PAPAL DEMANDS.
At the death of Pius IX he left to whosoever should succeed him, as an
official inheritance, the decision of the question whether or no the
Church should acquiesce in and become reconciled to the abolition of
the temporal power of the pope, or be agitated and possibly further
disrupted by the demand for its restoration. In the meantime Italy had
become an organized nation, and was so recognized throughout the world.
The capital, after several removals, had been established at Rome, and
legislative chambers were assembled almost within the shadow of the old
senate-house of the Cæsars, under the checks and guards of a written
Constitution, to enact laws for and in the name of the Italian people.
A king existed, but without absolute power, and had attained great
popularity on account of his eminent fitness and recognized fidelity
to the trusts committed to him. It, consequently, required but little
practical knowledge of affairs to foresee that the future peace and
welfare of the Church depended, in a large degree, upon the policy to
be pursued with regard to the temporal power--which no longer existed,
but had been abolished by Roman Catholic populations, who had, with
great deliberation and extraordinary unanimity, taken the right to
manage their own political affairs into their own hands, in imitation
of the example set them by the people of the United States. Thoughtful
minds were inspired by the hope that moderate, wise, and conciliatory
counsels would prevail with the new pope, whosoever he might be.
The occasion rendered it necessary that the distinction between the
Church as a Christian organization, and the papacy as a magisterial
power over temporals, should be observed; that is, that the ability of
the former for Christian usefulness was left unimpaired, whilst the
latter was only designed to make the pope an absolute monarch over
the Italian people. Nobody understood this better than Pius IX, and,
therefore, the year before his death he signalized the first important
exhibition of his infallible authority by issuing a decree amending
the Confession of Faith, which had been prescribed by Pius IV nearly
three hundred years before, and an "allocution," or authoritative and
_ex-cathedra_ epistle to the clergy and the Church, with regard to the
relations existing between the Church and the Government of Italy. The
former concerns only those whose faith is influenced by it; the latter
concerns all the progressive nations, and none more than the United
States.
In this allocution he accused the invaders of his "civil
principality"--that is, of his temporal power--with riding roughshod
over every right, human and divine; with the attempt to undermine
"all the institutions of the Church;" and characterized the act of
establishing the Italian kingdom as one of "sovereign iniquity"--a
"sacrilegious invasion." He complained that the ministers of religion
"were deprived of the right of disapproving the laws of the State
which they considered as violating those of the Church"--which was
equivalent to asserting it to be a principle of faith that he and the
clergy should be permitted to defy any law of a State which he and they
considered violative of their prerogative rights. He pointed out "the
shameful and obscene spectacle" to be seen in Rome, in "the temples
erected in these latter days to dissenting worship;" in "schools
of corruption scattered broadcast," and in "houses of perdition
established everywhere"--thus intending, undoubtedly, to intimate what
his meaning was when he said in his Syllabus, a few years before,
that the Church could never be reconciled to the spirit of progress
prevailing among the progressive nations. He insisted that the pope can
not exist in Rome except as "a sovereign or a prisoner"--which has
been disproved by all the subsequent years of actual experience--and
that there can be no "peace, security, or tranquillity for the entire
Catholic Church so long as the exercise of the supreme ecclesiastical
ministry is at the mercy of the passions of party, the caprice of
Governments, the vicissitudes of political elections, and of the
projects and actions of designing men"--meaning thereby, in plain
words, that the pope must be so supreme wheresoever his clergy are
as to require them to execute his decrees, notwithstanding the laws
of Governments shall expressly provide otherwise. He expresses this
idea with equal plainness by saying that the pope "can not exercise
full freedom in the power of his ministry" scattered throughout
the world, so long as he "continues subject to the will of another
party;" in other words, that he must be free to require his clergy,
wheresoever they may be, to obey him and not the laws of any Government
in conflict with his will. He congratulates himself that the "whole
Catholic people," everywhere, are united with him in supporting all
these propositions, and makes it known that he expects them "to take
in hand the cause and defense of the Roman pontificate;" that is,
the restoration of the temporal power and kingship of the pope. He
expresses the belief that the attachment shown to him by the multitudes
of pilgrims who visit Rome "will go on increasing until the day when
the pastor of the universal Church will be restored at last to the
possession of his full and genuine freedom"--which he can not enjoy
without the crown of absolute monarchy upon his head. And with a view
to the accomplishment of this, he instructs all the ministers of the
Church, everywhere, to "exhort the faithful confided to them to make
use of all the means which the laws of their country place within their
reach; to act with promptness with those who govern; to induce these
latter to consider more attentively the painful situation forced upon
the head of the Church, and take effective measures towards dissipating
the obstacles that stand in the way of his absolute independence."[191]
All this is plain and emphatic--not susceptible of misunderstanding.
