Red Priests in the Holy City: Vatican Ostpolitik, Informants, and Soviet Lithuanian Priests in the College of Saint Casimir, 1959–1965

Nicole Harry

In 1959, the Holy See of the Catholic Church and the Soviet government agreed to send two Lithuanian priests to study at the Vatican College of Saint Casimir, which was run by Lithuanian émigré clergy who had fled the Soviet occupation. This exchange was part of Pope John XXIII’s platform for engagement with communist countries, aimed at supporting the Catholic communities within their borders. Alternatively, Soviet administrators viewed the students as an opportunity to gain insight into Vatican dynamics, dispel perceived stereotypes about the Catholic Church in the Soviet Union, and lend legitimacy to this clergy within the Lithuanian Catholic community upon their return. The Holy See and the Soviet government had no official connections following World War II (WWII). Despite the disapproval of the college’s clergy, the College of Saint Casimir became the initial connection between the two institutions.

The College of Saint Casimir was the center of Lithuanian Catholic activity in Rome. Established in 1948, Lithuanian clergy fleeing the Soviet occupation of 1944 had purchased a monastery in Rome and began providing extensive, anti-Soviet support for Lithuanian émigré and dissident activities.[1] During the decades following WWII, Soviet administrators in both Moscow and Vilnius were acutely aware of the anti-Soviet stance of Saint Casimir. However, they also recognized the importance of gaining intelligence about the activity and sentiments of the College by supporting the religious education of (relatively) compliant Lithuanian priests.  While completing their studies, it was expected that these clergy would also gather information regarding anti-Soviet activity among the members of Saint Casimir.[2] Additionally, Soviet officials intended for these graduates to take positions of church leadership upon their return from their studies. They hoped that these clergy, who were both cooperative (enough) with the Soviet government and Vatican-educated and endorsed, would lend legitimacy to Soviet religious policy and counter anti-Soviet narratives accusing church leadership of being sellouts to the Soviet state and devoid of sincere religious sentiment.

Pope John XXII and the Holy See were also interested in encouraging communication with clergy from socialist states. This was an abrupt reversal from the uncompromising anti-communism of his predecessor, Pope Pius XII.[3] John XXII introduced this “Ostpolitik,” as scholars have since named it, with the goal of learning more about the position of the Catholic Church in the socialist bloc.[4] In doing so, he hoped to negotiate with socialist leaders for incremental policy changes toward the Catholic Church and was willing to cooperate with socialist governments to achieve this. This new Church policy called for the Holy See to encourage all “progressive” efforts from socialist governments to collaborate with the Church, while reactionary forces opposed to compromise were to be marginalized from Vatican policies.[5]

In this context of cooperative Vatican Ostpolitik and Soviet information gathering, Lithuanian clergy gained approval from both Soviet administrators and the Holy See to study at the College of Saint Casimir in Rome.[6] The first two clergymen, priests Viktoras Butkus and Romualdas Krikščiunas, arrived at the College in December 1959. Butkus intended to complete a doctorate in theology with a graduation date in 1961, while Krikščiunas planned to complete a dual doctorate in theology and law, taking an additional three years.[7] While studying in Rome, the two priests also served as informants to the Lithuanian KGB. They reported on the internal affairs of the College of Saint Casimir as well as Vatican sentiments towards the Catholic Church in Lithuania and Soviet religious policy. There are limited reports from Pušis, the KGB codename for Butkus, as he was only in Rome for one year; however, Saul, or Krikščiunas, sent back regular, thorough reports throughout his stay in the holy city.

Krikščiunas in Vatican City’s Saint Peter’s Square during his studies

It is clear from the correspondence of these two priests that, despite the Papal policy of cooperation, members of the College of Saint Casimir did not embrace these Soviet clergy. In one letter to the Vilnius Diocese manager, the two priests noted that “the worst [part of their studies in Rome] is that we feel alone, looked down upon, and have to break the ice everywhere.”[8] Additionally, neither Butkus nor Krikščiunas spoke Italian and they felt isolated while trying to practice the language in the College. The two expressed their frustrations in a January 1960 letter, writing that:

There is almost no progress with the Italian language. It is hard because we only use it in lectures (where we sit like sheep, because we do not understand anything) … we have asked for help, but this is not home, and the people do not know how to show hospitality or kindness. So, we are left cramming dry vocabulary. In general, we feel as if we have landed on the moon, having torn ourselves away from Earth.[9]

Krikščiunas finally confided to a fellow priest and friend:

