Chapter 19

FOOTNOTES:[272]"A French prelate, commenting upon the text of this discourse, sneered at the simpletons who allowed themselves to be led by a one-eyed man (un borgne). It is well known that the Bishop of Orleans has lost an eye by study."—Ce Qui se Passe au Concile, quoting theMoniteurof March 24.[273]We quote from theCologne Gazette, April 4, 1874, which, quoting thePresse, says, "The Count will remember the walks in the gloaming, and another by the baths of Diocletian, and so will be able to tell where the letters come from."[274]Le Concile, etc., par Mgr. L'Evêque de Grenoble. Paris, 1869.[275]How strong this language was considered in Rome may be judged from what theCiviltásaid of the Minister of Public Instruction, Signor Bonghi: "In the sitting of May 14, 1873, Bonghi, then a private member, dared to say, blaspheming like a true son of Lucifer, 'The Catholic Church has multiplied her dogmas too much'" (IX ix. 242).[276]We have taken the outline of this sitting from theActa Sanctæ Sedis, and in the filling up we have principally followed Friedrich.[277]The Freiburg edition does, p. 162; alsoGuérin, p. 113;Friedberg, p. 461; and theActa Sanctæ Sedis, v. p. 337.[278]V. p. 337.[279]Unitá Cattolica, January 16.[280]Contemporary Review, February 1876.[281]Vol. vi. p. 3: "Cujus causa quasi diceres concilium ipsum, tanta episcoporum frequentia, fuisse convocatum."[282]Tagebuch, p. 108.[283]P. 91; Eng. ver. 61.[284]Documenta, i. 250 ff.;Friedberg, 473 ff.[285]Documenta ad Illustrandum, i. p. 251.[286]Bishop Martin'sCollectio Documentorumgives nearly the same numbers, but seems to omit the American Address. It give Schwarzenberg's note fixing the sum at 136. Dupanloup frequently calls it 140. See his reply to Deschamps.[287]Priv. Pet., iii. p. 27.[288]QuotedTagebuch, p. 155.[289]Tagebuch, p. 155.[290]Ibid.[291]P. 112.[292]Martin's Collection, p. 91.

FOOTNOTES:

[272]"A French prelate, commenting upon the text of this discourse, sneered at the simpletons who allowed themselves to be led by a one-eyed man (un borgne). It is well known that the Bishop of Orleans has lost an eye by study."—Ce Qui se Passe au Concile, quoting theMoniteurof March 24.

[273]We quote from theCologne Gazette, April 4, 1874, which, quoting thePresse, says, "The Count will remember the walks in the gloaming, and another by the baths of Diocletian, and so will be able to tell where the letters come from."

[274]Le Concile, etc., par Mgr. L'Evêque de Grenoble. Paris, 1869.

[275]How strong this language was considered in Rome may be judged from what theCiviltásaid of the Minister of Public Instruction, Signor Bonghi: "In the sitting of May 14, 1873, Bonghi, then a private member, dared to say, blaspheming like a true son of Lucifer, 'The Catholic Church has multiplied her dogmas too much'" (IX ix. 242).

[276]We have taken the outline of this sitting from theActa Sanctæ Sedis, and in the filling up we have principally followed Friedrich.

[277]The Freiburg edition does, p. 162; alsoGuérin, p. 113;Friedberg, p. 461; and theActa Sanctæ Sedis, v. p. 337.

[278]V. p. 337.

[279]Unitá Cattolica, January 16.

[280]Contemporary Review, February 1876.

[281]Vol. vi. p. 3: "Cujus causa quasi diceres concilium ipsum, tanta episcoporum frequentia, fuisse convocatum."

[282]Tagebuch, p. 108.

[283]P. 91; Eng. ver. 61.

[284]Documenta, i. 250 ff.;Friedberg, 473 ff.

[285]Documenta ad Illustrandum, i. p. 251.

[286]Bishop Martin'sCollectio Documentorumgives nearly the same numbers, but seems to omit the American Address. It give Schwarzenberg's note fixing the sum at 136. Dupanloup frequently calls it 140. See his reply to Deschamps.

[287]Priv. Pet., iii. p. 27.

[288]QuotedTagebuch, p. 155.

[289]Tagebuch, p. 155.

[290]Ibid.

[291]P. 112.

[292]Martin's Collection, p. 91.

CHAPTER VII

Matters of Discipline—Remarks of Friedrich on the Morals of the Clergy—Also on the War against Modern Constitutions—Morality of recent Jesuit Teaching—Darboy's Speech—Melcher's Speech—A Dinner Party of Fallibilists—One of Infallibilists—Gratry—Debate on the Morals of the Clergy.

TheDraft Decrees on discipline now in the hands of the bishops affected their remaining rights. It had taken three hundred years to develop the practical effects of the legislation of Trent in curtailing those rights. Paolo Sarpi may say that the prelates entered Trent as bishops and left it as parsons; but it was long before new regulations had worn down old procedure so far that an Archbishop of Paris, for instance, could be treated in the manner in which we have seen Darboy treated. The bishops, however, now feared, says Vitelleschi, lest their office should be further mutilated.

