THE CHURCH AND LITERATURE.
It is of the highest importance that the papal interpretation of the
decree of infallibility should be understood. This can be ascertained
only by obtaining information from authoritative sources, from those
who bear such relations to the pope as entitle what they say of the
intentions and purposes of those charged with the administration of
Church affairs, not merely at Rome but elsewhere throughout the world,
to the highest consideration. In the absence of any direct avowal sent
forth from the Vatican, the next best evidence is embodied in the
papal literature, manifestly provided to explain the character of such
teachings as it is designed to introduce into Roman Catholic religious
schools in the United States, and into our common schools, provided
Mgr. Satolli should make his mission here a success. The conscientious
"searcher after truth"--whether Protestant or Roman Catholic--will find
himself well rewarded for whatsoever labor he may expend in this method
of investigation. If he be a Protestant, he will see that all the
principles of Protestantism, religious and civil, are threatened; and
if he be a Roman Catholic, not belonging to the ecclesiastic body, he
will be likely to discover that his silence is construed by his Church
authorities into acquiescence in politico-religious opinions which his
conscience repudiates and condemns.
During the progress of the Italian revolution in 1868, a work appeared
in Italy from the pen of P. Franco, wherein the relations between the
Church and secular Governments, as well as individuals and communities,
were elaborately discussed. This work was evidently authoritative, and
if it did not have the special approval of Pius IX, it undoubtedly had
that of those high in position at the Vatican. It had two controlling
objects: _First_, to check the revolution, and to bring the Italian
people into a proper state of obedience to the pope, as a temporal
monarch with absolute authority; _second_, to prepare the way for the
acknowledgment of the infallibility of the pope, which was then in
contemplation. It failed in the first, because that involved the civil
and political rights of the Italian people, which they had determined
not to leave longer under the dominion of irresponsible monarchical
power; and aided, it is supposed, in accomplishing the second, because
it was asserted and believed that it had reference only to matters of
religious faith. At all events, the passage of the decree encountered
no direct resistance from the Italian people, as it would undoubtedly
have done if they had supposed it intended to counteract and destroy
the influences of the revolution, in so far as they affected their
political rights.
After the decree was passed, it was considered important that this
work of Franco should be translated into the English language, so
as to bring all English-speaking Roman Catholics to the point of
accepting papal infallibility, both as an accomplished fact and the
only true religious faith; and to convince them of the enormous sin
they would commit by refusing to do so. Lord Robert Montagu, a Roman
Catholic member of the British Parliament, became the translator,
following the original, as far as he considered it expedient, upon
points of religious doctrine, and adding some reflections of his own.
It was published in London in 1874--four years after the passage
of the decree--in order to create English opinion in favor of the
restoration of the temporal power of the pope, and the recognition
of his infallibility. This work has 428 pages, almost every one of
which contains assertions designed to prove that the spirit of the
present progressive age is offensive to God, and that mankind can be
saved from eternal perdition in no other way than by conceding to the
pope the universality of dominion which it claims for him, and which,
if granted, would overturn every Government existing in the world,
and, first of all, the present Government of Italy. It is almost
impossible, within a reasonable compass, to explain anything more than
his general ideas, and such of these only as are intended to show how
the powers and authority of the Church and the pope--made equivalent
terms by the decree--are viewed by those whose position and character
entitle them to speak knowingly and authoritatively. For the want of
such information as this volume, and others of the same kind, contain,
multitudes of good-intentioned people, both Protestants and Roman
Catholics, are misled.
