Letters From Rome on the Council Part 8

That would indeed be, in the words of Daniel, the abomination of desolation in the holy place.

Moreover, an adjournment and subsequent rea.s.sembling would have this advantage, that the order of business and the locality could be changed.

So long as these remain unchanged, it is impossible to speak seriously of a Council, and if the Roman censors.h.i.+p prevents any complaints on the subject being heard, the _Curia_ cannot conceal from itself that after the close of the Council the real state of the case will be universally recognised as a notorious fact, and the entire want of freedom or examination or discussion be insisted upon as a ground and justification for rejecting the decrees. But a Council universally questioned or rejected would be an endless source of embarra.s.sment and distress for the _Curia_ themselves. They would have at last to exclaim, "All I have gained is a loss."

These and the like thoughts are now occurring to many. The advice of the French Government, which would on all accounts gladly welcome an adjournment, the admonitions of Austria, which has at last, at the twelfth hour, receded from its att.i.tude of coldness and indifference, and the knowledge that the two Protestant powers, Prussia and England, maintain the same views on the threatened decrees and intended ecclesiastical conquests, though without making any direct representations on the subject-all this more or less contributes to the gravity of the crisis.

There are some drops of wormwood mingled with the joyous goblets quaffed daily to the Pope by the majority of 500 obsequious and courtly Latins. As the obedience of these Bishops and the Vicars-Apostolic, who can at any moment be deposed by Propaganda, is unlimited, they will vote the _Schemata_ exactly as the Pope desires; but most of them do it at least with an inward repugnance, and say, like the Aragonese Cortes of old, "We obey, but we don't execute."

TWENTY-FOURTH LETTER.

_Rome, Feb. 20, 1870._-The following cla.s.sification of the French Bishops here according to their parties may be interesting.

The French themselves distinguish three factions, Liberal, Ultramontane, and the Third Party-_i.e._, those who have signed no address, and have openly refused to do so. To the Liberal section belong Alby, Gaz, Ma.r.s.eilles, Nizza, Cahors, Mende, Perpignan, Bayonne, Montpellier, Valence, Viviers, La Roch.e.l.le, Lucon, Besancon, Metz, Nancy, Verdun, Annecy, Autun, Dijon, Gren.o.ble, Paris, Orleans, Rheims, Chalons, S.

Brieux, Vannes, Bayeux, Coutances, Evreux-thirty votes altogether.

The Ultramontanes are-Rodez, Aire, Nimes, Angouleme, Poictiers (in the superlative), Belley, St. Diez, Strasburg, Le Puy, Tulle, St. Jean de Maurienne, Langres, St. Claude, Blois, Chartres, Meaux, Versailles, Amiens, Beauvais, Rennes (a malcontent Ultramontane), Seez, Moulins, Toulouse, Carca.s.sonne, Montauban, Laval and Le Mans-twenty-seven votes.

In the Third Party, headed by the Cardinal-Archbishop of Rouen, are included Perigueus, Bourges, Tarantaise, Cambray, Arras, Nevers, Troyes, Pamiers, Tours-ten votes.

The Bishops of Digne, Frejus, Toulon and Soissons are described as doubtful.

The English Bishops are similarly divided. Manning has only been able to get one single Bishop over to his side. Two, Errington and Clifford, have signed the Address against Infallibility. Six, including Bishop Ullathorne of Birmingham, form a third party, who decline to sign anything on either side. It is the same with the Irish Bishops. The Romanized Cullen, whom the Pope forced as Primate on the Irish Bishops, with the same view as he imposed Manning on the English Bishops, against their will, is of course an Infallibilist, and would rejoice to enforce this dogma, which they detest, on the educated cla.s.ses of Ireland by the help of the lower orders. Bishops Moriarty and Leahy (of Dromore) have signed the Pet.i.tion against Infallibility. Archbishop MacHale of Tuam, and some others with him, belong to the third party, while the majority of the Irish Bishops see in Papal Infallibility a means for increasing their influence over the people. What view the South Italian Bishops take is ill.u.s.trated by the following anecdote. An Italian statesman spoke to two of them about the immoderate claims contained in the _Schema de Ecclesia_, and asked them whether they really meant to a.s.sent to such decrees? "We cannot go against the Holy Father," was their reply. When he reminded them of the independent att.i.tude of the German Bishops, they replied, "They can take that line, for they are rich." Another of the South Italians amused the Council by urging that the constant wearing of the long ca.s.sock should be enforced, because Christ rose and ascended into heaven in that dress.

