OSA / Guide / RIP / 1956 / RFE/RL Background Reports : Subjects | Browse | Search

The text below might contain errors as it was reproduced by OCR software from the digitized originals,
also available as Scanned original in PDF.

BOX-FOLDER-REPORT: 35-5-57
TITLE:             Cardinal Mindszenty Removed as Primate of Hungary
BY:                KK
DATE:              1974-2-13
COUNTRY:           Hungary
ORIGINAL SUBJECT:  Hungary/3
THEMATIC SUBJECTS: Hungary--1966-1975, Church and State, Personalities

--- Begin ---

RADIO FREE EUROPE Research
EAST EUROPE
This material was prepared for the use of the
editors and policy staff of Radio Free Europe.

HUNGARY/3
13 February 1974

CARDINAL MINDSZENTY REMOVED AS PRIMATE OF HUNGARY

Summary: On 5 February 1974 Pope Paul VI declared the 
archdiocese of Esztergom vacant and -- in agreement with the Hungarian
government -- ordered a limited reshuffle in the top hierarchy
of the Hungarian Catholic Church. This move entailed the 
dismissal of Cardinal Mindszenty as archbishop of Esztergom and
primate of Hungary. After leaving Hungary in September 1971
the cardinal was allowed by the Holy See to remain the de jure
head of the archdiocese, and was listed in the Annuario 
Ponti-ficio as fuori sede (absent from his see). The government of
the archdiocese of Esztergom has been entrusted to Bishop Laszlo
Lekai, a titular bishop and apostolic administrator of the 
diocese of Veszprem.

*	*	*

On 5 February 1974, in its 1000 hours newscast, Radio Budapest reported 
that Archbishop Casaroli, "a leading Vatican diplomat," had arrived in Warsaw
on the previous day to discuss relations between Poland and the Vatican and
between the Polish state and the Catholic Church in that country. The same
news item was repeated on the 1200 hours "Midday Chronicle," and it was 
followed in a casual manner by a second news item which began:

And here is another item of news from the Vatican, but this
refers to Hungary: Pope Paul VI has appointed Roman Catholic
prelates to new posts. The Presidential Council had previously
given consent to these appointments. Dr. Jozsef Bank [former
residential bishop of Vac] has been appointed archbishop of
Eger; Imre Kisberk, titular bishop [of Szekesfehervar], has
become residential bishop of Szekesfehervar; Dr. Laszrlo Lekai,
titular bishop and apostolic administrator of Veszprem, has
been named apostolic administrator of the Esztergom diocese;
Laszlo Kadar, titular bishop of Veszprem, has been appointed
apostolic administrator of the same diocese.

The broadcaster then proceeded to announce that the appointments had
been made after Pope Paul had declared vacant "even under canon law" the see

[page 2]

of Esztergom, which had until then been filled "formally" by Jozsef Cardinal
Mindszenty, who left the country in September 1971.

The removal of Cardinal Mindszenty is obviously the most noteworthy of
the Vatican's recent moves. It has been rumored for some time that the 
Hungarian government has complained to the Holy See about the cardinal's 
activity both in Europe and overseas. According to Western reports, he was 
received by large and enthusiastic crowds on his frequent trips, and he did not
hesitate to criticize the Hungarian regime in some of his sermons. [1] The
Hungarian government would undoubtedly have liked to see Cardinal Mindszenty
relegated by the Holy See to a place of complete retirement, and it is 
possible that it made this a precondition for further normalization of relations
with the Holy See and with the Hungarian Catholic Church. The formal pretext
for such a request may have been the fact that even though Mindszenty left
Hungary for good in September 1971, he remained the de jure head of the 
archbishopric of Esztergom. The 1974 Annuario Pontificio [2] lists him in this
capacity, adding, however, that he is fuori sede (absent from his see). On
top of that Mindszenty is residing in the Pazmaneum ecclesiastical institute
in Vienna, which is under the jurisdiction of the archbishop of Esztergom.

