolic Nunciature, n. A594/35, illegible signature October 18, 1935, or A608/35 Strimpl October 18, 1935; NA, MFA-NCA I, box file 1599, sign. 726, České Slovo, October 22, 1935.

61

cated on his behalf to me and my country. I welcome you, Your Excellency, with a feeling of great joy. You have already stayed in Prague for some time and thus have a  deep knowledge of our national life; it will help substantially to facilitate your mission, because this knowledge certainly helps deepen mutual harmonious understanding, which is the core of all good relations.193

The second inaugural audience was preceded by a whole range of problems. The broken diplomatic relations between Czechoslovakia and the Holy See were only slowly restored after WWII, as it was necessary first to overcome the difficulties of the years of 1939 to 1945. The Czechoslovakian side assured the Holy See on July 10, 1945, that they had no objections to the Internuncio, but they required that the existing unclear questions regarding Ritter’s continuity or discontinuity in the Prague Nunciature be settled.194 They thus asked the Vatican to send a special agent, before the Internuncio’s official arrival, to harmonize the turbulent conditions and prepare the ground for the arrival of Ritter, about whose suitability there was consensus.195 Thus, on September 20, 1945, the representative of the Holy See and the former Secretary of the Nunciature in Prague, R. Forni, arrived in Prague, and were received by the Secretary of State of the Foreign Ministry, V. Clementis, to discuss the restoration of mutual diplomatic relations—on the grounds of the modus vivendi of 1927/1928—and to prepare the conditions for Ritter’s return to Czechoslovakia. On December 22, 1945, at 10 a.m., R. Forni was received by President Beneš.196 The tense Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations were subsequently discussed by F. Schwarzenberg and G. D. Montini in the Vatican City on February 23, 1946, when the Czechoslovakian representative expressed his wish to establish the office of Permanent Envoy to the Holy See and to receive an official representative of the Holy See in the country. The Vatican welcomed Prague’s forthcoming attitude and promised to grant

193 Ibid. The whole ceremony in Lány—including the Nuncio’s and the President’s speech—was covered also by Prager Presse, October 22, 1935. 194 APO, fund PO, n. 1465, Vatican, n. 16594/II-5/45, Otázka obnovení diplomatických styků mezi RČS a  Vatikánem, Maixner September 4, 1945; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Schwarzenberg April 3, 1946. 195 APO, fund PO, n. 1465, Vatican, n. 16594/II-5/45, Otázka obnovení diplomatických styků mezi RČS a Vatikánem, Maixner September 4, 1945. 196 APO, fund PO, n. 1465, Vatican, n. D5196/40, illegible signature September 20, 1945, or December 17, 1945; Kuklík, and Němeček, Osvobozené Československo, 436–437.

62

its agrément promptly to the formal Czechoslovakian representative. It also expressed its joy at Czechoslovakia’s receiving the re-elected representative of the Holy See, 61-year-old Ritter.197 The Czechoslovakian government, however, required that the Holy See ask again for agrément for Ritter and that he present his credentials to the President. G. D. Montini, although seeing continuity in Ritter’s mission, complied with this wish.198 There was a greater dispute over Ritter’s status—as he had lost the status of Doyen, the Vatican could not appoint him as Apostolic Nuncio. However, the Holy See insisted on adhering to common law, according to which the Nuncio was automatically the Doyen of the Diplomatic Corps. Eventually, the Holy See desisted from this demand as well and proposed the establishment of an Apostolic Internunciature in Prague instead of a Nunciature, with which the Czechoslovakian side agreed.199 After the restoration of diplomatic relations after WWII, and when he had been granted agrément in the spring of 1946, Ritter returned to Prague200 on Thursday, June 11, 1946. Compared to the previous arrivals of Nuncios in the country, this was an innovation. The former representatives of the Holy See had arrived in the country by train, alighting at Wilson Station in Prague, whereas Ritter landed at Ruzyně Airport. There he was met by several important personages in the political and religious life of the country and also by officials of the Foreign Ministry. Among others were the future Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Holy See, A. Maixner, the chargé d’affaires of the Apostolic Internunciature, R. Forni, the Chapter Vicar, Bohumil Opatrný and the Metropolitan Canon of St. Vitus in Prague, Otokar Švec. In the summer of 1946, Ritter returned to Prague, but only as Internuncio, which related with the overall political atmosphere in Czechoslovakia, where the Vatican representation had changed from a Nunciature to a  mere Internunciature, and the Doyen of the Diplomatic Corps was Soviet Envoy Valerian Zorin.201 Ritter’s already second inaugural audience, connected with the presentation of the credentials, was held on Thursday, June 18, 1946, at 12 noon in Prague Castle. It was

197 198 199 200

AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Schwarzenberg March 9, 1946. Ibid. Ibid., or March 14, 1946, or April 17, 1946. After 1945, Czechoslovakia was the first Central European state to establish diplomatic relations with the Holy See. 201 Balík, and Hanuš, Katolická církev v Československu, 18.

63

also attended by the Secretary of the Internunciature, R. Forni, Foreign M ­ inister J. Masaryk, the State Secretary of the Foreign Ministry, Vladimír Clementis and the President’s Chancellor, Jaromír Smutný.202 When Ritter arrived at Prague Castle from the Internunciature in Voršilská Street, he was welcomed in the first courtyard by a double row of Castle guards with a flag, who presented arms and played the Papal anthem. After the parade and military greeting of the guards, the Internuncio was ushered through Matthias Gate into the reception hall, where he was greeted by the Chief of the Military Office, General Bruno Sklenovský, who accompanied him into the Brožík Audience Hall. Ritter was then decorated with the Order of the White Lion of the 1930s.203 The re-elected representative of the Holy See addressed the President with the following words: Mr. President! I  have the honor to submit to you the Papal decree by which the Highest Pontiff appoints me as Apostolic Internuncio to Your Excellency. At this moment, my thoughts spontaneously revert to the day when I had the honor of presenting it, back then as Apostolic Nuncio, to the deceased President Masaryk, the founder of the Czechoslovak Republic, a distinguished politician who was admired by his people as a leader and loved as their good Father. It has been more than ten years now. You have become President Masaryk’s successor. You took up his work, defended it in the midst of difficulties which seemed insuperable. Those were years marked by work, persistent fighting, and numerous victims. . . . You gave the Czechoslovakian people their freedom again. Allow me, Mr. President, to tell you that I am not only honored, but also very happy to be sent here again under the current circumstances. The Holy Father is very fond of Czechoslovakia. I, as his representative, can feel no differently about the relationship with your country.204

President Beneš replied to Ritter’s speech: Monsignor! You have submitted to me the decree by which His Holiness, the Highest Pontiff, appoints Your Excellency as Apostolic Internuncio. With your return, the memories come alive again that are so precious not only to you, but also to us all. It was our President Masaryk who received 202 APO, fund PO, n. 1974, Inaugural Audience—The Apostolic Nunciature, newspaper clipping. 203 Ibid., n. D13225/46, Kordoš without date. 204 Ibid., n. D12861/46, Skalický June 17, 1946.

64

you when you arrived in the capital of our country for the first time. I am very touched by your words of tribute to him. Then you witnessed the hard times before the war which was so difficult and dangerous for us and which, eventually, became a life-and-death struggle for this country and its people. . . . Now when we need to heal the wounds of the past and create and ensure a greater future for all mankind, I especially appreciate your services.205

Ritter presented Beneš not only with his credentials from Pope Pius XII, but also with a letter from the Secretary of the Section for Relations with States and the temporary Secretary of State, D. Tardini.206 A Thanksgiving Church Service was held at the Church of St. Giles in Prague on September 28, 1946 for the re-establishment of Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations and for the return of “the great friend of the Czechs,” S. Ritter. It was led by the Prior of the Dominican Monastery, Jiří Maria Veselý, and accompanied by songs performed by members of the National Theatre Opera.207

The Prestige of the Prague Mission We can simply say that, until 1918, the prestige of the Apostolic Nunciature in Vienna had been high, but it declined after the 1918 dissolution of Austria-Hungary. By then, its prestige had reached the same level as other Central European Nunciatures, and was comparable, for example, with the prestige of the Prague Nunciature. Two Nunciatures were above this Central European average, earning their representatives the highest positions in the Vatican hierarchy: the Nunciature in Warsaw and the Nunciature in Berlin. The former was the workplace of A. Ratti at the turn of the 1910s and 1920s. He later became Pope Pius XI in 1922. The latter was the workplace of E. Pacelli in the 1920s. He was elected Pope Pius XII in 1939. If the Czechoslovakian side was afraid in the 1920s that the Vatican legation in Prague was second class, the Holy See kept disproving these concerns through the Secretary of the Section for Relations with States, B. Cerreti.208 205 206 207 208

Ibid., n. D15902/46, Beneš, August 14, 1946. Ibid., n. D13225/46, Skalický August 10, 1946. Ibid., n. D16766/48 and D17606/48, illegible signature September 26, 1946. AMFA, PR Vatican, 1920, Krofta April 21, 1920.

65

At the same time, two West European Nunciatures were highly ­ alued, apparently due to their former historical importance—Madrid v and Paris. They were considered among diplomats as a sign of special favor by the Holy See, and understood as a step towards gaining the title of Cardinal, i.e. as a way into the higher Vatican circles. For that reason, influential figures of the papal court used to become Nuncios to Madrid.209 According to the Secretary of State, P. Gasparri, the Holy See distinguished two classes of Nunciatures—class I and II. The diplomatic posts in Paris, Madrid, Lisbon, and formerly in Vienna, belonged to the first, more prestigious class; all the others belonged to the second class. It was a custom among the diplomats of the first class to serve in their Nunciature until they were created Cardinal.210 The Nunciatures of the second class were theoretically on the same level, so there was no difference between, for example, the prestige of the Prague or Brussels Nunciature or the Prague or Warsaw mission; in reality, diplomats and politicians made strict distinctions between them.211 On the other hand, when F. Marmaggi was appointed as new Apostolic Nuncio to Warsaw in 1928, the Czechoslovakian side regarded it as a step towards promotion and a way towards the Cardinal’s hat.212 After signing the modus vivendi and appointing a new Nuncio, P. Ciriaci, the Czechoslovakian chargé d’affaires, E. Jelen, stated that the prestige of the Prague Nunciature would grow: “Given the implementation of the modus vivendi, the Vatican considers it one of the most important Nunciatures, even more important than the one in Berlin.“213 Although rather wishful thinking than reality, Jelen’s words well reflect the battle between second-class Nunciatures for primacy in the eyes of the Roman Curia. According to Jelen, the Secretary of the Section for Relations with States, F. Borgongini-Duca, even said: “the Vatican considers the Prague Nunciature very important, even more important than the one in Berlin.“214 After the signing of the Lateran Treaty, the Vatican representation in Italy—the Nunciature in Rome—became a first-class Nunciature,

209 Ibid., 1921, Krofta June 1, 1921. 210 Fuchs, Novější papežská politika, 199–200, 285. 211 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1924, Pallier January 31, 1924; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 2, Radimský January 11, 1934. 212 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1928, Jelen March 2, 1928; ÖSW, Archiv der Republik, Gesandtschaftsund Konsulatsarchive 1918–1938, Gesandtschaft Rom-Vatikan, Box file 5, Pastor February 25, 1928. 213 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1928, Jelen April 16, 1928. 214 Ibid., Jelen April 21, 1928.

66

so, theoretically speaking, replacing P. Ciriaci in Prague by F. Borgongini-Duca was out of the question.215 The fact that no Apostolic Nuncio became Cardinal immediately after ending their Czechoslovakian mission serves as proof of the existence of the higher and lower prestige of individual diplomatic representations of the Holy See. Three out of four Nuncios of interwar Czechoslovakia who continued in their diplomatic activities were created Cardinals; the fourth one, the last Nuncio of the First Czechoslovak Republic remained Archbishop. To gain the Cardinal’s hat, one needed the experience of some other European missions: Micara served in Belgium and Luxembourg, Marmaggi in Poland, and Ciriaci in Portugal. The Table in the Appendix confirms the general conclusion that Apostolic Nunciatures in Western Europe were considered more prestigious by the Holy See; after Ratti’s experience of the Nunciature in Warsaw and Pacelli’s of Berlin, the prestige of these Central European representations increased, but they remained second-class Nunciatures. Perhaps the only exception was the promotion of the second-class Nuncio to Bucharest, A. M. Dolci, who was created Cardinal (1933); Pope Pius XI, however, did not thereby increase the prestige of the Bucharest mission.216

215 Ibid., 1931, Nepustil August 21, 1931. 216 AMFA, PR Vatican, Radimský February 20, 1933.

67

2.5 Doyen of the Diplomatic Corps

Always at the beginning of the calendar year, the Apostolic Nuncio—as Doyen of the Diplomatic Corps—would deliver a ceremonial opening speech on the occasion of the audience of the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Czechoslovakian President, which was held either in Prague Castle or in Lány Castle.217 These were short formal visits which took no more than fifteen minutes.218 Similar audiences used to be held in the 1920s and 1930s, usually on January 1st each year.219 When the Nuncio was absent from Czechoslovakia, the oldest member of the Diplomatic Corps was assigned to deliver the New Year’s speech; for example, in January 1926 it was French Envoy Fernand Couget and in January 1927–1929, Swedish Envoy Gerhard Löwen.220 During the October celebrations of the anniversary of Czechoslovakia in 1925, the longest serving member of the corps, British envoy George Clerk, deputized for the absent Nuncio, delivering a ceremonial speech on behalf of the Diplomatic Corps; the Secretary of the Nunciature in Prague, A. Arata, also attended the celebrations.221 217 The New Year’s Audience in Lány Castle was held—due to the illness of the President—in January 1928. 218 APO, fund PO, n. 893, The President’s New Year’s Audience; Československá republika, January 3, 1921. The President’s Office always received the French wording of the Nuncio’s speech well in advance. 219 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 13, fascicolo 51, or busta 72, fascicolo 588. 220 APO, fund PO, n. 893, Audience a jiné návštěvy u prezidenta T. G. Masaryka, n. D9331/25, Program novoročních audiencí 1926 u  prezidenta republiky, n. D7333/26, D6825/27, D8859/28, Program novoročních audiencí 1927 u prezidenta republiky. 221 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 34, fascicolo 178, fols. 65–70, Arata to Gasparri October 29, 1925.

68

These state and political events with participation of the Diplomatic Corps were held in the 1920s and 1930s on the anniversaries of Masaryk’s birthday (March 7) and the creation of Czechoslovakia (October 28). As Doyen of the Diplomatic Corps, the Apostolic Nuncio regularly attended these events and made ceremonial speeches to the President. His speeches in French, mostly formal, are available in the Secret Vatican Archive.222 When the Nuncio’s speech appeared in the press, it was the exception rather than the rule. The Doyen of the Diplomatic Corps used to be invited quite often by the President to Prague Castle, sometimes even informally. Some letters of invitation, however, appear rather strange—for example, the invitation for Micara to have breakfast with President Masaryk in Prague Castle on October 28 at 1 a.m. (!).223 As part of diplomatic custom, the Nuncio was also in personal, written and telephonic contact with diplomats accredited to the Czechoslovakian government. In addition, the Doyen’s agenda included communication with state offices, such as the Customs department for exemption from import duty for diplomats, as well as participation in prestigious cultural and social events in the country, which invitations he mostly had to refuse due to his busy schedule.224 Also, the members of the Diplomatic Corps held regular meetings which the Nuncio was expected to attend.225 The vast extent of his agenda was also confirmed by a politician of the Czechoslovak People’s Party, M. Hruban, who visited him at the Nunciature in 1920.226 If, in the early 1920s, the following states had their representation to the Czechoslovakian government—the Holy See, the USA, Italy, Great Britain, Netherlands, Greece, France, Spain, Belgium, Romania, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Poland, Germany and Bulgaria—this number gradually grew, and with it the Nuncio’s agenda. The fragmentary information of the Secret Vatican Archive creates the impression that the Nuncio’s social and prestigious role in the Diplomatic Corps gradually declined; yet it may only be the wrong interpretation due to its incompleteness.227

222 223 224 225 226 227

Ibid., busta 72, fascicolo 588, or busta 34, fascicolo 178. Ibid., busta 13, fascicolo 53, fol. 157. Ibid., busta 33, fascicolo 173, orbusta 72, fascicoli 591–593. Ibid., busta 13, fascicolo 50. Drábek, Z časů nedlouho zašlých, 94. ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 13, fascicolo 53.

69

Thus, partly for official and partly for unofficial reasons, the Nuncio would invite the representatives of the Diplomatic Corps for ceremonial lunches at the Apostolic Nunciature in the Archbishop’s Palace at Hradčany, such as the Sunday lunch on January 22, 1921,228 and he would also attend formal lunches and dinners of other diplomats accredited to the Holy See. One such occasion was the formal dinner on Thursday, January 14, 1932, which was attended by, besides President Masaryk and Nuncio Ciriaci, also the German Envoy W. Koch and his wife, Austrian Envoy Ferdinand Marek and his wife, representatives of Netherlands, Belgium, Hungary, France, Poland, and other foreign diplomats in Czechoslovakia.229 It seems that Nuncio Marmaggi did not have many contacts with the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Czechoslovakian government, which fact he revealed during talks with the Envoy to the Holy See, V. Pallier.230 Regarding personal contact between Apostolic Nuncios and Presidents Masaryk and Beneš, we have no detailed information to be able to create a good image of these relationships. Ciriaci, whom Beneš met during WWI, apparently established the warmest relationship. It was indeed Beneš, although a socialist, who in the 1920s and 1930s became a trustworthy friend of this relatively solitary Nuncio. Apart from the Secretary of the Apostolic Nunciature, G. Panico, Ciriaci had no other major friendships with Czechoslovakian politicians.231 His disappointment was great when his personal relationship with the Foreign Minister deteriorated during the so-called Ciriaci affair in the summer of 1933, when his boundless confidence in Beneš was shaken to its foundations.232 The closest friendship Ciriaci had was probably with the Austrian Envoy to Prague, F. Marek. The latter was a native of Prague who had studied Law in Vienna. As a bilingual diplomat, he had no problems in Czechoslovakia. He was able to use to his benefit his excellent contacts with leading Czechoslovakian politicians, namely Foreign Minister Beneš and President Masaryk. Owing to his frequent meetings with Beneš, he was perfectly informed about the foreign policy of his host country.233 It was indeed Marek’s awareness, range of knowledge, kind-

228 229 230 231 232 233

Ibid., fascicolo 52, fol. 4. APO, fund PO, n. 893, Audiences and other visits to President T. G. Masaryk, n. D123/32. AMFA, PR Vatican, 1925, Pallier April 13, 1925. Palazzini, “La Cecoslovacchia a quarant’anni di distanza,” 265; Hronek, Papež Pius XI., 56. ATGM, fond EB—section I., box file 238, sign. R365 (Vatican 1933), Rückl October 16, 1933. Houska, “Rakušan v Praze,” 19–22.

70

ness and moderation that were the reasons for his frequent contact with the Nuncio. On the other hand—and quite surprisingly—we do not note that any Apostolic Nuncio to Prague was in close contact with any Italian envoy, despite the fact that between 1920 and 1939 there were eight Italian envoys in Czechoslovakia (A. Chiaramonte Bordonaro /1920–1924/, B. PignatiMoreno di Custoza /1924–1926/, Gabriele Preziosi /1926–1928/, Luigi Vannutelli-Rey /1928–1930/, Orazio Pedrazzi /1930–1932/, Quido R ­ occo /1932–1935/, Domenico de Facendis /1935–1938/ and Francesco Fransoni /1938–1939/234). The reason for this was probably, among other things, the tense relations between the Holy See and fascist Italy, which, although improved by the conclusion of the Lateran Pacts in 1929, even escalated due to the subsequent dispute over the Italian Catholic Action in 1931, the fascist aggression in Abyssinia between 1935 and 1936, the gradual closeness between Italy and Germany and the acceptance of racist laws at the end of the 1930s.235

234 APO, fund PO, n. 893, The Inaugural Audience of Foreign Envoys to the CSR. 235 Castaldo, and Lo Bianco, L’Archivio della Nunziatura Apostolica in Italia, 1:XXI.

71

3. Activities Apostolic Nuncios in Czechoslovakia

3.1 The Nuncio’s Instructions, Mission and Tasks in Czechoslovakia. Language Barriers

The Nuncio’s Instructions, Mission and Tasks in Czechoslovakia It used to be the custom that, before starting his diplomatic mission, the new Nuncio—without experience, contacts or knowledge of the environment—would receive the written instructions and recommendations he was to follow. The representative of the Holy See had a free hand in particular issues to act according to his “best knowledge and conscience”, to the benefit of Catholicism. However, more major decisions required him to leave his mission and go to Rome where he would be personally instructed by the Secretary of State or the Pope himself. The Nuncio’s journeys to the Eternal City serve as evidence of these consultations, which he undertook if major Czechoslovakian-Vatican disputes emerged, such as Marmaggi in the spring of 1925, Ciriaci at the turn of 1927 and 1928, Ciriaci in the spring of 1931, and Ritter in the spring of 1938. The instructions for Nuncio Micara follow from the context of the first Czechoslovakian-Vatican negotiations, his letters from Prague, and the needs of the Church after WWI, although it is possible that he also received oral instructions during his stay in Rome.236 He was thus to build information and communication networks in Czechoslo-

236 Hrabovec, “Die Nuntien in der Tschechoslowakei,” 178.

74

vakia, through which he could inform the Holy See about the situation in the country, particularly about the position of the Church and Czechoslovakian-Vatican negotiations. His presence in Prague almost a year prior to his official appointment was to support the faithful in the country and “demonstrate the openness of the Holy See towards territorial and political changes, and thus free the Catholic Church from unjustified but numerous reproaches of conservative monarchist legitimism and unfriendly stance towards the emancipation ambitions of nations, and, at the same time, manifest the Pope’s demand for freedom in Church decisions and protect endangered interests of the Church.“237 Although some Cardinals criticized his staying in Czechoslovakia without diplomatic status, the Secretary of State, Gasparri, tolerated it with respect to the interests of the Church.238 The most important tasks Nuncio Micara was assigned after 1920 included taking care of the new organization of Church structures in compliance with the new borders of Czechoslovakia and the pastoral needs of the faithful. Furthermore, there was the necessity for the early filling of the bishopric thrones that had remained vacant after 1918, primarily in Slovakia. He also strived to reduce the tension between State and Church that occurred mainly in the Czech Lands, which was related to the questions of separation of Church and State, land reform, and nomination law.239 In addition, there was a strong tension within the Catholic Church that resulted in the founding of the new Czechoslovak Church. Micara carefully watched the process of its founding, the requirements of the reformed Catholic block, and the personages of the modernist priests. The Nuncio was also deeply interested in the political events of the young Republic, the party and voting system, the representatives of each political party, the constitution, the personage of the President, etc. Sometimes the new Nuncio received instructions from two sides— from the Secretariat of State, or more precisely one of the involved congregations, and from the former Nuncio who had served in the country before him. An example of this was the mission of Marmaggi, who was informed about the unresolved church-political questions by Micara—in the conclusion of his final letter of June 1923—and by the Vatican congregations. The Secretary of the Holy Consistory, Gaetano De Lai, gave 237 Hrabovec, Slovensko a Svätá stolica 1918–1927, 37. 238 Ibid. 239 Hrabovec, “Die Nuntien in der Tschechoslowakei,” 180–182.

75

Marmaggi brief instructions in five points on how he should act as Apostolic Nuncio during the current crisis in Czechoslovakia: 1) maintain the unity of the faith against the dangers of subversive propaganda and develop pastoral practices among the population, 2) promote meetings of the faithful in parishes and proceed with the struggle against Sokol, 3) increase the interest in priestly vocations, referring to piety and devotion to God, 4) maintain as much of the Church property as possible, and 5) solve the question of priest K. A. Medvecký.240 At the same time, he received information from the Congregation for Oriental Churches on how to proceed in Subcarpathian Ruthenia, as there were different religious conditions there than in the rest of the Republic.241 It seems that the priorities of Nuncio Marmaggi’s diplomatic mission were two issues when he took up his office in 1923 that were related to unresolved Church questions in Slovakia: 1) settlement of the protracted question regarding the nomination of P. Jantausch in Trnava and 2) removal of the Bishop of Mukachevo, Anton Papp. The new Nuncio was probably not instructed in detail, but the Holy See left him a free hand in negotiating with the Czechoslovakian government, which was immediately also understood by the Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Holy See, V. Pallier. To agree upon the appointment of the Apostolic Administrator to Trnava subsequently emerged as one of the most difficult church-political problems of the first Czechoslovak Republic, because the candidates proposed to Trnava encountered opposition from the Czechoslovakian government.242 A certain problem in Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations could have been the absence of any legal basis for negotiations, for example a concordat, of which Marmaggi took account in his agenda after his arrival in Czechoslovakia. On his own initiative, he started to work on a draft of modus vivendi.243 After preparing the basic draft of the treaty, Marmaggi was expected by the Secretariat of State to bear the brunt of contentious debated issues from Rome to Prague, and thereby divest the Holy See of these unresolved issues and resolve it on his own initiative.244 If the Vatican appreciated Marmaggi’s independence in Church affairs in 240 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 30, fascicolo 135, fol. 141, De Lai Marmaggimu June 30, 1923. 241 Ibid., 143–146. 242 Hrabovec, Slovensko a Svätá stolica 1918–1927, 49. 243 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1923, Pallier September 1, 1923, or May 31, 1924; Hobza, Poměr mezi státem a církví, 197. 244 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1923, Pallier September 30, 1923.

76

Czechoslovakia, it was willing to let him make his own choices. Secretary of State Gasparri himself appreciated Marmaggi’s initiative by calling him a “good little diplomat” in November 1923.245 We may add that, although Marmaggi had an understanding of the arguments of the Czechoslovakian side before starting his diplomatic mission, after his arrival in Czechoslovakia, he mainly held the attitude of his predecessor, C. Micara, for example, in the question of the possible removal of Bishop A. Papp.246 To a large extent, Ciriaci’s tasks were given by the modus vivendi, and allegedly, there were no others.247 Therefore, he considered his primary task as being the implementation of the demarcation of dioceses and their financial security (Article I of the modus vivendi), which he was required to carry out in cooperation with the Czechoslovakian ­government, mainly with Foreign Minister Beneš.248 The application of the modus vivendi also concerned the neighboring states with which the dioceses overlapped, so it was necessary to implement it in cooperation with the Berlin and Budapest governments. During March 1928, the Holy See created a delimitation commission for the implementation of Article I of the modus vivendi in Czechoslovakia; the start of its functioning was announced for the beginning of May, after the arrival of Ciriaci in Prague.249 What sort of environment did Ciriaci come into and what duties immediately awaited him? The first and undoubtedly greatest task of the third Prague Nuncio was to renew faith in the Holy See, its sincerity and responsiveness, to strengthen the local Catholic community, establish contacts with the local clergy, and assuage the anticlerical attitudes of socialists. It was also necessary to reduce the tension in the political block and to “win over” the most important Czechoslovakian politicians, namely Masaryk and Beneš, to prevent any future quarrel similar to that of the summer of 1925. The Nuncio remained occupied with the modus vivendi which had come into force, but now it was necessary to proceed with the application of its articles.

245 Ibid., Pallier November 30, 1923. 246 Ibid., Pallier September 30, 1923; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 1, or 3, Beneš February 11, 1923. 247 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1928, Jelen May 2, 1928. 248 Ibid., Jelen March 3, 1928. 249 Ibid., Jelen April 16, 1928.

77

Ciriaci’s primary task was, therefore, to renew faith in the Catholic Church which had been damaged after the Hus celebrations in the summer of 1925. At the same time, he dealt with the current personnel matters of the Church administration in Eastern Slovakia and Subcarpathian Ruthenia, mainly in the Mukachevo Diocese (with the seat in Uzhorod), and with the implementation of the modus vivendi.250 He was also engaged in matters of school education and the education of clergyman in Czechoslovakia. Last but not least, we must remember that, at the end of the 1920s, the faithful of the Bohemian and Moravian dioceses lived for the St. Wenceslas Celebrations, in which the Nuncio was naturally also involved; he participated in these celebrations as the highest representative of the Holy See in Czechoslovakia and held a ceremonial service—together with Prague Archbishop František Kordač—in the completed Cathedral of St. Vitus in Prague Castle.251 In the same year, Ciriaci also chaired the Conference of Czechoslovakian Bishops.252 In connection with the upcoming parliamentary elections in 1929, he was also occupied with Czechoslovakian political Catholicism and the questions of possible rapprochement of Czech, Slovak, German and Hungarian Christian political parties in the country and their unification in one Catholic block. This would become the strongest political coalition in Czechoslovakia and implement the conversion of the country in the spirit of the encyclical Quadragesimo anno of May 15, 1931, probably with Šrámek as the leader.253 Ciriaci also tried to incorporate in the political-religious environment of Czechoslovakia the encyclicals that the Pope had recently published; for example the encyclical on Christian education of youth, Divini illius Magistri, of December 31, 1929 and the encyclical on Christian marriage, Casti connubii, of December 31, 1930.254 In addition, he also urged the leaders of the Catholic hierarchy, mainly Prague Archbishop F. Krodač, to do so within the Catholic Action.255

250 Hrabovec, “Die Nuntien in der Tschechoslowakei,” 191. 251 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 140. 252 Palazzini, “La Cecoslovacchia a quarant’anni di distanza,” 265. 253 Trapl, Politický katolicismus, 116–118; Klimek, and Hofman, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, 14:33, 68–69; Kárník, České země v éře První republiky, 2:320–328; Šebek, “Jan Šrámek a Bohumil Stašek,” 9–22; Šebek, “Die katholischen politischen Parteien,” 275–294; Zmátlo, Katolíci a evanjelici na Slovensku, 52. The text of the Encyclical in more detail: Enchiridion delle Encicliche, 5:686–799. 254 Both encyclicals in more detail: Enchiridion delle Encicliche, 5:442–517 and 5:586–685. 255 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1931, Radimský April 4, 1931.

78

The Catholic Project was the fundamental expression of the significance of Pope Pius XI’s pontificate. He is even called “the Pope of the Catholic Project” by some historians. Pius XI considered as the basic program of the Catholic Action moral and religious formation, renewal and transformation of Catholic life, a common apostolate of priests and laymen which would lead to the unification of all Catholics worldwide. The Catholic Action, based on the encyclical Ubi arcano Dei of December 1922,256 depended on the Church hierarchy that helped to direct it, but it was also completely independent of competition with political parties.257 The ultimate goal of the Catholic Action, not only in Czechoslovakia, was according to Pius’s ideas, “the Christianization of all life”.258 The Catholic Action subsequently became one of the essential phenomena of interwar Church life, which brought with it new forms and challenges of pastoral practice that were to face growing secularization. Its very essence was ancient and present already at the beginning of Christianity, but its forms and methods of strengthening Catholic life were new. It is obvious that, in this connection, Ciriaci rejected Catholic radicals, which in the Czechoslovakian political reality meant the preference of Moravian political realists.259 In addition, there were also the obligations arising from the position of Head of the Apostolic Diplomatic Mission, which involved the management of the Prague Nunciature. In 1929, Walter’s Palace at 12 Voršilská Street in Prague’s New Town was purchased, and the Apostolic Nunciature moved there after ten years of residing in the Archbishop’s Palace at Hradčany.260 There were also less prosaic matters to deal with, such as the management of this institution, as the costs of its operation increased after relocating from Hradčany. It is not without interest that Ciriaci received special instructions in February 1929, after having sent his detailed 90-page report to Rome on the plight of the Prague Archdiocese, where more than 400,000 atheists lived.261 The Secretary of State, Gasparri, responded to the situation with these recommendations: 1) adjust the studies in all diocesan seminaries,

256 Enchiridion delle Encicliche, 5:10–61. 257 Kalyvas, The Rise of Christian Democracy in Europe, 183; Vašek, Katolická akce, 24–36. 258 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 5, The Interest of the Holy See in Zájem papežské stolice o katolictví v ČSR, Praha May 20, 1928. 259 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 144, fols. 21–23, Ciriaci to Pacelli July 16, 1931; Marek, Setkání, 201 260 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 56, fascicolo 501, fol. 42, Ciriaci to Gasparri April 13, 1929. 261 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 139, fol. 18, January 17, 1929.

79

2) encourage the clergy to strive for genuine pastoral life, 3) effectively manage the diocese and stimulate the creation of new parishes, 4) promote the Catholic Action, 5) increase pastoral activity and take into account the activities of religious orders, 6) initiate missionary work, 7) deal sensitively with school issues.262 The input instructions to Ritter, the fourth Apostolic Nuncio to Prague, were given in advance as a  direct result of the events of ­1934–1935. After the successful completion of outer delimitation, the new Nuncio, after arriving in Prague, was to obtain updated information on the implementation of delimitation from each Czechoslovakian Bishop, and proceed with inner delimitation.263 However, when in August 1935 the Secretary of State, E. Pacelli requested instructions from the relevant congregations, the Sacred Consistorial Congregation answered that they had no specific instructions for Ritter at that time. They also added that given that “Mons. Ritter knows very well the religious and moral situation of the country, he can take into consideration the instructions given by this Holy Congregation to his predecessors.“264 The Section for Relations with States gave the Nuncio their instructions, but those are not available to us.265 We should also ask ourselves what the intentions, objectives, and means of Vatican policy towards Czechoslovakia were in the first half of the 20th century, as the instructions to the Nuncio could have been the same. We must not forget that, for the Vatican, politics was not the primary objective of Czechoslovakian-Vatican negotiations, but rather the means of achieving a better starting position for the development of religious life. Where many contemporaries looked at politics, the pastoral care of souls was mainly present in the actions of the Holy See. The Nuncio’s instructions and the interests of the Holy See were always based on the religious realm, although the representatives of the Catholic Church tried to define religious and political interests so that they did not interfere with, but rather complemented each other.266

262 Ibid., fols. 19–20, Gasparri Ciriacimu 22. 2. 1929; AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 132, fols. 102–104, Gasparri to Ciriaci February 22, 1929. 263 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 3, Radimský December 5, 1934. 264 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 173, fol. 7, Rossi to Pacelli September 6, 1935. 265 Ibid., 10, Ritter to Pizzardo October 11, 1935. The instructions were supposed to be attached to the above-mentioned report, but they were not. 266 Halas, Fenomén Vatikán, 363–365.

80

Although the interest of Prague to negotiate with the Holy See after 1919 confirmed the sincere efforts of Czechoslovakia to adjust, resolve and perceive the religious issues of the country, it did not primarily mean that both sides were in consensus with the Vatican about religious Church matters. On one hand, the Vatican did not provide the Holy See with the means to interfere in the internal affairs of foreign states. On the other hand, the Holy See could advance its interests through, for example, its influence on public opinion of a given state or abroad. There is also the question of how much its influence was effective in the spring of 1925 and the summer of 1931. The Holy See had always preferred the way of agreement, and only when reaching an agreement with the Czechoslovakian government proved impossible, such as, for example, in dealing with Church affairs in Slovakia in 1922, did it decide to take a tough approach. Sometimes the Holy See would express its disagreement by postponing Czechoslovakian-Vatican talks, and at other times, by making resolute decisions, calling the Nuncio back to Rome, or intervening through third parties. We believe that religious conditions in Czechoslovakia between 1920 and 1950 went through a similar development as, for example, political development. What was needed was distance, thinking, and a new perspective or change in approach. If we were to think that no outcome was reached through Czechoslovakian-Vatican negotiations, we would be mistaken. Shortly after 1918, there were a number of problems that could not be resolved authoritatively by either the Czechoslovakian or Vatican sides, but rather through a gradual reduction in friction and concessions to Catholicism. These were mainly the questions of creating an appropriate contract between Czechoslovakia and the Holy See, the freedom of performing religious rituals and services, (in)dependence of Church from State, internal structures of the Church and its personnel matters (e.g. the dispute over Episcopal appointments), the questions of marriage, divorce, burial, etc., protection of life, observance of religious holidays, including Sundays, building of new churches, free access to information, issues of rights and freedoms of citizens, questions of Church education, cultural heritage protection, performance of charitable, missionary and social services, pastoral care in educational and health establishments, the army, prisons, financial security of the clergy, settlement of property and Church financial affairs, charitable and educational events, etc. It is through these issues that we should look at the diplomatic mission of the Apostolic Nuncio to Prague and through these should 81

interpret his interest in the political, religious, national, cultural and economic situation in Czechoslovakia.267

The Nuncio’s Language Barrier in Czechoslovakia The language barrier was certainly a major factor playing a role in the activities of the Apostolic Nuncio to Czechoslovakia. Already in January 1921, the Redemptorists complained to the Holy See about Micara, expressing their concern that, without knowledge of the language, he was too much under the influence of the former Prague Auxiliary Bishop, Václav Antonín Frinda, and under the German influence in the country. In the summer of 1921, another two Redemptorists complained to Rome about the Nuncio: the Prague Provincial Superior, František Mezírka, and the President of the College of St. Kajetán, František Schroller, who was endeavoring to join the college in České Budějovice to the Prague province, contrary to the interests of local Germans. These priests also reproached the Nuncio for being under German influence due to his ignorance of the language.268 The Nuncio’s ignorance of the Czech language thus complicated his communication with Czech priests during the first phase of the exhausting Czechoslovakian-Vatican negotiations, when it was necessary to discuss a great number of debatable issues.269 Secretary Antonino Arata perhaps had the best knowledge of Czech. He had indicated to Krofta his desire to learn Czech already at the beginning of his mission.270 And he succeeded, as in the late 1920s, after leaving Czechoslovakia, he used Czech in his correspondence with Czech church dignitaries. The Czech church circles mainly regretted Arata’s departure from Prague after six years, as they appreciated this kind and helpful Secretary who spoke Czech very well. Arata himself enthusiastically looked back on the years spent in Czechoslovakia.271 Secretary R. Forni also spoke Czech very well.272

267 268 269 270 271 272

Ibid., 367–371. AMFA, PR Vatican, 1921, Krofta July 3, 1921. Ibid., Krofta February 28, 1921. Ibid., Krofta July 3, 1921. Čech, March 30, 1927; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1927, Jelen July 8, 1927. AMFA, GS A, box file 154, Jelen February 3, 1948.

82

The language barrier also proved to be a problem during the discussions on the modus vivendi. If in the spring of 1927 Ciriaci had no problem in understanding Foreign Minister Beneš and his plenipotentiary Krofta in French, there were problems when communicating with Antonín Švehla. Discussions with Prime Minister Švehla on April 11, therefore, took place in the presence of O. Švec, whom Ciriaci committed to absolute secrecy.273 It would be easy to assume that the language barrier made the Apostolic Nuncio to Prague in the 1930s read German and foreign papers and thus adopt the arguments of the Sudeten German environment. However, his reports to the Vatican do not confirm these assumptions, but rather deny it.

273 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1927, Krofta April 1, 1927.

83

3.2 Personnel of the Apostolic Nunciature. The Secretaries, Their Roles, Authorities and the Representation of the Nuncio in the Office of the Chargé d’affaires

Naturally, there was not only the Nuncio in the Apostolic Nunciature, but he was surrounded by quite a large personnel who were responsible in every way for the running of this office. If the Nuncio was Head of the Diplomatic Mission, the Secretaries of the Nunciature were the personnel of the Mission. Since 1928, this had consisted of six persons: the Nuncio, two secretaries, a cook, a driver and a servant. In the 1930s, the number of personnel had stabilized to five persons, but we must also add to it the Secretary of the Nunciature. In 1930, however, the servant-cum-driver was dismissed for lack of funds.274 According to the annually updated overviews of the Holy See, Annuario Pontificio, there would usually be the Nuncio and one Secretary present in the Nunciature. In 1921, the Apostolic Nuncio was joined by the Secretary of Italian Piacenza, the alumnus of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, A. Arata, the first Secretary of the Apostolic Nunciature in Prague who also remained in office after the arrival of the new Nuncio, Marmaggi, in 1923. After being ordained as a priest in 1906, he had served in the Secretariat of the Holy See, and in June 1921 was appointed Secretary of the Nunciature in Prague. Before his departure for Czechoslovakia, he visited Krofta, the Envoy to the Holy See, on June 29, 1921 to inform him about starting his mission in Prague. He arrived in Prague in mid-July, 1921.275

274 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 56, fascicolo 500. 275 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1921, Krofta July 3, 1921.

84

It was Arata who, after the departure of Nuncio Marmaggi from Prague in July 1925, headed the Nunciature as chargé d’affaires. The Holy See sent to Czechoslovakia Ciriaci, Under-Secretary of the Section for Relations with States, only in 1927 to restore the “broken” diplomatic bonds and launch the first round of talks on the modus vivendi. Ritter was also sent, the young diplomat of the Holy See and former co-worker of the Pope at the Biblioteca Ambrosiana, to be empowered, in the case of the failure of Ciriaci’s mission, to lead the Nunciature in Prague. Newcomer Ritter thus replaced Arata in March 1927. Without exaggeration, we can consider Arata, who conscientiously fulfilled the obligations of the absent Nuncio, Marmaggi, as the most capable Secretary of the Apostolic Nunciature in the 1920s. By the end of the 1920s, the Prague Nunciature had two Secretaries as, besides the aforementioned Ritter, there was also Giuseppe Brunelli as Personal Secretary of Ciriaci. G. Brunelli, who was the nephew of the Archbishop Cardinal of Naples, Alessio Ascalesi, was transferred to Munich by the end of 1929, where he became the Secretary of the local Apostolic Nunciature276. Ritter, Secretary of the Apostolic Nunciature, lived in Prague from 1927 to 1931. In 1929, during the culminating preparations for the St. Wenceslas Celebrations, Pope Pius XI appointed him as Counselor of the Apostolic Nunciature in Bern.277 However, his departure was delayed, so Ritter departed for Switzerland only in the spring of 1931, and the new “smart and obviously very talented Vatican diplomat,”278 Giovanni Panico, former Secretary of the Nunciature in Buenos Aiers, arrived in Prague in June.279 Before his departure for Czechoslovakia, Panico had met with Envoy V. Radimský and spoken with him about the political-religious conditions in the country, allegedly expressing joy over his transfer to Prague.280 Ritter later became the fourth Apostolic Nuncio to Prague.

276 ASV, Nunziatura Apostolica in Cecoslovacchia, busta 56, fascicolo 500, fol. 25, 30; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1928, Jelen April 21, 1928; APO, fund PO, n. 1829, The Apostolic Nunciature in the CSR, n. 7628/29, Strimpl December 18, 1929. 277 ASV, Nunziatura Apostolica in Cecoslovacchia, busta 56, fascicolo 500, fol. 130; APO, fund PO, n. 1829, The Apostolic Nunciature in the CSR, č. 6625/29, Strimpl December 16, 1929. 278 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 2, Machatý March 21, 1931. 279 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1931, Radimský July 5, 1931; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 2, May 15, 1931. 280 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1931, Radimský July 5, 1931.

85

The 1930 census of the population and houses also provided a very valuable resource for understanding the personnel of the Nunciature. According to the census form, five persons resided there: besides Nuncio Ciriaci, also the Sisters of Mercy of St. Borromero, Amálie Malachová, Anděla Komárková and Marie Bernkopfová. Valet Josef Schwamberger was another registered person, but he was not mentioned in the subsequent registers of persons of the Nunciature.281 An interesting fact is that the Apostolic Nuncio was not surrounded exclusively by representatives of one nation, but lived in a mixed environment; sisters Amálie and Anděla were Czech and sister Marie and valet Josef were German.282 G. Panico became a prominent figure of the Nunciature with international influence. He was born on April 12, 1895 in Tricase near Lecce, South Italy. After his studies at the seminary in Ugent, he studied at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome between 1910 and 1915, and at the Papal Roman Seminary between 1915 and 1919. He was ordained as priest in the Lateran Basilica in March 1919. In the same year, he earned a Ph.D. degree in Theology, and three years later in Canon Law.283 In 1923, he entered the service of the Holy See and became a Diplomatic Envoy of the Roman Curia. In the second half of the 1920s, Panico worked as Secretary of the Apostolic Nunciature in Buenos Aires (Argentina).284 In 1931, he was called to the Prague Nunciature (Czechoslovakia), remaining there until the mid-1930s—there was only a short interruption in 1932, when he served as chargé d’affaires in Munich (Germany). Panico spoke German, Spanish and French besides his native Italian.285 After the departure of Nuncio Ciriaci from Prague in the fall of 1933, 286 Panico, employed as Auditor of the Apostolic Nunciature in Prague from the spring of 1931, but at the time working as the Secretary of the Munich Nunciature, was recalled to Czechoslovakia in October 1934.287 He substituted for Nuncio Ciriaci as chargé d’affaires until being replaced by Lugi Punzolo, a young, not even 30-year-old native of Pozzuolo in South Italy, a recent graduate from the Pontifical Ecclesiasti-

281 282 283 284 285 286 287

ASV, Nunziatura Apostolica in Cecoslovacchia, busta 57, fascicolo 506, fol. 87. Šmíd, “Apoštolská nunciatura v Praze,” 88. Coppola, Fortiter in re, 28–29. AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 2, May 15, 1931; Coppola, Fortiter in re, 29–30. Šmíd, “Giovanni Panico e il suo periodo cecoslovacco,” 171. Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Commentarium officiale 21, vol. 1 (1934): 563; Slovák, January 11, 1934. AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 149, fol. 71, Pacelli to Vassallo-Torregrossa October 13, 1933

86

cal Academy in Rome and a  member of the Jesuit order. He arrived in Prague in July of the same year.288 However, he was already transferred to the Apostolic Nunciature in Brussels in April 1935.289 It was Panico and Punzolo who served as chargés d’affaires in Czechoslovakia after Nuncio Ciriaci left in the fall of 1933. The fourth Apostolic Nuncio arrived in Prague in October 1935. However, the experienced diplomat Panico only remained in Czechoslovakia for a brief time as well. He departed for the West, where as a representative of the Holy See, he oversaw the plebiscite in the Saarland, after which this area on the German, Luxembourg and French borders, was annexed to the Nazi Third Reich. After completing this mission, he briefly returned to Czechoslovakia in February 1935, but a new diplomatic mission was assigned to him the same year.290 On October 17, 1935, Panico was appointed Apostolic delegate to Australia and New Zealand and named Titular Archbishop of Iustiniana Prima.291 He left Prague, which had really enchanted him, by the end of November 1935. Subsequently, he was awarded the high state decoration, the Order of the White Lion.292 Given the aforementioned, we consider Panico as the most capable Secretary of the Apostolic Nunciature in Prague in the 1930s. At the end of 1935, Giuseppe Burzio, formerly serving as Secretary of the Nunciature in Lima and Peru, was assigned as Secretary to the Apostolic Nunciature in Prague. Burzio had been ordained as a priest on June 29, 1924 in Turin. Thus, by the end of 1935 he replaced the existing Secretary, Panico, who was transferred to his new post.293 In the fall of 1938, Burzio was transferred to a new diplomatic post in Kau-

288 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1934, Radimský October 11, 1934; ASV, Nunziatura Apostolica in Cecoslovacchia, busta 56, fascicolo 500, fol. 159. 289 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 149, fols. 71–72; ASV, Nunziatura Apostolica in Cecoslovacchia, busta 56, fascicolo 500, fol. 159; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 2, Radimský July 18, 1934; AMFA, II. Section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 27, Radimský July 18, 1934. 290 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1935, Radimský April 9, 1935; L’Osservatore Romano, January 27, 1933. 291 Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Commentarium officiale 27, vol. 2 (1935): 463, 488; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1936, Radimský January 10, 1936; L’Osservatore Romano, November 11, 1935; Coppola, Fortiter in re, 30. 292 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1936, Radimský January 10, 1936; L’Osservatore Romano, December 1, 1935; NA Praha, fund Jan Jiří Rückl, box file 38, Na počest odcházejícího J. E. nejdp. Mons. Jana Panico…; Šmíd, “Giovanni Panico e il suo periodo cecoslovacco,” 180. 293 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1936, Radimský January 10, 1936; AMFA, II. section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 27, Radimský November 7, 1935, or November 13, 1935.

87

nas, and the Swiss, Raffaele Forni, was assigned as new Secretary to the Nunciature.294 His conditions in Prague noticeably worsened after March 1939, when he was forced to leave Prague and move to Berlin, but he remained in written contact with Czech bishops, primarily with Prague Archbishop, K. Kašpar. He returned to the capital of Czechoslovakia in 1945 to help restore diplomatic relations between Czechoslovakia and the Vatican. In the summer of 1946, shortly after his car accident, he was replaced by the official of the Secretariat of State, G. Verolino.295 Forni definitively left Prague at the turn of 1947 and 1948, when he was transferred to the Apostolic Nunciature in Paris.296 By the end of the 1940s, G. Sensi and O. de Liva were two other Secretaries who resided in Czechoslovakia and who had tough clashes with the communist authorities. We consider G. Verolino as the most capable Secretary of the Apostolic Internunciature in Prague in the 1940s. As we are reasonably well able to reconstruct the activities of Italian diplomats and Secretaries in the capital of Czechoslovakia, we can also do this in the case of Czechoslovakian co-workers of the Internunciature. Information about the Czech personnel of the Apostolic Nunciature in Prague is available in the stock of the Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Prague. Those cooperating with the Nunciature were Otakar Švec, Metropolitan Canon of St. Vitus in Prague, Salesian and interpreter, Alois Zmrzlík, and his deputy, Salesian Václav Mrtvý. When, in the summer of 1949, the Holy See tried to intervene through Czechoslovakian Envoy I. Ráth for the release of the arrested former co-worker of the Internunciature, A. Zmrzlík, it did not meet with success.297 In the stage-managed political process, Zela and accomplices, the aforementioned priests—Švec, Zmrzlík and Mrtvý—together with Jan Boukal, Secretary of the Prague Archbishop, were condemned to long prison sentences (Zela 25 years, Mrtvý 26 years, Švec 20 years, and Boukal 18 years).298 It is worth noting that, at the request of some bishops, the Secretaries of the Apostolic Nunciature used to function as intermediaries, bringing

294 295 296 297

AMFA, PR Vatican, 1938, Radimský October 12, 1938. AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Maixner August 6, 1946. AMFA, GS A, box file 154, Jelen February 3, 1948. AMFA, RO Vatican, 1948–1950, Ráth July 9, 1949, or July 11, 1949, or September 24, 1949. Shortly afterwards, O. Švec was arrested, too. 298 Kukánová, “Od tolerance k nepřátelství,” 79.

88

from their journeys to Rome some things that were not available in Czechoslovakia, such as valuable fabrics, religious books, priestly garments, devotional objects and pictures, and statues of the Holy Father, etc. The Apostolic Nunciature also dealt with requests for g ­ ranting Roman awards and prebends.299

299 PAO, the Olomouc Branch, fund AO, box file 660, n. 2524, or 679, or 2533.

89

3.3 The Nuncios’ Interest in Political Affairs in Czechoslovakia

From his very arrival in Czechoslovakia, the Apostolic Nuncio observed the political-religious situation in the country, regularly sending his reflections on it to the Holy See. He also paid attention to the composition of governments, particularly with regard to the number of Catholic ministers, parliamentary proceedings and articles in the daily newspapers. The Nuncio also watched closely all the key newspapers published in Czechoslovakia, for example, Národní listy, Rudé právo, Venkov, Čech, Slovenský deník, Národní politika, Tribuna, Lidové listy, Právo lidu, Čas, České slovo, etc., as well as reports by the foreign press in the CSR, for example, Prager Presse, which published articles on the political-religious situation in Czechoslovakia. The Nuncio was provided with extracts from Czech newspapers by priest, Otokar Švec, who had worked for the Nunciature from 1920 as a translator and referent.300

Concerns about Strengthening Socialism in Czechoslovakia Micara, Apostolic Nuncio to Prague, had already been informing Vatican circles about the upcoming first Czechoslovakian parliamentary

300 In the interwar period, Švec supported Ukrainian and Ruthenian emigrants, which he was assigned to by Nuncio Marmaggi. In February 1929, he became Metropolitan Canon of St. Vitus in Prague. From the same year, he worked at the Catholic Theological Faculty of Charles University in Prague and as a lawyer at the ecclesiastical court. AMFA, PR Vatican, 1921, Krofta July 3, 1921; Opasek, Dvanáct zastavení, 86; Vaško, Neumlčená, 2:223; Vlček, “Dva osudy,” 44–52.

90

elections since the beginning of 1920. In particular, he closely observed the situation in Slovakia and the tensions among national minorities, which slowly faded in the 1920s.301 When the elections took place in April 1920302, Micara carefully reported on them, although they passed peacefully. He informed the Secretary of State, Gasparri, about the election results: the Czechoslovak Social Democratic Workers’ Party gained the greatest number of votes (1,590,520 votes and 74 mandates), the Czecho­ slovak People’s  Party and the Slovak People’s  Party finished second (699,728 votes and 33 mandates), and the German Social Democratic Worker’s Party took third place (689,589 and 31 mandates). Micara joyfully acknowledged the electoral gains of both Christian parties — the Czechoslovak People’s Party and the Slovak People’s Party — which confirmed the success of political Catholicism in the country and the importance of religion to the young Republic.303 The senatorial elections ended with similar results. It was with a certain amount of satisfaction that Micara learnt about Šrobár’s defeat in Slovakia304 and the defeat of National Socialists and National Democrats, which “however . . . is not bad, given his [Kramář’s] conservatism, in the name of which the greatest enemies of the Church and the most fervent supporters of separation from Rome fight, all steeped in the idea of Pan-Slavism.“305 Micara considered the electoral success of socialism as the result of the recent experience of many legionaries with Russian Bolshevism.306 Micara also witnessed that the parliamentary elections in 1920 clearly demonstrated the viability of the Czechoslovakian side to choose the people’s choice, when the Czechoslovak People’s Party, together with

301 AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 543, fols. 41–44, Micara to Gasparri January 1, 1920; AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 600, fols. 59–61, Micara to Gasparri March 9, 1920. 302 Elections to the Parliament of the National Assembly of the Czechoslovak Republic were held on April 18, 1920. A week later, on Sunday, April 25, the elections to the Senate of the National Assembly of the Czechoslovak Republic took place. Elections to the Parliament of the National Assembly of the Czechoslovak Republic were not held in Těšín Sileasia and Subcarpathian Ruthenia in 1920. 303 Olivová, Dějiny první republiky, 101. 304 Regarding the election results in Slovakia, the Czechoslovak Social Democratic Worker’s Party gained the greatest number of votes (510 341 votes), the Slovak National and Agrarian Party came second (242 045 votes), and the Hlinka’s Slovak People’s Party together with the Czechoslovak People’s Party (235 389 votes) were third. 305 AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 600, fol. 78, Micara to Gasparri April 24, 1920. 306 Ibid., 74–79, Micara to Gasparri April 24, 1920.

91

the Slovak People’s Party, gained 11.3 percent of votes and became the second strongest party in Czechoslovakia. The development of Czech political Catholicism was also completed in the first half of the 1920s and the widest classes of the Czechs no longer connected the Czechoslovak People’s Party with the higher Church hierarchy.307 J. Šrámek managed to quickly adjust Czech and Moravian Catholicism to the republican, national and democratic regime, and gain its support among voters. Šrámek’s Christian social program was attractive to rural classes and gained the party the votes of a part of potential voters of the agrarian party. Despite this, immediately after the creation of Czechoslovakia, the Holy See rather preferred Hlinka’s than Šrámek’s merit in the fight for Catholicism and religious position in the country.308 Micara informed the Secretariat of State that six priests were elected as Deputies to Parliament, among others A. Hlinka, J. Šrámek, and K. Kmeťko, but also renegade priest, František Hnídek, who was elected on behalf of the National Democratic Party. Micara conveyed to the Vatican the widely shared notion that the victorious Social Democrats, headed by V. Tusar, would form a new government, also mentioning the serious split within the party. He attached to his report translations of important articles from the Czechoslovakian press and the reactions of individual political figures to the parliamentary elections.309 Regarding the senatorial elections, Micara informed the Secretariat of State of its results on May 4, 1920.310 Given the dramatic events of 1918–20, the tension in the Catholic block, anti-Church unrest, the efforts to separate Church and State, and the departure of many people from the Catholic Church, it was probably great encouragement for Vatican circles that Šrámek’s Czechoslovak People’s Party together with Hlinka’s Slovak’s People Party had gained the considerable confidence of voters in the April parliamentary elections, accounting for 11.3 percent of votes, earning it 33 mandates in the National Assembly;311 the party then maintained its place in the 307 Trapl, Politický katolicismus, 93. 308 Hromják, “Postoj Československé strany lidové,” 108; Hrabovec, “Na pokraji prerušenia stykov,” 279 309 AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 600, fols. 74–79, Micara to Gasparri April 24, 1920. 310 In the senatorial elections, the Czechoslovak People’s Party and the Slovak People’s Party gained altogether 622 406 votes, which accounted for 18 mandates. ASV, Segreteria di Stato, rubrica 239, fascicolo 2, fols. 136–138, Micara to Gasparri May 4, 1920; Doležal, Politická cesta českého katolicismu, 32. 311 Olivová, Dějiny první republiky, 101.

92

Czechoslovakian political system by its consistent attitudes and skillful policy. Hlinka, Chairman of the Slovak People’s Party, then stated: “I will work night and day until the red Slovakia is a white Slovakia, a Slovak and Christian Slovakia.“312 By the end of May 1920, Micara provided information on the new Tusarov government, its composition, and the qualities of its Ministers. In that context, he gave a more detailed account of Interior Minister Švehla, who “owns a large property in the country and is the head of agrarians. He has never studied, but he has common sense.“313 ­Micara also reported to the Holy See that T. G. Masaryk, being elected by three-fourths of all Deputies and Senators in Parliament, was again President.314 In mid-September 1921, Micara informed the Holy See that the second Tusarov red-green coalition resigned on September 15, 1920 after a few months of functioning due to the division within the socialist block.315 On the same day, it was replaced by the caretaker government of Jan Černý, which was in office from September 1920 to September 1921, when it was replaced by Beneš’s government. When Parliament debated the Education Act in April 1922, the Apostolic Nuncio to Prague closely observed its background. Although J. Šrámek fought hard with the anti-Catholic majority in the government, as Micara informed Secretary of State Gasparri, he lost his battle on July 13, 1922 when the Law was accepted. The Law introduced a new subject, Civics, but Religion remained a compulsory subject, and parents had to send a written request to exempt children from it. The Education Act of July 1922 thus presented a certain compromise between different ideas of the Czechoslovakian government and the Catholic Church in Czechoslovakia. 316 What the Nuncio watched very closely was the personage of President Masaryk, about whom he regularly reported to the Vatican. On the practical diplomatic level, it was mainly Masaryk’s stays in Italy that— in face-to-face meetings of the representatives of both sides—could

312 Bartlová, Andrej Hlinka, 187. 313 ASV, Segreteria di Stato, rubrica 239, fascicolo 2, fols. 164–168, Micara to Gasparri May 30, 1920. 314 Ibid. 315 AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 601, fols. 8–11, Micara to Gasparri September 18, 1920. 316 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 16, fols. 20–22, Micara to Gasparri April 4, 1922, or 32–34, Micara to Gasparri July 26, 1922; Trapl, “Český politický katolicismus v letech 1918–1938,” 231.

93

represent the promise of an improvement of the cold relations. It used to be the custom that every important political figure arriving in Rome visited the King and the Pope as well. Masaryk stayed in Italy three times in the 1920s: in 1921 (Capri, May 21–August 11), 1922 (Capri, June ­12–August 20), and 1924 (Sicily, April 22–May 27).317 Masaryk spent his first presidential, almost three-month recuperative visit to Italy on the island of Capri. On July 15, the President also visited the capital Rome, where, three days later, he privately met with King Victor Emanuel III318, but did not visit Pope Benedict XV.319 The second visit to Italy took place one year later; Masaryk again headed for the island of Capri, which he had become fond of during his recent stay, but this time he sailed on a ship from Genoa in order to avoid Rome.320 Micara provided information about this journey to the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Gasparri, on June 13, 1922. On October 8, 1922, the Nuncio informed the Holy See about the fall of Beneš’s government and the composition of the new Švehla government, the so-called all-nation coalition. He pointed out that, from the religious perspective, the new government would not be a change for the better as there were only two Catholics in it.321 The Nuncio continued watching the steps of V. Tusar, Social Democrat and former Prime ­Minister of two Czechoslovakian governments, after his resignation. Therefore, at the end of 1920, he informed the Holy See that this politician had become the new Czechoslovakian Envoy to Berlin.322 As Micara watched the steps of the President, so he noticed Foreign Minister Beneš, who had officially remained Catholic, and his lukewarm and passive relationship with the Church. Nevertheless, he respected the Catholic majority in the country.323 On the other hand, his relationship with the Freemasons was not active, but rather lukewarm and even prag-

317 Klimek, Boj o Hrad, 1:181; Kovtun, Republika v nebezpečném světě, 319; Herben, T. G. Masaryk, 340, 341, 347. 318 Masaryk, Cesta demokracie, 67. 319 In more detail: ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 8, fascicolo 31, fols. 17–19, or busta 42, fascicolo 274; Kovtun, Republika v nebezpečném světě, 181–182; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1921, Krofta July 31, 1921. 320 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 4, fols. 80–81. For Masaryk’s stay on Capri in more detail: Kovtun, Republika v nebezpečném světě, 211. 321 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 5, fols. 13–17, Micara to Gasparri October 8, 1922. 322 AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 601, fol. 21, Micara to Gasparri December 10, 1920. 323 Klimek, Boj o Hrad, 2:195.

94

matic and rational.324 The relatively forthcoming attitude of the Holy See towards Beneš, who had earned the trust of the Vatican for stabilizing Central Europe after WWI, proved that the Vatican representatives appreciated his work within the Peace Conference of Versailles and were in agreement with the principles of the peace policy which this Czechoslovakian Chief of Diplomacy had adhered to after the creation of Czechoslovakia. Nevertheless, the relationship of the Holy See with Beneš was not trouble-free. In fact, the animosity between Nuncio ­Micara and Foreign Minister Beneš was a public secret.325 Micara sent a more detailed report about T.G. Masaryk to Rome after the Czechoslovak Episcopal Conference of November 1922. He informed the Secretary of State that the President had avoided meeting with the delegation of Czechoslovakian bishops and had made the excuses of being indisposed and unwell, which, according to Micara, proved his moral and religious insincerity. He closed his letter to Gasparri with the following words: “He [T. G. Masaryk] no more talks publicly against the Church, but, as the Head of State, does so secretly and systematically, fighting against the Church in this country for four years.“326 It is, therefore surprising that in the same year, when Pius XI became Pope after the death of Benedict XV, President Masaryk spared no words of praise for the new Pope.327 Although, in November 1921, deputies of the Slovak People’s Party left the communal club of Czech and Slovakian political Catholics, establishing their own club, J. Šrámek continued the pro-government democratic course he had started after 1918. In time, he convinced numerous Vatican representatives about the rightness of his moderate course of action, especially during his visit to Rome in the spring of 1923.328 During his meeting with Pope Pius XI and Secretary of State Gasparri, Šrámek explained that the presence of Catholic Ministers in the Czechoslovakian government was beneficial for Catholicism as it

324 More about Beneš’s  relation towards Freemasonry: Čechurová, Čeští svobodní zednáři ve XX. století, 320f. 325 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 13, fols. 54–55, Kašpar to BorgonginiDuca January 13, 1923. 326 Ibid., fascicolo 5, fol. 22, Micara to Gasparri November 4, 1922. 327 ATGM, fund TGM—section R, box file 530 (Vatican /1919–1929/), Masaryk’s undated notes. 328 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1923; Peroutka, Budování státu, 3:878; Šmíd, “Jednání Jana Šrámka ve Vatikánu ve dvacátých letech,” 65–88.

95

excluded forcible solutions to religious questions.329 Czech political Catholicism remained a  calm, moderate power in Czechoslovakia in subsequent years. Šrámek’s Central Party did not assert any political demands that would cause misunderstanding and opposition to the Church. Instead, it supported land reform, the 48-hour week, and social insurance. It supported a one-chamber parliament, preferred proportional representation, and proposed greater autonomy for historical territories in Czechoslovakia. In the 1930s, it opposed the totalitarian and authoritarian tendencies of some conservative Catholics.330 Although, from the summer of 1924, the Slovak Christian Democrats pursued the establishment of a Catholic block of parties of all nationalities, which was to become the strongest political body in the country, Šrámek conditioned its support on the forthcoming attitude towards Czechoslovakia. The following year, the situation changed and it was mainly Šrámek who strived for unity, but, given Šrámek’s Czechoslovakism and Hlinka’s autonomism, it was never realized. However, there were also personal disputes that made it difficult to come to an agreement for both temperamentally different yet authoritarian leaders of both parties—prudent and cautious Šrámek and hot-tempered and ambitious Hlinka.331 After all, the Christian Democrats could hardly bear the appeasement of Czech Catholics during the events that were soon to come332 , and blamed Czech Catholics for a  lack of energy, friendship with the socialist block, indifference towards the seizing of Catholic churches, and passivity towards the decline of religious life and dissemination of the “Hussite sect”. While the Catholic Church hierarchy remained conservative, accepting new events in Czechoslovakia critically and with reserve, the People’s Party with its national, state-building attitude and skillful political maneuvering, became one of the pillars of the Czechoslovakian political system and an important part of governing coalitions. Testament to this fact is that, in September 1921, Šrámek, as the only member of the “Pětka”, took ministerial office in Beneš’s half-caretaker government, being entrusted with the Railroads department.333 Although Šrámek 329 Krofta, Diplomatický deník, 223, 246. 330 The political program and demands of the Czechoslovak People’s Party in more detail: Marek, Politické programy českého politického katolicismu. 331 Trapl, Politický katolicismus, 19. 332 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 138, fol. 53; Klimek, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, 13:431. 333 Klimek, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, 13:319.

96

was then criticized for being too busy (as a  member of the “Pětka”, party leader, Minister, and also a man struggling with a disease) and for his professional incompetence (as a theologian taking care of the railroads)334, when Beneš’s government resigned335 and A. Švehla was charged with leading the cabinet in October 1922, Šrámek headed the Ministry of Public Health and Physical Education (Josef Dolanský, another Christian Democrat, became Minister of Justice). In May 1920, both Czech and Slovak Christian parties voted for President Masaryk, yet the Slovak party delayed their “yes” vote until the last moment.336 What certainly contributed to the positive assessment of the personality and activities of Beneš was the journey to Rome by Šrámek (Prime Minister of the Czechoslovak People’s Party and Minister of Health). He went there in March 1923 to discuss urgent political-religious issues; after all, the entry of the People’s  Party into Beneš’s  government in 1921 had ended the period of cultural fighting in the CSR and brought the Czechoslovak People’s Party into the active political life of the young Czechoslovakia. Thus, it was most probably Šrámek337 who in the 1920s acknowledged the merits of Foreign Minister Beneš and of Krofta, the Envoy to the Vatican.338 However, we can by no means state that from that time the Holy See accepted Beneš without any objections, agreeing with his actions. As regards T. G. Masaryk, Nuncio Micara commented on the President very critically in his final concluding report in the summer of 1923. He stated: T. G. Masaryk was elected [President] for life. He is 73 years old and has always been a  dogged enemy of the Catholic Church, fighting against it all his life. He obtained his education thanks to the financial support of a poor Catholic priest, and became a private tutor in a noble family, where he had the opportunity of meeting and marrying an American Protestant governess. T.G. Masaryk left the Catholic Church and became a Protestant. During his long pedagogical career, he educated more than a generation of youths, inculcating his ideas in their minds. The sect saw him as a man with the halo of a philosopher although, according to com-

334 335 336 337 338

Ibid., 328. Klimek, Boj o Hrad, 1:231. Slovák, May 30, 1920. Trapl, Politický katolicismus, 22. Dejmek, “Československo-vatikánská jednání o modus vivendi,” 283.

