_Rome, April 15, 1870._—The _Constitutio Dogmatica de Ecclesiâ Christi_
will receive its definitive form in the Congregation of Easter Tuesday,
but the substance is already fixed. It received many significant
alterations in the course of discussion, and the ready reception accorded
to it as a whole is due to the many detailed amendments which have been
conceded. These changes are so important that the spokesman of the
Commission, Pie of Poitiers, said in his closing speech it was really the
work of the whole Council, so that the Fathers might truly say, “_Visum
est Spiritui Sancto et nobis_.” After the insertion of the word “Romana”
before “Catholica Ecclesia,” the three first chapters were accepted in
their amended form. The fourth, on faith and knowledge, was debated only
cursorily and by a few speakers on April 8. But this chapter contains a
passage of the greatest practical importance. At the end occur these
words: “Since it is not enough to avoid heretical pravity, unless those
errors which more or less nearly approach it are shunned, we admonish all
of the duty of observing the constitution and decrees where such evil
opinions not expressly named here have been proscribed and prohibited by
this Holy See.”(78) The Bishops with good reason saw in this passage a
confirmation of the judgments and increase of the authority of the Roman
Congregations, _i.e._, of the tribunals through which the Pope exercises
his power. It seemed to them desirable to give due expression to their
objections, and accordingly a request was made to the President to appoint
a further day for this subject. But as nobody had inscribed his name to
speak, the request was refused and the whole debate was closed on that
day, Friday, April 8. But to avoid the danger of opposition at the last
moment and secure the decrees being unanimous, a certain concession was
made by announcing that the closing paragraph should not be voted on till
the whole _Schema de Fide_, four chapters of which only were as yet ready,
should be completed. Thus a great point was gained,—a decree on matters of
faith was carried by moral unanimity and not by surprise, but after a
serious though compressed debate, which helped to win for the views of the
minority a very perceptible influence on the form of the decree.
But on the following day, April 9, a notice was communicated that, as the
closing paragraph of the _Schema_—beginning with the words “Itaque supremi
pastoralis,” etc.(79)—had not been treated with sufficient particularity
at the last general sitting, it must be again brought forward for
deliberation before the whole fourth chapter came to be voted upon. The
Fathers were thereby admonished that they might produce their amendments
on the fourth chapter at the next sitting. This Congregation was held on
April 12, when the final paragraph was put to the vote, and this roused
them from the dream of unanimity. It was observed in the debate that if
the voting on the paragraph were put off till the whole _Schema de Fide_
was completed, this would be putting it off to the Greek Calends. But if
the fixing of this _Schema_ was undertaken directly after Easter, the more
important subject of the _Schema de Ecclesiâ_ must give place to it, and
so it might easily happen that infallibility would not come on at all this
spring. To withdraw the closing paragraph would be not only not to
maintain but to lose that favourite form of authoritative papal utterance
through the medium of the Roman Congregations, which especially required
to be upheld. Pie of Poitiers insisted on the fact that the paragraph had
been published in the _Allgemeine Zeitung_, and could not therefore
without peril be withdrawn even for the moment only.
The Opposition were partly disposed themselves to treat the passage as
unimportant. There were some who thought that in principle it was right
for the Roman decisions to be respected and a certain authority attached
to them, for this was necessary for the government of the Church; and the
very wording of the passage distinguished these decisions from matters
defined under anathema. So the minority resolved not to make any
collective resistance to it, and many well-known members of the Opposition
accepted it without contradiction. Notwithstanding this, when the whole
fourth chapter came to be voted on on Tuesday, April 12, the desired
unanimity was not attained; 83 Bishops gave a conditional _Placet_ only.
They handed in the grounds of their vote in writing, which seem to have
been of various kinds, for even the Bishops of Moulins and Saluzzo, who
are notorious infallibilists, were among them. Some, especially English
Bishops, may well have demurred to the designation “_Romana_ Catholica”
before “Ecclesiâ;” others may have thought it necessary to guard their
rights as against majorities; but far the greater number wanted to
repudiate the concluding passage. The vote was understood here in this
latter sense, and no stone was left unturned to induce the Opposition to
yield on that point. The step they have taken makes the deeper impression,
because it is known that they have not put forth their full strength.
