HOW ROME STANDS TO-DAY.Severalarticles have been published inThe Catholic Worldon the subject of which this paper is to treat—the condition of the Sovereign Pontiff consequent on the seizure of Rome, which thereby became the capital of the kingdom of Italy. As these articles marked the successive stages in the novel relations of the Head of the church, they could not fail to excite the interest of our readers. We look to a like interest, and invite it, for the present article, because it tells of new phases, and of the logical results of the schemes which their authors were bold enough to say were initiated “to secure the spiritual independence and dignity of the Holy See.” With this cry the attempts against Rome were begun, were carried on, and their success finally secured. So familiar, in fact, is this profession of zeal for the welfare of the Sovereign Pontiff, that we do not stop to cite one of the thousand documents in which it appeared, from the letter of Victor Emanuel, presented to PiusIX.by Count Ponza di San Martino, down to the instructions of the ministers to their subordinates or the after-dinner speeches of Italian politicians. Nor need we persuade ourselves that no one believed such an assertion any more than did those who first uttered it, nor than do we, who know what a hollow pretext it was and what fruit it has produced. Twenty years of revolution in Italy, and a vast ignorance of political matters, of the relations between church and state, rendered many in Italy and elsewhereready dupes of the cunning devisers of Italian independence and clerical subjugation. These went with the current; and though not a few have had their eyes opened, and now deplore the excesses against religion they are doomed to witness, they are impotent to remedy what they aided in bringing about, and behold their more determined and less scrupulous companions hurry onward with the irresistible logic of facts. Now and then some voice even among these latter is heard above the din, asking:Dove andiamo?—Whither are we going? That is a question no one can answer. The so-called directors of revolutionary movements often look with anxiety at the effects of the raging passions they have let loose; but as for guiding them permanently, that is out of the question, for they have a way of their own. The skilful manipulators of revolution ride with the tide; they now and then see a break by which the waters may be diverted, and they succeed in making them take that course, but stop them they cannot. They can only keep a sharp look-out for what comes next, and trust to fortune to better matters for themselves or others. And so it is just now with the state of Italy. Things are taking their logical course, and every one who can lay claim to a little knowledge of politics and a moderate share of common sense will say what Cavour, in perhaps more favorable circumstances, remarked: “He is a wise statesman who can see two weeks ahead.”We are not going to dwell on the political and financial state of Italy in itself; on the fact of its Chamber of Deputies representing only the one hundredth part of its people; on the saying, now an adage, as often in the mouths of liberals as in those of the clerical party, “that there is alegalItaly and arealItaly,” the former with the government and the deputies, the other with theancien régimeand the church; nor on the debt—immense for so impoverished a land—the exhausting taxation, and the colossal expenditures for army, navy, and public works that add every day to the debt, and weigh as an incubus on the people, increasing to a fearful extent poverty and crime, peculation, brigandage, suicide, and murder. This would of itself require all the space at our disposal. Nor is it necessary, when we have one of the most accredited liberal papers of Rome, theLibertàof Sept. 3, speaking of the trial of the Marchese Mantegazza, who was accused of forging the signature of Victor Emanuel to obtain money, that tells us: “Too truly and by many instances does our society show that it is ailing, and it is needful that justice take the matter in hand, and strive to stop the evil with speedy and efficacious cure.”We propose, therefore, to confine our remarks to the condition of the Sovereign Pontiff at the present moment; to the consequent necessary examination of the relation of the state with the church; and to a look into the future, as far as events will justify us.What is the condition of the Pope? Is he a prisoner or is he not? We had better start out with establishing what the wordprisonermeans; otherwise some misunderstandingmay arise. Webster gives us a triple meaning of it. According to him, it means “a person confined in prison; one taken by an enemy; or a person under arrest.” Ogilvie, besides the above, adds as a meaning “one whose liberty is restrained, as a bird in a cage.” Let us see if any of these meanings apply to the condition of the Pope; for if any one of them do, then the Pope is a prisoner.The Holy Father, in his letter to the bishops immediately after Rome was taken by the Italian army, declared himself to besub hostili dominatione constitutus—that is, subjected to a power hostile to him. And this is the fact; for friendly powers do not come with an army and cannon to batter down one’s gates and slay one’s faithful defenders. Any one who is taken by a power that, like the Italian government, did batter down walls and kill his defenders, it seems to us, looking at the matter calmly, would be declared by thinking people everywheresub hostili dominatione constitutus—subjected to a hostile power. After a course like this one might as well say that Abdul Aziz was made to abdicate his throne, and put out of the way—suicided, as the phrase goes—to farther his own interests, as to assert that PiusIX.was dethroned and deprived of the free exercise of the prerogatives he lays claim to in order to secure his independence and protect his freedom of action. Under this title, then, of “having been taken by an enemy,” PiusIX.is a prisoner.But it is said PiusIX.is not in a prison; he is in the splendid palace of the Vatican, with full liberty to come out when he will. With due respect to the sincerity of many who say this, we beg leaveto remark, first, that there are prisoners who are not necessarily confined in jail; and, secondly, that there are excellent reasons for styling the residence of PiusIX.his prison. To illustrate the first point, there are prisoners on parole; there are, or were under the Crispi law, in Italy, men condemned to thedomicilio coatto—to a forced sojourn in some place other than that in which they habitually dwelt before, just as the venerable Cardinal de Angelis was compelled to leave his see, Fermo, and reside for years at Turin. It is plainly not necessary, then, that, in order to be a prisoner, a man should be obliged to live in a building erected for penal purposes. It is enough that there should be powerful motives, such as honor, or conscientious duties, or just fear of consequences, to prevent the free use of his physical power of going from one place to another, to render him really a prisoner. In the case of PiusIX.there do exist such powerful motives in the highest degree. There exist powerful motives of honor. PiusIX.is under oath not to give up, or do any detriment to, the rights of the Roman Church and of the universal church. He inherited vested rights from his predecessors, and, as far as depends on him, he is bound to transmit them unimpaired to his successor. He is a man of honor, pre-eminently so, and will not, cannot prove false to his oath or fail in protecting the rights entrusted to his keeping. The effect of PiusIX.’s leaving the Vatican and going about Rome, as he did in former times, would be a persuasion in the minds of all that he had accepted the situation created for him by the act of the Italian government; that he was, in fact, coming to terms with therevolution; that he no longer protested against the violations of the divine and natural law embodied in the Italian code, which one of Italy’s public men declared, a short time ago, to be made up of the propositions condemned in the Syllabus. Talk about parole after such a picture! Parole regards the personal honor only; but the motives of PiusIX.not only regard honor, but the highest interests of mankind.Again, a further effect of PiusIX.’s leaving the Vatican would be trouble in the city. Had we not facts to prove this, there might be many who would doubt it. On occasion of theTe Deum, on the recurrence of the anniversary of his elevation and coronation, in June, 1874, the Sovereign Pontiff, who had been present, unseen, in the gallery above the portico ofSt.Peter’s, on reaching his apartments chanced momentarily to look from the window at the immense crowd in the piazza. His figure, clad in white, against the dark ground of the room behind him, attracted the attention of some one below and excited his enthusiasm. His cry ofViva Pio Nono, Pontifice e Re!had a magical effect. It was taken up by the thousands present, whose waving handkerchiefs produced the effect, to use the words of a young American poet present, of a foaming sea. In vain the agents of the government scattered through the mass of people—gend’armesandquesturini—did their best to stop the demonstration and silence a cry guaranteed by law, but discordant to the liberal ear, and significant of opposition to their views. They could not succeed. They had recourse to the soldiery. A company of Bersaglieri was called from the barracks near by, who, after giving with their trumpets the triple intimation todisperse, charged with fixed bayonets, and drove the people out of the piazza. The arrests of men and of ladies, and the resulting trials, with condemnation of the former, but release of the latter, are fresh in our memories. How, in the face of a fact like this, could the Pope come out into the city?—especially when we consider his position, the delicate regard due it, the danger, not only of harm to those who favor him, but of injury to the respect in which people of all classes hold him. Even those who would be the first to turn such an act to their account at his expense cannot withhold the respect his virtues, consistency, and courage exact. These, however, are prepared for the first mistake; they are ready to give him a mock triumph at the very first opportunity. But they have to do with a man who knows them; who, being in good faith himself, learnt his lesson in 1848, and understood what reliance is to be placed on European revolutionists. We conclude, then, this portion of our paper by saying that the condition created for the Pope by the taking of Rome, added to considerations of the highest order, has kept PiusIX.from putting his foot outside the Vatican since September 19, 1870, and that consequently “his liberty is restrained” and he is a prisoner.Having thus shown that PiusIX.is a prisoner, we can safely draw the inference that the place in which circumstances oblige him to remain is his prison—prisoner and prison being correlative terms. He is “a prisoner in his own house,” though certainly we know that house was not built for penal purposes. But we have more than inference, logical as it is. We have facts to show that the same precautionswere and still are used that it is the custom to adopt with regard to ordinary prisons. For example, it is well known that in the beginning of the Italian occupation of Rome the utmost surveillance was kept up on all going into or coming out from the Vatican. One met the Piedmontese sentinel at the entrance, and by him the government police; people were occasionally searched; and the guards had orders not to allow persons to show themselves from the windows or balconies of the palace. The lamentedMgr.de Merode, almoner to the Sovereign Pontiff, a soldier by early education, could hardly give credit to the facts that proved this. Full of indignation, he went himself to the spot, and from the balcony looked down upon the street below where the sentinel stood. He was at once saluted with the words, “Go back!” Again the command was repeated, and then the levelled rifle admonished the prelate that further refusal to obey was imprudent. The affair made a good deal of noise at the time, and the guards were removed from close proximity to the palace, remaining only a few hundred feet away. All things, then, considered, PiusIX.is a prisoner and the Vatican is his prison.But not only is the liberty of the Sovereign Pontiff directly interfered with in this way; he is trammelled also in purely spiritual matters. The Pope, the rulers of Rome say, may talk as he pleases in the Vatican, as we cannot prevent him, and he will not be put down; nay, he may even promulgate his decrees, encyclicals, and constitutions by putting them up as usual at the doors of the basilicas ofSt.Peter andSt.John Lateran; but any one who dares toreprint them will do so at his peril; his paper will be sequestrated, if the document published be judged by the authorities of the Italian kingdom to contain objectionable matter, and he will be tried by due course of law. This mode of proceeding has been put in practice; the seizure of the issue of theUnità Cattolicafor publishing an encyclical is well known, and was remarkable for an amusing feature. The edition for the provinces escaped the vigilance of the fiscal agents, and the Florentine liberal press, anxious to show how much freedom was allowed the Pope, on getting theUnità, printed the document. To their surprise, their issues were sequestrated. The letter of instruction on the subject of papal documents, and of surveillance,by the police, of the Catholic preachers, issued by the late ministry, to our knowledge never was recalled, and is therefore still in force; worse is contemplated, as we shall see later on. This coercion of his freedom of action extends also to the Pope’s jurisdiction in spirituals and in temporals.The first instance of this is the exaction of the royalexequatur. We cannot do better than cite the words of the able legal authority, Sig. A. Caucino, of Turin, who