Michael von Faulhaber

Michael Ritter von Faulhaber (5 March 1869 – 12 June 1952) was a German Catholic prelate who served as Archbishop of Munich for 35 years, from 1917 to his death in 1952. Created Cardinal in 1921, von Faulhaber criticized the Weimar Republic as rooted in treason in a speech at the 62nd German Catholics' Day of 1922. Cardinal von Faulhaber was a leading member and co-founder of the Amici Israel, a priestly association founded in Rome in 1926 with the goal of advocating Jewish-Christian reconciliation.

His Eminence Michael von Faulhaber
Cardinal, Archbishop of Munich and Freising
Faulhaber around 1936
Archdiocese	Munich and Freising
Appointed	24 July 1917
Installed	3 September 1917
Term ended	12 June 1952
Predecessor	Franziskus von Bettinger
Successor	Joseph Wendel
Other post(s)	Cardinal-Priest of S. Anastasia
Previous post(s)	Bishop of Speyer (1911–1917)
Orders
Ordination	1 August 1892 by Franz Joseph von Stein
Consecration	19 February 1911 by Franziskus von Bettinger
Created cardinal	7 March 1921 by Benedict XV
Rank	Cardinal-Priest
Personal details
Born	Michael Faulhaber (1869-03-05)5 March 1869 Klosterheidenfeld, Unterfranken, Kingdom of Bavaria
Died	12 June 1952(1952-06-12) (aged 83) Munich, Bavaria, West Germany
Nationality	German
Denomination	Catholic
Motto	vox temporis vox dei
Coat of arms

Memorial stone of von Faulhaber in the Munich Frauenkirche

After the Nazi Party seized control of German government in 1933, Cardinal von Faulhaber recognized the new Nazi government as legitimate, required Catholic clergy to be loyal to the government and maintained diplomatic bridges between the regime and the Church, while simultaneously condemning certain Nazi policies, including persecution of members of the clergy, and actively supporting Catholic regime critics such as Fritz Gerlich and other persecuted persons. In 1937 Cardinal von Faulhaber was involved in drafting the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge. Von Faulhaber ordained Joseph Ratzinger (future Pope Benedict XVI) as a priest in 1951, and was the last surviving Cardinal appointed by Pope Benedict XV.

Life until after the First World War

Michael Faulhaber was born in Klosterheidenfeld, Bavaria, the third of seven children of the baker Michael Faulhaber (1831–1900) and his wife Margarete (1839–1911). He was educated at gymnasiums in Schweinfurt and Würzburg. In 1887-88 he was an Officer Cadet in the Bavarian army. In 1889 he entered the Kilianeum (Catholic) Seminary in Würzburg and was ordained on 1 August 1892. Faulhaber was a priest in Würzburg from 1892 until 1910, serving there for six years. His studies included a specialisation in the early Christian writer Tertullian. In 1895 he graduated from his studies with a doctorate in theology. From 1894 to 1896, he was prefect of the Kilianeum Seminary. From 1896 to 1899, he was engaged in studying manuscripts at the Vatican and other Italian museums. From 1899 to 1903, he was privatdocent in Greek palaeography, Biblical archaeology, homiletics, and exegesis of the Psalms, at the University of Würzburg. In 1900 he visited England to study manuscripts of early Christian literature, spending one semester at Oxford. In 1902 he visited Spain for a similar purpose. In 1903 he became professor of theology at the University of Strasbourg. He also wrote a number of articles for the Catholic Encyclopedia.

In 1910, Faulhaber was appointed Bishop of Speyer and invested as such on 19 February 1911. On 1 March 1913, he was appointed a Knight of the Merit Order of the Bavarian Crown by Prince Regent Ludwig; in accordance with the statutes of this order, Faulhaber was ennobled with the style of "Ritter von Faulhaber". In 1916 he won the Iron Cross (as the first clergyman in the German Empire) at the Western Front for his frontline support of troops by acting as a military chaplain. In 1917, his appointment as Archbishop of Munich followed. In 1921 he became a Cardinal, with the title of Cardinal-Priest of Sant'Anastasia, and at his death was the last surviving Cardinal appointed by Pope Benedict XV.

Faulhaber felt little allegiance to the Weimar Republic. At the national Catholic conference (Katholiikentag) of 1922 in Munich, he declared that the Weimar Republic was a "perjury and betrayal", because it had arrived through the overthrow of the legitimate civil authorities, the monarchies, and had included in its constitution the separation of church and state. The declaration disturbed Catholics who were committed to the Weimar Republic. Faulhaber had praised the monarchy a few months earlier at the funeral of King Ludwig.

Faulhaber publicised, and supported by creating an institutional link for the association, the work of Amici Israël. He supported the group by distributing its writings, saying "we must ensure wide distribution of the writings of the Amici Israel" and admonishing preachers to steer clear of any statements that "might sound in any way anti-Semitic" – this even though, "he himself was somewhat tainted by anti-Semitic stereotypes that placed Jews in the same category as Freemasons and Socialists." Faulhaber was friends with the group's promoter, Sophie Francisca van Leer; its special aim was to seek changes to the Good Friday prayer and some of its Latin phrases such as pro perfidis Judaeis (for treacherous Jews) and judaicam perfidiam (Jewish treachery) and sought the cessation of the deicide accusation against Jews. It was dissolved in March 1928 on the decree of the Vatican's Congregation of the Holy Office on the grounds that its perspectives were not in keeping with the spirit of the Church.

Faulhaber and the Nazi Party

Rise of the Nazi Party

Faulhaber helped persuade Gustav von Kahr not to support Hitler during the Beer Hall Putsch. Its supporters turned against Faulhaber, who had denounced the Nazis in letters to Gustav Stresemann and Bavaria's Heinrich Held and blamed him for its failure; protests followed against Faulhaber, as well as the Pope, for an entire weekend.

In 1923 Faulhaber declared in a sermon that every human life was precious, including that of a Jew. When the Nuncio wrote to Rome in 1923 complaining about the persecution of Catholics, he commented that "The attacks were especially focused on this learned and zealous" Faulhaber, who in his sermon and correspondence "had denounced the persecutions against the Jews."

In February 1924, Faulhaber spoke of Hitler and his movement to a meeting of Catholic students and academicians in Munich. He spoke of the "originally pure spring" that had been "poisoned by later tributaries and by Kulturkampf." But Hitler, he asserted, knew better than his minions, and that the resurrection of Germany would require the help of Christianity.

During the run up to the elections of March 1933, Faulhaber, unlike several other bishops who endorsed the Centre party, refrained from any comment in his pastoral letter issued on 10 February. The book of a Catholic author issued later in the year attributed the losses incurred by the Bavarian People's Party to the neutral position adopted by Faulhaber by asking "Had the Cardinal not indirectly pointed out the path to be followed in the future?"

