The sentiment of patriotism is well-nigh universal among the people of the United States—Roman Catholics as well as Protestants. The former have the same desire as the latter to participate in making the laws that govern them. Their Italian brethren had this desire so intensely that they resorted to revolution, and thus secured it in the only possible way by abolishing the pope's temporal power. Why, then, should they be urged, with such untiring tenacity, to restore again this temporal power and revive its evils? Why shouldit be demanded of them that they organize into a politico-religious party, obedient to a papal envoy from Rome, and pledged under the solemn obligations of religious duty to reverse the judgment of their Italian brethren, and fasten upon them a burden they have thrown off? Why should they be required to accept a religion which teaches that mankind are by nature unequal, with some born for dominion and the multitude for obedience only? Why should they be commanded to treat as sinful and heretical civil institutions which now protect them and increase their temporal happiness? Why should it be continually sounded in their ears that the divorce of the State from the Church, religious liberty, the freedom of speech and of the press, are such offenses against the divine law as must not be condoned in this life, and will not be forgiven in the next?
These questions are not idle, but are full of meaning to those to whom they are addressed, and could be multiplied almost indefinitely. They are sufficiently suggestive to show—what there are few so blind as not to see—that the existing agitation about the rights of the Church, and the passionate declamation employed by the Jesuits to maintain it, have but a single object—the re-conversion of the pope into a temporal and imperial ruler of the Italian people, against their consent. This—with these agitators—must be accomplished at every hazard, no matter what other consequences may follow. It is inculcated as religious duty, which can not be neglected without disobeying God! All the obedient, therefore, are commanded to take part in it, in disregard of all human laws forbidding the people of one nation from interfering with the domestic affairs of another. The reverend author of the pope's biography—speaking for and by the express authority of Leo XIII himself—says that the abolition of the temporal power "is aninternationalwrong whichallCatholics are bound to denounce and opposeuntil it is done away with."[222]This is the command of the pope,authoritatively uttered in imperial tones. It is sent out to all the Roman Catholics throughout the world, who are required by it to defy the laws of the countries which protect them, because they are mere human laws, and to restore absolute monarchism to the pope, because the divine law provides that mankind shall be ruled by kings and not by themselves.
The Roman Catholic part of our population are seemingly content as they are, in their peaceful and quiet homes, where, with their wives and children around them, they are secured by Protestant laws in the right to worship God unmolested and according to their own consciences, as well as in their pursuit after happiness and prosperity. Are they prepared to place all this in jeopardy, to minister to the pride and vanity of those who assume to be their rulers, who know nothing of domestic joys, or peaceful homes, or such sympathetic affections as grow out of the tenderest relations of life, or of the laughter and chattering of innocent children, which make the heart glad? All the means that learning and eloquence and authority can employ will be invoked to make them so; and it is considered one of the most effectual of these to instruct them—as the pope's biographer does with singular complacency—that the Church at Rome has been always found upon the side of free thought in religion and popular self-government in civil affairs! And to maintain this marvelous assertion, he boastingly claims that the great EnglishMagna Charta—the foundation of our civil and religious liberty—was written "with a Catholic pen;"[223]when he must have known, and undoubtedly did know, that Innocent III—who claimed, as Leo XIII does, to be "God's vicegerent," with the apostolic power to build and destroy nations, to plant and overthrow kingdoms—cursed and anathematized that charter because, as he said, it violated the divine law; declared it to be null and void for that reason; excommunicated its authors and defenders as heretics; andsaid that if that charter had been carried to Rome it would have been consumed in flames kindled by a common hangman, as would also have been the bodies of the earls and barons who extorted it from a craven-hearted king. The decree abolishing the temporal power of the pope was also written by a Catholic pen.
Nevertheless, it is true—and no fair-minded man will deny it—that there have been multitudes of Roman Catholics in all parts of the world who have been intense lovers of civil and religious liberty, and who have defended their cause with courage and fidelity. There are many of these in the United States—men who every day feel the warm and friendly grasp of Protestant hands. With all patriotic Americans the welfare of these is close akin to their own. But how many of these have been found upon the papal throne, or among those who claim the divine right to dictate the religion of the world, and exact implicit obedience from its professors? The echo which comes back from the pages of history is—How many? If Leo XIII is one of them, the announcement of a fact so important to the world should come from himself, not from others who exhibit no letter of authority which commissions them to retract, in his name, his well-matured and frequently-expressed official opinions. If he has—now that his mind has become matured by the reflections of a long and well-spent life—found that the separation of Church and State and the freedom of religious belief are not violative of the divine law; if he has become convinced that a government "for the people, of the people, and by the people," like that of the United States, is not heretical,—then let the announcement of these facts come directly and authoritatively from the Vatican. There are multitudes of Roman Catholics in this country whose hearts would leap with intense joy at such an announcement, and Protestants would hail it as a sure harbinger of future concord, peace, and quiet among all classes of professing Christians, such as existed among the Protestants and Roman Catholics of Germany before the social atmosphere was contaminatedby the poison of Jesuitism. Thousands who are inclined to acknowledge the pope's authority over their consciences, within the proper circle of his spiritual domain, would prize an encyclical to that effect, as if each letter were of gold or precious stones, because it would prove to the world that Pius IX was moved only by his own impulsive nature and excited imagination when he declared that the papacy could not become reconciled to, "and agree with, progress, liberalism, and civilization" as they prevail among the modern nations. But until this has been done—regularly and authoritatively—he must be judged alone by the record he has made, and of which his enthusiastic admirers boast as if every word uttered by him was written with the pen of an angel. If the Protestants of the United States still find in these either an open or concealed attack upon the most cherished principles of their Government—the separation of the State from the Church, the freedom of religious belief, of speech, and of the press, the popular right of self-government—they can not be rightfully accused of intolerance when they announce their determination to stand by and maintain these principles to the last. This they must and will do, as their fathers did before, against all the combined powers of the world, no matter from what arsenals their adversaries shall draw their weapons. Nor should they forget that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
FOOTNOTES:[212]Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Page 151.[213]De Montor, Vol. I, p. 495.[214]O'Reilly, pp. 482-483.[215]Balmes, pp. 411-412.[216]Ibid., p.v.[217]Ibid., p. 320.[218]Balmes, p. 326.[219]Balmes, p. 328.[220]Balmes, pp. 329-330.[221]Balmes, p. 333.[222]Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Page 471.[223]Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Page 409.
FOOTNOTES:
[212]Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Page 151.
[212]Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Page 151.
[213]De Montor, Vol. I, p. 495.
[213]De Montor, Vol. I, p. 495.
[214]O'Reilly, pp. 482-483.
