DARBOY, DUPANLOUP, MARET, GRATRY, AND MONTALEMBERT
The Archbishop of Paris in 1870 was Mgr. Darboy. The records of his
See had been recently a series of ghastly tragedies. His immediate
predecessors were Quélen, Affre, Sibour, and Cardinal Morlot. Only
the last had died a natural death. Affre was shot on the barricades,
and Sibour assassinated by one of his own priests. Darboy himself was
destined to be added to the same terrible list. He was shot in prison
during the Commune in 1871. His religious sympathies were the reverse
of Ultramontane.
“By his early theological training, by mental tendencies, and not
less by the traditions of the Diocese and See of Paris, Mgr. Darboy,”
says a biographer, “was devoted to the ancient principles of the
Church of France.”[238]
[238] Guillermin, p. 124.
Darboy strove to maintain the ancient rights and authority of the
Episcopate, and made no secret of his repugnance to--nay, he openly
rejected--the theory that the Roman Pontiff possessed direct and
immediate authority over every separate diocese. And, while he was
a strong supporter of the Pope’s temporal power, he held to the
time-honoured principle, that no papal document could be published in
France without State permission. His great position and remarkable
gifts of caution and self-control made him a power to be reckoned
with, whether in France or at Rome. In the Vatican he was disliked
and feared, as one of the strongest obstructors to Ultramontane
conceptions. Napoleon III., who appointed him Archbishop, requested
Pius IX. to raise him to the Cardinalate. The Pope would neither
refuse nor consent. But he gave expression to his disgust in a private
letter[239] to Darboy, rebuking him in the severest terms for holding
opinions injurious to the papal authority. Darboy replied, with
dignity and self-control, that he had no desire to offend. But he gave
no suggestion of any change of mind. “I avoid argument,” he wrote,
“because I do not desire to argue with a superior on the basis of a
letter containing inaccurate statements of fact, and imparting to me
words which I have not spoken.” This was in the autumn of 1865.
[239] 26th October 1865.
In the June of 1867 the Archbishop went to Rome in order to bring about
an understanding. Shortly after his arrival he had an audience with the
Pope. The audience began with a long and awkward silence, interrupted
at length by Darboy, who observed that he was ready to hear the Pope’s
orders, unless the Pope preferred that the Archbishop should speak
first. Pius then requested Darboy to speak, which he did, explaining
at considerable length the position of things in his diocese. Pius
expressed himself contented; and Darboy returned to Paris, where he
gave an account of this interview to his assembled clergy, to whom he
was closely united both in opinion and sympathy.
However, the incident was by no means closed. In August 1868 the Pope’s
letter of 1865 appeared in a Canadian newspaper, and was shortly copied
and circulated all over France. The effect of the publication of one of
the severest rebukes which a modern Bishop has received from Rome was
naturally injurious to the Archbishop’s authority. Darboy expostulated
with Cardinal Antonelli. His explanations to the Pope, he said,
appeared sufficient, if not complete. At any rate, no further allusion
to the subject had been made in subsequent correspondence with the Holy
See. Darboy had left Rome with the impression that an understanding was
secured, or the subject set aside. And behold, suddenly the letter of
1865 had been drawn out of its privacy and thrown into full publicity.
Now, since the letter was highly unfavourable, it was clear that the
publication was not his doing. The act did not look like courage, and
had all the drawbacks of indelicacy.
Antonelli replied diplomatically that the incident was very
regrettable, especially since the motives prompting this exposure
could hardly be described as they deserve. But, while concurring in
the Archbishop’s condemnation of the act, he was bound to add that the
Pope was innocent of it and in no way responsible. Darboy considered
this to be an extremely unsatisfactory evasion, and wrote again,
indicating that suspicion attached to certain officials. Antonelli
answered that the officials entrusted with correspondence at Rome
were above suspicion. He admitted, however, that the Nuncio at Paris
received a copy of the letter, with permission to show it to the French
Minister of Worship in case of necessity. It was not, however, likely
that he had availed himself of this permission, or that he had been so
indiscreet as to publish it. Antonelli suggested that possibly the
perpetrator was an ecclesiastic resident in Paris; but how a copy of
the Pontifical letter could have been secured, he was unable to explain.
Expostulations from the French Government failed in eliciting any less
unsatisfactory reply. Vague suspicions and unproved possibilities were
all that the Archbishop received. No real apology was ever given; no
attempt made to repair the mischief done. But sincere relations of
mutual confidence between the Archbishop and the Holy See were made
from that time forward exceedingly difficult. It appears that Manning
was commissioned at Rome to intervene. He visited Paris in the autumn
of 1868, and assured Darboy of the Pope’s “paternal sentiments”
towards him. He suggested that a conciliatory overture from the
Archbishop would be well received at Rome. Darboy declined. After
Napoleon’s advocacy of his claims to the Cardinalate any such step
would seem nothing better than the promptings of self-interest. Thus
the Archbishop reserved unimpaired his freedom of expression. Before
leaving Paris, to attend the Vatican Council, he gave utterance to
his convictions once again, in a pastoral letter to his Diocese.[240]
Dealing with disquieting anticipations of coming dogmas; new articles,
likely to be imposed on Catholics, which hitherto no man had been
required to believe; assertions that the minority would be treated as
an opposition, and speedily suppressed; Darboy seized the opportunity
of re-affirming the ancient principles:--
[240] _Eight Months at Rome_, Appendix, p. 268.
“If the Ecumenical Council orders explicit belief in matters hitherto
open to denial without charge of heresy, it must be because these
matters were already certain and generally acknowledged. For in
these questions, Bishops are witnesses who testify, not authors who
discover. The conditions essential to an article of faith are: that
it be revealed by God; and that it be contained in the Deposit which
the Christian centuries have faithfully guarded and transmitted one
to another without alteration. Now it is incredible that five or
six hundred Bishops will affirm in the face of the world that they
have found in the convictions of their respective Churches that
which is not there. If, then, they propose in Council truths to be
believed, it is because these truths already exist in the evidence of
Tradition, and in the common instructions of Theology; and thus that
they are not something new.”