According to Friedrich (p. 88), when, at one of the first meetings of the German and Hungarian prelates, Strossmayer said that the matter before them was the resignation of their collective rights and the centring of the whole in the hands of the Pope, he was ridiculed; but when he repeated that statement, on Saturday, January 8, it was received with universal assent. On the other hand, Roman ecclesiastics were alarmed at the pretensions of the bishops. Two Dominicans begged Cardinal Hohenlohe to use his influence to prevent the Germans from speaking as extravagantly as the French. "It is really frightful," they said; "what is to become of Rome? These bishops want spiritual decentralization." Friedrich now thinks that he begins to see what is the religious principle of the Roman clergy—domination, as a means of existence. The bearing of this remark on spiritual decentralization restson the fact that spiritual causes referred to Rome bring money to the bureaux, and the bureaucracy are the clergy.

The professional observations of Friedrich on the Drafts touching discipline give insight into certain interior aspects of Romanism, which affect not only its own condition, but, through it, affect all society. We therefore let him speak directly (p. 89 ff.)—

The first chapter on the Office of a Bishop closes so abruptly that only at the end is it said that bishops must be examples for the flock. It is, however, praiseworthy that they are told to take the lead of the faithful even in knowledge. Alas for this pious wish: It will be as it has been! Further on, the words "let ecclesiastical discipline be maintained" strike the eye, and that in respect of themulieres subintroductæ, or γυναἱκες σονεἱσακτοι, in which character the parsonage cooks appear. This regulation is the most insulting imaginable; the most degrading for the parish priest, the most lowering and humiliating for the curates; altogether a dark spot in Church life. No regulation stands in such glaring contrast with Canons and Councils. It is a great offence against Christian morality, by which it is forbidden that any one should be placed in proximate occasion of sin; but in this manner the independence of a clergyman, and the placing of him in proximate occasion of sin, are connected together. The Fathers of the Council must themselves say whether this is or is not the greatest of cankers in the life of the clergy. They can tell whether it is necessary to direct the attention of the Council to this sore spot. One of the Fathers of the Council himself told me that he once spent a night in a parsonage where the rural dean (Dechant) and the cook were parents of both curates. It is said in the Draft,De vita et honestate clericorum: "If a clergyman, unmindful of his own dignity, is given to immodest defilements or to impure concubinage, or dares either in his house or elsewhere to have a woman of whom suspicion may be entertained, or to seek her company, let him be proceeded against, with the penalties prescribed by the sacred Canons, especially by the Council of Trent, and that without noise or the forms of a trial, only by simple inquiry into the truth of the facts." But what will this avail? Those directions have long existed, yet things go on as of old, and any such directions must necessarily be insufficient. Why is not the regulation of the ancient Church once more taken up, and carried through with a firm hand, according to which every woman, except nearest relations, was suspected, and was not to be admitted to the house of a clergyman? If our Church-princes ofto-day will not return to the old regulation, which indeed sufficed not to hinder all excesses, and if they are incapable of finding new and better ones, it would be preferable, at all events, and would involve less responsibility for them, if they allowed their clergy to marry outright rather than give them up to arrangements which place their reputation in so ambiguous a light. The fact that this subject had to be brought forward here in its regular place is sad enough, and should be taken as proof that we cannot go on in the present way. Has it not already come to this, in certain dioceses, that the bishops find themselves obliged to hush up, rather than to punish?Further on, in the same chapter, it is said, "While they preach to the people due reverence and obedience towards the powers of this world, let them all with one mind and heart, taking counsel together and uniting their deliberations and strength, earnestly maintain the rights of the Church and of this Holy See, so that their common guard and defence may more perfectly assure the interests of the common cause; but let them admit of nothing which will lower the honour and dignity of their rank, and let them keep the admonitions of the Council of Trent on this point under their eye." These sentences are doubtless well meant; but, practically, will be without result. Nothing is gained by such general propositions. This being self-evident, nothing should be said in Decrees of a Council beyond the laying down of positive directions. The conclusion of the chapter is vague, but, perhaps, very dangerous. "We require princes and magistrates to cover and protect the sacred chief pastors (antistites) and ministers of the Church, and their most excellent work, with their powerful patronage and defence,that due honour, respect, and obedience may be paid by all to the ecclesiastical authority. Knowing that bishops promote not only the cause of the Church, but also that of their nations, and that above all the boldness and wickedness of men who perversely seek to mislead minds and corrupt manners may be restrained and constrained by them in the exercise of their pastoral office."First of all, what is meant here by most excellent or highest work (optimum operant)? who are included inby all(ab omnibus)? Not only is honour to be paid to the spiritual authority by all, but obedience. According to the notes,by allincludes princes and nations; that by the Council princes and nations may be moved to venerate the sacred pastors, and to render them obedience and reverence. Are we to understand that the unbelievers and misbelievers in a State are to pay obedience to the bishops? Does this wrap up the mediæval notion that heretics after all are underthe jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, as Bishop Martin lately gave himself out as the bishop of the heretics in his diocese? Also that unbelievers have no moral right of existence, and so on? And what is meant by the concluding words? Do they imply that the bishops have a right of interfering with the freedom of the press, of belief, and of conscience as granted by modern constitutions? A General Council should speak clearly and definitely.[293]But who would have believed that in the second chapter on the Residence of Bishops a condemnation of the constitutional usages of modern times should be attempted, even indirectly? It provides that bishops must not be absent from their sees more than two, or at the utmost three, months in a year, whether continuously or at intervals. Such absence cannot be allowed even for causes otherwise admitted as lawful—alias jure admissis—except by express permission of the Pope, or, in the United Greek Churches without the permission of the Patriarch. One is here compelled to ask, Could not those cases have been foreseen in which seats in Upper Houses are permanently connected with many bishoprics. Why this needless increase of requests for dispensation? But, according to theCiviltá Cattolica, it is only as compelled by existing circumstances that bishops can properly take part in the objectionable constitutional life. It is said in the notes that the necessity of an express apostolic permission is to be remembered as being even now required by the constitution of Boniface VIII—Sancta synodus—even if there exists one of the four grounds of absence admitted as legitimate by the Council of Trent in its twenty-third session. These four grounds were, visiting the thresholds of the apostles (i.e.Rome), attending provincial synods, attending a General Assembly in which ecclesiastics are wont to sit, or discharging an office or duty to the State connected with the Churches themselves. But (says the note) because the Decrees of Urban VIII contemplate assemblies of a kind which do not at present exist, mention of this as a just cause of absence was omitted in the Decree, in which also was omitted, for a similar reason, mention of discharging an office or duty to the State. Thus the Chambers which have taken the place of those ancient assemblies do notexist for the Curia, or it feels bound to ignore them—quite in harmony with Jesuit fantasies. Should the session of the Chamber last more than three months, those Bavarian bishops who are members of the Reichsrath would require an express permission from the Pope to fulfil their duty to the State. They might receive from the Pope a prohibition against staying any longer at the Reichsrath and fulfilling their obligations as citizens. Very edifying for our governments and States! They, however, would know how to help themselves, and would simply withdraw such a seat from the bishop.

