RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN EASTERN GERMANY

HL Deb 30 January 1958 vol 207 cc332-46

5.3 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER rose to call attention to recent developments hostile to religious liberty in the Eastern part of Germany; and to move for Papers. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, during the last few weeks we have seen a stream of letters and have had many speeches from Mr. Bulganin and Mr. Khrushchev advocating Summit talks for the settlement of political differences and disarmament problems and for the promotion of world peace. I speak as one who desires that full advantage should be taken of these possibilities. But no Power which claims to be a champion of world peace and yet denies or undermines, and so attacks, religious liberty, is likely to convince other Powers which value that liberty of the genuineness of that championship while these attacks continue. There is an ominous development in the Eastern Zone of Germany to which I would call the attention of your Lordships. It is a sharpening in the last few months of the Government's campaign against religious liberty. The condition and fate of the Eastern Zone of Germany is a crucial factor in the international scene; its future is in many ways the key to the future of Germany; and the future of Germany, a peaceful and free Germany, is the key to the future of Europe.

Since the forcible suppression of the Hungarian and Polish struggles for cultural autonomy in the autumn of 1956, the Soviet Union and the Communist International have come to realise more intensely the importance of the Eastern Zone of Germany as a bulwark against the strongholds of Western culture and civilisation. In August, 1957, Mr. Khrushchev came expressly to Berlin to testify Soviet Russia's solidarity with the sovereign Republic of East Germany. He proclaimed the Eastern Zone, the German People's Republic, as a model State; that is to say, according to Lenin, a State—and I quote his words— not vibrating in rapid revolutionary moves, nor merely applying expedient devices to momentary situations, but a State which steadily carries forward the proletarian world revolution through methods congenial to the principles of dialetical materialism.

The East German Republic is a Socialist republic on the Marxist pattern. But the issue before us is not an economic issue, nor one of the shaping of an alternative political or social system. It is concerned solely with religious liberty, which, in theory, the East German Republic concedes. I should like to quote the guarantees of religious liberty in its Constitution. In Article 42 it guarantees: the right of the Church to administer her affairs independently from the State … the right of the Church to give shape and order to the religious profession of her members without State interference … No person shall be compelled to undergo religious instruction, to celebrate religious rites or to swear an oath in any religious form". Article 43 guarantees: the right of the Church to organise religious instruction in the State schools on school premises". Article 48 guarantees: the right of parents to decide on their children's religious affiliation up to their reaching the age of 15 years.

But practice and theory have not marched together. The Catholics, under their Bishop in Berlin and the Eastern Zone, Bishop Julius Doebfer, and the Protestants, under their Chief Bishop, Bishop Otto Dibelius, both suffer. The majority of the Church people, the Christians in the Eastern Zone, are Protestants, and I naturally have a much greater knowledge of the Protestant Church than I have of the Catholic Church. But there has been in these years from time to time since the Constitution was adopted an anti-Church drive, and attacks from time to time. Because of the Church's anxiety, on two occasions these guarantees, so far as the Protestants were concerned, were renewed at official conferences, with detailed protocols, the first being on June 10, 1953, and the second on December 3, 1956. Each time the whole Zonal Cabinet, under Premier Grotewöhl, on the one side, and the East German Evangelical Church Leaders Conference under Bishop Otto Dibelius, on the other side, endorsed and subscribed to these agreements. But experience bas proved, as with the National Socialists, the inevitable logic of the totalitarian system which leads to the victory of the extremists.

What are the facts? I put before your Lordships some of the recent developments hostile to religious liberty in two broad areas: first, administrative, and, second, youth. As your Lordships have heard, the State guarantees the right of the Church to administer its affairs independently of the State. This should include a reasonable freedom of movement. In fact, there have been increasing restrictions on the movements of Church leaders, and ever since March, 1957, Bishop Otto Dibelius, President of the Evangelical Church for the whole of Germany and Bishop of Berlin and Brandenburg, has been refused permission to enter the larger part of his diocese in the Eastern Zone. In his absence, the State-controlled Press has been filled with libels and insults against him and against Church leaders generally.

