JESUITICAL TEACHINGS.
Inasmuch as Leo XIII has considered himself entitled, by virtue of his
spiritual power, to prescribe authoritatively the relations which his
followers in this country are hereafter to sustain to our system of
public-school education, it is proper for us to inquire wherein the
system he proposes to have introduced differs from our own. In this way
we shall not only be able to understand the contrast between them, but
discover why he gives the preference to the papal or Jesuit system.
At the beginning of this inquiry, we are relieved from any trouble
by his biographer, who tells us that while Cardinal Pecci, "he drew
up, in 1858, a constitution and rules for an academy of St. Thomas
Aquinas, which was to extend its benefits to the whole of Umbria," and
that since he became pope he has "made the philosophical method of St.
Thomas the guide of all Catholic teachers."[212]
Thomas Aquinas lived in the thirteenth century, long before the
Reformation, when the world was shrouded in the almost total darkness
of the Middle Ages, and when obedience to despotic rulers, both
spiritual and temporal, was considered the highest duty of life. Church
and State were united, and the former governed the latter with "a
rod of iron." Liberty of thought was suppressed by the fagot and the
flame. He was a voluminous writer, mostly on theological subjects,
and as he treated these in accordance with the system maintained by
the popes--from whom all authority emanated--he was called the "Angel
of the Schools," "Angelic Doctor," "Eagle of the Theologians," and
"Holy Doctor." He was canonized in 1323, about fifty years after his
death, by John XXII, the second of the popes who reigned at Avignon in
France, at a time when, according to De Montor, "the Church languished
in fearful anarchy."[213] These circumstances do not conspire to show
his fitness as a guide for any system of modern education, especially
that existing in the United States. The theology of the Middle Ages,
which he vindicated, filled the world with superstition; and now, after
the ignorance of that period has been dispelled by the light of the
Reformation, there are none who desire to see this superstition and
ignorance revived, except those who, like Leo XIII, consider the times
before this light began to shine as the "blessed ages."
This reverend biographer of Leo XIII says that the "false education"
and "antichristian training" of the young, which prevails in the
United States and among the liberal and progressive peoples of the
world, must be done away with, abandoned, and "Thomas Aquinas must
once more be enthroned as 'the Angel of the Schools;' his method and
_doctrine_ must be the light of all higher teaching, for his works are
only _revealed truth_ set before the human mind in its most scientific
form."[214] This prominence was not given to the doctrines of Aquinas
as "revealed truth" without due consideration of their importance to
the papacy. They were specially taught in the schools of Umbria, under
the auspices of Leo XIII. When he was archbishop, and since he became
pope, he has made them the universal guide of "Catholic teachers"
throughout the world. In obedience to the command of Loyola himself, in
his lifetime, they were also made "the basis of the entire curriculum
of philosophy and divinity" in all Jesuit colleges and schools, and
have thereby become an absolutely necessary and indispensable part of
Jesuit education. It is thus made entirely clear that, whatsoever else
Leo XIII may or may not have accomplished during his pontificate, he
has authoritatively commanded that the _doctrines_ of Thomas Aquinas
shall be instilled into the minds of all, both young and old, who may
be brought under the influence of the papal system of education, in the
United States as well as elsewhere. It is by this system, therefore,
that he proposes to supplant our common schools, so that the end sought
after by Loyola may be accomplished; that is, the destruction of all
popular governments. It will require only a brief examination of these
doctrines to explain fully the purpose of Leo XIII in making them an
indispensable part of Roman Catholic education in the United States, as
well as to show that the papal theory of civil government is founded
upon them as "revealed truth."
In the first chapter of this volume reference was made to Balmes, a
Spanish priest, who achieved the reputation of being "the boast of
the Spanish clergy" and the ablest defender of the Jesuit doctrines.
His mind was well stored with the philosophical teachings of Thomas
Aquinas, to the study of which he devoted a number of years, adopting
the interpretation put upon them in the commentaries of Bellarmine and
Saurez, both of whom were Jesuits. He died in 1848, about the breaking
out of the great revolutions among the Roman Catholic populations of
Europe; but before that time had occupied himself in earnest efforts
to turn back the tide which then threatened to overwhelm the papacy.