Whatever demands may have been made on the Vatican by the Hungarian 
government, the steps announced on 5 February 1974 have probably given the 
Hungarian authorities considerable satisfaction. [3] The Vatican has issued two
documents. One of them says that "in consideration of the pastoral problems
of the archdiocese of Esztergom and after having had an ample exchange of
correspondence with Jozsef Cardinal Mindszenty, archbishop of the 
metropolitan see, the Holy Father has decided to declare the above-mentioned 
archdiocese vacant and to appoint as its Apostolic administrator . . . Titular Bishop
Laszlo Lekai, hitherto apostolic administrator of the vacant see of Veszprem."

The second document is the text of a letter addressed by Pope Paul VI to
Cardinal Mindszenty on 30 January 1974, but published, as mentioned above,
only on February 5. The letter begins by saying that the recent nominations
-- described by the pope as "important measures" -- were made "after a 
prolonged study of the circumstances, exclusively with the pastoral interest of
certain dioceses in Hungary in mind, among which the cathedral of Esztergom
ranks first...."
									d
Both documents state that the see of Esztergom was declared vacant in
consideration of pastoral problems. It should be noted that the declaration
of vacancy refers only to the pastoral problems of the archdiocese of 
Esztergom, while Pope Paul's letter mentions the pastoral interests of other 
dioceses as well. This inconsistency seems to lend support to the thesis that

-------------------------
(1) See, for example, the AFP release from Vatican City, 5 February 1974.

(2) P. 174.

(3) Up to February 11, however, the Hungarian government had not given
voice to any satisfaction it may have felt. The domestic information
media (see, e.g., Nepszabadsg, February 6) published only the text
of the Radio Budapest broadcast cited above, and the same is true of
the Catholic weekly Uj Ember (February 10).

[page3]

the Hungarian government consented to a very limited normalization of Church
administration in Hungary only on condition that Cardinal Mindszenty be 
removed as de jure head of the archbishopric of Esztergom. The references to
"an ample exchange of correspondence" with the cardinal and a "prolonged
study of the circumstances" indicate that the Holy See made vigorous efforts
to persuade Mindszenty to retire voluntarily, but without success. [4] As a
result the pope had to remove Mindszenty by unilateral action, which, of
course, he is fully entitled to do by virtue of his office. He deposed 
Mindszenty and opened the way to normalization of the Church government in the
archbishopric of Esztergom by declaring the see vacant -- a clear gesture of
good will.

Cardinal Mindszenty, however, was not prepared to let his removal pass
without comment. On February 7 his secretariat in Vienna issued a statement
in which he explained, "in the interest of truth," why he could not abdicate
either from his office as archbishop of Esztergom or as primate of Hungary.
The decision to remove him, he said, was taken "by the Holy See alone." The
statement sets forth six points that motivated his decision, reached after
"long and conscientious deliberation." The burden of these points is that
"Hungary and the Catholic Church of Hungary are not free," and in view of
the ensuing "weighty circumstances" he was in no position to abdicate. [5]

The Holy See was quick to react, in respectful but firm fashion. On
February 8 Professor Frederico Alessandrini, head of the Vatican Press Office,
read a declaration to the press which reiterated that Pope Paul's decision to
dismiss Mindszenty as archbishop of Esztergom was taken only in the interest
of the diocese -- that is, in order to promote the spiritual well-being of
both priests and faithful in Hungary. The Vatican spokesman agreed that the
cardinal had not abdicated, saying that the pope, "after having confidently
opened his thoughts to the venerable archbishop by means of a repeated 
exchange of personal letters, did not want to weigh down [Mindszenty's] heart
with a decision that the archbishop himself did not feel he could make, and
that his Holiness after mature, prolonged, and grave thought believed in all
conscience that he could and must take it upon himself." Alessandrini went
on to say that "the pastoral need that inspired the measures certainly cannot
mean that there was no awareness and full assessment of the particular, well-known
circumstances in which ecclesiastical life is lived." On the contrary, 
Alessandrini said, the measure "aims to reply to the primary requirement of every
Church community, that it be able to enjoy the guidance and active, 
encouraging, fortifying presence of a shepherd of its own in a normal regime of 
canonical administration." In other words, the Holy See claims to be fully alive
to the difficulties of the Hungarian Catholic Church -- described by Mindszenty
as lack of freedom on various counts -- but believes the best way to remedying
the situation is to place the leadership of Church provinces in Hungary, and
primarily that of Esztergom, in the hands of prelates on the spot.