It makes the restoration of the temporal power of the pope, so as
to make him king of Italy against the positive and expressed will
of the people of that country, a politico-religious question, and
commands the faithful in every part of the world to form themselves
into a politico-religious party to influence the Governments of their
respective countries to contribute to that result. This counsel is
given in face of what the world knows to be the fact, that the temporal
power can not be restored without war--without drenching the plains of
Italy with blood, in order to force upon the people of Italy a king
whom they have repudiated by their highest act of sovereignty.
This allocution was among the first fruits of the pope's infallibility,
and makes known with distinctness the method dictated by Pius IX
for reconstructing the papacy. At the time of its issuance he had
encountered so many embarrassments without the ability to resist them
successfully, he could scarcely have expected that his hopes would be
realized during his pontificate. He was confronted by the existence of
a kingdom, still Roman Catholic but not papal, within the limits of
which Rome was included, and no man knew better than he that what he
sought after would have to await the formation of a politico-religious
party beyond the limits of Italy, and among the peoples of other
nations, strong enough to coerce the Roman Catholic people of Italy,
at the point of the bayonet, into obedience to the papacy they had
repudiated. Therefore this infallible allocution may properly be
considered his last pontifical will and testament, whereby he devised
all his right and title to the temporal power to his successor; or
perhaps it would be more apt to say, as the politicians do, that it was
intended to be the main plank in the papal platform. How far it became
so we shall see.
When, after the death of Pius IX, the cardinals assembled in Conclave,
February 17, 1878, their first official act was specially significant.
It displayed a settled purpose to hold the wavering, if there were
any, to the policy of Pius IX with reference to the restoration of the
temporal power, and to make that the test of fidelity to the Church;
in other words, that his successor should be pledged to carry out that
policy, and elected with that express view. The cardinals, therefore,
entered into an agreement among themselves to confirm and maintain
all the protests made by Pius IX against the Italian Government. This
agreement was to the effect that they "thereby renewed all the protests
and reservations made by the deceased sovereign pontiff, whether
against the occupation of the States of the Church, or against the
laws and decrees enacted to the detriment of the same Church and the
Apostolic See;" and that they were unanimously "determined to follow
the course marked out by the deceased pontiff, whatsoever trials may
happen to befall them through the force of events."[192]
It may fairly be supposed that Cardinal Pecci was the projector of this
plan of procedure, as it is stated by his biographer that he "stood in
the foremost place at the head of his brethren." At all events, he,
together with the other cardinals, was pledged to it. When, therefore,
he was elected pope--as he was soon after--and took the name of Leo
XIII, he accepted the pontificate under the solemn obligation so to
employ all his powers and prerogatives as to regain the temporal power
his predecessor had lost, upon the distinct ground that fidelity to the
doctrines and faith of the Church required it.
In view of the result to be thus attained, the election of Leo XIII
was unquestionably wise. Besides possessing the highest intellectual
qualifications--being, in fact, one of the foremost men of the present
time--his Christian character is pure and without a blemish. He is
cool, calm, and deliberate in considering great questions, and not
apt, as Pius IX was, to be misled by indiscreet advisers, or entrapped
by enemies. His passions seemed well restrained, and he brought to
the duties of his high office abilities far exceeding those of any
of the eminent men who composed the College of Cardinals. There is
not a sovereign in Europe of whom he is not the equal, if not the
superior, in all such qualities as fit a man for rank, station, and
authority. In the rightful and proper sphere of his spiritual duties
he is "_sans peur et sans reproche_." But when he ventures to depart
from that sphere, and employ the authority of his high office to reopen
a political issue already closed, to deny to the people of Italy
the right to regulate their own temporal affairs, as those of the
United States have done, and prescribes or approves a plan of Church
organization which shall measure the value of a professed Christian
life by the depth to which its possessor shall sink in the mire of
politico-religious controversy in those countries where Church and
State have been separated, he presents himself to the world in another
and different aspect. If, by imitating others who have grasped after
kingly crowns, he sees proper to lay aside the rightful weapons of
his spiritual ministry, and arm himself and his followers with such
as pertain to the strife of politics, there can be no just ground of
complaint against those whose policy of civil government he assails,
if they shall arraign him and them at the bar of public opinion, and
challenge his and their right to disturb the peace by scattering the
seeds of discord among them.