His principal work designed for this purpose was intended, as stated
in the first chapter, to counteract the influence of Guizot's treatise
on civilization, which had produced very perceptible impressions upon
the most enlightened minds of Europe in favor of Protestantism over
Roman Catholicism. His special object, therefore, was to demonstrate
that the reverse of what Guizot insisted upon was true, and that Roman
Catholicism was the real source of all existing enlightenment and
civilization. Having written entirely from the Jesuit standpoint, his
arguments with regard to the obligation of obedience to the laws of
civil governments were based entirely upon the doctrines of the "Holy
Doctor," as he called Thomas Aquinas. This may be justifiably inferred
from what he says in highly eulogistic praise of him near the close
of his work.[215] The doctrines he sets forth are commended to the
people of the United States in the preface to the American edition of
his work, where it is said that he has exposed "the shortcomings, or
rather evils, of Protestantism, in a social and _political_ point of
view," and that "the Protestant, if sincere, will open his eyes to the
incompatibility of his principles with the happiness of mankind."[216]
As this learned work has been extensively circulated in this country
for the purpose here expressed, we are justified in accepting its
doctrines and teachings, in both "a social and _political_ point of
view," as accurately expressing the opinions of Aquinas with regard
to the right of civil governments to require obedience to their laws
from all who live under them. And it is necessary for us to know and
fully understand what these doctrines of Thomas Aquinas are, in order
to become familiar with the "curriculum of philosophy and divinity" in
Jesuit colleges and schools, and with the principles authoritatively
prescribed by Leo XIII as "the guide of all Catholic teachers." When
we shall have accomplished this, we shall be better able to decide
whether or no it would be prudent and wise to exchange the course of
studies now prosecuted in our public schools for this papal and Jesuit
curriculum; whether our American schools shall be presided over by the
spirit of the sainted and "Holy Doctor" or remain as they are, under
the care, protection, and patronage of the American people.
Balmes quotes Thomas Aquinas to prove that "human laws, _if they are
just_, are binding in conscience, and derive their power from the
eternal law, from which they are formed."[217] But he makes their
justice to depend entirely upon their conformity to the divine law; in
other words, applying his doctrine practically, as the pope possesses
the only legitimate power upon earth to decide what the divine law
allows and what it condemns, therefore to him alone must the justice
or injustice of all human laws be submitted; and his decision, when
made, is final and must be universally obeyed. Hence the obligation of
obedience relates only to those laws which the pope shall decide to be
just, while those he shall decide to be unjust shall be disregarded or
resisted, or where open resistance is impracticable, may be plotted
against and overthrown in whatsoever mode is most expedient. In order
to illustrate and give emphasis to his meaning he asks: "_Are we
to obey the civil power when it commands something that is evil in
itself?_" Answering he says: "_No, we are not_, for the simple reason
that what is evil is forbidden by God; now, we must obey God rather
than man." He then supplements this with another question: "_Are we to
obey the civil power when it interferes with matters not included in
the circle of its faculties?_" He answers again: "No, for with regard
to these matters _it is not a power_." And this limitation upon the
civil power he explains further by affirming that the spiritual power
of the Church--which is lodged exclusively in the hands of the pope,
who stands in the place of God--has always served to "remind men that
_the rights of the civil power are limited_; that there are things
beyond its province, cases in which a man may say, and ought to say, _I
will not obey_."[218]
The application of this doctrine, as thus laid down by the "Holy
Doctor," affirmed by Balmes, and stamped with pontifical sanction by
Leo XIII, to the condition of affairs under our civil institutions,
is plain and simple and easily understood. It is unnecessary to
repeat at this point the fundamental principles of our Government
which Leo XIII, Pius IX, Gregory XVI, and numerous other popes have
condemned and anathematized as heretical and violative of the divine
law. According to their pontifical teachings--announced _ex cathedra_
from the "chair of St. Peter"--the American constitutions and laws
which require obedience to any of these or to all of them, not only
require "something that is evil," but transcend the faculties of the
Government by encroaching upon those which God has made to pertain
exclusively to the Church, or to the pope as its divinely constituted
head! Therefore, according to Thomas Aquinas, to Balmes, to Leo XIII,
and to the Jesuits, they are not to be obeyed, because "God, rather
than man," must be obeyed. Leo XIII is not, of course, bound, as an
alien and spiritual ruler of the Church, to obey them; but by requiring
that these doctrines shall be taught in all Roman Catholic schools in
the United States, he assumes the spiritual and prerogative right to
require of all in this country who obey his teachings, to violate their
allegiance to the Government because it maintains these sinful and
unjust constitutions and laws. This is perfectly logical--as palpable
as that two and two make four. But Balmes--still following Thomas
Aquinas--does not stop here.
