THE CHURCH SUPREME.
In all the encyclical letters issued by Leo XIII, he has exhibited the
restlessness which may fairly be presumed to have been produced by
discomfiture at finding the difficulties in the way of restoring the
temporal power increasing rather than diminishing. This is in no way
surprising, inasmuch as all the faculties of his mind are absorbed by
contemplation of the means of producing that result, his pontifical
influence not being necessary to enforce the recognition of any other
principle of faith. He is too intelligent not to realize that there
is a strong tendency among the laity of the Church toward "liberal
Catholicism"--especially among those who are sharing the advantages
of free and popular government, like those in the United States--and
that if this tendency is not checked by official rebuke in some way,
the present age may destroy all hope of re-converting the pope into a
crowned king and leave him forever hereafter in possession of spiritual
power alone. Being unable to persuade himself that this ought to be
acquiesced in, he steadily persists in trying to bring all peoples
and nations within the circle of his pontifical jurisdiction, in so
far as matters involving faith, morals, and discipline--as he shall
define them--are concerned. Hence we find him often announcing the
principles by which all the Roman Catholics throughout the world are to
be governed in their relations with civil institutions. And, in order
to show that he is unwilling to abate any of his own claims to official
royalty, he invariably assumes the attitude of a universal guardian,
and, consequently, employs the language of authority. He, manifestly,
continues now to speak in the same spirit which heretofore prompted
him to affirm "that the false wisdom or philosophy which the last three
centuries have followed _must be set aside_, and Christian wisdom and
philosophy made the light of education.... Religion, Christianity,
Catholicism, must now come with the steady, unfailing lamp of her
divine philosophy, _extricate social order from its mortal peril, and
lead it back to the old paths_."[209] The remedy is evidently plain
and simple to his mind--merely this, and nothing more--that the modern
world shall return "to obedience to the Church," by the "_docile_
acceptance of the teachings of _the one divinely-appointed authority
on earth_"--who is now himself, and after him to be his successors.
What strange infatuation it must be for one so enlightened as Leo XIII
undoubtedly is, to suppose that he can so wield the scepter of his
spiritual authority over the nations as to cause them to "set aside"
their present progress and prosperity, and be led "back to the old
paths!"
He omits no opportunity to renew his claim of spiritual authority over
"the life, the morals, and the institutions of nations"--that is,
over their constitutions and laws--to the extent of requiring them to
conform to "the precepts of Christian wisdom" as promulgated from the
papal throne. Such nations as shall do this he recognizes as having
claim to permanent existence; such as do not, possess only illegitimate
power obtained by usurpation. To "set aside" the latter--especially
when they have so disregarded "Christian wisdom and philosophy" as
to separate Church and State--he evidently regards as a duty, not
only incumbent upon himself, but upon all who accept his teachings
as infallibly true. To enforce this obligation, therefore, to make
the pope, and not the people, the sovereign source of civil power in
all that pertains to faith--as the restoration of the temporal power
does--he maintains the proposition that Roman Catholics everywhere
owe their first duty to the Church, and, after that, allegiance
to the State; that is, they are not bound to obey any law of a
State which requires them to do anything prejudicial to the Church.
Consequently, his pontifical teachings concentrate in this: that
when he shall officially declare that any law of a State conflicts
with the divine law, their primary duty is to obey him, although, by
so doing, they shall violate the law of the State. And, in order to
assure this, he requires them to obey their bishops, and the bishops
to obey him. While he recognizes the right of States to regulate such
merely secular affairs as concern the common and ordinary interests of
society, the spiritual authority he claims over them is sufficient to
enable him to interfere with and regulate at his own discretion such
matters as are within his spiritual jurisdiction, as he shall define
it, because "the Church is the mistress of all nations." From this
sovereignty--which breaks over the geographical boundaries of nations,
as if none existed--he derives the right of the Church to "concern
herself about the laws formulated in the State;" that is, to interfere
with political questions which involve the interests of the Church.
