A CENTURY OF PAPAL REPRESENTATION IN THE UNITED STATES
Reverend Timothy M. Dolan Kenrick-Glennon Seminary Archdiocese of St.
Louis
Archbishop Gerety Lecture at Seton Hall University, October 15, 1992
"Hence we cheerfully sent one who should represent Our Person..." wrote
Pope Leo XII in his encyclical Longinqua Oceani1 to the Church of the
United States, January 6, 1895, referring to the appointment of the
first apostolic delegate, Archbishop Francesco Satolli, just two years
previous. That January 21, 1993, will be the centennial of this event
suggested the topic of this year's Archbishop Gerety Lecture, "A Century
of Papal Representation in the United States."
Thank you for the invitation to be part of this distinguished lecture
series. For the record, I have dedicated this meagre effort to the
preeminent church historian of the United States, Monsignor John Tracy
Ellis, my teacher, mentor and friend who, at 87, is now recuperating
from hip surgery in Washington, D.C. May the Lord of Truth whom he has
served so diligently be close to him in his recovery.
I propose to develop this topic under five points. First, I will treat
the way the Holy See approached America prior to Archbishop Satolli's
appointment; secondly, I will consider the give-and-take surrounding his
nomination in 1893; then will come a staccato-like overview of the
comings-and-goings of his 10 successors; fourthly, I will take a look at
just what, in general, the delegates have done, offering two examples of
their activities; and, finally, I will conclude with a segment on the
establishment of diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the
government of the United States.
First, before Francesco Satolli set up shop in our nation's capitol a
century ago, how did the Apostolic See deal with us here? It is general
knowledge that the relationship was somewhat complicated and awkward.
For one, there was the obvious difficulty of distance. In these days of
telephones, faxes and seven-hour flights to Leonardo da Vinci Airport,
we easily forget the burden of communication by letter carried by an
unreliable ship. It is no exaggeration to say that some of the archives
most precious to American ecclesiastical historians are at the bottom of
the Atlantic Ocean!
Secondly, there was canonical confusion. In those heady years
surrounding our independence, just who was in charge of the
approximately 20,000 Catholics here? The bishops in the colony's mother
country? Wait a minute - the hierarchy in England was itself irregular,
led by vicars-apostolic who hardly enjoyed full jurisdiction and who
labored under strangling penal legislation. Since 90% of the early
clergy were Jesuits, could not their superiors have authority? Not when
you recall that, beginning in Portugal in 1758, the Society of Jesus was
suppressed in one country after another, culminating in the Brief
Dominus ac Redemptor of 1773 in which Pope Clement XIV abolished the
society.2
Thirdly, not only was Rome confused about who was in charge of the
church here, but they were really at a loss to understand this baffling
new political arrangement boasting of independence, freedom and
democracy in a society with no established church.
However, the Holy See was by no means oblivious to the march of
political events across the ocean, and was eager for proper
ecclesiastical government. Having no official through whom to approach
the matter directly in the United States, Rome decided to use the
offices of the French, friendly allies of the new nation. As early as
1783, the Nuncio in France, Archbishop Giuseppe Doria Pamphili, was
instructed to consult the court of France to see if the King would use
his influence to insure the insertion in the peace treaty of some
provision "concerning the free exercise and the maintenance of the
Catholic religion."3
Later, showing a laudable sensitivity, Leonardo Cardinal Antonelli,
Prefect of the Congregation De Propaganda Fide, the curial dicastery
responsible for the church in the United States until 1908, indicated to
the Nuncio in Paris that an American priest would be preferable to Rome
as the first ecclesiastical superior in America, but, he went on, if no
one suitable could be found, that the new congress should be asked if a
foreigner could be appointed. Doria Pamphili wisely conferred with
Benjamin Franklin, the American commissioner in the French capital.
Franklin replied that it would be "absolutely useless to send it to
congress, which ... cannot and should not ... intervene in the
ecclesiastical affairs of ... any religion ... 4
Can you imagine the shock this reply caused in Rome? Here was a new
nation saying in effect that it was really none of their business how or
by whom the Catholic Church in the United States was governed! And this
at a time when rulers in Europe jealously guarded their prerogatives to
propose bishops, nominate cardinals, censor papal documents, and even
legislate how many candles should be lit for high mass!
Talk about troubles in communication! Soon after our first bishop, John
Carroll, was appointed, he wisely considered the selection of a second
prelate lest the nascent church be orphaned for an undue period should
he unexpectedly die. After receiving permission from Propaganda Fide to
poll his priests, he sent to Rome in May 1793, the nomination of Father
Laurence Graessl, a Jesuit from Bavaria who had been laboring in
Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, in October of that same year, Graessl died
of yellow fever contracted while ministering to the victims. There was,
of course, no quick way to inform the Holy See of this, so, sure enough,
the dead man was appointed coadjutor to Carroll in December 1793. Rome
did not learn of this till six months later, so the process had to begin
all over again. Not until six years later did the Bull appointing
Leonard Neale as his coadjutor reach Carroll! Eight years from
start-to-finish to appoint a bishop!
Believe it or not, in spite of complications caused by the novel
Church/State arrangement in America and the utter unpredictability of
communications, the relationship between the American Church and the
Holy See was quite cordial, with Rome trying to be sensitive to the new
church existing in such volatile surroundings, eager for data, and
attentive to correspondence and requests from our bishops.5 Two of our
prelates, John England, first bishop of Charleston, and Joseph Rosati,
first bishop of St. Louis, even undertook delicate diplomatic missions
to Haiti on behalf of the Holy See.6 The first apostolic ablegate (a
representative of the Holy See on a temporary mission) was the Bishop of
Quebec, Joseph-Octave Plessis, sent in 1820 to investigate lay
trusteeism in New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore.
