Sixty-Sixth Letter.

Sixty-Sixth Letter.Rome, July 14, 1870.—I must again interrupt my narrative of the occurrences and speeches between June 5 and 10 to communicate the details of the great event of the session of July 13—an event which has falsified all expectations on both sides, and created a sensation and astonishment in Rome which it will take people some time to recover from. Even beyond the Alps, in spite of the all-absorbing question of the war, it will rouse interest and joyful surprise. In the last few days before the critical morning of the 13th there was much discussion among the Bishops of the various nations as to whether they should vote a simple“No”or a conditional“Yes,”—aNon placetor aPlacet juxta modum. It was not merely the fourth chapter that was in question, which deals with infallibility, but the wholeSchemaon the Papacy, which contains also the[pg 768]much-decried third canon of the third chapter, establishing for the first time the theory of the universal episcopate of the Pope, the very theory Pope Gregory the Great characterized as an abomination and a blasphemy. It was known that the Bishops who are mere dilettantis in theology—and their number is legion, as is natural under the present system of episcopal appointments—would greatly prefer votingjuxta modum,i.e., with a conditioned“Yes.”That would always leave them free to reserve their further decision till the public voting“coram Sanctissimo”(as the Pope is here called), when only a direct“Yes”or“No”can be voted. Each of them could present in writing the conditions or wishes on which he desired to make hisPlacetdependent, and then say“Yes”or“No”according to his pleasure in the Solemn Session, if his suggestions were disregarded—“Yes,”if he wished to direct the lightning flashes of the angry Jupiter to other heads than his own;“No,”if he could summon manliness and courage enough at the last moment. The Court party and the majority had neglected no means of impressing on the recalcitrants the uselessness of their negative votes and the personal disadvantages to themselves. Every one was told,“It is determined irrevocably to take no account[pg 769]of your‘No,’and to go on to the promulgation of the dogma. Supported by at least 500 favourable votes, and throwing the surplus weight of his own vote into the scale, the Pope, on the 17th or 24th July, will walk over your heads amid the presumed acclamations of the whole Catholic world; and how lamentable and hopeless a situation will yours be then! You are then heretics, who have incurred the terrible penalties of the canon law; you have surrendered at discretion, bound hand and foot, to the mercy of the deeply injured Pope. Consider,‘Quid sum miser tunc dicturus, quem patronum rogaturus?’”Thus they were worked on individually. And more drastic methods were employed as well. It was asserted that two documents had already been drawn up in the Vatican, which every Bishop would be compelled to sign before being allowed to leave Rome; the one a profession of faith comprising the new article of infallibility, and the other an attestation of the perfect freedom of the Council throughout its whole course. Whoever refused to sign either would thereby at once incur papal censures.“We shall thus have,”they were told,“yourNon placetand your‘free’acknowledgment under your hand of the article of faith you denied a few days before, and[pg 770]shall show it to the world. Do you wish then morally to annihilate yourselves in public opinion?”As the Bishops who are resolved to give a negative vote knew well the more timorous temper of many of their colleagues, who were half-ready to be persuaded and half-ready to succumb, and remembered the Scriptural saying that“a high priest must have compassion on our infirmities,”some of them drew up a formula stating the basis on which the timid might votePlacet juxta modum. In the preamble of theSchemathe word“principium”was to be exchanged for“exordium,”and instead of“vis et virtus in eo (Papâ) consistit,”was to be put“præcipue in eo consistit;”the third canon of the third chapter was to be wholly omitted, and the word“episcopalis”left out of the chapter, and lastly, the formula of St. Antoninus was to be substituted for the fourth chapter. The proposed document ends with“Secus in Solemni Sessione dicturus sum,Non placet.”On July 12 the Bishops of the minority held the most largely attended international conference which has yet taken place; about 70 were present. Three prelates, two German and one French—Ketteler, Melchers and Archbishop Landriot of Rheims—proposed that all should votePlacet juxta modum, but at the same time[pg 771]hand in a precise and decided formulas the condition of their assent, with a declaration that, if their demands were rejected or inadequately complied with, they should be obliged to voteNon placetin the Solemn Session. This would have substantially secured the complete victory of the majority and theCuria. Every one would have naturally said,“Your‘Yes,’however conditioned, can only bear the sense that in the main point you agree with theSchema, and that main point lies in the two new and great articles of faith, which hang together and must shape the future of the Church, the universal episcopate of the Pope and his infallibility. By sayingPlacetyou affirm these two new dogmas, and after that it will matter little what particular collateral wishes or conditions you may choose to add. Whether they are acceded to or not, you must in consistency say‘Yes’on the great day of the public profession, when only a simple affirmative or negative vote can be given.”The three Cardinals, the two primates Simor and Ginoulhiac, Strossmayer and others, spoke out repeatedly and emphatically against this mischievous proposal which would at the last moment have frustrated all their hopes, and annihilated the results of seven months'[pg 772]sufferings and labours. A decisive impression was produced by the remark of the Archbishop of Milan, that there were many infallibilists who on various grounds would vote conditionally, and this peculiar kind of vote, which was better adapted to courtiers than Bishops, had better be left to them.“The only befitting course for us,”he said,“who are convinced of the falsehood of the doctrine, is to say‘No.’”This was unanimously accepted. Tarnoczy, who for some time back has withdrawn from his German and Hungarian colleagues, and votes regularly with the majority, was not present. Cardinal Schwarzenberg said he should be glad if one of the Cardinals votedNon placetbefore him, but if this did not happen he should be the first, and should count it a distinction to stand at the head of this noble band.It was remarkable how generally the view prevailed that scarcely ten opposing votes would really be given when the time came. No means were spared, by rumours and inventions, to spread terror and despair among the ranks of the Opposition. Thus the report was circulated in foreign journals—where you will have read it—as well as here, that a“sauve qui peut,”and“débandade”had become the watchword of the Opposition,[pg 773]and not thirty would be left on the day for voting. We see now that this was all pure invention. Even Förster's departure, which I reported myself, had not taken place; only Greith had gone. When Darboy