The Cardinal's Speech: Public Dissent in Hitler's Germany

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Mulegino1
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 4:15 pm

The Cardinal's Speech: Public Dissent in Hitler's Germany

Postby Mulegino1 » 4 years 11 months ago (Wed Jul 15, 2015 3:54 pm)

“Fellow Christians! In the pastoral letter of the German bishops of June 26, 1941, which was read out in all the Catholic churches in Germany on July 6, 1941, it states among other things: It is true that there are definite commandments in Catholic moral doctrine which are no longer applicable if their fulfillment involves too many difficulties.
However, there are sacred obligations of conscience from which no one has the power to release us and which we must fulfil even if it costs us our lives. Never under any circumstances may a human being kill an innocent person apart from war and legitimate self-defense. On July 6, I already had cause to add to the pastoral letter the following explanation: for some months we have been hearing reports that, on the orders of Berlin, patients from mental asylums who have been ill for a long time and may appear incurable, are being compulsorily removed. Then, after a short time, the relatives are regularly informed that the corpse has been burnt and the ashes can be delivered. There is a general suspicion verging on certainty, that these numerous unexpected deaths of mentally ill people do not occur of themselves but are deliberately brought about, that the doctrine is being followed, according to which one may destroy so-called 'worthless life,' that is, kill innocent people if one considers that their lives are of no further value for the nation and the state.
I am reliably informed that lists are also being drawn up in the asylums of the province of Westphalia as well of those patients who are to be taken away as so-called 'unproductive national comrades' and shortly to be killed. The first transport left the Marienthal institution near Münster during this past week.
German men and women, section 211 of the Reich Penal Code is still valid. It states: 'He who deliberately kills another person will be punished by death for murder if the killing is premeditated.'
Those patients who are destined to be killed are transported away from home to a distant asylum presumably in order to protect those who deliberately kill those poor people, members of our families, from this legal punishment. Some illness is then given as the cause of death. Since the corpse has been burnt straight away, the relatives and also the criminal police are unable to establish whether the illness really occurred and what the cause of death was.
However, I have been assured that the Reich Interior Ministry and the office of the Reich Doctors' Leader, Dr. Conti, make no bones about the fact that in reality a large number of mentally ill people in Germany have been deliberately killed and more will be killed in the future.
The Penal Code lays down in section 139: 'He who receives credible information concerning the intention to commit a crime against life and neglects to alert the authorities or the person who is threatened in time...will be punished.'
When I learned of the intention to transport patients from Marienthal in order to kill them, I brought a formal charge at the State Court in Münster and with the Police President in Münster by means of a registered letter which read as follows: "According to information which I have received, in the course of this week a large number of patients from the Marienthal Provincial Asylum near Münster are to be transported to the Eichberg asylum as so-called 'unproductive national comrades' and will then soon be deliberately killed, as is generally believed has occurred with such transports from other asylums. Since such an action is not only contrary to the moral laws of God and Nature but also is punishable with death as murder under section 211 of the Penal Code, I hereby bring a charge in accordance with my duty under section 139 of the Penal Code, and request you to provide immediate protection for the national comrades threatened in this way by taking action against those agencies who are intending their removal and murder, and that you inform me of the steps that have been taken."
I have received no news concerning intervention by the Prosecutor's Office or by the police...Thus we must assume that the poor helpless patients will soon be killed.
For what reason?
Not because they have committed a crime worthy of death. Not because they attacked their nurses or orderlies so that the latter had no other choice but to use legitimate force to defend their lives against their attackers. Those are cases where, in addition to the killing of an armed enemy in a just war, the use of force to the point of killing is allowed and is often required.
No, it is not for such reasons that these unfortunate patients must die but rather because, in the opinion of some department, on the testimony of some commission, they have become 'worthless life' because according to this testimony they are 'unproductive national comrades.' The argument goes: they can no longer produce commodities, they are like an old machine that no longer works, they are like an old horse which has become incurably lame, they are like a cow which no longer gives milk.
What does one do with such an old machine? It is thrown on the scrap heap. What does one do with a lame horse, with such an unproductive cow?
No, I do not want to continue the comparison to the end--however fearful the justification for it and the symbolic force of it are. We are not dealing with machines, horses and cows whose only function is to serve mankind, to produce goods for man. One may smash them, one may slaughter them as soon as they no longer fulfil this function.
No, we are dealing with human beings, our fellow human beings, our brothers and sisters. With poor people, sick people, if you like unproductive people.
But have they for that reason forfeited the right to life?
Have you, have I the right to live only so long as we are productive, so long as we are recognized by others as productive?
If you establish and apply the principle that you can kill 'unproductive' fellow human beings then woe betide us all when we become old and frail! If one is allowed to kill the unproductive people then woe betide the invalids who have used up, sacrificed and lost their health and strength in the productive process. If one is allowed forcibly to remove one's unproductive fellow human beings then woe betide loyal soldiers who return to the homeland seriously disabled, as cripples, as invalids. If it is once accepted that people have the right to kill 'unproductive' fellow humans--and even if initially it only affects the poor defenseless mentally ill--then as a matter of principle murder is permitted for all unproductive people, in other words for the incurably sick, the people who have become invalids through labor and war, for us all when we become old, frail and therefore unproductive.
Then, it is only necessary for some secret edict to order that the method developed for the mentally ill should be extended to other 'unproductive' people, that it should be applied to those suffering from incurable lung disease, to the elderly who are frail or invalids, to the severely disabled soldiers. Then none of our lives will be safe any more. Some commission can put us on the list of the 'unproductive,' who in their opinion have become worthless life. And no police force will protect us and no court will investigate our murder and give the murderer the punishment he deserves.
Who will be able to trust his doctor any more?
He may report his patient as 'unproductive' and receive instructions to kill him. It is impossible to imagine the degree of moral depravity, of general mistrust that would then spread even through families if this dreadful doctrine is tolerated, accepted and followed.
Woe to mankind, woe to our German nation if God's Holy Commandment 'Thou shalt not kill,' which God proclaimed on Mount Sinai amidst thunder and lightning, which God our Creator inscribed in the conscience of mankind from the very beginning, is not only broken, but if this transgression is actually tolerated and permitted to go unpunished.”