Nevertheless, the situation was hardly ideal, leading Rome to desire
early on more stable contact with this rapidly developing church,
hopefully in the person of an apostolic delegate. That the Apostolic See
was a bit naive in such a hope is clear from the incident Archbishop
Peter Richard Kenrick of St. Louis called "a blunder from every point of
view," that is, the disastrous visit of a papal diplomat, Archbishop
Gaetano Bedini to America in 1853.7 His "cover" was that he just
happened to be passing by on his way to Brazil, but his real assignment
was to tour the United States, settle some thorny trustee- ship
disputes, investigate the possibility of reciprocal diplomatic relations
between the United States and the Holy See, and submit a thorough report
on the state of the Church in America.
Unfortunately, Bedini's visit coincided with one of our country's
seasonal upsurges of vile anti-Catholicism, with the befuddled Bedini
harassed by mobs, burnt in effigy, denounced from Protestant pulpits,
and called words he could not find in his pocket dictionary. The
cathedrals in Wheeling and Cincinnati were surrounded by torch- carrying
toughs during his stops there. Finally, in disguise, he was rowed out to
a departing ship in New York harbor, escorted by Archbishop John Hughes,
so as not to be roughed-up on the dock.8 Not to be put-off, however,
this ecclesiastical Tocqueville wrote to his superiors in Rome a most
intriguing account of his visit, concluding, from the safety of his ship
on the Atlantic, that "the establishment of an Apostolic Nunciature in
the United States is much more than a simple hope or deep desire of the
American 119 Catholics ... and should come at once."9
Patienza, as the Italians say, for they would have to wait four more
decades! There were periodic visitors from the Holy See, such as George
Conroy, Bishop of Ardagh, Ireland, who, as apostolic delegate to Canada
was asked by Propaganda to make a study of the church in America in
1877. During this time, too, much of the business between Rome and the
church here was channelled through the Archbishops of Baltimore.
Questions as to the division of dioceses, establishment of new sees,
candidates for the episcopacy, refereeing of tensions, and application
of Canon Law, for instance, usually ended up on the desk of the premier
see's occupant. In fact, Rome had even appointed the Archbishops of
Baltimore as temporary apostolic delegates at both the Plenary Councils
of 1852 and 1866. When the Holy See dared to hint that it was about to
appoint Bishop Luigi Sepiacci as apostolic delegate to the Third Plenary
Council of Baltimore in 1884, there was so firm a protest from our
bishops that the idea was withdrawn, and. following custom, James
Gibbons was named."10
But Rome could not be put off much longer, and the year 1892 provided
them their chance. Here I bow to the acknowledged expert on the events
before, during and immediately after the coming of Satolli, Father
Robert Wister, a priest of this Archdiocese,a good friend, whose
dissertation remains definitive on this event.11 Asheably chronicles,
what made the time ripe for the arrival of a resident papal
representative was acrimony within the church particularly over two
questions: one was how to implement the decree of the Third Plenary
Council of Baltimore that there should be a Catholic school in every
parish, with obligatory attendance, under penalty, of every Catholic
child, and then how to deal with public schools.
This so-called "school question," plus disunity on issues of
secret-societies, temperance, immigration and assimilation, and the
founding of The Catholic University of America, had bitterly divided the
American hierarchy in the 1880s into two camps, the liberals or
"Americanizers," led by John Ireland, espousing an accommodation between
the Church and American culture, and the conservatives, led by Bernard
McQuaid of Rochester, Michael Corrigan of New York, and the German
bishops, who believed that the church had to stand firm against a
society so inimical to Catholic values.
The second pressing problem which, in Rome's mind, made the dispatch of
a delegate essential was the increasing number of appeals reaching the
Eternal City from priests in trouble with their bishop, climaxing in the
notorious split between Archbishop Corrigan of New York and one of his
most prominent priests, Dr. Edward McGlynn.12 In a considerable
proportion of these cases, Rome ruled against the bishops, causing
irritation among prelates who felt such leniency undermined their
authority. The answer of the Holy See to such complaints was frequently
that the bishops did not keep Rome fully informed. Even a bishop
stubbornly opposed to any suggestion of a delegate, Bernard McQuaid, had
reluctantly admitted that Rome had a point, writing Cardinal Gibbons
that they as bishops were much to blame since they were slow to advise
the Holy See about trends in the United States."13
Why were our bishops so opposed to the sending of a papal
representative? For one, they feared a backlash from the ever-present
anti-Catholicism endemic to American society. Charges that Catholics
were slaves to a Roman despot, who eventually wanted to dominate
America, would be harder to rebuff if that sovereign had an ambassador
here. Two, the hierarchy was sincerely convinced that strong,
unquestioned episcopal leadership was necessary if the Church was to
flourish in a society where it was misunderstood, with a flock growing
daily due to immigration, and led by independent-minded priests itching
to rebel against their shepherds. To them, an apostolic delegate
breathing down their backs would make them timid and indecisive, plus
send a signal to their priests that Rome did not fully trust American
bishops. Almost unanimously, then, they resisted the idea of a delegate.
They were willing to accept the naming of a representative of their own
stationed in Rome, as the British had with Cardinal Howard, and Gibbons
would use the rector of the North American College, Monsignor Dennis J.
O'Connell, in just such a capacity."14
This disquietude must have created some discomfort when Archbishop
Francesco Satolli, the president of the Pontifical Academy for Noble
Ecclesiastics, was designated to represent Leo XIII at the centennial of
the hierarchy and the opening of The Catholic University of America in
1889. However, the visit passed without incident, and Satolli went home.
That he was not home for good, though, was clear from a letter to
Cardinal Gibbons from Monsignor O'Connell, written right after the
rector had returned from a private audience with the Holy Father.
