appraisement of nine pieces of artillery, one cannon, a culverin, and
three _moyennes_, which he has brought to this said city from the voyage
he has lately made, and taken in the fort the French had built, but which
was afterwards seized by one Pierre Malendes, a Spaniard.… Presented
themselves before us to make the said appraisement and valuation: Antoine
de Cassagnet, lord of Cassagnet and Tilhadet, Knight of the Order of the
King, and governor of the city and country of Bordeaux in the absence
of Sr. de Monluc; Jehan de Monluc, Knight of the Order of St. John of
Jerusalem, gentleman in ordinary of the king’s chamber, and colonel of
the infantry of Guienne; Jacques Descar, Knight of the Order of the King,
captain of fifty men-at-arms of his ordinance, captain and governor of
the Château du Ha in the said city and province of Guienne; Charles de
Monferrand, also Knight of the Order of the King; Pierre de Savignac,
also Knight of the same order; and Loys de Lur, Seigneur d’Uza, whom,
etc.”
All these persons to whom De Gourgues thus confided his interests were
Catholic lords of Guienne, whose religious convictions could not be
doubted, and with whom he must have been on intimate terms to induce them
to take the trouble to estimate the value of his war-prizes.
But it is said Charles IX. and his court condemned De Gourgues’ act. M.
de Lacaze, in his biography, says: “He received from his compatriots
the liveliest testimonies of admiration and gratitude; but it was not
the same at court, where his courage and achievements were rewarded
by ingratitude and persecution. The Spanish ambassador demanded his
head, and the heroic Frenchman was obliged to conceal himself at Rouen
to escape death. He was living in a state bordering on want when Queen
Elizabeth offered him command of a fleet she was going to send to the
assistance of King Antonio of Portugal; but enfeebled by age, chagrin,
and fatigue, Gourgues was unable to profit by so brilliant an offer. He
died on his way to London.”
Many of these statements need to be greatly modified, as we shall show.
De Thou says: “At his return he is badly received by the court, which is
_wholly Spanish_. The king treats him as a disturber of the public peace.”
There is no doubt the king feared a rupture with Spain, in consequence
of the civil dissensions in his kingdom. M. de Monluc, in his
_Commentaries_, alluding to his son’s expedition to Africa, expressed a
fear of its leading to disturbance with Spain. Personally, he desired
war, but did not wish him to draw upon himself the censure of the
government. What he says explains the reception of De Gourgues at a court
where Spanish influence predominated, and leaves no doubt the latter was
only received as the son of Monluc himself would have been, had he given
cause for war with Spain. He was, however, soon honorably received into
service, for we find him, in August, 1568, attached to the royal navy; so
he could not, as he states, go to Dax, being “prevented by the affairs of
the king and the service of the galleys.”
We find De Gourgues’ vessel, the _Charles_, named in an act of October
22, 1568, in which it is said that Loys de Lur, Vicomte d’Uza, was
“general-in-chief of the army, and of the vessels _Charles_, _Catherine_,
etc., which will at once set sail by order of M. de Monluc.” These
vessels were to guard the mouth of the Gironde.
There are still several documents in the archives of the department of
the Gironde which refer to De Gourgues’ official duties at this time.
From them we give the following extracts:
“Know all men that on this 14th of March, 1572, appeared before me,
Jehan Castaigne, etc., for the purpose of selling by these presents to
Dominique de Gourgues, squire and gentleman in ordinary of the king’s
chamber, … four hundred quintals of biscuit, good and salable, for the
sum of six livres and fifteen sols for each of said quintals.[166]…”
Arcère speaks of an armament fitted out at Brouage by Philip de Strozzi,
as if to ravage the Spanish coasts of America--a cloak to his real
design. He provided this fleet with provisions, munitions of war, etc.,
with no appearance of haste, though so late in the season. Coligni,
therefore, was warned.
We find a letter from Charles IX. to Dominique de Gourgues on the
subject, written fifteen days after St. Bartholomew’s Day, when there was
no need of concealing his real designs:
“CAPTAIN GOURGUES: As I have written my cousin, the Sire de
Strozzy, to approve his appointing you to go on a voyage of
discovery, with the general consent of the company, I trust
this letter will find you ready to set sail. I beg to warn you,
before setting out, not to touch at any place belonging to my
brother-in-law, or any prince friendly to me, and with whom I
am at peace. Above all, fear to disobey me if you desire my
approbation, and the more, because I have more need than I once
had of preserving the friendship of all my neighbors. Conduct
yourself, therefore, wisely, and according to my intentions,
and I will remember the service you do me. Praying God, Captain
Gourgues, to have you in his keeping.
CHARLES.
“PARIS, September 14, 1572.”
This letter proves the king’s serious intention of sending the fleet
abroad, and contains a somewhat severe warning not to repeat his bold
deeds in Florida.
D’Aubigné declares that these vessels were really intended to attack the
Spanish settlements in America, but their destination was changed, and
they served at the siege of La Rochelle, “to the great displeasure of
those who were hoping for a voyage at sea.”
Arcère, in his _Histoire de la Rochelle_, thus speaks of the _Charles_
at the siege of that city: “The king’s fleet was composed of six galleys
and nine vessels. The largest of these vessels was called the _Charles_.
The admiral’s, named the _Grand Biscayen_, was under the Vicomte d’Uza,
commander of the fleet in the absence of the Baron de la Gardie.
Montgomery advanced as if to engage in combat, but he encountered full
fire from the enemy’s fleet; the vessel he commanded, pierced by a ball,
would have sunk without speedy assistance, and he decided to retreat.”
That Dominique de Gourgues was in command of the _Charles_ on this
occasion is proved by a document in possession of the present Vicomte
de Gourgues, which states that Dominique, by an act signed by the king
in council, August 10, 1578, was paid the sum of seven thousand crowns
“for services rendered at and before the siege of La Rochelle with his
vessel, the _Charles_, and a patache called the _Desperada_.”
This is the latest known document referring to the public services of
Dominique de Gourgues. There is, however, another letter from the king
referring to another service a few years previous, and confirming the
fact that the _Charles_ was under his command: “Capt. Gourgues: After
deliberating about using some of the largest and best vessels of my
navy before the city of La Rochelle--in the number of which is the
_Charles_, which belongs to you--for the embarkation of four thousand
soldiers intended for Poland, I have concluded to send you this present
to notify you at once of my intention, praying you above all, as you love
the welfare of my service, to give orders that your vessel be equipped
as soon as it can be done, and ordered to Havre de Grace, where it is
necessary to arrive by the 12th or 13th of August next; and, that you
arrive with greater security, it will be expedient for your vessel to
join the others ordered on the same voyage, that you may go in company
to said Havre. I beg you, therefore, to proceed for this purpose to
Bordeaux, where the Sire de Berre is to despatch twelve cannons and
other arms, that are also to go to said Havre with all speed. Endeavor
to render the service I expect of you in that place. Praying God that he
have you, Captain Gourgues, in his holy and safe keeping,
“CHARLES.
“GAILLON, July 2, 1573.”
Such are some of the records of the public services of Dominique de
Gourgues after the Florida expedition. Of course his achievements
were not rewarded as they should have been. Pedro Melendez was created
marquis for his barbarous deed and enriched with estates. The brave
Landais, who took vengeance, merited far more. But, as we have shown,
he still remained in the king’s service, and retained, or regained, his
confidence. And his exploit has always been regarded as one of the most
brilliant episodes of French history. Châteaubriand, blaming the author
of the _Henriade_ for having recourse to threadbare examples from ancient
times, says “the Chevalier de Gourgues offered him one of the most
thrilling of episodes.”
We find a private paper dated January 14, 1580, in which Dominique de
Gourgues gives Romarine de Mesmes, _damoyselle_, his aunt, power and
authority to receive the fruits, profits, and emoluments of all his
cattle and real estate in the Vicomté de Marsan, which shows that he did
not sell all his property to provide for the expedition to Florida, or
die in want, as has been stated.
Queen Elizabeth of England offered him command of a fleet to aid Don
Antonio of Portugal in the war against Spain; but this honor is no
proof of his being regarded by her as a Protestant, but rather of his
well-known hatred of the Spanish, for it was to aid one Catholic nation
against another. It was on his way to take command of this fleet that he
fell ill at Tours, in which he died in the year 1583. He was buried with
honor in the abbatial church of S. Martin of Tours--the crowning proof
that Dominique de Gourgues was a genuine Catholic.
THE LADDER OF LIFE.
There are a great many rounds in the ladder of life, though simple
youths have always fancied that a few gallant steps would take them to
the summit of riches and power. Now the top-round of this ladder is not
the presidency of any railroad or country, nor even the possession of
renowned genius; for it oddly happens that when one sits down upon it,
then, be he ever so high up in life, he has really begun to descend.
Those who put velvet cushions to their particular rounds, and squat at
ease with a view of blocking up the rise of other good folks, do not know
they are going down the other side of the ladder; but such is the fact.
Many thrifty men have, in their own minds, gone far up its life-steps,
when, verily, they were descending them fast; and poor people without
number have in all men’s eyes been travelling downward, though in truth
they have journeyed higher by descent than others could by rising. So
many slippery and delusive ways has this magical ladder that we may say
it is as various as men’s minds. One may slip through its rounds out of
the common way of ascent, and find himself going down when he ought to be
going up; and vain toilers have ever fancied that they were mounting to
the clouds when everybody else must have seen they were still at the same
old rounds. Ambitious heroes have made the same mistake, if indeed the
particular ladder which they have imagined for themselves has not itself
been sliding down all the while they have been seeking vainglory by its
steps.
The ladder of life is an infinite ladder. It is full of indirections to
suit the abilities, and of attractions to suit the tastes of climbers.
You may work at a forge, or sail the sea, or trade in money and goods,
or hear operas, or write romances, or wander over mountains, or go to
church, while living thereon; but you must go up or go down, and, anyway,
you will have some toiling to do. Everywhere on the ladder is trouble
save in careful steps, and since human progress is so illusory, many
honest persons rather feared to fall than aspire.