What Darboy meant by these guarded words, and what his clergy
understood him to mean, is beyond dispute. The theory of Papal
Infallibility was not contained in the traditions of the Diocese and
See of Paris. The contrary theory had prevailed. The Archbishop went to
Rome with a full intention of saying so--and he said it.
When Darboy arrived in Rome, he was speedily admitted to an audience
with the Pope. He was one of the few to whom this privilege was given.
The Pope had decided not to give special audiences before the Council
assembled. But the Archbishop of Paris could not well be left out. The
very security and existence of the Council depended, humanly speaking,
entirely on the goodwill of France. Accordingly the Archbishop of
Paris had to be received. It was a difficult interview. Darboy
complained of the publicity given to the letter of 1865, which, being
confidential, ought never to have been yielded to general curiosity,
by persons surrounding the Pope. Moreover, the letter contained
inaccuracies and errors. The Archbishop said that he had refrained
from a public defence, partly from reluctance to correct the assertions
of his spiritual chief, partly because such defence would be open to
misconstruction as prompted by personal ambition.
The Pope, who thoroughly appreciated the allusion in these last words,
replied sympathetically; adding that he would not henceforth believe
any accusation against the Archbishop. He also expressed his gratitude
for the security which the Imperial protection afforded him.
2. Dupanloup, Bishop of Orleans, was in the year 1868 at the height of
his reputation. No warmer advocate of papal rights existed in France.
In youthful fervour he had written a thesis on behalf of Infallibility,
a theory, however, which he had long since abandoned in favour of
the French traditional view. That which more than anything else had
confirmed this reversion to history was the issue of the Syllabus of
1864, which was to his mind a republication of obsolete mediævalism,
most unsuited to the requirements of modern thought. For Dupanloup
was in keen sympathy with modern ideas; and this example of the
possible exercise of unlimited authority discouraged and alarmed him,
as indeed it did most of the leaders of the Church in France. With
this disconcerting fact before their eyes, nothing could be further
from their desires than to extend an authority already so imprudently
exerted. Distrust of infallible pretensions, decided preference for the
older Gallican theory, accordingly, widely prevailed.
Dupanloup had no suspicion that the Vatican Council would determine
the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. He was able, so late as 1868, to
write to the clergy of his diocese a glowing, re-assuring letter on
the coming assembly. It is an affectionate pastoral utterance, whose
logical cohesion must not be too closely inspected. He is persuaded
that all is well, and he says so in various forms. He assures his
clergy that, according to Catholic principles, Bishops united in
council with the Pope “decide questions as witnesses of the faith of
their Churches, as judges by Divine right.” He is convinced that this
traditional principle will be maintained. Catholics have no cause to
fear. A Council is a sublime union of authority with liberty. This
will be illustrated in the coming events in Rome. He appeals with
impassioned eagerness to the separated Eastern Churches, and to the
Protestant communities, to seize this golden occasion for unity.
In his glowing vision the Council is invested with all the graces
of considerateness and caution: it becomes the means of re-uniting
Christendom--a work of pacification and of light.
The condition of the Church in France at the time when the assembling
of the Vatican Council was proclaimed may be partly ascertained from
some extremely important and trustworthy sources.[241] Cardinal
Antonelli sent a circular to the Nuncios in December 1868, asking for
periodical reports on the attitude of Governments towards the Council;
on the conduct of Bishops relative to the same; on the general bearing
of non-Catholics; on the opinions of the Press, books and pamphlets
issued upon the subject; and on the desires and requirements of each
country. The Apostolic Nuncio in Paris induced four ecclesiastics
privately to undertake this task, and a careful and elaborate memoir
was the result. The report states that the section of the Press
commonly called Ultramontane, such as the _Monde_ and the _Univers_,
wrote on the Council daily, but offended many by their general tone and
the length to which they went.
[241] Cecconi, iii. p. 187.
The French clergy are described as pious and reciting their
breviaries, but in education poor. As to the general condition in
France, Catholics are divided into two classes: Catholics pure
and simple, and liberal Catholics. These latter are the object of
preference to the Government. They fear that the Council will proclaim
the dogmatic Infallibility of the Pope. The assertion circulates that
if the Pope is declared infallible it will be necessary to change the
language of the Creed from “I believe in the Church” to “I believe in
the Pope.” But the great majority of Catholics submit by anticipation
to whatever the Council may proclaim. They admire the courageous
convocation of the Council in such stormy, revolutionary times. They do
not conceal from themselves that the Sovereign Pontiff, by a sentiment
of august reserve, may not desire to take the initiative in a matter
affecting him so personally. But they hope that the Fathers of the
coming Council will define it by acclamation. This report was sent
privately by the Paris Nuncio to Cardinal Antonelli in Rome. To the
astonishment of its four compilers, it appeared, substantially, shortly
after, in the pages of the _Civilta Cattolica_, the more or less
official Roman journal under Jesuit influence. This discovery that they
were being merely utilised as reporters for an Italian magazine, and
that their confidential communications were published in print, under
the heading “Correspondence from France,” so disgusted the compilers
that the Nuncio had to tell Antonelli that they declined to continue.
They feared, not unnaturally, that recognition of authorship in France
might lead to serious results for themselves. This article led to an
able French reply,[242] which accused the Roman publishers of having
printed exclusively in the interests of the Ultramontanes, and of
eliminating everything adverse to the designs of a certain party in
the Church. They had issued in this Italian magazine an Ultramontane
manifesto by no means concurrent with the material of the original
report. The article in the _Civilta Cattolica_ does not, said the
critic, report what actually exists in France, but what Rome desires to
find existing. France and its Government are persuaded that the opinion
of sole Papal Infallibility is not accepted by the vast majority of
French clergy, whether priests or bishops; and they have the right to
hope that the Church in council assembled will have the wisdom to avoid
the theme.