And this interference is justified upon the ground, not only that it
is promotive of the welfare of the State, but because, in the absence
of it, the States sometimes transcend their just powers by encroaching
upon the rights of the Church--as they do by separating Church and
State, and prescribing an independent sphere for each. This last
offense is, with him, unpardonable, because they who commit it--as the
people of the United States have done--"tear asunder civil and sacred
polity, bound together as they are in their very essence."
These religious doctrines are not alone the official utterances of
Leo XIII. They are inherent in both the papal and Jesuit systems,
neither of which can exist without them. The Jesuit theory is that no
legitimate rights can be acquired under any constitution or law which
violates the divine law as the pope shall interpret it; and that the
violation of such constitution or law is neither treason nor rebellion,
because, being null and void, they can impose no just obligation of
obedience. The authoritative utterance of these doctrines now, and
the requirement of obedience to them, constitute a grave and serious
fact, which should arrest universal attention. For obvious reasons
they demand this attention from the people of the United States more
than from any other peoples, because the freedom and tolerance of our
Government allow their promulgation, notwithstanding their manifest
and direct tendency to encourage traitorous plottings against our
popular institutions. Looking only to our own time--the pontificates
of Pius IX and Leo XIII, to say nothing of such popes as Gregory
VII, Innocent III, and Boniface VIII--we find the well-defined papal
policy to condemn as violative of the divine law these fundamental
principles of our institutions: The separation of Church and State;
the freedom of conscience and religious belief; the liberty of speech
and press; the subjection of ecclesiastics to obedience to the laws
like other citizens; the people as the exclusive depositories of
political power; the refusal to concede to the pope the potential
power of conferring upon bishops and clergy the prerogative right
to manage church property in contravention of the laws; and last,
but far from being least, our common-school system as it prevails
in every part of the country. A man, therefore, must be stupid if
he can not, and willful if he will not, see that, according to the
religious doctrines announced by Pius IX and Leo XIII--omitting other
popes--all these great, fundamental principles of our Government,
and all the laws enacted to preserve them, are held to be impious,
and so in violation of the divine law that they may be rightfully
resisted whensoever the pope shall find it expedient so to command.
What question of greater magnitude and importance could command the
attention of both Protestant and Roman Catholic citizens of the United
States? It is a direct blow aimed by a foreign and alien power at the
very foundation of our civil institutions. If it has been incited by
the indifference of Protestants, they, being apprised of this, are
bound by the obligation of patriotism to rebuke it. If the pope has
acted only upon the Jesuit theory that the laity of the Church are
only animals, and fit only for passive obedience to their superiors,
who assume to be their masters, they will prove themselves unworthy of
American citizenship if they do not assert their manhood sufficiently
to teach the pope that it would be a higher offense against divine
justice to plot treason against a Government they have sworn to support
and defend, than to disobey one from whose head their own religious
brethren plucked a temporal crown, and who is now endeavoring to stir
them up to a war against those same brethren in order that his lost
crown may be restored. They who ask this, and all their aiders and
abettors, have doubtless been encouraged by a knowledge of American
and Protestant tolerance, as well as by the desire to reduce our
Roman Catholic population to the humiliating condition of professing
allegiance to the Government, while, at the same time, they cherish the
hope of its ultimate overthrow by some mysterious providences not yet
revealed. To indicate the ground upon which this hope may rest, the
country is every now and then reminded of the estimated number of Roman
Catholics it contains--varying from 8,000,000 to 12,000,000--as if all
these could be rightfully counted upon the papal side in a war upon the
most cherished principles of the Government, just as plantation-slaves
were formerly counted before being put to work in the fields. How far
they are destined to disappointment in this remains to be seen. But it
is confidently believed--with assurance, indeed, somewhat exceeding
belief--that they have been misled by the false and delusive hope of
converting the multitude of Roman Catholics in this country into mere
unthinking machines, subject, as if they were all Jesuits, to passive
and uninquiring obedience to an alien authority which assumes the
spiritual and prerogative right to turn "back to the old paths" all the
modern progressive nations, as if God had deputed to him alone this
extraordinary and plenary power over the interests and happiness of
the whole human family. While we are waiting patiently to see what the
future shall reveal with reference to these matters, the Protestants of
the United States can not be released from the obligation of preparing
for whatsoever exigency the future shall present. Every avenue of
approach to the citadel which has thus far guarded their constitutional
and popular rights, must be carefully guarded. They should not be
indifferent to the slow and insidious methods of approaching that
citadel which Jesuit ingenuity has contrived and is still contriving.
