Montety_Eglise de France Et Antisémitisme (Anglais)

8/19/2019 Montety_Eglise de France Et Antisémitisme (Anglais)

1/6

1

The French Catholic Church And Antisemitism During The Second World war

I will rely here on various books on the history of the Vichy regime. All the works I will

mention are serious and honest. However, while putting the stress on such or such angle, it happens

that their conclusions may diverge sensibly.

After the brief introduction on historiography, I will deliver a few historical markers, while

analyzing more specifically the attitude of the French Catholic church facing antisemitism during

the Second World War. I will then conclude with a particular case.

1) Historiography

In the fifties, the stress was put on the German constraints applied on Vichy and on the need forunity. For example in the lenient book Robert Aron wrote in 1954, La France de Vichy.

In 1972, the American historian, Robert Paxton, wrote another La France de Vichy. A few years

after the movie, The Sorrow and the Pity, he opinion was discovering or rediscovering the French

antisemitism. In 1983, Paxton deepened his thesis that the French antisemite legislation anticipated

the German requirements.

Reacting to certain schematizations of Paxton, several authors such as Jean-Paul Cointet or

François-Georges Dreyfus (books published in 1996), considered useful to show the complexity and

permeability of the sociology and the political tendencies in both Vichy and the Resistance.

During the last twenty years, other historians have been dealing with more focused aspects of the

Vichy regime: the public opinion (Laborie, 1990), or its historiography (Henry Rousso, 1987).

More recently, two books brought up the topic of the salvation of Jews and the role of the church

therein (Sylvie Bernay, 2012; Jacques Semelin, 2013).

As far as events are concerned, Vichy’s antisemitic policy can be divided in two periods, before and

after the great roundabouts in the Summer 1942.

2) 1940-1942: The first and the second « Jewish Status », administrative custody

Dated 3rd of October 1940 and 2nd of June 1941, the two laws on the Jewish Status contained two

main sections, the one defining the population concerned and the other defining the constraints

imposed on them. As far as the constraints are concerned, the first law mainly forbid the public

service high positions and the education sector, as well as several profession of the cultural sector.

The second law extended the ban to the finance and the property sectors, while it also imposed


2/6

2

(very low) quotas on professionals, craftsmen, and commercial and industry professions. As far as

the definition of the Jew is concerned, the first law imposed a purely racial definition. The second

law added a religious criteria, though not exempting the converted; quite to the contrary, it seems

the adjustment was made for clarity matters. Besides, several cases of exemptions were provided,

targeting mainly the war veterans. The racist factor was indeed counterbalanced by a patriotism.

During this first period, prefects were furthermore allowed to jail foreign Jews in special camps.

As noted by Paxton, « most books wrongly considered that all these steps were imposed by

Germany (1). »

Paxton insists, on the contrary, on the autonomy of Vichy, which started

implementing its antisemitic policy earlier than any order coming from Berlin. Thus he brings up

the presence at Vichy of the far right ideas, as they had especially crystallized at the time of the

Affaire Dreyfus at the turn of the century.

Paxton’s works sparked reactions. Historians such as Jean-Paul Cointet showed the

complexity of political commitments in 1940, of the right and of the left, especially among the men

of Vichy. In another spirit, Gérard Noiriel denounced what he called the « republican origins of

Vichy », that is the progressive implementation, well before Vichy, of a special class of foreign

citizens, even when naturalized (2).

In 1940 and 1941, the two first Status did not arouse official reaction from the Church. The

only personality who protested publicly was the pastor Marc Boegner, president of the French

protestant federation. Yet, while being « viscerally philosemite », Boegner was to remain a steadfast

support of Marshall Pétain (3). In his History of the Resistance (1996), François-Georges Dreyfus

defends somehow the Church, stressing that no laic personality either reacted (4). However, the

Church has special duties in terms of moral questions, and also enjoyed relatively unspoiled

authority. It could for example successfully oppose Vichy’s attempt to create a single youth

movement (5). One can ask himself what would have been the attitude of the government, were the

Church to protest against the Jewish Status.

The atmosphère was not to protestation, but to contrition. A general contrition which the

Church willingly joined. As Pétain said himself: « the spirit of enjoyment has (too long) prevailed

over the spirit of sacrifice ». The Church could see in the so-called National Revolution a way to

apply the third way program which it used to dream of, combining corporatism and a vision of

community. This strange blindness was encouraged by the traditional loyalty of the Church toward

the State as well as that of the faithful toward their hierarchy, particularly at a time of crisis.

Furthermore, the support to the Vichy regime might have contained an ambition of self-fulfilling

prophecy, along the line of the Vatican attitude, which favored diplomacy and prudence to any

frontal opposition.


