Meet Some Catholics Truly Worth Admiring
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Although it has taken longer than I would have liked to get back to this two-part series, I did think it worthwhile to complete in order to contrast the willing compliance of so some Catholics in Germany with the principles and tactics of Adolf Hitler's national socialism, which is, after all, a form of socialism, with those who were courageous enough not only to reject it from the beginning but to take action against it.
The evils of national socialism were wrapped up in various mythologies concerning race and national destiny that made it attractive to some Catholics in Germany. Hitler was given further "credibility" by the fact that he engaged in massive building projects and used the fascistic approach to the direction of the national economy to further the interests of the demigod that was his German state. Germany, devastated by post-World War I hyperinflation and humiliated by the terms of the revanchist "peace," which served the leaders of the French Third Republic's desire for vengeance, was ready for the likes of the charismatic
Hitler, who readily exploited the fact that many German bankers and financiers were adherents of the blasphemous Talmud. Hitler appealed to national honor and glory. He knew exactly what he was doing in appealing to the raw emotions of Germans, whose country had been punished by the "victorious" powers of World War I, a needless, unjust and immoral war that was fought by the formerly Catholic countries of Europe solely for the pursuit of nationalistic interests that had nothing to do with the Just War Theory. World War I was merely one of the many evil consequences that have flowed by the Protestant Revolution's overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that began in Germany on October 31, 1517.
Absent the Social Reign of Christ the King and the Indirect Power of the Catholic Church over temporal matters, people were yearn for some kind of "secular saviour" to "redeem" them and their nations. Adolf Hitler fit that bill very well after the debacle that had been the German government of the Weimar Republic. It is thus understandable that some German Catholics, including bishops and priests, supported Hitler at first and were willing to pose with him at various events. Their silence thereafter was motivated by fear, not, at least not for the most part, because of agreement with Hitler's methods once that they had become clear.
Fear is what prompted many Catholics in the Balkans to apostatize at the hands of Mohammedans in the Eleventh Century. Fear is what prompted most bishops and ordinary Catholics to apostatize during the time of the lustful Henry Tudor's murderous revolution against the true Church and faithful Catholics from 1534 to the time of his death on January 28, 1547. Fear is what prompted many Catholics in France, including King Louis XVI before he abjured doing so prior to his execution, to submit to the "Constitution Church" created by the French Revolutionaries.
It is not to condemn ordinary Catholics who coped as they best they could during the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler to point out that those Catholics who were active participants in Hitler's regime, which promoted so many evils, including the kill of the sick, the disabled, the "retarded" and the "racially impure, are not worthy of any kind of admiration whatsoever. The only kind of admiration that can in such an instance is reserved to those Catholics who publicly abjured their crimes against God and man that helped produce the Western alliance with Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union and all of the attendant evils that followed after the Allied concessions to Stalin at the Yalta Conference that was held in the Crimean part of Russia from February 4 to 11, 1945, preparing to die a good death and any support that they may have given to any kind of regime committed to the promotion of a "salvific" ideology that sought to build the "better world" on the blood of those deemed to be not "useful," if not "harmful," to the needs of a "productive" state.
Thus is that the Catholics truly worth admiring during the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler were of the same stock as those who opposed the Roman emperors and their minions and those who opposed the Protestant Revolutionaries in Europe and the French Revolutionaries and the Bolshevik Revolutionaries and the revolutionaries in Mexico, Cuba, Spain and elsewhere where these diabolically-inspired outbreaks of rebellion took place.
Such Catholics as the likes of Baroness Elizabeth von Guttenberg in Germany knew what Hitler represented and opposed him from the very beginning.
Dr. Marian Therese Horvat and Mrs. Judith Fife Mead wrote a book review of Holding the Stirrup, the memoirs of Baroness Elizabeth von Guttenberg, that provides easy-to-understand information on a part of contemporary history that many Catholics have no knowledge of whatsoever:
The heart of this book, however, is the reaction of the Catholic noble families against the rise of Nazism in Germany. Today, many youths imagine that the sole purpose of Hitler’s Third Reich was to kill and persecute the Jews, supposedly the only victims of the socialist regime. The reality is not so simple. This Jewish-dominated theme is a distortion of a biased media propaganda, strongly supported by Hollywood, which has been meticulously taken up by the present day education system. It was not just Jews, however, who suffered under the Third Reich. The Catholic nobility was also strongly persecuted by the Nazis.
From the onset of National Socialism, Baron von Guttenberg and his circle of friends realized the dangers it presented to their country and the Catholic religion, and they made efforts to fight it. In 1933 the Baron was at the heart of the failed attempt by the monarchist party – led by military of many of the old Catholic families – to establish a constitutional monarchy in Bavaria, a failure that resulted in Hitler seizing the power of government. The nobility paid a heavy price for their opposition to National Socialism. More than a thousand members of the burgeoning resistance to the Nazis met death or imprisonment on the orders of Hitler, who wanted to smash the monarchist party and any organized opposition to his regime.
The German resistance was the opposition that rose against the National Socialist regime between 1933 and 1945. It was never a united, organized front, but rather small cells and isolated groups who opposed Nazism. The Baroness writes: “Many of the men who worked unceasingly for years never knew each other or those outside their own small group. Extreme caution and secrecy were of the utmost importance, for the Gestapo was relentless in its effort to find them, and the price of discovery was death.” (p. 129)
In that first Nazi purge of the German nobility, the Baron was imprisoned, and Elisabeth had the opportunity to demonstrate the courage she had learned as a girl. She did not fear to go to the Nazi headquarters in Munich to make inquiries to discover where her husband was – a dangerous pursuit that could end in her own arrest. She persisted in her demands for his release, knowing that every hour that passed might be the hour of his death. Eventually he was released but afterwards the family was under constant surveillance by the SS.
A second purge of the German nobility came in 1944, after the failed attempt to assassinate Hitler on July 20, 1944. The plot was led by Claus von Stauffenberg, the son of Elisabeth von Staffenberg, Baron von Guttenberg’s sister. The bomb he planted in a military conference room went off, but failed to kill the Fuhrer. Hitler’s revenge was swift and brutal. Claus von Staffenberg was shot by an Army firing squad, his last words “Long live my holy Germany.” Orders came for all bearing that family name – man, woman or child – to be killed, along with everyone who had been in any way involved with the failed attempt.
“All of our friends, practically all the men of our family were involved in the ‘plot,’” writes Baroness Guttenberg. Consequently, most were killed or imprisoned as the nation was awash “in the blood of the country’s most brilliant and courageous men, the men who should have lived to rebuild a new Germany.” By the end of the purge, more than 4,000 had been killed. Sadly, there is little said today in history books about this tragedy and heroism of this German resistance movement.
We cannot close this review without noting the admirable spiritual journey of the Baroness as she faced personal adversities and the growing threat of the Third Reich. At the end of her book she turns her gaze on the recuperating post-war Germany and expresses her concern because “the spiritual recovery has not kept pace with the material” (p. 268).