O'Connell quoted Leo XIII as saying:
"The whole evil is this, that they do not want to have a representative
Of me there. If they had one of my representatives there all these
troubles would not have happened! But, for some reason of jealousy among
themselves they don't want to have my representative there .... If I had
my Nuncio there all would go better ... However, I respect their
sentiments on this and I don't love them the less. Let's talk about
something else!"15
The venerable pontiff was not to be put off, and soon was afforded a
golden opportunity. Eighteen ninety two was the 400th anniversary of the
discovery of America and was to be celebrated in Chicago with the
World's Columbian Exposition. The organizers were eager to obtain maps
and charts similar to those used by Columbus. Since many of these were
preserved in the Vatican Library, American Secretary of State, John W.
Foster, wrote Mariano Cardinal Rampolla, Papal Secretary of State,
concluding with the magic words: "...should His Holiness see fit to
entrust them in the care of a personal representative who will bring
them to the United States, I am authorized by the President to assure
... that such representative shall receive all possible courtesy..."16
"Rampolla lost no time in replying that Leo would be represented
personally by Archbishop Satolli.
As has been mentioned, Satolli was to arrive in the thick of dissention
between the liberal and conservative branches of the American hierarchy.
Thus, each side wanted to impress this visitor from Rome. Any of you
with even passing knowledge of American Catholic history will not be
surprised to learn that the winner of this race to charm Satolli was
none other than the Archbishop of St. Paul, "the consecrated blizzard of
the North," John Ireland, who succeeded in meeting the ship carrying
Satolli in a government cutter, then taking him to a dock other than the
one where his enemy, Archbishop Michael Corrigan, was waiting to greet
the delegate. Not familiar with this tango, the touchy diplomat
interpreted it as a slap in the face from Corrigan, leading to his
initial mistrust of the conservatives and approval of the Americanizers
- for a while!
The alliance was sealed at the November meeting of the country's
archbishops in New York when Satolli dropped the bombshell that Leo XIII
was serious about establishing an apostolic delegation. All the
archbishops but one - John Ireland - responded thanks, but, no
thanks."17 When Satolli went on, acting on the orders of the pope, to
render a lenient interpretation of the discipline that parents not
sending their children to Catholic schools were to be denied the
sacraments, then lifted Dr. McGlynn's excommunication, and decided to
reside for a couple of months at the liberals' home base, The Catholic
University of America, it appeared that Satolli was in the
Americanizers' hip- pocket.
Following through on the sentiments of the archbishop, though, Gibbons
wrote Leo XIII on January 3, 1893, reporting that the hierarchy was
still opposed to the appointment of a permanent apostolic delegate. This
correspondence was well-across the Atlantic when Gibbons received a
telegram from O'Connell bluntly reporting: "Delegation established.
Satolli first delegate." The cardinal shrewdly cabled the rector not to
present the first letter to the pontiff, and graciously penned a new
message to the pope claiming that the American bishops were overjoyed at
the appointment, language Ellis calls "exaggerated and fulsome." They
even magnanimously contributed to purchase a house, allowing him to move
from Caldwell Hall on the University campus to a comfortable home at
Second and I Streets, N.W." 18
So, the deed was done and, as Father Gerald Fogarty remarks, "The
permanent delegation most of all represented the most definitive step
that the Holy See had taken in the Romanization of the American
Church."19 "It is the well-known thesis of respected historians such as
Fogarty and Jay Dolan that, with their man now in Washington, the Holy
See could more easily keep the independent-minded American hierarchy in
tow, taking from the bishops the power of directly sending episcopal
candidates to Rome, and insuring that new bishops would be more docile
to the Apostolic See. Indeed, when Satolli during his three years
(1893-1896), and his successor, an Augustinian, Sebastian Martinelli, in
his five-year term (1896-1901), began to favor the conservative wing of
the American hierarchy, it became fretfully clear to the liberals that
they had promoted the very institution which was orchestrating their
eclipse.
Would you bear with me now as I, for the sake of completion, at least
mention each of the prelates who followed Satolli and Martinelli.
Diomide Falconio served as apostolic delegate from 1902-191 1, coming
from the same post in Canada. By the way, although born in Italy, he
became a naturalized American citizen while rector of the Franciscan
house in Allegheny, New York. Giovanni Bonzano followed until 1922,
coming from Rome where he had been rector of the Urban College, there
having come to know many seminarians from the North American College, as
well as its rector, William O'Connell, by then archbishop of Boston.
From 1922-1933, Pietro Fumasoni-Biondi was delegate, having been
previously posted as papal representative to India and then Japan.
The dean of all our delegates was Amleto Cicognani, who spent a
quarter-century in Washington from l933 to l958. He had no prior
diplomatic posting, but was a canonist of world repute. During his
tenure, the delegation was moved to its present location on
Massachusetts Avenue, a new building erected in 1938. One of Pope John
XIII's first acts was to call Cicognani back to Rome, making him a
cardinal, and naming him his secretary of state in 1961.
Egidio Vagnozzi followed until 1967, coming to America from the
Philippines where he had been first delegate. Luigi Raimondi served from
1967-1973, followed by the Belgian, Jean Jadot, who had been delegate in
the Cameroons. From 1980-1990, Pio Laghi was papal representative, and
it was during his tenure that diplomatic relations between the Holy See
and the American government were established, making him the first
Apostolic Pro-Nuncio. The current papal representative is Agostino
Cacciavillan, who had prior assignments as head of mission in Kenya and
India.20
Can we say anything in general about the 11 men who have served as papal
representatives in the United States? First, all but one - Jean Jadot -
have been Italian. Two, Washington has been for all 11 their last
diplomatic mission, indicating that assignment here would be the
culmination of one's international career for those in the diplomatic
service of the Holy See. Three, all 11 were recalled to Rome and there
named head of one of the dicasteries of the Holy See. Four, all but one
- Jean Jadot - have received the red hat upon departure from America.