3/6

3

However, a few catholic raised their voice, particularly in Lyon where the first signs of the

so called « spiritual resistance »

were opening up around Father Chaillet. We’ll speak about him

later.

3) The turning point in 1942

We’re used to locate the turn of the war in 1942, between the American war industry’s rise and the

battle of Stalingrad. As far as France is concerned, 1942 is also a turning point. On the 8th of

November, the allies landed in North Africa. On the 10th, the German army invaded the Southern

zone of France, which had so far been directly administrated by Vichy. In domestic politics, this

turn followed the great roundabouts of the Summer, that of the Vel ’ d ’ hiv in Paris, on the 16th-17th

July, gathering 22 000 people, and that in the Southern zone, on the 27th-28th August, gathering7000 people. The French police participated to those operations. It seems Vichy willingly took part

because of its obsession for maintaining its sovereignty over the whole territory of France (6).

However, reasoning sometimes leads to absurdity or cynicism. Thus the chief of the government,

Pierre Laval, was going to claim on his trial after the war that he had ordered children to be arrested

for « human reasons », as he didn’t want to have families parted (7). He said he wished to « avoid

the worse (8). »

On the 29th of May 1942, the Germans had introduced the yellow star in the Northern zone.

Vichy did not. Furthermore, having felt the opinion turn after the roundabouts of the Summer,

Vichy began to slow down, as it appears in the archives of the Wilhelmstrasse (9). However,

deportations from France continued until 1944.

Before studying the question of the opinion and of the reaction of the church, we need to

take stock of the deportations, as it was finalized by Serge Klarsfeld. The number of Jews living in

France before the war is estimated at 330 000, of which 200 000 had the French nationality. The

persecutions made 80 000 victims, of which 24 500 were French and 56 500 were foreigners (10).

4) Reaction of the Church

In his conclusion, Paxton doesn’t mention the church among factors working against persecutions in

France. In his mind, mountains and forests were more relevant (11). However, in the course of his

book, he recognizes that Vichy « considered the opinion of the French people and the opposition of

the church (12). » Moreover, according to him, Vichy’s policy aggravated the fate of Jews in

general, rather than eased it (13). It is difficult to draw univocal conclusions from all this. In fact, it

is sometimes difficult to distinguish opinions on Vichy and those on the church, because we’re used


4/6

4

to consider Vichy as a clerical regime. Thus, also, authors who are the most sensitive to the positive

role of the church are often those who tend to nuance – not deny ! – responsibilities of Vichy.

Jacques Semelin, who wrote on the mutual aid within the occupied France, asserts that

« maintaining a State apparatus in France (Vichy) had a positive effect on the survival of Jews in

France (15). »

Total contradiction with Paxton. While François-Georges Dreyfus emphasized that it

was indeed the Catholics, « who raised the most the attention on the nazi danger. » Conscient that

his affirmation might astound his readers, he goes on : « some will say that I’m overstating: I’m not

sure they’re right (16). » Finally, another historian, Pierre Laborie, recalls the synchronization

between the French opinion and that of the catholic (and protestant) church, whose protests

smashed the « complicity of silence » in 1942 (17).

What were those protests? The one of the Assembly of cardinals and archbishops, delivered

to Pétain on the 22nd of July, was not made public. On the other side, during the Summer, severalhigh prelates delivered individual declarations which were read on Sunday by their diocese clergy.

Namely, between the 20th August and the 20th September, Mgr Saliège in Toulouse, Mgr Théas in

Montauban, Mgr Delay in Marseille, Mgr Gerlier in Lyon, Mgr Mousseron in Albi. One fourth of

the whole Southern area bishops protested. Jacques Semelin stresses that Mgr Saliège’s declaration,

in particular, « had a multiplying effect » and even « an international dimension », as the New York

Times referred to it (18). Sylvie Bernay states that the catholic church intended to alert the opinion

(19), emphasizing that individual declarations were not individual initiatives, but were the result of

concertations, notably with the nuncio, Valerio Valeri (20). Indeed, those reactions didn’t remain

without consequence. Germans noticed « a lively effervescence among the Catholics and within the

religious cercles (21). »

In Vichy, a member of the Marshall’s secretariat wrote in his diary: « if we

now become in the free zone (Southern) accomplices of the German persecutions, the catholic

clergy will give up its loyalty (22). » Even to a Hungarian journalist, György Ottlik, who visited

France at that time, Pétain spontaneously brought up the subject of deportations. « This prouves –

says Ottlik – the extent to which this problem hauts them, touches them and even hurts them

deeply, and finally forms the determinant factor of the current political atmosphere in France. »

Ottlik also reports that Pétain added with temper « I’m acting in the interest of France, and look

how the French clergy turns against me (23)! »

Sylvie Bernay, who wrote a thesis on the reaction of the French catholic church to the

persécutions, proposes the following chronology: first a « time of withdrawal »

until the Autumn

1941, then a period of hesitation following the second Status, while the tools for assistance to the

persecuted were also being drafted, then public protestations during the Summer 1942, prepared by

earlier, underground and isolated actions since 1940. Finally comes what she calls the « time of

rescue », that is shelters in monasteries and families or escaping channels.


