Lalor, Fr. H.A., S.J. [Unlabelled] [3] This file was found with H.R. Slattery’s files.

Letters from Fr. H.A.L. to “Bob” (B.A.S), typed and numbered [1] – 12, with a report, unnumbered, on the final place visited.. They report his efforts to obtain agreement and support for a conference to be held in Manila in 1956 to which it is hoped the Church in various Asian countries will send delegates. The chief purpose of the conference appears to have been the establishment of an International Secretariat of Catholic Action. He mentions his many interviews and appointments, the responses of the members of the hierarchy and priests to the plan, the problems arising from his status (having been sent from Melbourne with the support of Archbishop Mannix, not from a Papal Nuncio or Apostolic Delegate), and from the national pride and conditions in the Church and society in the countries he visits and from “sabotage” from Sydney people. The first letter is written from Tokyo but reports also on the Philippines which he had just visited. . [1] St. Ignatius Church, Tokyo, Japan, 18 Dec. 1955. 4 pp. Promises received from the Nuncio and Archbishop Rosales (Chairman of the Episcopal Committee on Social Action and the two Archbishops of help at the coming bishops’ meeting in January to have Melbourne plans adopted; difficulties arising from the Nuncio’s belief that Archbishop Mannix planned an Asian congress in competition with one he had recently sponsored in Manila, and his expectation that he would have been notified by either the Apostolic Delegate or the Holy See of the meeting; his and the Archbishop’s grasp of the distinction between C.A. and Social Action and the need for separate agencies of co-ordination. The Asian Congress of C.A. and the desire to do things “the Asian way”; attitudes to communism; the Nuncio’s keen interest and help in promoting action in the social sphere – the two movements in Manila, the Federation of Free Workers and the Federation of Free Farmers – relations quite cordial “even if I did walk into his study as he was showing out Rosemary Goldie”. Quiet work of sabotage by Mgr Leonard especially and Brian Doyle of the Australian delegation, and Lalor’s efforts to counter this with Vaccari (known to B.A.S. who he wishes would answer his letters).” A need for action without delay, and a tentative date for their next Asian get-together if things go satisfactorily on this trip.

2. 20 Dec. 1955. 3 pp. His difficulties in dealing with the Japanese: the Manifesto though logical “leaves the Asian cold – even an Asian bishop!” and the need for proper credentials from the Apostolic Delegate or the Cardinal; people met; Fr. Murge’s JOC effort all they have active in this field [of social action], etc.

3. Xmas Eve, 1955. 4 pp. Response gratifying but people want to be kept informed about progress elsewhere. Practical things he has been insisting on: the Hierarchy’s willingness to participate in this international attempt at coordinating the field of social action; representatives being sent to the next meeting in Manila next year; the Hierarchy agreeing to set up an international secretariat of the kind mentioned in our literature; a business-like plan being drawn up promising hope of success against the Communist threat so that financial support may be obtained internationally; training of leaders, etc. etc.; the need for a clearing-house for confidential information (the international secretariat) with competent and qualified men to study the “line” throughout the area and funnel the answers to men in the field. The Manifesto: only agreement in principle to such a document being published at an agreed date, final working at the Manila meeting; Australia only taking the initiative and willing to help if desired – not taking over. All this “after I have explained that the primary purpose of my visit is to extend the good wishes of Archbishop Mannix and to convey his thanks for their response to his previous invitation”.

4a Wah Yan College, Hong Kong. News Year’s Day, 1956. (refers to a hurried note from Taipei, which appears to be missing). 4 pp. Chinese refugees and opportunities for conversion if only the numbers seeking instruction could be handled; his reception there and in Formosa, all agreeing to the idea of a central secretariat but unable to support financially; Has been “humble and deferential”, always making the point that Australia is only the initiator and willing helper.

5. 7 Jan. 1956. Saigon, Vietnam. 3 pp. The situation in Saigon where he meets friends of old Propaganda days. Vietnam will have delegation in Manila; has met two priests in charge of Social Action and Catholic Action respectively; arrangements for a bureau to be set up to coordinate social action internally and to be the body with whom to keep in contact. Prospects of anything effective emerging are not too bright (describes the country’s problems). 5a (Interim Report). Bombay, India, 25 Jan. 1956. 1 p. A successful interview with No.1, and the domestic situation in Australia was not brought up.

6. 12 Jan. 1956, Rangoon, Burma. 6 pp. The last two stops successful, both Bangkok and Rangoon, both in charge of French episcopi, receptive to proposals. 4 pp. + two-page postscript.

7. 23 Jan. 1956, Bombay, India. Numbered to p. 7, but including 6a and 6b. Unnumbered sheet at this point: list of Church Dignitaries in Asia who have “already given their wholehearted backing to the proposal to co-ordinate the work of Catholic Social Action, nationally and internationally, according to the plan submitted for their approval by the Asian Social Action Conference held in Melbourne, June 1958.”

8. 1 Feb. 1956. Colombo, Ceylon. 2 pp.

9. Colombo, Ceylon. 9 Feb. 1956. 4 pp.

10. Kingsmead Hall, Victoria Park Road, Singapore. 15 Feb. 1956. 6 pp.

11. 22 Feb. 1956. 1 p.

12. 29 Feb. 1956. 4 pp. His interview with Archbishop Olcomendy, already sabotaged by peddlers of the ‘Sydney line’; his explanation of what was happening in Australia involved defending B.A.S. from the charge of “propagating teachings in the article published in the Bombay ‘Examiner’”, submitted to and partly condemned by Rome. Sheet follows: “List of contacts”: members of the national committees or the personal contacts to whom correspondence should be addressed under the forthcoming meeting of the international committee. 2 pp.

Three page report, not addressed as a letter or dated, concerning his last couple of days in Singapore, Djakarta. 3 pp