Every day, one has the opportunity to hear (or read in the newspapers) that almost all the priests in Lithuania are bastards, that the theological seminary is a nest of spies and a spy school, etc. I have found a professor and friend from my studies at the seminary, but I am no one. In general, the young priests of Lithuania who have ‘graduated from the Bolshevik gymnasium and seminary,’ as it is said here, are equated to zero.[10]

Though official Vatican policy may have been one of engagement with socialist representatives, the dissident priests of Saint Casimir maintained anti-Soviet hostility and distrust toward their visitors. In turn, Butkus and Krikščiunas themselves questioned whether it was worth attempting to maintain this relationship by sending Lithuanian priests to the Vatican in the future.[11]

Butkus returned to Lithuania in 1961 after completing his doctorate in theology. He was appointed to the rectorship of the Kaunas Theological Seminary, the only functioning seminary in Lithuania during the Soviet period.  With Butkus’s return, there was also internal discussion between the Lithuanian and All-Union KGB about removing Krikščiunas. However, Lithuania’s KGB advocated for the work he had conducted thus far, arguing that: “we have no reason to believe that, after graduation, Saul (Krikščiunas) will become an opponent of the Soviet system… on the contrary, he is ready to renounce his spiritual duties at any moment and expose the Vatican.”[12] Krikščiunas never renounced the Vatican and was instead promoted to auxiliary bishop upon the completion of his studies and return to Lithuania. For the time being, however, he remained in Rome, where he continued to report to the KGB while also earning the trust and friendship of the priests in the College of Saint Casimir.[13]

More than once, clergymen of the College of Saint Casimir attempted to recruit Krikščiunas to work for British or American foreign intelligence. The Lithuanian KGB informed Krikščiunas that he was to participate in such efforts and utilize the opportunities to gather information for Soviet counterintelligence purposes.[14] Lithuanian KGB officials also used Krikščiunas as a recruiter, instructing him to seek out the priest Fr. Žilis, who had been appointed archivist of the eastern collegium of the Holy See – thus allowing him access to secret Vatican documents, including messages received from the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. Though Lithuanian KGB officials recommended that Krikščiunas try to earn Žilis’s trust, they also advised blackmailing him with information about his “intimate relationship” with a waitress in a nearby hotel.[15] 

The Lithuanian KGB files on Krikščiunas' activity conclude with preparations for Vatican II, in which the priests of the College of Saint Casimir instructed Krikščiunas to relay the Holy See’s requests for Lithuanian involvement to the reactionary priests. It is unclear whether this information was ever formally communicated to the Soviet administrators, or if they only learned of it through Krikščiunas’s reports. That said, these instructions outlined that at least one bishop from Lithuania should attend the council, even at the cost of concessions to the Soviet government. In return, the Holy See was willing to promote some members of the Lithuanian clergy who had been approved by Soviet administrators to serve as bishops in the republic. In addition, the papacy also agreed not to excommunicate the Vilnius diocese administrator, who was both cooperative with Soviet administrators and resistant to Vatican policies.[16] 

There was apparent tension between the clergy of the College of Saint Casimir and the visiting priests from Lithuania. However, the relationship and exchanges between these two groups provide a valuable example of Lithuanian clergy acting as intermediaries between Lithuania, the Soviet Union, and the Vatican as part of Pope John XXIII’s burgeoning Ostpolitik. Through the visiting priests, especially Krikščiunas, the republic and union-wide KGB offices were able to obtain direct intelligence about activities in the Vatican. At the same time, the Holy See was able to learn about Catholic life in the Soviet Union, albeit through a state-sanctioned source. As Pope John XXIII and the Holy See expanded their engagement with the Soviet Union and Lithuanian clergy through involvement at the Second Vatican Council, the clergy of the College of Saint Casimir remained skeptical about visiting clergy, even working at times to undermine their participation in Vatican activities.

Nicole Harry is a PhD candidate at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. She is interested in the confluence of religion and Soviet politics during the Cold War. Her dissertation explores how Soviet administrators sought to mobilize Lithuanian Catholic leadership to support their political legitimacy both within Lithuania and abroad.

[1] Labanauskas, Ramūnas. “Šv. Kazimiero Kolegiia,” Visuotinė Lietuviu Enciklopedija (Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras, 2006); Ladas Tulaba, “Prelate Antanas Briška and the College of Saint Casimir in Rome (Prelatas Antanas Briška ir Šv. Kazimiero Kolegija Romeje)” Aidai 64, no 8 (1953): 377–378; Aldona Vaisiliauskienė, “Aspects of the Creation of the Lithuanian Catholic Academy of Science (Genezės Aspektai Lietuviu Kataliku Mokslo Akademija),” Lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademijos metraštis 22 (2003): 106–107.