A word about the title Holding the Stirrup: Tradition called for the wife to hold the stirrup for her husband as he mounted his horse to ride into battle. Baroness Elisabeth von Guttenberg faithfully performed this service, holding the stirrup for her husband to fight in the anti-Nazi resistance, in spite of the danger to herself. After his death, she continued to hold the stirrup for other members of her family, remaining faithful to duty and the fight against evil. (The Catholic Resistance to Nazism in Germany by Marian T. Horvat and Judith F Mead.)
These Catholics had the courage to die in defense of the Holy Faith and the true good of the German nation.
Dr. Harry Schnitker, an historian based in the United Kingdom, wrote a series of articles on the conciliarist Catholic News Agency, on the nature of Catholic collaboration and opposition to the Third Reich. The excerpt below comes from the second part of his series, focusing on the work of Konrad von Preysing, the Bishop of Berlin:
So far in these articles on Germany we have encountered outright
support and collaboration, quiet resistance, and attempts to preserve
the essence of Faith and Church life without breaking with the regime
altogether. The next step from this was outright opposition, based on
Faith. One such Catholic example is furnished by the redoubtable Bishop
of Berlin, Konrad von Preysing. Von Preysing came from a staunchly
Catholic Bavarian background, and had been appointed Bishop of Berlin in
1935. This was a position of importance; he may have been a suffragan
to the Archbishop of Breslau – modern Wroclaw in Poland – but he was
also the bishop of the Capital of Germany. The appointment of Von
Preysing was a clear message from the Vatican to Hitler. Von Preysing
had been an outspoken opponent of the Nazis from very early on. When
they came to power in 1933, he had said during a sermon, “we have fallen
into the hands of criminals and fools”.
Pius XI knew what he was doing when he appointed Von Preysing. His
bishopric became a hotbed of anti-Nazi activity on all fronts. Like many
of his fellow bishops, Von Preysing was outspoken when it came to the
eugenics’ policies of the Nazis. Here they spoke with one voice. The
president of the German Bishops Conference, Adolf Cardinal Bertram,
Archbishop of Breslau and a virulent German nationalist, was as open in
his opposition as Von Preysing, Bl. Clement von Galen or Von Faulhaber
His cathedral administrator, Bl. Bernard Lichtenberg, became pivotal
in offering assistance to those threatened by ‘euthanasia’, or, to give
it its proper name, murder. Indeed, Lichtenberg often became the front
for Von Preysing, actually preaching against the Nazis in his church,
yards from the Reichskanzlei, the center of Nazi power in Germany. The
two men founded the Hilfswerke beim Bischöflichen Ordinariat Berlin,
under the auspices of Caritas, the Catholic aid organization. This
became a life-line for Jews, both those converted to Catholicism and
His work would cost Lichtenberg his life, for he died during
transport to Dachau. Somehow, the Nazis did not dare to touch Von
Preysing, who ran the organization for the duration of the war. They
knew he was involved in the drafting of the Encyclical, Mit Brennender
Sorge, the fierce denunciation of Nazism by Pope Pius XI, knew of his
involvement in the work of Bl. Bernard Lichtenberg, knew, too, of his
attempts to have the German Bishops Conference speak out against the
death camps. (Fearful of what would happen, the senior bishops had
overruled both Von Preysing and Cologne’s Archbishop, Josef Frings).
They were aware, too, of his enormous popularity.
This seems to have protected him even in July 1944. That month, the
German resistance, whose existence Winston Churchill denied in
Parliament, carried out one last desperate attempt to remove Hitler, the
last of a whole series of attempts. Its leadership came from the
Kreisau circle, in which Catholics played a major role. Its leader, Graf
von Moltke, noted in his diaries that Von Preysing attended their
meetings infrequently. The other element of the opposition came from the
army, and here the leadership was in the hands of a small group of men,
including the officer who would plant the bomb that was intended to
kill Hitler, Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg. Von Stauffenberg was a
staunch Catholic, whose moral compass had not been twisted by the Nazis.
The same is true of many of the other conspirators, who included the
pious Protestant second in command of the secret service, the Abwehr,
Hans Oster, and his friend, the Protestant theologian, Dietrich
Of course, the attempt failed and Von Stauffenberg, Oster, Bonhoeffer
and almost 5,000 others were tortured, humiliated and killed, some only
weeks before the end of the war. Von Preysing, however, was left
untouched. This is rather odd, for the Gestapo knew that the clergy were
involved, indeed, that they were sorry the attempt had failed. In
Cologne, for example, they reported that the people were amazed that
their archbishop did not speak out against the attack. What they did not
know was that the Vatican knew of the action. Although Josef Müller,
the confidant of Von Faulhaber, had been arrested in 1943, there were
still enough contacts with the Papacy through the Abwehr in Rome.
Soon after July, the Gestapo had a list of bishops who at least knew
of the resistance, including Bl. Clemens von Galen – who had said that
he could not share nationhood with the Nazis – Von Faulhaber, Frings,
and Johannes Dietz of Fulda. None of these men came to harm. Perhaps the
Nazis were mindful of the reaction of lay Catholics in previous years.
For the most, the Catholic population in Germany had remained passive
after the Nazi take-over. Every now and then, however, they had shown
that their Church was beyond the pale as far as the regime was
concerned. In June 1941, for example, Adolf Wagner, the militantly
atheist Gauleiter of Upper Bavaria, and de facto ruler of the German
state, ordered the removal of all Crucifixes from classrooms. Of course,
this broke the Concordat, but it was the perceived attack from the
Party on the Church that brought out the opposition.
All over Bavaria there were demonstrations, which, seeing the
omnipresent Gestapo, was a risky and overt expression of Faith. Berlin
was swamped by petitions organized by the episcopate, and, ominously for
the Nazis, these included large numbers from the army fighting in
Russia. As the talk of open revolt increased, Hitler lost his nerve and
rescinded the order. This was followed by the concerted action against
Plan T4, the Nazi euthanasia program. The role of Bl. Clemens von Galen
and other bishops is well-known, but they received their influence from
their flock, ordinary German Catholics who were shocked to their core by
this Social Darwinist experiment.
Soon, demonstrations were occurring all over Catholic Germany. In
Bavaria, Hitler was confronted with angry demonstrators when he visited
Nuremberg, the only time during his rule that he met with open
opposition from ordinary Germans. With almost half the German population
belonging to the Church, these open rebellions frightened Hitler, who
was aware that if they spread to the army, his regime would be in
trouble. Gone were the days when a small group of Nazis could attack an
Archbishop with impunity, as in 1938, when Cardinal Innitzer of Vienna
had suffered the indignity.