Nor should the popular eye be turned too far away from Leo XIII; for if
he, too, has no sinister object in view with regard to our cherished
national principles, why, "in the name of all the gods at once," does
he not leave the United States and the other modern nations to conduct
their own affairs without his perpetual interference? Why do he and his
ecclesiastical representatives so unceasingly thunder in our ears the
awful penalties that await us for the infidelity of Protestantism, for
the separation of Church and State, for the toleration of diversities
of religious belief, and for our "godless" common schools?
It requires but limited intelligence to see that the Jesuits alone--and
not the Church--would gain if the principles and policy of Leo XIII
should become established. They would see in such a result cause for
rejoicing that the work of their society had been so well done when
the youthful and plastic mind of Joachim Pecci had their doctrines so
indelibly stamped upon it that now, when he has become pope in his
old age, he seems to keep himself alive by the stimulating hope of
successfully employing them to arrest modern progress and civilization,
and turn the nations back "to the old paths." The Jesuits already
exhibit signs of exultation, arising, manifestly, out of the belief
that the pontifical favor and patronage bestowed upon them has caused
the world to forget their history; how they endeavored to fix disrepute
upon the Church by their conduct in India, China, Paraguay, and
elsewhere; how they disobeyed the peremptory commands of some popes,
and endeavored to degrade and humiliate others; how they were compelled
to obedience only by the severest methods of reproof; how they were
expelled from every Roman Catholic country in Europe, and from Rome
by Pius IX, during the last years of his pontificate; how they were
suppressed and abolished by one of the best of the popes for crimes
that could not be condoned; how they abused and vilified his name and
memory in order to justify their refusal to obey the authoritative
commands of the Church; and how their revival was excused alone upon
the ground that they were better fitted than any other body of men in
the world, by habit, education, and training, to become warriors in the
cause of political absolutism.
But a still more flattering cause of Jesuit satisfaction is doubtless
found in the fact that Leo XIII--faithful to his early impressions--has
assigned to the members of that society the special duty of becoming
the educators of the young, and is sending them into all the countries
of the world, and especially those where Protestantism prevails, for
that particular purpose, well instructed, beforehand, in the obligation
to maintain such a system of education as he established in Perugia,
so that every mind seduced by its influence may be brought to the
religious belief that Church and State must be so united that the
State shall be subordinate to the Church; that there is but one form
of true religion in the world, and all else is heresy; and that no
Government can have the divine approval which does not recognize the
pope as possessing the sovereign power to dictate its policy in so far
as all matters touching faith, morals, and discipline are involved.
Evidences of this settled purpose are constantly crowding upon us.
Scarcely a day passes without some fresh attack upon our system of
common schools--a method of education which has the popular approval
in a far greater degree than any other part of our public polity.
