FOOTNOTES:[206]Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Pages 200-214.[207]Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Pages 219 to 222.[208]Life of Leo XIII, pp. 230 to 239.
FOOTNOTES:
[206]Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Pages 200-214.
[206]Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Pages 200-214.
[207]Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Pages 219 to 222.
[207]Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Pages 219 to 222.
[208]Life of Leo XIII, pp. 230 to 239.
[208]Life of Leo XIII, pp. 230 to 239.
CHAPTER XXI.
THE CHURCH SUPREME.
Inall the encyclical letters issued by Leo XIII, he has exhibited the restlessness which may fairly be presumed to have been produced by discomfiture at finding the difficulties in the way of restoring the temporal power increasing rather than diminishing. This is in no way surprising, inasmuch as all the faculties of his mind are absorbed by contemplation of the means of producing that result, his pontifical influence not being necessary to enforce the recognition of any other principle of faith. He is too intelligent not to realize that there is a strong tendency among the laity of the Church toward "liberal Catholicism"—especially among those who are sharing the advantages of free and popular government, like those in the United States—and that if this tendency is not checked by official rebuke in some way, the present age may destroy all hope of re-converting the pope into a crowned king and leave him forever hereafter in possession of spiritual power alone. Being unable to persuade himself that this ought to be acquiesced in, he steadily persists in trying to bring all peoples and nations within the circle of his pontifical jurisdiction, in so far as matters involving faith, morals, and discipline—as he shall define them—are concerned. Hence we find him often announcing the principles by which all the Roman Catholics throughout the world are to be governed in their relations with civil institutions. And, in order to show that he is unwilling to abate any of his own claims to official royalty, he invariably assumes the attitude of a universal guardian, and, consequently, employs the language of authority. He, manifestly, continues now to speak in the same spirit which heretoforeprompted him to affirm "that the false wisdom or philosophy which the last three centuries have followedmust be set aside, and Christian wisdom and philosophy made the light of education.... Religion, Christianity, Catholicism, must now come with the steady, unfailing lamp of her divine philosophy,extricate social order from its mortal peril, and lead it back to the old paths."[209]The remedy is evidently plain and simple to his mind—merely this, and nothing more—that the modern world shall return "to obedience to the Church," by the "docileacceptance of the teachings ofthe one divinely-appointed authority on earth"—who is now himself, and after him to be his successors. What strange infatuation it must be for one so enlightened as Leo XIII undoubtedly is, to suppose that he can so wield the scepter of his spiritual authority over the nations as to cause them to "set aside" their present progress and prosperity, and be led "back to the old paths!"
He omits no opportunity to renew his claim of spiritual authority over "the life, the morals, and the institutions of nations"—that is, over their constitutions and laws—to the extent of requiring them to conform to "the precepts of Christian wisdom" as promulgated from the papal throne. Such nations as shall do this he recognizes as having claim to permanent existence; such as do not, possess only illegitimate power obtained by usurpation. To "set aside" the latter—especially when they have so disregarded "Christian wisdom and philosophy" as to separate Church and State—he evidently regards as a duty, not only incumbent upon himself, but upon all who accept his teachings as infallibly true. To enforce this obligation, therefore, to make the pope, and not the people, the sovereign source of civil power in all that pertains to faith—as the restoration of the temporal power does—he maintains the proposition that Roman Catholics everywhere owe their first duty to the Church, and, after that, allegiance to the State; that is, they are notbound to obey any law of a State which requires them to do anything prejudicial to the Church. Consequently, his pontifical teachings concentrate in this: that when he shall officially declare that any law of a State conflicts with the divine law, their primary duty is to obey him, although, by so doing, they shall violate the law of the State. And, in order to assure this, he requires them to obey their bishops, and the bishops to obey him. While he recognizes the right of States to regulate such merely secular affairs as concern the common and ordinary interests of society, the spiritual authority he claims over them is sufficient to enable him to interfere with and regulate at his own discretion such matters as are within his spiritual jurisdiction, as he shall define it, because "the Church is the mistress of all nations." From this sovereignty—which breaks over the geographical boundaries of nations, as if none existed—he derives the right of the Church to "concern herself about the laws formulated in the State;" that is, to interfere with political questions which involve the interests of the Church. And this interference is justified upon the ground, not only that it is promotive of the welfare of the State, but because, in the absence of it, the States sometimes transcend their just powers by encroaching upon the rights of the Church—as they do by separating Church and State, and prescribing an independent sphere for each. This last offense is, with him, unpardonable, because they who commit it—as the people of the United States have done—"tear asunder civil and sacred polity, bound together as they are in their very essence."
These religious doctrines are not alone the official utterances of Leo XIII. They are inherent in both the papal and Jesuit systems, neither of which can exist without them. The Jesuit theory is that no legitimate rights can be acquired under any constitution or law which violates the divine law as the pope shall interpret it; and that the violation of such constitution or law is neither treason nor rebellion, because, being null and void, they can impose no just obligation of obedience. The authoritative utterance of these doctrinesnow, and the requirement of obedience to them, constitute a grave and serious fact, which should arrest universal attention. For obvious reasons they demand this attention from the people of the United States more than from any other peoples, because the freedom and tolerance of our Government allow their promulgation, notwithstanding their manifest and direct tendency to encourage traitorous plottings against our popular institutions. Looking only to our own time—the pontificates of Pius IX and Leo XIII, to say nothing of such popes as Gregory VII, Innocent III, and Boniface VIII—we find the well-defined papal policy to condemn as violative of the divine law these fundamental principles of our institutions: The separation of Church and State; the freedom of conscience and religious belief; the liberty of speech and press; the subjection of ecclesiastics to obedience to the laws like other citizens; the people as the exclusive depositories of political power; the refusal to concede to the pope the potential power of conferring upon bishops and clergy the prerogative right to manage church property in contravention of the laws; and last, but far from being least, our common-school system as it prevails in every part of the country. A man, therefore, must be stupid if he can not, and willful if he will not, see that, according to the religious doctrines announced by Pius IX and Leo XIII—omitting other popes—all these great, fundamental principles of our Government, and all the laws enacted to preserve them, are held to be impious, and so in violation of the divine law that they may be rightfully resisted whensoever the pope shall find it expedient so to command. What question of greater magnitude and importance could command the attention of both Protestant and Roman Catholic citizens of the United States? It is a direct blow aimed by a foreign and alien power at the very foundation of our civil institutions. If it has been incited by the indifference of Protestants, they, being apprised of this, are bound by the obligation of patriotism to rebuke it. If the pope has acted only upon the Jesuit theory that the laity of the Churchare only animals, and fit only for passive obedience to their superiors, who assume to be their masters, they will prove themselves unworthy of American citizenship if they do not assert their manhood sufficiently to teach the pope that it would be a higher offense against divine justice to plot treason against a Government they have sworn to support and defend, than to disobey one from whose head their own religious brethren plucked a temporal crown, and who is now endeavoring to stir them up to a war against those same brethren in order that his lost crown may be restored. They who ask this, and all their aiders and abettors, have doubtless been encouraged by a knowledge of American and Protestant tolerance, as well as by the desire to reduce our Roman Catholic population to the humiliating condition of professing allegiance to the Government, while, at the same time, they cherish the hope of its ultimate overthrow by some mysterious providences not yet revealed. To indicate the ground upon which this hope may rest, the country is every now and then reminded of the estimated number of Roman Catholics it contains—varying from 8,000,000 to 12,000,000—as if all these could be rightfully counted upon the papal side in a war upon the most cherished principles of the Government, just as plantation-slaves were formerly counted before being put to work in the fields. How far they are destined to disappointment in this remains to be seen. But it is confidently believed—with assurance, indeed, somewhat exceeding belief—that they have been misled by the false and delusive hope of converting the multitude of Roman Catholics in this country into mere unthinking machines, subject, as if they were all Jesuits, to passive and uninquiring obedience to an alien authority which assumes the spiritual and prerogative right to turn "back to the old paths" all the modern progressive nations, as if God had deputed to him alone this extraordinary and plenary power over the interests and happiness of the whole human family. While we are waiting patiently to see what the future shall reveal with reference to these matters, the Protestants of the United States cannot be released from the obligation of preparing for whatsoever exigency the future shall present. Every avenue of approach to the citadel which has thus far guarded their constitutional and popular rights, must be carefully guarded. They should not be indifferent to the slow and insidious methods of approaching that citadel which Jesuit ingenuity has contrived and is still contriving. Nor should the popular eye be turned too far away from Leo XIII; for if he, too, has no sinister object in view with regard to our cherished national principles, why, "in the name of all the gods at once," does he not leave the United States and the other modern nations to conduct their own affairs without his perpetual interference? Why do he and his ecclesiastical representatives so unceasingly thunder in our ears the awful penalties that await us for the infidelity of Protestantism, for the separation of Church and State, for the toleration of diversities of religious belief, and for our "godless" common schools?