Further on, in the same chapter, it is said, "While they preach to the people due reverence and obedience towards the powers of this world, let them all with one mind and heart, taking counsel together and uniting their deliberations and strength, earnestly maintain the rights of the Church and of this Holy See, so that their common guard and defence may more perfectly assure the interests of the common cause; but let them admit of nothing which will lower the honour and dignity of their rank, and let them keep the admonitions of the Council of Trent on this point under their eye." These sentences are doubtless well meant; but, practically, will be without result. Nothing is gained by such general propositions. This being self-evident, nothing should be said in Decrees of a Council beyond the laying down of positive directions. The conclusion of the chapter is vague, but, perhaps, very dangerous. "We require princes and magistrates to cover and protect the sacred chief pastors (antistites) and ministers of the Church, and their most excellent work, with their powerful patronage and defence,that due honour, respect, and obedience may be paid by all to the ecclesiastical authority. Knowing that bishops promote not only the cause of the Church, but also that of their nations, and that above all the boldness and wickedness of men who perversely seek to mislead minds and corrupt manners may be restrained and constrained by them in the exercise of their pastoral office."

First of all, what is meant here by most excellent or highest work (optimum operant)? who are included inby all(ab omnibus)? Not only is honour to be paid to the spiritual authority by all, but obedience. According to the notes,by allincludes princes and nations; that by the Council princes and nations may be moved to venerate the sacred pastors, and to render them obedience and reverence. Are we to understand that the unbelievers and misbelievers in a State are to pay obedience to the bishops? Does this wrap up the mediæval notion that heretics after all are underthe jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, as Bishop Martin lately gave himself out as the bishop of the heretics in his diocese? Also that unbelievers have no moral right of existence, and so on? And what is meant by the concluding words? Do they imply that the bishops have a right of interfering with the freedom of the press, of belief, and of conscience as granted by modern constitutions? A General Council should speak clearly and definitely.[293]

But who would have believed that in the second chapter on the Residence of Bishops a condemnation of the constitutional usages of modern times should be attempted, even indirectly? It provides that bishops must not be absent from their sees more than two, or at the utmost three, months in a year, whether continuously or at intervals. Such absence cannot be allowed even for causes otherwise admitted as lawful—alias jure admissis—except by express permission of the Pope, or, in the United Greek Churches without the permission of the Patriarch. One is here compelled to ask, Could not those cases have been foreseen in which seats in Upper Houses are permanently connected with many bishoprics. Why this needless increase of requests for dispensation? But, according to theCiviltá Cattolica, it is only as compelled by existing circumstances that bishops can properly take part in the objectionable constitutional life. It is said in the notes that the necessity of an express apostolic permission is to be remembered as being even now required by the constitution of Boniface VIII—Sancta synodus—even if there exists one of the four grounds of absence admitted as legitimate by the Council of Trent in its twenty-third session. These four grounds were, visiting the thresholds of the apostles (i.e.Rome), attending provincial synods, attending a General Assembly in which ecclesiastics are wont to sit, or discharging an office or duty to the State connected with the Churches themselves. But (says the note) because the Decrees of Urban VIII contemplate assemblies of a kind which do not at present exist, mention of this as a just cause of absence was omitted in the Decree, in which also was omitted, for a similar reason, mention of discharging an office or duty to the State. Thus the Chambers which have taken the place of those ancient assemblies do notexist for the Curia, or it feels bound to ignore them—quite in harmony with Jesuit fantasies. Should the session of the Chamber last more than three months, those Bavarian bishops who are members of the Reichsrath would require an express permission from the Pope to fulfil their duty to the State. They might receive from the Pope a prohibition against staying any longer at the Reichsrath and fulfilling their obligations as citizens. Very edifying for our governments and States! They, however, would know how to help themselves, and would simply withdraw such a seat from the bishop.