The people of Italy achieved their independence by revolution, and
decided to separate Church and State, and that they would not have the
pope for their king; they put an end to the absolute monarchism of the
papacy, and substituted a constitutional monarchy, with such checks and
guards as they deemed necessary to their own protection. In doing this
they exercised the same power of popular sovereignty as the people
of the United States, when they decided that no king should ever rule
over them. In each case the act was intended to be final--not subject
to reversal by any earthly power. Neither country, therefore, has the
right to plot against the quiet and peace of the other; nor have the
populations of either the right to do so. All this is forbidden by
the law of nations, and if knowingly tolerated would be, by that law,
just cause of war. If a politico-religious party should be formed in
Italy to change our institutions by reuniting Church and State, and
substitute a king in the place of the people in the management of
public affairs, it would incite the spirit of resistance in every loyal
American heart. And if a politico-religious party, formed under any
plea whatsoever, shall be permitted to combine in this country for the
avowed object of reuniting Church and State in Italy, and compelling
the people of that country to accept the pope as an absolute sovereign,
in the face of the result they have accomplished by their revolution,
wherein do we escape condemnation by the law of nations? The question
whether or no any people shall exercise the right of self-government is
political, not religious. This has been decided by the people of the
United States. Consequently, to demand of them that they shall reverse
this decision, violates the spirit of their institutions, and mocks at
their authority.
No liberal and fair-minded people questioned the right of Pius IX to
declare himself infallible, or that of others to concede it to him, in
matters purely spiritual. Nor is this same right denied to Leo XIII.
But when he extends his infallibility so far as to include authority
over the fundamental principles of civil government, and thus seeks to
imperil the fortunes of the modern progressive nations where Church and
State have been separated, it should not be expected that those who
share those fortunes in common will sanction his imperial assumption
by direct affirmance or by silent acquiescence. The age of "passive
obedience" has passed, and is not likely to be revived so long as
the Reformation period shall continue to bear its rich and abundant
fruits, like such as spring from the popular institutions of the United
States. The fundamental principle upon which all such institutions rest
is the separation of Church and State; for without that there can be no
freedom of religious belief and no such development of the intellectual
faculties as fits society for self-government. Every assault upon this
great fundamental principle must be resisted, no matter under what
pretense it may be made or from what quarter it shall come. When it was
assaulted and condemned by the vacillating and irascible Pius IX, it
was in far less peril than now, when the calm and sagacious Leo XIII
has become the general-in-chief of the aggressive forces. The former
was not even master of himself--the latter is master of vast multitudes
of men.