Since the _Schema de Ecclesia_ has been in the hands of the Bishops, it is clear to all that the Council has been convoked simply for the purpose of extending the power of the Pope and strengthening the influence of the Jesuits, and that everything is designed to subserve this one end. The Bishops are to forge chains for binding, first the secular powers, and then themselves and the whole clergy with them. The feeling they are possessed with is a bitter and painful one. They feel outwitted and caught in a trap. They were summoned to Rome, without being told a word of the objects aimed at or the matters to be dealt with; on their arrival they were strung and fixed, like the keys of a harpsichord, into the great conciliar instrument, and they find that they are to be used by the hand of the mighty musician to produce tones which sound to themselves most utterly nauseous. They know well enough that the most eloquent speeches and most forcible arguments don't change a single vote of the majority, who would remain firm and unmoved as the rock of Peter if a Chrysostom or Augustine was among them. In an outburst of disgust at the _Schema de Ecclesia_, a German Prelate, formerly Roman in his sympathies, exclaimed, "This _Schema_ deserves to be thrust down into h.e.l.l." One hears these men congratulating their colleagues who stayed at home under a presentiment of what was coming. The news of the adjournment of the Council, begun under such evil auspices, would be welcomed by them with delight.

But these reports of an adjournment are rather wishes than hopes. The prorogation would imply an admission that the Council had been a failure through the fault of the _Curia_, in the perversity of the regulations it imposed on the Bishops, and the extravagance of the measures it brought forward. "Perissent les colonies plutot qu'un principe"-this saying, uttered in the Paris Convention of 1793, may often be heard here in various applications. The world will be enlightened in a few days by the publication of the new or altered order of business. It is not prorogation that is the immediate business, but the subjection of the minority more than ever to the rule of the majority and its wire-pullers who stand behind it, the outvoting them by majorities.

In French circles a paper called the _Moniteur Universel_ is making no small sensation. It contains a detailed account of the proceedings of the Council, drawn up by a learned Frenchman residing here and under the inspiration of French Bishops. It is thoroughly authentic and carefully weighed-far the best and most accurate account of the Council in that language. You may perhaps find room for the following, which substantially confirms and partly supplements and rectifies my own statements:-

"The Council of Trent arranged the order of business for itself. In this case just the contrary has been done: everything was pre-arranged and imposed on the Council by the Pope, and even the secretaries and scrutators were named beforehand. No initiative is allowed to the Bishops; the Commission for examining motions is formed of the hottest Infallibilists and members of the _Curia_, but the final decision is reserved to the Pope. The proposers of a motion are not even allowed to explain and defend it, so that the freedom nominally conceded to the Bishops of proposing measures is rendered purely illusory. By the composition of the four Commissions, elected from Roman lists of names, all work of critical importance is kept in the hands of the few Infallibilists chosen for the purpose by the _Curia_, to the exclusion of 700 Bishops, among whom are all the German Bishops who signed the Fulda Letter to the Pope, and the most influential French Prelates. In short, all Bishops not known to be thorough-going Infallibilists have been systematically excluded from the Commissions. Very different was it at Trent, where all the Fathers, divided into four Congregations, took a real part in the work. We must add the monstrous disproportion of national representation-the enormous and overwhelming preponderance of the Italians, still further strengthened by the host of Vicars-Apostolic, who can at any moment be deposed by the Propaganda without any legal formality. Thus the Italian Bishops alone outnumber all the French, German, Hungarian and North American together, though these last represent a population nearly three times as large. The weakness of the two French Cardinals, Bonnechose and Mathieu, who ought to have taken the lead, has frustrated the attempt to unite the French Bishops in a national group.

Bonnechose consulted Antonelli, who said the French must not a.s.semble in larger bodies than fifteen or at most twenty together. The evil consequences were at once shown in the elections.

