_Rome, June 2, 1870._—The debate drags on its weary length without any
turning. Of real discussion there is none, for very few of the prelates
can speak in Latin without preparation. As I have said before, academical
discourses are delivered, almost always without any reference to what has
immediately preceded. Only the majority have the right of reply allowed
them. If a Bishop is attacked or calumniated, he cannot answer till his
turn comes, which is often not for some weeks, as was Kenrick’s case; and
if he has spoken already, he cannot speak again in the same debate, and
cannot therefore defend himself at all, as occurred with Hefele. But the
members of the Deputation can speak whenever they choose; they interrupt
the order and interpose as often as seems necessary to them for defending
their proposals or weakening the force of an important speech on the other
side. Very often they break in on the course of proceedings quite
arbitrarily and without any connection with previous speakers. They have
the stenographic reports before their eyes, and thus know the exact words
of the speaker and can answer them while their opponents have no similar
advantage. That all this implies an iniquitous injustice and want of
freedom never occurs to the dominant party, who are on the contrary
astonished at the kindness and patience of the Pope in allowing an
opponent of his omnipotence and advocate of doctrines long since condemned
to use St. Peter’s as the theatre, and his Council as the occasion, of a
persevering attack on his dearest wishes, ideas and acts. They ask
themselves how long he will tolerate so strange a reversal of his plans
and views. It is certain that his excitement has reached fever heat, but
it has not yet been resolved to break off the debate, which is so far
remarkable, inasmuch as according to the opinion of the Court it can
neither have any practical results nor any character of sober reality. As
they did not regard it from the first as a means for establishing the
truth, it must now appear to them simply a hindrance in the way of the
truth already ascertained. For those who attack infallibility, and thus
utter error and blasphemy over the tomb of the Apostles, freedom of speech
can be no right in the opinion of the majority, but simply a favour
dependent on the pleasure of the deeply injured and offended chief. It is
characteristic of the present stage of the affair, that during this debate
there has been no disposition shown to interrupt the speakers of the
minority. Signs of discontent have been frequent enough, but no further
attempt to stop a speech by force.
There is still an immense and unprofitable number of speakers enrolled.
Above a hundred have sent in their names since the beginning, who might
easily have been debarred from doing so, and the tediousness of the
discussion is aggravated by the members of the Deputation, who lengthen it
out still further by their frequent and usually prolix interpositions.
The chief events of the last fortnight have been the speeches of Manning
and Valerga for the dogma, and of Ketteler, Conolly and Strossmayer
against it. The Bishop of Mayence spoke on Monday, May 23, when he
expressed his opinion more forcibly and gave more offence than any
previous speaker. He defended the constitution of the Church against the
Roman conspiracy, citing the arguments contained in the pamphlet he had
before distributed, and denounced against ecclesiastical centralization
the same penalty of revolution, incident to a centralized State, which, he
said, is already knocking at the doors. He gave his decisive adhesion to
those who demand unanimous consent, and declared that he had always held
the personal infallibility to be “opinio probabilissima,” but could find
no necessary certainty in it, neither “certitudo dogmatica” nor “veritas
dogmatizanda.”
One might think that a man who is so unclear about the logic of history
and the principles of morals belongs to the majority. However the
impression produced by Ketteler’s speech was favourable to the minority,
and all who have watched his attitude before the last four months,
especially at Fulda, must have recognised the decided advance in the line
taken by the Opposition. Many think the conversion is complete, and the
great wound of the Opposition—its containing members ready sooner or later
to turn renegades—finally closed. The Bishop of Mayence was at first
believed to be the author of the pamphlet he has distributed, but it was
not composed under his eye or under his influence, nor even at his
suggestion, and bears no trace of his mind. The general line is Maret’s,
but his leading idea, that in case of a conflict a Council is superior to
a Pope, does not occur in it. Ketteler must have acquired a great deal of
Roman experience and non-Roman development before he would denounce a
papal decree to his country and his diocese as uncatholic. But the advance
which he, like others, and more than many others, has already made, is
unquestionably a gain, and gives a peculiar force to his words. But it has
damaged and discredited the minority that so many Bishops are more careful
about the position and influence of the Church than about the purity of
doctrine.
