When General Mark Clark announced that he was no longer in the field for an ambassadorship to the Vatican, much of the wind that followed Truman's original statement on the question of representation at the Holy See blew itself out. Although the issue is still sufficient to produce a few decibals from Texas, it has faded from the halls of Congress, from the newspapers, and even from many Protestant pulpits. Now that the furor has subsided, it is possible to detect a few sane arguments here and there.

Defenders of Truman's proposal advance two justifiable reasons on its behalf: first, the "ear-to-the listening-post" theory, the claim that the Vatican has channels of information that the United States would do well to tap; and second, that the Vatican's decisions affecting international politics influence so many people that the United States must be in a position to influence them.

What neither argument proves is why an ambassador is needed to carry out these functions. No other country represented at the Vatican has felt it necessary to send a man of such high rank, they restrict themselves to a minister, or a special representative. There is no reason why the United States should need a man of higher rank to do the same job.

An American ambassador to the Vatican might be of no greater use than a lesser representative, but his presence would have a far greater effect. His presence would be a seal of acceptance by the United States of the Vatican's influence on world affairs, a power that has often been used in opposition to the internal policies of the United States and its allies. Some have claimed that sending an ambassador to the Vatican would no more bind the U.S. to the policies of the Pope than diplomatic representation to Spain binds it to Fascism.

However the Spanish government rates an ambassador only because it controls a country of some size; the Vatican controls a territory no larger than a golf course.

Sending an ambassador to the Vatican would also give the Church prestige above all other religions in the United States; although defenders of the Truman proposal may claim that such an ambassador merely represents recognition only of the Holy See's political power, it is impossible to separate the temporal and the spiritual influence of the Pope. Sending an ambassador is clearly discriminatory, and as such it violates the church-state principles of this country.

It is not even clear why President Truman suggested such an ambassador in the first place. There is no indication whether the appointment issue originated in the State Department or whether it is purely a political move. Whatever the President's reasons were, we hope he will let the question continue on its present course to oblivion.