NEW PUBLICATIONS.
THE SPIRIT OF FAITH; or, What must I Do to Believe? Five
Lectures delivered at S. Peter’s, Cardiff, by the Right
Reverend Bishop Hedley, O.S.B. New York: The Catholic
Publication Society. 1875.
When we noticed these lectures last month, we had not found time to do
more than glance at them. But having since discovered their very uncommon
merit, we feel bound to let our readers know it.
Never--we do not say seldom, but never--have we seen such a happy
combination of simplicity with force. The bishop’s English, by itself,
is a treat. His style has all the ease of conversation; here and
there rising into eloquence, or delighting us with master-strokes of
description and illustration. Then, as to the argument of his book, it is
so amiable and courteous that no one can take offence; yet the points are
put with stern fidelity and driven home with ruthless cogency.
The title speaks for itself. The “_spirit_ of faith” is precisely what
is least understood by non-Catholics; and again, “What they must _do_ to
believe” is the thing they most need to be shown.
When accused of being “mental slaves,” etc., we justly reply that, on the
contrary, we are the freest of the free, that “truth” alone “makes free”;
but perhaps we are apt to forget--or rather, we fail to insist--that
the “spirit of faith” is, nevertheless, “a spirit of lowliness” (as the
bishop says)--“of childlike obedience, and of ‘captivity’”; that there
must be “a taking up of a yoke, a bowing of the head, a humbling of the
heart.” It will therefore do Catholics good, as well as Protestants, to
read the second of these lectures on “What faith is.” So, again, when
allowing for the strength of prejudice in alienating the Protestant mind,
we are in danger of false charity--by forgetting that prejudice may
easily be _a sin_; and that _wilfulness_ plays a large part in popular
“ignorance” nowadays. The third and fourth lectures, on “Prejudice” and
“Wilfulness” as “Obstacles to Faith,” are the best of their kind we
remember to have seen, and we are sure that many Catholics need to read
them--nor only for the sake of their Protestant friends.
But, of course, it is chiefly for the sake of Protestant friends that
we wish to see these lectures in the hands of our readers. The book is
something for an earnest man to go wild about. Its cost is little; and we
hope it will soon be scattered broadcast over the land.
RELIGION AND SCIENCE IN THEIR RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY. An
Essay on the Present State of the Sciences. Read before the
Philosophical Society of Washington. By Charles W. Shields,
D.D., Professor of the Harmony of Science and Revealed Religion
in Princeton College, N. J. New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co.
1875.
The trustees of Princeton College have deserved commendation and given a
good example to other colleges by establishing the chair filled by Dr.
Shields. The learned doctor is evidently applying himself with zeal and
industry to the studies which will fit him to teach with ability in his
important branch of science--one which demands an almost encyclopædic
knowledge of many sciences specifically different from each other.
He informs us that he is preparing an extensive work on the topics
presented in the essay before us, which is certainly a most laudable
undertaking, and one in which we hope he may achieve a successful and
useful result. In the present essay the author shows a very considerable
amount of reading and thought, some skill in generalization, and a good
deal of that felicity of diction which is requisite in making such
abstruse themes as those which relate to natural and theological science
attractive and intelligible even to the mass of cultivated persons.
The distinctive and principal thesis defended by Dr. Shields is, that
philosophy is the only umpire to determine controversies in which the
opposing parties advocate what are professedly revealed and professedly
scientific facts or truths, respectively, in a mutually destructive or
hostile sense to each other. To a certain extent, and in a correctly
defined sense, we cordially agree with him, and in this sense the high
office of philosophy, as the queen of all rational science, is affirmed
and defended by all Catholic philosophers and theologians worthy of
the name. The five primary natural sciences--physics, mathematics,
metaphysics, logic, and ethics--are certainly none of them subaltern one
to another, yet the other four are subordinate to metaphysics, because
its object has a precedence in the order of the knowable, and its
principles furnish the other sciences with their rational foundation.
Nevertheless, it is evident, and must be admitted by every one who
believes in a certain, clear, and surely ascertainable revelation of
facts and truths by God, which is supernatural, that there is a science
above metaphysics in excellence--viz., theology, which dominates over
it in so far that the latter science cannot reject any of its dogmas.
The sciences cannot therefore properly be said to be separate from each
other, although they are really distinct. All rational sciences are
subalternated to one or more of the five primaries, and thus subordinated
to metaphysics, which is subordinated to theology. We consider that
the author is mistaken in asserting that a “healthful separation and
progress” marked the first stage of the history of the sciences since
the Reformation. If by separation he means distinction only, and the
free development in each science of its own proper principles by its
proper methods, this distinction was recognized and acted on before
the Reformation, as may be seen by consulting the great master of the
schools, S. Thomas. Some of the sciences have made great progress since
that event, not by means of, but partly notwithstanding, their violent
and unnatural separation from metaphysics and theology. In respect to
metaphysics and ethics, the Reformation has produced one only direct
result, which is a miserable decadence and retrogression, which seems to
have nearly reached its lowest term. The sciences can only progress with
full liberty towards the perfection of human knowledge when they exist
in the due harmony and subordination which their nature demands and God
has established. The exposition of the order and relation of scientific
facts, principles, and deductions in the universal realm of truth, as
a universal or encyclopædic science, must, therefore, always place
each one in its due subordination, and cannot admit of the umpirage of
an inferior over a superior science, much less of a revolt on the part
of the inferior. It is absurd to suppose that the inferior tribunal of
human reason can judge a case in which the judgment of God, who is the
supreme reason, or of an authority which God has made supreme, comes up
by appeal. Dr. Shields objects that the great problems in question cannot
be settled by the determination of Scripture, councils, the Holy See,
or any kind of ecclesiastical decisions, because there is no agreement
respecting the true sense of Scripture, or universal recognition of a
competent and unerring tribunal. To this we reply that the construction
of certain and complete science is one thing, and the communication of
this science to the ignorant or erring is another. Questions may be
really and definitively settled, though great numbers of men may remain
in culpable or inculpable ignorance or error. The _Syllabus_ has settled
all that it was intended to settle, so far as the right of the matter is
concerned, and for the whole body of men who submit to the infallible
authority of the Vicar of Christ. Our knowledge is not in any way
impaired by the ignorance of those who are deprived of the benefit of
that instruction which Catholics enjoy. But, when we come to controversy,
we cannot, of course, attempt to convince or confute the ignorant or
erring by simply appealing to an authority which the antagonist or
objector, or uninstructed inquirer, does not know or recognize to be an
authority. We cannot assume the authority of God with an atheist, of
the Christian revelation with an infidel, of the Catholic Church with a
Protestant. One of the fathers says, _Qui fidem exigit, fidem astruat_,
and Catholic theologians have always acted on that maxim. Dr. Shields, as
a Protestant, has no rational idea of a positive, theological science.
It is all mere controversy, and we apprehend that his philosophy will be
found to be something equally unsettled and incapable of settling itself.
It is a very dangerous thing for any kind of dogmatic Protestantism to
concede the rights of reason, and especially so for Calvinism. Princeton
appears to be losing the old, Presbyterian, Calvinistic spirit, and going
the way of the rest of the world towards rationalism. We are not sorry
for it, because we hope that the cultivation and exercise of reason will
prepare the way for a great number of intelligent and educated young men
to submit their minds to the rightful and ennobling dominion of divine
faith. Notwithstanding the defects of Dr. Shields’ essay, we are glad to
see him advocate the study of philosophy and exalt its dignity; for the
search after the true philosophy may lead many to find it, and the true
philosophy is the handmaid of the true theology, and leads her votaries
to the feet of her mistress.
AN ELEMENTARY TREATISE ON PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY. By D. M. Warren.
Revised by A. von Steinwehr. Philadelphia: Cowperthwait & Co.
This book is one which Catholic teachers should never think of using, and
against which Catholic children should, as far as possible, be specially
warned, should it be introduced in any school which they are obliged by
circumstances to attend.
It is probable that the chapter on ethnography, which is specially
objectionable, is the composition of the reviser. At least we should so
infer from the stupid arrogance which crops out in its last sentence,
and which is characteristic of the Prussia of to-day, intoxicated with
a temporary success which was, as any careful student of history will
conclude, intended for the purification of France rather than for the
exaltation of her opponent. “The present historical period,” he says, “is
directed by the Germanic Aryans, who are the leaders of modern Christian
civilization.” Comment is unnecessary. We venture to say that few of our
or anybody else’s readers have ever come across anything more impudent or
absurd. It is an insult to the American people, Catholic or non-Catholic,
to palm off on them such stuff as this.
He also implies in another place that the German nation “worked out its
own civilization.” We have not heard of any nation that has done that,
but that the Germans did not is too manifest to admit of argument.
The principal objection to the chapter, however, is the publication,
without note or comment of course, of two heresies with regard to the
origin of the human race, as being equally entitled to acceptance with
the Mosaic account. One of these is its origin from different original
pairs, the other what is commonly known as Darwinism.
It is not worth while to give a more extended notice to a book of this
sort. This species of book can be turned off by any person with a
smattering of science who has the leisure for authorship, and who can
find a publisher. The market is flooded with such. We should not have
said anything about it had not our attention been called to it by a
friend on account of its dangerous character.
It is high time that we had a complete series of really Catholic
text-books which would need no correction, either in their matter or in
the spirit in which they are written. We could put up even with inferior
ones for the sake of religion and the faith of our young people; but we
should not have to try very hard to come up to the standard of such books
as the one just noticed.
NEW PRACTICAL MEDITATIONS for Every Day in the Year, on the
Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Chiefly intended for the use of
Religious Communities. By the Rev. Father Bruno Vercruysse,
S.J. The only complete English translation. New York and
Cincinnati: Benziger Brothers. 1875.
We have seen several books of meditations, but none so _business-like_
as this. The practice of mental prayer is by no means easy to everybody,
and needs much explanation and suggestive aid. Now, many of the manuals
which are offered as guides prove unsatisfactory to the user by either
suggesting too little or making the meditation for him. In the work
before us we see nothing of this kind to regret. The plan is in many
respects new. Indeed, the author calls special attention to the preface
in which he explains his method.
