As the moment for the opening of the Council approaches, the excitement
and disquiet, not only of Catholics but of all who concern themselves with
the movements of the day, increases in view of so important an event. For
the notion that the Council is merely an internal affair of the Catholic
Church, and that its decrees will be confined to the sphere of the
religious conscience, will be accepted by nobody who has heard of the
projects entertained by the _Curia_, and who is not ignorant of the close
connection of the Church with the culture of modern life, and the powerful
position this gives her in the State and in the social order generally.
We may safely state that the Fathers of the Council are already divided
into two camps, and that anxiety and painful uncertainty prevail in both
of them. The occurrences of the last few weeks have brought out their
opposite views and designs into sharp contrast. It is now known in Rome
that a considerable number of Northern Bishops are not disposed to accept
the _rôle_ assigned to them of simple assent to ready-made decrees, and
that the German Bishops, except those trained by the Jesuits, most
decisively object to making new articles of faith. Many Bishops also dread
the far-reaching consequences of Papal Infallibility, and the
retrospective effects of the new dogma, and they know that the
establishment of such doctrines would drive the educated classes of the
country, if not into open schism, to an internal and lamentable breach
with the Church. Accordingly, remonstrances have been forwarded to the
Pope from three quarters—from the Prelates of Hungary, Bohemia, and
Germany,—expressing the most emphatic desire that the Council should not
be forced to any decision on Papal Infallibility, or on matters affecting
the relations of Church and State, in the sense of the Syllabus. What
reception this document met with in Rome may readily be divined from the
great astonishment the Fulda Pastoral is known to have excited there, when
a translation of it was laid before the Pope. It is now thought politic in
Rome to deny the existence of these letters of remonstrance, but they have
taken such effect that the highest authorities begin to hesitate, and ask
themselves the question whether they have not gone too far in their
confident assurance of victory. The idea of being able to carry the
Infallibility dogma off-hand by acclamation seems at least to have been
abandoned. It is understood that some less summary method of gaining their
object must be resorted to, if it is to be gained at all. And hence at the
last moment they have begun to look out for some Council Chamber where the
Bishops may discuss the matters to be decided upon, for the chapels
appropriated to the Council in St. Peter’s are only designed for solemn
sessions.(8) It is said in Rome that the pungent remark of a Cardinal to
the Holy Father has had something to do with the change of the original
scheme of an acclamation. Pius IX. had asked his opinion as to the most
effective way of carrying the decrees, and he replied, that obviously the
_theatrical_ effect would be greater if there was no debating, but simply
decision by acclamation, as though by inspiration of the Holy Ghost. And
thus the hope of getting the Council over in three weeks is also given up,
and it is now expected to last to the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul.
The drawing up of the letter of remonstrance at Fulda is said not to have
been such plain sailing. The Pastoral originally sketched out by Heinrich,
Canon of Mayence, but to which important additions were made subsequently,
was subscribed by all the Bishops, even those who had been pupils of the
Jesuits, who consoled themselves with the belief that the dogma of
Infallibility did exactly combine the conditions specified there as
requisite for a dogmatic decree, and was really scriptural, primitive, and
written on the hearts of all good Catholics. So their Jesuit masters had
taught and assured them. But the secret document sent to the Pope had
necessarily to be more explicit, and though it was limited to pointing out
how inopportune the definition of new dogmas, especially of Papal
Infallibility, would be, that was precisely opposite to what the
Jesuitizers among the Bishops were convinced of. The Jesuits themselves
lose no opportunity of proclaiming that nothing can be more opportune than
this dogma, and from their own point of view they may be right enough, for
the rich and ripe fruits of the dogma would fall into their own laps, and
would help the Society to absolute dominion over science, literature, and
education within the Catholic Church. The proposed dogma would give
canonical authority to the Jesuit theology, and identify it with the
doctrine of the Church, and the Order, or the spirit of the Order, would
always be required for teaching and vindicating the new system. The
Bishops of Paderborn and Würzburg therefore refused to sign, and the
representative of the Bishop of Spires followed their example.