[242] By Emile Ollivier.
But this pronouncement of the Italian journal filled Dupanloup with
consternation. The high position of the journal was beyond dispute. The
vast distinction between its definite and extravagant utterances and
the vague generalities of the Pope’s own statement was equally obvious.
And yet, situated as they were in Rome, could the editors have dared to
publish such assertions if entirely destitute of official recognition?
Dupanloup’s grief was great. Yet for a time he was silent. Meanwhile a
storm of controversy broke out. Writings for and against Infallibility
appeared in all directions.
The Ultramontane doctrine was defended by Dechamps, Archbishop of
Mechlin, afterwards appointed by the Pope Primate of Belgium.[243] The
Belgian Episcopate was small but united; only six attended the Vatican
deliberations. But they were altogether Ultramontane, being appointed
direct from Rome. Dechamps defended the theory of Papal Infallibility
chiefly on _à priori_ grounds. He maintained that a doctrinal
authority, Divinely established, _ought_ to be infallible. Unless it
makes this claim, such authority cannot be Divinely established. For
that which may deceive us, or leave us in error, cannot be Divine. He
endorsed the principle of De Maistre, that Infallibility is a necessary
consequence of supremacy. One who pronounces absolute dogmatic
decisions, and addresses them to all the faithful and the entire
Catholic Episcopate, without requesting the consent, either direct or
indirect, of the Episcopate, but rather commanding them to publish and
carry out his decisions, forbidding them to infringe them, or rashly
oppose them, under penalty of _de facto_ excommunication, is personally
infallible. Otherwise his dogmatic constitutions are a tyrannical
usurpation of the rights of the Episcopate. And, since Dechamps does
not admit the possibility of the latter alternative, he reaches quite
satisfactorily his own conclusion.
[243] May 1869.
Thus, to the Archbishop’s mind, the Infallibility of the Holy See is
an indisputable truth, based on revelation, contained in the written
and traditional Word of God. It is inseparably bound up with truths
which are of faith. Venturing into the department of history, the
author believes that Pope Honorius miscalculated, through inability
to foresee the results of his diplomatic endeavours, but committed
no theological error. He insinuates a suspicion that the Greeks have
falsified the Acts of the Sixth Council. They have so often done this
sort of thing. During the first fourteen centuries the Infallibility
of the Papal See was, according to Dechamps, never called in question.
That Bishops opposed the Pope, he admits. But only those who sided
with the Pope constituted the Church. The doctrine is, he assures his
readers, incontestably Catholic. A man can be a heretic in the sight of
God without being so in the sight of the Church. He is a heretic if he
rejects a truth which he knows to be revealed although not defined.
There is to Dechamps only one truth in all the Gospel affirmed with
the same superabundant clearness as Papal Infallibility, and that is
the real presence in the Eucharist. Do not therefore let us hesitate
to define this truth, which forms the basis of the Divine constitution
of the Church--a truth which Scripture conclusively reveals, and which
twenty centuries have glorified.
This treatise was highly commended at Rome. Pius himself congratulated
Dechamps on the sagacity and erudition with which he had refuted the
cavils of opponents.
3. Then Mgr. Maret, Bishop of Sura, published his book: probably the
most measured, learned, and conciliatory statement of the ancient
doctrine which the French Church had seen since the days of Bossuet.
Maret’s two scholarly volumes were not written for the multitude. They
could only appeal to the few. They form a long historical treatise
on the relation between the Papacy and the Episcopate. History, as
understood by Maret, shows in the Church a monarchy limited by an
aristocracy: a Pope regulated by Bishops. The jurisdiction of the
Episcopate is not derived from the Papacy but from Christ. Maret
disclaims any intention of diminishing the real prerogatives of the
Apostolic See:[244] but he is bound to assert historic truth. History
shows that there were Bishops in the early Church who did not derive
their jurisdiction from St Peter. If Antioch can be traced to him, the
Asiatic Churches are traced to St John. It can be proved that numerous
Bishops have held their mission neither directly nor indirectly from
the Roman See. Their institution is not by Divine right an exclusive
papal prerogative.
[244] Maret, _Le Concile_, ii. p. 9.
Episcopal jurisdiction being direct from Christ, all Bishops assembled
in council possess an equal right. The Infallibility of the Church is
collective, not individual; not to be sought in the isolated utterances
of the one, but in the concurrent testimony of the entire Episcopate.
Bellarmine, the leading advocate of the opposite school, is implicated
by his theory, according to Maret, in insoluble difficulties. For he
admits that, for an utterance to become infallible, there are certain
conditions to be fulfilled, such as serious and prolonged reflection
and consultation with the Pope’s advisers. If these were neglected
the result would be insecure. But, conscious that this conditional
Infallibility diminishes its worth, Bellarmine asserts that an
ill-advised definition is impossible; since the Almighty, having willed
the end, must also will the means. The precarious character of such
_à priori_ constructions is to Maret sufficiently self-evident. The
scriptural evidence points the other way. Our Lord, says Maret, did
not cause His prayer to preserve St Peter from a lamentable defect
of faith: for God respects man’s freedom. At the most solemn hour
in all time--that when the mystery of universal salvation was being
accomplished--the chief of the Apostolic College denies his Master
thrice. If he quickly recovered, wept bitterly, and grew deeper in
love, the analogy would be, not the preservation of his successors
from defects of faith, but their speedy recovery; that inconsistencies
in papal decisions should be transient, and not permanently affect
their loyalty to the truth. Whatever may be said about the letter of
Honorius, what is absolutely certain is that he did not strengthen
his brethren. Often in the Councils of the Church a papal utterance
has been placed before the Bishops. If this utterance were in itself
infallible, the only reasonable attitude would be passive obedience
and blind submission. This is not the attitude of true judges, such as
the Bishops have been traditionally regarded.
