'Minute of Interview between Monsignore Paro and the Minister for External Affairs'
(Secret)

1. On Saturday the 4th September Monsignore Paro, who is acting as Chargé d'Affaires ad interim, received instructions from the Holy See to seek the agrément of the Government for the nomination of the Most Reverend Hector Felici, Titular Archbishop of Corinth.
2. On the 6th September Monsignore Paro sent a letter to the Minister asking for agrément.
3. No intimation of the proposed appointment was made to the Ambassador to the Holy See and the first intimation received by the Ambassador was from the Department following upon the receipt of Monsignore Paro's letter of the 6th September.
4. The Minister informally consulted His Grace the Archbishop of Dublin and apprised him of the position. His Grace expressed strong views against the appointment of an Italian Prelate and suggested that the Irish Government should make its views known in unequivocal terms to the Holy See as soon as possible.
5. The Minister also informally consulted His Grace the Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of all Ireland, His Grace the Archbishop of Cashel and His Grace the Archbishop of Tuam, who all expressed the view that every possible effort should be made to secure the appointment of an Irish-American or an American Church Dignitary to the position.
6. In the course of the consultations which the Minister had with the Archbishop the following names were mentioned as Church Dignitaries who might be made available:
   • Most Reverend Father Gard O.P., Rector Magnificus Angelicum University, Rome.
   • Most Rev. Dr. F.J. Brennan (Secretariat of State)
   • Most Reverend Dr. Basil O'Connor, Rector of North American College in Rome.
   • Most Reverend Dr. O'Hara, present Regent of Nunciature in Bucharest.
7. The Primate undertook to mention the matter at the October meeting of the Hierarchy and to see the Minister immediately after the meeting.
8. The Minister's impression as a result of the consultations he has had is that all members of the Hierarchy would be opposed to the appointment of an Italian Prelate. The Minister, pointed out, however, that if the Holy See were adamant it would be difficult for the Government to refuse its agrément to the Holy Father's nominee.
9. On the 23rd September the Minister wrote a letter to Monsignore Paro. Monsignore Paro had previously called on a number of occasions on Mr. McCauley to enquire if any reply was forthcoming.
10. On Friday the 24th September Monsignore Paro sought and obtained an interview with the Minister. The interview was somewhat protracted, largely due to the fact that many of the arguments were repeated several times.

Monsignore Paro said that he had called for the purpose of ascertaining the exact purport of the Minister's letter. The Minister stated that the purport of the letter was that the Government were not anxious to give its agrément until it had had an opportunity of considering very fully the whole position and of taking such advice as the Government might deem necessary in the circumstances. The Minister also pointed out that it would be unthinkable to bring a matter of such importance forward to the Government during the absence of the Taoiseach. Monsignore Paro suggested then that the Minister might cable to the Taoiseach to secure his approval. The Minister pointed out that this would be highly improper in the circumstances, especially as it was a matter which required careful consultation and consideration, and in any case he saw no urgency in the matter; that as Monsignore Paro was undoubtedly aware, it was the Government's intention to repeal the External Relations Act and that in the meanwhile he did not think that the Holy Father should be placed in the position of accrediting his representative to one of the most Catholic countries in the world through the head of the Anglican Church.

Monsignore Paro then explained that he appreciated that position, but asked that the matter of agrément be considered apart from the repeal of the External Relations Act; that if the agrément were given the appointment could be delayed until after the repeal of the Act. He indicated that the Holy See was anxious to have the matter disposed of as rapidly as possible.

The Minister replied that he was anxious to facilitate the Holy See in every way possible and that he, very reluctantly, would bring the matter before the Government immediately if, but only if, Monsignore Paro, or the Secretariat of State made the request in writing, stating that for some reason (which was not now apparent to the Minister) the matter was one of extreme urgency.

Monsignore Paro then said that he could not understand this delay, as it was only a formality. The Minister replied that he did not consider that this was merely a formality and he felt that in a matter of this kind the Government had a very special responsibility to discharge to the Holy Father; that responsibility was of humbly tendering to the Holy Father whatever the Government in its wisdom, or in its lack of wisdom, considered proper advice. The Minister pointed out that probably in no other country in the world did the Holy Father's representative occupy such an important position and that, therefore, the Government had a very special responsibility to discharge, not merely to the people they represented and the Hierarchy, but also to the Holy Father. The Minister then asked Monsignore Paro whether, in his view, the Government should act as a rubber stamp without considering all the relevant factors. Monsignore Paro agreed that the Government could not do this.

The Minister said that he had been somewhat at a loss to understand why the matter had been rushed so much and why, in particular, our Ambassador had not been consulted, or even apprised of the position. The Minister explained that the only information our Ambassador had got was when he (the Minister) informed him of the contents of Monsignore Paro's letter. Monsignore Paro said that he did not think it was necessary to consult the Ambassador, but said that he was, of course, only acting on the directions of his superiors.

On several occasions during the course of the interview Monsignore Paro sought to localise the issue to that of the repeal of the External Relations Act and to the return of the Taoiseach. The Minister in reply said that there were many other factors involved. He pointed out that no doubt Monsignore Paro knew that some hope had been expressed that the Most Reverend Dr. Robinson's successor should be Irish or American.

At the conclusion of the interview the Minister said that he was disturbed at certain rumours that had reached him from Rome to the effect that Most Reverend Dr. Felici had been appointed. The Minister pointed out how serious it was to find that rumours of this nature were circulating through Vatican circles and among the Irish clergy in Rome. He asked that all precautions should be taken to ensure that the matter would be dealt with in strictest confidence.

Monsignore Paro explained that there were always rumours concerning possible appointees, to which the Minister replied that that was so, but it was rather a coincidence that the only name heard by the Minister in rumour was the name of the Most Reverend Dr. Felici.

The interview throughout was most cordial. There were several long pauses. It was clear that Monsignore Paro's intention was to try and secure a quick decision.