[214]O'Reilly, pp. 482-483.
[215]Balmes, pp. 411-412.
[215]Balmes, pp. 411-412.
[216]Ibid., p.v.
[216]Ibid., p.v.
[217]Ibid., p. 320.
[217]Ibid., p. 320.
[218]Balmes, p. 326.
[218]Balmes, p. 326.
[219]Balmes, p. 328.
[219]Balmes, p. 328.
[220]Balmes, pp. 329-330.
[220]Balmes, pp. 329-330.
[221]Balmes, p. 333.
[221]Balmes, p. 333.
[222]Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Page 471.
[222]Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Page 471.
[223]Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Page 409.
[223]Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Page 409.
CHAPTER XXIII.
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.
Thereare few things so important to the people of the United States as that they shall intelligently understand what consequences will inevitably follow the successful termination of Mgr. Satolli's mission to this country in his capacity of deputy-pope. If he shall succeed in breaking down our system of common schools, or in drawing away from them all the children of our Roman Catholic citizens, and in the general or partial substitution of the papal for the American system of education, what will follow? There is but one answer to this question, which is, thatreligionwill be taught in the schools; not the religion of Christ, or the apostles, or the martyrs, or that which prevailed throughout the Christian world for the first five hundred years of our era—up till the fall of the Roman Empire—but that which originated in the ambition of emperors and popes, and culminated in such a union, of Church and State as required that the popes should be temporal monarchs, with plenary power to rule over the consciences of mankind. That is what Leo XIII is striving after, and what he has sent Mgr. Satolli to the United States to accomplish. And it was to achieve this that Pius VII united with the arbitrary monarchs of the "Holy Alliance," and re-established the Jesuits; and Pius IX forced through the Vatican Council of 1870 the decree which declares that all the popes who have ever lived and all who shall hereafter live, are, and must be, absolutely infallible. This doctrine of papal infallibility, therefore, is hereafter to constitute the great fundamental feature in every system of Roman Catholic education, the central fact from which all intellectual culture shall radiate, as therays of light do from the sun. What it is requires no learning to explain, and what effect it would have upon our institutions, if taught in all our schools, it does not require the spirit of prophecy to foretell. That it would undermine and destroy them is as palpable as that poison diffused throughout the body will, if not removed, produce death.
The struggle between the popes—that is, the papacy—and the Church as an organized body of Christian people, for a conciliar decree of the pope's infallibility, was continued through a period of more than a thousand years, during which some popes exercised it without authority as a cover for persecution, and to justify their unlimited ambition; others to assure themselves of impunity in the commission of enormous crimes; while others, influenced by honest Christian instinct and sentiment, repudiated and condemned it as demoralizing and antichristian. The Church suffered most when this struggle was at its highest, as is evidenced by the seventy years' residence of the popes at Avignon; the forty years' schism; the claim of the pontifical seat by John XXII, Gregory XII, and Benedict XIII, at the same time; the imprisonment of John XXII by the Council of Constance; the burning of Huss and Jerome at the stake; and the general demoralization of the clergy, to say nothing of other things with which all intelligent readers of ecclesiastical history are familiar. When the Church recovered from these and other afflictions, it would be tedious to enumerate; it was done by the influence of the good and unambitious popes, together with that of the great body of its membership, who combined to rebuke the claim of infallibility, because it was founded upon the vain assumption that a mere man, with the passions and impulses of other men, was the equal of God in wisdom and authority.
When this decree was obtained by Pius IX from the Vatican Council, twenty-three years ago, the Jesuits won their proudest triumph since their restoration. It made no difference with them, or with Pius IX, or with their obedient followers, that Clement XIV was decreed to have been alsoinfallible when he suppressed them by a solemn pontifical decree, reciting how they had disturbed the peace of the Church and of the nations by their multitude of iniquities, nor how one act of infallibility could be set aside and abrogated by another. Not even a single thought was incited by so inconsequential a matter as this, because everything was centered in the great object of achieving a triumph over liberalism and modern progress, upon the Jesuit theory that "the end justifies the means." Pius IX was present in the Council, and one of the enthusiastic defenders of the decree afterwards gave full vent to his extraordinary imaginings by declaring that the souls of all present were "overwhelmed by the brilliant effulgence of the sun of righteousness and eternal truth, reflected to-day from onegreater than Moses, the very vicar of Christ Jesus himself."[224]It is not surprising that an author like this should have become the historian of such a Council, but it is a little so that his book should have been published in this country about two years after, in a form so cheap as to assure it a large circulation among our Roman Catholic population. The motive of this, however, manifestly was that the volume should become educational in the papal schools, to take the place of the histories which point out the advantages we have derived from Protestantism, and at the same time stamp the impression upon the minds of old and young, that the pope, as the only guardian and dictator of true Christian faith is and must continue to be—no matter whether as a man he possesses good qualities or bad—a "greater man than Moses," because he is infallible and Moses was not. This character of the work is well established by the fact that, among the deplorable evils of the times, it specifies the usurpation of the education of youth "by unbelieving seculars;" that is, by those who, notwithstanding their professions, know nothing of true religion because they are Protestants; and by the further fact that the chief remedy for these evils pointed outby him is the establishment of the "pope's sovereign power over the world;" and by the still additional fact that, when referring to those Roman Catholics who live under the protection of Protestant institutions, he adds: "The Church has ever regarded it as a matter of importance that the laws of those civil powers, to which her spiritual children are subjected, should be formed in perfect accordance with her own laws;"[225]that is, that as the pope has at last, after more than a thousand years of hard struggle, been decreed to be infallible, they shall not be considered by "the faithful" as binding upon their consciences unless approved by him. And then, establishing it as the foundation-stone upon which the superstructure of the papal system rests, that the Church "has ever proved herself the most powerful bulwark of the temporal power of temporal princes," he proceeds to instruct those who had not then learned what was meant by the pope's infallibility, in what sense the Church expected them to accept it. His words should sink deeply into the mind of every citizen of this country who desires to know what principles of government would be instilled into the minds of American youth if Mgr. Satolli and his Jesuit allies should succeed in destroying our common schools, and substituting for them parochial or religious schools. Here is what he says:
"The Church may not wish to interfere in the purely secular concerns of other States, or in the enactment of purely secular laws, for the government of foreign subjects, but sheclaims a right, and a right divine, to prevent any secular law, or power, being exercised for the injury of religion, the destruction of morals, and the spiritual ruin of her children.She claims a right to supervise such laws, to support, their use, if salutary, to control their abuse. In the domain of morals, it is the province of the Church to reign.Wherever there is moral responsibility, it is her prerogative, by divine commission, toguide and to govern, to sanction, to command, or to condemn, to reward merit, and to punish moral delinquency."[226]
And, in further definition of infallibility, he says:
"The Council will vindicateits authority over the world, and prove its right, founded on a divine commission, to enter most intimately intoall the spiritual concerns of the world; to supervisethe acts of the king, the diplomatist, the philosopher, and the general; to circumscribe the limits of their speculative inquiries; tohold up the lamp which is to light their only path to knowledge and education;to subjugate human reason to the yoke of faith;to extinguish liberals, rationalists, and deists by one stroke of her infallibility. Infallible dogma is a brilliant light, which every intellect must recognize, whether willingly or reluctantly....The Church claims its right to enter the world's domain, and recognizes no limits but the circumference of Christendom; to enforce her laws over her subjects; to control their reason and judgment; to guide their morals, their thoughts, words, and actions, and to regard temporal sovereigns, though entitled to exercise power in secular affairs, asauxiliaries and subordinatesto the attainment of the end of her institution, the glory of God and the salvation of the immortal souls of men, and to secure for them their everlasting happiness. And this order of things she regards as true liberty—Ubi Spiritus Domini ibi libertas."
