The appointment of Myron C. Taylor, On December 24, 1939, as President Roosevelt's personal peace ambassador to the Pope, has raised the question of renewing diplomatic relationship of the United States with the Vatican. The President's action more nearly approaches the resumption of official contacts with the papal power than anything that has happened in American foreign relations during the last seventy-two years.
Various conflicting voices have been heard through the public press and otherwise, either lauding or condemning the President's move. To some it is a welcome gesture in the direction of peace. Others see in it an incipient violation of the principle of separation of church and state. Roman Catholics naturally hail the appointment as a "step toward resumption of diplomatic relations," while politicians of a certain strain criticize the President as having personal ambitions which he is seeking to realize by this move. The real facts of the circumstance point, however, in another direction.
While some, if not all, of these criticisms may be in place, there are substantial reasons for viewing these recent developments from an altogether different viewpoint—from that of the Papacy itself. It is a well-known fact that, since 1870, the Papacy has sought to obtain temporal recognition among the nations. Real success in that direction was not possible, however, until the time of the Great War. In 1914 England appointed an ambassador to the Vatican. Two years later, Holland appointed its first representative since the Reformation. France reestablished its embassy at the Vatican in 1920. Germany, too, became more friendly toward the Papacy, and indicated its change of attitude in 1917 by abrogating the law against the Jesuits. The New York Times reports :
"In 1930 there were listed twelve embassies and twenty-four legations to the Holy See, and in this year's [1939] Almanach de Gotha thirty-five are listed. Among them are the British Empire, France, Germany, Spam, and Italy, as well as the majority of the Latin American nations."—Dec. 24, 1939.
An important diplomatic victory was scored by the Papacy in 1929 when the Lateran Treaty with Italy was agreed upon. Before world-wide political influence could be properly exerted, local fetters had to be broken. A satisfactory relationship had to be established between the Vatican and Italy, its nearest neighbor. This relationship was made possible by the agreement of 1929. The Benedictine monk, Dom Charles Poulet, writes:
"The freedom of the Papacy requires that the people be subject to no temporal power ; the freedom of the church is guaranteed only by a free pope in a free territory. Were any government to possess temnoral jurisdiction over the Bishop of Rome, it could bring pressure to bear upon him and seriously impair his spiritual ministrations as well as the interests of both church and state."—"A History of the Catholic Church," Vol. II, p. 639.
Now, what enhanced the growth of papal power after the Great War? The answer is: Papal peace efforts and relief work in behalf of war-stricken Europe. When Pius XI ascended the papal throne on February 6, 1922, the world was in the throes of revolution. New states had taken their places on the territories of the former great European empires—Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Germany. The question of how reparations should be extracted more effectively from Germany was most acute. The Russian Revolution had left the church in ruins in the great former empire of the Czars. The national minorities in Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe were clamoring for their rights. Poland had experienced a resurrection from the dead. Prewar, non-Catholic religious structures—the German High Church and the Orthodox Church of Russia—had crumpled to pieces through the attacks of the revolution.
It was at such a time as this that the Roman Catholic Church received a pontiff who was capable of appreciating the advantages possible for the Papacy. Pius XI placed himself in the position of peacemaker. He issued his notable encyclical on universal peace. He approached the thorny problem of reparations, suggesting means of equitable settlement. He made an unsuccessful attempt to secure the release of the Russian patriarch, Tykhon; sought restitution of confiscated ecclesiastical property and precious works of art, and brought relief to the starving peoples of Russia. He also brought relief to Catholics in Poland, Slovakia, Belgium, and other war-stricken European countries.
Today Europe and Asia are again at war. Depatriation and repatriation are bringing untold suffering and loss to millions of people. In three short weeks, the dearest child of the Catholic Church in Eastern Europe—Polandwas erased from the map. Approximately twenty million Catholics have come under the rule of Nazi Germany since the Austrian "Anschluss." This brings the total Roman Catholic population now under Nazi rule up to approximately forty million. Thanks to the Reichskonkordat of 1933, a "legal" understanding between Hitler and the Pope has remained possible.
The present European war had scarcely started when Pope Pius began working out conditions for peace. But this time peace must be different from that of 1919. Now the Pope represents a temporal power duly recognized by thirty-five nations, including the great belligerent powers of Europe, all of whom have their representatives at the Vatican. Through these diplomatic channels the pontiff is in a position to influence directly the thinking of scores of millions of Catholics and their countries, and to assimilate firsthand information from them. In nearly every one of these countries the "spiritual activities" of the Catholic Church are legalized by the concordats which have been drawn up in recent years. The parish priest can receive and impart any information in his contact with his communicant. The confessional affords the golden medium and opportunity for such communications.