But it is not only a case of restrictions on the clergy; the laity are restricted as well. For several years now there has been an annual rally of Evangelical Churchmen known as the Kirchentag, numbering many hundreds of thousands. Last year it was planned to hold this Kirchentag in the Eastern Zone at Erfurt. Church people from all parts of Germany would have come, and a quarter of a million of those would have come from the Eastern Zone. After long negotiations with the Government for permission, the plan was cancelled. The Minister of the Interior of the East German Government. Karl Meron, would consent to the holding of this Kirchentag at Erfurt only subject to the following conditions: first, that during the Kirchentag everything should be avoided which would be likely to be considered as an endorsement of N.A.T.O. policy and as "being directed against peace" second, that an official statement should be put out by the Præsidium, according to which the Præsidium would denounce all such events of the last Kirchentag at Frankfurtam-Main in 1956, as in the view of the Government of the Soviet Occupied Zone it had constituted a criticism of the official delegates of the Soviet Zone's Government"; and, third, that the Præsidium should give an assurance that representatives of the Government of the Soviet Zone belonging to the Protestant Church were to be given an opportunity, within the framework of the Kirchentag, to give an outline of the "peace policy" of the Soviet Zone's Government.

There is, I need not say, no truth at all in the suggestion that the Evangelical Church or the Catholic Church is a political establishment or a part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. How ironical, however, that the East German Government should wish to take the opportunity of an immense Church rally from East and West Germany to do propaganda for the Soviet policy of "world peace"! It is not surprising that such intolerable conditions were rejected.

Other instances in this field, briefly, are these. There has been a drastic cancellation of licences to rebuild or repair churches, parish halls and vicarages, in spite of finance and raw materials being available during the last few months. Again, there has been the refusal of facilities for pastoral care at the All-German Church Synod in March, 1957. In Berlin, Bishop Jacob revealed the considerable difficulties encountered in State institutions, prisons for juvenile delinquents and hospitals. At the Stalinstadt Hospital last Christmas, it was forbidden to read prayers with the sick. There have also been attacks increasingly on the Church welfare organisations, such as railway missions Hilfswerke, and again there has been a threat to Church finances.

Since July 1, 1957, the Government have ceased to pay direct to the Evangelical Church the agreed subsidy for the maintenance of the clergy of 10 million East German marks per annum, which it had been agreed to set aside for this purpose in compensation for the nationalisation by the Government of Church property. Now this fund is being paid out of regional budgets in the hope that local pressure will be steadfastly used against the Church. At the time of the currency exchange on October 13, 1957, the Evangelical Church was accused of attempting to import 1.5 million old Eastern marks from West Berlin, all of them legally acquired, and senior Church officials are still under arrest under charges of smuggling the currency.

My second sphere is the most significant sphere of hostility—that is, the department of youth. Article 43 of the Constitution guarantees the right of the Church to organise religious instruction in State schools and school premises. In practice, recently in all State schools such instruction has been abolished on the plea of lack of accommodation. Article 42 guarantees that: no person shall be compelled to undergo religious instruction, to celebrate religious rites, or swear an oath in any religious form. Article 48 guarantees: the right of parents to decide on their children's religious affiliation up to the age of fifteen years. In fact, a new pseudo-religious rite is, with all the power of the State, being imposed upon the young. It is called the Jugendweihe, or dedication of youth. It is definitely antagonistic to, and competing with, the Catholic and Protestant rite of Confirmation.

A marked sign of the increasing hostility of the State for religious liberty appeared when, on September 29 last, Mr. Ulbricht, head of the Central Committee of the Communist Unity Party, laid down this direction: All young Germans will have to undergo a Communist youth dedication from 1958 onwards. This Jugendweihe dedication is preceded by several months of cultural instruction from the age of thirteen. It is accompanied by very great pressure on the children and their parents to dissociate the children and the young from Church catechists and from Confirmation classes. In outward form and shape it is a rite which anticipates Christian Confirmation, but in content it stresses the factor of collective response and collective of mass surrender.