On 1 April 1933, the government supported a nationwide boycott of all Jewish stores and businesses. German bishops discussed possible responses against these measures but Faulhaber was of the opinion it would only make matters worse. In the days preceding the boycott Cardinal Bertram asked for the opinion of brother bishops on whether the Church should protest. Faulhaber telegrammed Bertram that any such protest would be hopeless. And after the 1 April 1933 boycott of Jewish-owned-and-operated stores Cardinal Pacelli received a letter from Faulhaber explaining why the Church would not intervene to protect Jews: "This is not possible at this time because the struggle against the Jews would at the same time become a struggle against Catholics and because the Jews can help themselves as the sudden end of the boycott shows." To Father Alois Wurm who asked why the Church did not condemn racist persecution in straightforward terms Faulhaber responded that the German episcopacy was "concerned with questions about Catholic schools, organizations, and sterilization which are more important for the Church in Germany than the Jews; the Jews can help themselves, why should the Jews expect help from the Church?" According to Saul Friedländer, "The 1933 boycott of Jewish businesses was the first major test on a national scale of the attitude of the Christian churches toward the situation of the Jews under the new government. In historian Klaus Scholder's words, during the decisive days around the first of April, no bishop, no church dignitaries, no synod made any open declaration against the persecution of the Jews in Germany."

Advent sermons

During Advent 1933 Faulhaber preached five sermons that Scholder describes as "being not directed against the practical, political anti-Semitism of the time, but against its principle, the racial anti-Semitism that was attempting to enter the [Roman Catholic] Church." The sermons were given in St. Michael's, the largest church in Munich, though crowds were so great that both the neighbouring churches, the Studienkirche and Bürgersaal, had to be connected by loudspeakers.

Article 24 of the National Socialist program decried the Old Testament as offensive to moral values. Faulbaber was a former professor of the Old Testament at Strasbourg. In the sermons Faulhaber declared that he could not remain silent against attacks on, "the sacred books of the Old Testament...[w]hen racial research, in itself not a religious matter, attacks the foundations of Christianity." In Faulhaber defended the Old Testament against Nazi antisemitic readings, especially those advanced by Nazi theorist Alfred Rosenberg.

Saul Friedländer notes that Faulhaber himself later stressed he was not in these sermons "commentating on contemporary aspects of the Jewish issue." Friedländer notes that these sermons employed some of the more common stereotypical depictions of traditional religious antisemitism: "The daughters of Zion received their bill of divorce and from that time forth, Ahasuerus wanders, forever restless, over the face of the earth." In his 17 December Advent sermon, Faulhaber spoke to the "People of Israel" about the "Old Testament" and declared "This treasure did not grow in your own garden... this condemnation of usurious land-grabbing; this war against the oppression of the farmer by debt, this prohibition of usury, is certainly not the product of your spirit!."

He admonished, "God always punishes the tormentors of his Chosen People, the Jews." He also noted: "No Roman Catholic approves of the persecutions of Jews in Germany." His praise for the Jewish people for having "exhibited the noblest religious values", comforted some and outraged others. The packed sermons had been attended by both Protestants and Jews, as well as Catholics, and "Munich rabbi Leo Baerwald was encouraged by the sermons, even though the cardinal had neither commented on Nazi antisemitism nor broken with the ancient Christian idea of a curse on the Jewish people."

By the time of the Nazis faith and biology were hopelessly linked with countless perverted racial theories based on felonious interpretations of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. In an entirely unprecedented manner these convergences and dissonances between faith and biology forced those within the Church to downplay the perceived Jewish identity of Jesus. It is here that Cardinal Faulhaber, in his Advent sermons used Mary’s sinless state to defend against those who would hold that she could in any way be biologically connected to the Jewish people of Europe. How did he accomplish this task? First, he rejected those who would adopt a belief in an Aryan Jesus. Second, he utilized Mary’s sinless state as the definitive ideological marker between Judaism and Christianity. Third, he expanded on Mary’s sinless state in a way and manner unprecedented in the history of the Catholic Church. In doing this he advanced the possibility of a “similar” set of graces, solely, and always, reserved to the Virgin Mary throughout Christian history, could now possibly apply to the entirety of biblical Judaism. He speculates—could not God have given similar graces as those imparted to Mary “to the whole bridal equipment of the people of Israel…500 or even 5000 years earlier, though they first welled up at the foot of the cross.” The Cardinal continued that if Mary—we are speaking of Mary’s conception here—who came before Christ, was sanctified in her mother’s womb, then so also could this redeeming love “be given to other men also as an advance payment from the grace of the Cross. The whole bridal equipment of the people of Israel, her election, her promises, her law and the other sacred books, her liturgy and the marvels of her history, all of this was a loan from the Cross of Christ, a loan, I say, using the term by way of a similitude.” “From this one paragraph, Nazis, as well as believing Catholics, would be left with the impression that Mary’s blood was somehow “filtered,” for lack of a better word, through her immaculate state—these are the author’s words and not those of Cardinal Faulhaber. Purified in this manner, Mary’s blood was perceived as having nothing in common with the blood of Jews living in Nazi Germany. In addition, that same “singular” grace uniquely reserved for the Virgin Mary could possibly be extended, “in a parallel fashion,” to apply to biblical Jews as well.” Accordingly, the Jewish roots of the Catholic faith are preserved from Nazi racial attack.” Bluger, “The De-Judaization of the Image of Jesus of Nazareth (the Virgin Mary) at the Time of the Holocaust: Ensoulment and the Human Ovum” (Xlibris, 2221), 520-541 Catholics can rest secure in the knowledge that the Church had disconnected from the Church’s moral and ethical responsibility concerning the Jewish question of their day. James Carroll in his book Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews: A History, notes that “in the nineteenth century, Jesus was commonly believed to be free of the taint of Jewish blood first because the Virgin Birth protected him from Joseph’s Jewishness. Then the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (1854), which declared that Mary was conceived without sin, inoculated him against the Jewish blood of his maternal grandparents.” This was nothing new. What was new was that for the first time in Christian history Mary’s sinless state was problematically extended to encompass biblical Jews and the Hebrew Scriptures to save them from Nazi racial attack. “With this above statement on Mary, Cardinal Faulhaber reveals the heart and soul of the Church’s political and ideological stance in juxtaposition with post-biblical Judaism and the Nazi racial policies of his day. Biblical Judaism, including the Hebrew Scriptures, as had always been the case belonged solely to Christianity.”

After his final Advent sermon Cardinal Faulhaber was requested by the Gestapo in Munich to clarify his attitude towards the Church’s anti-Jewish racial policies wherein, he replied “that he had indeed defended biblical Jewry in his sermons, but had expressed no views whatsoever on the modern Jewish question.”

″This brings us back to January 26, 1934, when Hermann Esser the Bavarian Secretary of State wanted Berlin to act against Faulhaber because of his Advent sermons. Twice Berlin responded in favor of Cardinal Faulhaber holding that the Bavarian cabinet should rather express their sympathies to Cardinal Faulhaber for the attacks on his premises.″

By that time Berlin was sufficiently satisfied that Faulhaber had signed-off on the Catholic Church’s position with respect to the Jewish question. It was at this time, “on the night of January 27, 1934,” that a revolver was fired at Cardinal Faulhaber.