He insists that the Church has the right to intrude "into the social relations of the general community of worldings;" and has also the "right to supervise the lectures of the professor, the diplomacy of the statesman, the government of kings, and to scrutinize their morality and punish their faults."
Referring to the union of Church and State, and the manner in which politico-religious opinions are brought within the papal jurisdiction, he says:
"Political theorists nowadays presume so far as to proclaim the right of secular States to be what they call freeand independent of the Church's laws; that is, they profess to taketheir temporal governments out of the Churchin which God intended to place and to bless them, and to consecrate them in and through the Church. There are even those who have the temerity to advocate the deordination of a Church dependent on the legislative enactments of a secular State! Statesmen know the objects of your transitory existence: it is to enact secular laws, for secular jurisprudence, and for the secular commonweal, and then to live in the Church; to co-operate with the Church; to be sanctified through the Church; and by this happy union to enjoy the reciprocity of the Church's influence over the consciences of your subjects, which is the solid foundation of their loyalty and your stability; and to assist the Church in promoting what is useful for saving their souls, which should be to you also an object of paramount solicitude. Is the world, then, come to this!—that social diplomatists shouldsever the State from the Church, or domineer over Christian society? Is nature to separate from grace, and set up a dynasty for itself? No, no;Quis separabit?Theholy alliance of Church and State constitutes the union of the soul and body—the life and vigor of Christian society! It is time that a General Council shall teach statesmen this salutary lesson, and that they may not put their foot on the steps of Peter's throne; that it is their duty to co-operate with the Church; and that in all matters appertaining to the order of grace, their position is, tosit down and listen respectfully before the Church's teaching chair."[227]
Nothing short of the importance of the matters involved in the doctrine of the pope's infallibility, and the consequences which are expected to follow it, can justify such lengthy extracts from a single book. But these considerations do, for the reason that as books like this are seen by few, and read by still fewer, a better opportunity for understanding the objects to be accomplished by them is furnishedby this method to both Protestants and Roman Catholics. Multitudes of the latter are deceived and misled into the belief that the doctrine of the pope's infallibility is necessary to the Church, whose Christian teachings they revere; whereas, if they, by intelligent instruction and thoughtful reflection, were assured, as the fact really is, that it pertains alone to the power and authority of the popes—that is, to the papacy, and not the Church—it is believed they would neither assent to it themselves, nor allow it to be taught, as a necessary dogma of faith, to their children, either in schools under the auspices of the Church or elsewhere. It would be unfair to them to doubt that they would reject it, if assured, as these extracts would assure them, that infallibility requires the destruction of every form of popular government in order that a grand papal confederation may be constructed for the government of the world, under the sole dominion of the pope. They would, upon proper investigation, see and know that the Council which passed the decree was not a representative body with authority to bind their consciences, but that it was, on the other hand, composed of those who were indebted alone to the pope for all the authority they possessed, and that he could strip them of their robes at his own pleasure in case of disobedience to his commands. And they would learn also that instead of the decree having been passed unanimously by the whole Council—as they have been instructed—there were 157 absentees, who withdrew because of it, leaving those only to vote who were in its favor; that, in point of fact, it was a conflict between the Church, as it had existed under more than 250 popes before Pius IX, and the papacy, and that the victory was won by the latter, to the discomfiture and regret of vast multitudes of their devout Christian brethren in all parts of the world. The Council consisted of 692 members. There were but 535 present when the decree was passed, showing, as stated, 157 absent. Of these, 63 of the diocesan bishops and representatives of what are called "the most illustrious sees in Christendom," signed a written protest against papal infallibility. Of those present, 533 voted for the decree, and 2 against it—one of whom was from the United States—but these were so carried away by the excitement that they gave in their adhesion. Many of the absentees had left Rome in disgust, having signified their opposition before leaving. On the day of the vote, there were 66 in Rome who refused to attend the session. Among these were 4 cardinals, 2 patriarchs, 2 primates, 18 archbishops, and the remainder were bishops. The result, consequently, was a mere triumph of the majority over the minority, as occurs in legislative bodies. The pretense of unanimity is without foundation, except as regards the votes actually cast. To compare a result thus obtained to the direct intervention of Providence, in imitation of the delivery of the law to Moses, indicates the possession of an exceedingly high faculty of invention; it borders closely upon delusion. Therefore, it may well and appropriately be said that the description of the scene by the author, from whose book the foregoing quotations are extracted, has, in calling Pius IX "greater than Moses, the very vicar of Christ Jesus himself," so far transcended the bounds of reason as to make their author appear like one who lives only in an ethereal atmosphere. There is no authority for saying that he is a Jesuit; but if he were found in companionship with one known to be so, it would be puzzling to tell which was "the twin Dromio," because, beyond all doubt, they would be "two Dromios, one in semblance."
