Letters From Rome on the Council

We may safely state that the Fathers of the Council are already divided into two camps, and that anxiety and painful uncertainty prevail in both of them. The occurrences of the last few weeks have brought out their opposite views and designs into sharp contrast. It is now known in Rome that a considerable number of Northern Bishops are not disposed to accept the rôle assigned to them of simple assent to ready-made decrees, and that the German Bishops, except those trained by the Jesuits, most decisively object to making new articles of faith. Many Bishops also dread the far-reaching consequences of Papal Infallibility, and the retrospective effects of the new dogma, and they know that the establishment of such doctrines would drive the educated classes of the country, if not into open schism, to an internal and lamentable breach with the Church. Accordingly, remonstrances have been forwarded to the Pope from three quarters – from the Prelates of Hungary, Bohemia, and Germany, – expressing the most emphatic desire that the Council should not be forced to any decision on Papal Infallibility, or on matters affecting the relations of Church and State, in the sense of the Syllabus. What reception this document met with in Rome may readily be divined from the great astonishment the Fulda Pastoral is known to have excited there, when a translation of it was laid before the Pope. It is now thought politic in Rome to deny the existence of these letters of remonstrance, but they have taken such effect that the highest authorities begin to hesitate, and ask themselves the question whether they have not gone too far in their confident assurance of victory. The idea of being able to carry the Infallibility dogma off-hand by acclamation seems at least to have been abandoned. It is understood that some less summary method of gaining their object must be resorted to, if it is to be gained at all. And hence at the last moment they have begun to look out for some Council Chamber where the Bishops may discuss the matters to be decided upon, for the chapels appropriated to the Council in St. Peter's are only designed for solemn sessions.8 It is said in Rome that the pungent remark of a Cardinal to the Holy Father has had something to do with the change of the original scheme of an acclamation. Pius ix. had asked his opinion as to the most effective way of carrying the decrees, and he replied, that obviously the theatrical effect would be greater if there was no debating, but simply decision by acclamation, as though by inspiration of the Holy Ghost. And thus the hope of getting the Council over in three weeks is also given up, and it is now expected to last to the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul.

The drawing up of the letter of remonstrance at Fulda is said not to have been such plain sailing. The Pastoral originally sketched out by Heinrich, Canon of Mayence, but to which important additions were made subsequently, was subscribed by all the Bishops, even those who had been pupils of the Jesuits, who consoled themselves with the belief that the dogma of Infallibility did exactly combine the conditions specified there as requisite for a dogmatic decree, and was really scriptural, primitive, and written on the hearts of all good Catholics. So their Jesuit masters had taught and assured them. But the secret document sent to the Pope had necessarily to be more explicit, and though it was limited to pointing out how inopportune the definition of new dogmas, especially of Papal Infallibility, would be, that was precisely opposite to what the Jesuitizers among the Bishops were convinced of. The Jesuits themselves lose no opportunity of proclaiming that nothing can be more opportune than this dogma, and from their own point of view they may be right enough, for the rich and ripe fruits of the dogma would fall into their own laps, and would help the Society to absolute dominion over science, literature, and education within the Catholic Church. The proposed dogma would give canonical authority to the Jesuit theology, and identify it with the doctrine of the Church, and the Order, or the spirit of the Order, would always be required for teaching and vindicating the new system. The Bishops of Paderborn and Würzburg therefore refused to sign, and the representative of the Bishop of Spires followed their example.

The scruples of these Northern Bishops were so utterly unexpected that they must have created great surprise at Rome. Their informant in the matter of the Infallibility dogma had assured the authorities, in the teeth of the Northern Prelates, and with the full concurrence of all the members of the Commission, that no fitter or more favourable time could be found for establishing the new dogma, for at no former period could the Court of Rome reckon so securely on the unconditional devotion of the Bishops, nor was there ever a time when they were so ready as at this moment to surrender before the Pope all exercise of their own judgment or independent examination. The remonstrances of the Hungarian, Bohemian, and German Bishops have of course poured water into this wine, to the no small astonishment and indignation of the Roman Prelates, with whom it is an axiom that nobody is a good Christian who does not believe the infallibility of the Pope as firmly as the divine mission and truthfulness of Christ. Accordingly, the Correspondance de Rome cast in the teeth of Prince Hohenlohe, that since all true Catholics already hold the infallibility of the Pope when speaking ex cathedrâ, a decree of the Council will only confirm what is universally known and believed.9 Let those good souls who flatter themselves that the Civiltà, with its expectations and demands, stands alone, weigh well the utterances of so well-known a journal.

