On May 19, 1940, Petain was summoned to Office in Paris. We cannot deal here with the moves which brought him to power. Was it a mere blunder of Reynaud? Was it due to the intrigues of those who surrounded him? Was it the work of Laval, the tireless plotter? Perhaps all these causes contributed. The fact remains that Petain's prophecy of several months before had proved true. Reynaud appointed him Vice-Premier. Petain used his newly acquired influence to procure the appointment of the ultra-Catholic, plotting, and reactionary General Weygand as Commander-in-Chief. Two other Catholic leaders, Baudouin and Prouvost, were included in the new Cabinet.
Weygand, the accomplice of Petain, had paid frequent visits to the Papal representative in Paris, in the most private manner and for weeks on end, just before the invasion of France. "Like Marshal Petain, Weygand was a bigoted clerical and an enemy of the Republican Constitution," says the impartial Annual Register. He was a Belgian of noble origin, notorious for his outspoken hatred of the Republican regime and of the "Godless Socialists and Bolsheviks." His first performance was officially to inform the Government that the defence of France was hopeless, and Petain, of course, supported him.
In the political field Laval echoed the words of his friends. Hosts of persons interested in the immediate cessation of hostilities supported
his clamor that those who wanted to continue the fight, although Weygand and Petain pronounced that German victory was certain, were parties to the murder of innocent Frenchmen.
Laval was a politician of very dubious character. His various activities do not interest us here. It suffices to say that he was a Catholic, and, like Von Papen, a Knight of the Papal Court. In a certain sense he was the leading Catholic layman in France, and he was very popular at the Vatican. He was the first Minister of the Third Republic, indeed the first Minister since 1865, to visit the Vatican. It was he who introduced high dignitaries of the Church to increasing influence behind the scenes of French political life.
Laval's great intimacy with the Vatican began in 1935, when he and Mussolini were plotting a scheme to allow the Fascist Italian invasion of Abyssinia without provoking international conflict. This is how the intimacy started:
His Holiness expressed his joy that after seventy years a representative of the French Government had come, not merely to convey a personal visit of courtesy, but to restore the homage of the French nation. M. Laval was wearinig the Order of Pius IX conferred on him by Pius XI. The Pope also gave a rosary of gold and coral to M. Laval's daughter. As a return of gifts, M. Laval handed his Holiness three exquisitely bound books...(Le Temps, January 11, 1935).
At the supreme crisis of France that we are relating, and during a long period before, Laval, like Weygand, was holding numerous and very secret conference with the Papal representative in Paris.
While he was still Vice-Premier, Petain, as well as his associates, went about Paris saying:
France needs defeat. Defeat is necessary for her regeneration. Victory would strengthen the political regime which has brought her to moral ruin. Anything is preferable to the continuation of a regime so abominable. Defeat followed by a rapid preace will perhaps cost France a province, a few ports, some colonies. What are they in comparison with her imperative regeneration? (Elie Bois, in Truth on the Tragedy of France.)
Complications, however, had arisen for Petain and his associates. Mussolini, with whom Petain and Laval had come in contact through Franco, had increased his demands on France. In addition to his demand for Nice, Savoy, and Tunisia, he wanted to enter into the
war and to march into Paris. He desired that his Fascist Army should conquer and destroy "the French plutocracy, riddled with Freemasons, Jews, and Bolsheviks."
The intentions of Mussolini to enter into the war had begun to leak out at the beginning of 1940, and were confirmed when Count Ciano told the Papal nuncio to Italy, Archbishop Borgongini-Duca, that Germany was preparing to attack France:
I have the impression that a great offensive is about to break out on the French front, and I foresee that, in this case, Germany will make the maximum effort to get us into the war (February 29, 1940).
This was the first warning to Petain, Weygand, and Laval of Mussolini's intentions. They remonstrated to the Pope, asking him to do his best to "restrain Italy from making it even more difficult for France to come out of the impasse."
The Pope approached Mussolini on various occasions, through the good auspices of Fr. Tacchi-Venturi, who was a go-between for the Vatican and Mussolini. But Mussolini seemed to become more and more stubborn about his intentions. The Pope appealed to Hitler, asking him to intervene and restrain Mussolini. Hitler promised he would do his best, but could not "prevent Italy from entering the course which Mussolini considered in the interest of the new Europe."
When Ribbentrop, in March, at last went to see the Pope, to ensure that the plan for France's surrender to Germany would work out as arranged, his pourparlers with the Pope, and with the Frenchmen who were working behind the scenes in co-operation with the Vatican, went so well that the Nazi Foreign Minister, in a moment of optimism, declared:
France and Germany will seek and find peace within this year. A New France will become the great partner of the Third Reich in rebuilding the New Europe. This is the firm conviction of all Germans (Ribbentrop, March 12, 1940).