However, the chance to remove the regime altogether, if it ever
existed, soon evaporated. The example of the Dutch Church, which
suffered heavily for its criticism of the deportation of the Jews, and
the relentless small-scale attacks upon individual priests, monasteries
and Catholic lay men and women, served to remind the leaders of
Germany’s Church what might happen. For most German Catholics, the
period between 1933 and 1945 was one of relentless darkness, in which
they merely tried to survive. The Holy Father has spoken of the
experience of his own family during the war, an experience that is
perhaps more typical than any of the examples seen so far. His father
suffered loss of jobs for his rather outspoken dislike for the Nazis,
but never went as far as to resist them openly. He may have had the fate
of his wife and children in mind, a consideration easily forgotten by
those in less perilous circumstances. (The Church and Nazi Germany: Opposition, Acquiescence and Colloboration.)
Obviously, the "Holy Father" referenced above is none other than the Antipope Emeritus, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Dr. Schnitker, however, was correct to note that the fear that existed in the Ratzinger family was pretty typical of many German Catholics at the time, which is why the example of those Catholics who did resist is all the more admirable as it is never easy, humanly speaking, to put one's property, reputation and very life on the line in defense of the Holy Faith and to battle overtly with the forces of evil at work in one's nation.
Another of those who did this was, of course, Father Ingbert Naab, the uncle of the mystic and stigmatist Therese Neumann, who lived on the Eucharist alone for a forty year period between 1922 and the time of her death on September 18, 1962. Father Naab wrote a letter in to Adolf Hitler in an effort to convert this practitioner of the occult back to the Faith that he had abandoned in his adolescence, eventually becoming a complete ideologue who was committed to the elimination of the Faith from Germany after the victory in World War II that was denied to him. Father Naab's letter was written shortly after Hitler had lost the German presidential election to incumbent Paul von Hindenburg on March 13, 1932, and published in a anti-Hitler newspaper seven days later. Parts of this letter apply equally as well to the Social Darwinist who is the currently reigning caesar of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro:
Dear Mr. Hitler,
It is not my profession to make politics, and I do not have political intentions in writing this letter. But your political activities have one side that is deeply intruding into the conscience, into your responsibility before God. These lines are meant to remind you of this.
When you were staying, guarding by 20 "SA" men on the "Waldschlossen" here at Eichstatt for the night of 13-14 March in order to confer with a friend of your organization, you arrived tired and rushed by your strenuous speech-tour, and doubly tired and beaten by the outcome of the election. There was no necessity to be guarded here, because in our "black" town nobody will harm you, even though your press coined a certain slanderous phrase: "black-red murder bunch." The townspeople said" "Hitler is on the run." You are not on the run, because nobody hunted you. In the morning in Munich you were able to issue your feeble proclamation without hindrance. Nevertheless, you are constantly on the run, on the run from your own conscience. Yo no longer allow you a quiet hour, and therefore your conscience is no longer able to make itself heard. Without pause you are all hustled all over Germany. Only with difficulty are you able to reach the location of your next oration. The physical powers to the utmost, and naturally your appearance is one of exhaustion. Your nerves no longer allow you a quiet examination of conscience.
You are surrounded by flattery wherever you go and the frenzy of enthusiasm at your gatherings prevents you from having any thought whether your work will pass muster before God; because you are of the opinion: Germany is on my side. Your newspapers idolize you to a sickening degree. You are dubbed the "Great Redeemer from Want." You are yourself convinced of this, ascribing to your one and only personality all the attributes necessary to rebuild Germany. In the future you will need nothing at all by which to set your course. Your will is meant to be the only maxim for Germany and your command the only signpost. Has your conscience at any time reminded you of what a degree of self-assessment this conviction represents? Who among your followers dares to destroy this belief? How many from among the ranks of your own movements are hoping for an influential post? Will all these climbers and future party-book civil servants ever be critical of you? Your whole entourage is one conscience-narcotic for you.
You have many violent, fanatical persons among your followers, also among your sub-commanders. You wished for the for the wildest fanaticism, as especially expressed in your book Mein Kampf. But this wild fanaticism is driving you into situations you must shudder to behold. If ever you should be tempted to follow a sensible thought, your sub-commanders would come to present you with accomplished facts. Only one way is then left open for you: to ridicule your subordinates, or yourself. Since you don't want either, safeguarding the interests of your movement before the eyes of the public, you submit to the situation and allow yourself to be hustled on and on. Not your conscience ill be able to say the last word, but the hurry.
How necessarily you do need some quiet days, nobody speaking to you but your conscience. Days where you yourself do not speak, not to the populace nor to individuals--for when you do speak to individual people, you speak just as if you had the masses before you--and where you yourself are not spoken to. Then your conscience could come into its own.
You and your press are stating: "The Future Germany," "The Elite of the Nation." There are indeed quite a number of idealists within your ranks who earnestly hope for everything good from you. These idealists do not know what you are planning nor what you personally, or your agents, have negotiated. Could you risk showing your cards? You know, you would be stoned by the masses. You have indeed accused the Minister of Defence that the whole of Germany knew of your program except himself. But do be honest: do the mass of your adherers really know about your program? Do not your papers proclaim loudly: "At first we just want to get to power; what we then do with this power remains to be seen." You have instilled such blind trust in your personality into the idealists that they see you as a God-given prophet to whose mission one has to submit. Seldom has a human being demanded so much servility of spirit as yourself, the "Herald of German Freedom."
Who has voted for you? People with anti-Roman Catholic tendencies! You have been baptized and raised within the Catholic Church. One has never heard of your formally seceding from the Church. One of your Members of Parliament has in fact stated in the Berlin Sports Stadium that anyone maintaining you to be a R. Catholic was a common liar and a blackguard. No one familiar with your train of thought and your actions will assumed you to have remained true to the Faith of your Church. You have never repudiated Arthur Dinter's statement giving your disclosure that the R. Catholic Church would have nothing to laugh about once you were in power. Your learnings are known, and therefore certain Protestant circles place all their hopes in you. When you observe the distribution of election results on a map, you will clearly notice that it is the Protestant areas who see you as their candidate, at least as regards the middle classes. The working class had rejected you. Protestantism leaves the Socialist working class cold; this aspect does not matter to them. Your future, Mr. Hitler, lies in the North. Certainly, there were some R. Catholics who took who gave your their vote. But they are Catholics who look upon themselves with peculiar feelings, obviously not seeing in what direction they are drifting. Men like Rosenberg [author of the official part line] and Stark could surely enlighten the Catholics. Mr. Goebels [Minister of Propaganda], too, living in excommunication--as you well know, having been one of his marriage witnesses--could open the eyes of these Catholics. Mr. Hitler, speaking between ourselves: what do you think of the Catholics who voted for you? Blind herd of voters, what? You smile endorsement. I do not remind you that it would be an extremely serious question of conscience that you should ask yourself sometimes, being a Catholic, baptized and at variance with the Faith of the Church" can I justify myself before God? But you may settle that with Him who will judge you.
Who has voted for you? The suggestible masses. You wished for mass-suggestion, talking about the necessity to force a foreign will on the masses, of rendering them fanatical and hysterical. You have been in this business now for more than 10 years. Your press is attuned solely to suggestion. Claims are made over and over until one feels quite stupid and dull. Again and again facts are suppressed, lie after lie printed. Are you not responsible for this method? Propaganda, too, knows the laws of conscience.