Though “chiefly intended for religious communities,” these meditations
are well adapted for private individuals, both ecclesiastic and lay.
Moreover, a single “point” of each meditation will be found sufficient by
itself for those who have not time for more. The work is also “enriched
by several Novenas and Octaves; Meditations for the First Friday of every
month, and for the days of Communion; … a new method of hearing Mass,
and practical remarks on the different parts of meditations; a plan of
Jerusalem with a map of Palestine, showing the different localities
mentioned throughout the work, and an alphabetical table of contents,
and of meditations on the Gospels of the Sundays.” Also, for religious,
“Exercises preparatory to the renewal of vows, and for a retreat of eight
days.”
Lastly, the approbation of his eminence Cardinal Deschamps, Archbishop
of Mechlin, speaks in unequivocal terms of the work’s merit. “These
Meditations,” he says, … “are remarkable for the solidity of doctrine,
the happy choice of subjects, and unctuous piety. The use of them cannot
fail to be very profitable to religious communities, to ecclesiastics,
and to those pious persons in the world who aspire to perfection.”
Annexed also is the approbation of Father Charaux, S.J., Superior-General
of the Mission of New York and Canada; together with extracts from three
letters of Father Beckx, the General of the Jesuits, to the author.
MADAME DE LAVALLE’S BEQUEST: Counsels to Young Ladies who
have Completed their Education. Translated from the fourth
French edition by a Sister of St. Joseph. Philadelphia: P. F.
Cunningham. 1875.
There is no doubt that this book, written in a tone of genuine affection
and interest, and addressed to young ladies who have completed their
education, is one that might profitably be put into the hands of those
for whom it was written and translated. The only question seems to be
how best to commend it to their attention; for in these days of varied
and indiscriminate reading, the advice or recommendation of older people
is seldom asked, and a hurried glance at the contents of a book is often
sufficient to cause its rejection, as prosy or unattractive.
To young ladies, also, who enjoying in a happy home the merited
confidence of their parents, and accustomed to few restrictions from
them, the minute and careful instructions and directions found in some
of the chapters might perhaps seem superfluous and a little amusing.
Yet, when they read the dedication, and recognize the fact that the book
was written under the eyes, as it were, of the Blessed Virgin, with the
approbation of her who was the truest lady as well as the purest woman
in the world, they will be disposed to accept with more humility and
gratitude suggestions which they must feel, if followed, would render
them more truly her imitators, more worthy of the name of her children.
To those who have had the privilege and happiness of a convent education,
this book is of course appropriate. It will bring to their minds the
gentle teaching of those peaceful days, and act as a kind of charm in
recalling holy aspirations and resolutions. Especially will they welcome
it as proving the tender interest of their former teachers, which, though
no longer folded around them like a mantle, now attracts their attention,
as a signal waved from a secure haven, to encourage their frail barks, as
they push out on the uncertain waves of life.
Thoughtful minds are glad to find in a book a companion and friend; to
such, and as such, we recommend this valuable Bequest.
HERBERT’S WIFE: A STORY FOR YOU. By Minnie Mary Lee. Baltimore:
Kelly, Piet & Co. 1875.
We again welcome the author of _The Heart of Myrrha Lake_ to the field
of Catholic literature. The writer possesses many of the qualifications
most essential to a writer of fiction--skill in the construction of
plots, ability to read character at sight, and a certain raciness and
vivacity of style, which holds the reader’s attention from first to
last, and gives her the preference over some writers of greater artistic
finish. In this is indicated our chief criticism and regret--that
one so well qualified should neglect that attention to detail which
characterizes the perfect artist. Not that we would advocate anything
stiff or “artificial,” for true art is always in harmony with nature. It
is precisely these exuberances and inaccuracies which cause the writer
subsequent annoyance, and for which the critical eye is needed, to prune
and correct. The plot of _Herbert’s Wife_, though simple, abounds in
vivid pictures of real life, and its incidents serve the moral purpose
of the story admirably. We do not doubt that each succeeding effort will
exhibit less and less of the defect alluded to.
BREAKFAST, LUNCHEON, AND TEA. By Marian Harland. Author of
_Common Sense in the Household_. New York: Scribner, Armstrong
& Co. 1875.
This is decidedly the most sensible, and, we may add, entertaining book
on domestic economy we remember to have met. “Marian Harland” has
evidently availed herself of her skill as a novelist in sugar-coating
a subject supposed to be unpalatable to those for whom the book is
intended, the instructions being conveyed in the form of “Familiar
Talks with the Reader.” If the writer succeeds in inducing her fair
countrywomen to become proficients in the art she teaches, much will
have been added to the substantial comfort of households, and a truer
appreciation reached of the services of good domestics.
LINGARD’S HISTORY OF ENGLAND, ABRIDGED: With a Continuation
from 1688 to 1854. By James Burke, A.B. And an Appendix to
1873. The whole preceded by a Memoir of Dr. Lingard, and
Marginal Notes. By M. J. Kerney, A. M. Baltimore: J. Murphy &
Co. 1875.
This is a library edition of the abridgment heretofore issued by the same
house, printed on better paper, and making a handsome octavo of 688 pages.
Lingard’s is still considered the standard English History by Catholic,
and by an increasing number of impartial non-Catholic, students, and as
it is probable that comparatively few readers will consider they have
time enough for the entire work, this edition is likely to be a favorite
one with book-buyers.
THE CATHOLIC PREMIUM-BOOK LIBRARY. First Series, 8vo. New York
and Cincinnati: Benziger Brothers. 1875.
The six volumes we have seen of this series seem to be creditable
specimens, both in matter and illustrations, and the publishers are to
be commended for their contributions towards a class of literature which
needed attention. We cannot well have too many books which are attractive
in style and healthful in tone at the same time. The works having been
taken from the French, the translations have been made by competent
hands, and the pictures have much greater pretensions to being termed
illustrations than many which are made to do duty in that capacity. We
think, however, that the publishers’ American printers and binders could
have produced better work than the letter-press and “imitation cloth”
binding of these volumes.
The same publishers also issue a duodecimo and an 18mo series of the
same library.
WANN SPRICHT DIE KIRCHE UNFEHLBAR? ODER: NATUR UND ZWECK DES
KIRCHLICHEN LEHRAMTS. Von Thomas Franz Knox, Priester des
Oratoriums in London. Regensburg: Georg Joseph Manz. 1874.
We are glad to see that Father Knox’s work has met the appreciation
in Germany of which this translation is the evidence. The publication
may also, we presume, be taken as an indication of the feeling which a
community of interests and dangers engenders, and which is drawing the
members of the one fold in different lands into closer relations and
sympathies.
BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS RECEIVED.
From D. & J. SADLIER & CO., New York: Rose Leblanc. By Lady
Georgiana Fullerton. 16mo, pp. 220.--The Two Victories. By Rev.
T. J. Potter. Third edition. 16mo, pp. 170.--Olive’s Rescue,
etc. 18mo, pp. 149.--True to the End. 18mo, pp. 150.--The
Little Crown of St. Joseph. Compiled and translated by a Sister
of St. Joseph. 24mo, pp. 347.
--The Double Triumph: A Drama. By Rev. A. J. O’Reilly. Paper,
16mo, pp. 66.--The Foundling of Sebastopol: A Drama. By W.
Tandy, D.D. Paper, 16mo, pp. 70.
--A Politico-Historical Essay on the Popes as the Protectors of
Popular Liberty. By Henry A. Brann, D.D. 8vo, pp. 30, paper.
From G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS, New York: Philosophy of Trinitarian
Doctrine. By Rev. A. J. Pease. 12mo, pp. 183.
From LEE & SHEPARD, Boston: Socialistic, Communistic,
Mutualistic, and Financial Fragments. By W. B. Greene. 16mo,
pp. 271.
From KELLY, PIET & CO., Baltimore: Emmore, etc. 18mo,
pp. 99.--Trouvaille, etc. By Lady Georgiana Fullerton.
18mo.--Reparation, etc. Same author.
From the AUTHOR: Mansions in the Skies: An Acrostic Poem on the
Lord’s Prayer. By W. P. Chilton, Jr. 12mo, pp. 27.
From ROBERTS BROTHERS, Boston: Through the year: Thoughts
Relating to the Seasons of Nature and the Church. By Rev. H. N.
Powers. 16mo, pp. 288.
From BAKER, GODWIN & CO., New York: Reports of the Board of
Directors and the Committees of the Xavier Union, New York,
etc. 1875.
From J. W. SCHERMERHORN & CO., New York: The Mosaic Account of
the Creation, the Miracle of To-day; or, New Witnesses of the
Oneness of Genesis and Science. By Chas. B. Warring. 1875.
From HENRI OUDIN, Paris: Les Droits de Dieu et les Idées
Modernes. Par l’Abbé François Chesnel. 8vo, pp. xxxix., 394.
From the AUTHOR: The Proposed Railway across Newfoundland: a
Lecture. By Rev. Father Morris. 8vo, pp. vi., 46, paper.
THE CATHOLIC WORLD.
VOL. XXI., No. 126.--SEPTEMBER, 1875.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1875, by Rev. I. T.
HECKER, in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C.
THE RIGHTS OF THE CHURCH OVER EDUCATION.
FROM LES ETUDES RELIGIEUSES, ETC.
Of all the questions which preoccupy--and justly--public opinion, and on
which war is declared against the Catholic Church, one of the most vital
is that of education.
“It is certain that instruction is, in fact, the great battle-field
chosen in our days by the intelligent enemies of the faith. It is there
they hope to take captive the youth of France, and to train up future
generations for impiety and scepticism. And it must be admitted that
they conduct this war with a skill which is only equalled by their
perseverance.”[167]
We endeavored to point out, in a former article, the intentions of
the enemies of the church, the depth of the abyss they are digging
for Christian society, and the infernal art which they have shown in
combining their plan of attack.[168] Since then, a first success has
befallen them to justify their hopes and inflame their ardor. We may
expect to see them increase their efforts to carry the fortress. Why
should they not succeed when they have opposed to them only divided
forces?
