Diplomatic Feeling and Fencing in Rome, November 1869--Cross
Policies on Separation of Church and State--Ollivier, Favre, De
Banneville--Doctrines of French Statesmen ridiculed at Rome--Specimens
of the Utterances approved at Court--Forecasts of War between
France and Prussia--Growing Strength of the Movement in France for
Universities Canonically Instituted.
Those who arrived in the autumn months in Rome, perhaps with the hope
of preventing the dreaded proposals from being brought forward, or with
the intention, if they could not succeed in that, of organizing an
opposition to them, found to their surprise that the tone of the Curia
was very gentle. The Cardinals and Monsignori, for their part, really
did not care about infallibility. Indeed, the subject might have been
passed over in silence had not such false rumours as to the designs of
Rome been set afloat. Lord Acton names Cardinals Antonelli, Berardi,
and De Luca, and also Bishop Fessler, the Secretary of the Council,
as declaring that the utterances of the _Civiltá_ were not to be
relied upon, and that if the idea of proposing infallibility had been
entertained, it was given up. He also quotes a letter written home by
a bishop, afterwards known among the Opposition, saying that there was
no ground for the idea that in Rome they meant to make infallibility
a dogma. That seemed to be an imagination, spread abroad with no good
design. Still, after the agitation which had taken place the Council
could hardly pass the matter over in silence. The Holy See would not
curb the zeal of the bishops if they resolved to give effect to their
persuasion, but would not itself take the initiative. But if anything
was done, it would be some moderate measure, that would satisfy all,
and give no pretext of a party triumph.
Lord Acton further says, what is confirmed from many quarters, that
Cardinal Antonelli feared that the Pope was about to bring upon himself
difficulties similar to those which beset the earlier years of his
pontificate. Some treat Antonelli's apparent coldness as a _ruse_.
But, Englishman-like, Lord Acton takes the hypothesis that requires
least dissimulation, crediting the foresight of Antonelli with real
apprehensions.
Lord Acton expresses a belief that there might have been some idea of
finding a substitute for infallibility in the suppression of freedom
of faith and conscience; with the expectation that the most prominent
hindrance to the new dogma would be removed so soon as the Inquisition
should be recognized as having one and the same legal position with
Catholicism itself. He thinks that a great step in that direction
would have been taken if the proposition of the Syllabus had been
confirmed which condemns the assertion that the Pontiffs and Councils
had ever transgressed the bounds of their power, or usurped the rights
of princes. As to usurping the rights of princes, a writer like Lord
Acton is at a disadvantage, compared with one like Professor Ceccucci,
who wrote the history of General Councils, for the voluminous work of
Frond. Ceccucci settles the point with an ease of which Lord Acton has
no idea. The Church "never did usurp political power; that possessed by
her has always been the most legitimate on earth" (_Frond_, vol. iv. p.
358).
But one point stated by Lord Acton is that infallibility had been
looked upon as a means to an end; and this is the kernel of the matter.
Just as, logically, the doctrine of infallible judgment was developed
out of that of unlimited power, so, practically, unlimited power must
be exercised by an infallible judge. Admit that God has given all power
upon earth to one man, and surely you will not deny that, in mercy to
His creatures, He will make that man infallible. Admit, on the other
hand, that the judgment which bids the secular arm smite this and
shield that is infallible, and surely you will own that the secular arm
should obey. Liberal Catholics were, not unnaturally, incensed at the
writing in the _Civiltá_ at a moment when those in power might have
been expected to set an example of moderation. The Freemasons were told
that the reason why they dreaded the Council was that they would be
condemned, and that no respectable persons would join them after that.
And the Liberal Catholics were told that their reasons for dreading
the Council were much the same. They professed similar principles with
those of the Masons, which were sometimes called Principles of '89,
sometimes Principles of Modern Society, or Toleration, or Liberty of
Conscience and the Press, or Modern Constitutions, or the Rights of
Science, or the Boons of Progress, or Liberalism. No wonder that men
who had championed the Church of Rome as the Catholic Church, should
tremble when they saw her sinking into a sect so strait as to put all
these principles under ban (_Civiltá_, VII. viii. p. 285).
On November 9 the Pope received the Marquis of Banneville, newly
returned to his post as ambassador of France. After many signs of
vacillation, the Emperor had finally decided not to ask for the
admission of an ambassador. This policy met the views both of the
Papal party and of those who desired the entire separation of the
Church and the State. The latter had adopted the notion that they
took a step towards separation by leaving the Church, while still an
establishment of the State, to legislate for the nation over the head
of the State. As early as July 10, 1868, M. Emile Ollivier, in the
_Corps Législatif_, dwelling on the fact that the Pope, in his Bull,
did not name the Emperor, and that he held all those addressed in it
bound by it simply through its being posted up in Rome, said: It is
declared that, by the simple fact of its being issued in Rome, every
bishop in France is bound and must betake himself to Rome, on pain of
disobedience. The Emperor or the civil power is not thought of. It is
the gravest act accomplished since 1789. It is the separation of Church
and State, proclaimed, for the fist time, by the Pope himself.
