The problems with an ambassador to the Vatican.
It has been a long time since the National Council of Churches, Eastern Orthodox church, National Association of Evangelicals, Seventh-day Adventists, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and American Jewish Congress have ever agreed on anything. Yet that agreement is exactly what has happened, for each objected when President Ronald Reagan nominated William A. Wilson as the first U.S. ambassador to the Vatican and sent his name to the Senate for confirmation.
Roots Of The Issue
The issue of a Vatican appointment is not new on the American political scene. In 1848 the United States sent its first diplomatic mission to the papal states, located in what is now central Italy. The mission was never popular, however, and in 1867 Congress withdrew the appointment. A Protestant chapel in Rome had been closed, and threats had been made to close an American Episcopal chapel. Other factors as well, both financial and political, affected the decision.
Then, in 1871, the newly united nation of Italy absorbed the papal states. The pope’s control was limited to a small area, approximately one-sixth of a square mile, with almost no political and civic responsibilities. In 1929 the pope and Mussolini struck a deal called the Lateran Accords, in which Vatican City again became a nation-state with a civil government.
In 1939, at the beginning of World War II in Europe, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sent Myron Taylor as his personal representative to the Vatican. He hoped to use the theoretically neutral Vatican as a listening post on European affairs. In spite of protests, Taylor remained there through World War II and on, until 1950.
President Harry Truman then appointed Gen. Mark Clark as ambassador-designate to the Vatican, to begin serving in the fall of 1951. Although the personal representative of Roosevelt had needed no senatorial approval, Clark, as ambassador, required this approval before his appointment could become official.
A cry of outrage went up from Protestants as diverse in their religious views as the National Association of Evangelicals and Methodist Bishop Bromley Oxnam (famous for his misquoted speech, “God is a dirty bully”). Even Harvard Law School professor Mark DeWolfe Howe entered the fray with the charge that the appointment was “clearly unconstitutional.” Americans United for the Separation of Church and State sponsored speaking tours for Paul Blanshard. Congress and the presidency were inundated by letters, telegrams, and phone calls opposing the nomination. Sen. Hubert Humphrey declared, “There has been no single issue that has come to my attention since I have been in public life which has brought forth such a volume of correspondence.” As a result, Clark never became ambassador to the Vatican.
Throughout the presidencies of John Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, and Lyndon Johnson the matter lay dormant. Then, in 1970, President Richard Nixon again appointed a personal representative to the pope. Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter carried on the tradition.
Last year, in a move hardly anyone noticed, Congress lifted the ban against official recognition of the Vatican. President Reagan then named California businessman William Wilson as ambassador-designate, and once again the matter became a public issue. The Senate began to consider whether to confirm him.
At the present time, 108 nations have recognized the Vatican. In 1982 Great Britain joined them, reversing a 400-year tradition extending back to Reformation days. The only major nations not recognizing the Vatican are Russia, Poland, China, and Israel.
A Church-State Violation?
The argument against recognition of the Vatican and the sending of an official diplomatic mission has been in two parts, one concerning the Constitution, and the other some practical matters. Based on the American doctrine of separation of church and state, many deem it unconstitutional. The argument is that the Vatican is really a church headquarters. The political state is only a subterfuge to gain added prestige and influence for the religious organization.
The legality of such an appointment as this is indeed delicate, and it may well be placed before the U.S. Supreme Court. It is the high court, according to the Constitution, that has final jurisdiction.
It is true that the Vatican has declared itself a political state. It has most of the paraphernalia of government—taxes, a jail, governmental officials, a sovereign head (the pope), police, and a standing army. It is accepted as a civil state by more than 100 other nations. Yet clearly its primary role is to serve as head of a particular religious denomination. Other functions, though important, are nonetheless subsidiary to its religious functions and serve the Roman Catholic church well.
Still, the American Constitution does not forbid direct support either for religion or for a particular denomination. We provide lunches and health support systems for church-owned schools, and aid churches and clergymen by tax exemptions and housing allowances. The Constitution forbids only the establishment of any religion, and this has been broadly interpreted as ruling out aid to a church because it is a religion. If our government assists a church, it supports it only for its nonreligious services to the American people. And churches do provide moral instruction and significant charitable contributions to our nation.
Some irreligious people or religious groups with no taxable property or special clergy could well feel discriminated against. Yet we defend the fairness of this procedure and its constitutionality on two counts: (1) Such government aid is not given to support religion; (2) It is offered indiscriminately to all groups that provide such services to our people, regardless of their religion or lack of it.
Recognition of the city-state and appointment of a Vatican ambassador, therefore, can be defended on these same grounds. The American government is not discriminating against Protestants, since presumably it would do the same for any denomination that was also structured as a civil government. Its support for the Vatican is not intended to further the Roman Catholic church, though it will undoubtedly do so.
President Reagan, as well as several previous presidents and other advocates for the move, argue that it is in the best interests of the United States. Any advantage that accrues to the Roman Catholic church is incidental.
We conclude that on constitutional grounds the case against recognizing the Vatican and appointing a U.S. ambassador is not very strong.
Why Is This Move A Problem?
Why then have diverse groups joined hands against the appointment of Wilson as ambassador to the Vatican? One strong argument is that the U.S. gains little on the international scene. Another is that the American people may lose by it, and Mr. Reagan may even hurt his political career.
On the international scene, the President’s personal representative, with the assistance of the State Department’s Italian staff, has fully effective diplomatic leverage in everything except purely social protocol. Some legitimately ask what our government gains that it does not already have.
Political relations between Catholics and Protestants have improved immensely over the last decades. Religious hatred and inherited emotional tensions have ebbed significantly. Roman Catholics and Protestant evangelicals have cooperated in social action, in federal and state lobbying for many social issues, and in defending religious and political liberty. Will this appointment polarize feelings and opinions again, and erase some of the recent progress?
If so, it will be unfortunate. Government is not, according to the Constitution, to favor one religious group over another. Yet the appointment is a move of great advantage to one particular denomination. It is a sense of fairness that seems violated. As Jerry Falwell noted, only half in jest, “I told the White House if they give one to the pope, I may ask for one.”
Others are equally convinced that the appointment will create little stir among Protestants and other non-Catholics because perceptions of Catholicism have changed through the years.
The issue has clearly not been as emotionally charged as in the past. Whatever the reason, no ground swell from grassroots America has materialized against the appointment, or is likely to. Reaction has been more on the formal level, from representative organizations.
When the dust has settled, William Wilson will probably be confirmed. Most conservative Christians who would otherwise have voted for Mr. Reagan will still do so, since they believe he is their best hope for the national change they desire. But conservative Christians can stay home on election day, and some may do that.
We wish the matter had not been raised, and that, because of the risks, the appointment had not been made. If the appointment is withdrawn (an unlikely event), we will be relieved. But as matters stand, the Senate is likely to confirm William Wilson.
If this happens, how shall we respond? We must monitor the new ambassador’s service to be sure that he, like any other official, is serving his nation well, without partiality toward the host nation—in this case, the Vatican. In spite of the tension this will cause, he must remember that his loyalty is to the government of the United States, and not to the Vatican or to the Catholic church.
And we as Christians must remember to pray for all officials, even those whose appointment we did not support.
KENNETH S. KANTZER AND V. GILBERT BEERS