Mit Brennender Sorge and the Advent sermons Comparing Faulhaber’s Advent sermons with Mit Brennender Sorge with specific reference to his use of Marian imagery two considerations come to mind. First, is that nowhere in the entire record of Faulhaber’s voluminous correspondence—throughout the entire duration of the war—is there any discontinuity with his earlier use of Marian imagery as presented in his Advent sermons—used to disassociate the Catholic Church from the Jewish question of its day. Second, is that after Mit Brennender Sorge Faulhaber fortified his Marian stance, as seen in the publication of his new book published in 1938 entitled The Women of the Bible—banned throughout Germany.

The Women of the Bible

In The Women of the Bible the concept of “blood” is mentioned in a similar way to Adam’s earlier and rightful clarification he made on January 21, 1934, in “Vom Gottmenschlichen Erlöser”—mentioned by Hans Küng. Herein the Cardinal stated that through his birth, Jesus blood was of Mary’s blood and that “she became one spirit with him.”

By framing Mary’s relationship to Jesus in terms of blood only outside of the context of Nazi racial belief, Cardinal Faulhaber is showing his wider readership that he is in line with Church teaching—and so he was. He continues that there exists a great moral divide between biblical Jews and post-biblical Judaism, which ended in the persons of Mary united with her cousin Elizabeth. These two represent one side of a polarity with Mary representing the new dispensation, while taking with her Elizabeth and the faithful characters within the Hebrew Scriptures. On the other side were the Jews who did not accept Jesus as their messiah. Christ gave the Synagogue its deed of separation and newly elected the Church into an eternal alliance. This was not done out “of unfaithfulness to the Synagogue but out of faithfulness to his Word” and preordained in God’s original plan of salvation. Bluger, This all was part and parcel of traditional Catholic teaching. "No matter how events played themselves out the Cardinal is showing his readership that his theological articulation is orthodox. There was no other approach other than the one he chose—'supercessionism' at its worst. For Cardinal Faulhaber the whole world needed to know that the Catholic faith is bound by this age-old separation between Church and Synagogue: 'the Savior gives to the Synagogue its deeds of separation and elects the Church to a new and eternal alliance . . . out of faithfulness to his Word.'” With mounting Nazi pressures to eradicate the Jewish roots of the Christian faith, it was by way of the Blessed Virgin Mary—as previously laid out in his Advent sermons—and not through an adoption of an Aryan Jesus, that Faulhaber was able to advance the final separation between Jesus the Jew—inclusive of biblical Judaism—and European Jewry and the Jews of Europe. For Faulhaber this not only had significance for the Catholic Church in Nazi Germany but included all Catholics throughout the world. "But is there not something wrong with this picture? Could it be that the Vatican’s affirmation of Cardinal Faulhaber is also being presently used to exonerate the entire Roman Catholic hierarchy of Germany in today’s post-Shoah world? In light of the above, how can Faulhaber’s Advent sermons be referenced in the document

What is not mentioned in “The Women of the Bible”

"Nowhere in The Women of the Bible does Cardinal Faulhaber mention that in his previous Advent sermons of 1933 he added the phrase “similar graces” as those “solely” imparted by God to the Virgin Mary to now possibly apply to the biblical Jews of the Hebrew Scriptures as well. It was precisely in and through these two words “similar graces” that he was able to disassociate the Jewish roots of the Christian faith—including biblical Jewry (which included the Hebrew Scriptures), from then contemporary Judaism. If ever there was a smoking gun then this is it! Such an approach had never been expressed throughout the entire history of Catholic Church. If Cardinal Faulhaber had not introduced this trope of “similar graces” applied to biblical Jews into his Advent sermons of 1933, then the entire institutional Church could have been destroyed by the Nazis as a Jewish institution. This unethical extension of Marian dogma, newly applied to biblical Jews was one of the lynchpins that held things together. In hindsight, through his Marian approach –outlined in his Advent sermons—the Jews of Europe were scapegoated and would have to pay the price for Cardinal Faulhaber’s ideological deflection. By doing what he did, the Cardinal turned the words of Christian theology into a diatribe of nonsensical meaninglessness while—at the same time—ensuring the survival of the catholic people and their institutions. When people throughout the world would read The Women of the Bible they would never associate Mary’s role with what Cardinal Faulhaber had laid out in his Advent sermons of 1933. Also to note is that what the Cardinal stated in his Advent sermons was not contradicted in either the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge or in his book The Women of the Bible. When "The Women of the Bible" is placed alongside Cardinal Faulhaber’s Advent sermons of 1933 we see that Cardinal Faulhaber was knitting these two writings together into one seamless garment—while intentionally leaving out in "The Women of the Bible" his ideological justification for accommodating Nazi racial belief through his problematic use of Marian dogmatics then to be extended and applied to biblical Judaism. By failing to inform his readership of "The Women of the Bible" of his previous Marian approach, taken in his Advent sermons of 1933, Faulhaber intentionally circumvented his previous accommodation of Nazi racial ideology. In other words in "The Women of the Bible" the Cardinal is showing the world that his conscience was clear while at the same time leaving out what he had earlier stated in his Advent sermons to accommodate Nazi racial anti-Semitism—the lie of Judith of Bethulia. But was Cardinal Faulhaber’s conscience clear? By extending “similar graces to the whole bridal equipment of the people of Israel” was he not going against Church teaching—which had held for centuries that the special grace of Mary’s sinless state was given by God to her alone. Why would he do this? The answer to this question is quite simple. At that time the Cardinal was not too concerned about theological orthodoxy or the right use of Marian dogma but rather in protecting his flock—a matter of survival. The Jewish roots of the Catholic Church had to be preserved in a way that would disengage the Church from having anything to say on the Jewish question of his day.

Survival over theology

Around this concern Gregory Baum in his article The Infallibility Debate writes that at times church authority defends itself in an historical crisis as a matter of survival rather than according to truth or doctrine.

He argues that only in “exceptional moments when the divinely revealed ground on which the Church stands is questioned or undermined will they formulate such a defensive declaration. Such a declaration is binding (and to) go against it would be to sever oneself from the believing community.”

Although Baum is writing in generalities, his comment applies to Cardinal Faulhaber’s Advent sermons and his later writings as well. Most people do not know that Baum was forced to flee Germany due to the stigma of racial categorization. He was also one of the authors of the now famous document, Nostra aetate. Ibid. This is the Declaration on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions of the Second Vatican Council promulgated on October 28, 1965, by Pope Paul VI. Could it be that the Vatican’s affirmation of Cardinal Faulhaber is also being used to exonerate the entire Roman Catholic hierarchy of Germany in today’s post-Shoah world? In light of the above, how can Faulhaber’s Advent sermons be referenced in the document “We Remember: a reflection on the Shoah” as clearly expressing rejection of Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda? 

Faulhaber's sermons were published week by week during Advent by A. Huber, Munich. The book of sermons was subsequently banned by the Nazis.

Faulhaber on persecution of Jews

In a letter to Pacelli in the early 1930s Faulhaber referred to the Nazi persecution of Jews as "unjust and painful". Historian Michael Phayer notes that unlike some clerics in Hungary and Croatia, "most German bishops were not mean-spirited toward Jews", and Faulhaber exhibited "typical Christian antisemitism, but it was not Nazi antisemitism." Phayer noted that Faulhaber did not condone Nazi antisemitism, as he was the primary drafter of Mit Brennender Sorge which denounced racism.