It requires but limited intelligence to see that the Jesuits alone—and not the Church—would gain if the principles and policy of Leo XIII should become established. They would see in such a result cause for rejoicing that the work of their society had been so well done when the youthful and plastic mind of Joachim Pecci had their doctrines so indelibly stamped upon it that now, when he has become pope in his old age, he seems to keep himself alive by the stimulating hope of successfully employing them to arrest modern progress and civilization, and turn the nations back "to the old paths." The Jesuits already exhibit signs of exultation, arising, manifestly, out of the belief that the pontifical favor and patronage bestowed upon them has caused the world to forget their history; how they endeavored to fix disrepute upon the Church by their conduct in India, China, Paraguay, and elsewhere; how they disobeyed the peremptory commands of some popes, and endeavored to degrade and humiliate others; how they were compelled to obedience only by the severest methods of reproof; how they were expelled from every Roman Catholic country in Europe, and from Rome by PiusIX, during the last years of his pontificate; how they were suppressed and abolished by one of the best of the popes for crimes that could not be condoned; how they abused and vilified his name and memory in order to justify their refusal to obey the authoritative commands of the Church; and how their revival was excused alone upon the ground that they were better fitted than any other body of men in the world, by habit, education, and training, to become warriors in the cause of political absolutism.
But a still more flattering cause of Jesuit satisfaction is doubtless found in the fact that Leo XIII—faithful to his early impressions—has assigned to the members of that society the special duty of becoming the educators of the young, and is sending them into all the countries of the world, and especially those where Protestantism prevails, for that particular purpose, well instructed, beforehand, in the obligation to maintain such a system of education as he established in Perugia, so that every mind seduced by its influence may be brought to the religious belief that Church and State must be so united that the State shall be subordinate to the Church; that there is but one form of true religion in the world, and all else is heresy; and that no Government can have the divine approval which does not recognize the pope as possessing the sovereign power to dictate its policy in so far as all matters touching faith, morals, and discipline are involved. Evidences of this settled purpose are constantly crowding upon us. Scarcely a day passes without some fresh attack upon our system of common schools—a method of education which has the popular approval in a far greater degree than any other part of our public polity. These are called "godless" schools because they are not permitted by law to teach that the Roman Catholic religion is absolutely true, and all other forms of religious belief false and heretical. It is alleged that they are the nurseries of vice and immorality, and that they send out young men and women into the world to propagate error and libertinism, and sow the seed of moral and social decay. Every now and then some fanatical priest—unable to keep his passions within reasonable bounds—threatens the members of his congregation with excommunication for sending their children to the public schools, and allowing them to become contaminated by false teaching and association with Protestant children. The American people, consequently, are required to decide whether their system of common schools shall live or die, whether the competent and distinguished corps of American teachers shall be expelled, and the doors of our school-houses be thrown wide open to the Jesuits. Why should the Protestant part of our population remain indifferent when these insults are so impudently flung in their faces? They have deemed it wise and better for themselves, and out of kindly deference to their assailants, to prohibit the teaching of any system of religious belief in their public schools, or the levy of any tax for that object; and, in order that Church and State shall remain perpetually separated, they have provided for this inhibition by constitutional provisions—both National and State. To the Jesuit, therefore, all this is "godless," and the Government is "godless" for separating Church and State, and the Protestant people are "godless," rapidly hastening to inevitable ruin in this life and to fearful punishment hereafter!
There ought to come a time when this controversy, forced upon the people against their will, shall cease. Our public schools are designed for training and educating American citizens—those who are to perpetuate our institutions when existing generations have passed away—and it is no special wonder that those who do not come up to the full measure of American citizenship themselves, and desire that others shall not do so, are seeking to destroy them. Notwithstanding they are fully protected in the right of maintaining and conducting their own private schools in their own way, without the least interference from any quarter, they have presumptuously, if not insolently, inaugurated a relentless warfare upon our whole system of public education, because our common schools are nurseries of patriotism, and keep alivein the minds of our children the obligation of obedience to the Constitution and Government as they are. If the system we have so long cherished were weakened materially by this malignant warfare, it would be the just cause of serious alarm. But everything occurring creates a contrary belief, by giving assurance that it continues to disseminate influences fast reaching the most remote and obscure places in the country, causing the popular heart to rejoice at the victories it has already won over ignorance and vice, and manifesting that it possesses established power sufficient to assure continued growth and complete triumph. Nevertheless, it is well and important for us all to know what attitude Leo XIII occupies toward our common schools, and what kind of education he proposes to establish here in preference to that we have cherished so highly. In this way it will be plainly seen that his first and highest object is the extermination of Protestantism, by putting out of the power of those who obey him implicitly to become American citizens in the sense and meaning of the Constitution of the United States. He knows nothing of the nature of this citizenship or of the obligations it imposes. As a foreigner and alien, ignorant of our language, Constitution, and wants, his chief object is to create here a politico-religious party, held in unity by the desire to restore to him his lost crown as a religious duty, so that when he shall have succeeded in that he may bring us all within his spiritual jurisdiction, and deal with us accordingly. This accomplished, the history of the papacy for more than a thousand years proves that the next step would be to treat our nationality as a fiction and our boundary-lines as merely imaginary, so that instead of our present independence we should be reduced to an inferior and submissive department in a vast and universal "Holy Empire," with its crown resting upon his own head, and, after him, upon the heads of his successors.