had an audience of the Pope the day before the voting, and said that there was a considerable number of Bishops who would join him in sayingNon placet, the Pope replied,“Perhaps many will votejuxta modum, but certainly not above tenNon placet.”For some time past Pius has notoriously known everything with absolute certainty, even the temper of distant countries. The formulas put into the Pope's mouth by the Roman Chancery,“proprio motu”and“ex certâ scientiâ,”have been transmuted by the habit of twenty-four years into actual flesh and blood with him.At the beginning of the sitting the news had spread among the majority that the negative votes would be much more numerous than had been supposed on the evening before. On this Dechamps of Mechlin went to the heads of the Opposition and entreated them with humble gestures and whining voice to votejuxta modum, saying there was really some disposition with the authorities to insert the“consensus”and“testimonium Ecclesiarum”into the fourth chapter. The trick was[pg 774]too barefaced to succeed, and sharp words were spoken on the other side. One of the Bishops said to the new primate,“C'est une impudence sans exemple,”and Darboy called the attention of the three Cardinals to this treacherous attempt at the last moment to divide and perplex the Opposition. Now began the voting“sub secreto,”as it was again called, and the sub-secretary Jacobini read the names of the Fathers from the pulpit. And then a wholly unexpected phenomenon came to light: out of 600 Fathers present in Rome—there were 764 in January—only 520 had appeared, and it was at once known that very many of the absentees had stayed away from dislike to theSchema, and to avoid the disagreeable consequences of a negative vote.The line taken by the Orientals in the voting excites surprise here. The Propaganda has spared no means of exercising a strict supervision and control over them, and yet the upshot is that the most influential of them have votedNon placet, somejuxta modum, and others have absented themselves. In fact all the real Eastern Bishops—i.e., those who represent dioceses—have voted against the dogma. Every one acquainted with the state of things in Asia foresees that the promulgation of the dogma,[pg 775]which will follow in spite of this, will lead to the definitive separation of the Uniate Churches in the East. But that makes not the slightest impression on the Pope and the Jesuits.When the names of thejuxta modumvoters were read out, the President said“quorum, quantum possible erit, habebitur ratio.”That sounded like open mockery: it meant,“We (the Deputation) have already settled among ourselves what is impossible, viz., making the co-operation of the episcopate a condition, but still there are some possible things. If,e.g., any Bishops wish to have‘inerrantia’substituted for‘infallibilitas,’perhaps they may be gratified.”But even concessions of that sort are doubtful, for one cannot give the lie to Bishop Gasser of Brixen, who has distinctly declared that“nec verbum addetur nec verbum demetur amplius.”Among the conditional voters are Dreux-Brézé, certainly only because the decree is not strong enough for him. The whole Hungarian Episcopate remained firm in its opposition. The Austrians know now why Rudigier and Fessler were given them as Bishops. I send you with this the authentic list of the Fathers who did not vote with a simplePlacet. It shows that it[pg 776]was just the Bishops of capital cities, as well as North American, Irish, English, and beyond expectation many North Italian prelates, who voted against the dogma. Only one, strictly speaking, was wholly false to his professions, the Bishop of Porto Rico.The Pope is still sure that at the last critical moment a divine miracle will enlighten the benighted minds of the opponents and suddenly reverse their sentiments. The Holy Ghost will and must do this. Pius seems to have clear assurances on that point. He had lately a remarkable conversation about it with a French Bishop, whom he had never seen before. As he regards every opponent of the dogma as his personal enemy, he received him as such and reproached him with being Cæsar's friend instead of the Pope's; the Bishop replied that his white hairs testified to his having nothing to fear or hope for, but simply to follow his conscience, which constrained him with many of his colleagues to vote against the new dogma.“No,”exclaimed Pius,“you will not vote against it; the Holy Ghost at the decisive hour will irresistibly enlighten you, and you will all sayPlacet.”When the French Government in 1733 had the cemetery of La Chaise surrounded with soldiers, to[pg 777]stop the miraculous cures at the grave of the Abbé Paris, the inscription was found one morning over the entrance—De par le roi défense à Dieu,De faire miracle en ce lieu.On the 17th or 24th July 1870 there might be written over the entrance of the Council Hall—De par le Pape ordre au bon DieuDe faire miracle en ce lieu.The echo of the Vatican, Veuillot'sUnivers, has just been accusing the Bishops of the minority of ruining the papal treasury by prolonging the debates on infallibility through their opposition, and thus obliging the Pope to go on supporting his 300 episcopal foster sons, and buy his infallibility late and at a high price, when it ought to have been cast into his lap by spontaneous acclamation at the first. A physician has now been discovered for the treasury which has sickened under the infallibility affair. Rothschild is said to have been here and concluded a loan of forty million franks. As the deficit only amounts to thirty million, there remain ten million for fireworks, illuminations and church-decorations, the journey-money of trusty Bishops, and the like. But now the war is impending, and with[pg 778]it the withdrawal of Peter's pence and perhaps still worse.154The following votedNon-placet:—1.Prague, Cardinal Prince-Archbishop Schwarzenberg; 2.Besançon, Cardinal Archbishop Mathieu; 3.Vienna, Cardinal Prince-Archbishop Rauscher; 4.Antioch, Patriarch Jussuf, of the Melchite Rite; 5.Babylon, Patriarch Audu, of the Chaldean Rite; 6.Gran, Archbishop[pg 779]and Primate of Hungary, Simor; 7.Lyons, Archbishop Ginoulhiac; 8.Tuam, Archbishop MacHale; 9.Olmütz, Prince-Archbishop Fürstenberg; 10.Trabezund, Bishop Ghiureghian, of the Armenian Rite; 11.Munich, Archbishop Scherr; 12.Bamberg, Archbishop Deinlein; 13.Seert, Bishop Bar-Tatar, of the Chaldean Rite; 14.Halifax, Archbishop Conolly, of the Capuchin Order; 15.Lemberg, Archbishop Wierzcheyski, of the Latin Rite; 16.Paris, Archbishop Darboy; 17.Kalocsa, Archbishop Haynald; 18.Milan, Archbishop Nazari di Calabiana; 19.Tyre, Archbishop Kauam, of the Melchite Rite; 20.Biella(Italy), Bishop Losanna; 21.Autun, Bishop Marguerye; 22.Ivrea(Piedmont), Bishop Moreno; 23.Dijon, Bishop Rivet; 24.Metz, Bishop Dupont des Loges; 25.Iglesias(Sardinia), Bishop Montixi; 26.Acquapendente(formerly in the Roman States), Bishop Pellei; 27.Trieste, Bishop Legat; 28.Orleans, Bishop Dupanloup; 29.Vezprim, Bishop Ranolder; 30.Mayence, Bishop Ketteler; 31.BosniaandSyrmia, Bishop Strossmayer; 32.Budweis, Bishop Jirsik; 33.Breslau, Prince-Bishop Förster; 34.Kerry, Bishop Moriarty; 35.Leontopolis, in partibus, Bishop Forwerk, Apostolic Vicar of Saxony; 36.Plymouth, Bishop Vaughan; 