Happen what may, however, we must remain true to ourselves. It is
our duty to hold fast the standard of our faith, in spite of the
contradictions of human reason; and to oppose to the pagan error, that
the state is master of education, the Christian truth, that the church
alone is endowed with the power to educate the young.… The opponents
of the church on this point are of two classes. One consists of those
who never belonged to her, or who do so no longer; the other, of those
who still call themselves her children. The former are principally
Protestants, and those philosophical adversaries of revelation who deny,
with more or less good faith, Catholic doctrine, and pretend to find
nothing in it but illusion and blind credulity. These are, it must be
owned, consistent with themselves when they refuse to the church the
rights she claims over education. Their logic is correct; but it is the
logic of error, and to contend with such adversaries we should have to
begin with a proof of Christianity. That is not our object. Whatever may
be their error, however, on the subjects of Christian revelation and the
church, we hope to be able to convince them that a spirit of encroachment
and ambition of rule has no part in the pretensions of the church, in the
matter of the education of the young. Rather, they ought to acknowledge,
with us, that therein we only fulfil a duty the most sacred, the most
inviolable--that of conducting Christian souls to their supreme and
eternal destiny.
But what is far less excusable is the inconsistency of certain Catholics.
They are persuaded, they say, of the truth of the Catholic religion;
they profess to believe her doctrine, to submit to her authority; and
yet one sees them make common cause with the enemies of their faith in
repudiating all control of the church in questions of instruction and of
education. It is for these especially we write, in the hope of convincing
them that, in challenging for herself not only complete liberty to teach
her children divine and human science, but also the moral and religious
direction of all Christian schools, the Catholic Church claims nothing
but what is her right, and pretends to nothing more than the legitimate
exercise of a necessary and divine power. Would that they could
understand, in short, that no Catholic can, without inconsistency and
without a kind of apostasy, assent to the exclusion of the Church from
the supervision of instruction, and to the whole of it being directed by
the sole authority of the civil power!
I.--THE PRINCIPLES OF SOLUTION IN THE PRESENT QUESTION.
The whole Christian theory of education rests on the following twofold
truth taught by the Catholic Church: that man is created by God for a
supernatural end, and that the church is the necessary intermediary
between man and his supreme destiny. These two points cannot be admitted
without admitting, also, that the church is right in all the rest.
Unfortunately, nothing is less common than the clear understanding of
these truths, essential as they are to Christianity. It will, therefore,
not be unprofitable to take a brief survey of them.
The Christian religion does not resemble those philosophical theories
which an insignificant minority of the human race have been discussing
for three thousand years without arriving at any conclusion, and which
have no practical issue for the rest of mankind. Its aim, on the
contrary, is essentially practical. From the first it addresses itself,
not to a few persons of the highest culture, but to all indifferently,
rich and poor, learned and ignorant. It is designed for every one,
because every one has a soul, created in the image of God, and because
this soul religion alone can save--that is to say, conduct to its
ultimate end, by rendering it at last conformable to its divine type,
to the infinite perfections of God. But especially is Christianity
practical, because, without any long discussions, it says to every one
of us, “I am the voice of God revealing to men truths which it is their
duty to believe, virtues which it is their duty to practise in this life
in order to deserve, after death, everlasting happiness in the very bosom
of God. Here are my credentials; they affirm the mission I have received
from on high. Believe, then, the Word of God; practise his precepts, and
you will be saved.” Her credentials having been verified, it comes to
pass that multitudes of men yield faith to the teachings of Christianity
as coming from God; they place themselves under her obedience, and the
Christian society is founded, with its hierarchy, its object clearly
defined, and its special means determined by Jesus Christ, its divine
founder.
But is it all, and will it be sufficient to call one’s self Christian,
to be enrolled in the number of believers, to have received baptism, and
to practise with more or less fidelity the precepts of the divine and
ecclesiastical law? To suppose that it is, is the fatal error of a number
of modern Christians, as unacquainted with their religion as they are
lukewarm in fulfilling its duties. Thus understood, would Christianity
have done anything but add to the religions of the philosophers
incomprehensible mysteries, exceedingly troublesome practices, and
ceremonies as meaningless to the mind as useless to the soul? Far from
this, Christianity is itself, also, radical after its fashion. It
deprives man of nothing which constitutes his nobility; it enriches it
rather. It does not oppose his legitimate aspirations for what is great,
for what is beautiful; it hallows them rather. It does not deny him the
gratification of any of his loftier and more generous instincts; it only
supplies them with an object infinitely capable of contenting them. In
a word, it does not destroy nature; it transforms and deifies it, by
communicating to it a supernatural and divine life.
What is life in mortal man but the movement of all his powers in quest of
an object which gives them happiness? Well, then, Christianity lays hold
of these human powers, and, in order to transform them, it infuses into
them a new principle, which is grace--that is, the virtue of God uniting
itself to the soul; it places a higher end before them--the possession
of God in his own essence, an infinite object of knowledge and of love;
it enables them, indeed, to bring forth works not possible to our frail
nature without a divine illumination which enlightens the intelligence,
and without a holy inspiration which strengthens and assists the will.
It is a completely new man grafted on the root of the natural man. It
is a new way of living, wherein, under the influence of a supernatural
and divine principle, our feelings become purified by finding their
source in God, our knowledge enlarges, because it penetrates even into
the mysteries of the divine essence, and our love becomes limitless as
God himself, the only true good, whom we love in himself, and in his
creatures, the reflex of himself.
We know well that rationalistic philosophy, when it hears us speak of a
divine life, of union with God by a higher principle than nature, shrugs
its shoulders, and with superb self-complacency rings the changes on the
words illusion, mysticism, extravagance. But what matter? Has it ever,
like us, had any experience of this second life of the soul, so as to
understand its reality and its grandeur? Its God, silent and solitary,
exists only for reason. He will never issue from his eternal repose. He
will not meddle with his creatures to constitute their happiness. This is
not the God to satisfy our nature, thirsting for the infinite. He is not
the God of Christianity whom we have learned to know and to love.
But to return to the church. Manhood is not the work of a day. Thirty
years at the least pass away before the human being arrives at maturity,
passing successively through the stages of infancy, boyhood, and youth.
What care, what pains, and what active solicitude are needed for his
education! A mother, a father, a master, devote themselves to it by
turns. Fortunate if, after all, these efforts are crowned with success!
Is it to be said that it costs less time and labor to bring a soul to
spiritual maturity, to raise it to the perfection of this divine life? A
day, a year--will they suffice to enlighten the intelligence with truths
it must believe, to instruct it in obligations it must fulfil, but, above
all, to form in it a habit of all those virtues it is bound to practise?
Or is its education so different from the natural education that it can
dispense with an instructor? Will the child, unaided, raise itself to
God--we mean to the highest degree of moral perfection, of Christian
sanctity? It would be folly to suppose it. It needs, therefore, a master;
some one charged with the duty of teaching it truth, of forming it in
virtue. Who is this instructor? Is it any other than that one to whom
Jesus Christ, the divine but invisible Master, once said, “As my Father
has sent me, I send you. Go then, teach all nations; teaching them to
observe my whole law.” This instructor is the church, represented by her
pastors, the lawful successors of the apostles.
This principle must be borne in mind, this indisputable truth of revealed
doctrine. We shall see the consequences of it presently. We assert that
the church, and the church alone, has received from Jesus Christ the
power of forming the supernatural man--the Christian in the full force of
that term. No one else can pretend to it. Not the state, with its power;
not private individuals, with their knowledge, however great; not even
the father or mother of the family, great as is the authority over their
children’s souls with which God has invested them. And wherefore? Because
the church alone possesses the means indispensable for a Christian
education.
These means are of three kinds. In the name of God, the church gives
truth to the understanding; she imposes a law on the will; and she
dispenses grace, without which the Christian would lack power to believe
the truth and to fulfil the law. Withdraw these things, and Christian
education ceases to exist. You deliver up the understanding to human
opinions; therein it loses faith. The will becomes a law to itself; that
is to say, it has no other law to guide it than its own caprices and
passions; and then, the moral force disappearing, man in the face of duty
is oftener than not powerless to fulfil it. Now, who is it whom God has
charged with the duty of preserving amongst men, and of communicating
to every generation the treasure of revealed truths? Who is it who
represents on earth the divine power, and has the right of enlightening
consciences on the subjects of justice and injustice, of right and wrong?
Whom, in short, has Jesus Christ appointed minister of his sacraments to
distribute to souls the supernatural succors of grace? The church, and
the church alone. To her have all generations of mankind been entrusted
throughout the progress of the ages, in order that she may bring them
forth to spiritual life, and form in them Jesus Christ, the divine model
whom Christian education ought to reproduce in every one of us. It is,
then, true that the formation of the supernatural man, of the Christian,
is the proper ministry of the church; that this ministry constitutes
a part of her essential functions; that it is, in a sense, her whole
mission on earth; so much so, that she could not abdicate it without
betraying her trust, without abandoning the object of her mission, and
overthrowing the whole work of Christianity.
This is a fundamental principle which no sincere Catholic could think of
rejecting, so solidly is it based on revelation, and so conformable is it
to the principles of faith. There remains, consequently, only to deduce
from it its consequences, and to point out how the whole claim of power
over the instruction and education of Christian youth which the church
asserts flows from it as a necessary and logical deduction. Now the
church herself having been careful to determine the rights which belong
to her, it is her word we shall take for our guide, it is her doctrine we
propose to defend. It is clearly annunciated in the Encyclical _Quanta
Cura_, and in the _Syllabus_, the most authentic exposition of the mind
of the church on all the disputed questions of the day, as it is the most
assailed.
II.--POSITION OF THE QUESTION.