He repeats, that unjust laws are "not binding on conscience, unless for
fear of creating scandal or causing greater evil; that is to say, that,
in certain cases, an unjust law may become obligatory, _not by virtue
of any duty which it imposes_, but from _motives of prudence_."[219]
This reduces the obligation of obedience to the low standard of policy
and expediency, and recognizes nothing whatsoever as due to the dignity
or authority of the Government which exacts it. This doctrine is purely
Jesuitical, and the method of stating it could scarcely have been
improved upon by Loyola himself. No equivocal words are employed to
disguise the actual meaning; it is distinct and palpable. It is this,
nothing more nor less: that if a human law, whether a constitution
or a statute, is unjust because it violates the divine law, then
they who so regard it may, by simulated obedience to it, compromise
with injustice and wrong, and even sin, for the sake of some future
advantage! It is exactly as if it should be said to a nation or a
State that its constitution and laws are heretical and atheistical
because they violate the law of God, but that they will be submitted
to only until the means of setting them aside can be obtained. This
doctrine, as applied to such ordinary domestic laws of a State as
relate to property and the general management of public affairs, is
counteracted by the enforcement of such laws by the proper tribunals.
But it is otherwise when the obnoxious provisions are embodied in
fundamental principles, such as the separation of Church and State,
the freedom of religious belief, the popular source of all political
power, and other principles upon which Government structures are based.
In cases of this character--that is, where the principles are embodied
in constitutions, and are thereby made fundamental--obedience becomes
a mere cover to conceal the secret purpose of ultimate rebellion
against them; or, rather, of ultimate treason against the Government
itself. It is a practical exemplification of the demoralizing doctrine
that "the means are justified by the end." This is the doctrine which
the Jesuits openly and boldly inculcated in India and in China, when
they became Brahmins and worshiped idols, and persisted in these
unchristian practices in contemptuous defiance of the repeated mandates
of the popes, until their absolute suppression and abolition became
a necessity to the Church. But in these times and in this country,
somewhat more of caution and circumspection is required, because,
even where there is perfect freedom of religious belief, "motives
of prudence" forbid that this un-American doctrine shall be openly
proclaimed. The motive, however, that existed then is the same that
exists now; that is, to accomplish by indirection and stealth an
ulterior end which "prudence" requires to be hypocritically concealed.
It is these same prudential motives which dictate that Protestantism
shall be, for the time being, recognized as an existing and influential
power, but with the secretly cherished purpose to deal with it as an
unjust and illegitimate power, subject to entire overthrow whensoever
these "motives of prudence" shall exist no longer!
