THE CHURCH IN POLAND, RUSSIA AND THE BALKAN PROVINCES
(a) POLAND AND RUSSIA
Pierling, La Russie et le Saint Siège, 4 vols., Paris, 1896- 1907.
Lescoeur, L'Église Catholique en Pologne sous le Gouvernement Russe, 1772- 1875, Paris, 1876.
Idem., L'Église Catholique et le Gouvernement Russe, Paris, 1903. Krynicki, Dzieje Kosciola Powszechnego. Wloclawek, 1906, Sect. 191, 205.
Palmieri, La Chiesa Russa, Florence, 1908.
Wilbois, L'Avenir de lÉglise Russe, Paris, 1907.
THE concordat* concluded between Pius IX. and Russia brought little peace to the Catholics in Poland or the Uniates of the Russian Empire. The officials of the government continued to act as if no concordat had been concluded, and, owing to the prohibition of free commu nications with the Holy See, the Pope could do little to protect Catholics. Nicholas I. died in 1855, and was succeeded by Alexander II. ( 1855-1881). During the earlier years of his reign the persecution abated owing to the anxiety of Russia to secure the support of all her subjects during the Crimean war. Various reforms in administration were made, but beyond this the Emperor was not prepared to go.
In Poland itself the population was divided into two classes, the Reds, or revolutionary party, who were de termined to force Russia to restore the independent con stitution, and the Conservatives, who relied upon peace ful methods, and who were anxious to utilise the Russian
* Nussi, Conventiones XXXVI.
concessions without abandoning their claims for national autonomy. The Conservative party had been in the ascendency since 1849, but the establishment of a united Italy, and the concessions that had been forced from Austria by Hungary, gave a new impulse to the national movement in Poland in 1860. The people were no longer to be satisfied with mere administrative reforms. They must have an independent Poland, or else Russia should be obliged to fight for the maintenance of her authority. In 1860, the crowds began to assemble in the churches, and to chant the patriotic national hymns of Poland. Various encounters took place between them selves and the Russian soldiers. The anniversaries of their battles were celebrated by enormous processions, and on the anniversary of the death of Kosciusko in 1861, though the churches of Warsaw were surrounded by troops, the inhabitants flocked to them in thousands. There they sang the hymns that had been forbidden, and were ordered by the officers to desist. They refused to leave the churches, but the soldiers forced their way inside the sacred buildings, drove out the people, and arrested the prominent leaders. The archbishop of Warsaw protested against such violence, and ordered the churches to be closed. He was arrested, tried by courtmartial, and transported to Siberia. For months the churches remained closed, the people abandoned the theatres and places of amusement, and the whole city was in mourning.
Alexander II. sent his brother, the Grand Duke Con stantine, as Viceroy of Poland, and various concessions were made in order to appease the feelings of the Poles. But the concessions had come too late to prevent the in surrection. A secret committee in Poland working in conjunction with a revolutionary committee in Paris, was preparing an armed resistance. Attempts were made to assassinate the Grand Duke and his ministers without success. In consequence of the increasing diffi culties the government determined to call out the recruits. On the night of the 15th January, 1863, the soldiers broke into the houses and tried to seize those marked out for military service. But the revolutionary committee had been beforehand. Most of the recruits had fled into the woods, others escaped from the soldiers, and the insurrection began. The struggle was hopeless from the beginning, but the Polish provisional government offered a desperate resistance to the overwhelming forces of the Russians. For two months the war went on, but in March, 1863, the remnants of the Polish forces, feeling themselves completely out numbered, fled across the frontiers to Austrian terri tory. Then began a period of shocking barbarity. The Russian courtmartials showed no mercy to priest or lay man. So barbarous was the treatment meted out to the unfortunate people that the conscience of Europe was aroused, and France, Austria and England addressed a joint note to Russia demanding amnesty and reform ( 1863).* But Russia, knowing well that no serious effort would be made to enforce these demands, and relying upon the support of Prussia, rejected all outside inter ference, and continued her policy of brutal repression. If the Poles could not be exterminated they must be transformed into Russians.
Hence, the Russian language was ordered to be used in Warsaw University and in the schools of Poland, not alone in the ordinary classes but also in the religious in struction. The bank of Poland was suppressed, the rail way officials were drafted into Poland from Russia, the public announcements were made in Russian, and every thing that could remind the people of their distinctive nationality was carefully removed. The Catholic Church suffered in an especial manner, as the supposed fomentor and approver of the Polish movement. The seminaries were placed under the control of the secular authorities, who prescribed the course of studies in the Russian language and literature, and many of the clergy were arrested and sent into Siberia, where they were treated as ordinary criminals. Those who remained were
* Cambridge Modern History, Vol. XI., p. 434.
placed under the supervision of the police. The monas teries were in great part suppressed, not alone in Poland but in other parts of Russia, and with the suppression of the monasteries their flourishing schools were either closed or handed over to Russian lay teachers. Priests were admitted into the state establishments to give religious instruction, but a Russian official was present to control their instruction. Pius IX. was not an un moved spectator of events in Poland and Russia. Though himself in serious trouble with Piedmont, he protested against the persecution carried on by Russia, and when, at the New Year's levee in 1866, the Russian representative dared to answer his remonstrances by blaming the Pope for supporting the Polish revolution aries, Pius IX. abruptly ordered him from his presence. The Russian embassy to the Vatican was immediately recalled, and in December, 1866, an imperial ukase was issued abrogating all the conventions between the Holy See and Russia.
From that time the lot of the Catholics in the Polish provinces and of the Uniates in Russia, was exceedingly hard. The Academy of St. Petersburg, an ecclesias tical commission established in 1801, was entrusted with full control over the Catholic Church. It exercised prac tically the same authority over the Church in these terri tories as the Pope exercised in other parts of Europe, and it was only through this council that any communication could be held with the Holy See by bishops or clergy. The seminaries in Poland and in Russia, and the Catholic seminary of St. Petersburg, were taken from the control of the bishops and placed under schismatical officials. By an imperial decree the unfortunate Uniates were de clared to be members of the Orthodox Russian Church. Every effort was made to induce their priests to conform, and those who refused were transported to make room for the schismatical clergy. In 1875, it was officially an nounced that 45 parishes had abjured the union with Rome and joined the Russian Church, but the reports of the British ambassador threw some light on the methods of barbarism adopted to secure their conversion, and on the value attached by the people to their so-called recantation.