Not very long ago Leo XIII sent to the United States an official representative in the person of Mgr. Satolli, nominally Archbishop of Lepanto, in Greece. He is calleda "delegate," but in view of the fact that he fully represents the pope, as his other self, and that his powers are so complete and plenary that no appeal can be taken from his decisions, it is more appropriate to call him a vice-pope. He is said to be a learned and discreet man, and it is doubtless true that he deserves all the compliments otherwise bestowed upon him. He had not, however, been long in this country before he found that there were divisions of sentiment among the Roman Catholics with reference to our common schools, some sending their children to them, notwithstanding the instructions of their priests not to do so, and others refusing because they considered them "godless;" that is, infidel. This devolved upon him the duty and necessity of deciding a question which had hitherto baffled the most ingenious minds—a question made more difficult by the fact that it involved either the approval or disapproval of well-established and popular measures of public polity. His decision is entitled to consideration, and should be closely scrutinized, inasmuch as it is claimed for it that it is the final solution of a great and puzzling problem. The statement of it which follows, is taken substantially from that made by himself to the archbishops at a meeting held by them in New York.
He claims for "the Catholic Church" both "the duty and divine right" of teaching religion to "all nations," and of "instructing the young;" that is, "she holds for herself the right of teaching the truths of faith and law of morals in order to bring up youth in the habits of Christian life." Nevertheless, "there is no repugnance in their learning thefirst elementsand thehigher branches of the arts and natural sciencesin public schools controlled by the State," which protects them in their persons and property. "But," he continues, "the Catholic Church shrinks from those features of public schools which are opposed to the truth of Christianity and to morality;" wherefore he insists that every effort shall be made, both by the bishops and others, to remove these "objectionable features." And he recommends that thebishops and the civil authorities shall agree "to conduct the schools with mutual attention and due consideration for their respective rights;" that is, that the schools shall be under their joint control, so that teachers "for the secular branches" shall be "inhibited from offending Catholic religion and morality," and the Church be permitted to shed her "light" by "teaching the children catechism, in order to remove danger to their faith and morals from any quarter whatsoever."
This was adroit, but not satisfactory. Although it was understood that Mgr. Satolli's decisions were to be final, this created such disaffection that it was found necessary to submit the matter to the pope, against whose opinion, when officially promulgated, there could be no protest. Leo XIII deliberated upon the matter for some time, and received from the American prelates arguments upon both sides. He, however, reached a conclusion which he communicated to Cardinal Gibbons in an encyclical dated May 31, 1893, which constitutes one of the latest papal utterances. Besides its numerous recitals, some of which do not bear directly upon the subject, he distinctly approves the decision of Mgr. Satolli, because it had been approved and recommended to him by the archbishops at their meeting in New York. He expresses great admiration for the people of the United States—especially the Roman Catholic portion of them—and says that he had sent Mgr. Satolli here in order that his "presence might be made, as it were, perpetual among the faithful by thepermanentestablishment of an apostolic delegation at Washington." This he probably considers a precautionary step; for, as Mgr. Satolli can not have any official relations with our Government—Italy being represented by a minister appointed by the king—he can remain as a "permanent establishment" at the Capital of the nation, so that he may not only watch the course of events, but be in readiness to become an apostolic minister plenipotentiary whensoever, by the aid of the faithful outside of Italy, he shall be able to snatch the crown from the head upon which the Italian people have placed it, and put it upon his own!
The approval of Mgr. Satolli's decision, however, has this important condition attached to it by Leo XIII: "ThatCatholic schools are to be most sedulously promoted, and that it is to be left to the judgment and conscience of theordinaryto decide, according to the circumstances, when it is lawful and when unlawful to attend public schools." This is a most significant condition. In the first place, it takes away from the parents the right to direct the education of their children, and places it in the hands of the ordinary, who officially represents the papal power. In the second place, it leaves the papal condemnation and censure still resting upon our system of common schools, and only removes it, here and there, from such local and particular schools as the ordinaries of the Church may find acceptable to them. And in the third place, it is a positive and unqualified affirmance of what multitudes of priests have said, that our schools are "godless," and that, in order to counteract their irreligious influences, "Catholic schools are to be most sedulously promoted."
But there is another condition attached by Leo XIII which is equally significant as that just named. It is due to him that this should be stated in his own words. He says: "As we have already declared in our letter of the 23d of May of last year, to our venerable brethren, the archbishop and bishop of the province of New York, so we again, as far as need be, declare that thedecrees which the Baltimore Councils, agreeably to the directions of the Holy See, have enacted concerning parochial schools, andwhatsoever else has been prescribed by the Roman pontiffs, whether directly or through the sacred congregations, concerning the same matter, are to be steadfastly observed."
Whatsoever powers the pope may have intended to confer upon Mgr. Satolli—whether those of a vice-pope or of a mere legate—it is certain that he did not intend to lessen his own. These are plenary, and therefore his pontifical decisions are absolutely binding, because he is infallible! In order, therefore, to ascertain the relation to be hereafter borne to ourcommon-school system by the Roman Catholics of the United States, we are required to look to the decision of Mgr. Satolli as qualified by the conditions attached to it by Leo XIII. Taking the whole together, it amounts to this: That God has specially appointed the Roman Catholic Church the educator of the young; that where another system of education is set up against that prescribed by the Church, it is necessarily sinful and heretical, and may be rightfully overthrown and destroyed; that the Church system of education requires that the pupils shall be taught religion, and, first and always, that there is no other true religion besides that which the Roman Catholic Church teaches; that notwithstanding this, a Roman Catholic child may, as a matter of either necessity or expediency, be sent to the public schools of the States, merely to learn "the first elements," reading, writing, and ciphering, and "the higher branches of the arts and natural sciences," mathematics, chemistry, engineering, etc.; that the Roman Catholic Church shrinks from the idea that the intermediate branches should be taught the children, for fear they should discover that the Protestant nations are more prosperous and happy than the Roman Catholic; that when Roman Catholic children are sent to the public schools, efforts shall be made to procure the appointment of Roman Catholic teachers to instruct them in their religious obligations and duties, and specially to the effect that Protestantism is heresy and diversities of religious belief offensive to God, and consequently has his curse resting upon it; that the "objectionable features" of our school system must be removed by plottings within the schools necessary to that end, so that instead of being free they shall be made Church schools; that so long as the children are not taught the "catechism" they will remain "godless" and heretical; and that if in any of the schools the children shall be taught that the State ought to continue separated from the Church, or that differences of religious belief should be tolerated, or that our Protestant institutions must be preserved as they are—all or either of these things must be considered as "offending Catholic religion and morality." Thus far Mgr. Satolli; but the pope adds the peremptory injunction that Roman Catholic schools must be "most sedulously promoted;" that is, they must be set up in rivalry to our common-school system, so that the antidote may root out the bane; that the ordinary, and not the parents, shall decide what children shall be permitted to enter the schools; and that, in interpreting the decision of Mgr. Satolli, it must be done in accordance with the decrees of the Baltimore Councils and the rules "prescribed by the Roman pontiffs."