Maret complains that the doctrine that Infallibility resides in the
Collective Episcopate is sometimes disparaged as Gallican; whereas
it is by no means restricted to the Church of France, although it
possesses there its principal exponents. Modern Ultramontanism is to
Maret a lamentable phenomenon, greatly promoted by the ill-regulated
influence of such extremists as Lamennais and Joseph de Maistre. It
involves a treatment of history which but for _à priori_ theories would
be inconceivable.
In the midst of this increasing storm Dupanloup wrote, in reference
to his former vision: “Ah! I had drawn an ideal of a Council full of
charity, zeal, and love: and behold, all of a sudden appears a scene of
lamentable disputes.” But still he published nothing until Manning’s
Pastoral appeared, and that provoked him to public protest. It was
November 1869 when Dupanloup circulated his _Observations_, and into
its pages he put his whole mind and heart.
It was natural, said the Bishop to his clergy, that filial piety should
desire to adorn a father with all gifts and all prerogatives; but,
congenial as these instincts were to filial piety, the definition of a
dogma demanded other considerations than sentiment. Journalism, in the
pages of the _Civilta Cattolica_, had assumed the right to anticipate
theological decisions; and declarations of faith in the personal and
separate Infallibility of the Pope were being elicited from the most
simple-minded and unqualified. It was actually being taught--the
reference is to Manning--that the Pope was infallible “apart from
the episcopal body whether united or dispersed.” In reply to these
extremists, Dupanloup did not reject the doctrine categorically: he
confined himself to the assertion that its definition was inopportune.
Yet he marshalled such an array of difficulties and objections as to
imply much more than the inopportuneness of definition.
Dupanloup declares that he cannot believe that Pius IX. has assembled
the Council to define his own Infallibility. This was never mentioned
in the Pope’s address as one of the grounds for its convocation. The
purpose, according to Pius IX., was to remedy the existing evils in
the Church and in social life. Was it credible, asked Dupanloup, that
in the midst of the many urgent problems here suggested and implied, a
novel, unexpected, and profoundly complex and thorny question was to
be thrown in the way, to ruin the prospects of unity, and to provide
the world with scenes of a painfully discordant type? Doubtless, he
continued, men would assure him that a principle was at stake:--
“A principle!” echoed Dupanloup; “even granting that were so, I
answer, Is it then essential to the life of the Church that this
principle should become a dogma of faith? How, then, explain the fact
that the Church has lived for eighteen centuries without defining a
principle essential to her existence? How explain the fact that she
has formulated all her doctrine, produced her teachers, condemned all
heresies, without this definition?”
Accordingly the Bishop denies that there can be any necessity. It is
the Church which is infallible, he says, and the Infallibility of
the Church has been to this hour sufficient for all religious needs.
Dupanloup earnestly recalled the Ultramontanes to earlier principles
which long prevailed in Christendom. The principle to be observed in
defining doctrine is that given by Pius IV. to the Council of Trent:
Let nothing be defined without unanimous consent. Dupanloup remembers
well that when he was in Rome, in 1867, Pius IX., in discussing the
projected Council, was most solicitous that subjects which might
divide the Episcopate should not be brought before it. And in a recent
reply to some English ministers as to terms of reunion, the Pope had
spoken of papal supremacy, but not a word of Infallibility. If certain
journalists still proclaim this theory and expect to intimidate the
Bishops into silence, Dupanloup’s reply is, They neither know Pius IX.
nor the Episcopate.
Dupanloup’s transparent sincerity none will doubt. But in face of the
facts at our disposal, it is singular that he was so little able to
read the signs of the times, or to estimate the forces at the disposal
of the Infallibilist party. It is clear that he proposed to go to Rome
totally ignorant of the issues before him, frankly disbelieving that
Infallibility would come within conciliar discussion. It is clear that
whatever service he had rendered to the papal cause, he was not in the
confidence of Pius IX. But that this doctrine was the deliberate aim
for which the Council was gathered is probably now a settled conviction
with serious students of history. It is simply incredible that so
far-sighted a Curia as that of Rome was suddenly led by impulse to the
formulation of a dogma most momentous yet quite unforeseen.
If Dupanloup pronounced the dogma of Papal Infallibility most
inopportune, it was partly because he understood sympathetically the
conditions of religious life outside the Roman Communion, and knew
that nothing in the world could be less calculated to win. He wrote
most forcibly on the futility of inviting, as the Pope had done, the
Oriental Bishops of the separated Churches to attend a Council,
while preparing to erect a higher barrier than ever against their
reception. Could anything, he asks, be less persuasive than this?
“There is already a division between us: we will make it an abyss.
You already deny the Supremacy; we require you to accept the personal
Infallibility!” Dupanloup is aware that certain recent converts
ardently desire this doctrine. But he knows also Protestants desiring
to become converts whom the doctrine will effectively repel.
But it is in reference to the difficulties which the dogma must create
within the Communion accepting it that Dupanloup is, perhaps, most
impressive.
1. He sees that grave difficulties must attend the attempt to
distinguish papal utterances which are infallible from those which are
not. What are the precise conditions of an utterance _ex cathedra_?
It is generally assumed that all pontifical utterances have not
this character. Does it depend upon external conditions, such as
the person or body to whom it is directed, whether an individual, a
local Communion, or the Universal Church? Is it subjected to internal
conditions; and if so, what? Must the Pope reflect, study, pray,
take counsel; if so, with whom? Or need he merely speak? Must his
utterance assume a written form, or will verbal message be enough? Is
the Pope infallible if he addresses the whole Church but acts under
intimidation? And if fear disqualifies infallible deliverance, does
not also perverseness, imprudence, passion? Or will the partisans of
Infallibility say that the Almighty allows the former, but miraculously
prevents the latter? And will it be easy to determine what constitutes
constraint?