Meanwhile, the French plotters (Petain, Weygand, and Laval) impressed upon the Pope that "French honor and national interest" could not be "allowed to suffer the humiliation of an Italian occupation of French territory," and that "the whole plan so laboriously
worked out for the rapprochement of France and Germany would be greatly imperilled" if Mussolini declared war on France.
Seeing that Mussolini did not respond to his requests, the Pope began a peace drive in Italy. The Fascist Ambassador to the Vatican, Alfieri, remonstrated to the Pope against such Churuch manifestations in favor of peace "in Italy."
Meanwhile, as the date fixed by Hitler for the attack on France was approaching, and as the French wanted assurances that Mussolini would not attack their country, the Pope sent a personal letter to Mussolini, written by his own hand, in which amongst other things, he said:
May Europe be saved from more ruin and mournings, and especially may our and your beloved country be spared from the vast calamity.
In reply, Mussolini wrote:
I desire to assure you, most Holy Father, that if to-morrow Italy enters the field, this would mean in an unmistakable manner that the honor, interest, and future of the country render this absolutely necessary.
Finally, Mussolini made it known to the Pope, through the Italian Under-Secretary of State, Guidi, who gave the news to the Archbishop Borgongini-Duca, that Italy had definitely decided to enter the war (May 22, 1940). This Count Ciano confirmed to the Pope on May 28.
Petain and Weygand asked Hitler to stop his colleague dictator. Hitler answered that he could not "restrain Mussolini" from entering the struggle.
In desperation Petain and Laval once more asked the Vatican for assistance, again acting through the Papal representative in Madrid, "the whole future of Catholic France having been endangered by Mussolini's decision."
The Pope answered that after Mussolini had made known his intention of entering the war, and seeing how Mussolini was determined to act, he (the Pope) had tried to persuade the Italian dictator "to be moderate at this critical juncture."
Petain and Weygand hesitated to submit; Laval counselled them to do so, asking the Pope to impress upon them both the necessity of the situation. The Pope went so far as to send his personal message
to Petain, asking France to "bow to the situation....with fortitude and realism," and assuring him that he would in the meantime "continue to make personal appeals to Hitler and Mussolini to formulate their terms with moderation and the absence of vindictiveness."
Petain, Weygand, Laval, and Baudouin ( a fanatical convert to Catholicism) decided upon the course they would follow.
The Nazi armies had invaded Belgium and Holland; King Leopold, on the advice of Weygand and his other Catholic advisers, and on direct instructions from the Vatican, after having prevented the Allies from co-ordinating their plans, had surrendered without even letting his Allies know about it. The Nazi legions had invaded France and were steadily advancing toward Paris.
While all this was happening, and as the final disaster was fast approaching, the Pope and his Secretary of State had several very private meetings with the French Ambassador, to whom the Pope accorded a final interview on June 9, 1940, the day before Mussolini's "stab in the back." What the Pope told the Ambassador and what the Ambassador told the Pope is not yet known. But the coincidence of the date, which was no coincidence at all, is significant and should be borne in mind, in view of the sequel.
The following day Fascist Italy declared war on France and Great Britain. Fascist troops entered French territory and, after very little fighting, achieved their first objectives of Mentone and Nice.
But while the above events took place in Rome, and while the Nazi armies were occupying France, Petain, Weygand, Laval and the other plotters were playing their cards to achieve their plans. Petain, who meanwhile had become Premier, tendered his resignation, with the full agreement of Laval and Weygand, thus at this critical moment greatly embarassing the French Prime Minister, to whom the Marshal sent a letter which, among other things, contained the following ominous lines:
The gravity of the situation convinces me that hostilities must immediately be brought to an end. This is the only step which can save the country (letter found amongst the Marshal's documents which he brought from Germany after his arrest in the summer, 1945).
This was written at a time when some Ministers wanted to continue the fight from North Africa. President Lebrun and Premier Reynaud
continued in vain to try to persuade Petain to go on with the fight. They asked him not to resign, but to await a reply from England. But what became known later was that the letter was not written by Petain himself, but was written and sent to the Premier by somebody else. This Petain declared to the High Court Commission of Inquiry, June 1945: "I was not there when the letter was drawn up. My thought had been interpreted."
By whom? By his associates, General Weygand and Laval, who wrote it to bring about the downfall of the Government and thus gain the opportunity of assuming power themselves, which was all part of the intrigues, bribery, and the deceit they plotted.