What was expected to be accomplished by the decree of the pope's infallibility, by solemnly declaring that God had but one representative upon earth, and that he was so endowed with divine wisdom that he alone could prescribe the universal rule of faith, and was endowed with sufficient authority to enable him to exact and enforce obedience to his commands? Let the thoughtful mind, desirous to obtain a satisfactory answer to this question, ponder well upon the teachings of universal history—the birth, growth, and decay of former nations. Upon innumerable pages he will find itwritten, more indelibly than if it had been carved upon metal by the engraver's tool, that, from the very beginning of the Christian Church at Rome—whensoever that was—papal infallibility had never been recognized or established as a dogma of religious faith. If the Apostle Peter was the first of the popes—as alleged—then, up till the pontificate of Pius IX, there were two hundred and fifty-eight popes, to say nothing of the numerous anti-popes. There were, besides, numerous General and Provincial Councils, beginning with that at Nice, under Constantine, in 325, and ending with that of the Vatican, in 1870—the period between the two being one thousand five hundred and forty-five years. And yet, during all this long, protracted period, there is not to be found, among the articles of religious faith announced from time to time by the Church, one single sentence or word or syllable which requires it to be believed that the pope is infallible! Is all this history mythical? Has it led "the faithful" into error and sin? Were only those popes obedient to the divine law who believed themselves infallible, and acted accordingly, while those who did not were heretics? Why were General Councils necessary to obtain the universal consent of the Church, if the popes were infallible and could decree the faith of their own accord? When popes disagreed—as did John XXII and Nicholas III and Innocent III and Celestine and Pelagius and Gregory the Great—upon important questions, how were they to be decided?[228]Were the popes who denied their own infallibility destined to be cut off in eternity from the presence of God for their heresy? Edgar enumerates eight of these who directly disaffirmed their belief in it,[229]and there were many others who did not affirm it. Were all these heretics? And were also the great Church historians, such as Launoy, Almain, Marca, Du Pin, Bossuet, and others—and the whole body of French or Cisalpine Christians—all heretics? And what is to be said ofthe General Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basel, all three of which denied the pope's infallibility in terms of strong condemnation? It would be easy to multiply these questions; but it is sufficient to say that if the popes who denied infallibility were heretics, then the line of apostolic succession is broken by the removal of several important links in the chain, and the attempt to trace back the present Roman Church to the apostolic times, and to the Apostle Peter, is an entire and humiliating failure. And it is an unavoidable inference from a long line of facts, well proved in history, that but for the unfortunate alliance between the ambitious popes and the Jesuits to build up and strengthen their power at the expense of the Church, the Christian world of the present day would have taken no interest in the prosecution of that inquiry. The Church is of less consequence to the Jesuits than their own society, and as they have invariably condemned it when not upon their side, so there has been no time since the death of Loyola when they did not consider its humiliation by them as promotive of "the greater glory of God," when thereby their own power and authority could be enlarged.
When Pius IX, in 1854, signalized the close of the eighth year of his pontificate by issuing his decree to the effect that thenceforward the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary should be accepted as a dogma of faith, he acted of his own accord and without convening a General Council. It is fair to say, therefore, that he considered this an act of infallibility, then, for the first time, put in practical execution. It was, doubtless, an experiment, practiced with the view to ascertain whether or no it would obtain the approbation of those whose consciences were to be influenced by it. The experiment was successful, and inasmuch as it involved only a question purely of areligiouscharacter, no special or injurious consequences followed. Protestants did not regard themselves warranted to complain of it, for the plain reason that the religious faith of Roman Catholics concerned themselves alone. Pius IX, however, intended by this decree something more than merely to add a new dogma to the faith.Undoubtedly, his object was to employ this exercise of infallible power, so that, if accepted with unanimity by the membership of the Church, that might be considered such an indorsement of the doctrine as would justify him in convening a General Council, and having it decree that, not himself alone, but all other popes, both good and bad, were infallible.
This is not said reproachfully, but rather to indicate the shrewdness and sagacity practiced by him to influence the large body of believers in the Church. The whole history of the papacy at that time proved that it was essential to its future success that the doctrine of infallibility should be extended beyond mere questions of religious belief, so as to embrace other matters connected with the revolutionary movements then in progress in Europe, which were threatening to undermine, if not destroy, the papal power; that is, the temporal power of the pope. Revolutionary disturbances are always threatening to those against whom they are directed, and Pius IX, believing, as he undoubtedly did, that such as then existed in Europe were directed, or would be if not checked, against his temporal power, deemed it necessary to obtain, if possible, the sanction of a conciliar decree to the exercise by him of new powers in addition to those then universally conceded to him over religious questions and affairs. Thus he designed to obtain the express or implied assent of the Church to his exercise of jurisdiction overpolitico-religiousmatters, in order that he might be enabled to promulgate such decrees as would, through the agency and influence of "the faithful" among the different European nations, arrest the progress of the revolutionary movements, and save his temporal power. Hence, when the decree of infallibility was interpreted by him in the light of these events and his own purposes, he had no difficulty in concluding that it had given him jurisdiction over all suchpolitico-religiousquestions as bore, either directly or indirectly, upon the spiritual or temporal interests of the Church in all parts of the world. That his successor, Leo XIII, agrees with him in this interpretation no intelligent man can deny.If he were not influenced to do this by his desire to regain the temporal power which was taken away from his predecessor, his education and training by the Jesuits would impress his mind with the conviction that a temporal crown upon his head is a positive necessity, in order that he may promote "the greater glory of God." Consequently, when it is thus made too plain and palpable to admit of fair denial, that the infallibility of the pope is the chiefest and most fundamental dogma of faith—the foundation of the whole system of papal belief—it is positively obligatory upon us, in this country, to understand its full import and meaning. If anything were required to make this obligation more binding than it is, it is found in the facts now confronting us, that our public schools are pronounced "godless" because this religious dogma is not taught to our children, and that it is taught to Roman Catholic children in parochial schools, mainly under Jesuit control.
Tedious as the evidence already adduced may seem to be to those who look at such matters as these only by casual glances, it is indispensable to a thorough knowledge of the truth that the politico-religious matters which this decree has brought within the jurisdiction of the pope should be plainly and distinctly made known. Without this knowledge, our tolerance may seem to invite dangerous encroachments, by the Jesuits and those obedient to them, upon some of the most highly cherished principles of our Government. We have seen, from one papal author, what is meant at Rome by a religious education, and shall, in the next chapter, see cumulative proof from another, probably more influential.
From this latter author, even more distinctly than from the former, we shall see how absolutely we should be subject to the commands of the pope; how we should be domineered over by his ecclesiastical hierarchy and their Jesuit allies; how all our actions, thoughts, and impulses, would be held in obedience to ecclesiastical and monarchical dictation; and how we should have, instead of a Government of the people, one under the arbitrary dictatorship of a foreign sovereign, who can neither speak our language nor understand our Constitution and laws. We might be permitted to manage our secular affairs—such as relate to the transaction of our ordinary business—but in everything we should consider as pertaining to the Church or himself, he would become our absolute and irresponsible ruler. Church and State would be united, and all the measures provided by the framers of our Government for the protection of our natural rights—such as the freedom of religious belief, of the press, and of speech—would be destroyed. Free government would be at an end, and a threatening cloud would hover over us like the pall of death. We should be turned back to the Middle Ages, and all the fruits of the Reformation would be lost, without the probability of ever being afterwards regained by our posterity. A careful scanning of what follows will show that this picture is not overdrawn. And if it is not, the obligation to see that these calamities shall not befall us, rests as heavily upon the Roman Catholic as it does upon the Protestant part of our population. A common spirit should animate the hearts of all, no matter what their religious belief, and stimulate them to joint protest and mutual defense. Those who brave the dangers of navigation upon the same vessel at sea, must, when the storm rages, unite together in heart and hand, or run the risk of sinking in a watery grave. So it is with those whose lives and fortunes and earthly interests are under the protection of the same civil institutions; if they become divided into angry and adverse factions, under the dominion of unrestrained passions, they invite the spoiler to undermine the foundations of the fortress which shelters and protects them.