It must be allowed that the final paragraph contained no actual doctrine
which made the resistance of the Episcopate an absolute duty and required
unanimous consent, but still it is obvious that the Council thereby
sanctioned and strengthened what it ought to have reformed and limited,
and therefore the carelessness manifested by a portion of the Opposition
admits of no favourable explanation. For the chief cause of the weakness
and corruption of the Church is to be found in those Roman
Congregations,—in the principles of some and the defects of others. The
Bishops who accept the paragraph give their approval, _e.g._, to the
Inquisition and the Index, and thereby prejudice not a little their moral
influence and dignity. The vote of last Tuesday does not accordingly
appear to me any proof of the firm organization or imposing power of the
minority; it only shows what they might accomplish if they chose, but that
they do not choose to do as much as they can. But the event will show
whether the _Curia_ holds to its policy of securing unanimity by prudent
and well-timed concessions. The minority will be urged and entreated first
to withdraw their objections. If that fails, the Court must either give up
the hope of unanimity or accept a very sensible humiliation. For if the
text remains unaltered, those who have now given a conditional _Placet_
can give no simple _Placet_ next time.(80) Rome will certainly exhaust all
her arts to avert the scandal of an open opposition in a Solemn Session.
I said in a former letter that the Opposition had taken up a position
which no enemy from without could dislodge them from, but this did not
imply at all that all internal dangers are overcome. These by no means
consist in the decomposing influences of hope and fear which the _Curia_
makes such use of, or the prospect of a Cardinal’s Hat, or again in party
divisions at home, which might have disturbed and divided the French,
Austrian and North American Bishops. The latter danger might have made
itself felt at the commencement of the Council, but constant intercourse
and community of experiences during this winter have put an end to it. The
real disease which has weakened the minority in the past and threatens it
in the future lies deeper—the great internal differences of Catholicism,
which are now being brought to a decisive issue, do not coincide with the
antagonism of the rival parties in the Council, but divide the minority
itself. The main question, exclusive of the immediate controversy and
partly independent of it, which divides Catholics into two sections so
sharply that no sympathy or confidence can bridge over the gulf, remains
unsolved within the minority and constantly endangers their coherence. The
common designation of Liberal Catholics tends rather to obscure than to
express the principle of this division. By Liberal Catholics may be
understood those who desiderate freedom not only _for_ but _in_ the
Church, and would subject all arbitrary power of Church as well as State
in matters of religion to law and tradition; but that is the end they aim
at, not their fundamental principle. Such requirements concern the
constitution rather than the doctrine of the Church, law rather than
theology. They are important, but they do not contain the crucial point of
the present contest in the Church. The root of the matter lies not simply
in the relation to be maintained towards the chief authority in the
Church, but in the right relation to science; it is not merely freedom but
truth that is at stake. It is mainly as an institution for the salvation
of men and dispenser of the means of grace that the Church has to deal
with the labouring, suffering and ignorant millions of mankind. And in
order to guard them from the assaults of popular Protestantism, a popular
Catholicism and fabulous representation of the Church has been gradually
built up, which surrounds her past history with an ideal halo, and
conceals by sophistries and virtual lies whatever is difficult or
inconvenient or evil, whatever, in short, is “offensive to pious ears.”
But such a transfigured Catholicism is a mere shadow Catholicism, not the
Church but a phantom of the Church. Its upholders are compelled at every
step to employ various weapons, to ward off any triumph of their enemies
and avoid disturbing the faithful in a religious sentiment artificially
compounded of error and truth combined. The more the notion of the supreme
glory, and even infallibility, of the Pope was developed, the greater
solidarity with the past became requisite, that the history of the Popes
might not be suffered to bear witness too strongly against such views. To
quote a significant phrase in constant use here during this winter, “the
dogma must conquer history.”(81) A contest has arisen, not of dogma but of
a theological opinion against history, that is against truth; the end
sanctifies the means. It was held allowable in order to save the Church
and for the interest of souls to commit what would in any other case have
been acknowledged to be sin. Not only was history falsified, but the rules
of Christian morality were no longer held applicable where the credit of
the hierarchy was at stake. The very sense of truth and error, right and
wrong,—in a word the conscience—was thrown into confusion. Thus, _e.g._,
when Pius V. demanded that the Huguenot prisoners should be put to death,
he did right, for he was Pope and a Saint to boot. Since Charles Borromeo
approved the murdering of Protestants by private persons, it is better to
approve it than to call his canonization in question. Or one moral
aberration is got rid of by another. Many of the leading Catholic writers
of this century deny that Gregory XIII. approved the massacre of St.