Long before the Nazi armies reached Paris, Petain had decided that France should capitulate. When Mr. Churchhill flew to France to consult the French Government, he attended a dinner party at Briare, south of Paris (June 1940). Trying to be optimistic, he said to Marshal Petain: "We had difficult days in 1918---we came through. We shall yet come through." To which Petain retorted: "In 1918 I gave forty French divisions, which saved the British Army. Where are your forty divisions to save us now?"
During the Cabinet Meeting, held on the same night, the atmosphere became tense with defeatism, two persons being mainly responsible by advising the Premier to surrender---namely, Mme. Helen de Portes and, above all, the fanatically Catholic-minded M. Paul Baudouin, M. Reynaud's Under-Secretary.
Marshal Petain and General Weygand---who at that fateful period was the French Commander-in-Chief---went to see M. Reynaud every day at 11 a.m. But on June 10, the day on which Mussolini declared war, Weygand arrived without having been summoned. The first thing he did was to read a note in which he asked the French Government to surrender.
Reynaud refused. During the night, accompanied by General de Gaulle, he left by car for Orleans.
The following morning, however, General Weygand, who had been in constant touch with Laval and Petain, telephoned Reynaud and told him that he, Weygand, had asked Mr. Churchill to come to his headquarters at Briare, so that the situation might be explained to him.
Meanwhile, many members of the Government were determined
to go on with the fight, and urged the Premier not to follow the advice of either Petain or Weygand.
On June 12, George Mandel, then Minister of the Interior, Edouard Herriot, President of the Chamber of Deputies, Jules Jeanneney, President of hte Senate, and General de Gaulle, persuaded the Premier to continue waging the war. France would go on fighting from North Africa. Plans were ready to be put into operation by which about half a million specialized soldiers could be evacuated from all ports available---mainly from Brest and Nice---and transported to Africa.
The Premier gave a written order to General Weygand to carry out the plan. But Weygand, seeing that the chance for which he and his Catholic friends had been waiting would thus be lost, did not carry out the order:
On June 12 we tried to encourage M. Reynaud. I got out of him a written order to General Weygand for the execution of measures already planned for withdrawal to North Africa of two reserve classes still in training, specialists from motorized divisions, from Belgium, from Alpine divisions, etc., comprising some 500,000 men.
They would have been evacuated from all ports from Brest to Nice. But General Weygand did not carry out the order (General de Gaulle, Paris, June 18, 1945).
Meanwhile the plotters were worried about Britain. They wanted to be sure that she would surrender as France would do. They had, therefore, to persuade Churchill to do what Petain wanted to do, so when, on June 13, the British Premier arrived at Tours, they tried to persuade him to surrender. This task was undertaken by the ultra-Catholic Baudouin. Reynaud, however, stated that he would telephone Roosevelt before taking any step.
Seeing that the French Government did not want to surrender and thus give way to a new Government headed by Petain, the plotters conceived another plan which, in addition to scaring the French Government, would greatly influence conservative England; they brought to the fore, the Nazi and Catholic bogy of Communism.
Petain, Weygand, and Laval decided to act immediately. Petain would try to overthrow the French Government by an open attack against it. Should that not succeed, Weygand would solemnly announce that the Bolsheviks had captured Paris and that all the
horrors of anarchy had begun to paralyze the city. We quote the words of General de Gaulle:
At a Cabinet Metting held at the Chateau de Cange on the same day, Marshal Petain opened the attack against M. Reynaud. General Weygand announced that Paris was in the hands of the Communists. We telephoned M. Roger Langeron, Prefect of the Paris Police, who denied this report (General de Gaulle, Paris, June 18, 1945).
The trick did not succeed just then. The following day Reynaud left for Bordeaux. De Gaulle and others asked him whether he would continue to fight, and he gave assurances that he would.
Thus the French Government was transferred from Paris to Bordeaux, where Marquet, another prominent Catholic and friend of Laval, was Mayor. Laval, who was not yet in the Government, used threats and promises to persuade the majority of the Deputies to agree to surrender.
Once more Reynaud advised them to go on with the fight, if necesssary from Africa. In this he continued to be supported by Jeanneney, President of theh Senate, and Herriot, President of the Chamber. Daladier, Mandel and others actually sailed from Bordeaux in order to establish the Government in North Africa, but through the machinations of Laval the voyage was not completed. Petain ordered the ship to be stopped, and those who were trying to escape were arrested.
The intrigues of Laval, financed by his own and by German money, eventually secured the nomination of Petain, through whom he hoped to rule hte country once he could procure the dissolution of Parliament. Meanwhile de Gaulle had come to Britain and was making plans to secure the necessary shipping to transport the French Government and troops to North Africa. But Reynaud resigned, Petain became Premier, and on June 17, 1940, at 1 pm.m., Churchill and de Gaulle learned that Petain had asked for an Armistice.