The election of Leo XIII caused general satisfaction outside the circle
of Church influence. He was regarded as a representative of the highest
enlightenment, and this gave rise to the hope that he would become
reconciled to the existing condition of affairs in Italy, in order to
pacify those members of the Church who had wrenched from his immediate
predecessor the scepter of temporal sovereignty. A more favorable
opportunity for pacification could not have existed; and if it had
been accepted in a conciliatory spirit, the rejoicing would not have
been confined to the Italians alone, but would have been well-nigh
universal. But little time elapsed, however, before there were signs
indicating that, instead of throwing oil upon the troubled waters, he
preferred that they should remain in agitation. Two facts now conspire
to account for this: First, the agreement made by the College of
Cardinals to adopt the principles and adhere to the policy of Pius IX;
and, second, his Jesuit education and training. Both of these facts
are stated by his biographer, and the last with such particularity as
to show that when he was only eight years of age he was separated from
his family and placed under Jesuit care, and that his education was
obtained at the colleges of that society at Viterbo and at Rome.[193]
If the world had known, at the beginning of his pontificate, how
solemnly he had pledged himself to his brother cardinals before his
election, and how his youthful mind had been trained and fashioned
by the Jesuits, it is not probable that anything would have been
anticipated, or even hoped for, beyond what has transpired; for the
skill of the Jesuits is displayed in nothing more effectually than in
the indelible impressions they understand so well how to make upon
young and undeveloped minds. Although the question to be decided seemed
simple enough to the general public, both in the United States and
in Europe, yet to the Jesuits it was of supreme importance; for with
Church and State separated in Italy, and with Rome as the permanent
capital of a kingdom independent of the pope and submissive to the
popular will, their society would be crushed by the weight of public
odium resting upon them. During the progress of the controversy and
before the abolition of the temporal power, Pius IX had been compelled
to expel them from the States of the Church on account of this odium
existing in Italy; but they rallied again, with their unabated energy,
after his successor had been chosen, doubtless realizing how readily
a mind trained and disciplined under their system of education would
yield to their demands. For a time Leo XIII seemed to be hesitating,
as if in the issue between liberalism and retrogression there was
some middle ground. But the Church and the world did not have long
to wait before the issuance of his first official encyclical letter,
which put an end to all hopes of reconciliation or compromise. In this
celebrated document the war upon liberalism and progress, as recognized
by the modern nations, was continued with increased and Jesuitical
violence--"war to the knife, and the knife to the hilt." There was
no longer any hesitation or faltering, but the distinct avowal of
the purpose to revive the papacy, by the restoration of the temporal
power, and to carry on the conflict until the world shall be turned
away from all modern civilization and back towards the Middle Ages.
His biographer takes special pains to make this plain, so that the
encyclical may be interpreted according to the pope's intention. After
stating that there were those who expected Leo XIII "to devise a _modus
vivendi_ with the masters of Rome and Italy," and reconcile the Church
and the papacy to "modern society and its exigencies," he boastingly
proclaims that the encyclical "woefully disappointed all who fancied
or hoped that a pope could reconcile the revealed truth of which he is
the divinely-appointed guardian, the righteousness, justice, and divine
morality which flow from the revealed law of life, with the awful
errors, the unbridled licentiousness of thought and word and deed, the
iniquity and the immorality which are cloaked over by their pretended
civilization."[194]
This learned biographer does not intend that the pope's encyclical
shall be misunderstood; and when he thus indicates the "awful errors,"
the "unbridled licentiousness," "the iniquity and the immorality,"
which have been scattered over the world by modern progress and
civilization--which he characterizes as "pretended" and not real--he
manifestly understood the mind and motives of the pope, as he also
did the issue which the papacy has made with all the most enlightened
peoples of the world, and, more especially, with the prevailing
popular sentiment in the United States. We must consequently accept
this arraignment of our form of civilization as intentionally and
deliberately made. And that he understood this issue as not confined to
Italy alone, but as universal in its character, he proceeds immediately
to show that the pope "speaks with authority to all mankind, the light
imparted by his teaching illuminates both hemispheres."
But this encyclical itself leaves no room to doubt with regard to the
universality of jurisdiction and authority claimed by the pope. Almost
at the beginning it announces that he considers himself called upon,
by virtue of his spiritual sovereignty, to decide matters of general
import, and not merely such as are understood to pertain to the Church
of Rome or to the people of Italy. Regarding himself as possessing this
unlimited jurisdiction because he occupies "the place of the Prince of
Pastors, Jesus Christ," he asserts pontifical authority over the whole
world, in these words: "From the very beginning of our pontificate we
have had before our eyes the sad spectacle of the evils which assail
mankind from every side." And, accordingly, he makes his purposes known
by drawing a sad picture of modern society, "impatient of all lawful
power," and threatened, in consequence, with anarchy and dissolution,
on account of its "contempt of the laws of morality and justice." All
this, to his mind, has arisen out of the lawless spirit of revolution
which modern peoples have invoked to free themselves from the crushing
weight of imperial and absolute monarchism, which he proposes to revive
in Italy by the re-establishment of the temporal power which the people
of that country wrested from the hands of his immediate predecessor by
revolution. What we, somewhat triumphantly, call patriotism, liberty,
and natural right, he denounces as "a pestilential virus which creeps
into the vital organs and members of human society, which allows them
no rest, and which forebodes for the social order new revolutions
ending in calamitous results."