Five, since the close of the First World War, six of the seven men came
with extensive international backgrounds, all having served as head of
mission in another country, in the case of two of them, India. This
would indicate the Holy See's developing appreciation of the role of the
United States in world affairs.
For the past century, these 11 prelates have served as representatives
of the Holy See to the Church, and, since 1984, to the government of the
United States. It is worth quoting Canon 364, since it concisely
summarizes the duties of the pontifical representatives. "The principal
duty ... is to work so that day by day the bonds of unity which exist
between the Apostolic See and the particular churches become stronger
and more efficacious," observes the canon, emphasizing that his role is
basically to serve as a liaison between the bishops of a given country
and the central government of the Church Universal. Listen to the ways
the canon suggests this should be accomplished. For one, the delegate is
"to send information to the Apostolic See on the conditions of the
particular churches and all that touches the life of the church." Yes,
the legate spends much of his time gathering data and keeping Rome
up-to-date on the developments of the church in the host country.
Then, according to the canon, the pontifical representative is "to
assist the bishops by action and counsel, while leaving intact the
exercise of the bishops' legitimate power." Diplomats of the Holy See
insist they are not "super-bishops" supervising a nation's hierarchy.
Our I 1 have been especially sensitive about this, knowing that, as we
have seen, our bishops feared the arrival of a delegate lest he come in
just such a role, and that our hierarchy enjoys, in the words of James
Hennesey, S.J., a proud tradition of vibrant collegiality. Especially
have the last four delegates been fond of quoting the words Pope Paul VI
used to describe the papal representative:
"His mission does not put itself above the exercise of the power of the
bishops, nor does it take its place or hamper it, but respects and even
fosters it while sustaining it with brotherly and discreet counsel. The
Holy See, in fact, has always regarded as a valid norm of government in
the church the one which our predecessor Gregory the Great stated in the
following words: "If the jurisdiction of each individual bishop is not
preserved, would not We, the guardian of the ecclesiastical order,
merely be sowing confusion?"21
Continuing with canon 364, we see that a legate is "to foster close
relations with the conference of bishops by offering it assistance in
every way." Again, especially since the Council, the delegates have
stressed that they are at the service of the conference of bishops, and
have rejoiced in the warm spirit of cooperation existing between the
National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the apostolic
delegation/nunciature. As Pio Laghi would often remark in his addresses
to the November general bishops' meeting, he was gratefully aware that
only in America was the papal representative invited to attend the
entire conference proceedings. In his new study of the Conference,
Thomas Reese documents some of the cordial interchange between the two
entities."22
Now comes the fourth and very important duty: "To transmit or propose
the names of candidates to the Apostolic See in reference to the naming
of bishops..." To use New Jersey language, here is the real "clout" of
the nuncio - he is the one who sends the ternus, the list of three names
prepared for an episcopal vacancy, to Rome. However, one could hardly
presume this to be an arbitrary, unilateral power, since church law and
precedent is clear about the process, with checks and balances
throughout. Thus, the delegate must consult the bishops in the vacant
see's province, the officers of the episcopal conference, and any other
person close to the scene; then in Rome, his report is scrupulously
examined by the cardinals of the Congregation for Bishops (or, in the
case of Eastern Rites, the Congregation for Oriental Churches) and is
only then presented to the Holy Father.23
In conclusion, the canon notes that delegates have certain faculties
which spare a diocesan bishop the inconvenience of having to approach
the Holy See, which were quite helpful to our prelates prior to the
Council's largesse in returning to the local bishops many of the
canonical powers through the years reserved to the Apostolic See. The
canon also remarks that the delegate is to promote peace, ecumenism and
the full liberty of the Church.
The last four representatives have also been aware of their pastoral
duties, mindful of the exhortation Paul VI made to the pontifical
legates of Asia:
"The role of Nuncios is also evolving. Until now, the Nuncio was little
more than the Pope's representative to governments and churches. His
activity with regard to the churches was above all of a hierarchical and
administrative nature; in a certain sense he remained a stranger to the
local church.
"Today, the Nuncio must place a more pronounced pastoral accent on his
work. He too is at the service of the Kingdom of God as it goes forward
in the land."24
So, while a papal legate indeed exercises much of his mission in a style
by nature confidential, subtle, discreet, indirect, and
behind-the-scenes, he is also the representative of the Successor of St.
Peter, and takes this duty seriously. From the time of Satolli, then,
all 11 have traveled extensively, spoken often, and happily presided at
endless installations, ceremonies and jubilees. From personal experience
I can attest that, in the case of the last two representatives, about
one-fourth of their time is spent "on the road."
To illustrate just what the delegates do, I offer two episodes of papal
representatives in action. The first, while hardly earthshaking,
demonstrates the behind-the scenes service the man on Massachusetts
Avenue can provide his brother bishops here. I refer to the subtle yet
substantial contribution of Archbishop Amleto Cicognani to the revision
work which led to the New American Bible.25
The text of Sacred Scripture used throughout most of our American
Catholic history was the venerable Duoai-Rheims version. While admiring
its poetic majesty, pastors and catechists would often complain that its
antiquated wording was cumbersome, resulting in a reluctance among
people to use it. The dream for a revision remained distant, however,
until the chairman of the Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of
Christian Doctrine (CCD), Edwin V. O'Hara, the Bishop of Great Falls,
found himself a passenger on the same train as the apostolic delegate.
During their pleasant ride, Cicognani casually mentioned that he thought
the time was ripe for the rewording of two important documents, the
version of the Bible used in America, and the Baltimore Catechism. This
gentle prompting was all the hyperkinetic O'Hara needed and, by the end
of the next year, encouraged by the persuasion of Cicognani, O'Hara had
consulted dozens of scholars, learning that they agreed with the
delegate's call for a revision of the Challoner text of the Duoai-Rheims
Bible, but needed organization and authority.