37.Clifton, Bishop Clifford;[pg 780]38.Nice, Bishop Sola; 39.ParenzoandPola, Bishop Dobrilla; 40.Kreutz(in Croatia), Bishop Smiciklas, of the Ruthenian Rite; 41.Augsburgh, Bishop Dinkel; 42.Gurk, Bishop Wiery; 43.Caltanisetta(Sicily), Bishop Guttadauro di Reburdone; 44.Vacz(in Hungary), Bishop Peitler; 45.Marianne(Syria), —— of the Melchite Rite; 46.Chatham, Bishop Rogers; 47.CsanadandTemesvar, Bishop Bonnaz; 48.Pittsburg, Bishop Domenec; 49.Luzonia, Bishop Colet; 50.Sura, in partibus, Bishop Maret; 51.St. Brieuc, Bishop David; 52.Trèves, Bishop Eberhard; 53.Coutance, Bishop Bravard; 54.Lavant, Bishop Stepischnigg; 55.Soissons, Bishop Dours; 56.Akra, Bishop Mellus, of the Chaldean Rite; 57.Siebenbürgen, Bishop Fogarasz; 58.Châlons, Bishop Meignan; 59.Valence, Bishop Gueullette; 60.Perpignan, Bishop Ramadié; 61.Paleopolis, in partibus, Bishop Mariassy (Hungary); 62.PetricolaorLittle Rock(United States), Bishop Fitzgerald; 63.Marseilles, Bishop Place; 64.Cahors, Bishop Grimardias; 65.Osnaburgh, Bishop Beckmann; 66.Szathmar(Hungary), Bishop Virò de Keydi Polany; 67.Munkacs, Bishop Pankovics, of the Ruthenian Rite; 68.Bayeux, Bishop Hugonin; 69.Raab, Bishop ——; 70.La Rochelle, Bishop Benedetto; 71.Nancy, Bishop Foullon; 72.[pg 781]Constantine(Algiers), Bishop de las Cases; 73.Oran(Algiers), Bishop Callot; 74.Gap, Bishop Guilbert; 75.Ermeland, Bishop Crementz; 76.Rochester, Bishop MacQuaid; 77.Louisville, Bishop Kenrick; 78.Cassovia, Bishop Perger (Hungary); 79.Agathopolis, Bishop Namszanowski, Provost of the Prussian Army in Berlin; 80.Montreal(Canada), Bishop Bourget; 81.Grosswardein, Bishop Lipovniczky; 82.Fünfkirchen, Bishop Kovacs; 83.Steinamanger, Bishop Szenczy; 84.Rottenburg, Bishop Hefele; 85.Ajaccio, Bishop Sante Casanelli d'Istria, and three more whose names were omitted in the official catalogue.There votedPlacet juxta modum:—1. De Silvestri, Cardinal-Priest; 2. Trevisanato, Cardinal Patriarch of Venice; 3. Guidi, Cardinal Archbishop of Bologna; 4.Salsburg, Archbishop and Primate Tarnoczy; 5.Oregon City, Archbishop Blanchet; 6.Nisibis, in partibus, Archbishop Tizzani; 7.Tyre and Sidon, Archbishop Bostani, Maronite; 8.Manila, Archbishop Melithon-Martinez; 9.Granada, Archbishop Monzon y Martins; 10.Avignon, Archbishop Dubrevil; 11.New York, Archbishop MacCloskey; 12.Cologne, Archbishop Melchers; 13.Melitene, in partibus, Archbishop Mérode; 14.Rheims, Archbishop Landriot; 15.Sens, Archbishop[pg 782]Bernardou; 16.Burgos, Archbishop Yusto; 17.Ventimiglia(Italy), Bishop Biale; 18.Columbica,in partibus, Bishop Verolles, Apostolic Vicar in Leao-Tung (China); 19.Canopo,in partibus, Bishop Besi; 20.Sira, Bishop Alberti, Apostolic Delegate in Greece; 21.Zenopolis,in partibus, Bishop Moccagatta, Apostolic Vicar in Xan-Tung; 22.Lipari, Bishop Ideo; 23.Birmingham, Bishop Ullathorne; 24.Vancouver, Bishop Demers; 25.Mileto, Bishop Mincione; 26.Moulins, Bishop Dreux-Brézé; 27.Gezira, Bishop Hindi, of the Chaldean Rite; 28.Hadrianopolis, in partibus, Bishop De la Place, Apostolic Vicar in Tsche-Kiang; 29.Tarnovia, Bishop Pukalski (Galicia); 30.Chartres, Bishop Regnault; 31.Urgel, Bishop Caixal y Estrade; 32.Monterey, Bishop Amat; 33.Tanes,in partibus, Bishop Salzano, Dominican; 34.Newcastle, Bishop Chadwick; 35.Lacedonia, Bishop Majorsini; 36.Todi, Bishop Rosati; 37.Avellino, Bishop Gallo; 38.Amelia, Bishop Pace; 39.Nola, Bishop Formisano; 40.Imola, Bishop Moretti; 41.Zamora, Bishop Condé y Corral; 42.Avila, Bishop Blanco, Dominican; 43.Savannah, Bishop Verot; 44.Cuenca, Bishop Payà y Rico; 45.Cajazzo, Bishop Riccio; 46.Teramo, Bishop Milella, Dominican; 47.Nocera, Bishop Pettinari; 48.St. Christophori, Bishop[pg 783]De Urguinaona; 49.Clariopolis,in partibus, Bsciai, Apostolic Vicar in Egypt, of the Coptic Rite; 50.Erzeroum, Bishop Melchisedechian, of the Armenian Rite; 51.Monte Fiascone, Bishop Bovieri; 52.Savona, Bishop Cerruti; 53.Agathonica,in partibus, Bishop Pagnucci; 54.Ascalon,in partibus, Bishop Meurin, Society of Jesus; 55.Dionysia,in partibus, Bishop Gentili; 56.Cattaro, Bishop Marchich; 57.Serena, Bishop Orrego; 58. Mardin, Bishop of the Chaldean Rite; 59.Tiberias,in partibus, Bishop Valeschi; 60. Guardi, General of the Ministers of the Sick; 61. The Abbot of the Camaldolese in Etruria.The following abstained from voting, though in Rome at the time:—Cardinals: 1. Mattei, 2. Orfei, 3. Quaglia, 4. Hohenlohe, 5. Berardi, 6. Antonelli, 7. Grassellini; 8. The Patriarch Harcus of Antioch, of the Syrian Rite; 9. The Archbishop and Primate Salomone of Salerno; 10. The Maronite Archbishop Aun of Beirout; 11, 12. Two other Archbishops; 13.Aleppo, Archbishop Matar, of the Maronite Rite; 14.Venezuela, Archbishop Guevara; 15.Utrecht, Archbishop Zwysen; 16.Tours, Archbishop Guibert; 17.Rodi,in partibus, Archbishop Pace-Forno, Bishop of Malta; 18.Mardin, Archbishop Nasarian, of the Armenian Rite; 19.Alby, Archbishop Lyonnet; 20. Iconium,in partibus, Archbishop Puecher[pg 784]Passavalli; 21.Guadalaxara, Archbishop Loya; 22.Amida, Archbishop Bahtiarian, of the Armenian Rite; 23.Tournay, Bishop Labis; 24.Terni, Bishop Severa; 25.Veglia, Bishop Vitezich; 26.Almira,in partibus, Bishop Carli, Capuchin; 27.Montauban, Bishop Doney; 28.Cava, Bishop Fertilla; 29.Curia,in partibus, Bishop Grioglio; 30.Segni(Papal State), Bishop Ricci; 31.Paphos,in partibus, Bishop Alcazar, Dominican Vicar Apostolic; 32.Vicenza, Bishop Varina; 33.Salford, Bishop Turner; 34.Catanzaro, Bishop de Franco; 35.Bergamo, Bishop Speranza; 36.Savannah, —; 37.St. Angelo in Lombardy, Bishop Fanelli; 38.Dromore, Bishop Leahy, Dominican; 39.Glarus, —; 40.Birta,in partibus, Bishop Pinsoneault; 41.Fernes, Bishop Furlong; 42.Anagni, Bishop Pagliari; 43.Siguenza, Bishop Benavides; 44.Ceramo,in partibus, Bishop Jeancard, Suffragan of Marseilles; 45.Polemonia,in partibus, Bishop Pinchon; 46.Lipari, Bishop Athanasio; 47.Apamea, Archbishop Ata, of the Melchite Rite; 48.Mindus,in partibus, Bishop Papardo del Parco; 49.Bursa, Bishop Tilkian, of the Armenian Rite; 50.Astorga, Bishop Arguelles y Miranda; 51.Comacchio, Bishop Spoglia; 52.Charlottetown, Bishop MacIntyre; 53.Vallis Pratensis, — (?); 54.Lamego,[pg 785]Bishop de Vasconcellos Periera de Mello; 55.Montpellier, Bishop Curtier; 56.Barcelona, Bishop Monserrat y Navarro; 57.Amatunto,in partibus, Bishop Galezki, Apostolic Vicar in Cracow; 58.Kilmore, Bishop Conaty; 59.Priene,in partibus, Bishop Cosi; 60.Tuy, Bishop Garcia y Anton; 61.Puno, Bishop Huerta; 62.Adelaide, Bishop Shiel; 63.Albany(America), Bishop Conroy; 64.Concordia, Bishop Frangipani; 65.St. Hyacinth, Bishop Laroque; 66.Dubuque, Bishop Hennessy; 67.Vannes, Bishop Becel; 68.Goulburn, Bishop Lannigan; 69.St. Germani bei Monte Cassino, — (?); 70.Verdun, Bishop Hacquard; 71.Egéa,in partibus, Bishop Reynaud; 72.St. Giov. di Cuyo, Bishop Achaval; 73.Cirene,in partibus, Bishop Canzi; 74.Rodiopolis,in partibus, Bishop Tosi; 75.Buffalo, Bishop Ryan; 76.Adramyttium,in partibus, Bishop Gibbons; 77.Coria, Bishop Nuñez; 78.Heliopolis, Bishop Nasser, of the Melchite Rite; 79.Titopolis,in partibus, — (?); 80, 81. Abbates nullius; 82, 83. Burchall, President of the Benedictine Congregation in England; 84. The Abbot of Janow, Apostolic Administrator in Russia; 85. Montis Coronæ; 86-91. These names could not be announced on account of the great confusion.[pg 786]