2. Then again he sees historical difficulties in the way. The
definition of Infallibility must be retrospective. If the Pope be
decreed infallible now, it follows that he must have been equally
infallible from the beginning. The same character must rest on all
decisions across eighteen centuries complying with the conditions
essential to its exercise. Is the Council to make the application of
the principle to the past, and investigate this theological field of
history. Dupanloup recoils from the prospect of such investigations;
nor is he happy about their effect upon the doctrine itself. Augustine
taught that, after the judgment of Rome, there remained the Council
of the Universal Church. This affirms the principle that, after the
decision of the Pope, the decision of the Church is essential to a
definition of faith. And Dupanloup manifestly held the same.
3. But difficulties increase. The Infallibility of the individual seems
inconsistent with the Divinely constituted function of the Episcopate
as judge and witness to the Faith. The whole principle of the Christian
centuries has been that the collective testimony of the Episcopate is
the ultimate expression in matters of faith. Bishops, says Dupanloup,
are judges as to what the faith really is. They have always decided
in Councils as true judges. The very expressions affixed with their
signatures prove it. “Ego judicans, ego definiens, subscripsi.” Such
was the formula. _Was_--but when Dupanloup wrote these sentences he
had not anticipated the introduction of a novel form at the Vatican
Assembly. A change of theory is appropriately accompanied by a change
of phrase. Meanwhile the Bishop pursues his argument. If Papal
Infallibility is independent of the Episcopate, then the essential
prerogative of the latter would be done away. What defining power
is left for the Bishops to exert? They can give, we are told, their
sentence in the form of a simple assent. But will they be free to give
their assent or to withhold it? Not in the least. They will be under
an obligation to assent. But no doctrine would depend on their assent.
For, on the Ultramontane theory, the Pope’s decision would bind all
consciences of itself, independently of all episcopal approbation. But
in that case, how could it any longer be maintained, as it has been
maintained hitherto, that Bishops are real judges as to what is of
faith?
Dupanloup’s protest and adverse criticism on the dogma of Infallibility
were delivered, as may readily be believed, with profound distress,
and prompted by nothing but a painful sense of duty. He says that he
is well aware of the hostile constructions which will be placed upon
his words, of the disloyalty with which he will be charged. Yet such
accusations will be as untrue as they are unjust.
“I dare to say,” he writes, “that the Church of France has given such
proofs of its devotion to Rome as give it the right to be heard, and
the right to be believed, when it speaks of its attachment to the
Holy See.”
And he brings his letter to a close with words of sanguine expectation,
soon to be piteously refuted by experience.
“I am persuaded that as soon as I have touched that sacred land, and
reverenced the tomb of the Apostles, I shall feel myself far from the
battle in a region of peace, in a midst of an assembly controlled by
a father and composed of brethren.”
Dupanloup, says Quirinus in the well-known _Letters from Rome_--
“attacked the opportuneness with such a powerful array of testimonies
in his famous Pastoral that every one saw clearly that the doctrine
itself was involved, though he never entered in so many words on the
theological question.”[245]
“If Dupanloup says that he does not discuss Infallibility but
opportuneness,” observes a shrewd critic[246] writing against him
from Rome, “yet two-thirds of the letter are directed against
Infallibility itself; for if the errors ascribed to the Popes were
historic, such a definition would not only be inopportune but false.”
[245] _Letters from Rome_, p. 255.
[246] Nardi in Cecconi, iv. p. 544.
Why, then, it will be asked, did Dupanloup conduct his antagonism on
the basis of opportuneness rather than on that of truth? It was simply
because the opponents of Papal Infallibility, the German Episcopate
in particular, refused to commit themselves unanimously to the latter
position. They knew, of course, that they were greatly in the minority,
and they believed that they could secure a numerical strength on the
basis of opportuneness, which they could not expect on that of explicit
rejection. And in the first instance their impression was correct. The
position served its purpose for several months. It drew adherents to
the opposition. “It provided waverers with a comparatively innocent
method of resistance.”[247] It left an easy loophole for escape in case
the pressure at Rome became too strong. It gave its advocates immunity
from graver accusations, to which they would be liable if the doctrine
were decreed. It would be safer afterwards to be able to plead, “I did
not assert its falsity, I only thought it inopportune.”
[247] _Letters from Rome_, p. 255.
But however much the plea of the inopportune might increase at the
beginning the party’s numerical strength, it involved it ultimately and
fundamentally in the most incurable weakness. The plea of inopportunism
is in the long-run an untenable plea. As Quirinus says:--
“A minority may be invincible on the ground of dogma, but not on
that of expediency. Everything can be ventured to oppose a false
doctrine, but not to hinder an imprudent or premature definition of a
truth.”[248]
[248] Page 256.
It laid them open to Manning’s retort, “When was it ever inopportune to
proclaim the truth?” It was the acid of such criticism which dissolved
the apparent unity of the opposition. For it challenged the minority to
say outright whether they believed the doctrine or denied its truth.
And to do the latter in Rome under such conditions was no easy thing.
Here was the fatal weakness by which the opposition came to grief. We
may wonder what might have been the course of events had the opposition
taken the bolder and stronger line.
Dupanloup knew perfectly that the publication of these searching
criticisms on the doctrine proposed involved nothing less than the
sacrifice of his popularity among the entire Ultramontane section of
his Church. That however he could bear with comparative equanimity.