So, in January 1936, 15 respected American Catholic professors of
scripture met at The Catholic University of America and decided to
undertake a revision of the New Testament. O'Hara wisely kept in touch
with the benevolent Cicognani, with the latter suggesting that the Holy
See be briefed on the effort. Although explicit permission from Rome was
not required, Cicognani recommended that it would be prudent to clear it
with the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and the necessary papers were
thus sent through his office. Sure enough, in July 1936, Monsignor J. B.
Frey, the commission's secretary, communicated approval.
As they progressed, the eager scholars decided to move as well to the
Old Testament, and longed to use manuscripts more ancient than the
Clementine edition of the Vulgate. When O'Hara discussed this with the
delegate, Cicognani displayed a caution natural to a papal
representative, and persuaded him to check with Rome before adopting
this more radical approach. To everyone's surprise, the Holy See
responded by encouraging the revisers to go on indeed to the Old
Testament, and to depend on more authentic texts when available.
Infighting developed, unfortunately, the most serious caused by a
contentious Domnican, Charles Callan, the feisty editor of Homiletic and
Pastoral Review. Callan wanted to direct the whole work, but was turned
down by O'Hara. The bishop had asked the editor's brother Dominican,
John T. McNicholas, Archbishop of Cincinnati, about Callan, only to be
told the editor was a "schemer." Rebuffed, Callan published an article
claiming that some of the new translation was proxima heresi, thus
casting a shadow over the project. The plot thickened when, in 1938,
Callan was appointed the only American member of the Pontifical Biblical
Commission, thus placing in danger the whole enterprise.
Fears were realized when, on April 17, 1942, Eugene Cardinal Tisserant,
president of the Commission, wrote O'Hara, castigating the revision for
straying too far from the Duoai-Rheims version, mandating that Callan
should be the supervisor, and claiming that previous correspondence from
the Holy See was only meant as encouragement, not approbation."26
Needless to say, the entire project was now in jeopardy. In trouble,
O'Hara again went to Cicognani, whom he found most supportive. The
delegate, who had before helped with prompting and persuasion, now
rendered valuable protection, urging O'Hara to lose no time in sending a
strong rejoinder to Rome. Cicognani noted that he would dispatch this
firm defense through the diplomatic pouch, and would add his own cover
letter backing the project.
It worked. On October 14, 1942, Tisserant wrote Cicognani, completely
reversing his earlier letter. The revision was saved, and even
strengthened. Callan would not surrender though, launching a series of
articles calling the CCD revision inferior and heretical. The scholars
were prepared for a lengthy fight, and O'Hara had a careful defense
prepared for publication in the Ecclesiastical Review, but first
submitted it to his patron, Cicognani. The delegate had seen enough,
giving O'Hara prudential advice that the squabbling stop, "in the
interest of peace and charity." And so it did.
The project eventually produced what was initially called the
Confraternity version, now the New American Bible, a work of major
significance in the church, plus the forming of the Catholic Biblical
Association and the publication of The Catholic Biblical Quarterly. Not
to exaggerate the role of the apostolic delegate in all of this, but one
wonders if it could have succeeded without him, and I offer this
narrative as a simple example of what the delegate can do. Notice the
modus operandi: behind-the-scenes, out of the limelight, interacting
with the bishops rather than priests or laity, serving as a liaison with
Rome. First, he prompted the idea, then persuaded O'Hara to go to work
on it, suggested they seek permission from the proper dicastery in Rome,
then provided protection when the project was threatened, and, finally,
served as peacemaker when controversy had gone public. Prompting,
persuasion, permission, protection, prudent counsel, peacemaking - this
is how papal representatives in our country have worked this past
century.
To be fair, I must mention that the activities of another papal
representative in this same area were not interpreted as positively,
namely, those of Cicognani's successor, Egidio Vagnozzi, who wanted to
curtail biblical advances in America. Allying himself with Monsignor
Joseph C. Fenton, professor of theology at the Catholic University of
America, and editor of The American Ecclesiastical Review, who in turn
was in constant contact with the secretary of the Holy Office, Alfred
Cardinal Ottaviani, Vagnozzi felt that the biblicists were dangerously
close to Modernism in questioning the historical accuracy of the Bible.
Especially did he hound Edward Siegman, a Precious Blood priest,
professor of scripture at The Catholic University, writing his
provincial to complain about his views, and eventually persuading the
rector of the University not to renew his contract.
In a well-publicized address at Marquette University, Vagnozzi also
cautioned against biblical advances, and tried as well to get Cardinal
Spellman and Archbishop Patrick O'Boyle of Washington to withdraw the
imprimatur on certain books. Siegman spoke for many of his colleagues
when he wrote his provincial, "The delegate is a big disappointment ...
and quite rash in using hearsay information ... most ... will assume he
speaks for Rome no matter what irresponsible nonsense he spouts forth."
If Cicognani used prompting, persuasion, protection and peacemaking, his
successor relied here on policing and prosecution!" 27
The second example is more political, showing the Holy See's unique
posture as promoter of international peace and justice, and has to do
with President Lyndon Johnson and the eighth apostolic delegate,
Archbishop Luigi Raimondi. In early 1968, L.B.J. was so consumed with
getting the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table that he stunned
the world by announcing, on March 3 1, that he would not run for
reelection. The dramatic gesture worked, for, on April 3, North Vietnam
indicated a willingness to talk. But then, with hopes so high, Hanoi
stalled, arguing all month over where to meet. In the words of Joseph
Califano, the president's top domestic adviser, who calls himself the
administration's "designated Catholic," "To the world, it seemed they
would never agree and the bloodshed would go on forever. That's when
L.B.J. played his papal card."28
Johnson had carefully cultivated Pope Paul VI, having met him at the
Waldorf Towers in New York during the first visit of a pope to America
in 1965. In addition, he had later received at the ranch Monsignor Paul
Marcinkus, who was carrying a personal letter from the Holy Father
urging a cease-fire and bombing halt. Just before Christmas 1967, the
president met a stem Paul VI at the Vatican, where he was lectured by
the pontiff about the horror of continued bombing.