The scruples of these Northern Bishops were so utterly unexpected that
they must have created great surprise at Rome. Their informant in the
matter of the Infallibility dogma had assured the authorities, in the
teeth of the Northern Prelates, and with the full concurrence of all the
members of the Commission, that no fitter or more favourable time could be
found for establishing the new dogma, for at no former period could the
Court of Rome reckon so securely on the unconditional devotion of the
Bishops, nor was there ever a time when they were so ready as at this
moment to surrender before the Pope all exercise of their own judgment or
independent examination. The remonstrances of the Hungarian, Bohemian, and
German Bishops have of course poured water into this wine, to the no small
astonishment and indignation of the Roman Prelates, with whom it is an
axiom that nobody is a good Christian who does not believe the
infallibility of the Pope as firmly as the divine mission and truthfulness
of Christ. Accordingly, the _Correspondance de Rome_ cast in the teeth of
Prince Hohenlohe, that since all true Catholics already hold the
infallibility of the Pope when speaking _ex cathedrâ_, a decree of the
Council will only confirm what is universally known and believed.(9) Let
those good souls who flatter themselves that the _Civiltà_, with its
expectations and demands, stands alone, weigh well the utterances of so
well-known a journal.
The Austrian Bishops have not thought it well to follow the example of
their Hungarian, Bohemian, and German colleagues. One of them, Dr.
Fessler, is notoriously the most determined advocate of the whole
ultramontane system, and was the first Bishop to declare the definition of
the new dogma to be at once a natural and suitable work for the Council.
His services were promptly rewarded; he is already named chief secretary
of the Council, and his hand will press heavily on its decrees. The
_Curia_ may congratulate itself on its choice. The silence of the Austrian
Bishops is further explained by the differences of opinion among them
about the questions coming before the Council.
In their secret letters the Northern Bishops have opposed the new
definition only as being inopportune, and it is known that the French
Opposition Bishops mean to take the same ground. But it deserves careful
consideration whether this line of action can be really tenable or
effective at the Council. Surely it may be certainly foreseen that the far
more numerous, and, from its determined attitude, stronger party on the
other side will answer, “If your only objection to the dogma is that it is
unsuited for the times, you thereby admit its truth; for if you thought it
doubtful or erroneous, you must have opposed the definition on that
ground. By not venturing to assail its truth, you deprive your objection
to its opportuneness of all weight, for when was ever a religious truth,
on which eternal salvation depends, suppressed on such a ground as this?
Does this holding back, inspired merely by fear of men, correspond to the
ancient spirit and lofty mission of the Church? How many of her doctrines
would she have dared to proclaim if she had chosen to wait on the approval
of the age? Rather, for that very reason, must religious truths be loudly
and emphatically proclaimed, when a contrary opinion is growing among men,
because thereby an insidious heresy is marked out and judged by the
supreme authority in the Church. Your plea of inopportuneness is therefore
a fresh and urgent ground for adhering firmly to the solemn definition of
Infallibility by the Council.”
How far better then would it be if these Prelates were to declare simply
and directly, what the German Bishops have indeed said in their Pastoral,
but, of course, in general terms only, and without express mention of the
Infallibilist hypothesis; “This doctrine possesses none of the requisite
conditions of an article of faith; it has no guarantee either of Scripture
or Tradition, and no roots in the conscience and religious mind of the
Christian world.” Such a line would be incomparably worthier of the
Bishops, and would make their position far stronger and more unassailable.
Instead of letting themselves, as is intended, be yoked, like willing
prisoners, to the triumphal chariot of the sole infallible and sole
defining Pope and lord, they would be making a beginning for the
revendication of their ancient apostolical rights, which the Papacy has
sequestered or robbed them of. They would be asserting, by implication,
that the Papacy and the Church are not identical, and therefore that the
Church cannot be made responsible for all decrees and actions of the
Popes. Half-and-half courses, and false piety, in the tremendous crisis
the Catholic Church is now entering upon, are not only powerless but
fatal. And this half-heartedness, which looks only too like fear, will
make the Ultramontane and Jesuit party all the bolder and stronger in
their plans. And they continue still as firm as the rock of Peter. In the
number for Oct. 2, p. 64, the Civiltà maintains, against a new French
paper, the _Avenir Catholique_, that the relation of the Bishops assembled
in Council to the Pope is simply one of most absolute subjection and
obedience to Papal commands, and declares, on the authority of Ferraris,
who is a classical authority at Rome, what is meant by _præsidentia
auctoritativa_, viz., the Pope’s right, not only to decide on everything,
but to coerce all opponents, by ecclesiastical censures—excommunication,
suspension, and deposition—and other judicial means.(10) If the Pope
strikes down every contradiction or refusal of a Bishop at once, with the
thunderbolt of his anathemas, according to the _Civiltà_ he no more
violates the freedom belonging to the Fathers of the Council, than a man
who keeps within his own rights in his dealings violates his neighbour’s
rights of property. We must remember, as to this definition of freedom,
that the logic of the Jesuits has always gone its own way without
troubling itself with the logic of the rest of mankind.