Friedrich then dwells on the new contrivance of centralization by which every metropolitan is ordered, before publishing the acts of a Provincial Synod, to send them to Rome. The Curia is not to give them any formal approbation, but tocorrect them, should anything seem to call for correction. After this they are to be issued as the acts of the Provincial Synod. To execute this feat of shaping provincial decrees within the chambers of the Curia, Pius IX had appointed a new Board or Congregation. Friedrich calls this a new censorship. That would appear to mean that whereas formerly only private authors required animprimatur, now even the collective episcopate of a province requires one. It would, however, seem to involve more than a censorship, because the new matter inserted in Rome has to go before the world under the provincial names. Authors were not compelled to father the corrections of the censor. They could leave the work unpublished.

That sense of impending danger to the Church which, of late years, had weighed on many Catholics, arose not a little from the moral teaching of the Jesuits, whose influence, under the smile of the Pope, they saw gradually rising. Out of regard for the honour of the Church, many Roman Catholics suppressed the horror they felt at what they discovered in the books of the Jesuits. Only those who have read some books—those which reflect the modern phases of their moral teaching—can appreciate the weight that must have lain on the hearts of some good men when striving to uphold before their imagination the Church as the perfection of beauty. Among thedisciples of the Church of Rome are many who hold close to the Christian side of her theology, and seem to forget its Pagan side; many who avoid what is material in her cult, and, by aid of that same theology, cherish spiritual worship; many who turn to the noble morals of the Gospel, from the lower and ever deteriorating morals of the schools; and many to whom the secular spirit of the Papacy and the earthly empire aimed at by the Jesuits are repugnant.

Friedrich learned, in Rome, that those who confess to the Jesuits are not to be trusted. Any one who will read even one hundred pages out of the seven hundred of Gury'sCasus Conscientiæwould not think of trusting—would only think of pitying any creature into whose head the principles of that bad book had been put. Friedrich evidently does not repeat any light talk when he says that he heard it stated, upon good authority, that the Jesuits in Rome were in the habit of employing women as lures to procure the overthrow of men who stood in their way, which women would then return to the Jesuit confessionals as penitent Magdalenes; and this, he adds, the Pope knows right well. When Vitelleschi speaks of the evils arising from severity against errors of the intellect, and indulgence to errors of the will, he means what we should describe as strictness as to Papal principles, and laxity as to moral practices.

According to Vitelleschi, Darboy had only to stretch out his hand to take a Cardinal's hat. The impression that this was the case, and the terms on which he was known to stand with the Curia, gave great interest to his first appearance in the desk, which took place on January 19. How gladly would the Curia have seen him stretch forth his hand in the direction where the hat hung; but no, he reached it out in that direction where he had only reproaches to gather.[294]

We are told that we are not to make long speeches, but I have a great deal to say. We are told again not to repeat what has been said by others; but at the same time we are kept shut up in thisHall, where for the most part we cannot understand one another; we are not allowed to examine the stenographic reports of our speeches, and the only answer made to our representations is always the same, "The Pope wills it." I do not know, therefore, what has been said by the speakers who have preceded me.

He then went on to speak of the rights of the bishops, of their degradation by the Roman centralizing system, of "the caves wherein the Roman doctors have buried themselves from the light of day," etc. Two sayings are ascribed to him after this speech. The first, "Like Condé, I have thrown my marshal's baton into the midst of the enemy;" and the second, "This Hall is deaf, dumb, and blind." Hard as it was for the Curia to listen to Darboy, with his diocese of two millions of nominal Catholics, it is said that they were even more pained by the language of Melchers of Cologne, whose diocese counted one million, and from whom animadversions were not expected. The fear of the French troops forsaking Rome saved the Archbishop of Paris from the tinkling of the mystic bell; but it arrested the metropolitan of the Rhine Province.

Melchers strongly objected to the increase of centralization in Rome, and advocated decentralization. He declared that, as now employed, dispensations from Rome were not necessary. Cardinal De Luca interrupted him, and told him that he was not speaking to the point, and that he must send his proposals to the Commission. He replied that he had sent his proposals to Rome long ago, and had received no answer; and then proceeded with his speech. An attack on centralization and on dispensations, from such a prelate, was a practical matter in Rome, as much as in Manchester would be a movement to cut off all the customers in some great county.

On January 23 and 24, Cardinal Hohenlohe gave two dinner parties—the first to Fallibilists, and the second to Infallibilists. At the former, Hefele, who now reappears on the scene, no longer as theologian, but as Bishop of Rottenburg, complained that he had lost the important sitting of that morning through an order from Cardinal Antonelli to attend the baptism of a child of the ex-Duke of Parma, which eleven other prelateswho like him had apartments in the Quirinal were also obliged to attend, and at which six Cardinals gave their presence.

Archbishop Melchers of Cologne did not flatter Friedrich by telling him, what he already knew, that his Grace had forbidden his theological students to go to the faculty at Munich. His Grace, says Friedrich, did know the name of Döllinger, but not that of Reithmayer; and as to those of the younger professors, not the name of one. The Archbishop of Munich was not able to resist the temptation of telling Friedrich, as a good story, that when the bishops at Fulda, in the previous autumn, spoke of recommending Friedrich's Church History to the clergy, as a work which they ought to procure, his Grace of Cologne confessed that he did not know the name of the book. The pendant which the author archly hangs to this tale is, that when the copy of that work which he had presented to his Grace of Munich fell, after some years, again into his hands, it had never been opened.