This settles nothing, and leaves the whole question ambiguous. It is Jesuitical, because it "palters with us in a double sense," by keeping "the word of promise to our ear," while breaking "it to our hope." In referring to the Baltimore Councils as their guide, the faithful find themselves instructed to omit nothing within their power to pull down the common schools, and build up Church schools in their places, for the reason that the former are irreligious, and the latter alone have the divine approval. And they find also that they are instructed by the second Council of Baltimore that their children are to be taught, as an essential part of their religion, that the State is not independent of the Church, and that "all power is of God," so that whatsoever the State prescribes not obedient to the law of God is not binding upon the citizen, and that the Roman Catholic has such "a guide in the Church;" that if the State shall require of him anything inhibited by the Church, he must obey the latter, and not the former.[210]But independently of this, the pope commands that these same faithful shall interpret the decision of Mgr. Satolli in the light of "whatsoever else has been prescribed by the Roman pontiffs."
This is indefinite. There have been over two hundred and fifty popes. Many of these have been good, some bad,but these latter forfeit none of their infallible ecclesiastical authority by being bad. To whom, among all these, shall the inquirer defer, when he investigates what they have commanded with reference to education? Many of them have asserted,ex cathedra, that the exclusive right to educate the young has been divinely conferred upon the Roman Catholic Church, and Leo XIII, in his recent letter to the American Cardinal, makes that assertion unequivocally. It is not believed that any pope ever asserted the contrary. Therefore, this general and sweeping qualification of Mgr. Satolli's decision either destroys its effect absolutely, or leaves it to uncertain rules of interpretation. Thus viewed it leaves the school question just as it stood before Mgr. Satolli came to this country.
But Mgr. Satolli himself provides for two school systems, which, as he regards them, are the rivals of each other, because he, like Leo XIII, considers the Roman Catholic Church as having had divinely conferred upon it the right of educating and training the young. But Leo XIII makes this idea of more prominence when he commands "that Catholic schools are to be most sedulously promoted." It all, therefore, amounts to this: that wheresoever there is a Roman Catholic who can not avoid it, he may send his children to the common schools for the sole purpose of having them taught "the first elements, and the higher branches of the arts and natural sciences;" but in all the intermediate departments of education, they must be under the exclusive charge of those appointed by the Church to be their instructors in religion. Hence, not only is there to be a continued rivalry between the schools, but between the systems as well. In the common schools the pupils are taught that our popular form of government is calculated to promote and preserve the general welfare; that our fathers acted wisely and well when they separated the State from the Church; that laws which require universal conformity to any particular form of religious faith, are not only unwise but violative of natural right; that those people who govern themselvesby laws of their own making are happier and more prosperous than those who suffer themselves to be governed by monarchs and princes; and that the regulation of public affairs by constitutional governments is better for society than where they are regulated at the will of any one man. In the papal schools—perhaps within a stone's-throw of the common schools—the pupils are taught that each one of these propositions is heresy, and that both those who teach and those who accept them as true are under Divine condemnation. In the common schools the teacher enforces what he says by the example of the United States, gives instruction in our Revolutionary history, explains the provisions of our National and State constitutions which make the people the only source of public law, and stimulates the patriotism of his pupils by urging upon them the necessity of perpetuating our institutions in their present form for the benefit of their posterity. In the papal schools the teacher is required, when he denounces all these provisions of our institutions as heresy, to enforce what he says by instructing his pupils that innumerable infallible popes have so declared, and that they will offend God if they do not accept what they have announced as absolutely true, and in order that they may not be suspected of error by their youthful pupils, they need go no further back among the popes than to Pius IX and his "Syllabus" of 1864, wherein, after pointing out seventy-nine modern errors which he condemned—including "public schools" where teaching is "freed from all ecclesiastical authority"—he adds still another by declaring that it is impossible that "the Roman pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself to, and agree with progress, liberalism, and civilization as lately introduced." Or, if it shall be found necessary to go further back than Pius IX, he need but refer to the celebrated encyclical of his immediate predecessor, Gregory XVI, issued July 15, 1832, wherein he declared that those who maintained that God could be rightly served by men of different religious faiths, "will perish eternally without any doubt," if they do not repent and "hold to the Catholic faith;" thatit is "false and absurd" to pretend "that liberty of conscience should be established and guaranteed to each man;" that "the liberty of the press" is "the most fatal liberty, an execrable liberty, for which there never can be sufficient horror;" that writings which are "destructive of the fidelity and submission due to princes" are to be condemned, because they enkindle "the firebrands of sedition;" that "divine and human rights then rise in condemnation against those who, by the blackest machinations of revolt and sedition, endeavor to destroy the fidelity due to princes, and to hurl them from their thrones;" that "constant submission to princes" necessarily has its source "in the holiest principles of the Christian religion;" that they are criminal in the sight of God who "demand the separation of Church and State and the rupture of concord between the priesthood and the empire," that is, the State; and that the union of Church and State is feared and opposed by the advocates of liberty, because it "has always been so salutary and so happy for Church and State."[211]
If, however, the pupils in these papal schools should indicate the suspicion that these official proclamations of doctrine by Pius IX and Leo XIII had not the sanction of earlier popes, their teachers, especially if Jesuits, will take delight in instructing them that these two last popes, at the foot of the list, are following strictly in the footsteps of some of the most conspicuous of their predecessors. And then they will dwell eloquently upon the magnificent pontificates of Gregory VII, Alexander III, Innocent III, Boniface VIII, and others equally ambitious, but of less strength of will. The task will be an easy one to explain the history of these great popes and the politico-religious principles they succeeded in grafting upon the dogmas of the Church. They will instruct them how Gregory VII plucked crowns from the heads of disobedient kings, released their subjects fromtheir allegiance, and placed other and obedient kings in their places; how he claimed the right as pope to dispose of kingdoms, because "the spiritual is above the temporal power" to so great an extent that all people "should murder their princes, fathers, and children if he commands it;" and how he made monarchs, princes, and peoples tremble before him, as if he, by virtue alone of his pontifical power, were master of the world. And they will show them how Alexander III released the German people from their allegiance to Frederick Barbarossa, and compelled that proud emperor to kiss his foot, lead his horse by the bridle, and submit to having the papal heel planted upon his neck; and how Innocent III declared, by solemn pontifical decree, that the EnglishMagna Chartawas null and void, because it laid the foundation of popular liberty, and excommunicated all who were concerned in the patriotic work of obtaining it; and how Boniface VIII decreed, in his bull "Clericis laicos," that lay governments "have no power over the persons or the property of ecclesiastics," and that those who shall impose tithes, taxes, and burdens upon them, without the authority of the pope, "shall incur excommunication;" and how he also decreed, by his bull "Unam Sanctam," that the Church—that is, the pope—holds in her hands both the spiritual and the temporal swords, with the power to compel the latter to be used for and in the interest of the former; that the temporal sword is, therefore, "subject to the spiritual power," and that it is "an article of necessary faith" that "every human being should be subject to the Roman pontiff."