The Austrian Bishops have not thought it well to follow the example of their Hungarian, Bohemian, and German colleagues. One of them, Dr. Fessler, is notoriously the most determined advocate of the whole ultramontane system, and was the first Bishop to declare the definition of the new dogma to be at once a natural and suitable work for the Council. His services were promptly rewarded; he is already named chief secretary of the Council, and his hand will press heavily on its decrees. The Curia may congratulate itself on its choice. The silence of the Austrian Bishops is further explained by the differences of opinion among them about the questions coming before the Council.

In their secret letters the Northern Bishops have opposed the new definition only as being inopportune, and it is known that the French Opposition Bishops mean to take the same ground. But it deserves careful consideration whether this line of action can be really tenable or effective at the Council. Surely it may be certainly foreseen that the far more numerous, and, from its determined attitude, stronger party on the other side will answer, “If your only objection to the dogma is that it is unsuited for the times, you thereby admit its truth; for if you thought it doubtful or erroneous, you must have opposed the definition on that ground. By not venturing to assail its truth, you deprive your objection to its opportuneness of all weight, for when was ever a religious truth, on which eternal salvation depends, suppressed on such a ground as this? Does this holding back, inspired merely by fear of men, correspond to the ancient spirit and lofty mission of the Church? How many of her doctrines would she have dared to proclaim if she had chosen to wait on the approval of the age? Rather, for that very reason, must religious truths be loudly and emphatically proclaimed, when a contrary opinion is growing among men, because thereby an insidious heresy is marked out and judged by the supreme authority in the Church. Your plea of inopportuneness is therefore a fresh and urgent ground for adhering firmly to the solemn definition of Infallibility by the Council.”

How far better then would it be if these Prelates were to declare simply and directly, what the German Bishops have indeed said in their Pastoral, but, of course, in general terms only, and without express mention of the Infallibilist hypothesis; “This doctrine possesses none of the requisite conditions of an article of faith; it has no guarantee either of Scripture or Tradition, and no roots in the conscience and religious mind of the Christian world.” Such a line would be incomparably worthier of the Bishops, and would make their position far stronger and more unassailable. Instead of letting themselves, as is intended, be yoked, like willing prisoners, to the triumphal chariot of the sole infallible and sole defining Pope and lord, they would be making a beginning for the revendication of their ancient apostolical rights, which the Papacy has sequestered or robbed them of. They would be asserting, by implication, that the Papacy and the Church are not identical, and therefore that the Church cannot be made responsible for all decrees and actions of the Popes. Half-and-half courses, and false piety, in the tremendous crisis the Catholic Church is now entering upon, are not only powerless but fatal. And this half-heartedness, which looks only too like fear, will make the Ultramontane and Jesuit party all the bolder and stronger in their plans. And they continue still as firm as the rock of Peter. In the number for Oct. 2, p. 64, the Civiltà maintains, against a new French paper, the Avenir Catholique, that the relation of the Bishops assembled in Council to the Pope is simply one of most absolute subjection and obedience to Papal commands, and declares, on the authority of Ferraris, who is a classical authority at Rome, what is meant by præsidentia auctoritativa, viz., the Pope's right, not only to decide on everything, but to coerce all opponents, by ecclesiastical censures – excommunication, suspension, and deposition – and other judicial means.10 If the Pope strikes down every contradiction or refusal of a Bishop at once, with the thunderbolt of his anathemas, according to the Civiltà he no more violates the freedom belonging to the Fathers of the Council, than a man who keeps within his own rights in his dealings violates his neighbour's rights of property. We must remember, as to this definition of freedom, that the logic of the Jesuits has always gone its own way without troubling itself with the logic of the rest of mankind.