Who has voted for you? Those economically foundering. They hope for deliverance through you. The farmer facing Public Sale, the businessman seeing no way out. "It can't get any worse," they say, "for 7 years now Hindenburg has been at the helm and achieved nothing. Now we'll give Hitler a chance, and if he is not good either we'll get rid of him." The psychology of those facing ruin is like that, Mr. Hitler. Your election is for many the least desperate measure, but not the last! There remains Bolshevism.
Who has voted for you? Those people who due to suggestion believed in the inevitability of your becoming President. "He'll come anyway," they said. And now one hears from many of them: "I'll no longer vote for him, I don't want to be ridiculed anymore." What an atmosphere on Monday! Mr. Hitler! Your masses who believed in the absolute victory were stunned. They hardly dared to look one in the face. They furtively passed their differently opinionated acquaintances. It went through a great many people, who had been perturbed and ready to submit to the inevitable, like a reviving breath of air. "It could still turn out differently," they said, relieved. The stupor began to lift.
Who has voted for you? The cowards who didn't want to lose their positions. Many people had already accommodated themselves to your rule, especially among those in state employment. For weeks they had hardly dared to do anything that could be considered hostile or unfriendly towards your party. After all, they wanted to keep their positions if Hitler should gain power. Mr. Hitler, what a cowardly company you have raised with your dog-whip and the threats of your press! I congratulate you to these "Free German Men of the Third Reich." What do you yourself think of these people? Don't you have to say three times, "For shame!" to each one?
Who has voted for you? Position hunters and future party-book civil servants. Have you ever considered how many among your people are counting on getting a safe employment on the basis of their enthusiasm for your person? How many were fool enough to think the 14th of March would produce the guarantee for their social security? Whilst on a train on 14th March I listened to the conversation of railway workers who were obviously Socialists. How these people mocked the disappointment of their National-Socialist friends: "Nothing doing with the district manager! Go on shoveling coals!" One hailed a passer-by through the window, Mr. Hitler, who has thundered more against party bosses and part-book civil servants than yourself and your press, and who, more than you, has attracted a mass of people more sold on hopefully exclusive party protection? When you take over, then with you solely people of your own persuasion. You assert that again and again! Now then!
Will you ever risk talking about party-book civil servants and party-bosses when the whole structure of your state-to-be rests on just that? Where is your conscience in that? Mr. Hitler, there are grammar school pupils who have already pensioned off their grammars because they think their party loyalty will secure a position in the coming state even without a grammar. "Until Monday in the Third Reich!" was the farewell of such promising youths on the Saturday before the election. Would you call that sense of duty, or rather corruption of the worst kind? Mr. Hitler, your conscience will provide the answer.
Who has voted for you? People trying to escape their financial responsibilities. How many examples have come to my notice! There were people who defied their creditors with the message: "I don't pay anymore. Hitler is coming and then I don't have to pay anything." Do you know of such practices? Has your party-till counted on the fact that March 14th would recognize the altered circumstances and legislation would soon wipe away old liabilities? But have you also considered the decline of morals passed on to the masses by these dubious speculations in a "Third Reich"? Are these dishonest persons, who care for nothing for property and legal liability, really guarantors of Germany's ascent? Doesn't it rather smack of Bolshevism? And you are equally responsible with the others!
Who has voted for you? A mass of unripe young people. You pronounced that no one should dabble in politics before the age of 30 years, and now you know nothing more important than to get just these unripe youngsters into harness. What do you think about yourself and the honesty of your principles?
Who has voted for you? Revolutionaries. There are masses simply waiting to hit out, to destroy and plunder. You are for these persons the man who will give them the signal to start the onslaught. That's why they give you their vote, they don't care what happens if only the action starts.
Who has voted for you? The underworld of murder and intimidation of fellow-men. The phrase is crass but only too true. You know yourself how those who don't conform are threatened by your own ranks. The gallows in a manner of course in the vocabulary of many of your followers. When someone does not know where to turn next, one says: "Wait, in the Third Reich there will be vengeance!" Isn't it yourself who sets this stone rolling? Wasn't the phrase: "Heads will roll!" the prelude to all these brutal intimidations? And this gangsterism reaches down to the phalanges of boys who know as much about politics as a calf does about science. In our peaceful Eichstatt the Cathedral Provost Wohlmut went one day to celebrate Mass in the Cathedral. A group of boys stood at the sacristy door; all greeted him except one, The sexton asked him, "Why don't you greet him?" And the answer? "I'm not greeting that one! He'll be shot wen we are in power!" Who this boy is you may learn from any of your friends at Eichstatt. Do you know the name for such incitement? Is your conscience able to bear this corruption of youth?
How Then Do You Mean To Go On?
I do not remonstrate on the political aspects, I leave that to those called to such things. I am appealing solely to your conscience. What do you say to the lie-propaganda? You had to have your attention drawn to the fact that your party promises all things to all men, even the most contradictory things. And why? What else but the lust for power. Do you think that the Almighty will suspend the Eighth Commandment for your sake? "Lying lips are an abomination before the Lord: [Prov. 12:22] in the service of politics, too! And "lies are shortlived," even when spoken by eloquent men. Why don't you come into the open? Isn't your reticence about religious questions one great deception of the masses? Surely you yourself can only laugh about your program for a "Creed of Positive Christianity," otherwise you would not have a Rosenberg at your side. Doesn't your behavior in the question of religion strike even you as an international deception? How much longer do you intend to continue with it?
What do you say to the propaganda of hate? Your principal paper, Der Volkische Beobachter, published in this week's Wednesday edition (Nr. 76, p. 3) an article by Gunter d'Alquen: "The fight goes on." It stated: "To our love that give sense to our labors, we now add hate, hate for all that is against us. . .Our best troops are now thrown to the fore. We are going over to the offensive, there will be no prisoners taken, no further pardon given. We will advance; the tiniest shell-hole, the smallest shred of trench, all will be wiped clean, shattered, burnt out. We will pounce upon the enemy day and night, come rain or shine, we smite him wheresoever we meet him." This is the language of the insane. And "Positive Christianity"? A gospel of hate? Mr. Hitler, what does your conscience say?
Your Most Grievous Fault!
Mr. Hitler, the tearing apart of Germany, that is your fault, your conscience has to bear it. You want to unite the people? Do you consider these battle tactics suitable to unite a people? You could unite the people by exterminating all non-conformers, but not by any other means, at least not by you.
A possible civil war: that is your fault, your conscience has to bear it. You know you cannot grasp the helm legally in the near future. But your phalanges have been drive into such delusions that you are no longer able to keep them in a quiet mood. What will you do? Try to teach them reason? Then you are finished. Or drive them into further fantastic hopes? Your proclamation foreshadows that. You will then have to shoulder also all the results of these insane suggestions. Is your conscience able to bear that? Have you no fear that the dead will rise up against you to accuse you unceasingly during the lonely nights?
