5. The Gestapo and the Company of Jesus

If Pius XI and Pius XII’s goodwill and friendliness never failed towards the Fuhrer whom they had brought to power, we must admit that he fullfiled all the conditions of the pact by which he was bound to the Vatican. As he had expressly promised to “strangle” the anticlericals, they soon followed the liberals and Jews into the concentration camps. We know how the chief of the Third Reich had decided the fate of the Jews: they were simply massacred or, when more advantageous, made to work until worn out then liquidated. In this case the ‘final solution’ was only delayed.

But let us see, first, how an especially “authorised” personality, Franco, Knight of the Order of Christ, expressly confirmed the collusion between the Vatican and the Nazis. According to “Reforme”, this is what the press of the Spanish dictator (Franco) published on the 3rd of May 1945, the day of Hitler’s death:

“Adolf Hitler, son of the Catholic Church, died while defending Christianity. It is therefore understandable that words cannot be found to lament over his death, when so many were found to exalt his life. Over his mortal remains stands his victorious moral figure. With the palm of the martyr, God gives Hitler the laurels of Victory”.(107)

(107) “Reforme”, 21st of July 1945.

This funeral oration of the Nazi chief, a challenge to the victorious allies, is voiced by the Holy See itself, under the cover of Franco’s press. It is a communique of the Vatican given via Madrid.

Of course, this missing hero well deserved the gratitude of the Roman Church and they do not attempt to conceal it. He served her faithfully: all those this Church pointed out to him as her adversaries felt the consequences. And this good ‘son’ wasn’t slow in admitting what he owed to his Most Holy Mother, and especially to those who made themselves her soldiers in the world.

“I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits”, said Hitler… “Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organisation of the Catholic Church. I transferred much of this organisation into my own party… I am going to let you in on a secret… I am founding an Order… In my “Burgs” of the Order, we will raise up a youth which will make the world tremble… Hitler then stopped, saying that he couldn’t say any more..”(108)

Another highly placed hitlerian, Walter Schellenberg, former chief of the German counter-espionage, completed this confidence from the Fuhrer, after the war:

“The S.S. organisation had been constituted, by Himmler, according to the principles of the Jesuits’ Order. Their regulations and the Spiritual Exercises prescribed by Ignatius of Loyola were the model Himmler tried to copy exactly… The “Reichsfuhrer SS”—Himmler’s title as supreme chief of the SS—was to be the equivalent of the Jesuits’ “General” and the whole structure of the direction was a close imitation of the Catholic Church’s hierarchical order. A mediaeval castle, near Paderborn in Westphalia, and called “Webelsbourg”, was restored; it became what could be called a SS monastery”.(109)

For their part, the best theological pens were busy demonstrating the similarity between the Catholic and Nazi doctrines. And, for that work, the sons of Loyola were the busiest. As an example, let us see how Michaele Schmaus, Jesuit theologian, presented to the public a series of studies on this subject:

“Empire and Church” is a series of writings which should help the building up of the Third Reich as it unites a national-socialist state to Catholic-christianity… The national-socialist movement is the most vigorous and massive protest against the spirit of the 19th and 20th centuries… A compromise between the Catholic faith and liberal thinking is impossible… Nothing is more contrary to Catholicism than democracy… The re- awakened meaning of “strict authority” opens up again the way to the real interpretation of ecclesiastical authority… The mistrust of liberty is founded on the Catholic doctrine of original sin… The national-socialist Commandments and those of the Catholic Church have the same aim…”(110)

(108) Hermann Rauschning, former national-socialist chief of the government of Dantzig: “Hitler m’a dit”, (Ed. Co-operation, Paris 1939, pp.266, 267, 273 ss).
(109) Walter Schellenberg: “Le Chef du contre-espionnage Nazi vous parle” (Julliard, Paris 1957, pp.23-24).
(110) “Begegnungen zwichen Katholischen Christentum und Nazional-sozialitischer Weltanchaunung”, by Michaele Schmaus, professor at the Faculty of Theology of Munich. (Aschendorf, Munster 1933).