97

petent information, he is only an average compiler of German authors. What is remarkable is the fact I have wanted to point out several times, that Austria provided Masaryk with a higher salary than his colleagues. The Austrian government hoped that, with his socialistic ideas and positivist philosophy, he would dampen their nationalist desires. That also explains why Prague Archbishops were unsuccessful in attempting to draw him away from young students before he could poison their young souls. . . . The President has in reality never abandoned his hatred of the Catholic Church and has never ceased to show kindness towards everything anti-Roman... Masaryk has never acted kindly towards the Holy See, although the Holy Father kept reassuring him of his interest. He proved this when he planned to travel to Rome absolutely incognito to avoid visiting the Vatican.339

Marmaggi, the new Apostolic Nuncio, provided information about President Masaryk in a far more conciliatory spirit than his predecessor, Micara. When he spoke with him in March 1924, he had the impression that the President’s attitude towards the Catholic Church was still the same, although “he is not so warlike as he used to be recently, and he is not anymore a rebel in opposition to Rome. In my opinion, he acts correctly and in a friendly way.“340 However, the President did not abandon his anti-Catholic attitude—his critical reproaches against the Catholic block, which Masaryk openly presented during the meeting with Catholic journalists in Topoľčianky in October 1926, were aimed mainly at the superficial Catholic press, inactive bishops (F. Kordač), and the personages of the Catholic block (J. Šrámek, A. Hlinka, F. Juriga, A. Arata).341 The Vatican was informed about Masaryk’s third journey to Italy in 1924, when the President headed for Sicily, by Nuncio Marmaggi and the Roman La Tribuna, to which Masaryk had granted an interview on the way to his vacation.342 The Nuncio said that Masaryk would not stop in Rome, like the previous time, to avoid meeting with the Pope. However, the President, or rather the President’s Office, had con­sidered visiting the Holy Father and was aware of the consequences of not 339 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 5, fascicolo 19, fols. 59–60, concluding report. 340 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 52, fol. 23, Marmaggi to Gasparri June 16, 1924. 341 Ibid., fascicolo 72, fols. 23–25. 342 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1924, Pallier June 18, 1924; Masaryk, Cesta demokracie, 2:389–391; Národní listy, May 3, 1924.

98

doing so.343 Such snubbing of the Holy Father was, however, common among politicians of other states, too; Yugoslavian Foreign Minister Momčil Ninčić’s journey in 1926 can serve as an example.344 The fact that ­Masaryk was named by the Holy See as an honorary member of the Pontifical Academy Tiberina was an honor for him.345 During the 1920s, E. Beneš had apparently gained the sympathies of the Vatican with his diplomatic and moderate attitude towards the Catholic Church,346 the personages of local and Catholic politicians, and the Holy See. Although he sometimes lapsed into the cheap Catholic antagonism of Czechoslovakian politicians—for example in 1925 during the Hus celebrations—his interest was foreign politics and his aim was not to provoke foreign countries, including the Holy See, and to maintain friendly relations between Czechoslovakia and European and nonEuropean countries.347 Unlike President Masaryk, who wanted to break with Rome, 348 Beneš regarded the Holy See as an important agent of international politics, towards which the country had to act positively.349 After Marmaggi’s departure from Prague in the summer of 1925, Beneš said: “I regret His Excellency Monsignor Marmaggi has left. Personally, I greatly appreciated his devotion to Church duties. Our cooperation was always loyal and friendly, always accompanied by a sincere wish to develop and, if possible, improve our relations. I regret that the incident caused a diplomatic action which I cannot approve of and which, in the current situation in our country, will make it impossible for him to return.“350 Before the second parliamentary elections, the Holy See issued a regulation that introduced numerous clauses for clergymen who wanted to stand for election. It established that the number of deputies-clergymen must not rise above the current level, which it called numerous clausus. Furthermore, the Holy See stated that the current deputies and senators were

343 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1924, Pallier June 18, 1924. 344 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1926, Jelen April 12, 1926. 345 Ibid., Jelen July 14, 1927; AMFA, RP Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 16, Jelen May 18, 1927, or February 8, 1928; APO, fund PO, n. 5119, Accademia Tiberina, n. D3228/27, illegible signature June 10, 1927. 346 Zlámal, Příručka českých církevních dějin, 7:136. 347 Ibid., 37. 348 In more detail: AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 71, fols. 1–97. 349 ANM, fund Eduard Jelen, box 2B, the concept of Jelen’s  unpublished typescript “Československo a Vatikán za první republiky,” 66. 350 AMFA, II. section MFA political—1. Ordinary Redcord Office (1918–1939), box file 27, Beneš August 5, 1925.

99

not to be re-elected in the upcoming elections. To stand as a candidate in parliamentary elections, a priest needed to obtain the permission of his local Ordinary, who usually was not keen on political engagements.351 Parliamentary elections for the Chamber of Deputies and the ­Senate of the National Assembly took place in a peaceful atmosphere on November 15, 1925.352 The Czechoslovak Republican Party of Smallholders and Farmers achieved the best results in Czechoslovakia with a gain of 13.66 percent of votes (970,940 votes, 45 mandates), followed closely behind by the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia with 13.14 percent of votes (943,243 votes, 41 mandates). The Czechoslovak People’s  Party took third place with 9.72 percent of vote (691,095 votes, 31 mandates).353 Already on November 18, 1925, A. Arata telegraphed the results of the elections to Gasparri.354 A day later, Arata sent to the Vatican Church representatives a 12-page analysis of the election results, in which he provided detailed information on the individual mandates gained by Czech, Slovakian and German political parties, and spoke of the future political course of the country. When summarizing that “the Catholics in the country—regardless of nationality—can be proud of the election results, he once again touched on the topic that had been irritating the Vatican, yet this time there was a feeling of satisfaction: While the soci­ alist parties have lost their Hus struggle against Rome and Catholicism, Catholics have taught their opponents an unexpected lesson.“355 In his report, Arata analyzed newspaper commentaries and reflected on a possible future coalition with the opposition. He was pleased that the People’s Party had won the second highest number of votes in the possible future coalition, and thus it would have a  significant influence on establishing a government coalition. He also appreciated the success of Hlinka’s People Party (6.9 percent of votes).356 He calcu-

351 Jonová, “Problematika poslušnosti,” 73; Kouřil, “Katoličtí kněží v politice Československa,” 323. 352 The assessment of the 1925 parliamentary elections from the perspective of the Holy See in more detail: Šmíd, “Obtížné zakotvení lidovců,” 559–581. 353 Kárník, České země v éře První republiky, 1:377. 354 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 50, fascicolo 401, fol. 103, Arata to Gasparri November 18, 1925. 355 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 64, fols. 11–16, Arata to Gasparri November 19, 1925; ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 50, fascicolo 401, fols. 104–115. 356 In the Slovakian context, it was 34.3 percent of votes, which made Hlinka’s Slovak People Party the most successful party in these elections. The Czechoslovak People’s Party had never obtained such election results in the Czech Lands in proportion to the population.

100

lated that, if the Czech and Slovak People’s Parties had united, they would have created the strongest Czechoslovakian political party and would have obtained five ministries in the future government. Finally, he regarded these elections as the defeat of anti-clerical powers in the country and the success of international Catholicism.357

Stabilization of Political Situation in the Country As Arata had expected, A. Švehla, leader of the strongest Republican Party of Smallholders and Farmers, was charged to form a new government. However, he failed and, on November 30, 1925, returned the mandate to form a  government to the President. 358 Immediately after that, on December 1, the President assigned this difficult task to J. Šrámek, who also failed. However, his attempt to form a coalition demonstrated—much to the chagrin of the Communist Party in particular—the political power of the Czechoslovak People’s Party.359 Social democrat Rudolf Bechyně also attempted to form a cabinet, but even he failed. Thus on December 9, 1925, President Masaryk again invited Švehla to put together a government, which entered into history as “Švehla’s Second Government.” The appointed Prime Minister reestablished the “Pětka”, extended it with the representatives of traders, and changed it to the “Šestka.” The Agrarian, People’s, National Democratic, and Social Democratic Parties obtained three ministries, and the National Democratic and Traders’ Parties each received one ministry.360 The government coalition obtained the confidence of the Chamber of Deputies two days before Christmas in 1925.361 Arata informed Gasparri about the composition of the new govern­ ment on December 10. He reported that Švehla had become Prime Minister, Beneš Foreign Minister, Karel Engliš Finance Minister, and three seats had gone to the members of the People’s Party: František Nosek received the Interior Ministry, Jan Šrámek the Ministry of Posts and Telegraphs, and Josef Dolanský the Ministry of Public Supply.

357 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 64, fols. 11–16, Arata to Gasparri November 19, 1925; ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 50, fascicolo 401, fols. 104–115. 358 Kárník, České země v éře První republiky, 1:381. 359 Kovtun, Republika v nebezpečném světě, 431. 360 Miller, Antonín Švehla, 172; Klimek, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, 13:505. 361 Miller, Antonín Švehla, 174.

101

Arata described the difficulties accompanying the formation of the new cabinet, its general and undefined nature that did not differ from the previous government, and its political program. He expressed his skepticism regarding the desired rapprochement between Czech and Slovakian Christian parties, as neither J. Šrámek nor A. Hlinka, being their leading and intransigent personages, were willing to discuss future cooperation.362 Arata’s assessment of the election results was more realistic than the voices of the local press of the People’s Party: “The victory of the People’s Party in the last parliamentary elections, although “quite” important, did not allow them to give a new character to the government. We should have no illusions about their victory.“363 Švehla’s Second Government did not last long; after all, Prime Minister Švehla himself and President Masaryk understood it as a short-term project.364 The coalition, against which Masaryk had many complaints, fell apart in March 1926, due to the many significant discrepancies between the civic and socialist parties, in particular due to the approved implementing regulations for the 1920 Language Law. On March 18, 1926, the President appointed the caretaker government of Jan Černý.365 On October 12, 1926, President Masaryk appointed the new Švehla Government, for the first time also represented by the members of German political parties. In the coalition, which was composed of civic parties only, the Agrarians gained four seats, the People’s Party two, the Traders’ Party one, and two German parties, with whose entry into the Czechoslovak government the first phase of German political activism culminated, also gained one seat each.366 In this civic coalition, Šrámek was charged with leading two ministries: the Ministry of Public Health and Physical Education (he passed this office to Jozef Tiso in January 1927) and the Ministry of Social Care. From the fall of 1926, the members of the government also held talks with Hlinka’s Slovak People’s Party, because “the Vatican notified A. Hlinka through the agency of the Prague Nunciature that it had an interest in ensuring

362 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 70, fols. 13, 16, Arata to Gasparri December 10, 1925. 363 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 51, fascicolo 428, fol. 11, Arata to Gasparri December 10, 1925. 364 Klimek, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, 13:506. 365 Miller, Antonín Švehla, 179; ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 52, fascicolo 451, fols. 44–51, Arata to Gasparri March 25, 1926; Feriancová, (Ne)nájdená bezpečnost, 208. 366 Šebek, Mezi křížem a národem, 116.

102

that his party would get involved in the government.“367 The members of the Slovak People’s Party decided to take this step on November 8, 1926, and entered the government with a delay in January the next year (Ministers Jozef Tiso and Marek Gažík), with the help of J. Šrámek, the Czechoslovak People’s Party and the Holy See.368 The Christian parties in what was called Švehla’s Coalition of Lords then had a stabilizing role in times when the Czechoslovakian parliamentary system was threatened by the growing fascist movement in the Czech Lands (the Gajda affair) and by radical ideas of the followers of the authoritative form of government.369 The Holy See was exceedingly pleased to hear that Masaryk had been re-elected Czechoslovakian President on May 27, 1927. S. Ritter, Secretary of the Apostolic Nunciature, informed Vatican circles that the election had gone well, if one did not count the protests of communist deputies, and that Masaryk was elected in the first round with 274 votes of the total 434 votes of deputies and senators.370 Just as Masaryk’s election as President was traditionally supported by Šrámek’s Czechoslovak People’s Party, it was disapproved of by Hlinka’s Slovak People’s Party.371 After being elected President, Masaryk informed Pope Pius XI of this, expressing his interest in maintaining peace and good relations between Czechoslovakia and the Holy See.372 We can say that Masaryk’s contacts with the representatives of the Holy See had been reduced to the minimum necessary courtesy. In April 1922, Masaryk sent new Pope Pius XI a courtesy letter which was delivered to him during a private audience at the Holy See by chargé d’affaires, M. Niederle.373 Although, after his election in May 1927, Masaryk sent Pope Pius XI a letter in French, probably drafted by F ­ oreign Minister Beneš, expressing his interest in preserving world peace and good rela-

367 Bartlová, Túžby, projekty a realita, 117. 368 Bartlová, “Návrhy slovenských politických strán,” 127–130; Ďurica, Jozef Tiso a Vatikán, 10; Vašš, “Vývoj Tisovej percepcie slovenskej otázky,” 61–62. 369 Trapl, “Přehled života a díla Monsignore ThDr. h. c. Jana Šrámka,” 29–38; Miller, Antonín Švehla, 180f. 370 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 91, fols. 56–57, Ritter to Gasparri May 28, 1927. 371 Ibid., fascicolo 89, fol. 61, Ciriaci to Gasparri May 11, 1927; Doležal, Politická cesta českého katolicismu, 39. 372 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 91, fol. 66, Masaryk to Pius XI. June 30, 1927. 373 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 9, fascicolo 38, fol. 14, Micara to Gasparri March 28, 1922; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1922, Niederle May 6, 1922.

103

tions between Czechoslovakia and the Vatican,374 it was more a formal duty than a sincere effort to improve the diplomatic relations between Czechoslovakia and the Holy See. Although, a half year earlier, when Masaryk had met chargé d’affaires A. Arata on the occasion of the eighth anniversary of the Republic, he had shown surprising helpfulness by expressing his will to be reconciled with the Holy See.375 The representative of the Holy See also observed with great interest the local elections and civic activities of the residents of Czechoslovakia. On October 25, 1923, Apostolic Nuncio Marmaggi sent the Secretary of State, P. Gasparri, the results of the local elections of September 1923, with his brief comment on the election winners. He expressed his joy over the victory of Christian parties, the Czechoslovak People’s Party and the Slovak People’s Party, although labeling the success of the latter as “the victory of an opposition party and the idea of autonomy.“376 Secretary of State Gasparri was informed about the results of the next local elections of October 1927 by S. Ritter, Secretary of the Nunciature, by the end of the same month. According to him, the elections had brought about a narrow victory for bourgeois parties, where the Czechoslovak People’s Party had gained the expected results compared to the 1925 parliamentary elections, while Hlinka’s Slovak’s People Party had lost votes.377 Friendly relations between Nuncio Ciriaci and President Masaryk are reflected not just by the warm reception of Ciriaci during his inaugural audience at Prague Castle in May 1928. The President privately even had good memories of him later. The notes of Masaryk’s personal Secretary, Anna Gašparíková-Horáková, of October 1929, show that the President spoke very well about him: P. Ciriaci is “an intelligent man and seems to be of decent character. He observes our public life and speaks about Hlinka and Šrámek like we do.“378 Often, he continued, when you “tell him something, he listens silently—and if he eventually finds out you

374 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 91, fol. 66, Masaryk to Pius XI June 30, 1927. 375 Ibid., fascicolo 72, fols. 28–29, Arata to Gasparri October 30, 1926. 376 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 34, fascicolo 177, fol. 27, Marmaggi to Gasparri October 25, 1923. 377 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 49, fols. 47–48, Ritter to Gasparri October 27, 1927; ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 34, fascicolo 177, fols. 34–37, Ritter to Gasparri October 27, 1927. The election results in more detail: Kárník, České země v éře První republiky, 1:397.  378 Gašparíková-Horáková, U Masarykovcov, 49; Klimek, Boj o Hrad, 2:177.

104

were right [apparently meaning the President], he will come to you and admit it.“379 On January 1, 1928 Vojtech Tuka, lawyer and politician of Hlinka’s Slovak People’s Party and editor of the magazine Slovák, published his article Vacuumiuris, in which he demanded a new solution of the constitutional situation in Czechoslovakia in favor of the Slovaks. A ­ ccording to him, after ten years of coexistence with the Czechs, the Slovaks had the right to decide on their next course. The Holy See did not know about this article beforehand and learned about the Tuka affair from the Czechoslovakian press. Robert Mayr-Harting, Minister of Justice, exerted pressure on Hlinka through Nuncio Ciriaci to minimize critical comments about the government during the trial of Tuka.380 A part of the Czechoslovakian government, which had the support of the Castle, considered Tuka’s attempts as the efforts of revisionist and irredentist powers to disturb the stability of Czechoslovakia, and they treated him accordingly.381 The trial of Tuka, which began in June 1929 and ended in October of the same year with his sentencing to 15 years in prison, made Hlinka’s Slovak People’s Party change its existing political course and go into opposition, where it remained until the end of the 1930s. The tension between Christian Parties in the country in relation to Tuka was closely observed not only by the Czechoslovakian press, but also by foreign diplomats accredited to the Czechoslovakian government, such as for example, W. Koch, German Envoy to Prague.382 On October 27, 1929, early elections to the parliament of Czechoslovakia were held. The Republican Party of Smallholders and ­Farmers won the elections with 14.97 percent of votes (1,105,498 votes and 46 mandates). The Czechoslovak Social Democratic Workers’ Party finished second with 13.05 percent of votes (963,462 votes and 39 mandates), and the Czechoslovak National Socialist Party took third place with 10.39 percent of votes (767,328 votes and 32 mandates).383 Given the tension within the Czechoslovak People’s  Party, which began to build up in early 1929 and culminated just before the elections,

379 Gašparíková-Horáková, U Masarykovcov, 49. 380 Šebek, Mezi křížem a národem, 131. 381 Slovák, January 1, 1928; AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 75, fol. 56, Ritter to Gasparri January 21, 1928, or fols. 59–60, Ritter to Gasparri January 26, 1928; Broklová, Československá demokracie, 124. 382 Alexander, Deutsche Gesandtschaftsberichte aus Prag, 3:190–191, document n. 71, Koch September 19, 1929. 383 Balík, Hloušek, and Holzer, Politický systém českých zemí, 56.

105

when there was an open fight between B. Stašek, Bohemian provincial leader, and J. Šrámek, Moravian provincial leader, about the next course of the Christian party, it is not surprising that the party finished fifth with 623,522 votes to the Chamber of Deputies (8.44 percent, 25 seats) and 559,700 votes to the Senate (13 mandates). Hlinka’s Slovak People’s Party gained 5.8 percent of votes. Although it lost 63,000 more votes compared to the 1925 elections, it still remained the strongest Slovakian party.384 The Czechoslovak People’s Party continued to be the strongest party in Moravia and Silesia with 17.66 percent of votes, but it lost some voters in Bohemia and completely failed in Slovakia; the tendency of the election results of the 1920s showed that the decline in votes for the party was of a permanent character.385 The members of the Czechoslovak People’s Party were severely disappointed by the election results, as they had expected that the successful St. Wenceslas celebrations would rather gain them votes.386 In December 1929, Nuncio Ciriaci informed Secretary of State Gasparri about the new Czechoslovakian government, known as Tusar’s Second Government, which had been formed on December 7. He stated that its ministers were mostly rather anti-clerical, mainly on the questions of education. At the same time, he anticipated possible problems that could emerge at the turn of the 1920s and 1930s: “With this new government, there is, unfortunately, no hope for carrying out modus vivendi.“ 387 When the Nuncio informed the Secretariat of State in Prague about the election results, it seemed as if the Secretariat was rather on the side of Stašek’s wing of the Czechoslovak People’s Party, because it said that the Czechoslovakian episcopate had been passive before the elections and, by his attitude, Šrámek had rather divided the Catholic block instead of striving for its unification.388 In connection with the upcoming 80th birthday of President Masaryk, some of the Church dignitaries wondered how they should respond to this event and whether they should remind their congregations about it. The uncertainty also persisted because, while F. Kordač, Archbi­ shop of Prague, adopted no stance towards it, Prague Auxiliary Bishop 384 NA Praha, fund Jan Jiří Rückl, box file 20, People’s Yearbook for 1931; Letz, Slovenské dejiny, 4:141; Trapl, “Československá strana lidová,” 667; Šebek, “Parlamentní volby v roce 1929,” 109–110, 132. 385 Trapl, “Český politický katolicismus v letech 1918–1938,” 264. 386 Šebek, “Parlamentní volby v roce 1929,” 129. 387 ASV, Segreteria di Stato, rubrica 160, fascicolo 1, fol. 45, Ciriaci to Gasparri December 9, 1929. 388 Ibid.

106

A. Podlaha promised to serve masses for the President’s health in all parish churches. One of the most active Czech bishops was K. Kašpar, Bishop of Hradec Králové, who in February 1930 asked Rome for instructions on Masaryk’s important birthday. The Secretary of State subsequently left the Czech side with a free hand, recommending them to act as they saw fit.389 At the time of Ciriaci’s departure, discussions were culminating over Pius XI’s  encyclical Quadragesimo anno (1931) within the Czechoslovak People’s Party. There were not only theoretical plans for the reorganization of contemporary society based on new spiritual grounds, but these also had an impact on the practical life of political Catholicism. These ideas on how to direct the Christian community resonated with the question of how best to manage the Czechoslovak People’s Party. There were, however, differences in the views of the leaders of the Bohemian and Moravian sectors, which resulted in an inner-party feud between J. Šrámek and B. Stašek over the leadership of the party.390 The latter believed that a new estates order built on Christian ideals would not be based either on liberalism or socialism, but would become the basis for the reconstruction of society, based on the estates principle in the form of democracy which would be a synthesis of the authoritarian regime and estates system. He wanted to lead the Czechoslovak People’s Party in this direction.391 The attitude of the Holy See towards Foreign Minister Beneš was very specific. On one hand, the Vatican considered his opinions as identical to those of Masaryk, i.e. anti-Catholic and anti-Church.392 Nevertheless, they respected his activities in the field of international politics, efforts for peace in Europe, and his relatively helpful yet pragmatic relation to the Catholic Church. They appreciated his contribution to establishing diplomatic relations with the Holy See, his negotiations on the separation of Church and State393, and the conclusion of modus vivendi, with which he had settled the age-long dispute between Czechoslovakia and

389 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 72, fascicolo 588, fol. 13, Kašpar to Gasparri February 12, 1930. 390 Trapl, Konečný, and Marek, Politik dobré vůle, 56–58; Šmíd, “Stavovský stát očima českých katolických intelektuálů,” 187. 391 Šebek, “Encyklika Quadragesimo anno,” 381. 392 For example AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 613, fols. 47–48, Skrbenský to Gasparri May 16, 1920. 393 Trapl, “Začlenění římskokatolické církve,” 144.

107

the Vatican in the second half of the 1920s.394 The relatively forthcoming attitude of the Holy See towards Beneš, who had earned the trust of the Vatican for stabilizing Central Europe after WWI, proved that the Vatican representatives appreciated his work within the Peace Con­ference of Versailles and were in agreement with the principles of the peace policy which this Czechoslovakian Chief of Diplomacy had adhered to after the creation of Czechoslovakia. With respect to Beneš’s election as the second Czechoslovak President in 1935, they accepted it as the most appropriate solution at the time.395 On the eve of WWII, the Vatican thus reassessed the situation in Czechoslovakia and at least “rehabilitated” the personage of Beneš and his relation to the Church; Beneš also showed more understanding towards the Holy See and its representative in Czechoslovakia, S. Ritter.396 Immediately after the presidential election, G. Panico, Secretary of the Nunciature, informed the Vatican about Masaryk being elected as Czechoslovakian President for the fourth time on May 24, 1934. In his letter to Secretary of State Gasparri, he wrote that, out of the total 418 votes, Masaryk had gained 327 votes, and his opponent, the Chairman of the Communist Party, K. Gottwald, 38 votes. He reported that all political parties in the country had voted for him, except for the communists and the Slovak People’s Party, whose attitude Panico explained as being due to Masaryk’s attitude towards the Pittsburgh Agreement. Panico called the presidential election a homage to the President, who in Czechoslovakia was regarded as the founder of the country. The correct, although cold attitude of President Masaryk towards the Vatican elites also remained the same during the 1930s. It seems that the President got on very well with Nuncio Ciriaci.397 In February 1932, Masaryk sent Pius XI a congratulatory telegram on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of his coronation.398 Subsequently, he would do it every year.399 On the occasion of his 85th birthday, a reception was organized at the Czechoslovakian Embassy in Rome which was attended by important representatives of the Holy See: Secretary of

394 More details: Koníček, Modus vivendi v historii vztahů Svatého stolce a Československa, 77f. 395 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1936, Radimský January 10, 1936; AMFA, II. section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 28, Radimský December 30, 1935. 396 Aussenpolitische Dokumente der Republik Österreich 1918–1938, 10:document n. 1575, Marek to Berger-Waldenegg January 13, 1936. 397 AMFA, Krofa’s Archive, box file 15, Radimský July 11, 1932. 398 The ceremonial coronation of Pius XI took place on February 12, 1922. 399 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1932, Radimský February 6, 1932 or February 11, 1932.

108

State E. Pacelli; Cardinals G. Pizzardo, A. Ottaviani, and D. Tardini; Papal Chamberlains, the Commanders of the Swiss Guard and police officers; Governor of the Papal State, C. Serafini; Director of the Vatican Museums, G. Nogara; the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See; important personages in Italian religious life; and Czechoslovakian clergymen in Rome.400 From the mid-1930s, given the President’s deteriorating health, Pope Pius XI would pray for Masaryk.401 The Vatican paper, L’Osservatore Romano informed the public about the President’s birthday on March 5 and 10, 1935. Even after Masaryk’s resignation from the presidential post by the end of 1935, Pope Pius XI would repeatedly send him messages of respect and good wishes through V. Radimský, Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Holy See.402 Even in May 1937, Masaryk sent Pope Pius XI a telegram on the occasion of his 80th birthday.403 Before the parliamentary elections in May 1935, G. Panico gave a rela­tively detailed opinion on the Sudeten German Party and its Chairman K. Henlein, whom he harshly criticized: It is true that Henlein has been giving his assurances to defend the rights of the faithful and the Church, but on the other hand, he is surrounded by either Protestants or anti-Church oriented people. After all, the press institution Rundschau often attacks the Catholic Church. Deutsche Turnverein also writes against faith and Catholic morals. . . . [Henlein] talks about the art of the people, but in terms of new false prophets of Nazism. In short: if we take a look at the origin, doctrine, and methods of Henlein and his Sudeten German Party, it is about nothing other than National Socialism adjusted to the Czechoslovakian conditions.404

However, outwardly, the members of the Sudeten German Party supported the integrity of Czechoslovakia and in this spirit they also manifested devotion to President Masaryk in the spring of 1935.405 400 Ibid., 1935, Radimský April 9, 1935; PAO, the Olomouc Branch, fund AO, box file 660, n. 2524, Černý March 17, 1935. 401 APO, fond PO, n. 1974, Korespondence hlav států—ČSR a  Vatikán, microfilm 86, n. D-9.139/34, Schenk December 24, 1934. 402 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1936–1937, Radimský January 10, 1936 or April 2, 1937. 403 APO, fund PO, n. 1974, The Correspondence of Heads of States—the CSR and the Vatican, microfilm 86, n. D5509/37, Schenk May 31, 1937. 404 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 160, fols. 5–6, Panico to Pacelli May 1, 1935. 405 Klimek, and Hofman, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, 14:309.

109

The parliamentary elections were held on May 19, 1935. The winner was the Sudeten German Party with 15.18 percent of votes (1,249,530 votes and 44 mandates), which was financially supported by Berlin before the elections.406 The Republican Party of Smallholders and Farmers finished second with 14.30 percent of votes (1,176,593 votes and 45 mandates), and the Czechoslovak Social Democratic Workers’ Party was third with 12.55 percent of votes (1,034,774 votes and 38 mandates).407 Although the Sudeten German Party won the most votes, the Agrarians gained one vote more “thanks to the electoral mathematics and because, according to the electoral system, the strongest Czechoslovakian (i.e. not minority) party was given the votes of unsuccessful Czechoslovakian parties during the allocaiton of seats.“408 The Czechoslovak People’s Party won 615,877 votes (7.5 percent of votes, 22 mandates)—the worst results in parliamentary elections of the First Czechoslovak Republic for the party. While in Bohemia, the party did not lose many votes, in Moravia and Silesia it was much worse, especially in the countryside. Hlinka’s Slovak People’s Party ran in the elections under a single ballot under the name of the Autonomist Block and won 6.9 percent of votes.409 The German Christian Social Party lost many votes due to Henlein’s Sudeten German Party. Altogether, Christian parties in Czechoslovakia gained—excluding the Polish votes—1,560,063 votes which, compared to the parliamentary elections of 1929, was a significant decline.410 Given that, during the elections, no Apostolic Nuncio was appointed to Prague, the Secretary of the Nunciature reacted to the formation of the coalition a few weeks later. Immediately after its formation on June 4, 1935, G. Panico, Secretary of the Nunciature, informed Vatican circles about the new government, called the “Grand Coalition”, with Agrarian Jan Malypetr at its head. He stated with surprise that neither the Sudeten German Party nor Hlinka’s Slovak People’s Party, the political and religious demands of which were unacceptable to Slovak Prime Minister J. Malypetr, were

406 Kvaček, “Proměna jedné strany,” 65. 407 Kárník, České země v éře První republiky, 2:496; Balík, Hloušek, and Holzer, Politický systém českých zemí, 57; Klimek, and Hofman, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, 14:313–316. 408 Ibid., 313. 409 In the Slovakian context it was 30.1 percent of votes. The attitudes of Slovakian political parties towards the parliamentary and presidential elections of 1935 in more detail: Holák, “Hlinkova slovenská ľudová strana,” 196–217. 410 Trapl, “Český politický katolicismus v letech 1918–1938,” 289.

110

part of this coalition.411 However, on November 5, Malypetr’s government fell and was replaced by the Grand Coalition of Milan Hodža. However, it did not survive the year 1935. From December 18, 1935, the aforementioned Agrarian M. Hodža headed the new government, which functioned until July 1937. Hlinka’s Slovak People’s Party was not the only party in Slovakia demanding autonomy. The promise of greater Slovakian autonomy was based on discussions between E. Beneš and J. Tiso from the turn of 1935 and 1936. The key figure of backstage negotiations during the presidential election in the fall and winter of 1935 was J. J. Rückl, who subsequently played a very important role in the presidential campaign. Formal negotiations about the future President began on December 1, 1935, when Rückl visited A. Hlinka in Ružomberok, whose voice seemed to be important in the upcoming election. He outlined the situation to him, described the possibilities of the presidential election, and told him that he had come on behalf of Nuncio S. Ritter, which probably impressed him. However, he was not definitely decided.412 Rückl stressed that Vatican Church circles appreciated the successes of Beneš’s domestic and foreign politics, especially his negotiations on modus vivendi in the 1920s, his attitude during Kordač’s resignation in 1931, and his diplomatic correctness during the Pribina celebrations in Nitra in 1933. Beneš was willing to make vast concessions in exchange for support in the upcoming election, for example, to release V. Tuka or expand Slovak autonomy, a promise which he repeatedly stressed in front of Hlinka at their meeting on December 5.413 The Catholic environment could not ignore that Beneš’s opponent, Bohumil Němec, had a free-spirited past, was a member of the Masonic lodge and that, after 1918, had been involved in the separation of the Faculty of Theology from the University.414 On the contrary, the Agrarians did everything they could to prevent the election of Beneš, also ­trying to influence the clergy and Christian politicians. They emphasized Beneš’s Freemasonry and his anti-Catholic attitude, and argued that his socialism would assimilate the country into the experiment

411 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 134, fol. 70, Panico to Pacelli June 5, 1935. 412 Arpáš, “Úloha HSĽS,” 99. 413 Dostál, Agrární strana, 190; Klimek, and Hofman, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, 14:350; Klimek, Boj o Hrad, 2:442. 414 Klimek, Boj o Hrad, 2:442.

111

of the Soviet Union.415 To obtain the support of Hlinka’s Slovak People’s Party for the upcoming election of Beneš and to exert pressure on its hesitating Chairman Hlinka, the Holy See decided to intervene through the modest J. Tiso. One day before the election, when Tiso asked the Apostolic Nuncio to Prague what the reaction of the Holy See would be if Freemason Beneš was elected President, S. Ritter allegedly replied: “Němec is a Freemason, too, and it is easier to work with the old one who we know than with a new one about whom we know not who he is or what he wants.“416 A more difficult task to get support for Beneš was to obtain the consent of the Chairman of Hlinka’s Slovak People’s Party, A. Hlinka. At the beginning of 1935, the party stated that they would support the candidate who would have a greater chance of becoming President in the forthcoming election.417 On December 17, when Hlinka traveled to Prague, Rückl waited for him at the last station before Prague and drove him in his car to Beneš at Czernin Palace. On their way to Prague, he repeatedly tried to persuade him about Beneš being the most suitable candidate for the post of Czechoslovakian President. After Hlinka had spoken to the Foreign Minister and candidate for the presidential post, Beneš, it seemed that he was sufficiently convinced to support Beneš in the forthcoming election on behalf of his party.418 On December 18, 1935, Beneš was elected as new Czechoslovakian President in the first round of the election by 340 of the total 440 votes. The Vatican paper L’Osservatore Romano released the information about Beneš’s  election as the new President on December 19 and 20, 1935, along with other European newspapers.419 Masaryk remained a  respected personage even after his death in September 1937, when G. Burzio, Secretary of the Prague Nunciature, conveyed the condolences of the Holy See to the Czechoslovakian ­government. The official paper L’Osservatore Romano had already informed the public of his death on September 15, 1937.420 As a sign of

415 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 178, fols. 4–5, Ritter to Pacelli December 8, 1935. 416 Klimek, and Hofman, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, 14:374. 417 Ibid.; Rückl to Beneš December 9, 1935. 418 Vojenský ústřední archiv v Praze, fund Sbírka vzpomínek—Vlastimil Klíma, box file 3, n. 9167, Dr. J. J. Rückl (manuscript); Klimek, and Hofman, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, 14:376; Klimek, “Papežský komoří Jan Jiří Rückl,” 226. 419 For example, the German newspaper Müncher Neueste Nachrichten on December 19, 1935. 420 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1937, Radimský October 2, 1937.

112

mourning for the death of the first Czechoslovakian President, Prague Archbishop and Cardinal K. Kašpar ordered flags to be flown at halfmast on all churches and bells to be rung at noon on September 14 and 21, the day of his funeral. The faithful spontaneously prayed for the Republic and the family of the deceased President.421 The speculations about the conversion of the deeply religious Masaryk to Catholicism before his death were not confirmed by either the Czech or Vatican archives.422 It was also similar with Beneš. On the occasion of the Pope’s 80th birthday in May 1937, Beneš sent Pius XI a congratulatory telegram, for which the Pope sincerely thanked him.423 In June 1938, the Czechoslovakian side gave the important Vatican representatives ten silver St. ­Wenceslas coins and the Pope a gold medal.424

Unrest in Europe and the Presage of World War From the mid-1930s, the Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Holy See and the Apostolic Nuncio to Prague increasingly often described European affairs and the radicalization of authoritative and totalitarian movements in their reports. It was clear that the development of Czechoslovakia and the appearance of Central Europe were largely dependent on the international arrangement and political situation in neighboring countries. They analyzed in detail the situation in Germany, Poland, Austria, Italy, France, the Soviet Union and other world powers. Pope Pius XI protested most loudly against the ideology of Nazism on March 14, 1937 in his encyclical With Burning Anxiety (Mit brennender Sorge). With regard to the situation of the Catholic Church in the Third Reich, he pointed to repeated violations of the Concordat and denounced its ideological sources—exalted nationalism and racism—and declared it unacceptable to the Christian conscience.425 This anti-Nazism papal encyclical, the first ever in the German language, was most secretly prepared by the Secretary of the Holy See, E. Pacelli, together with

421 422 423 424 425

L’Osservatore Romano, September 19, 1937. ATGM, fund TGM—section R, box file 486 (Documentation). AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 16, Strimpl June 5, 1937. Ibid., Radimský June 10, 1938. Enchiridion delle Encicliche, 5:1074–1127; Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Commentarium officiale 29, vol. 4 (1937): 145–188; Vašek, Pia XI. encykliky, 47–72.

113

the top representatives of the German clergy, Bishops Adolf Bertram, Michael von Faulhaber, Joseph Schult, Clemens August von Galen, and Konrad von Preysing. While the first two of the aforementioned Bishops demanded the release of the Pope’s personal letter only to Hitler and the German Bishops, trying to avoid an open conflict with the Nazis, the rest opted for a vigorous and resolute criticism of Nazi crimes.426 The Nazi regime saw this act as an unofficial declaration of war and did everything possible to prevent the further spread of the encyclical. Hitler was furious. The Nazis responded to it with a sharp diplomatic note and waged a terror campaign against the Vatican through the pages of German newspapers. Priests were exposed to open repression, clergymen arrested, Church representatives expelled from dioceses, and Catholic-minded citizens executed. The persecutions affected about 12,000  diocesan and monastic priests in all the German dioceses.427 However, in the 1930s, Hitler did not proceed to carry out the harsh repression against the Church which he had planned after the outbreak of WWII. Firstly, because he was aware of the advantages the Concordat provided to him, and secondly because he preferred to complete war preparations before starting open warfare against the Catholic Church. On August 19, 1938, German Bishops issued a pastoral letter in which they openly and fearlessly denounced the Nazi ideology. On September 5, Austrian Bishops followed with the same statement, living now in a common Nazi state with the German Bishops.428 In the same period, Pope Pius XI denounced the ideology of communism in his encyclical Divini Redemptoris (On Atheistic Communism).429 He had repeatedly expressed himself against communism already from the second half of the 19th century, namely in the encyclical Quod apostolici muneris (1878), in the document listing 80 scientific, social and political principles—Syllabus Errorum (1894), and in the social encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891). In the 20th century, Pius XI, who had personally experienced the terrors of the communist experiment during his service as Apostolic Nuncio to Warsaw, again spoke out against communism in numerous encyclicals in the 1920s and 1930s, most

426 427 428 429

Chenaux, Katolická církev a komunismus v Evropě, 64; Fattorini, Pio XI, 127. Ibid., 196; Feldkamp, Pius XII. und Deutschland, 89. AMFA, PR Vatican, 1938, Radimský October 12, 1938. Enchiridion delle Encicliche, 5:1128–1205; Vašek, Pia XI. encykliky, 7–46.

114

emphatically in Quadragesimo Anno (1931) and the aforementioned Divini Redemptoris(1937).430 Austria, whose authoritarian regime was supported by the Holy See in the 1930s, was the first foreign victim of Nazi aggression in Europe431. On February 12, 1938, Hitler summoned Chancellor Kurt von Schuschnigg and Foreign Minister Guido Schmidt to Berchtesgaden. After harsh and long coercion and intimidation, similar to that which Hácha experienced during the meeting in Berlin a  year later, Hitler forced the Austrian Chancellor to declare an amnesty for all imprisoned Nazis, appoint the Austrian leader of the NSDAP, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, as Interior Minister, and Hans Fischböck as Finance Minister.432 Nuncio to Vienna, Gaetano Cicognani, informed Secretary of State Pacelli that the German aggression in Central Europe would continue, as Austria was not its last victim. Nuncio to Bern, Filippo Bernardini, was of the same opinion.433 On March 13, Austria was declared part of the German Reich. Czechoslovakia came to the forefront of the Holy See in relation to international affairs in early 1938, namely in the spring of 1938 after the Anschluss of Austria.434 The initial Vatican interest in national minorities in the country was renewed by an interest in the political development of Czechoslovakia. The number of newspapers and magazines sent by the Apostolic Nuncio from Prague to the Vatican grew rapidly.435 The speech of Reich Chancellor Hitler on February 20, 1938 about the oppression of ten million Germans in the vicinity of the Third Reich was a sign of a campaign against Czechoslovakia, which was accompanied by attacks on its President Beneš. The German government then took steps towards the liberation of those Germans.436

430 The encyclical Quadragesimo anno in more detail: Enchiridion delle Encicliche, 5:686–799; Vašek, Encyklika Pia XI.; Šebek, “Encyklika Quadragesimo anno,” 365–383. 431 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1938, Radimský February 28, 1938. 432 Jeřábek, “Schuschniggova “třetí cesta”,” 15. 433 Hrabovec, “Česko-Slovensko a Svätá stolica,” 35. 434 Hrabovec, “Der heilige Stuhl und die böhmischen Länder”, 105. 435 Those were, for example, Italia, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Temps, Journal, L’Europe Centrale, Prager Presse, Bulletin Tchécoslovaque, Journal des Debats, etc. When they were short of time, the preference was given to the German press because Secretary of State Pacelli, the former Apostolic Nuncio to Munich and Berlin, needed no translation. However, the objectivity of the German press remained the question. 436 ÖSW, Archiv der Republik, Bundeskanzleramt / Auswärtige Angelegenheiten, Neues Politisches Archiv, Prag, box file 60, Marek February 24, 1938; Kuklík, Němeček, and Šebek, Dlouhé stíny Mnichova, 30; Šebek, Od konfliktu ke smíření, 67–68.

115

The activities of German Catholics and the Sudeten German Party, who often preferred the national over the religious dimension, were thus seen in a new light and the Vatican understood their real intentions. Political affairs also transformed religious life: Nuncio Ritter watched with dismay the growing demands of Germany regarding the Sudetenland, an area with more than 90 percent of Catholics, where rapid disintegration of Christian values occurred among the population: “Many Sudeten Catholics have already renounced [the Catholic Church—translator’s note] and converted to Protestantism (in 1935 3,802 and in 1936 4,557), which actually means Neopaganism. The young German clergy of this country are today already fully devoted to Henlein, which means devoted to Hitler tomorrow, which strengthens the already significant concerns about the Catholic matter.“437 On May 8, 1938, Nuncio Ritter comprehensively informed the Holy See of the political and religious situation in Czechoslovakia after the Anschluss of Austria. He confirmed that the annexation of Austria to the Third Reich had thrown the country into depression, but people had not given up; the army was strong and ready to fight. They also still believed in the alliance of France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. Henlein’s eight points from Karlovy Vary of May 1938 were unacceptable to the people and Czechoslovakia refused to discuss them. Regarding the political parties, Ritter continued in his report, the Agrarian Party supported a policy of concessions and agreements with Germany, but Šrámek’s Czechoslovak People’s Party opposed it. While the National Socialists supported Beneš’s stance, the Social Democrats were in a fighting mood and believed in victory.438 When Ritter discussed the question of national minorities in the country with Minister K. Krofta, he gained the impression that the Minister was very anxious about the future.439 By the end of May 1938, the Secretary of the Nunciature, G. Burzio, reported on the unrest in border areas, the concentration of German troops on Czechoslovakian borders, and the orderly partial mobilization of May 21, which was favorably received abroad for the determination of the Czechoslovakian army to defend the country against Hitler.440 He

437 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 160, fols. 53–54, Ritter to Tardini January 3, 1938. 438 Ibid. 439 Ibid., fols. 21–24, Ritter to Pacelli May 16, 1938. 440 Ibid., fols. 64–67, Burzio to Pacelli May 26, 1938; Čelovský, Mnichovská dohoda, 173f.; John, Září 1938, 52.

116

stated that the dissatisfied Henlein had accused the Prague government of not being able to restore order and thus would ask Berlin to do it. He also reflected on the German press, including the Czechoslovakian one, which had become radicalized and were writing harshly against Czechoslovakia. However, he himself wanted to remain an objective observer: “It is difficult to say what is true about all those accusations of the Czechoslovakian government, but it is absurd to think that the Czechoslovakian government would simply provoke a conflict.“441 During this tense situation under the international spotlight, local elections were held in Czechoslovakia at the turn of May and June 1938. The clash, which would have normally attracted the marginal attention of the public and media, was now politicized and contributed to the strengthening of radical political groups. With regard to the election results in Prague, according to Burzio, the Communists had doubled their votes and also Šrámek’s People’s Party had experienced an increase in votes; 90 percent of the Germans voted for Henlein’s Sudeten German Party.442 Burzio also expressed the hope that the status of national minorities in preparation by the Czechoslovak government would grant minorities sufficient autonomy.443 In mid-June 1938, the Apostolic Nuncio to Paris, Valerio Valeri, expressed his opinion based on the international situation that “France, despite its agreements against Germany, will not step up and support Czechoslovakia.“444 That is why the Holy See acted “cautiously” when selecting information for L’Osservatore Romano and they also applied a critical approach towards articles of many foreign agencies that published one-sided or hostile reports.445 The Vatican newspaper ran reports on the situation in Czechoslovakia almost every day (!) from the spring of 1938. The representative of the Holy See to Czechoslovakia watched in horror the transformation of the Czech border area, which was becoming more “German” every day. It was certainly sad for Vatican circles to learn that many monks and priests had also succumbed to the Nazi lure. Only

441 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 181, fol. 65, Burzio to Pacelli May 26, 1938. 442 Kárník, České země v éře První republiky, 3:532; Kvaček, “Lidová strana před Mnichovem,” 234. 443 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 181, fols. 64–67, Burzio to Pacelli May 26, 1938. 444 Ibid., fols. 79–80, Valeri to Pacelli June 14, 1938. 445 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1938, Radimský July 1, 1938.

117

President Beneš remained optimistic, continuing to reassure the Nuncio that no war would break out.446 Prague Archbishop K. Kašpar, who carried out visitations near Czech-German borders in May and June 1938, informed Nuncio Ritter about the tense situation in the Sudetenland, where Henlein continued to become stronger due to the support of Germany.447 The Nuncio, however, had no illusions that Czechoslovakia would not become another of Hitler’s victims after Austria.448 When Ritter spoke with President Beneš in early August, Beneš denounced the supernationalism of the Germans, but he also admitted that the Czechoslovakian side had also made mistakes.449 Beneš said to the Nuncio that the Germans, who made up a quarter of the population in Czechoslovakia, should have a quarter share in the administration of the country, and promised concessions in the sphere of language, administration and other items. Regarding the idea of autonomy, he suggested the possibility of the division of the country according to historical borders. On August 19, 1938, Secretary of State Pacelli received the Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Holy See, V. Radimský, to discuss the question of national minorities in Czechoslovakia. He assured him that Germany would not annex Czechoslovakia.450 The Holy See also charged Nuncio Ritter to help alleviate the tensions between the Czech and German sides in the Republic.451 On August 23, 1938, the Foreign Ministry informed the Prague Nuncio about the resignation of Hodža’s government and the new government of General Jan Syrový, including its personnel composition.452 During September 1938, Nuncio Ritter would inform Secretary of State Pacelli about the events in the country almost every day.453 The Holy Father, who was also acquainted with the situation in the country, ordered that prayers be said in all Roman churches to avert imminent danger in Czechoslovakia.454 Ritter reported that the negotiations 446 447 448 449 450 451 452

Ibid. Ibid., fascicolo 180, fol. 23, Kašpar to Ritter August 24, 1938. Ibid., fascicolo 182, fols. 3–7, Ritter to Pacelli July 31, 1938. Ibid., fols. 10–15, Ritter to Pacelli August 9, 1938; Machula, Vatikán a Československo, 17. AMFA, PR Vatican, 1938, Radimský August 19, 1938. Ibid. ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 80, fascicolo 643, fol. 2, Krofta to Ritter September 23, 1938. 453 The German press sent to the Vatican by Ritter did not need to be translated. Secretary of State Pacelli had been to Germany from 1917 to 1930. Cornwell, Hitler’s Pope, 66. 454 Lidové noviny, September 23, 1938.

118

between the Czechoslovakian government and the Sudeten Germans had culminated on September 5, when President Beneš had made the offer to the Germans to meet their autonomist demands. The negotiations with Prague were, however, stalled at the direction of Berlin and subsequently interrupted, by which also the Runciman mediation mission was condemned to fail.455 Ritter also mentioned Beneš’s radio message of September 10, Hitler’s speech at the NSDAP meeting in Nuremberg of September 12, and the bloody clashes in the border areas which now had also resulted in human victims. Ritter accompanied his reports with excerpts from the Czechoslovakian press. The Holy See was also “supplied” with other political reports from the Nuncio to Berlin, Cesare Orsenigo, and from Nuncios in other countries.456 In the uncertain situation in mid-September 1938, Ritter, the Nuncio to Prague, asked the Holy See for instructions on what to do to “save people, and the tangible and intangible assets.“457 Secretary of State Pacelli recommended that, in the case of danger, he should destroy the most sensitive documents from the archive of the Nunciature and transfer the rest to the Budapest Nunciature. He also asked him to protect the staff of the Nunciature and its belongings to the maximum extent possible.458 When Hitler conveyed his demands to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain at the meeting in Berchtesgaden on September 15, 1938, on which basis the British and French governments prepared a plan to cede the border regions of Czechoslovakia with more than 50 percent of German inhabitants to Germany, the destiny of the Bohemian and Moravian borderlands was decided.459 A day later, the Nuncio to Berlin, C. Orsenigo, summarized his impressions of the ongoing negotiations rather laconically: “The chances for peace are almost nil.“460 Ritter, the Nuncio to Prague, described the situation as very serious and gave his opinion that the negotiations initiated by Great Britain would not lead 455 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 184, fol. 8, Ritter to Pacelli September 14, 1938; Čelovský, Mnichovská dohoda, 226–243. 456 Ibid., fascicolo 183. 457 Ibid., fascicolo 184, fol. 8, Ritter to Pacelli September 14, 1938. 458 Ibid., fol. 9, Pacelli to Ritter September 17, 1938. The Apostolic Nuncio to Warsaw, A. Ratti, acted in a similar way in 1920 when the Russian army was approaching Warsaw. He sent his Secretary and the archive of the Nunciature to Poznan, but he himself remained in Warsaw. Alberti, Pius XI., 37. 459 Čelovský, Mnichovská dohoda, 280–281; Kárník, České země v éře První republiky, 3:568. 460 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 183, fol. 64, Orsenigo to Pacelli September 16, 1938.

119

to an agreement. He confirmed to the Holy See that the Czech public preferred war to territorial concessions in favor of Germany, even if Czechoslovakia was to remain alone. According to the Nuncio’s reports from military circles, Czechoslovakia was able to face a possible German attack.461 On September 17, the Nuncio reported on the dissolution of the Sudeten German Party, and a  day earlier on the atmosphere in the country. He confirmed that the population hoped that war would be prevented—at least for the moment. He also told the Secretary of State about the plan of the government if war broke out—the government would leave Prague and move to the Tatras, probably along with the Diplomatic Corps.462 The Nuncio was able to face the dramatic events he directly witnessed only due to his calm and balanced attitude: “Thank God, we are all absolutely calm and believe in Providence, waiting for the next course of events.“463 The plan of the British and French governments demanding that the Czechoslovakian borderlands with more than 50 percent of German minorities be ceded to the Third Reich, was ultimately submitted to the Czechoslovakian government on September 19. However, Hodža’s government refused this plan. “In answer to the question of what they would do, France replied that they could not do anything without Great Britain.“464 After additional severe pressure from the British and French Envoys to Prague, the government agreed to cede the demanded territory to Germany on September 21 at 6 a.m. This aroused unrest and demonstrations in the country.465 The Chairman of the Czechoslovak People’s  Party, J. Šrámek, opposed the acceptance of this pressure, denounced the appeasement on behalf of the group of generals, the government, and President Beneš, requested the convening of parliament and expressed concerns about the guarantee of new borders.466 On September 22, British Prime Minister Chamberlain met Hitler in Bad Godesberg to tell him that Czechoslovakia had accepted the demands. However, Hitler now demanded more, namely to meet

461 462 463 464

Ibid., fascicolo 184, fol. 11, Ritter to Pacelli September 16, 1938. Ibid., fol. 27, Ritter to Pacelli September 17, 1938; Šmíd, “Dramatický osud,” 227. Ibid., fol. 39, Ritter to Pacelli September 19, 1938. Ibid., fol. 28, Ritter to Pacelli September 19, 1938; Boyce, French Foreign and Defence Policy, 217; Kuklík, Němeček, and Šebek, Dlouhé stíny Mnichova, 37. 465 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 184, fol. 34, Ritter to Pacelli September 22, 1938, or fol. 37, Ritter to Pacelli September 21, 1938. 466 Drábek, Z časů nedlouho zašlých, 241; Trapl, “Český politický katolicismus a “Mnichov”,” 411.

120

the territorial claims of Poland and Hungary with whom he had made an agreement a  day earlier.467 On September 23, the Syrový government announced a  general mobilization, and two days later rejected Hitler’s conditions from Bad Godesberg.468 In this tense and extremely serious situation, when the diplomats accredited to the Czechoslovakian government looked with concern at the fate of the country and their own, and believed in war being averted by Great Britain and France, Ritter, the Apostolic Nuncio and Doyen of the Diplomatic Corps, asked the Holy See for further instructions.469 It is clear from his reports that the Diplomatic Corps, including himself, were preparing to leave Prague in late September 1938.470 The Catholic Church in the country anxiously waited for the Pope to speak out publicly in their defense, but he hesitated. Being aware of the possible questioning of his impartiality and a harsh response by the Third Reich, the Pope allegedly answered the following to the Vatican diplomats who tried to persuade him to intervene: “It would be unnecessary and inappropriate.“471 During the Munich crisis, the Holy See was entirely on the side of Czechoslovakia, painfully watching the injustice the country had suffered. Although they did not take any steps to settle the conflict diplomatically, as they were afraid of being accused of violating their impartiality by Nazi and Fascist circles, they would secretly ask B. Mussolini not to be in Munich only as “Hitler’s second, but to be engaged in a just solution.“472 The Holy See welcomed the solutions offered at the conference in Munich, but they were also aware of further German threats to Czechoslovakia.473 Pope Pius XI learned about the dramatic events in the country from Secretary of State Pacelli and from D. Tardini, Secretary of the Section for Relations with States.474 According to Czechoslovakian Envoy V. Radimský, the Holy See did not contribute enough to reduce the anti-State activities of some priests in the Czech Lands. One example was the priest, professor of moral theology, and politician of the German Christian Social People’s Party, 467 Čelovský, Mnichovská dohoda, 312. 468 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 185, fol. 39, Sigismondi to Pacelli September 24, 1938, or fol. 42, Ritter to Pacelli September 24, 1938. 469 Ibid., fol. 43, Ritter to Pacelli September 25, 1938. 470 Ibid., fascicolo 186, fol. 12, Ritter to Pacelli September 29, 1938. 471 Chiron, Pio XI, 457. 472 Hrabovec, “Der heilige Stuhl und die böhmischen Länder,” 116; Halas, Fenomén Vatikán, 569. 473 Binchy, “The Vatican and International Diplomacy,” 50. 474 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1938, Radimský October 3, 1938; Dejmek, Československá zahraniční politika, 2:document n. 821, Radimský October 3, 1938.

121

Karl Hilgenreiner, who had significantly initiated the convergence of the Catholic block and Henlein’s Sudeten German Party, with which a great portion of the German population identified in the second half of the 1930s.475 Even now, Czech and German Catholics were not able to overcome their ethnic disputes and unite under a common faith to defend themselves against criminal Nazism. Most German Catholics preferred the national to the religious question.476 The Vatican considered the Czech-German tensions as an internal problem of Czechoslovakia and rejected its escalation, including foreign interference in the affairs of the country. The Vatican’s stance was clear from the reports of L’Osservatore Romano, the only newspaper informing the Italian public impartially on the situation in Czechoslovakia. Nevertheless, “it could not hide its sympathy for the Czechs in their grave hour.“477 The Holy See probably believed, like many contemporaries, that the annexation of the Sudetenland with the German-speaking population to the Third Reich was Hitler’s last request.478 E. Hrabovec believes that, despite all the doubts of the Holy See about how to resolve the Sudeten crisis, the Vatican’s main objective was “to avoid a war that would not only cause immense human suffering, but ultimately would result in a general revolution and Bolshevization of Europe.“479 British and French diplomacy tried to find a “peaceful” solution to the tense situation. It was mainly the military superiority of Germany, the isolation of Czechoslovakia in Central Europe, and the economic and psychological unpreparedness of France for war that were the reasons for abandoning Czechoslovakia, the only loyal ally of France in the east, by the Daladier government in September 1938.480 Great Britain and France therefore induced Hitler to take part in the conference of four powers, whose attendees—Chamberlain, Daladier, Mussolini and Hitler—met in Munich on September 29, 1938 to decide on the fifth, non-participating country.481 The Munich Agreement on the annexation of the Czechoslovakian border regions “marked a clear victory for the

475 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 181, fols. 4–9, Ritter to Pacelli May 8, 1938; Dejmek, “Vztahy mezi ČSR a Vatikánem,” 93; Šebek, Od konfliktu ke smíření, 61, 66; Fattorini, Pio XI, 194. 476 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1938, Radimský October 3, 1938. 477 Gallagher, Vatican Secret Diplomacy, 80. 478 Radimský October 12, 1938; Dejmek, “Vztahy mezi ČSR a Vatikánem,” 93. 479 Hrabovec, “Česko-Slovensko a Svätá stolica,” 38. 480 Boyce, French Foreign and Defence Policy, 144, 236. 481 Lidové noviny, September 30, 1938.

122

Reich, the humiliation and frustration of Czech society, and the beginning of the rapid disintegration of Czechoslovakia.“482 When President Beneš, the Committee of Ministers, and the government accepted the Munich dictate on September 30, the first Czechoslovak Republic de facto ceased to exist. On the opening day of the Munich Conference on September 29, 1938, Pope Pius XI made a speech on the Vatican radio station at 7 a.m, sending his peace message into the general distress of the world, calling for prayer, the preservation of peace, and a peaceful resolution through agreement on contentious issues.483 When he read the following text, his voice quavered and he was sometimes difficult to understand. Among other things, he said: While many millions of people are living in fear of the close danger of war and the threat of unprecedented devastation, we accept into our fatherly heart all the worries of our countless sons and daughters, and urge all bishops, secular and religious priests, and all the faithful to join us in the warmest and most urgent prayer to maintain peace, peace in justice and mercy. May all the faithful people once again resort to this unarmed but invincible power which is our prayer to God, in whose hands lies the fate of our world, to support faith in peaceful ways by loyal talks and permanent conventions in all governments, and, in accordance with the so often repeated words of peace, to inspire all to feelings and deeds which could promote peace, to be based on the safe basis of law and the Gospel.484

The Pope’s speech, which appealed for the maintenance of universal principles and which the Holy Father ended with blessings to the whole world, represented one of the few foreign expressions of support for Czechoslovakia.485 Its power was even greater as, in the message, the Pope suggested sacrificing his own life in exchange for peace and the salvation of the world. The next day, when Pius XI learnt of the results of the Munich Conference, he allegedly stated before visitors in a private audience at the 482 Stříbrný, “Církve a náboženský život,” 93. 483 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1938, Radimský October 3, 1938; Drábek, Z časů nedlouho zašlých, 245. 484 Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Commentarium officiale 30, vol. 5 (1938): 309–310; Lidové noviny, September 30, 1938; Dejmek, Československá zahraniční politika, 2:document n. 821, Radimský October 3, 1938. 485 Kuklík, Němeček, and Šebek, Dlouhé stíny Mnichova, 61; Fattorini, Pio XI, Hitler e Mussolini, 199; Trapl, “Český politický katolicismus a “Mnichov”,” 412.

123

Vatican: “Beautiful is the peace which was made at the expense of the weak one who was not even asked!“486 He had said more to D. Tardini in the morning of the same day: “We disagree with the assertion that the fate of Czechoslovakia was decided in Munich, as the representatives of this country were not even present among the four powers. It is true that Czechoslovakia was not entitled to drag the world into war, but it is also true that they had every right not to be treated as immature.“487 On October 1, Nuncio Ritter sent the text of the signed Munich Agreement and the map of the territory that now belonged to Germany to Secretary of State Pacelli.488 He also described the atmosphere in the country immediately after the adoption of the conclusions of the conference: “The disillusion and disappointment of the people are enormous. However, they had no strength to react. No protests, nor any signs of allegiance to the Republic. No demonstrations, nor gatherings... It is a real blow to the head. The Pope’s evening speech of September 29 made a  big impression. Those were the only words of hope that this nation has heard in these tragic days, and all newspapers ran reports on it.“489 On the same day, Pope Pius XI received V. Radimský, the Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Holy See, and told him that “he considers it outrageous that such an amputation was carried out without Czechoslovakia being heard.“490 He also expressed his condolences for what had happened and said that he still remembered Czechoslovakia in his prayers. Pius XI labeled the Czechoslovakian victim as a gift of peace to all mankind and denied its responsibility for the current international tensions. He considered the humble decision of Prague, which was not an act of free will but the dictate of world powers, as the only possible way out of the crisis. At the end of their meeting, the Pope sent Czechoslovakia wishes for a happy future, advised them to be patient, and granted the country his apostolic blessing.491 The same day, the Nuncio to Berlin,

486 Chiron, Pio XI, 457. 487 Machula, Vatikán a Československo, 24. 488 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 187, fols. 7–8, Ritter to Pacelli October 1, 1938. 489 Ibid. 490 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1938, Radimský October 3, 1938. 491 Ibid., Radimský October 3, 1938, or October 12, 1938; Hrabovec, “Der heilige Stuhl und die böhmischen Länder,” 117–118.

124

C. Orsenigo, informed the Holy See that “the terrible threat of war in Europe was over.“492

Transformation of Czechoslovakian-Vatican Relations and Czechoslovakian Internal Policy after 1945 After WWII, especially after the restoration of diplomatic relations between Czechoslovakia and the Holy See, the Vatican’s interest in political affairs in the country grew. It was not the result of a more intense interest on the part of the Holy See in political affairs in Czechoslovakia, but rather because Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations had moved to a new level. Between 1918 and 1938, these relations had taken place in the free environment of the first Czechoslovak Republic that had respected freedom of speech, assembly and religion, but after 1945 everything was different. Practically all matters that had previously fallen within the national or religious sphere were shifted to the political level, as they were politicized by the government. After 1948, the Catholic Church had to fight for its existence in a totalitarian state where the highest laws did not come from Prague but from Moscow. The deteriorating diplomatic relations between Czechoslovakia and the Holy See were not the exception in Central and Eastern Europe after 1945, or more precisely in the countries of the future Eastern Bloc, rather the contrary. The emerging Cold War filled everyone with the fear of a new world conflict, a topic which was regularly commented on by the official newspaper of the Holy See, L’Osservatore Romano.493 Not only were the relations between states and the Church not good, but Church representatives were openly persecuted or even imprisoned in many of the aforementioned countries. At the turn of 1945/1946, a few Jesuits were arrested in Albania and accused of collaborating with the Nazis and supporting local terrorist groups.494 The persecution of the Catholic Church also took place in the restored Yugoslavia, along with the restriction of activities of Bishops (the most important was the act of sentenc-

492 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 187, fol. 24, Orsenigo to Pacelli October 1, 1938. 493 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Schwarzenberg March 14, 1946; AMFA, RO Vatican, ­1946–1947, Schwarzenberg May 4, 1946. 494 AMFA, GS A, box file 154, Vaněk February 7, 1946.

125

ing Zagreb Archbishop A. Stepinać for his alleged collaboration with Croatian leader A. Pavelić495) and the internment of some representatives of the priesthood, to which the Yugoslavian Bishops responded by issuing a joint pastoral letter.496 Polish Bishops were decimated by heavy losses during the war; after 1945, 15 bishopric thrones out of 24 were vacant; pastoral letters were censored, Catholic associations dissolved, and freedom of religion severely restricted.497 Although the prestige of the Polish Church increased after the war—the Nazis had murdered four Bishops and more than 2,000 priests—it was systematically trampled on by the emerging communist power, which tried to build a gap between the nation and the Church.498 Considerable disputes also arose between the Archbishop of Esztergom and the Primate of Hungary, József Mindszenty and the Hungarian government.499 Hard times had also arrived for Catholics in Romania, where the government denounced the 1929 concordat with the Holy See.500 Catholics in the countries that had relatively recently come under the direct control of the Soviet Union (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, etc.) suffered even worse conditions. But back to Czechoslovakia. Harsh persecution of priests and religious life in Czechoslovakia thus undoubtedly had an impact on the formation of Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations. Thanks to the efforts of the Czechoslovakian government, these relations, following the model of other East European satellite states of the Soviet Union, were directed towards their destruction. The Abbot of the Monastery in Břevnov, Anastáz Opasek, laconically stated that “the Church has been in quite a defensive mode since 1945.“501 The actions taken by the USSR after WWII left the Vatican in no doubt about its intentions: the persecution of the Greek Catholic Church, 502 expulsion of Apostolic Nuncios and other Vatican representatives from their offices, termination of concordats, and detention and harsh sentences

495 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Maixner November 13, 1946. The activities of Zagreb Archbishop A. Stepanić during WWII and his subsequent trial in more detail: Batelja, Alojz Stepinac, 40–71. 496 AMFA, GS A, box file 154, Vaněk February 7, 1946. 497 Ibid. 498 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Maixner October 6, 1946; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1948–1950, Maixner May 29, 1948. 499 Ibid., Maixner January 31, 1947; Hatos, “József kardinál Mindszenty,” 59–60. 500 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1948–1950, Maixner July 23, 1948. 501 Opasek, Dvanáct zastavení, 136. 502 The Greek Catholic Church was forcibly liquidated and its faithful were forced to convert to Orthodoxy.

126

for Church dignitaries confirmed this. Therefore, this struggle was the defeat of not only the Catholic Church, but mainly of freedom of speech, conscience, the press, assembly, and religion for the next 40 years. A Riccardi schematically captured the essence of communist aggression against Churches: “The country where communist religious policy was applied most systematically and harshly was Czechoslovakia.“503 Although the restored Czechoslovakian-Vatican diplomatic relations were relatively good between 1945 and 1946, they rapidly began to worsen. The reason for their deterioration was not the trial of the former President of the Slovak Republic and important functionary of Hlinka’s Slovak People’s Party, J. Tiso, as would be expected. It was due to the questions of Church education and land reform in Czechoslovakia after WWII.504 The cause of this attitude of the Vatican was apparently given by the fact that Tiso had assumed the presidential office, which was incompatible with his priestly mission, despite the warnings of Vatican circles and the reservations of Pius XII.505 After WWII, a wave of nationalistic radicalism hit all classes of society, including the Christians. In the first weeks, the German population was exposed to the harshest sanctions from Czechoslovakian society. They were insulted, humiliated, physically assaulted or even killed. German priests, monks and nuns were treated in a similarly harsh way.506 When the arbitrary expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia began at the end of 1945, the Holy See and many Christians pointed out the inhumane treatment of Germans, urged caution and pointed to the mistakes that were committed against German representatives of the Catholic Church, including the highest (Bishop A. Weber, professors of Theology, abbots). 507 Pope Pius XII stated that every person had the right to have a home and rejected the concept of collective guilt. If the representatives of the Church hierarchy agreed with the rest of society that the expulsion was a necessary and correct step, they disagreed with the cruelty and injustices perpetrated against the Germans, but were often afraid to speak up publicly. The Czech Catholic press, for

503 504 505 506 507

RiccardI, Století mučedníků, 152. AMFA, GS A, box file154; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Maixner February 27, 1947. Ibid. Staněk, “Odsun Němců a křesťané I,” 126–127. AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Maixner March 26, 1946; Staněk, “Odsun Němců a křestané II,” 37; Šebek, Od konfliktu ke smíření, 75.