Thomas Aquinas announced his theological doctrines with perfect
freedom, because in his time--the Middle Ages--the sovereignty of the
popes was undisputed; and Balmes was but little less restrained in
repeating them in Spain when his great work was written. With neither
of them were "motives of prudence" so controlling as they now are among
those who accept their teachings in the United States. Therefore,
Balmes was careful to point out the method of determining when laws and
constitutions are so unjust that they may be covertly disobeyed, by
evasion or otherwise, while ostensively acquiesced in. He says: "Laws
may also be unjust in another point of view, when they are _contrary to
the will of God_;" and "with respect to such laws it is _not allowable,
under any circumstances, to obey them_." All Governments guilty of the
offense of enacting such laws are to be considered as having usurped
faculties which do not belong to them, and are to be told flatly and
unequivocally, when "prudence" will permit it: "_Thy laws are not laws,
but outrages; they are not binding in conscience; and if, in some
instances, thou art obeyed, it is not owing to any obligation, but to
prudence._"[220]
Applied practically, this papal and Jesuit doctrine amounts to this,
under our civil institutions: that one who has taken the oath of
allegiance to our Government is justified in not feeling under any
obligation to obey the Constitution and laws, in their American sense
and spirit, but only in so far as may comport with the ulterior purpose
to violate both, to whatsoever extent their principles shall conflict
with the divine law as defined by the pope. The proposition is easily
illustrated. The Constitution confides to the Supreme Court of the
United States the duty and authority to decide upon the validity of all
our laws when they are alleged to be invalid. That tribunal has, ever
since the beginning of the Government, recognized Church and State as
separated, the absolute freedom of religious belief, and the people
as the sovereign source of political power, all of which is obedient
to the Constitution. Anything to the contrary would undoubtedly be a
step in the direction of upturning the Government and putting an end to
the Republic. Yet this Jesuit doctrine, derived from the theological
principles of Thomas Aquinas--which we are told are "revealed
truth"--not only authorizes, but encourages as Christian duty, an
appeal from the Supreme Court to the pope, and obedience to the latter
instead of the former. Leo XIII, Pius IX, and Gregory XVI, in our own
time, and many other popes before them, have decided--and the former
holds himself in readiness to repeat the decision when necessary--that
the Government has no rightful jurisdiction over matters which concern
the Church or the papacy--whether that jurisdiction is conferred by
the Constitution or by fundamental laws--but that they are exclusively
within the circle of the pope's spiritual jurisdiction. Upon the
authority of this doctrine, therefore, Leo XIII, with the Jesuits to
back him, proposes to obtain the mastery over the people by reversing
the decisions of the Supreme Court; and interferes with the working
of our Government to the extent of instructing citizens of the United
States that disobedience to certain of our fundamental laws, as the
Supreme Court has interpreted and the people understand them, is
an absolute religious obligation, and that obedience to him is the
service of God! With entire unanimity the framers of the Government
separated Church and State, and made that central and controlling
among the principles which underlie it; but Leo XIII solemnly avers,
from his pontifical throne in Rome, that this violates the divine
law, and is such "libertinism" as is leading society to ruin. Thus he
brings himself in direct conflict with our institutions, which would
inevitably topple and fall if he were obeyed and his principles were
substituted for ours. And, in order to secure the object he seeks
after, he has commanded that the doctrines of Thomas Aquinas shall be
taught as "revealed truths" in all Roman Catholic colleges and schools,
so that the children of all the Roman Catholic citizens of this country
shall be so educated as to be prepared for the union of Church and
State, and the subordination of the latter to the former, whensoever
"prudence" shall warrant him or his successors in commanding it. If
this does not propose to erect an alien and antagonistic Government
within ours, upon the principle that "the Church is not in the State,
but the State in the Church," it would require the introduction into
our language of a new set of words to tell its meaning. That it makes
religion the pretext for gradually undermining our civil institutions,
any man can see who has intelligence enough to travel away from home
without an attendant. Those engaged in this work--no matter who they
are or where--are the sappers and miners of an aggressive army.
At the command of the pope and Jesuit general--both in Rome--they
are striving, day and night, to reduce the whole body of our Roman
Catholic population--from the bulk of whom they conceal their actual
purpose--to the low and humiliating attitude of Jesuit emissaries, with
no sentiments, opinions, or thoughts of their own, but the mere silent,
passive, and uninquiring slaves of papal and imperial authority.