Bishop Förster of Breslau mentioned how Ketteler was going to propose, in the meeting of German and Hungarian prelates, that they should disavow the letters in theAugsburg Gazette; but, said Förster, we stand too high, and besides, the letters contain too many truths. Some one at table threw out the idea that the best thing to be done would be to give the Drafts of Decrees to the bishops, and let them go home and study them for a year or two, and then return and discuss them. They had come to Rome without books. Points of the greatest gravity in doctrine and discipline were laid before them for decision, and, as every one knew, it was difficult to find help in the libraries of Rome. Even that of the Vatican was closed, not only upon every holy day, but also on all those days on which General Congregations were held. The bishops were not allowed to take either books or manuscripts out of the libraries; still more, both in the Vatican library and the Vatican archives, the order had been given that nothing bearing on the Council should be delivered to them. Their regret at this was lessened by the discovery that the libraries contained scarcely any modern theological works, especially Germanones. In his day, Addison remarked that books were not the attractions you went to see in an Italian library. But, of recent years, a real library of books, in addition to the old celebrated one of manuscripts, had been added at the Vatican. It was not catalogued, and was not open to the public. Some one in the company stated that it was now understood that theologians were to be brought into the Council in order to defend the Drafts of Decrees. So far as theTheologi Minores, or doctors, were concerned, Friedrich thought this improbable; and as to the higher theologians, or bishops, he wondered who they were to be. Can any one fancy, he said, such a man as Senestrey being treated as a theologian? At Trent, with the ideas then prevailing of what constituted a theologian, he would not have been dreamed of; but he passes in Rome as learned because he is a pupil and a favourite of the Jesuits; and by their standard, indeed, adds his countryman, he may even pass as holy, understanding so well as he does the principle that the end sanctifies the means.

As to what Friedrich next relates, we can only say that the ascertained fact for history, in her present stage, is that the following are things which a learned professor, with a position and character to take care of, deliberately publishes, things which the gravest men receive. Friedrich relates how when Senestrey was seeking the bishopric, King Maximilian II was in Rome, and often visited Theiner, whose fame all Germans prized. His rooms in the Vatican, off theVia dei Giardini Pontificali, well known to scholars, are often pointed out to visitors going up towards the sculpture gallery by the present circuitous approach. Here the royal visitor would chat with the learned Prefect of the Archives, and enjoy the landscape. At that time Theiner had no better friend than Senestrey, who, knowing that Theiner was in bad odour with the Jesuits, showed himself very hostile to them, so that even his experienced friend confessed to Friedrich that he had allowed himself to be deceived. This Roman tale is followed by a Bavarian one. A person well acquainted with official circles told Friedrich that Senestrey actually offered his services to the government, sayingthat if appointed bishop, in case the other prelates ever entertained anything disagreeable to the government, he would give information and do everything to counterwork them. In January, 1872, Friedrich heard Senestrey named in a company where one was present who had been a companion of King Maximilian II on his journey to Rome, and who broke out saying—

Yes, that man talked so much in Rome to King Maximilian II and his suite against the Jesuits and against the misgovernment of Rome, that the King said, That is the right man! He must be the bishop!

No sooner was he in the bishopric than it proved that the king had lost his subject, the government its supporter, Theiner his friend, and that the whole of Senestrey belonged to the Jesuits.

The company of the second day, January 24, consisted of Infallibilists. Before dinner Friedrich was introduced to Senestrey, who looking at him, said roughly, "So you are Professor Friedrich," and turned his back. At table Ketteler broke out in loud denunciation of the letters of Quirinus. This Friedrich knew was meant for him, for although the bishop has since then laid the sin at the door of Lord Acton, he seems at that time to have suspected Friedrich. He blamed a statement that a certain piece of distinctive attire, not worn by any other bishop in the West, had been granted to Bishop Lavigerie of Algiers to adorn his shoulders, as a means of winning his vote; as if, said Ketteler, the whole episcopate was to be bought by a bit of dress! We do not remember that Quirinus said that they were all to be bought by it. Our impression is that he only said something to the effect that it was incredible how far that sort of thing did go with them. Considering their training and habits, with us the thing incredible would be that things of that sort should not go far with them. And their constant study is to make things of that sort go far with all mankind. But the sally of Ketteler was responded to by the Military Bishop of Prussia, Namszanowski, who might be supposed to be even more than others susceptible of colourand decoration. He, evidently not being well read in Quirinus, missed the point of Ketteler's protest, and said, "Quite right, brother of Mainz. The same offer was made to me just at the outset, but I repelled such an imputation with contempt." This luckless reply probably made Friedrich think of his own visit from the much-vested Count Prelate W——. The eye of Ketteler flashed. Friedrich, who sat next to Namszanowski, hinted that he had missed the point of Bishop Ketteler, who ranted on—tobte weiter. When he had finished his tirade he looked Friedrich in the eye, as if to see whether he was not well abashed. "But I had no occasion to fear Ketteler, and looked him in the eye quite as sharply." Just after coffee the voice of Ketteler made the room ring,—"The chief advantage of the Council so far is, that the bishops learn to know one another, and to compare experience. For in his own diocese, of course, a bishop never hears the truth from his clergy, in consequence of his immeasurably higher jurisdiction." Friedrich, being the only priest present, said to Namszanowski, "Ketteler must lead a pretty regiment, when his clergy dare not tell him the truth. Any one who wants to hear the truth, and can bear to hear it, will hear it." He added that were it not for the impropriety of provoking a scene in the house of Cardinal Hohenlohe, he would indignantly repel this insult to the whole of the lower clergy. None of the bishops intimated any dissent from the view of Ketteler, while Senestrey, and Leonrod of Eichstädt, simpered approbation. But here Friedrich inserts a note saying, Time has shown that Ketteler knew the lower clergy better than I did.