127

example, Katolík or Rozsévač, also repeatedly pointed out the mistakes in the expulsion of the Germans.508 Let us return for a moment to the priest and President of the Slovak Republic, J. Tiso. Although Internuncio Ritter did not publicly intercede with the Czechoslovakian government on Tisa’s behalf, there were numerous efforts to save his life. The former Slovakian President, Tiso himself, sent a personal letter to Pope Pius XII in the summer of 1945, asking him for protection, and he also intervened with the Holy See through Munich Archbishop M. von Faulhaber. The latter subsequently interceded with the U.S. military administration in Munich on Tisa’s behalf. Also some Slovakian compatriots in the USA attempted to save his life, with New York Archbishop F. J. Spellman allegedly trying to influence President Truman. Secretary of the Internunciature, R. Forni, intervened in the name of the Holy See with President Beneš on April 16, 1947. Also the former Slovakian Envoy, Karol Sidor, took certain steps to help Tiso; Pius XII received him in an audience on June 29, 1945.509 Another, indirect attempt took place at the turn of 1945–46 through the Apostolic Delegate to the USA, A. G. Cicognani, and the Archbishop of Westminster, Bernard William Griffin, but it did not meet with any success.510 In the summer of 1946, when the professor of Pastoral Theology and President of the Prague Archbishop’s Seminary, Josef Beranav, visited Rome, the Holy See made it clear that the question of Tiso was not a priority at that moment.511 The judgement, by which Tiso was sentenced to death on April 15, did not produce a relevant response in Vatican circles; they obviously considered the whole case as an internal affair of Czechoslovakia.512 If the Vatican had been willing to accept Tiso as Prime Minister of the Slovakian autonomous government, they had not identified with

508 Staněk, “Odsun Němců a křestané II,” 38–39. 509 Rychlík, “Proces s Jozefem Tisem v roce 1947,” 580; Barnovský, “K niektorým otázkam,” 314; Opasek, Dvanáct zastavení, 157–158; Vaško, Neumlčená, 1:156–159; Blehová, “Prípad “Jozef Tiso”,” 89, 93. 510 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Maixner April 4, 1947. The attitude of the Vatican to the trial of Tiso in more detail: AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Maixner March 19, 1947; Blehová, “Prípad “Jozef Tiso”,” 94. 511 Rychlík, “Proces s Jozefem Tisem v roce 1947,” 583; Svobodné Slovo, March 2, 1947; Bizzarri, Il principe di Dio, 85. 512 Tiso was executed on the morning of April 18, 1947 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, clippings from the period press. L’Osservatore Romano responded to the the sentence and execution of Tiso on April 20, 1947.

128

his presidency and political engagement during WWII that could have led to the compromising of political Catholicism in the country.513 The contradiction of these two statements is apparent: the Vatican did not give its consent to Tiso’s presidency; they simply accepted his election as President of the first Slovak Republic on October 26, 1939, although they learned about it in addition and did not welcome it at all.514 Tiso himself consistently distinguished between his roles, the post of President and his priestly mission. The Holy See accepted his decision to become President as his free will, but they were aware of all the possible risks it implied, and Pope Pius XII repeatedly pointed out this fact.515 Given the situation in Slovakia, Tiso’s diocesan Bishop in Nitra, K. Kmeťko, and other Slovakian Bishops believed that it would be better if Tiso was the President rather than anyone else. That is why their attitude was rather loyal until the turn of 1943 and 1944.516 From early 1946, the post of Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Holy See was held by a young but experienced diplomat and participant in the domestic resistance movement, František Schwarzenberg. In August 1946, he was replaced by the formal Envoy and former Head of the Church Department of the Second Section of the Foreign Ministry, Artur Maixner, a devout Catholic, who appointed Schwarzenberg as Secretary of Legation and J. Machula as Church Advisor at the Czechoslovakian Legation to the Holy See. Maixner’s ceremonial audience with Pope Pius XII for the presentation of the credential letters took place on August 13, 1946.517 Although the first parliamentary elections in Czechoslovakia were to be held within six months after the end of WWII, they took place— for the benefit of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia—on May 26, 1946.518 The Holy See observed the elections very carefully, as evidenced by the comments of the official Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano of May and June 1946. On the eve of the elections, Slovakian Bishops issued a joint document called The Guideline for Catholics on the Elections, 513 Letz, “Vzťahy Svätej stolice a Slovenska,” 127 an; Hajko, Nezrelá republika, 308 514 Ďurica, Jozef Tiso a Vatikán, 29; Machula, Vatikán a Československo, 51; Letz, “Vzťahy Svätej stolice a Slovenska,” 127. 515 Ďurica, Jozef Tiso a Vatikán, 30; Kamenec, Prečan, and Škorvánek, Vatikán a Slovenská republika, 39–40, document n. 19, Pius XII to Tiso December 5, 1939. 516 Vaško, Neumlčená, 1:83–84; Vaško, Dům na skále, 1:36f. 517 APO, fund PO, n. 1465, Vatican, n. D16370/46, Maixner August 13, 1946; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Maixner August 6, 1946. Machula was dissmised from diplomatic service in June 1948. 518 Pehr, “Volby 1946,” 15.

129

in which they called upon the faithful to vote for political parties that guaranteed religious freedom. However, it was not read in Slovakian churches.519 The Vatican paper pinned considerable hopes on the success of the Czechoslovak People’s Party, which, however, gained only 15.3 % of the votes and 46 mandates out of 300 seats in the unicameral National Constituent Assembly, and finished third.520 The winner was the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia with 40.17 % of the votes and 93 mandates. The Czechoslovak National Socialist Party took second place with 23.66 % of the votes and 55 mandates. While the Communists were victors in the Czech Lands, in Slovakia it was the Democratic Party. Disappointment at the poor results of political Catholicism was expressed, for example, by Katolík.521 The number of Deputies in the Czechoslovak People’s Party was reduced: before the elections they had 49 seats, and afterwards, only 46. The number of mini­ stries managed by the People’s Party increased by one, but those were not “power” ministries. From July 1946, there were four ministers of the People’s Party in the first Gottwald government—Minister of Post Offices František Hála, Minister of Health Adolf Procházka, Minister of Technology and Minister without portfolio Alois Vošahlík, and Deputy Prime Minister Jan Šrámek.522 If it had been possible to apply Šrámek’s tactics in the relatively stable political spectrum of the First Republic, it was not possible in the time of growing communist aggression, when it was necessary to fight for one’s own position. Although the party still inclined towards the Vatican, and recently proclaimed its reformatory socialism, they were not able to face the aggression of the Communist Party due to their disunity. The Holy See was also surprised that the Czechoslovakian government, as well as many governments of Central and Eastern Europe, had changed its attitude to the acceptance of the Marshall Plan and had not attended the meeting in Paris.523 With the arrival of the Cold War, the Holy See clearly inclined towards the West, as evidenced by the n ­ umerous statements of the official daily L’Osservatore Romano. However, they also tried to find a way to deal with the East, “because without

519 Kaplan, Stát a církev v Československu, 20. The guideline in more detail: Letz, V hodine veľkej skúšky, 474–475, document n. 156. 520 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Schwarzenberg June 12, 1946. 521 Vaško, Neumlčená, 1:114–115. 522 Pehr, “Československá strana lidová a únor 1948,” 142 523 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Maixner August 4, 1947.

130

Russia and its system of allied countries, there can be no talk of balance or permanent reconstruction.“524 However, the purposeful propaganda of Moscow systematically worked towards the liquidation of diplomatic relations between Eastern Europe and the Holy See, at which they eventually succeeded in the late 1940s. On August 31, 1946, A. Maixner gave D. Tardini the reply of President Beneš, in which the head of the country confirmed his letter presented by Apostolic Internuncio Ritter when he had taken up his office.525 Three weeks later, on September 18, 1946, Tardini personally gave Pius XII, in his summer residence of Castel Gandolfo, the reply of President Beneš regarding the credentials of Internuncio Ritter and also the reply of Foreign Minister Jan Masaryk to the Pope’s letter regarding the new representative of the Holy See in Czechoslovakia.526 After the removal of the “unreliable” Maixner in November 1948, the Czechoslovakian Embassy in the Vatican was vacant for a few months.527 In March 1949, chargé d’affaires Ilja Ráth became the last Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Holy See for a long time. His main goal was to liquidate the Czechoslovakian representation to the Eternal City.528 After WWII, the Holy See, mainly Pope Pius XII and the former Apostolic Nuncios, appreciated the statesmanlike prudence of President Beneš. In August 1946, when the new Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Vatican took up his office, Pius XII stated that he admired “the great work of President Beneš during WWI, the First Republic, and WWII, who, unlike any other head of state, managed to lead the nations of his state from the crisis of world war to safety and into a happy future.“529 The Holy See was therefore happy to learn that Beneš had been reelected Czechoslovakian President in the summer of 1946.530 The Italian press, including L’Osservatore Romano, devoted considerable attention to Beneš’s deteriorating health, his death, and funeral in September 1948.531

524 Ibid., 1948–1950, Maixner May 14, 1948. 525 APO, fund PO, n. 1974, Inaugural Audience—The Apostolic Nunciature, n. D15902/46, Maixner August 31, 1946. 526 Ibid., n. D17606/46, Maixner September 19, 1946; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Maixner October 6, 1946. 527 Balík, and Hanuš, Katolická církev v Československu, 19. 528 AMFA, GS A, box file 154; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1948–1950, Ráth March 24, 1949, or July 9, 1949, or September 19, 1949. 529 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Maixner August 21, 1946. Ciriaci’s praise for Beneš in more detail: AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Maixner December 31, 1946. 530 Lidová demokracie, August 18, 1946. 531 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1948–1950, Maixner October 6, 1948.

131

The deterioration of relations after 1948, when “there was a radical turnaround in the relation of the State to the Holy See, but also to the Church,“532 fully corresponds to the totalitarian ambitions of the emerging communist rule; the removal of unwanted clergymen, prohibition of the Church press, enforcement of the Education Act, nationalization of Church property, etc.533 The reality of everyday life of the Church and the position of the faithful in society changed as well, as J. Cuhra aptly depicted: “The existing system based on the partnership between State power represented by the government and the Church hierarchy in the search for mutual consensus did not formally cease to exist, but it lost its true meaning and, more or less, functioned as a coulisse behind which new directors dictated the rules of the game.“534 On May 15, 1948, the Italian Catholic weekly L’Oradell’Azione openly declared that “Czechoslovakia ceased to be a democratic country. This state, having entered the sphere of interest of the Soviet Union, came under the unconditional control of the Communists.“535 The weekly informed Italian citizens in detail about the suppression of civil liberties in the country, including the escalating persecution of the Catholic Church. The Italian and Vatican Catholic press very closely monitored the situation in Czechoslovakia in connection with the forthcoming parliamentary elections. On May 27, L’Osservatore Romano ran a report on the holding of the elections, expressing confidence that the results would bring the country closer to socialism and the Soviet Union.536 With the forthcoming elections, the tension between the State and the Church grew and threatened to erupt into open conflict. The Holy See certainly perceived the results of the elections of May 30, 1948 as a great disappointment, when the National Front of the Czechs and Slovaks obtained 86.60 % of the votes.537 The Catholic Church in the Czech Lands did not influence the election results by holding any public appearances. Most of the priests, monks and the faithful did not attend the elections nor did they vote in the government ballot.538 The fact that Italy held parliamentary elections at the same time, where the Communist Party also saw significant electoral gains, 532 533 534 535 536 537 538

Casaroli, Trýzeň trpělivosti, 130. AMFA, GS A, box file 154. Cuhra, “KSČ, stát a římskokatolická církev,” 269. AMFA, RO Vatican, 1948–1950, Maixner May 19, 1948. L’Osservatore Romano, May 27, 1948. We do not know the real election results, however. Vaško, Neumlčená, 2:30. Kaplan, Stát a církev v Československu, 36.

132

represents an interesting parallel to the elections in Czechoslovakia. The Italian elections were held in April 1948 and the Italian Communist Party was a strong favorite in the upcoming election campaign. On Easter Sunday, March 28, the Pope thus delivered a harsh speech to the Italian public, filled with concerns about the future. He called upon the people to decide for or against God. As a result, the Christian Democratic Party became a clear winner with an electoral gain of almost half of all the votes, whereas the left wing, associated to the People’s Democratic bloc, suffered a defeat and did not receive even a third of the votes. Since the last 1946 elections, there had been a significant strengthening of the Christian political bloc (1946: 35.2% of votes) and the weakening of the Communist Party, which had finished third (18.9% of votes) in the first post-war elections. The 1948 elections also functioned as a referendum on the post-war direction of Italy—the victory of the Christian party confirmed its place in the Western, not the Eastern, bloc in postwar Europe.539 After February 1948, two committees were charged to negotiate with churches, the Committee for Church and Religious Affairs of the Central Action Committee of the National Front and the Church Committee of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. On April 25, the latter was replaced by a new, more representative formation with greater authority. It was called the “Church Six” after six men who participated in its management — A. Čepička, V. Clementis, Z. Fierlinger, J. Hendrych, V. Kopecký and V. Široký. In October 1949, the State Bureau of Religious Affairs was established, which functioned as a ministry for communication with churches. After the suspension of diplomatic relations with the Holy See in 1950, the communist policy underwent further changes in relation to the Church.540 The campaign against the Church in Czechoslovakia after the war was a logical and well thought-out plan of the aggressive communist policy aimed at seizing power. Their attitude towards churches, especially the Catholic Church, was therefore no different from that towards other political groups. However, after the leftist slogans about a just society turned out to be empty, the collaborationist Catholic Action ineffective — the prestige of which plummeted in Church circles — and the rifts within Church circles inadequate, the regime decided to demonstrate its 539 Šmíd, Papež Pius XII., 38. 540 Balík, and Hanuš, Katolická církev v Československu, 20; Cuhra, “KSČ, stát a římskokatolická církev,” 269.

133

power. This was primarily based on irrational arguments (the Church as an anti-communist and imperialist institution or a spy network of the Vatican) and merely reflected the current predominance of the State apparatus. The Catholic Action was probably a way of the communist regime towards a national Church.541

541 Kaplan, Stát a církev v Československu, 71.

134

3.4 The Nuncios’ Interest in Religious Affairs in Czechoslovakia

Too Many Unclarified Issues . . . The separation of Church and State was a major dispute between the representatives of the Catholic hierarchy and Czechoslovakia between 1918 and 1927. However, Masaryk and Beneš had already anticipated this separation at the time of WWI. The unity of Church and State encountered the resistance of government representatives in Czechoslovakia. So, to many, the separation seemed natural and beneficial to the Church. J. Pekař reportedly said in 1918: “Why should we be interested in separation now that Masaryk will be the one to appoint Catholic Bishops?“542 Krofta, the Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Holy See, informed the Roman Curia about the intention of separation in December 1920. He said that the separation should take place always in compliance with the intentions of the Vatican, in the moderate Brazilian manner, not the French one,543 nor according Bartoška’s radical plan. The Czechoslovakian separation of Church and State excluded concordat.544

542 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1921, Krofta October 31, 1921. 543 A  radical separation of Church and State was conducted in Portugal in 1911, which led to the deterioration of Portuguese-Vatican relations. The Portuguese separation became a model for Bartoška’s  radical plan of separation. On the contrary, the 1899 Brazilian separation represented a  more moderate form of separation of Church and State, when the misuse of government influence on churches, mainly the Catholic Church which was the major religion in Brazil, was prevented as well as damage to mutual relations. The Brazilian form was similar to that of North America. Ibid., Krofta December 18, 1920. 544 Ibid.; Dejmek, “Počátky diplomatických vztahů,” 235–236.

135

A  radical proposal for the separation of Church and State was submitted to Parliament on June 2, 1920 by left-wing Deputies led by Theodor Bartošek, František Houser, Louisa Landová-Štychová and Františka Zemínová. They required a radical separation in the French style.545 The authors sought to ensure that the proposed law would significantly interfere in the everyday life of the faithful—civil marriage should be the only form of marriage recognized by the State, Church schools should be abolished, and religion should be taught only privately. Churches should be brought under State control, Church documents, such as papal encyclicals and bulls, issued only with the consent of the State, and the Church should not be allowed to divert funds abroad, e.g. Peter’s Pence.546 Given that the proposal provoked considerable opposition in the Catholic environment, Parliament de facto did not even consider it. After 1918, all efforts of the Czechoslovakian side were aimed at implementing the separation of Church and State. The decisive struggle for its legalization took place in Parliament in early 1920 during the discussion on the future Constitution of the Czechoslovak Republic. The original proposal: “A separation shall be established between the State and Churches,” was replaced by a less radical formulation in the final text of the Constitution: “Freedom of conscience is guaranteed.“547 Yet, during 1920, the representatives of the Roman Curia realized that the separation was inevitable in Czechoslovakia and began to prepare for it, so that “there is the least possible damage in relation to the Church.“548 Secretary of State Gasparri instructed Nuncio Micara to insist on the following requirements in future negotiations with the Foreign Minister: the Catholic Church would be guaranteed full freedom of education and religion, the Catholic Church and Church institutions would be granted legal personality, and the Catholic Church would be guaranteed the inalienability of its property, including its management. In addition, all major decisions should be subjected to the approval of the Holy

545 Archiv Poslanecké sněmovny Parlamentu ČR, fund Stenoprotokoly a  tisky Národního shromáždění Republiky československé, 1918–1938, jednání poslanecké sněmovny 2. 6. 1920. The French model of separation was considered as an “unfriendly model”; religion became a purely private matter of individuals and was excluded from public life. 546 Ibid. 547 Halas, “Sekularizace v  první Československé republice,” 106; Trapl, “Český politický katolicismus v letech 1918–1938,” 187. 548 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 10, fascicolo 40, fol. 36, Gasparri to Micara November 13, 1920.

136

Father. Based on the experience from the USA, where the separation had already taken place, the Holy See sought to follow the North American or Brazilian model.549 In January 1921, the Separation Committee led by Czech lawyer Antonín Hobza, in cooperation with the joint Ministry of Education and Foreign Ministry, called for a unilateral form of separation. It required a gradual solution of the most serious political-religious issues, e.g. the implementation of the separation, nationalization of Church schools, restriction on religious education, unification of diocesan and national borders, State control in the appointment of Church representatives, etc. The great number of issues which were to be addressed, based on their degree of importance, slowed down the separation and probably also contributed to its failure.550 A month later, Foreign Minister Beneš also declared his support for the implementation of the separation, stating that—with respect to the Vatican’s interests—the separation was desired by all Czechoslovakian political parties. Being aware of the complexity of the future negotiations, he was perhaps pleased that many political parties gradually abandoned the idea of separation in exchange for maintaining their existing Catholic voters.551 Slovakia was against the separation from the start. The waiting attitude of the Czechoslovakian government was also confirmed to Micara by Minister of Education Josef Šusta.552 Also Secretary of State Gasparri was assured by Beneš at the 1921 February meeting in the Vatican that the Church’s interests would be considered in the implementation of the separation.553 When agreement was not reached on the planned separation at the beginning of the following year, the chances of its enforcement gradually declined with the weakening of post-revolutionary radicalism. The delimitation of dioceses in Slovakia was a bigger problem. Micara had been acquainted with this matter from 1919 when he had first 549 Ibid. 550 ATGM, fund Edvard Beneš I—Churches 1919–1925—box file 63, n. 282, R193/2, The Program of the Czechoslovakian government on the issue of the relation between the State and the Church approved by the Separation Committee led by professor A. Hozba. 551 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, III periodo, fascicolo 3, fols. 19–23, Micara to Gasparri December 10, 1920, or fols. 28–30, Micara to Gasparri February 2, 1921. 552 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 10, fascicolo 40, fols. 76–81, Micara to Gasparri February 2, 1921. 553 Ibid., busta 12, fascicolo 45, fols. 11–13, Gasparri to Micara March 3, 1921; Hájková, Quagliatová, and Vašek, Korespondence T. G. Masaryk—Edvard Beneš, 238, Beneš to Masaryk February 15, 1921.

137

arrived in Czechoslovakia. The Vatican and the Czechoslovakian side agreed that the State borders be brought in line with the diocesan borders. However, Micara was afraid that in their demarcation the national and political interests of Czechoslovakia would be advanced to the detriment of the Church’s interests.554 The political-religious situation in Slovakia was certainly not easy after 1918. Half of Slovakian dioceses—Spiš, Nitra, and Banská Bystrica—were ethnically monolithic, and the remaining three dioceses were divided between Czechoslovakia and Hungary— Esztergom (Trnava555), Košice and Rožňava. The administrator of the Archdiocese of Esztergom, where one-third of Slovakian Catholics lived, was Cardinal János Csernoch, Slovak by birth, known as Ján Černoch of Skalice.556 However, the adjustment of borders exceeded Slovakian territory and also concerned territory in Silesia and South Bohemia. The question of borders had already been discussed in the context of the separation of Church and State in 1922. Nevertheless, only on October 1, 1923 did the Council of Ministers, on behalf of the Czechoslovakian government, authorize the Foreign Ministry, along with the Ministry of Education and National Enlightenment, to launch negotiations with the Holy See on the unification of the Czechoslovakian State and the diocesan borders. Czechoslovakian dioceses should not reach into foreign dioceses and vice versa. In fact, 7 out of 13 Czechoslovakian dioceses extended abroad, and 9 foreign dioceses extended into the territory of Czechoslovakia.557 From the spring of 1924, the Commission for the adjustment of borders of Roman and Greek Catholic dioceses, in accordance with the State borders (under the Ministry of Education and National Enlightenment) intensively worked on the adjustment of borders. The issue was delayed due to the property claims of individual parties. The aim was to abolish the authority of foreign Church dignitaries in the territory of Czechoslovakia, especially in Slovakia and Subcarpathian Ruthenia. However, negotiations were delayed, mainly due to disagreement with the Holy See and opposition from the Hungarian government and 554 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1920, Krofta August 30, 1920. 555 However, Trnava still did not have the status of a  separate diocese but that of Apostolic Administration. 556 Dejmek, “Počátky diplomatických vztahů,” 225. The person of János Csernoch in more detail: Hrabovec, “Na pokraji prerušenia stykov,” 263f. 557 AMFA, II. section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 28, Černý October 13, 1923, or Bechyně July 7, 1923.

138

Cardinal J. Csernoch. In the summer of 1925, they were de facto suspended and resumed in early 1927. A disputed question between Czechoslovakia and the Holy See was not only the demarcation of dioceses, but also the question of their management, i.e. the filling of the Bishopric posts in Slovakia. In late November 1918, the Council of Priests, newly established by Slovakian politician Andrej Hlinka, met in Ružomberk. They were to deal with the new religious-political situation in Slovakia and make a list of the wrongs committed by former Hungarian Bishops in Slovakia. Priest František Jehlička was also one of those engaged in the Council in the first months; he proposed the promotion of the Nitra Diocese to archdiocese headed by Andrej Hlinka and the appointment of Karel Kmeťko as Bishop of Košice, Augustín Fischer-Colbrie to Banská Bystrice, Jozef Budaye to Spiš, and Ján Vojtaššák to Rožnava.558 The conclusions of the Council of Priests were also confirmed by the Assembly of priests and laymen in Žilina, who submitted their ideas to the Czechoslovakian ­government on January 22, 1919.559 Nuncio to Vienna Valfré di Bonzo also discussed this matter with President Masaryk during his visit to Prague on March 3, 1919.560 Although some historians believe that Nuncio to Vienna, Valfré di Bonzo, regarded “Slovakia as definitively lost to the Kingdom of Hungary,“561 we believe that the Holy See adopted a waiting tactic in connection with Slovakia until the demarcation of borders in the Treaty of Trianon of June 1920, by which also individual Czechoslovakian dioceses were rearranged, mainly in Slovakia and Subcarpathian Ruthenia. The attitude of the Holy See remained unclear even after 1920.562 After all, the long and exhausting negotiations about the filling of Slovakian dioceses entered its final, climatic phase only in August 1920, i.e. several months after the signing of the Treaty of Trianon, which “apparently did not convince Vatican dignitaries about the durability of the current

558 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1921, Krofta, April 30, 1921; ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 26, fascicolo 117, fol. 124; Letz, “Karol Kmeťko,” 342; Sidor, and Vnuk, Andrej Hlinka, 323. 559 Hrabovec, “Obsadenie nitrianskeho biskupského stolca,” 328. 560 Mulík, “Prenotifikácia a jej politický aspekt,” 231 561 For example Hrabovec, “Obsadenie nitrianskeho biskupského stolca,” 328. 562 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 10, fascicolo 39, fols. 50–55, Micara to Gasparri October 27, 1919; Dejmek, Historik v čele diplomacie, 9; Hronský, Boj o Slovensko a Trianon, 275–276; Irmanová, Maďarsko a versailleský mírový systém.

139

Central European political arrangement,” as Secretary of State Gasparri indicated to the Czechoslovakian Envoy, K. Krofta.563 The Czechoslovakian side held the view that, based on the Reception Law No. 11/1918 or Article 64 of the Constitution of the Czechoslovak Republic of February 29, 1920, they had the rights of the former Austro-Hungarian rulers that were enshrined in Act 50/1874 on the Law of Patronage and that had been passed on to the Czechoslovakian govern­ ment, to thus decide on the election of high Church dignitaries.564 The Czechoslovakian government, however, did not agree with the candidates proposed by the Vatican: one Czech and three Slovakian Bishops—Š. Bárta for the Diocese of Č. Budějovice, K. Kmeťko for Spiš, J. Buday for Nitra, and P. Jantausch for Banská Bystrice. Foreign Minister Beneš said that the government was against the candidacy of Jantausch and M. Bubnič, but then he and Nuncio Micara agreed on the following candidates: K. Kmeťko, M. Blaha, and J. Vojtaššák. The filling of Slovakian dioceses was to be carried out as soon as possible, as the Church “injustice” in Slovakia significantly worsened the situation and did not contribute to the settlement of relations with the Vatican.565 However, criteria for future Slovakian Bishops were not easy and many priests did not meet these: candidates had to meet the requirements of the Church, the Czechoslovakian government, and be conscious Slovaks, which eliminated many capable men. When in December 1919, Micara was asked to make a list of the most suitable candidates for the posts of Slovakian Bishops based on secret information, he discussed it with Slovakian Jesuits, Redemptorists, Prague Archbishop F. Kordač, and Esztergom Archbishop J. Csernoch. He also personally consulted the Chairman of the Slovak People’s Party, A. Hlinka, in Prague about some candidates. In February 1920, he submitted a list of suitable candidates to the Holy See: 1) Andrej Hlinka, 2) Karol Kmeťko, 3) Jozef Buday, 4) Andrej Bielek, 5) Pavol Jantausch, 6) Ján Vojtaššák, 7) Michal

563 Dejmek, “Vztahy mezi ČSR a Vatikánem,” 78. 564 Pope Benedict XI stated in his speech of November 21, 1921 that all the privileges of the Austro-Hungarian rulers had ceased to be in force, and this decision applied to all the successor states of Austria-Hungary, including Czechoslovakia, but the Czechoslovakian government refused its acceptance. In more detail: Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Commentarium officiale 13, vol. 13 (1921): 521–524; Hrabovec, “Menovanie biskupov,” 543; NA Praha, fund Předsednictvo ministerské rady, box file 3205, sig. 724; Hrabovec, “Na pokraji prerušenia stykov,” 275. 565 AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 591, fols. 24–31, Micara to Gasparri September 17, 1920.

140

Bubnič, 8) Anton Hromada, and 9) Štefan Rovenský.566 However, the ideas of the government were different — K. A. Medvecký, Ľ. Okánik, J. Donoval, P. Žiška, and F. Juriga, who, on the other hand, with their reformist views were not acceptable to the Vatican.567 Therefore, the negotiations between Foreign Minister Beneš and Nuncio Micara continued. The Czechoslovakian government insisted that the post of Apostolic Administrator to Trnava be quickly filled so that they could limit the influence of Esztergom Archbishop Csernoch in south-eastern Slovakia and prevent foreign influence in their territory.568 Therefore, after difficult negotiations between 1921 and 1922, a temporary Apostolic Administration was created in Trnava from the Slovakian part of the Archdiocese of Esztergom569. In May 1922, Jantausch was appointed at its head as Apostolic Administrator with the powers of Residential Bishop. After many concessions to the Czechoslovakian government, he was given priority by the Vatican above priests Michael Bubnič, Štefan Rovenský and Andrej Hlinka. His election was certainly not easy and was accompanied by a sharp exchange of views between the Holy See and Czechoslovakia: the Apostolic Nuncio promoted M. Bubnič to this post, but Beneš disagreed, referring to his political unsuitability.570 In November 10, 1920, after long and difficult negotiations, Cardinal B. Cerretti informed Envoy Krofta of the final nominations for the individual Czechoslovakian thrones, which had also been approved by Secretary of State Gasparri: Marián Blaha for Banská Bystrice, Karol Kmeťko for Nitra, Ján Vojtaššák for Spiš, and Šimon Bárta for České Budějovice. 571 Among these candidates were also two pretenders of the government (Blaha and Vojtaššák), which was a big success for the Czechoslovakian side but a dangerous precedent for the future appointments of Bishops in the country. 572 First Slovakian Bishops, Blaha, Kmeťko and Vojtaššák, were appointed by Pope Benedict XV at a secret

566 Ibid., fols. 3–8, Micara to Gasparri February 15, 1920, or fascicolo 602, fol. 5, Micara to Gasparri March 24, 1920; Hrabovec, Slovensko a Svätá stolica 1918–1927, 43–44. 567 Hrabovec, “Obsadenie nitrianskeho biskupského stolca,” 333; Sidor, and Vnuk, Andrej Hlinka, 586; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1921, Krofta October 31, 1921. 568 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1921, Beneš August 13, 1921, or Niederle September 1, 1921. 569 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1921, Krofta June 1, 1921. 570 Ibid., 1921, Krofta September 30, 1921, or October 31, 1921. 571 AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 591, fol. 43, Gasparri to Micara October 19, 1920. 572 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1921, Krofta February 28, 1921; Mulík, “Prenotifikácia a jej politický aspekt,” 230.

141

consistory on December 16, 1920, and ordained on February 13, 1921 in the Piarist Church of St. Ladislaus in Nitra, Western Slovakia.573 The ardent candidate of the Slovakian clergy, Hlinka, lost all his chances and remained unacceptable to the Prague government after his mission at the Peace Conference in Paris, where he had agitated against Czechoslovakia.574 On the other hand, the fact that he was not appointed in the Church hierarchy allowed him greater political activity, especially in Parliament. The Holy See also considered it more appropriate that Hlinka remained a charismatic political leader rather than a Bishop, and the Slovak People’s Party would not have gained such political credit without him. His unsuccessful integration among Slovakian Bishops thus probably was not a result of strong Hungarian influence on the Holy See, nor of his alleged paternity which could have been an obstacle to obtaining the title of Bishop.575 The filling of the Diocese of České Budějovice after the death of Josef Antonín Hůlka, who had administered his diocese from 1907, was certainly the victory of Nuncio Micara and the Vatican side. The Holy See launched negotiations on a successor to Hůlka shortly after his funeral on February 13, 1920. Secretary of State Gasparri asked Prague Nuncio Micara to find out the views of Czech Church dignitaries about the filling of the post in České Budějovice. Hůlka’s successor was to be quite the opposite of him—a decisive and educated man, a priest with authority, a religiously rigid person. Priest Šimon Bárta received the best rating, and was labelled by the Apostolic Nuncio in the opening of his extensive report to the Vatican as “a devout, educated, and keen man with sincere feelings for the Church and respected by all.“576 Prague Archbishop Kordač also supported his candidacy and endorsed him as a suitable Bishop.577 The new Bishop of České Budějovice, Bárta, was ordained and enthroned in the Cathedral of St. Nicholas on Sunday, February 20, 1921 at the age of 56 in the presence of Prague Archbishop Kordač, Bishop of Litoměřice J. Grosse, and Prague Auxiliary Bishop J. Sedlák.

573 Špirko, Cirkevné dejiny, 2:470; Hrabovec, “Obsadenie nitrianskeho biskupského stolca,” 335, 337. 574 AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 589, fols. 67–72, Memorandum slovenského národa adresované mírové konferenci v Paříži. 575 Vojenský ústřední archiv, fund Sbírka vzpomínek—Vlastimil Klíma, box file 3, n. 9167, Dr. J. J. Rückl (manuscript). 576 AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 576, fols. 6–7, Micara to Gasparri March 10, 1920. 577 Ibid.

142

On June 13, 1921, Karel Kašpar, former Vicar-General and Titular Bishop who had already been appointed Bishop of Bethsaida and ­Auxiliary Bishop of Hradec Králové in the spring of the previous year, was appointed Residential Bishop of Hradec Králové.578 This intention of the Holy See had been conveyed by Micara to the Czechoslovakian government, by which the Bishop was asked to take the oath of loyalty to the Czechoslovak Republic.579 However, it was not only the question of Czech and Slovakian Bishops that was discussed with the Vatican. There was also the question of the filling of Greek Catholic dioceses in Prešov and Mukacheve (Subcarpathian Ruthenia).580 The Bishop of Prešov, Štefan Novák, a Hungarianized Ruthenian—apparently with the tacit approval of the Holy See— left for Hungary after the creation of Czechoslovakia and his throne became vacant, 581 but the Bishop of Mukacheve, A. Papp remained. This Ruthenian priest of Hungarian origin, who had held his post from 1912, became the target of attacks after 1918 when complaints about him intensified—he was accused of siding with the Hungarians. Micara was to deal with the resignation of Papp and the filling of the throne of Prešov, but he encountered the inertia of the Czechoslovakian side, which was not satisfied with the candidates proposed by the Holy See. In addition, Micara apparently did not want to get rid of Papp.582 The Bishop of Križevci, Dionýz Nyaradi, became the new Apostolic Administrator of Prešov in June 1922.583 In September 1922, Micara announced this joyful message from the Holy See to Nyaradi. It had also

578 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 3, Hobza June 6, 1921. 579 Ibid., January 29, 1924. 580 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1921, Krofta February 28, 1921; AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 141, fols. 66–70, Visk to Pius XI. 14. 2. 1937. There were more than 30 000 Slovaks of the Greek Catholic rite. 581 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1922, Niederle April 3, 1922, or Pallier November 30, 1922; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 1, Moser October 19, 1926; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 20, without signature August 28, 1923; AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 21, fol. 45, Gasparri to Micara March 2, 1922; AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 619, fol. 50, Bonzo to Gasparri February 11, 1921, or fol. 77, Gasparri to Pallier November 17, 1922. The personage of Štefan Novák from the pen of Micara in more detail: Coranič, Dejiny gréckokatolíckej cirkvi, 46–47. 582 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1922–1923, Niederle April 3, 1922, or Pallier June 24, 1922, or Pallier January 31, 1923; AA. EE. 583 Dionýz Nyaradi was a descendant of Slovakian emigrants from Eastern Slovakia to the Lower Land, i.e. today’s Serbia. Originally, his name was Dionýz Miklošič, but he Hungarianised his name. From 1914, he was a supporter of the Ukrainian national movement among Greek Catholics.

143

been approved by the Czechoslovakian government.584 Two years later, the Apostolic Nuncio to Prague, Marmaggi defended Nyaradi against Foreign Minister Beneš, but it seemed that the Czechoslovakian side still did not trust him: “Mons. Nyaradi, a most educated and scholarly prelate, a man truly apostolic and democratic, is a sincere and noble friend of the Czechoslovakian nation, as Your Excellency could personally see.“585 Nyaradi held his post until 1927 when he returned to Yugoslavia.586 On September 29, 1923, Prečan, previous Metropolitan Canon and Vicar-General of Olomouc, was designated by both the Czechoslovakian government and the Holy See as new Archbishop of Olomouc after the death of A. C. Stojan. He was already appointed Archbishop on November 10, 1923.587 In July 1924, Peter Gebej, a Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church dignitary and politician, became Papp’s  successor. After the creation of Czechoslovakia, he had refused the Hungarianization policy of the Hungarian government in Subcarpathian Ruthenia and emphasized his loyalty to Czechoslovakia.588 In 1922, Gebej was appointed Vicar-General of the Mukacheve Diocese and Prelate of the Chapter of Uzhhorod. On August 3, 1924, he was ordained Bishop at the Fourth Unionist Congress in Velehrad in the presence of Nuncio Marmaggi.589 In early 1925, new Bishop Gebej took an oath of loyalty to the Czechoslovak Republic.590 The personage of Gebej was a symbol of the relative religious flourishing of the eastern part of the Republic and a calming of the situation in Subcarpathian Ruthenia, even among the faithful of different religions. After Gebej died in the spring of 1931, on the recommendation of Nuncio Micara, the post of Bishop of Mukacheve was assumed by

584 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 1, Halfar July 15, 1922, or Micara September 12, 1922; AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 21, fol. 66, Pallier to Gasparri July 26, 1922, or fol. 71, Micara to Gasparri August 17, 1922. 585 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 1, Marmaggi November 23, 1924. 586 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1921, Pallier June 24, 1922, or October 11, 1922; AMFA, Kabinet ministra, box file 11. The approval of the Czechoslovakian governemnt for the appointment of Nyaradi as Bishop of Prešov was pronounced on July 15, 1922. 587 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 3, Beneš November 24, 1923; Jonová, “Jednání o obsazení arcibiskupského stolce v Olomouci,” 149. 588 A. Papp, the Greek Catholic Bishop of the Eparchy of Mukachevo located in Uzhhorod, left Czechoslovakia under pressure from State authorities in September 1925 and subsequently retired to Hungary. More details: AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 1; AMFA, RO  Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 34; ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 29, fascicolo 131, fols. 302–309, Micara to Gasparri May 25, 1925. 589 Časopis katolického duchovenstva 72, n. 7 (1931): 756–757. 590 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 1, Markovič February 25, 1925.

144

the Canon, Director of the Episcopal Office, and Papal Chamberlain, Alexander Stojka.591 The fundamental dispute between the Czechoslovakian government and the Church hierarchy was the question of the appointment of Bishops, often referred to as “the fight for nomination law” in Church historiography. While the Holy See disagreed with the decision of the Czechoslovakian government to use the rights of the Habsburg monarchy and intervene in the filling of posts of high Church dignitaries, the government, by contrast, sought to maintain control over newly appointed Bishops. Appropriately elected Czech or Slovakian high Church officials represented an assurance to them of the loyal behavior of the Church towards Czechoslovakia. Regarding the appointment of new Bishops, the government held the view that based on the Reception Law No. 11/1918 or Article 64 of the Constitution of the Czechoslovak Republic of February 29, 1920 they had the rights of the former Austro-Hungarian rulers that were enshrined in Act 50/1874 on the Law of Patronage (§ 38), and that had been passed on to the Czechoslovakian government, which now could decide about the election of high Church dignitaries, mainly Archbishops, Bishops, and Canons.592 The practice had been that governors had nominated candidates, submitting their names to the Austrian Minister of Cult and Education, who had obtained an unofficial approval of the ruler. Then, the Foreign Minister had asked the Nuncio to Vienna whether he had had any objections against the government’s candidate, and if the Nuncio had replied in the negative, the Ministry of Cult and Education had made a nomination letter in Latin that had been signed by the Emperor, Minister Counsellor, and Foreign Minister. Then, the letter was delivered by the Austro-Hungarian Envoy to the Secretary of State of the Holy See, who eventually appointed the said candidate as Bishop or Archbishop.593 Naturally, this procedure, which Czechoslovakia wanted to maintain after 1918, aroused considerable indignation in Vatican circles, because the Holy See refused to give up the exclusive right of appointing Bishops.

591 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1932, Radimský July 15, 1932; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 1, Radimský July 17. 592 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1921, Krofta February 28, 1921; AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 13, fols. 58–65, Micara to Gasparri January 13, 1923, or fols. 71–74. 593 AMFA, II. section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 27, without signature and date.

145

Pope Benedict XI said in his allocution of November 21, 1921 that all the privileges of Austro-Hungarian rulers ceased to exist, and this decision applied to all new successor states of Austria-Hungary, including Czechoslovakia. However, the Czechoslovakian government refused to recognize it.594 The tension in Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations was created by the nominations of Church dignitaries without prior agreement with the Czechoslovakian government, as it was with Provost of Vyšehrad F. Zapletal, Administrator of Trnava P. Jantausch, and Provost of Prešov Z. Kovaliczky. Also the appointment of J. Čársky and P. Jantausch as Titular Bishops took place without the Holy See informing the government about their candidacy; the Czechoslovakian government then protested against their nominations.595 Foreign Minister Beneš discussed the question of appointing Bishops in Czechoslovakia with Secretary of State Gasparri in the Vatican in February 1921. Gasparri rejected Beneš’s claim that the government had the same powers in filling Czechoslovakian dioceses as the former Austro-Hungarian government. Due to the fact that it was an absolute and irrevocable provision of the Holy See, the right of decision on the filling of dioceses was not granted by the Holy See to any country. Gasparri also confirmed that the Czechoslovakian government was not to take over the rights and obligations of Austria-Hungary in international treaties and the commitments of the concordat, as it had been denounced in 1870.596 After the Czechoslovakian government refused to accept the conclusions of the Holy See in 1922, tension occurred in CzechoslovakianVatican relations and the religious situation in the country escalated. Therefore, Secretary of State Gasparri repeated the 1921 conclusions of the Holy See, admitting that possible political objections from the governments of successor states regarding the filling of bishopric thrones would be considered in the ongoing negotiations. Although the government’s approval of a new Bishop had always been regarded as a formality in Church circles, the government could protest against the candidate of the Holy See, based on differences in political principles or even 594 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1921, Krofta November 30, 1921; Hrabovec, “Menovanie biskupov,” 543; NA Praha, The Presidium of the Council of Ministers, box file 3205, sg. 724; Hrabovec, “Na pokraji prerušenia stykov,” 275. 595 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 13, fol. 52, Kašpar to Gasparri January 8, 1923; AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 56. 596 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 12, fascicolo 45, fols. 11–13, Gasparri to Micara March 3, 1921.

146

reject him if he sought to break the unity of states.597 Real “clarification of competences” arrived with modus vivendi at the turn of 1927/1928. Nuncio Micara also played a certain part after the death of Pope Benedict VI in 1922. He was the first in Czechoslovakia to learn about this sad news from a circular telegram from the Vatican.598 On January 22, the Czechoslovakian side was officially informed of Benedict VI’s death by Gasparri, who had sent an official letter to chargé d’affaires Miroslav Niederle, who subsequently passed the news to the Foreign Ministry in Prague. President Masaryk, who was staying in Lány at the turn of January and February, learned the news either on the evening of January 22 or on the next morning; it was even before he received the letter from Nuncio Micara, because already on the morning of January 23, he asked Přemysl Šlámal, Chancellor of the President’s Office, to visit the Nuncio in Prague and express condolences on behalf of the President.599 Other Bishops in the country were probably informed about the death of the Holy Father via telephone through the Archbishopric of Prague.600 The question of the establishment of a Faculty of Theology in Bratislava was another specific problem of Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations, and points to the different ideas of both sides about the arrangement of the political and religious situation in the country. The Holy See considered its establishment in Slovakia as important after the creation of the Republic, because they sought thereby to increase the intellectual and cultural level of the Slovakian clergy.601 That is why, already in October 1919, Micara discussed the establishment of the faculty with K. A. Medvecký, the priest and Officer for Religious Affairs in the Ministry with Power of Attorney to administer Slovakia.602 While the Czechoslovakian government supported the establishment of a new Faculty of Theology without undue delay, considering it as a convenient means to reduce the influence of Hungarian Bishops and to form the future generation of Slovakian priests, the Vatican chose a cautious approach.603 Their complaints towards the faculty could be 597 Ibid., fascicolo 48, fols. 7–8, Gasparri to Micara August 26, 1922. 598 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1922, Niederle January 27, 1922. 599 APO, fund PO, n. 1974, The Correspondence of Heads of States—the CSR and the Vatican, microfilm, n. D536/22, Micara January 22, 1922, or Šámal January 23, 1922, or Strimpl January 30, 1922. 600 PAO, the Olomouc Branch, fund AO, box file 678, n. 2533, Karlík January 22, 1922. 601 Hrabovec, “Formácia kléru,” 24. 602 AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 553, fols. 27–28, Micara to Gasparri November 1, 1919. 603 Hrabovec, “Formácia kléru,” 24–26.

147

divided into three basic areas: 1) inadequate education of priests under the Code of Canon Law, 2) the status did not meet current pedagogical ideas, mainly in the scope of the curriculum of some subjects, and 3) the teaching staff was not the choice or the desire of Bishops, so doubts remained about the reliability of all teachers.604 Although the Vatican opposed the rapid establishment of the Faculty of Theology, being concerned about the bad moral qualities of the professors nominated by the Czechoslovakian government for each department in 1919, the government established the faculty in June 1919 without consultation with the Holy See.605 Therefore, the Vatican, fearing a possible intervention by the Czechoslovakian government in the operation of the faculty, did not recommend the early opening of the faculty in the early 1920s with respect to the political religious situation in the country; Nuncio Micara purposefully postponed negotiations on its establishment.606 The Apostolic Nuncio consistently insisted that the prescribed requirements of the Code of Canon Law, e.g. shortening of six-year study, could not be waived in setting up a new Faculty of Theology. However, he admitted that it was possible to consider the shortening of the high school study period. On November 19, 1921, Secretary of State Gasparri stated to Krofta, the Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Holy See, that Slovakia lacked the appropriate conditions for establishing the faculty because the prior high school education was inadequate.607 Only in June 1933, did Nuncio Ciriaci submit a proposal to the Foreign Ministry for regulation of the status of professors in the Faculties of Theology in Czechoslovakia. The question of the Faculty of Theology in Bratislava was activated on November 9, 1934, when the government passed a resolution that the Faculty be opened in agreement with the Holy See, particularly regarding the rights of its administration and the method of filling each department. In the negotiations, Czechoslovakia was represented by Jantausch, Apostolic Administrator in Trnava, and the Vatican by the Prefect of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and later also the Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, Gaetano Bisleti, author of an extensive

604 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1920, Krofta August 30, 1920. 605 Hrabovec, “Formácia kléru,” 26. 606 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 23, fascicolo 100, fol. 31; AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 553, fol. 39, Gasparri to Micara November 22, 1919; Hrabovec, Dlhá cesta. 607 Dejmek, “Počátky diplomatických vztahů,” 231, 235.

148

reorganization of university studies of Theology.608 Chargé d’affaires Panico also intervened in the negotiations by specifying some Czech and Latin terminological differences in the Constitution and specifying the method of appointing professors.609 The final agreement between the Czechoslovakian government and the Vatican was reached on August 20, 1935, when chargé d’affaires Panico visited Deputy Foreign Minister Krofta and told him that the Vatican had agreed to the establishment of the faculty. They both signed a note containing the stance of the Czechoslovakian government on appointing and removing professors of Faculties of Theology in Czechoslovakia, which was then also supported by Secretary of State Pacelli.610 The new faculty was opened at the beginning of the academic year 1936–37.611

Reform Movement within the Catholic Clergy The Holy See also carefully observed through Apostolic Nuncios the Catholic reform movement and its important figures. In November 1918, an association of priests called the Union of the Catholic Clergy was formed in Prague, with priest and writer Jindřich Šimon Baar as its Chairman and Matěj Pavlík as Secretary. In January 1919, these priests publicly announced their reform program at the membership meeting in the Smetana Hall in Prague, where young Czech priest Karel Farský also made his presence felt for the first time.612 However, the Union had to deal with many problems and misunderstandings, especially among the high clergy. In March 1919, the Holy See expressed concern over the activities of the reform priests and began to monitor them and Farský closely.613 However, the Nuncio to Vienna, Valfrè di Bonzo, was very skeptical 608 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1935–1937, Radimský January 10, 1935, or October 2, 1937; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 3, Radimský November 27, 1934; AMFA, II section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 27. 609 AMFA, II section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 27, without signature and date. The appointment of associate professors and professors of the Faculty of Theology should be based on the aforementioned Apostolic Constitution Deus scientiarum Dominus (God is the Master of Science) of 1931. Its Czech translation can be found in box file 27. 610 AMFA, II section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 27, Moser August 21, 1935. 611 Hrabovec, “Formácia kléru,” 26. 612 AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 541, fols. 71–74, Arata to Gasparri February 8, 1919; Frýdl, Reformní náboženské hnutí, 58–59; Doležal, Český kněz, 58. 613 Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Commentarium officiale 11, vol. 11 (1919): 122–123.

149

about the success of their efforts. As he wrote in his letter to the Secretary of State “these reformists, or rather destroyers of Church discipline, represent a small group within the Church and therefore are not entitled to speak on behalf of the Czech clergy. In most cases, they are liberal and deceptive priests who terrorize good priests.“614 On May 19, 1919 at their meeting, the members of Union of the Catholic Clergy decided to send a  delegation of four to Pope Benedict XV, composed of Marian Blaha, Vojtěch Šanda, Alois Kolísek, and František Kroiher, to submit six requirements to him and request his permission.615 The Czechoslovakian government was also advised of the mission, supported it and granted them diplomatic passports. Czech Church circles notified the Holy See well in advance of their journey to Rome.616 On July 4, 1919, the delegation was received by Pope Benedict XV in a half-an-hour’s audience, but it was barely successful. The Union of the Catholic Clergy was informed of the results of the delegation by its participant František Kroiher at the meeting in Prague on August 7, 1919. He declared the mission successful, apparently trying to cover up its failure.617 Despite his optimism, already before the journey to Rome in the spring of 1919, the Union had been divided into a moderate and radical stream (Focal Point), although the latter still had not headed towards the creation of a new Church.618 The most important Church event in Czechoslovakia was certainly the appointment of Kordač as Prague Archbishop in 1919. He was ­recommended to the Holy See by Valfrè di Bonzo, Nuncio to Vienna, who charged Micara, the Secretary of the Nunciature in Vienna, to negotiate about Kordač’s  acceptability with the Czechoslovakian

614 AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 567, fol. 36, Bonzo to Gasparri May 7, 1919. 615 The requirements concerned Czech patriarchy, participation of laymen in the management of the Church, liturgy in the national language, modification of the right of patronage, and reform of priestly studies. More details: Farský, Z pode jha, 18–19; Farský, Přelom, 19; Frýdl, Reformní náboženské hnutí, 77–80; Marek, České schisma, 48. 616 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 15, fascicolo 66, fols. 37–38, Zapletal to Bonzo June 11, 1919; AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 542, fols. 21–22, Doubrava to Gasparri June 16, 1919, or fols. 24–27, Bonzo to Gasparri June 20, 1919; Kadeřávek, and Trtík, Život a víra ThDr. Karla Farského, 23. 617 Farský, Z pode jha, 20; Marek, České schisma, 51. 618 After the break-up of Focal Point in the summer of 1919, most of its members defected to the new Club of Reformatory Priests. The requirement for a new Church organization, independent of Rome, was put forward only at the meeting of trustees of the Club of Reformative Priests on November 27, 1919 in Prague. Farský, Z pode jha, 39; Farský, Přelom, 73–75; Frýdl, Reformní náboženské hnutí, 95; Frýdl, “Zrod Církve československé (husitské),” 26.

150

government. Micara, along with Prague Auxiliary Bishop J. Sedlák, visited Prime Minister Vlastimil Tusar on August 21, 1919, submitting three candidates to him: F. Kordač—M. Zavoral—K. Kašpar. Tusar left the Church representatives “a free hand” in appointing a new Prague Archbishop.619 On September 16, 1919, the Holy See appointed 67-year-old Kordač as Prague Archbishop.620 Political circles and the wider Catholic community accepted his appointment more or less positively. A positive reaction also came from the clergy organized under the Czechoslovak People’s Party and the higher clergy. Reform priests represented by the Union of the Catholic Clergy and the radical Club of Reformatory Priests were against it. They were surprised at Kordač’s nomination and caught out by the method of his election.621 Nuncio Micara also closely observed the establishment of the Czechoslovak Church at the meeting of the Club of Reformative Priests in Smíchov, Prague on January 8, 1920.622 In his detailed report, the full Czech translation of which you can find in the Appendix, Priest Farský was the central figure of the dramatic day when he won the sympathy of those present with his opening speech by which he “launched an attack against Archbishop Kordač, criticized his appointment as Prague Archbishop and his attitude to the Czech language in liturgy and celibacy.“623 The declaration of a  schism was agreed by 140 priests, with 66 voting against it, the Nuncio continued in his report. The declaration of a schism gave rise to the new Czechoslovak Church. A few months later, Farský was excommunicated by the Catholic Church.624 The new Church was ceremonially proclaimed on Sunday, January 11, 1920 in the Cathedral of St. Nicholas in the Old Town Square, Prague. This had been preceded by Farský’s ceremonial proclamation to the Czechoslovakian Nation a day earlier.625 The establishment of the new Church and its first steps were closely monitored by all the Czech press.

619 Marek, and Šmíd, Arcibiskup František Kordač, 69; Marek, Církevní krize, 139. 620 NA Praha, fund Archiv pražského arcibiskupství—ordinariát, box file 176, Gasparri September 16, 1919. 621 Marek, and Šmíd, Arcibiskup František Kordač, 65. 622 Frýdl, Reformní náboženské hnutí, 145f.; Šmíd, “‫ׅ‬Patriarcha Karel Farský,” 31–32; AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 544, fols. 2–8, Micara to Gasparri January 10, 1920. 623 AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 544, fol. 3, Micara to Gasparri January 10, 1920. 624 Frýdl, Reformní náboženské hnutí, 164. 625 Ústřední archiv a muzeum Církve československé husitské v Praze, fund Correspondence— Karel Farský, material of January 8 1920; Farský, Z pode jha, 39–41.

151

On January 15, 1920, one week after the formation of the new Church, the Holy See harshly condemned it, as the reform priests supporting the governmental policies were unacceptable to them because they promoted requirements incompatible with the doctrine and discipline of the Church.626 On January 29, Benedict XV asked Prague Archbishop Kordač to rectify the situation regarding the matters of faith, which fundamentally threatened the integrity of the Church, and to dissociate himself from the schismatics. The Pope and Church hierarchy did not remain alone, as already in January 1920 important Czech historians Josef Pekař and Josef Šusta also publicly denounced the new Church.627 The tense situation at the turn of 1919/1920 was also carefully observed by Nuncio Micara, who regularly informed the Vatican about the situation of the Czech clergy, the stance of the Czech press, and the response of Czechoslovakian Bishops to the existing schism.628 The Holy See worriedly observed that many Czechs adhered to the new Church after 1920. However, Krofta, the Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Holy See, assured them that “relatively few priests adhered to the movement and among them were no important people, although it aroused a strong response in its members, but rather for reasons national and political than religious.“629 On September 15, the Czechoslovak Church was ­recognized by the government.630 One year after the proclamation of the Czechoslovak Church, Prague hosted the first congress of religious communities (January 8 and 9, 1921), which elected the Central Council of the Church.631 The second congress, held on August 29–31, 1921, supported the Orthodox orientation of the Church and decided on setting up three dioceses, i.e. West Bohemian, East Bohemian, and Moravian-Silesian. They also confirmed the first three candidates for Bishops, who were then also elected— Karel Farský (West Bohemian Bishop based in Prague), Rudolf Pařík (East Bohemian Bishop based in Hradec Králové), and Matěj Pavlík

626 The aforementioned priests and founders of the new Church were excommunicated by the decree of January 15, 1920. Also, everyone who joined the Czechoslovak Church would be punished and suspended. AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, III periodo, fascicolo 1, fol. 9, January 15, 1920; Hrabovec, “Menovanie biskupov,” 546. 627 Kratochvíl, Církev v dějinách, 67; Frýdl, Reformní náboženské hnutí, 153; Kadlec, Přehled českých církevních dějin, 2:242. 628 Micara’s comments in more detail: AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 544. 629 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1921, Krofta February 28, 1921. 630 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 27; Krofta, Diplomatic Diary, 78, 302. 631 Salajka, Portrét Církve československé husitské, 29.

152

(Moravian-Silesian Bishop based in Olomouc).632 The congress also approved the interim Constitution of the Czechoslovak Church.633 The census of February 1921 showed that the new Church had become the spiritual home to more than 525,000 of the faithful, i.e. the second largest Church in the Republic. Its members believed that the number would even grow. The period from 1921 to 1924 is often known in historiography as the “Orthodox Crisis”, when most of the members of the Czechoslovak Church led by Farský rejected the orientation of the Serbian Orthodox Church634 and promoted the creation of a modern Church. In the spring of 1923, Bishop Gorazd (Matěj Pavlík) resigned his office and in July of the following year announced his departure from the Church.635 The first ordinary congress of the Czechoslovak Church was held on August 29/30, 1924 in Smíchov, Prague.636 This long planned meeting naturally aroused the interest of the Holy See, which was therefore informed about it by Marmaggi, the second Nuncio to Prague. In his detailed report, he stated that the Czechoslovak Church had undergone division into Orthodox and Protestant streams, and described the meeting. According to him, the main objective of the meeting was “a discussion over the shape and character of a new Church and the adoption of a new doctrine in the form of the Creed of the Czechoslovak Church.” At the end of the report, he remarked with satisfaction that the first ordinary congress had not enjoyed the great interest of the Czech public, including the press.637 The Apostolic Nunciature also observed Farský’s  journey to the Christian Ecumenical Conference on Life and Work, which was held

632 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1921, Krofta October 13, 1921, or November 30, 1921; AMFA, RO Vatican 1920–1939, box file 27; Marek, “K některým aspektům církevní krize,” 217. Pavlík’s ordination took place on September 25, 1921 in Belgrade, whereby he became the first Czech Orthodox Eparch ordained by the Serbian Church. The Vatican protested against the action and the attitude of the Czechoslovakian government. AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, III periodo, fascicolo 1, fol. 51, Cherubini to Gasparri September 25, 1921, or fascicolo 2. 633 The Constitution in more detail: Farský, Z pode jha, 52–56; Kaňák, Dr. Karel Farský, 43f. 634 Farský’s departure from the Serbian Orthodox Church was gradual, and even in 1920 he admitted that the planned combination of the Czechoslovak Church and the Serbian Church could occur. Farský, “Jedno potřebné,” 1–2; Farský, “Ideová krise v církvi čs.,” 3; Marek, “K některým aspektům církevní krize,” 165, 169. 635 Marek, Setkání, 373; Marek, Církevní krize, 210, 246–247; Kaňák, “Budování církve,” 43. Due to his departure, the Czechoslovak Church lost 8 000 of the faithful and 20 priests. After Pavlík, Josef Rostislav Stejskal became the new administrator of the Moravian Diocese. 636 Marek, Církevní krize, 256–257. 637 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 3, fols. 47–54, Marmaggi to Gasparri September 10, 1924.

153

in Stockholm from August 19 to 30, 1925. Similarly, they also watched Farský’s three-month mission in the USA at the turn of 1925/1926 related to the promotion of the new Czechoslovak Church and care for the religious communities established by Bishop Gorazd during his mission in late 1922.638 In the USA, Farský established the USA Central Administration of the Czechoslovak Communities under the leadership of the diocesan council. However, he did not appoint any Bishop there, but only entrusted Pastor Josef Kostka of Binghamton with the management of the diocese. In Florida, he established a new Church community, Masaryktown,639 but the American communities permanently had to face the lack of the faithful and priests640 as well as financial means, which proved the biggest problem during his stay. Slovak Catholics and their press, e.g. Slovák, Jednota, and Hlas, sharply protested against Farský’s activities in the USA.641 Shortly after his departure from the USA, the Holy See alerted the Apostolic Delegate to Washington, Pietro Fumasoni Biondi, to obtain information from the New York Archbishop and the Pittsburgh Bishop about the activities of the patriarch in the USA and the activities of the Czechoslovak Church.642 The Apostolic Delegate described the results of Farský’s mission in a brief, one-page letter (!) on May 22, 1926: “The summary of information is as follows: D.Th. Farský achieved little or nothing during his stay in America, and he did not even make a good impression on the ‘disinterested.’ He thus returned to Europe disappointed.“643 The Nuncio did not lose sight of Farský even at the end of his life. We do not know whether it was a wish of the Holy See or a spontaneous action of a Czech priest, but in early May 1927, Catholic priest Václav Davídek of Mirošov, apparently a colleague from Farský’s stay in Plzeň, visited the dying Farský who was suffering from stomach cancer. During a brief meeting in the Vinohrady Hospital, Pastor Davídek tried to convince him to return to the Catholic Church. He asked him “to stop being obstinate, think about eternity and not to sacrifice the salvation 638 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 51, fascicolo 425, fol. 2, Arata to Gasparri December 1, 1925; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 1, Roztočil April 24, 1926; Marek, Setkání, 373; Kaňák, “Budování církve,” 48. 639 Národní listy (Večerník Národ), March 15, 1926. 640 Farský’s lectures and church services were attended by a relatively small number of people— tens up to hundreds of the faithful. 641 AMFA, RO Vatican 1920–1939, box file 1, Roztočil April 24, 1926. 642 Segreteria di Stato (Vaticano). Sezione per i rapporti con gli stati, AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia IV, fascicolo 3, Gasparri to Arata December 2, 1925, fol. 73. 643 Ibid., Fumasoni Biondi to Gasparrimu May 22, 1926, fol. 91.

154

of his immortal soul for a handful of people.” Davídek also pointed out the misconduct of the Czechoslovak Church in the very core of faith: he said that Jesus had sent His disciples to teach all the nations of the world,644 not only the Czechoslovakian nation, and he also said that it had been Jesus’s will to build His Church on Peter.645 Farský protested and then said: “And you believe you are on the right track?” Davídek told him that the faithful prayed for him in his church and served masses for him. The patriarch replied: “Thank you, do pray for me!” Davídek repeatedly asked him to “save his soul” by returning to the bosom of the Church, but the patriarch did not respond, stating with resignation: “Those Romans are well trained, they know how to do it!”646 Ritter, Secretary of the Nunciature, informed the Vatican about the decease and funeral of Farský on June 18, 1927. He stated with horror that the patriarch had not only decided to be cremated, but had also passed over to the other world without reconciliation, although some priests, e.g. his spiritual director in the seminary, Jan Groh and Pastor Davídek, had tried to persuade him.647 His funeral was moderated by Ritter in the Cathedral of St. Nicholas in the Old Town Square on June 16, 1927, from where the procession went to the crematorium. The crowd was not big; the informant of the Nunciature estimated the procession as lasting for about 6 minutes. Prague Archbishop Kordač told the Nuncio that Prime Minister Švehla had said this memorable sentence about the deceased: “His death will have a significant impact on the life of the Czechoslovak Church!“648 After its establishment in 1920, the Czechoslovak Church did not have enough churches for its faithful to gather in. Since they had lost churches due to their departure from the Church, they gathered in different places, such as in squares, at statues of saints and crosses, and in pubs, which, however, did not provide sufficiently dignified and peaceful an atmosphere for services.649 Given this fact, fights for churches broke out in many different places in the country, which were associated 644 Matthew 28, 19. 645 Matthew 16, 18. 646 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 55, fascicolo 496, fol. 6, Davídek to Ritter May 4, 1927. 647 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 3, fol. 97, Ritter to Gasparri June 18, 1927; ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 55, fascicolo 496, fol. 2, Ritter to Gasparri June 18, 1927; Šmíd, “Patriarch Karel Farský,” 44. 648 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 55, fascicolo 496, fol. 2, Ritter to Gasparri June 18, 1927. 649 Marek, “Ještě k problematice tzv. boje o kostely,” 60.

155

with violent clashes and an intensification of hostility between the faithful of the Catholic Church and the Czechoslovakian Hussite Church. A solution to this problem was found by the Separation Committee, which prepared a law on the joint use of churches, which was intended to resolve the lack of churches for non-Catholic Churches. It should have been a temporary measure until such a time as those Churches were able to have their own buildings, while non-Catholic Churches were to use the churches of other Churches, namely the Catholic Church (known as “simultaneous use”).650 The joint use of churches, when, for example, the Hussite Church and the Catholic Church served masses in one church on the same day, was opposed mainly by Catholics. The Episcopate and State authorities were caught so unawares by the violent clashes in January 1920 that they responded to it with considerable delay in the second half of 1920. This was despite the fact that, already in March 1920, Prague Archbishop Kordač had submitted to President Masaryk the memorandum of Czech and Moravian Bishops, in which he complained about the violation of religious freedom. He also demanded “protection for the Catholic Church against the described practices in the name of the Constitution of the Czechoslovak Republic guaranteeing religious freedom and undisturbed exercise of services.“651 In May 1920, his demands were supported by the Club of the Clergy of the Czechoslovak People’s Party. The Catholic hierarchy considered the clashes as subverting the social order, and asked State authorities to resolve the current situation and take corrective action.652 The Czechoslovakian government, by contrast, asked the Catholic Church to cede abandoned and underused churches (e.g. the Church of the Holy Cross in Na Příkopech, Prague653) to the Czechoslovak Church, which the Catholic Church refused to do.654 Nuncio Micara also intervened in this dispute. On September 1920, he held talks with Foreign Minister Beneš about the simultaneous use of Catholic churches and protested against their seizure.655 He repeated the Pope’s words that churches were the property of the Catholic Church

650 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, III periodo, fascicolo 1, fols. 22–23, Micara to Gasparri November 1, 1920; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 1, Hobza December 9, 1920; Marek, “Ještě k problematice tzv. boje o kostely,” 60. 651 Marek, “Ještě k problematice tzv. boje o kostely,” 6. 652 Ibid., 67. 653 More details: AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 139. 654 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1921, Krofta July 3, 1921. 655 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1920, Krofta September 24, 1920.

156

and were built by Catholics for the Catholic cult, and therefore these could not be taken away from the Church and be used by the Czechoslovak Church. A fundamental conflict between the two sides erupted mainly in the understanding of ownership—Catholics considered the churches as their exclusive property and the Czechoslovak Church as the property of the people, the broad masses of the Czech nation.656 During the next series of interviews with the Holy See, Gasparri told Foreign Minister Beneš that he considered the occupation of Catholic churches by schismatics—with the silent consent of the government— as an evident violation of property rights. Nevertheless, he refused to resolve the situation by force, thereby de facto agreeing with the temporary simultaneous use of churches.657 The question of occupied churches was also dealt with by the Episcopal Conference in 1921. The draft law on the joint use of churches by both Catholic and Czechoslovak Churches was drawn up in 1922; however, it had no chance of being adopted by Parliament in those troubled times. The government, mainly the Ministers of Education and the Interior, did not agree with the draft law. Nevertheless, they were afraid of bloodshed taking place during the forcible confiscation of churches, and so they postponed the matter.658 President Masaryk supported the return of churches to the Catholic Church, and Beneš maintained an uncertain attitude, referring to the decision of the court to which the whole matter had been presented by Czechoslovakian Bishops.659 The government gradually abandoned the idea of the joint use of churches, which had caused tension among the faithful, and instead decided to support the Czechoslovak Church financially. The funds were obtained from 1923 mainly for the construction of new churches; by 1930, more than 60 new churches were built, 6 older ones were renovated, and more than 40 were under construction.660 The dispute continued until the late 1930s, when the Czechoslovak Church had a sufficient number of new churches to return all previously used objects to the Catholic Church.661 656 Marek, “Ještě k problematice tzv. boje o kostely,” 8–9. 657 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 12, fascicolo 45, fols. 11–13, Gasparri to Micara March 3, 1921. 658 Krofta, Diplomatický deník, 133. 659 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, III periodo, fascicolo 2, fols. 44–45, Micara to Gasparri December 3, 1921. 660 Marek, “Ještě k problematice tzv. boje o kostely,” 68; Kaňák, “Budování církve,” 47. 661 However, recent studies have showed that the data on the number of confiscated and returned sacred objects vary considerably, as accurate data are still not available. Marek, “Ještě k problematice tzv. boje o kostely,” 25.