Some time later Laval, who continued to work behind the scenes, saw to it that Petain should take full control of the State. At the joint meeting of the French Chamber and Senate, which met at the National Assembly on July 10, 1940, full powers were delegated to Petain. On the same day a mission headed by Paul Boncour urged him to become a dictator. In the words of Petain himself:
Paul Boncour paid me a visit on July 10. He told me he wanted to see the full powers of a Roman dictator offered to me. I refused, and said I was not a Caesar and did not want to become one (Petain before the High Court Commission of Inquiry, June 16, 1945).
The whole maneuvre had been managed by Laval and Weygand. When asked (at the same High Court Commission of Inquiry) how he was able to assume power, Petain declared: "The whole affair was managed by Laval, and I myself was not even present (at the National Assembly of July 10, 1940)."
On becoming head of the new State, Petain's first action was to sign the Armistice, after which he disposed of all who wanted to go on fighting the Nazis. He arrested, imprisoned, and persecuted them. An unofficial war against the Communists was begun by the new Catholic reactionary dictatorship.
By this time the Nazis had occupied Paris and almost half of France. The French Army, Navy, and Air Force had surrendered. The members of the old Government were either in flight or in prison, and Petain, backed by his close associates, was at last where he wanted to be: at the head of a new Government.
Thus ended the Third Republic.
The Vatican, besides giving its blessing and encouragement to Petain, Weygand, and their conferderates, dared to express its enthusiasm in no dubious terms on more than one occasion.
In July 1940 the Pope wrote a letter to the French bishops. Did the Pope bid them repel the invader and disobey the orders of a foreign Power? Did he call on them to preach rebellion to the Catholics, as was the case when he ordered the Spanish and Mexican bishops to fight their democratic Government, or when he had exhorted the Slovaks and the Austrians to "undermine" those forces which were unwilling to co-operate with Hitler?
Far from it. On this occasion the Pope bade the bishops work harder, for now at last they had a chance to "bring about a reawakening of the entire nation," as the "conditions for greater spiritual labor" were so good. Here are his actual words:
These very misfortunes with which God has to-day visited your people give assurance, we feel certain, of conditions for greater spiritual labor favorable to bringing about a reawakening of the entire nation.
When the new French Ambassador to the Holy See presented his credentials, Pius XII assured him that the Church would co-operate and give whole-hearted support to "the work of moral recovery" which France had undertaken (Havas).
That was not all. The official organ of the Vatican, the Observatore Romano, published an article on July 9, 1940, in which Marshal Petain was highly praised and his efforts to save France were lauded. The article told, in enthusiastic terms, of "the good Marshal who more than any other man seems to personify the best traditions of his race." It ended by talking of the "dawn of a new radiant day, not only for France, but for Europe and the world" (Catholic Herald, July 2, 1940).
These praises elicited protests to the Vatican from all quarters, especially from Great Britain and America. So much was this the case that the Vatican was compelled to call on one of the cardinals to explain matters. The reader should recall the case of Cardinal Innitzer. This time Cardinal Hinsley was selected. His position as the British Cardinal gave him the ear of the English-speaking Catholics, and he was made responsible for reassuring Britons and Americans as to the Vatican's open support of a Fascist regime and of the Germans. Cardinal Hinsley, "on Vatican authority," made the lame excuse that such utterances, especially those of the said article, were in no way officially inspired or sanctioned. The article, he explained, had been written in reply to the French Catholic Youth Organization, which had publicly pledged the support of the Catholic Youth of France to Petain and his new Government.
Once at the head of the new France, Petain early declared his intention of abolishing the slogan of revolutionary France, "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity." In its stead he would substitute a slogan sponsored by himself adn the Church: "Work, Family, and Country." In his exhortations to the French people the words "discipline" and "obedience" were perpetually reiterated. He declared that the new France would free itself from all traditional friendships (namely with Great Britain) and enmities (with Germany and Italy), announcing at the same time that he had asked Hitler's permission to act as Nazi Germany's colleague in creating and maintaining the New Order in Europe.
Petain and the Church in France had a twofold programme: to rebuild a new society in the domestic field, according to the principles
enunciated by the Pope, and to create a bloc of Catholic countries in the foreign field. We shall deal with the latter presently.
On the home front the Petain Government began to destroy many tenets and laws of the Third Republic, supplanting them with laws inspired by the Catholic Church. Petain was determined to abolish Socialism and Communism; he desired to build in France a Corporate State on the lines elaborated by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno. We have seen that this meant a Fascist State, as in Italy. Trade unions would be replaced by "corporations."
All industrial measures were to conform closely with the Papal encyclicals, and with Fascist ideology.