That the Jesuits, in the war they are now making, and have always made, against civil and religious liberty, constitute such a spoiler, history attests in numerous volumes. Wheresoever civil government has been made obedient to the popular will, they have labored indefatigably for its overthrow. To that end monarchism has been made the central and controlling principle of their organization—so completely so that their society never has existed, and could not exist,without it. They warred malevolently upon the best of the popes, and defied the authority of the Church for more than a hundred years—never abating their vengeance, except when the pontifical chair was occupied by a pope who submitted to their dictation. They are, to-day—as at every hour since the time of Loyola—compactly united to destroy, as sinful and heretical, all civil institutions constructed by the people for their own protection, and substitute for them such as are obedient to monarchs and their own interpretation of the divine law. And now, when the pontifical authority is vested in a pope whose youthful mind was impressed and disciplined by their teachings, and they stand ready to subvert every Government which has separated the State from the Church, and secured the freedom of conscience, of speech, and of the press, and are straining every nerve to obtain the control of our system of common-school education, so as to instill their doctrines into the minds of the American youth—the times have become such that all the citizens of the United States, irrespective of their forms of religious belief, should form a solid and united body in resistance to their un-American plottings.
Charles Carroll, of Carrollton, who signed our Declaration of Independence, was a Roman Catholic, but not a Jesuit. He loved his Church, and adhered to its faith, which did not then require him to believe that its pope was infallible; and with his mind filled with patriotic emotions, he stood by the side of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and fifty-four other patriots, and united with them in separating Church and State, in establishing a Government of the people, in guaranteeing the absolute freedom of religious belief; and when he and they looked upon the great work they had accomplished, they solemnly declared that it was in obedience to "the laws of nature and of nature's God." He who now insists, as the Jesuits do, that in all this he violated his Christian conscience by offending God in the perpetration of an act of heresy, not only asperses unjustly the memory of thisunselfish patriot, but wounds the sensibilities of every true American heart. At the time our independence was established Pius VI was pope. He had not been declared to be infallible, and the Jesuits did not exist as a society under the protection of the Church; for they had been suppressed for their innumerable offenses against the Church and the nations, by his immediate predecessor Clement XIV, and were wanderers over the earth, seeking shelter under heretical princes and States, where they were allowed to plot against the Church. The pope, therefore, possessing onlyspiritualjurisdiction, did not pronounce a pontifical curse upon our infant institutions, not only because they were not within that jurisdiction, but because they secured, by proper guarantees, the freedom of religious belief to Roman Catholics. He had his hands full in attempting to deal with the French Revolution, over which he supposed his jurisdiction to extend, because France had, for several centuries, recognized the spiritual dominion of his predecessors and their right to regulate its faith. Consequently, he took the side of Louis XVI against the people of France, and denounced the Legislative Assembly, and avowed his purpose to maintain all the prerogative rights of the "Holy See." He, accordingly, issued an encyclical proclamation, in which he condemned the efforts of the French people to establish a Republic, and the Legislative Assembly, in these words: "That Assembly, after abolishing monarchy,which is the most natural form of government, had attributed almost all powerto the populace, who follow no wisdom and no counsel, and have no understanding of things." He further instructed the bishops that all "poisoned books" should be removed "from the hands of the faithful by force and by stratagem." He declared that "thepriesthood and tyranny support each other; and the one overthrown, the other can not long subsist." He denounced the liberty after which France was striving, in imitation of our Revolutionary example, as tending "to corrupt minds, pervert morals, and overthrow all order in affairs and laws,"and the equality of man as leading to "anarchy" and the "speedy dissolution" of society.[230]
And inasmuch as this same pope, Pius VI and the present pope, Leo XIII, have been solemnly decreed to be infallible, incapable of error in matters of faith, and standing in the place of God upon earth—and Leo XIII has never repudiated these teachings of Pius VI or many others of like import by other popes—and the decree of infallibility has so enlarged his spiritual jurisdiction as to bring all politico-religious matters throughout the world within its circle, and the Jesuits have been re-established under their original constitution as it came from the hands of Loyola, and are still full of life and vigor, which they constantly display in their tireless efforts to control the education of American youth, the obligation imposed upon all our people, of every religious creed, to discover in what direction we are drifting, is positive, absolute, and indispensable.
FOOTNOTES:[224]The Council of the Vatican. By Thomas Canon Pope. Page 272.[225]The Council of the Vatican. By Thomas Canon Pope. Page 10.[226]The Council of the Vatican. By Thomas Canon Pope. Page 11.[227]The Council of the Vatican. By Thomas Canon Pope. Pages 12 to 15.[228]Ecclesiastical History. By Du Pin. Vol. XV-XVI, p. 260.[229]Variations of Popery. By Edgar. Page 188.[230]Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs. By De Montor. Vol. II, pp. 461 to 470.
FOOTNOTES:
[224]The Council of the Vatican. By Thomas Canon Pope. Page 272.
[224]The Council of the Vatican. By Thomas Canon Pope. Page 272.
[225]The Council of the Vatican. By Thomas Canon Pope. Page 10.
[225]The Council of the Vatican. By Thomas Canon Pope. Page 10.
[226]The Council of the Vatican. By Thomas Canon Pope. Page 11.
[226]The Council of the Vatican. By Thomas Canon Pope. Page 11.
[227]The Council of the Vatican. By Thomas Canon Pope. Pages 12 to 15.
[227]The Council of the Vatican. By Thomas Canon Pope. Pages 12 to 15.
[228]Ecclesiastical History. By Du Pin. Vol. XV-XVI, p. 260.
[228]Ecclesiastical History. By Du Pin. Vol. XV-XVI, p. 260.
[229]Variations of Popery. By Edgar. Page 188.
[229]Variations of Popery. By Edgar. Page 188.
[230]Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs. By De Montor. Vol. II, pp. 461 to 470.