I must return once more to Manning’s speech of May 25, as it was very
interesting and important. He asserted roundly that infallibility was
already really a doctrine of the Church, which could not be denied without
sin (_sine publico peccato mortali_) or proximate heresy (_proximâ
hæresi_), and therefore they did not want to make a new dogma but simply
to proclaim an existing one. In these bold but highly significant words
Manning pointed to what many better men choose to be blind to. He no
longer acknowledges the opponents of the doctrine as brothers in faith, as
members of one and the same Church, since they do not satisfy his
conditions of orthodoxy; his faith and theirs are not the same. He has
been the first to proclaim this great truth in Council, and it is time for
the minority to ask themselves, whether unity still really survives in the
sense hitherto maintained against Protestants, whether the foe is really
still outside and has not penetrated into the inmost sanctuary of the
Church, for the temple must be cleansed before the nations are converted.
The minority can no longer live in peace with Manning and his like, or
imagine that the contest does not threaten the very existence of the
Church. Manning has indeed said that he does not think the decree strong
enough. The Spaniards agree with him, and an open difference on this point
has arisen in the Deputation. The great majority would be glad to find a
formula less offensive to the Opposition, but Manning has the Pope on his
side, and gets him worked upon by certain sacristan-like natures, like the
Bishops of Carcassonne and Belley, who have won the special confidence of
Pius IX. through having a certain mental affinity with him. Manning’s
whole speech was an attempt to hinder concessions, and keep the _Curia_ to
the point of forcibly suppressing the minority. And it counts also for a
sign that the Pope is resolved to go all lengths. The fanatics would
prefer the Church being exposed to the danger of schism to modifying their
theory in the least particular, for the latter would be a humiliation for
themselves, while the other kindles a contest the end of which they feel
no doubt about. It is reckoned certain that of the Bishops who will vote
against the dogma, not all have the courage for a protest, and that of
those who do protest some will rather resign their sees than undertake the
contest with the _Curia_ under excommunication.
Manning’s argument for infallibility from the condition of England was
remarkable. It is unquestionably his chief motive, and what gives the
stamp of sincerity to his position, to make Catholicism more compact and
closely united in Protestant England. He hopes by means of the dogma to
suppress those differences of opinion which are a source of disturbance
and weakness, so that all will re-echo his words, uphold his theology in
the face of a disintegrating Protestantism, and his policy in the face of
political parties with the combined strength of five million men. He
conceives that the Christian element is more and more disappearing from
the Established Church and the sects of England, and sees a general
dissolution of belief which offers a future to Catholicism as the one
definite authority. But he maintained in the Council that the English
Catholics were in favour of infallibility, and that even Protestants
testified that it would strengthen his hands. That the leading English
theologian, Newman, has spoken so strongly against the definition he of
course did not say. It was only consistent with the bitter enmity between
the two to ignore it. Nor did he say that the English Bishops present at
the Council are equally divided—himself, Ullathorne, Chadwick and
Cornthwaite being infallibilists, against Errington, Clifford, Amherst,
and Vaughan, who are fallibilists. He read extracts from Protestant
papers, stating that papal infallibility is the logical outcome of
Catholicism; to such miserable weapons was he driven for defending his
cause. Clifford, who followed him, had an easy task in exposing these
misrepresentations and falsehoods. One point in his speech his hearers
missed: he said that the mischief the definition threatened the Church and
the mischief it had already done to the interests of religion in England,
might be gathered from the letter of an illustrious English statesman, for
the authority of which he could appeal to an Archbishop there present.
This Archbishop was Manning himself, and the allusion was to a letter
addressed to him by an English minister, saying in substance that in
England it was the most vehement Protestants, and those most notorious for
their hostility to the Catholic Church, who eagerly desired to see
infallibility and the Syllabus made into dogmas, and that the present
policy of Rome had so greatly increased the anti-Catholic feeling of the
country that every step taken by the Government to extend the rights of
Catholics and improve the social condition of Catholic Ireland met with
the most persistent opposition.