It deserves notice, however, that two months before the opening of the Council the Jesuits had traced out for the Bishops the extent and nature of the freedom they are to enjoy there. They do their part frankly enough in dispelling any illusion on the subject. If any complaint from the Bishops should be heard in Rome, such as was made by the Spanish and French Bishops at Trent, the Curia can reply that they were told all this beforehand. The Civiltà has the most direct sources of information, and may therefore be safely trusted when it says, in a recent number, “We are not the authors of the Papal thoughts, nor does Pius ix. speak and act under our inspiration, but we are certainly the faithful echo of the Holy See.” And, as an echo of the Pope, the Civiltà, in its last number, p. 182, gives a more precise explanation or statement of the infallibility of ex cathedrâ decisions, as extending, not only to all dogmas, but to “all truths and doctrines connected with the various kinds of revealed dogmas, and so to all sentences and decrees concerning the common weal of the Church, her rights and discipline.” In truth, if the Bishops don't even yet see the precipice to the edge of which they have been led step by step for years, and which they are just going to spring into, that is no fault of the Roman Jesuits, who have honestly done what they could to open their eyes. It is therefore to be earnestly wished that the Civiltà may be read and well weighed as widely as possible, for then one may hope they will be “forewarned, forearmed.” They have certainly had no lack of signs and warning voices, who are expected and are willing to subscribe the intended decrees of the Council. “The true echo of the Holy See” proclaims to the world that every Pope is, ever has been, and ever will be infallible, first, when he teaches or maintains anything in any way connected with revealed truths of faith or morals; secondly, when he decrees anything affecting the welfare, rights, or discipline of the Church. Clearly therefore, henceforth the question will be, not in what cases the Pope is infallible, but what are the few cases where he is not infallible. He, as being infallible, will have the first and only right to determine what is the welfare of the Church, and what it requires. And since, in the whole range of public life, of politics and science, there is scarcely anything not permanently or incidentally connected with the weal of the Church, and with its real or assumed rights and discipline, he will have it in his power to make every secular question a Church question. For it must certainly be anathematized as an error, as the Syllabus says, to affirm that the Pope has exceeded the limits of his power. How can he possibly do so on this theory? He is infallible alike in the definition of doctrine and in its application to concrete cases. He is therefore always right in every claim and every decision, and whoever opposes him, or does not at once unconditionally submit, is always wrong. Whatever demand he makes of any State or Sovereign, whatever law or constitution he abrogates, he must at once be obeyed, for he acts for the good of the Church, and he, as being infallible, can alone judge and settle what that is. The episcopate and clergy must blindly submit to his infallible guidance and serve dutifully under his banner, when he proclaims war against a State, or an institution.

Need we explain in detail what painful conflicts with their Governments and the Constitutions they have sworn to, Bishops and clergy, nay all Catholics, might be precipitated into on this system? What caused that lamentable persecution and oppression of Catholics in Great Britain, and their loss of civil privileges for centuries, but Paul v.'s prohibiting their taking the oath of allegiance to their Sovereigns? Although the oath contained nothing against the religious conscience of Catholics, the Pope condemned it because, identifying his own pretensions with the interests of the Church, he thought it intolerable that it denied the power of Popes to depose kings, absolve subjects from their allegiance, and excite revolt and treason against the Sovereign and the State. It is a maxim of the Decretals that no oath against the interests of the Church is binding.11 But what is for the benefit of the Church the infallible Pope determines. How often have Popes identified their own political interests with the good of the Church, and required and occasioned the breach of oaths and treaties! Thus Innocent iii. absolved John from his oath to observe Magna Charta, on his consenting to receive back his crown as a gift from him. When, in the fifteenth century, Eugenius iv. was at war with Francis Sforza, and the general Piccinino had promised not to attack him, the Pope absolved him from his promise, because it was prejudicial to the interests of the Papacy, and “a treaty prejudicial to the Church is not binding.” Charles v. and Francis i., in their treaty of Madrid, had stipulated that neither should have his oath dispensed without the consent of the other; but Pope Clement vii. was the first to seduce the King to commit perjury, in order that he might form an alliance with him against the Emperor. So again did Paul iv. release Henry ii. from his five years' truce with Charles v., confirmed by oath, in order to gain the King of France as an ally against Spain.