Despoilment of the youth: that is your fault, your conscience has to bear it. What you have sinned against the youth during the years of your influence, you will not easily wipe out. How often do we priests hear lamenting mothers say: "I can no longer make my son go to church. He thinks because he is a Hitler, he doesn't need our Lord God anymore." And how radical will this youth indoctrinated by your ideas become when they find themselves betrayed? You know it yourself: from your ranks to Bolshevism is a but a step. For many the mental attitude is already the same. Prior to March 13th one heard from many of your people exactly the same slogans as at the time of the revolution [in 1914]. The lowliest employees have allocated all the posts--in readiness for March 14th, as if they had all commerce and civil servants' posts at their disposal. It is true, you are not responsible for every slogan uttered, but your are able to recognize the fruit of your labors.
The confusion of moral principles: that is your fault, your conscience has to bear it. The "Boxheim Documents" are becoming a precedent. There are many who would like to arrange themselves accordingly rather now than later. And your followers are supposed to be the "Cream of the German Lands"? Thank you very much! But you are modest when you claim that!
I have not touched upon the purely political side of the situation that ought to be discussed. For your conscience, that which I have said is sufficient. We are preaching not the gospel of hate but of love, towards you too. Love contains above all our duty to tell you the truth, however bitter. We do not hold with lies, and refute them just as sharply when used against you as when damaging someone else. But you must not expect us to emphasize the Divine Commandments any less when they are inconvenient for the Third Reich.
Mr. Hitler, do not forget your conscience! And when you have examined it, then stand up and face Germany and make your great confession of guilt as you recognize it before God, form whom nothing is hidden. Your followers published a pamphlet in Munich, reciting for March 13th the Psalm, "Judge me, God and take up my cause against an unholy people. From the treacherous and cunning man rescue me!"
We recommend this verse of the Psalm as a daily morning and evening prayers. But ask yourself first where this unholy people is, and who is the treacherous and cunning man. When studying for the priesthood we were admonished to look at ourselves as often as we recited the verse during Holy Mass, so that the Almighty might clean us of all self-deceit and injustice. It can only benefit you to give way to the same considerations. Father Ingbert Naab, O.F.M., Cap. (As found in Adalbert Albert Vogl, Therese Neumann: Mystic and Stigmatist, published originally as The Life and Death of Therese Neumann by Vantage Press in 1978 and republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1987, pp. 163-172.)
As noted before I transcribed the text found above, there are many parallels that can be drawn between the actions of Adolf Hitler as described by Father Ingbert Naab and those of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, parallels that will be drawn in the next article to be posted on this site and in a video to be recorded later in the week.
Father Naab's letter, mind you, was written before Hitler actually came to power, first, after ten months of maneuvering, as Chancellor January 30,1933 and then as the "supreme leader" upon the death of the aged President Paul von Hindenburg on August 2, 1934, as the German presidency and chancellorship were merged solely into his person. Father Ingbert Naab's courageous efforts to appeal to Hitler's conscience were simply part of his duty as Catholic priest to try to reach a man whose conscience had been killed well before 1932. Father Naab, however, tried to discharge his priestly duties before Christ the King, having to flee to Switzerland once Hitler came to power in 1933.
Therese Neumann herself was hated by Hitler. However, the murderous, occultist leader of the Third Reich knew how beloved she was among the people and did not touch a hair on head. Therese Neumann was unsparing in her criticism of Hitler, denouncing him and his regime repeatedly, even prophesying of his ultimate downfall.
Among so many other German Catholics who stand in contrast to the total surrender of will given to Hitler by other Catholics in his government and the upper echelons of his military leadership is, of course, the Lion of Munster, Bishop Clemens von Galen. Count von Galens, who opposed Nazism publicly as early as 1934 was faced by 1939 with Hitler's euthanasia decrees, which were issued on September 1, 1939, the same day that German troops invaded Poland from the West to regain ethnically German territory that had been given to Poland upon its restoration as a nation-state according to the terms of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. Bishop von Galen spoke out forcefully. And it was thus that he delivered four powerful sermons against the Nazis in 1941.
Perhaps the most memorable of Bishop Clemens von Galen's sermons against the Nazis was his firm denunciation of the eugenics laws that instituted practices that foreshadowed the march of the medical industry in the supposedly "civilized" West, including the United States of America, in the direction of death-dealing rather than healing by means of the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn, the rationing of health-care to those whose lives are deemed as "cost-effective" to save and the invention of the myth of brain-death in order to harvest the body members of living human beings in the name of "giving the gift of life" (see, for example, Dr. Paul Byrne's latest article on this myth, Execution in a New York hospital).
Bishop von Galen, who was as outspoken against British rationing of food in German and their mistreatment of German prisoners-of-war who were not high-ranking officials of the Third Reich and their summary dismissal of people from government positions without any investigation at all, delivered the following sermon in Saint Lambert's Church, Munster, Germany, on August 3, 1941:
To my regret I have to inform you that during the past
week the Gestapo has continued its campaign of annihilation against the
Catholic orders On Wednesday 30th July they occupied the administrative
centre of the province of the Sisters of Our Lade in Muhlhausen
(Kentpen district). which formerly belonged to the diocese of Munster
and declared the convent to be dissolved. Most of the nuns many of whom
come from our diocese, were evicted and required to leave the district
that very day. On Thursday 31st July. according to reliable accounts,
the monastery of the missionary brothers of Hiltrup in Hamm was also
occupied and confiscated by the Gestapo and the monks were evicted
Already on 13th July,
referring to the expulsion of the Jesuits and the missionary sisters of
St Clare from Munster, did I publicly make the following statement in
this same church: none of the occupants of these convents is accused of
any offence or crime, none has been brought before a court, none has
been found guilty. I hear that rumours are now being spread in Munster
that after all these religious, in particular the Jesuits, have been
accused, or even convicted, of criminal offences, and indeed of treason.
I declare: These are base slanders of German citizens, our brothers and
sisters, which we will not tolerate I have already lodged a criminal
charge with the Chief Prosecutor against a fellow who went so far as to
make such allegations in front of witnesses.
I express the expectation that
the man will be brought swiftly to account and that our courts of
justice still have the courage to punish slanderers who seek to destroy
the honour of innocent German citizens whose property has already been
taken from them. I call on all my listeners, indeed on all decent
fellow-citizens, who in future hear accusations made against the
religious expelled from Munster to get the name and address of the
person making the accusations and of any witnesses.
I hope that there are still men in Munster who have
the courage to play their part in securing the judicial examination of
such accusations. which poison the national community of our people
coming forward with their person, their name and if necessary their oath
I ask them. if such accusations against the religious are made in their
presence, to report them at once to their parish priest or to the
Episcopal Vicariate-General and have them recorded. I owe it to the
honour of our religious orders, the honour of our Catholic Church and
also the honour of our German people and our city of Munster to report
such cases to the state prosecution service so that the facts may be
established by a court and base slanderers of our religious punished.
(After the Gospel reading for the 9th Sunday
after Pentecost: “And when He was come near, He beheld the city, and
wept over it . . .”, Luke 19.41-47).