These are called "godless" schools because they are not permitted by
law to teach that the Roman Catholic religion is absolutely true,
and all other forms of religious belief false and heretical. It is
alleged that they are the nurseries of vice and immorality, and that
they send out young men and women into the world to propagate error
and libertinism, and sow the seed of moral and social decay. Every
now and then some fanatical priest--unable to keep his passions within
reasonable bounds--threatens the members of his congregation with
excommunication for sending their children to the public schools, and
allowing them to become contaminated by false teaching and association
with Protestant children. The American people, consequently, are
required to decide whether their system of common schools shall live or
die, whether the competent and distinguished corps of American teachers
shall be expelled, and the doors of our school-houses be thrown wide
open to the Jesuits. Why should the Protestant part of our population
remain indifferent when these insults are so impudently flung in their
faces? They have deemed it wise and better for themselves, and out
of kindly deference to their assailants, to prohibit the teaching of
any system of religious belief in their public schools, or the levy
of any tax for that object; and, in order that Church and State shall
remain perpetually separated, they have provided for this inhibition
by constitutional provisions--both National and State. To the Jesuit,
therefore, all this is "godless," and the Government is "godless" for
separating Church and State, and the Protestant people are "godless,"
rapidly hastening to inevitable ruin in this life and to fearful
punishment hereafter!
There ought to come a time when this controversy, forced upon the
people against their will, shall cease. Our public schools are
designed for training and educating American citizens--those who are
to perpetuate our institutions when existing generations have passed
away--and it is no special wonder that those who do not come up to the
full measure of American citizenship themselves, and desire that others
shall not do so, are seeking to destroy them. Notwithstanding they are
fully protected in the right of maintaining and conducting their own
private schools in their own way, without the least interference from
any quarter, they have presumptuously, if not insolently, inaugurated
a relentless warfare upon our whole system of public education,
because our common schools are nurseries of patriotism, and keep
alive in the minds of our children the obligation of obedience to
the Constitution and Government as they are. If the system we have so
long cherished were weakened materially by this malignant warfare, it
would be the just cause of serious alarm. But everything occurring
creates a contrary belief, by giving assurance that it continues to
disseminate influences fast reaching the most remote and obscure
places in the country, causing the popular heart to rejoice at the
victories it has already won over ignorance and vice, and manifesting
that it possesses established power sufficient to assure continued
growth and complete triumph. Nevertheless, it is well and important
for us all to know what attitude Leo XIII occupies toward our common
schools, and what kind of education he proposes to establish here in
preference to that we have cherished so highly. In this way it will be
plainly seen that his first and highest object is the extermination
of Protestantism, by putting out of the power of those who obey him
implicitly to become American citizens in the sense and meaning of
the Constitution of the United States. He knows nothing of the nature
of this citizenship or of the obligations it imposes. As a foreigner
and alien, ignorant of our language, Constitution, and wants, his
chief object is to create here a politico-religious party, held in
unity by the desire to restore to him his lost crown as a religious
duty, so that when he shall have succeeded in that he may bring us
all within his spiritual jurisdiction, and deal with us accordingly.
This accomplished, the history of the papacy for more than a thousand
years proves that the next step would be to treat our nationality as
a fiction and our boundary-lines as merely imaginary, so that instead
of our present independence we should be reduced to an inferior and
submissive department in a vast and universal "Holy Empire," with its
crown resting upon his own head, and, after him, upon the heads of his
successors.
Not very long ago Leo XIII sent to the United States an official
representative in the person of Mgr. Satolli, nominally Archbishop of
Lepanto, in Greece. He is called a "delegate," but in view of the
fact that he fully represents the pope, as his other self, and that
his powers are so complete and plenary that no appeal can be taken
from his decisions, it is more appropriate to call him a vice-pope.
He is said to be a learned and discreet man, and it is doubtless
true that he deserves all the compliments otherwise bestowed upon
him. He had not, however, been long in this country before he found
that there were divisions of sentiment among the Roman Catholics
with reference to our common schools, some sending their children to
them, notwithstanding the instructions of their priests not to do so,
and others refusing because they considered them "godless;" that is,
infidel. This devolved upon him the duty and necessity of deciding
a question which had hitherto baffled the most ingenious minds--a
question made more difficult by the fact that it involved either the
approval or disapproval of well-established and popular measures of
public polity. His decision is entitled to consideration, and should be
closely scrutinized, inasmuch as it is claimed for it that it is the
final solution of a great and puzzling problem. The statement of it
which follows, is taken substantially from that made by himself to the
archbishops at a meeting held by them in New York.