After laying down the foregoing general propositions, based upon
the teachings of the "Holy Doctor" and "Angel of the Schools,"
Balmes--guided by the same authority--proceeds to explain the
circumstances which justify resistance to the civil authority of
Governments. In order to make himself explicit upon this important
subject, he designates a class of Governments which he calls _de
facto_; that is, such as are formed by revolution against legitimate
authority, and are able to maintain their existence against all
opposition, like that of the United States. These, according to him,
have no right to exact obedience to their civil authority or laws,
merely because of the fact of their existence. Not having been founded
upon the principles of the divine law, as defined by the infallible
popes, and, consequently, not being _de jure_, they are to be regarded
as illegitimate; and, on that account, no obligation of obedience to
them, in so far as they violate the divine law, can be created even by
an oath of allegiance. They are only to be obeyed "from motives of
prudence," until _de jure_ or legitimate Governments can be substituted
for them. In his view, a Government which possesses the right to
require and enforce obedience to its laws, must have the legitimate
authority to command; and this it can not acquire unless it conforms to
the divine law as the pope shall define it. "Consummated facts"--that
is, the actual existence of an independent _de facto_ Government--can
not confer this right, no matter how well and permanently established
it may be. The period of its duration, whether long or short, is of no
consequence; for, by the Canon law doctrine of prescription, no length
of time can be set up against the Church or the pope. Nevertheless,
as those who pay obedience to the pope are sometimes compelled to
live under the protection of what he calls _de facto_ and not under
_de jure_ Governments, he recommends Jesuitical obedience to them
although illegitimate, because "resistance would be useless," and
"would only lead to new disorders." It must be observed, however,
that this obedience involves policy and expediency merely, and not
the obligation of duty. It is only to be yielded when unavoidable, in
consequence of the fact that the illegitimate authority is too strong
and well-established to be overcome. It would be otherwise if it were
too feeble to defend itself against aggression. And to enforce these
doctrines and principles more thoroughly as religious dogmas, he states
the fact that when the Archbishop of Palmyra wrote a book to prove
"that the mere fact of a Government's existence is sufficient for
enforcing the obedience of subjects," the "work was forbidden at Rome,"
and placed, of course, upon the Prohibitory Index.[221]
He refers very sparingly to the methods of resisting illegitimate
or _de facto_ Governments. As the exponent of doctrines approved by
the Jesuits, the infallibility of the pope was accepted by him as
the doctrine of the Church, although it had never been so decreed or
accepted by the whole Church. This was necessary to his main premise,
which was that as the pope represented God on earth, all the power of
the Church must, from necessity, be centered in him, so that whatsoever
he declared the divine law to be must be assented to as such by all
the faithful. If the pope possessed that power then, he possesses
it more emphatically now, since his infallibility has been made a
part of the faith, and, therefore, all who accept that doctrine are
bound to do whatsoever he shall command with reference to submitting
to or resisting the constitutions and laws of civil governments
whensoever his jurisdiction, as he defines it, shall be invaded by
them. Consequently, the true Church teaching is, that the pope alone is
permitted, as the sole earthly interpreter of the divine law, to decide
whether Governments are _de jure_ or _de facto_, and what constitutions
and laws are to be obeyed or disobeyed; and no appeal is allowed from
his decision. With this final arbiter of the fate and destiny of
nations constantly present to guide the faithful, through the agency
of a vigilant and watchful hierarchy, the teachings of Thomas Aquinas,
the Jesuits, and divers popes, they are required to cultivate, with
the utmost diligence, the habit of obedience to papal authority, so
as to keep themselves in constant preparation for future emergencies.
What those emergencies shall be will depend upon the progressive
Governments themselves, and, in this country, upon the people; who
should not, even seemingly, acquiesce in any measures of either Church
or State, priests or laymen, which shall unsettle or endanger any of
the fundamental principles upon which their civil institutions are
planted. There is no room in this country which can be appropriated as
a burial-place for popular government; but there is room for the still
further outspreading of the influences of the form of government which
is now sending its light over the world, advancing civilization where
it exists, and creating it where it does not.