[230]Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs. By De Montor. Vol. II, pp. 461 to 470.
CHAPTER XXIV.
THE CHURCH AND LITERATURE.
Itis of the highest importance that the papal interpretation of the decree of infallibility should be understood. This can be ascertained only by obtaining information from authoritative sources, from those who bear such relations to the pope as entitle what they say of the intentions and purposes of those charged with the administration of Church affairs, not merely at Rome but elsewhere throughout the world, to the highest consideration. In the absence of any direct avowal sent forth from the Vatican, the next best evidence is embodied in the papal literature, manifestly provided to explain the character of such teachings as it is designed to introduce into Roman Catholic religious schools in the United States, and into our common schools, provided Mgr. Satolli should make his mission here a success. The conscientious "searcher after truth"—whether Protestant or Roman Catholic—will find himself well rewarded for whatsoever labor he may expend in this method of investigation. If he be a Protestant, he will see that all the principles of Protestantism, religious and civil, are threatened; and if he be a Roman Catholic, not belonging to the ecclesiastic body, he will be likely to discover that his silence is construed by his Church authorities into acquiescence in politico-religious opinions which his conscience repudiates and condemns.
During the progress of the Italian revolution in 1868, a work appeared in Italy from the pen of P. Franco, wherein the relations between the Church and secular Governments, as well as individuals and communities, were elaborately discussed. This work was evidently authoritative, and if it did not have the special approval of Pius IX, it undoubtedly hadthat of those high in position at the Vatican. It had two controlling objects:First, to check the revolution, and to bring the Italian people into a proper state of obedience to the pope, as a temporal monarch with absolute authority;second, to prepare the way for the acknowledgment of the infallibility of the pope, which was then in contemplation. It failed in the first, because that involved the civil and political rights of the Italian people, which they had determined not to leave longer under the dominion of irresponsible monarchical power; and aided, it is supposed, in accomplishing the second, because it was asserted and believed that it had reference only to matters of religious faith. At all events, the passage of the decree encountered no direct resistance from the Italian people, as it would undoubtedly have done if they had supposed it intended to counteract and destroy the influences of the revolution, in so far as they affected their political rights.
After the decree was passed, it was considered important that this work of Franco should be translated into the English language, so as to bring all English-speaking Roman Catholics to the point of accepting papal infallibility, both as an accomplished fact and the only true religious faith; and to convince them of the enormous sin they would commit by refusing to do so. Lord Robert Montagu, a Roman Catholic member of the British Parliament, became the translator, following the original, as far as he considered it expedient, upon points of religious doctrine, and adding some reflections of his own. It was published in London in 1874—four years after the passage of the decree—in order to create English opinion in favor of the restoration of the temporal power of the pope, and the recognition of his infallibility. This work has 428 pages, almost every one of which contains assertions designed to prove that the spirit of the present progressive age is offensive to God, and that mankind can be saved from eternal perdition in no other way than by conceding to the pope the universality of dominion which it claims for him, and which, if granted, would overturn every Government existing in the world, and, first of all, the present Government of Italy. It is almost impossible, within a reasonable compass, to explain anything more than his general ideas, and such of these only as are intended to show how the powers and authority of the Church and the pope—made equivalent terms by the decree—are viewed by those whose position and character entitle them to speak knowingly and authoritatively. For the want of such information as this volume, and others of the same kind, contain, multitudes of good-intentioned people, both Protestants and Roman Catholics, are misled.
He attributes the present "spread of false principles," now prevailing in the progressive nations, to two causes:First, "modern civilization;" andsecond, "freedom of conscience," or "the right of private judgment." He considers all who "respect every religion" as guilty of "formal apostasy;" and says that "Catholics certainly are intolerant, and so they ought to be," because "if a Catholic is not intolerant, he is either a hypocrite, or else does not really believe what he professes."[231]He insists that when a contest shall arise "between an ecclesiastical and a lay authority, the Church knows infallibly that it belongs to her to determine the question," not only over "spiritual matters," but "whether the point in dispute be a spiritual matter, or necessarily connected with a spiritual matter." Hence he argues, in explanation, that "therefore the temporal authority must be subordinate to the spiritual;the civil authority, and its rights and powers, must be placed at the absolute disposal of the Church;" that is, the State must obey the pope in whatsoever he shall command or exact. Consequently, says he, "the Church, whose end is the highest end of man,must be preferred before the State; for all States regard only a temporary or earthly end. If, then, we have to avoid animperium in imperio, it is necessary thatthe temporal State should give way to the eternalChurch;" that is, the laws of the Church must be obeyed before those of the State. He is careful to designate the duties of a secular Government like ours as follows: "Let it look to the civil and criminal laws, its army, its trade, its finance, its railways, its screw-frigates, and its telegraphs; but let it not step out of its province, and, like Oza, put forth its hand to hold up the ark of God." To make the Church free, the pope must be absolutely independent, and not "in the power of any Government—with the control of education, and the right to 'administer and dispose of her own property.'" Referring to a free Government, such as that of the United States, he says: "A State which is free from the Church is an atheistical State; it denotes a godless Government and godless laws, ... which knows nothing of any kind of religion, and which, therefore, determines to do without God." In order to avoid confusion, the State must be subordinate to and dependent upon the Church, because, "by separating Church and State, you cut man in two, and make inextricable confusion," and because also "a separation of Church and State is the destruction both of the State and the religion of the people." And so he argues that "the State can not be separated from the Church without commencing its decadence and ruin;" wherefore "the State mustobeythe legitimate authority of the Church, and be in subordination to the Church, so that there may be no clashing of authorities, or conflict of jurisdictions."[232]
He fiercely denounces secret societies, such as the Freemasons, but strangely omits the Jesuits, whose proceedings have always been sheltered behind an impenetrable veil. All such as are not favorable to the papal demands he calls the "slaves of the devil," and represents them as belonging to "the synagogue of Satan," only for the reason that they do not bow their necks to the pontifical yoke—a method of denunciation as persistently indulged in by such writers, as if Christ hadcommanded the passions of hatred and revenge to be cultivated, and not suppressed. Referring to the bulls of Clement IX, Benedict XIV, Pius VII, and Leo XII, excommunicating all who show favor to or harbor them, he declares that any oaths they may take are not binding. He does not base this upon the conclusion that they are not authorized by law, and are merely voluntary, but upon the third canon of the Third Council of Lateran, which applies to all oaths of whatsoever character, and provides that "it isnot an oath, but an act of perjury, when a man swears to do anything against the Church;" as, for example, our oath of naturalization and allegiance, which requires fidelity to heretical institutions, and the maintenance of the atheistical principle, which requires the State to be separated from the Church.[233]
The "liberty and independence of the pope in his spiritual government," he makes to mean "not only the liberty and independence of his own person, but also that of the numerous great dignitaries of the Church who assist him, and of the officials and ministers andemployeesof every order whom he requires, and who are required by the numerous ecclesiastical institutions which surround him, and which extend their operations over the whole world." In this extraordinary and pretentious claim there is no disguise—not even equivocation. All appointed by the pope, including a whole army of employees, of every grade, are to be exempt from the operations of the public laws of all Protestant Governments and answerable alone to the pope! Let the friends of popular government mark well the reason for this universality of the pope's absolute jurisdiction over the world. It is this, that "if any Government were to have jurisdiction over them, except that of the pope alone, or if any Government were able to impede their action, then the pope would have less immunity and freedom of action than an ambassador of the meanest power in the world," because he couldnot compel them to obey his laws and commands—that is, the Canon law—instead of those of the State. And he carries this idea of antagonism between the laws of a State and the Canon laws, to the extent of the excommunication of the former for "sanctioning some antichristian principle;" such, for example, as the separation of Church and State, secular education, or civil marriages. In any of these cases, "that luckless State may find itself confronted by the two hundred million Catholics in the world, and the God of armies, who protect the Church!"[234]And because these "two hundred million Catholics"—which exceeds the actual number by twenty-five million—do not protest against such vain threats as this, the Church authorities interpret their silence to mean approval, and thus they convert their follies of one day into the infatuation of the next, and finally into positive hallucination. This distinguished author furnishes many additional evidences of this—evidences sufficient to convince any unbiased mind, beyond any ground for reasonable doubt, that the Jesuits obtained complete triumph over the pope, and he over the Church.