The Jesuit theory of the infallible Pope and the extent of his powers is in no way less extravagant than that which deluded Agostino Trionfo into his deification of the Pope under John xxii.12 Once admit the maxim of the Syllabus, that the Popes have never exceeded the just limits of their power, and it must obviously be their right to dispose of crowns and peoples, property and freedom, since they have in fact claimed and exercised the right. Thus, for instance, Nicolas v. did not at all violate the common rights of men, but only made a proper use of his own absolute authority, when he gave full power to King Alfonso of Portugal, and his successors, to subjugate unbelieving nations, appropriate their territories and all their possessions, and reduce their persons to perpetual slavery. Nor was Alexander vi. less justified in conferring on Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain and their successors the newly discovered countries of America, and then drawing the famous line from north to south through the New World, and dividing it between Spain and Portugal. It was to the authority of the Pope, as the lord of all mankind, to whom all men are subject, wherever born, and of whatever religion, since God has subjected the whole earth to his jurisdiction, and made him master of it, that the Spanish conquerors appealed against the natives. On this plea they treated all refusal to submit as rebellion, for which they meant to take vengeance on the natives – as in fact they did in the most horrible manner – by cruel wars, confiscation of property, and slavery. Their lust of conquest, with all the abominations they perpetrated, could always be excused and justified by the remembrance that they were only acting with the sanction of God's earthly representative, and punishing the refusal to recognise his legitimate dominion over the world.

In the article we have cited, the Civiltà affirmed anew, on the authority of the Minorite, Bonaventure of S. Bernardino (Trattato della Chiesa), that the Pope can dispose of the whole “Temporali” of kings and princes, their authority and possessions, whenever, in his judgment, the good of the Church requires it. The work of a French writer, Maupied, gives the Fathers of the Society of Jesus the desired opportunity of again commending their Magna Charta– their favourite Bull, Unam Sanctam– as the completest exposition of the relations of Church and State (p. 213): “Fall down on your faces, and adore your lord and master in Rome, who can after his pleasure depose you, deprive you of your rights and bishoprics, and bid you draw or sheathe the sword.” This is a compendium of the teaching the Civiltà addresses to princes and magistrates. If Papal Infallibility is defined by the Council as an article of faith, the whole system is sanctioned, down to its extremest consequences, and the Jesuits will not fail to point to it as proving that their political doctrines also are now approved.

Under such auspices does the Council open, when the Bishops, according to the Civiltà– “the faithful echo of the Holy See,” – have only to say Yea and Amen to the teachings and commands of their master. Never in her whole history has the Church had a severer task imposed upon her, or passed through a more perilous and decisive crisis than the present. It is not only a question of internal freedom; it is, above all, the question whether she is to be involved in an endless war with the political order and civilisation of the modern world, or by keeping to the really religious sphere, and thus guarding her rightful independence, is for the future too to fulfil throughout the widest area her blessed mission towards mankind. The Council, which has to decide on this alternative, acquires a weight and significance such as none had before it.

First Letter

Rome, December 1869.– The Council is opened. It is, we may say, in full swing, and the situation has to a certain degree revealed itself. Two great questions are in every mind and on every tongue —first, “Wherein will the freedom promised to the Council consist, and how far will it extend?” and secondly, “Will Papal Infallibility be erected into a dogma?”

As regards the freedom of the Council, the position of the episcopate is in some respects better and in others worse than at Trent three centuries ago. Then the Italians had the most complete and undeniable preponderance over the Spanish and French Prelates, who were the only others that came into the reckoning at all. The opposition of the latter could at best only stop the passing of some particular decrees, but, generally speaking, whatever the legates and their devoted troop of Italian Prelates desired was carried, and as they desired it. The numerical relations are entirely changed now, and there is a far more comprehensive representation of National Churches. The Italian Bishops, even if unanimous among themselves, do not form a third of the whole Synod. But what they have lost in numbers is abundantly made up by the lion's share the Papal Court seizes beforehand for itself, and thereby for the Italian prelatura.