My dear diocesans!
It is a deeply moving event that we read of in the
Gospel for today. Jesus weeps! The Son of God weeps! A man who weeps is
suffering pain â€” pain either of the body or of the heart. Jesus did
not suffer in the body; and yet he wept. How great must have been the
sorrow of soul, the heartfelt pain of this most courageous of men to
make him weep! Why did he weep? He wept for Jerusalem, for God's holy
city that was so dear to him, the capital of his people. He wept for its
inhabitants, his fellow-countrymen, because they refused to recognise
the only thing that could avert the judgment foreseen by his omniscience
and determined in advance by his divine justice: “If thou hadst known .
. . the things which belong unto thy peace!" Why do the inhabitants of
Jerusalem not know it? Not long before Jesus had given voice to it: “O
Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . how often would I have gathered thy children
together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would
not!" (Luke 13,34).
Ye would not. I, your King, your God, I would. But ye would not! How
safe, how sheltered is the chicken under the hen's wing: she warms it,
she feeds it, she defends it. In the same way I desired to protect you,
to keep you, to defend you against any ill. I would, but ye would not!
That is why Jesus weeps: that is why that strong man
weeps; that is why God weeps. For the folly, the injustice, the crime of
not being willing . And for the evil to which that gives rise â€” which
his omniscience sees coming. which his justice must impose â€” if man
sets his unwillingness against God's commands, in opposition to the
admonitions of conscience, and all the loving invitations of the divine
Friend, the best of Fathers: “If thou hadst known, in this thy day, the
things which belong unto thy peace! But then wouldst not!.: It is
something terrible, something incredibly wrong and fatal. when man sets
his will against God's will. I would) than wouldst not! It is therefore
that Jesus weeps for Jerusalem.
Dearly beloved Christians! The joint pastoral letter
of the German bishops, which was read in all Catholic churches in
Germany on 26 June 1941, includes the following words.
“It is true that in Catholic ethics there are certain
positive commandments which cease to be obligatory if their observance
would be attended by unduly great difficulties; but there are also
sacred obligations of conscience from which no one can release us; which
we must carry out even if it should cost us our life. Never, under any
circumstances, may a man, save in war or in legitimate self-defence,
kill an innocent person.”
I had occasion on 6th July to add the followings comments on this passage in the joint pastoral letter:
Ye would not. I, your King, your God, I would. But ye
would not! How safe, how sheltered is the chicken under the hen's wing:
she warms it, she feeds it, she defends it. In the same way I desired
to protect you, to keep you, to defend you against any ill. I would, but
ye would not!
It is true that in Catholic ethics there are certain positive commandments which cease to be obligatory if their observance would be attended by unduly great difficulties; but there are also sacred obligations of conscience from which no one can release us, which we must carry out even if it should cost us our life. Never, under any circumstances, may a man, save in war or in legitimate self-defence, kill an innocent person.“
I had occasion on 6th July to add the following comments on this passage in
For some months we have been heating
reports that inmates of establishments for the care of the mentally ill
who have been ill for a long period and perhaps appear incurable have
been forcibly removed from these establishments on orders from Berlin.
Regularly the relatives receive soon afterwards an intimation that the
patient is dead, that the patient's body has been cremated and that they
can collect the ashes. There is a general suspicion, verging on
certainty. that these numerous unexpected deaths of the mentally ill do
not occur naturally but are intentionally brought about in accordance
with the doctrine that it is legitimate to destroy a so-called
“worthless life”” in other words to kill innocent men and women, if it
is thought that their lives are of no further value to the people and
the state. A terrible doctrine which seeks to justify the murder of
innocent people, which legitimises the violent killing of disabled
persons who are no longer capable of work, of cripples, the incurably
ill and the aged and infirm!
I am reliably informed that in hospitals
and homes in the province of Westphalia lists are being prepared of
inmates who are classified as “unproductive members of the national
community” and are to be removed from these establishments and shortly
thereafter killed. The first party of patients left the mental hospital
at Marienthal, near Munster, in the course of this week.
German men and women! Article 211 of the
German Penal Code is still in force, in these terms: “Whoever kills a
man of deliberate intent is guilty of murder and punishable with death”.
No doubt in order to protect those who kill with intent these poor men
and women, members of our families, from this punishment laid down by
law, the patients who have been selected for killing are removed from
their home area to some distant place. Some illness or other is then
given as the cause of death. Since the body is immediately cremated, the
relatives and the criminal police are unable to establish whether the
patient had in fact been ill or what the cause of death actually was. I
have been assured, however, that in the Ministry of the Interior and the
office of the Chief Medical Officer, Dr Conti, no secret is made of the
fact that indeed a large number of mentally ill persons in Germany have
already been killed with intent and that this will continue.
Article 139 of the Penal Code provides that
“anyone who has knowledge of an intention to commit a crime against the
life of any person . . . and fails to inform the authorities or the
person whose life is threatened in due time . . . commits a punishable
offence”. When I learned of the intention to remove patients from
Marienthal I reported the matter on 28th July to the State Prosecutor of
Munster Provincial Court and to the Munster chief of police by
registered letter, in the following terms:
“According to information I have received
it is planned in the course of this week (the date has been mentioned as
31st July) to move a large number of inmates of the provincial hospital
at Marienthal, classified as ‘unproductive members of the national
community’, to the mental hospital at Eichberg, where, as is generally
believed to have happened in the case of patients removed from other
establishments, they are to be killed with intent. Since such action is
not only contrary to the divine and the natural moral law but under
article 211 of the German Penal Code ranks as murder and attracts the
death penalty, I hereby report the matter in accordance with my
obligation under article 139 of the Penal Code and request that steps
should at once be taken to protect the patients concerned by proceedings
against the authorities planning their removal and murder, and that I
may be informed of the action taken".
I have received no information of any action by the State Prosecutor or the police.
I had already written on 26th July to the
Westphalian provincial authorities, who are responsible for the running
of the mental hospital and for the patients entrusted to them for care
and for cure, protesting in the strongest terms. It had no effect. The
first transport of the innocent victims under sentence of death has left
Marienthal. And I am now told that 800 patients have already been
removed from the hospital at Warstein.
We must expect, therefore, that the poor
defenceless patients are, sooner or later, going to be killed. Why? Not
because they have committed any offence justifying their death, not
because, for example, they have attacked a nurse or attendant, who would
be entitled in legitimate selfdefence to meet violence with violence.
In such a case the use of violence leading to death is permitted and may
be called for, as it is in the case of killing an armed enemy.
No: these unfortunate patients are
to die, not for some such reason as this but because in the judgment of
some official body, on the decision of some committee, they have become
“unworthy to live,” because they are classed as “unproductive members of
the national community”.
The judgment is that they can no longer
produce any goods: they are like an old piece of machinery which no
longer works, like an old horse which has become incurably lame, like a
cow which no longer gives any milk. What happens to an old piece of
machinery? It is thrown on the scrap heap. What happens to a lame horse,
an unproductive cow?