This aim was the “new middle-ages” Hitler promised Europe. The similarity is obvious between the passionate anti-liberalism of this Jesuit from Munich and the equal fanaticism expressed during the “act of consecration of the F.N.C. in the basilica of Montmartre”. During the occupation, the R.P. Merklen wrote: “These days, liberty no longer seems to merit any esteem”.(111)

Quotations such as these could be multiplied by the thousand. Is not this hatred of liberty under all its forms the character itself of the Roman Master? It is easy also to understand how the Catholic “doctrine” and the Nazi “doctrine” could harmonise so well. The one who ably demonstrated this accord, “The Jesuit Michaele Schmaus”, was called by ‘La Croix’, ten years after the war, the “great theologian of Munich”( 112), and nobody will be surprised to learn that he was made a “Prince of the Church” by Pius XII. Under the circumstances, what becomes of the “terrible” encyclical letter “Mit brennender Sorge”, from Pius XI, which was supposed to condemn Nazism? No casuist has tried to tell us… naturally!

The “great theologian” Michaele Schmaus had many rivals, according to a German author who sees in the “Katolisch-Konservatives Erbgut” the strangest book ever published by the German Catholic Publications: “This anthology which brings together texts from the main Catholic theorists of Germany, from Gorres to Vogelsang, makes us believe that national-socialism was born out of Catholic ideas”.(113) When writing this, the author certainly didn’t realise he was describing it so perfectly. Another well informed person, the mainspring of the pact between the Holy See and Berlin and the pope’s secret chamberlain, Franz von Papen, was even more explicit:

“The Third Reich is the first world power which not only acknowledges but also puts into practice the high principles of the papacy”.(l 14) To this, we will add the result of this “putting into practice”: 25 million victims of the concentration camps—the official figure issued by the United Nations Organisation.

Here, we find it necessary to add something especially for candid minds, for those who cannot admit that the organised massacres were one of the papacy’s “high principles”. Of course, this candour is diligently maintained:

(111) “La Croix”, 2nd of September 1951. (112) “La Croix”, 2nd of September 1954. (113) Gunter Buxbaum- “Les Catholiques en Europe centrale” (“Mercure de France”, 15th of January 1939). (114) Robert d’Harcourt of the French Academy: “Franz von Papen, l’homme a tout faire” L’Aube, 3rd of October 1946).

—”Such barbarian deeds belong to the past”!

So say some good apostles to the simple, while shrugging their shoulders before the non-Catholics “for whom the fires of the Holy Inquisition are still burning”.(115)

So be it! Let us set aside the superabundant testimonies about the clerical ferocity of years gone by to consider the 20th century. We will not recall either the exploits of men like Stepinac and Marcone in Croatia, nor Tiso in Slovakia, but will confine ourselves to examining the orthodoxy of certain “high principles” they put so well into practice. Are they really out-dated today—these principles—disowned by an “enlightened doctrine”, officially rejected by the Holy See with other mistakes of a dark past? It is easy to find out.

Let us, for example, open the “Great Apologetics”, by the Abbe Jean Vieujan, which can hardly be described as mediaeval as it is dated “1937”. What do we read?

“To accept the principle of the Inquisition, one only needs a Christian mentality, and this is what many Christians lack… The Church has no such timidity”.(116)

One could not put it better.

Is another proof, no less orthodox and modern, necessary? Listen to the R.P. Janvier, a famous conference speaker at Notre-Dame: “By virtue of her indirect power over temporal matters, should not the Church have the right to expect Catholic States to oppress heretics even to the point of death, so as to suppress them?