So long as diplomatic relations between the Vatican and a certain country are maintained, the "spiritual activities" of the church cannot there be interfered with by the state. When Cardinal von Faulhaber was about to be deported or locked up in a concentration camp in Germany, in February, 1934, the Pope promptly appointed him diplomatic representative of the Vatican in Germany, thus making him politically immune to Nazi attack as long as the concordat remains in force, which, of course, is still the case.
Thus effective political machinery has been set up by means of which the Pope can negotiate most effectively with warring nations, when and if the proper time comes. All this was lacking in 1917, when Benedict XV launched his famous peace plan, with seven proposals, some of which found their way into Woodrow Wilson's famous fourteen points. At that time the warring nations were not ready for peace. So the Pope's moves for peace collapsed.
Now, in the world war number two, the Supreme Pontiff is benefiting by the failures of the past. Before launching a peace crusade, he is making sure of proper support. He has laid down five conditions for peace, and is most skillfully rallying great powers in support of his scheme. President Roosevelt, the Chief Executive of the United States of America, has been enlisted by the Pope as the first and most influential ally in a world-peace block. Mr. Taylor, as peace ambassador, is the practical outgrowth of the peace alliance headed by the Pope. Immediately following his appointment, the archbishop of New York, Francis J. Spellman, published the following message to his archdiocese :
"It is opportune that on the vigil of the anniversary of the birth of the Prince of Peace, the President of the United States should take this action for peace. President Roosevelt is our leader, the leader of a free people determined on peace for ourselves, desirous of peace for others. We are a people who believe in, who practice and defend, freedom of religion, freedom in the dissemination of truth, freedom of assembly, freedom of trade. It is timely that our President, intrepid enunciator of these principles and champion of them, should join with other forces for peace, for charitable and humanitarian influences. Such an influence is the Catholic Church."—New York Times, Dec. 24, 1939.
Note also this expression in his message: "President Roosevelt has harmonized the voice of Pope Pius XII with his own clarion call for peace." And again, after outlining four specific principles intended to give guidance to the coming peace, Archbishop Spellman said: "It is timely that our President . . . join with other forces for peace." These expressions speak for themselves. Simultaneously with the President's appointment of Mr. Taylor came the Pope's announcement of his five conditions for peace. After outlining these five conditions, Pius XII commented thus upon President Roosevelt's appointment of Mr. Taylor :
"This decision is all the more gratifying to us because, coming from the head of such a great and powerful nation, it represents a valid and promising contribution to our cares, both for the attainment of a just and honorable peace, and a faster and more efficient work to alleviate the suffering of victims of the war."—Washington Post, Dec. 25, 1939.
The Pope does not hesitate to denominate President Roosevelt's action "a valid and promising contribution to our cares." The President, in other words, is only contributing to the Pope's efforts. There is no mistaking of terms here. The head of the peace movement is clearly defined. In the eyes of Roman Catholics, this is exactly as it should be. To quote Poulet again:
"The history of contemporary diplomacy proves beyond dispute that, for the best interest of humanity at large, the experience of the past requires the closest collaboration between the League of Nations and the Holy See. It is difficult, however, to indicate the precise nature of this collaboration, although it would seem that without becoming a member of the League—a step that would create too delicate a situation—the Pope could be asked to intervene in any international problem bearing on religion, morality, humanity, peace, and the scope and interpretation of international law; and that the different powers could select him as arbiter in all important international conflicts."---"A History of the Catholic Church," Vol. II, p. 664.
Mr. Poulet expresses the principle toward which the Pope is working. Possibly the League of Nations may be revived and reshaped so as to serve as the "international institution" to enforce "the loyal and faithful observance of undertakings," as outlined in the Pope's five conditions for peace.
In view of the foregoing facts, the logical conclusion would be that, although President Roosevelt's appointment of Mr. Taylor is not a renewal of diplomatic relationship with the Vatican, the American nation has been virtually committed to the support of a papal diplomatic scheme of arriving at a peace headed by Roman Catholicism. The Papacy is an international organization, and as such it occupies a position of spiritual, moral, and diplomatic strength which cannot be equaled by any single nation. Mr. Taylor's mission will doubtless lead to the United States' occupying a seat among representatives of thirty-five other nations presided over by the Pope. As one of the most powerful and wealthiest nations in the world, America will yet give life and power to the image of the beast. (See Rev. 13:15.) The proposed relief work will of necessity be largely financed by American capital. But who will reap the honor for the peace and alleviation of suffering? Surely not President Roosevelt, or the American people, for they are only contributors "to our cares."