I should like to quote the three questions which are put to what are known as the dedicants, the youths who come forward en masse. The preceptor asks the whole mass: Are you ready to fight, with all your strength, together with all patriots, for a united and independent Germany? Are you ready to fight, with all your strength, for World Peace and to defend it to the uttermost? Are you ready to fight, with all your strength, for the construction of a better and happier life on earth, for the progress in science, arts and economics? To each question the host of these young initiates reply, Yes, we promise so to do. Then the preceptor says: We have heard your solemn vow. Hence now receive the Great Promise of the community of all, the workers united in the Workers' World Union, to protect you and to help you reach the high purpose to which you are now dedicated. Go forward fighting the good light toward the vision of victory given to all honest working people on the earth. This, my Lords, is much more than a civic ceremony. It is intended to rule out the Christian rite. Bishop Dibelius, in Lent, 1956, said: The youth dedication rite is clearly and unmistakably based on the philosophy of dialectical materialism. One has to choose which: it is a case of either this or the other. Some parents and young people may desire it. But to impose it on all is a grave contradiction of the guarantees of religious liberty.

The intensity of the pressure applied is seen by the fact that in 1956 about 3 to 4 per cent. or, say, 6 per cent. of children of an age to receive Confirmation, underwent the dedication rite. In 1957, the figure rose to between 7 and 10 per cent. But in 1958, according to Mr. Ulbricht's order, it is to be compulsory for 100 per cent. Certainly this makes religious liberty of no account. We have a record of the attacks on the leaders, ministers of the Church, and of the punishments inflicted by the State, which tells its own tale. During the last three months of 1957 alone, no fewer than sixty clergy and catechists were attacked by name in the East German Press. During the same period five pastors, two theological students and one catechist were sentenced to terms of imprisonment or penal servitude on charges of allegedly assaulting Confirmation pupils, currency smuggling, or merely maintaining contact with Evangelical academies in West Germany.

I ask your Lordships to picture the difficulty confronting Catholics and Protestants alike. They may he willing to accept the Communist Socialist State as a reality, but this is very different from affirming their wholehearted allegiance to a totalitarian system. The difficulty in which they find themselves is fairly and clearly put in the following statement issued a fortnight ago, on January 13, by the East German Evangelical Church Leaders' Conference—I quote: A Christian may duly find himself in a position to interpret the basis of his Christian faith in a direction towards affirming the economic and political contents of Socialism"— Communist Socialism— What he cannot agree with, however, is a deliberate confusion of the economic and political expedients with the principles of an aggressively atheist and materialistic world concept. The development in all the other Peoples' Democracies of Eastern Europe demonstrates the possibility of being a loyal citizen in a socialist State without swearing a religious oath such as we have had in our East Zone Republic, this Republic being the only Eastern State whose government officially sponsors the Communist youth dedication rite by limiting promotion to the dedicants exclusively and tinder-privileging the adherents of the Christian faith.

My Lords, this is a melancholy and, you may well think, discouraging tale, but it is one that it is necessary to tell. The Catholics and Protestants are at one in this. My purpose is to bring these facts before your Lordships as a very important part of the truth about the Eastern Zone of Germany. I have had some experience of the crushing of religious liberty in Germany by Hitler and the Nazis. To-day, January 30, is exactly the twenty-fifth anniversary of the appointment of Adolf Hitler as Chancellor. Some of the most conspicuous champions of religious liberty then find themselves in the same rôle to-day—notably. Bishop Otto Dibelius. Men may look at the world and the human situation from different points of, view, and they are entitled to different and opposing ideologies. No one should make a totalitarian claim for his own. But religious liberty is fundamental to civilised life. With all my heart I desire an understanding between the Western democracies and the Soviet Powers, but if the East German Zone as now administered is really proclaimed by the Moscow rulers to be a model State, the prospects of such a sincere understanding are hardly encouraging. I beg Mr. Khrushchev and Mr. Bulganin, when they write their letters and make their speeches and their appeals for Summit talks, to realise and to ponder this fact. I repeat, no Power which claims to be a champion of world peace and yet denies, or undermines, and so attacks religious liberty is likely to convince other Powers which value liberty of the genuineness of that championship so long as those attacks continue. I beg to move for Papers.