Rome, July 14, 1870.—I must again interrupt my narrative of the occurrences and speeches between June 5 and 10 to communicate the details of the great event of the session of July 13—an event which has falsified all expectations on both sides, and created a sensation and astonishment in Rome which it will take people some time to recover from. Even beyond the Alps, in spite of the all-absorbing question of the war, it will rouse interest and joyful surprise. In the last few days before the critical morning of the 13th there was much discussion among the Bishops of the various nations as to whether they should vote a simple“No”or a conditional“Yes,”—aNon placetor aPlacet juxta modum. It was not merely the fourth chapter that was in question, which deals with infallibility, but the wholeSchemaon the Papacy, which contains also the[pg 768]much-decried third canon of the third chapter, establishing for the first time the theory of the universal episcopate of the Pope, the very theory Pope Gregory the Great characterized as an abomination and a blasphemy. It was known that the Bishops who are mere dilettantis in theology—and their number is legion, as is natural under the present system of episcopal appointments—would greatly prefer votingjuxta modum,i.e., with a conditioned“Yes.”That would always leave them free to reserve their further decision till the public voting“coram Sanctissimo”(as the Pope is here called), when only a direct“Yes”or“No”can be voted. Each of them could present in writing the conditions or wishes on which he desired to make hisPlacetdependent, and then say“Yes”or“No”according to his pleasure in the Solemn Session, if his suggestions were disregarded—“Yes,”if he wished to direct the lightning flashes of the angry Jupiter to other heads than his own;“No,”if he could summon manliness and courage enough at the last moment. The Court party and the majority had neglected no means of impressing on the recalcitrants the uselessness of their negative votes and the personal disadvantages to themselves. Every one was told,“It is determined irrevocably to take no account[pg 769]of your‘No,’and to go on to the promulgation of the dogma. Supported by at least 500 favourable votes, and throwing the surplus weight of his own vote into the scale, the Pope, on the 17th or 24th July, will walk over your heads amid the presumed acclamations of the whole Catholic world; and how lamentable and hopeless a situation will yours be then! You are then heretics, who have incurred the terrible penalties of the canon law; you have surrendered at discretion, bound hand and foot, to the mercy of the deeply injured Pope. Consider,‘Quid sum miser tunc dicturus, quem patronum rogaturus?’”