Just at this time came another token that the content or indifference with which the Roman Catholic world watched the impending change in its Church and creed was broken in exceptional cases. An accomplished French oratorian, a member of the Academy, Father Gratry, published a letter on January 18, which in almost any other country than France, coming from such a man on such a subject, at such a moment, would have caused, not a passing talk, but a profound impression. All the abuse was no longer for Döllinger and Montalembert. Father Gratry had a share allotted to him, sufficient to prove his importance. "Does God need your lies?" was a question he repeated with solemnity, as he dwelt on the false decretals and on the falsifications even of the breviary. His French clearness and point sent these reproaches home so as to be extremely cutting. It seemed as if accusing "the Church" of lying and forgery was a sin not to be forgiven. Few things were more discouraging for those who hoped that moral ground still remained for a reformation within the Church of Rome, than the perfect ease with which the benefits of the lying and the forgery were accepted, and the fury with which the crime of mentioning those incidents was denounced. "False decretals as much as you like," said Veuillot, "but the sense of the false decretals is the faith of the Church";[295]so, if God had not needed the lies the Church had assimilated them. Father Gratry, said theCiviltá, never tires of calling the school which teaches pontifical infallibility, a school of error. Does he know where that school has fixed its abode, and holds its chair? If he does not know, we shall tell him. "Its home is Rome, its chair is that of the Roman Pontiff, is that of St. Peter."[296]Father Hyacinth said, at a later time, "God never has need of lies, but lies often have need of God, and they are never so powerful as when they present themselves in His name."[297]

Still, the weight of wrath continued to fall upon the original offender. TheUnitá Cattolicaof January 25, in the letter of its Munich correspondent, called Döllinger a bag of wind and a whited sepulchre, and suggested that the Archbishop of Munich should prohibit theological students from attending his classes. TheUnitáshows that Dr. Döllinger in his works "has always hidden a rebellious spirit under a learning which was often that of a charlatan."

In the General Congregation of the 21st, as the Cyprian Archbishop who said Mass used the Oriental rite, the Fathers wouldhave been unable to follow, but the Master of the Ceremonies, lifting up his voice, gave a signal for each important movement.[298]In the Congregation of the Monday, Strossmayer spoke for an hour and a quarter (Tagebuch, p. 133). He insisted that reform was called for, and reform from the Pope downwards, and moreover that the whole of the canon law should be reformed. On the following Tuesday, this last proposition was supported by the Bishop of Saluzzo. On the same day, a speaker not named regretted that the word "concubinage" should have been used, as it gave occasion to the world to say that celibacy was a failure. Friedrich, while vehemently sharing this regret, admits that no means were suggested for doing away with concubinage or immorality. The Curia, however, could not be blamed for the scandal caused by the discussion on this matter of discipline. No one of the official organs ever breathed a word on the subject. Monsignor Guérin, whose history, says the preface to the second edition, reproduces the Council entire, might never have heard of this subject, and the same is the case with Sambin. TheActa Sanctæ Sedis, even in Latin, are equally reserved. The title of the Draft Decree on the general subject of the life of the clergy is mentioned inFrond. Henceforth we cease to be able to check the statements of the unauthorized writers by those of theActa Sanctæ Sedisas to the names of those who spoke on given days. That amount of information was no more afforded. One day the record was that five spoke, another seven, and so forth. Who the speakers were, what they spoke upon, what they said about it, were matters swallowed up in the pontifical secret.

On the same day, the challenge to the College of Cardinals to reform itself was taken up by Cardinal Di Pietro, who admitted that such a demand might have been reasonable at Trent, at which time the Cardinals held many pluralities, but at the present day it was groundless. The only reform now called for was a financial one, as the revenue of the Cardinals was not adequate. He told the Fathers that if they only knew all,the Cardinals were not to be envied. This even Friedrich admits, saying that not once during the Council had the Pope summoned them to hear their opinions.

On January 27, Simor, Primate of Hungary, spoke on the life of the clergy, and recommended the "common life." Martin of Paderborn also advised that the cooks[299]should be superseded, and that "common life" should be resorted to. Martin had appealed to Cardinal Hohenlohe to support him in a proposal that Protestant clergymen who wanted to join the Church of Rome should have both marriage and the cup in the Lord's Supper conceded to them. Verot, Bishop of Savannah, spoke on the breviary. He urged revision, stating that he durst not, without subjecting himself to condemnation, say what was in the breviary from Augustine. Hereupon the bell of Cardinal De Angelis rang loudly, and Verot was told that the Fathers could not be spoken of in that manner. As we understand Verot, he had not found fault with the Fathers. The sons would not allow one another to say what the fathers had said. The American waited a moment, went on, and said the same thing of Gregory the Great. Now came a second call to order, and he was told that if he would not speak on another subject, he must leave the desk. So, after a few words more, he did leave it (Tagebuch, p. 138). The Prince Archbishop of Olmütz asked if the Primate of Hungary was ready to lead the "common life" with the canons of his chapter, adding that he should not object to lead it with his own chapter, but he feared that the canons of Olmütz would object. The following day, Melchers of Cologne supported the views of Verot as to the breviary. He censured the proposal to introduce lay brothers into the parsonages instead of the cooks. It would be better it the latter could be altogether got rid of; but as that was scarcely to be expected, it would be well to require that they should be fifty years of age, or at least forty. On January 31, Bishop Dinkel of Augsburg is said to have spokenagainst concubinage in the strict sense, but allowing it to the clergy in a wider sense.[300]