In November 1941, a small group of German Catholic bishops drafted a pastoral letter that proposed to protest against hostile measures taken against the church by the Nazi regime. The proposed letter didn't mention the Jews. Saul Friedländer sees this lack of willingness to take a public stand to the growing awareness of the mass exterminations in the East as being calculated because Faulhaber recorded in a memo his thoughts as to the proposed letter contents and his belief that raising "the Jewish question" and other matters would hurt the reputation of the German people and its government. In his New Year's Eve sermon in 1938 Faulhaber commented: "That is one advantage of our time; in the highest office of the Reich we have the example of a simple and modest alcohol-and-nicotine-free way of life." Also in 1938 the Nazis raided and turned upside down Faulhaber's office. During Kristallnacht Faulhaber provided the Chief Rabbi of Munich a truck to save the synagogue's possessions before it was destroyed. Pinchas Lapide opined that Faulhaber "preached half-heartedly against the desecration of Jewish prayer-houses" and objects that the truck was only provided at the behest of the pope. Martin Rhonheimer, who, although he notes that Faulhaber "had long been known as a friend of the Jews", wrote of Faulhaber's Advent sermons: "It is clear that Faulhaber's steadfast opposition to Nazi racial theories was never intended as a defence of post-Christian Jewry or of his Jewish fellow citizens against their persecutors." Despite Rhonheimer and Lapide's objection to the speeches as half-hearted, they nonetheless resulted in the arrival of uniformed Nazis at Faulhaber's home, shouting "Take the traitor to Dachau!" and breaking his shutters and window frames.

Racial theory

The writer Sidney Ehler has written that Faulhaber's series of sermons, in December 1933, condemned "the fundamental errors contained in the racial theory and its 'German Christian' offshoot." And Ronald Rychlak has averred that Faulhaber defended the principles of racial tolerance and instructed Germans to respect Judaism. The Nazis took objection to these sermons and his palace was fired upon. Martin Niemöller, the Protestant clergyman who spent seven years in concentration camps for resistance, said Faulhaber's sermons demonstrated that he was a "great and courageous man".

Some historians, while granting that Faulhaber objected to Nazi racism, assert that he insufficiently objected to antisemitism, asserting that he merely defended Judaism and the Old Testament, not sufficiently Jews themselves. Such historians have noted qualifying comments in his sermons regarding the acceptability of a "community of blood": "Blood and race... have participated in the shaping of German history." In August 1934, the Prague Socialist newspaper Sozialdemokrat carried what Pinchas Lapide considers a mistaken report that Faulhaber had preached against racism which was copied by several Swiss newspapers. Lapide says Faulhaber immediately cabled the newspaper Basler Nationalzeitung "Faulhaber sermon against racism never held. Request denial of false report." On the following day he wrote to Hitler's Minister of the Interior:

It is urgent that the public sale of such a heinous article, which is based on a Marxist forgery, be forbidden by the police and that the public be swiftly enlightened about this shameless lie.

Lapide also notes, when the World Jewish Council heard of the supposed preaching of Faulhaber they sent a communication to him thanking him for his courageous words. Faulhaber wrote back to them "protesting vigorously against the very mention of his name at a conference which demands a commercial boycott against Germany.

According to Ronald Rychlak the Nazis called for Faulhaber to be killed in 1935 and in 1936 Nazi police seized and destroyed one of his sermons, and did the same two times in 1937.

Faulhaber was a major contributor to the only Papal encyclical ever written in German (in the hopes of having a greater impact on the offenders), Mit brennender Sorge. Faulhaber spent three nights working a draft which condemned the Nazi's idolization of race and state. The encyclical sought to undercut the Nazi's attempt to alter Christianity to support racism: "The culmination of Revelation in the Gospel of Jesus Christ is final, is binding forever. This revelation has no room for addenda made by human hand, still less for an ersatz or substitute religion based on arbitrary revelations, which some contemporary advocates wish to derive from the so-called myth of blood and race." One historian praised Faulhaber as "one of the most fearless" German churchmen who in pastoral letters and sermons "denounced in no uncertain terms the treatment of Jews, the theories of German christians, and various actions of the Nazis" and that he noted the "debt of Christianity to the Jews".

Rabbi David G. Dalin has described him as "a famous opponent of the Nazis". One historian of modern Germany described him as "the most articulate anti-Nazi in the Catholic hierarchy". Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, a noted American voice for the Jewish cause during the war, called Faulhaber "a true Christian prelate", saying he tried to protect Jews when he "had lifted his fearless voice".

Relations with Hitler

Faulhaber, like other members of the German Catholic hierarchy, desired to have " a working relationship with [–] government and found it difficult to believe when Hitler used them for his own propaganda purposes and then abandoned them with empty promises."

Pinchas Lapide wrote that Faulhaber, in common with virtually all the German episcopacy, assured Hitler of their sincere cooperation. On 24 April 1933, the Premier reported to the Bavarian Council of Ministers that Faulhaber had issued an order to the clergy to support the new Nazi regime in which Faulhaber had confidence. On 12 March 1933, Faulhaber was received by Pope Pius XI in Rome. On his return he reported:

After my recent experience in Rome in the highest circles, which I cannot reveal here, I must say that I found, despite everything, a greater tolerance with regard to the new government. ... Let us meditate on the words of the Holy Father, who in a consistory, without mentioning his name, indicated before the whole world in Adolf Hitler the statesman who first, after the Pope himself, has raised his voice against Bolshevism

After the signing of the Concordat between Germany and the Holy See in 1933 Faulhaber sent a note of congratulations to Hitler:

What the old parliaments and parties did not accomplish in 60 years, your statesmanlike foresight has achieved in six months. For Germany's prestige in East and West and before the whole world this handshake with the Papacy, the greatest moral power in the history of the world, is feat of immeasurable blessing.

Faulhaber ended his note with a wish "coming from the bottom of my heart: May God preserve the Reich Chancellor for our people." In June 1936, the German press reported the case of a Swiss Catholic who prayed for the death of Hitler and by extension accused all Catholics of sharing a similar inclination towards sedition. Faulhaber responded in a sermon: "A lunatic abroad has had an attack of madness – does this justify wholesale suspicion of the German Catholics? You are all witnesses for the fact that on all Sundays and holidays at the main service we pray in all churches for the Führer as we have promised in the Concordat. And now one can read in big letters of the papers at the street corners, 'They pray for Hitler's death!' We feel offended on account of this questioning of our loyalty to the state. We will today give an answer, a Christian answer: Catholic men, we will now pray together a paternoster for the life of the Führer. This is our answer."

After the failed assassination attempt by Georg Elser he held a solemn mass celebrating Hitler's escape.

Faulhaber meets Hitler near Berchtesgaden, November 1936

In August 1936, the German bishops met for their annual conference, at Fulda. Discussion of the Spanish Civil War dominated the proceedings. The German bishops fundamentally accepted the Nazi presentation of the role of Bolsheviks in this war – Goebbels's propaganda ministry instructed reporters to call the Republicans simply the Bolsheviks, and in a letter the joint episcopacy stated; "German unity should not be sacrificed to religious antagonism, quarrels, contempt and struggles. Rather our national power of resistance must be increased and strengthened so that not only may Europe be freed from Bolshevism by us, but also that the whole civilized world may be indebted to us."