has lately written a series of articles on the law of guarantees, passed by the chambers and confirmed by the king, of which we are speaking. On this subject of theexequaturhe writes: “After the discourse of the avvocato Mancini, on the3dof May, 1875, and the ‘order of the day’ by the deputy Barazzuoli, no one wonders that the nature of the application of the law of guarantees has been changed, and that all the promises solemnly made when it was necessary to forestall publicopinion, and promising cost nothing, have been broken. From that time to this the bishops named by the Pontiff, but not approved of by the royal government, have been put in the strangest and most unjust position in the world. It is hardly needful to recall that the first and principal guarantee in the law of May 13, 1871, was that by which the government renounced, throughout the whole kingdom, the right of naming or presenting for the conferring of the greater benefices (bishoprics, etc.) Well, after May, 1875, the bishops who were without theexequaturwere treated with two weights and two measures: they are not to be considered as bishops with respect to the Civil Code and the code of civil procedure, of equity—and logically; but they are to be looked on as such with regard to the Penal Code, the code of criminal procedure, and the whole arsenal of the fiscal laws of the Italian kingdom.”Incredible, but true. Let us see the proofs.Mgr.Pietro Carsana, named Bishop of Como, instituted a suit against the Administration of the Demain to have acknowledged as exempt from conversion into government bonds, and from the tax of thirty per cent., a charitable foundation by the noble Crotta-Oltrocchi, assigned to the Bishop of Como for the time being, that the revenues of it might be used for missions to the people and for the spiritual retreat or exercises of the clergy. The Demain raised the question as to whetherMgr.Carsana had the character required for the prosecution of such a cause before the tribunal. The tribunal of Como was for the bishop; but the Court of Appeal of Milan decided in favor of the Demain, forthe following reasons, drawn up on June 28, 1875: “It cannot be doubted but that the episcopal see of Como is to be held asstill vacantas to its civil relations, sinceMgr.Pietro Carsana, named to that see by the supreme ecclesiastical authority, has not yet received the royalexequatur, according to the requirements of the sixteenth article of the laws of May 13, 1871.[86]If the act of the supreme ecclesiastical authority”—we call attention to that wordsupreme—“directed to providing an occupant for the first benefice of the bishopric of Como, by the nomination ofMgr.Carsana, has not obtained the royalexequatur, as peace between the parties requires, this act before the civil law isnull and of no effect, the appointment to the said beneficeis to be looked on as not having taken place, and the episcopal see of Como is to be considered as still vacant, and the legitimate representation of it, in all its right, belongs to the vicar-capitular” (UnitàCattol., July 25, 1876). A like decision was given by the Court of Appeal of Palermo, October 16, 1875. Thus, to use the words of this writer, “the Pope has a right to name the bishops to exercise their episcopal functions, but, as far as their office has a bearing affecting external matters of civil nature, bishops without theexequaturcannot exercise it.” These external matters of a civil nature, which might be misunderstood, be it said, are none other than the acts without which the temporalities of a bishopric cannot be administered. Thebishop may say Mass, preach, and confirm, but not touch a dollar of the revenues of his see.It needs no great acumen to perceive how the Sovereign Pontiff is thus hampered in his jurisdiction. His chief aids are his bishops; but they are not free unless they subject themselves, against conscience, to the civil power. Everyexequaturis an injustice to the church, no matter whether exacted by concordat or no. The church may submit under protest to the injustice, but the nature of the act of those requiring such submission does not change on that account. Hence it is clear that the Pope is at this moment most seriously hampered in the exercise of hisspiritualjurisdiction. If to this fact of theexequaturwe add the election of the parish priests by the people, favored by the government, the case becomes still clearer. But of this we shall speak fully at the end of the article.To the impediments put in the way of the exercise of the Sovereign Pontiff’s spiritual jurisdiction are to be added those of a material nature, resulting from the heavy pecuniary burdens he, his bishops, and his clergy are obliged to bear. The scanty incomes of the clergy of the second order are in many cases reduced to two-thirds, while living costs one-fifth more than it did before Rome was taken. The very extensive suffering, from poverty, stagnation of business, the necessity of supporting the schools of parishes and institutions established to supply the place of those suppressed by the government, or whose funds have gone into the abyss of public administration—all have the effect of keeping the people from giving as largely to the clergy as they used to give, althoughthat source of revenue to them was not very great, as nearly everything was provided for by foundations. With reference to the bishops, and the Sovereign Pontiff especially, the case is much more aggravating. Those prelates who have not obtained theexequaturhave no means of support, as the temporalities of their sees are withheld. PiusIX., whose trust in Providence has been rewarded with wonderful abundance of offerings from the faithful throughout the world, came to the assistance of these persecuted successors of the apostles. Out of his own resources, the gratuitous generosity of his flock everywhere, he gives to each one of them five hundred francs a month. The drain on the papal treasury by this and other necessary expenses forced upon him by the taking of Rome, amounts in the gross, yearly, to $1,200,000, which, as the Pope consistently refuses to take a sou of the $640,000 offered him by the government, comes from the contributions of the faithful given as Peter-pence. In this way are the Catholics of the whole world taxed by the action of the Italian government.Besides this direct action on the Head of the church and on her pastors that interferes with their freedom, there are other modes of proceeding which we hardly know whether we are justified in styling indirect, so sure and fatal are their effects on the spiritual jurisdiction and power of the Pope.The first of these is the claim on the part of the state, enforced by every means in its power, to direct the education of the young. No education is recognized except that given by the state schools. Without state education no one can hold office under the government,no one can practise law or medicine, or any other liberal profession. Moreover, every youth, boy or girl, must undergo an examination before examiners deputed by the state. It stands to reason that no one can teach unless he have a patent or certificate from the state. Now, what does this mean? It means simply that the most powerful engine for moulding the mind of man, poisoning it, prejudicing it, giving it the bent one wants, is in the hands of the avowed enemies of the church; moreover, that those who are so acted on by this mighty agency are the spiritual subjects of PiusIX.; and that this is being done not only in all Italy, but especially in Rome. The most strenuous efforts are being made to remedy this evil, with a good deal of success; and the success will be greater farther on. But in the meantime a vast harm is done and a generation is perverted.The next of these indirect means is the conscription, which seizes on the young men even who have abandoned the world and embraced the ecclesiastical life. At first sight one may be inclined to think the damage done not so extensive, as only a certain percentage after all will be taken. Even were this so, the injustice done to the persons concerned, and the harm to the church, would not the less be real. The fact is that this course of the government affects a comparatively small number in time of peace; but in time of war the number remains no longer small. Besides, the uncertainty of being able to pursue their career must have a bad effect on young men, while the associations which they are obliged to see around them, if they undertake the year of voluntary service to escape the conscription, must often have aresult by no means beneficial to their vocation. Facts are in our possession to show deliberate attempts to corrupt them and make them lose the idea of becoming priests. What is more weighty than these reasons is the fact of the diminishing number of vocations for the priesthood in Italy. The army of the government is swelling, while the army of PiusIX.in Italy is decreasing.A late measure of the government has also a tendency to diminish the fervor of attachment in the people to their religion, and that measure is the prohibition of public manifestation of their belief outside the churches. A circular letter from the Minister of the Interior to the prefects of Italy forbids religious processions in the public streets. This in a Catholic country is a severe and deeply-felt blow at the piety of the people. Processions have always been one of the most natural and favorite ways of professing attachment to principles, and this is particularly true of religious processions. They have a language of their own that goes straight to the heart of the people. The discontinuance of them will have a dampening effect, on those especially who are a little weak; while those who go to church as seldom as possible, or rarely, will be deprived of a means of instruction that constantly served to recall to their minds the truths of religion; and instead of the enjoyment that came from beholding or assisting at some splendid manifestation of their faith, and from the accompanying festivities never wanting, will be substituted forgetfulness of religion and religious duties, the dissipation of the wine-shop and saloon, and those profane amusements, often of the most questionablecharacter, that are beginning to be so frequent on days of obligation, offered to the masses at hours conflicting with those of religious ceremonies. What has especially shocked every unprejudiced person, even liberals and non-Catholics, is the prohibition of the solemn accompaniment of the Blessed Sacrament. Besides the ordinary carrying of the Viaticum to the sick, and occasional communion to those unable to come to the church, some three or four times a year the Blessed Sacrament was borne to the bedridden with much solemnity, the most respectable people of the parish taking part in the procession or sending those who represented them. It was always an imposing and edifying spectacle to Catholics. This has been put a stop to. In Frascati, where, after prohibition of public processions had been notified to all, the Blessed Sacrament was carried to the sick with only theordinarymarks of respect, that there might be no violation of the unjust and illegal order, there was an exhibition of the animus of the authorities that almost exceeds belief. The people, to honor the Blessed Sacrament, were present in greater numbers than usual, and, as is the custom, prepared to follow it to the houses of the sick persons. The government authorities determined to prevent them. Hardly had the priest come out of the church, with the sacred pix in his hands, when he was accosted by the police officer, was laid hold of by him, and made to come from under the canopy, which from time immemorial is used during the day for the ordinary visits for the communion of the sick at Frascati. He was permitted to go with some four or five assistants. The people persisted in following, whereuponthe troops were called and they dispersed the crowd. The result was a spontaneous act of reparation to the Blessed Sacrament in the form of a Triduum in the cathedral, at which the first nobility of Rome, very numerous in the neighborhood of this city, assisted, while the attendance in the church was so great, including even liberals, that many had to kneel out on the steps and in the piazza. The effect on good Catholics thus far, though painful, has been beneficial; but the continuation of this course on the part of the government, with the means of coercion at their disposal, cannot but be hurtful to the cause of religion, and cannot but diminish the respect and obedience of the people to their pastors. All this, as a matter of course, has a decided effect on the power and influence of the Pope himself. There are indeed Catholics to whom God has vouchsafed so great an abundance of faith that, no matter what happens, they rise under trial and show a sublimity of trust and courage that extorts admiration even from their enemies; but, unfortunately, these are not the majority. Faith is a gift of God, and requires careful cultivation and fostering watchfulness; negligence, and above all wilful exposure to the danger of losing it, ordinarily weaken it much, and not unfrequently in these days bring about its total loss. This is one reason, and the principal one, why the church prays to be delivered from persecution, because, though some die martyrs or glorify God by a noble confession and unshaken firmness, many, very many, fall away in time of danger. History is full of instances of this. Thelapsiin the early centuries were unfortunately a large class, and in the persecutions of China and Japan,in our day, we hear, indeed, of martyrs, but we hear, too, of large numbers that fall away at the sight of torture or in the presence of imminent peril.Such is the state of things in Italy with respect to the Sovereign Pontiff and the church over which he rules: persecution, oppression, hate, are the portion of Catholics and their Head; protection, favoritism, and aid, that of all who are adversaries of the church, from the latest-come Protestant