Reich Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs
GII 3990/38
Berlin W 8, Leipziger Strasse 3, 23 July 1938
Tel. 11 66 51
[Stamp]
Praesidium Chancellery
Entered 24 July 1938
RP 6575/38
Subject: Catholic Bishop Sproll in Rottenburg (wttbg.)
Ref: Letter of 22 July 1938
No. Er 41/38 III
3 enclosures

To the Minister of State and Chief of the Praesidium Chancellery in Berlin

The Catholic Bishop Dr. Sproll, as the only citizen of the city of Rottenburg and, as far as is known, as the only German bishop, did not take part in the plebiscite of 10 April. The absence from the plebiscite has evoked great and justified anger among the population. Apparently the bishop himself had a bad conscience and left town on the evening before the plebiscite for an unknown destination. Even on 10 and 11 April there were demonstrations at the bishop's residence in Rottenburg against the absent bishop. On 21 April Sproll returned to Rottenburg and on the same day there were renewed demonstrations in front of the bishop's palace. On 22 April Dr. Sproll again left Rottenburg in order to go to a Bavarian monastery.

As the bishop, since Hitler's rise to power, became prominent through a series of damaging sermons, the Governor of Wuerttemberg now came to the conclusion that Dr. Sproll, in the interest of preserving the state's authority and in the interest of quiet and order, could no longer remain in office. The Reich Governor had explained to the ecclesiastical board,

that he would no longer regard Bishop Sproll as Head of the Diocese of Rottenburg on account of his refraining from the election in the office;
that he desired Bishop Sproll to leave the Gau area Wuerttemberg-Hohenzollern, because he could assume no guarantee for his personal safety; that in the case of the return of the bishop to Rottenburg he would see to it that all personal and official intercourse with him on the part of state offices as well as Party offices and the Armed Forces would be denied.

Moved by the reports from Wuerttemberg my Deputy, in my absence, directed the letter attached in copy G II 2277/38 2030 dated 5 May to the Foreign Office. In accordance with that the Foreign Office on 18 May turned to the German Embassy at the Vatican with the instruction that it should be urged on the Holy See to persuade Bishop Sproll that he should resign his Bishopric.

The bishop sojourning outside of his diocese had already received the instruction to return to his diocese. On 18 May Sproll quietly returned to Wuerttemberg and retired to St. Mary's Hospital in Stuttgart.

Since no answer to the instruction of 18 May had been received from the Embassy at the Holy See, on 1 July the settlement of the affair was again brought up in Rome. On 18 July the letter of the Foreign Office attached in copy—Pol III 1886 of 11 July—was received. Whether the affair has again been discussed with the Cardinal Secretary of State, as planned, is unknown to me.

In the intervening two months Bishop Sproll quietly resided in Stuttgart. On 15 July he returned to the Episcopal residence and on 16 July conducted a ceremonial divine service. On the evening of the same day there occurred among the population, aroused over the return of the bishop, great demonstrations before the ecclesiastical buildings of Rottenburg. On 18 July there were more even greater demonstrations. A report of the Reich Governor of 20 July is attached in copy. It is to be expected that on Saturday, 23 July, even greater mass meetings against continued remaining of the Bishop will be put on, so that Cardinal Bertram was impelled to send his telegram of 21 July to the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor.

The content and tenor of this telegram are such that I cannot recommend a favorable consideration of it. Not the demonstrating people aroused over the subversive attitude of the Bishop are turning against the State, but the Bishop by his incredible behavior against the State and folk-community has turned against the State. In my estimation measures are not sufficient here, which merely produce the condition prior to 10 April. I could only recommend a cessation of further demonstrations if the action of the German Embassy initiated at the Holy See is accompanied by success. If it is unsuccessful, the Bishop would have to be exiled from the land, or there would have to be a complete boycott of the Bishop by the authorities, as the Reich Governor in Wuerttemberg at that time announced to the ecclesiastical officials.