Letter from Joseph P. Walshe to Frederick H. Boland

My dear Secretary,
I went to see Mgr. Montini this morning and, after a short conversation, which will form the subject of another report,¹ he said he would like to hear more about the attitude of the Protestants of 'Ulster' towards the Catholics of that area. I had already given him a great deal of information on that point, and it never seemed to register. So I was not surprised when he gave me a reason, extrinsic to Irish interests, for his query. He had been annoyed by the propaganda of the Swiss Protestants against Spain's entry into the United Nations, and especially by the fact that it was based on the refusal of the Spanish Government to allow Protestants to build Churches in Spain. The Irish case, he said, would provide part of the material of counter-propaganda. I was only too glad, for quite a different reason, to give him once more a summary of the relevant points. I particularly emphasized the anti-Papal character of the Orange attitude, and I made use of the opportunity to repeat, what I had so frequently told him, that the late Nuncio had done a great work of reconciliation and peace for Ireland by his understanding of that situation, and especially by demonstrating in his person that the Church was as Irish as it was French, German or Italian.

At this point he interrupted with considerable heat and said, 'But Monsignor Robinson did absolutely nothing'. This remark, and the tone in which it was made, was most infuriating, but I did keep my temper. I merely said that I knew Mgr. Robinson's work, perhaps better than anybody else in Ireland or even in Rome, and my view was shared by the great majority of our people.

It was clear that we were right into the question of the appointment of the new Nuncio and it was better to make use of the occasion to find out how the land lay, instead of waiting another few weeks, as I had intended. So I went on; and I suggested that the appointment should not be delayed much further. I was sure he wanted me to let him know that somebody in the Dáil might ask a question either for information or merely to embarrass the Government ... a common motive, as he was aware, in all Parliaments.

To my great astonishment he repeated almost everything he said at our interview of late September '48,² but emphasizing the part about loyalty to the Pope much more strongly than the last time. You would almost imagine he had never made the points to me before, until he said, 'What your Government want to do is to take all the liberty of choice away from the Holy Father'. I replied that our position was very exceptional. We did not want to take any liberty of choice from the Holy Father with regard to the individual he would wish to send, once he became aware that, in our special circumstances, and for the duration of these circumstances, certain categories of appointees should be excluded, both in the interest of the Church and in the interest of the unity of Ireland. I told him then that I had heard rumours that Archbishop Matthew³ (who, I said, 'was, incidentally, a friend of mine') was coming to Ireland as Nuncio. Archbishop Matthew was an Englishman and somewhat anti-Irish, and how could he think my Minister would be lessening the Holy Father's liberty if he were to tell him now (believing I was expressing my Minister's view) that Dr. M. would not be a good Candidate. 'I quite agree', he said, 'we have no intention of appointing him'. 'Well', I went on, 'how could you or the Holy Father object to being advised by us that, as things now are, no complete foreigner should be appointed, neither an Englishman, a Dutchman nor an Italian'. After all, we had a perfect knowledge of our own country and its requirements, and we felt we had a perfect right to advise the Holy See in such an extremely grave matter for us. When he said that if we wanted an Irish National and got him, the French would want a Frenchman, etc., I had to correct him and to point out that we had not asked for an Irish National. We had asked for somebody of Irish origin who would have a natural instinct to guide him in the face of our very special difficulties. The unity of Ireland was a great national issue before the Irish people, and the choice of a Nuncio of the right type was an element in its solution. We were at a crisis of our destiny and we hoped the Holy See would help us. He then went off on another line becoming more and more nervously irritated. The persons sent abroad by the H.F. were never foreigners, they were always sent to protect the interests of the country concerned, as Mgr. Felici would have protected our interests. At any rate, all I said in my letter⁴ was being examined in the office. On this remark, I immediately took him up and said that my letter was purely personal, and intended only to let him see the kind of reactions which might follow the appointment of anybody who was not of Irish origin. Its purpose was chiefly to avoid the contretemps of an official turn down. He went on to say that 'no official reply' was equivalent to a turn down. I again reminded him of our conversation in which he made no demur whatever when I said it was the best way out of the difficulty. I asked if he wanted an official reply. He didn't reply directly but he murmured something about 'eight months without a "yes" or "no"'. And I said 'Do you want a "yes? or "no??' He made no reply but referred back to the personal character of my letter saying that he had only shown it to one or two absolutely confidential people, and that its personal character remained. When I asked him had he any fault to find with my frankness, which I, personally, felt to be an obligation imposed on me both by my duty and by his personal friendship for me, he replied that he had none and that we could now take the matter up again on the same friendly basis.