----------------------

(4) Under the rules adopted at Vatican Council II Church dignitaries who
reach the age of 75 may ask the pope to permit them to retire. 
According to available information Mindszenty, who is 82, did not avail 
himself of this possibility.

(5) For a translation of the complete statement, see the Appendix to this
paper.

[page 4]

With regard to the pastoral needs of the archdiocese of Esztergom, it can
be argued that for the time being no significant improvement has resulted from
the dismissal of Mindszenty. As before, the archdiocese will be governed by
an apostolic administrator. [6] It is possible that the Hungarian government
desired Mindszenty's demotion to be coupled with the appointment of a new 
archbishop of Esztergom, who would automatically also have become primate of 
Hungary. The Holy See, however, seems reluctant to go that far, at least at 
present. If this is so, appointing Bishop Lekai as apostolic administrator can
be regarded as a compromise, and full normalization of ecclesiastical 
administration in Esztergom (and in the other dioceses) will probably be the subject
of further negotiation. The only "improvement" of which one can speak is that
until now the apostolic administrator of Esztergom, Bishop Kisberk, was also
in charge of the diocese of Szekesfehervar -- that is, he had to carry a double
burden. : From now on, as residential bishop of Szekesfehervar, he will be able
to concentrate on that diocese alone. He is four years older than Bishop Lekai
(they were born in 1906 and 1910, respectively), and reportedly in poor health.
Bishop Lekai's appointment as apostolic administrator of Esztergom can be 
considered a real gain for the archdiocese. He is an excellent clergyman who
studied for some time in Rome. [7] The "pastoral needs" of the Esztergom 
archdiocese could also have been served by the appointment of an auxiliary bishop to
replace the late Bishop Gyorgy Zemplen, who filled that office between January
1969 and March 1973. No such appointment has yet been made, however.

Not only by demoting Mindszenty but also in another way does Pope Paul
seem to have attempted to satisfy the Hungarian government. In his letter to
Cardinal Mindszenty he recalled "the time, precisely 25 years ago," when 
(Mindszenty was) subjected to a "trial and condemnation which marked the apex of
the attacks" on his person, and "which attracted the attention of the entire
world, causing astonished surprise in everyone." Such grave sufferings, Pope
Paul said "were the crown of thorns that was placed on your head, no less 
precious than your fidelity to the Church of Christ. We bow down with profound
respect in front of you, expressing our gratitude from the bottom of our
heart...."

It is common knowledge that on 8 February 1949 Cardinal Mindszenty was
sentenced to life imprisonment on entirely trumped-up charges in a show trial
that can be regarded as a dress rehearsal for another that took place in the
same year -- that of Laszlo Rajk and his "accomplices," who were sentenced on
equally trumped-up charges. Pope Paul's failure to make any reference to the
fact that Cardinal Mindszenty was put on trial by the communist regime because
he was a political opponent and a faithful son of the Catholic Church, rather

------------------------
(6) The same point was made by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 7 
February  1974.

(7) Uj Ember, 5 March 1972. Bishop Lekai was at one time secretary to 
Cardinal Mindszenty, as noted by The Times (London) and the Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung (both of 9 February 1974). He was named to that
post after Mindszenty became bishop of Veszprem in the spring of 1944.
In November of that year he was arrested by the Hungarian Nazis and
imprisoned in Sopron Kohida until February 1945. (During the same
period Mindszenty suffered the same fate.)