Pius IX. continued to protest against such, violence, and some slight concessions were made to his demands in 1875. In 1877, when the war between Turkey and Russia made it useful for Russia to conciliate the Catholics, the Russian ambassador sketched a plan for the settlement of all differences between the Vatican and the Empire. The Secretary of State, Cardinal Simeoni, presented a statement of grievances and demands to the Russian representative in July, 1877. This should have been forwarded in due course to St. Petersburg, but, in disregard of all diplomatic courtesy, it was returned to the Cardinal Secretary in August. Pius IX. was obliged to dismiss summarily the Russian envoy.
On the accession of Leo XIII. the new Pope imme diately addressed a letter to the Czar, announcing his elevation to the Chair of St. Peter, and entreating the Czar to have compassion on the sufferings of his Catholic subjects. But the Pope's letter produced no change in the attitude of Alexander II. Negotiations were, how ever, opened with Rome in 1880, and an agreement was arrived at on certain points, but the assassination of the Czar delayed a definite settlement. The new Czar, Alex ander III. ( 1881-1894), despatched an agent to Rome to announce his elevation to the throne, and the negotia tions were resumed. In December, 1882, a convention* was agreed upon between the Pope and Alexander III., according to which the vacant bishoprics in Poland and Russia were to be filled, and the seminaries were to be restored to some extent, at least, to the control of the bishops. Henceforth, the bishop was to appoint and dis miss the professors, but only in conjunction with the government, and the course of studies was subject to the bishop, on condition, however, that the teaching of the Russlan language and literature should be under the
* Conventiones de Rebus Eccles. Initae sub Pontif. Leonis XIII., Rome, 1893, pp. 26-30.
supervision of the civil authorities. The Catholic semi nary in St. Petersburg was to be placed under the juris diction of the archbishop of Mohilew, who was to exer cise the same authority over it as was allowed to the bishops over the diocesan seminaries. The most galling of the restrictions imposed upon the Polish clergy by the police regulations were to be withdrawn. The unfortu nate bishop of Warsaw, Felinski, who had been sent into Siberia in 1863, was allowed to return, and in March, 1883, the vacant sees in Poland and Russia were filled.
The agreement was not always observed by the Russian officials. In 1885, the bishop of Wilna, who censured some of his clergy without having got the per mission of the government, was invited to St. Peters burg, and sent into exile, but owing to the intervention of the Pope he was allowed to leave the Empire, and a successor was appointed to the vacant see of Wilna. In 1885, further negotiations were opened between the Holy See and Russia in regard to the language to be used in the non-liturgical services and in religious instruction. Pius IX., in 1877, had forbidden the use of any language except Polish in such services wherever the Polish lan guage had been used for a considerable time. In the negotiations in 1882 Leo XIII. had refused to make any change in the instructions of his predecessor, and once more, in 1888, the Pope refused to sanction the Russian proposals. Nor would he consent to accept the sugges tions that the children of mixed marriages should be reared in the Orthodox Faith ( 1889).*
The Russian alliance with France, and the increasing influence of Austria in the Balkan provinces, made it still more necessary for the new Emperor, Nicholas II., to preserve good relations with the Papacy. The Poles, on the other hand, feared that the Holy See might neglect their interests in order to secure the support of Russia, and, hence, in 1894, Leo XIII. addressed a letter to the Polish nation, in which he recalled all that Poland had done for the Church, and recounted his own efforts to
* T'Serclaes, Le Pape Léon XIII., Vol. I., Chap. XXIII.
secure an amelioration of their condition. He besought them to remain united with their bishops, and to cease their efforts to force the Uniates and others to accept the Latin rite. Nicholas II. was disposed to make certain concessions to the Poles and the Catholics, but his efforts were often defeated by hostile officials. In 1898, he agreed to recognise the Uniates as belonging to the Catholic Church, but only on condition that they should renounce the Greek rite, and, besides, he permitted cer tain religious orders to reside in Poland. The following year he allowed priests to visit Rome, and authorised the erection of a Catholic Church in St. Petersburg.
But the idea of granting full liberty to the Catholic Church was rejected as an impossible concession till the Russian defeats in the war with Japan, and the threat ened dissolution of the Empire made it necessary to in troduce radical reforms. In 1905, an imperial ukase was issued granting liberty of worship, and immediately whole villages of the "converted" Uniates passed over to Rome. In a few months close on 400,000 had left the Orthodox Church. Since that date the Catholic Church has made considerable progress in Russia. In Lithu ania and White Russia the bishop of Wilna has organ ised a political association in defence of Catholic in terests, and has formulated a programme demanding free communications with the Holy See, control of the churches and the seminaries by the bishop, and the resti tution of the ecclesiastical property. The question of language has, however, again become critical. The Poles, relying upon the Papal decree of 1877, insist upon the use of the Polish language in non-liturgical services, and in the religious instruction even in districts where they are in a minority. The Uniates, Lithuanians and others bitterly object to this, and appealed to the Holy See.* In 1906, Pius X. issued a new decree allowing the use of other languages wherever a large portion of the people are unacquainted with Polish.
* Palmieri, La Chiesa Russa, Chap. XI, pp. 713-734.
According to the returns of 1905 the total number of Catholics in the Russian Empire, including Poland, was 11,467,994. For the government of this Catholic popu lation seven bishoprics are established in the Polish provinces, and six in Russia proper. The affairs of the Church are controlled by a commission in St. Peters burg, and besides the diocesan seminaries, a seminary for the education of Catholic priests exists in the Russian capital.
(b) THE BALKAN PROVINCES
Louvet, Les Missions Catholiques au XIXe Siècle, Lille, 1898, pp. 75-99. Neher, Kirchlich-Statistische Tabellen über die Ganse Katholische Welt, Regensburg, 1895. Werner, Orbis Terrarum Catholicus, Freiburg, p. 549.
