recognition of the Vatican were considered, this 100-year-old law would be an obstacle. American envoys to the Vatican in the last 13 years have been housed in a separate office from the U.S. embassy in Rome, and assisted by one foreign service officer and a secretary. Expenses for the post, which continues to be unsalaried, were around $40,000 a year in the 1970s; that included traveling costs of the two or three visits a year the representatives made to Rome. The presidents' envoys in the twentieth century have been Myron C. Taylor (1939-50), appointed by Roosevelt and continued by Truman; Henry Cabot Lodge (1970-76), appointed by Nixon and continued by Ford; David M. Walters (1977-78) and Robert Wagner (1978-80), both appointed by Carter; and William A. Wilson, appointed by Reagan in 1981. According to the Jesuit magazine America, the Vatican maintains diplomatic ties with 104 of the approximately 160 sovereign nations. A Pope's official ambassador to a country is called a nuncio or pronuncio; an apostolic delegate is the Pope's representative to the Roman Catholic hierarchy in a state that does not have relations with the Vatican. Arguments advanced to support full diplomatic ties have changed little over the years. State Department officers are persuaded that the Vatican is an unsurpassed "listening post, receiving a steady flow of dispatches from priests whose grassroots contacts in Eastern Europe and Central America, among other places, are invaluable sources. Some seek to justify full diplomatic relations with the Vatican by noting the advantages of an alignment with the Pope's superior moral authority, or on the basis of shared interests in human rights and moral issues. The BJC rejects these arguments for several reasons. 1) An ambassador to the Holy See would set a precedent of official sanction of religion, and would probably elicit appeals from other religious bodies for equal treatment. Half-serious suggestions that the President exchange diplomats with the World Council of Churches, and the Islamic and Buddhist leadership, hint at the kind of pressures on government if an emissary is appointed. Contrary to accusations that opponents of such a move are guilty of an anti-Catholic bias, BJC opposition has been based on firmly established constitutional principles. The prospect of having a U.S. ambassador at the Vatican, or to any religious group, could lead to excessive government entanglement with religion, which would violate a strongly-held principle. Such a situation would amount to a violation of the Supreme Court's ban on the establishment of religion. 2) Diplomatic recognition of the Vatican indicates preferential treatment not accorded any other church or religious body. Religious liberty could be impaired or curtailed, because other forms of religion would be compelled to work in the shadow, and against the prejudice, created by the special privilege and the official prestige enjoyed by this particular religious institution. 3) Preferential treatment of any religious group would tear apart a policy of church-state separation in this country carefully worked out over two centuries, and designed to maintain an America whose unities are greater than its diversities. John F. Kennedy, the first Catholic to be elected President of the United States, said, "I am flatly opposed to the appointment of an ambassador to the Vatican. Whatever advantages it might mean in Rome...they would be more than offset by the divisive effect at home." 4) Damage from the move would extend beyond a divided country to strike at the the basis of spiritual strength in America: government neutrality toward religion. Far from suffering from the want of state support, religion seems in the United States to stand stronger, because it stands by its own strength, and not the government's. There are more Protestants in the U.S., who give more generously to missions, than in any other nation; more Jews live in the U.S. than anywhere else, including Israel, which could barely survive without their support; and American Catholicism contributes more money to its causes than all the rest of the world combined, indicating its position of importance to world-wide Catholicism. Why should an attempt be made to destroy the neutrality in which American religious institutions have prospered? 5) The Roman Catholic Church itself would be damaged by diplomatic ties to the U.S. An administration's attempt to employ Church sources in geo-politically strategic regions is as unacceptable as the CIA's use of missionaries as spies; and the primitive effort to win a block of votes by appealing to the Church's interests is a blatant disregard of what religion is. J. M. Dawson's response to an earlier envoy's appointment to the Vatican is still appropriate: "The President's appointment is perhaps a frantic bid for holding big cities in the approaching hot presidential race. It is a deplorable resort to expediency which utterly disregards the historic, constitutional American system of separation of church and state...If it aims at strengthening the battle against Communism, as claimed, it is a fearful blunder." 6) Granted the government's insatiable (though often warranted) desire for information, there is little that could not be obtained through existing channels. In this day of mobility and instant communication an ambassador is more symbolic of a relationship than essential to effective communication on matters of mutual concern. Although the Vatican does refuse to deal officially with embassies accredited to Italy, the U.S. can and has established communication on important issues through its embassy in Rome and through the apostolic delegate in Washington. Such a position is unnecessary, as even President Nixon's special envoy to the Pope, Henry Cabot Lodge, noted in 1972; and it is difficult to see, in light of the greater dangers mentioned above, any advantage in creating the post. I am deeply disturbed by and diametrically opposed to the current move by President Reagan and others to establish diplomatic relations with the Vatican. Although, I suppose, the Vatican can technically be considered a "sovereign state," in fact, it is nothing more than the headquarters of one of the world's major religious denominations. It is clearly contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution of this country for our Government to maintain this kind of an official relationship with a religious organization, even one of this size and influence. I, therefore, vehemently urge you to oppose this highly improper and questionable preferential treatment being accorded the Roman Catholic Church. To that end, I further urge you to block the attempt to effectuate this unconscionable move by preventing the reprograming of funds from the State Department budget to fund this post. Thanking you for your courtesy and consideration, I am Sincerely, James T. McCollum First Baptist Church Route 2, Highway 911 It is my understanding that you serve on a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee which will consider funding an Ambassadorship from the United States of America to the Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church. Sending an I urge you not to fund this Ambassadorship. Ambassador to the Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, The National Council of Churches, any other religious body, or state controlled by a religious body, is a violation of the principle of separation of church and state. To appropriate funds to send an Ambassador to the Holy See of the Roman Catholic church is definately not in the best interest of the United States of America, I urge you to read chapter eight of Christianity and World Issues by T.B. Maston, published by the Macmillan Company, 1956. Study the contribution of Isaac Backus, a pioneer of religious liberty who lobbied for religious freedom against John Adams. Study the contribution of John Leland who counted Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and James Madison his personal friends. A final book I would ask you to read is Freedom and Catholic Power by Paul Blanshard, Beacon Press, 1960. Thank you for your time. Please don't appropriate money to send an ambassador to the Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church. Sincerely, John R. Walker John R. Walker, Pastor JRW/dw FEB 8 1984 January 25, 1984 President Ronald Reagan Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. President: This will record my opposition to your appointment of an Ambassador to the Vatican. It is not necessary; it is not desirable; and it is fraught with great danger to the First Amendment which has been the guiding compass for our country since its inception. We are a pluralistic nation, with many religions, ideals, churches and denominations. Thence comes our moral strength. You dilute this when you single out one church for special attention. I personally have tried on several occasions to present our views to you but without avail. Moreover, you endanger the peaceful harmony that now exists in our nation when you accord one church a political preference, denied the others, and thus you create another Viet Nam and another Beirut with the possible bloody clashes of Lebanon and Northern Ireland. We had similar occurrences in this country during the early growing pains. Why be the first President of our beloved nation to turn the clock back to medieval days? Why revert to the policy of Constantine of the Roman Church as a temporal power, which even the present Pope disapproves? HCC/gs Sincerely, Henry C. Clausen |