THE GERLACH CASE

New Zealand Tablet, 30 August 1917, Page 22

THE GERLACH CASE

The Home pond eat of the London Tablet , writing under date Thursday, June 28, 1917, thus comprehensively treats of the Gerlach espionage case: The Sentence. In the high treason case, in which sentence was given on Saturday, in addition to Mgr. Gerlach, five Italians were accused. One of them, Poniarici, was sentenced to the full traitor’s penalty—to be shot in the back : one, Archita Valente, to hard labor for life; one, Nicolosi Raspagliesi, to five years’ imprisonment; two, Garcea and Ambi'ogetti, to three years. Gerlach to hard labor for life. Pomarici was not only the head of the espionage organisation in Switzerland, but he did not come to Rome to stand his trial, so the Court granted him no extenuating circumstances. These were granted to Valente and Gerlach, and that is the explanation of their escaping the death sentence. Also, according to the code of the military court, the intention of doing harm besides the actual doing of it must be proved to justify an extreme sentence, and this was proved in the case of the two Italians mentioned above and Gerlach ; not in the case of the three others, of whom Raspagliesi did not succeed in doing any harm. ’ Ambrogetti and Garcea had no intention. Hence the

light Sentences, which have caused some disgust among Italians who tire not well up in the intricacies. / •: . Complete Exoneration of the Vatican. I . In the case of three of the accused the Church may be said to be indirectly interested;* Gerlach was cameriere segreto participant©—that is, private chamberlain in .personal attendance on the Holy . Father—and held the office of guardaroba; Ambrogetti was employed by a well-known firm of. ecclesiastical providers, and in general acted as agent for prelates and other ecclesiastics in ordinary business matters to which it was not convenient that they should attend - themselves. He it was, for instance, who arranged the business of the lease of Cardinal Friihwirth’s apartment when his Eminence came to Rome. Garcea was the editor of the Bastone, commonly regarded as a“Clerical” newspaper. It was natural that the man in the street here should think that “the Vatican” was very much in this case, for “the Vatican” still overshadows all other political interests even with those who love to say that it is of no importance. And this, to the man in the street, has always been the “Gerlach case,” with some Italians also implicated. So the following excerpt from the publicly read judgment is of enormous interest and importance: —- “The Tribunal sees no need to go into the question raised by the defence concerning the objective immunity of the diplomatic mailbag of the Vatican, or concerning the exceptional claim of the impossibility of proceeding with regard to Gerlach from the point of view of the extra-territoriality of the places occupied by the Holy See and of the personal immunity of Gerlach himself on account of his official position. Primarily, such an exception, in the case of one who is not present to meet the charge against him, does not present any juridical interest worthy of being taken into regard in considering the cases of those who are present to meet the charge. In any case, the evidence given has shown most clearly how Gerlach, successfully evading by means of artful expedients the strict orders of the ecclesiastical authorities, and betraying their confidence, used his own means for the despatch of secret correspondence and for his other unlawful acts, and these means were not connected in any way with the arrangements of the Vatican mailbag. Nor is it shown in any way that his guilty acts • were carried out in the precincts of the Vatican, much less that they were rendered possible by the fact that they took place in the territory of the Holy See, which is not connected in the slightest way with the events which form the object of the present judgment. Furthermore, it is established that there is no connection at all between the acts alleged against Gerlach and the ecclesiastical duties, whatever these might be, with which he was charged. Fairness of the Court. That public and official pronouncement is eminently satisfactory. Indeed, it is about the only satisfactory thing there isexcept that the granting of extenuating circumstances by the court prevented the death sentence being delivered by the authority of Italy against a Monsignore in personal attendance on the Pope. The Osservatore Romano at once realised its importance, and published it with its own acknowledgment of the ‘praiseworthy rectitude and impartiality of the military judges,” and these two acknowledgments, by the court and by the Osservatore , confirm the points accentuated previously in this correspondence: first, that everyone has full confidence in the fairness of the sentence; secondly, that everyoneall thinking people, at any raterealises, even without waiting for the verdict, that the Holy See does not enter in at all. and, indeed, feels the keenest sympathy for the Holy Father. And “thinking people” includes people whose thoughts do not ordinarily run in sympathy with the Vatican. , It does not, unfortunately, include people whose thoughts, actions, and intentions run in organised hostility to the Church; to these an opportunity has been given which it cannot be expected that they will fail to use in playing on the feelings of the ignorant.

Gerlach's Disgraceful' Abus© of His Position.' For, indeed, the thing is scandalously disgraceful. It: is no case merely of having paid large sums for the publication. in newspapers of notices and articles damagiug to Italy, though that was part of the indictment. It is a case of the personal and confidential attendant of, his Holiness, holding Monsignorial . rank at the gift of his Holiness, living in the Vatican by special permission of his Holinessa permission given in - return for explicit promises, and given with a generous trust which the most ordinary Christian would have -felt bound to repay by the most absolutely faithful devotion to his Holiness; it is a case of this person using the privileges thus granted him of remaining in Rome to break his word, all his promises to the Pope, privately, and publicly, to endanger the position of the Holy See and the interests of Holy Church, by ‘.‘holding communication with the enemy through their central espionage organisation in Switzerland, and communicating to them notices concerning the military, political, and economic situation of the country, to the serious danger of the defence of the State.” That is what the Italian military court has . sentenced him for, but surely the Roman paper is justified which says that he deserves impeachment by the Holy See as much as by Italy. '■ Even now that we have had the verdict, and knowing what we do of the German manque de foi , the thing seems incredible; no wonder that people, both in ordinary positions and in high positions, have refused to believe, ever since the affair became public, that Gerlach could be guilty of the crimes alleged against him ; no wonder that even lately, when there, was the gravest reason to fear that the sentence against him would be severe, one refused, subconsciously, to admit the possibility. Now that the truth is perforce eating into everyone’s intelligence, many who tried to be most charitable while a doubt was possible, are bitterest against the traitor against the Holy Father. A very serious and quiet Catholic here long ago described this in conversation as “the worst betrayal since Judas.” One felt inclined to think that his serious, quiet judgment had left him for the moment, but he was right. The Holy Office and Mgr. Gerlach. Incidentally the Osservatore takes the trouble to stop a story going the rounds by the following statement:—“A morning paper publishes:—‘Even before the sentence of the military court was delivered, the Holy Office had been charged with the consideration of the conduct of Mgr. Gerlach, cameriere segreto participante. After the sentence had declared that Mgr. Gerlach had betrayed the confidence of the Holy See, the Holy Office resumed the process against the German traitor prelate.’ We are authoried to say that there is no foundation whatever for this statement.” Even if some of the things said concerning Gerlach’s proceedings in Rome, when according to promise he should not have gone out of the Vatican, were time, one does not quite see on what grounds the Holy Office would act. „ Regarding the action of the Holy See I am advised that while one may be quite sure that the next issue of the Annuario-Pontificio will not contain the name of Gerlach, there are no safe grounds for presuming that the case calls for anything more actual than that happening.