He attributes the present "spread of false principles," now prevailing
in the progressive nations, to two causes: _First_, "modern
civilization;" and _second_, "freedom of conscience," or "the right
of private judgment." He considers all who "respect every religion"
as guilty of "formal apostasy;" and says that "Catholics certainly
are intolerant, and so they ought to be," because "if a Catholic is
not intolerant, he is either a hypocrite, or else does not really
believe what he professes."[231] He insists that when a contest shall
arise "between an ecclesiastical and a lay authority, the Church
knows infallibly that it belongs to her to determine the question,"
not only over "spiritual matters," but "whether the point in dispute
be a spiritual matter, or necessarily connected with a spiritual
matter." Hence he argues, in explanation, that "therefore the temporal
authority must be subordinate to the spiritual; _the civil authority,
and its rights and powers, must be placed at the absolute disposal of
the Church_;" that is, the State must obey the pope in whatsoever he
shall command or exact. Consequently, says he, "the Church, whose end
is the highest end of man, _must be preferred before the State_; for
all States regard only a temporary or earthly end. If, then, we have
to avoid an _imperium in imperio_, it is necessary that _the temporal
State should give way to the eternal Church_;" that is, the laws of
the Church must be obeyed before those of the State. He is careful to
designate the duties of a secular Government like ours as follows:
"Let it look to the civil and criminal laws, its army, its trade, its
finance, its railways, its screw-frigates, and its telegraphs; but let
it not step out of its province, and, like Oza, put forth its hand to
hold up the ark of God." To make the Church free, the pope must be
absolutely independent, and not "in the power of any Government--with
the control of education, and the right to 'administer and dispose of
her own property.'" Referring to a free Government, such as that of the
United States, he says: "_A State which is free from the Church is an
atheistical State; it denotes a godless Government and godless laws,
... which knows nothing of any kind of religion, and which, therefore,
determines to do without God._" In order to avoid confusion, the State
must be subordinate to and dependent upon the Church, because, "_by
separating Church and State, you cut man in two, and make inextricable
confusion_," and because also "a separation of Church and State is the
destruction both of the State and the religion of the people." And so
he argues that "the State can not be separated from the Church without
commencing its decadence and ruin;" wherefore "the State must _obey_
the legitimate authority of the Church, and be in subordination to the
Church, so that there may be no clashing of authorities, or conflict of
jurisdictions."[232]
He fiercely denounces secret societies, such as the Freemasons, but
strangely omits the Jesuits, whose proceedings have always been
sheltered behind an impenetrable veil. All such as are not favorable to
the papal demands he calls the "slaves of the devil," and represents
them as belonging to "the synagogue of Satan," only for the reason
that they do not bow their necks to the pontifical yoke--a method of
denunciation as persistently indulged in by such writers, as if Christ
had commanded the passions of hatred and revenge to be cultivated, and
not suppressed. Referring to the bulls of Clement IX, Benedict XIV,
Pius VII, and Leo XII, excommunicating all who show favor to or harbor
them, he declares that any oaths they may take are not binding. He does
not base this upon the conclusion that they are not authorized by law,
and are merely voluntary, but upon the third canon of the Third Council
of Lateran, which applies to all oaths of whatsoever character, and
provides that "it is _not an oath, but an act of perjury, when a man
swears to do anything against the Church_;" as, for example, our oath
of naturalization and allegiance, which requires fidelity to heretical
institutions, and the maintenance of the atheistical principle, which
requires the State to be separated from the Church.[233]
The "liberty and independence of the pope in his spiritual government,"
he makes to mean "not only the liberty and independence of his own
person, but also that of the numerous great dignitaries of the Church
who assist him, and of the officials and ministers and _employees_ of
every order whom he requires, and who are required by the numerous
ecclesiastical institutions which surround him, and which extend their
operations over the whole world." In this extraordinary and pretentious
claim there is no disguise--not even equivocation. All appointed by
the pope, including a whole army of employees, of every grade, are to
be exempt from the operations of the public laws of all Protestant
Governments and answerable alone to the pope! Let the friends of
popular government mark well the reason for this universality of the
pope's absolute jurisdiction over the world. It is this, that "if any
Government were to have jurisdiction over them, except that of the pope
alone, or if any Government were able to impede their action, then the
pope would have less immunity and freedom of action than an ambassador
of the meanest power in the world," because he could not compel them
to obey his laws and commands--that is, the Canon law--instead of those
of the State. And he carries this idea of antagonism between the laws
of a State and the Canon laws, to the extent of the excommunication of
the former for "sanctioning some antichristian principle;" such, for
example, as the separation of Church and State, secular education, or
civil marriages. In any of these cases, "_that luckless State may find
itself confronted by the two hundred million Catholics in the world,
and the God of armies, who protect the Church_!"[234] And because these
"two hundred million Catholics"--which exceeds the actual number by
twenty-five million--do not protest against such vain threats as this,
the Church authorities interpret their silence to mean approval, and
thus they convert their follies of one day into the infatuation of
the next, and finally into positive hallucination. This distinguished
author furnishes many additional evidences of this--evidences
sufficient to convince any unbiased mind, beyond any ground for
reasonable doubt, that the Jesuits obtained complete triumph over the
pope, and he over the Church.