For nearly three centuries the government of France has labored with
indefatigable persistency and energy to concentrate in its hands all
the social powers, and to constitute itself, as it were, the universal
motive-cause in the state. Autonomy of provinces, communal franchises,
individual or collective precedence in certain great public services, all
have successively disappeared before the continual encroachments of the
central power. Thus the state is no longer a living organism of its own
life, at once manifold and ordered. It has become a huge mechanism, whose
thousands of wheels, inert and powerless of themselves, move only at the
impulse of the centre of the motive forces. To make of society a kind of
human machine may be the ideal of a certain materialist and socialist
school. It has never been the idea of Christianity. We Christians have
too much regard for our personal dignity, we know too well the limits of
the functions of the civil power, thus to abdicate all spontaneity, all
precedence of our own, and to consent to become nothing but mere parts of
a machine, when we can be, and ought to be, activities full of life and
movement.
In the matter of education especially, what errors have not been
committed, of what usurpations has not the civil power incurred the
guilt? By the creation of an official, pattern university, monopolizing
instruction, and subject exclusively to the direction of the government,
all the authorities to whom belonged formerly the instruction and
education of youth have been suppressed at one blow. There is no longer
any right recognized, any action suffered, but that of the state, master
both of school and pay. Everything by the state, everything for the
state, this through long weary years has been the undiscussable maxim
against which Catholic consciences, little disposed to sacrifice their
right to the usurped power of the government, struggled in vain.
At last, thanks to the persistent protest of those consciences, so long
despised; the principle has lost its pretended obviousness, and the fact
itself has received its first check--sure prelude of its approaching
disappearance. The moment seems to have arrived when those who have the
right ought to claim their legitimate share in the exercise of a function
eminently social. Now all have a right here. The government has its
rights; as responsible for the good and evil which befall society; for
the evil, to check and prevent it; for the good, to help in effecting
it. The church has her rights, because she is the great moral power in
society, and there is question here, pre-eminently, of a moral function.
The family has its rights, for it is its fruit which has to be reared and
instructed. Individuals, even, have their rights--the right of devotion
and sacrifice in behalf of a holy work, and of a ministry which, more
than any other, stands in need of those graces.
Here are, assuredly, enough of rights, despised for three-quarters of
a century, and swallowed up in the insatiable power of the state. It
would be a deed worthy of our generation to re-establish all in their
original and proper order. It is being attempted, we know, and already
the National Assembly[169] has begun to concede an instalment of justice
to the family and to individuals. But the church! Why is silence kept
concerning her? Why is it sought to exclude her from the debate, and
to treat her claims as null and void? We Catholics cannot accept this
disavowal of our rights. It concerns us to ascertain what place they
propose to assign to our church in the modern state. We should like to
know whether we still belong to a Christian society, or must prepare to
defend the rights of our conscience in a state decidedly pagan.
What are these rights? What do we demand for the church? What position,
in short, do we wish to see her assume in all that concerns the education
of youth? Such are the questions we propose to solve. We will state
them with yet more precision. When there is question of the rights of
the church in communities, three hypotheses are possible according
to the different conditions of those communities. We may suppose a
state religiously constituted--that is to say, wherein the gospel
and Christianity are not only the rule of life and the religion of
individuals, but, besides, the foundation of legislation, the worship
adopted in the manifestations of public piety; whatever may be, in other
respects, the general aspect of the relations established, by common
consent, between the church and the state.
In opposition to this first hypothesis there exists another--that of
a civil society, wherein the religious authority and the political
authority have the appearance of ignoring one another; wherein the state
affects indifference with regard to all religions, fosters no one of
them, and, limiting its action exclusively to the material interests of
the community, leaves individuals to embrace and practise whichever
of the worships suits them best. To borrow the popular formula, such a
constitution would realize “a free church in a free state”; or, more
exactly, “a state separated from the church.”[170]
Lastly, modern times have given birth to a third kind of political
constitution, a mean between the two preceding ones, in which Catholicity
is no longer the base of the social edifice in preference to every
other religion, and is only one of the public worships recognized by
the state; at times that of the majority of the citizens, and observed
as such in the religious solemnities in which the government takes a
part. In this hypothesis, the state remains religious, but it is neither
Catholic nor Protestant. A Christianism vague and general enough to lend
itself to all communions, a kind of rational deism, rather, inspires its
legislation; honor is done to ministers of recognized worships, and when
government feels a need of betaking itself to God, in order to implore
his mercy, or to give him thanks for his blessings, it orders prayer
in all the places of worship without distinction. Manifold, as may be
supposed, are the shades of difference in the manner of constituting a
state of such indefinite religious forms. It is nevertheless true that
the greater number of our modern constitutions reproduce, more or less,
the type we have just sketched. Are we to see in this merely a kind
of transition between ancient communities, which almost all realized
the first hypothesis, and the communities of the future? Or will the
state, separated from the church, organize itself and govern itself
in a complete independence of all religion? This is the dream of our
free-thinkers. For the happiness of humanity, we hope it will not be
realized.
In addition to these three hypotheses there remains the state persecutor
of the church. But although this is by no means uncommon in these
days, it does not enter into our present subject; which is limited to
determining the rights and action of the church in a tranquil and, up to
a certain point, regular state of things.
Further, Christianity being to us truth, and the Catholic Church the
only true Christianity, it evidently follows that the first hypothesis
constitutes the normal state of society, that in which it attains
its end with the greatest perfection by the most abundant and most
appropriate means. Religion, in short, is as necessary to communities as
to individuals; and of all religions, only the true one can be a real
element of the prosperity of states.
The problem to solve, then, is as follows: First to examine and determine
the rights which belong to the church in a well-organized society--that
is to say, in a Christian or Catholic society. Then, when we know the
better, the more perfect, to lay down the necessary and the possible, in
communities where human passions have made for the church an inferior
position, but little favorable to the full exercise of her rights.
III.--CHRISTIAN EDUCATION IN A CHRISTIAN STATE.
The Jews in this resembled, to a certain extent, a Christian--that is
a Catholic--people; namely, that amongst them one of the tribes had
been chosen by God to be wholly consecrated to his service, and to be
devoted exclusively to the ministry of the altars. So also, but with
the difference demanded by the new conditions of the priesthood, God
chooses amongst the faithful his clerics, divinely called to exercise the
sacerdotal functions; for under the New Law, as under the Old, no one can
pretend to this honor unless he be called of God. Here, then, are two
categories of individuals in the nation; those who, by divine vocation,
are destined for the service of the church, and those who continue in
the ordinary condition of Christians--the ecclesiastics and the laics.
The distinction is necessary, because the church does not claim the same
rights in regard to both.
_The Rights of the Church over the Education of Clerics._--The education
of clerics--of young men, that is, who devote themselves to the
ecclesiastical ministry--has always been the object of the liveliest
solicitude of the church. Solely anxious to see the knowledge of the
faith and true piety flourish among the faithful entrusted to her care,
could she forget that people conform themselves to the model of those
who govern them, and that the essential condition for enlightening
understandings in the truths of religion, as well as for inclining
their hearts to the practice of Christian virtues, is first to fashion
a clergy solidly instructed and sincerely pious? In Thomassin[171] may
be found innumerable examples testifying to the solicitude of the church
on the subject of schools wherein young clerics are instructed. But the
most solemn act, and the most prolific in happy results, that has been
accomplished for this object, is, without contradiction, the decree of
the holy Council of Trent, directing all the bishops, metropolitans, and
other pastors charged with the government of the church to erect, each
in their respective dioceses, a house or seminary for the purpose of
lodging there, of instructing in ecclesiastical science, and bringing up
in ecclesiastical virtue, the children of the town, diocese, or province,
who shall show signs of a true divine vocation.[172]
At the same time that it directs the institution of seminaries, the
council is at the pains to explain their great usefulness, the necessity,
even, of them for the church, as the only efficacious means of always
providing zealous as well as solidly instructed ministers. It lays down
also the way of life which should be observed within them, the studies to
which especially the young men should devote themselves, the means to be
employed by the masters for the complete education of their pupils, and
even the resources of which the bishops will be able to avail themselves
to help to defray the expenses of these precious schools.
It may have been already remarked how the council regulates everything
of its own authority and without asking aught of secular powers. It
proves the church’s right to herself alone institute and organize her
ecclesiastical seminaries. But that which decisively manifests her mind
on this point is the care which the Council of Trent takes to place the
entire administration of these schools in the hands of the bishops,
assisted by two of the oldest and most prudent of the cathedral chapter,
chosen by them under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.[173] Such is the
authority to which belongs exclusively the right of regulating all that
concerns the education of clerics. Neither can the lay faithful, nor
Christian families, nor, still less, governments, meddle at all with this
work, which is exclusively the affair of the church. Accordingly, in the
forty-sixth proposition of the _Syllabus_, the Sovereign Pontiff, Pius
IX., has reproved, proscribed, and condemned the doctrine of those who
pretend “to subject to civil authority the method to be followed in the
theological seminaries.”
The church claims, then, complete liberty to choose her ministers
herself, and to form them in the manner which seems to her most
desirable. This is no privilege which she asks of the state, it is a
right which she holds from Jesus Christ, and by his divine appointment:
the right of existing, the right of perpetuating herself upon earth by
keeping up her hierarchy of teaching pastors and faithful taught, and
in recruiting from among the latter those whom God himself calls to the
honors of the priesthood.
And, in truth, to what rights over the education of clerics can a civil
government pretend? Is it to judge of the knowledge which is necessary
for the ministers of the altar? But is not the church appointed by
Jesus Christ the sole guardian of revealed truth, and has not she alone
received the mission of teaching the peoples? Can it be, indeed, to
discern in the subjects who present themselves a divine vocation, and
the degree of virtue requisite for a priest? But for such discernment,
has, then, the civil power the special illumination of the Holy Ghost?
Does it know the mysterious action of grace in the soul, and does God
reveal to it his secrets? Or can it be, as some governments have not been
afraid to do, to determine the number of young men who ought every year
to respond to the call of God and enrol themselves in the sacred army?