157

Nuncio Marmaggi and, after his departure also chargé d’affaires Arata, had to face many problems. Besides the unresolved issues of Slovakian dioceses, many of which remained unresolved until 1920, he also had to deal with the complaints about the Bishop of Brno, N. Klein (hostile attitude to the CSR, neglect of duties, frequent absences from the diocese, contradictory posts, moral failures, etc.).662 Prolonged negotiations ended in December 1925 with Klein’s resignation from the post of Bishop of Brno, but he remained Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights.663 Josef Kupka, Auxiliary Bishop in Brno from 1924, then became new administrator of the Brno Diocese, but not in the rank of Bishop—apparently due to the tense relations between Czechoslovakia and the Holy See. He served as Apostolic Administrator of the Brno Diocese with all the powers and privileges of Residential Bishop. He took over the administration of the diocese only on June 3, 1926.664 In the summer of 1926, Secretary Arata informed the Vatican about the journey of 6 Czechoslovakian high Church dignitaries to the USA for the Eucharistic Congress in Chicago: Bishop of Hradec Králové K. Kašpar, Bishop of Banská Bystrica Marián Blaha, Bishop of Spiš Ján Vojtaššák, Administrator of Trnava Pavel Jantausch, Administrator of Košice Jozef Čárský, and the Chairman of Hlinka’s Slovak People Party, A. Hlinka.665 The grand congress was attended by 12 Cardinals, 3 Apostolic Delegates, 57 Archbishops, 257 Bishops, 3 Apostolic Prefects, and almost a million pilgrims.666 A separate chapter is devoted to the 1925 Hus celebrations which belonged among the most important religious celebrations of the interwar 20 years, as these were the reason for the fall of Marmaggi, the second Apostolic Nuncio to Prague.

662 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 37, fascicoli 221–222. 663 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1926, Jelen February 15, 1926. N. Klein died on March 9, 1933 in Bruntál. 664 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 3, Arata May 31, 1926. Kupka became Residential Bishop of Brno no sooner than in 1931. 665 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 53, fascicolo 454, fols. 43–46, Arata to Gasparri June 2, 1926; Hrabovec, Andrej Hlinka a slovenskí katolíci, 118; Kucík, Podiel amerických Slovákov na autonomistickom hnutí, 67–79; Kucík, “Cesta Andreja Hlinku,” 59–72. 666 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1926, Jelen October 11, 1926.

158

The Way towards Modus Vivendi It is no exaggeration to say that the period of the 1920s was a period of making concordats. The concordat between the Holy See and Latvia was ratified in 1922, Bavaria in 1924, Poland in 1925, Romania and Lithuania in 1927, and Italy and Prussia in 1929.667 While the concordat dealt with all contentious issues, modus vivendi concerned only those most important. It is therefore likely that the adoption of modus vivendi in Czechoslovakia was considered by Roman circles as a step towards concluding a more fundamental and complex treaty, i.e. concordat. Therefore, the Czechoslovakian Envoys to the Holy See carefully watched the negotiations on concordats, their adoption, and the reflections of the press.668 Due to its extreme importance, the planned convention was supported by Foreign Minister Beneš and the former Envoy to the Holy See, Kamil Krofta.669 Further rounds of talks, mainly regarding the adjustment of the borders of Czechoslovakian dioceses, were suspended due to disagreements between Czechoslovakia and the Vatican in early 1925. Although Nuncio Marmaggi submitted his own draft convention to Beneš called “modus vivendi between the Czechoslovakian government and the Holy See,“670 discussions were only resumed in 1927 within negotiations on modus vivendi. A number of problems that had continued to occupy both sides needed to be discussed: the adjustment of diocesan borders, the situation of religious orders and congregations, personnel questions of dioceses, dispute over nomination law, land reform, adjustment of salaries of the clergy, etc. It was also to Arata’s credit that the 1926 Hus celebrations took place in a peaceful atmosphere—the Vatican had been afraid of the next celebrations and regarded its course as “a fundamental matter that continues to determine the future nature of the relations between our Republic and the Holy See.“671 Prior to the festivities, Bishops Kordač, Prečan, and Kmeťko visited President Masaryk and Foreign Minister Beneš, asking 667 Fontenelle, Jeho Svatost Pius XI., 242–243; Hobza, Poměr mezi státem a církví, 122–134. Concordats with other states were concluded in the 1930s: with Baden in 1932, with Germany in 1933, with Austria in 1934, and with Yugoslavia in 1935. More details about the relations of the Holy See with individual European countries: II section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939) of the Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Prague; Bandion et al., Die Apostolische Nuntiatur in Wien, 17. 668 For example, AMFA, PR Vatican, 1929, Radimský June 30, 1929. 669 Halas, Fenomén Vatikán, 548; Hrabovec, “Menovanie biskupov,” 552. 670 ANM, fund Eduard Jelen, box file 4; Pehr, and Šebek, Československo a Svatý stolec, 63. 671 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1926, Jelen May 11, 1926.

159

them to maintain peace and prevent any misuse of the personage of Jan Hus in attacks on the Holy Father and the Catholic Church, which eventually ensued: “The Czechoslovak Catholic Episcopate does not want to interfere in internal and external politics. However, it could not remain indifferent to an insult to the Catholic Church, the protection of which is a matter of Bishops and which is the religion of the vast majority of the people.“672 The President’s more moderate attitude was appreciated by chargé d’affaires Arata during their meeting on October 28, 1926.673 Matters got under way less than two years after the departure of Nuncio Marmaggi from Prague and the official severance of diplomatic relations after the incident related to the Hus celebrations. Chargé d’affaires Arata visited Krofta on February 22 and March 12, 1927 to discuss the diplomatic dispute, mainly the importance of the personage of Master Jan Hus.674 At the end of March 1927, after Arata returned from Rome, he informed Czechoslovakia that negotiations with Prague would not be led by him or Marmaggi, but by someone else.675 The Holy See then sent P. Ciriaci, the Under-Secretary of the Section for Relations with States, and S. Ritter, the Pope’s former co-worker from the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan, to Czechoslovakia. They arrived in Prague on Tuesday morning, March 29, 1927.676 Before his Czechoslovakian mission, Ciriaci had visited the Czechoslovakian chargé d’affaires to the Holy See, E. Jelen, in Rome and informed him about the tasks in Czechoslovakia. He regarded his stay in Czechoslovakia as a short, temporary mission without greater importance, designed mainly to learn about the current political and religious situation in the country on the eve of the planned meeting.677 On March 25, 1927, Secretary of State Gasparri officially introduced Ciriaci to the Czechoslovakian government, describing him as a person “of outstanding qualities that embellish this dignified prelate” and asking the Czechoslovakian side to provide assistance and support in carrying out his mission.678

672 Ibid., May 6, 1926; AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 71, fols. 12–16, or fols. 62–64, or fols. 78–81, Arata to Gasparri April 1, 1926, or May 14, 1926, or June 9, 1926. 673 Ibid., fascicolo 72, fols. 28–29, Arata to Gasparrimu October 30, 1926. 674 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1927; ANM, fund Eduard Jelen, box file 4. 675 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1927, Krofta without date. 676 ASV, Nunziatura Apostolica in Cecoslovacchia, busta 56, fascicolo 500, fol. 60, Gasparr to Arata March 24, 1927. 677 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1927, Jelen April 5, 1927; Pehr, and Šebek, Československo a Svatý stolec, 170. 678 AMFA, PR Vatican, Gasparri March 25, 1927.

160

On March 31, 1927, two days after his arrival, Ciriaci was received by Foreign Minister Beneš to discuss the restoration of diplomatic relations. Ciriaci submitted to Beneš a special aide memoire of the Holy See, in which a wish was expressed to settle their mutual disputes.679 Ciriaci, along with the Secretary of the Nunciature, Ritter, met the representatives of the Foreign Ministry, Beneš and Krofta, in the first round of talks in the spring of 1927. However, the negotiations led to a dead end, as the Vatican required a written assurance from the government that it would not officially participate in the Hus celebrations in the future and offend the Holy See.680 Prague, on the contrary, regarded the departure of Nuncio Marmaggi as hasty and premature, because the Holy See had not been offended in any way during the celebrations of Jan Hus, an important figure in Czech history.681 The situation was not clarified either by Ciricaci’s private meetings with Beneš (March 31, 1927), Deputy Foreign Minister Krofta (April 1, 1927), or Prime Minister Švehla (April 11, 1927).682 On Tuesday, May 3, 1927, Ciriaci arrived in Prague for the second round of talks,683 taking now a more accommodating attitude towards the Czech side than during his first mission a few months before.684 On May 5, 1927, Ciriaci submitted to Foreign Minister Beneš a short aide memoire, containing the views of the Holy See on the solution to the Czechoslovakian-Vatican conflict. The closure of the conflict thus represented a successful resolution of two sub-problems, i.e. the dispute over the interpretation of Master Jan Hus and the unresolved Churchpolitical issues.685 A special commission was therefore set up within the Foreign Ministry, which, after difficult debates, submitted a  written statement from the government to Ciriaci who took it to Rome in late

679 Ibid., Beneš March 31, 1927; ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 56, fascicolo 500, fol. 60, Gasparri to Arata March 14, 1927; Dejmek, “Československo-vatikánská jednání o modus vivendi,” 269. 680 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslo, vacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 84, fols. 4–9, Arata to Gasparri March 5, 1927; PAAA, Berlin, Gesandtschaft Prag, box file 52, Koch April 9, 1927; Dejmek, “Československo-vatikánská jednání o modus vivendi,” 269. 681 AMFA, PZ Vatikán, 1927, Švehla April 11, 1927; Ehrenberger, “Husovy oslavy v roce 1925,” 172. 682 The existing Administrator of the Prague Nunciature, Arata, was dismissed from Prague in March 1927 and sent on “sick leave” in Italy. More details: ANM, fund Eduard Jelen, box file 2B, 157–158; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1927, Jelen April 5, 1927. 683 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 56, fascicolo 500, fol. 82, Gasparri to Arata April 30, 1927. 684 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1927, Jelen April 5, 1927, or April 23, 1927; AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 90, fols. 4–8, Ciriaci to Gasparri May 28, 1927. 685 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1927, Krofta May 5, 1927.

161

May 1927.686 So even the second round of diplomatic talks in Prague did not lead to the closure of the complex dispute. The Holy See refused to accept the requirements of the Czechoslovakian government and asked for revisions, but they were inclined to continue with negotiations on Roman soil.687 The Czech side had a problem with the Vatican’s wish that the future Hus celebrations would not offend the Holy See and the Church, which, however, Beneš refused to guarantee in writing. It is possible that another acid test of their relations should have been the Hus celebrations in July 1927, which took place peacefully.688 Given the international dimension of the anti-Catholic action, it was mainly to the credit of Foreign Minister Beneš that the 1926 and 1927 Hus celebrations passed off in a peaceful fashion. The 1927 celebrations—in contrast to previous years—were not attended by President Masaryk or Prime Minister Švehla.689 No Czechoslovakian politician was officially invited. On June 6, 1927, at 10 a.m., celebrating Prague residents gathered on the Old Town Square. Among them were also ­Foreign Minister Beneš, Railways Minister J. V. Najman, and the Minister of Industry, Commerce and Craft, František Peroutka. Also some priests from the Catholic side participated in the celebrations, for example, Professor of Church Law Johann Schlenz, Professor of Church Law and politician Karl Hilgenreiner, the Abbott of the Emmaus Monastery, Arnošt Vykoukal, the Canon of the Metropolitan Chapter of St. Vitus, Mořic Pícha and others.690 The German representation in Prague also informed Berlin about the peaceful course of the celebrations on July 12, 1927.691 Only in late July 1927, after long negotiations between the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister, did the Czechoslovakian Foreign Ministry send to Rome K. Krofta, the experienced diplomat proficient in Vatican issues, who was now Deputy Foreign Minister. He and the Head of the Church-political department of the Foreign Ministry, Arnošt Roztočil, and the Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Holy See, Eduard Jelen, were to hold talks with the Vatican officials, mainly P. Gasparri, about 686 PAAA, Berlin, Gesandtschaft Prag, box file 52, Koch June 28, 1927; Dejmek, “Československovatikánská jednání o modus vivendi,” 271. 687 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1927, Beneš June 30, 1927; AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 90, fols. 4–8, Ciriaci to Gasparri May 28, 1927; AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 84, fols. 4–8, Arata to Gasparri March 5, 1927. 688 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1927, Jelen June 1, 1927, or July 2, 1927. 689 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 90, fol. 18, Ritter to Gasparri July 4, 1927. 690 Ibid., fol. 24; Šmíd, “Postava Jana Husa,” 41. 691 PAAA, Berlin, II Vatikan (38), Politik 3, Beziehungen Vatikan-Tschechoslowakei, R 72211, Heeren July 12, 1927.

162

the arrangement of diplomatic relations.692 The stance of the Secretariat of State was personally consulted on with Pope Pius XI and high officials of the Roman Curia, e.g. F. Borgongini-Duca, which confirms the importance the Holy See attached to the restoration of CzechoslovakianVatican relations.693 On Wednesday, August 3, 1927, Krofta was received by Pius XI, who emphasized to him that the Holy See also sincerely desired agreement and was in favor of further negotiations. However, things were complicated, due to the reaction of the Czechoslovakian government which was not willing to make concessions, especially regarding the return of Marmaggi, the Apostolic Nuncio to Prague. The negotiations came to a deadlock and Krofta already returned to Prague on August 18, but the Czechoslovakian side soon expressed their interest in resuming negotiations with the Holy See.694 Regarding the question of Nuncio Marmaggi, the Holy See considered two alternatives. Firstly, the Nuncio was either to arrive in Prague before the New Year to sign there the text of modus vivendi already initialed in Rome, attend the New Year’s reception for the President, and submit his letter of recall. Secondly, he was to arrive in Prague at the beginning of January 1928 and stay there for a few weeks until being recalled. The Czechoslovakian side, by contrast, believed that the return of Marmaggi to Prague would weaken the position of the Holy See and compromise the Nuncio, although Beneš was eventually willing to accept Marmaggi’s short visit—two to three days—in Prague.695 This question was finally resolved after agreeing upon the text of the agreement between Czechoslovakia and the Holy See: just as in the case of the Hus celebrations, the Roman Curia dropped the insertion about Jan Hus in the note; the Holy See eventually made concessions to the Czechoslovakian government regarding the dispute over Nuncio Marmaggi, who thus did not return to Prague.696

692 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1927, Roztočil July 30, 1927; AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 90, fol. 59, Ciriaci to Gasparri August 18, 1927; Halas, Fenomén Vatikán, 552–553; Künzl-Jizerský, V diplomatických službách ČSR, 146. 693 AMFA, PR Vatican 1927, Jelen July 8, 1927. 694 Ibid, Jelen November 1, 1927; Dejmek, “Československo-vatikánská jednání o  modus vivendi,” 276. 695 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1927, Jelen September 7, 1927, or Beneš September 11 (?), 1927, or Jelen October 9, 1927, or December 12, 1927; ÖSW, Archiv der Republik, Bundeskanzleramt/ Auswärtige Angelegenheiten, Neues Politisches Archiv, Liasse Tschechoslowakei, box file 691, Marek January 12, 1928. 696 Dejmek, “Československo-vatikánská jednání o  modus vivendi,” 282; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1927–1928, Mastný July 2, 1927, or Jelen August 2, 1927, January 12, 1928.

163

After overcoming the difficulties, renewed negotiations were held from early December 1927 in Rome. The most crucial conversation between Krofta, Secretary of State Gasparri and his deputy, BorgonginiDuca, took place on December 6. Already on Thursday, December 8, 1927, Krofta and Borgongini-Duca began to discuss the draft version of modus vivendi.697 The Holy See dropped the reference to Jan Hus and his celebrations in the note, but the question of Marmaggi’s return to the post of Prague Apostolic Nuncio was not finalized. After long negotiations, the note was initialed by Borgongini-Duca and Krofta in Rome on December 17, 1927.698 Subsequently, this six-article agreement699 between the Holy See and the Czechoslovakian government was approved by the Council of Ministers on January 20, 1928. Thereby, CzechoslovakianVatican relations were stabilized and the long dispute of 1927/1928 was ended by compromise.700 On January 31, 1928, Czechoslovakia sent its agreement to Rome, and two days later, the Holy See sent its confirmation note.701 The conclusion of the modus vivendi represented an important internal and foreign political success of the Czechoslovakian government and Foreign Minister Beneš, although it certainly disquieted the governments of neighboring countries, in particular Germany and Hungary, which protested against it.702 The adoption of modus vivendi was also accompanied by changes in the posts of Envoys. In the summer of 1928, experienced diplomat

697 ANM, fund Eduard Jelen, box file 2B, 140; Dejmek, “Československo-vatikánská jednání o modus vivendi,” 278–279. Two days later, another negotiation was held in order to specify the disputed passages. 698 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1927, Jelen December 16, 1927. 699 The original version of the modus vivnedi of the summer of 1927 contained seven articles. Article VII bound both sides to mutual negotiations in solving religious questions, but the Czechoslovakian government rejected it as unnecessary and enforced the change of wording in the conclusion of the modus vivendi. 700 Hobza, Modus vivendi, 21–24; Dejmek, “Československo-vatikánská jednání o modus vivendi,” 283; Suchánek, “Modus vivendi,” 205–224; Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Commentarium officiale 20, vol. 20 (1928): 65–66. 701 Halas, “Modus vivendi v kontextu,” 93. 702 The Archbishop of Esztergom, Hungarian Primate and Benedictine, Jusztinián György Serédi, Slovak by birth (like J. Csernoch), originally named Juraj Sapuček of Deákoviec, became the new significant representative of Hungarian Church politics. He enjoyed exceptional influence in Roman circles and the respect of the Holy See. In the late 1920s, certain Vatican circles even considered him as a possible successor to Gasparri for the post of Secretary of State. Czechoslovakia faced his influence in the 1930s during the application of the modus vivendi. AMFA, PR Vatican, 1927, Jelen January 12, 1928, or January 18, 1928, or March 17, 1928; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 16, Nepustil September 4, 1929; AMFA, II. Section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 34, Nepustil September 4, 1929, or Krofta July 31, 1929; Zombori, Le relazioni diplomatiche, 58f.

164

Vladimír Radimský was appointed as new Envoy to the Holy See, replacing Václav Pallier, Envoy to the Vatican from 1922 to 1928,.703 Radimský then led the Czechoslovakian diplomatic mission to the Holy See until 1939. Marmaggi, who meanwhile had become Apostolic Nuncio to Warsaw, was replaced by Ciriaci who enjoyed a good reputation in Czechoslovakian circles due to the negotiations on modus vivendi and was also exceptionally respected by high circles of the Roman Curia.704 The adoption of modus vivendi was extensively commented on by the European press, mainly the Italian, e.g. L’Osservatore Romano, Civiltà cattolica, La Tribuna, Il Popolo d’Italia or Il Corriere d’Italia and also by foreign Envoys in Prague and Rome.705

Period of Religious Calm and St. Wenceslas Celebrations at the End of the 1920s On March 4, Pope Pius XI issued an apostolic letter in which he appreciated both the historical and spiritual significance of St. Wenceslas and the calming of the religious situation in Czechoslovakia.706 In 1929, Pius XI promulgated an extraordinary Holy Year, and tens of thousands of pilgrims arrived in the Eternal City, of whom nearly a thousand arrived in four pilgrimages from Czechoslovakia.707 The grandiosely conceived celebrations of the national patron planned for September 1929 were to mask the bitter memory of the Hus celebrations of the summer of 1925 and confirm the positively developing Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations. Given the experience of the previous celebrations for Jan Hus, the Catholic side was naturally afraid of anti-Church attacks, especially 703 ASV, Segreteria di Stato, rubrica 160, fascicolo 1; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1928, Jelen March 29, 1928, or June 8, 1928; PAAA, Berlin, II Vatikan (38), Politik 3, Beziehungen VatikanTschechoslowakei, R 72212, Brentano June 13, 1928. The inaugural audience of Radimský with Pope Pius XI was held on June 8, 1928. The existing Administrator of the Czechoslovakian Legation to the Holy See, chargé d’affaires E. Jelen, ended his Roman mission in June 1928. Jan Nepustil was appointed as new Secretary of the Legation. 704 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 130, fol. 29. 705 ÖSW, Archiv der Republik, Gesandtschafts- und Konsulatsarchive 1918–1938, Gesandtschaft Rom-Vatikan, box file 5, Pastor Febbruary 2, 1928. 706 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1929, Radimský April 11, 1929, or June 30, 1929; Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Commentarium officiale 21, vol. 21 (1929): 129–137; AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 140, fol. 16, Ciriaci to Gasparri April 28, 1929; ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 72, fascicolo 587, fol. 16, Ciriaci to Gasparri April 28, 1929. 707 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1930, Radimský January 8, 1930.

165

when the St. Wenceslas celebrations planned for September 27–29, 1929 were held under the auspices of the Czechoslovakian government which enabled its national character. We believe that the St. Wenceslas celebrations represented the culmination of Ciriaci’s religious-political activities in Czechoslovakia. He attended the celebrations as the highest representative of the Holy See and served a ceremonial mass, together with Prague Archbishop Kordač, in the completed Cathedral of St. Vitus in Prague Castle.708 The Pope granted the Canons of the Chapter of Stará Boleslav the right to wear a gold breast cross with St. Wenceslas and vestments that pertained to Secret Papal Chamberlains. Jan Jiří Rückl, a generous donor of the Prague Nunciature after the purchase of a new building in 1929, was the first Czech who was, probably on Ciriaci’s initiative, awarded the title of civil honorary Papal Chamberlain for the successful course of the celebrations. Rückl was then received by Pius XI in November 1929, who personally appreciated his merits. It is likely that the deep friendship between this Catholic diplomat and intellectual and important leaders of the Roman Curia was born just then.709 The celebrations were attended by thousands of Czechoslovakian believers, and no attacks against the Church occurred. Historians thus believe that the peaceful course of the celebrations changed or rather calmed the former tense relations between the Church and the State.710 This can also be evidenced by the ceremonial speech of President Masaryk, a great critic of the Catholic Church in the past, which reflected further the weakening of his criticism towards Catholicism.711 The course of the celebrations also confirmed the Czech society’s more accommodating attitude towards the Church. This fact significantly contributed to the gradual integration of Catholicism into national life, from which it had been pushed in the past ten years. 712

708 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 140—the whole dossier is devoted to the events of 1929 in Czechoslovakia (The Millennium of St. Wenceslas). 709 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1929–1930, Radimský October 9, 1929, or January 8, 1930. 710 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 140; Šmíd, “Prezident Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk,” 46. 711 Masaryk’s opposition to the Catholic Church by no means meant his departure from religion; rather, it was the beginning of his individually experienced religiousness, scientifically conceived faith, and deep personal relationship to God, which was in accordance with his idea of a  new religion of morality without dogmas, mysticism, and sacraments. If Masaryk’s attitude towards religion had matured at the end of the 19th century, the moderation of his anti-Catholic toughness in the 1920s was rather due to his statesmanly wisdom and old man’s prudence than to a transformation of his devout and restless soul. 712 Šebek, “Encyklika Quadragesimo anno,” 373.

166

The foreign press, mainly German and Italian, as well as foreign diplomatic representatives in Prague, ran reports about the successful course of the St. Wenceslas celebrations of September 1929.713 Pope Pius XI repeatedly spoke about the success of the celebrations, mainly in his consistorial allocution of December 16, 1929 and the encyclical Quinquagesimo ante anno of December 23, 1929 in which he stated: I have learned with great joy that the celebrations in honor of martyr St. Wenceslas were attended not only by a large number of Czechoslovaks and foreigners, but also by Czechoslovakian ministers and important leaders of the country. . . . In fact, the civil unrest that followed after the end of the great war and led to extreme danger for the unity and activities of Catholicism, brought in these days serenity and peace that . . . should also be maintained in future through the intercession of St. Wenceslas.714

Although foreign countries and the domestic environment, including A. Hlinka, perceived the celebrations as a triumph of Catholicism, a symbolical end to the tension between the State and the Church in the 1920s which had now been overcome, Nuncio Ciriaci criticized some aspects of the celebrations. He reproached Catholic organizations that “they were too compliant and allowed to dilute the religious content by secular and political ingredients.“715 Ciriaci reportedly said to the British Envoy to Prague that he had “a low opinion of the Czech Catholic leaders and refrained from participating in ceremonies as much as possible.“716

Resignation of Prague Archbishop František Kordač in 1931 An important event in 1931 was the abdication of Kordač, who resigned from the office of Prague Archbishop on July 3 after 12 years of spiritual service. Pope Pius XI accepted his resignation and appointed him as Titular Archbishop of Amasia and Assistant to the Papal Throne. The news of the Prague Metropolitan Chapter, published in the press on July

713 For example, the German Envoy to Prague, W. Koch. Berlin, II Vatikan (38), Politik 3, Beziehungen Vatikan-Tschechoslowakei, R 72212, Koch October 1, 1929. 714 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1930, Radimský January 8, 1930. 715 SIdor, and Vnuk, Andrej Hlinka, 651. 716 Ibid.

167

14, 1931 regarding his resignation from the post of Archbishop “because of his old age and a lasting disease,“717 was surprising to the public; high Church dignitaries usually left their posts by dying. It is clear from the sources of the Vatican Archive that Kordač’s abdication was not an improvised decision, but the result of Ciricaci’s long-standing discontent with the administration of the Prague Diocese and the management of the Catholic Church in Czechoslovakia.718 It had probably been long prepared and finalized during Ciriaci’s stay in Rome in the spring of 1931. The Section for Relations with States examined Ciriaci’s complaints about the Prague Archbishop and confirmed the legitimacy of his accusations in June 1931, agreeing with Kordač’s  demission and retirement.719 Today, we know from the Vatican archives and the recently released memoirs of L. Škarek that it was Nuncio Ciriaci who summoned the Provincial of the Jesuit Order, L. Škarek, to the Nunciature on July 2 and, without giving any reason, urged him to invite Archbishop Kordač on his behalf to resign. Škarek begged the Nuncio to be released from this unpleasant duty, but Ciriaci was determined.720 On July 3, 1931, one day after the Archbishop’s return from the confirmation and visitation in Český Brod, Škarek went to Kordač in Břežany Castle near Prague, submitting two letters to him: the first was an abdication letter and the second offered an alternative in the form of accepting a coadjutor who would take over all the Archbishop’s rights, with Korač thus becoming just an observer. The letters contained a threat—should he not sign one of the letters, they would proceed against him according to Canon Law. The background of the conflict was a clash between two distinctive, authoritatively affected personalities who were divided by a generation gap and lifestyle: a humble Franciscan met a man of the great world. At the end of the 1920s, the latter came to the conclusion that the intransigent and sick Archbishop Kordač could no longer cope with the duties that were beyond his power, because he had brought the Prague Archdiocese and the Catholic Church in the country into a desperate situation. Therefore, Nuncio Ciriaci was in favor of a gradual reduction of

717 Československá republika, July 14, 1931; Lidové noviny, July 14, 1931; Národní listy, July 14, 1931; Pražský Večerník, July 14, 1931; Právo lidu, July 14, 1931, etc. 718 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 143, fol. 5, Ciriaci to Gasparri November 21, 1928 719 Ibid., fascicolo 144, fols. 17–19, Pacelli to Ciriaci June 11, 1931. 720 Pitrun, Jadrné memento, 165–166.

168

his powers.721 From the turn of the 1920s, Pope Pius XI was systematically persuaded that it was necessary to replace the Prague Archbishop; it seems that in the early 1930s the Pope left Ciriaci a free hand to act according to his decision.722 Indeed, it was Nuncio Ciriaci and Vatican circles that were behind Kordač’s  resignation. This was confirmed by both the Archbishop’s words723 and the deeds of Ciriaci, who successfully obliterated from the Secretariat of State all traces of the misunderstanding that had led to Kordač’s resignation in the early 1930s.724 The Prague Archbishop resigned from his post on July 13, 1931, after 12 years of active service.725 Such an important decision required a consultation at the highest levels, mainly with Secretary of State Pacelli and Pope Pius XI, which might have been the reason for Ciriaci’s “holiday and relaxation” journey to Rome in the spring of 1931.726 When an affair erupted after the release of the interview between the Editor of Národní politika, Jan Hejret, and Archbishop Kordač,727 the Vatican naturally stood on the Nuncio’s side and approved his actions. Political and Church circles (Foreign Minister Beneš, the Prime Minister of the People’s Party, Šrámek, the Bishop of Hradec Králové, K. Kašpar) mostly accepted this attitude, while the non-Catholic public (mainly the socialist parties, but also German Catholics) were on the side of former Archbishop Kordač.728 A few days after his resignation, Kordač granted an interview to Jan Hejret, Editor of Národní politika, describing the circumstances of his resignation. He stated that it had not been due to health problems or the loss of the will to serve the Church and the Catholic people related to his advanced age, but that he had left reluctantly and had been de facto forced by Church circles to sign the abdication letter, or rather that Nuncio Ciriaci, with whom he still had unresolved conflicts, had been the 721 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 139, fols. 86–89. 722 Marek, and Šmíd, Arcibiskup František Kordač, 134–135. 723 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 144, fol. 29, Ciriaci to Pacelli July 22, 1931; Národní politika, July 17, 1931. 724 Dossier 561 contains a notice of a Vatican archivist: “All documents related to the resignation of Mons. Kordač were removed at the request of Mons. Ciriaci.” ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 67, fascicolo 561. For Ciriaci, it was probably not technically difficult as he himself had worked in this office for ten years. 725 The up-to-then Bishop of Hradec Králové, K. Kašpar, became Kordač’s successor (November 1931). 726 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1931, Radimský April 4, 1931. 727 Národní politika, July 17, 1931. 728 PAAA, Berlin, II Vatikan (38), Politik 3, Beziehungen Vatikan-Tschechoslowakei, R 72213, Koch November 9, 1931.

169

reason for his abdication.729 Hejret’s interview gave rise to an affair that was widely discussed by the Czechoslovakian press until the autumn of 1931 and commented on also by the foreign press and Envoys.730 According to Radimský, the diplomats accredited to the Holy See mostly held the opinion that Ciriaci’s step was “not good, skillful nor considerate and . . . many believe that the affair will do him harm, although the Vatican must keep him now.“731 Among the foreign press, the Italian and the French (Il Lavoro fascista, Il Popolo d’Italia, L’Italie) devoted the most attention to this affair as they welcomed any attacks against the Holy See at the time of Italian-Vatican tensions.732 However, the affair did not endanger Ciriaci’s position in the State apparatus, although he was given public sanction by the Vatican.733 The domestic press campaign for Kordač’s resignation clearly turned against the Catholic Church and especially the Nuncio. In the evening of July 30, 1931 a demonstration of 150 mostly young people took place in front of the Nunciature in Voršilská Street, who chanted “shame” on him and celebrated Archbishop Kordač.734 On August 9, a  group of believers visited Kordač in Břežany to express their solidarity and sympathy for his fate; the reporters stressed the fact that Kordač had spoken to people in front of the castle “in a clear and strong voice and with extraordinary temperament,” which was intended to prove that the argument about his disease and old age in relation to his resignation was not true.735 However, in the summer, Kordač stated that he would not grant any interview to the press and confirmed that his resignation was final. Some German priestly associations and the press, e.g. Deutsche Presse and Egerland, nonetheless refused the official interpretation of Kordač’s resignation, called it forcible, and sharply attacked Ciriaci and criticized his treatment of Kordač; Ciriaci thus decided to

729 Národní politika, July 17, 1931; Večerník Práva lidu, July 17, 1931; Lidové noviny, July 18, 1931; AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 144, fol. 29, Ciriaci to Pacelli July 22, 1931. 730 PAAA, Berlin, RZ 509, Katholische Angelegenheiten 1922–1940, Tschechoslowakei 20, R 62255, Holzhausen 18. 7. 1931; Marek, and Šmíd, Arcibiskup František Kordač, 132f.; 132; Doležal, Český kněz, 106. 731 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1931, Nepustil August 19, 1931. 732 Ibid. 733 Ibid., 1932, Radimský January 15, 1932. 734 Večerník Práva lidu, July 31, 1931; Pražský Večerník, July 31, 1931; Národní osvobození, August 1, 1931. 735 Polední List, August 10, 1931.

170

deprive them of Church approval.736 Professor V. Šanda at the Faculty of Theology in Prague was suspended and forced to go on a long vacation as a result of his public statements about Ciriaci in Národní politika under the pseudonym of “Hroznata”. In the fall of 1931, after the meeting of the Czechoslovak Episcopal Conference in Olomouc, the Kordač affair went quiet.737 A considerable stir in the Czech and German public was created by Kordač’s memoirs that put the events of the turn of the 1920s into a new light. Their publication in newspapers was delayed and finally—after Ciriaci was transferred to a new diplomatic post in Lisbon—only a part of them was published regarding the Apostolic Nuncios in Prague: on January 12, 1934, the German newspaper Prager Tagblatt published Kordač’s article Nuncio Ciriaci and My Resignation and, one day later, the article Micara and Marmaggi which chronologically preceded the former.738 The former Prague Archbishop, Kordač, described in his memoirs the first three Nuncios to Prague, Micara, Marmaggi and Ciriaci, and highlighted the difficulties of living together, which, however, the first two Nuncios had been able to overcome. The core of the article was represented by Nuncio Ciriaci, who had attempted to push through the acquisition of a new building for the Nunciature at all costs. For this reason, he persuaded Czechoslovakian Bishops at the conference in Olomouc, where he threatened to resign from his post of Nuncio to Prague, and exacted money from them for its purchase. After the serious illness of the Prague Archbishop, Ciriaci enforced Kordač’s resignation through Jesuit L. Škarka, and presented it as the Archbishop’s voluntary step. As Kordač stated in the conclusion of “Nuncio Ciriaci and My Resignation: the Nuncio sparked outrage and the loss of confidence in the highest Bishop and Nuncio’s authority. This case will be a blot on Czech Church history that will never be completely erased.“739

736 PAAA, Berlin, II Vatikan (38), Politik 3, Beziehungen Vatikan-Tschechoslowakei, R 72213; Šebek, Mezi křížem a národem, 181–183. 737 PAAA, Berlin, RZ 509, Katholische Angelegenheiten 1922–1940, Tschechoslowakei 20, R 62255, Koch December 12, 1931; ÖSW, Archiv der Republik, Bundeskanzleramt / Auswärtige Angelegenheiten, Neues Politisches Archiv, Liasse Tschechoslowakei, box file 691, Marek October 8, 1931; Marek, and Šmíd, Arcibiskup František Kordač, 140–142. 738 ÖSW, Archiv der Republik, Bundeskanzleramt / Auswärtige Angelegenheiten, Neues Politisches Archiv, Liasse Tschechoslowakei, box file 691, Marek January 17, 1934. 739 Ibid., Prager Taglatt, January 12, 1934; Svoboda, Tučková, and Svobodová, Spiknutí proti republice, 71.

171

A separate chapter is devoted to the Pribina celebrations in Nitra in the summer of 1933, which ranked among the important Church cele­ brations of the interwar 20 years, because the passions and emotions they aroused became the cause of the fall of Ciriaci, the third Nuncio in Prague.

Application of Modus Vivendi The boundaries of dioceses were not definitely resolved by the modus vivendi of the turn of 1927/1928, but their new delimitation brought about the complicated question of Church estates, as the new boundaries of dioceses were often opposed by the faithful and the Church hierarchy. Based on the second article of the modus vivendi about the administration of Church property, a new Administrative Committee of Slovakian Bishops was established on November 14, 1929, where the Apostolic Administrator of Trnava, Jantausch, was assigned to administer the property. After long negotiations between the Czechoslovakian and the Vatican sides after 1928, to which, by the way, the third Nuncio to Prague, Ciriaci, made a major contribution, the proposal of the Czechoslovakian side was completed in 1933 and sent to the Vatican. The implementation of modus vivendi began in the early 1930s. February 1931 can be regarded as its symbolic beginning, when the Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Holy See, V. Radimský, submitted the proposals of delimitation of Czechoslovakian dioceses to Secretary of State Pacelli.740 On March 3, 1931, a broader delimitation commission was called, known as the Government Commission for Delimitation and Subsidy of Dioceses.741 However, the meetings remained secret. Given the sharp tensions over the realization of the Catholic Action between fascist Italy and the Holy See in the spring of 1931 and the unstable international relations (Spain, Lithuania, etc.), delays occurred in the discussions of individual questions of modus vivendi in the Section for Relations with States, and the whole implementation was delayed. The Secretariat of State only responded to the Czechoslovakian stance on June 11, but negotiations were again delayed due to the tension after the resignation 740 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1931, Radimský February 25, 1931. 741 Ibid., Wellner February 26, 1931; AMFA, Cabinet of the Minister, box file 11, Record about XVII Meeting of the Government Commission for Delimitation and Subsidy of Dioceses, November 3, 1930.

172

of Archbishop Kordač in July 1931.742 In late 1933, the government submitted detailed subsidy proposals to the Holy See and, in April of the following year, they presented an agreement with the Archdiocese of Vratislav for the Vatican’s approval.743 In Bohemia and Moravia, parts of dioceses with their residences were in neighboring countries, namely the parishes of the Dioceses of Řezno and St. Pölten and the Archdioceses of Vratislav and Vienna.744 According to the principles of modus vivendi, the adjustment of diocesan borders concerned the entire Southwestern Slovakia, where the Archdiocese of Esztergom still had its territory (most of its parishes lay in Slovakia), while some parts of Slovakian dioceses were located abroad. It concerned the Slovakian dioceses of Košice (19 parishes were in Hungary), Rožňava (4 parishes were in Hungary), Satu Mare (46 parishes were in Romania and 18 in Hungary), and the Roman Catholic Eparchies (dioceses) of Uzhorod and Prešov.745 In many cases, it was not clear— even the ideas of the Czechoslovakian government and the Holy See diverged—whether to establish a separate Roman Catholic diocese or to incorporate the given part into an existing diocese.746 Also the appointments of Slovakian Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Subcarpathian Ruthenia, and Residential Bishop of Košice were ex­pected.747 A point of contention was also the question of Church property in Slovakia, which was placed in receivership, performed by the Central Committee for Slovakia with Chairman Karel A. Medvecký. Its aim was to prevent the removal of Church property to Hungary, although by its imposition Czechoslovakia had violated the law and undermined the autonomy of the Church.748 The estates of the large Archdiocese of Olomouc in Northern Moravia, which were under the control of Vratislav Archbishop Adolf

742 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1931, Radimský July 5, 1931, or Nepustil August 19, 1931. 743 AMFA, Krofta’s archive, box file 15, without date and signature. 744 Němec, “Modus vivendi z  roku 1928,” 29; NA, MFA-NCA I, box file 1599, Národní Střed, November 8, 1937; ANM, fund Eduard Jelen, box file 2B. 745 Foreign Bishops thus had authority over the territories of their dioceses located in Czechoslovakia. 746 AMFA, II. Section MFA political—1 Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 27. 747 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 20, without signature June 14, 1933. 748 The debts incurred on Slovakian Church estates amounted to about 40 million CZK in 1933. Němec, “Modus vivendi z roku 1928,” 25; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 20, without signature June 14, 1933.

173

Bertram, appeared as crucial for the outer delimitation749 of Czechoslovakian dioceses. The Apostolic Nuncio himself was skeptical regarding the negotiations with the Polish side and feared that the clarification of contentious issues would be protracted, which eventually ensued.750 After lengthy negotiations between the Czechoslovakian Foreign Ministry and Germany, on April 9, 1934, a general agreement was concluded on the liquidation of the Vratislav Church property in Czechoslovakia. Nevertheless, three years later (!) President Beneš complained that it was not possible to implement the delimitation bull and incorporate the parishes of Prague and Olomouc Archdioceses into the Czechoslovakian Church Administration.751 On August 1934, the Chairman of the Administration Commission and representative of the Holy See, Bishop of Spiš, Ján Vojtaššák, concluded an agreement on Church property in Slovakia with the Archbishop of Esztergom and Primate of Hungary, J. G. Serédi. However, most Church and political leaders did not acknowledge it. Progress in negotiations was made by the letter from Foreign Minister Beneš of November 30, 1934, in which Czechoslovakian leaders accepted the requirements of the Vatican.752 The turning point in the negotiations was brought about by the journey of important Church leaders in Rome—Prague Archbishop Kašpar, Olomouc Archbishop L. Prečan, the Bishop of Hradec Králové, M. Pícha and others—which was completed by the presence of the Chairman of the People’s Party, Šrámek, in the Eternal City at the turn of 1934/1934.753 On March 13, 1935, the Czechoslovakian government sent a note to Secretary of State Pacelli, in which they agreed with the method of implementation of modus vivendi in connection with the outer delimitation and promised to abolish the receivership of Church estates.754 On June 1, 1935, according to the agreement with the Vatican, the administration 749 Based on the agreement between the Holy See and Czechoslovakia, the implementation of modus vivendi was to be divided into two phases: the outer delimitation of Czechoslovakian dioceses was to be implemented firstly and the inner delimitation secondly, in order to prevent further delay. 750 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1931–1935, Radimský February 25, 1931, or March 3, 1931, or January 10, 1935. 751 ANM, fund Eduard Jelen, box file 2B, 287; Koníček, Modus vivendi v historii vztahů Svatého stolce a Československa, 126. 752 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1935, Radimský, January 10, 1935; PAO, the Olomouc Branch, fund AO, box file 679, n. 2533, Rückl September 19, 1934. 753 Šmíd, “Jednání Jana Šrámka ve Vatikánu a postavení Československé strany lidové,” 115–133; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1935, Radimský January 10, 1935, or April 9, 1935; NA, MFA-NCA I, box file 1599, sign. 726, České Slovo, November 24, 1934. 754 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1935, Radimský April 9, 1935.

174

of Church estates was surrendered into the hands of P. Jantausch. The delays in Czechoslovakian-Vatican negotiations, which had then culminated, were skillfully utilized by Hitler. Before and after the GermanVatican dispute regarding the publication of the anti-Nazi encyclical Mit brennender Sorge755 in 1937, he forced the Vratislav Archbishop to change the initially forthcoming attitude to attacks against Czechoslovakia, justifying his actions by the observance of the Concordat of 1933.756 The question of the Archdiocese of Vratislav was settled by the establishment of the Apostolic Administration in Těšín in 1945, when Vratislav became a Polish city (Wrocław).757 The transfer of property to the Church was completed on June 1 and, on September 30, 1935, a final report was written on it in Bratislava.758 Both sides had agreed on the method of implementation of modus ­vivendi on May 14, 1935. This agreement was summarized in a note that was submitted to the Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Holy See, Radimský.759 After long debates and a discussion in the Sacred Consistorial Congregation, the whole process ended with the publication of the Apostolic Constitution Ad ecclesiastici regiminis incrementum on September 2, 1937,760 in the formulation of which Ritter, Nuncio to Prague, had participated. He, after all, had been charged with its implementation by the Secretariat of State.761 On September 6, 1937, the Circumscription Constitution was officially published in the bulletin of the Holy See, Acta Apostolicae Sedis. The borders of dioceses in the Czech Lands, Slovakia, and Subcarpathian Ruthenia from that moment more or less corresponded with the State borders; all Bishops in Slovakia and Subcarpathian Ruthenia were exempted from the authority of Hungarian Bishops, and the

755 Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Commentarium officiale 29, vol. 4 (1937): 145–188; Mayeur, Storia del Cristianesimo, 12:33. 756 ANM, fond Eduard Jelen, box file 2B, 324; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1937, Radimský June 30, 1937; Koníček, Modus vivendi v historii vztahů Svatého stolce a Československa, 126. The Concordat between the Holy See and Germany in more details: Brechenmacher, Das Reichskonkordat 1933. 757 In 1978, it was affiliated to the Archdiocese of Olomouc by the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pavel VI. Since 1996, it has belonged to the Diocese of Ostrava-Opava. 758 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1934–1935, Krofta November 12, 1934, or Radimský January 10, 1935; Němec, “Modus vivendi z roku 1928,” 31. 759 Koníček, Modus vivendi v historii vztahů Svatého stolce a Československa, 111–112. 760 Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Commentarium officiale 29, vol. 4 (1937): 366–369; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1937, Radimský October 2, 1937; NA Praha, fund Jan Jiří Rückl, box file 38, Lidové noviny, September 7, 1935; NA, MFA-NCA I, box file 1599, Národní Střed, November 8, 1937, Národní politika, November 7, 1937. 761 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1937, Radimský June 30, 1937, or December 31, 1937.

175

receivership of Church estates was abolished. Thus, after nine years, the first—outer—phase of implementation of modus vivendi was completed, and the second, inner phase should start.762 The results of implementation of modus vivendi, when Slovakian and Ruthenian dioceses had finally broken away from the Hungarian Church organization, were already denied by the First Vienna Award in the fall of 1938. Based on the Circumscription bull, Diocesium fines, parts of two dioceses were separated from Slovakia and placed under Hungarian Church administration on July 9, 1939.763

Eucharistic Congress in Czechoslovakia During numerous audiences with Czechoslovakian Church representatives in the Vatican in late 1934, Pope Pius XI was informed about the intention of the Czechoslovakian side to convene the Eucharistic Congress in Prague in 1935, the first ever nationwide Catholic congress in Czechoslovakia.764 Also the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano ran a report on it on December 12, 1934.765 By the end of May 1935, the Holy See announced at the National Congress of Catholics that Paris Cardinal Jean Verdier would become the Apostolic Legate, which was gratefully accepted by the press and the faithful.766 The Congress took place from Friday, June 28 to Sunday, June 30, 1935 in Prague.767 The Eucharistic Congress was headed by three men who substantially assisted in its preparation: General Secretary of the Preparatory Committee, Josef Žák, Chairman of the Standing Committee, Olomouc Archbishop Leopold Prečan, and Executive Chairman of the Preparatory Committee, J. J. Rückl. The organizers had been preparing

762 Ibid., Radimský October 2, 1937. 763 ANM, fund Eduard Jelen, box file 3, or box file 7. In May 1945, Slovakian Church estates were placed under temporary state administration to ensure their proper economic functioning. Apostolic Administrator Jantausch and his successor A. Lázik demanded their release at the Slovakian National Council, but the estates were not handed over to them, but remained— after a series of delays—under State administration, where a mixed commission administered them. However, they were not confiscated until the advent of communism to power. 764 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 175, fols. 5–6, Ritter to Pacelli May 8, 1935. 765 L’Osservatore Romano, December 12, 1934. 766 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 175, fols. 24–27, Panico to Ottaviani June 1, 1935. 767 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1935, Radimský July 22, 1935.

176

it since 1932. Their aim was for the ethnically fragmented Czechoslovakia to overcome the growing national barriers, particularly between the Czechs and the Germans, through universal Catholic principles.768 Šrámek, Chairman of the Czechoslovak People’s Party, thought that the Congress pointed out the close unity between Czech Catholics and the nation, with which the Chairman of the Preparatory Committee, Rückl, also agreed and, under the current circumstances, in particular that it highlighted the importance of promoting Czechoslovakia by the Catholic Church.769 Chargé d’affaires G. Panico, as the highest diplomatic representative of the Holy See, became a co-organizer of the Congress on behalf of the Czechoslovakian side. He also actively participated in the Congress. Its successful course and positive reception in many European countries were also the result of Panico’s efforts of several months. Many therefore expected his possible appointment as Apostolic Nuncio to Prague.770 On Saturday evening, June 29, 1935, Eucharistic Adoration was held in Wenceslas Square, Prague, attended by 250,000 people and accompanied by the renewal of baptismal commitments. This event was again intended for all nationalities, and thereafter a massive evening parade through Prague followed. The culmination of the Eucharistic Congress was the open-air morning Holy Mass in Strahov Stadium, which was celebrated by Paris Archbishop-Cardinal Jean Verdier. In his French homily, which was reportedly the most beautiful speech of the entire Congress, he warned of the danger of racial and national superiority and pointed to the example of Christ the King, the only true ruler of the world.771 Important figures in the religious life of the country (S. M. Braito, J. E. Urban, J. Hlouch, K. Skoupý, J. Doležal, A. Fuchs, A. Tylínek, M. Hruban, and others) and more than 500,000 Catholics from all the Czechoslovakian dioceses participated in the three-day Congress program.772 The Congress was attended by prominent personalities in European Catholicism: Polish Cardinal August Hlond and Austrian Cardinal Theodor Innitzer, although also Munich Archbishop-Cardinal 768 Šebek, “I. celostátní katolický sjezd v roce 1935,” 234. 769 Ibid, 237. 770 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 175; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1935, Radimský July 22, 1935; NA Praha, fund Jan Jiří Rückl, box file 44. 771 Lidové noviny, July 2, 1935. The homily in more details: NA Praha, fund Jan Jiří Rückl, box file 44. 772 Šebek, “I. celostátní katolický sjezd v roce 1935,” 237, 239.

177

M. Faulhaber, Vratislav Archbishop-Cardinal A- Bertram, Esztegrom Archbishop-Cardinal Jusztinián György Serédi, and Cardinal Lev Skrbenský of Hříště were invited.773 The large delegation moved around Prague in 22  cars; eminent leaders of the Catholic block became its members, among others the Apostolic Protonotary and Superior of the Czechoslovak Catholic Mission in Paris, Rudolf Zháněl, the Papal Prelate and President of the Czechoslovak College in Rome, Fernando Eoveda, Legation Councilor in Paris, Čeněk Ibl, Legation Councilor in Rome, B. Messány, and others.774 The Eucharistic Congress and the meetings with prominent leaders in the political and cultural life of the country, e.g. President Masaryk, Foreign Minister Beneš, and Mayor of Prague, Karel Baxa, unofficially continued in the form of the journey of foreign Cardinals across Moravia and Slovakia in the first days of August 1935.775 Apostolic Legate Verdier left Czechoslovakia on July 8, saying that “not the slightest incident disturbed his entire stay and he leaves Czechoslovakia with unforgettable impressions and memories and he will report to the Pope accordingly.“776 Also the Vatican L’Osservatore Romano, whose editors C. Lolli and C. Weirich had personally attended the Congress, and the German Embassy in Prague ran positive reports about his stay.777 Even contemporary observers noticed that the Eucharistic Congress clearly reflected the improvement of Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations.778 The successful course of the Congress was also appreciated by Pius XI.779 Although the successful course of the Congress for some time strengthened the international position of the Republic, also in the eyes of the Holy See, its aim—to overcome international barriers—was not realized. As J. Šebek stated: “Particularly the attempts to strengthen national cooperation failed. Deep misunderstanding remained between Czech and Slovakian Catholics. The discrepancy of attitudes between

773 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 175, fols. 5–6, Ritter to Pacelli May 8, 1935, or fol. 16 Ritter to Ottaviani May 18, 1935; Šebek, Mezi křížem a národem, 251. 774 NA Praha, fund Jan Jiří Rückl, box file 44. 775 Trapl, “Vývoj římskokatolické církve na Moravě,” 261; Šebek, “Příklady recepce cyrilometodějské tradice,” 43. 776 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1935, Radimský July 22, 1935, or July 29, 1935; AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 176, fol. 10, Verdier to Pius XI June 30, 1935. 777 PAAA, Berlin, II Vatikan (38), Politik 3, Beziehungen Vatikan-Tschechoslowakei, R 72213, July 2, 1935; Prager Presse, July 2, 1935. 778 ÖSW, Archiv der Republik, Bundeskanzleramt/ Auswärtige Angelegenheiten, Neues Politisches Archiv, Liasse Papstlicher Stuhl, box file 1 577, Pleinert July 8, 1935. 779 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1935, Radimský July 22, 1935.

178

the Czech and German Catholic community even grew after the Congress.“780 Despite this fact, which proved to be a major shortcoming over time, the Holy See appointed the first Czech Cardinal in the fall of 1935.781 This man was—perhaps to the disappointment of Olomouc Archbishop L. Prečan—Prague Archbishop K. Kašpar.782 M. Trapl believed that the fact that Archbishop Kašpar was given preference was the result of Kašpar’s denunciation of Prečan in the Vatican after 1933. The Prague Archbishop accused him of being completely under the influence of Šrámek, Chairman of the People’s Party, who was carrying out a hostile policy against the Church.783 The Czech clergy and top political leaders of Czechoslovakia had already longed for Kašpar’s predecessor, Kordač, to become Cardinal, but Nuncio Ciriaci—after a series of criticisms of his poor administration of the Prague Diocese, for not developing the Catholic Action, and his conservative personality—had probably prevented his appointment as Cardinal. 784

Retreat from Religious Activities after World War II After 1945, mainly the questions of the appointment of new Czechoslovakian Bishops and Church education at schools represented an important topic of negotiations between the Vatican and Czechoslovakia—problems that were soon politicized by the Prague government. The latter issue, which was considered by the Vatican as the basic prerequisite for good mutual relations, had been opposed by Czechoslovakian Bishops already in November 1945, when they had demanded the withdrawal of the Education Bill, which established the State as the sole founder of schools; J. Beran stood up firmly for the right of the Church to religious education.785 However, the State acted sluggishly and did not respond

780 Šebek, “I. celostátní katolický sjezd v roce 1935,” 241. 781 If we count Cardinal Lev Skrbenský of Hříště, then it was already the second Cardinal. 782 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1935, Radimský November 21, 1935, or December 28, 1935. News about the intended appointment of Cardinals in the secret papal consistory was published by L’Osservatore Romano already on November 20. The Czechoslovak Episcopate had probably expected the creation of two Czechoslovakian Cardinals—the Prague and the Olomouc Archbishop. 783 Trapl, “Krize českého politického katolicismu,” 69. 784 Pope Pius XI invited Prague Archbishop Kordač and Czechoslovakian Bishops to develop the Catholic Action in response to their collective letter from the Episcopal Conference in Olomouc. AMFA, PR Vatican, 1929, Radimský January 9, 1929. 785 ANM, fund Eduard Jelen, box file 8, Informace pro pana ministra ve věci školského zákona.

179

to the Bishop’s concerns. Therefore, Czechoslovakian Bishops repeated their protest and responded to the situation by a commemorative letter of November 14, 1946 that was addressed to the government. In this letter, they pointed to the growing decline of morality and piousness and the disturbing interference of State power in religious life.786 The letter reflected the dissatisfaction of the Catholic clergy, as had been expressed by the Episcopal Conference in November of the same year in Olomouc.787 The Conference had criticized the new Education Bill that had been drafted by the Ministry of Education and National Enlightenment and which reflected restrictions on religious education and the repression of religious freedom. According to Bishops, the State monopoly on educational matters essentially threatened religious education and denied religious freedom. Czechoslovakian Ordinaries also demanded the compulsory teaching of religion in primary schools, in the range of two lessons per week.788 They therefore demanded a new and thorough revision of the Education Act—with the assistance of the representatives of Bishops—which set aside religious-moral education. The letter also criticized the violation of the Sunday Sabbath and the efforts to nationalize Church property, which was also a violation of the Košice government program of April 1945. 789 It was therefore not surprising that the Holy See resolutely defended the abolition of private religious schools in the country; the Vatican was warned about the penetration of communist ideology and materialism into schools by numerous telegrams from Poland.790 Pope Pius XII several times repeated his request to build a solid foundation for the education of young people, as he considered it as one of the most important problems of post-war Europe. He feared that, without religion, schools would become anti-religious bastions.791 However, the battle was definitely not won in Czechoslovakia, nor in Italy and other countries of the world. One of the first tasks of Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations after WWII was to fill the five vacant (arch)bishopric thrones in

786 Vaško, Neumlčená, 1:145–146. 787 PAO, the Olomouc Branch, fund AO, box file 1734, n. PR 15, Pamětní spis katolických biskupů čsl. vládě Československé republiky, November 14, 1946; Letz, V hodine veľkej skúšky, 501–509, document n. 161. 788 Ibid. 789 Ibid. 790 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Maixner August 21, 1946. 791 Ibid., Maixner October 6, 1946.

180

Czechoslovakia, which had became vacant during the war or shortly afterwards: in Prague (Karel Kašpar died in 1941), Olomouc (Leopold Prečan died in 1947), České Budějovice (Šimon Bárta died in 1940), Litoměřice (Antonín Weber resigned in 1947), and Brno (Josef Kupka died in 1941). The Holy See—being pressed by Berlin—refused to fill these posts with German Bishops. During the Protectorate, the Vatican had also opposed the pressure of Reich offices that had sought to separate their cut-off territories from Czech and Moravian dioceses, and agreed only to their temporary administration by German and Austrian Bishops.792 Therefore, after the war, the Holy See sought to normalize their mutual relations as soon as possible. 793 When on November 2, 1946, Bishop of Litoměřice A. Weber asked to be relieved of his post, Pope Pius XII complied with his request in March 1947, although the Apostolic Internuncio did not support his demission.794 The Diocese of Litoměřice—abandoned by the majority of German inhabitants—was temporarily administered by Prague Archbishop J. Beran, until the appointment of the new Bishop, Štěpán Trochta, former Director of the Salesian Institute in Prague-Kobylisy. In July 1946, the Foreign Ministry asked Internuncio Ritter to fill the throne of Litoměřice with one of the important Czech Church dignitaries. The government also insisted on changes in the posts of four Slovakian Bishops: Bishop of Spiš, J. Vojtaššák, who had been Deputy Chairman of the State Council in WWII, Bishop of Banská Bystrica, Andrej Škrábik, Auxiliary Bishop of Nitra, Eduard Nécsey, and Auxiliary Bishop of Trnava, Michal Buzalka. However, the Internuncio refused to remove them.795 On March 2, 1947, Archbishop L. Prečan died and the Metropolitan Throne of St. Method in Olomouc was vacant. Internuncio Ritter also recommended to Holy Father Pius XII—with respect to the attitude of the Czechoslovakian side—the most suitable candidates for the posts of Bishops in the country, with the exception of J. Beran, who was appointed by the Prague Archbishop on November 4, 1946. Ritter recommended three capable men for the post in České Budějovice: Jan Cajs, Capitular Vicar of České Budějovice, Stanislav

792 Stříbrný, “Církve a náboženský život,” 104. 793 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Schwarzenberg April 3, 1946. 794 ANM, fund Eduard Jelen, box file 8, record without signature and date; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Maixner February 27, 1947. 795 Ibid., box file 3, Církev římskokatolická v ČSR (1946), or box file 8; Mulík, “Prenotifikácia a jej politický aspekt,” 239; Šabo, “Systém vzťahov medzi štátom a cirkvami,” 216.

181

Bohuslav Jarolímek, Abbott of Strahov Monastery, and the Metropolitan Canon of St. Vitus in Prague, Otakar Švec.796 On September 7, 1947, Pius XII eventually appointed a fourth candidate as Bishop of České Budějovice, Josef Hlouch. For the Olomouc post, Ritter favored another three important men: the Auxiliary Bishop of Olomouc and Capitular Vicar, Stanislav Zela, Vicar-General Oldřich Karlík, and Professor of Theology, František Cink.797 On March 23, 1948, Josef Karel Matocha was appointed as the new Archbishop of Olomouc. The fact that the highest representatives appointed to the aforementioned (arch)dioceses eventually were different persons than those suggested by Ritter proves the complexity of the negotiations between the local Church, the Holy See, and Czechoslovakia between 1947 and 1948. It also shows that the health of the candidates remained yet another important factor. Ritter was also the main person to ordain Czech Bishops after 1945: on December 8, 1946 J. Beran, on August 15, 1947, J. Hlouch, and on November 16, 1947 Š. Trochta.798 The Slovakian Church situation was more complex and its solution expressed a great deal of sensitivity in the relations between the Church and the Czechoslovakian government. Czechoslovakian Bishops in their pastoral letter of November 19, 1947, repeatedly called on the faithful to restore the Christian virtues in the atmosphere of moral decadence and highlighted the importance of respect for the religious rights and freedoms in the upcoming Education Act and the Czechoslovakian Constitution.799 The Bishops repeated their appeal in November 1948.800 The tense conflict between Czechoslovakia and the Holy See, the dispute over Church education being yet another of many problems, threatened to erupt into open conflict and the severance of diplomatic relations in 1947.801 In April 1948, Tardini, Secretary of the Section for Relations with States, opposed the Education Bill, conveying his comments on it to Envoy Maixner and asking him to warn

796 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Maixner May 3, 1947. 797 Ibid., Maixner April 29, 1947. 798 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Maixner October 23, 1947; Vodičková, “Ať si Berana vezmou,” 91. 799 Lidová demokracie, January 28, 1948; Letz, V hodine veľkej skúšky, 554–561, document n. 173. Church education in Slovakia was nationalized already by the Slovak National Council during the uprising in 1944. This status was confirmed after the restoration of Czechoslovakia in 1945. 800 Ibid., 563–564, document n. 175. 801 ANM, fund Eduard Jelen, box file 8, Information for Mr. Minister concerning the Education Act.

182

the Czechoslovakian side through the Foreign Ministry of the harm that would be suffered by the Church.802 The corrections of official press statements were provided by the Czech broadcasting of the Vatican Radio, in whose creation Archbishop Beran had participated. The radio started to broadcast regularly in December 1947. The Spiritual of Nepomucenum, Václav Feřt, who had at his disposal Czech and Slovakian theologians in Rome, was commissioned for the preparation of programs. By the decision of the Secretariat of State, there was a joint broadcast for both Czechs and Slovaks. The radio broadcast was three times a week, always from 7 to 7:15 p.m.; from 1948 even five times a week.803 The program covered religious life, with the emphasis on the Catholic community. From February 1949, Czech Radio would broadcast live every day. From 1950, systematic interference in radio reception was launched by the communist regime. However, the editors were not intimidated.804 The exhausted Feřt was soon replaced by two Jesuits, Alois Kořínek and Adolf Pelikán, who were later also joined by Petr Ovečka, Josef Kolíček, Josef Čupr and Tomáš Špidlík. On February 13 and 26, 1947, Pope Pius XII received the new Prague Archbishop, Josef Beran, who was on his first visit to Rome after his consecration, to discuss the unresolved political-religious situation in Czechoslovakia (e.g. the questions of the filling of Litoměřice and Č. Budějovice, Ordinaries of the Czechoslovakian Army, Church education, and the growing influence of communism). During the meeting, the Holy Father expressed his concerns about the future course of democracy in Czechoslovakia, especially criticizing the participation of the Communists in the government and the orientation of the country towards the Soviet Union.805 Beran did not want to enter into too much conflict with the government and believed, like many others, in the pos-

802 Ibid., record April 7, 1948. 803 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1948–1950, Maixner April 10,1948. On February 2, 1949, an independent Slovakian broadcasting of the Vatican Radio was launched. 804 According to the data from the Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes, which recently carried out the digitization of the Archive of the Czech Editors of the Vatican Radio, the radio was being listened to by about 600 000 people despite the interferences. 805 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Maixner February 27, 1947; Vodičková, “Ať si Berana vezmou,” 92. February 1948. The Czech Coup was not a crucial milestone in Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations. If these had been relatively cold between 1946 and 1948—although outwardly they had manifested friendship, a number of unresolved Church issues had accumulated within— they were definitively terminated after the events of the turn of 1948–49. The departure of Apostolic Nuncio Ritter from the country in February 1948 was a suitable pretext.

183

sibility of collaboration with the communist regime. He thus dispelled all the Pope’s doubts and assured him and the Curial Cardinals about the respect for religious freedom in Czechoslovakia. However, his optimism was refuted by late 1947. In November 1947, Hlouch, Bishop of Č. Budějovice, who was staying in the Eternal City, was received by the Pope in Castel Gandalfo on November 7, where he informed him about the situation in Czechoslovakia.806 The Prague Archbishop repeatedly spoke against the totalitarian evil during the government crisis. On February 24, 1948, in his pastoral letter Don’t be quiet, Archbishop, you must not be quiet!, he clearly stood on the side of Czechoslovakian democracy.807 K. Kaplan presents interesting statistics concerning the year 1948. Back then, there were 7,042 clergymen, two Archdioceses (Prague, Olomouc), seven Dioceses (Hradec Králové, Litoměřice, Brno, Spiš, Banská Bystrica, Nitra, Rožňava), and three Apostolic Administrations (Český Těšín, Košice, Trnava). 2,856 monks and 12,095 nuns lived in 1,051 monasteries, performing mostly charitable, social, and cultural-religious services. The Church had 134 Church schools in the Czech Lands and 1,877 in Slovakia. In the 1947/1948 school year, more than 500 students were studying at 13 Theological Institutes. The Church issued more than 100 journals, organized Youth, Women’s and Marian Congregations, etc. In 1950, the Catholic Charity still administrated 268 Social Institutes.808 On February 10, 1948, the Episcopal Conference was held in Prague, which was also attended by Internuncio Ritter. It discussed the issue of land reform in Czechoslovakia. The confiscation of agricultural and forest land of more than 50 hectares threatened one of the main sources of Church funding. The Holy See therefore regarded the confiscation of Church estates as a violation of the property rights of the Church, or more precisely of the 1927 modus vivendi.809 The main subject of controversy concerned the Church estates in Slovakia, temporarily administered by the State. Upon authorization by the Holy See, the administration of the latter was taken over in 1947 by the Apostolic Administrator in Trnava, Ambróz Lázik, who regularly informed the Internunciature about his meetings.810 Their condition, however, was disastrous. The Czechoslova-

806 807 808 809 810

AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Maixner November 14, 1947. Kaplan, Stát a církev v Československu, 22–24; Vodičková, “Ať si Berana vezmou,” 93. Kaplan, Stát a církev v Československu, 6. ANM, fund Eduard Jelen, box file 12, without signature February 25, 1948. Machula, Vatikán a Československo, 147.

184

kian government would also postpone the return of the estates into the hands of the Church, conditioning their transfer on the implementation of land reform.811 The resolution of this situation was postponed by Ritter’s departure from Czechoslovakia in early 1948. All points of contention in Czechoslovakian-Vatican negotiations should have been resolved by the newly prepared modus vivendi, which should have dealt in three stages with Slovakian dioceses, the delimitation of Czechoslovakian dioceses, separation of some Church territories from their original dioceses, possible establishment of new dioceses, etc. However, the modus vivendi was bound to a peace treaty with Germany or Austria after WWII.812 It should have also amended the provisions of the 1937 Constitution Ad ecclesiastici regiminis. Ritter repeatedly protested against the confiscation of Church property, arguing that it belonged to the Church and therefore could not be decided on without their knowledge and that it was not enemy property.813 The government then decided that the regulations of the decrees of President Beneš should not be applied to Church property and Church institutions and the measures against them should be stopped; the Church estates represented 1% of the land in Czechoslovakia affected by confiscations.814 In March 1948, Internuncio Ritter informed Czechoslovakia that the Holy Father had appointed Josef Matocha, Professor at the Faculty of Theology in Olomouc, as the new Archbishop of Olomouc and Moravian Metropolitan. Although the government had no objections to his appointment, they complained that his election had not been carried out through the Metropolitan Chapter. On May 2, 1948, Matocha was consecrated as Archbishop by Prague Archbishop Beran, the Capitular Vicar of the Olomouc Archdiocese, Stanislav Zela, and the Bishop of Košice, Josef Čárský.815 However, increasingly more issues remained unresolved and an imaginary gap opened up between the Church and the Czechoslovakian 811 ANM, fund Eduard Jelen, box file 8, without signature March 3, 1948, or November 2, 1946; Vaško, Neumlčená, 2:19. According to the notes of the Ministry of Agriculture, there were 200 000 hectares of land in Bohemia and Moravia and 200 000 hectares in Slovakia that would be subject to the revision of land reform. Vaško states that, after February 1948, the Church lost 108 units of Church property with an average area of 2 468 hectares. The Archdiocese of Olomouc suffered the biggest losses where 34 000 hectares were seized. 812 ANM, fund Eduard Jelen, box file 8, Jednání o provádění modu vivendi; NA, MFA-NCA I, box file 1599, sign. 726. 813 ANM, fund Eduard Jelen, box file 8, without signature January 15, 1946f. 814 Ibid., November 25, 1946. 815 Ibid., box file 12, Jelen without date, or Ritter February 24, 1948; Vaško, Neumlčená, 23.