Although this conversation was without what could be called asperity or indignation of any consequence, I felt again that Mgr. Montini was defending the Italian appointment as such, and I am afraid the Holy Father is completely with him. Before the end, I said that the people would wonder why the appointment were not made now, especially as the credentials could be addressed to the President. He said that when he told the Holy Father about our resistance attitude, the H.F.'s attitude was 'Well, let us wait and do nothing'. 'Let us postpone any decision'. There was no answer when I asked would the Holy Father like my Minister to come out and explain the whole situation to Him. I felt bound to put the question, but I did not expect him to acquiesce.

In the course of the conversation he said I had been very hard on his Section of the Secretariat. I could only reply by referring again to the incident of the letter to the King,⁵ which in fact showed that the Secretariat had not taken into account any part of the evolution in our status, between the appointment of our first representative in Rome and my own appointment. His answer was strange, but most illuminating. 'So long as the Irish credentials bore the King's name, we had to consult both English and Irish interests. We sent the letter because you weren't the only people to be consulted. And we had to act in that manner, until we were certain that you had achieved complete independence by friendly negotiations with the British'. He made a good deal of the fact that they had shown me the letter, and I had to remind him that they only showed it to me because, after repeated requests, I went to him personally and begged him to let me know the position. He would remember that his answer then was that he thought he had signed the letter and that it was going to GODFREY that very day.

A minute later he said, almost thinking aloud, 'You have made me say a good deal more than I wanted to say, but, perhaps, it is better'. 'A good deal better', I said, and he knew that I never concealed anything from him even when I knew it was disagreeable. I acted thus because our relations with the Holy See were of such a very special character that I could not act otherwise. There was a position of mutual trust and frankness which was essential as between a Catholic State such as ours and the Holy See. He cordially agreed.

At one moment he said out of the blue, 'You are the most Catholic country in the world, and yet you are the only one to have turned down a Papal nominee'. I said it was probably because we were the most Catholic country in the world that we had asked them to send us a man who would promote Catholic interests and help us to attain unity which was such a definitely universal Church interest. Moreover, I went on, he should remember that we were practically the only country in the world to whose Government the Holy See was not obliged to reveal the name of Episcopal candidates. And we never shall want to know them. He should compare our position with that of the Spanish Government which inflicted such deplorable humiliations on the Holy See and on the Bishops in the process of appointment. I personally knew of cases which he must be forgetting, in which the Representative of the Holy See had to be recalled at the instance of relatively friendly States, and in which the Governments had insisted on a complete National for the post. He didn't continue in this line. (Some day I shall know my Vatican history better, but to assume that, when certain supposedly Catholic States were acting in a most outrageous fashion towards the Papal Envoys and towards the Holy Father himself, they were ready to accept Papal nominees in the lamblike fashion, is absurd). I added, to end this argument that our most remarkable distinction of never having harboured heresy or disloyalty towards the Holy See was much more worthy of being remembered in our regard.

What is the meaning of it all. I have been reporting recently a certain accentuation of Italianism in the Vatican: the appointments of Italians to Australia and the Philippines, the exclusively Italian character of the EXTRAORDINARY Consistory held for the purpose of drawing world attention to Cardinal Mindszenty's case, the manner in which a rumour in Rome that Spellman⁶ was coming over to the Mass of the Holy Father was dispelled by some Vatican spokesmen, though not publicly, namely, that the celebration was an intimate affair, i.e. not for Foreign Cardinals. A few days ago the QUOTIDIANO, the organ of Catholic Action, a lay organisation, began a Leader on Palestine by an unmistakable reprimand directed to Cardinal Spellman for having received Weizmann,⁷ the Israel President, in his house. The general 'Italian' assertiveness may well be due to an attempt to counteract the present treatment of the Italian people in regard to the Colonies, and to cover over the Cippico scandal⁸ which is once more back in the Courts in full blast. At any rate it is an attitude very much remarked upon by all foreigners here, especially the French. The Vatican feels that to yield to us would be a lowering of Italian prestige. That is not my own opinion, because I cannot imagine the Holy Father basing such grave decisions on mere national prejudice. But I must take note of what is said by people with an infinitely better knowledge of Rome and the Vatican than I possess, and they do not exclude the Holy Father from the Italianising element in the Vatican. That opinion, I am told, is also shared by some very distinguished Italian priests outside the Vatican.