It requires but little intelligence to see wherein the difference consists between these two systems of education—the one expanding, the other dwarfing the intellect. If, however, each improved the intellect alike, the public schools are entitled to the preference for the reason that they instill into the minds of the pupils the great fundamental principles upon which our Government is founded; whereas those who attend the papal schools are instructed that the most essential of these principles are the fruitful source of heresies,and, consequently, of ills to the human family. The two systems, therefore, remain in conflict—just as they have hitherto been—and the greatest question the present generation is called upon to decide is, Which shall triumph? With those of us who desire to maintain our popular form of government, this question does not involve religious faith. But with the defenders of the papacy and followers of the pope it does. And, consequently, those who are willing to form a politico-religious party, pledged to restore temporal power to the pope, even at the possible hazard of a war with Italy, and entangling alliances with other European powers, are promised a crown of eternal glory; while those who are seeking to maintain our institutions as our fathers framed them are anathematized for the sin of rebellion against papal authority.
FOOTNOTES:[209]Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Pages 482-483.[210]The pastoral letter of this Council can be found in Appleton's Annual Cyclopedia for 1866, p. 677. Its meaning is plain—that the Church is superior to the State, and must be obeyed by the State, in all such matters as the Church considers within its jurisdiction.[211]The Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs. By De Montor. Vol. II, pp. 783-793, where this encyclical is given at length. This work has the special approval of the Archbishop of New York.
FOOTNOTES:
[209]Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Pages 482-483.
[209]Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Pages 482-483.
[210]The pastoral letter of this Council can be found in Appleton's Annual Cyclopedia for 1866, p. 677. Its meaning is plain—that the Church is superior to the State, and must be obeyed by the State, in all such matters as the Church considers within its jurisdiction.
[210]The pastoral letter of this Council can be found in Appleton's Annual Cyclopedia for 1866, p. 677. Its meaning is plain—that the Church is superior to the State, and must be obeyed by the State, in all such matters as the Church considers within its jurisdiction.
[211]The Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs. By De Montor. Vol. II, pp. 783-793, where this encyclical is given at length. This work has the special approval of the Archbishop of New York.
[211]The Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs. By De Montor. Vol. II, pp. 783-793, where this encyclical is given at length. This work has the special approval of the Archbishop of New York.
CHAPTER XXII.
JESUITICAL TEACHINGS.
Inasmuchas Leo XIII has considered himself entitled, by virtue of his spiritual power, to prescribe authoritatively the relations which his followers in this country are hereafter to sustain to our system of public-school education, it is proper for us to inquire wherein the system he proposes to have introduced differs from our own. In this way we shall not only be able to understand the contrast between them, but discover why he gives the preference to the papal or Jesuit system. At the beginning of this inquiry, we are relieved from any trouble by his biographer, who tells us that while Cardinal Pecci, "he drew up, in 1858, a constitution and rules for an academy of St. Thomas Aquinas, which was to extend its benefits to the whole of Umbria," and that since he became pope he has "made the philosophical method of St. Thomas the guide of all Catholic teachers."[212]
Thomas Aquinas lived in the thirteenth century, long before the Reformation, when the world was shrouded in the almost total darkness of the Middle Ages, and when obedience to despotic rulers, both spiritual and temporal, was considered the highest duty of life. Church and State were united, and the former governed the latter with "a rod of iron." Liberty of thought was suppressed by the fagot and the flame. He was a voluminous writer, mostly on theological subjects, and as he treated these in accordance with the system maintained by the popes—from whom all authority emanated—he was called the "Angel of the Schools," "Angelic Doctor," "Eagle of the Theologians," and "Holy Doctor." He was canonized in 1323, about fifty years after his death, by John XXII, the second of the popes who reigned at Avignon in France, at a time when, according to De Montor, "the Church languished in fearful anarchy."[213]These circumstances do not conspire to show his fitness as a guide for any system of modern education, especially that existing in the United States. The theology of the Middle Ages, which he vindicated, filled the world with superstition; and now, after the ignorance of that period has been dispelled by the light of the Reformation, there are none who desire to see this superstition and ignorance revived, except those who, like Leo XIII, consider the times before this light began to shine as the "blessed ages."
This reverend biographer of Leo XIII says that the "false education" and "antichristian training" of the young, which prevails in the United States and among the liberal and progressive peoples of the world, must be done away with, abandoned, and "Thomas Aquinas must once more be enthroned as 'the Angel of the Schools;' his method anddoctrinemust be the light of all higher teaching, for his works are onlyrevealed truthset before the human mind in its most scientific form."[214]This prominence was not given to the doctrines of Aquinas as "revealed truth" without due consideration of their importance to the papacy. They were specially taught in the schools of Umbria, under the auspices of Leo XIII. When he was archbishop, and since he became pope, he has made them the universal guide of "Catholic teachers" throughout the world. In obedience to the command of Loyola himself, in his lifetime, they were also made "the basis of the entire curriculum of philosophy and divinity" in all Jesuit colleges and schools, and have thereby become an absolutely necessary and indispensable part of Jesuit education. It is thus made entirely clear that, whatsoever else Leo XIII may or may not have accomplished during his pontificate, he has authoritatively commanded thatthedoctrinesof Thomas Aquinas shall be instilled into the minds of all, both young and old, who may be brought under the influence of the papal system of education, in the United States as well as elsewhere. It is by this system, therefore, that he proposes to supplant our common schools, so that the end sought after by Loyola may be accomplished; that is, the destruction of all popular governments. It will require only a brief examination of these doctrines to explain fully the purpose of Leo XIII in making them an indispensable part of Roman Catholic education in the United States, as well as to show that the papal theory of civil government is founded upon them as "revealed truth."