[2] Letter from Krikščiunas to personal relation Jozas regarding life at Saint Casimir, 1961, LYA, f. K-41, ap. 1, b. 617, l. 9-11; Krikščiunas, “Report: Some Thoughts on How Life in Italy Can Be Used For Anti-Religious Propaganda,” July 14, 1961, LYA, f. K-41, ap. 1, b. 617, l. 72-73.

[3] Fejerdy, Andras, The Vatican Ostpolitik 1958-1978: Responsibility and Witness during John XXIII and Paul VI (2015, Viella); Fejerdy, Andras, Pressed by a Double Loyalty: Hungarian Attendance at the Second Vatican Council, 1959-1965 (2016, Central European University Press); Kent, Peter, The Lonely Cold War of Pope Pius XII: The Roman Catholic Church and the Division of Europe, 1943-1950 (2002, McGill-Queen’s University Press).

[4] Christel Lane, Christian Religions in the Soviet Union: A Sociological Study (SUNY Press, 1978); Frank J. Coppa, Politics and Papacy in the Modern World (Praeger Publishers, 2008); Fejerdy, Andras, The Vatican Ostpolitik 1958-1978: Responsibility and Witness during John XXIII and Paul VI (2015, Viella); Piotr H. Kosicki, eds., Vatican II Behind the Iron Curtain (The Catholic University of America Press, 2016). Cardinal Agosntino Casaroli also writes about his firsthand experience implementing this new turn in Vatican diplomacy in his memoire, The Martyrdom of Patience: The Holy See and the Communist Countries, 1963-1989 (Ave Maria Centre of Peace, 2007).

[5] Fejerdy, Andras, Pressed by a Double Loyalty: Hungarian Attendance at the Second Vatican Council, 1959-1965 (2016, Central European University Press).

[6] These two priests were not the first religious personnel abroad from the Soviet Union, though. Muslim pilgrims had also been traveling to the Al-Azhar main mosque in Cairo and other locations in 1963. For further information on this travel, see: Tasar, Sovit and Muslim (Oxford University Press, 2017).

[7] Letter from Krikščiunas to personal relation, November 29, 1959, LYA, f. K-41, ap. 1, b. 616, l. 6-7; Letter from Krikščiunas to personal relation Jozas regarding studies at Saint Casimir, May 30, 1961, LYA, f. K-41, ap. 1, b. 617, l. 27-29.

[8] Butkus, Krikščiunas, “MEMORANDUM: To Stankevičius,” January 26, 1960, LYA, f. K-41, ap. 1, b. 616, l. 98-100.

[9] Letter from Butkus, Krikščiunas, to Fr. Stankevičius, January 18, 1960, K-41.1.616, pp 66-67, Lithuanian Special Archive, LitSSR KGB Collection, Vilnius, Lithuania.

[10] Letter from Krikščiunas to Fr. Žitkus, March 24, 1960, LYA, f. K-41, ap. 1, b. 616, l. 121-122.

[11] Butkus, Krikščiunas, “MEMORANDUM: To Stankevičius,” January 26, 1960, LYA, f. K-41, ap. 1, b. 616, l. 98-100.

[12] Letter from LitSSR KGB to All-Union KGB regarding the work of Saul in the Vatican, October 6, 1961, LYA, f. K-41, ap. 1, b. 617, l. 81-84.

[13] Letter from Krikščiunas to personal relation, Jozas, 1961, LYA, f. K-41, ap. 1, b. 617, l. 9-11, “PROPOSAL: Regarding the Further Use of Agent Saul and the Materials Received from Him,” 1962, LYA, f. K-41, ap. 1, b. 617, l. 200-211.

[14] “PROPOSAL: Regarding the Further Use of Agent Saul and the Materials Received from Him,” 1962, LYA, f. K-41, ap. 1, b. 617, l. 200-211.

[15] “PROPOSAL: Regarding the Further Use of Agent Saul and the Materials Received from Him,” 1962, LYA, f. K-41, ap. 1, b. 617, l. 200-211.

[16] Krikščiunas, “AGENT REPORT: Saul, June 30, 1962,” June 30, 1962, LYA, f. K-41, ap. 1, b. 617, l. 129-134.