He claims for "the Catholic Church" both "the duty and divine right"
of teaching religion to "all nations," and of "instructing the young;"
that is, "she holds for herself the right of teaching the truths of
faith and law of morals in order to bring up youth in the habits
of Christian life." Nevertheless, "there is no repugnance in their
learning the _first elements_ and the _higher branches of the arts and
natural sciences_ in public schools controlled by the State," which
protects them in their persons and property. "But," he continues, "the
Catholic Church shrinks from those features of public schools which
are opposed to the truth of Christianity and to morality;" wherefore
he insists that every effort shall be made, both by the bishops and
others, to remove these "objectionable features." And he recommends
that the bishops and the civil authorities shall agree "to conduct
the schools with mutual attention and due consideration for their
respective rights;" that is, that the schools shall be under their
joint control, so that teachers "for the secular branches" shall be
"inhibited from offending Catholic religion and morality," and the
Church be permitted to shed her "light" by "teaching the children
catechism, in order to remove danger to their faith and morals from any
quarter whatsoever."
This was adroit, but not satisfactory. Although it was understood
that Mgr. Satolli's decisions were to be final, this created such
disaffection that it was found necessary to submit the matter to the
pope, against whose opinion, when officially promulgated, there could
be no protest. Leo XIII deliberated upon the matter for some time,
and received from the American prelates arguments upon both sides.
He, however, reached a conclusion which he communicated to Cardinal
Gibbons in an encyclical dated May 31, 1893, which constitutes one of
the latest papal utterances. Besides its numerous recitals, some of
which do not bear directly upon the subject, he distinctly approves the
decision of Mgr. Satolli, because it had been approved and recommended
to him by the archbishops at their meeting in New York. He expresses
great admiration for the people of the United States--especially the
Roman Catholic portion of them--and says that he had sent Mgr. Satolli
here in order that his "presence might be made, as it were, perpetual
among the faithful by the _permanent_ establishment of an apostolic
delegation at Washington." This he probably considers a precautionary
step; for, as Mgr. Satolli can not have any official relations with
our Government--Italy being represented by a minister appointed by
the king--he can remain as a "permanent establishment" at the Capital
of the nation, so that he may not only watch the course of events,
but be in readiness to become an apostolic minister plenipotentiary
whensoever, by the aid of the faithful outside of Italy, he shall be
able to snatch the crown from the head upon which the Italian people
have placed it, and put it upon his own!
The approval of Mgr. Satolli's decision, however, has this important
condition attached to it by Leo XIII: "That _Catholic schools are
to be most sedulously promoted_, and that it is to be left to the
judgment and conscience of the _ordinary_ to decide, according to the
circumstances, when it is lawful and when unlawful to attend public
schools." This is a most significant condition. In the first place, it
takes away from the parents the right to direct the education of their
children, and places it in the hands of the ordinary, who officially
represents the papal power. In the second place, it leaves the papal
condemnation and censure still resting upon our system of common
schools, and only removes it, here and there, from such local and
particular schools as the ordinaries of the Church may find acceptable
to them. And in the third place, it is a positive and unqualified
affirmance of what multitudes of priests have said, that our schools
are "godless," and that, in order to counteract their irreligious
influences, "Catholic schools are to be most sedulously promoted."
But there is another condition attached by Leo XIII which is equally
significant as that just named. It is due to him that this should be
stated in his own words. He says: "As we have already declared in our
letter of the 23d of May of last year, to our venerable brethren, the
archbishop and bishop of the province of New York, so we again, as far
as need be, declare that the _decrees which the Baltimore Councils_,
agreeably to the directions of the Holy See, have enacted concerning
parochial schools, and _whatsoever else has been prescribed by the
Roman pontiffs_, whether directly or through the sacred congregations,
concerning the same matter, are to be steadfastly observed."
