Against the Titans. Peter Nguyen
to encounter God in Christ not in some supra-sensible oasis kept free from a broken world but rather in the wreck of human existence. In the same letter he writes:
Mass in the evening was full of grace . . . I did not sleep much last night. For a long time, I sat before the tabernacle and just kept praying the Suscipe 149 in all the variations that comes to me in this situation.150
It is important to note that the Suscipe is found at the end of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. The one praying the Suscipe has matured and come to understand whose power is truly undergirding him. The subject of most of the verbs is God, by whose power alone one can hope to do great things for God’s creation. In alluding to the Suscipe at this point in his life, Delp spoke of the unpredictable ways in which God loved him. He recognized in himself a reawakening to the never-ending presence and power of God in Christ. He sensed the nearness of God, despite his situation.
In the hostile environment of Tegel Prison, where pain and suffering reign, Delp’s note of experiencing grace conveys that he sees himself as a gift of God. In this context, if one substitutes “grace” with “gift,” then one can say that despite his anxiety and suffering, Delp does not see himself as abandoned by God. He is not on his own. Moreover, he recognizes his personhood comes from God—his Creator. In recognizing God as the Creator, Delp acknowledges himself as being graced: that his existence is gifted. As such, in his imprisonment, he bears witness to the fact that a Christian can be the point of intersection between God and creation. Even in a crisis or a state of anxiety, Delp expresses a surprising attitude of gratitude to God for the wondrous gift of himself.
Consequently, the collaboration that had begun during the clandestine meetings of the Kreisau Circle deepened into an en-graced life with Christ. A transformed group of men emerged from the depths of Tegel Prison. Through whispers, Delp and friends shared their prayers or meditations on particular Bible passages. They looked to the parable of the wheat seed in John 12: 24 (unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit) as an interpretation of their impending death. In a letter to his brother Jesuits at the end of December, Delp referred to this group in prison as “this praying Una Sancta in chains.”151 The “praying Una Sancta in chains” points toward a new mission for Christians. Delp wrote the following in a Christmas letter after he received a small Christmas gift from a fellow Protestant prisoner:
This was a beautiful Christmas gift. And if we are outside again, we should show that it meant much more . . . History will have to carry further the burden and inheritance of the divided churches. The division should never again become a scandal to Christ. I believe so little in utopian ideas, but Christ is nevertheless undivided, and where there is undivided love, we are led to him . . . The Lord dedicates us to a new mission.152
The word “Christ” for Delp stands above denominational differences. Both Delp and Moltke learned this in the Kreisau Circle, particularly during their time in prison. Christ calls persons toward Himself and one another. The encounter with Christ in prayer and worship is an experience of grace that enables a type of personhood that emerges, wherein one sees oneself as God’s gift, can enjoy the presence of others, but can also, when called upon, willingly suffer for others. For Delp, as for Moltke, the encounter with Christ in prayer inaugurated a new way of being human and the fulfillment of his identity in relation to the other members of the Kreisau Circle.
Final Vows and Trial
The account of Delp’s Final Vows and trial demonstrates that, for Delp, one of the fruits of prayer was a closer identification with the Cross. While the two Mariannes ensured that Delp’s prison writings survived, smuggling out his reflections and letters in his laundry, they also passed valuable information to him in like manner. One of these communications, dated December 8, 1944, gave Delp the news that he would be able to pronounce his final vows as a Jesuit. About an hour after Delp received this news, Franz Tattenbach, SJ arrived and gave the impression to the prison guard that the meeting was informal.153
The final vows had deep meaning for Delp. They were a firm rejection of the efforts of the Gestapo to influence him to leave the Society of Jesus. In a letter written to Tattenbach on December 9, 1944, Delp wrote:
I would like the [vow formula document] kept safe from the bombs. It would be too bad for all concerned if it got lost. I was supposed to write a letter that I was out. This response would be inflammatory [to the Gestapo].154
Delp regarded his pronouncement of final vows as meaning that, no matter what happened to him, he had given his life over into the hands of God, making concrete a theology of trust, obedience, and self-surrender. In light of receiving Final Vows and a closer intimacy with the Cross of Christ, Delp showed that the human person was meant to seek fulfillment, including his or her own but not in the manner the world does. After the encounter with Christ, especially his complete self-giving on the Cross, Delp expressed the desire to remain faithful to and follow Christ to the very end, even though he preferred to avoid suffering and death. That said, if Delp had not recognized his life as God’s gift, giving it for others would have been pointless.
Delp’s pronouncement of Final Vows deepened and underscored his commitment to his Christian and Jesuit identity during his imprisonment, which came to light in his trial and that of the other Kreisau members between January 9 and 11.155 The Kreisau Circle members, who had been in constant but furtive contact with one another while in prison, had coordinated their defense. The common defense of the members was that they had not taken part in any direct activity against the National Socialist government but had rather been discussing constitutional possibilities. They were to be tried by the People’s Court, Volksgerichtshof, established in April 1934.156 Overall, the People’s Court offered the National Socialist regime nearly unlimited scope for the persecution and liquidation of any form of opposition. According to the court, “The case against the accused was that ‘they had together undertaken to change the constitution of the Reich by force, and to deprive the Führer of his constitutional power and thereby, at the same time, to give assistance at home to the enemy power during a war against the Reich.’”157
The presiding judge for the trial was Roland Freisler, known as “Red Roland” because of his tendency to work himself into a state of rage.158 During trials targeting Nazi resistors, Freisler would shriek so loudly that sound engineers told him he was damaging the microphones. As presiding judge, Freisler ensured that all defendants would appear undignified. The defendants would receive brutal treatment at the hands of the Gestapo before the trial. They were poorly fed and had to hold up their pants because their belts and suspenders had been confiscated. Freisler reduced all the other participants in the trial to mere extras: the accused, their court-appointed defense attorneys, the prosecutors, and even his colleagues on the panel. As in the case of Alfred Delp and Helmuth James von Moltke, he berated, vilified, and mocked the conspirators.
Freisler believed that every death sentence he meted out would contribute to National Socialism’s survival. Freisler noted, “It is not a matter of dispensing justice but of destroying the opponents of National Socialism.”159 The lives and dignity of the defendants did not matter to him. A woman who attended the trial of the Kreisau members recalled that, “Roland Freisler’s defendants are the playthings of his intellect. He juggles with people’s lives and provides the unexpected twist, the lighting and color he needs in order to turn something unimportant into an impressive piece of theatre, to present the tragedy that he has already planned.”160
Alfred Delp was the first defendant called to the stand. Freisler began the questioning in a normal tone of voice that may have given the defendant the impression that he would receive a fair trial. Freisler asked how Delp had come to know Moltke and the others. What did he discuss with them? What did he know of the other meetings held by the Kreisau members? What was considered at the Kreisau meetings? Why did the Kreisau meetings, concerned with a future German society, not include a single National Socialist representative? Delp stood calmly and with composure, responding to each question in a low, even tone.
Freisler’s voice, though, gradually began to rise as he pushed further: What were the aims of such meetings? What future