5.30 p.m.

LORD PAKENHAM

My Lords, I hope the House will allow me, before I sit down, to say a word in support of what was said by my noble Leader about the right reverend Prelate himself. But before coming to that—I will not detain the House very long—I should like to say, on behalf of those of us who sit on these Benches, what a fine service we consider this last service of his to be. I must not talk of him as though he were about to pass away from this planet; I hope that no obituary tone creeps into my voice. And who knows, with the changes that are now coming about in the House, whether we may not see him back in some other capacity. The same kind of thing has happened before, and I am sure that would be a very welcome thing for all of us.

I feel that it was typical of the man and of the Bishop that he should have chosen what he himself called a "melancholy and discouraging tale" to tell. It would have been so much more pleasant, I am sure, for him on this last occasion, as it seems just now, to have come down with some agreeable discourse which we could all have applauded and which would have cheered us up and sent us away quite happy. But as he said, he felt this was a necessary part of the truth. Obviously, it is not the whole story in regard to Germany—how could it be in the short time that he occupied this afternoon? But it is a necessary part of the truth, and that has always been the spirit in which he has approached his attendance during the past twenty-one years.

I feel that he is uniquely qualified to tell this particular story, because there is no one in this country—no one, I dare say, outside Germany, and few inside Germany—who has done as much for German Christianity as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester. And no one, I think, whether in this country, in Russia or anywhere else, even in his most foolish moment, could accuse the Bishop of being a warmonger. No one could imagine that he was telling us this story to interfere with Summit talks on which many of us are tremendously keen. Everyone, I think, not only noble Lords here but those who read his speech, which will carry far abroad, and which will carry to Germany—and may it carry to the Kremlin!—must know the utter sincerity behind it and the passionate love of peace in which he is second to none. Therefore it is all the more important to note the actual facts that he has placed before us.

When I knew that he was to speak I attempted to equip myself in the way we do in this House, and I have obtained a certain amount of material. But I will not make any prolonged use of it except to say that everything in my hands, which comes from extremely good sources, confirms what the right reverend Prelate has told us. I was most grateful that he alluded to the Roman Catholic Church, my own Communion. They are a small minority in Eastern Germany, though of course a much higher proportion in Western Germany or Germany as a whole. I reckon that they are about 12 or 14 per cent., while the Evangelicals are more than 80 per cent., and it would be easy to overlook the Catholics or to treat their position rather lightly. But the Bishop is, of course, far too good a friend of all the Christian Churches to have adopted such a course.

I am informed that there has, in fact, been a great increase in the number of arrests and sentences on members of both the Evangelical and Catholic Churches during the last three months. Indeed, my information is that there have been as many arrests in the last three months as in the previous three years—all of which certainly endorses the right reverend Prelate's account of the way in which this anti-Christian campaign is being stepped up—a very depressing fact, even in the eyes of some of us who do not expect much good from a Communist régime, because some of us had thought, or hoped, that things might be becoming a little lighter and easier. But the facts are as the Bishop stated; the situation is getting worse. I am very glad to quote Bishop Dibelius, as an old and valued friend of the Bishop—I do not think this was actually quoted just now. In a broadcast at the beginning of this year, he said that relations had never been so positive between the Catholics and the Evangelicals as they are to-day under this great pressure. As is so often the case in the world, out of great evil some good can be snatched; and, if we take a long view, it may be a great good.

I do not think that it would help the House for me to dwell at length on the facts which the right reverend Prelate has put before us with great care, and with much more authority than I myself possess. Of course, I also fastened in my mind the increase in atheist propaganda, particularly as directed to the youth through the youth dedication movement, and also the attacks on the clergy and Church officials. Moreover, there is no doubt whatever, so far as we can make out, that the Church finances are being ground down, and it seems likely that understandings previously reached are in process of being broken, and certainly the hostility towards welfare organisations is being expanded and developed. Therefore, so far as the facts go, may I very humbly and respectfully add my support to what the Lord Bishop has said?