Impious and sacrilegious pretension! which says to the Spirit of God,
“Thus far shall your inspirations go, and no farther.” As if the state,
and not God, were the judge of the church’s needs! As if the civil power
had received from Jesus Christ the commission to fix annually in the
budget the effective of men employed in his divine service, after the
same fashion as it regulates the annual contingent of soldiers called to
the service of the state!
But no, not one of these pretensions is tenable. The state has no power
whatever over the education of clerics; and the church, by its divine
institution, is alone competent for this work, necessary above all to its
existence and the perpetuity of its action in the world.
Such are the rights of the church in this first department of education.
They are absolute, exclusive, and inalienable. What have we next to say
of those she possesses in the education of the laity?
_The Rights of the Church over Public Education._--That which certain
Catholics refuse to the church, even in a community Christianly
constituted, is not the right of giving instruction in the public
schools, and making her influence felt there to the advantage of the
morality and good education of the youth. No one but a rationalist or
free-thinker can deny the necessity of making religion the foundation of
all education, if we would bring up Christians, and not unbelievers. More
than this, these same Catholics acknowledge, besides, that the church
by her priests, and her religious devoted to the education of youth,
enjoys the right possessed by all citizens of opening public schools
and teaching, not only the verities of the Catholic faith, but letters
and human science in all its branches. They are generally advocates of
freedom of instruction to its utmost extent; and the power they accord to
the humblest citizen they do not commit the folly of refusing to those
whose character, knowledge, and disinterestedness best qualify them for
those delicate functions.
Here, then, are two acknowledged rights of the church, on which we need
not insist further. First, the right of providing religious instruction
for the youth at school, and their education according to the principles
of Christian morality. Secondly, the right of giving, herself, to
children and to young people, whose families entrust them to her, a
complete education, embracing instruction in letters and in the secular
sciences; the right, consequently, of founding religious congregations
entirely consecrated to the ministry of instruction and Christian
education; the right of establishing these institutions, providing for
their recruitment, and for their material means of existence. All this,
it is acknowledged, constitutes the normal condition of the church in
communities which concede a just share of influence to the Catholic
religion, to its ministers, and to all those who are inspired with its
spirit of devotion to the general welfare. But observe the points of
divergence between the Catholics of whom we are speaking and those who
are more jealous to preserve intact the rights conferred by Jesus Christ
upon his church. According to the former, a distinction must be made
between religious education and literary or scientific education. The
former, by its object and by its end, escapes from the competence of the
state to re-enter what is exclusively the province of the church. It is
different with literary and scientific instruction. That, they say, is
a social service which belongs, like other services of a similar kind,
to the jurisdiction of the city or nation. The exercise of the teaching
ministry is undoubtedly free. Private individuals are entitled to devote
themselves to it without let or hindrance. But the direction of this
ministry should be ascribed to the state, the only judge of whatever
affects the present and the future of society. Guardian of order, of
justice, and of morals in the community, it is the duty of government
itself to regulate the discipline of public schools, the instruction
which is given there, the academic titles which open the way to certain
civil or administrative careers, and the choice of masters; who, at any
rate, should not have incurred any of the disqualifications determined
by the law. Moreover, since its functions impose on it the duty of
encouraging, as much as possible, useful institutions, and such as are
essential to public prosperity, the government is bound to support
schools founded by private individuals; and even, if there be not enough
of them for the needs of the people, to institute others by its own
authority, and out of the public funds. This, according to them, belongs
to the domain of the state. Here it reigns supreme, without having
to share its power with any other power, civil or religious. Public
instruction is a branch of administration on the same grounds as war or
finance.
Thus think and speak Catholics of the modern political school. Unluckily
for them, such is not the doctrine of the church. Pius IX., in the
forty-fifth proposition of the _Syllabus_, explicitly condemns the
opinion we have just described, and which he formulates in the following
terms: “The whole direction of public schools, in which the youth of a
Christian state is brought up, with the exception, to a certain extent,
of episcopal seminaries, can be and ought to be vested in the civil
authority, and that in such a manner that the right of no other authority
should be recognized to interfere with the discipline of those schools,
with the curriculum of studies, with the conferring of degrees, or with
the choice or approval of masters.” This, however specious, is thus
erroneous, and no Catholic can maintain it. It is, in fact, false in a
two-fold point of view--false in a merely natural point of view, because
it ascribes to the state a function which, in default of the church,
belongs exclusively to the family; false also, and especially, in a
supernatural point of view, because it separates what ought to be united,
the temporal consequences of education, and its supernatural end. We will
expose this twofold error.
Under the empire of a nondescript philosophical paganism, our modern
politicians have a striking tendency to enlarge more and more in
society the circle of governmental privileges. One would suppose, to
listen to them, that it was the function of power to completely absorb
all the organic elements which go to make a nation, and to leave no
longer existing side by side of it, or beneath it, aught but inert
individualities, social material capable of receiving impulse and
movement only from it. Healthy reason protests against a theory so
destructive of the most indispensable elements of social prosperity.
Families collecting into cities forfeited none of their natural rights;
cities, in associating themselves in nations did not pretend to abdicate
all their powers. What both sought, on the contrary, in association,
was a stronger guarantee of those very rights; it was the maintenance
of the most inviolable justice in human relations; it was, in short, an
efficient protection against violence and oppression, whether from within
or without.
What! Are we to admit that the right and the duty of educating children
sprung from society, and was originated by it? The bare thought is folly.
From the first creation of the family, God willed that the infant should
come into the world in feebleness and impotence; that, physically,
intellectually, and morally, it should have need of a long and toilsome
education before becoming a complete man. On whom was it, then, that
he imposed a natural obligation of undertaking and accomplishing its
education? Certainly not on society, which did not then exist. It was on
the family itself, on the father especially, who is its responsible head.
The power of engendering human beings includes of necessity the duty of
not leaving such a work incomplete--the duty, consequently, of guiding
the infant up to full manhood.
The family thus, by virtue of a law of nature, possesses the power of
instructing and educating the understanding and will of the child born
of it; and this power the family does not lose by being associated with
others in social life. For, we repeat, the state is not instituted to
absorb into its collective life all pre-existing rights. The act of union
merely consecrates those rights by placing them under the protection of
public authority. But when this authority, instead of protecting the
rights of the family, proceeds to take possession of them, it commits an
usurpation, it breaks the social pact, by making itself guilty of the
very crime which it ought to prevent.
Nothing less than the utter and ruinous confusion of ideas introduced
by the philosophy of the last century, and by its absurd theories
about the Social Contract, could have caused principles so clear and
so indisputable to be lost sight of, and all the usurpations of the
liberty and rights of families and individuals by the civil power to be
legitimized. But, be the errors of the time what they may, it is not
fitting that we Catholics should be either their accomplices or their
dupes. Enlightened by faith, our reason must hold fast those principles
on which human society is based, and were we to be their only defenders,
it would be to our honor to have maintained them against all the
negations of the spirit of system. To judge, then, only by reason, the
state has not those rights over the education of youth which a certain
school ascribes to it.
We asserted, moreover, that the opinion of this school is also false in
a supernatural point of view, because it separates what ought to be
united, because it makes the inference the principle, and despises the
one in order to attach itself exclusively to the other. And here we touch
the pith of the question.
It is alleged, a public education good or bad, has very serious
consequences for society. Its security or its ruin may depend on it, and,
anyhow, nothing more vitally affects its peace, strength, and prosperity.
The power, therefore, with which the government of a community is
invested cannot be a matter of indifference in education. It ought, then,
to superintend and direct it, and to place itself at its head, as it
naturally does of every social function. We shall presently see how much
this reasoning is worth. It includes three things--a principle, a fact,
and an inference. The principle is as follows: Whatever is for society an
element of strength and progress, and can cause its prosperity and decay,
is within the competence of the civil authority and ought to be subject
to it. The fact is affirmed in the premises of the argument, to wit,
that public education, according as it is good or bad, is naturally of
serious consequence to the state. Whence the inference, that it ought to
be subject to the civil authority--that is, to the government.
The principle we dispute; the fact is explained and vindicated in another
way, and the inference is inconsequential.
First, it is not true that whatever affects the prosperity of the state
ought of necessity to belong to the jurisdiction of the civil power,
and to be subject to its direction and control. Are not commerce and
manufacture elements of national prosperity? Is it necessary, on that
account, that the government should assume the direction of them,
and that nothing should be done in those two departments of social
activity except by it. No. In these the office of power is limited to
causing right and justice to be respected in industrial and commercial
transactions, to intervene in contentions to decide what is just, to
secure the observance of positive laws enacted by it for the purpose
of applying to every particular case the general principles of the
natural and of the divine law. The rest is an affair of individual
enterprise among citizens. Thus, in the question which engages us, that
the education of youth ought to contribute much towards the prosperity
of a state is not sufficient reason to induce us to resign the whole of
it into the hands of the civil power. We must further inquire if there
is not some one in the community authorized, by the law of nature or by
divine right, to assume its direction and control. If this be so, it will
not do to invest the state with a right which belongs to another.
In the second place, the happiness and prosperity of a state are
certainly the result of a good education of its youth; of a complete
education, that is, well conducted; such, in a word, as gives to the
young man all the qualities of perfect manhood. Now, this education is,
of necessity, Christian education, in which the state can do nothing--the
church, and the church alone, as we have endeavored to show, everything.
What, once more, is education? We have already defined it: the work of
fitting a man to fulfil his destiny; to place the faculties of man in a
condition of sufficing for themselves, and of pursuing, with the help of
God, the end which is allotted to them. Such, clearly, is the work of
education; such the end it must of necessity propose to itself. Suppose
that in educating a child this consideration of his final destiny should
be neglected, that he was brought up with an eye solely to a proximate
and terrestrial end, beyond which he could do nothing. Could such an
education be called complete? Could it be called sufficient? Would it
deserve even the name of education? Undoubtedly not. That child would not
have been educated. He would never become a man, _vir_, in the full sense
of that term, because the vision of his intelligence would never reach
beyond the narrow horizon of this world; because his powers of well-doing
would necessarily be extremely limited; because, at last, he would miss
the end which every man is bound to attain, and would be compelled to
remain for ever nothing but an immortal abortion.