Thus they were worked on individually. And more drastic methods were employed as well. It was asserted that two documents had already been drawn up in the Vatican, which every Bishop would be compelled to sign before being allowed to leave Rome; the one a profession of faith comprising the new article of infallibility, and the other an attestation of the perfect freedom of the Council throughout its whole course. Whoever refused to sign either would thereby at once incur papal censures.“We shall thus have,”they were told,“yourNon placetand your‘free’acknowledgment under your hand of the article of faith you denied a few days before, and[pg 770]shall show it to the world. Do you wish then morally to annihilate yourselves in public opinion?”

As the Bishops who are resolved to give a negative vote knew well the more timorous temper of many of their colleagues, who were half-ready to be persuaded and half-ready to succumb, and remembered the Scriptural saying that“a high priest must have compassion on our infirmities,”some of them drew up a formula stating the basis on which the timid might votePlacet juxta modum. In the preamble of theSchemathe word“principium”was to be exchanged for“exordium,”and instead of“vis et virtus in eo (Papâ) consistit,”was to be put“præcipue in eo consistit;”the third canon of the third chapter was to be wholly omitted, and the word“episcopalis”left out of the chapter, and lastly, the formula of St. Antoninus was to be substituted for the fourth chapter. The proposed document ends with“Secus in Solemni Sessione dicturus sum,Non placet.”

On July 12 the Bishops of the minority held the most largely attended international conference which has yet taken place; about 70 were present. Three prelates, two German and one French—Ketteler, Melchers and Archbishop Landriot of Rheims—proposed that all should votePlacet juxta modum, but at the same time[pg 771]hand in a precise and decided formulas the condition of their assent, with a declaration that, if their demands were rejected or inadequately complied with, they should be obliged to voteNon placetin the Solemn Session. This would have substantially secured the complete victory of the majority and theCuria. Every one would have naturally said,“Your‘Yes,’however conditioned, can only bear the sense that in the main point you agree with theSchema, and that main point lies in the two new and great articles of faith, which hang together and must shape the future of the Church, the universal episcopate of the Pope and his infallibility. By sayingPlacetyou affirm these two new dogmas, and after that it will matter little what particular collateral wishes or conditions you may choose to add. Whether they are acceded to or not, you must in consistency say‘Yes’on the great day of the public profession, when only a simple affirmative or negative vote can be given.”

The three Cardinals, the two primates Simor and Ginoulhiac, Strossmayer and others, spoke out repeatedly and emphatically against this mischievous proposal which would at the last moment have frustrated all their hopes, and annihilated the results of seven months'[pg 772]sufferings and labours. A decisive impression was produced by the remark of the Archbishop of Milan, that there were many infallibilists who on various grounds would vote conditionally, and this peculiar kind of vote, which was better adapted to courtiers than Bishops, had better be left to them.“The only befitting course for us,”he said,“who are convinced of the falsehood of the doctrine, is to say‘No.’”This was unanimously accepted. Tarnoczy, who for some time back has withdrawn from his German and Hungarian colleagues, and votes regularly with the majority, was not present. Cardinal Schwarzenberg said he should be glad if one of the Cardinals votedNon placetbefore him, but if this did not happen he should be the first, and should count it a distinction to stand at the head of this noble band.

It was remarkable how generally the view prevailed that scarcely ten opposing votes would really be given when the time came. No means were spared, by rumours and inventions, to spread terror and despair among the ranks of the Opposition. Thus the report was circulated in foreign journals—where you will have read it—as well as here, that a“sauve qui peut,”and“débandade”had become the watchword of the Opposition,[pg 773]and not thirty would be left on the day for voting. We see now that this was all pure invention. Even Förster's departure, which I reported myself, had not taken place; only Greith had gone. When Darboy had an audience of the Pope the day before the voting, and said that there was a considerable number of Bishops who would join him in sayingNon placet, the Pope replied,“Perhaps many will votejuxta modum, but certainly not above tenNon placet.”For some time past Pius has notoriously known everything with absolute certainty, even the temper of distant countries. The formulas put into the Pope's mouth by the Roman Chancery,“proprio motu”and“ex certâ scientiâ,”have been transmuted by the habit of twenty-four years into actual flesh and blood with him.