Against these threatened calamities he felt himself constrained, by
virtue of the universality of his spiritual dominion, to warn the
world, especially that part of it which has voluntarily brought what
he considers affliction upon itself, by separating Church and State
and establishing freedom of religious belief, free speech, a free
press, and free popular government. He seems to have allowed his mind
to become disturbed and agitated by this gloomy condition of affairs,
because it has been produced by the rejection of the pope's divine
right to regulate whatsoever sentiments and opinions he may deem to
be within the circle of his spiritual jurisdiction. "The cause of
all these evils," he says, "lies principally in this: that men have
despised and rejected the holy and august authority of the Church,
which, in the name of God, is placed over the human race, and is the
avenger and protector of all legitimate authority;" that is, that no
authority whatsoever, whether of governments, peoples, or individuals,
can be set up against it as rightful or legitimate. Then, looking
down from this high pinnacle upon the disturbed and raging elements
below, and sorrowing because his temporal dominion has been lost, he
enumerates some of the principal causes which, in his opinion, threaten
to wreck the happiness and welfare of society. Among these, he makes
conspicuously prominent the following: Overturning the constitution
of the Church by laws in force "in most countries;" obstacles to the
"free exercise of the ecclesiastical ministry," which those laws have
created; "the unbridled liberty of teaching and publishing all manner
of evil;" depriving the Church of "the right," which he considers
irrefragable, to "train and educate the young;" and, far from being
least in magnitude or importance, the sacrilegious violation of the
Divine law by the abolition of the pope's temporal power and imperial
sovereignty over the Italian people. This enumeration was manifestly
made, as may be implied from the language of his biographer, to enable
him to point out more clearly to "the Catholic hierarchy" in all parts
of the world, "toward what purpose their common zeal must be chiefly
directed;" that is, what he expects them to contribute toward turning
the world away from these modern innovations upon the papal policy, so
that it may be carried back to its condition during the Middle Ages,
when the papal supremacy was maintained by the terrible tribunal of
the Inquisition. That he prefers that period, with its ignorance and
superstition, to the present, with its advanced enlightenment and
prosperity, is plainly and emphatically avowed in these words: "If
any sensible man in our day will compare the age in which we live,
so bitterly hostile to the religion and Church of Christ, to those
_blessed ages_ when the Church was honored as a mother of the nations,
he will surely find that the society of our day, so convulsed by
revolutions and destructive upheavals, is moving straightway and
rapidly toward its ruin; while the society of the former ages, when
most docile to the rule of the Church and most obedient to her laws,
was adorned with the noblest institutions, and enjoyed tranquillity,
riches, and prosperity."[195]
This is strange infatuation to be indulged in during the nineteenth
century, when human energy is taxed to the utmost to give increased
velocity to the car of progress, and to outstrip all previous ages
in placing checks and guards upon the ambition of temporal monarchs.
It requires but little research to learn that the "blessed ages" to
which Leo XIII refers, and gives such marked preference over the
present period, were especially distinguished by the ignorance and
superstition of the multitude. History is crowded with evidences of
this. Maitland--who is highly appreciated and often quoted by papal
writers on account of his criticisms of Robertson, the historian--says
that "the ecclesiastics were the reading men and the writing men;"[196]
but does not pretend that such was the case with the peasants or common
people, as the bulk of the populations were called. There is nothing
better established than that no facilities for learning were afforded
them, and that they were kept down at a common level of ignorance, so
as to reconcile them more easily to submission and obedience. This is
shown by the picture of society drawn by all the early chroniclers,
especially by Froissart and Monstrelet, as well as by the more modern
historians, Hallam, Robertson, and Berington. The men of learning and
letters belonged to the "upper classes," for whom alone colleges and
schools were provided. The people, as such, were left uninstructed,
in order to make them passively obedient to the authority of Church
and State, which were united by ties they were powerless to break.