agents of the Bible societies of England or America to the most avowed infidel and materialist of Germany or France. A Renan and a Moleschott are listened to with rapture; a Dupanloup or a Majunke are looked on as poor fanatics who cling to a past age. We do not wish to weary our readers with further instances of tyrannical action; though readily at hand, we may dispense with them, for the matter cited above is enough for our purpose, and certainly speaks for itself. We simply ask, What prospect lies before us? What is the promise of the future? On such a foundation can anything be built up that does not tell of sorrow, of trouble, and of ruin? Of a truth no one who loves virtue and religion can look upon the facts without concern; and that concern for an earnest Catholic will increase a hundred-fold, if he take into consideration the plans just now showing themselves for the warfare of to-morrow. These prove the crisis to be approaching, and that far greater evils are hanging over the Papacy than yet have threatened it, demonstrating more evidently and luminously than words what a pope subject of another king or people means.Any one who is even a superficialobserver of matters in Italy cannot fail to see how closely Italian statesmen and politicians ape the ideas and the measures of Germany, particularly against the church. There, it is well known, strenuous efforts are being made to constructa national church, and with partial success. The pseudo-bishops Reinkens in the empire and Herzog in Switzerland are doing their utmost to give form and constitution to the abortions they have produced. The example is followed in Italy. The apostate Panelli, in Naples, made an unsuccessful attempt to begin thechiesa nazionale; but disagreement with his people caused him to be supplanted, though he still styles himself national bishop. Agreeing with him in sentiments are a certain number of ecclesiastics, insignificant if compared with the clergy of the Catholic Church in Italy; yet to these men, who certainly did not and do not enjoy the esteem of thesanior pars, the wiser portion of the people, the government, holding power under a constitution the first article of which declares that the Roman Catholic and apostolic religion is the religion of the state, show favor and lend aid and comfort. Let us listen for a moment to their language and to that of their supporters.Sig. Giuseppe Toscanelli is a deputy in the Italian parliament, and a man of so-called liberal views, an old soldier of Italian independence, and an old Freemason. He has the merit of seeing something of the inconsistency and injustice of the action of the authorities, in parliament and out of it, with regard to the church, is a ready speaker, and has the courage to say what he thinks, thus incurring the enmity of his fellow-Masons,some of whom, in 1864, in the lodge at Pisa, declared him unworthy of their craft, and cast him out of the synagogue. We are not aware that he troubles himself much about the matter, nor that he looks on himself as any the less an ardent supporter of united Italy. When the law of guarantees for the Sovereign Pontiff was up for discussion, Toscanelli said: “Report has it that in 1861 some public men of Lombardy conceived the idea of a national church, which they made known to Count Cavour, and urged him to bring it about; and that Count Cavour decidedly refused to do so. In 1864 this idea showed itself again, and a bill in accordance with it was presented in parliament. The civil constitution of the church was most strongly maintained by the Hon. Bonghi. At present we see papers, some most closely connected with the government, printing articles professedly treating of a national church, even to the point of going to the extremes HenryVIII.reached.”But not only papers favor the project. We have heard lately of cabinet ministers using the same language. The head of the late ministry, Sig. Marco Minghetti, did so at Bologna in a public speech. Yet he was the leader of the so-calledmoderateparty. It is therefore not surprising that the recognized prince of Italian lawyers, Sig. Stanislas Mancini, the Minister of Public Worship of the present radical cabinet, should speak in the same style. We have a letter of his to a notorious person, Prota Giurleo, President of the Society for the Emancipation of the Clergy, vicar-general of the national church, in theLibertà Cattolicaof August 2, 1876. It is worth translating:“Honored Sir: Hardly had I taken the direction of the ministry of grace, justice, and worship, when you, in the name of the society over which you preside, thought fit to send me a copy of the memorandum of Nov. 9, 1873, which, under the form of a petition, I had myself the honor of presenting to the Chamber of Deputies, recalling to my mind the words uttered by me at the meeting of Dec. 17 of that year, when I asked and obtained that the urgency of the case should be recognized, and demanded suitable provision.“It is scarcely necessary for me to say that I remembered very well the expressions used by me on that occasion, because they give faithful utterance to an old, lively, and deep feeling of my soul.“As minister I maintain the ideas and the principles I defended as deputy. Still, I did not conceal the fact that the greatest and most effectual measures were to be obtained only by way of legislation, without omitting to say, however, that by way of executive action something might be done. To-day, then, faithful to this order of ideas, I have no difficulty in opening my mind on each of the questions recapitulated in the memorandum.“1st. The first demand of the worthy society over which you preside was made to the Chamber of Deputies, in order that steps might be taken to frame a new law to regulate definitively the new relations between the state and the church, in accordance with the changed condition of the political power and of the ecclesiastical ministry. On this point I am happy to assure you that this arduous problem constitutes one of the most important cares, and will form part of study and examination, to which the distinguished and competent men called by me to compose the commission charged with preparing the law reserved by the eighteenth article of the law of May 13, 1871, for the rearrangement and preservation of ecclesiastical property, will have to attend.“2d. In the second place, this memorandum asks the revindication, for the clergy and people, of the right to elect their own pastors in all the grades of the hierarchy. You are not ignorant that such a proposition made by me in parliament, during the discussion of the above-mentioned law of May 13, 1871, relative to the nomination ofbishops, did not meet with success, nor would there be reasonable hope, at present, of a different legislative decision. It results from this, therefore, that efforts in this direction must be limited to preparing by indirect ways the maturity of public opinion, which is wont, sooner or later, to influence the deliberations of parliament. The manifestation of the will of the people in the choice of ministers and pastors, that recalls the provident customs and traditions of the primitive church, to which the most learned and pious ecclesiastics of our day—it is enough to name Rosmini—earnestly desire to return, must first be the object of action to propagate the idea, in the order of facts, by spontaneous impulse, and by the moral need of pious and believing consciences; and afterward, when these facts become frequent and general, it will be the duty of the civil power to interfere to regulate them, and secure the sincerity and independence of them, without prejudice to the right of ecclesiastical institution.“Already some symptoms have shown themselves, and some examples have been had, in certain provinces of the kingdom, and I deemed it my duty not to look on them with aversion and distrust, but at the same time to reconcile with existing discipline regarding benefices all such zeal and the protection that could be given to the popular vote and to ecclesiastics chosen by it, not only by providing for these the means needed for the becoming exercise of their ministry, but also to benefit at the same time the people by works tending to their instruction and assistance. I will not neglect opportunities of aiding by other indirect measures the attainment of the same end. The future will show whether this movement, a sign of the tendencies of the day, may be able to exercise a sensible influence on religious society and claim the attention of the legislator.“3d. The same commission referred to above will be able to examine how, by means of opportune expedients, some of the dispositions of the forthcoming law on the administration of the ecclesiastical fund may be made serve to relieve and encourage the priests and laymen belonging to associations the aim of which is to fulfil scrupulously at one and the same time the duties of religion and of patriotism. Still, despite the factthat the actual arrangement and the accustomed destination of the revenues of vacant benefices succeed with great difficulty in meeting the mass of obligations that weigh upon them, I have earnestly sought for the readiest and most available means to afford some help and encouragement to the well-deserving society over which you preside, especially to promote the diffusion of the earnest and profound studies of history and ecclesiastical literature; and I am only sorry that insuperable obstacles have obliged me to keep within very modest limits. I will not neglect to avail myself of every favorable occasion to show the esteem and the satisfaction of the government with respect to those ecclesiastics and members of the association who join to gravity of conduct the merit of dedicating themselves to good ecclesiastical studies, and render useful service to their fellow-citizens.“4th. In the fourth place, by this memorandum the demand is presented that one of the many churches in Naples, once conventual, be assigned to the society, endowing it with the property acquired by the laws affecting the title to such property of February 17, 1861, July 7, 1866, and August 15, 1867. On this point I have to say that many years ago there was brought about a state of things which certainly is not favorable to the granting of the demand; for the twenty-fourth article of the law of February 17, 1861, was interpreted in the sense that churches formerly conventual should be subject, as regards jurisdiction, to the archiepiscopal curia. Notwithstanding this, and although I intend to have examined anew the interpretation given to Article 24, seeing in the meantime that this state of things be not in the least changed for the worse, I will immediately put myself in relation with the prefect of the province, to know whether, keeping in view the facts as above, there be in your city a church we may dispose of that presents all the conditions required, in order that it may be given for the use of the society. It is hardly necessary to speak of the absolute impossibility of assigning an endowment from the property coming from the laws changing the title to such property, because, even apart from any other reason, the very laws themselves determine, in order, the use to which the revenues obtained by the consequent sale of the property are to be put.“5th. Finally, as regards guaranteeing efficaciously, against the arbitrary action of the episcopate, the lower clergy who are loyal to the laws of the country and to the dynasty, I do not deem it necessary to make any declarations or give any assurances, because my principles and the first acts of my administration are a pledge that, within the bounds allowed me by law, and urging, if needful, the action of the courts, in accordance with the law of May 13, 1871, I shall not fail to show by deeds that the government of the king is not disposed to tolerate that good ecclesiastics of liberal creed should be subject to abuse on the part of their ecclesiastical superiors, when the legal means are in their power to prevent it.“Be pleased to accept, honored sir, the expression of my esteem and consideration.