Welcome The Vatican

PRESIDENT REAGAN ended 117 years of official silence between the United States and Vatican City last week when he extended diplomatic recognition to the Holy See. Though American Presidents since Franklin Delano Roosevelt '04 have sent personal representatives to the Vatican, there have not been any official diplomatic exchanges since 1867. It was then that Congress, responding to a wave of anti-Catholicism and American sympathy for Italian efforts to reunify their country at the expense of the Papal States, passed a resolution barring the government from spending federal money on missions to the Holy See.

The only previous Presidential effort to open relations, initiated by Harry S Truman, was scuttled in the midst of an out-cry from fundamentalist Protestants. Reagan's announcement that he would exchange emissaries with Pope John Paul II was met by similar opposition from fundamentalist leaders--most notably Moral Majority spokesman Rev. Jerry Falwell--who say the recognition would violate the principle of been joined in their opposition by more consistent civil libertarians such as the American Civil Liberties Union, which has said the exchange may run contrary to the First Amendment.

These opponents of recognition have, however, misapplied the First Amendment, which prohibits government actions that foster the establishment of a state religion. Diplomatic exchanges with the Vatican are not an endorsement of Roman Catholicism, and they do not require the United States to do anything more than receive an ambassador. Vatican City is a sovereign nation and John Paul its head of state independent of his role as the spiritual leader of the world's Roman Catholics. In fact, the United States has long sent an ambassador to the Court of St. James, despite English monarchs' dual roles as head of the British state and leader of the Church of England.

Vatican City may not have as important a role in American foreign policy as Great Britain, and ending U.S. silence towards the Vatican is probably not as momentous as, say, opening the diplomatic door to Communist China, but nonetheless it is a worthwhile act. Some cynical observers might suggest President Reagan's announcement is politically motivated, pointing to the coming election and his desire for Catholic votes. But regardless of Reagan's motives, John Paul is an important international figure American foreign policy should recognize.

Rev. Falwell and his supporters would do best to concentrate on their well-founded concern for the separation of church and state on real threats to this principle, such as efforts to reinstitute school prayer and to require the teaching of Christian creationism in public schools. Opening relations with the Vatican is a sensible step in diplomacy but it should not be taken as more of a symbol than it is.

These opponents of recognition have, however, misapplied the First Amendment, which prohibits government actions that foster the establishment of a state religion. Diplomatic exchanges with the Vatican are not an endorsement of Roman Catholicism, and they do not require the United States to do anything more than receive an ambassador. Vatican City is a sovereign nation and John Paul its head of state independent of his role as the spiritual leader of the world's Roman Catholics. In fact, the United States has long sent an ambassador to the Court of St. James, despite English monarchs' dual roles as head of the British state and leader of the Church of England.

Vatican City may not have as important a role in American foreign policy as Great Britain, and ending U.S. silence towards the Vatican is probably not as momentous as, say, opening the diplomatic door to Communist China, but nonetheless it is a worthwhile act. Some cynical observers might suggest President Reagan's announcement is politically motivated, pointing to the coming election and his desire for Catholic votes. But regardless of Reagan's motives, John Paul is an important international figure American foreign policy should recognize.

Rev. Falwell and his supporters would do best to concentrate on their well-founded concern for the separation of church and state on real threats to this principle, such as efforts to reinstitute school prayer and to require the teaching of Christian creationism in public schools. Opening relations with the Vatican is a sensible step in diplomacy but it should not be taken as more of a symbol than it is.