Extract from a memorandum from John J. Hearne to Frederick H. Boland (Dublin)
'Dáil Resolution re Religious Persecution
Interview with Mr. St. Laurent¹ and Mr. Pearson'²
(660/10)

[matter omitted]
After a little we came to the object of my visit. I had already (when making the appointment in the morning) informed Mr. Pearson of its general sense. The Minister's attitude changed, - became vaguely hostile, - the moment I began.

I referred to the Dáil Resolution of the 21st November. Mr. Conway had sent a copy to Mr. Pearson on the 20th November during my absence in New York. It had been formally acknowledged by Mr. MacDonnell of the Department. Mr. St. Laurent apparently had not seen the Resolution. He also was in New York on the 20th November. I gave him a copy and read it through.

The Minister for External Affairs followed the resolution from the text as I read it. It appeared to cause him great annoyance. I went on to speak in the sense of the instructions contained in your minute but before I had got further than referring to the fact that the resolution was passed unanimously and that a proposal in more vigorous language had been placed before the Dáil he interrupted me. He said that he had made private enquiries about the case of Archbishop Stepinac and that he had in his possession a secret memo, a copy of which he said he had given to Archbishop Charbonneau (Montreal) the effect of which was that 'it could not be established that there had been a miscarriage of justice in the case to an extent warranting external interference'. He added that, of course, it had been said that evidence had been excluded on the ground that it did not support the case for the prosecution.

I stated that our advices appeared to have been that the proceedings did not amount to anything at all like a fair trial.

Mr. St. Laurent repeated that his information was that that could not be established. He emphasised the word 'established'.

He then said that Archbishop Stepinac was tried because it was the only way to remove him. 'The Jugoslav Government wanted him out of the way. He had refused to leave the country in the face of repeated threats. The trial was staged to camouflage a desire to get rid of him. The policy is to separate the Catholic Church in Jugoslavia from Rome and then destroy it.'

'That, Sir' I said 'brings us to the very point I am to place before you. Our resolution was passed on the occasion of the Archbishop's so-called trial but it deals with religious persecution generally. From what you tell me, the difficulty of establishing the injustice of the proceedings against the Archbishop and his imprisonment would not be so great.'

'You know that there are such things as rules of evidence?' Mr. St. Laurent queried.

I said 'Yes, Sir, I know a little about the rules of evidence'.

'Do you think you and I would be discussing this business if Stepinac had not been a Catholic Archbishop? Aren't we letting our prejudices run away with us?'

I said that I had come to discuss religious persecution but that on the question put to me I recalled that it was an Irish Delegate³ who had drafted the report submitted to the Council of the League of Nations in 1933 (the Bernheim petition report) condemning the Hitler law expelling the Jews from Germany on the ground that it was contrary to the Weimar Constitution, the Treaty obligations of the Reich, as well as general principles of international law and that it shocked the moral conscience of civilized mankind.

Mr. St. Laurent promised to send me personally a copy of the secret memo which he said he had. I said I would be very grateful for this confidence. 'Remember', he added, 'it is not a Canadian Government document: and I am not giving it to you as Minister for External Affairs. I made my own enquiries as a prominent Canadian Catholic'.

'My Minister', I said, 'desires me to place some considerations before you not on the subject of the Archbishop but on the desirability of international action to prevent religious persecution anywhere. He fears that religious persecution is gravely on the increase in certain parts of the world.'

I then continued in the sense of your instructions. When I referred to the UN Assembly resolution of the 19th November on fundamental rights Mr. St. Laurent said that there was another resolution of the Assembly specifically condemning religious persecution. Mr. Pearson did not appear to be aware of it. I asked whether the resolution on fundamental rights might not be the one Mr. St. Laurent had in mind. Might freedom of conscience and of religious profession and so on not be referred to there? The Minister could not recall, and we passed from that.

When I referred to President Wilson's proposal at Versailles Mr. St. Laurent exploded. He said: 'We Catholics of Quebec have always been against Wilson's Protestant Utopia, that all men are good at heart and all that stuff. The sheer absurd Protestantism of Wilson's mind revolted us. We are against his kind of democracy'. This was said with great emphasis and in such a way to suggest that Mr. St. Laurent did not want anyone to talk to him about President Wilson or his ideas.

'Well, Sir,' I ventured, 'he was President of the United States. He was the most powerful statesman in the world at the time, and he did propose a convention guaranteeing religious liberty. That is the only relevance of my reference to him'.

'Well, in Quebec we prefer to take our ideas from St. Thomas Aquinas and the Gospels. We don't rely on people like Wilson', the Minister replied.