With all this as background, and with the one chance for peace
apparently slipping away due to squabbling over location, Johnson
ordered Califano to contact the apostolic delegate, Archbishop Luigi
Raimondi, immediately, and, through him, to ask if the pope would offer
the Vatican as a neutral location for the peace talks. The next day,
April 27, 1968, Raimondi called Califano, reporting that His Holiness
was indeed prepared to welcome both parties to the Vatican, and was
inquiring as to when he should make the offer, and whether it should be
public or confidential.
As soon as Johnson received this response, he instructed Califano to
call the apostolic delegate with his reply: the sooner the invitation is
extended, the better. Califano dutifully delivered the message. The next
day, a Sunday, the impatient president called Califano, who told him
that there was no word yet from the apostolic delegation, to which
L.B.J. replied, "Call the delegate, and get an answer!" Califano
personally went to Massachusetts Avenue at 9:30 that evening, explaining
to Raimondi that the White House was waiting up for news, but returned
home when the delegate reminded him it was 3:30 in the morning in the
Eternal City! Still, Johnson called Califano at 11:30 p.m. wanting to
know why there was no movement, ordering him to stop at the delegation
on the way to the White House early next morning. But still no response!
Finally, on Tuesday, Raimondi asked for a secret meeting in the oval
office, and hand delivered to the chief executive a cable from Paul VI
formally offering the Vatican for the meeting, noting that the same
invitation at that moment was being delivered confidentially to North
Vietnam through diplomatic channels.
Pleased and very moved by the papal initiative, Johnson asked for time
to prepare his response. At 7:45 the next morning, May 1, Califano
delivered to the delegate the American government's official acceptance
of the pope's invitation. The shrewd president knew of course that Hanoi
was on the spot. Although the communists would be uncomfortable meeting
at the Vatican, they had to give some response, since they knew the sly
Johnson would hardly let the papal offer remain a secret if they turned
it down, thus hurting them in the all-important court of world opinion.
Let Califano conclude: "At about I a.m. on May 3, less than 48 hours
after I had delivered the president's response to the apostolic
delegate, Walt Rostow awakened L.B.J. to report that 'Hanoi has
suggested we meet in Paris on May 10 or a few days later."29
Do you see what happened here? The president's overture through the Holy
See forced North Vietnam to the peace table. Notice again how the
apostolic delegate worked behind-the-scenes. If Califano had not
revealed this whole plot in his fine article last year in America, only
hidden archives would hold the story of the part the apostolic
delegation played in this historic step to world peace. And there are
dozens of such stories.
Which brings us to our last point. An apostolic delegate is the
representative of the Holy See to the church, an apostolic nuncio to the
church and the government, of a given nation. Satolli and nine of his
successors were delegates but, in April 1984, the Holy See and the
United States government established formal diplomatic relations, with
William Wilson becoming Ambassador of the United States to the Holy See,
and Archbishop Pio Laghi, delegate here since 1980, the first Apostolic
Pro-Nuncio (with the prefix "pro" indicating he is not the dean of the
diplomatic corps, an honor accorded the papal nuncio by the Congress of
Vienna).
It is fair to say that this development fulfilled a two-century hope of
the Holy See since from the beginning, as we have seen, Rome wanted
stable, personal representation here. However, I disagree with those who
imply that the Holy See has aggressively sought these formal ties,
maneuvering, especially in this century, to do anything to have a nuncio
in Washington. Such is simply not the Vatican's style, its praxis being
much more gentle, rarely initiating steps leading to diplomatic
exchanges.30 In other words, the Holy See waits for the nation to make
the first move. As the Justice Department Brief defending the
appointment of Wilson expresses it, "To the extent that the views of the
Holy See command respect and attention on the world scene, it is
imperative that the positions and interests of the United States be
communicated and understood before the views of the Holy See are
formulated and aired to the world."31
Do not conclude that there was never any contact between the central
government of the Catholic Church and that of the United States prior to
1984. The Holy See, when eager to advise the United States of particular
concerns, would often confide in a prominent American ecclesiastic, most
often the Archbishop of Baltimore until 1921, and, especially during the
reign of Francis Spellman, the Archbishop of New York. Cardinal
Rampolla, secretary of state to Leo XIII, would urge John Ireland to do
all he could to calm America on the eve of the Spanish-American War;
Benedict XV would ask Cardinal Gibbons to relay papal plans for peace to
Woodrow Wilson during World War 1; and Gibbons, Francis Kelly of the
Extension Society, and the Paulist John Burke, general secretary of the
National Catholic Welfare Conference, would all be charged by the
Vatican with expressing solicitude for the persecuted Church in Mexico
to the American president.
From the other side, Franklin Roosevelt would ask his friend, George
Cardinal Mundelein of Chicago, to complain to the Vatican about the
rantings of the controversial radio priest, Charles Coughlin, and
Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson would at times call upon the ever-ready
Cardinal Spellman to bring some concern to Rome.
Actually, President Reagan's decision was not without precedent, since
George Washington had appointed a consul to the Holy See in 1797, a
mission upgraded to a legation by President Polk in 1848. However, from
the time of the absorption of the Papal States by Italy in 1867 until
1939, there was no United States representative to the Holy See.