"The Bishops are compelled by the Pope to hold their sittings in a place where at least a third cannot understand a word that is said, so that, _e.g._, Cardinal di Pietro long since declared he had not really understood a single speech, and another Cardinal said that not twenty words of all the speeches had reached his ear. A really searching discussion and living interchange of observations and replies is out of the question. No speaker can hope to produce any impression on this audience. And thus the first _Schema_, which consists of 140 pages, was the subject of general discussion for weeks without any detailed discussion of the separate articles being arrived at, or any point certainly ascertained, notwithstanding the number of speakers. The only result was a great waste of time, bodily fatigue and a deep discouragement. Had the object been to satiate the a.s.sembly with speeches _usque ad nauseam_ it could not have been better managed. It would be something if the Fathers could read the speeches they can't hear, but neither are they allowed to be read; the Bishops may not even print their addresses at their own cost. Thus many of them are wholly deprived of the opportunity of expressing their views, knowing that they will not be heard.

"Vigorous preparations were made for two years before the opening of the Council. There is matter enough for ten Councils, but it is only communicated to the Bishops piecemeal, so that they can get no insight into the connection and plan of the separate propositions. Thus a ready-made Council has been put before 700 Bishops, which they are obliged again to unst.i.tch like a web. As the Bishops had no means of gaining previous information, the Council is mostly deaf and dumb, and has at last got driven into a narrow pa.s.s from which there is no exit without a thorough alteration of the order of business. No one can say how it will be with the examination of the separate articles of the _Schemata_, and yet the Council ought to have most carefully weighed every word of decrees which are to be imposed on the world under anathema."

TWENTY-FIFTH LETTER.

_Rome, Feb. 24, 1870._-Since my last letter, the Council, whose movements for a long time were like those of a tortoise, has made gigantic strides.

The G.o.ddess of Insolence (????) rules here just as the Greek tragedians-especially Sophocles-describe her. All rumours of an adjournment of the Council were partly well-meant wishes of several Bishops, partly produced by the fact of the Governments-the French in particular-earnestly desiring it. Here in Rome no one of the Vatican party has thought of it for a moment. All who know the real state of things and persons here must be convinced that the Council will certainly be gone through with to the end, either completely-in full accordance with the well-calculated plan sketched out during the last two years for partly Jesuitizing and partly Romanizing everything in the Church, in theology and in the religious life, and carrying out centralization to the utmost extent-or that, at least, there will be no adjournment till the most precious jewel hitherto wanting to the Papal tiara, dogmatic Infallibility, has been inserted there. Then, and not till then, will the _Curia_ have obtained the irresistible talisman which opens every gate, fulfils every desire and brings every treasure. That dogma is Aladdin's magic lamp for Rome.

There are three powers who wish to gain by the Council, and who decide on its proceedings and destiny-the Pope, the Jesuits, and the _Curia_. Among the members of the _Curia_ there are indeed very few who have not long since made their calculations, with that appreciation of the realities of life which is peculiar to the Italian nation, and who do not know as well what a dogma is worth for Rome as people know what a man is "worth" in England. Every a.s.sailant of the dogma is their personal enemy; he is simply emptying their gold-mine. Nor is the doctrine less valuable and indispensable to the Jesuits, at this day more than before, since they no longer have to fear the rivalry of any other Order in making capital out of the prerogative of Infallibility.

As regards the Pope, he has constantly changed in his official life and vacillated from one side to the other, and those about him say that in many, nay in most, things he follows capricious and momentary impulses.

But Pius is inflexible and immutable where he fancies he is a divine instrument and has received a divine mission, and that is the case here.

He is persuaded that he is ordained by the special favour of G.o.d to be the most glorious of all Popes. Among his predecessors there are three to whom he seems to me to have a great likeness. I should say that he had chosen them as models, if I could a.s.sume that he knew their history. But Pius has never occupied himself with the past; he is purely the child of his age, and lives only in the present. The three are Innocent X., Clement XI., and above all Paul IV. He has in common with the first his strong experimental belief in his own personal inspiration without any theological culture. He resembles the second in giving himself up to the theological guidance of the Jesuits, and in his highhanded treatment of such Bishops as dare to have an opinion of their own. And just as Paul IV. used to boast that hereafter men would be obliged to tell of the lofty plans conceived by an aged Italian who, as being near his death, might have rested and bewailed his sins,(56) so does Pius too desire in his old age to make great though peaceful conquests, and to establish the Papal sovereignty as a "rocher du bronze," to borrow the phrase of another autocrat. With the help of the Council he hopes to render the universal dominion of the Papacy an impregnable fortress, by means of new walls, bastions and batteries, and to hand it down to his successors as an omnipresent and omnipotent power.