All independent Governments claim and exercise the right to regulate and manage their own affairs, and when this right is lost, from whatsoever cause, their independence is brought to an end. Yet this author lays it down as a settled principle of ecclesiastical law that the Church—that is, the pope—possesses the exclusive authority to decide its own jurisdiction over spirituals and temporals. After averring that "the Church alone is competent to declare what she is and what belongs to her," he affirms the doctrines announced by the celebrated Syllabus of Pius IX, and charges those who do not accept these teachings with renouncing the only true faith. "The pope," says he, "can not sanction indifferentism orliberty of worship, norcivil marriages, norsecular education; he can not concedeliberty, or rather license, of the press;nor recognizesovereignty of the people; nor admit the necessity of the 'social evil;' nor legalize robbery and murder"—thus placing some of the essential principles of our Government upon a level with the most flagrant crimes. He characterizes "the daily paper" as the "common sewer of human iniquities," and considers popular government such an abomination that the Church must not be silent wheresoever "a false principle—the sovereignty of the people"—shall prevail. Hence, in order to correct these evils and extirpate these heresies, the "priests must enter into politics," because the Church "has a right and duty to meddle in every question, in so far as it is in the moral order"—giving, by way of illustration, "trade, commerce, finance, and military and naval matters." If a State shall do anything to hinder the accomplishment of any of the supernatural ends sought after by the Church, it must be reduced to subordination, as "it is the duty of the superior society to correct it." Hence "religion must of necessity enter into politics, if government is not to become an impossibility." And, surveying the whole field occupied by the modern nations, he admonishes society to avoid a republic, and adds: "Let the form of government be a republic, and you will then endure the horrors of the democracy of '89, or of the Commune of '71; for a nation will assuredly plunge itself into misery as soon as it attemptsto govern itself."[235]
He devotes a chapter to liberty, in which he says "liberty of thought is, in fact, the principle of disorder and uncertainty, and a license to commit every crime." He condemns "liberty of speech," "liberty of the press," "freedom of worship, religious liberty, or equality of Churches," and declares that "freedom of worship, or religious liberty, is a false and pernicious liberty."[236]But being compelled to realize that Roman Catholics are allowed freedom of religious belief and worship in Protestant countries, he finds himself constrained to make an explanation. In doing so, however, he makes a startling exhibition of Romish and Jesuit intolerance, wheresoever the power to enforce it is possessed. What is to follow from his pen should command the most serious attention from all American readers, whatsoever their religion. His book was not written and published under influences favorable to the liberty of the press, but under papal auspices exclusively. It is fairly to be presumed that he was chosen by the proper papal authority for the purpose, and that so far from its having been placed upon the "Prohibitory Index" it has the highest papal sanction. He says:
"Thus it is that Catholics, in some countries, ask for liberty of education, liberty of worship, liberty of speech, liberty of the press, and so forth;not because these are good things, but because, in those countries, the compulsory education, the law for conformity of worship, the press law, etc., enforce thatwhich is far worse. In the Egyptian darkness of error, it is good to obtain a little struggling ray of light. It is better to be on a Cunard steamer than on a raft, but if the steamer was going down the raft would be preferable. So it isrelatively good, in a pagan or heretic country, to obtain liberty of worship, or religious liberty; but that choice no more proves that it is absolutely good, andshould be granted in Catholic countries also, than your getting on a raft in mid-ocean proves that every one, in all cases, should do so.Still less does it follow that, because liberty of worship is demanded in Protestant countries, therefore it should be granted in Catholic countries.To deny religious liberty would be contradictory of the principle of Protestantism, which is the right of private judgment.But the principle of Catholicism is repugnant to a liberty of worship; for the principle of Catholicism is that God has appointed an infallible Teacher of faith and morals."[237]
He proceeds, with marvelous complacency, to argue that Protestants have no right to be intolerant toward RomanCatholics, because "they have no business to imagine that truth is on their side," and "lies and errors have no rights;"[238]but Roman Catholics have a right to be intolerant towards Protestants because truth abides only with them.