Whatsoever powers the pope may have intended to confer upon Mgr.
Satolli--whether those of a vice-pope or of a mere legate--it is
certain that he did not intend to lessen his own. These are plenary,
and therefore his pontifical decisions are absolutely binding, because
he is infallible! In order, therefore, to ascertain the relation to be
hereafter borne to our common-school system by the Roman Catholics
of the United States, we are required to look to the decision of
Mgr. Satolli as qualified by the conditions attached to it by Leo
XIII. Taking the whole together, it amounts to this: That God has
specially appointed the Roman Catholic Church the educator of the
young; that where another system of education is set up against that
prescribed by the Church, it is necessarily sinful and heretical, and
may be rightfully overthrown and destroyed; that the Church system
of education requires that the pupils shall be taught religion,
and, first and always, that there is no other true religion besides
that which the Roman Catholic Church teaches; that notwithstanding
this, a Roman Catholic child may, as a matter of either necessity
or expediency, be sent to the public schools of the States, merely
to learn "the first elements," reading, writing, and ciphering, and
"the higher branches of the arts and natural sciences," mathematics,
chemistry, engineering, etc.; that the Roman Catholic Church shrinks
from the idea that the intermediate branches should be taught the
children, for fear they should discover that the Protestant nations
are more prosperous and happy than the Roman Catholic; that when Roman
Catholic children are sent to the public schools, efforts shall be
made to procure the appointment of Roman Catholic teachers to instruct
them in their religious obligations and duties, and specially to the
effect that Protestantism is heresy and diversities of religious belief
offensive to God, and consequently has his curse resting upon it; that
the "objectionable features" of our school system must be removed by
plottings within the schools necessary to that end, so that instead
of being free they shall be made Church schools; that so long as the
children are not taught the "catechism" they will remain "godless"
and heretical; and that if in any of the schools the children shall
be taught that the State ought to continue separated from the Church,
or that differences of religious belief should be tolerated, or that
our Protestant institutions must be preserved as they are--all or
either of these things must be considered as "offending Catholic
religion and morality." Thus far Mgr. Satolli; but the pope adds
the peremptory injunction that Roman Catholic schools must be "most
sedulously promoted;" that is, they must be set up in rivalry to our
common-school system, so that the antidote may root out the bane; that
the ordinary, and not the parents, shall decide what children shall be
permitted to enter the schools; and that, in interpreting the decision
of Mgr. Satolli, it must be done in accordance with the decrees of the
Baltimore Councils and the rules "prescribed by the Roman pontiffs."
This settles nothing, and leaves the whole question ambiguous. It is
Jesuitical, because it "palters with us in a double sense," by keeping
"the word of promise to our ear," while breaking "it to our hope." In
referring to the Baltimore Councils as their guide, the faithful find
themselves instructed to omit nothing within their power to pull down
the common schools, and build up Church schools in their places, for
the reason that the former are irreligious, and the latter alone have
the divine approval. And they find also that they are instructed by the
second Council of Baltimore that their children are to be taught, as
an essential part of their religion, that the State is not independent
of the Church, and that "all power is of God," so that whatsoever the
State prescribes not obedient to the law of God is not binding upon
the citizen, and that the Roman Catholic has such "a guide in the
Church;" that if the State shall require of him anything inhibited
by the Church, he must obey the latter, and not the former.[210] But
independently of this, the pope commands that these same faithful shall
interpret the decision of Mgr. Satolli in the light of "whatsoever else
has been prescribed by the Roman pontiffs."
This is indefinite. There have been over two hundred and fifty popes.