The Italian Valerga, titular Patriarch of Jerusalem, delivered on Tuesday,
May 31, a more spirited, piquant and insolent speech, which I will give a
report of in my next letter.
The great debate may last till the middle of June, when it is hoped that
the chapter on the primacy may be carried without difficulty, and the
special debate on infallibility be brought to a successful end before the
middle of July. But there is sure to be a lively and protracted discussion
on the primacy, which may easily exhaust the patience of the majority, for
the continuance of the present situation is a deep humiliation for the
Pope and _Curia_. The Opposition, whose existence at first was so boldly
denied, and of which there was originally only a germ in the Episcopate,
subsequently developed in Council through the clumsy tactics of Rome,
places the Roman See in an unwonted and what is thought an intolerable
light. What Pius IX. and the Jesuits reckoned on accomplishing, first in
three weeks, then in four months, at Easter, at Pentecost, on the feast of
St. Peter and St. Paul, by acclamation, by unanimous consent, is not done
yet and seems to recede further and further. The Roman people are losing
their reverence for the Pope, though they await the doctrine with
equanimity. They say, “Si cambia la Religione,” and laugh good-humouredly.
But I heard the words from the mouth of a Roman priest, “L’idola restera
al Vaticano, ma l’altare serà deserto.”
It is certain attempts will soon be made either to cut short the debate or
adjourn it and overcome the opposition by some compromise. Such an attempt
was made before by a Cardinal, but the Bishop of the minority to whom he
applied would not even look at the formula. Then the Dominicans conceived
a similar idea, but were answered that there were strong reasons not only
against the wording of particular forms, but against any reference to the
question. Such proposals are sure to be repeated in spite of Manning and
the fanatics. But the Opposition Bishops cannot entertain them separately
without breach of word to their colleagues, though it is always possible
that some formula or other may find friends and advocates among them.
The rupture with France is a decisive one. In the first place a Bishop
from the North of France has repeated here a conversation he had with a
leading statesman in Paris, who said that the attitude of Rome was
equivalent to a declaration of war against France, and that the Government
had done everything to withhold the _Curia_ from its perilous course, but
in vain. He himself opposed Count Daru’s policy, as he did not wish to
prevent what might lead to the separation of Church and State, but now he
thought they were free to carry out the separation, as Rome had made it
inevitable. The reciprocal obligations of the two Courts would cease, and
therefore the occupation of the Roman States by French troops, for the
spiritual power the Pope was aiming at was incompatible with secular
power. At the same time the French ambassador uttered similar warnings
here, and informed the Cardinal Secretary of State that he was ordered to
do nothing more to restrain the course of events. Antonelli is said to
have replied that he took the same view, but had not influence enough to
do anything. It is of course believed here that the present administration
in Paris is not strong or firm enough to carry out a policy which would be
more after the mind of Prince Napoleon than of the Emperor. But the
_Curia_ underrates the offence given to France by the quiet contempt with
which both Daru’s notes were treated.
Meanwhile the incense is being constantly swung before Pius, so that the
clouds of homage conceal the abyss to which he is drawing on the Church.
There is great agitation going on among the French as well as the Italian
clergy, with a view to securing their votes for infallibility and also
presents of money. Their expressions not seldom exceed in devotion to Pius
everything of the kind ever heard of before; and it seems as if the old
canon law sycophants had come back to life, who made no scruple of
designating the Pope God and Vice-God. Let us give two examples. One of
these true sons of the Church in Italy submits by anticipation to whatever
Pius chooses to define, whether with the approval of the Council or by his
own sole authority. Seven priests from Cuneo bring these verses—
Parla, O Gran Pio,
Cio che sona il tuo labbro,
Non è voce mortal, voce è di Dio.