TURKEY IN EUROPE. --The work of the Church in the Balkan provinces has been carried on under great diffi culties during the nineteenth century. Islamism, as represented by Turkey, the schismatical Russian Church supported by the Czar, and the Protestant mis sionaries, maintained in great measure by English money, have united in opposing the progress of Catholicity. Political considerations, too, have played a great part in determining religious events in the East; and, as in recent years, France, the protector of the Eastern missions, was in alliance with Russia against Austria, very little opposition to the spread of Russian influence could be hoped for in that quarter.
It must be admitted that with the exception of popular outbursts ( 1821, 1830, 1860, 1877, 1897), caused very often by political considerations, the Sultans have shown themselves very liberal in their treatment of the Catholic Church. But the Sultans have been unable to restrain the officials from adopting a hostile attitude in many places where the old spirit of fanaticism is still strong. Religious orders and congregations of men and women have been allowed to settle down in all parts of the kingdom, and to conduct freely their educational and charitable institutions. The societies principally repre sented are the Franciscans, the Dominicans, the Jesuits, the Lazarists, the Augustinians, the Brothers of the Christian Schools, and the Sisters of Charity. There resides at Constantinople a bishop for the Catholics of the Latin Rite, with the title of vicar patriarch. There is, besides, a bishop at Constantinople for the United Greeks, and for the Bulgarians of the Greek rite an archiepiscopal administrator resides at Jerusalem since 1893, with two vicars apostolic, one for Thrace, the other for Macedonia ( 1893). Besides, for the Bul garians of the Latin rite in the Turkish provinces a vicariate apostolic was created in 1841, and confided to the Capuchins.
In the province of Epirus the metropolitan see of Durazzo has been left without any of its former suffragan sees owing to the Mussulman invasion. The archbishop is assisted by communities of Franciscans. In Albania there is an archbishopric at Scutari, with three suffragan sees, Alesio, Pulati, Sappa, and an exempt Benedictine abbey. The total number of Catholics in these provinces amounts to about 300,000.
MONTENEGRO. --The independence of Montenegro was formally recognised by Turkey, and guaranteed by the great powers in the Treaty of Berlin ( 1878). Prince Nicholas ( 1860) opened negotiations with Rome, and in 1886 a concordat* was agreed to between the Holy See and Montenegro. The see of Antivari was separated from Scutari, and erected into an archbishopric. Later on ( 1888), the use of the Slav language for liturgical service was recognised in Montenegro. The total population of the principality amounts to 230,000, most of whom belong to the Orthodox Church, the Catholics number ing only about 10,000. The archbishop of Antivari is ex- officio a member of the Skupshtina, and full liberty is given to the Catholic Church.
SERVIA. --The inhabitants of Servia made a long
* Conventiones initae sub Pontif Leonis XIII., Rome, 1893, pp. 71-5.
struggle against Turkish rule till finally the indepen dence of their kingdom was recognised by the powers in the Treaty of Berlin ( 1878). The total population in 1904 was 2,676,989, of whom 10,423 were returned as Catholics. The Greek Orthodox religion is the estab lished one. For the government of the Catholic Church and administration there exists a bishopric at Belgrade.
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA. --By the Treaty of Berlin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, though left under the nominal suzerainty of the Sultan, were handed to Austrian ad ministration. Since that time they have been formally taken over by Austria, and an agreement was arrived at by which Turkey resigned all claims over these pro vinces ( 1909). After the Austrian occupation in 1878 the Pope, at the request of the Emperor, re-established the hierarchy in these provinces ( 1881).* An archiepiscopal see and three suffragan sees were erected. The vast majority of the inhabitants belong to the Orthodox Church or to the Mohammedan body, but, owing to the assistance and encouragement given by Austria to the Catholic missionaries, considerable progress has been made during the last thirty years. The entire popula tion in 1905 was 1,568,092, of whom 548,632 were Mohammedans, 673,246 Greek Orthodox, and 334,142 Catholics. The Catholic population is comparatively small, but it is well to remember that in 1800 it was only 85,000. The organisation of the Church in these pro vinces is very complete. Besides the secular clergy a large number of communities of religious congregations are settled there and do good work, especially in the schools. In the government schools the clergy are allowed to give religious instruction. For the education of the ecclesiastical students both preparatory and theo logical seminaries have been provided.
BULGARIA. --By the Treaty of Berlin Bulgaria was created an autonomous principality under the suzerainty of the Sultan. In 1909, Prince Ferdinand declared the absolute independence of the country, and assumed the
* Conventiones, pp. 23-26.
title of Czar. The Bulgarians of the Latin rite were so persecuted by the Turks and by the schismatical Greeks that large numbers of them emigrated. In 1781, Pius VI. requested the Passionists to undertake the care of the Bulgarian missions. For a long time the Catholic religion was barely tolerated, but after 1820 a better era set in for the missionaries. The Encyclical of Leo XIII., Grande Munus, addressed to the Slavs in 1880, and the great Slav pilgrimage to Rome in 1881, created a sensation in the Balkan provinces.* Russia grew alarmed lest a Slav Catholic movement should be created under the protection of Austria, and was especially alarmed lest Bulgaria should pass over to Rome. This danger became greater when, in 1887, on the abdication of Prince Alexander, Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg was elected ruler of Bulgaria. The Prince was a Catholic, and married a Catholic lady, the daughter of Robert, Duke of Parma. At first the government of Bulgaria seemed inclined to shake off the Russian yoke, but after the assassination of Stambouloff, Russian influence again became predominant, and in accordance with the terms of the constitution it was de manded that Prince Ferdinand should allow his son, Prince Boris, to be reared in the Orthodox faith.
At the opening of the Chambers in 1895 Prince Ferdinand announced that, though he was unalterably attached to the religion of his forefathers, he would make the sacrifice which the country demanded, and would allow his heir to be received into the Church of the nation. Through the nuncio at Vienna the prince opened negotiations to secure the approval of Rome for such a step, but naturally enough he found no support. Undaunted by the stern non possumus of the Cardinal Secretary of State, Prince Ferdinand dared to go to Rome personally to plead his cause in the presence of the Pope, ( 1896), but, according to his own account, the interview was a painful one for both parties. Notwithstanding all remonstrances, Ferdinand persisted in his resolution, and
* T'Serclaes, Léos XIII., I., Chap. XIII.
in February, 1896, the young prince was solemnly re ceived into the Greek schismatical Church.* This act of apostasy threw Bulgaria once more into the arms of Russia, and destroyed all hopes of an immediate union with Rome. The total population of Bulgaria in 1905 was 4,035,625, of whom about 30,000 were Catholics. The remainder belonged to the Greek Church or to Mohammedanism.