Here is my answer:

“I do advocate this, even to the point of death!… Leaning first of all on the practice, then on the teaching of the Church itself; and I am convinced that no Catholic would say the opposite without erring gravely”.(117)

We could not accuse this theologian of speaking in riddles. His speech is clear and concise. It would be impossible to say more with fewer words. Everything is there, concerning the right the Church arrogates to herself to exterminate those whose beliefs do not correspond with hers: the “teaching” which compels her, the “practice” which legitimates by tradition, and even the “call to the Christian states”, of which the hitlerian crusade was such a perfect example.

The following words, far from ambigious, were not pronounced in the darkness of the Middle-Ages either:

(115 ) “Temoignage chretien”, 6th of December 1957. (116) Abbe Jean Vieujan: “Grande Apologetique” (Bloud et Gay, Paris 1937, p.1316). (117 ) Conference of the 25th of March 1912.

“The Church can condemn heretics to death, for any rights they have are only through our tolerance, and these rights are apparent not real”. The author of this was the Jesuits’ general Franz Wernz (1906-1915), and the fact that he was German as well gives even more weight to his declration. During the 20th century also, Cardinal Lepicier, notoroius prince of the Church, wrote: “If someone professes publicly to be an heretic or tries to pervert others, by his speech or example, he can not only be excommunicated, but also justly killed…”(118 & 118a). If that’s not a characteristic appeal to murder, I might as well be “changed into a peppermill” as the late Courteline said.

Is the Sovereign Pontiffs contribution wanted as well? Here it is, from a modern pope whose “liberalism” was criticised by intransigent clerics, the Jesuit Pope Leo XIII: “Anathema on the one who says: the Holy Spirit does not want us to kill the heretic”.

What higher authority could be invoked after this one, apart from that of the Holy Spirit?

Even though this may displease those who manipulate the smokescreen (reference to those who put out smoke signals during the choice of a Pope), the soothers of disquieted consciences, the papacy’s “high principles” remain unchanged and, amongst other things, the extermination for the Faith is as valid and canonical today as it was in the past. A conclusion most “enlightening”—to use a word dear to mystics—when we consider what happened in Europe between 1939 and 1945.

“Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler and most members of the party’s “old guard” were Catholics”, wrote M. Frederic Hoffet. “It was not by accident that, because of its chiefs’ religion, the National-socialist government was the most Catholic Germany ever had… This kinship between National-socialism and Catholicism is most striking if we study closely the propaganda methods and the interior organisation of the party. On that subject, nothing is more instructive than Joseph Goebbel’s works. He had been brought up in a Jesuit college and was a seminarist before devoting himself to literature and politics… Every page, every line of his writings recall the teaching of his masters; so he stresses obedience… the contempt for truth… “Some lies are as useful as bread!” he proclaimed by virtue of a moral relativism extracted from Ignatius of Loyola’s writings…”(119) Hitler did not award the palm of Jesuitism to his chief of propaganda, though to the Gestapo’s chief, as he told his favourites: “I can see Himmler as our Ignatius of Loyola”(120).

(118) “De stabilitate et progressu dogmatis”, first part, art VI 9 I (“Typographia editrix romana, Romae 1908”). (118a) See Sol Ferrer-Francisco Ferrer. Un Martyr au XXe siecle (Fischbacher, Paris). (119)) Frederic Hoffet: “L’lmperialisme protestant” (Flammarion, Paris 1948, pp.172 ss). (120) Adolf Hitler: “Libres propos” (Flammarion, Paris 1952, p.164).

To speak thus, the Fuhrer must have had some good reasons. First of all, we notice that Kurt Heinrich Himmler, Reichsfuhrer of the SS, Gestapo and German police forces, seemed to be the one most impregnated by clericalism amongst the Catholic members of Hitler’s entourage. His father had been director of a Catholic school in Munich, then tutor of Prince Ruprecht of Bavaria. His brother, a Benedictine monk, lived at the monastery of Maria Laach, one of the Pan-German high places. He also had an uncle who had held the important position of Canon at the Court of Bavaria, the Jesuit Himmler.