Such is the necessity of recognizing man’s final end in education. That
must be its aim, that only, under pain of compromising all the rest. Is
there any need of mentioning the guarantees afforded by generations thus
educated, for the peace and happiness of communities? Has not true and
sincere piety, in the words of the apostle,[174] promise of this life as
well as of that of eternity? Is it in any other way than in practising
the virtues which make man a social being that we can hope to achieve
immortality? Thus to labor to render ourselves worthy of the destiny
which awaits us is, also, to prepare ourselves to become good citizens
of the earthly city, is to give to society the best possible security of
being useful as well as loyal to it. The greatest men of whom humanity
is proud, were they not at the same time the most virtuous?
Now, we must repeat to Catholics who forget it, that there are not two
last ends for man, but only one; and that is the supernatural end of
which we treated at the commencement. Created by God to enjoy his glory
and his happiness through eternity, in vain would man seek elsewhere the
end of his efforts and of his existence. Everything in him tends towards
this end. It is his perfection, and in order to exalt himself to it, he
ought to give to his faculties the whole power of development of which
they are capable. Woe to him, but much more woe to those who have had
the responsibility of his education, if, through their fault, he does
not find himself on the level of his destiny; if, instead of gravitating
towards heaven in his rapid passage across life, he drags himself
miserably along the ground, wallowing in selfish interests and sensual
passions!
But if this be so, what can the state do to guide souls to heights which
surpass itself? There is nothing to be done but to apply the principle
formulated by S. Thomas: “It is his to order means to an end, in whose
possession that end is”--_Illius est ordinare ad finem, cujus est
proprius ille finis_.[175] The supernatural transformation of the soul
into God, and eternal beatitude, which education ought invariably to
propose to itself, are not the objects of human society any more than of
the civil power which regulates it. That power is consequently incapable,
of itself, of ordaining the means which contribute to this supernatural
end. It cannot afford the very smallest assistance to education in this
respect, nothing to form the man, and to adapt him to the grand designs
of God in his behalf. In a word, education is not within the jurisdiction
of earthly governments. It is above their competence.
What, then, is the power in the Christian communities commissioned with
the sublime ministry of the education of souls? Who has received from
God the divine mission of begetting them to the supernatural and divine
life, rough-drawn on earth, perfected in heaven? There is, there can
be, but one reply. The church! When he founded that august spiritual
society, Jesus Christ assigned to it as its end, to guide men to eternal
happiness; and on that account he endowed it with all the powers
necessary to ordain and to put in operation the proper means for this
end. Education conducted in a spirit fundamentally Christian--such is the
universal, indispensable mean, over which, consequently, the church has
exclusive rights.
See then, established by Jesus Christ, the great instructress of the
human race--the only one which can rightfully pretend to direct public
education in Christian communities! That superintendence, that direction,
are an integral part of the pastoral ministry. The church cannot renounce
it without prevarication.
Her reason, therefore, is obvious for insisting, with such obstinate
persistency, in claiming, everywhere and always, the exercise of a right
which she holds from God himself. Obvious is the reason for which the
Sovereign Pontiffs have so severely condemned a doctrine which is the
denial of this inalienable right for which, in the concordats concluded
with Catholic powers, a special clause invariably reserves for the church
the faculty of “seeing that youth receive a Christian education.”[176]
Nothing is more clear than that, when the Catholic Church, in a Christian
state, claims for itself the ministry of public instruction, it is no
monopoly which it seeks to grasp for the profit of its clerics. It has
but one object, to wit, that instruction should have as wide a scope as
possible; and for this object she appeals to all devotedness. Laymen and
ecclesiastics, seculars and religious, all--all are besought to take a
part in this work of instructing the peoples. Whoever offers himself
with the necessary qualifications, a pure faith, Christian manners, and
competent knowledge, is welcome. To such an one the church opens a free
scope for his energies, to cultivate the rising generations under her
shelter and in co-operation with her, in order to enable them to bring
forth the fruits of knowledge and of virtue. What she does not assent
to, what she cannot assent to, is that, under the pretext of liberty of
instruction, the ravening wolf should introduce himself into the fold,
in the person of those teachers of errors and falsehood who lay waste
the flock by bringing into it discord and war; that, under the guise of
science and intellectual progress, they should sap the religious belief
of a people, assault Christian truth, and infect the young understanding
with the deadly poison of doubt and unbelief. No, indeed! Such havoc the
church can neither sanction nor allow them an opportunity to accomplish.
She remembers that she has received from Christ the care of souls, that
the salvation of his children has been entrusted to her keeping, and that
God will demand of her an account of their blood shed--that is to say, of
their eternal perdition. _Sanguinem ejus de manu tua requiram_ (Ezech.
iii. 18). As a watchful sentinel she keeps guard over the flock, and so
long as the criminal violence of human powers does not rob her of her
rights, neither the thieves nor the assassins of souls can succeed in
exercising their ravages.
By way of recapitulation we will enunciate, in five or six propositions,
the whole of this doctrine of the rights of the church over education,
and thus place the reader in a better position for judging of its full
force and extent.
1st. The education of clerics destined to ecclesiastical functions
is the exclusive right of the church. She alone regulates everything
connected with it, whether the erection of seminaries, or their interior
discipline, or the appointment of masters, or the instruction in letters
and science, or the good education of the pupils, or their admission
into the ecclesiastical body.
2d. The church implicitly respects the right of families to provide a
private education for their children by whomsoever and in whatever manner
they prefer. Only she imposes on the consciences of Christian parents
the obligation of seeing to it that that education be religious and in
conformity with the faith they profess.
3d. The superintendence and direction of the public schools, as well of
those wherein the mass of the people are instructed in the rudiments of
human knowledge, as of those where secondary and higher instruction are
given, belong of right to the Catholic Church. She alone has the right
of watching over the moral character of those schools, of approving the
masters who instruct the youth therein, of controlling their teaching,
and dismissing, without appeal to any other authority, those whose
doctrine or manners should be contrary to the purity of Christian
doctrine.
4th. Subject to the condition of being able to guarantee pure faith,
irreproachable manners, and competent knowledge, entire liberty is left
to private individuals, ecclesiastics and laity, seculars and religious,
to devote themselves to the ministry of teaching and education of youth,
to form associations for this object, to found academies and universities
wherein the sciences are taught, and which govern themselves by their
internal discipline, the choice of masters, and the regulation of the
studies, programmes, examens, etc. The church only reserves to herself,
in their case, her right of superintendence in the matters of morality
and the integrity of the faith.
5th. The church not only does not refuse the co-operation of the state
in education, but, on the contrary, she solicits it, whenever private
enterprise and her own resources do not suffice to enable her to extend
instruction as much as she would wish and as the welfare of peoples
demands. She then appeals to the communes, to the provinces, to the
nation, in order that everywhere the co-operation of the two powers may
effect the foundation of schools, the increase of the number of masters,
and may come to the aid of the indigent parents. But even in these
schools established with the concurrence of the civil power, if the state
may superintend the administration of material interests, the right of
direction and superintendence of teaching remains with the church.
6th. Lastly, the power, nevertheless, which the church exercises
over public instruction does not hinder governments, if they deem it
expedient, from establishing schools where professors chosen by them
may give a special training to young people who devote themselves to
administrative and military careers. The administration and the army
belong, in fact, exclusively to the jurisdiction of governments. It is
but just, therefore, that they should be able to give to those who are
to belong to them the especial knowledge required for their employment.
Only, here, the civil or military authority contracts the same
obligations as those which bind the consciences of individuals, to wit,
to watch that there be nothing in those schools contrary to religion and
to good morals.
Such is the whole doctrine of the Catholic Church with regard to
the education of youth in Christian states. Is there not in this
organization an ideal which one may justly long to see realized, since
it would be the solution of a certain number of problems which strangely
perplex our insecurely founded and badly balanced modern communities?
Two authorities, each having a distinct object, but united and being
mutually the complement one of the other, have the guardianship of human
interests--interests of time and interests of eternity. One, the civil
authority, has for its direct domain, temporal affairs. The other, the
religious authority, commands and directs in all that concerns the
supernatural life. The latter, having the responsibility of guiding
man from his birth up to his entrance into eternity, educates him,
instructs him, and transforms him into a perfect man, into a Christian
worthy by his virtues of the destiny which awaits him. The former
benefits generations thus formed, and out of these elements, so well
prepared to fulfil all the duties of the present life, it constitutes
social communities as so many provisional countries, where justice and
charity, loyally practised, present an image of the true and final
country--Heaven. Thus, the two powers lend to one another a mutual
support; the civil power, by securing to the spiritual power a complete
liberty of action; and the spiritual power, in its turn, by forming for
the state honest and perfect citizens. Thus peace and concord reign
throughout the entire society, interests harmonize, justice is loved,
order exists everywhere from the highest to the lowest step of the social
ladder, and every one, content with his position here on earth, because
his hopes are on high, is more intent on making himself better than on
overthrowing existing institutions that he may raise himself on their
ruins.
Where is to be found, once more we demand, an ideal more grand and
more true than this conception of Christian society? The middle ages
were not far from realizing it. Unhappily, a work so well begun at the
inspiration of the church, first legists, courtiers of the civil power,
afterwards Protestantism and its direct off-shoot, rationalism, were fain
to interrupt it, and gradually to throw us back into a state of things
which threatens to become worse than paganism or barbarism. There is
yet time to return to truth, to right and order, which are impossible
to be found except in a society based on Christian principles. But will
peoples and legislators have a sufficiently clear perception of their
duty and their interest to stay themselves at once on the incline down
which they are gliding, and dragging us with them, towards a dark and
tempest-threatening future?
IV.--CONDUCT OF THE CHURCH IN NON-CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES.