185

government: in 1948, there were the unresolved questions of Catholic schools, land reform, the Catholic press, health and charitable Catholic institutions, the borders of dioceses, and many others. Therefore, Prague Archbishop Beran turned to Prime Minister K. Gottwald and G. Verolino, chargé d’affaires to the Foreign Ministry, for an explanation of the endless procrastination. Nevertheless, the notes submitted by the representative of the Holy See to individual Czechoslovakian ministries did not change the course of negotiations.816

816 ANM, fund Eduard Jelen, box file 8, without signature and date.

186

3.5 The Nuncios’ Interest in the National Question of Czechoslovakia

The Nuncios’ Interest in the National Question after 1918 Based on the statistical surveys that the Apostolic Nuncio had available after his arrival in Prague, 13,366,080 inhabitants lived in Czechoslovakia in 1920, of which there were 8,759,807 Czechoslovaks, 3,122,390 Germans, 745,935 Hungarians, 459,346 Russians and Ukrainians, 180,332 Jews, 76,650 Poles and citizens of other nationalities. In religious terms, there were 10,384,860 Roman Catholics, 532,608 Greek Catholics, 992,083 Protestants, 724,503 citizens without religion, 535,332 members of the National Church, 353,925 Jews, 72,096 Orthodox and citizens of other religions. In the early 1920s, according to the results of a recent census in Czechoslovakia, 78% were Catholics, 3% Protestants, 6% faithful of the Czechoslovakian Hussite Church, 8% atheists, and 1% Jewish.817 The Apostolic Nuncio informed the Holy See about the situation in Czechoslovakia, namely the relationship between the Czechs and Slovaks, the German national minority, and the complex situation in Subcarpathian Ruthenia, especially after the creation of Czechoslovakia in the fall of 1918. From 1918 to 1920, until the demarcation of state borders

817 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 19, orfascicolo 4, fols. 58–59, Micara to Gasparri March 18, 1922.

187

by the signing of the Peace Treaty of Trianon, the attitude of national minorities represented a considerably centrifugal movement that undermined the integrity of the young Republic. That is why the Nuncios ran numerous reports about national minorities, especially at the turn of the 1920s. After the signing of the Treaty of Trianon, the CzechoslovakianHungarian borders were made clear. Yet, the borders of dioceses were another problem, as well as the concerns of Church dignitaries about land reform taking place in Czechoslovakia, which would have been associated with redistribution, expropriation, and taxation of Church property, against which the Holy See repeatedly protested.818 After the creation of Czechoslovakia, the German faithful, who regarded its creation mainly as the defeat of the German claim to supremacy in the Czech Lands, complained to the Holy See about the alleged injustice and oppression of Germans by the State.819 Through the Nuncio, they called for a new Moravian Diocese and the strengthening of the German priestly element in the Prague Archdiocese where they accounted for a third of the population.820 Micara, who assessed the situation realistically, as he saw there was no realistic basis for it, understood the German clergy’s protest as a political move, by which they were expressing their disagreement with Czechoslovakia. He informed the Secretariat of State about it accordingly.821 In dioceses with many German inhabitants (Brno, Litoměřice, České Budějovice, Praha, Olomouc), the Germans demanded adequate reinforcement of the pastoral administration, mainly with regard to the posts of Chaplains, Vicar-Generals, and Auxiliary Bishops.822 In many places, the national question was difficult and almost insoluble because it placed the self-confidence of the Czechoslovakian element against the dissatisfaction of national minorities, who had been significantly sup-

818 AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 599, fols. 4–7, Micara to Gasparri January 12, 1921, or fols. 11–13, Gasparri to Krofta April 19, 1921, or fols. 19–23, Micara to Gasparri December 10, 1921. 819 Ibid., fascicolo 612, fol. 66, Gasparri to Micara October 31,1921; Broklová, Československá demokracie, 129. 820 AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 612, fol. 53, Gasparri to Micara December 19, 1920. 821 Ibid., fols. 67–74, Micara to Gasparri November 14, 1921. 822 Ibid., fascicolo 543, fol. 2, Micara to Gasparri November 23, 1919; AA. EE. SS., AustriaUngheria, III periodo, fascicolo 597, fols. 33–36, Thoma to Benedict XV. March 9, 1921; AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 36, fols. 4–6, Micara to Gasparri October 21, 1922; AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 36, fols. 24–25, Marmaggi to Gasparri March 7, 1924.

188

ported by Vienna before 1918. The Litoměřice Diocese represented one of the biggest problems as two-thirds of its population were German. An industrial region with a lot of workmen, it was subject to harsh antiCatholic propaganda. Although the Holy See was ready to replace the Bishop of Litoměřice, German J. Gross, he eventually remained in his post until 1931.823 To mitigate the ethnic tensions in Litoměřice, the Holy See sought to appoint two Vicar-Generals through Micara,824 one for the Czech and one for the German faithful, but both sides opposed it. Some German priests turned to the Holy See, asking them to establish a new diocese for the German faithful, to be located in the territory of the Prague Archdiocese. In religious terms, the Holy See regarded their request as legitimate; nonetheless, given the unresolved situation of the Czechoslovakian borders, they postponed it temporarily. Similarly, they refused the requests of other German Catholics to establish a new diocese in North Bohemia, North Moravia and Silesia.825 Similar requests by the Hungarian faithful in Slovakia met with the opposition of Slovakian inhabitants, the Czechoslovakian government and the Holy See. At the request of the Hungarian Envoy to the Holy See to found a seminary for the education of the Hungarian clergy, the Prague Nuncio replied dismissively: “It is almost impossible in Czechoslovakia as the government would never agree to it. In times when Slovakia was part of Hungary, the Slovaks had no seminary for the education of the Slovakian clergy. They had to study in the seminary in Esztergom in Hungarian, and thus forget their native language and speak Hungarian.“826 Based on the requests of the faithful, in late 1919 Micara asked the Holy See to send a French priest to Prague, to revive the Catholic work and to return the affection which Czechoslovakia and many faithful cherished towards France.827 The Secretary of State subsequently asked the Paris Archbishop for a priest to be sent on a mission to Czechoslovakia. He was offered two priests: Joseph Dargent, who could start on July

823 Ibid., fols. 15–17, Micara to Gasparri November 30, 1922. 824 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 18, fascicolo 80, fol. 160, Gasparri to Micara December 12, 1919. 825 Ibid., busta 22, fascicolo 96, fol. 13, Gasparri to Bonzo February 9, 1919, or fol. 26, Gasparri to Bonzo September 30, 1919. 826 Ibid., busta 46, fascicolo 338, fols. 11–12, Marmaggi to Gasparri February 15, 1925. 827 ASV, Segreteria di Stato, rubrica 239, fascicolo 2, fols. 160–161, Micara to Gasparri May 22, 1920; AA. EE. SS.

189

1920, and Jean Barallon, who could arrive almost immediately.828 The latter, a priest in Lyon, arrived in Prague in March 1920 and started to serve in the Church of St. Francis of the Knights of the Cross, in Malá Strana, where the number of the faithful gradually increased.829 After his arrival, the Czechoslovakian side politely refused the other Frenchspeaking priest.830 In the fall of 1921, the Canon of the Vyšehrad Chapter, F. Zapletal, informed the Holy See that a large number of Eastern Slavs, mainly Russians, had arrived in Prague. Although a committee of priests and laymen was set up under the patronage of Olomouc Archbishop A. C. Stojan for their spiritual assistance, there was not sufficient money or suitable priests for their pastoral care.831 The Pope thus granted them 15,000 Italian lira and ensured a Greek-Catholic priest for them, Gleb Verchovskij, who took up his office in the spring of 1923.832 However, already in 1924, he left the Church of the Holy Cross in Prague and, with his wife and son, departed for the USA where he continued his pastoral practice.833 Similarly, the faithful in Subcarpathian Ruthenia asked for a Polish priest in 1924.834 Subcarpathian Ruthenia represented a  specific problem, as there were Hungarian, Ruthenian, Russian, Polish, Slovakian and Jewish inhabitants, who also differed religiously. It was a poor, backward, and agriculturally poorly developed region, with low levels of education and awareness, low societal engagement, and traditionally conservative ruling elites. Widespread alcoholism was also a significant problem.835 In the 1920s, the population there accounted for more than 600,000 people, of which 370,000 were Ruthenians, 22,000 (Czecho)Slovakians, 104,000 Hungarians, 80,000 Jews, 10,000 Germans, and 19,000 inhabit-

828 Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 580, fols. 15–16, Micara to Gasparri December 24, 1919. 829 AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 580, fol. 21, Gasparri to Micara March 12, 1920, or fol. 22, Duette to Gasparri March 18, 1920. 830 Ibid., fol. 31, Micara to Gasparri March 31,1920. 831 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 37, fascicolo 220, fol. 7, Zapletal to Gasparri December 29, 1921. 832 Ibid., fol. 9, Gasparri to Micara March 17, 1922, or fols. 29–30, Papadopulos to Micara March 2, 1923, or fols. 35–36, Tacci to Micara May 18, 1923. 833 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 37, fascicolo 220. 834 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 53, fols. 11–12, Chiarlo to Gasparri November 17, 1924. 835 AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 586, fols. 39–46, Micara to Gasparri April 2, 1920; ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 29, fascicolo 131, fols. 33–36, Fischer-Colbrie to Micara November 12, 1922.

190

ants of other nationalities. The religion of the people varied too: there were 372,000 Greek Catholics, 48,000 Roman Catholics, 85,000 Jews, 65,000 Protestants, 1,000 of the Augsburg Confession, and 550 Orthodox men and women.836 Thanks to its past, the environment of Subcarpathian Ruthenia represented a  base for the spread of both Church schism and Hungarian irredentism, which the Holy See did not like from the outset.837 Nuncios regularly informed the Holy See about the political-religious situation in Subcarpathian Ruthenia.

Czechoslovakian Relations through the Lens of the Holy See and the Apostolic Nuncios’ Relationship with Slovakia After 1918, the situation in Slovakia was very complicated: there was a shortage of Slovakian high schools and colleges, intelligence, political elites and parties, and political experience. In 1918, the country was represented in the Diet of Hungary by only one deputy—Ferdiš Jurig—and the higher classes were connected with Hungarian society and language. In 1918, the breakup with the Apostolic Kingdom—to use the words from the title of a study by Slovakian historian E. Hrabovec838– was thus very painful and disillusioning for Slovakian circles. In addition, in the Czech Lands, the power struggles ended in late October 1918, but in Slovakia they continued even in 1919.839 The building of a new Slovakian society encountered problems (few officials spoke Slovak, the shortage of skilled workmen, etc.). High schools and colleges remained without professors, many elementary schools without teachers and books, but the Slovakian educational system was built fairly quickly. Although the Minister for the Administration of Slovakia, V. Šrobár, significantly contributed to the pacification of the country and its transformation from Upper Hungary to Slovakia, his conflict with the Slovak People’s Party and social democracy escalated. His political opponents called his practices dictatorial and he was also sharply rebuked in Parliament. He therefore supported the

836 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 31, fols. 30–56, Micara to Tacci January 20, 1923. 837 Lidové noviny, May 6, 1923. 838 Hrabovec, “Ťažká rozlúčka,” 161–184. 839 Šmíd, “Příspěvek ke vztahu Čechů a Slováků,” 174–175.

191

Agrarians, under whom he obtained a parliamentary mandate in 1920, and relinquished his post of Minister for the Administration of Slovakia to social democrat, Ivan Dérer. His inner-party ambitions also failed; the post of Chairman of the Agrarian Party was retained by the more capable Milan Hodža.840 The Apostolic Nuncio was confronted with the Slovakian environment shortly after his arrival in Prague, as the religious situation in Slovakia—with respect to the filling of bishopric thrones—was one of the major Church problems of the young Republic. He was informed about the situation in the eastern part of the country from somewhat contradictory sources: the Referent for Church Affairs of the Ministry for the Administration of Slovakia, K. A. Medvecký, Slovakian priests (A. Hlinka, J. Vojtaššák), Slovakian politicians (V. Šrobár), Slovakian irredentists (F. Jehlička, V. Dvořák, F. Unger), and Hungarian Church dignitaries who were interested in the administration of Slovakia (J. Csernoch, V. Batthyány). Without personal contact with the Slovakian environment, it was almost impossible to form an objective view on it. Relations between Micara and Slovakian Bishops were not very good, as evident from the Vatican archives. During his stay in Rome in October 1921, Micara complained to M. Niederle, Secretary of the Czechoslovakian Legation in the Vatican, that Slovakian Bishops were not sufficiently obedient. They, on the other hand, claimed that they were not enthusiastic about the Nuncio841, apparently due to his sluggishness and appeasement, and moreover because of his lack of determination in addressing the current Slovakian issues. In his letter to Prague, Krofta stated that “it can almost seem that the Nuncio’s stay in Czechoslovakia does not strengthen the ‘Roman feeling’ of our Catholics.“842 With considerable disillusionment, Micara received a report on the division of the Group of Czech and Slovakian Catholics in Parliament, which had taken place due to the disagreement of Slovakian Catholics with the entry of the club into the Beneš government in the fall of 1921. At that time, Micara also expressed his concerns about the situation in Slovakia, where the Czech influence had strengthened in particular, whereby Slovaks and Czechs had become alienated.843

840 841 842 843

Ibid., 176. AMFA, PR Vatican, 1921, Krofta October 31, 1921, or December 5, 1921. Ibid., Krofta October 31, 1921. AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 601, fols. 96–99, Micara to Gasparri December 8, 1921.

192

Micara tried to explain the growing autonomist tendency in his letter to the Secretariat of State on March 22, 1922.844 To better understand the current situation, he returned to the events of WWI, when on May 31, 1918 the representatives of the Slovak League of America, the 1Czech National Association, and the Union of Czech Catholics had signed the Pittsburg Agreement with Masaryk. After the creation of the Republic, this had become the platform for the Slovakian autonomist block.845 The first official proposal for Slovakian autonomy was submitted to the Chamber of Deputies of the National Assembly of the CSR on behalf of the Slovak People’s Party by Ľudovít Labaj on January 25, 1922. It essentially proposed a federation, and federalism in the 1920s was seen by the Czech side as a tool for the breakup of Czechoslovakia.846 Micara was also reminded in this context of Hlinka’s journey to Paris and Tuka’s January 1922 proposal for autonomy. He expressed the view that Czech parties refused Slovakian autonomy and Hlinka’s stance, as they supported state centralism. However, Hlinka had acquired considerable prestige in Slovakia, even among Hungarians. He concluded his letter with concerns about Hlinka’s success, because “even at the Peace Conference, the Czechs had promised everything, but they had not kept their promises.“847 According to Micara, the solution to the autonomist issue was a change in the attitude of the Czech side towards the Church and religious questions in Slovakia.848 The most detailed and interesting report on the differences between the Czechs and Slovaks was Micara’s report of June 10, 1922. Although many of the findings and observations of the Vatican are known to readers, we are interested in the insight of the Holy See into the Slovakian situation, the logic of its argumentation, and the level of detail of information which the Nuncio submitted to the Secretary of State: Before and during WWI, there were only weak contacts between the Czechs and Slovaks, mainly literary. The Czech Lands were part of Austria and Slovakia of Hungary. One group of politicians of these nationalities was closer to Vienna, the other one to Budapest . . ., they had

844 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 24, fols. 8–10, Micara to Gasparri March 22, 1922. 845 Gronský, Komentované dokumenty k ústavním dějinám Československa, 1:32. 846 Vašš, Slovenská otázka, 29, 152; Sidor, and Vnuk, Andrej Hlinka, 462–463, 476–477. 847 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 24, fol. 10, Micara to Gasparri March 22, 1922. 848 Ibid.

193

different interests, and there was no reason to meet. And while the Czechs in Vienna and in the Czech Lands developed agitation for nationalism and resolute opposition against Austria in recent years, the Slovaks were less politically developed and, with only minor exceptions, belonged to the Hungarian sphere of interest. Magyarization in Slovakia was greater than Germanization in the Czech Lands. After all, the Czechs were aware of it, so many of them refused to connect to Slovakia in order to prevent the creation of a new irredentism.849 It was during WWI, Micara continued, when the Czechs abroad led by T.G. Masaryk, began to develop beliefs, the right and need to unite these two nations of common origin in one state. Their activities developed mainly in the countries of the Triple Entente, which supported it because it weakened the Central Powers. Promises were made to Slovakian minorities in the USA who refused the connection, but they were never fulfilled... The Czechs suppressed religion in the east of the country, hoping to weaken Hungary, but they only elicited a profound feeling of disgust, contempt, and opposition against themselves, which increased the Slovaks’ desire for autonomy. Things have come so far that it is enough to be called a  Czech in Slovakia and one becomes the object of rejection and aversion by local people. The Czechs can be glad that the enemies that surround them have their hands tied... Masaryk was the first one who said: “Rome must be judged and condemned by the Czechs! We defeated Vienna, we will settle accounts with Rome now!” He had always been a  member of Sokol, and it had been possible to see him perform gymnastic exercises before the war... Slovakia had not known Sokol before. It was one of the achievements brought into Slovakia by the Czechs. Sokol promoted Czech trainers who did anything to gain the favor of the Slovaks. They managed to set up a few branches of Sokol through which they spread the aforementioned ideas.850

The departing Nuncio Micara expressed his critical attitude towards the Czechs in his concluding report of summer 1923: I mention in passing some of my reports in which I described and explained the political-religious situation in Slovakia and the behavior of the government towards religion and the Catholic Church. The Czechs 849 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 28, fascicolo 124, fols. 129–130, Micara to Gasparri June 10, 1922. 850 Ibid., fols. 130, 138, 177, 179, Micara to Gasparri June 10, 1922.

194

treated this territory, which is mostly Catholic, although a considerable Protestant minority lives there, as a  conquered country. They behaved doggedly especially to Church figures and religious issues. Although there were concerns about avoiding unnecessary troubles, especially in the international area, and about not being in conflict with the Catholic feelings of the Slovaks, Czech authorities continued further and clearly declared their intention of the dechristianization of Slovakia.851

On the other hand, the relationship between Micara and Slovakian representatives was not without conflict either. However, he certainly appreciated the deep piousness of the Slovakian people that perhaps, in his eyes, was in contrast to the proclaimed Czech progressiveness and atheism, as he emphasized in his concluding report.852 In July 1922, the newspaper Slovenský Denník, Slovenská Politika, and subsequently also Czech left-wing papers sharply criticized the Nuncio in a broader anti-Catholic spirit.853 It seems that Slovakian Bishops were not satisfied with Micara’s activities over the long term and reproached him for having been oriented one-sidedly: he preferred Fischer-Colbrie and Hlinka, while overlooking Vojtaššák and Kmeťko.854 The Nuncio also naturally followed the Slovakian press—there are translations into French available of articles from Slovák from 1922 to 1923. In 1923, tensions were provoked between the government and the Holy See by the Bishop of Spiš, Ján Vojtaššák, whose issue of a passport had been refused by the Švehla government for his pastoral journey to the USA, during which he was meant to lead the mission of Slovakian priests. His journey was supported by both Olomouc Archbishop Stojan and Prague Nuncio Micara. The reason for the refusal was probably Vojtaššák’s moral support of the Slovak People’s Party, although he himself was not a member.855 However, we are not certain whether we can state, together with Slovakian historians, that Apostolic Nuncio Marmaggi devoted more care to Slovakia than his predecessor, because he maintained personal and written contact with Slovakian Bishops and often visited the eastern part of the country. In 1933, when Mar851 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 5, fascicolo 19, fols. 77–78, concluding report. 852 Hrabovec, Slovensko a Svätá stolica 1918–1927, 18. 853 Čech, September 10, 1922. 854 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1923, Pallier April 17, 1923. 855 Ibid., Pallier, July 20, 1923; Slovák, July 5, 1923; Kucík, “Dva otvorené listy,” 76; Hrabovec, Andrej Hlinka a slovenskí katolíci, 95.

195

maggi met with Radimský, Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Holy See, he indicated his distance from A. Hlinka, Chairman of the Slovak People’s Party, and stated that he had “never let him get closer to himself during his Prague Nunciature.“856 Nuncio Marmaggi noticed the deteriorating relations between the Czechs and Slovaks already in the early 1920s.857 His close relationship to Slovakia and its religious personages can be evidenced by the fact that he sent a congratulatory letter to politician and priest, Andrej Hlinka, on his 60th birthday in September 1924. In the letter he stated: “Esteemed Sir! On this joyous occasion, on which God the Most High and Gracious has permitted you to reach the age of 60, accept, generous Sir, the wholehearted congratulations of this Prague Apostolic Nunciature.“858 Besides the political-religious situation in Slovakia, Marmaggi would also penetrate into the affairs of Subcarpathian Ruthenia, where he dealt with the tense situation in Prešov and Uzhhorod. The spiritual and political life in the country was no doubt exacerbated at the turn of 1924/1925 by the pastoral letter from Slovakian Bishops of November 26, 1924, which, under the threat of strict ecclesiastical penalties, forbade Catholics from participating in socialist, communist and anarchist parties and associations, including Sokol.859 This document was certainly inspired by similar letters from the Dutch, Swiss and German clergy at the turn of the 1910s and 1920s, and mainly by the pastoral letter of December 10, 1918 of Dutch Bishops.860 This letter by Slovakian Bishops clearly meddled in the political sphere and indirectly sought to support the Slovak People’s Party before the upcoming parliamentary elections in Czechoslovakia.861 In mid-January 1925, the Vatican L’Osservatore Romano published an extract from the pastoral letter.862 Slovakian Bishops were determined to

856 857 858 859

AMFA, PR Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 2, Radimský November 12, 1933. Zlámal, Příručka českých církevních dějin, 7:73; Hrabovec, Slovensko a Svätá stolica 1918–1927, 71. Sidor, and Vnuk, Andrej Hlinka, 517. Slovák, December 28, 1924; Lidové noviny, December 31, 1924; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1925, Pallier January 17, 1925, or February 1, 1925; AMFA, II. section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 28, Pallier January 17, 1925; AMFA, Cabinet of the Minister, box file 11, Spoločný pastiersky list biskupov a ostatných arcipastierov katolíckych Slovenska a Podkarpatskej Rusy k veriacim; AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 49, fol. 12, Marmaggi to Gasparri January 11, 1925; Hromják, “Postoj Československé strany lidové,” 109. 860 AMFA, II. section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 28. 861 Bartlová, Túžby, projekty a realita, 109. 862 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1925, Pallier January 17, 1925.

196

face the enticements to which a number of the Slovakian faithful were exposed, namely the social programs of left-wing political parties which threatened to escalate into a further weakening of Catholicism.863 It is an interesting detail that the authorship of the Slovakian pastoral letter was ascribed by some circles to Nuncio Marmaggi (e.g. České slovo on January 17, 1925). However, we have not been able to confirm or disprove this hypothesis during our research of the Vatican archives. Nevertheless, the press of the time blamed the Bishop of Košice, Fischer-Colbrie, for its authorship, labeled him a maďarón864 and demanded his resignation.865 The Czechoslovakian government, with their strong representation of socialist ministers, considered the pastoral letter as a politically intended attack against them and harshly criticized it as being unjust. Marmaggi, the second Prague Nuncio, manifested a keen interest in Slovakia, but we cannot say that he knew or traveled around Slovakia. After all, he had only been there twice—in 1924 in Bratislava and in 1925 in Prešov and Košice. However, we have not been able to verify the claim that he remained in personal and written contact with Slovakian Bishops after leaving Czechoslovakia.866 Although the Nunciature tried to blunt Hlinka’s radicalism from the mid-1920s, draw him into Czech political Catholicism and prepare him for a possible entry into the government coalition, they failed. According to the Holy See, the division of the Czech and Slovakian Catholic blocks contributed to the fragmentation of Catholic forces in the country. The relationship of later Prague Nuncio Ciriaci with Slovakian Bishops and the Catholic block also cannot be overestimated. Although he is often viewed through the lens of the events of the summer of 1933, when the vigorous Nuncio replied to Hlinka’s letter in an anti-Czech spirit, we should not infer from it that his relationship with Slovakia was generally good. In December 1946, when he met Maixner, the Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Holy See, Ciriaci himself criticized two prominent Slovakian figures—the Bishop of Spiš, Vojtaššák, and the former Chairman

863 Doležal, Politická cesta českého katolicismu, 24. 864 Translator’s note: maďarón is a term which was used for Magyarized members of a non-Hungarian nation. 865 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1925, Pallier February 3, 1925; AMFA, RO Vatican 1920–1939, box file 3. 866 Hrabovec, Slovensko a Svätá stolica 1918–1927, 18–19; Hrabovec, Andrej Hlinka a slovenskí katolíci, 92–93. A more fervent relationship of Nuncio Marmaggi with Slovakia can only be supported by later events. In March 1941, Marmaggi delivered a radio speech on the occasion of the second anniversary of the creation of the Slovak State, and he would also regularly participate in the Requiems for Hlinka in Rome, which were organized by Slovakian Envoy K. Sidor.

197

of the Slovak’s People Party, Hlinka. At that time, he said, among other things: “I know his [Vojtaššák’s] stubbornness and political orientation towards Hlinka, and I did not expect anything other than that he would be making trouble; but just like Hlinka, he is not a politician of great influence either.“867 Probably the coolest relationship with Slovakia was that of the fourth Prague Nuncio, Ritter. He had established an honest relationship with Czechoslovakia in the 1920s when he had served there as Secretary of the Nunciature, and it deepened during his diplomatic mission in October 1925. Ritter refused anything that could disrupt the unity of Czechoslovakia and supported the centralism of the government. Hrabovec believes that the Prague environment “to some extent affected the lens through which he looked at Slovakia.“868 According to the Czech reports and Vatican archives, he never visited Slovakia, excluding his involuntary mission in the spring of 1939. The Holy See watched with fear the onset of authoritarian and totalitarian ideologies on the eve of WWII. Pope Pius XI did not hesitate to issue many encyclicals, allocutions and complaints against the violations of peace and the restrictions to human rights and freedoms. Already in 1937, the Vatican knew that the tensions between Berlin and Prague—i.e. Berlin and Vienna—were “closely connected with the fate of European peace, and this all the more when the polemics and disputes were becoming periodic.“869 During private hearings, the Pope and the Secretary of State were very critical about the future of Europe and thoroughly analyzed the steps of Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin and other European leaders, as well as the approximation of criminal regimes in the late 1930s, e.g. the anti-communist Berlin-Rome-Tokyo Axis. Just then, the interest in national minorities in Czechoslovakia was combined with an interest in the political situation there. We address this issue in the relevant chapter.

867 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Maixner December 31, 1946. 868 Hrabovec, Slovensko a Svätá stolica 1918–1927, 19. 869 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1937, Radimský October 27, 1937.

198

3.6 The Apostolic Nuncio in the Catholic Environment of Czechoslovakia

Personal Relationships with Czechoslovakian Ordinaries Given that the representative of the Holy See spent most of the time within the Catholic environment in Czechoslovakia, we can assume that it was right there where the Nuncio’s personal relationships with Church dignitaries, Catholic writers, the faithful and laymen were born. If, however, this assumption seems like an illusion because the Nuncio lived in a relatively closed environment, the fact remains that this environment was formed by his informants who informed him thoroughly on the situation in the country and the partial aspects of some issues. It is, however, surprising that the Nuncio did not establish personal relationships with the highest Church representatives in the country, the Prague and Olomouc Archbishops, not even being in contact with the latter. We can also assume that his contact with the Prague Archbishop was mainly strengthened by living together in the Archbishop’s Palace at Hradčany in the 1920s, so that when the Nuncio received his own palace in Prague’s New Town after 1929, the relationship cooled off. We can state that relations between the Apostolic Nuncios with Prague Archbishop Kordač were not very good. The criticism of his personality and activities was not only a matter of the second half of the 1920s; protests against his Church policy already appeared in 1923. His advanced age also played a certain role—in 1922 he was 70 years old—and with it came the associated morbidity, weakening strength and retreat from active positions. In the 1920s, there was the need for creative, enthusiastic and supremely committed personalities in the Church, mainly in the highest posts in Czechoslovakia. 199

The first serious criticism of Kordač can be found in Nuncio Micara’s concluding report. On one hand, he appreciated his moral and spiritual character, Roman spirit, resolute actions against schismatics— mainly in January 1921, immediately after the creation of the Czechoslovak Hussite Church—and his unequivocal reliability. However, on the other hand, he criticized his passivity in pastoral work in the Archdiocese, the disinterest in contact with the seminary, and his distancing himself from the people. Furthermore, Micara labeled his “dry nature” as being negative, as well as his pastoral practice that never touched the hearts of the people, but remained utterly unsentimental and inaccessible, thereby isolating him.870 Micara’s critical approach was largely influenced by the unpleasant experience of shared living, i.e. the not always conflict-free sharing of common space, as mentioned before, when the Apostolic Nunciature resided in the Archbishop’s Palace at Hradčany in the 1920s. However, this situation was considered as a temporary solution, because it was difficult for the Apostolic Nuncio, who had certainly quite different ideas about the representation of the Holy See, to be a permanent guest of Prague Archbishop Kordač and to live de facto under his “supervision”.871 Kordač’s  activities were not even spared the criticism of chargé d’affaires Arata in the summer of 1925, immediately after the publication of the pastoral letter by Czechoslovakian Bishops on the Hus celebrations. In his letter of August 6, 1925, Arata complained to the Holy See that “the pastoral letter—as well as the personality of Kordač—is full of doctrinaire and professorial style. Kordač translated the instructions and the telegram from the Vatican . . . but he did it neither too well nor to encourage the religious feelings of the Catholics in the country.“872 Conflict between them also continued in the following year, when Kordač disobeyed Arata’s appeal not to publish the individual points of contention of Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations in the press, which he eventually did in the Prager Presse newspaper.873 Nuncio Ciriaci’s view on Church questions was in many ways different from that of the domestic clergy, mainly Prague Archbishop Kordač.

870 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 5, fascicolo 19, fol. 83, Micara to Gasparri without date. 871 Ibid., fascicolo 501, fol. 42, Ciriaci to Strimpl April 13, 1929. 872 Ibid., fol. 50, Arata to Gasparri August 6, 1925. 873 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 70, fol. 51, Arata to Gasparri January 8, 1926.

200

It is true that the personal disputes between the two men, their differences in character, age and lifestyle, had already existed from Ciriaci’s ­arrival in the Nunciature in early 1928. When, on October 18, 1928, Radimský, Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Holy See, talked to Ciriaci during one of his many stays in Rome, the Nuncio made no secret of his critical attitude towards the Archbishop. Radimský informed Prague about it: The Nuncio complained that the Archbishop troubled him with his stubbornness, i.e. the lack of understanding for the Nuncio’s diplomatic mission (Mons. Ciriaci did not elaborate on it); he reportedly did not expect it after what he had done for him so far. According to him, the Archbishop is a doctrinarian who often acts as if he agrees, but then he does things his own way, acting often so undiplomatically, thereby complicating the Nuncio’s position (criticizing the Archbishop, Mons. Ciriaci spoke in an angry voice). Should the Archbishop remain stubborn, the Nuncio fears that it will greatly complicate his diplomatic mission.874

On the other hand, many Church representatives who encountered Nuncio Ciriaci realized the complexity of his character and the difficulty of his position in Czechoslovakia. As Leopold Škarek, the Provincial of the Jesuits at the time of Ciriaci’s diplomatic service in Czechoslovakia, later recalled: He was a  dashing Italian, self-confident, yes, imperious prelate (autocrat), intellectually based and an excellent diplomat, but not very psychological, who rather rushed his fences instead of taking things slowly. However, he could not speak Czech, but succumbed to party information from all sorts of wise guys; he was an excellent connoisseur of our situation and the Church-political questions in the CSR. He was a real friend of the Society of Jesus and made it widely known.875

M. Trapl, for example, labeled Ciriaci as “hot-blooded.“876 But, to return to the dispute between Ciraci and Kordač:

874 ATGM, fund EB—section I, box file 64, sign. R194 (Churches 1926–1929), Radimský October 22, 1928. 875 Pitrun, Jadrné memento, 163. 876 Trapl, “Krize českého politického katolicismu,” 67.

201

In his detailed situational report to the Vatican dated October 1928, Ciriaci called the Prague Archbishop an ill, old man who was no longer able to manage his assigned tasks that were beyond his strength: Kordač has two or three shortcomings due to which this nation suffers. In the first place, it is the lack of cordiality, or to put it politely, the lack of sense of truth, as he expresses his agreement and disagreement with indifference, and the day after, he declares with ease the antithesis of it. Secondly, it is the spirit of his immanent opposition to authorities, mainly the Holy See. His admiration for the Holy See may be sincere, but it is rather just a reflection of a feeling of sincere emotion.877

In his next report, written probably at the same time, the Nuncio expressed concern about the poor administration of the Prague Archdiocese, which he labeled as the most badly managed part of the country where the number of the faithful was considerably declining (!). He also expressed concerns over the Archbishop’s further remaining in the post of the highest Czech Pastor with respect to his advanced age—Kordač was almost twice as old as Ciriaci—and his poor health, and hinted to the Vatican that they should think about his successor. According to Ciriaci, his successor should be a young and vigorous dignitary, who would address the urgent tasks neglected by Kordač: the consolidation and effective functioning of all diocesan seminaries, the establishment of smaller seminaries in all dioceses, instigation of the clergy towards the genuine pastoral life, territorial arrangement of dioceses and establishment of new parishes, persistent care in the promotion of the Catholic Action, active support of all orders and religious institutes in pastoral activities (mainly in missionary activities among the people), active support of religious occupations and the education of teachers, and, last but not least, the resolution of difficult educational issues.878 As Škarek asked, the question remains whether Ciriaci did not overstep his powers in his intervention in Kordač’s administration of the Prague Archdiocese.879 This extensive objective criticism, which was not emotional or personal, as was largely thought until recently, but quite rational, gradually

877 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 143, fol. 5; AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 139, fols. 52–53. 878 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 132, fols. 9–11, Gasparri to Ciriacimu February 22, 1929; Šmíd, “Pietro Ciriaci,” 64. 879 Pitrun, Jadrné memento, 163.

202

convinced the Vatican that the future associated with extensive, deep, and necessary changes in the Prague Archdiocese and all dioceses in the country, should no longer be connected with the personage of Kordač. Ciriaci’s critical approach and his reports to the Vatican at the turn of the 1920s and 1930s, were most probably the reasons for the Holy See to comply with the wishes of the Czechoslovakian Church and political circles and not to appoint Kordač as Cardinal in 1928 on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the CSR.880 We believe that the conflict escalated because of the vanity of both men: the Titular Archbishop and Apostolic Nuncio exceeded the domestic clergy in rank, and thus presided over the Episcopal Conferences of Czechoslovakian Bishops. If the Prague Archbishop had been created Cardinal, he would have automatically taken up the post of Nuncio and Ciriaci would have been sidelined at conferences, i.e. in front of the domestic clergy. Maybe it was also because of this “personal humiliation” that the Nuncio refused the possible Cardinalate.881 Based on studying the Olomouc and Vatican archives, we came to the conclusion that the Prague Nuncio did not maintain regular correspondence, even less personal contact, with Olomouc Archbishop L. Prečan. In the materials on Prečan in the Provincial Archive in Opava (the Olomouc Branch), a few documents are preserved on the Pope and the Apostolic Nuncio, but they are only formal, polite letters that do not speak in favor of any intimate relationship of these men with Prečan. Although the Apostolic Nuncio did not develop personal relationships with any Czechoslovakian Ordinary, he put his trust mainly in K. Kašpar during the interwar period. K. Kašpar, Canon of the Chapter of St. Vitus and later Bishop of Hradec Králové and Prague Archbishop, became a personal friend and important informant of Nuncio Micara. He also had a very good position in the Roman Curia.882 Since the creation of the Republic, Kašpar had been a loyal and capable informant of Nuncios and the Holy See, and his contemporaries were aware of it. Without any religious pathos and with a certain dose of political realism, he informed Vatican circles about the situation in the young Czechoslovak Republic already in December

880 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 132, fol. 17, Ritter to Gasparri January 13, 1928. 881 Zlámal, Příručka českých církevních dějin, 7:72. 882 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1921, 1931, Krofta February 28, 1921, or Radimský July 5, 1931; Kukánová, Karel Kašpar a římské koleje, 185.

203

1918.883 In January 1919, he also advised the Nuncio to Vienna, Valfrè di Bonzo, of the situation in the country, mainly the reform efforts of the Czech Catholic clergy, expressing his concerns that the activities of the priests of the Union of the Catholic Clergy could result in a schism.884 In the summer of 1919, Kašpar became one of the candidates for the vacant post of Prague Archbishop, but the Holy Father decided to elect Kordač. Although Kašpar enjoyed the considerable confidence of Czech Church circles and a fairly good reputation in the Vatican, Vienna Nuncio Valfrè di Bonzo had doubts about his abilities to consolidate the difficult situation in Czechoslovakia after 1918. In May 1919, he spoke about him with admirable respect, but did not hide his concern: “He is undoubtedly the most ideal priest, devout, with truly Roman spirit, loyal to the Holy See. . . . Nonetheless, despite all his qualities, I do not believe that Mons. Kašpar is a man who would be able to overcome all the difficulties in the Church.“885 We are of the opinion that, from the 1920s, when the Holy See rethought its attitude to Šrámek, Chairman of the Czechoslovak People’s Party, Kašpar reacted to him in an irritated manner and tried to weaken his claims in front of the Vatican representatives. In April 1923, when criticizing Šrámek’s evaluation of Jan Hus, he stated: “I am not a politician, but I believe I can see things better than Mons. Šrámek.“886 In October 1931, Nuncio Ciriaci presented suitable candidates to the Holy See for the post of Prague Archbishop—K. Kašpar, M. Pícha, J. Kupka and A. Weber. The Pope clearly decided on Kašpar, who was also acceptable to the Czechoslovakian government.887 Pícha then became Bishop of Hradec Králové and Weber Bishop of Litoměřice. Czechoslovakian Envoy Radimský said in his address in November 1934: It is also known that Mons. Kašpar worked for himself—and not unskillfully—from his appointment as Archbishop. He always appeared in Rome at the right moment, his knowledge of Italian and the Vatican environ-

883 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 11, fascicolo 43, fols. 78–79, Kašpar to Gasparri December 13, 1918. 884 Ibid., busta 15, fascicolo 65, fols. 18–19, Kašpar to Bonzo 7. 1919. 885 AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 567, fol. 37, Bonzo to Gasparri May 7, 1919. 886 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 17, fol. 29, Kašpar to Gasparri April 17, 1923. 887 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 65, fascicolo 547, fol. 160, Ciriaci to Pacelli October 19, 1931.

204

ment being to his credit. He knows how to flatter (which is perhaps a weaker expression) and he was also constantly “preparing an air” by his letters from Prague. He thus became—whether rightfully or not—a favorite of the Pope.888

Based on the correspondence, it is clear that Czechoslovakian Bishops followed the Prague Nuncio’s life events, sending him congratulations in the case of anniversaries of priestly ordinations, his arrival in Czechoslovakia, his name day and birthday, Christmas, New Year, and condolence letters in the event of deaths in his family. However, they never developed personal relationships with the Nuncio. In addition, the Czechoslovakian Episcopacy and individual believers would contact the Holy Father or the Secretariat of State through the Nuncio.889

The Nuncios’ Information Network and Their Confidants Besides Kašpar, the aforementioned Nuncio’s confidant, a small information circle of confidants was established in the 1920s and 1930s, to inform the Nuncio on various matters of the political, religious, cultural and social life in the country. These were probably only fragments of information that he received, as these intimate personal messages were not written down. The core of secret messages was probably provided by the “information service” of J. J. Rückl. One would logically suppose that personal ties would be formed between the Nuncios and Šrámek, priest and Chairman of the Czechoslovak People’s Party, who became a political representative of postwar Czech Catholicism, when uniting the previously fragmented Catholic parties in the newly established Czechoslovak People’s Party in early 1919 and becoming its Chairman. However, their relationship remained formal, professional, collegial, but never emotional. After all, Šrámek’s transformations and his “careful treading” in the Czechoslovakian Catholic block in the 1920s did not find much understanding among other Catholics. After the creation of Czechoslovakia, his party found itself in a rather difficult situation, as it was associated with conservatism

888 AMFA, Krofta’s archive, box file 15, Radimský November 21, 1935. 889 PAO, the Olomouc Branch, fund AO, box file 679, n. 2533.

205

and the rigidity of the former Austria-Hungary and reproached for its loyal attitude to the Monarchy during WWI. Although the entry of Catholics into the young Republic encountered many problems, they gradually managed to overcome the anti-Catholic sentiment and to become actively engaged in the political life of the country. Already in the early 1920s, Šrámek’s People’s Party became a pro-government, republican, and democratic national force and was a permanent part of inter-war government coalitions until 1938.890 Regarding the Holy See’s  perception of Šrámek, the first intense interest in his person was aroused in Roman circles in connection with the filling of the post of Olomouc Archbishop in the spring of 1920. He was nominated for the Olomouc post as “a man of high spiritual and political qualities.” However, Czech Church circles did not recommend his appointment, as they were aware of his political qualities for defending religion in the government: “It is absolutely necessary to keep him at the forefront of the Church-political formation in the newly elected Parliament in Prague.“891 However, the government wanted to see him in Olomouc, far from the center of political events. Four months later, Prague Nuncio Micara also commented on the filling of the Olomouc post, presenting Šrámek as follows: Šrámek is the head of the parliamentary group of Catholics. He is an intelligent priest, active and devoted to the Church, but he has not been engaged in anything else but politics for a  long time. The government believes that they could get rid of the leader of parliamentary Catholics, who is well acquainted with the backstage of politics and is well versed in the parliamentary chaos.892

In November 1920, Micara informed Gasparri that Šrámek still seemed to be the best candidate of the Czechoslovakian government, and that it was mainly Foreign Minister Beneš who was pushing for him to become Skrbenský’s successor in Olomouc.893 Nuncio Micara himself did not think it wise to move Šrámek away from the leadership of parliamentary

890 Trapl, “České katolické strany do roku 1938,” 155. 891 AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 613, fols. 47–48, Ledochowski to Gasparri May 16, 1920. 892 Ibid., fascicolo 614, fols. 11–18, Micara to Gasparri September 23, 1920. 893 Jonová, “Jednání o obsazení arcibiskupského stolce v Olomouci,” 129–149; Jonová, Kapitoly ze života Lva Skrbenského z Hříště, 77f.

206

Catholics and the political life in Prague, where active personalities prepared to defend the rights of the Church were needed, maybe more than ever.894 It is likely that Beneš—instructed by President Masaryk—sought to eliminate Šrámek from high politics and the nascent Pětka, where the Chairman of the People’s Party was mainly opposed to the separation of State and Church.895 However, Micara convinced him that the post was not suitable for Šrámek’s type of personality. In December 1920, Beneš reconsidered his approach and acknowledged the qualities of the candidate of the Holy See, A. C. Stojan, for the Olomouc bishopric throne.896 The Holy See probably changed its perspective on Šrámek in 1921, but not later than 1922. Until then, the Holy See had perceived Šrámek’s short activity in the government rather as “serving” the liberal regime, as a compromising retreat from a religious position and the weakness of the Catholic block.897 However, Krofta, Envoy to the Holy See, assured Secretary of State Gasparri at their meeting in October 1921 that Šrámek and the Catholic Ministers’ participation in the Czechoslovakian government was to the benefit of Catholicism, as it excluded violent solutions to Church issues.898 The participation of members of the Czechoslovak People’s Party was gradually perceived as positive, as evidenced by Micara’s statement in December 1921: “Regarding the religious interests in the country, Mons. Šrámek is very important in this respect.“899 The loyalty of Šrámek’s political block to Czechoslovakia also played a certain role. Šrámek’s two journeys to the Eternal City in the 1920s and 1930s also contributed to the fact that the Holy See got to know him better and changed its perspective on him. During his first journey to Rome, Šrámek met Secretary of State Gasparri, Secretary G. Pizzard, UnderSecretary F. Borgongini-Duca, visited a few important Cardinals, and was received by Pope Pius XI. Šrámek’s position remained firm in the eyes of the Holy See—not even the criticism of Secretary of State Gasparri 894 AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 614, fols. 30–33, Micara to Gasparri November 7, 1920. 895 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, III periodo, fascicolo 3, fols. 28–30, Micara to Gasparri February 2, 1921. 896 AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 614, fol. 43, Micara to Gasparri December 29, 1920. 897 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 9, fascicolo 36, fol. 5. 898 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 4, fols. 50–54, Micara to Gasparri March 14, 1922; Krofta, Diplomatický deník, 223, 246. 899 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 9, fascicolo 36, fol. 5, Gasparri to Micara December 29, 1921.

207

regarding his remaining in the government which was unfriendly to Catholicism,900 nor the occasional invectives of Prague Nuncio Micara regarding his passivity and negotiating tactics of the early 1920s did him any harm.901 The Nuncio also served as an informant on Šrámek on the eve of his first journey to Rome—Micara informed the Secretary of State about his short meeting with Šrámek which took place on March 13 in Prague. He described him as a man “who has always sought to reduce the intensity of attacks of different parties that were directed against the Catholic Church.“902 Šrámek’s second journey to the Eternal City at the turn of 1934/1935, when he held talks with high Church dignitaries about the implementation of modus vivendi, confirmed his course which had started in the 1920s. Šrámek, a Minister in the current government, a priest and influential man of the Catholic block, was to appeal to the hesitating Slovakian Bishops and manifest the unity of the Vatican and Czechoslovakian Catholic blocks in the planned implementation of modus vivendi. The importance of his personality was to persuade Vatican circles of the credibility of the Czechoslovakian side.903 It is likely that Šrámek, a member of Pětka and most of the Czechoslovakian governments of the 1920s and 1930s, provided the Nuncio with confidential information from government meetings, and functioned as a kind of liaison between the Church and the State, as long as it was beneficial to Catholicism. We have, however, no written documents to support this assumption. This small circle of informants also comprised Jan Scheinost, politician, educator, writer and journalist and the priest, politician and Strahov Abbott Metoděj Zavoral, who held the post of Member of the Revolutionary National Assembly (1918–1920) and later Senator of the National Assembly (1920–1925) after the creation of Czechoslovakia in the fall of 1918.904 His extensive knowledge of the German, French, I­ talian, Romanian, and English languages and his loyalty to Church authorities were admirable and anticipated as a possible collaboration with the Holy See. It is therefore no accident that Zavoral’s name appeared after the creation of the Republic among candidates for the post of Apostolic Admin-

900 For example: ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 9, fascicolo fascicolo 36, fol. 5f. 901 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 10, fascicolo 40, fols. 70–75. 902 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 38, fol. 14, Micara to Gasparri March 13, 1923. 903 Šmíd, “Jednání Jana Šrámka ve Vatikánu a postavení Československé strany lidové,” 132. 904 Lidové noviny, January 24, 1926.

208

istrator in Prague.905 Zavoral had already informed Vatican circles about the situation in Czechoslovakia in November 1918, when he described the situation in the young Czechoslovakia in his letter to Vienna Nuncio Valfré di Bonzo. Even then, he expressed the need for the urgent establishment of diplomatic relations between Czechoslovakia and the Holy See, to prevent any further anti-Church activities by the government.906 Another informant of the Prague Nuncio was Josef Bouzek, VicePresident of the Czech College in Rome, who, after his removal, served as the Canon of Vyšehrad and probably also as a  confidant to many Czech and Moravian Bishops.907 During his Roman mission in the first half of the 1920s, Bouzek acted as an unofficial consul of the Czech Episcopate to the Holy See, and had many contacts with Vatican representatives and the Czechoslovakian Legation in Rome.908 Krofta himself stated about him in his letter to Prague in June 1921 that he had found him “a man of sincerely patriotic thinking and feeling, truly devoted to our Republic and free of limiting religious and Church passions.“909 He was replaced in his post of Vice- President of the Czech College in Rome by Václav Černý, a young priest, a Professor of History in Rome, and the Bishop’s Notary in České Budějovice. Mikuláš Pfeiffer, Canon of Košice and Ritter’s former classmate from The Faculty of Theology in Freiburg, also served as a minor reporter to the Nunciature on the situation in Slovakia in the 1920s and 1930s. However, probably due to the distance between Prague and Košice and Pfeiffer’s proximity to the Hungarian Catholic community, he and the Nuncio were never in close personal or written contact.910 It was Jan Jiří Rückl, diplomat, politician, businessman, writer, Chamberlain of Pope Pius XI, President of the Czechoslovakian Chapter of the Order of the Holy Sepulcher, Deputy Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, and Member of the Legion of Honor and Czechoslovak People’s Party,

905 AA. EE. SS., Austria-Ungheria, III periodo, fascicolo 519, fols. 24–25, Bonzo to Gasparri December 1, 1918, or fascicolo 567, fol. 27, Maglione to Gasparri December 19, 1918. Josef Doubrava was subsequently appointed as Apostolic Administrator in Prague. 906 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 11, fascicolo 43, fols. 4–6, Zavoral to Bonzo November 26, 1918. 907 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 16, Roztočil November 4, 1924; PAO, the Olomouc Branch, fund AO, box file 660, n. 2524. 908 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 16, Pallier June 20, 1922; PAO, the Olomouc Branch, fund AO, box file 660, n. 2524. 909 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 16, Krofta June 6, 1921. 910 AMFA, II section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 35, Žák December 2, 1935.

209

who had the biggest influence on the Nuncios in Czechoslovakia.911 Rückl was probably a “double agent”, as he informed the Holy See about the activities of Czechoslovakian politicians and Czech political elites about the situation in the Church. With his loyalty, confidentiality, and language skills, he earned the trust of both sides, so he maintained personal and written contacts with prominent Czechoslovakian and Vatican leaders. Among his closest friends were Beneš, J. Preiss, Šrámek, Ciriaci, and others. He was bound by confidentiality to both sides. As he once said, after a meeting with Nuncio Ciriaci: “There are a number of things I cannot tell, because the Nuncio explicitly asked for my secrecy—just like I will never violate my confidentiality to the State, if I am asked for it; it is natural that I must also keep it towards the other side.“912 J. J. Rückl was born in Včelnička in 1900. His grandfather, Antonín Rückl, was one of the founders of the glass industry in the region of Jindřichův Hradec. His father expanded the glass enterprise to Nová Huť under Nižbor and Skalice near Česká Lípa. After his death, the enterprise was taken over by Rückl’s brother, Antonín.913 After graduating from high school, Rückl studied Law and Philosophy in Prague, Munich, Innsbruck and Paris, where he graduated from the University of Business. After coming to Prague, he worked briefly in the Provincial Political Administration in Prague, but sought to enter the diplomatic service of Czechoslovakia, which he failed to do.914 After he married, he settled in Paris, where he was active among Czech and Slovakian Catholics. In 1929, he won many high honors of the Holy See. After the great success of the St. Wenceslas celebrations, he returned to Czechoslovakia, where he settled permanently.915 He was a member of many prestigious international organizations. He linked his influence in the Catholic world with many lucrative economic enterprises, e.g. his membership on the Supervisory Board of the Mutual Savings Bank in Prague, the Management Board of the Czechoslovak Share Printing Company, Vyšehrad Publishing House, Prague Steel Company, Fant’s Enterprise for Oil Refining, the Slavia Bank, etc.916 He headed

911 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1931, Radimský July 5, 1931. 912 ATGM, fund EB—oddělení I., box file 65, sign. R195 (Churches 1930–1938), Rückl to Beneš June 1931, box file 238, sign. R365 (Vatican 1933), Rückl December 26, 1933. Rückl considered himself as a man devoted to Prague Castle as well as a friend of the Nunciature. 913 NA Praha, fund Jan Jiří Rückl, inventory. 914 Ibid. 915 Ibid. 916 Ibid.

210

the Reich Executive Committee of the Czechoslovak People’s Party and the Young Generation of the Czechoslovak People’s Party. His greatest political achievement was the promotion of Beneš as the most suitable candidate for the presidential post in December 1935. In the Czech Catholic environment, his closest bonds were with Olomouc Archbishop Prečan and Šrámek, Chairman of the People’s Party, to whom he was distantly related through his wife.917 The conservative and deeply devout Rückl probably entered into written contact with Vatican representatives in July 1925, when Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations significantly cooled off after Nuncio Marmaggi’s departure from Prague. Immediately after his departure, Rückl visited President Masaryk in Lány and talked to him about the crisis. In his letter of July 15, 1925 to the Secretary of State, he expressed the impression that the President had contributed to the escalation of relations: “Everyone around the President felt that he himself was the main author of this action against the Holy See. It was he! He made the Prime Minister and others participate in the Jan Hus Manifestation.“918 Rückl also stood up for Nuncio Marmaggi, whose two-year service in the Prague Nunciature, according to him, provided unforgettable memories to all Catholics.919 After the St. Wenceslas celebrations had passed off successfully in September 1929, Pope Pius XI received Rückl for the first time.920 A more intensive contact was established in the early 1930s, when in the spring of 1931—on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Rerum Novarum encyclical—Rückl organized and partly also financed the pilgrimage of Czechoslovakian Catholics to Rome. He also participated in this pilgrimage, together with the Bishop of Hradec Králové, Kašpar. That was the second time the Pope received him for a short private audience.921 Even then he apparently became closer to important Vatican representatives with whom he maintained excellent personal relationships, e.g. E. Pacelli and G. Pizzard.922 Apparently, it was his post of Papal Chamberlain

917 918 919 920 921

Jančík, “Diplomat z hotelu Alcron,” 207. AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 57, fol. 42, Rückl to Gasparri July 15, 1925. Ibid., fol. 41, Rückl to Gasparri July 15, 1925. Lidové noviny, November 30, 1929; Čech, December 10, 1929. AMFA, PR Vatican, 1931, Radimský May 19, 1931, or July 5, 1931; NA Praha, fund Jan Jiří Rückl, box file 25, Weirich April 27, 1931. 922 ATGM, fund EB—section I., box file 65, sign. R195 (Churches 1930–1938), Rückl to Beneš June 1931.

211

that took him to the annual meetings in Rome,923 and his personal sympathy and affinity with Nuncio Ciriaci that brought him to the Prague Nunciature.924 It was also Rückl who informed the Holy See about the incident between Ciriaci and the Czechoslovakian government in the summer of 1933.925 The culmination of Rückl’s skills and his affection towards the Holy See were undoubtedly apparent in the national Catholic Congress in Czechoslovakia in the summer of 1935, when he became one of the most important organizers of the celebrations. His high education and political range of knowledge also made an extraordinary impression on Hlinka, Chairman of the People’s Party, who otherwise approached Czech Catholicism with a certain disdain. Rückl fully supported the democratic character of Czechoslovakia and rejected the totalitarian movements of communism and Nazism, mainly due to their oppression of religion. He therefore maintained good relationships with top political leaders, mainly Masaryk and Beneš, with whom he had a brisk personal correspondence. When Beneš was elected President of Czechoslovakia in December 1935, Rückl wrote to him: “Your victory is a victory of this whole State and democracy, and therein lies its extraordinary, historical importance. Your name has become a program on which everyone concentrates... The four-week struggle was a struggle of democracy against totalitarianism, and we are proud today that with God’s help we succeeded in this battle with you and for you.“926 In the late 1930s, Rückl informed Czechoslovakian President Beneš about the political-religious situation in Western Europe, mainly in France which he regularly visited.927 The premature death in August 1938 of the young, capable, and undoubtedly talented J.J. Rückl who, by his appearance, moral profile and depth of his faith, significantly exceeded many of his contemporaries, was also the end of Czechoslovakian democracy.928

923 Vojenský ústřední archiv, fund Sbírka vzpomínek—Vlastimil Klíma, box file 3, n. 9167, Dr. J. J. Rückl (manuscript). 924 Rückl was the first Czechoslovakian lay dignitary of the Holy See. 925 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 151. 926 NA Praha, fund Jan Jiří Rückl, box file 37, Rückl December 21, 1935. 927 APO, fund PO, n. 988, Dr. Jan Jiří Rückl. 928 Ibid., n. D899/38, the death notice of J. J. Rückl.

212

3.7 The Nuncios’ Concluding Reports: Analysis, Interpretation and Description

When, on June 2, Micara was asked by Secretary of State Gasparri to submit his concluding report on his Czechoslovakian mission, he did so within a week.929 Micara’s preserved concluding report provides a unique insight into the political-religious-social situation after the creation of Czechoslovakia. The other Prague Nuncios, given the circumstances of the end of their diplomatic missions, had left no concluding reports. His concluding report reflects his perception of the young Republic as seen through the eyes of a representative of the Holy See, the first Apostolic Nuncio, who personally attended many Czechoslovakian-Vatican negotiations and dealt with domestic Church and political leaders of the country. A priest who, on a practical level, had to merge the ideas of the Holy See, the domestic clergy, and the Czechoslovakian government. Hrabovec believes that Micara’s concluding report is the evaluation of his four-year mission in an unfriendly-minded environment.930 Due to the exceptional importance and uniqueness of Micara’s report, in the Appendix we have attached the unabridged version, translated into Czech for the first time ever. In compiling his final report, which was apparently created from February 1923—when his transfer to a new diplomatic post was seriously considered—the Nuncio relied on his own experience and the factual account of his reports, as well as on various statistical yearbooks and reports, e.g. Schematismus venerabilisclerigraeci ritus catholicorumdioecesiseperjesiensis 929 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 5, fascicolo 19, fol. 27, Gasparri to Micara June 2, 1923, or fol. 50, Micara to Gasparri June 9,1923. 930 Hrabovec, Andrej Hlinka a slovenskí katolíci, 89.

213

(1908), Schematismus cleridiocesisrosnaviensis (1912), Schematismus cleriarchidioecesisstrigoniensis (1918) and Schematismus almaedioecesisscepusiensis (1920), which are currently to be found in the Vatican Archive—with Micara’s notes.931 In his report, Micara summarized in detail the period of his diplomatic service in the post of Apostolic Nuncio to Prague from 1920 to 1923. He described the creation of Czechoslovakia in 1918, when, at the request of the plenipotentiary in Vienna, the Holy See formally recognized Czechoslovakia as a sovereign and independent state. He provided information on the post-war atmosphere in the country, when the people preferred life in the ethnically fair Austria-Hungary, the background of the creation of the Republic, prominent Czechoslovakian politicians in the period of the global conflict and, after it, the participation of the country in the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. His analysis of the political-religious-social situation in the country described the historical parts of the country, the ethnic composition of each country, and the basic geographic data. It also focused on the changes in legislative and executive power after 1918, always with respect to the benefit of Catholicism. He paid special attention to political partisanship, the results of the 1920 parliamentary elections, government coalitions, and figures in political life, including their brief characterization.932 Micara paid special attention to President Masaryk, his political activities, family, religious opinions, and critical speeches addressed to the Catholic Church. He informed on the activities of the Prague Nunciature, the Church schism in 1920, and the anti-Church measures of the government. He also analyzed the political-religious situation in Slovakia and Czech-Slovak relations. He wrote about the spiritual life, when Catholics had tried to face anti-Catholic diatribes (Orel, catechetical congresses, unionist conferences, Catholic pilgrimages, the activities of Catholic students, the consecration of families to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, etc.). He devoted the largest section of the report to the analysis of pastoral practice in each Czechoslovakian diocese (Prague, Olomouc, Litoměřice, České Budějovice, Hradec Králové, Brno, Nitra, Banská Bystrica, Spiš, Košice, Rožňava, Trnava, Prešov, Mukacheve). He mentioned the number of inhabitants, the Catholic faithful, priests and 931 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 45, or fascicolo 46, or fascicolo 47. 932 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 5, fascicolo 19, fols. 51–108, the concluding report.

214

monks, the holders of the highest Church posts (Archbishop, Bishop, Auxiliary Bishop, etc.), and provided information about the following clergymen: F. Kordač, A. C. Stojan, J. Gross, Š. Bárta, K. Kašpar, N. Klein, K. Kmeťko, M. Blaha, J. Vojtaššák, A. Fischer-Colbrie, P. Jantausch, D. Nyaradi, A. Papp. In conclusion, he mentioned the unresolved Church-religious tasks that had been discussed between the Czechoslovakian and Vatican sides, but which remained as open tasks for the future Nuncio. Although the Nuncio’s perspective is one-sided, critical, and in many aspects outdated, it reflects the political-religious atmosphere in Czechoslovakia after 1918 in an interesting way. Moreover, his report is the only concluding report by a Prague Nuncio to have been created after the end of his mission in the first half of the 20th century. For the study of the political-religious situation in Central Europe in the 1920s, besides Micara’s report, concluding reports are also available by Warsaw Nuncio A. Ratti of July 1921 and by Berlin Nuncio E. Pacelli of November 1929.933 Although the reports of both Nuncios are designed similarly, they rather reflect the relations of the host state to other European states, and skillfully put its political-religious development into the Central European context. They deal with, e.g. the moral life of domestic Catholics and the general Christian morals in the country, education, the involvement of Catholics in public space, Catholic associations, and religious orders. Pacelli is particularly pragmatic, careful and very factual in his detailed report. It was the ability of a good analysis of the local situation and its setting within the broad political context (broad political knowledge) that was one of the deciding factors in the papal election of Ratti in 1922 by Pius XI and Pacelli in 1939 by Pius XII.

933 Cavalleri, L’Archivio di Mons. Achille Ratti, 145–211; Pacelli, Die Lage der Kirche, 94–257.

215

4. The Nuncios’ Absences from Prague

4.1 The End of the Nuncio’s Mission and His Departure from Czechoslovakia

Clemente Micara and His Request for Transfer to a New Diplomatic Position Prague Nuncio Micara was probably exhausted by the fruitless and protracted discussions on political-religious issues between 1921 and 1922, which were constantly prolonged by Czechoslovakia, without reaching an acceptable compromise. Micara could hardly bear the fact that he could not oblige the Holy See and enforce more in Czechoslovakia—with respect to the interests of the Church. The left-wing press in Czechoslovakia also significantly contributed to the unfriendly attitude towards the Nuncio.934 This situation was confirmed by the many unresolved Church issues in Slovakia and Subcarpathian Ruthenia (P. Jantausch, A. Papp, M. Bubnič, M. Takács, etc.), of which, on the contrary, Prague accused the Holy See, i.e. its representative, the Nuncio. The wish to end the Nuncio’s mission did not come from within the Czechoslovakian government, but from the Holy See as they apparently accommodated Micara’s long-term wishes.935 After all, even the Czechoslovakian side was surprised by ­Micara’s  informal behavior and special customs at the beginning of his diplomatic mission. As Krofta, Envoy to the Holy See, wrote in his diary, the Nuncio’s behavior was eccentric, overfamiliar, undignified 934 NA, MFA-NCA I, box file 1595, sign. 726. 935 Compare: Hrabovec, Slovensko a Svätá stolica 1918–1927, 69, and Hrabovec, Andrej Hlinka a slovenskí katolíci, 89, where it is stated that Micara was removed from his Prague post at the express wish of the Czechoslovakian government.

218

and haughty. Krofta wrote that, when speaking to Prague Archbishop Kordač, “he acts very familiarly, stroking his cheek, taking him around the waist, and once he supported him when he was ill by grabbing him under his arm.“936 Also, his behavior was not considerate of Slovakian Bishops who had invited him to Slovakia. However, he refused to go there and told them to come to Prague to inform him about the conditions in Slovakia. As Krofta aptly summed up, the Nuncio would have liked Bishops to come to him in Prague every month to report their news. However, they could not do that, as they bore great responsibilities, stated Krofta appreciatively.937 In August 1922, Jozef Bouzek, Vice-President of the Czechoslovakian College in Rome, informed Pallier, Envoy to the Holy See, that “Micara is reportedly very unhappy in Prague and would go away immediately.“938 Pallier believed Micara largely contributed to the tensions in Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations, as he informed the Vatican incorrectly. Secretary Borgongini-Duca indicated the possibility of his removal. Micara’s position rapidly deteriorated, as he did not enjoy the confidence of the domestic high clergy, the government, the Foreign Ministry, or the politicians of the Czechoslovakian People’s Party.939 While these reasons for his transfer confirmed his unhappiness with the situation in the country, President Masaryk informed Foreign Minister Beneš in August 1922 that, on the contrary, the Holy See was not satisfied with Micara and were considering his removal.940 Micara’s departure from Czechoslovakia was officially considered from February 1923 when Czechoslovakian Envoy Pallier sent the confidential report to Prague which he had received from Borgongini-Duca: Pope Pius XI had decided to transfer Clement Micara at the earliest possible opportunity to a  new post of Apostolic Nuncio.941 Prague Archbishop Kordač, who had stayed in Rome in April 1923 with other Czechoslovakian Bishops (K. Kašpar, J. Gross, N. Klein, K. Kmeťko, M. Blaha, J. Vojtaššák and A. Fischer-Colbrie) confirmed this intention of the Holy See to Czechoslovakian Envoy Pallier. Kordač agreed with Micara’s transfer to Brussels. The Holy See officially announced Krofta, Diplomatický deník, 214. Ibid. AMFA, PR Vatican, 1922, Pallier September 1, 1922. Ibid., 1923, Pallier January 31, 1923. Hájková, Quagliatová, and Vašek, Korespondence T. G. Masaryk—Edvard Beneš, 305. Masaryk to Beneš August 6, 1922. 941 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 2, Pallier February 20, 1923. 936 937 938 939 940

219

his removal to the Czechoslovakian side in mid-May 1923, although La Stampa, the Italian newspaper, briefly reported that the Holy See had appointed Prague Nuncio Micara as Nuncio to Brussels already on May 9, 1923. Czechoslovakian circles regarded it as a recognition of his successful mission in Prague and, in a way, as a promotion.942 On May 14, 1923, the Holy See requested agrément for Marmaggi, who was serving as Nuncio to Bucharest at that time, and this was granted.943 Micara submitted his letter of recall to President Masaryk on June 1923 when he left Czechoslovakia.944 At the request of the Secretary of State, Micara’s first steps led from Prague to Rome, where he met with Marmaggi who thoroughly informed him before his future mission about the political-religious situation in the country.945 The name of Secretary Ciriaci, who was by nature sensitive and passionate—quite the opposite of Micara—was among those mentioned for the post of the second Nuncio to Czechoslovakia. It was probably because he had previously come into contact with the Czechoslovakian agenda.946 Micara ended his service in Prague on May 30, 1923; the official note announcing his departure from Prague was issued on May, 1923.947 Looking further ahead, we can say that Micara was the only one of the four Apostolic Nuncios in interwar Czechoslovakia who ended his mission voluntarily, based on previous agreement between the Holy See and Czechoslovakia in the summer of 1923. After completing his mission, Micara was awarded the Order of the White Lion as an expression of gratitude for his service to the new Republic.

