701.9466A/10: Telegram
The Minister in Switzerland (Harrison) to the Secretary of State
[Received March 19—6:21 p.m.]
1130. Following from Tittmann. 43, March 16. Department’s 609, March 6, received March 10.33 In order that there might be no misunderstanding of our position regarding the matter of the Japanese mission to the Holy See, I thought it best to give the Cardinal Secretary of State in writing the substance of the statements made by the Acting Secretary to the Auditor of the Apostolic Delegation. I have also given him in writing the substance of the first sentence of Department’s [Page 786] 640, March 10 (received March 14). At the same time in my conversation with him I left no doubt in his mind that we felt very strongly on the subject.
Cardinal said that he had already received much the same reports from the Delegation in Washington and that he was obliged to say frankly that he was unable to understand the lack of comprehension on our part of the position of the Holy See. He accordingly prepared for me a memorandum dated March 14 explaining this at some length.
I am forwarding the memorandum by air mail34 since I understand that the Apostolic Delegate in, Washington has already been instructed by telegraph to present most of the arguments contained therein. However, the last paragraph of memorandum states that the Vatican’s reply to the proposals of the Japanese Government Was communicated to the representatives of the United States and England confidentially and as a matter of courtesy; that it was made public in Switzerland February 23 last and by Renter’s Agency March 3, the latter adding that the Governments of London and Washington had protested to the Holy See. The memorandum concludes that as a result of this publicity which was certainly not due to Holy See a change in the attitude assumed by the Holy See with regard to diplomatic relations with Japan could be interpreted as yielding to the pressure of one group of countries now at war.
The following points were brought out in informal conversations with the Cardinal.
- (1)
- On the subject of Japanese wartime atrocities the Cardinal stated that as much as he deplored them he did not have so far sufficient elements of proof at hand to enable him to pass judgment thereon or allow them to influence Holy See in the formulation of policy. In any event, he said, acceptance of a Japanese mission did not imply in any way approval of everything the Japanese are doing.
- (2)
- The question as to whether efforts on the part of the Holy See to protect Catholic interests on Japanese territory which were purely spiritual were worthwhile or not, should, he thought, be left to judgment of Holy See which has had long experience in spiritual affairs.
- (3)
- The Cardinal also referred with some heat to the publicity given in London to the Japanese initiative. He said that the initiative could not be scotched through publicity; on the contrary it was now more than ever out of the question to refuse the Japanese request since it had been generally taken for granted by the public that the British and American representatives to the Holy See had protested.
- (4)
- I noticed some stiffening, possibly as a result of publicity, in the Cardinal’s attitude since my telegram No. 20 of February 635 [Page 787] and my despatch. No. 57 of March 6 toward the suggestion that the Soviet Government might wish to be represented at the Holy See to offset the Japanese initiative. He now states that such representation would be acceptable only if and when the Holy See were satisfied that Soviet doctrine and methods in religious matters had been revised.
- (5)
- The Cardinal stated to me that it was his opinion that Germany had not been forewarned of Japanese intentions; and that there was every indication that Japan had played a lone hand. Another highly placed Vatican official expressed his conviction that Germany was definitely opposed to Japanese representation here and that the Germans were inventing and circulating all sorts of stories some of which they were [apparent omission] specially to the press with a view to preventing it. According to this official, Germany was for one thing apprehensive lest Japan learn too much at the Vatican regarding Nazi religious policy.
- (6)
- The Cardinal said that he had heard nothing more from the Japanese with regard to their intentions and that personally he earnestly hoped that he would not. The Holy See he said certainly would not solicit further action. I have learned indirectly that the Japanese Ambassador to Vichy had been designated as the first Japanese representative to the Holy See but that he died before his agrément had been formally requested. The difficulty in finding an available successor may have something to do with the continued silence on the part of the Japanese.
- [Tittmann]
- Harrison