5/6

5

One thing, surely, curbed the action of the Church as well as the French opinion, this is the

distinction between the French and the foreign Jews, or the illusion that such distinction shall be

made. This reality, however, was already brought up between the two wars by novelists such as

Joseph Roth (24). Indeed, Vichy’s high officers defended themselves after the war by saying they

had tried to save the French Jews to the detriment of the others (25). Even the Chief of the central

Israelite consistory, Jacques Helbronner, who died in a death camp in 1943, was stuck a long time

in this trap. About the deportations of foreign Jews in 1942, he feared that « if we raised the

question, similar measures could be taken against the “French Israelites” (26). » One can also argue

that distinguishing was not necessarily ranking, but simply taking into account a situation and trying

to make the best of it. Moreover, numbers are eloquent: the survival rate within the foreign Jews is

57%, and it exceeds 90% for French Jews.

The words of the consistory chief are to be found in the book of François-Georges Dreyfus.They were pronounced in the office of cardinal Gerlier, in presence of father Chaillet who was

precisely asking for official reaction against the first roundabouts of foreign Jews. It brings us back

to those who already in 1940 were working at enlightening the opinion. In particular to this jesuit

priest with whom we’ll end this paper.

5) Father Chaillet between Hungary and France

Father Chaillet is the symbol of the so called spiritual resistance. He was admitted within the

Righteous among the nations. With te pasteur Boegner, he founded in 1941 the Amitiés chrétiennes

(Christian Friendship) which supported refugees. He was also the founder of the Cahier du

témoignage chrétien, underground journal which circulation reached 120 000. The first issue,

published in December 1941, titled: « France, beware of loosing your soul! » Further issues dealt

with racisme, antisemitism.

Father Chaillet had had a direct experience of nazism in Germany and in Austria after the

Anschluss. In 1939, he wrote L’ Autriche souffrante (Suffering Austria). When the war broke out, he

enlisted in the secret services and was dispatched in Hungary with the mission to contact Hungarian

antinazi milieus.

As soon as he arrived in Budapest, in October 1939, he met a key personality of the

Hungarian propaganda sensitive to the dialogue with the Western powers, Joseph Balogh, redactor

in chief of the Nouvelle revue de Hongrie and of the Hungarian Quarterly (27). The main target of

Chaillet, as it appears in articles he published under a pseudonym in the French press, was to

maintain the neutrality of Hungary (28). In December 1939 (that is: after the second Hungarian

antisemite law), he praised count Teleki, whose gravitas was in contrast with the general cowardice.


6/6

6

Even Imrédy, for him, was « a sincere catholic and a dedicated Hungarian. » Chaillet, it seems, was

at that time ready to go far in the compromise in order to save what was to be saved.

The turn in his mind seems to have happened during the Summer, after the French collapse.

In September, he refused to endorse the second Vienna award in the columns of the Nouvelle revue

de Hongrie (29). He was soon after recalled in France by his superior in the Society of Jesuits (30).

A testimony from a companion, in the train and the boat from Belgrade to Marseille via

Constantinople, shows him as: « having decided to stand against all injustice and ready to act for the

sole truth, […] be it that he appears intolerant (31). » This new attitude contradicted his whole

strategy in Hungary. We know what happened then. Father Chaillet entered the resistance and

contributed significantly to the awareness of the French catholic opinion.

What father Chaillet hold from his experience in Hungary? I’m tempted to think it was for

him the end of illusion. He went to the end of his Hungarian dream, a mysterious dream, because itis difficult to insert in his own intellectual and ideological course, between the denunciation of

nazism in the thirties and resistance in the forties.

Finally, one can say that in Hungary – proportion wise, of course, because deportations in

Hungary started only two years later – one can say father Chaillet saw Vichy before Vichy, he saw

in advance and in real terms what was the meaning of segregating a part of the population.

Yet only the concussion of the French defeat achieved to raise his awareness. His own

patriotism made him react. As would say his companion on the journey back to Marseille, end

1940, he intended now to obey the « purest patriotism (32). » From his experience, one can learn

that compassion toward the foreigners does not contradict patriotism. Another thing to learn is that

the search for true and genuine information are at the origin of awareness.

Documents

Montety_Eglise de France Et Antisémitisme (Anglais)