942 NA, MFA-NCA I, box file 1593, sign. 725, La Stampa, May 9, 1923. 943 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1923, Pallier April 17, 1923, or Pallier May 18, 1923, or Girsa May 19, 1923. Agrément for the new Apostolic Nuncio to Prague, Marmaggi, was granted on May 19, 1923. 944 Ibid., 1935, Radimský August 5, 1935; APO, fund PO, n. 1974, Inaugural Audience—the Apostolic Nunciature, n. D3665/23, Skalický June 14,1923. President Masaryk replied to it in his letter of July 7, 1923. APO, fund PO, n. 1974, Inaugural Audience—the Apostolic Nunciature, n. P807/23, Skalický July 7, 1923. 945 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 5, fascicolo 19, fol. 28, Gasparri to Micara June 6, 1923. 946 APO, fund T, sign. T 32/21 The Vatican-The Legation’s Reports, box file 22, 1923–1926, April 17, 1923; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1923–1927, Pallier April 17, 1923, or Jelen April 5, 1927; ATGM, fund EB—section I, box file 238, sign. R365 (Vatican 1933), Rückl October 16, 1933. 947 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1923, Pallier May 18, 1923.

220

Francesco Marmaggi and the 1925 Jan Hus Celebrations The tradition of Jan Hus was revived in the early 1920s, but it intensified especially during WWI. It was T. G. Masaryk who, in 1915 in Geneva, Switzerland, reminded the public of the 500th anniversary of his martyrdom. His name then became a  symbol of heroism and courage and some regiments were named after him, e.g. in 1917, the Regiment of Jan Hus.948 During WWI, Hus’s reproaches towards the Catholic Church were forgotten; on the contrary, his person was used to encourage the greater determination of Czech soldier-legionnaires to combat the enemy. However, the Vatican saw a direct association between Masaryk’s performance in 1915 and the first Hus celebrations in Czechoslovakia in 1920, and they believed that the aim of these celebrations was to separate citizens from the Church. 949 The liberal community in the country perceived Hus not as a religious reformer, but as a fighter for the Czech nation. Masaryk also supported this idea as, since the 19th century, he had considered Hus an important opponent to Rome. Therefore, the anniversary of Hus’s death (July 6) was commemorated annually after the creation of Czechoslovakia. The Holy See received the first report about this anniversary and its celebration in Prague in the summer of 1920, when Nuncio Micara informed Secretary of State Gasparri about it.950 Micara informed Vatican circles about Jan Hus, the national hero and martyr whose anniversary in the Czech Lands had become a golden opportunity for the proclamation of hatred towards Rome.951 The Nuncio described the course of the celebrations held in the Old Town Square and Wenceslas Square, and did not forget to emphasize that priests of the Czechoslovak Hussite Church, led by Bohumil Zahradník-Brodský, served a ceremonial mass in Czech and read a passage from Hus’s letter to Praguers in the latter square.952 If the termination of Micara’s mission was rather calm and did not elicit unease in the domestic block, the departure of his successor, 948 Zlámal, Příručka českých církevních dějin, 7:18; Herben, T. G. Masaryk, 147f. 949 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 1, fols. 11–12, Micara to Gasparri March 18, 1920. 950 However, the Hus celebrations were held for the first time already in 1919 after the foundation of Czechoslovakia. Doležal, Český kněz, 62. 951 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 1, fol. 19, Micara to Gasparri July 12, 1920. 952 Ibid.

221

Marmaggi, associated with the Marmaggi Affair, is nowadays one of the most famous and most elaborated landmarks in the Church history of the First Republic. Already in the spring of 1925, Nuncio Marmaggi protested against the Bill on Public Holidays which abolished some Church holidays (the feast of Corpus Christi, St. Peter and St. Paul, and the Immaculate Conception) and introduced some new ones (St. Wenceslas, St. Cyril and St. Methodius, Jan Hus).953 He reproached the government for not discussing with the Holy See the question of the abolition and introduction of public holidays. Secretary of State Gasparri then labeled the Hus celebrations as an expression of “hostility towards Catholics and the Holy See,” and recommended that the government should hold a private celebration instead of the planned grand celebrations.954 However, Pallier, Envoy to the Holy See, opposed the arguments of the Vatican by claiming that “Hus is a bright figure in our history and we cannot surrender this cult.“955 Nevertheless, Vatican leaders considered the enactment of the Hus celebrations as an unfriendly act directed against the Holy See. From that moment, this dispute threatening to break diplomatic relations hung in the air. The Vatican’s attitude became radicalized with the forthcoming celebrations. On April 4, 1925, Secretary of State Gasparri said in front of Pallier, representative of the Czechoslovakian government to the Holy See, that the Czechoslovakian attitude was very cold. He also informed him about summoning Nuncio Marmaggi to Rome to inform him of the political-religious situation in Czechoslovakia.956 Foreign Minister Beneš rejected the intervention of the Holy See, calling it an interference in the internal affairs of the country. However, he wished to resolve the tense situation amicably, but refused to reconsider the Czechoslovakian attitude towards Jan Hus and cancel the participation of the President and the Prime Minister in the celebrations. He did not regard the celebrations as a hostile gesture towards the Holy See, but as a tribute to an important personage in Czech history.957

953 The Bill on Public Holidays was presented in the Chamber of Deputies on March 21, 1925. 91 Deputies voted in favor of it, 36 were against it. The Czechoslovak People’s  Party and Hlinka’s  People’s  Party, including Ministers Šrámek and Dolanský, left the Chamber of Deputies before the main vote. 954 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 55, fol. 16, Gasparri to Marmaggi March 1, 1925; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1925, Pallier March 13, 1925. 955 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1925, Pallier March 13, 1925. 956 Ibid., Pallier April 4, 1925. 957 Ibid., Beneš July 3, 1925; Ehrenberger, “Husovy oslavy v roce 1925,” 173–174.

222

However, when the Nuncio threatened to leave Prague on July 6, Beneš labeled it as “an inadmissible gesture, a kind of disrespect for the State and nation and an offensive approach with respect to our moderation.“958 He asked Envoy Pallier to explain the situation in Prague, but it was not considered as the Envoy’s removal. Even then, Beneš indicated that the Nuncio’s departure would be regarded as definitive by Czechoslovakia and he would not be allowed to return. Before the Hus celebrations, Nuncio Marmaggi surveyed the current attitudes of the highest state officials, including President Masaryk. When he learned from the press about the organization of the celebrations under the auspices of the highest state posts, he informed the Vatican about it.959 Foreign Minister Beneš assured him that the character of the celebrations would be national, without any ambitions to “irritate” the Church, and the Holy See should respect that. However, the presence of left-wing politicians, especially National Socialists, in the government and the fighting attitude of President Masaryk aroused a suspicion of the opposite. This became all the more apparent when the President, known for his long-term critical attitude towards Catholicism, was at the forefront of the celebrations, with the honorary presidency being taken over by the Prime Minister, agrarian Švehla. The Holy See had a clear idea: the connection of Jan Hus and Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk was not good for Catholics. Secretary of State Gasparri protested to Pallier regarding Masaryk’s  participation in the celebrations and threatened him with the removal of the Nuncio from Prague on July 3. Nuncio Marmaggi also protested to Foreign Minister Beneš.960 Hus remained a point of contention in the negotiations on both sides: the Vatican regarded him as antiCatholic, while the Czech side could recognize “the difference between Hus the Patriot and Hus the Heretic.“961 Šrámek, Minister and Chairman of the Czechoslovak People’s Party, who repeatedly met with Nuncio Marmaggi at that time, threatened the government with the resignation

958 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1925, Beneš July 3, 1925. 959 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 57, fol. 8, Marmaggi to Gasparri June 30, 1925; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1925, Pallier July 1, 1925. 960 ATGM, fund Edvard Beneš I—Churches 1919–1925—box file 63, file 6, Beneš to Pallier, Praha July 3, 1925; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1925, Pallier to Beneš, Řím July 3, 1925; Ehrenberger, “Husovy oslavy v roce 1925,” 177. 961 Ibid., Pallier to Beneš July 4, 1925; AMFA, PR Vatican, 1925, Pallier to Beneš July 4, 1925.

223

of the party members if the government led the celebrations.962 On July, 4, 1925, Gasparri stated that the Holy See considered the Hus celebrations as an offense against the Church.963 Before the celebrations, Prague Nuncio Marmaggi requested an audience with Foreign Minister Beneš, who received him no sooner than on July 6 at 10 a.m. Beneš stated that the President and Prime Minister’s participation in the celebrations was unofficial, and repeated that the celebrations were not intended to attack the Holy See. However, the Nuncio regarded the celebrations as an insult, regardless of their informality. He complained about the inadequate explanation of the incident by the government, protested against it, and told him that he had to go to Rome immediately, stating that it was taken as a serious political consequence by the Vatican.964 The Hus celebrations of July 6 were a nationwide event and in many places actually turned into anti-Catholic demonstrations, although neither President Masaryk nor Prime Minister Švehla delivered speeches during the celebrations in Prague’s Old Town Square. Nevertheless, the mere participation of Masaryk and Ministers in the celebrations was regarded by the Vatican as an insult, even though they attended only in their private capacities. Therefore, the Vatican ordered the Nuncio to leave Prague on Monday evening, July 6, and to go to Rome.965 Why did the Nuncio have to leave on the evening of July 6? He was apparently waiting for news about the celebrations, but the participation of high-ranking politicians, the raising of the Hussite flag on Prague Castle, and anti-Catholic mottos convinced him that he should obey the instructions from Rome and depart. We believe that his evening departure966 reflected Marmaggi’s relatively tolerant attitude, as he was

962 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 57, fol. 6, Marmaggi’s typewritten diary. Marmaggi’s typewritten diary, which could shed a new light on the case of summer 1925, is preserved in the Vatican Secret Archive. However, its contents are disappointing to historians, as there are only two pages describing commonly known events—briefly chronologically organized daily activities. The main focus is on the Nuncio’s agenda, with brief comments, at the turn of June/July 1925. However, it does not explain the not-yet-fully-known dramatic events of June and July 1925. Nevertheless, we attach a Czech translation of this text in the Appendix. 963 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1925, Pallier July 4, 1925. 964 Ibid., Beneš July 7, 1925; Ehrenberger, “Husovy oslavy v roce 1925,” 178. 965 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 57, fol. 11, Gasparri to Marmaggi July 4, 1925. 966 NA, MFA-NCA I, box file 1595, sign. 726, or box file 1597; Doležal, Politická cesta českého katolicismu, 28; Ehrenberger, “Husovy oslavy v roce 1925,” 157–200.

224

willing to wait until the last possible moment, i.e. the maximum delay of his journey.967 It is also possible that the Vatican did not initially plan for him to leave the country. It was not clear from the first instruction sent to Prague whether the Nuncio should leave Prague or the country. After the Nuncio’s query, the Secretary of State specified the instruction and wrote to Marmaggi that the personnel should leave Prague and he should travel to Rome. Pallier, the Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Vatican, left Rome on July 10, 1925. According to the French Envoy to the Holy See, the removal of the Nuncio from Prague was the work of Pope Pius XI.968 The Nuncio’s departure did not mean the severance of diplomatic relations between Czechoslovakia and the Holy See, but only the strong protest by the Pope’s representative against the events of July 6, 1925.969 Although the Nuncio left Czechoslovakia, his Secretary remained there, serving as chargé d’affaires.970 However, the Nuncio’s sudden departure, the explanation of which was published in the press on July 7, radi­ calized Czech society which understood Marmaggi’s action mainly as a provocation on the part of the Holy See. Subsequently, these events gave rise to what was known as the Marmaggi Affair, which culminated in July and August 1925 and intensely affected the domestic and foreign press and the politicians of European countries (France, Italy, Yugoslavia, Romania).971 A great national crisis was sparked in Czechoslovakia by the conflict with the Vatican. Its external dimensions—the formal severance of diplomatic relations between Prague and Rome, according to high officials of the Foreign Ministry, were only a side effect, which

967 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1925, Jelen July 10, 1925, or Pallier July 13, 1925, or Jelen July 15, 1925; AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 57, fol. 10, Marmaggi to Gasparri July 3, 1925, or fol. 11, Gasparri to Marmaggi July 4, 1925. 968 Ibid. 969 PAAA, Berlin, II Vatikan (38), Politik 3, Beziehungen Vatikan-Tschechoslowakei, R 72209, Bergen July 10, 1925; Klimek, Boj o Hrad, 1:341. 970 NA, MFA-NCA I, box file 1596, sign. 726, CSR July 9, 1925. 971 The Vatican L’Osservatore Romano ran regular reports on the Hus celebrations, for example on July 17, 1925, August 28, 1925, September 2, 1925, September 21, 1925, etc. The Czechoslovakian government thoroughly followed the articles of the foreign press which ran reports on the affair. For more details: AMFA, II section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 16, Jelen October 13, 1925, or box file 27; NA, MFA-NCA I, box file 1595, sign. 726.

225

would have occurred even under different circumstances and at another time.972 As already mentioned, Marmaggi’s departure and the subsequent affair were also watched with great interest by foreign countries. On July 8, 1925, W. Koch, German Envoy to Prague, wrote a report about the turbulent mood in Czechoslovakia and Marmaggi’s departure: “Marmaggi left Prague amid deep resentment against the Czechoslovakian government, the resentment that is also shared by the Holy See.“973 However, at the end of his report, he thoroughly described Marmaggi’s acti­ vities in Czechoslovakia between 1923 and 1925: Mons. Marmaggi did not regard the days spent in Prague as good. Al­ready his predecessor, who had avoided all conflicts and preferred to live in seclusion, the urbane Micara, had resigned suddenly from his post, accompanied by thunder and lightning. The honest, hardworking, and, with all his inner goodness, rather grumpy Marmaggi came to Prague undoubtedly with the best intentions and as a  friend of the Slavs. He soon had to realize that in the local atmosphere of dishonesty and unreliability he could not do much. Of all the numerous tasks that awaited him, e.g. to settle relations between the Church and the State, appoint Bishops, demarcate the borders of dioceses, exclude Church estates from land reform, he was not able to arrange a single one.974

On the contrary, the Austrian Envoy to Prague, F. Marek, stated on July 16, 1925—in agreement with Chancellor P. Šlámal—that the person responsible for the Nuncio’s departure from Czechoslovakia was his bad advisor, Prague Archbishop Kordač, who should have “as a Czech better informed the Nuncio about the psychology of the Czech people.“975 According to him, it was also surprising that Kordač acted too neutrally in the ongoing dispute between the State and the Church, for which he 972 AMFA, II section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 28, Roztočil July 18, 1925. The Renan celebrations in France which were also officially attended by government figures represent an interesting parallel that has not yet been pointed out. Paris Nuncio Cerretti protested against the celebrations, but he did not leave France. AMFA, PR Vatican, 1925, Pallier July 13, 1925. 973 Alexander, Deutsche Gesandtschaftsberichte aus Prag, 2:355, document n. 138, Koch July 8, 1925. 974 PAAA, Berlin, II Vatikan (38), Politik 3, Beziehungen Vatikan-Tschechoslowakei, R 72209, Koch July 8, 1925; Alexander, Deutsche Gesandtschaftsberichte aus Prag, 2:356–357, document n. 138, Koch July 8, 1925. 975 ÖSW, Archiv der Republik, Gesandtschafts- und Konsulatsarchive 1918–1938, Gesandtschaft Prag, Karton 16, Marek July 16, 1925.

226

had earned unfair attacks by the press on himself. However, Kordač refused responsibility for the escalation of attitudes during the Marmaggi Affair, and he also repeated it to the Holy See during his visit to the Vatican in late 1925.976 On July 18, 1925, the Czechoslovakian government—with respect to the interpellations raised by many Deputies—made an official declaration, refusing responsibility for the existing incident and the Nuncio’s departure from Prague: “The government cannot be blamed for the course of events associated with the demonstrative departure of the Apostolic Nuncio. The departure of the Nuncio violated the relationship of our State with the Vatican, which the government, being harmed, tried to correct so that the relationship between the State and the Church could be settled without a struggle.“977 Šrámek, Chairman of the People’s Party, had long considered whether the Party should leave the government, but he decided not to, after the meeting of the Party’s Central Executive Committee. In fact, he was afraid that the absence of members of his Party from the government would lead to anti-Church and antiCatholic campaigning.978 An important fact was that CzechoslovakianVatican relations were not suspended and the dispute did not evolve into a complete rupture; the Prague Nunciature continued its agenda. Neither of the parties in the conflict would retreat from their position, although both hoped for a quick resolution.979 The question also remains how much the demonstrative attitude of the Catholic Church in the summer of 1925 was influenced by the Marmaggi Affair and to what extent it was the result of the political-religious development of the 1920s. National-Socialist Deputies even labeled the Nuncio’s  departure from Prague as an attack against the President and Czechoslovakia, and demanded a complete severance of diplomatic relations with the Vatican. Some radicals even demanded the separation of Church and State.980 In his letter to chargé d’affaires Arata on July 15, President Masaryk stated 976 Ibid., Gesandtschaft Rom-Vatikan, Karton 4, Pastor December 11, 1925; ÖSW, Archiv der Republik, Bundeskanzleramt / Auswärtige Angelegenheiten, Neues Politisches Archiv, Liasse Tschechoslowakei, Karton 691, Marek July 16, 1925. 977 Národní listy, July 19, 1925; Čech, July 19, 1925; Lidové noviny, July 23, 1925; Národní politika, July 19, 1925; Archive of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, fund Stenographic Reports and Prints of the National Assembly of the Czechoslovak Republic, 1918–1938, Proceedings of the Chamber of Deputies July 18, 1925. 978 Archive of the KDU-CSL, fund Josef Doležal, file Minutes of the Meeting of the Central Executive Committee of the Czechoslovak People’s Party, AMFA, PR Vatican, 1925. 979 NA, MFA-NCA I, box file 1597, sign. 726. 980 A CHDP CR (A FA CSFR), Parliamentary Press n. 5.259 (First Election Period).

227

that “the Nuncio’s departure is a violation of our relationship with the Vatican, which the Czechoslovakian government tried to settle correctly and loyally so that the relations between the State and the Church could be settled without a struggle. The Nuncio and the Vatican apparently did not understand their, I admit, uneasy position towards the State and nation, the position given by our history.“981 He labeled Nuncio Marmaggi as the victim of a diplomatic action. Czechoslovakian Bishops, Šrámek’s Czechoslovak People’s Party and Hlinka’s Slovak People’s Party stood resolutely on the side of the Holy See. On August 1, 1925, Czechoslovakian Bishops issued a pastoral letter, opposing the official perception of Jan Hus and the abuse of his name for anti-Catholic attacks. The Czechoslovakian government regarded the Jan Hus holiday as an internal affair.982 Czechoslovakian Archbishops and Bishops emphasized the following in the letter: Being oriented by the light of objective truth and faith, Czechoslovakian Catholics are not going to be made to believe in the traditionalist prejudices of Protestantism and non-belief, including Hus, whose literary and national merits they acknowledge. They tolerantly let everyone to have their own religious beliefs, but they despise unworthy campaigning at public meetings, and protest against the abuse of official positions of responsible corporations to promote the apostasy from the Catholic Church.983

The letter was read in Catholic churches on Sunday, August 16. In August 1925, in his letter Beneš reproached Arata, Vatican chargé d’affaires, by saying that Marmaggi’s departure from the country had not taken place at the time of the approval of the law on the Jan Hus holiday in April 1925, but that he had left in July when the Holy See had learned about President Masaryk and Prime Minister Švehla taking part in the celebrations. He therefore termed the Nuncio’s departure as a serious detriment to the diplomatic relations with the Vatican, because “the Czechoslovakian government, on its own initiative, cared about settling this situation in a correct and loyal way so that the question of

981 ATGM, fund TGM—R (cizí země), box file 530, file 93. 982 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 59, fol. 50, Arata to Gasparrimu August 6, 1925, or fols. 87–88, Arata to Gasparri August 21, 1925; NA, MFA-NCA I, box file 1595; Čech, August 19, 1925; České Slovo, August 18, 1925; Národní listy, August 19, 1925. 983 Národní listy, August 19, 1925; Čech, August 19, 1925.

228

the relations between the State and the Church could be settled without any difficulty, and, so to speak, without conflict.“984 He also said that the Holy See misunderstood, or rather mis-assessed, the political situation in the country, and by the Nuncio’s departure had insensitively offended Czechoslovakia, and thus “the Czechoslovakian government cannot be held responsible for the consequences of the demonstration sparked by the departure of the Apostolic Nuncio.“985Although Beneš expressed his desire to resolve the conflict soon, he was aware that the restoration of mutual confidence would be a question of a longer time, and indicated this fact to Ferdinand Marek, Austrian Envoy to Prague.986

Pietro Ciriaci and the Pribina Celebrations of 1933 First reflections on the termination of Ciriaci’s Czechoslovakian mission appeared in connection with the events following Prague Archbishop Kordač’s resignation in July 1931. While some Czech and German newspapers advocated his resignation, the Holy See did not consider his transfer.987 The Nuncio reportedly intended to finish the implementation of modus vivendi in Czechoslovakia, and only after that think about his transfer to another diplomatic post, which he also repeated at his meeting with Rückl in Rome in May 1931.988 On the other hand, in the summer of 1931 the Czechoslovakian Legation in Poland was informed by Luigi Vannutelli Rey, Italian Envoy to Warsaw, that “the Nuncio applied seriously to get a position in the Secretariat for Foreign Affairs in Rome and that he did not want to return to Prague. Reportedly, it was not because of his lack of sympathy for Czechoslovakia, but for personal reasons, as he wanted to be in the center of Vatican politics. However, he failed.“989

984 AMFA, II seciton MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 27, Beneš August 5, 1925. 985 Ibid. 986 Aussenpolitische Dokumente der Republik Österreich 1918–1938, 5:document n. 811, Marek November 7, 1925. 987 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1931, Nepustil August 29, 1931; NA, MFA-VAI., box file 1594, sign. 725, Lidové noviny, July 29, 1931; PAAA, Berlin, II Vatikan (38), Politik 3, Beziehungen Vatikan-Tschechoslowakei, R 72212, Holzhausen August 26, 1931. 988 ATGM, fund EB—section I, box file 65, sign. R195 (Churches 1930–1938), Rückl to Beneš June 1931; NA Praha, fund Jan Jiří Rückl, box file 38, Ciriaci May 11, 1931, or May 20, 1931. 989 ATGM, fund EB—section I, box file 238, sign. R365 (Vatican 1931), Smutný July 15, 1931.

229

In the same year, Foreign Minister Beneš also speculated about the Nuncio’s transfer. He believed that Ciriaci could become a candidate not for the previously considered Nunciature in Madrid, but in Paris, where he would replace the current Nuncio L. Maglione.990 The German newspaper Prager Tagblatt even knew the name of Ciriaci’s successor in Prague—F. Borgongini-Duca, the current Vatican Envoy to Italy. However, they did not refer to the source of this confidential information.991 It is, however, possible that in 1931 some Czech political circles used the Ciriaci Affair as a pretext for his recall from Czechoslovakia and the transfer to another post. The third Apostolic Nuncio, Ciriaci, ended his Czechoslovakian mission early in the Holy Year of 1933 when “he himself will become the object of the Ciriaci Affair.“992 The Pribina Celebrations, held in Nitra, Western Slovakia from August 13 to 15, 1933 on the occasion of the 1100 th anniversary of the founding of the first Christian Church by Prince Pribina, were the swan song of Ciriaci’s service. On July 31, Pope Pius XI himself blessed the celebrations in his telegram to Nitra Bishop K. Kmeťko.993 The Czechoslovakian government took over the patronage of the celebrations shortly before their start. They emphasized their politicalreligious character, changed the composition of the preparatory committee, and dispatched a large State delegation there, led by Prime Minister Jan Malypetr and consisting of Milan Hodža, Ivan Dérer, J. Šrámek and other Ministers and high Church dignitaries. This, of course, irritated Slovakian representatives, all the more so because government officials did not invite important Slovakian autonomist figures to participate in the program.994 Being led by Hlinka, they forced entry on to the platform and de facto became masters of the situation. Hlinka read the “Nitra Resolution” to those present, in which he asked for the right to self-determination for the Slovaks, their independence, and the selfmanagement of Slovakian affairs. Afterwards, Provincial President Jozef

990 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1931, Beneš August 21, 1931; Kukánová, “První kardinálský klobouk,” 364. 991 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1931, Wellner August 20, 1931, or Nepustil August 21, 1931. 992 Putna, Česká katolická literatura v kontextech, 318. 993 ATGM, fund EB—section I., box file 238, sign. R365 (Vatican 1933), Lidové noviny, August 13, 1933. 994 Magdolenová, “Pribinove slávnosti,” 359. L’Osservatore Romano informed on the celebrations in detail on August 14, 21, and 24, 1933.

230

Országh and Prime Minister J. Malypetr gave speeches.995 The State celebrations in Nitra thus became a manifestation of Hlinka’s Slovak People’s Party for the autonomy of Slovakia, and the government suffered a heavy defeat.996 Besides 100,000 believers from all over Slovakia, also many foreign political and Church representatives attended the celebrations. Neither Masaryk nor Prague Nuncio Micara arrived in Nitra, for which Micara was sharply criticized by the Czech press.997 K. Kašpar, Prague Archbishop and Czech Primate, spoke sharply against the attacks by the Czechoslovakian press—Venkov, Pražský Večerník, Právo lidu, České Slovo, Rudé Právo, etc. He called for an end to the vicious campaign that “greatly harms the honor and good name of our Republic, both in the eyes of the representatives of foreign countries here and also abroad where they are amazed by the fact that the press can run such reports about any member of the Diplomatic Corps, all the more about its Dean, Apostolic Nuncio, and the Holy Father.“998 According to Ciriaci’s words, he was not informed about Hlinka’s speech in Nitra. We call the indignation which arose in the Czech Lands in August 1933, the Ciriaci Affair, although this term is not usually accepted by Church historians. The Ciriaci Affair also evoked a considerable response abroad. On August 21, 1933, W. Koch, German Envoy to Prague, informed Berlin of the events in Czechoslovakia, referring also to the lively press campaign in the country which was stirred up by the agrarian Venkov attacking the Holy See and the Prague Nuncio.999 The celebrations had a strong reverberation not only in Parliament, but also resonated in government meetings in September and in the fall of 1933.1000 Minister Beneš tried to calm the tense situation with regard

995 Zmátlo, “Pribinove slávnosti v Nitre,” 149–150; Veselý, Česko-slovenské vztahy, 142–143. 996 Jančík, “Pragmatismus a státotvornost,” 406; Klimek, Boj o Hrad, 2:365; Hrabovec, “Santa Sede,” 267. 997 It used to be the custom that prominent representatives of the Church life consistently avoided celebrations that were of a political nature. In addition, according to our research of relevant archives, it is likely that Nuncio Ciriaci was not even officially invited to the Pribina celebrations in Nitra. Olivová, Dějiny první republiky, 175; Hrabovec, “Pribinove slávnosti,” 77; Venkov, August 20, 1933. 998 Lidové noviny, August 24, 1933. 999 Dolezel, and Dolezel, Deutsche Gesandtschaftsberichte aus Prag, 4:61–63, document n. 26, Koch August 21, 1933. 1000 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 149, fols. 13–15, Ciriaci to Pizzard September 29, 1933, or fols. 29–47, Ciriaci to Pizzard September 30, 1933.

231

to foreign countries and publicly distanced himself from the attacks by Venkov, the central newspaper of the Agrarian Party, although its critical articles did not stop.1001 Venkov used the Nitra incident to harshly attack the Prague Nuncio. Its article A Thousand Years of Christian Work and—the Vatican sharply criticized the Holy See and the Nuncio especially on a personal level, reminding readers about the background of Prague Archbishop Kordač’s resignation in 1931: “Instead of appointing Kordač as Cardinal, the Vatican sent to Prague a young, inexperienced Nuncio to remove the favorite Archbishop!“1002 It also reproached Ciriaci for not participating in the celebrations: “Where was Roman Nuncio Ciriaci on Sunday? Did he deliberately avoid Nitra, having been informed by the mitered Papal Prelate Hlinka about what mischief was planned for the memorable day? Not the Christian spirit, but political vengeance decided! The same vengeance that had dared to depose Kordač, the first folk Primate and Archbishop, an exemplary priest!“1003 The newspaper de facto belittled the historical merits of the Vatican: “Insult after insult, humiliation after humiliation—that is the Vatican’s policy towards our nation and State!“1004 Moravian Bishops protested against the attacks on the Nuncio, and this appeal was accepted and subsequently also published by Slovakian and Subcarpathian Bishops. While Prague Archbishop Kašpar spoke against the socialist block, vigorously protesting about the insults of the Holy See and the Nuncio, Šrámek, Minister and Chairman of the Czechoslovak People’s Party, remained silent. When, on September 11, Ciriaci received a letter from Hlinka, Slovakian priest, politician, and Chairman of Hlinka’s Slovak People’s Party, it seemed that the Nuncio would become reconciled with the Czechoslovakian government and any further escalation of tensions with the Holy See would be prevented. On September 13, the Nuncio replied to the letter in a fit of bitterness, expressing disapproval of the Prague government: Famous and dignified Sir! While in Prague the Holy Father is himself being insulted and, through the person of his representative, in such

1001 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1933, Beneš without date; Hrabovec, “Pribinove slávnosti,” 79. 1002 ATGM, fund EB—section I., box file 238, sign. R365 (Vatican 1933), Venkov, August 20, 1933; Hrabovec, “Pribinove slávnosti,” 78. Ciriaci, who was regarded as one of the most capable diplomats of the Holy See, was naturally offended by it. 1003 Venkov, August 18, 1933. 1004 ATGM, fund EB—section I., box file 238, sign. R365 (Vatican 1933), Venkov, August 20, 1933.

232

a way that even the rules of international courtesies, valid in all nations, are violated, you, the Slovaks, have decided to express proper respect to his High authority. For this you and your people deserve natural praise. I hasten to give you and your people the warmest thanks, for you so generously wanted to bring a little comfort from Slovakia to the Apostolic Nuncio in so much bitter pain, who in obedience to the Holy Father must live in Prague. I shall never forget this love of yours. The noble people of Slovakia1005 shall always remain in my heart. I am very happy to represent the Holy Father to you, the Slovakian people. I  bless you with all my heart, I give to you my greatest respect and I am happy to remain yours most sincerely.1006

Given Ciriaci’s explosive nature and distinctive temperament, which was known by his contemporaries1007, he was exhausted by the endless invectives of the Czech press against him. We believe that his letter to Hlinka of September 1933 was a spontaneous and emotively formulated letter, not a planned act of the Nuncio, in which he expressed his momentary feelings of gratitude, support, and emotion over the sympathies that had come from Slovakia and from Hlinka.1008 It is therefore not true that by this letter he agreed with the Slovakian autonomist program, or even accepted Hlinka’s policy and opposed Šrámek’s policy. He also did not represent the official course of the Holy See’s policy towards Czechoslovakia, but rather expressed feelings of gratitude and support to the Slovakian environment that he might have perceived as religiously clearer, more preserved, and fervent. It also does not seem likely that Foreign Minister Beneš, the Nuncio’s only friend in Czechoslovakia, would have understood his letter to Hlinka as “a deliberate political act with further political goals, or an attempt to get rid of modus vivendi.“1009 In the fall of 1933, V. Radimský repeatedly intervened with the Holy See and tried to calm the turbulent situation. Czech newspapers 1005 The correct translation should probably be “the noble Slovakian nation” (generosa gens slovacca). 1006 Slovák, September 15, 1933; Lidové noviny, September 16, 1933; Národní politika, September 15, 1933; Venkov, September 16, 1933; České Slovo, September 16, 1933; Pražský Večerník, September 16, 1933; Rudé právo, September 16, 1933 etc.; the Masaryk Archive, fund Edvard Beneš I—signatura R365 (Vatican 1927–1933)—box file 238—file 7 (1078); Kovtun, Republika v nebezpečném světě, 737. 1007 Odo T. Russell, British Envoy to the Holy See, also pointed to his decisive, impulsive temperament in 1933. Hachey, Anglo-Vatican Relations, 248. 1008 Trapl, “Český politický katolicismus v letech 1918–1938,” 278. 1009 Dejmek, “Vztahy mezi ČSR a Vatikánem,” 89.

233

immediately began discussions on by what right Nuncio Ciriaci had informed Slovakian politician and priest Hlinka on Prague. Rückl defended the attacked Nuncio Ciriaci, and after a meeting with him, confirmed that Ciriaci had directed his indignant words only to those who had caused the misunderstanding, and that he definitely had not meant to attack Czechoslovakia or even President Masaryk.1010 The government then condemned the Nuncio’s letter, considering it as an interference in the internal affairs of the country, an assault on Prague, and the support of Slovakian autonomism. On September 16, it asked the Holy See to summon Ciriaci back to Rome for a reprimand, which de facto meant his downfall and the termination of his Czechoslovakian mission in October 1933.1011 The Nitra Celebrations thus ultimately contributed to significant tensions between Czechoslovakia and the Holy See. Archbishop Kordač again defended Ciriaci, sending a report to Rome on September 27 on the events of August and September 1933. Already on September 15, 1933, Foreign Minister Beneš and his deputy Krofta invited the Nuncio to give an explanation and accused him of the interference of the Vatican in the internal affairs of the country. However, they refused to instigate more attacks against the Holy See. Beneš repeatedly met with Ciriaci on 16 and 20 September, but the only conclusion they reached was Beneš’s decision that the Nuncio could not remain in Czechoslovakia.1012 The date of the Nuncio’s departure from the country was long discussed; initially his later departure was considered to pacify the press and Czech public opinion. Eventually, Beneš decided on his early departure.1013 Ciriaci was surprised and offended by the attacks of the left-wing press, agrarian press and some newspapers of the right-wing press, as well as by the attitude of the government. He thus complained to the Holy See in late September: Endless attacks by the newspapers of the government coalition against the Nuncio. . . . Their aim is to discredit the Nuncio who is not able to perform his Church duties. . . . The government refers to the freedom of the press, but that does not exist in Czechoslovakia. If such a freedom exists,

1010 ATGM, fund EB—section I., box file 238, sign. R365 (Vatican 1933), Rückl September 27, 1933. 1011 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1933, Radimský October 1, 1933; Šmíd, “Pietro Ciriaci,” 68. 1012 ATGM, fund EB—section I, box file 238, sign. R365 (Vatican 1933), Beneš’s manuscript. 1013 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1933, Radimský October 1, 1933, or October 13, 1933.

234

it exists only for the enemies of the Church, as we have seen in these days when Catholic newspapers that defended the Nuncio were confiscated and censored, while all others that acted anti-Catholic were allowed to be published.1014

Radimský, Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Holy See, also discussed the matter with the Secretariat of State, mainly with Pizzard and Ottaviani, in September and October 1933 in Rome, requesting an early resolution to the situation.1015 The unpleasant situation was dealt with in mid-October 1933 when Radimský was received by Secretary of State Pacelli. He told Radimský that “today or tomorrow at the latest, Ciriaci will be granted a holiday via telegraph, and he will be left to decide the day of departure.“1016 The tension between the State and the Church was also followed by the foreign press and diplomats accredited to the Czechoslovakian government.1017 However, things did not develop in favor of the Nuncio. In midOctober 1933, Pacelli expressed regret that Ciriaci was already the third Nuncio who had left Prague in a short time, but argued that Ciriaci was not the one who had launched the attacks, but the one who had resisted the attacks of the left-wing and right-wing press. He tried to diminish and reduce the intelligent Nuncio’s faults and emphasized that both sides shared the blame, but Radimský did not agree.1018 While the members of the Secretariat of State condemned Ciriaci’s behavior and instead sided with Prague, the Nuncio was supported by Pope Pius XI, which—given Ciriaci and his future career as well as the ongoing tensions between Czechoslovakia and the Vatican—proved crucial at the time.1019 A positive fact that we can emphasize about the years 1925–1927 is that neither side used the tensions to suspend diplomatic relations.

1014 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 149, fols. 13–14, Ciriaci to Pizzard September 25, 1933. 1015 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1933, Radimský September 25, 1933, or October 13, 1933; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 2. 1016 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1933, Radimský October 13, 1933. 1017 PAAA, Berlin, II Vatikan (38), Politik 3, Beziehungen Vatikan-Tschechoslowakei, R 72213, Berliner Börse Zeitung, September 15, 1933, or Berliner Börse Zeitung, September 19, 1933, or Germania, September 20, 1933. 1018 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1933, Radimský October 13, 1933. 1019 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 2, Radimský October 26, 1933, or December 20, 1933; ÖSW, Archiv der Republik, Gesandtschafts- und Konsulatsarchive 1918–1938, Gesandtschaft Rom-Vatikan, Box file 6, December 5, 1931; Hachey, Anglo-Vatican Relations, 275.

235

On Monday, October 23, 1933, Pietro Ciriaci thus left Czechoslovakia—after more than five years’ residence in Prague—and traveled through Germany and Switzerland to the Eternal City on November 6.1020 His peaceful departure from the country, when further attacks by leftwing and right-wing press against the Holy See and its Apostolic Nuncio were successfully prevented, was the work of Foreign Minister Beneš.1021 His sick leave initially planned until December 31, 1933 was prolonged indefinitely, and Ciriaci never returned to Prague.1022 However, if he was outwardly quite calm when leaving Czechoslovakia, when he arrived in Rome his passionate temper became evident when his bitterness was intermixed with anger and his pride with futility and the feeling that his friend Beneš had betrayed him.1023 It was Rückl, his close friend, a Czech politician and diplomat, who arrived in Rome on December 8 and repeatedly met with Ciriaci to ease his irritability and dissipate his fears.1024 At the time of Ciriaci’s departure, the Prague Nunciature was administered by chargé d’affaires G. Panico, who had already lived in Prague intermittently since June 1931. After this “Czechoslovakian humiliation,” Ciriaci refused to think about returning to Prague: “I have no desire to return to Czechoslovakia for even one day.“1025 Thereupon, he was appointed as Nuncio to Lisbon on January 9, 1934.1026 The Czechoslovakian side sought to receive the official announcement by the Holy See of Ciriaci’s transfer to a new post, or rather of his recall. In the first months of 1934, his vacation had already ended, but they were informed about it no sooner than in June 1934. This was “when the incident of Mons. Ciriaci was also settled formally and the way was open for the restoration of normal diplomatic relations, i.e. the appointment of a new Prague Nuncio.“1027 G. Panico, Secretary of the Nunciature, was charged

1020 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 149, fol. 72, Ciriaci to Pacelli October 20, 1933; PAAA, Berlin, II Vatikan (38), Politik 3, Beziehungen Vatikan-Tschechoslowakei, R 72213, Koch November 17, 1933. 1021 ATGM, fund EB—section I, box file 238, sign. R365 (Vatican 1933), Rückl October 22, 1933. 1022 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1934, Radimský January 2, 1934; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 2, Radimský October 31, 1933. The decision on Ciriaci’s transfer to a new diplomatic post thus must have been taken by the Secretariat of State between November 6 and December 31, 1933. 1023 ATGM, fund EB—section I, box file 238, sign. R365 (Vatican 1933), Rückl November 3, 1933. 1024 Trapl, “Český politický katolicismus v letech 1918–1938,” 278. 1025 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 149, fol. 94, Ciriaci to Pizzard January 3, 1934; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 2, Radimský January 10, 1934. 1026 Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Commentarium officiale 21, vol. 1 (1934): 563; L’Osservatore Romano, January 10, 1934; Reis, Salazar e o Vaticano, 59. 1027 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1934, Radimský July 11, 1934.

236

to restore correct diplomatic relations between Czechoslovakia and the Vatican and to settle the incident of Ciriaci. The influential Rückl, who personally attended the meeting in Rome in late 1933, believed that, without the resolution of the incident, a new Prague Apostolic Nuncio could not be appointed.1028 The implementation of modus vivendi now became the priority of mutual diplomatic relations, which was associated with the vacant post of the Prague Apostolic Nuncio.1029 Today, we can only speculate whether Ciriaci was informed about his transfer to a new diplomatic post already in October 1933, but we believe that he was not. It was perhaps not clear until the end of 1933, when on December 1 the current 64-year-old Nuncio to Lisbon, Giovanni Beda, died during his vacation in Genoa, Italy.1030 His vacant post thus immediately became an object of speculation, and Ciriaci was nominated as the most suitable candidate.1031 This might have been—although we have no proof of it—the result of the intervention of his brother August with the Secretariat of State. When Secretary of State Pacelli inquired whether the Portuguese side would accept this new Nuncio, he argued that Ciriaci had the best qualifications to conclude the planned concordat with Portugal, as he had contributed to the conclusion of modus vivendi in Czechoslovakia.1032 Should this extraordinary coincidence not have happened and the Lisbon post had remained occupied, we believe that Circiaci would have returned to the Secretariat of State of the Holy See, taking charge of some of its congregations. The termination of his Czechoslovakian mission, or rather the beginning of his new Portuguese mission, also ended all Ciriaci’s activities regarding Czechoslovakian affairs in the Secretariat of State.1033

Saverio Ritter and Dramatic Days at the Turn of 1938–39 From October 1, 1938, the German army began to occupy the Czechoslovakian borderland. Poland occupied Těšín Silesia in October, and 1028 PAO, the Olomouc Branch, fund AO, box file 679, n. 2533, Rückl December 21, 1933. 1029 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1934, Radimský October 11, 1934. 1030 AA. EE. SS., Portogallo, IV periodo, fascicolo 93, fols. 33–34,Todini to Pizzard December 6, 1933. 1031 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1934, Radimský January 2, 1934. 1032 Reis, Salazar e o Vaticano, 59. 1033 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1934, Radimský April 3, 1934.

237

Hungary occupied the southern part of Slovakia and Subcarpathian Ruthenia in November.1034 As the Prague Nuncio informed the Vatican, Hungarian-Czechoslovakian negotiations on the new state border ended unsuccessfully on October 13.1035 In the post-Munich territorial divisions, Czechoslovakia lost an area of 41,095 km 2 , i.e. 29.26  % of the area. The territorial occupation accounted for 29,074 km2 in the Czech Lands, 9,867 km2 in Slovakia, and 11,830 km2 in Subcarpathian Ruthenia. Czechoslovakia also lost almost five million inhabitants.1036 Besides territorial losses, the Church administration changed too: half of the  parishes  of the Olomouc Archdiocese, one- third of the parishes of the Diocese of Č. Budějovice, and two-thirds of the Litoměřice Diocese belonged to the Third Reich; Berlin Nuncio C. Orsenigo took over their spiritual administration and communication with local priests. Some parishes remained without pastors, as some of them went to Germany and some to the Czech inland.1037 The Foreign Ministry informed the Prague Nuncio about the resignation of the Syrový government and the new government on October 5, 1938. They also emphasized that the new government had an interest in maintaining good relations with the Holy See. František Chvalkovský, former Czechoslovakian Envoy, became the new Foreign Minister.1038 On October 5, Beneš resigned from his presidential post at the insistence of Germany and on October 22 went abroad.1039 When, on October 5, Nuncio Ritter was received by Krofta, the former Foreign Minister did not hide his despair over the unfavorable international situation and the situation in the country. He spoke openly with Ritter about Beneš’s successor for the post of President: among the major candidates, he mentioned Jan Malypetr, current President of the Chamber of Deputies, Rudolf Beran, Chairman of the Agrarian Party, and Jaroslav Preiss, former President of the Trade Bank. He himself was in favor of the first mentioned candidate.1040 1034 1035 1036 1037

AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 188. Ibid., fol. 35, Ritter to Pacelli October 14, 1938, or fascicolo 189. Kárník, České země v éře První republiky, 3:625. AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 188, fols. 36–41, Ritter to Pacelli October 9, 1938, or fascicolo 190, fol. 9, Ritter to Pacelli October 7, 1938. 1038 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 80, fascicolo 643, fol. 6, Krofta to Ritter October 5, 1938; AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 187, fols. 35–36, Ritter to Pacelli October 5, 1938. 1039 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 187, fol. 34, Ritter to Pacelli October 6, 1938. 1040 Ibid., fols. 35–36, Ritter to Pacelli October 5, 1938.

238

When, on October 11, 1938, Prague Archbishop Kašpar issued a pastoral letter called Unity in the Truth and Love of Christ, in which he supported the changes in Czech society, denounced the character of the first Czechoslovak Republic, and accepted the State’s defeat as a result of the age-long Czech heresy and impiety1041, he was not the only one in the Catholic community. Similarly, Catholic journalism and magazines such as Rozmach and Národní obnova saw in the past 20 years the saddest chapter in Czech history and a period of the systematic destruction of all moral values of the Czechs “when progress was not progress and truth was not truth.“1042 J. Durych, the most active and outspoken of all Catholic intellectuals, understood Munich as a punishment for the twenty-year hostile attitude towards the Church that Czechoslovakia had held. He wrote: Almighty and merciful God condescended to show to our nation His sovereign authority and will after 20 years. The right hand of God touched our nation and nothing is greater than seeing a  nation that from its pride collapsed to its knees and is now sobbing in tears. . . . We have enough reasons to endure it as a  just punishment and moreover enormously merciful, because history teaches us that punishments imposed upon nations by God are often far more terrible.1043

After the Munich Conference, the pressure intensified to resolve the Slovakian question, and the idea prevailed to settle the problem of Slovakia’s position within the country.1044 Nuncio Ritter was informed about the appointment of an autonomous Slovakian government led by Augustin Vološin in early October 1938.1045 On November 22, 1938, Parliament passed the law on the autonomy of Slovakia; the achievement of autonomy for Slovakia was also the victory of Slovakian political Catholicism led by Hlinka’s Slovak People’s Party.1046 It is surprising that J. Tiso did not discuss his entry into high politics with the Vatican in advance, but de facto only subsequent to taking up his office. In the hectic year of 1938, when the autonomy of Slovakia was Šmíd, Nepřítel, 205. Národní obnova, October 15, 1938. Ibid., October 29, 1938. Vašš, “Vývoj Tisovej percepcie slovenskej otázky,” 72. ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 80, fascicolo 643, 12–13, Višek to Ritter December 2, 1938. 1046 Vašš, Slovenská otázka, 31. 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045

239

unexpectedly declared, it was practically impossible to request the Holy See for its advance approval of the appointment of Tiso. Only on October 6, after the declaration of Slovakian autonomy was Tiso designated by agreement of right-wing parties in the Žilina Agreement as being the acceptable Prime Minister of autonomist Slovakia. When, on October 10, 1938, Tiso’s Ordinary, Nitra Bishop Kmeťko, asked the Holy See whether priest Tiso could accept the post of Slovakian Prime Minister, Secretary of State Pacelli said that “the Holy Father cannot do anything else but take into account that Tiso has already accepted the post of Prime Minister and Interior Minister.“1047 On November 11, 1937, Prague Archbishop Kašpar arrived in the Eternal City on a short visit. He informed prominent leaders of the Holy See about the situation in the Czech-Slovak Republic, mainly about the situation of German Catholics. He spoke about the necessity of convening a pastoral conference in the Sudetenland, where Czech and German Church leaders should discuss a new organizational form of the borderlands. German Bishops supported the creation of the Sudeten Archdiocese with dioceses in Český Krumlov, Cheb, Ústí nad Labem, Trutnov and Bruntál. Adolf Kindermann, Professor of the German Faculty of Theology in Prague, was among the loudest supporters of an independent Catholic province in the Sudetenland.1048 The Cardinals present expressed a keen interest in the situation in the country and deep concern for its future direction. After the reduction of the territory of the Republic in the fall of 1938, Secretary of State Pacelli encouraged Kašpar not to rush, but to wait with the possible adjustment of the diocesan borders, and to temporarily entrust Vicar-Generals with the administration of the foreign parts of dioceses.1049 On November 16 and 23, Kašpar was received by Pope Pius XI, who had observed the Czechoslovakian situation with deep interest and sympathy, for which the Czech Primate sincerely thanked him.1050 On November 17, Kašpar, together with Cardinals D. Tardini, G. B. Montini and A. Ottaviani, Olomouc Archbishop L. Prečan, and Hradec Králové Bishop M. Pícha,

1047 Ibid., fascicolo 198, 11, Maglione to Pacelli November 7, 1938, or 12, Pacelli to Maglione November 17, 1938; Letz, Katolícka cirkev, 406–429. 1048 PAAA, Berlin, Gesandtschaft Prag, Box file 63, Hencke October 26, 1938; Šebek, “Papežská politika,” 26. 1049 AMFA, II section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 34, Radimský November 28, 1938. 1050 Ibid.

240

attended a ceremonial lunch at the Czechoslovakian Legation in Rome. On November 23, Kašpar returned to his homeland via Germany.1051 In early December 1938, the Prague Nuncio was informed about the resignation of the Syrový government and the appointment of the new government of Rudolf Beran, about which he informed the Holy See.1052 The Holy See was apparently pleased to learn that Emil Hácha had become the new Czech-Slovakian President on November 30, 1938, and the Vatican L’Osservatore Romano ran many reports and photographs of his election.1053 On December 6, 1938, at 11 a.m. Nuncio Ritter, on behalf of the Diplomatic Corps, congratulated the new President on his election, appreciating in particular the sacrifice that Czechoslovakia had recently made.1054 The Vatican’s hopes were aroused in particular by the Christian program of the Beran government (Church education, the sacrament of marriage, etc.) which deepened the Holy See’s sympathy for the Republic which had been reduced in size.1055 The party system in the country was simplified: a new right-wing state party led by Beran, called the Party of National Unity, was established on November 18, and the left-wing National Labor Party was established on December 11. The Communist Party was dissolved on December 27. At the turn of 1938/1939, many ad limina visits by the Czechoslovakian clergy were undertaken to Rome (J. Vojtaššák, K. Kašpar, L. Prečan, M. Pícha, J. Kupka, etc.). They mainly discussed with Vatican leaders the question of the administration of the parts of the dioceses outside the new Czech-Slovakian borders, which had become the current issue of the Church administration. However, Prague Nuncio Ritter was not summoned to the Eternal City.1056 From late 1938, the Pope denounced the criminal Nazi ideology and criticized its anti-Semitism. After Kristallnacht in November 1938, he

1051 Ibid., box file 35, Radimský December 5, 1938; PAAA, Berlin, Gesandtschaft Prag, Box file 63, Hencke December 1, 1938. 1052 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 80, fascicolo 643, 12–13, Višek to Ritter December 2, 1938; AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 198, 23, Ritter to Pacelli Deccember 1, 1938. 1053 AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 198, 21, Ritter to Pacelli November 22, 1938, or 22, Ritter to Pacelli December 1,1938. 1054 Lidové noviny, December 8, 1938; Národní osvobození, December 7, 1938. 1055 ASV, Archivio Nunziatura Cecoslovacchia, busta 80, fascicolo 642, 8, Višek to Ritterovi November 30, 1938, or 10, Ritter to Pacelli December 1, 1938, or 20, Pacelli to Ritter December 13, 1938. 1056 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1939, Radimský January 2, 1939; AMFA, II section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 35, Radimský December 5, 1938.

241

actively defended the Jews.1057 In January 1939, the ill Pius XI received Neville Chamberlain, British Prime Minister, and Foreign Minister, Lord Halifax to discuss the necessity of facing Hitler’s expansionism and Nazi aggression, but he could not prevent the outbreak of WWII.1058 To calm the public opinion of German Catholics, Hitler made a speech in the Reichstag on January 30, 1939, in which he stated: “In Germany... there is no religious persecution, only educational humanism.“1059 He also said that Germany had contributed millions of Marks to the functioning of churches, had not closed down a single church, and had not prevented a single mass from being held. These were, of course, blatant lies to ensure the Church’s loyalty to the Third Reich.1060 It is an interesting detail that, on February 11, 1939, on the 10th anniversary of the signing of the Lateran Pacts, Pope Pius XI had allegedly intended to speak out against the domestic and foreign policy of fascist Italy, mainly against its convergence with aggressive Nazism which had been growing since Hitler’s visit to Rome in May 1938. However, the Pope died on February 10, 1939, at 5.31 a.m., before he could introduce his prepared document to Church and political leaders.1061 Envoy Radimský’s last report from Rome to Prague—before the liquidation of the representation to the Holy See—was about the election of a new Pope on March 2, 1939.1062 In the late afternoon of March 2, 1939, E. Pacelli, a native of Rome, a man of similar character and a loyal supporter of the directives of the previous Pope, but of a completely different temperament, was elected as Pius XI’s successor and the 262nd Pope. In memory of Pope Pius X and in honor of Pope Pius XI, he took the name of Pius (XII).1063 When Kašpar, the only Czechoslovakian participant in the papal election, congratulated him on his election, he said: “Holy Father, entire Czech-Slovakia is cheering!” The newly elected Pope replied: “Dear Cardinal Kašpar, you have always been so good to me! All my blessings to 1057 Dalin, La leggenda nera, 73; Montanelli, and Cervi, Storia d’Italia, 8:182; Cornwell, Hitler’s Pope, 192. The Italian press, by contrast, published a list of 21 Papal bulls issued by the Holy See against the Jews from the 13th to the 18th centuries. 1058 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1939, Radimský January 14, 1939; Biffi, Mons. Cesare Orsenigo, 116; Conway, “The Vatican, Great Britain,” 151. 1059 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1939, Radimský February 4, 1939 1060 Conway, The Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 218. 1061 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1939, Radimský February 15, 1939; Šmíd, “Změny na svatopetrském stolci,” 179–195. 1062 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1939, Radimský March 3, 1939. 1063 Gariboldi, Pio XII, Hitler e Mussolini, 62.

242

you and Czech-Slovakia! Pray for me, pray for me!“1064 This personal warmth clearly reflected the good diplomatic relations between the Holy See and Czechoslovakia in the late 1930s. The Czechoslovakian press informed readers about Pacelli’s election as the new Pope, e.g. Lidové listy on March 3, 1939, Lidové noviny on March 3, Našinec on March 3, etc. Pacelli was a clear favorite in the election; he had spent almost all his life in the service of the Holy See, and held the post of Cardinal and Secretary of State in the past ten years, which made him one of the most qualified men in those turbulent times. Ladislav Feierabend, Minister of Agriculture, attended the ceremonial conferment of the insignia of supreme pastoral and teaching power on the new Pope Pius XII. He was there on behalf of President Hácha and the Czech-Slovakian ­government. During the ceremonial, his position as an Envoy to the Holy See with an extraordinary mission was acknowledged. Together with him, Radismý, Envoy to the Vatican, also represented Czech-Slovakia to the Holy See. The Slovakian government was represented by Jozef Svisák, the future Minister of Education, who was accompanied by Ján Kaššovic, Head of the Slovakian Ministry of Education.1065 On March 14, 1939, at 11 a.m., Pope Pius XII received the Czechoslovakian delegation for an audience.1066 The new Slovakian autonomous government of K. Sidor was appointed on March 11, 1939. However, under pressure by the German side and Slovakian radicals, they refused to declare an independent Slovak State. Thereupon, when Sidor, the Nazis’ candidate for the liquidation of Czech-Slovakia, failed, Hitler turned to Tiso, the removed Prime Minister of the autonomous Slovakian government, and invited him to an official meeting in Berlin on March 13, 1939.1067 There Hitler expressed the categorical requirement to the Slovakian delegation: either they would instantly declare an autonomous Slovakian state with German guarantees, or the Führer would leave the country to fend for itself, which de facto meant leaving the country to Hungarian aspirations. Tiso accepted the lesser of the two evils. President Hácha granted his request and summoned the Slovakian Parliament on March 14, which subsequently declared the Slovakian State. Tiso became Prime Minister, Tuka

1064 APO, fund PO, n. 1138, Cardinal K. Kašpar, n. D1426/39, Kašpar March 5, 1939. 1065 Národní politika, March 11, 1939; Kubík, Slovensko-talianske vzťahy, 18 an; Letz, “Pius XII. a Slováci,” 275–277. 1066 Letz, “Pius XII. a Slováci,” 277; Letz, Katolícka cirkev, 406–429. 1067 Šmíd, “Dramatický osud,” 229.

243

Deputy Prime Minister, Sidor Interior Minister and Ďurčanský Foreign Minister.1068 Four days later, the Berlin Nuncio informed Secretary of State Pacelli about the creation of the Slovak State of March 14, 1939.1069 A day later, on Wednesday, March 15, 1939, German troops occupied Prague and Reich Chancellor Hitler proceeded to occupy the Czech Lands; the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was declared on March 16. European powers now understood how badly they had miscalculated Hitler’s plans and also his allies. As Italian Foreign Minister G. Ciano wrote in his diary: “After the meeting of Hitler with Hácha and Chvalkovský, German troops began to occupy Bohemia. It is a serious matter, especially when Hitler had promised not to annex a single Czech.“1070 Berlin Nuncio Orsenigo informed the Holy See about the situation in the Czech Lands in his reports of March 15 and 18, 1939.1071 In his first report, he informed Secretary of State Maglione of the fact that German troops had occupied Prague and would probably occupy the rest of the territory during that day, adding that Hitler and his Foreign Minister J.  von Ribbentrop had departed for the occupied territory.1072 In his report from Berlin dated three days later, he wrote about the methods of occupation, Hácha’s night meeting with Hitler in Berlin, the attitude of  Italy towards the occupation of the Czech Lands, reactions from France, the situation in Slovakia, reactions of the German population, etc.1073 It was mainly France that, after the Anschluss of Czechoslovakia, tried to make the Holy See protest strongly against the German steps. However, the Pope refused to do this and did not oppose the political actions of March 1939.1074 Nuncio Ritter was forced to leave Prague in April 1939 and return to Italy. This had not been the case after Munich, when the Holy See had firmly supported a democratic Czechoslovakia, but took place as soon as Nazi authorities interfered in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.

1068 Letz, Slovenské dejiny, 5:56–62. 1069 Ďurica, Jozef Tiso a Vatikán, 15. 1070 Mussolini was also surprised at the German intervention. Ciano, Diario 1937–1943, 264, March 15, 1939; Felice, Mussolini il duce, 2:588. 1071 Kamenec, Prečan, and Škorvánek, Vatikán a Slovenská republika, 19, document n. 1, Orsenigo to Maglione March 15, 1939, or 19–22, document n. 2, Orsenigo to Maglione March 18, 1939; Biffi, Mons. Cesare Orsenigo, 118. 1072 Actes et Documents du Saint Siège relatifs à la Seconde Guerre Mondiale, 98. Orsenigo to Maglione, Berlin March 15, 1939. 1073 Ibid., 99–101. Orsenigo to Maglione March 18, 1939. Machula, Vatikán a Československo, 36. 1074 PAAA, Berlin, Gesandtschaft Prag, Box file 85, March 24, 1939.

244

However, Ritter retired to Milan, not to Rome1075, as is sometimes inaccurately reported. The tense situation in the country was observed by Berlin Nuncio Cesare Orsenigo, who informed the highest Vatican circles about it. The Apostolic Nuncio was thus deported from Prague by the interference of a foreign power, not due to the severance of diplomatic relations between the Holy See and Czech-Slovakia, or because of his dismissal by the Vatican.1076 The Prague Nunciature was not liquidated immediately, but continued to function. From July 1939, its operations were conducted by R. Forni, Secretary of the Nunciature. He was subsequently transferred to the Berlin Nunciature, from where he travelled to Prague or Olomouc every ten days, until being prevented from doing so by the Germans in 1942. From 1942 to 1945, Forni served as Secretary of the Nunciature in Bratislava.1077 In 1942, the Prague Nunciature was closed at the behest of Karel Hermann Frank, Reich Secretary of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and Chief of Police.1078 As Vaško reports, shortly after his departure from Prague, Forni met with Pícha, Bishop of Hradec Králové, in the summer of 1939, saying to him “according to the Vatican, Germany will lose the war. The Protectorate will not last long and Beneš is highly regarded in the West.“1079 Subsequently, Czech and Moravian Church representatives communicated with Rome through Berlin Nuncio Orsenigo.1080

1075 Halas, Fenomén Vatikán, 572; Šmíd, “Dramatický osud,” 229. Ritter had his private residence in Milan. 1076 ANM, fund Eduard Jelen, box 2B: Jelen, “Československo a Vatikán za první republiky,” 419; Machula, Vatikán a Československo, 38; Němeček, Soumrak a úsvit, 248. 1077 Machula, Vatikán a Československo, 60. 1078 APO, fund PO, n. 1465, Vatican, n. 16594/II-5/45, Otázka obnovení diplomatických styků mezi RČS a Vatikánem, Maixner September, 1945; PAO, the Olomouc Branch, fund AO, box file 680, n. 2533; Kukánová, “Od tolerance k nepřátelství,” 53. 1079 Vaško, Neumlčená, 1:62. 1080 Stříbrný, “Církve a náboženský život,” 104.

245

4.2 Other Diplomatic-Religious Activities of the Apostolic Nuncios and Secretaries of the Nunciature

Clemente Micara after 1923 In May 1923, Micara was appointed as Apostolic Nuncio to Brussels and Internuncio to Luxembourg, remaining there until 1946. Belgium, where he spent more than 20 years, became his second home. In 1926, there were even speculations that, after the appointment of Cerretti as Cardinal, Micara would be transferred to the vacant Paris post, which would increase his prestige and his chances of obtaining the Cardinal’s hat.1081 However, this did not happen. Micara’s “real” career success was achieved after WWII, when he was created Cardinal in 1946 and became Deputy Prefect of the Congregation of Rites and Papal Vicar-General of the Roman Diocese.1082 He was a member of the College of Cardinals, the Congregation of the Holy Office, the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, and the Section for Relations with States. He was also Grand Chancellor of the Lateran University, President of the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archeology, and held many other honorary posts. As an Apostolic Legate, Micara attended the Eucharistic Congress in Nîmes, France in 1951. As a Cardinal, he participated in the conclaves of October 1958 and June 1963 and also the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1964.1083 Micara died

1081 NA, MFA-NCA I, box file 1593, sign. 725, České Slovo, May 26, 1926. 1082 Kukánová, Karel Kašpar a římské koleje, 175. 1083 Ibid.; De Agostini, Segregati da Dio, 303–304.

246

at the age of 85 on March 11, 1965, in Rome—after more than 60 years in the priesthood.1084

Francesco Marmaggi after 1925 In Church Historiography, Marmaggi is known mainly as a supporter of the severe course against the “anti-clerical” Czechoslovakia of 1925,1085 when the Czech press in particular could not resist a certain schematism and simplification: “In short, Marmaggi has proved himself as an unable diplomat in Czechoslovakia, because he has completely succumbed to the influence of the most reactionary clericals, and carried out their policy even against the representatives of State authority, which is absolutely incompatible with the post of Envoy.“1086 In July 1925, by his attitude Marmaggi clearly demonstrated his loyalty to the Holy See and the Pope’s official line, which the Vatican took into account during his subsequent diplomatic service. Marmaggi officially remained in the post of Prague Apostolic Nuncio until 1928, when on Monday, February 13, he was appointed as the new Warsaw Nuncio after Lorenz Lauri. He remained in this post until 1936.1087 Before embarking on his new mission, Marmaggi visited E. Jelen, Czechoslovakian chargé d’affaires, in Rome, warmly bade him goodbye, expressing his sincere feelings without bitterness about the time spent in Czechoslovakia, and sending his regards to Foreign Minister Beneš through Jelen.1088 Marmaggi’s forthcoming attitude towards Czechoslovakian representatives was certainly sincere, because everyone who had met him in the 1920s and 1930s could sense it. In Warsaw on March 23, 1928, Girsa, Czechoslovakian Envoy, presented Marmaggi with the Order of the White Lion, which was awarded to him by Czechoslovakia for his extraordinary merits.1089 1084 Hrabovec, “Der heilige Stuhl und die Tschechoslowakei,” 335; Ferrari, Lettere e documenti inediti, 1:448; Spinosa, Pio XII, 170; Lubac, Quaderni del concilio, 1:55; Michman, Belgium and the Holocaust, 259, etc. 1085 More details: Kitchen, Europe between the Wars, 207; Rothschild, East Central Europe, 109; Bosl, Die Erste Tschechoslovakische Republik, 263, 268. 1086 NA, MFA-NCA I, box file 1596, sign. 726. 1087 AMFA, II section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 27, Jelen February 12, 1928; L’Osservatore Romano, February 12, 1928; PAAA, Berlin, II Vatikan (38), Politik 3, Beziehungen Vatikan-Tschechoslowakei, R 72211, Bergen October 11, 1927. 1088 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1928, Jelen February 2, 1928, or February 4, 1928. 1089 Ibid.

247

It seems that, even during his visits to the Eternal City in the 1930s, he did not renounce the Czechoslovakian agenda. When, in the fall of 1931, Secretary of State Pacelli asked him about a suitable candidate for the post of Prague Archbishop after Kordač’s resignation, he categorically recommended K. Kašpar.1090 Marmaggi also expressed the same warm sympathies towards Czechoslovakia during the incident of Nuncio Micara at the turn of 1934/1935, when following the situation from Warsaw.1091 His appointment to Poland also meant the termination of his Czechoslovakian mission. Secretary of State Gasparri himself considered Marmaggi as one of the best diplomats of the Vatican. This was also confirmed during his missions to Romania, Turkey and Czechoslovakia. Gasparri was determined to convince the head of the Polish State, Marshall Józef Piłsudski, of this and to push for his appointment to the Apostolic post in Warsaw.1092 Marmaggi arrived in Warsaw in midMarch 1928, and started his Polish mission by submitting his credentials to President Piłsudski on March 17.1093 The start of Marmaggi’s new diplomatic mission in Poland was accepted with great surprise in Czechoslovakia. Czech political circles regarded this step as a solution to the tensions in Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations and as the end of the long journey towards accepting modus vivendi, when the Holy See granted Prague’s wish for not demanding Marmaggi’s return to Prague. The Vatican considered Marmaggi’s Polish mission as the highlight of his diplomatic career. They were grateful for his loyalty to the Holy See in the hour of great trial—in July 1925. They pointed out a similar experience of the current Pope Pius XI in Warsaw at the turn of the 1910s and 1920s.1094 Marmaggi won favor with Polish political conservative circles, which had feared his orthodoxy after the conflict in Prague in July 1925, by “his love for Poland and eagerness for the implementation of the benevolent papal line” towards Piłsudski’s regime.1095 The main task of his mission was the implementation of the February 1925 concordat with Poland, in particular regarding the new delimitation of Church provinces and dioceses, the principles of spiritual service in the 1090 Ibid., 1931, Radimský October 31, 1931. 1091 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 2, Radimský November 12, 1933. 1092 AA. EE. SS., Polonia, IV periodo, fascicolo 136, 6, Gasparri to Chiarlo February 6, 1928, to Chiarlo Gasparri February 10, 1928. 1093 Ibid., 32–37, Marmaggi to Gasparri March 21, 1928. 1094 Ibid.; Lidové noviny, February 14, 1928. 1095 Ibid., 85–86.