He believes that the thoughts and desires of his soul are in reality the counsels of G.o.d made known to him by inspiration, and that if by following these counsels he accomplishes the deliverance of the Church and of mankind, it is the Hand of G.o.d which uses him as an instrument. And why should not Pius see a sign of his election to high and extraordinary destinies in the circ.u.mstance of his having already sat longer than any of his 256 predecessors, even Pius VI., on the apostolic throne? A history of his Pontificate has already been written in this sense by one of the Jesuits of the _Civilta,_ and Pius has the chapters read to him one after the other. I am told that a chapter on the Council is already written. The French Court historiographer, Vertot, who had to describe a Belgian campaign including the siege of a fortress, wrote the history of the siege before it was finished, and said quietly, "Mon siege est fait." And thus the Jesuit historian of the Pope can already say, "Mon Concile est fait."

And in one sense the Council is indeed finished since the 23d inst.-finished by the new order of business.

If the merit of this clever invention is primarily due to the Cardinals on the Commission for revising motions, and the Jesuits who were probably taken into partners.h.i.+p with them, its introduction must be counted among the most eventful acts of Pius, past or future. If it is carried out and adhered to without opposition, it is unquestionably the most conspicuous of all the victories of the Pope. Margotti, the editor of the _Unita Cattolica_, will hardly be able to find words to do justice to the great day, February 23, 1870, with its boundless wealth of happy results, in the next edition of his work, _Le Vittorie della Santa Chiesa sotto Pio IX_. A _Te Deum_ will have to be sung in every Jesuit College of the old and new world.

Great anxiety was felt beforehand about the new order of business. It was said that the Sessions were to be something more than mere votings, that there would still be speeches made, that the written memorials would not be so directly thrown into the waste-paper basket, but would be considered and-if they approved of them-made use of by the Commission. But everything will be settled by the Commission and by a simple majority of votes; the minority may talk, but only so long as the Commission and the majority choose to listen to them. _Vae victis!_ The Council belongs to the Italians and the Spaniards, who are in close alliance with them: from henceforth to wish to reject any _Schema_ or decree brought before it, is like wanting to stop water from flowing downwards. All the proposals of the minority for a change in the order of business have been left unnoticed. It had already been resolved that a debate could only be cut short by the votes of a majority of two-thirds, but this has been reversed. What will the French and Germans do now? This is naturally the question which trembles on every lip and is written on every countenance. Will they simply acquiesce in the _fait accompli_ with a good grace, and obediently a.s.sume the role of the Greek Chorus in the drama of the Council-simply to reflect and moralize, but take no active part in the proceedings? The next few days will show. So much every one perceives; the order of business is the noose which, once fixed on the minority, cannot be got out of, and will only be drawn tighter and tighter till it strangles them at last. It is clear that the majority has the hide of a rhinoceros, from which every arrow shot by the Opposition, however skilfully aimed, glances off harmless. Where are now the wise and foolish virgins? "Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out," must the Germans, French, and Spanish say henceforth to the Italians, and the answer will be more friendly than in the Gospel: "You need not buy any more oil; come over to our side and be content to use our store."

It is hardly necessary to observe to your readers that everything which takes place here turns on the question of Infallibility. The new order of business is merely the outer covering for this kernel. "With Infallibility we have all we desire or need," say the Italians, if that is gained we may "let the n.i.g.g.e.r go," and can dispense with his services for the future.

But for German theologians, whose hair stands on end at the new order of business and all it involves, I can find no other consolation than what they may derive from the following Persian tale. An English amba.s.sador sent to Persia-I think it was Morier-paid the usual visits at Teheran, and was introduced to the younger son of the Shah. He found him groping about blindfold in the room, and feeling for the furniture in it. The Prince explained this strange business by telling him that it was the rule for the younger sons to be blinded at the death of the Shah, in order to make them incapable of succeeding, and that he wished to prepare and practise himself beforehand for the fate impending over him. "Go ye, and do likewise."

If the German theologians should still have courage to present an address to their Bishops, the subscription might be, "Morituri vos salutant." Why have these theologians come to such utter discomfiture?