“The Keeper of the Seals,“Mancini.”We shall adduce only one other document as prefatory to what we are going to say, and that is the letter of a certain Professor Sbarbaro, who is a prominent writer of extreme views, possessing a frankness of character that makes him attack the government at one time, even in favor of the church, though through no love of it, at another launch forth against it an amount of invective and false accusation that would warrant us in looking on him as the crater of the revolutionary volcano. This personage has written quite recently one of his characteristic letters, in which he uses all his eloquence against the church, recommending everywhere the establishment of Protestant churches and schools; because, he says, this is the only way to destroy the Catholic Church, the implacable enemy of the new order of things. Every nerve must be strained to effect this. There can be no peace till it be accomplished, and the edifice of Italian unity andfreedom tower over the ruins of ecclesiastical oppression.With the express declaration of the deputy, Sig. Giuseppe Toscanelli, the letter of his Excellency the Keeper of the Seals and that of Professor Sbarbaro, before our eyes, we are prepared to see some fact in accordance with the ideas and sentiments therein expressed. The fact is at hand; it is a movement set on foot to obtain adhesion and subscriptions to the scheme of electing, by the people, to their positions ecclesiastics even of the highest grade. The Sovereign Pontiff himself alluded to this in his discourse to the foreign colleges, July 25, 1876, when he warned them that steps were taking to prepare the way to a popular election, “a tempo suo, anche al maggior beneficio della chiesa”—“at the proper time, to even the first benefice of the church”—in other words, the Papacy. It is worth while examining this question, because the agitation having begun, specious arguments having been advanced, and illustrious names, such as that of Rosmini—who, it is well known, retracted whatever by overzeal he had written that incurred censure at Rome—having been brought forward to support such views, it is not unlikely that elsewhere we may hear a repetition of them. Say what people may, Rome is the centre of the civilized world; the agitations that occur there, especially in the speculative order, are like the waves produced by casting a stone in the water: the ripples extend themselves from the centre to the extreme circumference. So thence the agitations strike France and Germany and Spain, extend to England, Russia, the East, and finally reach us and the other extra-European nations.The errors on this subject of popular election in the church, where they are not affected, come from a confusion of ideas and a want of knowledge of what the church is. Protestantism has had the greatest part in misleading men; for it completely changed the essential idea of this mystic body of Christ. Our Lord, when founding his church on earth, spoke of it continually as his, as his kingdom, as his house, as his vineyard. He told his disciples that to him all power had been given in heaven and on earth. Nowhere do we see him giving to any one a title that would make him a sharer in that power; the unity of command signified by the idea of the kingdom, the absolute power of imposing laws, is his, his alone, and is entrusted to those he selected to continue his work. His words to his apostles were: “As the Father hath sent me, I send you”—the fulness of power I have I bestow upon you, that you may act in my name, in such a way that “he who hears you hears me; and he who will not hear you, let him be to you as the heathen and the publican.” He makes the distinction between those who are to hear and those who are outside his church; he constitutes in his kingdom, his church, those who are to command with his authority and those who are to obey: the apostles and their successors—the Sovereign Pontiff with the bishops—and the people or the laity. The duty of the laity is to obey, not to command, not to impose, not to exact, much less to name those who are to hold positions in the church—an act proper of its nature only to those who hold power of command, just as in a kingdom the naming to offices resides with the king or with thosehe may depute for such purpose. The duty of the laity is summed up in the words of the Prince of the Apostles:Obedite præpositis vestris—Obey your prelates. Such is the divine constitution of the church, and, like everything of divine right, that constitution is unchangeable. Alongside of this fact, however, we find another that apparently conflicts with it. We see the people, even in the first period of the preaching of Christianity, taking part in the election of those who were to hold places in the church, and this at the instance of the apostles themselves. It is, however, not the rule, but the exception, in the sacred text; for we find the apostles acting directly, themselves selecting and bestowing power of orders and jurisdiction; as, for example, whenSt.Paul placed Timothy over the church of Ephesus, and Titus over those of Crete. This is in accordance with what we might expect from the constitution of the church. Had the election to such places been of divine right,St.Paul would have violated that right in so naming both Timothy and Titus. It follows, then, that this power of taking part in the election of prelates, priests, and deacons was introduced by the apostles and used in the early church as a matter of expediency, the continuation or interruption of which would depend upon circumstances. What was the meaning of it? Was it a conferring of power, a naming to fill a place, or a presentation, a testimony of worth of those thus selected, which the apostles and their successors sought from the people? It was a testimony of worth only. This is evident from the words ofSt.Peter to the one hundred and twenty gathered with him for thenomination ofSt.Matthias. It isSt.Peter who regulates, orders what is to be done, and commands the brethren to select one from their number. They could not agree on one; two were nominated, and the prayer and choice by lot followed. This was, of course, an extraordinary case, and we do not see this mode of election afterwards resorted to, leaving the matter to be decided by the power of God. What we do see here that is of interest to us is the act of the Prince of the Apostles prescribing what was to be done; this shows his supreme authority, and is the source of the legality of the position ofSt.Matthias. The testimony of the people was required to ascertain his worth and fitness. It was very natural that this testimony of the people should be resorted to, especially in the early church, in which affairs were administered and the work of the Gospel carried on rather through the spirit of charity, “that hath no law,” than by legal enactments; though we begin to see quite early traces of these, as required by the nature of the case. This example of the apostles continued in use in the church for centuries, the testimony of the people to the worth of their bishops being required; for it has always been an axiom in the conduct of affairs in the church that the bishop must be acceptable to his people; nor is any great examination needed to arrive at such a conclusion, for the office of a bishop regards the spiritual interests of his flock, and such interests cannot be furthered by one against whom his people have just cause of complaint and dissatisfaction. To obtain such testimony, or to be able to present an acceptable and worthy bishop to a flock, there isno one essentially necessary way. Provided testimony beyond exception can be had, it matters little by what channel it comes. In process of time, when persecution, and persistent struggle with paganism for centuries after persecution, ended, “the charity of many having grown cold,” the strife that too often ensued in the choice of bishops, and the success of designing men through bribery or intrigue, brought about the change in the discipline of the church. We find the eighth general council legislating with regard to elections to patriarchates, archbishoprics, and bishoprics. We see that the powerful were making use of the means at their command either to influence the people in the choice, where this was possible, or by their own authority placing ecclesiastics in possession of sees. The council was held in the year 869, and was called on to act against Photius, the intruded patriarch of Constantinople. It drew up and promulgated these two canons:“Can. XII.The apostolic and synodical canons wholly forbidding promotion and consecration of bishops by the power and command of princes, we concordantly define, and also pronounce sentence, that, if any bishop have received consecration to such dignity by intrigue or cunning of princes, he is to be by all means deposed as having willed and agreed to possess the house of the Lord, not by the will of God and by ecclesiastical rite and decree, but by the desire of carnal sense, from men and through men.“Can. XXII.This holy and universal synod, in accordance with former councils, defines and decrees that the promotion and consecration of bishops are to be done by the election and decree of the college of bishops; and it rightly proclaims that no lay prince or person possessed of power shall interfere in the election of a patriarch, of a metropolitan, or of any bishop whatsoever, lest thereshould arise inordinate and incongruous confusion or strife, especially as it is fitting that no prince or other layman have any power in such matters” (Version of Anastasius).In the Roman Church, however, while the active interference of secular princes and nobles, despite the canons of the church, continued to be the rule during the middle ages, to the great harm of religion and dishonor of the See of Peter, to the intrusion even of unworthy occupants who scandalized the faithful, the popes and the clergy wished to have the people present as witnesses of the election, and consenting to it, that in this way there might be a bar to calumny, affecting the validity of it, and an obstacle to the ambition of the surrounding princes. Still, the election proper belonged to the clergy, the people consenting to receive the one so elected. Prior to the pontificate of NicholasII.the people, so often the willing servants of the German emperors or of their allies, used not unfrequently to impose their will on the clergy, or made Rome the theatre of factional strife. To put a stop to this, Nicholas, having called a council of one hundred and thirteen bishops at Rome, published in it the following decree:1. “God beholding us, it is first decreed that the election of the Roman Pontiff shall be in the power of the cardinal bishops; so that if any one be enthroned in the apostolic chair without their previous concordant and canonical election, and afterwards with the consent of the successive religious orders, of the clergy, and of the laity, he is to be held as no pope or apostolic man, but as an apostate.”In the centuries of contention between the lay powers and the ecclesiastical authorities, the disciplineon the subject of election to the higher benefices became more and more strict, till finally the selection has, as a rule, come to be reserved to the Sovereign Pontiff, to whom, even after election by chapter, the confirmation belongs. The Council of Trent has been very explicit on this point. Inch. iv.of sess.xxiii.we read:“The holy synod, moreover, teaches that, in the ordination of bishops, priests, and of the other grades, the consent, or call, or authority neither of the people nor of any secular power and magistracy is so required that without this it be invalid; nay, it even decrees that those who ascend to the exercise of this ministry, called and placed in position only by the people or lay power and magistracy, and who of their own rashness assume them, are all to be held, not as ministers of the church, but as thieves and robbers who have not come in by the door.”Can. vii.of this session condemns those who teach otherwise.We are, therefore, not surprised to find duly promulgated the following document referring to the “Italian society for the reassertion of the rights that belong to Christian people, and especially to Roman citizens,” under whose auspices the movement for election to ecclesiastical benefices by the people has been set on foot. TheSacra Penitentiariais the tribunal to which cases of conscience are submitted for decision, and its answers are given according to the terms of the petition or case submitted. We give the case as submitted, and the reply:“Most Eminent and Reverend Sir: Some confessors in the city of Rome humbly submit that, at the present moment, there is in circulation in it a paper containing a printed programme, with accompanying schedules of association, by which the faithful are solicited to join a certain society, establishedor to be established to the end that, on the vacancy of the Apostolic See, the Roman people may take part in the election of the Roman Pontiff. The name of the society is:Società Cattolica per la rivendicazione dei diritti spettanti al popolo cristiano ed in ispecie al popolo Romano. Whoever gives his name to this society must expressly declare, as results from the schedules, that he agrees to the doctrines set forth in the programme, and contracts the obligation, before two witnesses, of doing all he can to further the propagation of these doctrines and the increase of the society. Wherefore, the said confessors, that they may properly absolve, when by the grace of God they come to the sacrament of penance, those who have been the promoters of this evil society, or have subscribed their names thereto, and other adherents and aiders of it, send a copy of the programme and schedules to be examined by the Sacred Penitentiary, and ask an answer to the following questions:“1. Whether each and all, giving their names to this society, or aiding it, or in any way abetting it, or adhering to it, by the very fact incur the penalty of the major excommunication?“2. And if so, whether this excommunication be reserved to the Sovereign Pontiff?”“The Sacred Penitentiary, having considered all that has been laid before it, and duly examined into the nature and end of this society, having referred the foregoing to our most holy lord, PiusIX., with his approbation, replies to the proposed questions as follows:“To the first, affirmatively.“To the second: The excommunication is incurred by the very fact, and is in a special manner reserved to the Roman Pontiff.“Given at Rome, in the Sacred Penitentiary, August 4, 1876.“R.Card.Monaco,for theGrand Penitentiary.“Hip. Canon Palombi,S. P.Secretary.”Such is the state of things we have to present to our readers as aresult of the triumph of Freemasonry in Italy and of the seizure of Rome: the Pope a captive; his temporal power gone; his spiritual power trammelled; his influence subject to daily attacks that aim at its destruction; and, to crown all, looming up in the distance, a possible schism, resulting from interference, patronized by the Italian government, in the future election of the Head of two hundred millions of Catholics throughout the world, whose most momentous interests are at stake. Surely nothing could be of more weight to show how impossible a thing a pope under the dominion of a sovereign is; nor could we desire anything better adapted to show the necessity of the restoration of his perfect independence in the temporal order. We believe this will be; and, as things are, we can see no other way possible than by the restoration of his temporal power; how, or when, is in the hands of divine Providence.[86]Art. XVI.“The disposition of the civil laws with regard to the creation and the manner of existence of ecclesiastical institutions, and the alienation of their property, remains in force.” There is no mention of theexequaturbeing required for a bishop to plead before a court; that is, to begin to act under the provisions ofArt. XVI.