Although it is reported that the Secretary of State to His Holiness,
Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, broached the topic of diplomatic relations
during his visit with President Franklin D Roosevelt at Hyde Park in
November 1936, and that F.D.R. was indeed open to such, it was as his
personal envoy, not as an ambassador, that Roosevelt dispatched Myron
Taylor on Christmas Eve, 1939. The pope and the president enjoyed a
fruitful correspondence during the war years, and effectively cooperated
in peace plans and post- war relief." 32
It was Taylor's resignation in 1950 that opened the next chapter, with
Harry Truman moving in 1951 to formalize relations between the Holy See
and the United States. Since Truman's only prejudice was against
Republicans, maybe he was somewhat naive in underestimating the
anti-Catholic vehemence such a move would unleash. In a letter to Joseph
Kennedy, which was shared with the Archbishop of New York, Francis
Cardinal Spellman - who had been working for the establishment of
diplomatic relations since the mid-thirties - and Archbishop Cicognani,
President Truman revealed that he was initiating steps to bring about
the exchange of ambassadors." 32
Interestingly enough, just like 60 years prior, not all bishops shared
Spellman's enthusiasm for such a development. What Gerald Fogarty calls
the "midwest triangle" of Archbishop Karl Alter of Cincinnati, also the
chair of the administrative board of the National Catholic Welfare
Conference, Edward Cardinal Mooney of Detroit, and Archbishop Samuel
Stritch of Chicago, worried about public outcry and undue curial
interference in American Catholic life should diplomatic relations be
formalized."34
On October 20, 1951, Truman nominated General Mark Clark as the first
United States Ambassador to the Vatican. Such a crescendo of criticism,
led by Paul Blanshard of the Protestants and Other Americans United for
the Separation of Church and State, erupted that Clark withdrew his
nomination in January. As one might imagine, this whole incident soured
Vatican-American cooperation, as is clear in an unusually chilly letter
from the Substitute Secretary of State, Monsignor Giovanni Battista
Montini, to Cardinal Spellman. Speaking of diplomatic relations between
the two entities, the future Pope Paul VI wrote:
"...the Holy See has remained indifferent in this matter and has never
exerted any pressure [However], the Holy See cannot remain indifferent
to the unreasonable attitude of non-Catholics in the United States...
There have been repeated, vulgar, bitter and entirely unjustified
attacks on the Holy See I cannot conceal from Your Eminence that it is
felt here that such attacks did not arouse an adequate reaction on the
part of the Catholic community in the United States. 35
Truman's failure postponed the cause. Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter and
Reagan resumed Roosevelt's practice of dispatching personal envoys until
Ronald Reagan successfully re-established diplomatic ties in 1984.
Undoubtedly, the immense prestige of Pope John Paul 11, and the obvious
influence of the Holy See in world affairs, muted criticism. Actually,
according to the first apostolic pro-nuncio, Archbishop Pio Laghi, not
much changed dramatically when his rank was elevated. In an address
shortly after the exchange of the credential letters, Laghi observed
that his major duty would still be religious, with "only a small portion
of my day taken up by matters that pertain to my diplomatic position
with the government."36 With characteristic humor, he added that the
only difference was that now he would enter the White House by the front
door, not the back, and would wear a better suit.
When it comes to the diplomatic activity of the Holy See, one finds two
extreme views. The first holds that the Vatican has monumental influence
in world affairs, always involved in machinations and Machiavellian
intrigue to enhance the Church's position in every country. This seems
the implication of the Time Magazine cover story by Carl Bernstein of
February 24, 1992, alleging clandestine negotiations between Ronald
Reagan and John Paul II to bring down communism in Poland. The other
equally erroneous view considers the Holy See a naive, impractical,
pious participant in the world arena, whose only claim to diplomatic
prerogatives is its sovereignty over the 108 acres known as Vatican City
State. Both opinions are exaggerated and false.
Offering his assessment of United States - Vatican relations three years
after this diplomatic exchange, Thomas Reese concluded: "The
participants on both sides clearly believe that diplomatic relations
have been a success. For the United States it has provided a listening
post and an opportunity to influence the actions of the Holy See, a
significant player in international affairs. For the Vatican, it has
also been a channel of information and an opportunity to influence the
most significant player in international affairs."37
So, it has been 100 years since Leo XIII "cheerfully sent one" to
represent him and his successors to this country. What is the verdict on
this century of papal representation? From the Holy See's point of view,
the establishment of the pontifical mission in Washington has been very
successful. Since the earliest days of the new republic, due to
distance, the novel political arrangement, the American penchant for
freedom, and the unreliability of communication, Rome has been eager for
stable, personal representation, and Satolli's arrival a century ago was
just what they had in mind. The developing influence of the United
States in world affairs made such a mission all the more important, so
that the exchange of ambassador and nuncio in 1984 proved most
satisfactory. The Holy See has, in general, been well-served in its 11
delegates, who have fulfilled their mission of supplying data to the
Vatican, submitting the names of episcopal candidates, settling
controversies, facilitating communications between the nation's
hierarchy and the Apostolic See, and pastorally representing the
successor of St. Peter as the center of unity for the church on earth.
The wish of Leo XIII, as expressed in the letter of the Prefect of the
Congregation de Propaganda Fide, Cardinal Ledochowski, to the American
hierarchy, announcing Satolli's appointment, has certainly been
fulfilled: "It is the desire of the Sovereign Pontiff that the church in
the United States be not deprived of those bonds of more intimate union
with the center of Apostolic Truth..."38
From the side of Catholics in this country, I conclude that this century
of papal representation has also been of benefit, although I realize
many would object. The feared upsurge of anti-Catholicism never did
materialize, and the relative case with which full diplomatic relations
were restored eight years ago, suggests we have overcome some overt
bigotry. Yes, the case could be made that the establishment of the
delegation gave Rome tighter control over episcopal appointments,
assuring the promotion of men whose allegiance to the Holy See was
unwavering but, let's face it, whether you consider that a vice or a
virtue depends ... Besides, with the improved communications of the last
century, Rome's vigilance over such appointments would have increased.