They were forced--with but little less severity than was shown to
the captives of the Pharaohs who built the pyramids, the temple of
Karnak, and other Egyptian monuments--to serve taskmasters in erecting
magnificent palaces, cathedrals, and churches, designed for display
by those whose vanity and pride made them oblivious to the fact that
they were the product of unrewarded labor, and did not contain a
stone or marble block not stained by the tears and sweat and blood of
numberless humiliated victims. But all these unrequited victims were
ignorant, and therefore obedient--obedient, and therefore happy! But
Leo XIII, exulting at this reflection, instructs the modern nations
that the curse of God is resting upon their progressive advancement,
and that he, in Christ's name and place, is divinely empowered to
turn them back to those "blessed ages," because, if they do not,
"they must, by corrupting both minds and hearts, drag down by their
very weight, nations into every crime, ruin all order, and at length
bring the condition and peace of a commonwealth to extreme and certain
destruction."
To escape these dreadful consequences, and save modern society from
keeping open the gaping wounds it has inflicted upon itself, he makes
known his pontifical purpose in these words: "We declare that we shall
never cease to contend for the full obedience to our authority, for the
removal of all obstacles put in the way of our full and free exercise
of our ministry and power, and for our restoration to that condition of
things in which the provident design of the Divine Wisdom had formerly
placed the Roman pontiff." Having thus instructed all the faithful that
whatsoever prohibits him from acquiring all the power and authority
"formerly" possessed by the popes, must be resisted and put out of
the way, whether it be constitutions, laws, or customs, he declares
to them, by way of encouragement, that the world shall have no rest
until this is accomplished; "not only because the civil sovereignty
is necessary for the protecting and preserving of the full liberty
of the spiritual power, but because, moreover--a thing in itself
evident--whenever there is a question of the temporal principality of
the Holy See, then the interests of the public good and the salvation
of the whole of human society are involved." His enthusiasm is always
heightened, and his eloquence of style becomes captivating, when
his mind displays its power at the contemplation of that "temporal
sovereignty" by which he hopes that he and his successors shall bring
all mankind within the bounds of the pontifical jurisdiction, so that
they shall have no care for this or a higher life but what is involved
in the duty of passive and uninquiring obedience. It is when this
enthusiasm fully possesses him that he seizes upon the occasion to give
the word of command to his ecclesiastical army in all parts of the
world; as when he tells them they must display their "priestly zeal
and pastoral vigilance in kindling in the souls of your [their] people
the love of our holy religion, in order that they may thereby become
more closely and heartily attached to this chair of truth and justice,
accept all its teachings with the deepest assent of mind and will, and
unhesitatingly reject all opinions, even the most widespread, which
they know to be in opposition to the doctrines of the Church."
This instruction is comprehensive enough to include all, both priests
and laymen. It has the merit of simplicity, requiring only obedience
to the pope, the full "assent of mind and will" to all the doctrines
he shall announce, and the rejection of "all opinions" in opposition
to them; no matter if their submission shall involve disobedience to
the constitutions and laws under which they may live. He descends
also to particulars, and prescribes a course of conduct for all his
subordinates--like a commanding general laying down the plan of a
military campaign. They must obtain the control of education, so as
to "scatter the seeds of heavenly doctrines broadcast," in order
to save "the young especially" from the deadly influences of State
and public schools, where, according to his teaching, the method of
education "clouds their intellect and corrupts their morals." They are
required to instruct their pupils "in conformity with the Catholic
faith, especially as regards mental philosophy," as taught by Thomas
Aquinas and "the other teachers of Christian wisdom." They are to make
exterminating war upon the "impious laws" which allow civil marriages,
because those thus united, "desecrating the holy dignity of marriage,
have lived in legal concubinage instead of Christian matrimony." And
lastly, and no less imperatively, all are to be instructed in the
indispensable obligation "to obey their superiors."[197]
But Leo XIII has not been content with these distinct avowals of his
pontifical opinions and purposes. He has chosen to give emphasis to
them in other official methods. After the death of Cardinal Franchi,
his secretary of state, he appointed Cardinal Nina to that place.