The liberty of the press is especially denounced. It is called "the most hurtful of liberties," and restraints and "checks should be imposed upon the press." It is condemned as "a crime," and, it is said, "there is no right to a freedom of the press." In order to prove how hard the popes and Councils have struggled to put a stop to "telling lies in public" by "newspaper editors," he cites the "strict orders" issued by the Lateran Council, under Leo X, that nothing should be published which the bishops did not approve; and the renewal of these orders by the Council of Trent. He then enumerates the following popes, who prescribed rules and injunctions to prevent these commands from being evaded: Alexander VII, Clement VIII, Benedict XIV, Pius VI, Pius VII, Leo XII, Pius VIII, Gregory XVI, the last of whom is represented as saying that "the freedom of the press is 'detestable' and 'execrable;'" and lastly, Pius IX, in the seventy-ninth proposition of his Syllabus.[239]
He expresses the most sovereign contempt for the people and to the principle of fraternity which unites them in a mutual bond for the establishment and maintenance of their own civil and religious liberty. "As dogs have their bark," says he, "and 'brindle cats' their mews, as horses have their neighs and donkeys their brays,so have the populace their cries." He continues: "Dirty democrats overthrow those who are above them, in order to leap into their seats and oppose all other dirty democrats."[240]He condemns the idea of the sovereignty of the people, as it is established in the United States, in the severest terms. Where this maxim prevails, according to him, "no government would be possible," because everything would be in "fearful disorder,"for the reason that "men have always lived in submission," and every society should continue to have "a permanent authority over" it. And as this authority must have its derivation from God, the pope must be this permanent ruler, because he alone represents God. He draws a picture of the people performing the "juggling trick and acrobat feat of functioning the office of sovereign." He mocks at the "supreme wisdom in the legislation of tinkers;" the "far-sighted prudence in the commands of clodpoles, hucksters, and scavengers;" and the "docility and readiness to obey in their beer-wrought, undisciplined minds." Classing all peoples who have established Governments subject to their own will, as included in the false picture he has drawn, he avers "that the people possess no authority, and as they have it not, they can not delegate it." "The sovereignty of the people, on the contrary, is the origin of every sort of evil, and the destruction of the public good or 'commonweal.'" "The people can not ever understand the principles of justice; they have lost, behind their counters, the little sense of right they had."[241]
In the chapter from which these extracts are taken, there are a couple of sentences intentionally passed by as worthy of special notice and comment. They are pregnant with meaning, and especially interesting to us in this country, in view of the fact that Protestants are regarded as rebels against the Church, and are, as a class, still held to be within its jurisdiction, and subject, like sheep that have strayed away, to be brought back into the fold again. These questions are asked:
"If you refuse to recognize the authority of Christ in the Church, how can you expect your subjects to recognize your authority in the State?If it is lawful for you to revolt from the Church, it must be lawful for others to rebel against the State?"[242]
Whilst this does not openly assert the right of Roman Catholics to revolt against Protestantism and Protestant institutions, it not only suggests, but leaves it to be inferred. Everybody knows that Protestantism was the fruit of a revolt against the authority of the Church at Rome. According to this author, and the teachings of that Church, no just rights were thereby acquired, because none can grow out of resistance to its authority. Consequently, Protestantism has no right to exist, and it is the duty of the Church to reduce it to obedience—that is, to destroy it—whensoever it can be accomplished. Hence the suggestions of the author include two propositions: First, that as Protestantism is rebellion against the Church, it has set an example which may be rightfully followed in rebellion against itself; and, second, that if Protestantism has, by its rebellion against the Church, established civil institutions which the Church considers inimical to itself, "it must be lawful" to rebel against such institutions until they shall be made to conform to the interests and welfare of the Church. Hence, as his theories advance, he denies that any such thing asnationality, as understood by all modern peoples, can have any rightful existence, because "it is opposed to the Church's precept of submission to lawful authority;"[243]in other words, it is opposed to the right of the infallible pope to ignore all the boundary-lines of States, and make himself the sovereign and universal dispenser of the governing authority of the world within whatsoever jurisdiction he himself shall define. In the same connection he condemns the doctrine ofnon-interventionamong nations, and insists that it is their duty to interfere with the affairs of each other, for the reason that "Christian charity commands men and nations to come to the rescue of each other."[244]"Mutual help," says he, "is a fundamental duty of Christianity; and therefore non-intervention must be a principle belonging to paganism."[245]This doctrine ismanifestly employed to convince all Roman Catholics throughout the world that it is their duty to bring, not only themselves, but the Governments under which they live, to the point of interfering with the affairs of Italy, by force, if necessary, in order to secure the restoration of the pope's temporal power. In so far as it applies to the United States it advises that our non-intervention laws shall be disregarded, because, in enacting them, the Government usurped a power which did not belong to it, inasmuch as it tends to results prejudicial to the sovereign rights of the pope. In furtherance of the same idea, he strenuously resists the doctrine of what is known asaccomplished facts—what the French callfait accompli; that is, the recognition of the independence and nationality of a Government which has been successful in maintaining itself, as the kingdom of Italy has done, by revolutionary resistance to the arbitrary temporal power of the pope. Therefore, as the present Government of Italy is an "oppressive tyranny," has acquired no rights, but has shown "only crime upon crime in a never-ending chain of iniquities," the "old order of things," with the pope as a temporal monarch, possessed of absolute power to dictate all the laws, should be returned to.[246]
We must follow this author somewhat farther, because, before closing, he reaches a point absolutely vital under civil institutions like those of this country. He devotes over a dozen pages to "liberal Catholics," in order to prove that, as the Church must necessarily be intolerant, liberalism is one of the forms of heresy. "To be Catholic with the pope, and to be liberal with the Government, are contradictory characters; they can not exist in the same subject;"[247]because the former involves that which is true, and the latter that which is false, where the civil constitution does not conform to the papal ideas. Such "liberal Catholics" as "put their faith inliberty of the press, representative government, ministerial responsibility, or the like"—as all foreign-born Roman Catholics who have taken the oath of allegiance to the United States have sworn to do—"betray not only an ignorance or oblivion of what is vital to religion, and of the principles which Christianity requires in Governments and constitutions; but also a most false and pernicious opinion." And in expressing his amazement that there are any in the Church so liberal towards a Government that is entirely secular and not subject to the dictation of the pope, he asks this question: "Is it not a matter of marvel that any one should imagine himself to be a Catholic, while he isliberal with the Government?" He recognizes no authority for the government of society but that of the Church, because conformity to the law of God can be obtained in no other way; and therefore he says: "If this idea of authority is contradicted, counterbalanced, or checkedin the constitution of a country, thenthe Government is founded on a basis which is opposed to reason, to nature, and to the Christian faith." And for this reason, "modern constitutions have therefore put themselves into direct antagonism to the Catholic religion."[248]Consequently, he continues, "every honest man, in every country, now sighs out a new prayer to his litany: From a Legislative Chamber, 'good Lord, deliver us!'"[249]He insists that fidelity to the Church consists in the observance of all the dogmas set forth in the Syllabus of Pius IX, and thus enumerates these important propositions contained in it: The 55th condemning the separation of Church and State; the limitation of the rights of Governments declared by the 67th; the liberty of worship condemned by the 77th; the freedom of the press censured by the 79th; civil marriage reprobated by the 65th to the 74th; secular education, which is called usurpation, proscribed by the 45th to the 48th; oppression of the clergy denounced in the 49th; and "all the principles of liberalism, of progress, and of modern civilization," declared in the80th, "to be irreconcilable with the Catholicism of the pope."[250]