Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, Central and Eastern Europe; The Soviet Union, Volume IV

861.413/9–1550: Telegram

The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Kirk) to the Secretary of State ¹

secret

Moscow, September 15, 1950—6 p. m.

713. Embtel 712, September 15. Calling by appointment on Deputy Foreign Minister Gromyko at 2:30 p.m. re Father Brassard, I opened conversation by saying I wished to bring to attention Soviet Government an aspect of exchange of letters between late President Roosevelt and then Foreign Minister Litvinov concerning acknowledged right of freedom religious worship our nationals in Soviet territory with special reference accordance facilities Father Brassard to officiate for American citizens of Roman Catholic faith and presently in Moscow. I added that since arrival here January 1950 Father Brassard had not been accorded facilities consonant with basic inter government understandings of 1933 and conforming to traditional use for some 16 years of Church St. Louis. Also that with departure French priest Father Thomas on 1 September it appeared reasonable to accord American priest (who was duly accredited and documented by his church authorities) similar use Church St. Louis, namely one hour per day, and that I had come to ask Soviet authority to intervene in accordance Roosevelt–Litvinov understandings to secure such facilities for Father Brassard.

Gromyko replied that even original visa application Father Brassard had been granted on basis he to serve AmEmbassy Moscow,² that Soviets had no state religion, that Russian congregation St. Louis Church had of own free will elected new priest and he was not in position to intervene, suggesting I should provide facilities from Embassy properties.

My answer was that first of all Father Brassard was in no sense an Embassy chaplain, that US had no state religion (as was well-known to Gromyko), and that under terms 1933 exchange notes Soviets were committed permit acquisition necessary facilities for freedom religious worship. I said we were asking merely that American priest be given similar facilities accorded departed French priest, to officiate for American citizens in Moscow in exercise their religious worship, and that in fact such would entail no expense.

Gromyko insisted use St. Louis Church was for parishoners to decide, that parish had “elected” own priest, and that Soviet Government never interfered in religious matters.

I rejoined that under terms 1933 exchanges Soviets were obligated to aid freedom religious practice and to protect US citizens from annoyance and interferences in enjoying religious freedom. I remarked that in reading carefully the notes exchanged between President Roosevelt and Mr. Litvinov, in 1933, I was struck by their tenor of mutual understanding, and especially of comprehension, of problem of freedom of religious worship, but that I could not refrain from remarking that the present atmosphere seemed much less congenial in these important aspects.

Gromyko replied that there was nothing his government would be able to do in this matter of St. Louis Church. I then mentioned that there were other foreign citizens in Moscow, some of them in other diplomatic missions, who also were of Roman Catholic faith, and by giving Father Brassard same facilities at St. Louis Church as previously enjoyed by Father Thomas, the foreign Roman Catholic community would be served as well.

Gromyko remarked that religious matters were not of concern to Soviet state and that he could do nothing, that foreigners were at liberty to use their mission facilities for whatever religious needs were to be satisfied.

I again insisted US had no state religion but that our constitution guaranteed freedom religious worship, which I said Mr. Litvinov had in effect stated was also the case in Soviet Union; and that we expected that under terms set forth in letters between President Roosevelt and Mr. Litvinov in 1933, Soviet authorities would support my government’s request in this instance. Accordingly, I presented aide-mémoire setting forth more concisely views US Government.

Gromyko read through my aide-mémoire remarking this matter had been discussed by others, and I said yes, inconclusively, between Minister Barbour and Mr. Sobolev³ but now was of such importance I had come to see him myself. He then said “there is nothing more to be said in this matter and I have given you the views of Soviet Government”.

Our conversation was polite and quiet in tone, but I believe this matter of using Church St. Louis is now closed and would not expect any further comment from Minister of Foreign Affairs.⁴

Kirk

1. This telegram was relayed to Paris at 1:40 p. m. on September 15.
2. See note No. 136 of November 5, 1949, from the Embassy of the Soviet Union, Foreign Relations, 1949, vol. v, p. 670.
3. Arkady Alexandrovich Sobolev bad become head of the American Section of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union.

4. Ambassador Kirk reported to the Department in telegram 715 on September 15 that he had given out a press release that afternoon concerning the facts of his call on Gromyko. (861.413/9–1550)

   On November 16 the prominent Catholic layman, Mr. Michael Francis Doyle, called at the Office of Eastern European Affairs to discuss the situation of Father Brassard. He read the aide-mémoire of September 15 and was told about the conversation between Ambassador Kirk and Deputy Foreign Minister Gromyko. He was informed that the matter of the use of the Church of St. Louis was probably closed and that “we in the Department saw no means to force the Soviet Government to change its mind.” At the close of the conversation Mr. Doyle held the opinion that Father Brassard would not be withdrawn from Moscow “as that would be an admission of ‘defeatism and weakness’ and that it would be better to leave Father Brassard there even under present unsatisfactory circumstances.” (861.413/9–1550)