Nor am I going to deal this afternoon (because this does not seem quite the moment, and I do not know that I am quite the person to do it) with the wider implications—because in a sense they are infinitely wide. One can look at a story of this kind in two lights. Certainly it can be used by those who do not want talks with the Russians, as an argument on that side. But equally, when you see this terrible situation, the force of the argument may operate the other way. When we think of these persecuted people, for the moment not only those in Eastern Germany but also those behind the Iron Curtain, we must realise that any settlement which secures their liberation without acts of violence must be an even greater blessing than if their condition were not so terrible as it now appears. Therefore, I do not think that these facts, so to speak, can themselves point either way in the diplomatic argument that is going on at the present time—an argument in which I certainly side with those who are most anxious for talks at the summit.

I end on this thought, before referring again to the right reverend Prelate. We must surely recognise that German unity is not only a British interest but also a British obligation. I feel that that is a message which should go out from here in such a fashion that it reaches the Germans struggling for unity on both sides of the Iron Curtain. I know that ever since the war, under various Governments, German unity has been a declared objective of British policy. Humanly speaking, I think that has been a perfectly pure objective; it is not one which we have been seeking with any special axe to grind. But obviously, these facts placed before us this afternoon, with others which could have been placed before us, do increase the urgency of the need for German unification. I feel, and I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will let the Germans know, in even more emphatic terms than hitherto, that we do recognise the moral obligation to do everything in our power, short of violence, to achieve German unification.

I am not trying to make a Party point but, if you like, a point in regard to the future. If initiative were to be mistaken for weakness, and if inertia were to be mistaken for strength, then the future of Europe—not only of Germany but of Europe and the world—would be dark indeed. I hope, therefore, that we can be reassured once more—if possible in ways more effective than in the past—about the moral urgency that Her Majesty's Government attach to the unification of Germany.

Finally, may I add a short word to what fell from my noble Leader? I know that the noble Lords, Lord Mathers and Lord Stansgate, both great members of the Free Church Movement, will wish to associate themselves with those words to the full extent of their heart and strength. I recall what was said by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, and I feel that it was very appropriate. When I first came to your Lordships' House and was spokesman for the Government on certain matters connected with Germany, there was no one in the House who could disturb one's conscience in quite the way that lay in the power of the right reverend Pelate. He has been a disturbing force, particularly to members of Governments, through his insistence on seeing that the requirements of State are brought before the bar of moral conscience, before the test of the higher morality. He has always disturbed Governments. He has taken up a line on certain matters—Germany maybe, or Africa, or Cyprus, or something much smaller and nearer home, Brighton University. Whatever it is, there is always the appeal to idealism, and the most elevated form of principle.

I know that while there is life in the right reverend Prelate—and I am sure that there will be life in his body as long as there is life in the bodies of most of us—he will continue to stand for ideals, to set us an example and to inspire us, wherever he, or we, may be. And therefore, on behalf of those on these Benches. I wish him well in the future to which he is so richly and deservedly entitled, a future of immense happiness—the happy warrior to whom the whole country(can look with pride.

5.42 p.m.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, as a humble member of the diocese of Chichester, I should like to say how much share the regret expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, at the fact that this should be the last occasion on which our Bishop should address your Lordships' House. I know little of the subject under discussion to-day, but it would appear to be one on which there will be general agreement in the House. Thai has not always been the case with all the causes advanced by one whom perhaps I might call my right reverend friend; but I feel that at least the spirit and motive which has prompted him to take up every one of those causes has won universal respect.

5.43 p.m.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD)

My Lords, in an eloquent and most moving speech, the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Chichester, has drawn to your Lordships' attention developments hostile to religious liberty in Eastern Germany. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has endorsed the sentiments which the right reverend Prelate expressed—sentiments which I know all your Lordships here to-day fully share. Both have given examples of difficulties and dangers, moral and physical, under which the Churches and Christian worshippers in Germany carry on their worship.