ROUMANIA. --In 1866, the present ruler of Roumania, Carol I., was elected, and in 1878 the independence of Roumania was recognised by the powers. By the in fluence of the Turks the Catholic religion had been nearly blotted out in Roumania, though the Franciscans, who had gone there in the thirteenth century, succeeded in retaining a few of their missions. Pius VI. en couraged the Passionists to settle in these provinces. In 1883, owing to the remarkable progress that had been made, Leo XIII. re-established the hierarchy in Roumania, by erecting a metropolitan see at Bucharest, with one suffragan see, that of Jassy. The total popu lation of Roumania in 1906 was about six and a half millions, live and a half millions of whom belong to the Greek schismatical Church. The Catholics in 1890 were only 108,000, but even that figure shows a considerable increase since 1850. The government of Roumania is favourable to the Catholics, and full permission is given to the religious congregations to settle in the country, and to conduct their educational and charitable institu tions.
GREECE. --In 1820, the Greeks rose in rebellion against the Turks, and after a heroic struggle succeeded in estab lishing the independence of their nation. In the official act, by which the European powers recognised the new kingdom of Greece, a clause was inserted guaranteeing liberty of worship ( 1830). But the national spirit of Greece is very much opposed to Western Catholicity, and very little progress has been made by the Catholic missionaries. In 1875, at the request of the king, PiusIX
* T'Serclaes, op. cit., III., Chap. XLIX.
IX. established the archbishopric of Athens, under the jurisdiction of which there were 18,000 Catholics in 1890. Flourishing primary schools exist in the Catholic parishes, and secondary schools are conducted by the religious congregations. In the Ionian Islands there is a metropolitan see at Corfu, and two suffragan sees, Zante and Cefalonia, the combined Catholic population of which amounts to about 5,000.
In the islands of the archipelago there is one arch bishopric, Naxos, and four suffragan sees, Santorin, Scio, Syra, Tinos, and Mycone. The total Catholic population of these islands in 1890 was 13,150. In the island of Crete there is one bishopric, Candia, with about 600 Catholics.
THE CHURCH IN NORTHERN EUROPE
(a) DENMARK Karup, Geschichte der Kath. Kirche in Dänemark, Münster, 1863. Crouzil, Le Catholicisme dans les pays Scandinaves, Vol. I., En Danemark et en Islande, Paris, 1902.
THE Catholic religion was entirely crushed in Denmark in the sixteenth century, and very stringent laws were made against priests who attempted to settle down in the country. It was only with difficulty that the ambassador of France was permitted to have a chapel for the use of the French Catholics resident in Copenhagen. These laws were maintained practically in full force till 1849, when the king was obliged to grant a liberal constitution. The constitution guaranteed liberty of worship to every citizen, and freed those belonging to a recognised religious body other than the Lutheran Church, from the payment of taxes imposed for the support of the national church. In addition to this, nobody should be deprived of the full enjoyment of his civil or political rights on account of his religious opinions.
Very few Catholic families were to be found in Den mark at that period, but soon two German priests arrived in the country, and the number of Catholics began to in crease. Members of the Society of Jesus did excellent work in different parts of the country, and their college at Ordrup afforded an opportunity to the Catholic boys of procuring a good secondary education. The Sisters of St. Joseph of Chambéry volunteered to take charge of a hospital and the direction of schools, The number of Catholics at present in Denmark is about 9,000, most of whom are converts from Lutheranism. These are ministered to by about forty priests, regular and secular, most of whom are Germans. The religious congregations represented in the Danish mission are the Jesuits, the Redemptorists, and the Franciscans; while the Brothers of Camillus of Lisle, the Sisters of St. Joseph of Cham béry, of St. Elizabeth, and of Christian Charity, have foundations in different parts of the country. A prefect apostolic was appointed for Denmark in 1869, and in 1892, Leo XIII. erected a vicariate apostolic, and appointed a bishop, the first who resided in Copenhagen since 1536.
The bishop and clergy are supported partly by contri butions from the Propagation of the Faith, the St. Boniface Society, or from some similar association, and partly by the offerings of the people. The property of the Church in Denmark is held by a legally established cor poration, consisting of the bishop, a priest, and a layman nominated by the bishop. This body can administer the Church property, and accept donations or legacies for religious or charitable purposes. The Catholics have their own primary schools, conducted for the most part by the Marist brothers, or the Sisters belonging to some religious congregation. Though Protestants are for bidden by law to send their children to Catholic schools, yet the law is very often neglected or evaded by register ing their children as Catholics. Close on two thousand children attend the Catholic schools. The Jesuits con duct two secondary schools, one at Copenhagen, and another at Ordrup, while a third institution of a similar kind is conducted by a secular priest. The Sisters of St. Joseph have three higher schools for girls. Two orphanages, one for boys, and one for girls, have also been established, while in Copenhagen, and in different cities through the country, the hospitals are in charge of the Catholic Sisters, whose services are very highly appreciated both by the medical men and by the people.
The Catholic population is splendidly organised owing to the number of charitable and religious confraternities. Two newspapers, one of which is devoted almost entirely to the discussion of social problems, have been established to safeguard Catholic interests, and a fair beginning has been made in the work of creating a Catholic literature in Danish. It must be admitted that the people of Denmark show no bigotry against the Catholic Church, that they are anxious to learn its doctrines, and that, if one may judge by the number of conversions in recent years, the Catholic mission in Den mark is likely to obtain a fair measure of success.
In Iceland the Catholic religion was practically eradi cated during the Reformation period. But in 1850 two French priests landed on the island to minister to the wants of the French fishermen who settled there, or who visited the ports during the fishing season. When these left the island there was no missionary to take their place, but in 1896 the vicar apostolic of Denmark sent, at the request of the Pope, two priests to the island. The Sisters of St. Joseph sent some of their number to take care of the sick, and to open a school.