Bl.Cardinal Clemens von Galen - August 3, 1941


http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/galen.htm

Please keep in mind that the reason for this post is not about the T-4 Program but about the fact that, under the putative National Socialist totalitarian police state, a public figure could openly challenge government policy (or his interpretation of it) and even make demands on the public prosecutor to punish those responsible for executing that policy!
And the speech worked! Hitler ordered the program stopped after the public protests (Von Galen wasn’t the only prominent cleric to protest the T4 program publicly). To my mind that is proof positive that National Socialist Germany was a much freer and open society than we have been led to believe.

The Holocaust Industry would have us believe that a man like Von Galen would openly and vociferously raise such a public protest about a secret euthanasia program which is claimed to have killed “tens of thousands” yet completely ignore the systematic, industrial scale genocide of millions of Jews. And there is no question Von Galen would have known had anything like this been going on. Would a man like Von Galen have kept silent if he knew that the claims of gassing the Jews were true? Of course not! To claim that he would have done so is an insult to the man and his memory, not to mention the other prominent clerics who were involved in the protests!

Incidentally, Von Galen was a German patriot and never participated in any of the covert resistance activities. He supported the war effort against the Soviet Union.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2394
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Re: The Cardinal's Speech: Public Dissent in Hitler's Germany

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 4 years 11 months ago (Wed Jul 15, 2015 11:10 pm)

That is an interesting angle. I'd like to see a more reliable, or familar, source for the speech.

User avatar
Mulegino1
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 4:15 pm

Re: The Cardinal's Speech: Public Dissent in Hitler's Germany

Postby Mulegino1 » 4 years 11 months ago (Thu Jul 16, 2015 12:30 pm)

Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:That is an interesting angle. I'd like to see a more reliable, or familar, source for the speech.