Gathering the papal doctrines from these sources, authoritatively
commanded by Leo XIII to be considered as the foundation of all Roman
Catholic education, a man must stultify himself not to see that the
fundamental principles of our Government can not enter into and become
a part of that education. The Roman Catholic youth are forbidden by the
papal system from accepting as true the principles of the Declaration
of Independence, or of the Constitution of the United States. Both
of these instruments would have to be excluded from Roman Catholic
schools, or the pope be disobeyed. Or if introduced there, the pupils
would have to be taught that they contain irreligious principles,
which the Church had always condemned, and still condemns. The Jesuit
preceptor would tell them that the American Revolution was a sin in
itself, because it was rebellion against the existing principles of
monarchical government, which alone have the divine approval; that all
men are not created free and equal, because some are born to command,
and others to obey; that governments do not derive their just powers
from the consent of the governed, but the multitude of the governed
are bound to obey their superiors, and they the pope; and that when
our fathers appealed to "Divine Providence" for the support of our
national independence, their appeal was blasphemous, because the
pope, who represents God on earth, has anathematized the principles
they have announced. And with the Declaration of Independence thus
disposed of, they would be further instructed that the first article
of the amendments to the Constitution is null and void, because it is
the duty of the Government to establish the Roman Catholic religion
by law, inasmuch as it is the only true religion ever revealed, and
the Protestant religions are false and heretical; that these false
religions ought to be prohibited by law, and that the freedom of speech
and of the press should be so far restrained as not to allow the Roman
Catholic religion to be assailed, the authority which the pope claims
for himself to be questioned, or the Roman Catholic priesthood to be
subjected, like other people, to obedience to the public laws.
Upon the great work of building for themselves and us a Government
based upon the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the
United States, our fathers entered, as we verily believe, under the
protection of Divine Providence. Are we prepared to have the youth of
this country taught that this is such delusion as can only exist in the
minds of "the dreamers of unprofitable dreams?" Unless we are, we must
discard the advice of any alien power, either spiritual or temporal,
hostile to the progressive spirit which has thus far assured our growth
and greatness, and promises still greater progress and development in
the future. A century of experience has taught us that the founders of
our Government were not only skillful builders, but wise and prudent
counselors. When they shunned the pathways along which other nations
had wrecked their fortunes, they, as we believe, displayed a degree of
wisdom never excelled in the previous history of the world, by building
up a system of secular government which centers in the hands of the
people--a free, intelligent, and patriotic people--entire sovereignty
over the laws. There can be no attack upon any material part of that
system, without assailing this popular sovereignty, and denying to the
people the right of self-government.
When, therefore, we are told--as the Jesuits now tell us--that these
secular institutions created by our fathers are sinful and heretical,
because they violate the divine law as Leo XIII, Pius IX, and Gregory
XVI, in our own time, and numerous other popes before them, have
defined that law, we are confronted by the alternative of either
resisting this assault in some effective method becoming to ourselves,
or of consenting to the papal policy of retrogression, which proposes
to lead us back into a condition of humiliating dependence upon an
alien power which teaches that popular governments contravene the
divine law, and have the curse of God resting upon them. We are no
longer left to surmise this, or to draw inferences with regard to it,
which may be ingeniously and Jesuitically met by the pretense that they
proceed from Protestant prejudices. The doors have been thrown open so
wide by our liberalism and toleration that the ultimate end which the
papacy seeks after is not brooded over in silence as it formerly was,
but is plainly and distinctly avowed, so that it will be our own fault
if we fail to discover the points at which our civil institutions are
assailed.
Our Government has been so well and wisely constructed that it does not
interfere, in any respect whatsoever, with the freedom of conscience.
On the contrary, it is protected by constitutional guarantees, which
we preserve with the most assiduous care. But the papal assailants of
some of its most cherished principles avail themselves of this freedom
to justify their united exertions to restore the temporal power of
the pope, well knowing that if that can be accomplished so that his
authority could be established here, as they desire it to be, he would
exercise his prerogative right to deny this same freedom of conscience
to all except those obedient to himself, and would arraign us at the
bar of the Roman Curia, because under our constitutional guarantees we
tolerate all the varieties of religious belief.
Without the least disguise, these same assailants openly declare their
purpose not to slacken their efforts until our system of popular
education is entirely uprooted from the foundation, and our public
schools are converted into papal conventicles, where the disciples of
Loyola shall have supreme rule and be permitted to plant the principles
and theological doctrines of Thomas Aquinas in every youthful mind.
This accomplished, they would expect that the coming generations,
instead of deriving patriotic instruction from the example of those who
founded the Republic, would bow their heads in absolute and uninquiring
obedience to all the doctrines and dogmas of the pope--substitute
the decrees and encyclicals of the popes and the Canon law of Rome
for the Constitution and laws of the United States--and, discarding
entirely the admonitions of our Revolutionary fathers, would accept
as infallibly true whatsoever the pope should declare concerning the
relations between the spiritual and the temporal powers; that is,
between the Church and the State.