With regard to our next step, Mgr. Montini having said that he would start things going again, I had better not refer to the Nuncio for some time. I am persuaded that he regards our conversation as satisfactory, and indeed as a partial surrender on our side. If so, so much the better, so long as we don't surrender. If we do, we shall have endless trouble, and we shall certainly have done a bad day's work for our own people at home, and for our priests all over the world. The rumours about Matthew proved a God Send because my reaction at least showed that we were impartial in our exclusion of Foreigners. Incidentally, any of the Irish clergy who come through, from his area of Africa, tell me, confidentially, that he is very definitely anti-Irish, an attitude he usually manifests by contemptuous remarks about us.

The use made by Mgr. Montini in the course of his conversation with me, of considerations of loyalty, and obedience to Holy See, etc., must not be judged too hardly. That is the ordinary traditional way of the Vatican when dealing with Catholics whether in orders or otherwise. It is their most effective weapon, though, to keep our minds free, we must be frank with ourselves, and deeply deplore the custom. The answers become more difficult, but fortunately the sanctions are very different from those of three or four centuries ago.

Naturally, if the Minister decides to accept at this stage I shall do everything I can do to expedite the ending of the whole affair. At the same time, let us not forget the well-known Vatican tendency, when dealing with such a situation and with good Catholics like ourselves, to make people eat humble pie for the good of their souls, and for the prestige of the Church. So that, in truth, we shall probably get the Nuncio much sooner and, most likely, the kind we want, by sitting tight. The whole world is now guessing what the solution is going to be. Once the Secretariat let the cat out of the bag about Mgr. Felici (for a very obvious reason), a delay could only receive one interpretation. They will find a formula.

When Mgr. Montini had repeated several times his statements about loyalty and obedience to the Holy Father, and, in doing so, using a weapon which is simply not used in relation to such matters and, of course, never as a threat to Governments, he must have suddenly remembered that, in my letter of the 29th September 1948⁹ I most specifically excluded such an attitude as unjust and unworthy. Suddenly, changing his irritated tone completely, he said quite calmly, 'Of course I am not saying that there is any question of invoking the infallible powers of the Pope'. His whole manner, however, had been that of someone invoking some form of semi-divine power against us.

I can't but express my view that this use of the Holy Father is disedifying, if not positively scandalous.

It is probable that he was saying a good deal more than he would have said if he had foreseen the nature of our conversation. For instance, having said that we had not said yes or no for eight months and having been reminded by me, as already mentioned, that he had accepted the personal and friendly modus operandi as the best way out, he shot off the point and said what is, of course, the real truth, 'It wouldn't be so bad if our candidate had been turned down for incompetency, age, etc., but to prevent the appointment of foreigners as such', and he added, 'that is a terrible thing'.

I had the impression that his remarks were the outcome of some conversation with somebody with whom he had discussed the methods by which our 'obstinacy' could be defeated ... That is why they were so illogical, so blood and thunder, so disconnected; and that is why also my letter was forgotten in his impetuous desire to put over the traditional points, every one of which I had foreseen and, I had hoped, adequately met in that letter.

When, at another moment it was necessary to mention the speed with which the request for the agrément followed the death of the Nuncio, Mgr. Montini, instead of frankly admitting, as he did last October that there was excessive haste, said that the Holy Father was so anxious to give proof of his benevolence to Ireland that he selected Mgr. Felici at once and he, Montini, immediately informed our Government.¹⁰

This conversation, of which I hope I have given all the relevant points, rather goes to show how right we were when we were suspicious about Vatican policy about Ireland. The habit of consulting or informing Britain about our affairs had become so ingrained an element in Vatican diplomacy that they continued to act in that way down to the 18th April ... in all probability. What other conclusion can you draw from Mgr. Montini's reply to my reference to the letter to the King? Is there any danger of the continuation of that policy. Less, probably, after this incident of the appointment of a new Nuncio (whether we give in or not) because they now know that at least we are aware of the possibility. When Mgr. M. said he was having my letter examined, I feel sure he was thinking of the specific historic incidents in the relations between the H.S. and ourselves. His conclusions from these researches must inevitably be in our favour.