The German author Walter Hagen gives also this discreet information: “The Jesuits’ general, Count Halke von Ledochowski, was ready to organise, on the common basis of anti-communism, some collaboration between the German Secret Service and the Jesuit Order”.(121) As a result, within the SS Central Security Service, an organisation was created, and most of its main posts were held by Catholic priests wearing the black uniform of the SS. The Jesuit Father Himmler was one of its superior officers.

After the Third Reich’s capitulation, the Jesuit Father Himmler was arrested and imprisoned at Nuremberg. His hearing by the international tribunal would have apparently been most interesting, but Providence was keeping a watchful eye: Heinrich Himmler’s uncle never appeared before that court. One morning, he WAS FOUND DEAD IN HIS CELL, and the public never learned the cause of his death.

We will not insult the memory of this cleric by supposing that he willingly ended his days, against the solemn teaching laws of the Roman Church. Nevertheless, his death was as sudden and opportune as the one of another Jesuit, sometime before, Father Staempfle, the unrecognised author of ‘Mein Kampf’. Strange coincidence indeed…

But let us come back to Kurt Heinrich Himmler, chief of the Gestapo, which meant he held in his hand the essential reins of power of the regime. Was it his personal merits which earned him such a high position? Did Hitler see in him a superior genius when he compared him to the creator of the Jesuit Order? It is certainly not what the testimonies of those who knew him imply as they saw in him nothing more than mediocrity.

(121) Walter Hagen, op.cit., p.358.

Was that star shining with a borrowed brightness? Was it really Kurt Heinrich Himmler, the ostensible chief, who actually reigned over the Gestapo and the secret services? Who was sending millions of people, deported for political reasons, and Jews to their death? Was it the flat-faced nephew or the uncle, former Canon at the Court of Bavaria, one of von Ledochowski’s favourites, a Jesuit Father and superior officer of the SS? It may seem reckless, and even presumptuous, to take such an indiscreet look behind the scenes of History. The play is performed on the stage, before the combined lights of the footlights, the stagelights and the arc lights. This is normal for any show; and the one who wants to see behind the props may well be regarded as troublesome and ill-bred.

However, the spell binding actors on whom the public’s gaze is fixed have all come from behind the scenes. This is more than evident when we study these “sacred monsters” and realise that they are far from equal to the individuals they are supposed to represent.

Such seems to have been the case of Himmler. But wouldn’t it be right to say the same of the one whom he helped as his right hand man, Hitler? When we saw Hitler gesticulating on the screens or heard him bawling his hysterical speeches, did we not have the impression of looking at the movements of an automaton ill adjusted, with overstretched springs? Even his most simple and composed movements reminded us of a mechanical puppet. And what about his dull and globular eyes, flabby nose, bloated physiognomy whose vulgarity could not be disguised by that famous lock of hair and brush moustache which seemed glued under his nostrils. Was this snarler at public meetings really a chief? the “real” master of Germany, an “authentic” Statesman whose genius was going to turn the world upside-down?

Or was he just a bad substitute for all that? A covering skin cleverly blown up and a phantom for the use of the masses, a rabble rouser? He himself admitted it when he said: “I am only a clarion”. M. Francois- Poncet, then French ambassador to Berlin, confirms that Hitler worked very little, was not a reader and let his collaborators have their own way. His helpers gave the same impression of emptiness and unreality. The first one, Rudolf Hess, who flew to England in 1941, looked on his own trial at Nuremberg as a total stranger, and we never learned if he was completely insane or just a lunatic. The second one was the grotesque Goering, vain and obese, who wore the most spectacular comic-opera uniforms, a glutton, a great robber of paintings and, to top it all, a morphine drug addict.