At the beginning of the sitting the news had spread among the majority that the negative votes would be much more numerous than had been supposed on the evening before. On this Dechamps of Mechlin went to the heads of the Opposition and entreated them with humble gestures and whining voice to votejuxta modum, saying there was really some disposition with the authorities to insert the“consensus”and“testimonium Ecclesiarum”into the fourth chapter. The trick was[pg 774]too barefaced to succeed, and sharp words were spoken on the other side. One of the Bishops said to the new primate,“C'est une impudence sans exemple,”and Darboy called the attention of the three Cardinals to this treacherous attempt at the last moment to divide and perplex the Opposition. Now began the voting“sub secreto,”as it was again called, and the sub-secretary Jacobini read the names of the Fathers from the pulpit. And then a wholly unexpected phenomenon came to light: out of 600 Fathers present in Rome—there were 764 in January—only 520 had appeared, and it was at once known that very many of the absentees had stayed away from dislike to theSchema, and to avoid the disagreeable consequences of a negative vote.

The line taken by the Orientals in the voting excites surprise here. The Propaganda has spared no means of exercising a strict supervision and control over them, and yet the upshot is that the most influential of them have votedNon placet, somejuxta modum, and others have absented themselves. In fact all the real Eastern Bishops—i.e., those who represent dioceses—have voted against the dogma. Every one acquainted with the state of things in Asia foresees that the promulgation of the dogma,[pg 775]which will follow in spite of this, will lead to the definitive separation of the Uniate Churches in the East. But that makes not the slightest impression on the Pope and the Jesuits.

When the names of thejuxta modumvoters were read out, the President said“quorum, quantum possible erit, habebitur ratio.”That sounded like open mockery: it meant,“We (the Deputation) have already settled among ourselves what is impossible, viz., making the co-operation of the episcopate a condition, but still there are some possible things. If,e.g., any Bishops wish to have‘inerrantia’substituted for‘infallibilitas,’perhaps they may be gratified.”But even concessions of that sort are doubtful, for one cannot give the lie to Bishop Gasser of Brixen, who has distinctly declared that“nec verbum addetur nec verbum demetur amplius.”

Among the conditional voters are Dreux-Brézé, certainly only because the decree is not strong enough for him. The whole Hungarian Episcopate remained firm in its opposition. The Austrians know now why Rudigier and Fessler were given them as Bishops. I send you with this the authentic list of the Fathers who did not vote with a simplePlacet. It shows that it[pg 776]was just the Bishops of capital cities, as well as North American, Irish, English, and beyond expectation many North Italian prelates, who voted against the dogma. Only one, strictly speaking, was wholly false to his professions, the Bishop of Porto Rico.

The Pope is still sure that at the last critical moment a divine miracle will enlighten the benighted minds of the opponents and suddenly reverse their sentiments. The Holy Ghost will and must do this. Pius seems to have clear assurances on that point. He had lately a remarkable conversation about it with a French Bishop, whom he had never seen before. As he regards every opponent of the dogma as his personal enemy, he received him as such and reproached him with being Cæsar's friend instead of the Pope's; the Bishop replied that his white hairs testified to his having nothing to fear or hope for, but simply to follow his conscience, which constrained him with many of his colleagues to vote against the new dogma.“No,”exclaimed Pius,“you will not vote against it; the Holy Ghost at the decisive hour will irresistibly enlighten you, and you will all sayPlacet.”

When the French Government in 1733 had the cemetery of La Chaise surrounded with soldiers, to[pg 777]stop the miraculous cures at the grave of the Abbé Paris, the inscription was found one morning over the entrance—

De par le roi défense à Dieu,De faire miracle en ce lieu.

De par le roi défense à Dieu,

De faire miracle en ce lieu.

On the 17th or 24th July 1870 there might be written over the entrance of the Council Hall—

De par le Pape ordre au bon DieuDe faire miracle en ce lieu.

De par le Pape ordre au bon Dieu

De faire miracle en ce lieu.

The echo of the Vatican, Veuillot'sUnivers, has just been accusing the Bishops of the minority of ruining the papal treasury by prolonging the debates on infallibility through their opposition, and thus obliging the Pope to go on supporting his 300 episcopal foster sons, and buy his infallibility late and at a high price, when it ought to have been cast into his lap by spontaneous acclamation at the first. A physician has now been discovered for the treasury which has sickened under the infallibility affair. Rothschild is said to have been here and concluded a loan of forty million franks. As the deficit only amounts to thirty million, there remain ten million for fireworks, illuminations and church-decorations, the journey-money of trusty Bishops, and the like. But now the war is impending, and with[pg 778]it the withdrawal of Peter's pence and perhaps still worse.154