I will not pursue the comparison to the end so fearful is its appropriateness and its illuminating power.
But we are not here concerned with pieces
of machinery; we are not dealing with horses and cows, whose sole
function is to serve mankind, to produce goods for mankind. They may be
broken up; they may be slaughtered when they no longer perform this
No: We are concerned with men and
women, our fellow creatures, our brothers and sisters! Poor human
beings, ill human beings, they are unproductive, if you will. But does
that mean that they have lost the right to live? Have you, have I, the
right to live only so long as we are productive, so long as we are
recognised by others as productive?
If the principle that men is
entitled to kill his unproductive fellow-man is established and applied,
then woe betide all of us when we become aged and infirm! If it is
legitimate to kill unproductive members of the community, woe betide the
disabled who have sacrificed their health or their limbs in the
productive process! If unproductive men and women can be disposed of by
violent means, woe betide our brave soldiers who return home with major
disabilities as cripples, as invalids! If it is once admitted that men
have the right to kill “unproductive” fellow-men even though it is at
present applied only to poor and defenceless mentally ill patients” then
the way is open for the murder of all unproductive men and women: the
incurably ill, the handicapped who are unable to work, those disabled in
industry or war. The way is open, indeed, for the murder of all of us
when we become old and infirm and therefore unproductive. Then it will
require only a secret order to be issued that the procedure which has
been tried and tested with the mentally ill should be extended to other
“unproductive” persons, that it should also be applied to those
suffering from incurable tuberculosis, the aged and infirm, persons
disabled in industry, soldiers with disabling injuries!
Then no man will be safe: some
committee or other will be able to put him on the list of “unproductive”
persons, who in their judgment have become “unworthy to live”. And
there will be no police to protect him, no court to avenge his murder
and bring his murderers to justice.
Who could then have any confidence
in a doctor? He might report a patient as unproductive and then be given
instructions to kill him! It does not bear thinking of, the moral
depravity, the universal mistrust which will spread even in the bosom of
the family, if this terrible doctrine is tolerated, accepted and put
into practice. Woe betide mankind, woe betide our German people, if the
divine commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”, which the Lord proclaimed on
Sinai amid thunder and lightning, which God our Creator wrote into man's
conscience from the beginning, if this commandment is not merely
violated but the violation is tolerated and remains unpunished!
will give you an example of what is happening. One of the patients in Marienthal was a man of 55, a farmer from a country parish in the Münster region - I could give you his name - who has suffered for some years from mental disturbance and was therefore admitted to Marienthal hospital. He was not mentally ill in the full sense: he could receive visits and was always happy, when his relatives came to see him. Only a fortnight ago he was visited by his wife and one of his sons, a soldier on home leave from the front. The son is much attached to his father, and the parting was a sad one:
No one can tell, whether the soldier will return and see his father again, since he may fall in battle for his country. The son, the soldier, will certainly never again see his father on earth, for he has since then been put on the list of the „unproductive“. A relative, who wanted to visit the father this week in Marienthal, was turned away with the information that the patient had been transferred elsewhere on the instructions of the Council of State for National Defence. No information could be given about where he had been sent, but the relatives would be informed within a few days. What information will they be given? The same as in other cases of the kind? That the man has died, that his body has been cremated, that the ashes will be handed over on payment of a fee? Then the soldier, risking his life in the field for his fellow-countrymen, will not see his father again on earth, because fellow-
countrymen at home have killed him.
The facts I have stated are firmly established. I can give the names of the patient, his wife and his son the soldier, and the place where they live.
"Thou shalt not kill!" God wrote this commandment in the conscience of man long before any penal code laid down the penalty for murder, long before there was any prosecutor or any court to investigate and avenge a murder. Cain, who killed his brother Abel, was a murderer long before there were any states or any courts of law. And he confessed his deed, driven by his accusing conscience: "My punishment is greater than I can bear ... and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me the murderer shall slay me" (Genesis 4,13-14)
"Thou shalt not kill!" This commandment from God, who alone has power to decide on life or death, was written in the hearts of men from the beginning, long before God gave the children of Israel on Mount Sinai his moral code in those lapidary sentences inscribed on stone which are recorded for us in Holy Scripture and which as children we learned by heart in the catechism.
"I am the Lord thy God!“ Thus begins this immutable law. „Thou shalt have not other gods before me." God - the only God, transcendent, almighty, omniscient, infinitely holy and just, our Creator and future Judge - has given us these commandments. Out of love for us he wrote these commandments in our heart and proclaimed them to us. For they meet the need of our God-created nature; they are the indispensable norms for all rational, godly, redeeming and holy individual and community life. With these commandments God, our Father, seeks to gather us, His children, as the hen gathers her chickens under her wings. If we follow these commands, these invitations, this call from God, then we shall be guarded and protected and preserved from harm, defended against threatening death and destruction like the chickens under the hen’s wings.
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem ... how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" Is this to come about again in our country of Germany, in our province of Westphalia, in our city of Münster? How far are the divine commandments now obeyed in Germany, how far are they obeyed here in our community?
The eighth commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not lie." How often is it shamelessly and publicly broken! The seventh commandment: "Thou shalt not steal". Whose possessions are now secure since the arbitrary and ruthless confiscation of the property of our brothers and sisters, members of Catholic orders? Whose property is protected, if this illegally confiscated property is not returned?
The sixth commandment: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Think of the instructions and assurances on free sexual intercourse and unmarried motherhood in the notorious Open Letter by Rudolf Hess, who has disappeared since, which was published in all the newspapers. And how much shameless and disreputable conduct of this kind do we read about and observe and experience in our city of Münster! To what shamelessness in dress have our young people been forced to get accustomed to - the
preparation for future adultery! For modesty, the bulwark of chastity, is about to be destroyed.
And now the fifth commandment: "Thou shalt not kill", is set aside and broken under the eyes of the authorities whose function it should be to protect the rule of law and human life, when men presume to kill innocent fellow-men with intent merely because they are "unproductive", because they can no longer produce any goods.
And how do matters stand with the observance of the fourth commandment, which enjoins us to honour and obey our parents and those in authority over us? The status and authority of parents is already much undermined and is increasingly shaken by all the obligations imposed on children against the will of their parents. Can anyone believe that sincere respect and
conscientious obedience to the state authorities can be maintained when men continue to violate the commandments of the supreme authority, the Commandments of God, when they even combat and seek to stamp out faith in the only true transcendent God, the Lord of heaven and earth?
The observance of the first three commandments has in reality for many years been largely suspended among the public in Germany and in Münster. By how many people are Sundays and feast days profaned and withheld from the service of God! How the name of God is abused, dishonoured and blasphemed!
And the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
In place of the only true eternal God men set up their own idols at will and worship them: Nature, or the state, or the people, or the race. And how many are there whose God, in Paul’s word, "is their belly" (Philippians 3,19) - their own well - being, to which they sacrifice all else, even honour and conscience - the pleasures of the senses, the lust for money, the lust for power! In accordance with all this men may indeed seek to arrogate to themselves divine attributes, to make themselves lords over the life and death of their fellow-men.
