state and not an artificial state as is the case to a large extent today. I feel, as has already been said by others, that official diplomatic relations with the Holy See are unnecessary, and I will not repeat what has already been said in that connection. Finally, I feel that there is a possible damage here to interchurch relations. The correspondence we have already been receiving in my office indicates certain hostilities that are there from one side and from the other. Sending an ambassador to the Holy See is not conducive to good and happy interchurch relations. In recent years, especially since the second Vatican, Consul relations between protestants and Catholics in the United States have reflected much less of the past acrimony. The appointment of an ambassador to the headquarters of a church, the Church of Rome, and the arrival of a papal nuncio here in Washington might exacerbate interchurch relations by raising in the minds of some certain legitimate questions, certain emotional specters of the past and concerns regarding the future. The Seventh-day Adventists' opposition to U.S. diplomatic recognition of the Holy See is not based on anti-Catholic bigotry. No one can deny the current Pope's efforts to promote peace and his speeches supporting human rights. These endeavors are not in question. The Pope's status as a significant international figure is not at issue. The basic problem is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and diplomatic relations with what is in practice and in essence a church. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [The statement of Dr. B. B. Beach follows:] Statement of Dr. B. B. Beach, Director Department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Regarding Federal Funds for an Ambassador and Embassy to the Holy See House Appropriations Committee February 9, 1984 DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE HOLY SEE Why We Are Opposed B. B. Beach, Director Department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Thank you for your generous Invitation to testify before this distinguished committee. It is because of our love of the church and love of our country, and deep concern for their mutual welfare, that we oppose diplomatic relations between the U.S.A. and the Holy See and the disbursement of tax monies for that purpose. A Question of Public Policy. It is indeed proper for the Appropriations Committee to step out of the narrow realm of appropriations and enter the forum of public policy. This has been done in the past. Today, the public policy approach is all the more necessary, because the House discussions and hearings planned originally for Representative Zablocki's bill have been circumvented by the hasty action of the Senate on September 22. Furthermore, federal funding is a central policy issue: Should federal tax money be used to fund an ambassadorial post and mission to the central authority of a church. : On January 10 the United States and the Vatican announced that diplomatic relations would be established between them and that the White House would nominate William A. Wilson as the U.S. ambassador to the Holy See. Until then, Mr. Wilson served only as the President's personal envoy at the Vatican. A Surprise Move. A little historical background may help one understand the current developments. In a surprise move on September 22, 1983, the Senate by voice vote approved an amendment to the State Department Authorization Bill lifting the 1867 prohibition against expenditure of government funds to support diplomatic relations with the Holy See. This amendment prevailed in conference and on November 22 became law. Actually, the action of Congress represents much more than the simple removal of an 116-year-old stricture, for it openly states that its purpose is "to provide for the establishment of United States diplomatic relations with the Vatican." This radical change in long-standing national policy was accomplished without public discussion or hearings and without substantive debate in either House. It thus seems to have circumvented the democratic process, and this gives cause for concern. The issue has been controversial and divisive, and, whenever raised, it has produced strong reactions. Diplomatic Relations with the Papal States. Between 1848 and 1867 the U.S. had diplomatic relations with the Papal States. For much of this time the Pope was the sovereign of a bona fide state that controlled central Italy and enjoyed a population of over three million, with Rome as the capital. The U.S. Presidents and secretaries of state Instructed their envoys in Rome (Italy had not been unified as yet and the capital was in Florence) to involve themselves only in "civil relations" and "extension of commerce" and to protect U.S. citizens traveling in that part of the Italian peninsula controlled by the secular authority of the Pope. Relations with the Pope as head of the Church of Rome were specifically excluded. By 1867 the territory of the Papal States had been reduced to the city of Rome itself. In 1870, when the troops of King Victor Emmanuel stormed the Eternal City and made it the capital of a unified Italy, the Papal States lapsed. Amazingly, just as the Catholic Church reached the nadir of its political status as a state, it proclaimed the dogma of papal infallibility, thus bolstering the claims of church supremacy. Reasons for Ending Diplomatic Relations. Reasons given in the 1867 House debate for closing the U.S. legation in Rome included: 1) papal Intolerance--Protestant worship in Rome was prohibited and subject to the Inquisition even in private homes; 2) declining need--diplomatic relations with a state that was in the process of being swallowed up by the Kingdom of Italy would serve little useful purpose; 3) the "ornamental" nature of the post--it was not advantaging the American people; 4) cost--the legation seemed to be a useless expense; 5) the constitutional issue--a possible violation of church and state, especially with the almost complete elimination of the Pope's temporal power. The result of the debate in the House of Representatives was an overwhelming vote (82 to 18) in favor of closing the legation in Rome. A few years later the U.S. reopened a legation in Rome, but this time, of course, it was to the Italian nation. Vatican City. For some sixty years subsequent, the Pope could not claim to be the ruler of a state. In 1929 an effort was made to heal the deadly wound inflicted upon the aspirations of the Papacy to be a state. The present miniscule Vatican City (one-sixth of a square mile) was created by the Lateran Treaty with the Italian Government of Benito Mussolini. The latter gave the Pope sovereignty over the 108 acres surrounding St. Peter's and the papal palace, in order to solve the strained relations with the Papacy that dated back to the Italian risorgimento and unification and hopefully to gain at least a modicum of support for his regime. Vatican City is thus an artificial state. It is exclusively the headquarters of a church--the Roman Catholic Church. It is basically a church center, run by clerics, with some formal overdressing of a state (stamps, |