Popularity had come to him: he never sought it. But what distressed him
greatly was that his action would sadden Pius IX. True that the Bishop
expressly confined himself to the question of opportunism, and that he
pledged himself beforehand to accept the Council’s decisions, whatever
those decisions might be. Nevertheless, in his memorable words, “I go
as a judge and a witness of the faith,” he had formulated a conception
of the episcopal function which was not only ancient and world-wide,
but irreconcilable with the theory of Papal Infallibility.
It was Dupanloup’s great desire to be supported by Newman’s teaching
and authority; and to be accompanied by him as his theologian at the
Council in Rome. Newman, however, says Thureau Dangin,[249] declined
a proposal which he felt would displease Pius IX. But the Bishop
had Newman’s perfect sympathy. The clergy of the diocese sent him
assurances of loyal devotedness. Montalembert wrote in fervid terms of
admiration. And Gratry’s famous incisive letters on the controversy
added much to the intellectual support of Dupanloup’s work.
[249] _Correspondant_, 10th February 1906.
Dupanloup’s public declaration of opposition roused on every side
the strongest emotions. Louis Veuillot, journalist, the extreme of
Ultramontanes, editor of the _Univers_, declared this attack to be
“most unexpected, and more important than any, owing to the position
of its author.”[250] It was to his mind much more serious than the
efforts of Döllinger. The Catholic Bishop had provided poisonous
arguments for an infidel press. Dupanloup penned impulsively a vigorous
and impassioned reply, in which he applied to the journalist the title
given in the Apocalypse to Satan--the accuser of the brethren. He
could have tolerated Veuillot’s personalities, but not his doctrinal
exaggerations. From dogmatic assertions of the crudest extremest kind,
which had appeared in his pages during the previous year, the Bishop
selected the following examples: Veuillot declared that Ecumenical
Councils never had so much authority as the Decrees of the Holy See.
Dupanloup asks whether that applies to the Nicene proclamation of
the Divinity of Christ. Veuillot misinterpreted the text “Lo, I am
with you always”--you collectively (for it is in the plural) into you
singular--that is, “you, the Pope.” He further declared that when the
Pope thought God thought in him; that the Pope represented God on
earth; that to the Pope applied the text, “This is my God and I will
praise Him, my Father’s God, and I will glorify Him.” Veuillot further
declared that God would stone the human race with the débris of the
Vatican.
[250] Cecconi, iv. p. 483.
Whether one who perpetrated these eccentricities of doctrine and
interpretation and prediction could be trusted as a qualified exponent
of Catholic truth was to Dupanloup more than manifest. But nevertheless
Veuillot was in France an accredited leader of the Ultramontanes, a
fervid champion of Papal Infallibility.
Dupanloup’s courageous attitude enlisted the devoted admiration of
opponents of Papal Infallibility. No one testifies to this more
forcibly than Montalembert. Montalembert--who curiously combined a
profound belief in mediæval legend with the advanced opinions of the
liberal politician, denying the Church’s right to employ coercive
measures, which Rome maintains, yet advocating vigorously the temporal
claims of the Papacy--was a Catholic of the ancient type: the born
antagonist of the modern Ultramontane, while yielding to none in
devotion to the Roman See. But his admiration for Dupanloup’s outspoken
words was unbounded.
“No doubt,” wrote Montalembert, “you greatly admire the Bishop of
Orleans, but you would admire him vastly more if you could realise
the depth into which the French clergy has sunk. It exceeds anything
which would have been considered possible in the days when I was
young.... Of all the strange events which the history of the Church
presents, I know none which equals or surpasses this rapid and
complete transformation of Catholic France into a vestibule of the
antechambers of the Vatican.”[251]
[251] Lord Acton, _Vatican Council_, p. 58.
4. To Dupanloup’s support came Gratry, priest of the Oratory, member
of the Academy, Professor of Moral Theology at the Sorbonne. Gratry is
certainly one of the most attractive personalities of the period. A
refined and beautiful character, tender and sympathetic; he combined,
as a contemporary acknowledged,[252] the imagination of a poet with the
gifts of a metaphysician.
[252] Baunard, _Hist. Card. Pie_, p. 371.
Gratry’s famous letters attacked the Ultramontanes on the historical
side. It is manifestly essential to the Infallibilist position that no
solitary instance should be produced of a Pope officially defending
heresy. Gratry therefore took the case of Honorius. “Heretical he
cannot be,” said the Ultramontane, as represented by Manning. “And
yet,” replies Gratry, “he was condemned as such by three Ecumenical
Councils in succession.”
Here is the language of the first of these:--
Anathema to the heretic Cyrus.
Anathema to the heretic Honorius.
Anathema to the heretic Pyrrhus.
Two other Ecumenical Councils repeated this condemnation of Honorius.
The solemn profession of faith recited by successive Popes for
centuries on the day of their election repeated this condemnation. It
was mentioned in all the Roman Breviaries until the sixteenth century.
Then a significant change took place. The name of Honorius disappears.
They have simply suppressed his condemnation. These things are now said
otherwise, “for the sake of brevity”! The _Liber Diurnus_ contained
the papal profession of faith. “As Pope Honorius is condemned in the
profession of faith of the new Pontiffs,” says Cardinal Bona, “it is
better not to publish this work.” “That is to say,” exclaims Gratry,
“behold a fact which overwhelms us. Let us prevent its being known.”
The maxim that truth may be suppressed in the interests of religion
roused Gratry’s boundless indignation. Gratry himself had heard an
Italian Prelate defend on this principle the condemnation of Galileo.
“Yes, undoubtedly,” said the Bishop, “Galileo was right, and his
judges knew perhaps that he was right; that he had discovered
the true laws of astronomy: but at that time this too dangerous
truth would have scandalised the faithful. This is the reason they
condemned him, and they did right.”