Here one already hears shouts of triumph; the day of retribution will soon come for those proud Transalpines, when they must bend their necks under the Caudine yoke of the new dogma, or await suspension, degradation, etc.

If German theology had long been decried and hated by the _Curia_ and the Italian Jesuits, and if the _Civilta_ gladly took occasion to pour out its wrath on the scholars of "foggy" Germany, you may conceive the extent this fury has reached in Italian clerical papers and curialist circles, since it has become known that the most influential theologians have p.r.o.nounced against Infallibility, and that not one-with the exception of a couple of pupils of the Jesuits-has said a word to defend it. It is well that one of the most distinguished Italians, a man whose devotion to the Church is unimpeached even in Rome, and whom the Pope has commissioned to write a history of the Council-I mean Cantu-has some years ago confessed and censured this characteristic of his countrymen. "To call laziness superiority, and evade the trouble of examining questions by depreciating them, this is only too much the habit of Italians, and then they mock at the ponderous, long-winded, hair-splitting Germans. But we must endure the reproach of negligence and thoughtlessness from the Germans, while we blindly accept falsified doc.u.ments."(57)

Cantu has. .h.i.t on the sore place there; for it is precisely their having pointed out the long line of numerous and systematic forgeries, on which the Roman claims of Infallibility are based, and which are used to further other aims of the Italians, that is the main ground of the hatred of the Germans. And now Frenchmen too, like Gratry, come forward and publish these facts over land and sea in their cosmopolitan tongue and clear incisive style.

To return to what preceded the publication of the new order of business; in the last sittings of the Council coming events threw their shadows before. The Bishops of Carca.s.sonne and Belley declared roundly that Infallibility must be proclaimed, and in order, said the latter, to restore the menaced or broken unity of the Church. The impatience and vexation of the authorities are constantly on the increase. Manning said there was only one way of stopping the definition, and that was to cut the throats of half the 500 Bishops of the majority. Of course the Prelates who heard him cried out, like the Emperor Charles V. at the Diet of Augsburg, when Count George of Brandenburg wanted to cut off heads for another doctrine, "No heads off! no heads off!" At the last sitting on the _Schema de Catechismo_, on the 22d, a scene occurred which presages what is to become the regular practice. The Bishop of Namur had said, in reference to some previous attacks on the Breviary, that no one who spoke against it could be a good Christian. For the information of your readers I must premise a few words here. The Breviary is a collection of prayers and lections for the clergy, introduced by Rome, consisting chiefly of psalms and pa.s.sages from the Bible and the Lives of the Saints.(58) The _Curia_ has used this, like so many other things, as an _instrumentum dominationis_, and a number of fables and forgeries devised in the interest of the Papal system have been interpolated into it. The French Church had long since adopted the precaution of employing a Breviary of her own, much better and purer than the Roman. It was against observations made about this in the Council that the harsh comment of the Bishop of Namur was directed.

TWENTY-SIXTH LETTER.

_Rome, Feb. 28, 1870._-Our last letter closed with an account of a scene in the Session of February 22, occasioned by some attacks on the Roman Breviary. The Bishop of Namur had maintained that no one who attacked it could be a good Christian.

Haynald was one of those who had censured the present condition of the Breviary, and he now replied to Bishop Gravez that in criticising it he had the Fathers of Trent and the Popes themselves for accomplices (_complices_). A tempest broke out at these words. But Haynald went further and said, with reference to Bishop Langalerie of Belley, that the majority, with their proposals for new dogmas, were the cause of the disunion which had broken out in the Church, and that it would be much better for the heads of the Church to confine themselves to preserving the ancient doctrines in their purity, instead of adding new ones. The Church had succeeded very well with the old doctrines. At this first open attack in Council on the Infallibilist project the storm grew fiercer, and Capalti seized the bell of the President, De Angelis, rung it violently and forbade the speaker to proceed. "Taceas et ab ambone descendas," he exclaimed. When Haynald went on all the same, a wild cry broke from the majority. The Archbishop of Calocsa at last came down, and so great was the excitement that the sitting was closed and the next postponed to March 2.