Whether he considered the latter not sufficiently instructed with
regard to his opinions, or availed himself of the occasion to express
anew and more explicitly the principles of his pontifical policy, there
is no means of deciding; but whether the one or the other, he addressed
to him an official communication, wherein these principles were made
known with perfect distinctness. Still contemplating "the very serious
peril of society from the ever-increasing disorders which confront us
on every side," and "the intellectual and moral decay which sickens
society," in consequence of its having thrown off allegiance to the
temporal power of the pope, he arraigns as prominent among the existing
evils the separation of Church and State--precisely that condition
of things which exists in the United States more distinctively than
anywhere in the civilized world. Upon this subject--which involves so
much that is absolutely fundamental in free popular government--he
says: "The chief reason of this great moral ruin was the openly
proclaimed separation and the attempted apostasy of the society of
our day from Christ and his Church, which alone has all the power to
repair all the evils of society." And referring to the manner in which
the pope had been "despoiled" of his temporal power, he admonished him
"to consider that the Catholics in the different States can never feel
at rest till their supreme pontiff, the superior teacher of their
faith, the moderator of their consciences, is in the full enjoyment of
a true liberty and a real independence;" that is, that Roman Catholics
everywhere are expected to contribute immediate and active aid in
bringing about the restoration of the temporal power, so that "the
progress made by heresy" may be arrested, and "heterodox temples and
schools" shall be destroyed.[198]
There is nothing in all this, or in anything officially done by Leo
XIII--howsoever earnestly it may be rejected by liberal minds--that
should detract in the least degree from the estimate in which he
deserves to be held by all who appreciate upright conduct and the
consistent observance of Christian virtue. For these his life has
been eminently distinguished, and when its end shall have been
reached--fears of which are expressed at the time these words are
written--he will well deserve a lofty niche in the papal mausoleum
among the greatest and best of the pontiffs. If his opinions and
utterances were to be estimated alone by his personal integrity
and private virtues, the force of any criticism of them would be
materially lessened. But they belong to and are an essential part of
the papal system which he represents and is bound by the necessities
of his position to maintain against everything in conflict with it.
What he has said, and so frequently repeated, is echoed back from
the tombs of those of his predecessors who fought their battles with
liberalism and progress when the forces which defended them were weak
and the papacy was strong. He could not break a single thread in the
net which encompasses him, howsoever anxiously he might desire it,
and is consequently constrained to carry on the battle waged by his
predecessors until final victory is won or the flag of the temporal
power is sunk out of sight forever. His task grows harder and harder
every day; for now the progressive forces are growing stronger
while the powers of the papacy, lessened by the loss of temporal
sovereignty, are steadily waning away. He is struggling against the
patriotic sentiments of mankind, like a strong man battling with the
waves of a tempestuous sea. Although the light of modern progress is
not permitted to penetrate the walls of the Vatican, and he is shut
in behind impenetrable screens especially to keep it out, he ought,
nevertheless, to know that those to whose prosperity and advancement
it has contributed are unwilling to acquiesce in its extinction, or
to sit silently by when it is attempted. Whilst his arraignment of
civil institutions which have grown up within the circle of this light
may be well attributed to the papal system he officially represents,
he has expressed his desire for their overthrow in such terms of
censure and rebuke as to excite the suspicion that he is moved by an
uncompromising and unconciliatory spirit. Whatsoever he has shown of
this may rightfully be assigned to his Jesuit training and education.
Having been placed under the care of that scheming and insinuating
society before his opinions were matured and whilst his youthful mind
was unable to detect their sophistry or their cunning, they were
enabled to mold him to their purposes, as the softened wax is impressed
by any seal. Any intelligent investigation of his pontifical policy,
in so far as it involves the relations of the papacy to existing civil
governments, will demonstrate this to all whose faculties have not been
dwarfed by the same system of education and guardianship. We see every
day, in the natural world, conclusive proof that "as the twig is bent
so the tree is inclined."
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 191: Appleton's American Cyclopedia. 1877. Pages 677 to 681.]
[Footnote 192: Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Page 299.]
[Footnote 193: O'Reilly, pp. 52-53.]
[Footnote 194: O'Reilly, p. 328.]
[Footnote 195: O'Reilly, p. 333.]
[Footnote 196: The Dark Ages. By Maitland. Page 461.]
[Footnote 197: O'Reilly, pp. 329 to 341.]
[Footnote 198: O'Reilly, pp. 344 to 350.]