(b) NORWAY AND SWEDEN
Adelsward, La Liberté de Conscience en Suède, 1862. Crouzil, Le Catholicisme dans les pays Scandinaves, II.; Norvège et Suède, Paris, 1902. Fallize, Une Tournée Pastorale en Norvège, Lyon, 1895. Strindberg, Les Relations de la France avec la Suède jusqu'à nos Jours, Paris, 1901.
The laws of Norway were very severe against those who did not belong to the state religion, which is Lutheran. Dissenters and Catholics were treated alike, and the usual penalty for such offences was banishment from the country. But the Dissenters gradually in creased in numbers, especially after 1814, when Norway was separated from Denmark, and they insisted upon a more tolerant legislation. In 1839, the Storting forced the king to abolish the law prohibiting religious assemblies of dissenters; and in 1845, though the Lutheran Church was retained as the state church, freedom was granted to dissenting bodies to open reli gious establishments. The Catholics availed themselves of this law to erect churches in Christiania and in other cities of the kingdom. In 1891, a new act was passed, granting the Catholics full liberty to perform their re ligious services, and to organise their scattered commu nities. To enjoy the privileges of the law the community was obliged to notify to the civil authorities the name of the clergyman who was to be in charge; and the govern ment recognised the clergyman as the registrar for the births, marriages and deaths of members of his commu nity. Catholics were formerly excluded from many offices under the state, but the law of 1894 removed most of these restrictions.
The Catholics are not obliged to pay the personal tax levied for the support of the Lutheran religion, but the tithes upon land are paid for the present by all citizens. The local authorities may exempt them from taxes to be levied for the maintenance of the schools in all districts where a sufficiently equipped Catholic school exists. Religious orders are allowed to settle in Norway, and to possess property.
In 1887, a prefect apostolic was appointed for Norway, and in 1892, the prefect apostolic, Mgr. Fallize, was appointed vicar apostolic, and consecrated bishop. He is assisted by a staff of about twenty-five priests, some of whom are native Norwegians. The bishop is treated by the civil authorities with the same respect as is shown to the bishops of the state church, and all his represen tations to the Chambers or to the king receive the greatest attention. Large numbers of Sisters are in charge of the Catholic schools, and of many of the public hospitals. In 1900, the total number of Catholics in Norway was about two thousand. As in Denmark, the Church is sup ported by donations from Catholic missionary societies, and by the offerings of the people. The parishes may possess property, build churches, schools and presbyteries without any permission from the civil authorities, and the law recognises the vicar apostolic as the supreme administrator of the ecclesiastical property. Large numbers of hospitals have been built by the Sisters at the request of the medical councils. These are generally exempted from taxation, and, in some cases receive finan cial assistance from the state. With all classes of the citizens the Sisters are most popular, and their influence in spreading Catholicity is of supreme importance. The Catholics are allowed to have their own separate ceme teries, and, at the request of the bishop, the Storting abolished the law of 1894, according to which children were obliged to cremate the bodies of their parents if the latter so requested before their death.
Schools are attached to nearly all the Catholic missions. These are subject to the control of the bishop, but may be called upon by the civil authorities to admit extern examiners to test the proficiency of the teachers and pupils. There are several secondary schools for the higher education of girls, but no similar provision has been made for the boys. No ecclesiastical seminary has been established for the present in Norway. Those who volunteer for the Norwegian mission are educated in Germany, France or Belgium, and afterwards, if foreigners, spend some time in the bishop's house, mastering the language and customs of the country. Numerous associations and confraternities have been organised in order to keep the Catholics thoroughly united, and a newspaper is being published in defence of Catholic interests. The laws of Norway are most favourable to the progress of Catholicity, and the people are most friendly in their attitude towards the Catholic portion of the population. Civil functionaries frequently attend the Catholic religious functions; processions of the Blessed Eucharist pass freely through the streets of the capital; the Sisters of St. Joseph wear their religious habit, and are received everywhere with the greatest re spect. In the Lutheran Church itself a movement, akin to the Oxford movement in England, has been gradually developing. One of the greatest writers of the party was Dr. Krogh-Tonning, a Lutheran pastor in Chris tiania. By some people he has been referred to as the Newman of Norway. His theological studies on the unity of the Church, and the nature of the change that took place at the Reformation, led him to the conclusion that the Catholic Church was the only legitimate repre sentative of the Apostolic Church. In February, 1900, he bade adieu to the parishioners amongst whom he had laboured for fifteen years, and retired to a place of re treat, where, at the end of six months, he was received into the Catholic Church. His example has had a salu tary effect upon his countrymen.
SWEDEN. --The Catholic religion was driven out of Sweden by fraud and violence, and severe penalties, im prisonments or banishment were enacted against any body who would attempt to revive it. Except at the French embassy at Stockholm, no priest was permitted to reside, nor was the celebration of Mass allowed, except in the chapel of the embassy. The laws against Catholics and Dissenters were retained in force till late in the nineteenth century. In 1854, a convert from Luther anism was non-suited on account of his religion in a case brought by him to recover the property of his deceased brother, and in 1858, five women, who had become Catholics, were condemned to exile, together with the loss of their property and civil rights. Dissenters were treated with equal cruelty. But such, persecution roused the attention of both Catholic and Protestant writers. A Protestant congress, held in Paris in 1855, protested against the Swedish intolerance, as did also the Protes tants of Holland in 1857. The king, Oscar I., was anxious to remove such penal legislation, and he was supported by the majority of the people, but the clergy and the higher classes prevented any change till 1860, when the penalties against those abandoning the state church were abolished; dissenting communities were permitted to build churches, erect schools and to acquire separate cemeteries, but severe penalties were still maintained against those who would preach publicly doctrines contrary to the pure gospel truth.