Petain preached the ideal of the large family, as Hitler and Mussolini had done. He organized the French Youth in quasi-military formations, on the model of the Hitler Youth. He abolished those laws of the Third Republic which limited the powers of the Church, and he ordained religious instruction in the schools, permitting in them the teaching of priests. In everything he imitated Hitler and Mussolini, except that he surpassed both in the unheardof power he granted to the Church. Of course, Petain immediately adopted education as an instrument to shape the mind of all the youth in France to the New Catholic Fascist pattern. He introduced compulsory religious instruction in schools. He created a special commission to exercise censorship over the books used in secondary schools, and the teaching of history was especially modified. Emphasis was laid on France before the French Revolution. Chapters referring to recent history underlined the iniquities of the Third Republic, and the benefits accruing to discipline, obedience, and respect for the authority of the Church were given prominence.
Petain's educational policy was reactionary and ecclesiastical, and was further characterized by a desire to restrict intellectual training to the fortunate few. Youth, for the most part, was destined to agricultural and industrial pursuits, having the ability to read, to write, to be obedient, and no more.
Anti-Semitism was introduced, and history-books by Jewish authors were interdicted. In short, French youth was being trained on lines closely akin to National Socialism.
The Petain regime was busily removing the influences, the principles, and the methods of the Third Republic in every department of the nation's life. To recapitulate every change is impossible here,
and we believe that those just enumerated suffice to give an idea of the reforms which were being initiated, in spite of the hostility of the French people in general. The tide was turning as persistently as in all other totalitarian regimes.
The relations of the Petain regime and the Church were not wholly unruffled, for the same trouble that had trouble arose from the same eternal problem---youth. The Church, although well satified in general, complained that the regime tended, in educational matters, to concentrate too greatly on patriotic, at the expense of Catholic principles. So much was this the case that at one time the clergy themselves were opposed to religious instruction in schools on the ground that, the teachers being anti-clerical, the education offered was not one hundred per cent Catholic. But apart from that, and cognate problems similar to those encountered by the Church in Italy and Germany, Petain and the Church were in full harmony. Together they began to draw up a Concordat which would have given to the Church almost unprecendented privileges, only comparable to those she enjoyed before the Revolution in the eighteenth century.
What was the Catholic Church's attitude to the authoritarian regime set up by Petain?
From what we have just examined, it is obvious that the Catholic Church was not only favorable to the regime, but helped and sustained it with all its might, openly and indirectly, and---what should never be forgotten---as long as this policy did not harm its interests in other parts of the world.
We have already seen how the Vatican interevened to bring about the change in internal affairs of France which would create a favorable situation for spiritual and political dominion by the Catholic Church.
That the Vatican ordered the French Hierarchy to side with Petain there is no doubt. The best proof lies in the fact that the French Hierarchy, with notably few exceptions, supported the new Government very warmly from the beginning. It was only later that French bishops and even the Vatican (if rarely) addressed some protests occasionally; but such protests were never against Hitler, never against the new Fascist Government, never against the Nazi system as such. They were made only if the Nazis, Petain or Hitler did
not keep their promises to the Church, if they conflicted with the Church's interests in matters concerning education, spiritual welfare of workers, or if they trepassed on what the Church considered its sphere.
From the very beginning not a single French prelate of importance protested against the Nazis or Petain. It was with the passing of time and the realization of French resentment and hatred against the Nazis and Petain, and growing French patriotism and the French Resistance movement, that the Church began to retreat here and there, and allowed some French bishops or cardinals to complain. In spite of that, however, relations between the Church and Petain remained always very cordial. The higher ranks of the clergy spoke openly in favor of the ideals of the National Revolution, as they understood it in the early days after the fall of France, and their attitude can be summed up in the words of Cardinal Suhard in October 1942: "Politics are no business of ours. The Roman Catholic Church in France is an intellectual reservoir which will some day help in the building up of the new France."
If the Church of France was pro-Petain, it was not pro-German. How could it be when the majority of Frenchmen had only one aim---the expulsion of the Nazis from their country? That would have been too difficult, even for the Church. Yet, if the French Hierarchy as a whole had to restrain itself, many prominent French cardinals and bishops were openly and actively pro-Nazi. Suffice it to mention a few: Cardinal Baudrillart, Recteur of the Catholic Institute, who, because of his extreme horror of Bolshevism, joined the "Groupe Collaboration"; Cardinal Suhard, Archbishop of Paris, of the Abbe' Bergey, who in his Catholic paper Suotanes de France, became notorious for the violence and even vulgarity of his tirades; the Archbishop of Cambrai; Gounod, Primate of Tunisie; Gerlier, the Archbishop of Lyons, and many others.