All independent Governments claim and exercise the right to regulate
and manage their own affairs, and when this right is lost, from
whatsoever cause, their independence is brought to an end. Yet this
author lays it down as a settled principle of ecclesiastical law that
the Church--that is, the pope--possesses the exclusive authority to
decide its own jurisdiction over spirituals and temporals. After
averring that "the Church alone is competent to declare what she is
and what belongs to her," he affirms the doctrines announced by the
celebrated Syllabus of Pius IX, and charges those who do not accept
these teachings with renouncing the only true faith. "The pope,"
says he, "can not sanction indifferentism or _liberty of worship_,
nor _civil marriages_, nor _secular education_; he can not concede
_liberty, or rather license, of the press_; nor recognize _sovereignty
of the people_; nor admit the necessity of the 'social evil;' nor
legalize robbery and murder"--thus placing some of the essential
principles of our Government upon a level with the most flagrant
crimes. He characterizes "the daily paper" as the "common sewer of
human iniquities," and considers popular government such an abomination
that the Church must not be silent wheresoever "_a false principle--the
sovereignty of the people_"--shall prevail. Hence, in order to correct
these evils and extirpate these heresies, the "_priests must enter
into politics_," because the Church "has a right and duty to meddle
in every question, in so far as it is in the moral order"--giving, by
way of illustration, "trade, commerce, finance, and military and naval
matters." If a State shall do anything to hinder the accomplishment of
any of the supernatural ends sought after by the Church, it must be
reduced to subordination, as "it is the duty of the superior society to
correct it." Hence "_religion must of necessity enter into politics_,
if government is not to become an impossibility." And, surveying the
whole field occupied by the modern nations, he admonishes society to
avoid a republic, and adds: "Let the form of government be a republic,
and you will then endure the horrors of the democracy of '89, or of the
Commune of '71; for a nation will assuredly plunge itself into misery
as soon as it attempts _to govern itself_."[235]
He devotes a chapter to liberty, in which he says "liberty of thought
is, in fact, the principle of disorder and uncertainty, and a license
to commit every crime." He condemns "liberty of speech," "liberty of
the press," "freedom of worship, religious liberty, or equality of
Churches," and declares that "freedom of worship, or religious liberty,
is a false and pernicious liberty."[236] But being compelled to realize
that Roman Catholics are allowed freedom of religious belief and
worship in Protestant countries, he finds himself constrained to make
an explanation. In doing so, however, he makes a startling exhibition
of Romish and Jesuit intolerance, wheresoever the power to enforce it
is possessed. What is to follow from his pen should command the most
serious attention from all American readers, whatsoever their religion.
His book was not written and published under influences favorable to
the liberty of the press, but under papal auspices exclusively. It is
fairly to be presumed that he was chosen by the proper papal authority
for the purpose, and that so far from its having been placed upon the
"Prohibitory Index" it has the highest papal sanction. He says:
"Thus it is that Catholics, in some countries, ask for liberty of
education, liberty of worship, liberty of speech, liberty of the press,
and so forth; _not because these are good things_, but because, in
those countries, the compulsory education, the law for conformity of
worship, the press law, etc., enforce that _which is far worse_. In the
Egyptian darkness of error, it is good to obtain a little struggling
ray of light. It is better to be on a Cunard steamer than on a raft,
but if the steamer was going down the raft would be preferable. So it
is _relatively good, in a pagan or heretic country, to obtain liberty
of worship, or religious liberty_; but that choice no more proves that
it is absolutely good, and _should be granted in Catholic countries
also_, than your getting on a raft in mid-ocean proves that every one,
in all cases, should do so. _Still less does it follow that, because
liberty of worship is demanded in Protestant countries, therefore it
should be granted in Catholic countries._ To deny religious liberty
would be contradictory of the principle of Protestantism, which is
the right of private judgment. _But the principle of Catholicism is
repugnant to a liberty of worship_; for the principle of Catholicism is
that God has appointed an infallible Teacher of faith and morals."[237]
He proceeds, with marvelous complacency, to argue that Protestants have
no right to be intolerant toward Roman Catholics, because "they have
no business to imagine that truth is on their side," and "lies and
errors have no rights;"[238] but Roman Catholics have a right to be
intolerant towards Protestants because truth abides only with them.