[page 5]

than a criminal, betokens a determination to let bygones be bygones in the
interest of advancing the Vatican's Ostpolitik. Moreover, the My See in
general and Pope Paul in particular seem eager to make a contribution to
détente, to which Cardinal Mindszenty is considered an obstacle sat only by
the peace priests of his own country (who now feel vindicated in their
criticism), but also by some officials in the top hierarchy of the Holy See itself.

It remains to be seen whether the Hungarian government will reciprocate
the willingness to promote normalization of relations shown by the Vatican.
Nothing would be more disappointing to the Holy See than a mere statement
from the Hungarian government to the effect that by removing Mindszenty and
keeping silent about the injustices to which he was subjected Pape Paul gave
evidence only of a "realistic approach" to the present state of affairs. The
Church can only hope that this will not be the case, and that the Hungarian
regime will make some concession in return.

Also worth noting is the fact that the Vatican announcement was made at
a time when delicate talks are being conducted between the Polish government
and Archbishop Casaroli. And it seems clear that the Polish authorities
themselves applaud the move and see a connection, with their own negotiations.
According to the Warsaw daily Zycie Warszawy of February 6, Mindszenty
"constituted an obstacle to the full normalization of relations between Hungary
and the Vatican." The latter's decision, said the paper, thus "demonstrates.
[the Holy See's] realism and desire to remove formal and political causes of
friction in relations with the socialist countries, [its] diplomatic
activity vis-a-vis the socialist world is of a comprehensive character and is not
restricted to one country or another, but approached in a global way."

None of the new appointments announced by the Vatican can be considered
as important as those made on three earlier occasions: following the
"partial" agreement of September 1964, in January 1969, and in February 1972. [8]
In fact, four prelates previously approved by the regime have merely been
moved from one position to another; no new names have been agreed upon
between the Holy See and the Hungarian government.

This represents extremely little progress in providing the government of
the 11 dioceses and archdioceses in Hungary with permanent residential bishops.
Before the recent appointments the picture was as follows: only one of the
three archbishoprics, Kalocsa, had a residential archbishop (Archbishop Ijjas);
the archbishopric of Esztergom was governed by an apostolic administrator,
Imre Kisberk, who held the same post in the diocese of Ssekesfebervar, while
in the archbishopric of Eger not even an apostolic administrator was nominated

------------------------

(8) See RE/Hungarian Unit, "The Hungarian-Vatican Accord," Hungarian
Background Report, Radio Free Europe Research (EERA), l8 September 1964;
KK, "Hungarian Catholicism and the Kadar Regime: Do New Bishops Mean
New Hope?" Hungarian BR/21, RFER (EERA), 5 May 1969; and KK, "New
Vatican Appointments in Hungary," Hungarian BR/3, RFER (EERA), 10
March 1972.

[page 6]

after the death of Archbishop Pal Brezanoczy in February 1972. In the eight
bishoprics, residential bishops were in charge only in Pecs (Bishop Cserhati)
and Vac, and the dioceses of Gyor, Csanad, Szekesfehervar, Szombathely, and
Veszprem were governed by apostolic administrators. The situation was
particularly unfavorable in the Uniate diocese of Hajdu-Dorog, whose
residential bishop, Miklos Dudas, died in July 1972; no auxiliary bishop or
apostolic administrator was nominated, but the diocese was entrusted to a
capitular vicar, Imre Timko, a well-known peace priest. [9] It is a measure of
the unsettled state of the Hajdu-Dorog diocese that in September 1972 it had
to "import" a Uniate bishop from Yugoslavia to ordain new priests. [10]