'It is because the Christian Faith is being persecuted in the world that we desire some approach to international action to secure freedom to practice it. Mr. de Valera' I went on to say 'had taken up the matter at Geneva in 1934. You have his remarks, Mr. Pearson, in the little volume "Peace and War" which is in the Department. I should like also, if the Minister will permit me to refer to the advocacy of the proposal by Ambassador Davies and Lord Templewood'. (These observations were listened to in silence).

I concluded by reading the last two numbered paragraphs (5) and (6) of your instructions. As I did so Mr. Pearson was called away for a moment. When he left Mr. St. Laurent began to lecture me about the Catholic Church. 'A few of us, I may tell you, had a meeting in New York recently', he said, 'with the editor of "America". We discussed whether the Catholic Church was losing or gaining influence in the world'. The conclusion they came to was that there was a lack of leadership in the Church, that Churchmen were following opinion and not forming it. The essential Christian doctrines were becoming more widespread but the Bishops were not giving the lead they should, some were giving a wrong lead. Apparently, no criticism was made at the meeting of the great Encyclicals or the Pope himself. Mr. St. Laurent said as much. Mr. Pearson returned as the Minister glared at me and said: 'And I may tell you that grave harm is being done to the Church today by irresponsible pronouncements of certain Bishops giving their public support to Franco.'

'I assume, Sir', I said, 'you are referring to the speech of the Bishop of Killaloe published this morning'. (Bishop Fogarty's remarks of the 19th December were in the Ottawa newspapers of that day).

'That was not the only one: there were others' the Minister rapped out.

Mr. Pearson moved from one chair to another.

Turning to him, I said 'I am sorry, Mr. Pearson, but I am afraid I have no instructions to discuss General Franco. We have diplomatic relations with Spain'. The Bishop referred to 'Spain'.

'Well, we're not asking you to break them off' the Minister remarked in a somewhat conciliatory tone as if he felt he had gone far enough.

Mr. Pearson appeared quite surprised by the Minister's remarks and the sharp, aggressive tone in which they were delivered. The colour had left Mr. St. Laurent's face when he spoke of Bishop Fogarty's speech. I thought it better in the circumstances to make no comment at all on the Bishop of Killaloe. I might have said that the Irish Government took no responsibility for his remarks. But I said nothing.

There was a silence. I think I was expected to leave. But I did not rise.

Instead I went on: 'To come back to the object of my call, Sir, do you think you could indicate, later on, the attitude of the Canadian Government to my Government's request?' The Minister took up the Resolution reluctantly and in an off-hand way, flicking off the points in it with his finger on the paper said: 'We could, I suppose, agree with that (recognition of the sovereignty of God and the moral law) and that (freedom to worship God) and that (liberty of conscience) - oh, yes and, of course, we deplore persecution on religious grounds. But remember we Quebec Catholics don't accept the usual view of freedom of conscience (you have the expression here) - the right to do wrong. Error has no rights'.

I did not wish to enter into a trite discussion of that kind. (You will recall that it was the burden of portion of my address to the Catholic Historical Association of Canada in Hamilton in 1943).

Mr. Pearson laughed out loud and said 'Where does a poor heretic⁴ like myself come in?'

I said: 'The Minister had to endure a speech I made on this subject!'

I suggested that I might send a note to Mr. Pearson giving the text of your request for international action on the question of religious persecution; and that, perhaps, the Minister would consider it and send me a reply indicating the attitude of the Canadian Government to the request. This was agreed.

I received a copy of the 'secret memo' this morning from Mr. St. Laurent. I enclose a copy.⁵ It is a British FO document I imagine.

The Canadian Minister for External Affairs has only recently returned from the UN Assembly meetings in New York. He has since issued a statement on the Franco régime in Spain (sent to you by me on the 13th December).⁶ Dr. Fogarty's remarks evidently enraged him as a criticism of that statement. He is moreover elated by the (quite mediocre) mark he made at Lake Success.

A suggestion by you that he should take international action to prevent religious persecution was too much for him. No one can tell him what ought to be done in that regard. He considers himself a great Catholic lay leader. This is some explanation of his attitude. There is one other thing, Mr. St. Laurent wanted to make it clear to me - in my first interview of any importance with him - that we had better know that, so long as he is Minister for External Affairs, his Faith is not to be counted on as a factor in Irish Canadian or other international relations. That he made abundantly clear I am sure to Mr. Pearson's satisfaction. I have not witnessed so pathetic an exhibition of complexes of that kind since the death of Dr. Manion.⁷