The international Committee of the minority thought it necessary that a
treatise should be expressly composed to discuss the weighty question of
moral unanimity being required for dogmatic decrees, and Dupanloup has
undertaken the task. He had a pamphlet on the subject printed at Naples
and laid before the Fathers. He first proves from history that this
condition was never wanting in any Councils which count as œcumenical, and
was distinctly recognised and maintained at Trent by the Pope himself. He
then examines the opinions of the chief theologians of all ages, including
St. Vincent of Lerins and St. Augustine, and Popes Leo I., Vigilius and
Gregory the Great, who all agree in making moral unanimity an
indispensable condition for a decree on faith. He proceeds to observe that
in matters of discipline and canon law a numerical majority is enough, as
decisions of that kind may be altered afterwards, but for a dogma there
must be moral unanimity of the Council and the Churches to whose faith it
bears witness, or else Catholicism would be annihilated. But great
theologians and theological schools of former ages opposed papal
infallibility, and it is opposed now by a large number of Bishops at the
Vatican Council representing great Churches and Catholic nations. A
Council is only then infallible when the assembled Bishops of the whole
Church bear witness to the faith inherited from the beginning. The
majority must therefore either convert the minority to their views by free
discussion or give up their design; were they to suppress the minority by
mere brute force of numbers, that would be unconciliar and unprecedented
in Church history. It is not mere probability but unquestionable certainty
that is required for defining a dogma, and a considerable number of
distinguished members of the Council have no such firm belief in papal
infallibility. To define it in spite of this would be to act as judges and
masters of faith, not as its depositaries and witnesses. A minority
denying a dogma which had been the perpetual belief of the Church would be
in the wrong, but not a minority repudiating the definition of a doctrine
which had never been held an article of faith. Even the Pope cannot by his
authority raise the decision of a mere majority to the dignity of a dogma,
for he only promulgates decrees on faith “sacro approbante Concilio,” and
without moral unanimity the Council has not approved. The words of the
Bishop of Orleans are directed principally against the _Civiltà_, which
has notoriously laboured to establish the opposite hypothesis, and he
asks, “Are we at a Council or not? If we are, the rules of Councils must
be observed, or else a great assembly of Bishops is reduced simply to
playing the part of a theatrical exhibition.”
Dupanloup goes on to remark on the storms and incalculable evils which the
definition of papal infallibility would bring on the Church and the
Papacy. He concludes with these words: “If ever moral unanimity was
requisite for a dogmatic decision, it is so at a Council like the Vatican,
where there are 276 Italian Bishops, of whom 143 belong to the States of
the Church; 43 Cardinals, of whom 23 are not Bishops or have no Sees; 120
Archbishops or Bishops _in partibus_, and 51 Abbots or Generals of
Orders—while the Bishops present from all Catholic countries of Europe,
exclusive of Italy, only number 265, so that the Patriarchs, Primates,
Archbishops, and diocesan Bishops of the whole world are outnumbered by
the diocesan Bishops of Italy alone.(104) At a Council so composed a mere
majority can never decide; and the less so when the personal intervention
of the Pope makes itself felt, when the freedom of the Bishops is so
seriously hampered, and in so many ways, when the question of
infallibility has been so unscrupulously and violently brought forward for
discussion by a mere sovereign act—a sort of _coup d’état_—when
consciences are tormented and a number of writings are issued which have
created a great sensation and give evidence of the anxiety of the
faithful, and when lastly the Bishops themselves let a cry escape from
their tortured hearts which the whole press re-echoes. Under such
circumstances it is impossible to settle the matter by a mere _coup_ of
the majority; and if it is done all kinds of mischief must be feared. Nor
is it I alone who say so; there are 100 Bishops who say, ‘An intolerable
burden would be laid on our consciences. We should fear that the
œcumenical character of the Council would be called in question, and
abundant materials supplied to the enemies of religion for assailing the
Holy See and the Council, and that it would be without authority in the
eyes of the Christian world, as having been no true and no free Council.
And in these troubled times no greater evil can well be conceived.’ ”