Gratry’s strenuous protest is worth recording:--
“Had then the Catholic religion--had the Word of God--need of this
monstrous imposture in a solemn judgment? O ye men of little faith,
of low minds, of miserable hearts, have not your cunning devices
become the scandal of souls? The very day that the grand science of
Nature dawned upon the world, you condemned it. Be not astonished if
men, before pardoning you, expect of you a confession, penitence,
profound contrition, and reparation for your fault.”
The omission from the Roman Prayer Book of historic facts acknowledged
until the sixteenth century was, to Gratry’s mind, an equally miserable
illustration of indefensible principles. “Never was there in history a
more audacious forgery, a more insolent suppression of the weightiest
facts.” The systematic suppression of facts antagonistic to the Pope’s
absolute sovereignty and separate Infallibility ought, urged Gratry, to
prevent us from proclaiming before God and man theories supported by
such a method.
“This was the reason that Dupanloup had spoken. From God he will
receive his reward. And all those who, notwithstanding these
arguments and these facts, are bold enough to go further and
pronounce judgment in the dark, will have to render an account before
the tribunal of God. Absolute certainty is here a necessity. For
the smallest doubt here demands by Divine right the most rigorous
forbearance.”
Louis Veuillot, the journalist, editor of _L’Univers_, criticised
Gratry with an inimitable mixture of worldly wisdom, insolent banter,
and pious resignation.[253] He had fondly hoped that Gratry’s friends,
either by piety or prudence, would have diverted him from an enterprise
which could only issue in odium or ridicule. However, needs must that
offences come. To deny Infallibility in presence of a Council met to
proclaim the unvarying faith of the Church, to deny it by attacks
on the Prayer Book, was a masterpiece among mistakes. Nobody ever
accused Gratry of possessing any ecclesiastical learning or independent
power. Loss of faith explains many things. Needs must that offences
come. As to the contents of the book, it was _Janus réchauffé_.
Gratry would never convince the human mind with his Protestant,
Gallican, free-thinking ideas. Gratry is described as being as
innocent as a new-born babe, as having studied nothing, read nothing,
but passionately advocating what others have told him. And yet this
innocence is surprising in an Academician, formerly of the Oratory,
author of a book on logic. This innocent is, moreover, a priest.
Strangers have brought him papers which say that his Mother has told
him lies; and he takes them for angels and believes them. But Gratry
is also a mathematician; and all mathematicians have some curious
twist in the brain. Just as Laplace the mathematician had no need of
the hypothesis of God in his world, so Gratry the mathematician has
no need of the hypothesis of the Pope in his conception of the Church.
Gratry ought to have submitted these angels who instructed him to the
test of holy water. We know these angels of his. One of them is called
_Janus_. That serpent has deceived the dove. Gratry has taken Germanism
for science--just as it came from Germany. Inaccurate mathematician!
Incurable infancy!
[253] Louis Veuillot, _Rome pendant le Concile_, p. 156.
So Veuillot railed and ridiculed. And Veuillot obtained letters of
papal approval for his defence of the faith.
Gratry’s four letters were read with avidity through France; they were
circulated in Rome, and translated into English. Four editions appeared
in a single year. They roused the keenest emotions on either side.
They were denounced. They were applauded. Meantime the shrewd observer
wondered what the end would be, should this controverted opinion become
translated into the province of necessary belief.[254] Episcopal
condemnations were freely issued. The Archbishop of Mechlin descended
to personalities, recommending Gratry to confine his attention to
philosophy, and to cease to scandalise Christendom with erroneous ideas
and outrages against the Holy See. Another Bishop wrote in terms which
show how profoundly men’s passions were stirred, that the Bishop of
Orleans, secretly acting with an ability worthy of a better cause,
had only too successfully roused both cultured and popular circles,
disturbed the high regions of diplomacy, and attacked the hopes and
convictions of the Catholic world. Döllinger, Maret, and Dupanloup
were a triumvirate of agitators, to whom was now added that insulter
of the Roman Church, the Abbé Gratry.[255] The Oratory, anxious for
its safety, repudiated all connection with its former associate.[256]
The unfortunate priest was the victim of the grossest attacks and
suspicions. A few--but very few--ventured openly to support him. The
Hungarian Prelate, Strossmayer,[257] had the courage to strengthen him.
Strossmayer had read Gratry’s defence of Dupanloup with the greatest
joy. Fervid indiscretion was bringing the gravest perils upon the
Church, and the crisis called for the most energetic resistance. May
Gratry go on and prosper! But such Episcopal encouragements were few.
[254] Cf. Ollivier, ii. p. 57.
[255] _Acta_, p. 1425.
[256] _Acta_, p. 1382.
[257] _Ibid._ p. 1383.
On the other hand, the Bishop of Strasburg endeavoured to suppress the
circulation in the usual mediæval way. He condemned the letters of
Gratry as containing false propositions, scandalous, insulting to the
Holy Roman Church, opening the way to errors already condemned, rash,
and bordering upon heresy. He prohibited the reading, circulating,
or possession of these letters either by clergy or faithful in his
diocese.[258]
[258] _Ibid._ p. 1393 (February 1870).
5. Montalembert, ruined though he was in health by an incurable malady,
was roused by this reticence among the men who secretly approved, and
came to Gratry’s support. “Since the strong do not support their own
champion,” said Montalembert, “the sick must needs rise from their beds
and speak.”[259]
[259] Ollivier, ii. p. 63.