When Jesus came near to Jerusalem and beheld the city he wept over it, saying: "If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the day shall come upon thee, that thine enemies ... shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."
Looking with his bodily eyes, Jesus saw only the walls and towers of the city of Jerusalem, but the divine omniscience looked deeper and saw how matters stood within the city and its inhabitants: "O Jersualem, Jerusalem ... how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings - and ye would not!“ That is the great sorrow hat oppresses Jesus’s heart, that brings tears to his eyes. I wanted to act for your good, but ye would not!
Jesus saw how sinful, how terrible, how criminal, how disastrous this u nw i l l i n g n e s s is. Little man, that frail creature, sets his created will against the will of God! Jerusalem and its inhabitants, His chosen and favoured people, set their will against God’s will! Foolishly and criminally, they defy the will of God! And so Jesus weeps over the heinous sin and the inevitable punishment. God is not mocked!
Christians of Münster! Did the Son of God in his omniscience in that day see only Jerusalem and its people? Did he weep only over Jerusalem? Is the people of Israel the only people whom God has encompassed and protected with a father’s care and mother’s love, has drawn to Himself? Is it the only
people that w o u l d n o t ? The only one that rejected God’s truth, that threw off God’s law and so condemned itself to ruin?
Did Jesus, the omniscient God, also see in that day our German people, our land of Westphalia, our region of Münster, the Lower Rhineland? Did he also weep over us? Over Münster?
For a thousand years he has instructed our forefathers and us in his truth, guided us with his law, nourished us with his grace, gathered us together as the hen gathers her chickens under her wings. Did the omniscient Son of God see in that day that in our time he must also pronounce this judgment on us: "Ye would not: see, your house will be laid waste!" How terrible that would be!
My Christians! I hope there is still time; but then indeed it is high time: That we may realise, in this our day, the things that belong unto our peace! That we may realise what alone can save us, can preserve us from the divine judgment: that we should take, without reservation, the divine commandments as the guiding rule of our lives and act in sober earnest according to the words: "Rather die than sin". That in prayer and sincere penitence we should beg that God’s forgiveness and mercy may descend upon us, upon our city, our country and our beloved German people.
But with those who continue to provoke God’s judgment, who blaspheme our faith, who scorn God’s commandments, who make common cause with those who alienate our young people from Christianity, who rob and banish our religious, who bring about the death of innocent men and women, our brothers and sisters - with all those we will avoid any confidential relationship, we will keep ourselves and our families out of reach of their influence, lest we become infected with their godless ways of thinking and acting, lest we become partakers in their guilt and thus liable to the judgment which a just God must and will inflict on all those who, like the ungrateful city of Jerusalem, do not will what God wills.
O God, make us all know, in this our day, before it is too late, the things which belong to our peace!
O most sacred heart of Jesus, grieved to tears at the blindness and iniquities of men, help us through Thy grace, that we may always strive after that which is pleasing to Thee and renounce that which displeases Thee, that we may remain in Thy love and find peace for our souls! Amen. (As found in The Bishop of Munster Versus the Nazis. Text also online at: Four Sermons in Defiance of the Nazis.)
This is a very apt description of our own times today, is it not?
Unlike Bishop Clemens von Galen, however, the conciliar officials have surrendered to the evils of the day, following the lead of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga, who have warned us against "moralism" and being "obsessed" with abortion and "gay-marriage," no less a monstrous scheme to take over a nation's health care industry in order to coerce all citizens by means of a "fine" to help finance the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn, sterilization and the vivisection of living human beings under the myth of "brain death."
The only thing that matters is that we "serve the poor," right?
Indeed, Bergoglio's nuncio told the American "bishops" meeting in Baltimore, Maryland, for their semi-annual efforts to destroy the vestiges of the Catholic Faith, that the "pope" did not want them to be followers of an "ideology," meaning that they were not to put themselves in opposition to Barack Hussein Obama's ObamaCare mandate for the provision of baby-killing and other "family planning services:"
The shift in emphasis was the clearest sign that eight months after Pope Francis was elected, his priorities were beginning to trickle down to the
organization that Cardinal Dolan leads, the United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops. Francis provoked widespread discussion in the church
with an interview published in September in which he said that the
church should not be so “obsessed” with issues like abortion, gay
marriage and contraception — but should instead lead with the Gospel’s
message of love and mercy.
He has said the church must be “for the poor,” and has visited with
refugees and washed the feet of juveniles in prison, cameras in tow.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the Vatican’s
ambassador to the United States, told the bishops that he had met with
Francis in June in the pope’s simple apartment in the Vatican, and that
Francis “made a special point of saying that he wants ‘pastoral’
bishops, not bishops who profess or follow a particular ideology.”
Noting the church’s diversity, Archbishop Viganò added, “We must take
care that, for us as a church, this diversity does not grow into
division through misrepresentation or misunderstanding, and that
division does not deteriorate into fragmentation.”
The bishops’ religious liberty campaign has put them in a direct and
sustained confrontation with the Obama administration — contributing to
criticism that the bishops’ conference has become enmeshed with the
Republican Party. More than 70 lawsuits have been filed against the
administration by Catholic universities, hospitals and other entities
and by other Christian churches and institutions, as well as by private
At a news conference, Cardinal Dolan said that the bishops are not
abandoning the religious liberty campaign, and that it had been “very
successful.” But he said that in the interest of justice and the
bishops’ own credibility, the bishops should heed the pleas that they
have heard from Christians overseas to turn their attention to those who
are being killed and persecuted for their faith.
He said, “We don’t have tanks at our door, we don’t have people being macheted on their way home from Mass.”
In an interview, Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore, the chairman
of the bishops’ ad hoc committee on religious liberty, said, “This
doesn’t represent a backing away. It represents an amplification.” (American Apostasy Are Urged to Expand Priorities.)
No "tanks at our door," no one being "macheted on their way home from" what purports to be Holy Mass?
Yes, the American "bishops" "religious liberty" campaign has been a successful all right, the same kind of success that Napoleon Bonaparte had at Waterloo on June 18, 1815.
No, fret not about the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn and the elderly and the supposedly "brain dead." Fret not. We cannot be servants of an "ideology" or be "too confrontational," right?
Go tell that to Father Ingbert Naab or to Baroness Guttenberg or to Bishop Clemens von Galen.
Go tell that to the Catholics who died at the hands of the Roman emperors and their minions.
Go tell that to the Catholics who died at the hands of the Protestant Revolutions in Europe in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.
Go tell that to the Catholics who died at the hands of the Soviets or the Red Chinese or the North Vietnamese or the North Koreans or the Castroites or the Sand in ist as.
Catholics confront evil, not come to terms with it as an "irreversible fact of life."
Then again, Bergoglio's false religion is all about the "poor," which is the likes of those with the blood of the innocent on their hands, such as Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, must be dealt with in a spirit of "understanding" and "tolerance" as he is "for the poor."