U.S. - Vatican relations.

U.S.-VATICAN RELATIONS

THE NEWS about the resumption diplomatic relations between Washington and the Vatican aroused relatively little comment in Europe, and most of what has been said puts it in the context of the November election. It is no secret that the majority of American Catholics have traditionally voted Democratic rather than Republican, and European analysts viewed the resumption of relations as an attempt by the Reagan Administration to woo Catholic voters. Will the Administration be successful?

Despite the Democratic connection, Catholic Americans--at least until recently --have generally been considered conservative rather than liberal. For their first few decades in America, these immigrants tended to be in the lower socioeconomic ranks, and, in any country, the poor and uneducated, with only their common sense to rely on, are more likely to be loyal to the Church than those possessed of a smattering of education Christian orthodoxy --Catholic or other--has always had more trouble with middle-of-the-roaders than with either the little-educated or the highly educated. When Louis Pasteur was asked why he, a brilliant man, was a fervent believer, he replied: "Because I know a great deal, I am as pious as a Breton peasant. If I knew more, I would be as pious as a Breton peasant woman.'

Now, some Catholic Democrats might be persuaded to vote Republican in November solely because their country has resumed diplomatic relations with the Vatican. But this could very well be balanced by some Protestants who might switch to the Democratic camp out of a conviction that popery had scored a victory and the First Amendment had been violated by the diplomatic recognition. But there are deeper reasons for the recognition, which do not depend on this problematical arithmetic.

Pope John Paul wants to broaden the Vatican's international relations as much as possible. The Pope believes that peace can be furthered by diplomats --American, say, and Yugoslavian and Polish--meeting in Rome under Vatican auspices. Most of John Paul's predecessors held this same hope, which explains why so many foreign representatives are accredited to the Holy See.

Even countries having only small Catholic minorities are represented at the Vatican. Finland, for example, with fewer than three thousand Catholics, has diplomatic ties with the Vatican (established during World War II, while Finland was engaged in a life-and-death struggle with the USSR). Japan is also represented, with less than 0.4 per cent of its people Catholic.

The purported advantages of using the Vatican as a diplomatic listening post have frequently been exaggerated. While valuable information can be gathered at the Vatican, this information can often be picked up--and more accurately--in other cities. During World War II, Washington and London were better informed about the National Socialist extermination camps than the Vatican, which was cut off from all sources of information after 1943 and heard only vague rumors. Still, the listening-post argument is not without substance: Through Vatican channels one might meet otherwise unreachable persons. The Catholic Church is well rooted in the world's most neuralgic areas: the Mediterranean, Ireland, France, Central Europe, Lebanon, black Africa, Latin Amercica, French Canada, and the Philippines. Yet, although the Church is spread far and wide, I would hesitate to call it a great power in a material sense.

The Church's history shows moments of defeat as well as glory; folly as well as wisdom. To its faithful the Church is "God's strength in human weakness,' but this refers to spiritual strength. The words of St. Augustine about the "poor and helpless Church' will remain true until the end of days. Contrary to popular opinion, the Church was certainly not powerful in the Middle Ages. For generations the popes, in their Avignon captivity, were slaves of the kings of France, and Rome was conquered and sacked again and again. Throughout its history the Church held secular power only insofar as the state granted it. In fact, the papacy probably never enjoyed greater prestige than in our time, in the last hundred years.

IT IS interesting to speculate about what John Paul hopes to gain from relations with the United States. Vatican policies--whether secular or spiritual--don't always coincide completely with those of large numbers of American Catholics, in either the laity, the clergy, or even the hierarchy. The American bishops, at least in private conversation, were never very eager for a direct line between the White House and the Vatican. (With regard to the pastoral letter on nuclear weapons, there is reason to wonder about the eagerness of the American bishops for their own direct line with the Vatican, judging by some of the comments from the bishops who were summoned to the Vatican to discuss the pastoral letter.)

A good, skilled, wise, and well-informed nuncio in the United States can be a true blessing for the Roman Catholic Church, but an unqualified one can do tremendous harm. The present Pope knows only too well that the Catholic Church in America is in a precarious condition. The resumption of diplomatic relations implies that he wants to come closer to the American scene, not only to be better informed, but also to see the Church in the United States moving closer to the rest of the Church, which after all claims to be universal.