In the first chapter of this volume reference was made to Balmes, a Spanish priest, who achieved the reputation of being "the boast of the Spanish clergy" and the ablest defender of the Jesuit doctrines. His mind was well stored with the philosophical teachings of Thomas Aquinas, to the study of which he devoted a number of years, adopting the interpretation put upon them in the commentaries of Bellarmine and Saurez, both of whom were Jesuits. He died in 1848, about the breaking out of the great revolutions among the Roman Catholic populations of Europe; but before that time had occupied himself in earnest efforts to turn back the tide which then threatened to overwhelm the papacy. His principal work designed for this purpose was intended, as stated in the first chapter, to counteract the influence of Guizot's treatise on civilization, which had produced very perceptible impressions upon the most enlightened minds of Europe in favor of Protestantism over Roman Catholicism. His special object, therefore, was to demonstrate that the reverse of what Guizot insisted upon was true, and that Roman Catholicism was the real source of all existing enlightenment and civilization. Having written entirely from the Jesuit standpoint, his arguments with regard to the obligation of obedience to the laws of civil governments were based entirely upon the doctrines of the "Holy Doctor," as he called Thomas Aquinas. This may be justifiably inferredfrom what he says in highly eulogistic praise of him near the close of his work.[215]The doctrines he sets forth are commended to the people of the United States in the preface to the American edition of his work, where it is said that he has exposed "the shortcomings, or rather evils, of Protestantism, in a social andpoliticalpoint of view," and that "the Protestant, if sincere, will open his eyes to the incompatibility of his principles with the happiness of mankind."[216]As this learned work has been extensively circulated in this country for the purpose here expressed, we are justified in accepting its doctrines and teachings, in both "a social andpoliticalpoint of view," as accurately expressing the opinions of Aquinas with regard to the right of civil governments to require obedience to their laws from all who live under them. And it is necessary for us to know and fully understand what these doctrines of Thomas Aquinas are, in order to become familiar with the "curriculum of philosophy and divinity" in Jesuit colleges and schools, and with the principles authoritatively prescribed by Leo XIII as "the guide of all Catholic teachers." When we shall have accomplished this, we shall be better able to decide whether or no it would be prudent and wise to exchange the course of studies now prosecuted in our public schools for this papal and Jesuit curriculum; whether our American schools shall be presided over by the spirit of the sainted and "Holy Doctor" or remain as they are, under the care, protection, and patronage of the American people.
Balmes quotes Thomas Aquinas to prove that "human laws,if they are just, are binding in conscience, and derive their power from the eternal law, from which they are formed."[217]But he makes their justice to depend entirely upon their conformity to the divine law; in other words, applying his doctrine practically, as the pope possesses the only legitimate power upon earth to decide what the divine law allows and what it condemns, therefore to him alone must the justiceor injustice of all human laws be submitted; and his decision, when made, is final and must be universally obeyed. Hence the obligation of obedience relates only to those laws which the pope shall decide to be just, while those he shall decide to be unjust shall be disregarded or resisted, or where open resistance is impracticable, may be plotted against and overthrown in whatsoever mode is most expedient. In order to illustrate and give emphasis to his meaning he asks: "Are we to obey the civil power when it commands something that is evil in itself?" Answering he says: "No, we are not, for the simple reason that what is evil is forbidden by God; now, we must obey God rather than man." He then supplements this with another question: "Are we to obey the civil power when it interferes with matters not included in the circle of its faculties?" He answers again: "No, for with regard to these mattersit is not a power." And this limitation upon the civil power he explains further by affirming that the spiritual power of the Church—which is lodged exclusively in the hands of the pope, who stands in the place of God—has always served to "remind men thatthe rights of the civil power are limited; that there are things beyond its province, cases in which a man may say, and ought to say,I will not obey."[218]
The application of this doctrine, as thus laid down by the "Holy Doctor," affirmed by Balmes, and stamped with pontifical sanction by Leo XIII, to the condition of affairs under our civil institutions, is plain and simple and easily understood. It is unnecessary to repeat at this point the fundamental principles of our Government which Leo XIII, Pius IX, Gregory XVI, and numerous other popes have condemned and anathematized as heretical and violative of the divine law. According to their pontifical teachings—announcedex cathedrafrom the "chair of St. Peter"—the American constitutions and laws which require obedience to any of these or to all of them, not only require "something that is evil," but transcend the faculties of the Government by encroaching upon those which God has made to pertain exclusively to the Church, or to the pope as its divinely constituted head! Therefore, according to Thomas Aquinas, to Balmes, to Leo XIII, and to the Jesuits, they are not to be obeyed, because "God, rather than man," must be obeyed. Leo XIII is not, of course, bound, as an alien and spiritual ruler of the Church, to obey them; but by requiring that these doctrines shall be taught in all Roman Catholic schools in the United States, he assumes the spiritual and prerogative right to require of all in this country who obey his teachings, to violate their allegiance to the Government because it maintains these sinful and unjust constitutions and laws. This is perfectly logical—as palpable as that two and two make four. But Balmes—still following Thomas Aquinas—does not stop here.
He repeats, that unjust laws are "not binding on conscience, unless for fear of creating scandal or causing greater evil; that is to say, that, in certain cases, an unjust law may become obligatory,not by virtue of any duty which it imposes, but frommotives of prudence."[219]This reduces the obligation of obedience to the low standard of policy and expediency, and recognizes nothing whatsoever as due to the dignity or authority of the Government which exacts it. This doctrine is purely Jesuitical, and the method of stating it could scarcely have been improved upon by Loyola himself. No equivocal words are employed to disguise the actual meaning; it is distinct and palpable. It is this, nothing more nor less: that if a human law, whether a constitution or a statute, is unjust because it violates the divine law, then they who so regard it may, by simulated obedience to it, compromise with injustice and wrong, and even sin, for the sake of some future advantage! It is exactly as if it should be said to a nation or a State that its constitution and laws are heretical and atheistical because they violate the law of God, but that they will be submitted to only until the meansof setting them aside can be obtained. This doctrine, as applied to such ordinary domestic laws of a State as relate to property and the general management of public affairs, is counteracted by the enforcement of such laws by the proper tribunals. But it is otherwise when the obnoxious provisions are embodied in fundamental principles, such as the separation of Church and State, the freedom of religious belief, the popular source of all political power, and other principles upon which Government structures are based. In cases of this character—that is, where the principles are embodied in constitutions, and are thereby made fundamental—obedience becomes a mere cover to conceal the secret purpose of ultimate rebellion against them; or, rather, of ultimate treason against the Government itself. It is a practical exemplification of the demoralizing doctrine that "the means are justified by the end." This is the doctrine which the Jesuits openly and boldly inculcated in India and in China, when they became Brahmins and worshiped idols, and persisted in these unchristian practices in contemptuous defiance of the repeated mandates of the popes, until their absolute suppression and abolition became a necessity to the Church. But in these times and in this country, somewhat more of caution and circumspection is required, because, even where there is perfect freedom of religious belief, "motives of prudence" forbid that this un-American doctrine shall be openly proclaimed. The motive, however, that existed then is the same that exists now; that is, to accomplish by indirection and stealth an ulterior end which "prudence" requires to be hypocritically concealed. It is these same prudential motives which dictate that Protestantism shall be, for the time being, recognized as an existing and influential power, but with the secretly cherished purpose to deal with it as an unjust and illegitimate power, subject to entire overthrow whensoever these "motives of prudence" shall exist no longer!