The liberty of the press is especially denounced. It is called "the
most hurtful of liberties," and restraints and "checks should be
imposed upon the press." It is condemned as "a crime," and, it is said,
"there is no right to a freedom of the press." In order to prove how
hard the popes and Councils have struggled to put a stop to "telling
lies in public" by "newspaper editors," he cites the "strict orders"
issued by the Lateran Council, under Leo X, that nothing should be
published which the bishops did not approve; and the renewal of these
orders by the Council of Trent. He then enumerates the following
popes, who prescribed rules and injunctions to prevent these commands
from being evaded: Alexander VII, Clement VIII, Benedict XIV, Pius
VI, Pius VII, Leo XII, Pius VIII, Gregory XVI, the last of whom is
represented as saying that "the freedom of the press is 'detestable'
and 'execrable;'" and lastly, Pius IX, in the seventy-ninth proposition
of his Syllabus.[239]
He expresses the most sovereign contempt for the people and to the
principle of fraternity which unites them in a mutual bond for the
establishment and maintenance of their own civil and religious liberty.
"As dogs have their bark," says he, "and 'brindle cats' their mews, as
horses have their neighs and donkeys their brays, _so have the populace
their cries_." He continues: "Dirty democrats overthrow those who are
above them, in order to leap into their seats and oppose all other
dirty democrats."[240] He condemns the idea of the sovereignty of the
people, as it is established in the United States, in the severest
terms. Where this maxim prevails, according to him, "no government
would be possible," because everything would be in "fearful disorder,"
for the reason that "men have always lived in submission," and every
society should continue to have "a permanent authority over" it. And
as this authority must have its derivation from God, the pope must
be this permanent ruler, because he alone represents God. He draws a
picture of the people performing the "juggling trick and acrobat feat
of functioning the office of sovereign." He mocks at the "supreme
wisdom in the legislation of tinkers;" the "far-sighted prudence in the
commands of clodpoles, hucksters, and scavengers;" and the "docility
and readiness to obey in their beer-wrought, undisciplined minds."
Classing all peoples who have established Governments subject to their
own will, as included in the false picture he has drawn, he avers "that
the people possess no authority, and as they have it not, they can not
delegate it." "The sovereignty of the people, on the contrary, is the
origin of every sort of evil, and the destruction of the public good
or 'commonweal.'" "The people can not ever understand the principles
of justice; they have lost, behind their counters, the little sense of
right they had."[241]
In the chapter from which these extracts are taken, there are a couple
of sentences intentionally passed by as worthy of special notice and
comment. They are pregnant with meaning, and especially interesting to
us in this country, in view of the fact that Protestants are regarded
as rebels against the Church, and are, as a class, still held to be
within its jurisdiction, and subject, like sheep that have strayed
away, to be brought back into the fold again. These questions are asked:
"If you refuse to recognize the authority of Christ in the Church, how
can you expect your subjects to recognize your authority in the State?
_If it is lawful for you to revolt from the Church, it must be lawful
for others to rebel against the State?_"[242]
Whilst this does not openly assert the right of Roman Catholics to
revolt against Protestantism and Protestant institutions, it not
only suggests, but leaves it to be inferred. Everybody knows that
Protestantism was the fruit of a revolt against the authority of the
Church at Rome. According to this author, and the teachings of that
Church, no just rights were thereby acquired, because none can grow
out of resistance to its authority. Consequently, Protestantism has
no right to exist, and it is the duty of the Church to reduce it to
obedience--that is, to destroy it--whensoever it can be accomplished.
Hence the suggestions of the author include two propositions: First,
that as Protestantism is rebellion against the Church, it has set
an example which may be rightfully followed in rebellion against
itself; and, second, that if Protestantism has, by its rebellion
against the Church, established civil institutions which the Church
considers inimical to itself, "it must be lawful" to rebel against
such institutions until they shall be made to conform to the interests
and welfare of the Church. Hence, as his theories advance, he denies
that any such thing as _nationality_, as understood by all modern
peoples, can have any rightful existence, because "it is opposed to
the Church's precept of submission to lawful authority;"[243] in other
words, it is opposed to the right of the infallible pope to ignore
all the boundary-lines of States, and make himself the sovereign and
universal dispenser of the governing authority of the world within
whatsoever jurisdiction he himself shall define. In the same connection
he condemns the doctrine of _non-intervention_ among nations, and
insists that it is their duty to interfere with the affairs of each
other, for the reason that "Christian charity commands men and nations
to come to the rescue of each other."[244] "Mutual help," says he, "is
a fundamental duty of Christianity; and therefore non-intervention
must be a principle belonging to paganism."[245] This doctrine is
manifestly employed to convince all Roman Catholics throughout the
world that it is their duty to bring, not only themselves, but the
Governments under which they live, to the point of interfering with
the affairs of Italy, by force, if necessary, in order to secure the
restoration of the pope's temporal power. In so far as it applies to