In 1870, a further law was passed, opening most of the offices of state to Dissenters, and in 1873, the legislation which regulates at present the position of the Catholics and Dissenters, was formulated. According to this law Christians who do not belong to the state religion are obliged to get the permission of the king before forming themselves into a religious community. Minors are not permitted to abandon the Lutheran Church, but adults may do so after having notified their pastor. Religious communities are allowed to acquire property other than churches and schools, but only with the permission of the king. Religious congregations of men or women are absolutely forbidden to settle in Sweden, an exception, how ever, being made in favour of the Sisters who are de voted to the care of the sick. A vicariate apostolic has been created at Stockholm for the government of the missions in Sweden. The number of Catholics is com paratively small, and divided into scattered communi ties. Schools are attached to each mission, and are largely frequented by Protestant as well as Catholic children. Three hospitals have been founded for the care of the sick, and societies have been established to promote the closer union of the Catholic body. A beginning has been made in the publication of Catholic books in the Swedish language.
(a) PIUS IX. AND ITALY
Pougeois, Histoire de. Pie IX. son Pontificat et son Siècle, 6 vols., Paris, 1877-86. Villefranche, Pie IX., sa Vie, son Histoire, son Siècle, 8e ed., Paris, 1878. Maguire, Pius IX. and His Times, 2nd ed., Dublin, 1878. Ballerini, Les premières pages du Pontificat du Pape Pie IX., Rome 1909. Nielsen, History of the Papacy in the Nineteenth Century, 2 vols., London, 1906. Cesare, Roma e lo stato del Pape dal ritorno di Pio IX., 2 vols., Rome, 1907 (Eng. tr.). Storia di Vittorio Emanuele II. et del suo Regno, 3 vols., Rome, 1893. Kraus, Cavour, Die Erhebung, Italiens im XIX. Jahrhundert, Mayence, 1902. O'Clery, The Making of Italy, London, 1892.
THE position of affairs in Italy, and especially in the Papal States during the latter years of Gregory XVI., was particularly critical. Though the rebellion planned by Mazzini and the Young Italy Party in 1842 had been repressed, it was evident to all that the old regime of government in the states could not long continue unchanged, and that serious reforms must be undertaken. Gregory XVI., on account of his age and infirmity, felt himself unfit for such a task, but he realised the dangers that surrounded the Holy See, and was anxious that all formalities should be dispensed with lest a revolution might break out before a successor could be appointed.
He died on the 1st June, 1846, and on the 14th June forty-nine cardinals assembled at the Quirinal palace for the conclave. Austria and France were deeply interested in the election, but their very rivalry prevented them from interfering with the freedom of the cardinals.
The latter were divided into two parties, one, conser vative, in favour of maintaining the unyielding attitude of Gregory XVI., the other, liberal, anxious for prudent and moderate reforms. Cardinal Lambruschini was the candidate of the conservative section, while Cardinal Mastai received the support of the liberal element. On the 16th June he received thirty-four out of the forty- nine votes, and was proclaimed Pope under the title of Pius IX.
Cardinal Mastai-Ferretti was born at Sinigaglia on the 13th May, 1792. From his earliest years he was in clined to become a priest, but on account of ill-health an ecclesiastical career seemed to be closed against him. Later on the sickness disappeared, and he was ordained priest in 1819. In 1823, he accompanied Mgr. Muzzi on a diplomatic mission to Chili, in 1825 he was appointed a canon of St. Peter's, in 1827 archbishop of Spoleto, in 1832 he was transferred to Imola, and in 1840 he was created a cardinal. He was regarded as a liberal, and was supposed to favour the views of the federal party in Italy. Personally, he was a man of con ciliating manners, of irreproachable character, beloved by all with whom he came in contact, and seemed to have been marked out by Providence to guide the destinies of the Church at a most critical period. All parties, liberals, conservatives, Austrians and French, were pleased with his election, but there were some who feared that his kindness of heart might be easily abused by the clever and designing opponents of the Papal sovereignty.
Pius IX. appointed a commission of cardinals to arrange for reforms in the government and adminis tration of the Papal States. He was received with acclamations whenever he appeared on the streets in Rome, and addresses for reform poured in upon him from all parts of the Papal States. In July he granted an amnesty to all political exiles and prisoners. This increased the popularity of the new Pope, but wise men expressed their anxiety about the results of such a step. The exiles returned, and the prisoners were liberated, but only to further the revolu tionary policy on account of which they had been punished. Every little concession made by the Pope was marked by a great popular manifestation of rejoic ing, but in most cases these demonstrations were organ ised or encouraged by the party of Mazzini in order to stir up the people, to teach them their own strength, and to have them trained in readiness for the day when, in response to their increasing demands, the Pope must give an unfavourable reply. In March, 1847, Pius IX. announced his intention of appointing a Council of State, composed of laymen, to advise the Papal government, and on the 12th July he appointed a very liberal ministry. In October the new Council of State met, and in December, 1847, the Pope, by a Motu Proprio, recognised the responsibility of his ministers. These concessions only served to rouse the national feeling throughout Italy, and to strengthen the movement for a united and independent Italian nation. Charles Albert, king of Piedmont, imitated the liberal policy of Pius IX., while reforms were also granted in the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. While the Young Italy Party looked to Charles Albert of Piedmont as the man to drive out the Austrians from Lombardy and Venice, and establish a united kingdom, the federalists turned to Pius IX., in the hope that he would place himself at the head of the anti-Austrian movement and establish a confederation of Italian States, the president of which should be the Pope, and its military defender, the king of Piedmont or Sardinia. The Austrians became alarmed at the serious turn affairs were taking in Italy, especially at the formation of a national guard in the Papal States, and the utterances of men like Padre Ventura. Rumours of a general rising in the Papal States were put in circulation. A few small conflicts took place, and, as a warning to the liberal Pope and the Italian patriots, an Austrian force marched into the Papal States and took possession of the fortress of Ferrara ( 17th July, 1847). Such a step only served to embitter the feelings in Italy against the foreign garrison, and placed the Pope in a very difficult position. The streets of Rome resounded with cries of "Down with the Austrians." Pius IX. protested energetically against the violation of his territory, but by the exertions of France and England an understanding was arrived at, and for the moment the danger of war seemed passed.