The following votedNon-placet:—1.Prague, Cardinal Prince-Archbishop Schwarzenberg; 2.Besançon, Cardinal Archbishop Mathieu; 3.Vienna, Cardinal Prince-Archbishop Rauscher; 4.Antioch, Patriarch Jussuf, of the Melchite Rite; 5.Babylon, Patriarch Audu, of the Chaldean Rite; 6.Gran, Archbishop[pg 779]and Primate of Hungary, Simor; 7.Lyons, Archbishop Ginoulhiac; 8.Tuam, Archbishop MacHale; 9.Olmütz, Prince-Archbishop Fürstenberg; 10.Trabezund, Bishop Ghiureghian, of the Armenian Rite; 11.Munich, Archbishop Scherr; 12.Bamberg, Archbishop Deinlein; 13.Seert, Bishop Bar-Tatar, of the Chaldean Rite; 14.Halifax, Archbishop Conolly, of the Capuchin Order; 15.Lemberg, Archbishop Wierzcheyski, of the Latin Rite; 16.Paris, Archbishop Darboy; 17.Kalocsa, Archbishop Haynald; 18.Milan, Archbishop Nazari di Calabiana; 19.Tyre, Archbishop Kauam, of the Melchite Rite; 20.Biella(Italy), Bishop Losanna; 21.Autun, Bishop Marguerye; 22.Ivrea(Piedmont), Bishop Moreno; 23.Dijon, Bishop Rivet; 24.Metz, Bishop Dupont des Loges; 25.Iglesias(Sardinia), Bishop Montixi; 26.Acquapendente(formerly in the Roman States), Bishop Pellei; 27.Trieste, Bishop Legat; 28.Orleans, Bishop Dupanloup; 29.Vezprim, Bishop Ranolder; 30.Mayence, Bishop Ketteler; 31.BosniaandSyrmia, Bishop Strossmayer; 32.Budweis, Bishop Jirsik; 33.Breslau, Prince-Bishop Förster; 34.Kerry, Bishop Moriarty; 35.Leontopolis, in partibus, Bishop Forwerk, Apostolic Vicar of Saxony; 36.Plymouth, Bishop Vaughan; 37.Clifton, Bishop Clifford;[pg 780]38.Nice, Bishop Sola; 39.ParenzoandPola, Bishop Dobrilla; 40.Kreutz(in Croatia), Bishop Smiciklas, of the Ruthenian Rite; 41.Augsburgh, Bishop Dinkel; 42.Gurk, Bishop Wiery; 43.Caltanisetta(Sicily), Bishop Guttadauro di Reburdone; 44.Vacz(in Hungary), Bishop Peitler; 45.Marianne(Syria), —— of the Melchite Rite; 46.Chatham, Bishop Rogers; 47.CsanadandTemesvar, Bishop Bonnaz; 48.Pittsburg, Bishop Domenec; 49.Luzonia, Bishop Colet; 50.Sura, in partibus, Bishop Maret; 51.St. Brieuc, Bishop David; 52.Trèves, Bishop Eberhard; 53.Coutance, Bishop Bravard; 54.Lavant, Bishop Stepischnigg; 55.Soissons, Bishop Dours; 56.Akra, Bishop Mellus, of the Chaldean Rite; 57.Siebenbürgen, Bishop Fogarasz; 58.Châlons, Bishop Meignan; 59.Valence, Bishop Gueullette; 60.Perpignan, Bishop Ramadié; 61.Paleopolis, in partibus, Bishop Mariassy (Hungary); 62.PetricolaorLittle Rock(United States), Bishop Fitzgerald; 63.Marseilles, Bishop Place; 64.Cahors, Bishop Grimardias; 65.Osnaburgh, Bishop Beckmann; 66.Szathmar(Hungary), Bishop Virò de Keydi Polany; 67.Munkacs, Bishop Pankovics, of the Ruthenian Rite; 68.Bayeux, Bishop Hugonin; 69.Raab, Bishop ——; 70.La Rochelle, Bishop Benedetto; 71.Nancy, Bishop Foullon; 72.[pg 781]Constantine(Algiers), Bishop de las Cases; 73.Oran(Algiers), Bishop Callot; 74.Gap, Bishop Guilbert; 75.Ermeland, Bishop Crementz; 76.Rochester, Bishop MacQuaid; 77.Louisville, Bishop Kenrick; 78.Cassovia, Bishop Perger (Hungary); 79.Agathopolis, Bishop Namszanowski, Provost of the Prussian Army in Berlin; 80.Montreal(Canada), Bishop Bourget; 81.Grosswardein, Bishop Lipovniczky; 82.Fünfkirchen, Bishop Kovacs; 83.Steinamanger, Bishop Szenczy; 84.Rottenburg, Bishop Hefele; 85.Ajaccio, Bishop Sante Casanelli d'Istria, and three more whose names were omitted in the official catalogue.

There votedPlacet juxta modum:—1. De Silvestri, Cardinal-Priest; 2. Trevisanato, Cardinal Patriarch of Venice; 3. Guidi, Cardinal Archbishop of Bologna; 4.Salsburg, Archbishop and Primate Tarnoczy; 5.Oregon City, Archbishop Blanchet; 6.Nisibis, in partibus, Archbishop Tizzani; 7.Tyre and Sidon, Archbishop Bostani, Maronite; 8.Manila, Archbishop Melithon-Martinez; 9.Granada, Archbishop Monzon y Martins; 10.Avignon, Archbishop Dubrevil; 11.New York, Archbishop MacCloskey; 12.Cologne, Archbishop Melchers; 13.Melitene, in partibus, Archbishop Mérode; 14.Rheims, Archbishop Landriot; 15.Sens, Archbishop[pg 782]Bernardou; 16.Burgos, Archbishop Yusto; 17.Ventimiglia(Italy), Bishop Biale; 18.Columbica,in partibus, Bishop Verolles, Apostolic Vicar in Leao-Tung (China); 19.Canopo,in partibus, Bishop Besi; 20.Sira, Bishop Alberti, Apostolic Delegate in Greece; 21.Zenopolis,in partibus, Bishop Moccagatta, Apostolic Vicar in Xan-Tung; 22.Lipari, Bishop Ideo; 23.Birmingham, Bishop Ullathorne; 24.Vancouver, Bishop Demers; 25.Mileto, Bishop Mincione; 26.Moulins, Bishop Dreux-Brézé; 27.Gezira, Bishop Hindi, of the Chaldean Rite; 28.Hadrianopolis, in partibus, Bishop De la Place, Apostolic Vicar in Tsche-Kiang; 29.Tarnovia, Bishop Pukalski (Galicia); 30.Chartres, Bishop Regnault; 31.Urgel, Bishop Caixal y Estrade; 32.Monterey, Bishop Amat; 33.Tanes,in partibus, Bishop Salzano, Dominican; 34.Newcastle, Bishop Chadwick; 35.Lacedonia, Bishop Majorsini; 36.Todi, Bishop Rosati; 37.Avellino, Bishop Gallo; 38.Amelia, Bishop Pace; 39.Nola, Bishop Formisano; 40.Imola, Bishop Moretti; 41.Zamora, Bishop Condé y Corral; 42.Avila, Bishop Blanco, Dominican; 43.Savannah, Bishop Verot; 44.Cuenca, Bishop Payà y Rico; 45.Cajazzo, Bishop Riccio; 46.Teramo, Bishop Milella, Dominican; 47.Nocera, Bishop Pettinari; 48.St. Christophori, Bishop[pg 783]De Urguinaona; 49.Clariopolis,in partibus, Bsciai, Apostolic Vicar in Egypt, of the Coptic Rite; 50.Erzeroum, Bishop Melchisedechian, of the Armenian Rite; 51.Monte Fiascone, Bishop Bovieri; 52.Savona, Bishop Cerruti; 53.Agathonica,in partibus, Bishop Pagnucci; 54.Ascalon,in partibus, Bishop Meurin, Society of Jesus; 55.Dionysia,in partibus, Bishop Gentili; 56.Cattaro, Bishop Marchich; 57.Serena, Bishop Orrego; 58. Mardin, Bishop of the Chaldean Rite; 59.Tiberias,in partibus, Bishop Valeschi; 60. Guardi, General of the Ministers of the Sick; 61. The Abbot of the Camaldolese in Etruria.

