Extract from a handwritten letter from Joseph P. Walshe
to Frank Aiken (Dublin)
(Secret)

I was amazed to hear from McD.¹ on the ‘phone early this morning (we are an hour ahead of Dublin) that O’Hara² had been proposed to the Govt and already ‘agréé’. The P’s little slip was to give me the occasion of at once seeing Montini about it, and to give him the opportunity of explaining why he did not send for me to tell me of the démarche in Dublin.

[matter omitted]

Mgr. Montini came out within five minutes. He was really very distressed at the possibility of publicity. The démarche in Dublin, he said, was really undertaken to avoid the very awkward situation into which we had led them the last time, by making all sorts of difficulties about the appointment of Monsignor Felici.³ If they had been ready for publication he would have called me over and told me all about it. In the circumstances their Dublin contact had been merely a ‘sondaggio’⁴ for the purpose of discovering what the Government’s reaction would be to the nomination of O’Hara. Now, he went on, they had not yet obtained O’Hara’s consent. He was working in full harness as a Bishop. They would hasten matters as quickly as could be – but he devoutly hoped no publication would take place as a result of the President’s telling the American Ambassador about the appointment. Indeed, he said, somewhat sharply, as if recalling our long and heated arguments of three years ago, and wishing to make me feel duly repentant, ‘if the Holy Father thought there was going to be publicity before he consented formally to it, he would be "capable of cancelling the whole affair". I didn’t think I should let that remark go – so I said that while the publication would not be in the least degree according to the Government’s wishes, indeed quite the contrary, I found it hard to take such a serious view of it.

I reminded him of the fearful gaffe which Truman made when he announced Clark’s⁵ appointment without previous consultation with the Holy See, and accompanied it with a whole series of most unflattering arguments concerning the Vatican. There was no need for me to add that the Vatican had swallowed all the affronts without a protest.

He then became his friendly self again, as he always does on such occasions, because he is really a man of God. I then had a chat – most friendly – about the contribution of the Dip. Corps to the Flood Relief. I am now the active Dean of the Corps.

When all that is said and done, there remains some mystery about Monsignor O’Hara’s appointment. If ever there was to be a non-Italian appointment – he was one of the most likely. He himself went out of his way to be friendly to me, and the last time I saw him he gave me an extremely expensive copy of I Promessi Sposi of Manzoni,⁶ a famous Italian classic. He was already in the Dipl. Corps (until his recent return to Savannah) and his appt. to Dublin would not add a new non-Italian appointment to the combined Nuncio and Apostolic Delegate Category. But the whole trend of Montini’s talks with me, for close on a year, never permitted the slighted degree of hope that the Holy Father would depart from the principle of appointing an Italian to all such posts. I omitted no argument, and I particularly emphasised the danger of a Nuncio of non-Irish origin making bad errors of judgement in regard to our supreme problem of partition.

Nothing was of avail, and I was always convinced that, whatever the Holy Father’s philo-Italianism had to do with it, Mgr. Montini was fighting with a certain bitterness, (which, at times, shocked me,) the battle of Italian supremacy in the government of the Universal Church.

Why have they changed? Although Mgr. Montini said today, ‘I have been treating of this matter with the Holy Father for three months,’ I did not get the slightest impression that he was enthusiastic or even in favour of the appointment. If he had been, he would have seen me at once, and he would not have made the somewhat absurd remark about the Holy Father being capable of withdrawing or cancelling ‘the whole affair’ if there were publicity.

While I was talking to Monsignor Dell’Acqua⁷ – the least ‘Monsignorish’ and the least mock pious of the whole Vatican staff – he said ‘are you pleased with the appointment’? Knowing that the Govt. had already approved I answered ‘why, of course, he is a splendid fellow, did you suggest Mgr. O’Hara’? He replied, to my amazement ‘Indeed, I did not, you know perfectly well that it is the result of your protests and arguments on another occasion.’

I am afraid that is not the reason. I should be very glad to hear from you, if there was some other action on our part which I do not know of.

Of course, but this is an unlikely explanation, the Holy Father may want to strengthen the relations (so tenuous) between the Irish and American clergy. Or is it for a deep political motive relating to the international crisis? Cardinals Stritch⁸ and Mooney⁹ told me, a few years ago, that they would greatly prize close contacts and Stritch had made positive proposals to D’Alton,¹⁰ without any response.

I should rather be of the opinion that the Vatican does not wish to strengthen the position of the American Hierarchy. Although there have been many surrenders since then, we must not forget the Vatican opposition to the establishment of a Council of American Bishops in the early twenties. The fear of external pressure by organised groups is an old fear and it is going to die hard. We shall have the only real non-Italian Nuncio in the world – The Americans will be greatly delighted – They encouraged the fight against the Italians the last time and they greatly regretted our surrender.

In the Irish hierarchy there will not, I believe, be anything like the same enthusiasm. Many of them said to me that they feared an American more than an Italian. The Americans had too many ‘new fangled’ ideas about organisation, administration, clubs, town halls, all round visiting of the faithful etc.

Indeed, the comments of the American priests from Rome who visit Ireland each year are pretty hot against what they call the lethargy of the priests in the country in regard to the social welfare of the people. We may have pleasant surprises.

It is well to remember that Montini had a telegram from Benelli¹¹ early this morning apparently giving him more information about a ‘leak’ than Denis was able to give me on a quite hopeless wire. Also, perhaps, it is well to make the point that I did not make the slightest complaint about not having been told about the démarche (he never once used ‘request for agrément’ – what is the real position?) in Dublin. Indeed, I hold he was not bound to do so, except as a matter of courtesy, and as a sign of friendly feeling.

On the occasion of Mgr. Felici’s appointment there was a positive request for an agrément made with nasty haste, too soon after Paschal’s¹² death, and they knew that I held the view that Mgr. Robinson’s successor should not be an Italian. That was a sufficient reason for not telling me. Since, I have, with the approval of both Govts. remained passive on the issue, since the appointment of Mgr. Felici. I am inclined to believe in the ‘sondaggio’ explanation, unless I hear to the contrary from you – But could it have been a quite justifiable desire not to be the first to tell me of what he may well consider a surrender. Has the Pope acted on his own!

Somebody has been trying to get on the phone from Dublin for the last three or four hours without success. The operators say the difficulty is in London. I hope my wire has been received – and how much more I hope that there will be no publicity!

The wire was sent at 1.20pm our time. You should have had it around 3.o’c Irish time.

[postscript]

Excuse extremely rushed note. The personal letter makes things so much easier. It goes on your personal files and my sins are not remembered – and I can forget about form and style.