I can't help reflecting myself that we might have done better if we had taken more heed of the Bishops' views in 1929.¹¹ Their opposition to the appointment of a Nuncio was founded on an instinctive feeling that we were beginning an era of trouble and interference. On the other hand, we were looking for recognition, and perhaps, with the appointment of an Irish Nuncio and a continuous barrage of information from the Embassy, we may eliminate that possibility. We are immensely strong in this contest of wills because we have our whole clergy with us, and I feel sure the Minister will have a ready answer to those who may wish to create trouble. We can always say that the appointment is a very important one indeed and that naturally the Pope must be given ample time to make his selection. Their resistance cannot last very long and a public scandal never arises from the absence of the Principal of a Mission so long as there is a Chargé d'Affaires.

On the Vatican side Mgr. Montini may have come to the conclusion that we are afraid to say officially that we cannot accept an Italian candidate, and as he confined himself to a line of argument almost insulting to the most naive intelligence, I am afraid he believes that we are capable of yielding to some fantastic idea that we are offending against that loyalty and affection which every Catholic should have in regard to the Holy Father. It shows how very far he is from understanding either our Catholicism or our capacity for resisting unjust treatment. It shows especially that the Vatican has not a leg to stand on ... in persisting in its refusal to grant our wish. The bogeyman argument is an absolutely last argument in a hopeless case. If they delay much longer, their whole attitude on the Italian character of the appointments in question is bound to be exposed to much adverse criticism. And, instead of an Irish 'situation', they will have 'situations' all over the world. They are hoping that we shall be the first to get cold feet, and it is worth their while to run risks for a certain time, because they know that if they can break us on this, the first major issue involving our prestige as a Catholic people in the world of the English speaking peoples, they can treat us as a minor factor in future and regard us, at most, as having a nuisance value in their dealings with Britain. Our defeat also would open the way to other and worse Italian appointments in the world. Let us look upon the crisis as absolutely inevitable from the moment we established political relations with the Holy See, and as meriting the same calm treatment, which we should apply if we had to deal with an exclusively secular power. Mr. de Valera's remark to Mgr. Montini that Mgr. Panico's attitude towards the Irish in Australia was having an effect on the position of Italians generally in that country was gratefully received by Mgr. Montini as useful information, but I wonder how he would react to the same remark if made by a Minister for Foreign Affairs actually in power, or by the representative to the Holy See on his behalf. Deliberate inaction and avoidance of statements seems to constitute the kernel of Holy See methods, and Governments seem to have no alternative but to follow the same line. A discussion, in which one side can change from this world to the next, with bewildering rapidity and almost without scruple, becomes almost impossible without making a present of more other world arguments to that side. When I was finally leaving Mgr. Montini's room, I asked him to restudy the whole matter on a concrete basis. He saw I was weary of all his irrelevant arguments. He smiled and shook hands quite cordially.

Relations between us are unchanged. He will always be himself, very decent and considerate, except on the question of diminishing, or appearing to diminish, the Italian control of CHURCH.

I think we should regard the present situation as requiring more secrecy than ever before. Here, nobody will ever know of this conversation except the Counsellor and myself. M.M. mentioned or murmured half to himself, at one moment, 'And I hear rumours'. Now the context made me conclude that he was hearing something from Ireland about our obstinacy in resisting the desires of the Holy See. It is no use worrying about it, beyond taking it as an indication that somebody, possibly Babuscio,¹² is passing on outside rumours for the purpose of currying favour with those to whom he owes his present position. The rumour that he is to be sent to Trieste has probably some foundation, and his visit to M. is no doubt for the purpose of seeking his intervention once more to secure his continuance in Ireland.

It is a situation requiring great tranquillity of mind and perseverance in quiet and well directed propaganda ... always friendly but always unyielding ... above all, in the face of bogeyman tactics.