the United States it advises that our non-intervention laws shall be
disregarded, because, in enacting them, the Government usurped a power
which did not belong to it, inasmuch as it tends to results prejudicial
to the sovereign rights of the pope. In furtherance of the same idea,
he strenuously resists the doctrine of what is known as _accomplished
facts_--what the French call _fait accompli_; that is, the recognition
of the independence and nationality of a Government which has been
successful in maintaining itself, as the kingdom of Italy has done,
by revolutionary resistance to the arbitrary temporal power of the
pope. Therefore, as the present Government of Italy is an "oppressive
tyranny," has acquired no rights, but has shown "only crime upon crime
in a never-ending chain of iniquities," the "old order of things," with
the pope as a temporal monarch, possessed of absolute power to dictate
all the laws, should be returned to.[246]
We must follow this author somewhat farther, because, before closing,
he reaches a point absolutely vital under civil institutions like
those of this country. He devotes over a dozen pages to "_liberal
Catholics_," in order to prove that, as the Church must necessarily be
intolerant, liberalism is one of the forms of heresy. "To be Catholic
with the pope, and to be liberal with the Government, are contradictory
characters; they can not exist in the same subject;"[247] because
the former involves that which is true, and the latter that which is
false, where the civil constitution does not conform to the papal
ideas. Such "liberal Catholics" as "put their faith in _liberty of
the press, representative government, ministerial responsibility_,
or the like"--as all foreign-born Roman Catholics who have taken the
oath of allegiance to the United States have sworn to do--"_betray
not only an ignorance or oblivion of what is vital to religion, and
of the principles which Christianity requires in Governments and
constitutions; but also a most false and pernicious opinion_." And in
expressing his amazement that there are any in the Church so liberal
towards a Government that is entirely secular and not subject to the
dictation of the pope, he asks this question: "Is it not a matter of
marvel that any one should imagine himself to be a Catholic, while he
is _liberal with the Government_?" He recognizes no authority for the
government of society but that of the Church, because conformity to the
law of God can be obtained in no other way; and therefore he says: "If
this idea of authority is contradicted, counterbalanced, or checked
_in the constitution of a country_, then _the Government is founded on
a basis which is opposed to reason, to nature, and to the Christian
faith_." And for this reason, "_modern constitutions have therefore
put themselves into direct antagonism to the Catholic religion_."[248]
Consequently, he continues, "every honest man, in every country, now
sighs out a new prayer to his litany: From a Legislative Chamber,
'good Lord, deliver us!'"[249] He insists that fidelity to the Church
consists in the observance of all the dogmas set forth in the Syllabus
of Pius IX, and thus enumerates these important propositions contained
in it: The 55th condemning the separation of Church and State; the
limitation of the rights of Governments declared by the 67th; the
liberty of worship condemned by the 77th; the freedom of the press
censured by the 79th; civil marriage reprobated by the 65th to the
74th; secular education, which is called usurpation, proscribed by
the 45th to the 48th; oppression of the clergy denounced in the 49th;
and "all the principles of liberalism, of progress, and of modern
civilization," declared in the 80th, "to be irreconcilable with the
Catholicism of the pope."[250]
With a few more brief comments upon "civil marriage," the
"secularization of education," and the Jesuits, this extraordinary book
is brought to a close by admonishing the faithful not to permit their
children to receive "a godless education" in such public schools as are
authorized by the laws of all our States--because all education should
be under the supervision of the Church--and by announcing in serious
and solemn phrase, that "_Protestantism has filled the world with
ruins_!"[251]
What an extent of infatuation must have incited this last remark! There
need be said of it only that, in former times, there were powerful
Governments subject to the dominion of the popes, but all these have
passed away--not a single one is left. Protestant Governments have
risen out of the ruins of some, and are now rising out of those of
others of them, and all these are happy, prosperous, and progressive;
whilst the pope himself, with the vast multitude of his allies
assisting him, is devoting all the power given him by the Church to
persuade them to retrace their steps and return to the retrogressive
period of the Middle Ages. The author of the work to which so much
space has been appropriated, is one of his conspicuous allies, far
from being the least distinguished among them; and for that reason
the doctrines he has announced in behalf of the papacy have been
set forth at unusual length. This having been done, in order that
what he has said may be thoroughly comprehended, it needs only to be
further remarked here, that, according to what he has laid down as the
established religious teachings of the Roman Church, with an infallible
pope at its head, it is impossible for any man to maintain those
teachings and at the same time be loyal to the Government of the United
States. There is no escape from this; but before further comments upon
this point, there are other evidences to show how, since the pope's
infallibility was decreed, the lines of distinction between the popular
and papal forms of government have been so distinctly announced that
it requires very little sagacity to distinguish them, and even less to
realize that they can not co-exist in the same country.