Meanwhile more attention and care than before has been devoted in Paris to what is going on at Rome. The Emperor and his present ministers understand the gravity of the situation; they know what would be meant by such journals as the _Monde_ and the _Univers_ daily appealing to infallible Papal decisions, and under their authority calling in question every inst.i.tution and law of France, and proving beforehand to their readers that there is no obligation in conscience to submit to them, because the Pope has directly or indirectly signified his disapproval. Archbishop Lavigerie of Algiers brought back word to Cardinal Antonelli, on returning to Rome from his mission, that France was in no condition to tolerate the definition of Infallibility, which might lead to a schism, since not only the whole body of State-officers, but the writers, and even the Faubourg St. Germain, were opposed to the new dogma. Antonelli is not apt to be much influenced by such representations, which he views as mere idle threats; he is spoilt by the courtly flatteries of the ever obsequious M.

de Banneville, whom he has managed completely to disarm. He has three devices of domestic diplomacy by which he knows how to make excellent use of both Banneville and Trautmansdorff. At one time he says, "It is not we-Pius, the _Curia_ and I-who want the dogma, but the foreign Bishops, and we should be encroaching on the freedom of the Council by impeding them. And we ought not to subject ourselves to that reproach." Then, for a variety, he adopts another line. "The Pope," he says, "has all he wants already, and the dogma of Infallibility would not give him anything more.

As it is, and with a Council a.s.sembled, all the decrees emanate from him and receive from him their validity, and he can summon or dissolve the Council at his pleasure, so that it only exists by his will and would crumble into dust without him. It is therefore the interest of the Bishops, not ours, that is in question here, and they will know well why the dogma is so valuable to them." His third formula is, "Every good Christian believes the doctrine already, and therefore little or nothing will be changed in the Church by defining it, and we have not the least desire to use the new decree for calling in question the existing compacts and Concordats. We shall gladly leave alone the concessions we have already granted." These resources of the Cardinal have hitherto sufficed.

But new powers and demands seem to be coming to the front, which his diplomatic counters will no longer satisfy. I have copies of two letters of Count Daru, of January 18 and February 5. These official expressions of opinion from Paris have made the _Civilta_ Jesuits bitterly angry, and their famous article on the _Policastri_, in its original form, contained a violent attack on the French statesmen, who were cla.s.sed with the other ministers and diplomats in such ill repute at Rome. But this roused the alarm of the supreme authority, and so the Jesuits had to eat their own words, and to subst.i.tute for their attack a high commendation of Count Daru and the loyalty of France to the Concordat. There is some good in having the articles of the _Civilta_ regularly revised in the Vatican. I understand that it is intended at Paris to send a special amba.s.sador to Rome to the Council.

Meanwhile the Bishops of the minority are consulting how they shall deal with the new order of business. It was announced to the Fathers at the Session of February 22 that, in accordance with these new regulations, they must hand in all their observations on the first ten chapters of the _Schema de Ecclesia_ in writing within ten days.

Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore has not receded from his ludicrous notion that his Infallibilist formula is milder and more tolerable than that of the 400. He has laid it before the thirty-five French Bishops (of the minority), who have unanimously rejected it. Its essence consists, as was mentioned before, in a.s.serting that everybody must receive with unconditional inward a.s.sent every Papal decision on every question of faith or morals or Church life. On all theological principles such faith can only be accorded in cases where all possibility of error is excluded, or, in other words, where a revealed truth is concerned; and therefore to accept this formula would be to set aside the limitation of Papal Infallibility, hitherto recognised even in Rome, to decisions p.r.o.nounced _ex cathedra_. And thus, in the crush and confusion of the innumerable and often contradictory decisions of Popes, theology would degenerate into a lamentable caricature of a system-"science" it could no longer be termed-involved in hopeless contradictions. If the good Spalding had the slightest acquaintance with Church history, he would know that he was bound, in virtue of his inward a.s.sent paid to all Papal decrees, first of all to reject his own orders as invalid.(59)

And now I must notice more particularly what Bishop Ketteler has published against me in some German newspapers. He says that in the telegram of February 13, published in the _Allg. Zeitung_ of February 15, he has found the opportunity he had long desired for convicting the writer of the _Letters from Rome_ of building up "a whole system of lying and deceit."(60) It is "an indescribable dishonesty," a "detestable untruth,"

etc. His short letter bristles with such accusations. The untruths he complains of are the following:-

(1.) The telegram called the statement made by Bishop Ketteler and his ally, Bishop Melchers, a "proposal." He replies that it was only a "communication."