On April 9, 1869, Ollivier again raised the subject, protesting
that the abstention of the government from the Council amounted to
an abrogation of the organic articles of the Concordat. Jules Favre
said that it was the separation of Church and State, and as such he
gratefully accepted it. These consequences were denied by the minister,
M. Baroche, who asserted, "After the Council, the rights of France will
remain entire."
This boast passed in France, but not so at the Vatican. The _Unitá
Cattolica_ for April 14 showed that the usual ambiguity of the
Bonaparte policy marked the replies of the ministers on this critical
occasion. The bishops were to go to the Council with "their conscience
in full liberty," and yet "after the Council the rights of France
were to remain entire." "What," asks the _Unitá_, "does that mean?
Does France want to be free either to relieve or to oppose what the
Council will define? After having permitted her bishops to take part in
an assembly which every Catholic must believe to be infallible, does
Napoleon III mean to hold himself free to prosecute them if they preach
the doctrines defined, and enforce the discipline enjoined by the
Council?"
This straightforward question shows that M. Picard hit nearer to the
point than either Ollivier or Favre; for he cried, "It means a Church
free in a State not free."[170] Even that is not quite the truth; which
strictly is, A State not free in a Church which is free; for the State
is part, and the Church whole; or, to recall the image from the early
pages of the _Civiltá_, the State is the leg and the Church the man.
We have seen it roundly asserted by the _Civiltá_ that the Church free
means canon law free. That being so, for any man to speak of the State
being free, in any modern sense, is trifling. In its expositions of
the Syllabus the _Civiltá_ had laid down the true doctrine as follows:
_The first condition of an efficient alliance of the laws of the State
with the laws of the Church, is the application in every case wherein
spiritual penalties are insufficient of the means of coercion whereof
the State disposes._ The voice of the pastor has not always efficacy
sufficient to drive away the rapacious wolves from the fold of Christ.
Therefore does it appertain to the prince invested with the authority
of the sword to arm himself with its force, in order to repel and put
to flight all the enemies of the Church (VI. ii. 137). Refusing to
stand in this position is, in the esoteric sense, separating the State
from the Church. To a conscientious Ultramontane it is absurd to say
that a State in this manner subject to the Church is not free, as it
would be to say that a body ruled by its informing mind is not free.
That is the figure of speech which recurs at every turn of discourse on
the subject.
After it had been determined to ratify the policy censured by Picard,
De Banneville had his interview. Most writers describe him as a willing
tool of the Curia, and as doing all he could to lead France in the way
which it might trace out for her. Lord Acton regards him as honestly
hoping to compose a difference between the Italian and German schools
of theology, by the moderating weight of French influence.[171]
Banneville's despatch, on the occasion now in question, would rather
seem to countenance the former opinion than the latter.[172] But the
Pope in the interview did not say a word indicating his personal
opinion as to the questions to be decided. He did, however, say
that all must be left to the wisdom of the Fathers--as if all had
not been prepared, and doubly prepared. He further said that the
rash conjectures of hasty spirits--in manifest allusion to the
_Civiltá_--were to be regretted, as also the premature discussion of
questions which would have been better reserved to the Council itself.
It is not probable that this deceived M. de Banneville as to the
past, for he well knew how the Pope had encouraged the "premature
discussions"; but he might take it as the covering of a retreat from a
position found to be too advanced. But a wary man might have felt that
perhaps the retreat was only a feint.
The despatch of M. de Banneville shows that Pius IX, like every
Italian, knows how to keep his own counsel. Even his renowned saying, I
am tradition--_La tradizione son io_--is no more than what M. Veuillot
had said in proving that the Pope could not be an innovator--"Peter can
no more be an innovator than the Holy Spirit, which reveals tradition
to him."[173]
The tranquillity of the Curia on this occasion was that of perfected
preparation. The dissimulation would not provoke a remark from a
Roman. The effect of both was to prevent the anti-infallibilists from
organizing any opposition.
Some examples of the points kept before readers arriving at the
Holy City at this particular time may be of permanent interest. The
Canadian Bishop of St. Hyacinthe was quoted as writing, "Sublime
assembly, in which the eye of faith contemplates with wonder, poor and
simple mortals who, sitting as judges, do not hesitate _to impose the
responsibility of their decisions and judgments on the Holy Spirit_,
because they know and believe that they form together with Him one
tribunal." The emphases are given as we find them.[174]
A Latin pamphlet on the crisis, by a layman, was ridiculed, and one
point, which seemed most comical to the reviewer, was that the author
proposed two such queer anathemas; first, if any one offends against
charity, let him be anathema; secondly, if any one begins war, let him
be anathema.
The Archbishop of Lima, being ninety-four years of age, was unable to
come in person, but sent his pastoral staff as a present to the Pope.
