Shortly before the anniversary celebration, Pius IX. had to lament the
death of his faithful Secretary of State, Cardinal Antonelli. This
intrepid statesman had done battle courageously during six-and-twenty
years for the Church, the Holy See and the temporal sovereignty of the
Roman Pontiff, who had been threatened in his life, his priestly honor and
his character for integrity. The devoted cardinal defied both the poniard
and the tongue of the calumniator. Although able to unmask the most secret
intrigues of the revolutionists, he could not avert the blow which it was
permitted that they should strike against the time-honored institutions of
his country. They appear to have been destined to reign for a time. Their
success did not appal Antonelli nor shake his fidelity. In evil report and
good report he stood by his sovereign, and shared his exile as well as the
honor which he enjoyed in the more auspicious days of his glorious
Pontificate.
Three weeks later, Cardinal Patrizi, who was Vicar of Rome and chief
counsellor of Pius IX. in all matters connected with the government of the
church, was called from this earthly scene. Thus was the aged Pontiff
destined to be tried by new afflictions. The success of his enemies and of
the enemies of the Church, the privation and humiliation to which he was
subjected, were rendered more severe by the death of his dearest friends
who were also his ablest supporters. He was grieved, but could not be
crushed by so many calamities. He remained until his health utterly failed
equal to his high position.
An additional cause of sorrow to the Holy Father was the enactment of the
Italian Legislature, known as the _Mancini law_. This law was in downright
opposition to the _law of guarantees_. It made it a crime to preach the
Gospel. On pretence of repressing the abuses of the clergy, their offences
against the laws and institutions of the State, it forbade all apostolic
preaching. It was too late. Nero, even, was not in time, and all the fury
of persecution could not uproot the belief in virtue which prevailed. The
clergy shall no longer say that fraud, robbery, lying, violence and
assassination are sins. But _cui bono_? The world has already its
convictions—prejudices, the philosophy of _Kulturkampf_ may call them—in
regard to all such things, and no law that an infidel parliament can enact
will suffice to eradicate them. It could only sadden the heart of the
Chief Pastor to see the power which ruled in his country and in his stead
laboring so strenuously but ineffectually to demolish the edifice of the
church, which, for so many ages, had been assailed in vain. It was the
height of presumption, surely, when a few modern Italians, a miserable
minority of their own nation, undertook a task which defied all the power
of Imperial Rome. In a country where liberty is better understood, a
powerful voice was raised in condemnation of the _Mancini law_. The
British _Catholic Union_ protested against the cruel enactment as an
attack not only on the liberty of the Church but also on the very
existence of the Christian faith in Italy. This purpose was, indeed,
avowed by many of its supporters in the Italian parliament.
Pius IX. could not fail to protest against such an attack on that liberty
which is the birthright of every Christian. In a Consistorial Allocution
of 12th March, 1877, he exposed the plot which the revolutionists had
prepared in order to prevent the Holy Father from accomplishing his
appointed mission—that of instructing and edifying the whole flock of
Christ. That his protest was fully justified and demanded by the
circumstances of the case was abundantly shown by the rage which it
excited among the ruling faction. Their press did its best to dissemble,
and affected to treat with contempt the Pope’s address. It contained only
“lame and doubtful reasonings—such arguments as are termed paralogisms or
involuntary sophisms, which escape the notice of their authors.” The
government, in unison with the press, sought to stifle the importunate
voice of the Pontiff. The council of ministers went so far as to resolve
on prosecuting any journals that should dare to publish the Papal
allocution. But they found it was too late. The obnoxious document was
already printed in France, and, consequently, open to the civilized world.
So the wrath of the ministry was allowed to cool. It sought, nevertheless,
to be revenged. The minister of justice, accordingly, addressed a circular
to the procurators-general, in which he denounced the language of Pius IX.
as “excessive and violent.” The Pope himself he railed was a factious
person, as a fomenter of sedition and revolt. He also charged him with
ingratitude. For what was he ungrateful? Had they not robbed him of his
sovereignty and his property? Did they not now hold him closely guarded in
the Vatican? They spared his life, indeed, but made him understand that he
was their prisoner, as, in reality, he was. To have gone farther would
have been to outrage all Italy, which they were so anxious to conciliate,
and the great Powers, whose forbearance they so much needed. Cardinal
Simeoni, who had succeeded Antonelli as Secretary of State, in a circular
addressed to the Papal nuncios, pointed out the weakness and gross
injustice of Mancini’s letter. The secret societies, on the other hand,
congratulated their most dear and most active _brother_, and expressed the
hope _that he would not stop until he reached the end to which he so nobly
tended_. The minister of justice fully acceded to the wishes of the
_brethren_, and they could rely upon it that he would persevere until he
compassed the destruction of the Papacy. Such good resolutions deserved a
reward. They awarded him, accordingly, what they called a _diploma of
honor_.
The _Mancini law_, notwithstanding all the efforts of its supporters,
never became law. There is not much in this history to be placed to the
credit of Victor Emmanuel. Nevertheless, he, all of a sudden, opposed the
enactment of the odious law which he had allowed to be prepared and
presented in his name to the representative chamber. By expressing his
repugnance to it, he caused it to fail in the Senate. It is related that
it was on the representation of his daughter, the Princess Clotilde, that
he so acted.