Severalarticles have been published inThe Catholic Worldon the subject of which this paper is to treat—the condition of the Sovereign Pontiff consequent on the seizure of Rome, which thereby became the capital of the kingdom of Italy. As these articles marked the successive stages in the novel relations of the Head of the church, they could not fail to excite the interest of our readers. We look to a like interest, and invite it, for the present article, because it tells of new phases, and of the logical results of the schemes which their authors were bold enough to say were initiated “to secure the spiritual independence and dignity of the Holy See.” With this cry the attempts against Rome were begun, were carried on, and their success finally secured. So familiar, in fact, is this profession of zeal for the welfare of the Sovereign Pontiff, that we do not stop to cite one of the thousand documents in which it appeared, from the letter of Victor Emanuel, presented to PiusIX.by Count Ponza di San Martino, down to the instructions of the ministers to their subordinates or the after-dinner speeches of Italian politicians. Nor need we persuade ourselves that no one believed such an assertion any more than did those who first uttered it, nor than do we, who know what a hollow pretext it was and what fruit it has produced. Twenty years of revolution in Italy, and a vast ignorance of political matters, of the relations between church and state, rendered many in Italy and elsewhereready dupes of the cunning devisers of Italian independence and clerical subjugation. These went with the current; and though not a few have had their eyes opened, and now deplore the excesses against religion they are doomed to witness, they are impotent to remedy what they aided in bringing about, and behold their more determined and less scrupulous companions hurry onward with the irresistible logic of facts. Now and then some voice even among these latter is heard above the din, asking:Dove andiamo?—Whither are we going? That is a question no one can answer. The so-called directors of revolutionary movements often look with anxiety at the effects of the raging passions they have let loose; but as for guiding them permanently, that is out of the question, for they have a way of their own. The skilful manipulators of revolution ride with the tide; they now and then see a break by which the waters may be diverted, and they succeed in making them take that course, but stop them they cannot. They can only keep a sharp look-out for what comes next, and trust to fortune to better matters for themselves or others. And so it is just now with the state of Italy. Things are taking their logical course, and every one who can lay claim to a little knowledge of politics and a moderate share of common sense will say what Cavour, in perhaps more favorable circumstances, remarked: “He is a wise statesman who can see two weeks ahead.”
We are not going to dwell on the political and financial state of Italy in itself; on the fact of its Chamber of Deputies representing only the one hundredth part of its people; on the saying, now an adage, as often in the mouths of liberals as in those of the clerical party, “that there is alegalItaly and arealItaly,” the former with the government and the deputies, the other with theancien régimeand the church; nor on the debt—immense for so impoverished a land—the exhausting taxation, and the colossal expenditures for army, navy, and public works that add every day to the debt, and weigh as an incubus on the people, increasing to a fearful extent poverty and crime, peculation, brigandage, suicide, and murder. This would of itself require all the space at our disposal. Nor is it necessary, when we have one of the most accredited liberal papers of Rome, theLibertàof Sept. 3, speaking of the trial of the Marchese Mantegazza, who was accused of forging the signature of Victor Emanuel to obtain money, that tells us: “Too truly and by many instances does our society show that it is ailing, and it is needful that justice take the matter in hand, and strive to stop the evil with speedy and efficacious cure.”
We propose, therefore, to confine our remarks to the condition of the Sovereign Pontiff at the present moment; to the consequent necessary examination of the relation of the state with the church; and to a look into the future, as far as events will justify us.
What is the condition of the Pope? Is he a prisoner or is he not? We had better start out with establishing what the wordprisonermeans; otherwise some misunderstandingmay arise. Webster gives us a triple meaning of it. According to him, it means “a person confined in prison; one taken by an enemy; or a person under arrest.” Ogilvie, besides the above, adds as a meaning “one whose liberty is restrained, as a bird in a cage.” Let us see if any of these meanings apply to the condition of the Pope; for if any one of them do, then the Pope is a prisoner.
The Holy Father, in his letter to the bishops immediately after Rome was taken by the Italian army, declared himself to besub hostili dominatione constitutus—that is, subjected to a power hostile to him. And this is the fact; for friendly powers do not come with an army and cannon to batter down one’s gates and slay one’s faithful defenders. Any one who is taken by a power that, like the Italian government, did batter down walls and kill his defenders, it seems to us, looking at the matter calmly, would be declared by thinking people everywheresub hostili dominatione constitutus—subjected to a hostile power. After a course like this one might as well say that Abdul Aziz was made to abdicate his throne, and put out of the way—suicided, as the phrase goes—to farther his own interests, as to assert that PiusIX.was dethroned and deprived of the free exercise of the prerogatives he lays claim to in order to secure his independence and protect his freedom of action. Under this title, then, of “having been taken by an enemy,” PiusIX.is a prisoner.
But it is said PiusIX.is not in a prison; he is in the splendid palace of the Vatican, with full liberty to come out when he will. With due respect to the sincerity of many who say this, we beg leaveto remark, first, that there are prisoners who are not necessarily confined in jail; and, secondly, that there are excellent reasons for styling the residence of PiusIX.his prison. To illustrate the first point, there are prisoners on parole; there are, or were under the Crispi law, in Italy, men condemned to thedomicilio coatto—to a forced sojourn in some place other than that in which they habitually dwelt before, just as the venerable Cardinal de Angelis was compelled to leave his see, Fermo, and reside for years at Turin. It is plainly not necessary, then, that, in order to be a prisoner, a man should be obliged to live in a building erected for penal purposes. It is enough that there should be powerful motives, such as honor, or conscientious duties, or just fear of consequences, to prevent the free use of his physical power of going from one place to another, to render him really a prisoner. In the case of PiusIX.there do exist such powerful motives in the highest degree. There exist powerful motives of honor. PiusIX.is under oath not to give up, or do any detriment to, the rights of the Roman Church and of the universal church. He inherited vested rights from his predecessors, and, as far as depends on him, he is bound to transmit them unimpaired to his successor. He is a man of honor, pre-eminently so, and will not, cannot prove false to his oath or fail in protecting the rights entrusted to his keeping. The effect of PiusIX.’s leaving the Vatican and going about Rome, as he did in former times, would be a persuasion in the minds of all that he had accepted the situation created for him by the act of the Italian government; that he was, in fact, coming to terms with therevolution; that he no longer protested against the violations of the divine and natural law embodied in the Italian code, which one of Italy’s public men declared, a short time ago, to be made up of the propositions condemned in the Syllabus. Talk about parole after such a picture! Parole regards the personal honor only; but the motives of PiusIX.not only regard honor, but the highest interests of mankind.
Again, a further effect of PiusIX.’s leaving the Vatican would be trouble in the city. Had we not facts to prove this, there might be many who would doubt it. On occasion of theTe Deum, on the recurrence of the anniversary of his elevation and coronation, in June, 1874, the Sovereign Pontiff, who had been present, unseen, in the gallery above the portico ofSt.Peter’s, on reaching his apartments chanced momentarily to look from the window at the immense crowd in the piazza. His figure, clad in white, against the dark ground of the room behind him, attracted the attention of some one below and excited his enthusiasm. His cry ofViva Pio Nono, Pontifice e Re!had a magical effect. It was taken up by the thousands present, whose waving handkerchiefs produced the effect, to use the words of a young American poet present, of a foaming sea. In vain the agents of the government scattered through the mass of people—gend’armesandquesturini—did their best to stop the demonstration and silence a cry guaranteed by law, but discordant to the liberal ear, and significant of opposition to their views. They could not succeed. They had recourse to the soldiery. A company of Bersaglieri was called from the barracks near by, who, after giving with their trumpets the triple intimation todisperse, charged with fixed bayonets, and drove the people out of the piazza. The arrests of men and of ladies, and the resulting trials, with condemnation of the former, but release of the latter, are fresh in our memories. How, in the face of a fact like this, could the Pope come out into the city?—especially when we consider his position, the delicate regard due it, the danger, not only of harm to those who favor him, but of injury to the respect in which people of all classes hold him. Even those who would be the first to turn such an act to their account at his expense cannot withhold the respect his virtues, consistency, and courage exact. These, however, are prepared for the first mistake; they are ready to give him a mock triumph at the very first opportunity. But they have to do with a man who knows them; who, being in good faith himself, learnt his lesson in 1848, and understood what reliance is to be placed on European revolutionists. We conclude, then, this portion of our paper by saying that the condition created for the Pope by the taking of Rome, added to considerations of the highest order, has kept PiusIX.from putting his foot outside the Vatican since September 19, 1870, and that consequently “his liberty is restrained” and he is a prisoner.
Having thus shown that PiusIX.is a prisoner, we can safely draw the inference that the place in which circumstances oblige him to remain is his prison—prisoner and prison being correlative terms. He is “a prisoner in his own house,” though certainly we know that house was not built for penal purposes. But we have more than inference, logical as it is. We have facts to show that the same precautionswere and still are used that it is the custom to adopt with regard to ordinary prisons. For example, it is well known that in the beginning of the Italian occupation of Rome the utmost surveillance was kept up on all going into or coming out from the Vatican. One met the Piedmontese sentinel at the entrance, and by him the government police; people were occasionally searched; and the guards had orders not to allow persons to show themselves from the windows or balconies of the palace. The lamentedMgr.de Merode, almoner to the Sovereign Pontiff, a soldier by early education, could hardly give credit to the facts that proved this. Full of indignation, he went himself to the spot, and from the balcony looked down upon the street below where the sentinel stood. He was at once saluted with the words, “Go back!” Again the command was repeated, and then the levelled rifle admonished the prelate that further refusal to obey was imprudent. The affair made a good deal of noise at the time, and the guards were removed from close proximity to the palace, remaining only a few hundred feet away. All things, then, considered, PiusIX.is a prisoner and the Vatican is his prison.
But not only is the liberty of the Sovereign Pontiff directly interfered with in this way; he is trammelled also in purely spiritual matters. The Pope, the rulers of Rome say, may talk as he pleases in the Vatican, as we cannot prevent him, and he will not be put down; nay, he may even promulgate his decrees, encyclicals, and constitutions by putting them up as usual at the doors of the basilicas ofSt.Peter andSt.John Lateran; but any one who dares toreprint them will do so at his peril; his paper will be sequestrated, if the document published be judged by the authorities of the Italian kingdom to contain objectionable matter, and he will be tried by due course of law. This mode of proceeding has been put in practice; the seizure of the issue of theUnità Cattolicafor publishing an encyclical is well known, and was remarkable for an amusing feature. The edition for the provinces escaped the vigilance of the fiscal agents, and the Florentine liberal press, anxious to show how much freedom was allowed the Pope, on getting theUnità, printed the document. To their surprise, their issues were sequestrated. The letter of instruction on the subject of papal documents, and of surveillance,by the police, of the Catholic preachers, issued by the late ministry, to our knowledge never was recalled, and is therefore still in force; worse is contemplated, as we shall see later on. This coercion of his freedom of action extends also to the Pope’s jurisdiction in spirituals and in temporals.
