_Rome, June 4, 1870._—The first impression made on the minority by the
violent closing of the general debate led many of them, in discussing it
directly after the sitting, to say they would take no further part in the
debates. A great meeting was arranged for to-day at Cardinal Rauscher’s to
decide the question. It was the largest international gathering of the
Opposition yet held, including nearly 80 Bishops, but was for that very
reason difficult to manage. Two possible courses were discussed—to remain
in Rome but take no further part in the debates, as not being free, and
vote at the end _non placet_ against the infallibilist _Schema_, or simply
to issue a protest against the injustice they had suffered, and continue
to take part in the proceedings. The former view was supported principally
by the Hungarians, North Americans, the leading French Bishops, and men
like Strossmayer, Simor, Haynald, Darboy, Dupanloup, Clifford, Conolly
(represented by proxy), and others. They insisted that words were of no
further avail, and they should show their sense of the want of freedom by
acts, so that, as far as in them lay, no decree should be carried which
had not been thoroughly discussed. In this way the œcumenicity of the
Council would be denied without coming as yet to a breach in Council or a
disturbance in the Church; for they could no longer recognise the Council
as legitimate, nor yet retire, for to retire would precipitate the most
extravagant decisions and lead to an open conflict. There were many
reasons why it could no longer be held legitimate, such as its
composition, the order of business, the pressure exercised on the Bishops
by the Pope personally or through his officials, the notorious design of
getting dogmas promulgated by a majority, etc. It would be simply a
degradation to give in any longer to such a farce. In Parliaments speeches
were not altogether useless, for if they could not influence votes they
enlightened public opinion, but at this so-called Council most of their
hearers were quite incapable from their standard of cultivation of
appreciating theological arguments, not to add that the moral standard of
many among them was such that, even if they were convinced, they would not
act on their convictions. And speeches, which were not made public, could
produce no effect out of doors. To debate under these circumstances would
only be to incur a large responsibility for the entire conduct of the
Council. But if the Opposition refrained from discussion and left the
field free to the majority, the differences among them would soon be made
manifest. The _Curia_ could hardly hold out against so serious a
demonstration, but if it remained obstinate, no further doubt would be
possible in the Church as to the opinion of the minority about the
Council.
On the other side it was urged that all which could be gained by such a
demonstration would be gained equally by a declaration showing how the
forcible closing of the general debate had undermined the foundations and
future authority of the Council. They owed it to the world to do more than
merely give reasons against the legitimacy of the Council; they must
debate and bring forward the objections to the infallibilist doctrine
itself, and thus give public testimony of their convictions. Most of the
Germans took this view, which many French Bishops readily acceded to, when
they observed that the Hungarian phalanx had been broken up. Perhaps other
and more subordinate motives helped to establish this opinion, but many of
its advocates are men of no decided resolution, and men who in reality
want only a semblance of resistance and are already secretly prepared to
yield at the last moment. It was thought strange that at this assembly,
which had been summoned to consult on the means of meeting the violent
_coup_ of the majority, a German Archbishop was present who had joined the
enemies of his party in subscribing the proposal for closing the debate
the day before.
The draft of the Protest finally adopted against this act of violence had
been brought to the meeting by Cardinal Rauscher, and bears marks of the
antagonistic elements it combines. Yet it contains one passage, which may
perhaps be appealed to hereafter, “Protestamur contra violationem nostri
juris.”(106)