Perhaps, as, about the middle of January, men in theEnglisher Garten, or Park, of Munich, lifted their hats to the Provost as he took his afternoon walks, they might fancy that the spare figure was weighted with rather more than a scholar's gravity. Neither the passing carriages, nor the raceof Isar rolling rapidly; neither the fine effects of the westering sun behind the steeples of the city, nor the pleasant view from the brow beyond the river, could fix the old man's well-lighted eye. That eye was then watching the process which was putting the faith and labour of seventy years to a cruel test. The Church he had toiled to rehabilitate before the intellect of the Fatherland, striving, by letters, to connect her more firmly with the past, and to equip her more nobly for the future, had been cast into the cauldron. The very basis of dogma was to be changed. A new standard was to be set up. The adoption of that standard would change the relation of the Church to the Bible and to the Fathers, to General Councils and to the Episcopate, to the people and the king, to letters and all lights, to liberties, constitutions, and every human hope. Principles which had been charged upon them by Protestants, and which they had resented, saying that the accusers confounded opinion with dogma, were now lifting their heads in a General Council. He had striven in silence to avert the evil without raising a conflict of persons or names. But now the Infallibilists felt their conscience oppressed by having to recognize him, and those like-minded with him, as Catholics. They could not enjoy the fulness of their own belief as long as the Church tolerated his creed. And the Infallibilists were the Pope, the Curia, the Jesuits, and the majority of the bishops, at least of the nominal ones. If there was yet a hope, it rested in the strong help which God often gives to the effort of one self-risking man. The moment was come either to run all hazardsand trust to that blessing, or to float down the stream like one of those winter leaves on the Isar.

It was on January 19, just when Gratry was issuing the first of his letters, and when Darboy threw his marshal's baton into the midst of the enemy, that in the quiet house in Von der Tann Street, the formidable name of Döllinger was signed to a protest against the Infallibilist Address. Through theAugsburg Gazette, this presently rang all over Germany, and a little later echoed in every corner of Europe. "One hundred and eighty millions of human beings are to be compelled by threats of exclusion from the Church, of privation of the sacraments, and of eternal damnation, to believe and profess what hitherto the Church has never believed or taught." So began an appeal destined to elicit proof that large numbers of educated Roman Catholics, under all their external quiet, were agitated; and that at the same time the masses, whatever little opinions they might have, were as to action completely under the dominion of the priests.[301]

It was now that Dupanloup wrote a letter to Deschamps, Archbishop of Malines. Two days after the opening session, Deschamps had published a reply to the famous pastoral of Dupanloup. It was at once inserted in the journals of Belgium, France, and Italy. Dupanloup, who had in France professed to expect in Rome profound tranquillity, found himself sharply attacked. He had warily reserved the merits of the question for argument in the secret ear of the Council, treating before the public only its accidents. But, cried Deschamps, you have pointed out the difficulties of a definition: how could you have the courage to do so?

When the brilliant Bishop of Orleans was ready for the press, he found that the press was in good keeping.

Father Spada [the censor] told me that animprimaturwas necessary, and at the same time said that such animprimaturwould be refused to me. Perhaps, Monsignor, you probably will think with me that, in these circumstances, all discussion between us is impossible; and you will feel it natural that I should preserve the silence befitting the position in which we are placed.[302]

The French thus saw their own prelates, under their own flag, deprived of the right to defend opinions identified with their national history. This fired Gratry, and added fresh bitters to the cup of the dying Montalembert.

Quirinus says (p. 201)—

The word "freedom" has nowhere so ill a sound as at Rome. Only one kind of freedom can be spoken of here—freedom of the Church; and, in their favourite and accustomed manner of speech, by the Church is intended the Pope; and by freedom, dominion over the State, according to the Decretals.

Some weeks later, Dupanloup did print his reply in Paris.[303]You, he said to Deschamps, ask how I could have the courage to point to the historical difficulties of a definition of infallibility; but, my dear Lord, I ask you, how you can have the courage to close your eyes to them? Repelling the idea of acclamation, and insisting on a thorough sifting of the matter, he says, and the emphases are his own—

The Church in an act so solemn, one which she never recalls,one which pledges her for ever, one which, under pain of anathema and of damnation eternal, is laid upon the faith of all souls for all ages, does not proceed inconsiderately, or without having elucidated all obscurities and difficulties (p. 8).... As to the truth of the doctrine, I reserve the discussion of that for the Council itself, in case the question is brought on (p. 9).... You belong not to that deplorable school of apologists who fancy that they are defending religion when they make history lie (p. 15).