The other main personalities of the party bore the same resemblance and, at the trials of Nuremberg, it was one of the journalists greatest surprises to have to report that—apart from their own particular defects— these Nazi heroes lacked in intellect, character, and were more or less insignificant. The only one who stood above that vulgar mob—because of his astuteness and not his moral worth—was Franz von Papen the chamberlain of His holiness, “the man for every job”… who was bound to be acquitted.

If the Fuhrer comes out as an extraordinary puppet, was the one he modelled himself upon more consistent? Let us recall the ridiculous exhibitions of that “Caesar fit for a carnival”, rolling his big black eyes that he wanted to flash under that strange hat decorated with curtain tassels! And those photographs meant for propaganda, taken from his feet and depicting only his jaws, jutting out against the sky, the wonder man, as an immovable rock—symbol of a will which knew no obstacles!

What a will! From the confidences of some of his companions, we get the picture of a man constantly undecided; this “formidable man” who was going to “invade everything”, with elemental force (to use terms of Cardinal Ratti, future Pius XI), did not resist the advances made to him by the Jesuit Cardinal Gasparri, secretary of State, on behalf of the Vatican.

Just a few secret meetings persuaded the revolutionist to enlist bag and baggage under the Holy Father’s standard, to carve out the brilliant career we know so well, and the well known former minister Carlo Sforza could write: “One day, when time will have attenuated the bitterness and hatred, it will be recognised we hope, that the orgy of bloody brutalities which turned Italy into a prison for twenty years, and ruins through the 1940-1945 war, found its origin in an almost unique historical case: the utter disproportion between the legend artificially created around a name and the real capacities of the poor devil who bore that name, a man who was not obstructed by culture”.(122)

This perfect formula is applicable to Hitler, as well as Mussolini: same disproportion between the legend and capacities, same lack of “culture” in those two mediocre adventurers with almost identical pasts; their lightning careers can find an explanation only in their gift for haranguing the masses, a gift which brought them before the glare of publicity.

That the legend was “artificially created” is evident enough when we know that, today, the Fuhrer’s retrospective apparition on the screens of Germany provokes nothing more than a huge laugh.

But was not the obvious inferiority of these “providential men” the very reason for which they were chosen to be elevated to power? The fact is that the same lack of personal qualities can be found in all those the papacy elected to be its champions.

In Italy and Germany, there were some “real” statesmen, “real” chiefs, who were able to take the helm and govern without having to resort to this delirious “mystic”. But these were too bright intellectually and not sufficiently pliable. The Vatican, and especially the “black pope”, von Ledochowski, could not have held them “as a baton in his hand”, according to the fiery formula, and made them serve his aims at all costs until catastrophe struck.

(122) Count Carlo Sforza: “L’ltalie telle que je l’ai vue”, (Grasset, Paris 1946, p.158).

We have seen how the revolutionist Mussolini was turned inside out, as one would do with a glove, by the Holy See’s emissaries who promised him power.

The unbending Hitler was to prove just as malleable. The Ledochowski’s plan was, originally, to create a federation of the Catholic nations in central and eastern Europe, in which Bavaria and Austria (governed by the Jesuit Seipel) would have had the pre-eminence. Bavaria had to be separated from the German Republic of Weimar—and, as by chance, the agitator Hitler, of Austrian origin, was then a Bavarian separatist. But the chance to realise this federation and place a Hapsburg at its head became more and more slim, whilst Monseigneur Pacelli, the nuncio who had left Munich for Berlin, became the more conscious of the German Republic’s weakness because of the poor support the Allies gave it. The hope to get hold of Germany as a whole was then born at the Vatican and the plan was modified accordingly:

“The hegemony of Protestant Prussia had to be prevented and as the Reich was to dominate Europe—to avert the Germans’ federalism—a Reich had to be reconstituted in which the Catholics would be masters”.(123)

This was enough. Turning completely round with his “brown shirts”, Hitler, who had been until then a Bavarian separatist, became overnight the inspired Apostle of the Great Reich.

(123) Mercure de France: “Pius XI and Hitler”, 15th of January 1934.