A reverend educator attached to St. Joseph's Seminary, Leeds, in
England, has, since the Vatican Council, also entered upon the task
of instructing the English-speaking world what are the only relations
between civil Governments and the Church which an infallible pope can
approve. His views were first communicated through the columns of the
_Catholic Progress_, a periodical of extensive circulation; but they
were deemed to be of so much importance and such an essential part
of the permanent literature of the Church, that in 1883 they were
published in book form so as to assure more general reading. This book,
entitled "The Catholic Church and Civil Governments," contains but
little over one hundred pages, and, being in cheap form, has found its
way to the United States, where it is expected, of course, that its
teachings will inoculate the minds of all the faithful, and furnish
instructors to conduct education in religious schools. What it is
expected to accomplish will be seen from the following references to
its contents.
At the opening of the volume the reader is apprised beforehand of what
he shall expect in the way of doctrinal teaching. It is dedicated
to the present pope, Leo XIII, who, besides being designated as the
vicar of Christ, is addressed as "The Christ on earth!"--not as man,
with the faculties and frailties of human nature, but as God himself!
Although the author is not represented as a Jesuit, it may well be
inferred that he is one, from these blasphemous words, which shock the
sense of Christian propriety, and ought to excite indignation in every
intelligent Christian mind.
He starts out by assuming that the present pope "is still a king," and
that "he exercises a real authority over his subjects, irrespective of
the country to which by birth they belong."[252] In this he agrees
with the Italian P. Franco, and the English statesman Lord Montagu,
that the principle of nationality can not be permitted to prevail
against the pope in his march to universal dominion--that State lines
and even ocean boundaries amount to nothing. Upon this hypothesis he
bases the assumption that the Church "is a public society, a kingdom, a
divine State," and possesses "the power of public jurisprudence."[253]
Elsewhere he calls this "external power to legislate;" that is, to
pass laws binding the consciences of her subjects, to take means to
insure those laws being put in exercise, to be herself the judge of
the sense of her laws, to punish them that trespass against the laws,
and to bring them into the right path by coercion.[254] He endeavors,
by various modes of statement, to establish the proposition that the
Church is "independent" of all civil Governments, until he reaches
the point of positively asserting it;[255] assigning as the reason
that the "Church is the continuation of the authoritative presence
of Jesus Christ in the world."[256] Turning away, only for a moment,
from the idea of a "universal Christendom"--unlimited by the separate
nationality of States--he draws a melancholy picture of the condition
of the world, unless this independence of the Church shall be fully
recognized. "Once grant," says he, "that the Church is subordinate
to the civil State, and there will ensue a complete upsetting of the
scheme of salvation, an entire submersion of divine truth, a total
overthrow--nay, an utter destruction--of the kingdom of Christ."[257]
"She knows that no earthly power can bind her," nor can she "swear
fealty, or own allegiance to any other sovereign," which propositions
he proves by the Syllabus of Pius IX.[258] Hence, he repeats, "The
Church is a perfect society, and independent of the State;"[259] and
emphasizes it by declaring "that _the State is in the Church_, as a
college is in the State."[260] She has "the right of way. She has the
right to enter every kingdom in the world, to set up her tents, to
propagate her doctrine, to make subjects, ... to reign in every corner
of the earth,"[261] and "_to use the weapons most suited to accomplish
her object_."[262] She "is bound to use the means most conducive to her
spiritual end," and "the illuminating spirit" that guides her "shows
her the advantage of sometimes making use of _temporal_ means." Besides
fasting, abstinence, excommunication, and interdicts, "even more severe
measures have occasionally been found to be very salutary." She "is
justified in using _extrinsic coercion_ whenever it promises to be a
help," according to "the principle of the coercive power," asserted by
Pius IX in the twenty-fourth proposition of the Syllabus. Primarily
these coercive measures are to be employed against "only the members of
the Church;" but are subject to be employed at the discretion of the
pope against all baptized persons. "Once baptized," says he, "then the
Church has over them all the rights of a parent."[263] This includes
baptized Protestants, who, by the decree of the Council of Trent, are
considered as sheep gone astray, but still within the jurisdiction of
the Church.