But with the opening of the of the new year, 1848, a series of revolutions broke out over Italy. Ferdinand II. had steadily refused all reforms in his kingdom of Naples, and, as a result, in January, 1848, a rebellion broke out, and on the 28th January the king was obliged to promise a constitution on the model of that established in France in 1830. In Piedmont, Charles Albert yielded to the wishes of his people, and promised a constitution, which was published on the 4th March. Leopold II., the Grand Duke of Tuscany, took a similar step ( 11th Feb., 1848). The effect of the Revolution in France was felt throughout Italy, and, instead of frightening Pius IX. from his scheme of liberal reform, only served to en courage him to proceed more rapidly.
In March, 1848, he established a ministry, composed almost entirely of laymen. Cardinal Antonelli was named its first president. The new ministry imme diately demanded a constitution for the Papal States, and on the 14th March Pius IX. yielded to their request. According to the decree issued by him there was to be a Chamber of Deputies elected by the peolple, and an Upper House, the members of which should be nomi nated. The college of cardinals, as the senate of the Pope, was to have a restrictive voice on the legislation. The constitution was received with acclamations by the Romans, but the revolutionary party regarded it as rather a hindrance to their schemes. Meanwhile, the population in the Austrian territories of Lombardy and Venice began to move, and when the news arrived that a revolution had broken out in Vienna the inhabitants of Milan and Venice rose in rebellion, and attacked the Austrian garrison. Their first successes roused the rest of Italy. Modena, Reggio, Parma and Piacenza rose against their rulers, and threw in their fortunes with their countrymen of Lombardy and Venice. Charles Albert of Sardinia, carried away by his own enthusiasm and that of his people, assembled his forces and marched towards Milan.
The position of Pius IX. was difficult in the extreme. His subjects in the Papal States were thirsting for the command to aid in driving out the Austrians, and, as an Italian patriot, his own personal inclinations lay in the same direction. But as the Head of the Catholic Church, whose mission it was to preach peace, he felt it difficult to draw the sword against the House of Habs burg, which for centuries had been the mainstay of Catholicity in Europe. The populace blamed the Jesuits for the hesitation of the Pope. Gioberti book, Il Gesuita Moderno, had roused a great deal of ill-feeling against the society in the Papal States and in Piedmont. Attacks were made upon its houses in Rome, and Pius IX. felt it necessary to advise them to withdraw before the storm. On the 28th March Father Roothan left Rome, and most of those under him followed his ex ample. The Papal troops marched towards the frontiers under the command of General Durando, and for a moment, it seemed as if the Pope was determined to declare war upon Austria. The excitement in Italy and Austria ran high, but on the 29th April, the Pope de livered an allocution, which made it clear that though he did not approve of the Austrian measures, he felt un able, as Head of the Church, to proclaim war.
The ministry immediately resigned, and great dis orders broke out in Rome. The mob surrounded the Papal palace and demanded that Count Mamiani, a leader among the revolutionary party, should be appointed Prime Minister. The Pope yielded for the time, but it was evident that such an arrangement could be only temporary. Finally, on September 16th, he appointed Count Rossi, Prime Minister, and nearly all the other offices were given to laymen. The appoint ment of this liberal ministry satisfied the vast majority of the people. Count Rossi recognised that the people did not want war, that they were neither revolutionaries nor socialists, that they sought only reform, and he was determined to uphold the sovereignty of the Pope at all costs. The Parliament elected by the people was to meet in Rome on the 15th, November, and the new Prime Minister, though warned that his life was in danger, de termined to do his duty, and to be present at the open ing of this important assembly. As he approached the steps of the Chamber he was set upon by a band of ruffians, and stabbed to death. The leaders of the revo lutionary party stirred on their followers to overthrow the Papal government while everything was in confu sion. The Pope was besieged in his palace, and was obliged to promise the formation of a democratic ministry. His advisers deemed it best that in the cir cumstances he should abandon the city. By the aid of Count Spaur, the Bavarian ambassador, and of the Duke of Harcourt, the ambassador of France, he escaped in disguise from the Quirinal, and fled to Gaäta in the kingdom of Naples. Here he was joined by Ferdinand II. of Naples, and by a great many of the cardinals, ambassadors, and noblemen of the Papal States.
Pius IX. appointed a commission to govern the Papal States till his return. But the revolutionary party, the leading members of whom had now flocked to Rome, formed a provisional government, and summoned a Con stituent Assembly. The Assembly met in February, 1849, and was strongly radical in its character, owing to the fact that all loyal Catholics refused to take part in the elections lest by doing so they should recognise the new government. The papal government was abolished ( 9th Feb., 1849), and a Roman republic established. In March the administration was confided to three trium virs, Mazzini, Saffi, and Armellini. Pius IX. saw that there was no longer any hope of securing submis sion by peaceful negotiations, and on 18th February he issued an appeal to France, Austria, Spain, and Naples to help in putting an end to the rebellion in the Papal States. As no agreement for combined action between these countries could be concluded, each state determined to act separately. On the 26th April General Oudinot landed at the head of a French expedition, and marched on Rome, in the hope that the revolutionary govern ment would open the gates of the city without resistance, but he soon found his mistake, and was obliged to fall back and await reinforcements. These were quickly despatched from Paris, and on the 29th June, 1849, the French troops entered Rome. On the 3rd July the keys of the city were forwarded to Gaëta. Pius IX. did not return immediately owing to disputes between his ad visers and the French ministers. The latter demanded that the Pope should accept certain reforms, while the Pope's advisers, strongly supported by Austria, refused to recognise the right of France to interfere in the in ternal government of the Papal States. At length on the 17th September the Pope issued a Motu Proprio, in which he favoured the appointment of a council to pre pare legislation and to inquire into administration, of a Council of State to advise on financial affairs, of provin cial and district councils, together with a reform of the law codes, and an amnesty for political offences. He returned to his capital in April, 1850, and was well re ceived by the people, But his experience during these years had destroyed the liberalism of Pius IX. He re turned a changed man, and henceforth he was to follow the conservative policy urged on him by his minister, Cardinal Antonelli.
The war against Austria was unsuccessful. Charles Albert, deserted by most of the other states, made a good resistance, but the Piedmontese forces were routed at Novara in March, 1849, and the king abdicated in favour of his son, Victor Emmanuel II. Leopold II. returned to the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. Ferdinand II. re duced Sicily to obedience, and Venice and Lombardy were obliged to submit to the Austrian rule. The party of national unity was defeated for the time, but the action of Charles Albert had placed Piedmont at the head of the movement, and had induced the friends of national unity and independence to look for relief from the House of Savoy rather than from the sovereign of the Papal States.