The following abstained from voting, though in Rome at the time:—Cardinals: 1. Mattei, 2. Orfei, 3. Quaglia, 4. Hohenlohe, 5. Berardi, 6. Antonelli, 7. Grassellini; 8. The Patriarch Harcus of Antioch, of the Syrian Rite; 9. The Archbishop and Primate Salomone of Salerno; 10. The Maronite Archbishop Aun of Beirout; 11, 12. Two other Archbishops; 13.Aleppo, Archbishop Matar, of the Maronite Rite; 14.Venezuela, Archbishop Guevara; 15.Utrecht, Archbishop Zwysen; 16.Tours, Archbishop Guibert; 17.Rodi,in partibus, Archbishop Pace-Forno, Bishop of Malta; 18.Mardin, Archbishop Nasarian, of the Armenian Rite; 19.Alby, Archbishop Lyonnet; 20. Iconium,in partibus, Archbishop Puecher[pg 784]Passavalli; 21.Guadalaxara, Archbishop Loya; 22.Amida, Archbishop Bahtiarian, of the Armenian Rite; 23.Tournay, Bishop Labis; 24.Terni, Bishop Severa; 25.Veglia, Bishop Vitezich; 26.Almira,in partibus, Bishop Carli, Capuchin; 27.Montauban, Bishop Doney; 28.Cava, Bishop Fertilla; 29.Curia,in partibus, Bishop Grioglio; 30.Segni(Papal State), Bishop Ricci; 31.Paphos,in partibus, Bishop Alcazar, Dominican Vicar Apostolic; 32.Vicenza, Bishop Varina; 33.Salford, Bishop Turner; 34.Catanzaro, Bishop de Franco; 35.Bergamo, Bishop Speranza; 36.Savannah, —; 37.St. Angelo in Lombardy, Bishop Fanelli; 38.Dromore, Bishop Leahy, Dominican; 39.Glarus, —; 40.Birta,in partibus, Bishop Pinsoneault; 41.Fernes, Bishop Furlong; 42.Anagni, Bishop Pagliari; 43.Siguenza, Bishop Benavides; 44.Ceramo,in partibus, Bishop Jeancard, Suffragan of Marseilles; 45.Polemonia,in partibus, Bishop Pinchon; 46.Lipari, Bishop Athanasio; 47.Apamea, Archbishop Ata, of the Melchite Rite; 48.Mindus,in partibus, Bishop Papardo del Parco; 49.Bursa, Bishop Tilkian, of the Armenian Rite; 50.Astorga, Bishop Arguelles y Miranda; 51.Comacchio, Bishop Spoglia; 52.Charlottetown, Bishop MacIntyre; 53.Vallis Pratensis, — (?); 54.Lamego,[pg 785]Bishop de Vasconcellos Periera de Mello; 55.Montpellier, Bishop Curtier; 56.Barcelona, Bishop Monserrat y Navarro; 57.Amatunto,in partibus, Bishop Galezki, Apostolic Vicar in Cracow; 58.Kilmore, Bishop Conaty; 59.Priene,in partibus, Bishop Cosi; 60.Tuy, Bishop Garcia y Anton; 61.Puno, Bishop Huerta; 62.Adelaide, Bishop Shiel; 63.Albany(America), Bishop Conroy; 64.Concordia, Bishop Frangipani; 65.St. Hyacinth, Bishop Laroque; 66.Dubuque, Bishop Hennessy; 67.Vannes, Bishop Becel; 68.Goulburn, Bishop Lannigan; 69.St. Germani bei Monte Cassino, — (?); 70.Verdun, Bishop Hacquard; 71.Egéa,in partibus, Bishop Reynaud; 72.St. Giov. di Cuyo, Bishop Achaval; 73.Cirene,in partibus, Bishop Canzi; 74.Rodiopolis,in partibus, Bishop Tosi; 75.Buffalo, Bishop Ryan; 76.Adramyttium,in partibus, Bishop Gibbons; 77.Coria, Bishop Nuñez; 78.Heliopolis, Bishop Nasser, of the Melchite Rite; 79.Titopolis,in partibus, — (?); 80, 81. Abbates nullius; 82, 83. Burchall, President of the Benedictine Congregation in England; 84. The Abbot of Janow, Apostolic Administrator in Russia; 85. Montis Coronæ; 86-91. These names could not be announced on account of the great confusion.

Back to Index Next