It deserves notice, however, that two months before the opening of the
Council the Jesuits had traced out for the Bishops the extent and nature
of the freedom they are to enjoy there. They do their part frankly enough
in dispelling any illusion on the subject. If any complaint from the
Bishops should be heard in Rome, such as was made by the Spanish and
French Bishops at Trent, the _Curia_ can reply that they were told all
this beforehand. The _Civiltà_ has the most direct sources of information,
and may therefore be safely trusted when it says, in a recent number, “We
are not the authors of the Papal thoughts, nor does Pius IX. speak and act
under our inspiration, but _we are certainly the faithful echo of the Holy
See_.” And, as an echo of the Pope, the _Civiltà,_ in its last number, p.
182, gives a more precise explanation or statement of the infallibility of
_ex cathedrâ_ decisions, as extending, not only to all dogmas, but to “all
truths and doctrines connected with the various kinds of revealed dogmas,
and so to all sentences and decrees concerning the common weal of the
Church, her rights and discipline.” In truth, if the Bishops don’t even
yet see the precipice to the edge of which they have been led step by step
for years, and which they are just going to spring into, that is no fault
of the Roman Jesuits, who have honestly done what they could to open their
eyes. It is therefore to be earnestly wished that the _Civiltà_ may be
read and well weighed as widely as possible, for then one may hope they
will be “forewarned, forearmed.” They have certainly had no lack of signs
and warning voices, who are expected and are willing to subscribe the
intended decrees of the Council. “The true echo of the Holy See” proclaims
to the world that every Pope is, ever has been, and ever will be
infallible, _first_, when he teaches or maintains anything in any way
connected with revealed truths of faith or morals; _secondly_, when he
decrees anything affecting the welfare, rights, or discipline of the
Church. Clearly therefore, henceforth the question will be, not in what
cases the Pope is infallible, but what are the few cases where he is not
infallible. He, as being infallible, will have the first and only right to
determine what is the welfare of the Church, and what it requires. And
since, in the whole range of public life, of politics and science, there
is scarcely anything not permanently or incidentally connected with the
weal of the Church, and with its real or assumed rights and discipline, he
will have it in his power to make every secular question a Church
question. For it must certainly be anathematized as an error, as the
Syllabus says, to affirm that the Pope has exceeded the limits of his
power. How can he possibly do so on this theory? He is infallible alike in
the definition of doctrine and in its application to concrete cases. He is
therefore always right in every claim and every decision, and whoever
opposes him, or does not at once unconditionally submit, is always wrong.
Whatever demand he makes of any State or Sovereign, whatever law or
constitution he abrogates, he must at once be obeyed, for he acts for the
good of the Church, and he, as being infallible, can alone judge and
settle what that is. The episcopate and clergy must blindly submit to his
infallible guidance and serve dutifully under his banner, when he
proclaims war against a State, or an institution.
Need we explain in detail what painful conflicts with their Governments
and the Constitutions they have sworn to, Bishops and clergy, nay all
Catholics, might be precipitated into on this system? What caused that
lamentable persecution and oppression of Catholics in Great Britain, and
their loss of civil privileges for centuries, but Paul V.’s prohibiting
their taking the oath of allegiance to their Sovereigns? Although the oath
contained nothing against the religious conscience of Catholics, the Pope
condemned it because, identifying his own pretensions with the interests
of the Church, he thought it intolerable that it denied the power of Popes
to depose kings, absolve subjects from their allegiance, and excite revolt
and treason against the Sovereign and the State. It is a maxim of the
Decretals that no oath against the interests of the Church is binding.(11)
But what is for the benefit of the Church the infallible Pope determines.