The first step taken, and the regulations already made by Pius ix. for the present Council, prove that it is not to follow the precedents of the ancient free Councils, or even of the Tridentine. At Trent all decrees still ran in the name of the Council. “The Œcumenical Tridentine Synod, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, ordains and decrees, etc.,” is the heading of every session and its decrees. Very different is to be the arrangement at Rome. There has already been distributed to the Bishops a Methodus in primâ Sessione Concilii observanda, which prescribes thus: “The Pope will hand over the decrees to the Secretary or another Bishop to read, who reads them with the heading, ‘Pius, Episcopus, servus servorum Dei, sacro approbante Concilio, ad perpetuam rei memoriam.’ ” After reading them he asks the Cardinals and Bishops whether they assent. If all say Placet, the Pope declares the decrees carried “nemine dissentiente.” If some answer, Non placet, he mentions the number, and adds, “Nosque, sacro approbante Concilio, illa ita decernimus, statuimus atque sancimus ut lecta sunt.” This is the formula first introduced after Gregory vii.'s time, when the Papacy had climbed to its mediæval eminence. The first to use it was Alexander iii., at the Roman Synod of 1079.13 It stands in glaring contrast to the practice of the ancient Synods for the first thousand years of Church history, which drew up and promulgated all their decisions freely, independently, and in their own name. Here the Pope appears as the author of the decrees, the one authoritative legislator, who out of courtesy allows the Bishops to express their opinions, but finally decides himself, in the plenitude of his sovereign power, as seems good to him. In another Papal document communicated to the Bishops it is said still more emphatically, “Nos deinde supremam nostram sententiam edicemus eamque nunciari et promulgari mandabimus, hâc adhibitâ solemni formulâ, Decreta modo lecta, etc.” Meanwhile one concession has been made, which might possibly have some value: the Pope has declared that, though the right of initiating measures belongs entirely to himself, he is willing to allow the Bishops to exercise it. This would give them the opportunity of at least bringing forward for discussion some of the worst evils – such as, e. g., what many of them feel to be the hateful nuisance of the Index – and preparing remedies. But then it must be borne in mind that on every question the Curia has at its disposal a majority of Prelates, who are its own creatures, and many of them in its pay. With the help of this troop of devoted followers it can get rid of every disagreeable proposal before it is even submitted to discussion.

The Sessions of the Council are solemnities only held for the formal promulgation of decrees already discussed and passed; the real business is done in the previous Congregations. Every Bishop who wants to speak there is to give notice the day before, but those who wish to speak without having given notice are not to be prevented. A congregation of twenty-four members is to be chosen by the Bishops from among themselves, for the purpose of specially investigating subjects on which differences of opinion have been expressed, and reporting on them. At least nine-tenths of the Prelates are condemned to silence simply from being unable to speak Latin readily and coherently through want of regular practice. And to this must be added the diversities of pronunciation. It is impossible, e. g., that Frenchmen or Italians should understand an Englishman's Latin even for a minute.14

There will no doubt be some subjects on which the Bishops may really speak and determine freely. But the moment a question in any way affects the interests and rights of the Roman Curia, there is an end of their freedom. For every Bishop has sworn not only to maintain but constantly to increase all the rights of the Pope, and it is notorious that at Rome, and in regular intercourse with the Papal Congregations, one can take no step without being reminded, directly or indirectly – by courtly insinuation, or rudely and openly, – of this oath, and the enormous extent of the obligations incurred by it, which embrace the whole range of ecclesiastical life. The Bishops then are so far free in Council, that no Bishop who expresses an opinion unpalatable to the Curia is threatened with imprisonment or bodily injury.15 Those Bishops enjoy a larger freedom who have the moral courage to incur the reproach of perjury and the threat of Papal displeasure and its consequences; who, knowing well that they can only carry out the most indispensable rights and duties of their office by virtue of Papal privileges and delegations – quinquennial faculties and the like, – yet vote simply according to their convictions.16 The only question is how many Bishops will act thus.