He shows how even Spalding and his associates in their proposal for a method of establishing belief in infallibility different from an express definition, said that such a definition would

extend its effects to all past centuries, would revive all the disputes heretofore allayed, would afford to Protestant and to rationalistic science a new battle-field, and would open up to the enemies,of the Church a discussion upon the whole field of history, and the whole of the collection of Papal Bulls (p. 14). Quoting Melchior Canus, he says: Peter has not need of your lies, or of your adulations.... To no one, my Lord, will it be agreeable in Rome, and amid the difficult circumstances wherein we stand, to engage in a discussion as to the common Father, in an investigation of the most delicate facts of history, and in a dissection of texts of Scripture before Europe and before the world which are observing us (p. 16).... The Fathers at Nicæa did not proceed by way of a summary discussion, much less by way of acclamation written or oral (p. 17).

A few other expressions of Dupanloup may be recited—

Far from putting an end to the discussions in the press, it will cause them to break out more terrible than ever.... If the difficulties, theological and historical, of a definition are such that simply exhibiting them as I did involves by inevitable consequence a grave attack on infallibility itself, how could you say that the difficulties are nothing?... You had the confident idea that nearly all the Fathers were with you, and were going enthusiastically to vote the definition off-hand (p. 18).... Certainly in the Church there must be an infallible doctrinal authority; but is it necessary that this authority should be the Popealone? Would it not suffice if it was the authority of the Pope and the bishops united? (p. 20).... I asked why Pitt thought it well before taking a step towards Catholic emancipation to consult the most famous Catholic universities of Europe on the question of the pontifical power. You have deemed it well to answer not a word (p. 23).... In the ninth century we lost about one-half of the Church; in the sixteenth at least a third of the other half. At the present moment perhaps a half of what remains is more or less broken in upon (entamée). We have to reconquer.... Would you all at once, as several bishops from America said to me yesterday, change for the whole of the Catholic clergy who live in the midst of Protestant populations the entire ground of religious controversy? (p. 24).... In France, the Parliament, the Senate, the Legislative Corps, the Councils of State, the public officers, the bench, the bar, the young collegians, the army, the navy, commerce, finance, the arts, the liberal professions, the workmen of the cities, the electors in the country districts, the great mass of those who with us and elsewhere determine the course of affairs,—in a word, the nation, assuredly is not with you (p. 25).... Have you not heard the cry of the bishops of Germany, Hungary, Bohemia, and of somany others? (p. 25).... Three centuries ago a wave passed over Germany, a wave over England, Holland, Switzerland; and at this hour the wave has not subsided, but is still encroaching on the shore (p. 26).... Brazil is sick, Mexico is sick, the old Spanish colonies proceed from revolution to revolution, and it is my mournful conviction that what you, my Lord, are preparing, will give to the Church in all those countries a new and terrible shaking (p. 26).... Some say the great evil of our day is that the principle of authority is laid low. Let us exalt it in the Church, and we shall save society.... To think that by proclaiming the infallibility of the Pope you will roll back the revolution is, to my view, one of those illusions which sometimes, in human societies, desperate parties make for themselves on the eve of a supreme crisis (p. 27).

His statement of the condition of things before he first wrote would appear to be meant to depict what existed in Rome as he was now writing—

No, it was not unanimity as to the question debated among us which reigned ere I spoke. It was on the one side violence, and on the other side astonishment, silent and downcast. If any voice was raised, speedily was it covered with clamours and insults (p. 31).

This reply called down from Veuillot many pages of taunts, gibes, and sneers.

Means of humiliating the bishops of the Opposition were found by the sovereign, which seem new in both kingly and parliamentary warfare. Priests wrote against them, and the Pope sent to those priests for publication letters of approval, containing sharp cuts at the unfortunate prelates. To the Jesuit Ramière, the Pope said that he had set Maret "in contradiction with himself, so that you have constrained him to demolish the edifice with his own hands" (Friedberg, p. 490). The Vicar-General of Nimes had written against Dupanloup, and forth comes an epistle of Pius IX praising him for his elegant refutation of the empty sophisms which had caused a disturbance of minds deplored by all (Friedberg, p. 488).

Continental Catholic writers generally put Dr. Pusey as one of the most important promoters of the Church of Rome. Yet they were aware that he did not belong to it. In his secondpamphlet Dupanloup spoke with feeling of the value of the Ritualistic party, both in England and America, as pointing to Rome.Ce Qui se Passe au Concilesays (p. iii., troisième éd.),—"In England Dr. Pusey, the originator of the Ritualistic movement, which has led so many persons, eminent for intellect to the Catholic religion—Pusey, whose loyal sincerity no one ever suspected," had written that nothing would be more fatal to the prospect of reunion than a declaration of Papal infallibility. This was not likely to make much impression upon the Curia. They knew that what for England was called reunion, for Rome was called submission; which Manning told them would be facilitated by definition; and Manning served them so punctiliously that they were fain to believe him. Moreover, what Desanctis in that remarkable bookRoma Papale, had many years previously described as the plan of the Curia for operations in England, would be little affected by a doctrine or two more or less. His account, in one word, was that they would mission England through the senses, leaving doctrines and arguments in the background. It was a question of spectacle, not of reason or Scripture. And love of spectacle was adorned with the name of aesthetics, and sensible Englishmen were to be led captive by the power of clothes. In this point of view, one who promoted the use of the chosen means might better serve the end from the very fact that he did not himself aim so low.

Back to Index Next