The first instance of this is the exaction of the royalexequatur. We cannot do better than cite the words of the able legal authority, Sig. A. Caucino, of Turin, who has lately written a series of articles on the law of guarantees, passed by the chambers and confirmed by the king, of which we are speaking. On this subject of theexequaturhe writes: “After the discourse of the avvocato Mancini, on the3dof May, 1875, and the ‘order of the day’ by the deputy Barazzuoli, no one wonders that the nature of the application of the law of guarantees has been changed, and that all the promises solemnly made when it was necessary to forestall publicopinion, and promising cost nothing, have been broken. From that time to this the bishops named by the Pontiff, but not approved of by the royal government, have been put in the strangest and most unjust position in the world. It is hardly needful to recall that the first and principal guarantee in the law of May 13, 1871, was that by which the government renounced, throughout the whole kingdom, the right of naming or presenting for the conferring of the greater benefices (bishoprics, etc.) Well, after May, 1875, the bishops who were without theexequaturwere treated with two weights and two measures: they are not to be considered as bishops with respect to the Civil Code and the code of civil procedure, of equity—and logically; but they are to be looked on as such with regard to the Penal Code, the code of criminal procedure, and the whole arsenal of the fiscal laws of the Italian kingdom.”
Incredible, but true. Let us see the proofs.
Mgr.Pietro Carsana, named Bishop of Como, instituted a suit against the Administration of the Demain to have acknowledged as exempt from conversion into government bonds, and from the tax of thirty per cent., a charitable foundation by the noble Crotta-Oltrocchi, assigned to the Bishop of Como for the time being, that the revenues of it might be used for missions to the people and for the spiritual retreat or exercises of the clergy. The Demain raised the question as to whetherMgr.Carsana had the character required for the prosecution of such a cause before the tribunal. The tribunal of Como was for the bishop; but the Court of Appeal of Milan decided in favor of the Demain, forthe following reasons, drawn up on June 28, 1875: “It cannot be doubted but that the episcopal see of Como is to be held asstill vacantas to its civil relations, sinceMgr.Pietro Carsana, named to that see by the supreme ecclesiastical authority, has not yet received the royalexequatur, according to the requirements of the sixteenth article of the laws of May 13, 1871.[86]If the act of the supreme ecclesiastical authority”—we call attention to that wordsupreme—“directed to providing an occupant for the first benefice of the bishopric of Como, by the nomination ofMgr.Carsana, has not obtained the royalexequatur, as peace between the parties requires, this act before the civil law isnull and of no effect, the appointment to the said beneficeis to be looked on as not having taken place, and the episcopal see of Como is to be considered as still vacant, and the legitimate representation of it, in all its right, belongs to the vicar-capitular” (UnitàCattol., July 25, 1876). A like decision was given by the Court of Appeal of Palermo, October 16, 1875. Thus, to use the words of this writer, “the Pope has a right to name the bishops to exercise their episcopal functions, but, as far as their office has a bearing affecting external matters of civil nature, bishops without theexequaturcannot exercise it.” These external matters of a civil nature, which might be misunderstood, be it said, are none other than the acts without which the temporalities of a bishopric cannot be administered. Thebishop may say Mass, preach, and confirm, but not touch a dollar of the revenues of his see.
It needs no great acumen to perceive how the Sovereign Pontiff is thus hampered in his jurisdiction. His chief aids are his bishops; but they are not free unless they subject themselves, against conscience, to the civil power. Everyexequaturis an injustice to the church, no matter whether exacted by concordat or no. The church may submit under protest to the injustice, but the nature of the act of those requiring such submission does not change on that account. Hence it is clear that the Pope is at this moment most seriously hampered in the exercise of hisspiritualjurisdiction. If to this fact of theexequaturwe add the election of the parish priests by the people, favored by the government, the case becomes still clearer. But of this we shall speak fully at the end of the article.
To the impediments put in the way of the exercise of the Sovereign Pontiff’s spiritual jurisdiction are to be added those of a material nature, resulting from the heavy pecuniary burdens he, his bishops, and his clergy are obliged to bear. The scanty incomes of the clergy of the second order are in many cases reduced to two-thirds, while living costs one-fifth more than it did before Rome was taken. The very extensive suffering, from poverty, stagnation of business, the necessity of supporting the schools of parishes and institutions established to supply the place of those suppressed by the government, or whose funds have gone into the abyss of public administration—all have the effect of keeping the people from giving as largely to the clergy as they used to give, althoughthat source of revenue to them was not very great, as nearly everything was provided for by foundations. With reference to the bishops, and the Sovereign Pontiff especially, the case is much more aggravating. Those prelates who have not obtained theexequaturhave no means of support, as the temporalities of their sees are withheld. PiusIX., whose trust in Providence has been rewarded with wonderful abundance of offerings from the faithful throughout the world, came to the assistance of these persecuted successors of the apostles. Out of his own resources, the gratuitous generosity of his flock everywhere, he gives to each one of them five hundred francs a month. The drain on the papal treasury by this and other necessary expenses forced upon him by the taking of Rome, amounts in the gross, yearly, to $1,200,000, which, as the Pope consistently refuses to take a sou of the $640,000 offered him by the government, comes from the contributions of the faithful given as Peter-pence. In this way are the Catholics of the whole world taxed by the action of the Italian government.
Besides this direct action on the Head of the church and on her pastors that interferes with their freedom, there are other modes of proceeding which we hardly know whether we are justified in styling indirect, so sure and fatal are their effects on the spiritual jurisdiction and power of the Pope.
The first of these is the claim on the part of the state, enforced by every means in its power, to direct the education of the young. No education is recognized except that given by the state schools. Without state education no one can hold office under the government,no one can practise law or medicine, or any other liberal profession. Moreover, every youth, boy or girl, must undergo an examination before examiners deputed by the state. It stands to reason that no one can teach unless he have a patent or certificate from the state. Now, what does this mean? It means simply that the most powerful engine for moulding the mind of man, poisoning it, prejudicing it, giving it the bent one wants, is in the hands of the avowed enemies of the church; moreover, that those who are so acted on by this mighty agency are the spiritual subjects of PiusIX.; and that this is being done not only in all Italy, but especially in Rome. The most strenuous efforts are being made to remedy this evil, with a good deal of success; and the success will be greater farther on. But in the meantime a vast harm is done and a generation is perverted.
The next of these indirect means is the conscription, which seizes on the young men even who have abandoned the world and embraced the ecclesiastical life. At first sight one may be inclined to think the damage done not so extensive, as only a certain percentage after all will be taken. Even were this so, the injustice done to the persons concerned, and the harm to the church, would not the less be real. The fact is that this course of the government affects a comparatively small number in time of peace; but in time of war the number remains no longer small. Besides, the uncertainty of being able to pursue their career must have a bad effect on young men, while the associations which they are obliged to see around them, if they undertake the year of voluntary service to escape the conscription, must often have aresult by no means beneficial to their vocation. Facts are in our possession to show deliberate attempts to corrupt them and make them lose the idea of becoming priests. What is more weighty than these reasons is the fact of the diminishing number of vocations for the priesthood in Italy. The army of the government is swelling, while the army of PiusIX.in Italy is decreasing.
A late measure of the government has also a tendency to diminish the fervor of attachment in the people to their religion, and that measure is the prohibition of public manifestation of their belief outside the churches. A circular letter from the Minister of the Interior to the prefects of Italy forbids religious processions in the public streets. This in a Catholic country is a severe and deeply-felt blow at the piety of the people. Processions have always been one of the most natural and favorite ways of professing attachment to principles, and this is particularly true of religious processions. They have a language of their own that goes straight to the heart of the people. The discontinuance of them will have a dampening effect, on those especially who are a little weak; while those who go to church as seldom as possible, or rarely, will be deprived of a means of instruction that constantly served to recall to their minds the truths of religion; and instead of the enjoyment that came from beholding or assisting at some splendid manifestation of their faith, and from the accompanying festivities never wanting, will be substituted forgetfulness of religion and religious duties, the dissipation of the wine-shop and saloon, and those profane amusements, often of the most questionablecharacter, that are beginning to be so frequent on days of obligation, offered to the masses at hours conflicting with those of religious ceremonies. What has especially shocked every unprejudiced person, even liberals and non-Catholics, is the prohibition of the solemn accompaniment of the Blessed Sacrament. Besides the ordinary carrying of the Viaticum to the sick, and occasional communion to those unable to come to the church, some three or four times a year the Blessed Sacrament was borne to the bedridden with much solemnity, the most respectable people of the parish taking part in the procession or sending those who represented them. It was always an imposing and edifying spectacle to Catholics. This has been put a stop to. In Frascati, where, after prohibition of public processions had been notified to all, the Blessed Sacrament was carried to the sick with only theordinarymarks of respect, that there might be no violation of the unjust and illegal order, there was an exhibition of the animus of the authorities that almost exceeds belief. The people, to honor the Blessed Sacrament, were present in greater numbers than usual, and, as is the custom, prepared to follow it to the houses of the sick persons. The government authorities determined to prevent them. Hardly had the priest come out of the church, with the sacred pix in his hands, when he was accosted by the police officer, was laid hold of by him, and made to come from under the canopy, which from time immemorial is used during the day for the ordinary visits for the communion of the sick at Frascati. He was permitted to go with some four or five assistants. The people persisted in following, whereuponthe troops were called and they dispersed the crowd. The result was a spontaneous act of reparation to the Blessed Sacrament in the form of a Triduum in the cathedral, at which the first nobility of Rome, very numerous in the neighborhood of this city, assisted, while the attendance in the church was so great, including even liberals, that many had to kneel out on the steps and in the piazza. The effect on good Catholics thus far, though painful, has been beneficial; but the continuation of this course on the part of the government, with the means of coercion at their disposal, cannot but be hurtful to the cause of religion, and cannot but diminish the respect and obedience of the people to their pastors. All this, as a matter of course, has a decided effect on the power and influence of the Pope himself. There are indeed Catholics to whom God has vouchsafed so great an abundance of faith that, no matter what happens, they rise under trial and show a sublimity of trust and courage that extorts admiration even from their enemies; but, unfortunately, these are not the majority. Faith is a gift of God, and requires careful cultivation and fostering watchfulness; negligence, and above all wilful exposure to the danger of losing it, ordinarily weaken it much, and not unfrequently in these days bring about its total loss. This is one reason, and the principal one, why the church prays to be delivered from persecution, because, though some die martyrs or glorify God by a noble confession and unshaken firmness, many, very many, fall away in time of danger. History is full of instances of this. Thelapsiin the early centuries were unfortunately a large class, and in the persecutions of China and Japan,in our day, we hear, indeed, of martyrs, but we hear, too, of large numbers that fall away at the sight of torture or in the presence of imminent peril.