Bartholomew,(82) or that heretics have ever been put to death at Rome.
This spirit, which falsifies history and corrupts morals, is the crying
sin of modern Catholicism, and it reaches high enough. Of the three men
who are commonly held in France to stand at the head of the Catholic
movement, one wrote a panegyric on Pius V., another under the name of
_Religion et Liberté_ attacked absolutism in France while defending the
double absolutism in Rome, and a third vindicated the Syllabus—all three
thus manifesting the influence of this deplorable spirit.
On the other hand the genuine Catholic, who wishes also to be a good
Christian, cannot separate love for his Church from the love of goodness
and truth. He shrinks from lies in history as much as from present
adulation, and is divided by a deep moral gulf from those who deliberately
seek to defend the Church by sin and religious truth by historical
falsehood. This contrast is most conspicuously exhibited in the question
of infallibility, as one example may suffice to prove. The principles of
the Inquisition have been most solemnly proclaimed and sanctioned by the
Popes. Whoever maintains papal infallibility must deny certain radical
principles of Christian morality, and not merely excuse but accept as true
the opposite views of the Popes. Thus the Roman element excludes the
Catholic and Christian. Such differences obviously cut deep into men’s
ethical character, and divide them far more decisively than any striving
for common practical ends or community of interest and feeling can unite
them on the ground of prudence. In presence of so profound an internal
division the question of the opportuneness of the definition of
infallibility assumes a very subordinate place, and the mere inopportunist
is immeasurably removed from the decided opponent of the dogma. Between
Bishops who consider Popes fallible and those whose conscience is easy
enough to swallow certain doctrines of former Popes on faith and morals,
and who do not see any deadly peril for souls in giving a higher sanction
to these dogmas—between anti-infallibilists and mere inopportunists—the
difference is far deeper than the union. The inopportunists stand nearer
to the infallibilists than to those who oppose the dogma on principle.
They are divided from the one party on a mere question of prudence, from
the other on a question of faith and morality; with the one they are
united by an internal bond, with the other by an external bond, only which
circumstances may dissolve.
This is the true explanation of the halting policy so often observed in
the Opposition. The honest opponents of infallibility wished to secure the
support of those who do not properly speaking share their sentiments. But
they should never for a moment have forgotten that they have to attack
what Gratry has rightly described as an “école de mensonge.” And the
greatest honesty and outspokenness is necessary for defending the honour
and truth of Catholicism against that school. Instead of that they exhibit
themselves in a false light and obscure the situation.
Meanwhile Pius IX. by his letters to Guéranger and Cabrière has completely
and publicly identified himself with that school, at the very moment when
Gratry was so unmistakeably exposing its spirit, and he has made this
still clearer by the distinctions bestowed on Margotti and Veuillot at the
very moment when Newman characterized them as the leaders of “an
aggressive and insolent faction.” He said plainly to the French Bishop
Ramadie of Perpignan that “only Protestants and infidels denied his
infallibility.” His official organ describes the Opposition as allies of
the Freemasons, and he himself calls all who oppose his infallibility bad
Catholics. It is true that the Opposition has gradually been brought to
make very decided declarations of opinion, and has itself expressed doubts
about the future recognition of the Council. But that has complicated its
attitude still further. The other party may ask, “Why these doubts about
Œcumenicity? The Bishops of various countries are assembled in great
numbers; the Governments offer no hindrances, and the Council has united
itself with the Pope in the greatest freedom in the capital city of the
Church. Why then doubt the good results and œcumenical character of the
Council and the validity and future recognition of its decrees?” And the
Opposition can only answer, “For the sole and single reason that the Pope
destroys all freedom of action by his regulations, that he has already
overthrown the ancient constitution of the Church and exercises a power
over the Council incompatible with the rights of the Bishops and the
freedom of the Church.”
The French note is to be presented to-day to Antonelli and next week to
the Pope, instead of to the Council. It is doubted whether Pius will
communicate it to them.(83)