Nuncio Cesare Orsenigo arranged for Faulhaber to have a private meeting with Hitler. On 4 November 1936, Faulhaber travelled to Hitler's mountain retreat near Berchtesgaden. According to Michael Burleigh's account of this meeting, Hitler dominated the conversation, expressing his disappointment in the Church's response to Nazi actions and dismissing the Reich's attacks on the Church – the meeting sputtering out in a reciprocal lack of understanding. Historian Beth Griech-Polelle however, delivers a quite different account in which, following Faulhaber's own account, early tension eased as the meeting progressed and when Hitler had argued his goal was to protect the German people from congenitally afflicted criminals such as now wreak havoc in Spain Faulhaber had immediately replied: " The Church, Mr Chancellor, will not refuse the state the right to keep those pests away from the national community within the framework of moral law."

In his notes on the November 1936 meeting Faulhaber recorded that Hitler "spoke openly, confidentially, emotionally, at times in a spiritual way he lashed out at Bolshevism and at the Jews" saying 'How the sub-humans, incited by the Jews, created havoc in Spain like beasts." Faulhaber noted "on this he was well informed. ... He would not miss the historical moment." Faulhaber recalled to Hitler how he had been present when Pope Pius XI said that Hitler was the first statesman who had agreed with the Pope about the danger of Bolshevism. Friedländer comments that Faulhaber seemed to agree with Hitler's points by noting Faulhaber's comments "All of this was expressed by Hitler in a moving way in his great speech at the Nuremberg Party rally." Hitler discussed with Faulhaber tensions between the Church and Party:

Think about all this, Cardinal, and consult with other leaders of the Church how you can support the great undertaking of National Socialism to prevent the victory of Bolshevism and how you can achieve a peaceful relationship to the state. Either National Socialism and the church are both victorious or they perish together. Rest assured, I shall do away with all these small things that stand in the way of a harmonious co-operation. ... I do not wish to engage in horse trading. You know I am opposed to compromises, but let this be a last attempt.

“Michael Phayer notes that Saul Friedländer “tenuously” linked Faulhaber to Nazi racism—but according to Phayer’s analysis—this was not the case. But if we go back to Faulhaber’s notes we read that when Hitler mentioned the Church’s opposition to the racial laws Cardinal Faulhaber responded: “Even before, under the monarchy, there were laws to which the Church had to object (divorce 1875, abortion in first trimester, etc.).” Here the Cardinal was clearly telling the Chancellor that the Church has always peacefully coexisted with regimes that it did not see eye to eye with on various matters. Obviously Phayer is mistaken.” Faulhaber left the meeting convinced that "Hitler was deeply religious" and that 'The Reich Chancellor undoubtedly lives in belief in God. ... He recognises Christianity as the builder of Western culture." Some modern critics have painted the meeting as a failure on Faulhaber's part with regard to Jews. Michael Phayer, however, notes that Saul Friedländer, based on the what Phayer calls the "distorted" work of Ernst Klee, "tenuously links" Faulhaber with Nazi racism, but his own analysis of the text of Faulhaber's notes of the meeting leads him to reject this suggestion. Phayer observes that the meeting was not about Jews but about church-state relations.

On 18 November, Faulhaber met with leading members of the German hierarchy of cardinals to ask them to warn their parishioners against the errors of communism. On 19 November, Pius XI announced that communism had moved to the head of the list of "errors" and that a clear statement was needed. On 25 November, Faulhaber informed the Bavarian bishops that he had promised Hitler that the bishops would issue a new pastoral letter in which they condemned "Bolshevism which represents the greatest danger for the peace of Europe and the Christian civilization of our country." In addition, Faulhaber stated, the pastoral letter "will once again affirm our loyalty and positive attitude, demanded by the Fourth Commandment, toward today's form of government and the Führer. "

When the timetable for this announcement fell through – suppressed for its reference to state violations against the Reich-Vatican Concordat – Faulhaber set to work on another draft that he submitted to the German bishops. On 24 December 1936, the German joint hierarchy ordered its priests to read the pastoral letter entitled On the Defense against Bolshevism, from all their pulpits on 3 January 1937. The letter pointed out that the Church's support for the Nazi battle against Bolshevism would be more effective if the Church were to enjoy the freedoms guaranteed by divine law and the Concordat. Lewy asserts that the letter fulfilled the bishops' share of the bargain made with Hitler by declaring their support for Hitler's foreign policy and by encouraging the Catholic laity to have confidence in Hitlers leadership. However, Hitler never kept his part of the "quid pro quo" as the Nazis were unsympathetic to the Church's desire for Catholic organisations and schools outside the direct control of the Nazis.

"The pastoral letter's text revealed the capitulation of Faulhaber to Hitler's wishes : "Bolshevism has begun its march from Russia to the countries of Europe. ... the fateful hour has come for our nation and for the Christian culture of the Western world. ... the Führer and Chancellor Adolf Hitler saw the march of Bolshevism from afar and turned his mind and energies towards averting this enormous danger.. The German bishops consider it their duty to do their utmost to support the leader of the Reich with every available means in this defense." The bishops also warned Catholics they should not fall into discontent, as "such a mood has always provided fertile soil for Bolshevik sentiments."

He also notes Faulhaber's remarks to the German bishops that the comments of "emigrants" regarding this pastoral letter were of no consequence ("we do not care a rap") and that they all knew who the "emigrants" referred to were. In Lewy's opinion Faulhaber is referring to Catholics who had left Germany. The Dutch Catholic newspaper "Der Deutsche Weg" expressed disappointment of the pastoral letter: "We find it hard to understand that despite the events of 30 June [i.e. Night of the Long Knives], despite the inhuman brutalities perpetrated in concentration camps, despite the currency and defamation trials, despite the personal insults against individual princes of the Church, against the Holy Father [i.e., the Pope] and the entire Church, and in spite of all the hostile measures amounting to another Kulturkampf, ... the bishops find words of appreciation for what (next to Bolshevism) is their worst enemy."

The French Catholic anti-Nazi newspaper Kulturkampf asserted that "if the Nazis would only stop their attacks against the Church, National socialism and the German Catholics could again be allies. Paul Johnson describes Faulhaber as sharing in a common illusion of German Christians of a distinction between the Führer, whom he thought was well intentioned, and a certain number of Hitler's "evil associates". After a plot had been uncovered to assassinate Hitler in 1943 Faulhaber was questioned by the Gestapo over his contacts with Carl Goerdeler who was involved with the generals' plan. He was said to have vigorously condemned the assassination plot and to have affirmed his loyalty to the Führer.