Such is the state of things in Italy with respect to the Sovereign Pontiff and the church over which he rules: persecution, oppression, hate, are the portion of Catholics and their Head; protection, favoritism, and aid, that of all who are adversaries of the church, from the latest-come Protestant agents of the Bible societies of England or America to the most avowed infidel and materialist of Germany or France. A Renan and a Moleschott are listened to with rapture; a Dupanloup or a Majunke are looked on as poor fanatics who cling to a past age. We do not wish to weary our readers with further instances of tyrannical action; though readily at hand, we may dispense with them, for the matter cited above is enough for our purpose, and certainly speaks for itself. We simply ask, What prospect lies before us? What is the promise of the future? On such a foundation can anything be built up that does not tell of sorrow, of trouble, and of ruin? Of a truth no one who loves virtue and religion can look upon the facts without concern; and that concern for an earnest Catholic will increase a hundred-fold, if he take into consideration the plans just now showing themselves for the warfare of to-morrow. These prove the crisis to be approaching, and that far greater evils are hanging over the Papacy than yet have threatened it, demonstrating more evidently and luminously than words what a pope subject of another king or people means.
Any one who is even a superficialobserver of matters in Italy cannot fail to see how closely Italian statesmen and politicians ape the ideas and the measures of Germany, particularly against the church. There, it is well known, strenuous efforts are being made to constructa national church, and with partial success. The pseudo-bishops Reinkens in the empire and Herzog in Switzerland are doing their utmost to give form and constitution to the abortions they have produced. The example is followed in Italy. The apostate Panelli, in Naples, made an unsuccessful attempt to begin thechiesa nazionale; but disagreement with his people caused him to be supplanted, though he still styles himself national bishop. Agreeing with him in sentiments are a certain number of ecclesiastics, insignificant if compared with the clergy of the Catholic Church in Italy; yet to these men, who certainly did not and do not enjoy the esteem of thesanior pars, the wiser portion of the people, the government, holding power under a constitution the first article of which declares that the Roman Catholic and apostolic religion is the religion of the state, show favor and lend aid and comfort. Let us listen for a moment to their language and to that of their supporters.
Sig. Giuseppe Toscanelli is a deputy in the Italian parliament, and a man of so-called liberal views, an old soldier of Italian independence, and an old Freemason. He has the merit of seeing something of the inconsistency and injustice of the action of the authorities, in parliament and out of it, with regard to the church, is a ready speaker, and has the courage to say what he thinks, thus incurring the enmity of his fellow-Masons,some of whom, in 1864, in the lodge at Pisa, declared him unworthy of their craft, and cast him out of the synagogue. We are not aware that he troubles himself much about the matter, nor that he looks on himself as any the less an ardent supporter of united Italy. When the law of guarantees for the Sovereign Pontiff was up for discussion, Toscanelli said: “Report has it that in 1861 some public men of Lombardy conceived the idea of a national church, which they made known to Count Cavour, and urged him to bring it about; and that Count Cavour decidedly refused to do so. In 1864 this idea showed itself again, and a bill in accordance with it was presented in parliament. The civil constitution of the church was most strongly maintained by the Hon. Bonghi. At present we see papers, some most closely connected with the government, printing articles professedly treating of a national church, even to the point of going to the extremes HenryVIII.reached.”
But not only papers favor the project. We have heard lately of cabinet ministers using the same language. The head of the late ministry, Sig. Marco Minghetti, did so at Bologna in a public speech. Yet he was the leader of the so-calledmoderateparty. It is therefore not surprising that the recognized prince of Italian lawyers, Sig. Stanislas Mancini, the Minister of Public Worship of the present radical cabinet, should speak in the same style. We have a letter of his to a notorious person, Prota Giurleo, President of the Society for the Emancipation of the Clergy, vicar-general of the national church, in theLibertà Cattolicaof August 2, 1876. It is worth translating:
“Honored Sir: Hardly had I taken the direction of the ministry of grace, justice, and worship, when you, in the name of the society over which you preside, thought fit to send me a copy of the memorandum of Nov. 9, 1873, which, under the form of a petition, I had myself the honor of presenting to the Chamber of Deputies, recalling to my mind the words uttered by me at the meeting of Dec. 17 of that year, when I asked and obtained that the urgency of the case should be recognized, and demanded suitable provision.
“It is scarcely necessary for me to say that I remembered very well the expressions used by me on that occasion, because they give faithful utterance to an old, lively, and deep feeling of my soul.
“As minister I maintain the ideas and the principles I defended as deputy. Still, I did not conceal the fact that the greatest and most effectual measures were to be obtained only by way of legislation, without omitting to say, however, that by way of executive action something might be done. To-day, then, faithful to this order of ideas, I have no difficulty in opening my mind on each of the questions recapitulated in the memorandum.
“1st. The first demand of the worthy society over which you preside was made to the Chamber of Deputies, in order that steps might be taken to frame a new law to regulate definitively the new relations between the state and the church, in accordance with the changed condition of the political power and of the ecclesiastical ministry. On this point I am happy to assure you that this arduous problem constitutes one of the most important cares, and will form part of study and examination, to which the distinguished and competent men called by me to compose the commission charged with preparing the law reserved by the eighteenth article of the law of May 13, 1871, for the rearrangement and preservation of ecclesiastical property, will have to attend.
“2d. In the second place, this memorandum asks the revindication, for the clergy and people, of the right to elect their own pastors in all the grades of the hierarchy. You are not ignorant that such a proposition made by me in parliament, during the discussion of the above-mentioned law of May 13, 1871, relative to the nomination ofbishops, did not meet with success, nor would there be reasonable hope, at present, of a different legislative decision. It results from this, therefore, that efforts in this direction must be limited to preparing by indirect ways the maturity of public opinion, which is wont, sooner or later, to influence the deliberations of parliament. The manifestation of the will of the people in the choice of ministers and pastors, that recalls the provident customs and traditions of the primitive church, to which the most learned and pious ecclesiastics of our day—it is enough to name Rosmini—earnestly desire to return, must first be the object of action to propagate the idea, in the order of facts, by spontaneous impulse, and by the moral need of pious and believing consciences; and afterward, when these facts become frequent and general, it will be the duty of the civil power to interfere to regulate them, and secure the sincerity and independence of them, without prejudice to the right of ecclesiastical institution.
“Already some symptoms have shown themselves, and some examples have been had, in certain provinces of the kingdom, and I deemed it my duty not to look on them with aversion and distrust, but at the same time to reconcile with existing discipline regarding benefices all such zeal and the protection that could be given to the popular vote and to ecclesiastics chosen by it, not only by providing for these the means needed for the becoming exercise of their ministry, but also to benefit at the same time the people by works tending to their instruction and assistance. I will not neglect opportunities of aiding by other indirect measures the attainment of the same end. The future will show whether this movement, a sign of the tendencies of the day, may be able to exercise a sensible influence on religious society and claim the attention of the legislator.
“3d. The same commission referred to above will be able to examine how, by means of opportune expedients, some of the dispositions of the forthcoming law on the administration of the ecclesiastical fund may be made serve to relieve and encourage the priests and laymen belonging to associations the aim of which is to fulfil scrupulously at one and the same time the duties of religion and of patriotism. Still, despite the factthat the actual arrangement and the accustomed destination of the revenues of vacant benefices succeed with great difficulty in meeting the mass of obligations that weigh upon them, I have earnestly sought for the readiest and most available means to afford some help and encouragement to the well-deserving society over which you preside, especially to promote the diffusion of the earnest and profound studies of history and ecclesiastical literature; and I am only sorry that insuperable obstacles have obliged me to keep within very modest limits. I will not neglect to avail myself of every favorable occasion to show the esteem and the satisfaction of the government with respect to those ecclesiastics and members of the association who join to gravity of conduct the merit of dedicating themselves to good ecclesiastical studies, and render useful service to their fellow-citizens.
“4th. In the fourth place, by this memorandum the demand is presented that one of the many churches in Naples, once conventual, be assigned to the society, endowing it with the property acquired by the laws affecting the title to such property of February 17, 1861, July 7, 1866, and August 15, 1867. On this point I have to say that many years ago there was brought about a state of things which certainly is not favorable to the granting of the demand; for the twenty-fourth article of the law of February 17, 1861, was interpreted in the sense that churches formerly conventual should be subject, as regards jurisdiction, to the archiepiscopal curia. Notwithstanding this, and although I intend to have examined anew the interpretation given to Article 24, seeing in the meantime that this state of things be not in the least changed for the worse, I will immediately put myself in relation with the prefect of the province, to know whether, keeping in view the facts as above, there be in your city a church we may dispose of that presents all the conditions required, in order that it may be given for the use of the society. It is hardly necessary to speak of the absolute impossibility of assigning an endowment from the property coming from the laws changing the title to such property, because, even apart from any other reason, the very laws themselves determine, in order, the use to which the revenues obtained by the consequent sale of the property are to be put.
“5th. Finally, as regards guaranteeing efficaciously, against the arbitrary action of the episcopate, the lower clergy who are loyal to the laws of the country and to the dynasty, I do not deem it necessary to make any declarations or give any assurances, because my principles and the first acts of my administration are a pledge that, within the bounds allowed me by law, and urging, if needful, the action of the courts, in accordance with the law of May 13, 1871, I shall not fail to show by deeds that the government of the king is not disposed to tolerate that good ecclesiastics of liberal creed should be subject to abuse on the part of their ecclesiastical superiors, when the legal means are in their power to prevent it.
“Be pleased to accept, honored sir, the expression of my esteem and consideration.
“The Keeper of the Seals,“Mancini.”
We shall adduce only one other document as prefatory to what we are going to say, and that is the letter of a certain Professor Sbarbaro, who is a prominent writer of extreme views, possessing a frankness of character that makes him attack the government at one time, even in favor of the church, though through no love of it, at another launch forth against it an amount of invective and false accusation that would warrant us in looking on him as the crater of the revolutionary volcano. This personage has written quite recently one of his characteristic letters, in which he uses all his eloquence against the church, recommending everywhere the establishment of Protestant churches and schools; because, he says, this is the only way to destroy the Catholic Church, the implacable enemy of the new order of things. Every nerve must be strained to effect this. There can be no peace till it be accomplished, and the edifice of Italian unity andfreedom tower over the ruins of ecclesiastical oppression.
With the express declaration of the deputy, Sig. Giuseppe Toscanelli, the letter of his Excellency the Keeper of the Seals and that of Professor Sbarbaro, before our eyes, we are prepared to see some fact in accordance with the ideas and sentiments therein expressed. The fact is at hand; it is a movement set on foot to obtain adhesion and subscriptions to the scheme of electing, by the people, to their positions ecclesiastics even of the highest grade. The Sovereign Pontiff himself alluded to this in his discourse to the foreign colleges, July 25, 1876, when he warned them that steps were taking to prepare the way to a popular election, “a tempo suo, anche al maggior beneficio della chiesa”—“at the proper time, to even the first benefice of the church”—in other words, the Papacy. It is worth while examining this question, because the agitation having begun, specious arguments having been advanced, and illustrious names, such as that of Rosmini—who, it is well known, retracted whatever by overzeal he had written that incurred censure at Rome—having been brought forward to support such views, it is not unlikely that elsewhere we may hear a repetition of them. Say what people may, Rome is the centre of the civilized world; the agitations that occur there, especially in the speculative order, are like the waves produced by casting a stone in the water: the ripples extend themselves from the centre to the extreme circumference. So thence the agitations strike France and Germany and Spain, extend to England, Russia, the East, and finally reach us and the other extra-European nations.