248

army, and modifications in Polish secular law—as well as the attempt to reduce tensions between the State and the Church.1096 On December 16, 1935, Marmaggi was appointed as Cardinal at the meeting of the Secret Consistory, which marked the end of his mission in Poland. Filipppo Cortesi, former Nuncio to Argentina and Paraguay, was appointed as his successor in the Warsaw post, after it had been refused by A. G. Roncalli, Apostolic Delegate to Greece and later Pope John XXIII.1097 Marmaggi definitively ended his Polish mission in August 1936, departing for Italy in a special sedan from Poland via Czechoslovakia.1098 On behalf of the Czechoslovakian Foreign Ministry, Krofta, former Envoy to the Holy See, and Jaromír Smutný, chargé d’affaires to Warsaw, also congratulated Marmaggi on his appointment as Cardinal.1099 When Smutný discussed his stay in Czechoslovakia with him and the unpleasant end of his diplomatic mission, Marmaggi said that he not only “thinks back to his conflict in Prague as something definitely finished, but on the contrary . . . he looks with favor upon Czechoslovakia and makes it no secret.“1100 Four years later, Marmaggi became Prefect of the Congregation Council.1101 In 1939, after the death of Pope Pius XI, he was even considered in certain circles as a suitable candidate for the next Pope. However, he did not have the support of the greater number of Cardinals in the conclave.1102 With hindsight, it may seem that the Marmaggi Affair was merely a stumbling block on the way to other offices. The posts of Prague and Warsaw Nuncio de facto brought him the Cardinal’s hat in the 1930s. He, along with other Cardinals, became an important representative of Vatican policy, and later also its important initiator. In March 1947, Cardinal Marmaggi was appointed as Camerlengo of the College of Cardinals.1103 On November 3, 1949 Marmaggi, whose “first and last concern was the care of workers and the poor,“1104 died in his native Rome at the age of 73, after an exhausting, almost 50-year 1096 Němec, “Mezinárodní smlouvy,” 59. 1097 However, Marmaggi remained in his post of Warsaw Nuncio until the next meeting of the Secret Consistory in June 1936. 1098 AMFA, II section MFA political—1. Ordinary Record Office (1918–1939), box file 34, illegible signature September 8, 1936. 1099 Ibid., box file 25, Masný December 17, 1935. 1100 Kukánová, “Kardinálský klobouk pro Karla Kašpara,” 192. 1101 Fiorentino, All’ombra di Pietro, 140. 1102 Spinosa, Pio XII, 136; De Agostini, Segregati da Dio, 167–168. 1103 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1949, Maixner March 14, 1947. 1104 De Agostini, Segregati da Dio, 159.

249

priesthood.1105 His remains are kept in the Basilica of Santa Cecilia in Rome’s Trastevere district.

Pietro Ciriaci after 1933 On January 9, 1934, 48-year-old Ciriaci was appointed as Apostolic Nuncio to Lisbon,1106 where the Catholic Church had traditionally enjoyed much respect and was a regular part of Portuguese everyday life. On January 10, the Vatican L’Osservatore Romano informed the public about this step. The local First Class Nunciature was also considered as the way up to higher Church ranks, which was confirmed—if we look at events 20 years later—by Ciriaci’s reward of the Cardinal’s hat after the termination of his Portuguese mission. Ciriaci departed from Rome via Paris for his new diplomatic service in Lisbon on March 10, 1934.1107 He arrived in a country that was led by António de Oliveira Salazar, an economist, politician and Catholic intellectual, who had established and shaped the new authoritarian state known as Estado Novo. In 1932, he had transformed it into an authoritarian Catholic-corporate state, constructed similarly to Italy, from above. After 1932, Prime Minister Salazar banned all socialist, communist and Nazi parties and abolished all laws directed against the Catholic Church. The only permitted political party was the National Union, and corporations had the decisive influence on the country’s economy.1108 At the same time, a crucial and difficult task awaited Ciriaci in Portugal: to prepare concordat and achieve its acceptance by both sides. The signing of concordat between the Holy See and Portugal on May 7, 1940 was undoubtedly the culmination of his successful diplomatic and spiritual work. However, the lengthy negotiations between the two parties were by no means easy.1109 Its adoption ended the long-standing disputes between Lisbon and the Catholic Church, and entrusted the Church with the care of education in the colonies. Prime Minister

1105 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1948–1950, Ráth November 11, 1949. 1106 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1934, Radimský January 8, 1934; Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Commentarium officiale 21, vol. 1 (1934), 563. 1107 AMFA, PR Vatican, 1934, Radimský April 3, 1934; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 2, Radimský December 20, 1933; AA. EE. SS., Portogallo, IV periodo, fascicolo 152, 4, La Croix March 22, 1934. 1108 Klíma, Salazar, 84, 86. 1109 Reis, Salazar e o Vaticano, 56–85.

250

Salazar regarded the Church as an important collaborator and its close connection to State power as beneficial to the Catholic nation.1110 In December 1946, during his stay in Rome, Portuguese Nuncio Ciriaci repeatedly met with diplomatic representatives of Czechoslovakia, where he had stayed in the 1920s and 1930s. He thought back to the conclusion of modus vivendi and its implementation. Envoy Maixner, who mistakenly called Ciriaci “Archbishop”, informed Prague about Ciriaci’s positive relationship with Czechoslovakia: “From the two conversations I held with him, I realized that not only has he maintained a sincere friendship with our country, but he also continues to follow with interest the development of our diplomatic relations with the Vatican, which I consider as important.“1111 In December 1946, Ciriaci complained to Maixner that, although the Portuguese people were deeply religious, the relations between the State and the Church were not adjusted to the benefit of the financial security of the Church.1112 Ciriaci received top honors after WWII—on January 12, 1953, at the age of 67, he was created Cardinal-Priest of St. Prassede, one year later was appointed as Prefect of the Congregation of the Council, and in 1955 became President of the Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Canon Law. He participated in the Papal Conclave in 1958,1113 and the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965. At the conclave in 1963, when Paul VI (1963–1978) became the new Pope, he held the post of Cardinal Elector. A year later, he became Cardinal-Priest of St. Lawrence in Lucina. On December 30, 1966, after an exacting, half-century-long priesthood, Ciriaci died in his Roman residence in Rusticucci Street. He was 81 years old. The ceremonial funeral was held on January 3, 1967 in the Church of St. Lawrence in Lucina.1114 His remains are kept in the Chapel of St. Lawrence in the aforementioned church in Rome.1115

Klíma, Dějiny Portugalska, 388. AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Maixner December 31, 1946. Ibid. Although his chances of being elected as the new Pope were almost infinitesimal in 1958, his appointment as the new Secretary of State was seriously considered. Segregati da Dio, 128. 1114 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1920–1939, box file 16. 1115 Šmíd, “Pietro Ciriaci,” 70. 1110 1111 1112 1113

251

Saverio Ritter between 1939 and 1946 and after 1948 After the creation of Slovakia, or rather the declaration of the First Slovak Republic, the Holy See was one of the first states to officially recognize it on March 25, 1939.1116 Ritter, who had been prevented by Nazi authorities from remaining in the Prague Nunciature, the administration of which had then been taken over by Berlin Nuncio Orsenigo, was entrusted by the Holy See with the administration of the Bratislava Nunciature.1117 However, Ritter did not travel to Bratislava directly from Prague, but from the Eternal City, where he had retired in April. His arrival in Slovakia was preceded by the journey of Raffael Forni, who was to probe the conditions for Ritter’s arrival. Forni, the former Secretary of the Prague Nunciature, departed for Slovakia in April 1939 to meet with Bishops and inform the new Pope, Pius XII, and Secretary of State Luigi Maglione about the situation in the country, for which he was also to prepare the future Nuncio Ritter. Ritter arrived in Bratislava on June 13; K. Sidor, Slovakian Diplomatic representative, in Rome three days later on June 16.1118 However, a  misunderstanding occurred at the very beginning of his mission, because Slovakian political circles refused to accept Ritter’s diplomatic mission as a continuation of his former Czechoslovakian mission—perhaps also with respect to German interests in Slovakia.1119 They delayed his official diplomatic reception in Bratislava and demonstrated their aloof attitude.1120 Foreign Minister Ferdinand Ďurčanský visited Ritter in the Hotel Carlton, where Ritter was temporarily staying, and rejected the Nuncio’s perception of Slovakia as a continuation of former Czech-Slovakia.1121 Disagreeing with the steps of the Slovakian government, Ritter left Bratislava on June 26 and went via Milan to Rome,

1116 Letz, “Pius XII. a Slováci,” 278; Letz, “Vzťahy Svätej stolice a Slovenska,” 119. 1117 PAAA, Berlin, Gesandtschaft Prag, box file 85, Hencke March 24, 1939; Halas, Fenomén Vatikán, 583; Hrabovec, “Der heilige Stuhl und die böhmischen Länder,” 138. Similarly, Orsenigo took over the administration of the Vienna Nunciature in March 1938. The Prague Nunciature remained in his hands, not in the Nazis’ hands, until the end of WWII. AA. EE. SS., Austria, IV periodo, fascicolo 67, fol. 60, Orsenigo to Ribbentrop March 31, 1938. 1118 Ďurica, Jozef Tiso 1887–1947, 414; Brandmüller, Šoa na Slovensku, 38. 1119 Letz, “Vzťahy Svätej stolice a Slovenska,” 121–122; Letz, V hodine veľkej skúšky, 298; Ďurica, Jozef Tiso a Vatikán, 18. 1120 Ritter was received only by Foreign Minister Ďurčanský, not by Prime Minister Tiso or his Deputy Tuka, whereby he felt offended. Letz, Slovenské dejiny, 5:173; Borza, “Apoštolská administratúra,” 253; Petruf, Zahraničná politika, 179. 1121 AMFA, GS A, box file 154; Sidor, Vatikánsky denník, 1:344.

252

where he was to personally discuss the adjustment of his credentials with Pope Pius XII.1122 In Rome, he probably presented his Slovakian mission as a personal insult, which also offended the Holy Father.1123 Therefore, at the time of the First Slovak Republic, the Holy See was not represented in Slovakia by an Apostolic Nuncio—after all, Ritter’s Czech agenda had been taken over by Berlin Nuncio Orsenigo.1124 From June 1940, the Holy See was represented in Slovakia by Giuseppe Burzio, chargé d’affaires to Bratislava. He had served in the Prague Nunciature from 1935 to 1938, knew the situation in the country and spoke Czech.1125 The Nunciature had its residence in Bratislava from 1940 to 1945 at 10 Kapitulská Street, in the city center near the Cathedral of St. Martin. Angelo Rotta, apparently in his post of Budapest Nuncio, also intervened in the Slovakian religious situation after March 1939, about which the Slovakian government repeatedly complained to the Holy See. From 1942, the Vatican pointed to the deportations of Jews from Slovakia and their tragic fates.1126 When, in October 1942, the transports of Jews from Slovakia were stopped, a majority of Slovakian Jews were already in concentration camps in Poland; the deportations were restored in September 1944 after the arrival of the German army. The Holy See and Bratislava chargé d’affaires Burzio also protested against racial laws (The Jewish Code of September 9, 1941) and anti-Semitic regulations of the Slovak State, which intensified after the Salzburg deliberations in 1940.1127 It is sad to learn that, even in November 1944, Tiso advocated the deportation of Jews in his letter to Pope Pius XII.1128

1122 Letz, “Vzťahy Svätej stolice a Slovenska,” 130–132. 1123 Burzio became the new representative of the Holy See in Slovakia. Forni was appointed as Secretary of the Bratislava Nunciature in 1942. Ďurica, Jozef Tiso 1887–1947, 415; Kamenec, Prečan, and Škorvánek, Vatikán a Slovenská republika, 27–28, document n. 7, Sidor July 10, 1939, or 35, document n. 16, Sidor October 17, 1939; Machula, Vatikán a Československo, 50; Sidor, Vatikánsky denník, 1:44; Čechová, “Nitrianska diecéza,” 268; Letz, “Vzťahy Svätej stolice a Slovenska,” 125. 1124 The Apostolic Nunciature in Prague was not liquidated immediately, but continued to function. It was administrated by Forni, Secretary of the Nunciature. Czech and Moravian Church representatives communicated with Rome through Berlin Nuncio Orsenigo. Stříbrný, “Církve a náboženský život,” 104. 1125 Ďurica, Jozef Tiso 1887–1947, 426; Machula, Vatikán a Československo, 50. 1126 Ďurica, Jozef Tiso a Vatikán, 35; Chenaux, Pio XII, 276–277. 1127 60 000 Slovakian Jews became victims of the Holocaust. Kováč, Dějiny Slovenska, 95–96; Kamenec, Tragédia, 89–95. 1128 Kvaček, Dvacáté století o sobě, 119.

253

After the events of June 1939, Nuncio Ritter was not entrusted with any new mission, but the Holy See waited to see how things would turn out, hoping to send him back to Czechoslovakia after the settlement of the conflict.1129 Ritter thus spent WWII in Milan and Rome. He was mentioned in the Vatican yearbook, Annuario Pontificio, as an Apostolic Nuncio available to the Secretariat of State, not holding any important post.1130 The Vatican never asked for agrément for the Nuncio to Slovakia, by which they confirmed that “they insisted on their stand, i.e. the principle of continuity.” At the same time, they believed that Slovakia had violated the traditional rights of the Holy See.1131 At first glance, subsequent events developed beyond Ritter’s control. However, he observed them closely, as the continuation of his diplomatic mission depended on their course, or rather their outcome. Regarding Slovakia’s relationship with the Vatican, its rapprochement was prevented by the Slovak-German negotiations in Salzburg in the summer of 1940, when Germany began intensively to intervene in the internal affairs of Slovakia and to shape it to the liking of the Third Reich. Therefore, during the aforementioned meeting of political leaders of both countries on July 28, 1940, Nazi leaders enforced changes in the Slovakian bloc—e.g. they replaced Ďurčanský in the post of Foreign Minister by Tuka, Tiso in the post of Interior Minister by Alexander Mach, and German advisers entered into Slovakian life.1132 Tuka even suggested to the German side that Slovakian President Tiso should be removed from political life and be appointed as Auxiliary Bishop in Trnava. However, this plan was not realized due to the Vatican’s disapproval.1133 Given that we are specifically following the line of Apostolic Nuncios to Prague in the broader Czechoslovakian-Vatican context, we will not study in detail the internal history of Slovakia from 1939 to 1945. The analyzed available documents of the Holy See show that it is likely that, during the war, Ritter at first worked in Rome where he would edit texts which were subsequently broadcast by Vatican Radio.1134 Later, he became Adviser of the Nunciature in Bern, Switzerland, where he had already served at the turn of the 1920s and 1930s, remaining there until 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134

Halas, Fenomén Vatikán, 574. Čechová, “Nitrianska diecéza,” 268. Machula, Vatikán a Československo, 47. Kamenec, Tragédia, 81. Letz, Slovenské dejiny, 5:95–96; Škorvánek, “Jozef Tiso,” 197. Actes et documents du Saint Siege relatifs a la Seconde Guerre Mondiale, 4:553, document n. 406; Šmíd, “Dramatický osud,” 233.

254

the end of WWII.1135 His language skills (he spoke German, Italian, French and Latin) and his origin (he had a Swiss mother) had undoubtedly predestined him for this. The official Vatican bulletin, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, did not run reports about Ritter during WWII. Although Ritter probably did not intervene in the CzechoslovakianVatican negotiations during WWII, as is apparent from the available archival materials, the first attempts for a rapprochement between both sides were already undertaken in the fall of 1940. On November 15, 1940, Beneš asked London Nuncio W. Godfrey if he could pay him an official visit to inform him of the religious situation in Czechoslovakia before and after the war. However, the Roman Curia replied negatively to Godfrey and suggested postponing the meeting under the current circumstances.1136 On June 10, 1941, Beneš sent another letter to Godfrey, emphasizing that Czechoslovakia “is based on the principle of legal continuity and this principle should be applied to Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations.“1137 After the international situation changed in 1943—especially after the first significant military successes of the Allies and after some foreign states ceased recognizing the Munich Agreement—Beneš, through New York Archbishop Francis Spellman, American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the British government, submitted a memorandum to the Holy See, offering to restore the diplomatic relations.1138 Friedrich Muckermann, a German Jesuit and writer, also intervened in the negotiations, trying to convince the Holy See that their dismissive, or rather passive, approach could lead to the deterioration of the Church’s situation in postwar Czechoslovakia. Czech political circles felt indignant, particularly by the appointment of Nitra Bishop Kmeťko as Archbishop in May 1944, which they regarded as a violation of modus vivendi; the Vatican opposed them, declaring that they had appointed him as Archbishop ad personam.1139 After WWII, Beneš’s unanswered 1135 Actes et documents du Saint Siege relatifs a la Seconde Guerre Mondiale, 10:517, document n. 423. 1136 APO, fund PO, n. 1465, Vatican, n. 16594/II-5/45, Otázka obnovení diplomatických styků mezi RČS a Vatikánem, Maixner September 4, 1945; Machula, Vatikán a Československo, 62–63. 1137 APO, fund PO, n. 1465, Vatican, n. 16594/II-5/45, Otázka obnovení diplomatických styků mezi RČS a Vatikánem, Maixner September 4, 1945. 1138 Machula, Vatikán a Československo, 65; Kamenec, Prečan, and Škorvánek, Vatikán a Slovenská republika, 152–153, document n. 98, Cicognani to Maglione June 7, 1943; Kaplan, Stát a církev v Československu, 8. 1139 APO, fund PO, n. 1465, Vatican, n. 16594/II-5/45, Otázka obnovení diplomatických styků mezi RČS a Vatikánem, Maixner September 4, 1945.

255

letters to the Holy See of 1941 and 1943 were the reason why Czechoslovakia did not trust the Vatican’s policy and its diplomatic activities.1140 The Holy See only showed more willingness at the end of WWII when, in September 1944, they requested the Czechoslovakian side for a visit to the Vatican by Šrámek, President of the government-in-exile. Through Jaromí Machula, a young priest and Secretary of the Czechoslovakian National Committee, Czechoslovakia refused to take the initiative and asked the Vatican to respond to the two memorandums of 1941 and 1943, as “no relationship can be established without it.“1141 From March 1945, the Holy See waited for the liberation of Milan, where Ritter was staying, so that negotiations on the restoration of diplomatic relations could be launched. At the same time, intermediary Machula arrived in London on March 23, 1945 to negotiate about the rapprochement of the Holy See and Czechoslovakia.1142 On April 16, 1945, London Nuncio Godfrey stated that Ritter had not ceased to be Prague Nuncio and was ready to return to Prague, which was also confirmed by Interim Secretary of State Tardini in June of the same year.1143 On April 16, 1945, Prime Minister Z. Fierlinger informed Soviet Envoy V. Zorin about the establishment of diplomatic relations between Czechoslovakia and the Holy See, assuring him that the Vatican had expressed interest in the resumption of diplomatic relations with Prague on the basis of recognition of the new political situation in Europe. However, Czechoslovakia refused to simply restore Ritter’s initial mission that had been aborted due to the Holy See’s recognition of the Slovak Republic in late March 1939.1144 On the other hand, the Holy See had not suspended diplomatic relations with Czechoslovakia. Although Nuncio Ritter had been expelled from Prague upon the interference of foreign powers, he had not been received in Bratislava and had used the title of Apostolic Nuncio to Prague throughout the war.1145 After WWII, Ritter returned to the liberated Czechoslovakia and lived in Prague from 1946 to 1948. However, he left Prague in early 1948 and returned to Italy. His health rapidly deteriorated. He spent the last

1140 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Schwarzenberg March 14, 1946. 1141 APO, fund PO, n. 1465, Vatican, n. 16594/II-5/45, Otázka obnovení diplomatických styků mezi RČS a Vatikánem, Maixner September 4, 1945. 1142 Machula, Vatikán a Československo, 97f. 1143 Ibid, 104; APO, fund PO, n. 1465, Vatican, n. 16594/II-5/45, Otázka obnovení diplomatických styků mezi RČS a Vatikánem, Maixner September 4, 1945. 1144 Němeček, Soumrak a úsvit, 254. 1145 Machula, Vatikán a Československo, 138.

256

months of his life in Milan. On April 21, 1951, Ritter, former Apostolic Nuncio and Internuncio to Prague, died at the age of 67 in Lugano, Switzerland.1146

Secretaries of the Apostolic Nunciature after the End of the Diplomatic Mission in Prague Two of the Secretaries of the Apostolic Nunciature in Prague, Ciriaci and Ritter, subsequently became Apostolic Nuncios there, and therefore we pay more attention to them in the relevant chapters. Arata certainly did not leave the Czechoslovakian agenda after the end of his Czechoslovakian mission. During the negotiations on modus vivendi, especially in 1927, he initiated contact with Jelen, chargé d’affaires to the Holy See. He thanked him for being awarded the Order of the White Lion, about which he had been informed from Prague, and until the end of his life heartily reminisced about the years spent in Prague.1147 He stated that he had tried to inform the Vatican appropriately from Prague about the Czechoslovakian situation; his opinion, however, had not changed. Nevertheless, in mid-1927, he believed that the ongoing diplomatic negotiations would not be ended soon, but that both sides were yet to undergo long rounds of negotiations.1148 Regarding his career after leaving Czechoslovakia, he personally believed that he would remain active in the State apparatus, but he was appointed as Secretary to the Vienna Nunciature. When, in March 1928, Secretary of State Gasparri informed Nuncio E. Sibilia about the new Attaché, he praised his personal qualities: “I am glad to introduce you to Mons. Antonin Arata. I have already written to you about his excellent qualities, abilities, and especially his priestly skills. Therefore, I believe that he shall serve the Holy See and Your Excellency well.“1149 After his short service in Vienna, Arata was transferred to Lisbon and later to Buenos Aires, to which he submitted himself, although not enthusiastically.1150 He conducted written communication with Czech Church digni-

1146 1147 1148 1149 1150

Šmíd, “Dramatický osud,” 235. AMFA, RO Vatican, 1948–1950, Maixner October 6, 1948. AMFA, PR Vatican, 1927, Jelen July 8, 1927. AA. EE. SS., Austria, IV periodo, fascicolo 21, fols. 72–74, Gasparri to Sibilia March 15, 1928. AMFA, PR Vatican, 1927, Jelen July 8, 1927, or July 14, 1927; Fuchs, Novější papežská politika, 286.

257

taries long after his departure from Prague.1151 At the turn of 1931/1932, he was even considered as a suitable Nuncio to Lithuania. At that time, the Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Holy See emphasized that “Mons. Arata has a reputation of a very conciliatory diplomat (he proved this especially in our country), and, moreover, he has made acquaintance with Foreign Minister Zaunins during his stay in Prague.“1152 In 1933, a new Apostolic Nunciature was established in Estonia, and Arata was appointed as its chargé d’affaires.1153 When the 70-year-old Nuncio to Riga, Antonino Zecchini, died in March 1935, Arata was temporarily charged to administer the Nunciature.1154 On August 11 of the same year, 51-year-old Arata was ordained Titular Archbishop of Sarde and appointed as Apostolic Nuncio to Riga and Tallinn, where he remained from 1935 to 1940. Lithuania had not had an Apostolic Nuncio to represent the Holy See, but only a chargé d’affaires, since the diplomatic quarrel in 1931 when Nuncio Riccardo Bartolini had been expelled from the country. After the Russian annexation of the Baltics in 1940, Arata returned to Rome, where he served in the Congregation of Oriental Churches. After almost 40 years in the priesthood, on August 25, 1948 he died at the age of 64 in Grottaferrata near Rome. In October 1935, Giovanni Panico became the Apostolic Delegate to Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia and islands in the Pacific Ocean, and moved to the other side of the globe.1155 Along with his new mission, he was awarded the rank of Titular Archbishop of Justiniana Prima on December 8, 1935. After the end of WWII, his mission ended and he was summoned back to the American continent, this time to Peru, where he became Apostolic Nuncio in October 1948.1156 Six years later, he moved from South America to North America, where he was appointed as Apostolic Delegate to Canada. In January 1959, he was called back to Europe and appointed as Nuncio to Portugal. He returned to his native Italy in early 1962, and was created Cardinal on March 19. However, his heart could not stand the exacting program filled with constant change and endless travel, and gave out on July 7, 1962. Panico died at the age of 67 in his native town of Tricase, where he is also buried.1157 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157

AA. EE. SS., Cecoslovacchia, IV periodo, fascicolo 199. AMFA, PR Vatican, 1932, Radimský January 15, 1932. Ibid., 1934, Radimský January 2, 1934. Ibid., 1935, Radimský April 9, 1935. AMFA, PR Vatican, 1936, Radimský January 10, 1936; Coppola, Fortiter in re, 32. AMFA, RO Vatican, 1948–1950, Maixner October 6, 1948; Coppola, Fortiter in re, 40. Coppola, Fortiter in re, 42–44.

258

On December 6, 1954, Luigi Punzulo, Secretary of the Prague Nunciature in the mid-1930s, was appointed Apostolic Nuncio to Paraguay at the age of nearly 50. From 1957 to 1961, he served in the same post in Panama, and from 1962 as Apostolic Internuncio in Syria. He resigned from his post at the age of 62 and returned to Italy, where he became Apostolic Administrator in Velletri. There he died at the age of 84 in 1989. In 1946, Giuseppe Burzio became Nuncio to Bolivia, and from 1950 served as Nuncio to Cuba.1158 He resigned from this post in 1955 and returned to Italy, where he died in 1966 at the age of 65 in Rome. Raffaele Forni was appointed as Internuncio to Iran in 1953, and two years later to Venezuela. He served as Nuncio to Uruguay from 1960. In the late 1960s, he served as Nuncio to Syria. In 1990, he died at the age of 84 in Lugano. Ottavio de Liva, who was forced to leave Czechoslovakia under pressure by communist authorities on March 18, 1950, subsequently served in the Vienna Nunciature. In 1962, he was created Titular Archbishop of Heliopolis and served as Internuncio to Indonesia, where he died at the age of 54 on August 23, 1965.1159

1158 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Schwarzenberg May 4, 1946; L’Osservatore Romano, June 14,1946. 1159 Mandzák, Dokumenty k procesu, 58.

259

4.3 Liquidation of the Apostolic Nunciature in Prague at the End of the 1940s

In February 1948, Nuncio Ritter, whose protracted illness kept him away from Czechoslovakia for long months, went on sick leave to Rome and never returned to Prague. The Holy See was then represented in Czechoslovakia by chargés d’affaires, 42-year-old Vatican Diplomat Gennaro Verolino, a native of Naples who had completed his theological studies in Naples by earning a Ph.D. degree in Canon Law at the University of St. Apollinare in Rome and by his entry into the diplomatic service of the Roman Curia.1160 In 1944, he was transferred to the Nunciature in Budapest, where he became Secretary to Nuncio Angelo Rotta. From the summer of 1946, he served in Czechoslovakia as Secretary to the Prague Nunciature in the place of the injured Secretary Forni. 1161 After February 1948, the communist regime decided to attack the Holy See and Czechoslovakian priests. The State Bureau of Religious Affairs was established; only priests who had received State permission and taken the oath to the State were allowed to practice their profession. Also, a movement of “progressive Catholics” was established with the name of the “Catholic Action”, which was to become the main mouthpiece of the Church, partner of the State for negotiations, and in the future also the foundation of the National Church detached from 1160 AMFA, GS A, box file 154, Skalický February 26, 1948; APO, fund PO, n. 1829, The Apostolic Nunciature in Czechoslovakia, n. 100198/48, Kordoš February 26, 1948; ANM, fund Eduard Jelen, box file 12, without signature February 25, 1948. His health was really very bad in the long term. However, given his sensitivity and affinity to Czechoslovakia, the Holy See, to prevent his condition from further worsening, did not want to appoint a new Internuncio. 1161 APO, fund PO, n. 1829, The Apostolic Nunciature in Czechoslovakia, n. 16197/46, Kordoš August 23, 1946; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1946–1947, Maixner August 6, 1946.

260

the Vatican. However, the State was not able to form a representative and credible body which could speak on behalf of the entire Catholic clergy in Czechoslovakia, as the Church was divided. Therefore, the Catholic Action was led by laymen only.1162 After threats and intimidation, 1,500 Czechoslovakian priests and thousands of the faithful signed its opening statement. In late March 1948, chargés d’affaires G. Verolino submitted a note to the Foreign Ministry, in which he complained about the form of the new Education Act. The Vatican tried to push through an Amendment to nationalized education (i.e. no longer to change the Act), and to maintain some form of private Church schools. On April 2 and 19, the Holy See communicated its disapproval of the bill to Czechoslovakian Envoy Maixner.1163 After the unsuccessful interventions of both sides, Verolino intervened again with Foreign Minister V. Clementis and protested that Czechoslovakia had violated the fundamental right of the Church by its new Act.1164 Although the Foreign Ministry promised to support the Ministry of Education, its actions were sluggish and did not settle the conflict. The Education Act was discussed by the Czechoslovakian government on March 25, 1948, and passed by Parliament on April 21, 1948.1165 On May 15, 1948, Pope Pius XII sent a letter to Czechoslovakian Bishops, in which he thanked them for their congratulations on the 10th anniversary of his pontificate, and asked them to be brave and firm in those difficult times: These difficulties can be faced only by whipping up even more religious fervor. Passionate with this fervor and trusting in God’s help, strive together for God’s sake in these difficult circumstances. Shining by your words and your own example, protect the principles of the Gospel, defend the rights of the Church and the souls of the faithful entrusted in your care, and cultivate unquestioning obedience and devotion to the Holy See that is always based on the unwavering promises of God.1166 The Holy Father concluded his letter with a wish: We, in fatherly solicitude, beg in many prayers for heavenly help for the beloved nations of Czechoslovakia, and

1162 1163 1164 1165 1166

Balík, and Hanuš, Katolická církev v Československu, 23. AMFA, GS A, box file 154; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1948–1950, Maixner July 1, 1948. AMFA, GS A, box file 154. Vaško, Neumlčená, 2:20. ANM, fund Eduard Jelen, box file 8, Pius XII May 15, 1948.

261

closely follow every event in your country, wishing only for that which can save your dear ones.1167

After K. Gottwald’s election as President of the country, in order to avoid any conflict with the political powers, Beran, Prague Archbishop and Czech Primate, transferred his complaints about the incoming communist regime into the spiritual sphere. On June 15, 1948, he stated in his letter to the Czechoslovakian faithful: “When the Church shows its good will and determination to meet people for joint efforts to solve early tasks, it can never betray its mission which makes it distinguish what belongs to Christ and what does not. In the name of this mission, it must reprimand the evil ones, whoever they may be.“1168 Beran also appealed to every Christian to distinguish between good and evil in accordance with Christian values.1169 He repeated his opinions in his pastoral letter of August 29, 1948.1170 On January 19, 1949, Czechoslovakian Bishops complained to President Gottwald about the tense relations between the State and the Church, to which he had also contributed by his attitude.1171 It was not the last critical letter addressed to the communist powers. Memorandums and letters by Czechoslovakian Bishops were also issued on March 23, 1949, April 29, 1949, May 17, 1949, June 15, 1949, July 27, 1949, October 21, 1949, etc. When, in the fall of 1948, Verolino went on a  vacation, he was temporarily deputized for during his absence from Czechoslovakia by Giuseppe Sensi, Officer of the Secretariat of State, in the rank of chargé d’affaires.1172 It is possible that the Holy See tried to resolve the deadlocked Czechoslovakian-Vatican negotiations through personnel ­changes, so they replaced Verolino by Sensi, an experienced Diplomat of the Secretariat of State.1173 Sensi sent a personal letter to Foreign Minister Clementis on January 28, 1949, in which he complained about the illegal

1167 Vaško, Neumlčená, 2:17; ANM, fund Eduard Jelen, box file 8, Pius XII May 15, 1948. 1168 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1948–1950, Beran June 15, 1948; Letz, V hodine veľkej skúšky, 585–586, document n. 184. 1169 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1948–1950, Beran June 15, 1948. 1170 Ibid., Maixner October 6, 1948. 1171 Letz, V hodine veľkej skúšky, 604–609, document n. 188. 1172 G. Sensi served in the diplomatic service of the Holy See from 1934. In the 1930s, he served as Secretary of the Nunciatures in Bucharest and Budapest, during WWII in the Nunciature in Bern, and from 1946 in Brussels. Kukánová, “Od tolerance k nepřátelství,” 65; APO, fund PO, n. 1829, The Apostolic Nunciature in Czechoslovakia, n. 107655/48, Kordoš October 29, 1948; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1948–1950, Maixner October 6, 1948. 1173 Kukánová, “Od tolerance k nepřátelství,” 64.

262

persecution of the Church by the communist regime, which sought to rid it of its freedom. He informed Clementis that in 1948 many Catholic magazines and papal encyclicals had been prevented from publication. Sensi went on the offensive when he stated that the State sought to prevent the Church from carrying out its inalienable rights and duties.1174 On February 4, Clementis received Sensi, but rejected the assumptions of his letter as an “inadmissible innuendo.” Although he assured Sensi that he was led by a sincere desire to benefit both the Church and the Czechoslovakian State, he did not discuss any possibility of further negotiations. Regarding Church education, the salaries of priests, and the Catholic press, he only referred to future legislative measures.1175 On February 17, 1949, Czechoslovakian Ordinaries met with Prague Archbishop Beran to discuss further proceedings in the confrontation with communist power. Sensi probably also attended the meeting, and it was he who suggested waiting for the return of Olomouc Archbishop Matocha from Rome before forming any strategy. However, when on March 4 Matocha returned, he did not have with him any clear directions from the Holy See for the upcoming clash with the communists. On one hand, the Vatican did not suggest that Bishops negotiate with the regime. On the other hand, they recommended not making too many concessions. However, it is not clear whether this was caused by different interpretations of the Vatican directions by Bishops or by different ideas of the representatives of the Holy See in Prague and the Vatican.1176 In the spring of 1949, Verolino returned to Prague, replaced Sensi and again took over the administration of the Internunciature as chargé d’affaires.1177 Before the Episcopal Conference in Starý Smokovec from March 22 to 23, 1949, Bishops met in the Prague Interunciature where Archbishop Beran and chargé d’affaires Verolino asked Trochta, Bishop of Litoměřice, not to oppose the Bishop or to make concessions to the communists.1178 After a bugging device was found at the Episcopal Conference, negotiations between the Church and the State came to a deadlock. Bishops gradually began to differ. One wing was represented by the intransigent core centered around Beran that had the support of

Vaško, Neumlčená, 2:58; Kaplan, Stát a církev v Československu, 59. Kaplan, Stát a církev v Československu, 59. Ibid., 63. APO, fund PO, n. 1829, The Apostolic Nunciature in Czechoslovakia, n. 126922/48, Kordoš March 18, 1949. 1178 Kaplan, Stát a církev v Československu, 64. 1174 1175 1176 1177

263

the Holy See and of some priests and that refused to retreat from their demands. The second wing, centered around Trochta, inclined towards reaching an agreement with the government. The latter apparently had the support of most Bishops.1179 Only in mid-June, did Verolino receive Prague Archbishop Beran and four Church dignitaries to mutually coordinate the reaction of the Church to the Catholic Action prepared by the State.1180 Based on secret reports, the communists came to the conclusion that chargé d’affaires Verolino had encouraged Bishops to oppose an agreement with the government and to enforce direct negotiations between the government and the Vatican—instead of the discussions between the communists and the favored “new” Church hierarchy and the National Front. In July 1949, they therefore decided to end Verolino’s mission and remove him as an undesirable person.1181 The official reason for Verolino’s removal from Prague was his engagement in favor of J. Mindszenty in Hungary after 1945. The inconsistency of Czechoslovakian authorities, as stated by Maixner, Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Holy See, testified to the fact that this was a mere pretext for his dismissal. The only argument of Rath against Verolino was probably his service in the Nunciature in Budapest until 1944.1182 Paolo Bertoli, proposed by the Vatican as Verolino’s successor as an active diplomat of the Holy See who had gained his experience from his missions in Yugoslavia, France, Haiti, the Dominican Republic and Switzerland, was not accepted by the Czechoslovakian side.1183 After endless delays, the Vatican suggested another successor to Verolino—Opilio Rossi. However, he too was not accepted by Czechoslovakia after several months of screening his credentials.1184 Therefore, the interests of the Holy See were only represented in Czechoslovakia by Legation Secretary Ottavio de Liva, former Secretary to the Vienna Internunciature who

1179 1180 1181 1182

Ibid., 71. Vaško, Dům na skále, 1:140. Machula, Vatikán a Československo, 172. AMFA, RO Vatican, 1948–1950, Ráth March 23, 1949; AMFA, GS A, box file 154, Clementis July 8, 1949; Kaplan, Stát a církev v Československu, 50, 134. 1183 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1948–1950, Ráth July 11, 1949, or July 18, 1949; Vaško, Neumlčená, 2:61. Bern informed the Czechoslovakian Foreign Ministry that Bertoli was an enemy of people’s democratic states and socialism, which confirmed Prague’s decision not to grant him an entry visa. However, despite this fact, Ráth promised the Holy See that the visa would be granted—apparently in order to achieve the departure of Verolino from Czechoslovakia. The attitude of the Czechoslovakian side thus fully corresponded with the intentions of the communist rule. 1184 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1948–1950, Ráth November 30, 1949.

264

had become Sensi’s Secretary in November 1948. However, Czechoslovakia did not even recognize him as chargé d’affaires.1185 In early 1950, two years after his departure from Czechoslovakia, Internuncio Ritter’s health did not allow him an early return to Prague. 1186 If it seemed that the Czechoslovakian side had shown a hint of friendliness and good will until February 1948, when everything changed after the communist takeover. The disputes were politicized and the Holy See almost regularly protested against the provocative actions of the Czechoslovakian government and individual ministries, e.g. in July 1948 against the pompous celebrations of Master Jan Hus, in December 1948 against the offensive speech of Zdeněk Nejedlý, Minister of Education, on Czechoslovakian Radio, etc.1187 In May 1949, O. de Liva complained about the deterioration of the religious situation in the country, pointing to the arrests of priests, closure of monasteries, removal of crucifixes from schools, suppression of the Catholic press, etc.1188 However, when even this note remained unanswered, he submitted further complaints in June 1949. He complained about the speech by Václav Kopecký, Minister of Information, who in May 1949, had stated at the ninth congress of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia that “the Catholic hierarchy and the Vatican are responsible for the tensions between the Church and the CSR.“1189 He also emphasized that the government had not kept its promises ­g iven to Prague Archbishop Beran on the eve of Te Deum (translator’s note: a ceremonial mass) held on the occasion of the election of the new Czechoslovakian President on June 14, 1948. He also rejected the  accusation that the Holy See had meddled in the internal affairs of the country. It was De Liva who in 1949 traveled around Czechoslovakia and encouraged individual Ordinaries to be active. He was in especially close contact with Prague Archbishop Beran, to whom he interpreted the encouragement of the Holy See, and gave him advice regarding negotiations with the communist offices. According to available reports, between January and March 1950, he visited him three

1185 APO, fund PO, n. 1829, The Apostolic Nunciature in Czechoslovakia, n. 126656/48, Kordoš November 11, 1948; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1948–1950, Maixner October 6, 1948; I Documenti Diplomatici Italiani, Undicesima Serie: 1948–1953, 4:71, document n. 60, D’Archirafi to Sforza March 16, 1950; Vnuk, “Katolícka akcia,” 381. 1186 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1948–1950, Ráth February 28, 1950. 1187 ANM, fund Eduard Jelen, box file 8. 1188 AMFA, GS A, box file 196. 1189 Ibid.

265

times (!).1190 The government was looking for a pretext to get rid of the inconvenient De Liva. In early 1949, Czechoslovakian Bishops complained in a letter to President Gottwald about the violations of religious freedoms, expressing the opinion that “not only is the current situation not good for the Church, but it is also detrimental to the State and threatens its peaceful constructive efforts.“1191 They denounced the anti-religious vicious attacks against the Church, restrictions of the freedoms of Catholics, suppression of Church education, attacks on the Pope, restrictions of the Church press, financial disadvantages of Church dignitaries and their social discrimination, etc. However, when even these complaints went unheard, they issued a pastoral letter called The Voice of Czechoslovakian Catholic Bishops and Ordinaries to the Faithful in the Hour of Great Trial1192, in which they responded to the efforts of the communist regime to overlook the Church and weaken its united voice. They also condemned the Catholic Action organized by the regime, labeling it as false.1193 The pastoral letter of June 1949 also pointed out the difficulties which the Catholic Church faced in Czechoslovakia, in particular the weakening of the Church in society, religious education in schools, the abolition of the religious press, the confiscation of Church properties, etc.1194 Their voice was strong and determined: “The seriousness of our time, however, forces us to absolute fidelity to principles and consistency in negotiations. It is truly a systematic and well-planned persecution of the Catholic Church in Czechoslovakia.“1195 On June 24, 1949, The Catholic Herald, a British Catholic newspaper, informed the international public about the pastoral letter, the personage of Prague Archbishop Beran, and the political-religious situation in Czechoslovakia. The author of the article was probably Vratislav Bušek, a former university professor of Canon Law, President of Charles University, and a member of the

1190 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1948–1950, Námitky proti činnosti De Livy, without date. 1191 AMFA, GS A, box file 196. 1192 Ibid., box file 154; Balík, and Hanuš, Katolická církev v Československu, 72. The pastoral letter of Czechoslovakian Bishops was undoubtedly inspired by a similar letter of Polish Bishops of April 1949. AMFA, GS A, box file 196. 1193 AMFA, GS A, box file 154; Letz, V hodine veľkej skúšky, 641–651, document n. 195; Balík, and Hanuš, Katolická církev v Československu, 72. 1194 AMFA, GS A, box file 154. 1195 Ibid.

266

National Socialist Party, who had found a new home in the USA after February 1948.1196 Shortly before that, on June 20, 1940, the seriousness of the words of Czechoslovakian Ordinaries was supported by the Congregation of the Holy Office, which decided to excommunicate those faithful who had entered into the Catholic Action organized by the State voluntarily and consciously.1197 The second and much broader excommunication followed two weeks later: on July 1, 1941, the Holy See repeated its agelong objections to communism—“communism is materialistic and antiChristian”—and stated that the faithful who defended and supported the materialistic and anti-Christian principles of communism should be excommunicated.1198 Although the papal decrees could not be fully ­realized in Czechoslovakia, their public reading by one-third of the clergy during Sunday mass on June 19, 1949 became an important criticism of communist rule in the period of incoming totalitarianism. Under the threat of the strictest Church punishments, most clergymen withdrew their agreement with the Catholic Action, which, therefore, proved to be an ineffective propaganda tool of the regime which gradually ceased to defend it and ended its operations in 1951.1199 However, the communist regime decided to act against the Church opposition by other means. On October 14, 1949, the National Assembly passed Church Laws (Laws no. 217 and 218), which significantly hampered the functioning of the Church. After the adoption of these laws, Czechoslovakian Bishops strongly opposed it, asking the government to mitigate the implementation of the regulations. Not only did the government not oblige them, but they made the laws even harsher due to the implementation of the regulations. According to the new laws, the Church was subordinate to the State (pledge of loyalty to the State, granting the State permission to the clergy to exercise their authority, etc.); the State could intervene in its administration and thus restrict its autonomy. The laws harshly intervened in the rights and freedoms of

1196 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1948–1950, Ráth May 24, 1949. 1197 Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Commentarium officiale 41, vol. 16 (1949): 333. Those who entered into the Catholic Action under pressure or out of ignorance were excluded from Pius II’s excommunication. 1198 Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Commentarium officiale 41, vol. 16 (1949): 334; AMFA, RO Vatican, 1948–1950, Vigorita July 1, 1949. 1199 Balík, and Hanuš, Katolická církev v Československu, 23.

267

citizens, contrary to the existing Constitution of May 1949.1200 On October 24, the Apostolic Nunciature protested against the laws.1201 The communist regime subsequently proceeded with the internment of Czech and Slovakian Bishops. As a result, Prague Archbishop Josef Beran, Hradec Králové Bishop Mořic Pícha, Olomouc Archbishop Josef Karel Matocha, České Budějovice Bishop Josef Hlouch, Brno Bishop Karel Skoupý, Litoměřice Bishop Štěpán Trocha and many other priests, e.g. Karel Otčenášek and František Tomášek, were interned within a short time.1202 In December 1950, Stanislav Zela, Auxiliary Bishop of Olomouc, was sentenced. In January 1951, three Slovakian priests—Ján Vojtaššák, Bishop of Spiš, Michal Buzalka, Auxiliary Bishop of Trnava and Military Vicar, and Pavol Peter, Bishop of Prešov (Eparchy)—were given severe sentences for treason.1203 However, these were not the last victims of the criminal communist regime.1204 The government initiated the creation of a new Church hierarchy comprised of Chapter Vicars, who were to replace the original group of Bishops. In late February 1949, the presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party discussed the situation of the Catholic Church in Czechoslovakia. They concluded that the Holy See—or rather its representatives in Prague, chargé d’affaires O. de Liva and Czechoslovakian Bishops—should be accused of the “Číhošť Miracle” 1205 The hateful seditious campaign thus turned in particular against De Liva, accusing him of inventing the “Číhošť Miracle.” On March 16, they ordered him—as an instigator of the hostile Vatican policy—to leave the country within three days. They cited the following reasons: “The higher Church hierarchy in Czechoslovakia has long been abusing the Czechoslovakian Roman Catholic Church and its churches for subversive anti-state activities. They are even not afraid of contriving fraudulent ‘miracles.’”1206 As Francesco Paolo Vanni  D’Archirafi, Italian Envoy to Prague, informed Rome, De Liva left Czechoslovakia by air on March 18, 1950 1200 Kaplan, Stát a církev v Československu, 101. 1201 I  Documenti Diplomatici Italiani, Undicesima Serie: 1948–1953, 3:362, document n. 334, D’Archirafi to Sforza October 25, 1949; Vodičková, “Ať si Berana vezmou,” 96. 1202 Casaroli, The Torture of Patience, 131. 1203 Letz, Boli traja. 1204 J. Stříbrný states that at least 56 Catholics, including 2 canons, 26 diocesan priests, 13 monks, 2 nuns, and 13 believers, were executed, tortured, or died during interrogations between 1948 and 1960. Stříbrný, “Katoličtí mučedníci,” 15; Kaplan, Nekrvavá revoluce, 299. 1205 Vaško, Neumlčená, 179–180. 1206 Ibid., 128.

268

at 2 p.m.1207 No other representative of the Holy See was granted an entry visa, as Czechoslovakia refused any intermediary between the State and the Church; the Nunciature became vacant.1208 Although communist Czechoslovakia officially did not suspend diplomatic relations with the Holy See, this actually happened.1209 Shortly afterwards, I. Ráth, Czechoslovakian Envoy to the Holy See, left his office without any official notification of the suspension or cessation of diplomatic relations with foreign countries. He successfully completed his mission—de facto breaking off diplomatic relations between Czechoslovakia and the Vatican.1210 As the communist regime considered the conflict with the Church as inevitable, they decided to proceed in a similar manner as with political opponents. The communist regime also believed that Catholicism (and Christianity in general) was long over and would gradually disappear.1211 From March 1950, there were also incompetent interventions in Church education by the communist State. Theological Faculties were excluded from other universities, their activities restricted, and all departments underwent personnel changes. Theological schools and diocesan seminaries were closed, and the number of theological students reduced.1212 In mid-April 1950, the communist security authorities launched the “K  Action.” This was a  pre-planned and deliberate violent liquidation of monasteries and the religious orders of men. Within a short time, 219 monasteries were liquidated and 2,376 monks interned. After this unprecedented aggression, the regime proceeded to fight with the “R Action,” the aim of which was to liquidate female religious orders. This repressive procedure by the communist regime was the culmination of long-term activities that were aimed to dispose of the most difficult and persistent enemy—the Catholic Church. That is why the liquidation of Church properties was also accompanied by the

1207 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1948–1950, Ráth March 21, 1950; I  Documenti Diplomatici Italiani, Undicesima Serie: 1948–1953, 4:69, document n. 58, D’Archirafi to Sforza March 14, 1950, or 71, document n. 60, D’Archirafi to Sforza March 16, 1950. 1208 AMFA, RO Vatican, 1948–1950, Ráth March 21, 1950; Balík, and Hanuš, Katolická církev v Československu, 19; Vaško, Neumlčená, 2:61. Shortly before leaving Czechoslovakia, De Liva entrusted a Swiss Envoy to Prague to take care of the building of the Internunciature, which he willingly promised. 1209 Vaško, Dům na skále, 1:180. 1210 I  Documenti Diplomatici Italiani, Undicesima Serie: 1948–1953, 4:76, document n. 64, D’Archirafi to Sforza March 20, 1950. 1211 Cuhra, “KSČ, stát a římskokatolická církev,” 272–273. 1212 Vaško, Dům na skále, 1:229.

269

physical liquidation of its elites: during the process of Machalka and his accomplices, prominent Catholic leaders were arrested in February and March 1950—František Šilhan, Provincial of the Jesuits, Adolf Kajpr, Chief Editor of the Katolík magazine, Silvestr Maria Braito, writer and Chief Editor of the Na hlubinu revue, and many others.1213 During Easter 1950, a trial was held of ten monks who had been accused of spying for the Vatican, the possession of weapons, and the preparation of anti-State conspiracy. They were given severe sentences.1214 In order to ensure the continuity of the offices of Bishops, a  few new Bishops were ordained in secret in Czechoslovakia at the turn of the 1940s and 1950s. On September 17, 1949 Kajetán Matoušek, Pastor of the Church of St. Adalbert in Prague, was the first person secretly ordained as Auxiliary Bishop of the Prague Archdiocese. A month later, on October 14, 1949, Olomouc Archbishop Josef Karel Matocha ordained František Tomášek as Bishop.1215In early November, Ján Vojtaššák, Bishop of Spiš, ordained Štefan Barnabáš as his Auxiliary Bishop. Karel Otčenášek was another Bishop to be ordained—on April 30, 1950, he was consecrated in the chapel of the Pícha residence by Mořic Pícha, Bishop of Hradec Králové, as his Auxiliary Bishop with the right of succession. In 1951, this practice of secret Episcopal ordinations—without the knowledge of the Holy See—started and developed until the 1980s. However, these secretly ordained Bishops could not publicly exercise their authorities.1216 Diplomatic relations between Czechoslovakia and the Holy See were suspended for almost half a century. They were restored no sooner than in 1990 when Giovanni Coppa, an Italian Church dignitary and Officer of the Secretariat of State, arrived in Prague. He became the last Nuncio to Czechoslovakia and the first Nuncio to the Czech Republic. He held this post until 2001, when he was appointed as Canon of St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican and six years later was created Cardinal.1217 In 2001, he was replaced by Erwin Josef Ender, a German Church dignitary and diplomat, who had served as Apostolic Nuncio

1213 Mandzák, Dokumenty k  procesu; Mandzák, “Agent a  špión Vatikánu”; Vaško, Neumlčená, 2:134–135. 1214 Kaplan, Karel, Nekrvavá revoluce, 297 an; Vlček, “Perzekuce řeholí,” 141. 1215 Hartmann, Svoboda, and Vaško, Kardinál Tomášek, 14. 1216 Balík, and Hanuš, Katolická církev v Československu, 68–69; Chenaux, Pio XII, 182. 1217 Svatá Hora, October 20, 2007. Available at http://svata-hora.cz/cz/article/840/giovanni-coppa -kardinalem.

270

to the Baltic States before his arrival in Prague.1218 In 2004, after he was charged with leading the Apostolic Nunciature in Berlin, Vatican Diplomat Diego Causero replaced him.1219 The current Apostolic Nuncio to Prague is Giuseppe Leanza, an experienced diplomat and Church dignitary of the Holy See.

1218 Http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bender.html. 1219 Katolický týdeník, September 9, 2004. Information about the aforementioned Apostolic Nuncios is also available at http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org.

271

5. Conclusion

In the preceding pages, we have followed the lives and diplomatic fates of four Apostolic Nuncios (Clement Micara, Francesco Marmaggi, Pietro Ciriaci and Saverio Ritter) and their Secretaries (Antonino Arata, Giovanni Panico, Giuseppe Brunelli, Luigi Punzola, Giuseppe Burzio, Raffaele Forni, Ottavio De Liva, Giuseppe Sensi and Gennaro Verolino). These were the personages who to a large extent shaped Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations in the first half of the 20th century. We have analyzed their professional shaping, their diplomatic activities, their journeys after being selected, their arrival in Czechoslovakia, their diplomatic-religious activities in the country including both the high points and low points, the termination of their missions, and their further diplomatic activities until the end of their lives. We saw that none of the aforementioned missions was problem-free. The Nuncios had to face misunderstandings on the part of the Czechoslovakian government, socialist parties and non-believers among the public. They had to confront their ideas and instructions with the Czechoslovakian reality and the current political-religious situation in the country. At the same time, the election of the Nuncio was in no way a clear-cut matter and there were often many opposing views. If, in two cases, the prevailing circumstances threw up the best candidates—Micara, Secretary of the Apostolic Nunciature in Vienna and Ciriaci, High Official of the Secretariat of State of the Holy See—in other cases, the choice was more related to the distribution of diplomatic power, the Nuncio being a tool for achieving a strategic goal in relation to Czechoslovakia. As already mentioned, the diplomatic-religious activities of the Apostolic Nuncio in the host country often produced tension in 274

Czechoslovakian-Vatican diplomatic relations, which frequently developed into open conflict when the Nuncio intervened in the internal political and religious affairs of Czechoslovakia. These events, particularly the affairs involving Marmaggi and Ciriaci, feature in textbooks on the political and religious history of the 20th century. The status of Apostolic Nuncios in Czechoslovakia apparently did not coincide with the ideas of the Vatican and the Nuncios themselves. The Nuncios, as representatives of the Holy See, did not enjoy sufficient prestige in the Czechoslovakian environment. It was especially the attacks by the left-wing press that often escalated the situation and moved the Vatican diplomats closer to the possible termination of their Czechoslovakian mission. We believe that the very turbulent feeling among the population, tensions in Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations and in the Czech press caused Micara, the first Apostolic Nuncio, to request the Holy Father to be transferred to a new diplomatic post and to terminate his Czechoslovakian mission prematurely. Some of the Nuncios followed the political and diplomatic line of the Holy See, although they had some objections and did not entirely identify themselves with it—e.g. Marmaggi during the Hus celebrations in July 1925. Others, on the contrary, convinced the Holy See of the correctness of their approach, so that the Vatican espoused it and adjusted its lens of perceiving Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations—e.g. in relation to Ciriaci’s relationship with Prague Archbishop Kordač. At the same time, it is necessary to consider the Nuncios’ missions within the Central European, or rather European context, against the backdrop of contemporary political-religious development, and not only as an isolated affair of Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations. The Nuncios were thus at least influenced by the Italian political scene, papal encyclicals and allocutions, and world events, just as the Czechoslovakian government was influenced by the political, religious, social and economic situation in the country. Here the limits of historical science become clearly evident, as it hardly allows comparison of each diplomatic mission. Each Apostolic Nuncio shaped a specific form of Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations at a different time, in a different political situation, at the time of a different pontificate and a different personage of the Secretary of State, with various political-diplomatic experiences, and with different politicalChurch leaders in Czechoslovakia. Therefore, we can hardly compare Micara’s mission from 1920 to 1923 and Ritter’s mission from 1935 to 1939. In addition, some periods were more relaxed in Czechoslovakia 275

and on the international stage, e.g. Ciriaci’s service in the late 1920s, and some more turbulent, e.g. Ritter’s service from 1946 to 1950. It is also interesting to observe to what extent Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations reflect the tone of the papal policy towards the world. For example, the papal encyclicals Quadragesimo Anno (1931), Mit brennender Sorge (1937), and Divini Redemptoris (1937), reflect the changes within Czechoslovakia, from the initial cultural struggle, to modus vivendi, international tension, the disintegration of the State, its democratic values and to the diplomatic dispute with the Vatican in 1950. In order to be able to reach these conclusions and to make evaluations in context, we have tried as far as possible to illuminate the details of Czechoslovakian-Vatican negotiations, the personages of the Apostolic Nuncios and their further activities. If we could not always go into sufficient depth in all aspects of these negotiations between 1920 and 1950, we did so to the extent possible regarding the Nuncios. Thanks to Vatican records—in as far as they allow—we have been able to penetrate the minds, attitudes, and moods of the Apostolic Nuncios. In addition, the richness and diversity of the Czech archives have enabled us to understand the difficult negotiations and the Czechoslovak, or more precisely Czech, perception of the Holy See. Finally, the available German and Austrian archives offer an interesting perspective on Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations from the outside—from the point of view of non-participating and yet involved parties. We believe that, in this monograph, we have uncovered many “mysteries” and explained persisting ambiguities. We trust that it is a dignified presentation of Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations and the personages of the Apostolic Nuncios. If all handbooks have thus far been limited to stating that Marmaggi protested against the holding of the Hus celebrations and departed from Prague on July 6, 1925, and that Ciriaci wrote an open letter to Hlinka, whereupon the government ended his mission, we hope that now we are able to look upon it differently. That we will see the events and the Nuncios’ steps in the perspective of what preceded them (the spring of 1925 and the summer of 1933), and how the Nuncio to Prague, the Czechoslovakian government, the Holy See, and other participants in international relations perceived things. At the same time, we believe that we have presented many new motives and questions in Czech Church history, and better explained some actions taken by the Holy See and the Nuncios which until now had been incomprehensible. We are therefore now able to present details that represented gaps in Czech Church history, e.g. the reasons 276

for the termination of Micara’s mission; the attitude of the Holy See towards the Hus celebrations in July 1925; the perception of the individual personalities in political and religious life by the Nuncios and the Holy See; the background to the resignation of Prague Archbishop Kordač in 1931; the context of the transfer of Nuncio Micara from Prague to Lisbon; the attitude of the Holy See during the Munich Crisis in the summer and autumn of 1938 and its perspective on Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations; and the perception of national minorities in Czechoslovakia. We have also explained in detail the further diplomatic activities of the Nuncios and the Secretaries of the Nunciatures, e.g. A. Arata, G. Panico and G. Burzio. Furthermore, we did not examine only the diplomatic level, but attempted to “get to the bottom” of the everyday lives of the Nuncios, their lifestyles, meals, communication with other members of the Diplomatic Corps and political and Church leaders in the country. We believe that the background to the purchase of the new building of the Apostolic Nunciature in 1928 in particular clearly reflects the relationships between the Nuncio and Czechoslovakian dignitaries. We therefore have tried to present the Nuncios in the entire complexity of their diplomatic missions and their lives and to present them as personalities of extraordinary spiritual and political qualities. We have also presented them as individuals with human natures and characteristics that were often responsible for their decisions and communication with the Czechoslovakian and Vatican sides. Just as Czechoslovakian-Vatican relations from 1920 to 1950 changed over time, so did the roles of the Nuncios and the representatives of the Holy See. In contrast to traditional Czech historiography, we have also tried to view and evaluate events through the lens of the Holy See and the messages from the Prague Nunciature to the Vatican. The present book, being the first of its kind, does not aspire to be comprehensive or without imperfections. It is an analysis and interpretation of events based on currently available archival data, which will probably soon be enriched by the funds from the pontificate of Pope Pius XII from the WWII and post-war eras, which would necessarily require a revision of the book and perhaps also a reassessment of some of its conclusions. We are aware that the events are presented from the author’s viewpoint of the probable developments. The aim of this book is much more modest, i.e. to stimulate interest in not only Czechoslovakian-Vatican diplomatic relations, but also in the foreign policy of the Holy See in the 20th century and in Church history in general. If this 277

is successful, its objectives will have been achieved. At the same time, I believe that this book will not be the last, but the first extensive contribution to the history of the Apostolic Nuncios to Prague in the 20th century.

