Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Western Europe and Canada, Volume VI, Part 2

124.65A/12–854

No. 934
The Ambassador in Peru (Tittmann) to the Under Secretary of State (Hoover)

confidential
official
informal

Lima, December 8, 1954.

Dear Mr. Hoover: I wrote your predecessor, General Smith, almost a year ago now,¹ regarding the possibility that the Administration might find it desirable at some point to give consideration to the renewal of our diplomatic relations with the Vatican. I offered some suggestions to General Smith that my six years accredited to the Vatican during the war might warrant. May I pass these suggestions on to you at the present time on the off chance that the White House might find an opportune moment to press the matter? I am particularly impressed with the good effect the renewal of diplomatic relations with the Holy See would have on our Latin American friends just at this time. The suggestions follow:

It is clear that the Administration will have to proceed with the utmost caution and with the minimum of publicity, otherwise the project is doomed to die even before it is born, because of the intense non-Catholic religious and political opposition in the United States.

Experience has shown that it is not feasible to establish an embassy with the usual trappings and to appoint a nationally known figure as ambassador. On the other hand, if we could make a more modest attempt and start out, say, with a legation instead of an embassy and a chargé d’affaires rather than an ambassador or minister, the project would attract much less public attention and would have a better chance of getting by without arousing the opposition that would kill it. Furthermore, it is probable that the appointment of a chargé d’affaires would not require confirmation by the Senate. The office of the legation could be restricted to one or two rooms and a single clerk-stenographer should be sufficient staff, in addition to the chargé, to run it.

In order to avoid the necessity of asking Congress for funds to pay the salary and allowances of a diplomatic representative as is usually done when a new mission is established abroad, the chargé d’affaires should be selected from among those who are already receiving a salary. It is understood that the modest office expenses could be covered by State Department funds without recourse to Congress for an appropriation.

Finally, it is preferable that the United States representative be a non-Catholic.

While it is generally known that the Vatican is no longer willing to accept a “Personal Representative of the President” as it did in the past, I am confident that something similar to the above-described formula for renewing diplomatic relations would be given favorable consideration by the Holy See at the present time.

If the Administration should decide to pursue the matter of the renewal of diplomatic relations up to the point where the question of the choice of an individual suitable for the job of chargé d’affaires to the Holy See arises, may I be so bold as to propose myself as a candidate? For six years I was Mr. Myron Taylor’s Assistant at the Vatican and, during the two and one-half years of this period when I was interned in the Vatican City itself, I held the title of United States Chargé d’Affaires to the Holy See. If I should be fortunate enough to be chosen, I would be willing to undergo a reduction in my present rank of ambassador to that of chargé d’affaires. I would also be ready to return to my permanent Foreign Service class of Career Minister and accept the salary that goes with it, so that there would be no question of asking Congress to provide special funds for my remuneration. Furthermore, I am a Protestant, having belonged since childhood to the Episcopal Church. Finally, I am not a headline-seeker, and I have reason to believe that I would be regarded as persona grata at the Vatican.

Please do not assume from the foregoing that I am not satisfied with my present post in Lima. I am. But I could not pass up an opportunity to be a pioneer in establishing our relations with the Vatican on a permanent basis which I personally feel would be in our interests.

The considerations of State bearing upon the renewal of diplomatic relations with the Holy See, I shall not dwell upon here. I am attaching two memoranda with a few thoughts on this point which you may find of interest in case you should have the time and inclination to read them.²

Sincerely yours,

Harold H. Tittmann

[Attachment]

Memorandum Prepared by the Ambassador in Peru (Tittmann)

confidential

A few considerations of State bearing upon the possible establishment of a permanent United States diplomatic mission to the Holy See—

1. The Holy See, especially in recent years, has used the weight of its spiritual and moral influence to further the cause of peace and stability. The United States today is the chief champion in the political, economic, and social field of that same cause. There is, therefore, a fundamental similarity of purpose between the Holy See and the United States, and today, when American interests are more widespread than ever before, the field for parallel action looking to the achievement of that purpose will be vastly increased.

