Letter from Joseph P. Walshe to Frederick H. Boland (Dublin)

My dear Secretary,
In my report of the 8th Sept.¹ I was, perhaps, too optimistic about the impression I had produced on Mgr. M. In my interview of Friday Sept 17th it quickly became clear that I had to go much further even to the point of saying that while I was without instructions, and would be, for some time longer, I felt bound to warn him that the Minister, when he had examined all the relevant issues, could hardly give the AGRÉMENT. I began the talk (after passing on some not very important or reliable information about Palestine from the Mother General of Notre Dame de Sion) by telling him about the declaration of the Taoiseach in Canada on the repeal of the External Relations Act. I again emphasized the possibility that, for the reasons mentioned in my previous talk (report 8th Sept.) the reception of a New Nuncio might be considerably delayed. That didn't appear to interest him a whole lot, for he immediately said 'But I hope we'll have the AGRÉMENT within a month'. I felt I could not let the question go without giving him the warning mentioned. The suddenness of the straight answer took him off his guard and for a full five minutes I saw a very new Montini. The bogyman diplomat of the old Vatican school took the place of the serene and gentle Monsignore. He sat up stiffly in his chair, became white with anger, and in a completely altered voice, dramatised as if I had a devil to be exorcised he said 'Take care, take care! This is the Holy See. We are the Holy Church. Take care! Take care! The Holy See requires obedience' and quite a lot of other similar sentences equally irrelevant but spoken half under his breath, and at times incomprehensible. When he recovered, influenced no doubt by the look of astonishment which I could not conceal he adopted a different tone. 'Surely Ireland would not do such a thing to us. The first country to do such a thing would not be Catholic Ireland. And if everybody could have the Nuncio he wanted what sort of order would there be?' It was time for me to interrupt him, and I said 'My dear Monsignore, I am afraid your attitude is entirely exaggerated and is not very relevant. We are talking about a mistake made in the Secretariat which could be of vital import to us if persevered in, but, if the proper course, is taken it can be regarded as relatively trivial. There is no question of disobedience, now or in the future, and you know as well as I do that the Minister, the Taoiseach and all his colleagues in the Government are no less Catholic than the Holy See itself. It would be very wrong to suggest anything else. There is no Govt or country in the world one half as loyal to the Person of the Representative of Christ as my Govt and my country. We must have a sense of proportion. The Irish people distinguish with perfect acumen between their spiritual allegiance to the Holy Father and the extent to which there is any obligation imposed upon them by the Secretariat's declarations or decisions in their regard. Our history has given ample proof of that.' I went on to mention the Veto and the Errington mission. 'Moreover' I said, 'you admitted (he had used the exact equivalent in Italian) that there had been excessive haste. We must discuss this matter with the greatest calm, as both our interests and those of the Church might suffer serious detriment if the mistake is not rectified.' I mentioned briefly the extreme importance of the present moment in our history in regard to the struggle to achieve our unity, and, also in that respect, the wonderfully calming effect of the whole religious situation produced by the long term of Office of the late Nuncio, both in relation to religious and political differences and their effect on the prospects of reunion. At this moment it became clear that he was disturbed by my considerations and he said 'I'll listen but I'll say nothing' (Ascolto ma non dico niente). This diplomatic trick had been used on me before in the Vatican, and I felt inclined to get angry and to say it was a piece of hypocrisy, but I managed to restrain myself and to answer 'Very well, Monsignore, if you are going to do that, the best thing for us all is that I should send you a purely personal letter in which I shall write what I have said now, adding other considerations.'² However I added that only an Irishman or a man of Irish origin could accomplish the task in Dublin in these grave times and I thought that, with innumerable prelates and priests of our race all over the World as well as in Rome, of the very highest distinction ... there would be an immense freedom of choice. There was no question of our insisting on a particular individual, but on that point I hoped he would give me the opportunity of a talk with him when the choice was being made. He didn't appear to like these latter remarks so I went on to talk about Books about to be published in which we had a common interest. He resumed his usual cheerfulness and we parted on the usual terms. It is interesting to note that he made no mention of the gift of the Legion of Mary which was so enthusiastically praised by his friends in Catholic Action headquarters and in all C. circles, as well as by Cardinal Pizzardo.³

I did not go to see Mgr. Montini on Friday 24th Sept. I had not fully cogitated my letter (which I must send tomorrow or after, when I have finished it ...) though it has now become very urgent, and I wanted to let him see that I was giving him plenty of time for reflexion.

I would like you to tell the Minister that I was very much helped indeed by the few moments personal chat on the phone and his most encouraging words.

He may feel absolutely secure about the fact that I am adhering rigidly to the line that I am at the moment, acting without involving his responsibility and in a purely personal and advisory manner, so that his hands may remain absolutely free in all respects. At this stage, at any rate, he may be sure also that any passing anger or vindictiveness will come my way exclusively.

You will remember my saying to you, while Mr. de Valera was Minister, that this might be our first real struggle with the bad side of the Vatican, and that a stage might come when the Govt would have to withdraw me for a few months, at any rate, if not entirely, in order to emphasize the serious view they were taking. I hope that will not be necessary. It would be a last resort to leave a simple Chargé d'Affaires here for any considerable time. And I think they are ultimately too prudent to adopt that course in Dublin. However, more and more I feel the absolute necessity to stand fast as granite on this most vital issue. A distinguished Jesuit writer in a recent article in Civita Cattolica said that the cause of Irish freedom would have suffered if the Veto on the appointment of the Bishops had been successfully put over. There is a very real lesson for us in that conclusion ... The appointment of certain types of Bishops in one place designed to secure advantages in another sphere of Vatican influence is by no means unknown where Vatican prelates are responsible. It would be deplorable if we had to protect ourselves by insisting on consultation as is done in so very many countries.