“I venture to say that you will not find ... in my ... speeches
or writings a single word in conformity with the doctrines or
pretensions of the Ultramontanes of the present day; and that for an
excellent reason--which is, that nobody had thought of advocating
them or raising them, during the period between my entrance into
public life and the advent of the Second Empire. Never, thank Heaven,
have I thought, said, or written anything favourable to the personal
and separate Infallibility of the Pope such as men seek to impose
upon us.”[260]
“How was it possible,” wrote Montalembert, “to foresee in 1847
that the Liberalism of Pius IX., welcomed as it was by Liberals
everywhere, would ever become the pontificate represented and
embodied in such journals as the _Univers_ and the _Civilta_? Who
could possibly anticipate the triumph of the theologian-advocates of
absolute power; the novel Ultramontanism, which, began by destroying
our liberties and traditional ideas, and closes by sacrificing
justice and truth, reason and history, wholesale before the idol
which they have enstated in the Vatican?”[261]
[260] Montalembert’s letter, _Acta Vatican Council_, p. 1358.
[261] _Acta_, p. 1386 (February 1870).
If this word “idol” appears too strong, Montalembert would appeal to a
letter written to him by Mgr. Sibour, Archbishop of Paris, in 1853.
“The new Ultramontane School,” wrote Archbishop Sibour, “involves
us in a double idolatry--an idolatry of the temporal power, and
an idolatry of the spiritual. When, like myself, you made strong
profession of Ultramontanism, you did not understand things so.
We maintained the independence of the spiritual power against the
exaggerated claims of the temporal. But we respected the constitution
of the State and of the Church. We did not abolish all grades of
power, all ranks, all reasonable discussion, all lawful resistance,
all individuality, all freedom. The Pope and the Emperor were not
respectively the Church and the State.
“Undoubtedly there are occasions when the Pope can act independently
of all regulations designed for ordinary procedure; occasions when
his power is as extensive as the needs of the Church.... The older
Ultramontanes were aware of this, but they did not convert an
exception into a rule. The new Ultramontanes have pushed everything
to extremes, and have argued extravagantly against all independence,
whether in the State or in the Church.
“If such systems were not calculated to compromise the deepest
interests of religion in the present, and still more in the future,
one might silently despise them. But when one forecasts the evils
which they will bring upon us, it is hard to be silent and to submit.
You have, therefore, done well, sir, to condemn them.”
Montalembert’s abandonment of the Ultramontanes is strikingly described
by Ollivier, the head of the Government in France. According to
Ollivier, what Montalembert sought in the Ultramontane propaganda was
simply the removal of civil constraints and the liberty of the Church.
But when men sought to impose upon him the Infallibilist doctrines of
Joseph de Maistre, whose work he had commended without understanding,
he found that he had unconsciously promoted the very opinions which he
abhorred. The absolute monarchy of the Pope he simply disbelieved and
rejected. Yet he saw the forces which he had inspired with enthusiastic
devotion to the Papacy advancing the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
Therefore he gathered what strength remained, on his dying bed, in a
final protest against any such decree. He was permitted to die before
experiencing the necessity to submit--_Felix opportunitate mortis_.[262]
[262] Ollivier, i. p. 451.
Pius IX.’s own estimate of Montalembert was very severe. He described
him, after his death, as only half a Catholic, whose mortal enemy was
pride.
The Italian historian of the Vatican Council, Cecconi, Archbishop of
Florence, is more just. Cecconi says that those who knew the deeply
Catholic sentiments of Montalembert, unfortunately entangled though
they were with magnificent Utopias on liberty, will not credit him
with uncatholic extremes. He rendered to the Church most signal
services. If he was sometimes deceived, this was due, not to want of
intelligence, but of theological learning. When the alternative lay
between liberty and religion, he did not hesitate. “I love liberty
more than all the world,” he said, “and religion more than liberty.”
When asked what he would do if Infallibility were defined, he answered
without hesitation, “I should submit.” “But how would you reconcile
your ideas with such a definition?” “I should impose silence on my
reasonings. If my difficulties remained, assuredly the good God does
not order me to understand, but simply to submit, as I do to other
dogmas.” Such was an Italian estimate.[263]
[263] Cecconi, ii. p. 445. Cf. Foisset, _C. de Montalembert_, p. 103.
Dupanloup reached Rome. He found himself, preceded by a mass of hateful
incriminations and ridiculous calumnies.[264] He was said in English
Roman papers to be in league with Napoleon against the Holy See.
[264] Lagrange, iii. p. 152. Cf. _Tablet_ (1869).
Dupanloup’s generous nature was profoundly wounded. To the clergy of
the diocese who expressed their loyal sympathy with him, he replied:--
“You see a Bishop who, during a life already long, has given manifest
proofs of his devotion to the Church and to the Holy See; but who,
because one day in a momentous question he has said what he believed
to be the true interest of religion and of the Papacy, becomes
suddenly the object of all the insults and indignities against which
you protest: so far has passion prevailed where it ought not to
exist. But what does it matter? There are in life hours marked out
for grave and painful duties.”[265]
[265] _Ibid._ p. 153.
Dupanloup’s house in Rome became a centre of activity for the Bishops
of the minority. He was the animating spirit of the French opposition,
while Darboy, Archbishop of Paris, was the controlling influence.[266]
The French Episcopate possessed no unity, and quickly divided into
two opposing parts. Endeavours were made to hold them together. But
the two French Cardinals represented contrary opinions. Cardinal
Mathieu, Archbishop of Besançon, was a member of the opposition. But
his conduct manifested a lack of qualities essential to a leader.
Cardinal Bonnechose, Archbishop of Rouen, on the contrary, was a
decided Ultramontane. And Pius placed him on the important Committee of
Suggestions. So the two Cardinals pulled different ways. When Cardinal
Mathieu laboured to unite the Bishops of the French Church, Cardinal
Bonnechose adroitly consulted Antonelli, who, acting on the maxim
“divide and conquer,” advised that the Pope was opposed to meetings of
larger numbers than fifteen or twenty. Cardinal Mathieu consequently
left Rome in disgust, and went to spend Christmas in Besançon. However,
in spite of great discouragements, an international committee of the
opposition Episcopate was formed, which materially strengthened their
forces.
[266] Lagrange, iii. p. 156.