The Church, he insists, is subordinate to the State in nothing, but
the State is "subordinate to and under the guidance of the Church
in all matters which touch, even incidentally, upon the moral life
of the State."[264] The State "is bound not to institute any law or
sanction any custom which can in any way hinder the Church in gaining
her supernatural end," and "is bound to aid the Church by a _material
assistance_ whenever she deems such assistance necessary."[265] "At
the present day there does not remain one truly Catholic State."[266]
But this does not release them from the obligation of obedience to the
Church, because the "greater portion of their subjects are baptized,"
and "baptism enrolls a man among the children of the Church; and hence,
in spite of their denying the claims of their true spiritual Master,
they are, as Christian States, still bound by one obligation; namely,
to refrain from establishing any law which is against the conscience of
their Catholic subjects."[267] Therefore the Church must "be obeyed by
her subjects, _with or without the good-will of the civil power_."[268]
"The Church has a right to carry out her divine mission in every land,
and to do so, if need be, _in spite of the civil power_."[269] "The
Church sends her ministers throughout the world," "independently of
the favor or permission of the temporal powers," and invests them with
"absolute power."[270] When the pope assigns them a duty, "he gives
them a right to carry out that duty _in the teeth of every earthly
power_."[271] "For the civil power to endeavor to hinder the Church
in the exercise of this right is a crime. It is to resist God."[272]
He claims for the Church the right to go into all the countries in
the world, with or without their consent, and "there to establish and
unfold herself, to set up her machinery" in whatsoever way she may deem
expedient.[273] "Hence," says he, "the Church has a right to erect
her hierarchy, to set up her tribunals, to hold her synods, to open
schools, to found colleges and convents, and especially to be free
and unfettered in her communications with the pope. She has a right
to spread the faith, and _needs not to sue for leave from any earthly
power_."[274] "And this right the Church can never lose. It can never
become obsolete. No length of time can prescribe against it;"[275]
that is, no Government can exist long enough to acquire the right to
mature a system of laws which the pope may not rightfully command to be
resisted and set aside, when he shall decide that the interests of the
Church require it to be done.
Before closing, he treats of the separation of Church and State, and
justifies the condemnation of it by Pius IX in the Syllabus, and says
that "after such a declaration of the supreme pastor, _no true Catholic
can hold that politics and religion ought to be utterly separate_."
But not content with the authority of Pius IX upon this point, he
adds that of the present pope, Leo XIII, whom he represents as having
lifted up his voice "to teach the world that, while the Church and the
civil Governments are orders distinct in their origin and in their
nature, it is the will of heaven that _religion lend its aid to the
State, and that the State should support religion_;"[276] that is, the
Church and the State should be united together, and each aid the other
in maintaining its authority, so that, by their joint alliance, they
should be able to render a Government of and by the people impossible.
In order to accomplish this and the other objects pointed out by him,
he represents that the Church "brooks many affronts, and suffers many
wrongs, and makes herself _all things to all men_"--as the Jesuits did
when they worshiped idols in China, and became Brahmins in India--so
that she may bring all nations and peoples under her dominion, and the
pope become the ruling power of the world, "independent of all civil
Governments," and "subject to no earthly ruler."
Thus we have, in plain and authoritative language, a complete portrayal
of the only form of government which the pope can approve. If he seems
to be reconciled for the time being to any other form, it is merely
because it is expedient to do so, so that by being "all things to all
men," in obedience to Jesuit teaching, he may thereby make himself
surer of ultimate triumph. Every man who shall take the pains to scan
the foregoing evidence will find in it ample proof of the fact--to say
nothing about other independent Governments--that the papal system is
more antagonistical to the civil institutions of the United States
than to any other in the world. Whatsoever professions to the contrary
may be put forth, it is a palpable truth, absolutely incontestable,
that the fundamental principles of our Government are the subjects
of constant and vindictive assault by the papal party--the followers
of the pope--in and out of the United States. The framers of our
Government secularized it by measures which resulted in separating
Church and State, but the pope and his hierarchy, aided by the Jesuits,
fling in our faces the accusation that, in doing so, they violated
the divine law which it is their religious duty to restore. We have
established a nationality of our own, recognized by all the nations of
the earth, but they tell us that it possesses no authority to impose
the least restriction, by any laws it can enact, upon the power of the
pope or his army of ministers and employees within the borders of our
own territory. We have guaranteed freedom of conscience, or diversity
of religious belief, but they confront us with the charge of heresy on
account of it, and openly avow their purpose to destroy this guarantee
by employing the combined powers of Church and State to unify their own
religion, to the exclusion of all others, by laws above and superior to
our Constitution. We have secured freedom of speech and of the press,
and have provided for civil marriages, and for the secular education of
our children at the public expense; and they tell us that, on account
of these and other equally important measures of public policy, we
have become a "godless" nation, living under "godless" laws enacted
for "godless" purposes, and that they have been divinely appointed to
perform the holy duty of exterminating all these evils, in order to
save us from the destruction inevitably awaiting us on account of them.