278

List of Abbreviations

AA. EE. SS. Archivio Storico. Sezione per i rapporti con gli stati (Segreteria di Stato) A FA CSFR The Archive of the Federal Assembly of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic APO The Archive of the President’s Office in Prague AMFA The Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Prague ANM The Archive of the National Museum AO The Archdiocese of Olomouc A CHDP CR The Archive of The Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic ASV Archivio Segreto Vaticano (Vatican Secret Archives) ATGM The Archive of the T. G. Masaryk Institute and the ­Academy of Sciences fol. folio GS The General Secretariat NA The National Archive ÖSW Österreichisches Staatsarchiv Wien PAAA Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amts PR Political reports NCA The Newspaper Clipping Archive PAO The Provincial Archive in Opava RO The Representative Office

279

Bibliography

Archives Archiv Ministerstva zahraničních věcí ČR fund II. sekce MZV politická—1. Běžná spisovna fund Kabinet ministra fund Politické zprávy—Vatikán fund Generální sekretariát fund Zastupitelský úřad—Vatikán fund Kroftův archiv Archiv Kanceláře prezidenta republiky fund KPR Archiv KDU-ČSL fund Osobnosti—Vladimír Červenka, Jan Šrámek, František M. Žampach, Alois Petr, Josef Doležal fund Československá strana lidová Archiv Ústavu T. G. Masaryka a Akademie věd fund Edvard Beneš fund Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk Archiv Národního muzea fund Eduard Jelen Archiv Poslanecké sněmovny Parlamentu ČR stenoprotokoly a tisky Národního shromáždění Republiky československé (dostupné na http: //www.psp.cz/eknih/index.htm) Historický vatikánský archiv v Římě (III e IV periodo) fund Affari Ecclesiastici Straordinari Austria fund Affari Ecclesiastici Straordinari Austria-Ungheria fund Affari Ecclesiastici Straordinari Cecoslovacchia

280

fund Affari Ecclesiastici Straordinari Germania fund Affari Ecclesiastici Straordinari Polonia fund Affari Ecclesiastici Straordinari Portogallo Národní archiv v Praze fund Antonín Švehla fund Archiv pražského arcibiskupství—ordinariát fund Jan Jiří Rückl fund Jan Šrámek fund Ministerstvo zahraničních věcí—výstřižkový archiv fund Zemský úřad Praha Státní okresní archiv Příbram fund Děkanský úřad—Příbram, Pamětní kniha 1836–1962 Tajný vatikánský archiv v Římě fund Archivio Nunziatura Apostolica in Praga 1920–1950 Ústřední archiv a muzeum Církve československé husitské v Praze fund Archiv ústřední rady CČS 1922–1930 fund Korespondence—Karel Farský fund Korespondence—Emil Dlouhý-Pokorný fund Rukopisy—Karel Farský Vojenský ústřední archiv v Praze fund Sbírka vzpomínek—Vlastimil Klíma Zemský archiv Opava, pobočka Olomouc fund Arcibiskupství Olomouc Österreichisches Staatsarchiv ve Vídni fund ond Gesandschafts- und Konsulatarchive 1918–1938 Prag fund Gesandschafts—und Konsulatarchive 1918–1938 Rom-Vatikan fund Neues politisches Archiv—Bundeskanzlersamt/ Auswärtige Angelegenheiten ­1923–1938 Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amts v Berlíně fund Gesandschaft Prag fund Gesandschaft Rom-Vatikan Sources Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Commentarium officiale. 1918–1950. Acta Nuntiaturae Polonae. 1918–1938. Actes et documents du Saint Siege relatifs a la Seconde Guerre Mondiale. Annuario Pontificio. Aussenpolitische Dokumente der Republik Österreich 1918–1938. Deutsche Gesandtschaftsberichte aus Prag. Enchiridion delle Encicliche. Vol. 4, Pio X e Benedetto XV, edited by Erminio Lora, and Rita Simionati. Bologna, 1999. Enchiridion delle Encicliche. Vol. 5, Pio XI, edited by Erminio Lora, and Rita Simionati, Bo­logna, 1998. 281

Enchiridion delle Encicliche. Vol. 6, Pio XII, edited by Erminio Lora, and Rita Simionati, Bologna, 2002. I Documenti Diplomatici Italiani. Čapek, Karel. Hovory s T. G. Masarykem. Prague, 1990. Carboni, Luca, ed. Documenta Vaticana. Pius XI und der Nationalsozialismus, 1933. Braunschweig, 2007. Casaroli, Agostino. Trýzeň trpělivosti. Svatý stolec a  komunistické země (1963–1989). Kostelní Vydří, 2001. Castaldo, Giovanni, and Giuseppe Lo Bianco, eds. L’Archivio della Nunziatura Apostolica in Italia, I. 1929–1939. Vaticano 2010. Cavalleri, Ottavio, ed. L’Archivio di Mons. Achille Ratti, visitatore apostolico e nunzio a Varsavia (1918–1921). Vatica City, 1990. Ciano, Galeazzo. Diario 1937–1943, edited by Renzo de Felice. Milan, 2006. De Marchi, Giuseppe. Le nunziatura apostoliche dal 1800 al 1956. Rome, 1957. Dejmek, Jindřich et al., eds. Československá zahraniční politika v  roce 1938. 2 vols. Prague, 2000–2001. Dejmek, Jindřich, ed. “Korespondence Kamila Krofty s  Edvardem Benešem. Part 1, ­1920–1927.” Sborník archivních prací 44, no. 2 (1994): 449–555. Dejmek, Jindřich, ed. Korespondence Kamila Krofty s  Edvardem Benešem. Part 2, ­1927–1938.” Sborník archivních prací 48, no. 2 (1998): 107–208. Drábek, Jan, ed. Z časů nedlouho zašlých. Vzpomínky Dr. Mořice Hrubana. Rome, 1967. Farský, Karel. “Ideová krise v církvi čs.” Český zápas 5, no. 48 (1922): 3. Farský, Karel. Přelom. Příspěvek k  dějinám vzniku Církve československé z  roku 1918. Prague, 1921. Farský, Karel. Stát a církev. Poměr státu českého k církvi římské od prvopočátku až do roku 1924. Prague, 1924. Farský, Karel. Z pode jha. Vznik církve československé. Prague, 1920. Ferrari, Francesco Luigi, ed. Lettere e documenti inediti. Vol. 1. Rome, 1986. Fialová, Zuzana, ed. Jaroslav Durych. Publicista. Prague, 2001. Gašparíková-Horáková, Anna. U Masarykovcov. Spomienky osobnej archivárky T. G. Masaryka. Bratislava, 2005. Gronský, Ján, ed. Komentované dokumenty k ústavním dějinám Československa. Vol. 1, ­1914–1945. Prague, 2005. Hachey, Thomas E., ed. Anglo-Vatican Relations, 1914–1939. Confidential Annual Reports of the British Ministers to the Holy See. Boston, 1972. Hájková, Dagmar, Vlasta Quagliatová, and Richard Vašek, eds. Korespondence T. G. Masaryk—Edvard Beneš, 1918–1937. Prague, 2013. Helan, Pavel, and Jaroslav Šebek, eds. Československo a Svatý stolec. Vol. 2/1, Kongregace pro mimořádné církevní záležitosti (1919–1925). Výběrová edice dokumentů. Prague, 2013. Hrabovec, Emília, ed. Slovensko a  Svätá stolica 1918–1927 vo svetle vatikánskych prameňov. Bratislava, 2012. Kaas, Ludwig. Eugenio Pacelli. Erster Apostolischer Nuntius beim Deutschen Reich (Gesammelte Reden). Berlin, 1930. Kamenec, Ivan, Vilém Prečan, and Stanislav Škorvánek, eds. Vatikán a Slovenská republika (1939–1945). Dokumenty. Bratislava, 1992. Kodex kanonického práva zpracovaný z  rozkazu nejvyššího velekněze Pia X. a  vyhlášený z  moci papeže Benedikta XV. Translated by František Kop et al. Prague, 1969. Krofta, Kamil. Diplomatický deník 1919–1922, edited by Jindřich Dejmek. Prague, 2009. Künzl-Jizerský, Rudolf. V diplomatických službách ČSR. Prague, 1947. 282

Kvaček, Robert et al., eds. Dvacáté století o sobě. Výbor z úředních listin, záznamů, smluv a dohod, deklarací, projevů, úvah, dopisů, vzpomínek a pamětí. Liberec, 2005. Lubac, Henri de. Quaderni del concilio. Vol. 1. Milan, 2009. Machula, Jaromír. Vatikán a Československo (1938–1948). Paměti. Prague, 1998. Masaryk, Tomáš Garrigue. Cesta demokracie. Vol. 1, Projevy—články—rozhovory 1918–1920, edited by Vojtěch Fejlek, and Richard Vašek. Prague, 2003. Masaryk, Tomáš Garrigue. Cesta demokracie. Vol. 2, Projevy—články—rozhovory 1921–1923, edited by Vojtěch Fejlek, and Richard Vašek. Prague, 2007. Masaryk, Tomáš Garrigue. Cesta demokracie. Vol. 3, Projevy—články—rozhovory 1924–1928, edited by Vojtěch Fejlek. Prague, 1994. Masaryk, Tomáš Garrigue. Světová revoluce. Prague, 1925 Masaryk, Tomáš Garrigue. Světová revoluce. Za války a ve válce 1914–1918. Prague, 2005. Mrkonjič, Tomislav, ed. L’Archivio della Nunziatura Apostolica in Vienna. Vol. 1, ­1607–1939/1940. Vatican City, 2008. Natalini, Terzo, ed. I  diari del Cardinale Ermenegildo Pellegrinetti 1916–1922. Vatican City, 1994. Opasek, Anastáz. Dvanáct zastavení. Vzpomínky opata břevnovského kláštera, edited by Marie Jirásková. Prague, 1992. Pacelli, Eugenio. Die Lage der Kirche in Deutschland 1929, edited by Hubert Wolf, and Klaus Unterburger. Paderborn, 2006. Pagano, Sergio, Marcel Chappin, and Giovanni Coco, eds. I “fogli di udienza” del Cardinale Eugenio Pacelli, Segretario di Stato. Vol. 1, 1930. Vatican City, 2010. Palve, Pius. Pio XI (Achille Ratti). Ricordi—Episodi—Biografia. Rome, 1922. Sidor, Karol. Šesť rokov pri Vatikáne. Bratislava, 2013. Sidor, Karol. Vatikánsky denník. 2 vols. Bratislava, 2011–12. Slávik, Juraj. Moja pamät—živá kniha. Moje poslanie vo Varšave 1936–1937, edited by Jan Němeček, Andrzej Essen, and Jan Kuklík. Bratislava, 2010. Newspaper Časopis katolického duchovenstva Československá republika Čech Katolický týdeník Lidové listy Lidové noviny L’Osservatore Romano Národní listy Národní osvobození Nedělní list Polední list Prager Presse Pražský Večerník Rudé právo Svobodné Slovo Slovák Večerní listy Večerní Práva lidu Venkov

283

Literature Adejumobi, Saheed A. The History of Ethiopia. London, 2007. Alberti, Jordi. La Iglesia en llamas. La persecución religiosa en España durante la guerra civil. Barcelona, 2008. Alberti, P. Pius XI. Přerov, 1929. Alexandre, Valentim. O  roubo das almas. Salazar, a  Igreja e os totalitarismus (1930–1939). Lisbon, 2006. Anonymus. Stalo se ve Vatikánu. Zajímavosti ze života papežů 20 století. Kostelní Vydří, 2000. Arpáš, Róbert. “Rokovania HSĽS o vstup do čs. vlády v roku 1936.” Studia Historica Nitrien­ sia 11 (2003): 103–122. Arpáš, Róbert. “Úloha HSĽS v  prezidentských voľbách v  roku 1935.” Studia Historica Nitrien­sia 10 (2002): 11–28. Balík, Stanislav, and Jiří Hanuš et al. Primasové katolické církve. Země střední Evropy v  čase komunismu. Brno, 2010. Balík, Stanislav, and Jiří Hanuš. Katolická církev v Československu 1945–1989. Brno, 2007. Balík, Stanislav, Vít Hloušek, and Jan Holzer et al. Politický systém českých zemí 1848–1989. Brno, 2007. Bandion, Wolfgang J., and Rüdiger Feulner. Die Apostolische Nuntiatur in Wien. Vienna, 2005. Barnovský, Michal. “K  niektorým otázkam súdneho procesu s  Jozefom Tisom.” In Pokus o  politický a  osobný profil Jozefa Tisu. Zborník materiálov z  vedeckého sympózia Častá-Papiernička, 5.–7. mája 1992, edited by Valerián Bystrický, and Štefan Fano, 308–320. Bratislava, 1992. Bartlová, Alena ed. Slovenská ľudová strana v dejinách 1905–1945. Martin, 2006. Bartlová, Alena. Andrej Hlinka. Bratislava, 1991. Bartlová, Alena. “Katolícky zjazd—súčasť predvolebnej agitácie Hlinkovej slovenskej ľudovej strany pred parlamentnými voľbami v roku 1935.” In Andros probabilis. Sborník prací přátel a spolupracovníků prof. PhDr. Miloše Trapla, CSc. k jeho 70. narozeninám, edited by Jiří Malíř, and Pavel Marek, 177–186. Olomouc, 2005. Bartlová, Alena. “Návrhy slovenských politických strán na zmenu štátoprávneho usporiadania ČSR v rokoch 1918–1935 a zapojenie HSĽS do vládnej koalície v rokoch 1927–1929.” In Slovensko v Československu, 1918–1939, edited by Milan Zemko, and Valerián Bystrický, 123–164. Bratislava, 2004. Bartlová, Alena. Túžby, projekty a realita. Slovensko v medzivojnovom období. Bratislava, 2010. Batelja, Juraj. Alojz Stepinac. Boží sluha. Bratislava, 1998. Baxa, Paul. “Capturing the Fascist Moment. Hitler’s Visit to Italy in 1938 and the Radicalization of Fascist Italy.” Journal of Contemporary History 42 (2007): 227–242. Bednaříková, Eliška. “Český klerofašismus 1924–1939. Od kritiky demokracie k programu systému fašistického typu v podání Jana Scheinosta.” Ph.D. diss. Prague, 2006. Beevor, Antony. Španělská občanská válka. Prague, 2004. Bellezza, Paolo. L’opera di studioso di Mons. Achille Ratti (Pio XI). Milan, 1930. Beneš, Josef. Kaine, kde je tvůj bratr? Medailonky českých katolických kněží—obětí fašismu. Prague, 1971. Bensoussan, Georges. Europe—une passion génocidaire. Essai d’histoire culturelle. Paris, 2006. Besier, Gerhard. Svatý stolec a Hitlerovo Německo. Brno, 2008. Biaudet, Henry. Les Nonciatures apostoliques permanentes jusqu’en 1648. Helsinky, 1910. Biffi, Monica M. Mons. Cesare Orsenigo. Nunzio apostolico in Germania (1930–1946). Milan, 1997. Binchy, D. A. “The Vatican and International Diplomacy.” International Affairs 22, no. 1 (1946): 47–56. Bizzarri, Luigi. Il principe di Dio. La vera storia di Pio XII. Milan, 2004. 284

Blaschke, Olaf. “Argumenty pro zavedení pojmu “druhé konfesionální období”.” Teologický sborník 4 (2001): 8–24. Blehová, Beáta. “Prípad “Jozef Tiso”. Útek, internácia, vydanie.” In Fidei et Patriae. Jubilejník na počesť 80. narodenín Františka Vnuka, edited by Jozef M. Rydlo, 84–95. Bratislava, 2008. Blet, Pierre. Pius XII. a druhá světová válka ve světle vatikánských archivů. Olomouc, 2001. Borza, Peter. “Apoštolská administratúra mukačevskej eparchie na Slovensku so sídlom v  Michalovciach v  rokoch 1939–1945.” In Kresťanstvo v  dejinách Zemplína. Zborník z  rovnomennej celoslovenskej vedeckej konferencie, konanej 17–18 septembra 2010 v Michalovciach, 247–271. Michalovce, 2011. Bosl, Karl, ed. Die Erste Tschechoslovakische Republik als multionationaler Parteienstaat. Munich, 1979. Boyce, Robert. French Foreign and Defence Policy 1918–1940. The Decline and Fall of a  Great Power. London, 2005. Brandmüller, Walter. Šoa na Slovensku a Katolícka cirkev. Bratislava, 2012. Brechenmacher, Thomas. Das Reichskonkordat 1933. Forschungsstand, Kontroversen, Dokumente. Paderborn, 2007. Breuer, William B. Deceptions of World War II. New York, 2001. Broklová, Eva. Československá demokracie. Politický systém ČSR 1918–1938. Prague, 1992. Buell, Raymond L. “France and the Vatican.” Political Science Quaterly 36, no. 1 (1921): 30–50. Burkle-Young, Francis A. Papal Elections in the Age of Transition, 1878–1922. Oxford, 2000. Buttin, Félix. “The Polish-Czechoslovak Conflict over Teschen Silesia (1918–1920). A case study.” Perspectives 25 (2006): 63–78. Bystrický, Valerián, Róbert Letz, and Ondrej Podolec, eds. Vznik slovenského štátu. 14. marec 1939. Bratislava 2008. Campbell, F. Gregory. “The Struggle for Upper Silesia, 1919–1922.” Journal of Modern History 42, no. 3 (1970): 361–385. Canosa, Romano. Pacelli, guerra civile spagnola e nazismo. Rome, 2000. Casella, Mario. L’azione cattolica nell’Italia contemporanea (1919–1969). Rome, 1992. Cerretti, Bonaventura, Il Cardinale Bonaventura Cerretti. Memoria. Rome, 1939. Cinek, František. K náboženské otázce v prvních letech naší samostatnosti 1918–1925 (K ideovému vývoji církve československé. Hnutí pravoslavné v Československu. K situaci českobratrského protestantismu). Olomouc, 1926. Confalonieri, Carlo, ed. Pio XI nel trentesimo della morte (1939–1969). Raccolta di studi e di memorie. Milano, 1969. Confalonieri, Carlo. Pio XI visto da vicino. Torino, 1993. Conway, John S. The Nazi Persecution of the Churches 1933–45. New York, 1968. Conway, John S. “The Vatican, Great Britain, and Relations with Germany, 1938–1940.” Historical Journal 16, no. 1 (1973): 147–167. Coppola, Salvatore. Entre la religión y la política. I rapporti della Santa Sede con Italia, Germania e Spagna (1929–1945). Madrid, 2007. Coppola, Salvatore. Fortiter in re, suaviter in modo. Monsignor Giovanni Panico, il diplomatico salentino al servizio della Santa Sede negli anni di Pio XI. La missione diplomatica di Panico in Colombia, Argentina, Cecoslovacchia, Baviera e Saar (1923–1935). Castiglione, 2014. Coranič, Jaroslav. Dejiny gréckokatolíckej cirkvi na Slovensku v  rokoch 1918–1939. Prešov, 2013. Cornwell, John. Hitler’s Pope. The Secret History of Pius XII. New York, 2002. Cuhra, Jaroslav. “KSČ, stát a římskokatolická církev (1948–1989).” Soudobé dějiny 8, nos. 2–3 (2001): 267–293. 285

Čechová, Františka. “Nitrianska diecéza v  agende Ministerstva zahraničných vecí ČSR v Prahe a episkopát Karola Kmeťka v období I. ČSR.” In Slovensko a Svätá stolica, edited by Marta Dobrotková, and Mária Kohútová, 245–272. Trnava, 2008. Čechurová, Jana. Česká politická pravice. Mezi převratem a krizí. Prague, 1999. Čechurová, Jana. Čeští svobodní zednáři ve XX. století. Prague, 2002. Čelovský, Bořivoj. Mnichovská dohoda 1938. Prague, 1999. Černý, Bohumil, ed. Církve v našich dějinách. Prague, 1960. Černý, Jiří. Poutní místa českobudějovické diecéze. Milostné obrazy, sochy a místna zvláštní zbožnosti. Pelhřimov, 2013. Dacík, Reginald M. Základy Katolické akce. Olomouc, 1939. Dalin, David G. La leggenda nera del Papa di Hitler. Asti, 2007. De Agostini, Cesare. Segregati da Dio. Tutti i conclavi del ’900. Asti, 2002. De Felice, Renzo. Breve storia del fascismo. Milan, 2002. De Felice, Renzo. Mussolini il duce. Vol. 2, Lo stato totalitario 1936–1940. Torino, 1996. De Luca, Giuseppe. Il cardinale Bonaventura Cerretti. Rome, 1971. De Marco, Vittorio. Un diplomatico vaticano all’Eliseo. Il cardinale Bonaventura Cerretti (­1872–1933). Rome, 1984. Dejmek, Jindřich. “Československo-vatikánská jednání o modus vivendi 1927–1928.” Český časopis historický 92, no. 2 (1994): 268–285. Dejmek, Jindřich. Historik v čele diplomacie. Kamil Krofta. Prague, 1998. Dejmek, Jindřich. “Počátky diplomatických vztahů mezi Československem a  Vatikánem (­1920–1921). Kroftova vyslanecká mise v Římě.” Český časopis historický 91, no. 2 (1993): 224–246. Dejmek, Jindřich. “Vztahy mezi ČSR a Vatikánem v meziválečném období.” In Vztah církví a státu. Sborník textů, edited by Marek Loužek, 75–94. Prague, 2004. Del Re, Niccolò. La Curia romana. Lineamenti Storico-giuridici. Vatican City, 1998. Delahaye, Jules. La reprise des relations diplomatique avec le Vatican. Paris, 1921. Delzell, Charles F. “Pius XII, Italy, and the Outbreak of War.” Journal of Contemporary History 2, no. 4 (1967): 137–161. Dobrotková, Marta, and Mária Kohútová, eds. Slovensko a Svätá stolica. Trnava, 2008. Doležal, Josef. Český kněz. Prague, 1931. Doležal, Josef. Politická cesta českého katolicismu 1918–1928. Prague, 1928. Dostál, Vladimír V. Agrární strana. Její rozmach a zánik. Brno, 1998. Dostál, Vladimír V. Antonín Švehla. Profil československého státníka. Prague, 1990. Duarte, Herlânder. Salazar e a Santa Igreja. Lisbon, 2000. Ďurica, Milan S. Jozef Tiso 1887–1947. Životopisný profil. Bratislava, 2006. Ďurica, Milan S. Jozef Tiso a Vatikán. Bratislava, 2013. Ehrenberger, Tomáš. “Husovy oslavy v  roce 1925 jako příčina diplomatického konfliktu mezi Československem a  Vatikánem.” Marginalia Historica. Sborník prací Katedry dějin a didaktiky dějepisu Pedagogické fakulty Univerzity Karlovy 5 (2002): 157–200. Fasora, Lukáš, Jiří Hanuš, and Jiří Malíř, eds. Sekularizace českých zemí v letech 1848–1914. Brno, 2007. Fattorini, Emma. Germania e Santa Sede. Le nunziatura di Pacelli tra la Grande guerra e la Repubblica di Weimar. Bologna, 1992. Fattorini, Emma. Pio XI, Hitler e Mussolini. La solitudine di un papa. Torino, 2007. Feldkamp, Michael F. Pius XII. und Deutschland. Göttingen, 2000. Fellows, Reginald B. “The New Code of Roman Canon Law.” Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law 1, no. 3 (1919): 239–244. Feriancová, Alena. (Ne)nájdená bezpečnost. Československo, Nemecko a  úpravy medzinárodného systému v Európe 1922–1926. Nitra, 2010. 286

Fernández, Luis Suárez. Franco y la iglesia. Las relaciones con el Vaticano. Madrid, 2011. Fiamová, Martina, and Pavol Jakubčin, eds. Prenasledovanie cirkví v  komunistických štátoch strednej a východnej Európy. Zborník z medzinárodnej vedeckej konferencie Bratislava 30. september-2. október 2009. Bratislava, 2010. Filipazzi, Antonio Guido. “Missione ecclesiale e diplomatica dei nunzi apostolici. L’ordine interno del Can. 267 § 1 del Codice Pio-Benedettino.” In Dall’Archivio Segreto Vaticano. Miscellanea di testi, saggi e inventari, 4:3–37. Vaticano, 2009. Fiorelli, Leone, ed. Il Cardinale Pietro Gasparri. Rome, 1960. Fiorentino, Carlo M. All’ombra di Pietro. La Chiesa Cattolica e lo spionaggio fascista in Vaticano 1929–1939. Florence, 1999. Fontenelle, René. Jeho Svatost Pius XI. Prague, 1937. Franzen, August. Malé dějiny církve. Kostelní Vydří, 2006. Frýdl, David. Reformní náboženské hnutí v počátcích Československé republiky. Snaha o reformu katolicismu v Čechách a na Moravě. Brno, 2001. Frýdl, David. “Zrod Církve československé (husitské).” In 90 let Církve československé husitské, edited by Zdeněk Kučera, and Tomáš Butta, 17–30. Prague, 2010. Fuchs, Alfred. Novější papežská politika. Prague, 1930. Fuchs, Alfred. Z boje o “modus vivendi”. Hradec Králové, 1933. Fuchs, Alfred. Z fary a ze sakristie. Prague, 1935. Fumagalli, Giuseppe. Achille Ratti. Rome, 1925. Gajanová, Alena. Dvojí tvář. Z historie předmnichovského fašismu. Prague, 1962. Gajanová, Alena. “O  poměru Vatikánu k  předmnichovské republice.” In Církve v  našich dějinách, edited by Bohumil Černý, 155–169. Prague, 1960. Gallagher, Charles R. Vatican Secret Diplomacy. Joseph P. Hurley and Pope Pius XII. New Haven, 2008. Gallagher, John P. Šarlatový a černý. Kostelní Vydří, 2011. Gariboldi, Giorgio A. Pio XII, Hitler e Mussolini. Il Vaticano fra le dittature. Milan, 1998. Gelmi, Josef. Papežové. Od svatého Petra po Jana Pavla II. Prague, 1994. Godman, Peter. Hitler e il Vaticano. Dagli archivi segreti vaticani la vera storia dei rapporti fra il nazismo e la Chiesa. Turin, 2005. Guasco, Alberto. “Tra Segreteria di Stato e regime fascista. Mons. Francesco Borgongini Duca e la Nunziatura in Italia (1929–1939).” In Le gouvernement pontifical sous Pie XI. Pratiques romaines et gestion de l’universel, edited by Laura Pettinaroli, 303–319. Rome, 2013. Hajko, Jozef. Nezrelá republika. Slovensko v rokoch 1939–1945. Bratislava, 2009. Halas, František X. Fenomén Vatikán. Idea, dějiny a  současnost papežství. Diplomacie Svatého stolce. České země a Vatikán. Brno, 2004. Halas, František X. “Modus vivendi v kontextu diplomacie Svatého stolce v období mezi dvěma světovými válkami.” In  Sborník prací Pedagogické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity v Brně, 89–100. Brno, 2004. Halas, František X. Neklidné vztahy. K jednomu aspektu výročí 28. října 1918. Svitavy, 1998. Halas, František X. “Pražský sjezd československých katolíků v roce 1920 a jeho francouzská podpora.” In Andros probabilis. Sborník prací přátel a  spolupracovníků historika prof. PhDr. Miloše Trapla, CSc., k jeho 70. narozeninám, edited by Jiří Malíř, and Pavel Marek, 125–155. Brno, 2005. Halas, František X. “Sekularizace v  první Československé republice a  Svatý stolec.” In Národ—cirkev –štát, edited by Tatiana Ivantyšynová, 100–118. Bratislava, 2007. Hanuš, Jiří. “Devatenácté století jako století druhé konfesionalizace?” Teologický sborník 4 (2001): 3–7. Hanuš, Jiří. Malý slovník osobností českého katolicismu 20. století s antologií textů. Brno, 2005. 287

Hartmann, Jan, Bohumil Svoboda, and Václav Vaško. Kardinál Tomášek. Generál bez vojska...? Prague, 2003. Hatos, Pál. “József kardinál Mindszenty. Arcibiskup ostřihomský a primas maďarský.” In Primasové katolické církve. Země střední Evropy v čase komunismu, edited by Stanislav Balík, Jiří Hanuš et al., 57–68. Brno, 2010. Helan, Pavel. “I congressi internazionali dei Sokol a Praga nel 1926 e nel 1938 e la diplomazia della Curia Papale.” In Roma—Praga. Praha—Řím. Omaggio a Zdeňka Hledíková, edited by Kateřina Bobková-Valentová et al., 455–462. Praga, 2009. Herben, Jan. T. G. Masaryk. Život a dálo prezidenta Osvoboditele. Prague, 1938. Hertel, Maroš. “Rozpory v Hlinkovej slovenskej ľudovej strane v 20. rokoch 20. storočí.” In Slovenská ľudová strana v dejinách 1905–1945, edited by Róbert Letz, and Peter Mulík, pp. 181–195. Martin, 2006. Hesemann, Michael. Pio XII. Il papa che si oppose a Hitler. Milan, 2009 Heyduk, Miloš, and Robert Kvaček. Československý rok 1938. Prague, 2011. Hlond, Augusto. “Monsignor Ratti in Polonia.” Vita e Pensiero 20, nos. 6–7 (1929): 465–471. Hobza, Antonín. Modus vivendi. Politický konkordát uzavřený mezi vládou Československou a Vatikánem. Prague, 1930. Hobza, Antonín. Poměr mezi státem a církví. Jeho vývoj a přítomný stav. Prague, 1931. Hoffmann, Bedřich. A kdo vás zabije… Život a utrpení kněžstva v koncentračních táborech. Přerov, 1946. Holák, Martin. “Hlinkova slovenská ľudová strana počas parlamentných a prezidentských volieb roku 1935.” In Slovenská ľudová strana v dejinách 1905–1945, edited by Róbert Letz, Peter Mulík, and Alena Bartlová, 196–217. Martin, 2006. Houska, Ondřej. “Rakušan v Praze. Pražská mise Ferdinanda Marka v letech 1918–1938.” Dějiny a současnost. Kulturně historická revue 27, no. 2 (2005): 19–22. Hrabovec, Emília et al., eds. Katolícka bohoslovecká fakulta v Bratislave 1936–1989. Trnava, 2011. Hrabovec, Emília. Andrej Hlinka a slovenskí katolíci očami Svätej stolice 1918–1927. Bratislava, 2014. Hrabovec, Emilia. “Česko-Slovensko a  Svätá stolica 1938–1939.” In Rozbitie alebo rozpad? Historické reflexie zániku Česko-Slovenska, edited by Valerián Bystrický et al., 33–47. Bratislava, 2010. Hrabovec, Emilia. “Der heilige Stuhl und die böhmischen Länder 1938–1945.” In Religion in den böhmischen Ländern 1938–1948. Diktatur, Krieg und Gesellschaftswandel als Herausforderungen für religiöses Leben und kirchliche Organisation, edited by Martin Zückert, and Laura Hölzlwimmer, 99–146. Munich, 2007. Hrabovec, Emilia. “Der heilige Stuhl und die Tschechoslowakei 1938–1939.” In Der Heilige Stuhl in den internationaler Beziehungen 1870–1939, edited by Jörg Zedler, 2:333–360. Munich, 2010. Hrabovec, Emília. “Die Nuntien in der Tschechoslowakei. Clemente Micara, Francesco Marmaggi, Pietro Ciriaci und Saverio Ritter.” In Eugenio Pacelli als Nuntius in Deutschland. Forschungsperspektiven und Ansätze zu einem internationalen Vergleich, edited by Hubert Wolf, 177–196. Munich, 2012. Hrabovec, Emília. Dlhá cesta k Rímskokatolickej bohosloveckém fakulte v Bratislave. Bratislava, 2008. Hrabovec, Emília. “Formácia kléru a výzvy 20. storočia očami Svätej stolice.” In Katolícka bohoslovecká fakulta v  Bratislave 1936–1989, edited by Emília Hrabovec et al., 12–29. Trnava, 2011. Hrabovec, Emília. “Menovanie biskupov v kontexte bilaterálnych vzťahov.” In Osudy demokracie ve střední Evropě. Sborník mezinárodní vědecké konference, edited by Jaroslav Valenta, 2:542–554. Prague, 1999. 288

Hrabovec, Emília. “Na pokraji prerušenia stykov. Kríza vo vzťahoch medzi Česko-Slovenskom a Svätou stolicou v roku 1921.” In Fidei et Patriae. Jubilejník na počesť 80. narodenín Františka Vnuka, edited by Jozef M. Rydlo, 257–284. Bratislava, 2008. Hrabovec, Emília. “Obsadenie nitrianskeho biskupského stolca v  cirkevnopolitickom kontexte rokov 1918–1920.” In Nitra v  slovenských dejinách, edited by Richard Marsina, 327–337. Martin, 2002. Hrabovec, Emília. “Pribinove slávnosti v  Nitre a  vypovedanie nuncia Ciriaciho z  Česko-Slovenska 1933.” Studia Historica Tyrnaviensia 5 (2004): 73–97. Hrabovec, Emília. “Santa Sede, il governo cecoslovacco e gli slovacchi (1918–1939).” In Santa Sede ed Europa centro-orientale tra le due guerre mondiali. La questione cattolica in Jugoslavia e in Cecoslovacchia, edited by Massimiliano Valente, 243–272. Rome, 2011. Hrabovec, Emília. “Slovensko a  Svätá stolica 1918–1939 v  kontexte medzinárodných vzťahov.” In Slovensko a Svätá stolica, edited by Marta Dobrotková, and Mária Kohútová, 184–220. Trnava, 2008. Hrabovec, Emília. “Svätá stolica a slovenskí biskupi v medzivojnovom období.” Duchovný pastier 93, nos. 1–2 (2012): 5–20. Hrabovec, Emília. “Ťažká rozlúčka s “apoštolským kráľovstvom”. Svätá stolica a Maďarsko 1918–1922.” In Národnostná otázka v  strednej Európe v  rokoch 1848–1938, edited by Peter Švorc, Lubica Harbuľová, and Karl Schwarz, 161–184. Prešov, 2005. Hrodek, Dominik. “Parlamentní volby v roce 1925 na Slovensku. Několik pohledů na předvolební kampaň v tisku.” Česko-slovenská historická ročenka 7 (2002), pp. 249–276. Hromják, Ľubomír. “Postoj Československé strany lidové voči pastierskemu listu slovenských biskupov v roku 1924.” In “Bílá místa” v dějinách Československé strany lidové. Sborník prací z mezinárodní vědecké konference k 90. výročí založení strany (1919–2009), edited by Pavel Marek et al., 105–114. Olomouc, 2009. Hronek, Josef. Papež Pius XI. Prague, 1929. Hronský, Marián. Boj o Slovensko a Trianon 1918–1920. Bratislava, 1998 Chenaux, Philippe. Katolická církev a  komunismus v  Evropě (1917–1989). Od Lenina k  Janu Pavlu II. Prague, 2012. Chenaux, Philippe. Pio XII. Diplomatico e pastore. Milan, 2004. Chiron, Yves. Pio XI. Il papa dei Patti Lateranensi e dell’opposizione ai totalitarismi. Milan, 2006. Iijima-Binder, Edda, Heinz-Dietrich Löwe, and Gerald Volkmer, eds. Die Hohenzollern in Rumänien 1866–1947. Eine monarchische Herrschaftsordnung im europäischen Kontext. Cologne, 2010. Irmanová, Eva. Maďarsko a versailleský mírový systém. Ústí nad Labem, 2002. Jančík, Drahomír. ““Diplomat z hotelu Alcron”. Společenské sítě a interakce českých hospodářských elit na příkladu Jana Jiřího Rückla.” In V komnatách paláců—v ulicích měst. Sborník příspěvků věnovaných Václavu Ledvinkovi k šedesátým narozeninám, 205–229. Prague, 2007. Jančík, Drahomír. “Pragmatismus a  státotvornost Jozefa Tisa. Příspěvek k  politice Hlinkovy slovenské ľudové strany ve 30. letech.” In Osobnost v politické straně. Sborník referátů z konference “Úloha osobnosti v dějinách politických stran na území českých zemí a Československa v letech 1861–1999”, edited by Pavel Marek, 402–415. Olomouc, 2000. Jehlička, Ladislav. Křik Koruny svatováclavské. Prague, 2010. Jeřábek, Martin. Konec demokracie v Rakousku 1932–1938. Politické, hospodářské a ideologické příčiny pádu demokracie. Prague, 2004. Jeřábek, Martin. “Schuschniggova “třetí cesta”. Vnitropolitické a  zahraničněpolitické manévrování rakouské vlády v  letech 1934–1936.” Slovenská politologická revue 2 (2013): 1–23. John, Miloslav. Září 1938. Role a postoje spojenců ČSR. Olomouc, 2000. 289

Jonová, Jitka. “Jednání o obsazení arcibiskupského stolce v Olomouci po rezignaci arcibiskupa Lva kardinála Skrbenského z Hříště z pohledu Svatého stolce.” Studia Theologica 15, no. 3 (2013): 129–149. Jonová, Jitka. Kapitoly ze života Lva Skrbenského z Hříště pohledem Svatého stolce. Uherské Hradiště, 2013. Jonová, Jitka.“Problematika poslušnosti ve vztahu kněží k  biskupům.” In Teorie a  praxe politického katolicismu 1870–2007, edited by Pavel Marek, 60–78. Brno, 2008. Judák, Viliam. “Arcibiskup Karol Kmeťko a šírenie cyrilo-metodskej úcty.” In Gréckokatolícka cirkev na Slovensku vo svetle výročí, edited by Jaroslav Coranič, 3:153–171. Prešov, 2013. Kadeřávek, Václav, and Zdeněk Trtík. Život a víra ThDr. Karla Farského. Prague, 1982. Kadlec, Jaroslav. Přehled českých církevních dějin. Vol. 2. Prague, 1991. Kalyvas, Stathis N. The Rise of Christian Democracy in Europe. New York, 1996. Kamenec, Ivan. Tragédia politika, kňaza a člověka. Dr. Jozef Tiso 1887–1947. Bratislava, 1998. Kaňák, Bohdan. “Budování církve (1924–1939).” In 90 let Církve československé husitské, edited by Zdeněk Kučera, and Tomáš Butta, 43–56. Prague, 2010. Kaňák, Miloslav. Dr. Karel Farský. O životě a díle prvního patriarchy Církve československé. Prague, 1951. Kaplan, Karel. Stát a církev v Československu v letech 1948–1953. Brno, 1993. Kárník, Zdeněk. České země v éře První republiky (1918–1938). Vol. 1, Vznik, budování a zlatá éra republiky (1918–1929). Prague, 2000. Kárník, Zdeněk. České země v  éře První republiky (1918–1938). Vol. 2, Československo a  České země v krizi a v ohrožení (1930–1935). Prague, 2002. Kárník, Zdeněk. České země v  éře První republiky (1918–1938). Vol. 3, O  přežití a  o  život (1936–1938). Prague, 2003. Karttunen, Liisi. Les Nonciatures apostoliques permanentes de 1648 à 1800. Geneva, 1912. Kent, Peter C. “A Tale of Two Popes. Pius XI, Pius XII and the Rome-Berlin Axis.” Journal of Contemporary History 23, no. 4 (1968): 589–609. Kitchen, Martin. Europe between the Wars. Edinburgh, 2006. Klíma, Jan. Dějiny Portugalska. Prague, 1996. Klíma, Jan. Salazar, tichý diktátor. Prague, 2005. Klimek, Antonín. Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české. Vol. 13, 1918–1929. Prague, 2000. Klimek, Antonín. Boj o Hrad. Hrad a Pětka. Vnitropolitický vývoj Československa 1918–1926 na půdorysu zápasu o prezidentské nástupnictví. Vol. 1. Prague, 1996. Klimek, Antonín. Boj o Hrad. Kdo po Masarykovi? Vnitropolitický vývoj Československa 1926–1935 na půdorysu zápasu o prezidentské nástupnictví. Vol. 2. Prague, 1998. Klimek, Antonín, and Petr Hofman. Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české. Vol. 14, 1929–1938. Prague, 2002. Klimek, Antonín, and Eduard Kubů. Československá zahraniční politika 1918–1938. Kapitoly z dějin mezinárodních vztahů. Prague, 1995. Klimek, Antonín. “Papežský komoří Jan Jiří Rückl jako politik.” In Traditio et cultus. Miscellanea historica Bohemica. Miloslao Vlk, archiepiscopo Pragensi ab eius collegis amicisque ad annum sexagesimum dedicata, edited by Zdeňka Hledíková. Praha 1993, 219–227. Komárek, Karel, ed. Jaroslav Durych. Polemiky a skandály. Olomouc, 2002. Koníček, Jiří. Modus vivendi v historii vztahů Svatého stolce a Československa. Církevně-politický vývoj v letech 1918–1993. Olomouc, 2005. Koníček, Jiří. “Mons. Oldřich Zlámal—kněz a  sjednotitel československého osvobozovacího hnutí v USA.” In Osobnost v církvi a politice. Čeští a slovenští křesťané ve 20. století, edited by Pavel Marek, and Jiří Hanuš, 146–154. Brno, 2006. Kopecký, Václav. Pamětní výpisky k historii Československé republiky a k boji KSČ za socialistické Československo. Prague, 1960. 290

Kořalka, Jiří. Češi v habsburské říši a v Evropě 1815–1914. Sociálněhistorické souvislosti vytváření novodobého národa a národnostní otázky v českých zemích. Prague, 1996. Kouřil, Miloš. “Katoličtí kněží v politice Československa v meziválečném období.” In Jan Šrámek a jeho doba, edited by Pavel Marek, 329–336. Brno, 2011. Kováč, Dušan. Dějiny Slovenska. Prague, 1999. Kovtun, Jiří. Republika v nebezpečném světě. Éra prezidenta Masaryka 1918–1935. Prague, 2005. Kratochvíl, Václav. Církev v dějinách. Prague, 2002. Krlín, Josef. Papežská politika v posledních dvou stoletích. Prague, 1946. Krlín, Josef. Pronásledování katolíků v Mexiku. Prague, 1928. Krupa, Pavel. “Voľby v  Československej republike. Hlinkova slovenská ľudová strana v  parlamentných voľbách 1925–1935 v  Liptove.” Acta Universitatis Matthiae Belii. Sekcia spoločenskovedná 2 (1998): 166–177. Kubík, Petr. Slovensko-talianske vzťahy 1939–1945. Bratislava, 2010. Kubín, Petr, ed. Brány pekelné ji nepřemohou. Kapitoly z pronásledování církví v Československu kolem roku 1950. Prague, 2013. Kucík, Štefan. “Cesta Andreja Hlinku a slovenských katolíckych biskupov do USA v roku 1926.” Historický zborník 18, no. 1 (2008): 59–72. Kucík, Štefan. “Dva otvorené listy Tomášovi G. Masarykovi, prezidentovi Československa.” Dejiny. Internetový časopis Inštitútu histórie FF PU v Prešove 2 (2011): 76–89. Kucík, Štefan. Podiel amerických Slovákov na autonomistickom hnutí na Slovensku (1918–1938). Martin, 2011. Kukánová, Zlatuše. “Edvard Beneš a římskokatolická církev.” Semper Paratus 2 (2013): 7–65. Kukánová, Zlatuše. “Kardinálský klobouk pro Karla Kašpara.” Paginae Historiae. Sborník Národního archivu 15 (2007): 165–211. Kukánová, Zlatuše. Karel Kašpar a  římské koleje. In Česká kolej v  Římě. Od Bohemica k Nepomucenu. 130 let existence české kulturní a vzdělávací instituce, edited by Tomáš Parma, pp. 161–190. Kostelní Vydří, 2014. Kukánová, Zlatuše. “Od tolerance k  nepřátelství. Diplomatické vztahy Československa s Vatikánem v letech 1945–1950.” Semper Paratus 3 (2014): 52–88. Kukánová, Zlatuše. “První kardinálský klobouk pro Československo—Karel Kašpar.” In Jan Šrámek a jeho doba, edited by Pavel Marek, 355–371. Brno, 2011. Kuklík, Jan, and Jan Němeček. Osvobozené Československo očima britské diplomacie. Zprávy britské ambasády z Prahy v roce 1945. Prague, 2010. Kuklík, Jan, Jan Němeček, and Jaroslav Šebek. Dlouhé stíny Mnichova. Mnichovská dohoda očima signatářů a její dopady na Československo. Prague, 2011. Kvaček, Robert. “Lidová strana před Mnichovem.” In Traditio et cultus. Miscellanea historica Bohemica. Miloslao Vlk, archiepiscopo Pragensi ab eius collegis amicisque ad annum sexagesimum dedicata, edited by Zdeňka Hledíková, 229–239. Prague, 1993. Kvaček, Robert. “Proměna jedné strany.” In “Benešovy dekrety”. Záměrně živený spor, edited by Karel Richter, 61–73. Prague, 2002. Latreille, André. “Pio XI e la Francia.” In Pio XI nel trentesimo della morte (1939–1969). Raccolta di studi e di memorie, edited by Carlo Confalonieri, 590–619. Milano, 1969. Lauridsen, John T. Nazism and the Radical Right in Austria, 1918–1934. Copenhagen, 2007. Letz, Róbert, ed. Boli traja. Zborník materiálov z vedeckej konferencie o politickom procese so slovenskými katolíckymi biskupmi J. Vojtaššákom, M. Buzalkom a P. Gojdičom v Bratislave 19. januára 2001, doplnený o autentické archívne dokumenty a fotografie. Bratislava, 2001. Letz, Róbert. “Karol Kmeťko—nitriansky biskup a slovenský arcibiskup.” In Nitra v slovenských dejinách, edited by Richard Marsina, 338–355. Martin, 2002. Letz, Róbert. Katolícka cirkev a  vznik Slovenského štátu. In Rozbitie alebo rozpad? Historické reflexie zániku Česko-Slovenska, edited by Valerián Bystrický et al., 406–429. Bratislava 2010. 291

Letz, Róbert. “Pius XII. a Slováci v rokoch 1939–1945.” In Slovensko a Svätá stolica, edited by Marta Dobrotková, and Mária Kohútová, 273–312. Trnava, 2008. Letz, Róbert. Slovenské dejiny. IV, 1914–1938. Bratislava, 2010. Letz, Róbert. Slovenské dejiny. V, 1938–1945. Bratislava, 2012. Letz, Róbert, ed. V hodine veľkej skúšky. Listy biskupa Michala Buzalku. Společné prejavy slovenských katolíckych biskupov. Súbor dokumentov. Trnava, 2007. Letz, Róbert. “Vzťahy Svätej stolice a Slovenska v rokoch 1938–2003.” In Renovatio spiritualis. Jubilejný zborník k 70. narodeninám arcibiskupa Jána Sokola, prvého metropolitu Slovenska a prvého metropolitu Bratislavsko-Trnavskej arcidiecézy, edited by Jozef M. Rydlo, 117–159. Bratislava, 2003. Ludvík, František. České katolické kněžstvo s národem a lidem v boji, utrpení a práci pro lepší zítřek. Dokumenty, projevy, směrnice. Prague, 1946. Luxmoore, Jonathan, and Jolanta Babiuchová. Vatikán a rudý prapor. Zápas o duši východní Evropy. Studie o vztahu římskokatolické církve a komunistických států. Prague, 2003. Madureira, Arnaldo. Salazar e a Igreja (1928–1932). Lisbon, 2008. Magdolenová, Alena. “Pribinove slávnosti v Nitre roku 1933.” In Nitra v slovenských dejinách, edited by Richard Marsina, 356–368. Martin, 2002. Malíř, Jiří, and Pavel Marek et al., eds. Politické strany. Vývoj politických stran a hnutí v českých zemích a Československu 1861–2004. Vol. 1, 1861–1938. Brno, 2005. Malíř, Jiří. “Sekularizace a  politika v  “dlouhém” 19. století.” In Sekularizace českých zemí v letech 1848–1914, edited by Lukáš Fasora, Jiří Malíř, and Jiří Hanuš, 11–24. Brno, 2007. Mandzák, Daniel Atanáz. “Agent a špión Vatikánu.” Redemptorista Ján Ivan Mastiliak – slovenský účastník monsterprocesu proti A. A. Machalkovi a spol. Bratislava, 2008. Mandzák, Daniel Atanáz, ed. Dokumenty k procesu s Augustinom A. Machalkom a spol. Bratislava, 2009. Marek, Pavel, ed. Politické programy českého politického katolicismu 1894–1938. Prague, 2011. Marek, Pavel, ed. Teorie a praxe politického katolicismu 1870–2007. Brno, 2008. Marek, Pavel, ed. Jan Šrámek a jeho doba. Brno, 2011. Marek, Pavel. Církevní krize na počátku první Československé republiky. 1918–1924. Brno, 2005. Marek, Pavel. České schisma. Příspěvek k  dějinám reformního hnutí katolického duchovenstva v letech 1917–1924. Rosice u Brna, 2000. Marek, Pavel. “Ještě k problematice tzv. boje o kostely po vzniku Československa.” Unpublished manuscript. Marek, Pavel. “K  některým aspektům církevní krize na počátku první Československé republiky.” Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis. Politologica 3 (2004): 161–179. Marek, Pavel. “K  problematice tzv. boje o  kostely na počátku první Československé republiky.” Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis. Historica. Sborník prací historických 34 (2008): 59–73. Marek, Pavel. “Náboženství v období politické diferenciace české společnosti v druhé polovině 19. století.” In Bůh a bohové. Církve, náboženství a spiritualita v českém 19. století, edited by Zdeněk Hojda, and Roman Prahl, pp. 192–202. Prague, 2003. Marek, Pavel. Setkání. Osobnost v politickém a veřejném životě na přelomu 19. a 20. století. Olomouc, 2010. Marek, Pavel, and Marek Šmíd. Arcibiskup František Kordač. Nástin života a  díla apologety, pedagoga a politika. Olomouc, 2013. Marquina Barrio, Antonio. La Diplomacia y la España de Franco. Madrid, 1983. Mayeur, Jean-Marie M. Storia del Cristianesimo. Guerre mondiali e totalitarismi (1914–1958). Vol. 12. Rome, 1997. Med, Jaroslav. “Jaroslav Durych—fašista?” In Jaroslav Durych. Život, ohlasy, soupis díla a literatury o něm, 331–335. Brno, 2000. 292

Med, Jaroslav. Literární život ve stínu Mnichova. Prague, 2010. Menniti Ippolito, Antonio. Il governo dei papi nell’età moderna. Carriere, gerarchie, organizzazione curiale. Rome, 2007. Mičko, Peter. Hospodárska politika Slovenského štátu. Kapitoly z  hospodárskych dejín Slovenska v rokoch 1938–1945. Krakow, 2010. Michman, Dan. Belgium and the Holocaust. Jews, Belgians, Germans. Jerusalem, 1998. Miller, Daniel E. Antonín Švehla. Mistr politických kompromisů. Prague, 2001. Montanelli, Indro, and Mario Cervi. Storia d’Italia 1936–1943. Vol. 8. Milan, 2006. Mulík, Peter, ed. Katolícka cirkev a  Slováci. Úsilie Slovákov o  samostatnú cirkevnú provinciu. Bratislava, 1998. Mulík, Peter. “Prenotifikácia a jej politický aspekt v pôsobení Svätej stolice na Slovensku v 20. storočí.” In Slovensko a Svätá stolica, edited by Marta Dobrotková, and Mária Kohútová, pp. 221–244. Trnava, 2008. Němec, Damián. “Mezinárodní smlouvy mezi Apoštolským stolcem a Polskem, Rakouskem a  Československem v  období mezi dvěma světovými válkami.” In Politický katolicismus v  nástupnických státech rakousko-uherské monarchie v  letech 1918–1938. Sborník z  konference “Postavení římskokatolické církve a  politický katolicismus v  nástupnických státech v  letech ­1918–1938” konané v Olomouci v roce 1996, edited by David Papajík, and Ivana Koucká, 43–72. Olomouc, 2001. Němec, Damián. “Modus vivendi z roku 1928 z pohledu kanonického práva.“ Dialog Evropa. Revue pro křesťanskou orientaci ve vědě a kultuře 14, nos. 1–4 (2004): 19–34. Němec, Vít. “Olomoucký arcibiskup ThDr. Leopold Prečan (1866–1947). Příspěvek k historickému bádání o  jedné z  nejvýznamnějších osobností v  dějinách olomoucké arcidiecéze první poloviny 20. století.” Střední Morava. Vlastivědná revue 18, no. 34 (2012): 4–25. Němeček, Jan. Soumrak a úsvit československé diplomacie. 15. březen 1939 a československé zastupitelské úřady. Prague, 2008. Nolte, Ernst. Die faschistischen Bewegungen. Die Krise des liberalen Systems und die Entwicklung der Faschismen. Munich, 1966. Novotná, Tereza. “Proměny československého volebního systému. Reformy dvacátých let.” Politologická revue 9, no. 1 (2003): 34–56. O’Shea, Paul. A Cross Too Heavy. Pope Pius XII and the Jews of Europe. New York, 2011. Olexák, Peter, and Anna Safanovičová, eds. Antológia časopiseckých a  novinových článkov Andreja Hlinku. Martin, 2013. Olivová, Věra. Dějiny první republiky. Prague, 2000. Palazzini, Giuseppe. “La Cecoslovacchia a quarant’anni di distanza e l’attività diplomatica del Card. Pietro Ciriaci.” La Scuola Cattolica 96, no. 3 (1968): 261–270. Palazzini, Giuseppe. “Pio XI e il Messico, la Spagna, il Portogallo.” In Pio XI nel trentesimo della morte (1939–1969). Raccolta di studi e di memorie, edited by Carlo Confalonieri, 621–657. Milan, 1969. Palazzini, Pietro. “Un profilo del Card. Pietro Ciriaci.” In Atto accademico in memoria del Card. Pietro Ciriaci (1885–1966), edited by Pietro Palazzini, Luigi Poggi, and Julián Herranz, 6–13. Rome, 1993. Papajík, David, and Ivana Koucká, eds. Politický katolicismus v nástupnických státech rakousko-uherské monarchie v letech 1918–1938. Sborník z konference “Postavení římskokatolické církve a politický katolicismus v nástupnických státech v letech 1918–1938” konané v Olomouci v roce 1996. Olomouc, 2001. Pazderová, Alena. “Projekt edičního zpracování korespondence Cesare Speciana, papežského nuncia na císařském dvoře v Praze v letech 1592–1598.” Pagiane Historiae. Sborník Národního archivu 14 (2006): 662–675. 293

Pease, Neal. Rome’s  Most Faithful Daughter. The Catholic Church and Independent Poland, 1914–1939. Athens, Oh., 2009. Pehr, Michal. “Československá strana lidová a  její vztah k  demokracii v  době první Československé republiky.” In Agrárníci, národní demokraté a lidovci ve druhém poločase první Československé republiky, edited by Eva Broklová, Josef Tomeš, and Michal Pehr, 214–260. Prague, 2008. Pehr, Michal. “Československá strana lidová a  únor 1948.” In Únor 1948. Šedesát let poté, edited by Jindřich Dejmek, and Marek Loužek, 139–152. Prague, 2008. Pehr, Michal. “Jan Jiří Rückl—moderní katolický politik.” In Osobnost v církvi a politice. Čeští a slovenští křesťané ve 20. století, 323–328. Brno, 2006. Pehr, Michal. “Lidovci proti kapitulaci. Mnichov v  memoárech a  deníkových záznamech představitelů Československé strany lidové.” In Mnichov ve vzpomínkách pamětníků, edited by Josef Tomeš, and Richard Vašek, 103–127. Prague, 2012. Pehr, Michal. “Marmaggiho aféra pohledel Eduard Jelena.” Časopis Národního muzea. Řada historická 180, nos. 1–2 (2011): 12–31. Pehr, Michal, and Jaroslav Šebek. Československo a  Svatý stolec. Od nepřátelství ke spolupráci (1918–1928). Vol. 1, Úvodní studie. Prague, 2012. Pehr, Michal. “Volby 1946.” In Na pozvání Masarykova ústavu, edited by Eva Broklová, and Michal Pehr, 11–32. Prague, 2007. Pejška, Josef. Církevní právo se zřetelem k partikulárnímu právu československému. Vol. 2, Hierarchický řád církevní. Prague, 1937. Pellegrinetti, Ermenegildo. Mons. Achille Ratti e i Paesi Baltici. Rome, 1941. Peroutka, Ferdinand. Budování státu. 4 vols. Prague, 2003. Petruf, Pavol. Zahraničná politika Slovenskej republiky 1939–1945. Bratislava, 2011. Pitrun, Bernard. Jadrné memento. Životopisný nástin českého provinciála jezuitů Leopolda Škarka SJ (1874–1968). Olomouc, 2008. Putna, Martin C. Česká katolická literatura v kontextech. 1918–1945. Prague, 2010. Rauchová, Jitka. Československý historický ústav v Římě. Budweis, 2014. Reis, Bruno Cardoso. Salazar e o Vaticano. Lisbon, 2006. Riccardi, Andrea. Století mučedníků. Kostelní Vydří, 2014. Rothschild, Joseph. East Central Europe between the Two World Wars. Washington, 1974. Rychlík, Jan. “Proces s Jozefem Tisem v roce 1947.” Český časopis historický 96, no. 3 (1998): 574–601. Salajka, Milan. Portrét Církve československé husitské. Prague, 2007. Sandfuchs, Wilhelm. Die Aussenminister der Päpste. Munich, 1962. Siccardi,  Cristina. San Pio X. La vita del Papa che ha ordinato e riformato la Chiesa. Milan, 2014. Sidor, Karol, and František Vnuk. Andrej Hlinka 1864–1938. Bratislava, 2008. Snagov-Dumitriu, Ion. La Romania nella diplomazia vaticana, 1939–1944. Rome, 1987. Spadolini, Giovanni ed. Il cardinale Gasparri e la Questione Romana. Florence, 1972. Spinosa, Antonio. Pio XII. Un papa nelle tenebre. Milan, 2004. Squicciarini, Donato. Die Apostolischen Nuntien in Wien. Vatican City, 2000. Staněk, Tomáš. “Odsun Němců a křesťané (1945–1948) I.” Střední Evropa. Revue pro středoevropskou kulturu a politiku 8, no. 22 (1992): 121–131. Staněk, Tomáš. “Odsun Němců a křesťané (1945–1948) II.” Střední Evropa. Revue pro středoevropskou kulturu a politiku 8, no. 23 (1992): 37–46. Stříbrný, Jan. “Církve a  náboženský život za nacistické okupace.” In Vlastenectví, církev a společnost v proměnách 19 a 20 století. Příspěvky z konference konané na počest dvoustého výročí narození vlasteneckého kněze a regionálního historika Josefa Mnohoslava Roštlapila dne 15. září 2009 v Dobrušce, 93–142. Dobruška, 2009. 294

Stříbrný, Jan. “Katoličtí mučedníci a oběti v padesátých letech 20. století.” In Brány pekelné ji nepřemohou. Kapitoly z pronásledování církví v Československu kolem roku 1950, edited by Petr Kubín, 9–36. Prague, 2013. Suchánek, Drahomír. “Modus vivendi—diplomatická jednání mezi ČSR a  Vatikánem.” Revue církevního práva 23, no. 3 (2002): 205–224. Svoboda, Alois, Anna Tučková, and Věra Svobodová. Spiknutí proti republice. Prague, 1949. Šabo, Martin. “Systém vzťahov medzi štátom a cirkvami v Československu pred prijatím zákona č. 218/1949 Zb. o hospodárskom zabezpečení cirkví a náboženských společnosti štátom a po jeho prijatí.” In Prenasledovanie cirkví v komunistických štátoch strednej a východnej Európy. Zborník z  medzinárodnej vedeckej konferencie Bratislava 30 september–2 október 2009, edited by Martina Fiamová, and Pavol Jakubčin, 205–220. Bratislava, 2010. Šebek, Jaroslav. “Die katholischen politischen Parteien in den böhmischen Ländern zwischen dem ersten und dem zweiten Weltkrieg.” In Eugenio Pacelli als Nuntius in Deutschland. Forschungsperspektiven und Ansätze zu einem internationalen Vergleich, edited by Hubert Wolf, 275–294. Munich, 2012. Šebek, Jaroslav. “Encyklika Quadragesimo anno, její recepce a vliv na katolické prostředí v českých zemích ve 30. letech.” Soudobé dějiny 8, nos. 2–3 (2001): 365–383. Šebek, Jaroslav. “I. celostátní katolický sjezd v roce 1935. Neúspěšný pokus o překonání národnostních bariér mezi českými a německými katolíky v meziválečné ČSR.” In Fragmenty dějin. Sborník prací k šedesátinám Jana Gebharta, edited by Jan Hájek, Jiří Kocián, and Milan Zítko, 233–242. Prague, 2006. Šebek, Jaroslav. “Il caso Kordač del 1931 nel contesto della politica della Chiesa.” Bollettino dell’Istituto Storico Ceco di Roma 8 (2012): 115–127. Šebek, Jaroslav. “Jan Šrámek a  Bohumil Stašek—příklady souladu i  disonance české a moravské katolické politiky po roce 1918.” Střed 2, no. 2 (2010): 9–22. Šebek, Jaroslav. “Kordačova aféra v  roce 1931 v  církevně-politických souvislostech.” In Posláním historik. Pocta prof. Robertu Kvačkovi k 80. narozeninám, edited by Jana Čechurová et al., 355–367. Prague, 2012. Šebek, Jaroslav. Mezi křížem a národem. Politické prostředí sudetoněmeckého katolicismu v meziválečném Československu. Brno, 2006. Šebek, Jaroslav. Od konfliktu ke smíření. Česko-německé vztahy ve 20. století očima katolické církve. Kostelní Vydří, 2013. Šebek, Jaroslav. “Papežská politika a  české země 1938–1945.” Salve. Revue pro teologii a duchovní život 18, no. 3 (2008): 23–34. Šebek, Jaroslav. “Parlamentní volby v  roce 1929.” Český časopis historický 96, no. 1 (1998): 102–138. Šebek, Jaroslav. “Příklady recepce cyrilometodějské tradice ve 20. století.” Caritas et veritas. Časopis pro reflexi křesťanských souvislostí v sociálních a humanitních oborech 3, no. 1 (2013): 40–52. Škorvánek, Stanislav. “Jozef Tiso—“vhodná osoba” v  nemeckej politike voči Slovensku (1939–1945).” In Pokus o politický a osobný profil Jozefa Tisu. Zborník materiálov z vedeckého sympózia Častá-Papiernička, 5–7 mája 1992, edited by Valerián Bystrický, and Štefan Fano, 195–205. Bratislava, 1992. Šmíd, Marek. “Apoštolská nunciatura v  Praze v  meziválečném období.” Studia Historica Nitriensia 17, no. 2 (2013): 80–92. Šmíd, Marek. “Co skrývají vatikánské archivy k  období první republiky let 1918–1929.” Církevní dějiny 4, no. 7 (2011): 55–62. Šmíd, Marek. “Čeští katolíci a prezident T. G. Masaryk po vzniku Československé republiky.” Střed. Časopis pro mezioborová studia střední Evropy 19. a  20. století 3, no. 1 (2011): 60–76. 295

Šmíd, Marek. “Dramatický osud apoštolského nuncia Saveria Rittera v  období nesvobody (1938–1945).” In Období nesvobody, edited by Jaromír Tauchen, and Karel Schelle, 225–235. Ostrava, 2014. Šmíd, Marek. “Giovanni Panico e il suo periodo cecoslovacco negli anni Trenta.” Note di storia e cultura salentina 24 (2014): 171–181. Šmíd, Marek. “Jednání Jana Šrámka ve Vatikánu a postavení Československé strany lidové v polovině třicátých let 20. století.” Časopis Matice moravské 133, no. 1 (2014): 115–133. Šmíd, Marek. “Jednání Jana Šrámka ve Vatikánu ve dvacátých letech 20. století.” Časopis Matice moravské 131, no. 1 (2012): 65–88. Šmíd, Marek. “Kardinál Pietro Gasparri—přední muž vatikánské diplomacie.” Historica Olomucensia. Sborník prací historických 42, no. 30 (2012): 101–114. Šmíd, Marek. “Marmaggiho aféra. Největší diplomatická roztržka mezi ČSR a  Svatým stolcem v meziválečném období.” Církevní dějiny 7, no. 14 (2014): 40–49. Šmíd, Marek. “Marmaggiho československá mise ve 20. letech 20. století.” Paginae Historiae 22, no. 2 (2014): 401–408. Šmíd, Marek. Nepřítel: první republika. Radikalizace skupiny českých katolických intelektuálů v letech 1918–1938. Brno, 2012. Šmíd, Marek. “Obtížné zakotvení lidovců v  politickém systému první ČSR. Parlamentní volby v  roce 1925 a  Československá strana lidová.” Soudobé dějiny 20, no. 4 (2013): 559–581. Šmíd, Marek. “Papež Pius XII. a poválečné Československo.” In Osm let po válce. Rok 1953 v Československu, edited by Jiří Petráš, and Libor Svoboda, 126–133. Prague, 2014. Šmíd, Marek. “Patriarcha Karel Farský. Příspěvek k životopisu prvního patriarchy Církve československé v  letech 1924–1927.” Theologická revue. Čtvrtletník Univerzity Karlovy v Praze—Husitské teologické fakulty 84, no. 1 (2013): 28–47. Šmíd, Marek. “Pietro Ciriaci—neúspěch v Československu klíčem k jeho dalšímu vzestupu­?” Historica Olomucensia. Sborník prací historických 44, no. 32 (2013): 55–73. Šmíd, Marek. “Postava Jana Husa jako předmět sporu mezi Československem a  Svatým stolcem v období první republiky.” In Hus a Masaryk: Hledání národní tradice a identity. Sborník projevů pronesených na slavnostním setkání u příležitosti 163 výročí narození Tomáše Garrigua Masaryka v budově Poslanecké sněmovny Parlamentu České republiky a dalších příspěvků, 32–43. Prague, 2013. Šmíd, Marek. “Prezident Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk ve vatikánských archivech v  letech 1918–1929.” Církevní dějiny 3, no. 5 (2010): 39–50. Šmíd, Marek. “Příspěvek ke vztahu Čechů a Slováků po vzniku společného československého státu v roce 1918.” Kultúrne dejiny 4, no. 2 (2013): 232–259. Šmíd, Marek. “Římské mise Kamila Krofty ve dvacátých letech 20. století.” In Věda, kultura a politika v československo-italských vztazích 1918–1951, edited by Jitka Rauchová, and Bohumil Jiroušek, 93–107. České Budějovice, 2012. Šmíd, Marek. “Svatý stolec na počátku první světové války.” Historica Olomucensia. Sborník prací historických 47, no. 36 (2014): 147–159. Šmíd, Marek. “Všeobecný strach Vatikánu ze svobodných zednářů v ČSR.” Historica Olomucensia. Sborník prací historických 40, no. 28 (2011): 125–140. Šmíd, Marek. “Význam Nitry v československo-vatikánských vztazích v době první republiky.” Studia Historica Nitriensia 16, nos. 1–2 (2012): 92–108. Šmíd, Marek. “Změny na svatopetrském stolci v předvečer druhé světové války.” Historica Olomucensia. Sborník prací historických 46, no. 35 (2014): 179–195. Špirko, Jozef. Cirkevné dejiny. Vol. 2. Turčiansky Sv. Martin, 1943. Taliani, Francesco Maria. Vita del Cardinale Pietro Gasparri. Segretario di Stato e povero prete. Milan, 1938. 296

Teuffenbach, Alexandra von. Eugenio Pacelli. Pio XII. tra storia, politica e fede. Rome, 2008. Trapl, Miloš. “České katolické strany do roku 1938.” In Přehled politického stranictví na území Českých zemí a  Československa v  letech 1861–1998, edited by Pavel Marek, 151–159. Olomouc, 2000. Trapl, Miloš. “Československá strana lidová.” In Politické strany. Vývoj politických stran a hnutí v českých zemích a Československu 1861–2004, edited by Jiří Malíř et al., 1:655–681. Brno, 2005. Trapl, Miloš. “Český politický katolicismus a “Mnichov”.” In Jan Šrámek a jeho doba, edited by Pavel Marek, 405–414. Brno, 2011. Trapl, Miloš. “Český politický katolicismus v letech 1918–1938.” In Český politický katolicismus v letech 1848–2005, edited by Pavel Marek et al., 171–321. Brno, 2008. Trapl, Miloš. “Hnutí “Pryč od Říma” (“Los von Rom”).” In Politický katolicismus v nástupnických státech rakousko-uherské monarchie v letech 1918–1938. Sborník z konference “Postavení římskokatolické církve a politický katolicismus v nástupnických státech v letech 1918–1938” konané v Olomouci v roce 1996, edited by David Papajík, 13–29. Olomouc, 2001. Trapl, Miloš, Karel Konečný, and Pavel Marek. Politik dobré vůle. Život a  dílo msgre Jana Šrámka. Prague, 2013. Trapl, Miloš. “Krize českého politického katolicismu v první polovině třicátých let 20. století.” Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis. Facultas Philosophica 21 (1981), 59–80. Trapl, Miloš. Politický katolicismus a  Československá strana lidová v  Československu v  letech 1918–1938. Prague, 1990. Trapl, Miloš. “Přehled života a díla Monsignore ThDr. h. c. Jana Šrámka.” In Jan Šrámek. Kněz. Státník. Politik, edited by Pavel Marek, 29–38. Olomouc, 2004. Trapl, Miloš. “Vývoj římskokatolické církve na Moravě v letech 1918–1938.” Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis. Facultas Philosophica 31 (2002), 255–263. Trapl, Miloš. “Začlenění římskokatolické církve do české společnosti po roce 1918.” In Československo 1918–1938. Osudy demokracie ve střední Evropě, edited by Jaroslav Valenta, Emil Voráček, and Josef Harna, 1:141–147. Prague, 1999. Trapl, Miloš. “Změny církevní správy na Moravě a  ve Slezsku v  důsledku Modu vivendi z roku 1928.” In Vývoj církevní správy na Moravě. 27 mikulovské sympozium 9.–10. října 2002, edited by Emil Kordiovský, 151–154. Brno, 2003. Vašek, Bedřich, ed. Encyklika Pia XI. Quadragesimo anno. O  vybudování společenského řádu a jeho zdokonalení podle zásad evangelia. Olomouc, 1947. Vašek, Bedřich, ed. Pia XI. encykliky Divini Redemptoris (O bezbožeckém komunismu) a S palčivou starostí (O postavení katolické církve v Německu). Olomouc, 1937. Vašek, Bedřich. Katolická akce. Výzva Boží k laikům. Olomouc, 1939. Vaško, Václav. Dům na skále. Církev zkoušená, Vol. 1, 1945–začátek 1950. Kostelní Vydří, 2004. Vaško, Václav. Neumlčená. Kronika katolické církve v Československu po druhé světové válce. 2 vols. Prague, 1990. Vašš, Martin. Slovenská otázka v 1. ČSR (1918–1938). Martin, 2011. Vašš, Martin. “Vývoj Tisovej percepcie slovenskej otázky v rokoch 1920–1938.” Historia nova 2, no. 1 (2011): 59–73. Večeřa, Pavel. “Jan Scheinost—prominentní katolický novinář před národním soudem.” In Osobnost v církvi a politice. Čeští a slovenští křesťané ve 20. století, pp. 487–502. Brno, 2006. Večeřa, Pavel. “Marmaggiho aféra. Úloha katolicismu optikou dobových tištěných médií levice.” In Teorie a praxe politického katolicismu 1870–2007, edited by Pavel Marek, 205–225. Brno 2008. Veneruso, Danilo. L’azione cattolica italiana durante i  pontificati di Pio X e di Benedetto XV. Rome, 1984. Veselý, Zdeněk. Česko-slovenské vztahy. Dokumenty. Prague, 2001. 297

Veselý, Zdeněk. Diplomacie. Teorie—praxe—dějiny. Pilsen, 2011. Vlček, Vojtěch. “Dva osudy. ThDr. Josef Čihák a ThDr. Otakar Švec.” Confluens. Vlastivědný sborník Mělnicka 8 (2013): 44–52. Vlček, Vojtěch. “Perzekuce řeholí v českých zemích v letech 1948–1989.” In Prenasledovanie cirkví v komunistických štátoch strednej a východnej Európy. Zborník z medzinárodnej vedeckej konferencie Bratislava 30. september–2. október 2009, edited by Martina Fiamová, and Pavol Jakubčin, 139–156. Bratislava, 2010. Vnuk, František. ““Katolícka akcia” a exkomunikačné dekréty Svätej stolice.” In Prenasledovanie cirkví v  komunistických štátoch strednej a  východnej Európy. Zborník z  medzinárodnej vedeckej konferencie Bratislava 30 september–2 október 2009, edited by Martina Fiamová, and Pavol Jakubčin, pp. 370–383. Bratislava, 2010. Vnuk, František. Katolícka cirkev v 20. storočí na Slovensku a vo svete. S krátkym prehľadom cirkevných dejín do roku 1900. Bratislava, 2006. Vnuk, František. “Kríza vo vzťahoch Praha—Vatikán v  roku 1925.” Historický zborník 9 (1999), 59–70. Vodičková, Stanislava. “Ať si Berana vezmou, doma je nebezpečný.” Paměť a dějiny 2, no. 4 (2008), 85–98. Volk, Ludwig. Der bayerische Episkopat und der Nationalsozialismus 1930–1934. Mainz, 1966. Vymětal, František. Apoštol křesťanské lásky a  jednoty církve. Život a  dílo Dr. Antonína Cyrila Stojana. Prague, 1988. Walter, Otto. Pius XII. Život a osobnost. Brno, 1997. Zapletalová, Jarmila. “Norbert Klein—poslední německý biskup v Brně a první klerikální velmistr Řádu německých rytířů.” In Jan Šrámek a jeho doba, ed. Pavel Marek, 346–354. Brno, 2011. Zlámal, Bohumil. Příručka českých církevních dějin.Vol. 7, Doba československého katolicismu (1918–1949). Olomouc, 2010. Zmátlo, Peter. Katolíci a evanjelici na Slovensku (1929–1932). Ľudáci a národniari na ceste k spolupráci. Ružomberok, 2011. Zmátlo, Peter. “Marmaggiho aféra v  dobovej straníckej tlači na Slovensku.” Ružomberský historický zborník 3 (2009): 173–204. Zmátlo, Peter. “Pribinove slavnosti v Nitre v auguste 1933. Skuška československého režimu a štátnosti.” Historica Olomucensia 44 (2013): 133–158. Zombori, István et al., eds. Le relazioni diplomatiche tra l’Ungheria e la Santa Sede 1920–2000. Budapest, 2001. Zückert, Martin, and Laura Hölzlwimmer, eds. Religion in den böhmischen Ländern ­1938–1948. Diktatur, Krieg und Gesellschaftswandel als Herausforderungen für religiöses Leben und kirchliche Organisation. Munich, 2007.

298

A Few Words about the Author

Marek Šmíd (1979) graduated in the fields of History, Theology and Political Science. He currently works as an Associate Professor at the Department of Church and Literary History at the Catholic Theological Faculty of the Charles University in Prague. He also teaches Czech and World history at the Faculty of Arts of University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice. His area of interest is Czech Church history in the European context of the 20th century. He has written three monographs: Masaryk a česká Katolická moderna [Masaryk and Czech Catholic Modernism] (Brno, 2007), Nepřítel: první republika. Radikalizace skupiny českých katolických intelektuálů v letech 1918–1938 [Enemy: the First Republic. Radicalization of the Group of Czech Catholic Intellectuals between 1918 and 1938] (Brno, 2011), and Arcibiskup František Kordač. ­Nástin života a díla apologety, pedagoga a politika [Archbishop František Kordač. The Life and Work of an Apologist, Educator and Politician] (Olomouc, 2013; together with P. Marek). Furthermore, he is the author of more than 100 history studies published in the Czech Republic and abroad. Since 2008, he has engaged in systematic research in the Vatican Apostolic Archive in Rome.

299