The lower ranks of the clergy, at the beginning, followed the Petainist lead given to them by their superiors, but later they cooled off, no doubt because they were in close touch with the people and their daily misfortunes.
Many Catholic papers were collaborationist and pro-Petain. The most notorious were: La Croix, the biggest Catholic paper, which after the liberation of France had to face legal proceedings on a charge of having supported the policy of collaboration; and the
super-Catholic Action Francaise, which frequently attacked the Resistance movement amongst Catholics. It continually gave examples of the attitude of the Cures, especially those responsible for the guidance of youth, and demanded their removal from Office. This campaign of denunciation reached its height when the Action Francaise (June 26, 1943) reproduced, from the clandestine paper Courier Francaise du Temoignage Chretien, an article by a priest who desired to remain incognito, questioning the legitimacy of the Vichy Government, and asserting that
in the circumstances the question of a citizen's duty towards such a Government, which is a Government in name only, must be restated in new terms; the citizen is bound by no duty of obedience in civil or political matters; the right to serve---if his conscience demands it---the dissident authorities can be denied to no one.
A storm of abuse followed, the lower clergy being accused of every crime in the collaborationist calendar, from inciting the youth of the country to revolt or to join the "Maquis" to the very serious question of the legitimacy of the Government.
This tendency on the part of the lower clergy alarmed the Vatican and the higher French Hierarchy, which took steps to prevent them from taking active part in the Resistance movement. The issue was discussed at the General Assembly of the Cardinals and Archbishops of France, in October 1943. They made a statement repudiating the theory and reiterating their loyalty to Petain and their support of his Government, which they considered perfectly legitimate.
It is to be noted that this statement was issued as late as 1943 when the higher clergy seemed to have lost almost entirely the confidence of the French people and even of the lower clergy.
After the attack on Russia an intense campaign was initiated against the Reds, and often the most outspoken propagandists against Russia were the French Hierarchy. The following are a few typical instances:
Numerous French Catholics believe in all sincerity that Bolshevism is a bogy invented or exaggerated by the agents of Hitler. These Catholics have forgotten that this is not so. They should remember that "Communism is the complete ruin of the human society," as Pope Pius IX said.
Communism is a deadly pestilence, as Pope Leo XIII declared.
'Communism is savage and inhuman, in such a degree that it is impossible to believe of what it is capable, as Pope Pius XI stated.
After reading such statements, is it surprising that so many French Catholics became Fascists and made the anti-Communist, anti-Russian slogans their main policy? Or that numerous Catholics formed themselves into military groups and went, side by side with Hitler's legions, to invade and fight Russia?
The reasons for such behavior are obvious, but it might not be amiss to put them in a nutshell by quoting the words of the French Archbishop of Auch, who declared:
The Hierarchy are undoubtedly afraid of civil war...Let us be French above all. Let us draw together around our flag and around him who bears it.
Or of the Bishop of Brieue, who put it even more bluntly:
Should anarchy (e.g. Communism) come, we should be its first victims.
We should like at this stage to quote the sentiments expressed by one of the moderate French high clergy. We say "moderate" because he was considered so in the Vatican and in French Catholic circles. This Church dignitary, Cardinal Gerlier, stated that
In one of the most tragic hours of our history Providence has provided France with a chief round whom we are happy and proud to gather. My priests will remember what I told them. We pray God to bless the Marshal, and to enlist us as his collaborators, especially those of us whose task is difficult. The Church, therefore, continues to have confidence in the Marshal and to give him her loving veneration.
To the objections of several dissident bishops and many of the lower clergy, that the Marshal was a Fascist and was co-operating with Hitler, and that he wanted to build a totalitarian State, which had already, as in Germany, begun to enter the Church's fields, the Cardinal replied:
Nothing has changed or will change our support of the Marshal; Catholics will not make him responsible for the happenings of which the Church disapproves.
In further statements the Cardinal went so far as to declare that Catholics were not, and should not be, hostile to Laval. All this, the reader should remember, was said as late as June 16, 1943.
On November 23, 1943, Mgr. Piquet declared:
For me and for some others like me, Marshal Petain is the head of the French State because God Himself, and not a mediocre assembly of men who have resigned, wished him to become head of the French State. And I say that if all Catholics of France---I say all of them: bishops, priests, doctors, laity, etc.---if they had all followed him religiously, blindly, and fanatically, before and after the Armistice, approving him and listening to him, the fate of France would have been different.
This was the Catholic Church's attitude to the Nazi-sponsored Petain government, and to his social, economic, and political programme based on Fascist principles.