Opposition to Nazi policies

In June 1933, Faulhaber complained to Hitler about acts of violence against Catholic journeymen that had taken place in Munich and the arrest of almost one hundred priests. He protested that the religious freedom of the church could be threatened by such acts even though the Church had made public expressions of loyalty to the state and a willingness to participate in it. Later in the year he complained also to the Bavarian State Chancellery about curbs introduced by the new regime. In June 1937, he condemned the arrest of the Jesuit priest Rupert Mayer during a sermon. The Catholic Church opposed then, as now, sterilization. When the Nazis proposed introducing compulsory sterilization of people afflicted with certain diseases or disabilities in January 1934 he again protested. The German Bishops asked that Catholics in relevant occupations should not be forced to act against their conscience and Church teachings. The Nazis were hostile to the perceived criticism of the German bishops and accused them of encouraging disobedience. Faulhaber responded by asserting:

The bishops repeatedly and in no uncertain terms have declared their willingness to promote the peaceful cooperation of the Church and State. However, in those questions where a law of state conflicts with an eternal command of God, the bishops cannot through silence betray their holy office.

In September 1939, Hitler issued an order that sanctioned the killing of people with incurable diseases. Euthanasia was, and still is, against Church teaching. The program was started in secret but when word leaked out Faulhaber was one of the German bishops who protested at the killings and wrote to Minister of Justice:

I have deemed it my duty of conscience to speak out in this ethico-legal, non-political question, for as a Catholic bishop I may not remain silent when the preservation of the moral foundations of all public order is at stake.

In April 1941, the Nazis proposed the removal of crucifixes from classrooms that resulted in an eruption of civil disobedience by ordinary Catholics that led to the dropping of the ban. During the course of the disturbances Faulhaber added his criticism of the ban: "The German soldier is honoured publicly by being called a crusader against Bolshevism. This title of honour would not be deserved, if at the same time at home war is declared."

Annexation of Austria

In March 1938, the Nazis crossed the Austrian frontier and Austria was declared a province of the German Reich. Previously Faulhaber had thought the ringing of Church bells for purely political reasons was not to be encouraged and he refused to order a peal of bells on the eve of the plebiscite in March 1936. (In February 1919 he had refused to allow the ringing of bells after Kurt Eisner, the Socialist Prime Minister of Bavaria, had been assassinated by a Catholic nobleman). In the aftermath of the Anschluss Faulhaber recommended the issuing of a statement ordering the ringing of bells in Catholic Churches and exhorting the faithful on 10 April "in this hour of world historical significance, to pledge their fidelity to the Führer and Chancellor of the Reich, Adolf Hitler, and to pray for the peaceful cooperation of Church and State in the Greater German Reich." The bells were rung but the Bishops of Bavaria along with others omitted mention of Hitler.

Invasion of Czechoslovakia

In October 1938, the Nazis crossed the border into Czechoslovakia and occupied the Sudetenland. Sharing in the widespread relief that war had now been averted Faulhaber suggested sending a telegram, in the name of the German Bishops Conference, to Hitler. Signed by Bertram it read:

The great deed of safeguarding international peace moves the German episcopate, acting in the name of all Catholics of all the German dioceses, respectfully to tender congratulations and thanks and to order a festive peal of bells on Sunday.

In 1944 Pope Pius XII wrote to Faulhaber indicating that in the event of a negotiated peace Germany should not have to give up Austria and the Sudeten province of Czechoslovakia.

War with the Soviet Union

In June 1941, the Nazis launched their attack on the Soviet Union which solidified the support of the episcopate for the struggle against Bolshevism and in one instance earned the praise of Reinhard Heydrich. The confiscation of Church bells as part of the war effort was met by Faulhaber with: "for the dear fatherland we will make also this sacrifice if now it has become necessary for a successful end of the war and for the defeat of Bolshevism." As the war in the East turned against the Nazis Faulhaber defended the Church against the Nazi charge that it had become lukewarm towards the cause:

Nobody in his heart can possibly wish for an unsuccessful outcome of the war. Every reasonable person knows that in such a case the State and the Church, and organised society altogether, would be overturned by the Russian chaos.

Street named in his honour Kardinal-Faulhaber-Straße, in Munich. In the background is the Munich Frauenkirche cathedral.

Negotiating the Concordat

Faulhaber was also involved with Cardinal Pacelli in the negotiations of the Reichskonkordat which was signed on 20 July 1933 and ratified in September of that year. It was typical policy of the Church to sign Concordats with the nations of Europe and the Church had signed dozens of treaties with all sorts of European nations in the decades prior. The Concordat also sought protection for Catholics when the influence of their traditional protector, the Centre Party, had waned (the party was established when Pius IX was Pope to defend Catholics during Chancellor Otto von Bismarck's anti-Catholic program, the Kulturkampf, but by the time of signing of the Concordat the party had lost influence and had been dissolved even before the signing). Paul Johnson's opinion was that the Kulturkampf had left the German episcopate in a state of fear of once again being considered anti-German and this had encouraged the Church to come to an agreement with Hitler. Even before the rise of Hitler he believes this attitude was demonstrated by Faulhaber when the Cardinal tried to excel in patriotic rhetoric by describing the first world war as having been undertaken in order to avenge the murder in Sarajevo, believing that it would enter the annals of Christian ethics as 'the prototype of the just war'. According to Ronald Rychlak Faulhaber was of the opinion that Hitler wanted a concordat with the Vatican for propaganda purposes and counselled caution as Hitler "sees what a halo his government will have in the eyes of the world if the Pope makes a treaty with him" nor would German Catholics understand why they had entered into such an agreement when "a whole row of Catholic officials are sitting in prison." Faulhaber and Pacelli sought through the Concordat to gain a strategic and legal basis to challenge violent repression of the Church, in part for its condemnations of Nazi racial doctrine. The German hierarchy was wary of the precariousness of deals with the government, Faulhaber observing, "With the concordat we are hanged, without the concordat we are hanged, drawn and quartered". Pacelli is reported to have told the British ambassador to the Holy See: "I had to choose between an agreement and the virtual elimination of the Catholic Church in the Reich." He felt that "a pistol had been held to his head" and he was negotiating "with the devil himself." On 24 July, Faulhaber sent a handwritten letter to Hitler, noting that "For Germany's prestige in the East and the West and before the whole world, this handshake with the papacy, the greatest moral power in the history of the world, is a feat of immeasurable importance." In a sermon given in Munich during 1937 Cardinal Faulhaber declared:

At a time when the heads of the major nations in the world faced the new Germany with reserve and considerable suspicion, the Catholic Church, the greatest moral power on earth, through the Concordat, expressed its confidence in the new German government. This was a deed of immeasurable significance for the reputation of the new government abroad.

After the conclusion of the Concordat, Faulhaber coupled his comments regarding the agreement with his expectation that the German state would comply with it and, as historian Michael Burleigh writes, with an appeal for amnesty for victims in concentration camps – an appeal which Burleigh points out is not noted by Faulhaber's modern-day critics.

The bishops of Austria, Hitler's country of birth, but outside the control of Nazi repression at that time, publicly expressed their view of the Concordat, Nazism, and the situation in Germany in a letter of 23 December 1933: "The concordat recently concluded between the Holy See and Germany does not mean that the Catholic Church approves of the religious errors of Nazism. Everybody knows how tense is the situation between the Church and State in Germany. . . . The Catholic Church has never agreed with the three fundamental errors of Nazism, which are first, race madness, second, violent anti-Semitism, and third extreme nationalism." The Austrian bishops' letter, the New York Times noted, "is regarded as a challenge to national-socialism not only in Austria but also in Germany."