Here's another site with more of the Cardinal's speeches:

http://kirchensite.de/downloads/Aktuell ... glisch.pdf

It turns out that Bormann wanted to hang the Cardinal - not because he protested against the T-4 Program, but because of the potentially demoralizing effect of his remarks (which were due to rumor and not to any real evidence) about the severely wounded soldiers possibly being euthanized, and the fact that the BBC was broadcasting some of the speeches as propaganda. Hitler, of course, would not consider such an action - especially with the war going on.

Also, consider the fact that the government did not even use the pretext of the assassination plot of July, 1944 to arrest the Cardinal - since he was not involved. Justice in Germany during this time appears to be more impartial and fair than it is today.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2394
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Re: The Cardinal's Speech: Public Dissent in Hitler's Germany

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 4 years 11 months ago (Thu Jul 16, 2015 12:52 pm)

I doubt Bormann wanted to hang the Cardinal. A Cardinal is high up in Catholic hierarchy and what a PR nightmare that would have been. There's so much disinformation, one can't be sure what to believe.

I like your point about euthanasia dissent.

neugierig
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:01 pm

Re: The Cardinal's Speech: Public Dissent in Hitler's Germany

Postby neugierig » 4 years 11 months ago (Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:33 pm)

I suspect, and it is just a supposition, that the Kulturkampf had something to do with this. Bismarck was the first to question the authority of the Pope. Not in matters religion, but the Vatican repeatedly tried to regain the worldly influence, if you will, it once had. I have several books on the subject, the ‘political Catholicism’, not the issue here. Bismarck had to toss the towel, the Catholic ‘Church’ the victor.

Heydrich renewed the fight, Deschner writes that Rom was enemy #1, ahead of Jews and Freemasons (Reihard Heydrich, Statthalter der totalen Macht, Bechtle, 1977, pp.109-122). It was not that National Socialism was un-Christian, it was not, but had an issue with the Pope being a sort of dual authority, someone making decisions not in the interests of Germans but the Pope.

It is therefore possible that this von Galen did this for reasons other than concern for the disabled.

Just more mumblings from yours truly.

Regards
Wilf

User avatar
Mulegino1
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 4:15 pm

Re: The Cardinal's Speech: Public Dissent in Hitler's Germany

Postby Mulegino1 » 4 years 11 months ago (Thu Jul 16, 2015 9:30 pm)

neugierig wrote:I suspect, and it is just a supposition, that the Kulturkampf had something to do with this. Bismarck was the first to question the authority of the Pope. Not in matters religion, but the Vatican repeatedly tried to regain the worldly influence, if you will, it once had. I have several books on the subject, the ‘political Catholicism’, not the issue here. Bismarck had to toss the towel, the Catholic ‘Church’ the victor.

Heydrich renewed the fight, Deschner writes that Rom was enemy #1, ahead of Jews and Freemasons (Reihard Heydrich, Statthalter der totalen Macht, Bechtle, 1977, pp.109-122). It was not that National Socialism was un-Christian, it was not, but had an issue with the Pope being a sort of dual authority, someone making decisions not in the interests of Germans but the Pope.

It is therefore possible that this von Galen did this for reasons other than concern for the disabled.

Just more mumblings from yours truly.

Regards
Wilf


Yes, the Kulturkampf! It's been so long that I've studied that subject...wasn't Bismark concerned about clerical involvement in politics? It seems to me that he allowed the Church full freedom in the education system. Ultimately - again this is something I am recalling from memory - didn't Pope Leo XIII ultimately win Bismark over due to his (the Pope's) diplomatic efforts in the "War of the Spanish Succession"?

From what I've read about Von Galen, it seems that he was sincere in his convictions although perhaps prone to place too much credence in rumors.
I believe he was one of the Bishops who contributed to Pius XI's letter to the German episcopate, "Mitt Brenender Sorge", therefore he could not be accused of keeping silent during the "Holocaust" on account of antisemitism.