One is required to give but a single moment to reflection to be assured
that if the pope, by the aid of his hierarchy and the Jesuits, shall be
permitted to achieve the results for which they are now so anxiously
seeking, and acquire such dominion as they desire in the United States,
our free institutions must come to an end. They can win success only
by our defeat. Papal government can only prevail here when our present
civil institutions shall be destroyed.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 231: Popular Errors Concerning Politics and Religion. By Lord
Robert Montagu, M.P. Introduction, pp. 1 to 5; text, pp. 42 to 47.]
[Footnote 232: Popular Errors Concerning Politics and Religion. By Lord
Robert Montagu, M.P. Pages 122 to 136.]
[Footnote 233: Popular Errors Concerning Politics and Religion. By Lord
Robert Montagu, M.P. Pages 139-140.]
[Footnote 234: Popular Errors Concerning Politics and Religion. By Lord
Robert Montagu, M.P. Pages 193 to 196.]
[Footnote 235: Popular Errors Concerning Politics and Religion. By Lord
Robert Montagu, M.P. Pages 201 to 238.]
[Footnote 236: _Ibid._, pp. 311 to 316.]
[Footnote 237: Popular Errors Concerning Politics and Religion. By Lord
Robert Montagu, M.P. Page 318.]
[Footnote 238: Popular Errors Concerning Politics and Religion. By Lord
Robert Montagu, M.P. Page 319.]
[Footnote 239: _Ibid._, pp. 328-333.]
[Footnote 240: _Ibid._, pp. 338-339.]
[Footnote 241: Popular Errors Concerning Politics and Religion. By Lord
Robert Montagu, M.P. Pages 361-365.]
[Footnote 242: _Ibid._, pp. 356-357.]
[Footnote 243: Popular Errors Concerning Politics and Religion. By Lord
Robert Montagu, M.P. Page 375.]
[Footnote 244: _Ibid._, p. 381.]
[Footnote 245: _Ibid._, p. 382.]
[Footnote 246: Popular Errors Concerning Politics and Religion. By Lord
Robert Montagu, M.P. Page 387.]
[Footnote 247: _Ibid._, p. 395.]
[Footnote 248: Popular Errors Concerning Politics and Religion. By Lord
Robert Montagu, M.P. Pages 396 to 398.]
[Footnote 249: _Ibid._, pp. 400-401.]
[Footnote 250: Popular Errors Concerning Politics and Religion. By Lord
Robert Montagu, M.P. Page 406.]
[Footnote 251: _Ibid._, p. 427.]
[Footnote 252: The Catholic Church and Civil Governments. By Rev. John
Earnshaw. Preface, p. vi.]
[Footnote 253: _Ibid._, pp. 18-19.]
[Footnote 254: _Ibid._, p. 26.]
[Footnote 255: _Ibid._, p. 31.]
[Footnote 256: _Ibid._, p. 33.]
[Footnote 257: _Ibid._, p. 34.]
[Footnote 258: _Ibid._, p. 44.]
[Footnote 259: _Ibid._, p 45.]
[Footnote 260: _Ibid._, p. 46.]
[Footnote 261: The Catholic Church and Civil Governments. By Rev. John
Earnshaw. Pages 48, 49.]
[Footnote 262: _Ibid._, p. 51.]
[Footnote 263: _Ibid._, pp. 52-53.]
[Footnote 264: _Ibid._, p. 64.]
[Footnote 265: _Ibid._, p. 67.]
[Footnote 266: _Ibid._, p. 68.]
[Footnote 267: The Catholic Church and Civil Governments. By Rev. John
Earnshaw. Pages 69-70.]
[Footnote 268: _Ibid._, p. 71.]
[Footnote 269: _Ibid._, p. 76.]
[Footnote 270: _Ibid._, p. 77.]
[Footnote 271: _Ibid._, p. 78.]
[Footnote 272: _Ibid._, p. 79.]
[Footnote 273: _Ibid._, p. 82.]
[Footnote 274: _Ibid._, p. 83.]
[Footnote 275: _Ibid._, p. 84.]
[Footnote 276: The Catholic Church and Civil Governments. By Rev. John
Earnshaw. Page 99.]