Many of these have been good, some bad, but these latter forfeit
none of their infallible ecclesiastical authority by being bad. To
whom, among all these, shall the inquirer defer, when he investigates
what they have commanded with reference to education? Many of them
have asserted, _ex cathedra_, that the exclusive right to educate the
young has been divinely conferred upon the Roman Catholic Church, and
Leo XIII, in his recent letter to the American Cardinal, makes that
assertion unequivocally. It is not believed that any pope ever asserted
the contrary. Therefore, this general and sweeping qualification of
Mgr. Satolli's decision either destroys its effect absolutely, or
leaves it to uncertain rules of interpretation. Thus viewed it leaves
the school question just as it stood before Mgr. Satolli came to this
country.
But Mgr. Satolli himself provides for two school systems, which, as he
regards them, are the rivals of each other, because he, like Leo XIII,
considers the Roman Catholic Church as having had divinely conferred
upon it the right of educating and training the young. But Leo XIII
makes this idea of more prominence when he commands "that Catholic
schools are to be most sedulously promoted." It all, therefore,
amounts to this: that wheresoever there is a Roman Catholic who can
not avoid it, he may send his children to the common schools for the
sole purpose of having them taught "the first elements, and the higher
branches of the arts and natural sciences;" but in all the intermediate
departments of education, they must be under the exclusive charge of
those appointed by the Church to be their instructors in religion.
Hence, not only is there to be a continued rivalry between the schools,
but between the systems as well. In the common schools the pupils are
taught that our popular form of government is calculated to promote
and preserve the general welfare; that our fathers acted wisely and
well when they separated the State from the Church; that laws which
require universal conformity to any particular form of religious
faith, are not only unwise but violative of natural right; that those
people who govern themselves by laws of their own making are happier
and more prosperous than those who suffer themselves to be governed
by monarchs and princes; and that the regulation of public affairs by
constitutional governments is better for society than where they are
regulated at the will of any one man. In the papal schools--perhaps
within a stone's-throw of the common schools--the pupils are taught
that each one of these propositions is heresy, and that both those who
teach and those who accept them as true are under Divine condemnation.
In the common schools the teacher enforces what he says by the example
of the United States, gives instruction in our Revolutionary history,
explains the provisions of our National and State constitutions
which make the people the only source of public law, and stimulates
the patriotism of his pupils by urging upon them the necessity of
perpetuating our institutions in their present form for the benefit
of their posterity. In the papal schools the teacher is required,
when he denounces all these provisions of our institutions as heresy,
to enforce what he says by instructing his pupils that innumerable
infallible popes have so declared, and that they will offend God if
they do not accept what they have announced as absolutely true, and in
order that they may not be suspected of error by their youthful pupils,
they need go no further back among the popes than to Pius IX and his
"Syllabus" of 1864, wherein, after pointing out seventy-nine modern
errors which he condemned--including "public schools" where teaching
is "freed from all ecclesiastical authority"--he adds still another by
declaring that it is impossible that "the Roman pontiff can and ought
to reconcile himself to, and agree with progress, liberalism, and
civilization as lately introduced." Or, if it shall be found necessary
to go further back than Pius IX, he need but refer to the celebrated
encyclical of his immediate predecessor, Gregory XVI, issued July 15,
1832, wherein he declared that those who maintained that God could
be rightly served by men of different religious faiths, "will perish
eternally without any doubt," if they do not repent and "hold to the
Catholic faith;" that it is "false and absurd" to pretend "that
liberty of conscience should be established and guaranteed to each
man;" that "the liberty of the press" is "the most fatal liberty, an
execrable liberty, for which there never can be sufficient horror;"
that writings which are "destructive of the fidelity and submission due
to princes" are to be condemned, because they enkindle "the firebrands
of sedition;" that "divine and human rights then rise in condemnation
against those who, by the blackest machinations of revolt and sedition,
endeavor to destroy the fidelity due to princes, and to hurl them from
their thrones;" that "constant submission to princes" necessarily has
its source "in the holiest principles of the Christian religion;" that
they are criminal in the sight of God who "demand the separation of
Church and State and the rupture of concord between the priesthood and
the empire," that is, the State; and that the union of Church and State
is feared and opposed by the advocates of liberty, because it "has
always been so salutary and so happy for Church and State."[211]
If, however, the pupils in these papal schools should indicate the
suspicion that these official proclamations of doctrine by Pius IX
and Leo XIII had not the sanction of earlier popes, their teachers,
especially if Jesuits, will take delight in instructing them that these
two last popes, at the foot of the list, are following strictly in
the footsteps of some of the most conspicuous of their predecessors.
