My dear Secretary,
Many thanks for your letter of the 24th Feb.¹ which has been most helpful. I was worried when your telegram no. 9² wasn't immediately followed up by a detailed account of what had happened. With the Vatican, once you start a subject which has such a vital interest for them as Catholic rights in Palestine, you must keep pounding at it, unceasingly, until there is some settlement. I hope very much that, once the territorial question is out of it, (and I am always telling them that they must give up all idea of a territorial enclave for Jerusalem, although it is still the official policy) that we may have a part in a committee set up to watch the observance of the rules for safeguarding Catholic Rights, when they have been determined. The H.S. while of course wanting Spain, Italy and France to serve on such a Committee, because they have the interest of the protection of their religious property ... would also seem anxious that we ourselves, as a preponderantly Catholic State with neutral ideas, and the United States, should also serve on the Committee.

Meanwhile Mr. Epstein's statement to Mr. Nunan requires quite a lot of rectifying.³ The Vatican aren't a bit satisfied with the Israel ideas of guarantees which so far have remained absolutely in the air. Monsignor Vergani⁴ is not Vatican representative in Israel. He is the Vicar of the Patriarch at the moment and as the real Patriarch is in exile and is temporarily replaced by the Apostolic Delegate, Mgr. Vergani is, in a sense, the Vicar of the Apostolic Delegate. One day he happened to be with Mgr. McMahon⁵ at Tel Aviv and he was asked about the attitude of the Holy See. Would the H.S. recognize Israel and what were the conditions. Mgr. Vergani replied that they should make known their wishes to the Apostolic Delegate and inform him of the Guarantees they were ready to give. That seems to have been the only contact so far, apart from an informal approach in Rome, to which the same answer was given. So really nothing positive has happened. I told Mgr. Montini today that we might have a Consul in Jerusalem. In that case he would, of course, hold a watching brief with the reps of the other Catholic States, and aid the representative (if and when appointed) of the Holy See in securing the observance of the Guarantees. That would be useful with or without an International Committee appointed by the United Nations. Ultimately the Members of the Committee would have to be local representatives, as the Jews will always object to the operations of a special Committee within their territory, and it would be difficult to blame them. The Vatican, of course, hopes that the membership of the Committee however it operates, will not be confined to UNO members.

Meanwhile the H.S. would like us to withhold de jure recognition until the guarantees are defined and are accepted by the HOLY SEE.

I haven't any doubt, from my conversations, that there is a considerable softening going on with regard to the Vatican demands; and that they will, in due course, appoint a representative, I.E. when they are sure of the guarantees. So far, as I have said, there is no representative, and no acceptance of anything.

I hope the Minister will find it possible to withhold de jure recognition. As in the Mindszenty case we stand to gain in prestige by taking a strong attitude on all issues where there is an acknowledged Christian principle at stake. I can never describe what we have gained in Rome by the Minister's and the country's attitude in that case, and, although the parallel isn't perfect, the protection of the HOLY Places is of the most vital interest to our people all over the world, and has, therefore, in it all the elements which make it an ideal case for championing by our Minister.