Since the summer of 1972 negotiations on the normalization of relations
between the Holy See and the Hungarian government have been taking place
alternately in Rome and in Hungary (although no official information about
them has been forthcoming). But nothing of substance has yet resulted, and
even in personnel matters involving the government of the Church provinces
progress; has been modest. The recent appointments bring the number of
residential archbishops up to two; that of residential bishops remains two
(Bishop Cserhati in Pecs and Bishop Kisberk in Szekesfehervar). One
archdiocese (Esztergom) and six dioceses are still governed by apostolic
administrators, and no change has taken place in the situation of the Uniate
diocese of Hajdu-Dorog. It is interesting that no residential bishop has been
appointed to the diocese of Vac; its administration remains in the hands of
Archbishop Bank, despite his appointment as archbishop of Eger. [11] His
promotion and the fact that he has been given control of two church provinces
-- one of which, Vac, is the largest in Hungary -- unquestionably reinforces
the position of this eminent churchman, who has earned an international
reputation as an expert on canon law.

The fact that despite the negotiations in Rome and Budapest no
agreement has yet been reached regarding the appointment of a complete slate of
residential bishops (either by promoting the apostolic administrators now in
charge or by finding other mutually acceptable clergymen) indicates the
nature of the problems that must be resolved before normalization of
relations can be achieved. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that the
appointment of residential bishops represents only a modicum of normalization. There
still remain such other issues as greater freedom for the exercise of priestly
duties and the teaching of the catechism, which are known to be very close to
the heart; of the Holy See -- and of the Church in Hungary.

KK
(Hungarian Unit)

----------------------------------

(9) See KK, "Death of Uniate Bishop Dudas Poses Delicate Questions,"
Hungarian BR/15, RFER (EERA), 7 August 1972.

(10) See Uj Ember, 24 September 1972, and Hungarian SR/36, RFER (EERA),
3 October 1972, Item 2.

(11) The appointment of Bishop Bank as apostolic administrator of Vac was
not mentioned in Radio Budapest's official announcement, but became
known from Western sources -- e.g., the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, 6
February 1974.

[page7]

APPENDIX

THE STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE SECRETARIAT OF JOZSEF CARDINAL MINDSZENTY

Some news agencies have reported on the decision of Pope Paul VI in such
a way as to give the impression that Jozsef Cardinal Mindszenty has abdicated.
They have pointed out that prior to the decision the pope and Jozsef Cardinal
Mindszenty, archbishop of Esztergora and the primate of Hungary, who is living
in Vienna, were in intensive correspondence. Hence some people concluded
that an agreement was reached between the pope and the Hungarian cardinal
concerning the decision. In the interest of truth Jozsef Cardinal Mindszenty
has deemed it necessary to issue the following statement:

Cardinal Mindszenty did not resign as archbishop of Esztergom and primate
of Hungary. The decision was made by the Holy See alone.

The cardinal justified his attitude in this respect after a long and
conscientious consideration, as follows:

1) Hungary and the Catholic Church in Hungary are not free.

2) The government of its dioceses lies in the hands of a Church
administration constructed and controlled by the communist
regime.

3) No single archbishop, bishop, or apostolic administrator is in
a position to change anything at all in the composition or
function of the above-mentioned Church administration.

4) The regime decides who will fill ecclesiastical positions and
how long they will continue to occupy them. The regime also
decides whom the bishops can ordain as priests. Freedom of
conscience and religion, laid down in the Constitution, is
suppressed in practice by the regime. Religious instruction in the
schools is prohibited in the cities and the larger communities.
The religious instruction that is still given in the village
schools is in the process of termination. Youth is educated
exclusively in the spirit of atheism, against the will of its
parents. There is discrimination against people holding
religious beliefs. Just recently the teachers who hold such beliefs
have been called upon to choose between their faith and their
profession.

5) Appointing bishops or apostolic administrators without
correcting the above-mentioned abuses does not solve the problems of
the Hungarian Church. Placing peace priests in important Church
offices shakes the confidence placed by priests and loyal
believers in the supreme direction of the Church.

Given these weighty circumstances, Jozsef Cardinal Mindszenty was not
able to resign.

  OSA / Guide / RIP / 1956 / RFE/RL Background Reports : Subjects | Browse | Search