As an aside note, isn't it interesting that "Mitt Brenender Sorge" was written in German, and addressed only to the German episcopacy, while "Divini Redemptoris", the encyclical of Pius XI which forthrightly condemned communism, was written in latin and directed to the Bishops of the whole world? It would appear that while "Mitt Brenender Sorge" indicated that (as is obvious) there were some problematic aspects to National Socialist philosophy and praxis, that at its core it was never wholly irreconcilable with Catholic teaching.

neugierig
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:01 pm

Re: The Cardinal's Speech: Public Dissent in Hitler's Germany

Postby neugierig » 4 years 11 months ago (Thu Jul 16, 2015 9:57 pm)

Well done, Mulegino 1, I’ll try and comment on what you wrote tomorrow. This getting old business, along with some health issues, is a pain in the you know what.

Take care
Wilf

User avatar
Mulegino1
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 4:15 pm

Re: The Cardinal's Speech: Public Dissent in Hitler's Germany

Postby Mulegino1 » 4 years 11 months ago (Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:19 pm)

neugierig wrote:Well done, Mulegino 1, I’ll try and comment on what you wrote tomorrow. This getting old business, along with some health issues, is a pain in the you know what.

Take care
Wilf


Take care of yourself, Wilf! You are a treasure! :D














1

neugierig
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:01 pm

Re: The Cardinal's Speech: Public Dissent in Hitler's Germany

Postby neugierig » 4 years 11 months ago (Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:13 am)

Thanks Mulegino 1. What you wrote about Mit brennender Sorge is very interesting, I never though of why Pius XI published this Encyclical in German, instead of the common Latin. It was no doubt addressed at Hitler and the National Socialists, but still… I have a book, published in East-Germany, about the Popes in the 20th Century, the author not a fan of the Vatican. Perhaps he has something to say on this, it might take some time however.

Did you find anything more on this? It has been a while since I concerned myself with that topic, and memory is not my strong suit any longer.

Good talking to you
Wilf

User avatar
Mulegino1
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 4:15 pm

Re: The Cardinal's Speech: Public Dissent in Hitler's Germany

Postby Mulegino1 » 4 years 11 months ago (Fri Jul 17, 2015 12:31 pm)

neugierig wrote:Thanks Mulegino 1. What you wrote about Mit brennender Sorge is very interesting, I never though of why Pius XI published this Encyclical in German, instead of the common Latin. It was no doubt addressed at Hitler and the National Socialists, but still… I have a book, published in East-Germany, about the Popes in the 20th Century, the author not a fan of the Vatican. Perhaps he has something to say on this, it might take some time however.

Did you find anything more on this? It has been a while since I concerned myself with that topic, and memory is not my strong suit any longer.

Good talking to you
Wilf


Here's an interesting quote from Mit brennender Sorge:

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

Now, one is prompted to ask, did the National Socialists really attempt to "lock within the frontiers of a single people, within the narrow limits of a single race, God, the Creator of the universe"?

It seems to me that this is indeed the case - not with the Germans during the Third Reich - but with a certain cult of supreme victimhood which exercises a powerful glamour upon the contemporary western world!

neugierig
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:01 pm

Re: The Cardinal's Speech: Public Dissent in Hitler's Germany

Postby neugierig » 4 years 11 months ago (Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:02 pm)

I have the “Bekenntnis der Deutschen Christen (Doctrine oft he German Christians), published on December 11,1933. In German, I need to find my translation. It says that German Christians believe in Christ and that the OT is of use only to make the live of Christ understood.

I of course have said for a long tome that the OT is a fairy tale, and this has now been confirmed. Israeli scientists have been working on a computer program, able to determine if a document is written by just one person or several (I couldn’t find the link to that article). We could use this, however, it appears they succeeded. In an Ha’aretz article of June 25 this year, titled “Who really wrote the biblical books of Kings and the prophets/”, we read: “Yet the bulk of these books are written in a uniform manner. That indicated they were written at about the same time, if not by the same person”.

Wow, eh? And we must never forget that those who created the OT, also brought us “The Holocaust”.

Regards
Wilf


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests