864.404/11–348: Telegram
The Minister in Hungary (Chapin) to the Secretary of State
1727. Archbishop of Eger, Czapik, number two Catholic prelate of land recently returned from Rome paid visit to inform me that his situation rapidly becoming intolerable since his efforts to mediate and win time in knock-down dragout Church State struggle shockingly exploited by Communists in their campaign to split Catholic Church in Hungary. Communist propaganda, he said, is suggesting both here and abroad that Catholic masses led by important members of hierarchy have repudiated west and are increasingly showing preference [Page 384] for eastern orientation. This has no basis in fact, Czapik said, and as intelligent responsible cleric he cannot lend himself to such maneuvers designed to destroy Church unity.
Archbishop also pointed out that during recent Borne visit his impression confirmed that Hungarian emigration throughout west distressingly divided into numerous quarreling factions with leadership sought by both former Nazis and highly organized Communists directed from South America. He added his conviction that recognized leader with proved organizing ability, oratorical skill, established prestige needed to unite Hungarians and win them to positive purposes of west. This, he felt, could best be achieved by religious rather than political approach.
Czapik stated that a solution could be found to both problems if Papal See appointed him Apostolic visitor to Hungarians residing in west (precedent established with appointment Bishop to Germans in west occupied zones). In this connection he requested that I grant leave to member my staff, Koczak,1 to go to Borne in a private nonofficial capacity to convey Czapik’s recommendation to Father Leiber, personal secretary and confidant of Pope who arranges more delicate matters for His Holiness. Czapik emphasized that his request involves no action or recommendation of any kind on my part since he wishes merely to get confidential message to Leiber by reliable non-Hungarian means.
Although I told Archbishop that I wished to give matter further thought—stating that I would, of course, inform Am Vat and expect Czapik to inform Cardinal if answer affirmative, to both of which he agreed—I am acceding to Archbishop’s request for these reasons:
- 1.
- Strictly nonofficial, private character of Koczak visit to be arranged outside Vatican cannot be construed either as intervention in Church affairs or playing Church politics.
- 2.
- Roman Church the most powerful anti-Communist force in Hungary. Impairment of Church strength would certainly weaken resistance to Communism.
- 3.
- Impact of successful Communist propaganda asserting existence of split would produce unfavorable repercussions in other Catholic countries.
- 4.
- In view of Czapik’s extended negotiations with state—certainly well-intentioned though unsuccessful—fiction of split stands better chance of acceptance if Czapik remains in Hungary.
- 5.
- Action, if successful, will certainly receive enthusiastic approval of Cardinal who, influenced by Communist propaganda, inclined to regard Czapik as serious rival.
Although mindful of US policy avoid any complications in ecclesiastical affairs I have authorized Koczak who has volunteered to [Page 385] go to Rome on leave in private capacity, since I feel that the consolidation of Catholic resistance to Communism is in our general political interests. (Reference paragraph C page 9 policy statement on Poland)2 but I have instructed him to report to Am Vat in event Department may wish to give him further instructions.3
Sent Department, repeated Rome as 91 for Am Vat.
- Stephen Koczak, Third Secretary of the Legation in Budapest.↩
- Department of State Policy Statement on Poland, August 6, 1948, not printed.↩
-
Telegram 1074, November 5, to Budapest, not printed, replied in part as follows:
“Dept cannot concur urtel 1727, Nov 3. For your info aside from inappropriateness US interference church affairs by approving Koczak even informally acting as messenger, Dept feels premise disunity Hungs abroad not confirmed by facts situation.” (864.00/11–548)