Letters on Bishop Sproll, Nazi demonstrations against him, and requests to the Vatican to remove Sproll

Reich Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs GII 3990/38
Berlin W 8, Leipziger Strasse 3, 23 July 1938
Tel. 11 66 51 [Stamp]
Praesidium Chancellery Entered 24 July 1938
RP 6575/38
Subject: Catholic Bishop Sproll in Rottenburg (wttbg.)
Ref: Letter of 22 July 1938 No. Er 41/38 III 3 enclosures
To the Minister of State and Chief of the Praesidium Chancellery in Berlin
The Catholic Bishop Dr. Sproll, as the only citizen of the city of Rottenburg and, as far as is known, as the only German bishop, did not take part in the plebiscite of 10 April. The absence from the plebiscite has evoked great and justified anger among the population. Apparently the bishop himself had a bad conscience and left town on the evening before the plebiscite for an unknown destination. Even on 10 and 11 April there were demonstrations at the bishop's residence in Rottenburg against the absent bishop. On 21 April Sproll returned to Rottenburg and on the same day there were renewed demonstrations in front of the bishop's palace. On 22 April Dr. Sproll again left Rottenburg in order to go to a Bavarian monastery.
As the bishop, since Hitler's rise to power, became prominent through a series of damaging sermons, the Governor of Wuert-temberg now came to the conclusion that Dr. Sproll, in the interest of preserving the state's authority and in the interest of quiet and order, could no longer remain in office. The Reich Governor had explained to the ecclesiastical board,
that he would no longer regard Bishop Sproll as Head of
614
the Diocese of Rottenburg on account of his refraining from the election in the office;
that he desired Bishop Sproll to leave the Gau area Wuert-temberg-Hohenzollern, because he could assume no guarantee for his personal safety; that in the case of the return of the bishop to Rottenburg he would see to it that all personal and official intercourse with him on the part of state offices as well as Party offices and the Armed Forces would be denied.
Moved by the reports from Wuerttemberg my Deputy, in my absence, directed the letter attached in copy G II 2277/38 2030 dated 5 May to the Foreign Office. In accordance with that the Foreign Office on 18 May turned to the German Embassy at the Vatican with the instruction that it should be urged on the Holy See to persuade Bishop Sproll that he should resign his Bishopric.
The bishop sojourning outside of his diocese had already received the instruction to return to his diocese. On 18 May Sproll quietly returned to Wuerttemberg and retired to St. Mary's Hospital in Stuttgart.
Since no answer to the instruction of 18 May had been received from the Embassy at the Holy See, on 1 July the settlement of the affair was again brought up in Rome. On 18 July the letter of the Foreign Office attached in copy—Pol III 1886 of 11 July— was received. Whether the affair has again been discussed with the Cardinal Secretary of State, as planned, is unknown to me.
In the intervening two months. Bishop Sproll quietly resided in Stuttgart. On 15 July he returned to the Episcopal residence and on 16 July conducted a ceremonial divine service. On the evening of the same day there occurred among the population, aroused over the return of the bishop, great demonstrations before the ecclesiastical buildings of Rottenburg. On 18 July there were more even greater demonstrations. A report of the Reich Governor of 20 July is attached in copy. It is to be expected that on Saturday, 23 July, even greater mass meetings against continued remaining of the Bishop will be put on, so that Cardinal Bertram was impelled to send his telegram of 21 July to the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor.
The content and tenor of this telegram are such that I cannot recommend a favorable consideration of it. Not the demonstrating people aroused over the subversive attitude of the Bishop are turning against the State, but the Bishop by his incredible behavior against the State and folk-community has turned against the State. In my estimation measures are not sufficient here, which Imerely produce the condition prior to 10 April. I could only recommend a cessation of further demonstrations if the action of
849-PS
the German Embassy initiated at the Holy See is accompanied by success. If it is unsuccessful, the Bishop would have to be exiled from the land, or there would have to be a complete boycott of the Bishop by the authorities, as the Reich Governor in Wuert-temberg at that time announced to the ecclesiastical officials.
I would notify Cardinal Bertram correspondingly, in case the Fuehrer does not reserve the notification for himself.
signed: KERRL
Copy
Berlin W8, 5 May 1938
Reich and Prussian Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs GII 2277/38 '
Subject: Catholic Bishop Sproll in Rottenburg, Wuerttemberg
The Catholic Bishop Sproll of Rottenburg (Wuerttemberg) on 10 April 1938, as the only non-voter of the Rottenburg District, aroused the greatest resentment of all racial Germans and especially gave to Catholic circles the worst example for their civic behavior. By his absence from the plebiscite, which is to be evaluated only as a demonstration, he moreover has violated the sense of the Episcopal oath of loyalty prescribed in Article 16 of the Reichconcordat.
The Bishop felt impelled to evade the just anger of the people and to leave his diocese. It is to be feared that upon his possible return and a possible appearance in public, even at church functions, renewed disorders and demonstrations would occur. It cannot be expected of the German police that they would protect a man who has not perceived his most primitive duties to people and Fuehrer, from the crowds of people who, in righteous wrath, are turning against this man. Also, it cannot be expected of the German authorities that they will carry on official business with a Bishop who in this manner has excluded himself from the folk-community. It is not to be expected that this Bishop can ever accomplish any more fruitful work in his diocese.
I therefore recommend that it be urged on the Holy See via the Apostolic Nuncio or via the German Embassy at the Vatican, to influence Bishop Sproll that he resign his Bishopric as soon as possible.
By direction
Signed: DR. MUHS
To the Foreign Office in Berlin
616
849-PS
Copy (indicated)
Copy
Berlin, 11 July 1938
Foreign Office, Pol III 1886
a. Reference to the letter of 11 June—Pol III 1679
b. Reference to letter of 27 May 1938—II B 1— / 574/38
The German Ambassador at the Vatican has discussed the matter of recalling Bishop Sproll with the Cardinal-Secretary of State. The Cardinal, who acted in a very reserved manner according to all appearance, did not approve the procedure of the Bishop, but remarked that according to reports he had received the participation in the plebiscite would be a voluntary act, nevertheless an offense against legal duties did not exist. The German Embassy reports, in addition, that in spiritual circles the behavior of the Bishop is designated as very inapt.
The German Embassy at the Holy See has been instructed to discuss the matter again with the Cardinal-Secretary of State.
Further information is reserved for the present.
By direction
Signed: Bismarck
To: a. Reich Governor in Wuerttemberg Gauleiter Murr, Stuttgart
b. Chief of the Security Police Berlin SW 11, Prinz-Albrecht-Str. 8
Copy
Reich Governor in Wuerttemberg
Stuttgart, 20 July 1938
Subject: Bishop Dr. Sproll Enclosures: None
As I am informed, Monday evening a demonstration again occurred in front of the Episcopal Ordinariat. Several thousand people gathered in front of the Episcopal Ordinariat and chanting in unison gave expression to their resentment about the absence of the Bishop. There were no further excesses of any sort.
I am reporting on this incident with the request that everything be attempted to get a recall or transfer of the Bishop, for it is not to be assumed that tranquility will return to the people —even in the more remote area around Rottenburg—as long as Dr. Sproll officiates as Bishop.
To the Reich Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs, Berlin W 8, Leipziger Str. 3.
617