In this work of plucking out every germ of patriotism which
instinctively grows and bears fruit in youthful minds, the Jesuits have
been experts, ever since Julius III and Loyola established a college
at Rome to teach treason to the German youth. Time and practice have
increased their skill, and their disappointment at being compelled
to witness the triumph of Protestantism, while they have become
fugitives among the nations, has intensified their hatred of all free
and independent Governments. Leo XIII--not forgetful of his own early
training--has signified his purpose to select them as the educators of
American youth, so that they may be trained in the religious belief
that our national independence is leading us to "libertinism" and
ruin; and that they can only serve God rightly by forgetting home and
country, and by plucking out from their minds all sense of personal
manhood and every ennobling quality; so that, instead of becoming
influential citizens of a free and progressive country, they may fit
themselves for "uninquiring obedience" to a foreign and alien power,
as the Jesuits themselves have done. This country, so blessed by the
abundant fruits of the Reformation and of popular government, must not
be permitted to turn back to the old paths, which papal and imperial
despotism has filled with pitfalls. The principles of the Declaration
of Independence and the Constitution of the United States must not be
supplanted by papal and Jesuit dogmas--such as have been set forth by
the ambitious popes and by Loyola, in order to secure the complete
triumph of monarchism over popular liberty.
The sentiment of patriotism is well-nigh universal among the people
of the United States--Roman Catholics as well as Protestants. The
former have the same desire as the latter to participate in making
the laws that govern them. Their Italian brethren had this desire so
intensely that they resorted to revolution, and thus secured it in the
only possible way by abolishing the pope's temporal power. Why, then,
should they be urged, with such untiring tenacity, to restore again
this temporal power and revive its evils? Why should it be demanded
of them that they organize into a politico-religious party, obedient
to a papal envoy from Rome, and pledged under the solemn obligations
of religious duty to reverse the judgment of their Italian brethren,
and fasten upon them a burden they have thrown off? Why should they be
required to accept a religion which teaches that mankind are by nature
unequal, with some born for dominion and the multitude for obedience
only? Why should they be commanded to treat as sinful and heretical
civil institutions which now protect them and increase their temporal
happiness? Why should it be continually sounded in their ears that the
divorce of the State from the Church, religious liberty, the freedom of
speech and of the press, are such offenses against the divine law as
must not be condoned in this life, and will not be forgiven in the next?
These questions are not idle, but are full of meaning to those to
whom they are addressed, and could be multiplied almost indefinitely.
They are sufficiently suggestive to show--what there are few so blind
as not to see--that the existing agitation about the rights of the
Church, and the passionate declamation employed by the Jesuits to
maintain it, have but a single object--the re-conversion of the pope
into a temporal and imperial ruler of the Italian people, against their
consent. This--with these agitators--must be accomplished at every
hazard, no matter what other consequences may follow. It is inculcated
as religious duty, which can not be neglected without disobeying God!
All the obedient, therefore, are commanded to take part in it, in
disregard of all human laws forbidding the people of one nation from
interfering with the domestic affairs of another. The reverend author
of the pope's biography--speaking for and by the express authority of
Leo XIII himself--says that the abolition of the temporal power "is
an _international_ wrong which _all_ Catholics are bound to denounce
and oppose _until it is done away with_."[222] This is the command of
the pope, authoritatively uttered in imperial tones. It is sent out
to all the Roman Catholics throughout the world, who are required by
it to defy the laws of the countries which protect them, because they
are mere human laws, and to restore absolute monarchism to the pope,
because the divine law provides that mankind shall be ruled by kings
and not by themselves.