The policy of collaberation as dictated by the Vatican and the French Assembly was not supported by the whole Catholic body, which found itself at fariance with the higher ecclesiastical authorities. As a French dignitary put it:
The theologians in Paris, Lyons, Lille, are making efforts to obey the orders of the bishops, but they are giving to the faithful inaccurate reasons which should tell them why they should not accept the situation in which France finds itself. The cardinals and bishops have not been able to disregard them or to minimiae their influence. (Abbe' Daniel Pezeril, 1944).
What was the grand plan envisaged by the Vatican? We know it already. To set up a concert of authoritarian States, possibly Catholic, which would be based on Catholic conception of how a modern society should be built. That was the general aim of the Vatican. But what role did it play in the particular case of France, and, above all, what was the particular plan of the French high Hierarchy and all other reactionary strata of French society which worked hand in hand with it?
The plan of such sections of society were, of course, in full harmony with the Vatican's plan, which was of a double nature; internal and external.
France, after the anticipated Nazi victory, would have to be rebuilt on the lines of the Petain regime. It had to become an authoritarian State, based on the Corporate system. Socialism and Communism
would, of course, be entirely abolished: the Church would be the great power in the life of the nation.
Besides this internal plan, there was the external one. Both were an integral part of a greater scheme and had to fit into the Vatican's world-wide programme. The French plan was purely Continental, and the Vatican, although it might not have subscribed to it in its entirety or in the particular form in which it was envisaged by the French and the Catholics of other countries, nevertheless gave it its blessing.
What was its general line? Curiously enough, it was a replica---although, of course, in a larger and more up-to-date form---of the plan for a great bloc of Catholic States as envisaged by an Austrian stateman. The one great difference was that whereas Mgr. Seipel wanted the formation of a big bloc of Catholic States in Central Europe which would have been formed mainly by the former Austrian and Hungarian provinces, this new plan was for a bloc composed mainly by Latin peoples. It was to be the union of all the European Catholic Latin countries, and would have included Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, and curiously enough, the Catholic Southern German States. How the last-named could have been included, had Hitler won the war, is a mystery.
Of course, the States concerned would have had to rid themselves of democratic parliamentarian government, and would all have been based on the principles of the Corporate system as enunciated by the Catholic Church. The system would have been a mixture of Salazar's Portugal, Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Fascist Italy, and Petain's France, the whole cemented by the ties and influence of the Catholic Church. That Hitler had knowledge of this scheme has been proved by the fact that he himself made a solemn pledge to Petain, when the latter was still in Spain and plotting with the Nazis, that he would permit the formation of "a solid bloc of Catholic countries, co-operating with the Greater Reich to the building of the New European and World Order" (quoted from a letter, dated August 1939, from the Italian Fqascist Ambassador in Madrid).
This scheme was at that time seriously studied by a good many people, and supported by powerful personalities of the Right-wing Catholic elements in France, as well as in Portugal and Spain. The fact that not a few of those who supported it did so, not to further Catholicism, but for non-religious interests, is immaterial. Many
were keen on the scheme through fear that an isolated France might become a mere vassal of the Greater Germany, whereas a France in the Latin bloc would become the centre of the new system. The only alternative to this would be to fight Hitler. But if Hitler and Nazi Germany were destroyed, the tide of Communism would then sweep over France; whereas with an ex-Soviet Russia under Germany, Hitler would have been only too glad to let France and the new bloc become consolidated.
To what extent Hitler personally supported this plan no one knows. But one thing is certain; he promised Petain, Laval, and Cardinal Suhard that once the war was over he would improve his relationships with the Catholic Church throughout Europe. This was in accordance with his promise to the Pope that, at the end of hostilities, he would sign a new Concordat with the Vatican. Cardinal Suhard, Salazar and other promiment Portugese politicians, Franco, and the Secretary of the Fascist Party in Italy, all hinted at the plan on several occasions, and the German wireless elaborated on it, painting alluring pictures of a new Christian Europe, formed by Catholic States and by "the victorious Germany," who together would bring about "the complete restoration of a Christian Europe, the prosperity of the Catholic peoples"; a restoration which would have been achieved with no "tyrannical intereference from Judaic usurers in London and New York."
This, then, was the long-range plan which the various Catholic and Right-wing elements in France had in mind when collaborating with Petain and Hitler. And this explains, if not entirely, at least to a great extent, the otherwise inexplicable policy pursued by the French high Hierarchy, who were perfectly aware of the unpopularity of their actions. Of course, the plan was the secret of the privileged: the great majority of Catholics, including bishops and the lower clergy, new nothing of it, which also explains their occasional protests and actions when they did what they considered in accordance with the welfare of France, and nothing more.