2. The Vatican is one of the oldest and most influential organizations in the world. It directs the moral and religious lives of almost four hundred million Roman Catholics residing in the four corners of the earth; it has developed far-flung and, in peace time, highly effective channels of communication. Through these channels flow the Vatican’s instructions and directives to the bishops and representatives of the Holy See throughout the world, while in the opposite direction, a vast amount of material relating to world conditions is constantly being received, assembled, and coordinated at the Vatican. Permanent relations with the Holy See would make it possible for our Government readily to avail itself of much of this material which otherwise might not be accessible. Indirect use could also be made by us, as in the past, of the Vatican’s outward channels of communication where our own channels do not exist or may be insufficient.

3. At the present time, January, 1955, some forty-odd sovereign states are maintaining permanent diplomatic representations at the Holy See: The so-called Protestant countries having representatives are: Great Britain, Finland, Holland, and Liberia. Other non-Catholic countries are China, Japan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, and India. Almost all Latin American countries, with the exception of Mexico and Guatemala, maintain representations at the Holy See. The position of the United States is that, from 1939 to 1950, a Personal Representative of the President, with the rank of ambassador, was accredited to His Holiness the Pope, but that since 1950 we have had no formal or informal diplomatic relations with the Holy See.

Chiefs of Mission at the Vatican are often outstanding citizens of the countries they represent. Many missions maintain relatively large staffs of career officers (as many as three, four, and, in one case, eight) in addition to the Chief of Mission.

The diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See constitutes in itself an important group of official representatives of most countries of the world and, therefore, is a source of information on current and international discussions and affairs, many of which bear on American interests.

4. In connection with the furtherance of our “good-neighbor” policy toward the Roman Catholic countries of Latin America, the presence of a permanent United States representation at the Holy See should prove helpful from the psychological point of view. The representatives of the six Latin American countries who resided in the Vatican City during the war together with the United States representative often expressed their gratification and satisfaction that the President of the United States should have decided to send his Personal Representative to the Pope. There can be little doubt that the establishment of a permanent United States mission to the Holy See would tend further to increase to our advantage this favorable impression created in Latin America.

5. It seems clear that the Catholic Church in countries occupied by United States troops can play a useful part in the re-education of large segments of the people of those countries. Extended areas where this re-education is taking place are under the control of American troops. Questions arise between the Church and the occupational authorities which call for solutions on the higher levels. The presence of an American diplomatic representative accredited to the Holy See could serve to coordinate and facilitate the solution of such questions in a manner best calculated to promote our own interests.

6. Last, but not least, the Church is the implacable foe of atheistic communism. We have no better ally in our struggle against the communist ideology and to preserve Christianity.

1. The letter under reference, dated Jan. 11, which contained essentially the same points Tittmann made in this letter, is not printed. (124.65A/1–1154) In his reply to Tittmann of Jan. 26, Smith stated that factors of “the most acute political sensitivity” were involved in the question of establishing diplomatic relations with the Vatican, and because of this, it was an issue only the White House could decide. Smith also expressed his own view that it was not then an opportune time to recommend that the White House reopen this question. (765A.00/1–2254) In a letter to Smith of Sept. 2, Tittmann again raised the question of establishing diplomatic relations with the Vatican. (124.65A/9–254) In his reply of Sept. 16, Smith said that there had been no concrete developments in that direction since his letter to Tittmann of Jan. 26, although the issue, he said, was “by no means dead.” Smith also pointed out that he had testified before Congress that he personally favored such establishment and that he shared Tittmann’s view of the importance it would have for U.S. diplomatic relations with Latin America. (124.65A/9–1654)
2. One memorandum is printed as an attachment to the source text; the other memorandum, a two-page historical note regarding relations between the United States and the Vatican, 1848–1868, is not printed.