The Roman Catholic part of our population are seemingly content as
they are, in their peaceful and quiet homes, where, with their wives
and children around them, they are secured by Protestant laws in the
right to worship God unmolested and according to their own consciences,
as well as in their pursuit after happiness and prosperity. Are they
prepared to place all this in jeopardy, to minister to the pride and
vanity of those who assume to be their rulers, who know nothing of
domestic joys, or peaceful homes, or such sympathetic affections as
grow out of the tenderest relations of life, or of the laughter and
chattering of innocent children, which make the heart glad? All the
means that learning and eloquence and authority can employ will be
invoked to make them so; and it is considered one of the most effectual
of these to instruct them--as the pope's biographer does with singular
complacency--that the Church at Rome has been always found upon the
side of free thought in religion and popular self-government in civil
affairs! And to maintain this marvelous assertion, he boastingly
claims that the great English _Magna Charta_--the foundation of our
civil and religious liberty--was written "_with a Catholic pen_;"[223]
when he must have known, and undoubtedly did know, that Innocent
III--who claimed, as Leo XIII does, to be "God's vicegerent," with the
apostolic power to build and destroy nations, to plant and overthrow
kingdoms--cursed and anathematized that charter because, as he said,
it violated the divine law; declared it to be null and void for that
reason; excommunicated its authors and defenders as heretics; and
said that if that charter had been carried to Rome it would have
been consumed in flames kindled by a common hangman, as would also
have been the bodies of the earls and barons who extorted it from a
craven-hearted king. The decree abolishing the temporal power of the
pope was also written by a Catholic pen.
Nevertheless, it is true--and no fair-minded man will deny it--that
there have been multitudes of Roman Catholics in all parts of the
world who have been intense lovers of civil and religious liberty,
and who have defended their cause with courage and fidelity. There
are many of these in the United States--men who every day feel the
warm and friendly grasp of Protestant hands. With all patriotic
Americans the welfare of these is close akin to their own. But how
many of these have been found upon the papal throne, or among those
who claim the divine right to dictate the religion of the world, and
exact implicit obedience from its professors? The echo which comes
back from the pages of history is--How many? If Leo XIII is one of
them, the announcement of a fact so important to the world should
come from himself, not from others who exhibit no letter of authority
which commissions them to retract, in his name, his well-matured
and frequently-expressed official opinions. If he has--now that his
mind has become matured by the reflections of a long and well-spent
life--found that the separation of Church and State and the freedom of
religious belief are not violative of the divine law; if he has become
convinced that a government "for the people, of the people, and by the
people," like that of the United States, is not heretical,--then let
the announcement of these facts come directly and authoritatively from
the Vatican. There are multitudes of Roman Catholics in this country
whose hearts would leap with intense joy at such an announcement,
and Protestants would hail it as a sure harbinger of future concord,
peace, and quiet among all classes of professing Christians, such as
existed among the Protestants and Roman Catholics of Germany before
the social atmosphere was contaminated by the poison of Jesuitism.
Thousands who are inclined to acknowledge the pope's authority over
their consciences, within the proper circle of his spiritual domain,
would prize an encyclical to that effect, as if each letter were of
gold or precious stones, because it would prove to the world that Pius
IX was moved only by his own impulsive nature and excited imagination
when he declared that the papacy could not become reconciled to, "and
agree with, progress, liberalism, and civilization" as they prevail
among the modern nations. But until this has been done--regularly and
authoritatively--he must be judged alone by the record he has made,
and of which his enthusiastic admirers boast as if every word uttered
by him was written with the pen of an angel. If the Protestants of the
United States still find in these either an open or concealed attack
upon the most cherished principles of their Government--the separation
of the State from the Church, the freedom of religious belief, of
speech, and of the press, the popular right of self-government--they
can not be rightfully accused of intolerance when they announce their
determination to stand by and maintain these principles to the last.
This they must and will do, as their fathers did before, against all
the combined powers of the world, no matter from what arsenals their
adversaries shall draw their weapons. Nor should they forget that
"eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 212: Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Page 151.]
[Footnote 213: De Montor, Vol. I, p. 495.]
[Footnote 214: O'Reilly, pp. 482-483.]
[Footnote 215: Balmes, pp. 411-412.]
[Footnote 216: _Ibid._, p.v.]
[Footnote 217: _Ibid._, p. 320.]
[Footnote 218: Balmes, p. 326.]
[Footnote 219: Balmes, p. 328.]
[Footnote 220: Balmes, pp. 329-330.]
[Footnote 221: Balmes, p. 333.]
[Footnote 222: Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Page 471.]
[Footnote 223: Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Page 409.]