It was of pure Peruvian gold, and of the value of two thousand pounds.
From the thrice-blessed Republic of Ecuador came the Archbishop of
Quito, presenting a chalice of gold, rich with precious pearls. He bore
valuable gifts in addition. That "illustrious Catholic," the President,
Garcia Moreno, had, on a public occasion, been presenting prizes to
students, when they joyfully laid down their medals to send them as
an offering to the Holy Father. On seeing this, the President took
from his breast a medal of rare value, all studded with gems, which
had been presented to him by the government for distinguished services
to the country. This he added to the tribute of the youths, and the
Archbishop had the joy of laying the united oblation at the feet of the
Pontiff.[175]
From Venezuela the Archbishop brought more than three thousand pounds
in money. His people had also laden him with their valuables, ladies
having taken off earrings, bracelets, necklaces, and rings to send, as
tokens of their devotion to the impoverished Pope.
Had our English journalists devoutly pondered the elaborate description
given at this cheerful juncture of a bell designed by a priest, and
presented for the use of the Presidents in the Council, they would not
have wasted so much criticism as they did on the rhetoric of a speech
reported in the _Daily News_, in 1875, as having been made by the
Pope, censuring Mr. Gladstone. His Holiness spoke of that gentleman as
a viper attacking the bark of St. Peter, or something of that sort.
Now the bell in question was described as being symbolic, within and
without. The clapper of it was the ship of Peter, round the hull of
which was coiled a serpent attempting to board the vessel, but it was
finally precipitated with its head down, and the three-forked tongue
shooting out.
The doubt of our men of letters as to whether the Pope could use a
metaphor describing a snake attacking a bark, illustrates, in general,
what Cardinal Manning said of those gentlemen on the particular
occasion of the Council--"When English Protestants undertake to write
of an OEcumenical Council of the Catholic Church, nothing less than
a miracle can preserve them from making themselves ridiculous."[176]
It would require a miracle to prevent any one from making himself
ridiculous who should criticize the Speeches of Pius IX, assuming that
his metaphors must have been subject to some rule.[177]
We find the revolution called by the _Civiltá_ "the executioner of the
Church"; and it is said that the Pontiff in his distress is rendered
more and more like Christ upon the Cross, whom he represents, and with
whom he can repeat, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" (Id.
p. 514).
The Word of God is shown to be the source of human redemption, and then
the following applications are made of this principle--[178]
"The State indeed must be civilized and modernized by separating it
from the living Word in the Church, that it may die.... The laws
must be civilized and modernized by putting them in opposition to
the laws of the Word, that they may be laws of death.... Some would
wish the Word to reconcile Himself with Satan.... Schools must be
civilized and modernized by separating them from the schools of the
Word, that they may be schools of death. Wedlock must be civilized
and modernized by separating it from the consecration of the
Word, that it may be the wedlock of death. Public speech must be
modernized and civilized by separating it from the influence of the
Word, that it may be the speech of death. Everything, in fine, must
perish, since everything must be secularized, or torn away from
that God who _upholdeth all things by the Word of His power_....
The modern revolution, inspired by Satan, would find that all its
weapons directed against the Vatican were destined to have no other
effect than that of multiplying the victories of the Word of God,
who reigns there in the humble person of His Vicar" (pp. 522-26).
The Court, if we may judge by its organs, was deeply affected at the
want of faith displayed by many Catholics, who expressed fears lest the
Council should define anything that it ought not to define. Did they
not know that the Holy Ghost would preserve it unerring? Why then all
this solicitude? Could they not trust a body so guided to go right,
without their advices and warnings? They treated it "as an ordinary
human assembly." This sounded like mockery to those who had any idea of
how much Rome had done in employing _art and man's device_ to prevent
the Council from going wrong and to forestall all possible impulses in
any direction not predetermined. Had they only known of the long labour
and the jealous precautions which we shall see gradually coming to
light, the retorts they did make would have been much more indignant.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 170: _Friedberg_, pp. 93, 94.]
[Footnote 171: _Zur Geschichte._]
[Footnote 172: _Friedberg_, p. 330.]
[Footnote 173: Vol. i. p. cxxi.]
[Footnote 174: _Civiltá_, VII. viii. 335.]
[Footnote 175: Under Moreno, Ecuador attained the distinction of being
often mentioned, with solemn commendation, as the one and the only
_Catholic State_ in the world; the one in which the principles of the
Syllabus were applied.]
[Footnote 176: _Priv. Pet._, iii, p. 3.]
[Footnote 177: _Civiltá_, VII. viii. 490. The inscription on the bell
in question is as follows--
Invocata--Immaculata
Pius Nonus--Pastor bonus
Per Concilium--Fert auxilium.
Mundus crebris--tot tenebris
Implicatus--obcoecatus
Per hoc Numen--et hoc Lumen
Extricatur--illustratur.]
[Footnote 178: The term _verbo_ is employed, which in Italian has about
the same effect as _logos_ would have in English writing.]