In 1933 Faulhaber implicitly criticized the violent character of the new Nazi leadership by declaring: "A state based on right, which strives from the first for a peaceful solution, must win the victory over a state based on might, which seeks to gain right with bloody weapons." The speech was widely considered an act of opposition against Hitler's rule.

In his Advent 1933 sermon, Faulhaber preached: "Let us not forget that we were saved not by German blood but by the blood of Christ!" in response to Nazi racism. The SS interpreted the sermon as an intervention in favour of the Jews.

In 1934 an unknown person fired two shots at the cardinal's study. In 1935 some Nazis called for the killing of Faulhaber during a public meeting. In 1949 the council of the Landesverband der Israelitischen Kultusgemeinde in Bayern (Regional Union of Israelitic [Jewish] Communities in Bavaria) thanked Faulhaber with the following words:

As representatives of the Bavarian Jewish synagogues, we will never forget how you, honourable Mister Cardinal, in the years after 1933, with unseen courage, have defended the ethics of the Old Testament from your pulpits, and how you saved thousands of Jewish persons from terror and lethal violence.

Catholic historians and publicists have sought to stress Faulhaber's actions as a committed anti-Nazi and regime critic. However, certain other critics have alleged his collusion. In 2017 the liberal secularist free thought association Bund für Geistesfreiheit of Munich, in an open letter demanding the renaming of the Kardinal-Faulhaber-Strasse, called it unbearable that Cardinal von Faulhaber should still be honoured with a street name. According to the association, in a September 1933 diary entry Faulhaber had written that he hoped Hitler would succeed in doing what Bismarck had failed to do and 'eradicate the evil of the parliamentary democratic system'. The freethinkers' open letter cited Faulhaber's "hatred of Kurt Eisner" of the Independent Social Democratic Party, while alleging Faulhaber's in 1936 extended to the Nazi regime a "right" to 'take action against the excesses of Judaism in his area', his proclamation in 1936 of 'the unanimous commitment of the German bishops to the Fuehrer and his world historical work' and his 1938 call for Catholics 'to make a vow of allegiance to the Fuehrer in this hour of world history'.

Views on Communism

Cardinal Faulhaber had preached against communism in 1919, 1930 and from 1935 until about late 1941, but was silent on the topic from late 1942 until 1945; after the end of the war, he continued his public attacks against "Bolshevism".

Postwar

Styles of Michael von Faulhaber
Reference style	His Eminence
Spoken style	Your Eminence
Informal style	Cardinal
See	Munich

After the war, Faulhaber pleaded for Father Jozef Tiso, the president of the Slovak People's Party, which had actively persecuted Jews in 1941 and in 1944. Faulhaber described Tiso as a "prelate in good standing". Tiso was hanged for war crimes and Vatican Radio refused to defend Tiso: "There are certain laws that must be obeyed no matter how much one loves his country." Michael Phayer blames Faulhaber's mistake on the failure of the Vatican to keep its prelates informed and described it as a "dead end for information about genocide."

After the war, the German Bishops Conference issued a statement that many Germans, including Catholics, had committed war crimes. The most controversial section dealing with the issue of personal or collective guilt for the Holocaust caused a rift between the predominantly Catholic population of southern Germany and the Occupational Military Government-United States, the latter of which censored the bishops' letter. Faulhaber refused to publish a censored version. Faulhaber also said that German Jews should be welcomed back to the country as they belonged there just as much as any other Germans, and he offered to pay for their transportation costs to Germany from Theresienstadt. Faulhaber received expressions of gratitude from the Jewish Community Centre, who noted his well-meaning attitude shown to Jews in Munich during the years of persecution. Faulhaber called antisemitism a scourge of mankind and gave the assurance to an Anglo-American group "that I will do all in my power to convince the Roman Catholics of Bavaria that they must tear out all remaining anti-Semitism from their hearts." He said he would ask the Pope to issue a pastoral letter on antisemitism. Michael Phayer is of the opinion that in practice Faulhaber, along with Cardinal Preysing, accomplished "little or nothing" of significance in attacking antisemitism because of the priorities of the Vatican and the envoy of Pope Pius XII, Bishop Aloysius Muench.

Faulhaber sharply criticized the American military occupation authorities for attempting to liberalize the German school system.