Anyway, they always have had the final word, and have usually shown a
genuine sensitivity for the recommendations of this country's bishops.
Nor has the original apprehension that the coming of a delegate would
encroach upon the hierarchy's authority come to pass. If anything, the
service of the delegate/ nuncio as a liaison between the bishops and the
Vatican has enhanced episcopal rule. It is clear as well that, 10
decades after the establishment of the apostolic delegation, our
bishops, while loyal to Rome, are hardly mindless sycophants, with even
the more Gallican-minded prelates admitting that Rome listens to and
respects their views.
On the diplomatic level, even Paul Blanshard, were he alive, would have
to acknowledge the Holy See's impact on world events, and to admit that
it was probably in America's own self-interest to have exchanged
ambassadors. After all, it was not a curial cardinal, but Mikael
Gorbachev who observed that the current pontiff is largely responsible
for the dramatic changes in the geopolitical atmosphere of today.
Do you think, in their most exaggerated fantasies, John Carroll, John
Ireland, James Gibbons or Francis Spellman ever believed that the day
would come when the apostolic pro-nuncio to the United States would
stand in the oval office and say to the President, as Agostino
Cacciavillan said to George Bush two years ago,
"I should like to mention here the positive contribution made by the
Catholic Church in America ... the equality and solidarity among peoples
and the promotion of the sacred value of human life... I am confident
that American Catholics, faithfully responding to the demands of the
gospel, will continue to devote themselves assiduously in working with
their brothers and sisters of every race and creed in this land towards
the attainment of genuine progress and a civilization of trust and love.
"
Endnotes
Leo XIII, Longinqua Oceani, in John Tracy Ellis, ed., Documents of
American Catholic History (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1987), V. 11, p.
499.
Peter Guilday, The Life and Times of John Carroll (Westminister: Newman
Press, 1954), Ch. 4.
Annabelle Melville, John Carroll of Baltimore (New York:Charles
Scribner& Sons, 1955), p. 62.
quoted in ibid., p. 64.
See Robert F. Trisco, The Holy See and the Nascent Church in the Middle
Western United States, 1826-1850 (Rome: Gregorian University Press,
1962).
Peter Guilday, The Life and Times of John England, 2 volumes. (New York:
American Press, 1927), 2, pp. 270-313; Frederick Easterly, C.M., The
Life of Rt.Reverend Joseph Rosati,First Bishop of St.Louis,1789-1842
(Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1942),
Ch.8.
Quoted in James Hennessey, S.J., American Catholics (New York: Oxford
University Press, 198 1), p. 125.
James F.Connelly, The Visit of Archbishop Gaetano Bedini to the United
States (Rome: Gregorian University Press, 1960).
ibid., pp. 266-8.
John Tracy Ellis,The Life of James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of
Baltimore, 1834-1921, 2 volumns. (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1952), 1, p. 597.
Robert J. Wister, The Establishment of the Apostolic Delegation in the
United States of America: The Satolli Mission (Rome: Gregorian
University Press,1981)
Robert Trisco,"Bishops and their Priests in the United States,"in John
Tracy Ellis,ed., The Catholic Priest in the United States (Collegeville:
St.John's University Press, 1971).
Frederick J. Zwierlein, The Life and Letters of Bishop McQuaid, 3
volumns. (Rochester: Art Print Shop, 1925-1927), 11, p. 180.
Gerald P. Fogarty, S.J., The Vatican and the Americanist Crisis: Dennis
J. O'Connell, American Agent in Rome (Rome: Gregorian University Press,
1974).
As quoted in Ellis, The Life of James Cardinal Gibbons..., 1, p. 62 1.
As quoted in Gerald P. Fogarty, S.J., The Vatican and the American
Hierarchy (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1982), p. 120.
Marvin R. O'Connell, John Ireland and the American Catholic Church (St.
Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1988), pp. 358-9.
Ellis, The Life of James Cardinal Gibbons.... 1, pp. 635-42.
Fogarty, The Vatican and the American Hierarchy, p. 129.
William J. Lallou, The Fifty Years of the Apostolic Delegation
(Paterson: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1943).
Paul VI, Sollicitudo Omnium Ecclesiarum (June 24, 1969).
Thomas Reese, S.J., A Flock of Shepherds (Kansas City: Sheed & Ward,
1992).
Thomas Reese, S.J.. "The Selection of Bishops," America (August 25,
1984), pp. 65-72.
Paul VI, "To Papal Representatives," Manila, 1970.
Timothy M. Dolan, "Some Seed Fell on Good Ground": The Life of Edwin V.
O'Hara (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press,
1992), pp. 163-77.
ibid., p. 171.
Gerald P. Fogarty, American Catholic Biblical Scholarship (San
Francisco: Harper& Row, 1989), pp. 199-216; 281-9 1.
Joseph A. Califano Jr., "The President and the Pope: L.B.J., Paul VI and
the Vietnam War," America (October 22, 199 1), p. 23 8.
ibid., p. 239.
Robert Graham, S.J., Vatican Diplomacy (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1959), Ch. 1.
Quoted in Thomas Reese,S.J."Diplomatic Relations with the
Vatican,"America (March 16, 1985), p. 216.
George Q. Flynn, Roosevelt and Romanism (Westport: Greenwood Press,
1976), Ch. 4.
Fogarty,The Vatican and the American Hierarchy,p.231.
ibid., p. 326.
p. 330.
Pio Laghi "The True Nature of Papal Diplomacy," Origins (May 3, 1984),
p. 47.
Thomas Reese, S.J., "Diplomatic Relations with the Holy See," America
(January 17, 1987), p. 35.
As quoted in Lallou, p.15.