The errors on this subject of popular election in the church, where they are not affected, come from a confusion of ideas and a want of knowledge of what the church is. Protestantism has had the greatest part in misleading men; for it completely changed the essential idea of this mystic body of Christ. Our Lord, when founding his church on earth, spoke of it continually as his, as his kingdom, as his house, as his vineyard. He told his disciples that to him all power had been given in heaven and on earth. Nowhere do we see him giving to any one a title that would make him a sharer in that power; the unity of command signified by the idea of the kingdom, the absolute power of imposing laws, is his, his alone, and is entrusted to those he selected to continue his work. His words to his apostles were: “As the Father hath sent me, I send you”—the fulness of power I have I bestow upon you, that you may act in my name, in such a way that “he who hears you hears me; and he who will not hear you, let him be to you as the heathen and the publican.” He makes the distinction between those who are to hear and those who are outside his church; he constitutes in his kingdom, his church, those who are to command with his authority and those who are to obey: the apostles and their successors—the Sovereign Pontiff with the bishops—and the people or the laity. The duty of the laity is to obey, not to command, not to impose, not to exact, much less to name those who are to hold positions in the church—an act proper of its nature only to those who hold power of command, just as in a kingdom the naming to offices resides with the king or with thosehe may depute for such purpose. The duty of the laity is summed up in the words of the Prince of the Apostles:Obedite præpositis vestris—Obey your prelates. Such is the divine constitution of the church, and, like everything of divine right, that constitution is unchangeable. Alongside of this fact, however, we find another that apparently conflicts with it. We see the people, even in the first period of the preaching of Christianity, taking part in the election of those who were to hold places in the church, and this at the instance of the apostles themselves. It is, however, not the rule, but the exception, in the sacred text; for we find the apostles acting directly, themselves selecting and bestowing power of orders and jurisdiction; as, for example, whenSt.Paul placed Timothy over the church of Ephesus, and Titus over those of Crete. This is in accordance with what we might expect from the constitution of the church. Had the election to such places been of divine right,St.Paul would have violated that right in so naming both Timothy and Titus. It follows, then, that this power of taking part in the election of prelates, priests, and deacons was introduced by the apostles and used in the early church as a matter of expediency, the continuation or interruption of which would depend upon circumstances. What was the meaning of it? Was it a conferring of power, a naming to fill a place, or a presentation, a testimony of worth of those thus selected, which the apostles and their successors sought from the people? It was a testimony of worth only. This is evident from the words ofSt.Peter to the one hundred and twenty gathered with him for thenomination ofSt.Matthias. It isSt.Peter who regulates, orders what is to be done, and commands the brethren to select one from their number. They could not agree on one; two were nominated, and the prayer and choice by lot followed. This was, of course, an extraordinary case, and we do not see this mode of election afterwards resorted to, leaving the matter to be decided by the power of God. What we do see here that is of interest to us is the act of the Prince of the Apostles prescribing what was to be done; this shows his supreme authority, and is the source of the legality of the position ofSt.Matthias. The testimony of the people was required to ascertain his worth and fitness. It was very natural that this testimony of the people should be resorted to, especially in the early church, in which affairs were administered and the work of the Gospel carried on rather through the spirit of charity, “that hath no law,” than by legal enactments; though we begin to see quite early traces of these, as required by the nature of the case. This example of the apostles continued in use in the church for centuries, the testimony of the people to the worth of their bishops being required; for it has always been an axiom in the conduct of affairs in the church that the bishop must be acceptable to his people; nor is any great examination needed to arrive at such a conclusion, for the office of a bishop regards the spiritual interests of his flock, and such interests cannot be furthered by one against whom his people have just cause of complaint and dissatisfaction. To obtain such testimony, or to be able to present an acceptable and worthy bishop to a flock, there isno one essentially necessary way. Provided testimony beyond exception can be had, it matters little by what channel it comes. In process of time, when persecution, and persistent struggle with paganism for centuries after persecution, ended, “the charity of many having grown cold,” the strife that too often ensued in the choice of bishops, and the success of designing men through bribery or intrigue, brought about the change in the discipline of the church. We find the eighth general council legislating with regard to elections to patriarchates, archbishoprics, and bishoprics. We see that the powerful were making use of the means at their command either to influence the people in the choice, where this was possible, or by their own authority placing ecclesiastics in possession of sees. The council was held in the year 869, and was called on to act against Photius, the intruded patriarch of Constantinople. It drew up and promulgated these two canons:
“Can. XII.The apostolic and synodical canons wholly forbidding promotion and consecration of bishops by the power and command of princes, we concordantly define, and also pronounce sentence, that, if any bishop have received consecration to such dignity by intrigue or cunning of princes, he is to be by all means deposed as having willed and agreed to possess the house of the Lord, not by the will of God and by ecclesiastical rite and decree, but by the desire of carnal sense, from men and through men.
“Can. XXII.This holy and universal synod, in accordance with former councils, defines and decrees that the promotion and consecration of bishops are to be done by the election and decree of the college of bishops; and it rightly proclaims that no lay prince or person possessed of power shall interfere in the election of a patriarch, of a metropolitan, or of any bishop whatsoever, lest thereshould arise inordinate and incongruous confusion or strife, especially as it is fitting that no prince or other layman have any power in such matters” (Version of Anastasius).
In the Roman Church, however, while the active interference of secular princes and nobles, despite the canons of the church, continued to be the rule during the middle ages, to the great harm of religion and dishonor of the See of Peter, to the intrusion even of unworthy occupants who scandalized the faithful, the popes and the clergy wished to have the people present as witnesses of the election, and consenting to it, that in this way there might be a bar to calumny, affecting the validity of it, and an obstacle to the ambition of the surrounding princes. Still, the election proper belonged to the clergy, the people consenting to receive the one so elected. Prior to the pontificate of NicholasII.the people, so often the willing servants of the German emperors or of their allies, used not unfrequently to impose their will on the clergy, or made Rome the theatre of factional strife. To put a stop to this, Nicholas, having called a council of one hundred and thirteen bishops at Rome, published in it the following decree:
1. “God beholding us, it is first decreed that the election of the Roman Pontiff shall be in the power of the cardinal bishops; so that if any one be enthroned in the apostolic chair without their previous concordant and canonical election, and afterwards with the consent of the successive religious orders, of the clergy, and of the laity, he is to be held as no pope or apostolic man, but as an apostate.”
In the centuries of contention between the lay powers and the ecclesiastical authorities, the disciplineon the subject of election to the higher benefices became more and more strict, till finally the selection has, as a rule, come to be reserved to the Sovereign Pontiff, to whom, even after election by chapter, the confirmation belongs. The Council of Trent has been very explicit on this point. Inch. iv.of sess.xxiii.we read:
“The holy synod, moreover, teaches that, in the ordination of bishops, priests, and of the other grades, the consent, or call, or authority neither of the people nor of any secular power and magistracy is so required that without this it be invalid; nay, it even decrees that those who ascend to the exercise of this ministry, called and placed in position only by the people or lay power and magistracy, and who of their own rashness assume them, are all to be held, not as ministers of the church, but as thieves and robbers who have not come in by the door.”
Can. vii.of this session condemns those who teach otherwise.
We are, therefore, not surprised to find duly promulgated the following document referring to the “Italian society for the reassertion of the rights that belong to Christian people, and especially to Roman citizens,” under whose auspices the movement for election to ecclesiastical benefices by the people has been set on foot. TheSacra Penitentiariais the tribunal to which cases of conscience are submitted for decision, and its answers are given according to the terms of the petition or case submitted. We give the case as submitted, and the reply:
“Most Eminent and Reverend Sir: Some confessors in the city of Rome humbly submit that, at the present moment, there is in circulation in it a paper containing a printed programme, with accompanying schedules of association, by which the faithful are solicited to join a certain society, establishedor to be established to the end that, on the vacancy of the Apostolic See, the Roman people may take part in the election of the Roman Pontiff. The name of the society is:Società Cattolica per la rivendicazione dei diritti spettanti al popolo cristiano ed in ispecie al popolo Romano. Whoever gives his name to this society must expressly declare, as results from the schedules, that he agrees to the doctrines set forth in the programme, and contracts the obligation, before two witnesses, of doing all he can to further the propagation of these doctrines and the increase of the society. Wherefore, the said confessors, that they may properly absolve, when by the grace of God they come to the sacrament of penance, those who have been the promoters of this evil society, or have subscribed their names thereto, and other adherents and aiders of it, send a copy of the programme and schedules to be examined by the Sacred Penitentiary, and ask an answer to the following questions:
“1. Whether each and all, giving their names to this society, or aiding it, or in any way abetting it, or adhering to it, by the very fact incur the penalty of the major excommunication?
“2. And if so, whether this excommunication be reserved to the Sovereign Pontiff?”
“The Sacred Penitentiary, having considered all that has been laid before it, and duly examined into the nature and end of this society, having referred the foregoing to our most holy lord, PiusIX., with his approbation, replies to the proposed questions as follows:
“To the first, affirmatively.
“To the second: The excommunication is incurred by the very fact, and is in a special manner reserved to the Roman Pontiff.
“Given at Rome, in the Sacred Penitentiary, August 4, 1876.
“R.Card.Monaco,for theGrand Penitentiary.
“Hip. Canon Palombi,S. P.Secretary.”
Such is the state of things we have to present to our readers as aresult of the triumph of Freemasonry in Italy and of the seizure of Rome: the Pope a captive; his temporal power gone; his spiritual power trammelled; his influence subject to daily attacks that aim at its destruction; and, to crown all, looming up in the distance, a possible schism, resulting from interference, patronized by the Italian government, in the future election of the Head of two hundred millions of Catholics throughout the world, whose most momentous interests are at stake. Surely nothing could be of more weight to show how impossible a thing a pope under the dominion of a sovereign is; nor could we desire anything better adapted to show the necessity of the restoration of his perfect independence in the temporal order. We believe this will be; and, as things are, we can see no other way possible than by the restoration of his temporal power; how, or when, is in the hands of divine Providence.
[86]Art. XVI.“The disposition of the civil laws with regard to the creation and the manner of existence of ecclesiastical institutions, and the alienation of their property, remains in force.” There is no mention of theexequaturbeing required for a bishop to plead before a court; that is, to begin to act under the provisions ofArt. XVI.