This great plan, envisaged by the Vatican and the French Hierarchy, never materialized, except for the first stage---namely, the creatioin of an authoritarian French State. And although it is true that the Latin countries were Fascist and based on the Corporate system as expounded by the Church, the linking together of these countries depended, not only on the persmission of Hitler, but also
on how the war ended. The military victory of the Allies decided the matter, and the great scheme fell with the routed Nazi armies.
The Vatican had sufferd an authoritarian set-back in its titanic efforts to create and consolidate an authoritarian Catholic Europe, a programme which it had begun immediately after the First World War. The blow was particularly painful, considering that all such efforts seemed to be on the brink of being finally crowned with success. The scheme had miscarried. But does that acquit the Vatican and all other forces which worked with it from the severe judgment which history will pass upon them? We leave the answer to the reader.
When the Germans were expelled from France, and that country found herself under the provincial French Government headed by de Gaulle, the position of the Church, or rather the French Hierarchy, was not an enviable one. The Papal nuncio was cold-shouldered, and was asked in no ambiguous terms to leave France. The head of the French Hierarchy, Cardinal Suhard, was "confined to his palace" and was forbidden from taking part in the first great religious ceremonies in Notre-Dame, where the new Government and all Paris went for a solemn thanksgiving for the liberation of the city. Several bishops were actually arrested, the most notorious of them being the Bishop of Arras. It seemed as if the liberated French would punish without discrimination all who had collaberated with Petain and the Germans. Courts were set up, internment camps became crowded, trials started, condemnations began to fall on many a French collaberationist, heavy sentences, including the death penalty, were passed on journalists, broadcasters, officials of the Petain regime, and leaders of various Fascist French Parties.
[Doriot and ex-Premier Laval were among those judged and executed after the liberation (autumn 1945); Petain was sentenced to life imprisonment.]
But although severe measures were taken against the high Catholic Hierarchy, time passed and not a cardinal or a bishop ever appeared in court or was condemned. The matter had been dropped very quietly. De Gaulle himself, although a good Catholic, on his return to France asked the Vatican for permission to bring to justice Cardinal Suhard and other high ecclesiastical prelates, but nothing happened in the long run. Or, rather, what happened was taht the very cardinals who had supported, and who had asked all Frenchmen
to support, Petain from the very beginning until the old Marshal left France with the retreating Nazi armies, now began to speak in favor of the new Authority and to ask Frenchmen to support it.
Few days had gone by since the New Authority came to Paris, before Cardinal Gerlier, Archbishop of Lyons, made a broadcast in which amongst other things, he said:
We will practise towards this Government, to which the support of all good citizens is indispensible, the loyalty of free men, in conformity with the traditional doctrines of the Church...Of the ceaseless growing adherence of the country to the new Authority, the only Government capable at present of ensuring order...
Cardinal Suhard himself, when he was allowed to appear and speak in public again, began to praise the new Authority and to ask Frenchmen to support it.
While this was going on, the Papal nuncio in Paris, Valery, had left France and a new Papal nuncio with a clean record was accredited to the city; Petain's Ambassador to the Vatican was asked to resign, which he did when Petain left France, a new Ambassador from the "new Authority" taking his place. At the same time, a cardinal, Mgr. Tisserant, had a long meeting with de Gaulle, after having seen General Catroux and the North African bishops.
A nation-wide campaign had begun to show the great role that had been played by the Catholic Church in helping the forces of resistance. The role of the individual Catholic and of the humble parish priest was rightly exalted. General de Gaulle and other members of the Government attended Mass weekly. The trials such as that planned against the super-Catholic newspaper La Croix were being abolished, those granting privileges to the Church were maintained.
What had happened? The Church, having lost one round, had begun on another. It was once again operating its traditional policy of courting and making an ally of the successful. In other words, now that Petain was of no use, it was in the interests of the Church to support the new Government.
In this case the Church had strong cards to play. The head of the new Government was himself a Catholic. It is true that while he was an exile the Church had not recognized him, but had rebuffed him and his followers on many occasions; but that was past. Then,
many Catholics had helped him in the liberation of France, and thus no one could accuse the Church of not having played its part in the national recovery.
De Gaulle, in his quality of a good Catholic, was asked "not to persecute or in any way disparage the Church at this grave hour of responsibility, by casting hasty accusations against her dignitaries." Such a promise was easily obtained, in spite of protestations and pressure from many French quarters, especially those of the Resistance movement.
The most compromised cardinals kept their silence, while those who had ever dared to speak against Petain or the Germans now spoke far and wide. The accusations of collaberation were gradually withdrawn from Government quarters, and were maintained only by the Socialist, Communist, and Radical elements. The Church, which, immediately after the GErman retreat seemed to be about to suffer for its policy, after only a few months was at ease as much with the new Government as it had been with Petain's. The Vatican had very successfully begun a new chapter.