In the eyes of the Catholic Church, Christianity is the divine afflatus,
breathing upon human society to give it a soul and infuse life. Without
her there can be in it no true nor prolific life, and every social
organization which is not inspired by Christianity is, of necessity,
defective and abnormal. The church cannot regard such an organization as
a benefit, much less as a progress beyond Christian communities.[177]
She deplores it, on the contrary, and she endeavors to persuade people
that it would be better for them to submit absolutely to religion, and
to take it as the guide and regulator of their social interests. Never
has the church concealed her desire, not to lord it over, but to direct
communities, to penetrate them with her spirit, to recover the salutary
influence over them which is their due, and which they cannot reject
without serious injury. The church has never made any mystery of this
ambition. Her enemies themselves are witnesses to it, even when they
permit themselves, as they too often do, to travesty and calumniate her
motives in order to render them odious.
Lamentable, however, as may appear to her to be the inferior position
which is allotted to her in modern communities, she does not abandon
herself to useless regrets. Without renouncing her inalienable rights,
she sets out from a fact which it is not in her power to change, and
exhausts her ingenuity in making the best she can of it for the good
of souls. The little liberty and influence left to her, she employs
to fulfil her ministry; her zeal is inventive to supply by redoubled
vigilance the want of her ordinary means in the spiritual government.
Must not the work of God be accomplished on earth, in spite of the
difficulties, in spite of the impediments of all kinds devised by hell?
Such, then, is the principle which regulates the conduct of the church
in states where her authority is disowned. To take into consideration
circumstances, established facts; to do nothing brusquely, but
using whatever power still remains to her, to exert every effort to
ameliorate the situation, to make herself more useful to the faithful
and to society. Let us see how she applies this rule to education in
non-Christian communities.
We find first the communities wherein the constitution proclaims the
liberty of all worships, and their equality before the law. Here, the
Catholic Church has ceased to be the religion of the state, which no
longer lives in her spirit, no longer accepts her direction in matters of
religion and morality, but prefers independence to all the advantages of
a union with which it thinks it can dispense. How will the church act in
this novel position? In the name of liberty, and of the equal protection
accorded to every worship, she demands, first of all, the right of
recruiting her ministers, and that of training them according to her own
laws; the establishment of large and small seminaries, as well as their
administration by the bishops exclusively. This is the first need to
satisfy. It is her right, included in her claim to existence.
She demands, moreover, that in the public schools created or authorized
by the government, religion be invariably the foundation of education;
that the pupils be instructed in the verities of the faith, and that
neither atheism nor religious indifferentism be taught there. She demands
that at least the primary schools remain denominational--that is to say,
specially appropriated to the children of every religion, and that the
Catholic clergy have free admission to the schools for Catholics. The
preservation of the faith in those young hearts is at stake here; for the
church knows by experience the doleful effects of an early education in
which religion has not had the principal part. Thus she may, with good
right, claim of a government, Christian in name, that it leave to the
religions protected by the law this legitimate amount of influence in the
education of the people. From the same motives, the church positively
rejects the system of non-denominational schools, in which eventuates a
jumble of religions fatal to the faith and piety of children. Assuredly
Catholics know how to recognize and respect the rights of dissenters,
nor do they dream of doing violence to the conscience of any one. Is it
not, then, simply common justice that no advantage should be taken of the
liberty and equality of the several religions before the law, to hand
over Catholic children to a manifest danger of religious perversion and
moral ruin?
But this is not all. The principles on which the communities of which we
speak rest, permit Catholics to require more. True liberty for a religion
consists in its being able to be not only practised by its adherents, but
also transmitted in its integrity to succeeding generations, with its
beliefs, its precepts, its exterior forms, and, above all, its interior
spirit. Now, that is only possible by means of education. It is, then,
permitted to the church to demand that liberty be left to families to
choose themselves masters worthy of their confidence, and whom they can
trust to instruct and educate their children in the principles of the
Catholic religion. When the national constitution has already embodied
the liberty of instruction in every stage, Catholics make as extensive
use of it as they can, and as their peculiar property, imitating in
that the shipwrecked man who collects together the waifs saved from the
wreck, and out of them tries to rebuild his shattered fortune. If, on
the contrary, the monopoly in favor of the state should be embodied
in the law, they arm themselves with maxims of natural right, at times
even with the commonly accepted ideas of liberty, wherewith to beat
down this scandalous monopoly. They know how to set in motion all legal
means; and without having recourse, like many of their adversaries, to
insurrection or corruption, they succeed, sooner or later, in bringing
over public opinion to the side of justice and truth, and in recovering,
thus, a portion of the rights which belong to their church, the right of
making instructed and conscientious Christians. After that, the church
can await from the divine benediction and her own efforts the return of
a happier era, for which she exerts all the means at her disposal, by
a solid Christian education given to youth, by preaching, and by good
example. She will, at least, have neglected nothing to acquit herself of
her mission, and to make herself useful even to the communities which
repudiate her.
There remains, lastly, the third hypothesis, that of a state separated
from the church--that is to say, organized wholly out of the religious
idea, a “lay state,” in the full force of that phrase.
We observe, first, that there is more than one degree in this
secularization of the state. The first realizes the rationalist idea,
according to which governments, respectful towards religion, and allowing
absolute liberty, leave the church to organize herself after her fashion,
to preach in her temples, to teach in her schools, and to govern the
consciences subject to her authority, whilst themselves govern according
to the right of rationalism, and without asking counsel of any religious
power. It is the dream of more than one liberal, simple enough to believe
a perfect equilibrium of human passions to be possible in society, by
the sole force of nature and reason. But experience soon dissipates
the illusion of so fair a dream. All the degrees of separation between
religion and society are soon traversed up to the last, wherein the
state, no longer acknowledging creed, church, or religion, announces
itself atheist, and forces consciences to the inflexible level of an
impious legislation. From thence there is but a step to the proscription
of Catholics, and to open persecution.
However, in the conditions of an existence so unpromising what is the
conduct of Catholics? What can they do save invoke the common right,
and turn against their adversaries the weapons by which the latter
dispossessed them? The lay state proclaims liberty for all to speak,
write, and teach, as seems good to them. It is in the name of this
pretended principle that the church saw herself robbed of almost all
her rights and driven from society. Do not imagine that she approves
or that she will ever adopt so monstrous an error. But this liberty of
speaking, writing, and teaching which you do not refuse to error, is it
forbidden to claim it for truth? Truth! It is herself; and her right to
speak to the world she holds, not from false maxims inscribed in modern
constitutions, but from Jesus Christ, her divine founder. Strong in this
right, superior to human constitutions, the church never hesitates to
assume in communities the whole space they leave her to occupy, and to
extend her action to the uttermost. If they claim to exclude her, she
fashions a weapon out of common right. She summons the governments to
admit her to the benefit of the universal liberty inscribed in the law,
and too profusely lavished on teachers of error. What exception can be
taken to this conduct, at once so loyal and so right?
But they charge it against us as an unworthy manœuvre, that we claim for
ourselves, in modern communities, and in the name of their principles, a
liberty we shall refuse to our adversaries the moment we regain power.
In presence of this accusation, the more exalted liberals demand that
preventive reprisals be employed in our regard, and that liberty be
denied us. The more moderate, affecting a sort of confidence in the
stability of their work--or rather, in the impossibility of modern
communities ever again returning to the yoke of religion--prefer to show
themselves generous, and to vote for liberty even although it be that
of Catholics. Touching self-sacrifice, and which it must be owned is no
longer in unison with the temperament of contemporary liberalism!
Be that as it may, the accusation is sheer calumny, as facts prove.
Neither in the small Swiss cantons, nor in Belgium, where Catholics
govern, are dissenters oppressed. If persecution rages anywhere in the
two hemispheres, it is where liberalism has planted its banner, and
against Catholics. It is something more than ignorance which can accuse
us of persecuting tendencies at this time of day. The truth is that
social peace has no firmer supporters than Catholics.
We have before asserted, but it is well to repeat it, that the Catholic
Church professes and practises the most absolute respect for acquired
rights, for conventions concluded and accepted. Thus, for the sake of
peace, certain governments have felt themselves obliged to recognize
the right of dissenters to live in the state, retaining their beliefs
and their religious forms. Liberty of conscience has been proclaimed,
the public exercise of all the worships authorized. It is, doubtless, a
misfortune that religious unity in society should be broken. The church
regrets this misfortune, and her most earnest desire is to see, some day,
unity re-established. But is that to say that she wishes violently to
change a situation imposed on her by circumstances? that she meditates
seizing again, at a blow, and in contempt of acquired rights, the power
she enjoyed in better times? By no means. The liberty which the various
sects enjoy, for the sake of peace, the Catholic Church respects and
knows how to maintain. Dissenters may continue to practise publicly their
religion, provided that they trouble neither order nor the tranquillity
of the state. Equality of civil and political rights is guaranteed to
all citizens, Catholic or not. The same liberty is conceded to them to
open schools, and to educate their children according to their beliefs.
Nothing, in short, which is just and equitable among fellow-citizens is
refused by Catholics to those who do not share their faith. What more
do they want? And what is lacking in this conduct to constitute true
toleration in mixed communities?
Of Catholics who have become the depositaries of power in these
communities the church demands complete liberty to fulfil the duties
with which she has been charged by Jesus Christ--the right of organizing
herself according to her own laws; of recruiting the sacerdotal ministry
and exercising all its functions; of watching over the good education
of Catholic youth; of founding and directing schools, colleges, and
universities; of having her religious congregations consecrated to
prayer, preaching, or education; of being able, in short, to exercise her
salutary influence in society, and of being free to devote herself to
rendering the people better, better instructed in their duties, and more
resolute to fulfil them. As regards non-Catholics, she demands of the
government not to substitute license for liberty, but to use its utmost
efforts to banish from society two things which are the most hostile to
its prosperity and to its happiness: we mean immorality and irreligion.
If, later on, differences disappear, if all hearts should unite in the
profession of one same faith, it will then be a source of regret to no
one that the church resumes her rank, and that society is once more
Christian and Catholic.
ARE YOU MY WIFE?
BY THE AUTHOR OF “PARIS BEFORE THE WAR,” “NUMBER THIRTEEN,” “PIUS VI.,”
ETC.