Thomas Aquinas announced his theological doctrines with perfect freedom, because in his time—the Middle Ages—the sovereignty of the popes was undisputed; and Balmes was but little less restrained in repeating them in Spain when his great work was written. With neither of them were "motives of prudence" so controlling as they now are among those who accept their teachings in the United States. Therefore, Balmes was careful to point out the method of determining when laws and constitutions are so unjust that they may be covertly disobeyed, by evasion or otherwise, while ostensively acquiesced in. He says: "Laws may also be unjust in another point of view, when they arecontrary to the will of God;" and "with respect to such laws it isnot allowable, under any circumstances, to obey them." All Governments guilty of the offense of enacting such laws are to be considered as having usurped faculties which do not belong to them, and are to be told flatly and unequivocally, when "prudence" will permit it: "Thy laws are not laws, but outrages; they are not binding in conscience; and if, in some instances, thou art obeyed, it is not owing to any obligation, but to prudence."[220]
Applied practically, this papal and Jesuit doctrine amounts to this, under our civil institutions: that one who has taken the oath of allegiance to our Government is justified in not feeling under any obligation to obey the Constitution and laws, in their American sense and spirit, but only in so far as may comport with the ulterior purpose to violate both, to whatsoever extent their principles shall conflict with the divine law as defined by the pope. The proposition is easily illustrated. The Constitution confides to the Supreme Court of the United States the duty and authority to decide upon the validity of all our laws when they are alleged to be invalid. That tribunal has, ever since the beginning of the Government, recognized Church and State as separated, the absolute freedom of religious belief, and the people as the sovereign source of political power, all of which is obedient to the Constitution. Anything to the contrary would undoubtedly be a step in the direction of upturning the Government and putting an end to the Republic. Yet this Jesuit doctrine, derived from the theological principles of Thomas Aquinas—which we are told are "revealed truth"—not only authorizes, but encourages as Christian duty, an appeal from the Supreme Court to the pope, and obedience to the latter instead of the former. Leo XIII, Pius IX, and Gregory XVI, in our own time, and many other popes before them, have decided—and the former holds himself in readiness to repeat the decision when necessary—that the Government has no rightful jurisdiction over matters which concern the Church or the papacy—whether that jurisdiction is conferred by the Constitution or by fundamental laws—but that they are exclusively within the circle of the pope's spiritual jurisdiction. Upon the authority of this doctrine, therefore, Leo XIII, with the Jesuits to back him, proposes to obtain the mastery over the people by reversing the decisions of the Supreme Court; and interferes with the working of our Government to the extent of instructing citizens of the United States that disobedience to certain of our fundamental laws, as the Supreme Court has interpreted and the people understand them, is an absolute religious obligation, and that obedience to him is the service of God! With entire unanimity the framers of the Government separated Church and State, and made that central and controlling among the principles which underlie it; but Leo XIII solemnly avers, from his pontifical throne in Rome, that this violates the divine law, and is such "libertinism" as is leading society to ruin. Thus he brings himself in direct conflict with our institutions, which would inevitably topple and fall if he were obeyed and his principles were substituted for ours. And, in order to secure the object he seeks after, he has commanded that the doctrines of Thomas Aquinas shall be taught as "revealed truths" in all Roman Catholic colleges and schools, so that the children of all the Roman Catholic citizens of this country shall be so educated as to be prepared for the union of Church and State, and the subordination ofthe latter to the former, whensoever "prudence" shall warrant him or his successors in commanding it. If this does not propose to erect an alien and antagonistic Government within ours, upon the principle that "the Church is not in the State, but the State in the Church," it would require the introduction into our language of a new set of words to tell its meaning. That it makes religion the pretext for gradually undermining our civil institutions, any man can see who has intelligence enough to travel away from home without an attendant. Those engaged in this work—no matter who they are or where—are the sappers and miners of an aggressive army. At the command of the pope and Jesuit general—both in Rome—they are striving, day and night, to reduce the whole body of our Roman Catholic population—from the bulk of whom they conceal their actual purpose—to the low and humiliating attitude of Jesuit emissaries, with no sentiments, opinions, or thoughts of their own, but the mere silent, passive, and uninquiring slaves of papal and imperial authority.
After laying down the foregoing general propositions, based upon the teachings of the "Holy Doctor" and "Angel of the Schools," Balmes—guided by the same authority—proceeds to explain the circumstances which justify resistance to the civil authority of Governments. In order to make himself explicit upon this important subject, he designates a class of Governments which he callsde facto; that is, such as are formed by revolution against legitimate authority, and are able to maintain their existence against all opposition, like that of the United States. These, according to him, have no right to exact obedience to their civil authority or laws, merely because of the fact of their existence. Not having been founded upon the principles of the divine law, as defined by the infallible popes, and, consequently, not beingde jure, they are to be regarded as illegitimate; and, on that account, no obligation of obedience to them, in so far as they violate the divine law, can be created even by an oath of allegiance. They are only to be obeyed"from motives of prudence," untilde jureor legitimate Governments can be substituted for them. In his view, a Government which possesses the right to require and enforce obedience to its laws, must have the legitimate authority to command; and this it can not acquire unless it conforms to the divine law as the pope shall define it. "Consummated facts"—that is, the actual existence of an independentde factoGovernment—can not confer this right, no matter how well and permanently established it may be. The period of its duration, whether long or short, is of no consequence; for, by the Canon law doctrine of prescription, no length of time can be set up against the Church or the pope. Nevertheless, as those who pay obedience to the pope are sometimes compelled to live under the protection of what he callsde factoand not underde jureGovernments, he recommends Jesuitical obedience to them although illegitimate, because "resistance would be useless," and "would only lead to new disorders." It must be observed, however, that this obedience involves policy and expediency merely, and not the obligation of duty. It is only to be yielded when unavoidable, in consequence of the fact that the illegitimate authority is too strong and well-established to be overcome. It would be otherwise if it were too feeble to defend itself against aggression. And to enforce these doctrines and principles more thoroughly as religious dogmas, he states the fact that when the Archbishop of Palmyra wrote a book to prove "that the mere fact of a Government's existence is sufficient for enforcing the obedience of subjects," the "work was forbidden at Rome," and placed, of course, upon the Prohibitory Index.[221]
He refers very sparingly to the methods of resisting illegitimate orde factoGovernments. As the exponent of doctrines approved by the Jesuits, the infallibility of the pope was accepted by him as the doctrine of the Church, although it had never been so decreed or accepted by the wholeChurch. This was necessary to his main premise, which was that as the pope represented God on earth, all the power of the Church must, from necessity, be centered in him, so that whatsoever he declared the divine law to be must be assented to as such by all the faithful. If the pope possessed that power then, he possesses it more emphatically now, since his infallibility has been made a part of the faith, and, therefore, all who accept that doctrine are bound to do whatsoever he shall command with reference to submitting to or resisting the constitutions and laws of civil governments whensoever his jurisdiction, as he defines it, shall be invaded by them. Consequently, the true Church teaching is, that the pope alone is permitted, as the sole earthly interpreter of the divine law, to decide whether Governments arede jureorde facto, and what constitutions and laws are to be obeyed or disobeyed; and no appeal is allowed from his decision. With this final arbiter of the fate and destiny of nations constantly present to guide the faithful, through the agency of a vigilant and watchful hierarchy, the teachings of Thomas Aquinas, the Jesuits, and divers popes, they are required to cultivate, with the utmost diligence, the habit of obedience to papal authority, so as to keep themselves in constant preparation for future emergencies. What those emergencies shall be will depend upon the progressive Governments themselves, and, in this country, upon the people; who should not, even seemingly, acquiesce in any measures of either Church or State, priests or laymen, which shall unsettle or endanger any of the fundamental principles upon which their civil institutions are planted. There is no room in this country which can be appropriated as a burial-place for popular government; but there is room for the still further outspreading of the influences of the form of government which is now sending its light over the world, advancing civilization where it exists, and creating it where it does not.