And then they will dwell eloquently upon the magnificent pontificates
of Gregory VII, Alexander III, Innocent III, Boniface VIII, and
others equally ambitious, but of less strength of will. The task will
be an easy one to explain the history of these great popes and the
politico-religious principles they succeeded in grafting upon the
dogmas of the Church. They will instruct them how Gregory VII plucked
crowns from the heads of disobedient kings, released their subjects
from their allegiance, and placed other and obedient kings in their
places; how he claimed the right as pope to dispose of kingdoms,
because "the spiritual is above the temporal power" to so great an
extent that all people "should murder their princes, fathers, and
children if he commands it;" and how he made monarchs, princes, and
peoples tremble before him, as if he, by virtue alone of his pontifical
power, were master of the world. And they will show them how Alexander
III released the German people from their allegiance to Frederick
Barbarossa, and compelled that proud emperor to kiss his foot, lead
his horse by the bridle, and submit to having the papal heel planted
upon his neck; and how Innocent III declared, by solemn pontifical
decree, that the English _Magna Charta_ was null and void, because it
laid the foundation of popular liberty, and excommunicated all who were
concerned in the patriotic work of obtaining it; and how Boniface VIII
decreed, in his bull "_Clericis laicos_," that lay governments "have
no power over the persons or the property of ecclesiastics," and that
those who shall impose tithes, taxes, and burdens upon them, without
the authority of the pope, "shall incur excommunication;" and how he
also decreed, by his bull "_Unam Sanctam_," that the Church--that
is, the pope--holds in her hands both the spiritual and the temporal
swords, with the power to compel the latter to be used for and in the
interest of the former; that the temporal sword is, therefore, "subject
to the spiritual power," and that it is "an article of necessary faith"
that "every human being should be subject to the Roman pontiff."
It requires but little intelligence to see wherein the difference
consists between these two systems of education--the one expanding, the
other dwarfing the intellect. If, however, each improved the intellect
alike, the public schools are entitled to the preference for the reason
that they instill into the minds of the pupils the great fundamental
principles upon which our Government is founded; whereas those who
attend the papal schools are instructed that the most essential
of these principles are the fruitful source of heresies, and,
consequently, of ills to the human family. The two systems, therefore,
remain in conflict--just as they have hitherto been--and the greatest
question the present generation is called upon to decide is, Which
shall triumph? With those of us who desire to maintain our popular form
of government, this question does not involve religious faith. But with
the defenders of the papacy and followers of the pope it does. And,
consequently, those who are willing to form a politico-religious party,
pledged to restore temporal power to the pope, even at the possible
hazard of a war with Italy, and entangling alliances with other
European powers, are promised a crown of eternal glory; while those who
are seeking to maintain our institutions as our fathers framed them are
anathematized for the sin of rebellion against papal authority.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 209: Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Pages 482-483.]
[Footnote 210: The pastoral letter of this Council can be found
in Appleton's Annual Cyclopedia for 1866, p. 677. Its meaning is
plain--that the Church is superior to the State, and must be obeyed
by the State, in all such matters as the Church considers within its
jurisdiction.]
[Footnote 211: The Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs. By De Montor.
Vol. II, pp. 783-793, where this encyclical is given at length. This
work has the special approval of the Archbishop of New York.]