Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Eastern Europe, Volume XXV

227. Memorandum From the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs (Beam) to the Deputy Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (Murphy)¹

Washington, January 24, 1957.

SUBJECT

• Transmission of Communications from Cardinal Mindszenty to the Pope

Background:

Since Cardinal Mindszenty was granted refuge in the Legation in Budapest our position, which has been repeatedly made known to him, has been that he could not be allowed to use the Legation as a base of operations. This attitude is based on the extreme delicacy of the situation arising from the Cardinal’s presence in the Legation and our desire to do nothing which might make his position more precarious or that of the Legation more difficult.

Under an informal letter to Mr. McKisson in EE Minister Wailes has transmitted to the Department six sealed letters which Cardinal Mindszenty has written in Latin to the Pope and to the Vatican Secretary of State. Mr. Wailes suggests that they be translated and if found to be “innocuous” forwarded to the Vatican. “If the letters contain matters of business, you may want to return them to me,” Mr. Wailes continues, “and direct me to tell the Cardinal that we just can’t send them to Rome”. Mr. Wailes’ letter together with its enclosures is attached.²

Discussion:

The Cardinal’s letters raise a number of serious questions:

1. If these six letters are transmitted they will probably be followed by more and thus the Department’s pouch facilities would tend to become a regular channel of covert communication between the Vatican and the Cardinal. Written records of this nature if inadvertently revealed or “leaked” to the press or to the church hierarchy would cause us embarrassment and might compromise our Legation and prejudice the Cardinal’s safety.

2. Whether the current letters or any which may follow constitute “conduct of business” cannot be determined until they are translated and read. If they are read, the Department is immediately placed in the position of censoring the Cardinal’s correspondence on the basis of criteria which will be difficult to define clearly and equally difficult to justify to the Cardinal and the Vatican.

3. It must also be anticipated that if letters from the Cardinal are sent to the Pope, the Vatican will logically expect the privilege of replying via the same channel. The Department might then be faced with the necessity of scanning and possibly rejecting messages from the Pope.

While the proposed transmission of the Cardinal’s letters appears inadvisable for the reasons set forth, it is not felt that the Department should prevent all contact between the Cardinal and the Pope. The Vatican has an understandable interest in Cardinal Mindszenty’s welfare and the Cardinal is bound to grow increasingly restive and resentful if denied all communication with the Vatican. A possible solution would be to accept occasional oral messages of a brief and personal nature for transmission. This would impose a natural and, in our opinion, desirable restraint on the parties concerned. It would also make it quite clear that the contents of all messages would be known to the Department but would eliminate the unpleasant connotation of censorship. Finally, by its very nature, this mode of transmission would result in fewer communications.

Recommendation:

1. That the six letters in question be returned to Minister Wailes with instructions that he inform the Cardinal that in his own interest and in that of the Legation such written messages cannot be transmitted in his behalf but that the Legation would be prepared to transmit occasional brief oral messages through appropriate channels to the Vatican.³

1. Source: Department of State, Hungary Desk Files: Lot 75 D 45, Refuge for Cardinal Mindszenty. Confidential. Drafted by Sutterlin and concurred in by WE and L.
2. None of the letters is printed. In his January 17 letter to McKisson, Wailes stated that “little did I realize what we were letting ourselves in for when we took him in.”
3. Murphy initialed his approval of the recommendation. In an official–informal letter to Barnes dated March 11, McKisson enclosed the Cardinal’s unopened letters for return to him. A copy of this memorandum was also enclosed since it contained the applicable instructions should such a case come up again. In the event the Cardinal decided “to transmit a brief oral message for the Vatican,” it was to “be done via the Department and by official–informal letter from you to us.” (Department of State, Hungary Desk Files: Lot 75 D 45, Refuge for Cardinal Mindszenty, 1956–57)