Letter from Frederick H. Boland to Joseph P. Walshe (Holy See)
(Personal and Confidential)

We are hard at work at the moment preparing for the debate on the Stepinac case which is to take place in the Dáil next week. There is a great deal of material to be prepared because I think the debate is likely to concentrate, not on the particular case of Archbishop Stepinac, but on the fundamental conflict between the Church and the forces of Communism in Europe. I don't think the Taoiseach has yet fully made up his mind precisely what line he is going to take. He intends to put down an amendment to the Dillon motion and the text of the amendment is to be discussed by the Cabinet beforehand. The terms of the amendment will, of course, determine the line of the Taoiseach's speech.

I gave the Taoiseach a draft of the amending motion, which, briefly, protested against the unjust condemnation of the Archbishop, expressed abhorrence of religious persecution, and called on all liberty-loving peoples to vindicate the right of religious liberty as the most fundamental of human freedoms. The Taoiseach thought that this draft was rather too 'strong', but I still hope that the text finally approved will be something on these lines. It is surprising, however, the amount of diffidence and 'precaution' with which the whole question is still approached by people here.

I had a good illustration of that last week-end when I was staying with Jim Stafford in Wexford and the Bishop of Ferns¹ came to dinner on Saturday night. Remembering your letters, I grasped the opportunity to speak to him about the Stepinac case. Almost the first thing he said to me was:- 'Well, tell me now, was this man playing politics or what?'. I replied, with some acidity, that I thought it was quite obvious that the Holy See had deliberately chosen the case of Archbishop Stepinac as an occasion for awakening the Catholic conscience of the world to the reality of the religious persecution now raging in Eastern Europe, and that I simply could not imagine that the Vatican, with all its prudent wisdom and skill in diplomacy, would dream for a single moment of choosing the case of Archbishop Stepinac for this purpose if there were even the slightest weakness in the merits of the case.

Actually, Staunton is, I think, a very intelligent and cultured man. As a former student of Fribourg, he knows something about the Continent. He is quite clear-headed and realistic about the Communist menace. He listened attentively when I told him how much pleasure the Archbishop's message had given in Rome and how much comfort the Holy Father had derived from the messages from Bishops and Archbishops which were reaching him from every part of the world. I concluded by saying that, if his Lordship thought of saying anything in public about the Stepinac case, I hoped he would get his Secretary to send us the text immediately so that we could wire it to you. I could not have indicated more clearly what I was aiming at. He took it all very well, and I got the impression that he would go into the matter (he probably had not given it much thought at all) and possibly make some public statement.

But the whole conversation was illuminating. There is definitely an element of parochialism in the outlook of the Bishops here, and I am afraid that that is not a matter which it is possible for anyone to cure today or tomorrow. It is a consequence of 'Maynoothism' - the curious attitude of complacent detachment which is itself, perhaps, a consequence of the mistaken policies followed by the Holy See with regard to the Church in this country in the past.

I shall be writing to Dr. Staunton in a few days sending him a copy of the Canadian Royal Commission Report on Soviet Espionage. I will take the opportunity to hint again at the desirability of his speaking about the Stepinac case.

We received yesterday evening your telegram about the desirability of increasing the agent's fee so as to obviate any risk of losing the Spada. Leo is dealing with it at once. It would be simply desperate if we lost the Spada at this stage. When property is being purchased here, the first step is, of course, the signature of the contract of sale, and then the deal is closed subject to the owner making statutory title. In other words, one has not to wait until the title has been investigated, etc., in order to be sure of one's bargain. Is there not a similar procedure available under Italian law? If the owner of the Spada has a locus penitentia until the title has been cleared and the conveyance finally completed, we might lose the place at any moment. No doubt, Prince Pacelli is doing everything possible under the local law to ensure against that.

Vacant possession is a very material point, of course, but, if the tenant is a diplomat, we should not have much difficulty in getting him out. I think you said, at one stage, that the tenant was the Counsellor of the Swiss Legation. Would it not be well to speak to him at once, or to ask the owner's agent to do so, so as to give him as long notice as possible of the date by which he will be required to leave?

This morning's 'Irish Press' carries an agency report to the effect that there is to be a Consistory before the end of the year at which the Archbishop of Armagh will be made a Cardinal. I don't know whether there is anything in this forecast, but the passage of time strengthens, I think, the argument for the view that this country is entitled to the two Hats. This country has never received the recognition to which its unique position in the Universal Church entitles it, and there is a specially strong argument in favour of giving it that recognition at the present juncture when the Church is facing one of the most serious crises with which it was ever confronted. Nothing would do so much to dissipate that attitude of aloofness and parochialism which is still only too obvious than such a special mark of the Holy Father's favour at this time. This is quite apart, of course, from the question of the personal disappointment which the conferment of a single Hat would be bound to occasion. I am afraid it would be acute!

We made a great effort to get the Canadian Government to change the title of Merchant Mahoney's successor. In spite of John's valiant efforts, we did not succeed in this particular instance; but we achieved the point of getting Mackenzie King to offer to convene a Commonwealth meeting to discuss the whole matter. I am not sure that a Commonwealth meeting offers the most favourable framework for the discussion and settlement of the question, but, if one is convened - and Mackenzie King, apparently, intends to convene one in Ottawa in the near future - we shall have to go to it.

There is a story in this morning's 'Irish Press' that David Gray is to be shortly succeeded by ex-Governor Tobin, of Massachusetts.² We have heard nothing of any impending change and the story strikes us as extremely improbable.

We will keep you closely informed about the Stepinac debate and will wire you the terms of the Government motion in advance. I hope we will do ourselves justice, but, as I say, the frame of mind in which the thing is still being approached is very discouraging.