To-day we have a situation in which an atheist minority, kept in authority by a foreign Power, is attempting to convert the population and, in particular, the young people to belief in their own materialistic and Godless concept of life. The most obvious manifestation of this intention is to be found in the atheistic youth dedication ceremony already mentioned by the right reverend Prelate—a ceremony which has been steadfastly declared by Church leaders in Eastern Ger. many, whether Evangelical or Roman Catholic, to be incompatible, to say the least, with that of religious Confirmation. In the autumn of last year, the East German Communist authorities directly challenged the right of freedom to worship by putting strong pressure on all young people to take part in this youth dedication ceremony. Courageously, the Churches in Eastern Germany stood up for their religious beliefs. Church leaders reminded their congregations of the spiritual importance of the differences between the youth dedication ceremony and Confirmation, and declared their determination not to be frightened by threats, with such encouraging and brave results as the right reverend Prelate has already mentioned. We can only salute, with admiration, their courage.

From this direct attack on the right of the individual to freedom of religious worship, the Communist authorities have over the past months tried to put pressure on the Churches in Eastern Germany in administrative and many other ways already mentioned. They have prevented prominent Churchmen from the Federal Republic from visiting Eastern Germany, and have prevented Church leaders in Eastern Germany from attending conferences in the Federal Republic. In addition, numerous Church leaders have been viciously attacked in the Press and some have been sentenced to severe terms of imprisonment on the most fantastic, trumped-up charges, such as that of making propaganda against the East German régime on behalf of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and there are many other forms of persecution about which your Lordships have already been told.

This is a tragic state of affairs which I have to confirm, and our deepest sympathy goes out to those who are being persecuted. There is, I believe, a brighter side to the picture, in that there are definite indications that the Communist authorities have not dared to initiate a lull-scale campaign against the Church, because of the overwhelming opposition of public opinion, which they know well. The steadfast and courageous attitude of the Churches has not, therefore, been in vain.

The right reverend Prelate has asked how we can envisage negotiations with people who not only permit but initiate such practices in areas under their control. This is a sentiment with which I l now all of your Lordships will agree. But we must bear in mind the realities of international politics. The fact that we have negotiated with the Russians in the past, and no doubt will do so in the future, does not imply that we in any way approve of their policies or their way of life. We do not know what the future will bring, but I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, that Her Majesty's Government look forward most earnestly to the day when the people of Eastern Germany will once more be part of a reunified Germany, a Germany reunified in freedom and with full freedom of worship.

Finally, I know that your Lordships would not like me to close my few words without endorsing all the touching tributes which have been paid to the right reverend Prelate by the leaders of the three Parties in your Lordships' House and by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage; and I know that many other noble Lords would wish to echo the same words. For more than twenty-one years, as we have heard, he has added distinction to this House. We have come to expect from him views expressed in the characteristically honest, controversial and forthright manner which has earned for him the respect of us all. It is fitting, I think, that his final contribution to our deliberations and discussions should be to draw attention to the wrongs suffered by his fellow-Christians in Eastern Germany, for it is in the field of foreign affairs that he has contributed so much in the past. We shall regret his absence, but we wish him as many future years of activity outside the House as he has spent in it.

5.50 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, who has spoken, to the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, and to the noble Earl the Minister. I should like to emphasise the fact which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, brought out—that I am a wholehearted devotee of peace between the nations. But I said what I did about the melancholy nature of the religious liberty situation in Germany in the definite hope that a knowledge of those facts would make Summit talks both more possible and more practicable in their results. It is a delusion if Mr. Khrushchev and Mr. Bulganin think, as Stalin thought, because the Pope was not able to bring many divisions into the field, that it is simply military matters that stand in the way of a real understanding between our country and various Powers, for which no one longs more than myself. Let them weigh these moral, religious and spiritual facts; and if they weigh them I believe mountains of difficulty will pass away. I should like to say that I am deeply in favour of Summit talks, but with the facts of this particular kind ever present.

I am also very grateful to the noble Earl the Minister, and to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, for the far too kindly way in which they have spoken of my contribution and the disturbing nature of my occasional interventions in your Lordships' House. I now ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at eight minutes before six o'clock.