Gathering the papal doctrines from these sources, authoritatively commanded by Leo XIII to be considered as the foundation of all Roman Catholic education, a man muststultify himself not to see that the fundamental principles of our Government can not enter into and become a part of that education. The Roman Catholic youth are forbidden by the papal system from accepting as true the principles of the Declaration of Independence, or of the Constitution of the United States. Both of these instruments would have to be excluded from Roman Catholic schools, or the pope be disobeyed. Or if introduced there, the pupils would have to be taught that they contain irreligious principles, which the Church had always condemned, and still condemns. The Jesuit preceptor would tell them that the American Revolution was a sin in itself, because it was rebellion against the existing principles of monarchical government, which alone have the divine approval; that all men are not created free and equal, because some are born to command, and others to obey; that governments do not derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, but the multitude of the governed are bound to obey their superiors, and they the pope; and that when our fathers appealed to "Divine Providence" for the support of our national independence, their appeal was blasphemous, because the pope, who represents God on earth, has anathematized the principles they have announced. And with the Declaration of Independence thus disposed of, they would be further instructed that the first article of the amendments to the Constitution is null and void, because it is the duty of the Government to establish the Roman Catholic religion by law, inasmuch as it is the only true religion ever revealed, and the Protestant religions are false and heretical; that these false religions ought to be prohibited by law, and that the freedom of speech and of the press should be so far restrained as not to allow the Roman Catholic religion to be assailed, the authority which the pope claims for himself to be questioned, or the Roman Catholic priesthood to be subjected, like other people, to obedience to the public laws.
Upon the great work of building for themselves and us a Government based upon the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, our fathers entered, as we verily believe, under the protection of Divine Providence. Are we prepared to have the youth of this country taught that this is such delusion as can only exist in the minds of "the dreamers of unprofitable dreams?" Unless we are, we must discard the advice of any alien power, either spiritual or temporal, hostile to the progressive spirit which has thus far assured our growth and greatness, and promises still greater progress and development in the future. A century of experience has taught us that the founders of our Government were not only skillful builders, but wise and prudent counselors. When they shunned the pathways along which other nations had wrecked their fortunes, they, as we believe, displayed a degree of wisdom never excelled in the previous history of the world, by building up a system of secular government which centers in the hands of the people—a free, intelligent, and patriotic people—entire sovereignty over the laws. There can be no attack upon any material part of that system, without assailing this popular sovereignty, and denying to the people the right of self-government.
When, therefore, we are told—as the Jesuits now tell us—that these secular institutions created by our fathers are sinful and heretical, because they violate the divine law as Leo XIII, Pius IX, and Gregory XVI, in our own time, and numerous other popes before them, have defined that law, we are confronted by the alternative of either resisting this assault in some effective method becoming to ourselves, or of consenting to the papal policy of retrogression, which proposes to lead us back into a condition of humiliating dependence upon an alien power which teaches that popular governments contravene the divine law, and have the curse of God resting upon them. We are no longer left to surmise this, or to draw inferences with regard to it, which may be ingeniously and Jesuitically met by the pretense that they proceed from Protestant prejudices. The doors have been thrown open so wide by our liberalism and toleration that the ultimate end which the papacy seeks after is not brooded over in silence as it formerly was, but is plainly and distinctly avowed, so that it will be our own fault if we fail to discover the points at which our civil institutions are assailed.
Our Government has been so well and wisely constructed that it does not interfere, in any respect whatsoever, with the freedom of conscience. On the contrary, it is protected by constitutional guarantees, which we preserve with the most assiduous care. But the papal assailants of some of its most cherished principles avail themselves of this freedom to justify their united exertions to restore the temporal power of the pope, well knowing that if that can be accomplished so that his authority could be established here, as they desire it to be, he would exercise his prerogative right to deny this same freedom of conscience to all except those obedient to himself, and would arraign us at the bar of the Roman Curia, because under our constitutional guarantees we tolerate all the varieties of religious belief.
Without the least disguise, these same assailants openly declare their purpose not to slacken their efforts until our system of popular education is entirely uprooted from the foundation, and our public schools are converted into papal conventicles, where the disciples of Loyola shall have supreme rule and be permitted to plant the principles and theological doctrines of Thomas Aquinas in every youthful mind. This accomplished, they would expect that the coming generations, instead of deriving patriotic instruction from the example of those who founded the Republic, would bow their heads in absolute and uninquiring obedience to all the doctrines and dogmas of the pope—substitute the decrees and encyclicals of the popes and the Canon law of Rome for the Constitution and laws of the United States—and, discarding entirely the admonitions of our Revolutionary fathers, would accept as infallibly true whatsoever the pope should declare concerning the relations between the spiritual and the temporal powers; that is, between the Church and the State.
In this work of plucking out every germ of patriotism which instinctively grows and bears fruit in youthful minds, the Jesuits have been experts, ever since Julius III and Loyola established a college at Rome to teach treason to the German youth. Time and practice have increased their skill, and their disappointment at being compelled to witness the triumph of Protestantism, while they have become fugitives among the nations, has intensified their hatred of all free and independent Governments. Leo XIII—not forgetful of his own early training—has signified his purpose to select them as the educators of American youth, so that they may be trained in the religious belief that our national independence is leading us to "libertinism" and ruin; and that they can only serve God rightly by forgetting home and country, and by plucking out from their minds all sense of personal manhood and every ennobling quality; so that, instead of becoming influential citizens of a free and progressive country, they may fit themselves for "uninquiring obedience" to a foreign and alien power, as the Jesuits themselves have done. This country, so blessed by the abundant fruits of the Reformation and of popular government, must not be permitted to turn back to the old paths, which papal and imperial despotism has filled with pitfalls. The principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States must not be supplanted by papal and Jesuit dogmas—such as have been set forth by the ambitious popes and by Loyola, in order to secure the complete triumph of monarchism over popular liberty.