“After the war, Cardinal Faulhaber received several letters of thanks coming from various Jewish organizations. How are these letters to be interpreted? Certainly, scholars will need to further examine these with a hermeneutic of suspicion. A ‘“first’” and obvious reason is that some of these letters came out of heart-felt sincerity. On several occasions, before 1933, Cardinal Faulhaber had spoken out openly on behalf of the Jewish people. At one time he was the number-one target of Ludendorff.” A ‘”second’” reason comes through Cardinal Faulhaber helping the Chief Rabbi of Munich save his community’s Torah scrolls. Although a courageous action on the part of the cardinal this reflects the reality that by that time, he, in the name of the Church, had detached the institutional church from the Jewish question on a political level. This relegated the church to helping baptized Jews (something closely monitored by the Nazis)—the cardinal then stating that the Jews could take care of themselves. The valves of empathy were closed to Jews who were not baptized. By the cardinal leading the way through this courageous act of empathy and action he was showing the way for others to follow, while on the policy level, it was he who had nothing to say concerning the Jews. “A third reason is that after the war Jewish communities in Europe were desperately trying to integrate back into German society. They were deeply traumatized. One only has to read about the pogroms in Kielce, Poland, where Jews were being murdered after coming home to reclaim their dwellings. Wanting to fit back into German society Bavarian Jews saw the necessity of ingratiating themselves to catholic authorities. This was a two-way-street. In return for Cardinal Faulhaber’s warm invitation for their return—making it appear as if the Catholic Church had always been on the side of the Jews, although on the policy level this was not the case—they thanked him for standing up for the Jewish people. ‘”Fourth’”, has to do with exaggerated numbers. Albert Friedlander comments that the famous Rabbi Melchoir had no idea of what had happened when he acknowledged that Euginio Pacelli had saved millions of Jews—meaning that, Jews were willing to go overboard in their support for Church authorities so that they could be accepted into mainstream society. This exaggeration of numbers is also seen in the interaction between Cardinal Faulhaber and the Council of Landesverband der Israelitischen Kultusgemeinde in Bayern whose members thanked him in the words, ‘and how you saved thousands of Jewish persons from terror and lethal violence.’ Looking more closely we see that after the war only seven Jews remained in Munich. Phayer mentions that the silence of the Bavarian bishops during the war facilitated the transport of over 8,500 Jews out of Bavaria. This author would surmise that the best case scenario for interpreting this statement of the Council of Landesverband der Israelitischen Kultusgemeinde in Bayern would be to ascribe it to baptized Jews who were either helped by the various Catholic relief agencies to emigrate before the war, as well as those baptized Jews who were helped by Catholics to survive during the war, with food and shelter, etc.” “There were a considerable number of Catholics of non-Aryan descent who wanted to leave Germany. For this to happen, funding came from the Holy See. Between 1936 and 1937 St. Raphaelsverein helped 516 non-Aryans—mostly Jews who had converted to the Catholic faith. In 1938 the number had risen to 1,850. When writing his book, Lewy responded that the recent claim in a German Catholic paper that the St. Raphaelsverein helped 1,950 Jews to emigrate and supported 25,000 Jews has no foundation in fact unless one still wants to use the concept, Jew as a term of racial classification. In light of Lewy’s comment, one must ask: what did he mean by using the concept ‘Jew as a term of racial classification’? Obviously, he was referring to those who were baptized Roman Catholic with Jewish or partial Jewish ancestry who were wanting to leave Germany. What Lewy is on about here was that the article mentioned comes across as if the Church stood up for all Jews—including those who were not baptized—which was surly not the case—although in a very few instances some of these were helped as well. Lewy sees the author of this information as intentionally confusing the reader by making unwarranted claims. Although Lewy is correct to point this out, it does not take away from the fact that the Catholic Church did help many baptized Jews and their families whom the Nazis had classified as Jews. Also, those who could not leave Germany would be known by the Church and according to Cardinal Faulhaber were helped throughout the war. This must be acknowledged by today’s historians.” “As for non-baptized Jews the record clearly shows that Cardinal Faulhaber, in his Advents sermons of 1933 had nothing to say. Again, this needs clarification in today’s post-Shoah world, which brings us back to Lewy’s comment, that by helping baptized Jews some Catholic scholars in today’s world—not realizing the difference between these realities—pass off “helping baptized Jews” as the moral equivalency that they helped “all Jews,” which was most certainly not the case.” “In relation to the above we see that early in 1947 a group of liberated Jews from Germany met in Bad Reichenhall, Bavaria. There they were “greeted with signs reading ‘Get out of here, Jews, before we put you in gas chambers.’” Bluger “The De-Judaization of the Image of Jesus of Nazareth (the Virgin Mary) at the Time of the Holocaust: Ensoulment and the Human Ovum” (Xlibris, 2221), 655-58. Cited from Phayer, 151, taken from Report for Saturday, March 22, 1947, Reidl Papers , Series 5, Box 1, Marquette University Archives. At that time Cardinal Faulhaber welcomed them back while emphasizing that Jews belonged in Germany and had rights as any other German. Meanwhile those at the Jewish community in Munich “wrote to Faulhaber expressing gratitude for the friendly and well-meaning attitude he showed Munich Jews during the time of persecution”—although, once again, the record clearly states that beginning with his Advent sermons of 1933 Cardinal Faulhaber had nothing to say on the Jewish question of his day.” “A ‘”fifth’” reason has to do with the Council of Landesverband der Israelitischen Kultusgemeinde in Bayern but in a different context, which distills into what can best be seen as a backhanded slight. Here the Council stated that they would never forget how Cardinal Faulhaber, in the years after 1933, “with unseen courage…defended the ethics of the Old Testament from your pulpits.” Of note is that the Jewish representatives were only commenting on Faulhaber’s defense of the Hebrew Scriptures in his Advent sermons of 1933. What the Council did not mention was that Cardinal Faulhaber’s Advent sermons had nothing to do say concerning the Jewish question of his day—thereby leaving Jews to fend for themselves, which supports our above claim that the various letters should not be taken at face value but rather came out political necessity.” Bluger, “The De-Judaization of the Image of Jesus of Nazareth (the Virgin Mary) at the Time of the Holocaust: Ensoulment and the Human Ovum” (Xlibris, 2221), 655-58.

 “A ‘”sixth’” reason for these letters has to do with the founding of the State of Israel. What happened to Jews at the time of the Nazis, was now being used as political capital to press for Israel’s admittance into the family of nations. Finally, a ‘”seventh’” reason, has to do with what can only be called embedded ideology. When writing the Munich archives, I asked if any of these letters of thanks to Cardinal Faulhaber made reference to the Virgin Mary—of course I did not expect that they would. The reply came back that this did not happen. My point here being that, if Roman Catholics today cannot recognize the Marian ideological subterfuge used to disengage the Jewish roots of Christianity from European Jewry at the time of the Shoah—as pointed out by Bluger in his book "The De-Judaization of the Image of Jesus of Nazareth (the Virgin Mary) at the Time of the Holocaust: Ensoulment and the Human Ovum" then how much more so would this hold for the Jewish people writing these letters after the war. Certainly, they had no knowledge of Marian dogmatics and how it was used at that time.” 

Legacy

Faulhaber remains a controversial personality. The Nazis reportedly considered Faulhaber a "friend of the Jews" and a Catholic "reactionary" (the term used by the Nazis to refer to opponents of the Nazis who were not left-wing). Ronald Rychlak is of the opinion that the views expressed by people such as Faulhaber to Cardinal Pacelli (counselling silence on the assumption that speaking out would make matters worse) influenced Cardinal Pacelli's future responses to issues. In "We Remember: A Reflection of the Shoah", a declaration issued by the Vatican in 1998, Faulhaber's Advent sermons of 1933 were praised for their rejection of "Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda". The principal author of the document, Cardinal Edward Cassidy, was challenged at a meeting in 1999 by an elderly rabbi, who as a sixteen-year-old lived in Munich at the time of the Advent sermons, when he recalled that Faulhaber had declared "that with the coming of Christ, Jews and Judaism have lost their place in the world." When historians at the meeting pointed out that Faulhaber himself said he had only been defending the "Old Testament" and pre-Christian Jews, James Carroll reported that Cardinal Cassidy seemed embarrassed and replied that the disputed assertion in "We Remember" had not been in his original document but had been added "by historians".

Awards and decorations

• Grand Cross of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany (1951)
• Knight of the Order of Saint Hubert
• Iron Cross of 1914, 2nd class
• Military Merit Order, 1st class (Bavaria)
• Order of St. Alexander (Bulgaria)

References

Works cited

• "Nazi Germany and the Jews", Saul Friedländer, 1997, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, ISBN 0-297-81882-1
• "The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945", Saul Friedländer, 2007, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, ISBN 978-0-297-81877-9
• "The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany", Guenter Lewy, 1964, Weidenfeld and Nicolson
• Lewy, Guenter (2000) The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany. New York: Da Capo Press; ISBN 0-306-80931-1. Amazon Books. Retrieved 8 May 2005.
• "Three Popes and the Jews", Pinchas Lapide, 1967, Hawthorn Books
• "The Catholic Church and the Holocaust", Michael Phayer, 2000, Indiana University Press, ISBN 0-253-33725-9
• "What Was Not Said", Martin Rhonheimer, First Things Magazine, 137 (November 2003):18–2 [3]
• "A History of Christianity", Paul Johnson, 1976, Athenium, ISBN 0-689-70591-3
• "Hitler the War and the Pope", Ronald J. Rychlak, 2000, Our Sunday Visitor, ISBN 0-87973-217-2

Further reading

• "Under His Very Windows: The Vatican and the Holocaust in Italy, Susan Zuccotti, 2000, Yale University Press, ISBN 0-300-08487-0

External links

• Kardinal-Faulhaber-Archiv des Erzbistums München-Freising
• Time's Magazine's Obituary of von Faulhaber

• Newspaper clippings about Michael von Faulhaber in the 20th Century Press Archives of the ZBW