How often have Popes identified their own political interests with the
good of the Church, and required and occasioned the breach of oaths and
treaties! Thus Innocent III. absolved John from his oath to observe Magna
Charta, on his consenting to receive back his crown as a gift from him.
When, in the fifteenth century, Eugenius IV. was at war with Francis
Sforza, and the general Piccinino had promised not to attack him, the Pope
absolved him from his promise, because it was prejudicial to the interests
of the Papacy, and “a treaty prejudicial to the Church is not binding.”
Charles V. and Francis I., in their treaty of Madrid, had stipulated that
neither should have his oath dispensed without the consent of the other;
but Pope Clement VII. was the first to seduce the King to commit perjury,
in order that he might form an alliance with him against the Emperor. So
again did Paul IV. release Henry II. from his five years’ truce with
Charles V., confirmed by oath, in order to gain the King of France as an
ally against Spain.
The Jesuit theory of the infallible Pope and the extent of his powers is
in no way less extravagant than that which deluded Agostino Trionfo into
his deification of the Pope under John XXII.(12) Once admit the maxim of
the Syllabus, that the Popes have never exceeded the just limits of their
power, and it must obviously be their right to dispose of crowns and
peoples, property and freedom, since they have in fact claimed and
exercised the right. Thus, for instance, Nicolas V. did not at all violate
the common rights of men, but only made a proper use of his own absolute
authority, when he gave full power to King Alfonso of Portugal, and his
successors, to subjugate unbelieving nations, appropriate their
territories and all their possessions, and reduce their persons to
perpetual slavery. Nor was Alexander VI. less justified in conferring on
Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain and their successors the newly discovered
countries of America, and then drawing the famous line from north to south
through the New World, and dividing it between Spain and Portugal. It was
to the authority of the Pope, as the lord of all mankind, to whom all men
are subject, wherever born, and of whatever religion, since God has
subjected the whole earth to his jurisdiction, and made him master of it,
that the Spanish conquerors appealed against the natives. On this plea
they treated all refusal to submit as rebellion, for which they meant to
take vengeance on the natives—as in fact they did in the most horrible
manner—by cruel wars, confiscation of property, and slavery. Their lust of
conquest, with all the abominations they perpetrated, could always be
excused and justified by the remembrance that they were only acting with
the sanction of God’s earthly representative, and punishing the refusal to
recognise his legitimate dominion over the world.
In the article we have cited, the _Civiltà_ affirmed anew, on the
authority of the Minorite, Bonaventure of S. Bernardino (_Trattato della
Chiesa_), that the Pope can dispose of the whole “Temporali” of kings and
princes, their authority and possessions, whenever, in his judgment, the
good of the Church requires it. The work of a French writer, Maupied,
gives the Fathers of the Society of Jesus the desired opportunity of again
commending their _Magna Charta_—their favourite Bull, _Unam Sanctam_—as
the completest exposition of the relations of Church and State (p. 213):
“Fall down on your faces, and adore your lord and master in Rome, who can
after his pleasure depose you, deprive you of your rights and bishoprics,
and bid you draw or sheathe the sword.” This is a compendium of the
teaching the _Civiltà_ addresses to princes and magistrates. If Papal
Infallibility is defined by the Council as an article of faith, the whole
system is sanctioned, down to its extremest consequences, and the Jesuits
will not fail to point to it as proving that their political doctrines
also are now approved.
Under such auspices does the Council open, when the Bishops, according to
the _Civiltà_—“the faithful echo of the Holy See,”—have only to say Yea
and Amen to the teachings and commands of their master. Never in her whole
history has the Church had a severer task imposed upon her, or passed
through a more perilous and decisive crisis than the present. It is not
only a question of internal freedom; it is, above all, the question
whether she is to be involved in an endless war with the political order
and civilisation of the modern world, or by keeping to the really
religious sphere, and thus guarding her rightful independence, is for the
future too to fulfil throughout the widest area her blessed mission
towards mankind. The Council, which has to decide on this alternative,
acquires a weight and significance such as none had before it.