Victor Emmanuel II. pursued a liberal policy in Pied mont, and owing to his attacks upon the prerogatives of the Church was brought into conflict with the clergy and with Pius IX. In 1850, the Siccardi law, abolishing the ecclesiastical courts, and the right of asylum, and re ducing the number of holidays, was passed against the protests of the Pope. The archbishops of Turin and Cagliari, who had taken a prominent part in opposing the measure, were sent into exile. Cavour, who had been one of the most strenuous supporters of the measure, was appointed Minister of Commerce. In 1852, a marriage law was passed by the Chamber of Deputies, but Victor Emmanuel refused to sanction the project, and the bill was abandoned. Cavour, as President of the Council and Minister for Foreign Affairs, became the guiding spirit of the policy of Piedmont. He took up the idea of a united Italy under the House of Savoy, and in spite of discouragements he succeeded in realising his plans. During the war of England and France against Russia in the Crimea, Cavour concluded an alliance with the two former powers, and as a result his appeal for reform in Italy at the Congress of Paris ( 1856) met a favourable response from France and England. Napoleon III., as a young man, had been favourable to the unity and freedom of Italy.* As Emperor of France the fear of provoking his Catholic subjects re strained him from interfering in Italian affairs, but, at the same time, he understood the advantage it would be to France were Italy freed by French assistance, and connected with France by bonds of gratitude and depend ence. France and Italy so united could defy the might of Prussia, or even of all Germany. Hence, the Em
* Rome et Napoléon III., Paris 1907.
peror favoured the policy of Cavour, and the Orsini bomb in 1858 determined him to translate his sympathy into action. Cavour and Napoleon III. met secretly at Plombières, and Napoleon pledged himself to aid Pied mont in expelling the Austrians from Italy, and annex ing their Italian territories; while, on the other hand, Cavour agreed to cede Savoy and Nice to France. With such an understanding the outbreak of war was only a matter of time. In order to reconcile his Catholic sub jects to an Italian war, a semi-official pamphlet, entitled Napoléon III. et L'Italie,* was published in Paris in February, 1859. It recommended the liberation of Italy from the foreign yoke, the establishment of an Italian confederation under the presidency of the Pope, and the adoption of Liberal reforms in the Papal States.
In April, 1859, war was declared between Austria and Piedmont. Napoleon, before setting out for the Italian campaign, pledged himself to defend the integrity of the Papal States, and attended a solemn religious ceremony in the church of Notre Dame. The united Italian and French armies were too strong for the Austrians, and after the bloody battles of Magenta (4th June) and of Solferino (24th June) the two Emperors, Francis Joseph of Austria, and Napoleon III., agreed to an armistice. On the 11th July, at Villafranca, they signed the pre liminaries for a peace, according to which Austria handed over Lombardy to Napoleon, who was to transfer it to Piedmont, while Austria was to continue in posses sion of Venice. The Italian states were to be grouped together in a confederacy, with the Pope as permanent president. Cavour opposed such terms, but as Victor Emmanuel was unable to follow his advice, he resigned his position, and left Piedmont.
But the revolutionary party were determined to carry out their plan of a united Italy under the House of Savoy against the wishes of France, Austria and the Pope. Revolutions were stirred up in Tuscany, Parma, Modena, and in the Papal States at Ravenna and
* Written by an intimate friend of Napoleon III., La Guéronnière.
Bologna. They were secretly encouraged from Pied mont to take no notice of the peace of Villafranca. Plebiscites were held in the different states, and the vast majority of those voting in Tuscany, Parma, Modena and the Romagna province of the Papal States, de clared their desire of union with Piedmont. Cavour returned to Piedmont; the adhesion of these states was accepted, and in the Parliament ( 2nd April, 1860) Victor Emmanuel was able to announce that nearly all northern and central Italy was now united under his rule.
Pius IX. protested against the annexation of the Romagna, but it was soon evident that he could not rely upon Napoleon III. for redress. In December, 1859, another semi-official pamphlet, entitled Le Pape et Le Congrès, appeared at Paris, in which, though the sovereign independence of the Pope was insisted upon, it was pointed out that owing to his position as Head of the Catholic Church, and the difficulty of reconciling his spiritual jurisdiction with the needs of a limited monarchy, he should be content with the city of Rome and a small portion of the surrounding territory. This, and a competent revenue should be secured to him by the guarantee of the Catholic powers. In a private letter to Pius IX. Napoleon urged the same view. But Pius IX. refused to listen to such counsels. He had taken an oath to guard intact the Papal States as the territory of the Catholic Church, and he refused to yield his rights at the bidding of the revolutionaries. Clearly perceiv ing that the policy of Cavour was to stir up revolution, and then to reap the fruits of that movement by annexing the rebel territories, Pius IX. entrusted the formation of an army for the defence of the Papal States to General Lamorcière, and issued a call for volunteers. Thou sands flocked to his stindard from all the countries of Europe, especially from France and Ireland. The Treaty between Napoleon III. and Victor Emmanuel, by which Savoy and Nice were handed over to France, was concluded on 24th March (1860), and thus the Emperor had become the accomplice of Piedmont in its Italian campaign. Two days later Pius IX. published a decree of excommunication against all who had taken part in the seizure of the Papal States.
Meanwhile, the pioneers of Piedmontese annexation, Garibaldi and his associates, began the attack on the kingdom of Naples, whose young king, Francis II., supported the Pope against Piedmont. The campaign of Garibaldi was most successful, and Cavour, anxious to reap the fruits of the revolution for Piedmont, opened negotiations for annexation. The Marches and Umbria in the Papal States were also included in Cavour's plans of annexation; and in September, 1860, a messenger was despatched from Victor Emmanuel to announce to the. Pope that in order to put an end to the disorders in these territories a Piedmontese army of occupation was being despatched thither. France promptly withdrew its ambassador from Piedmont, as did all the other powers except England and Sweden.
The Papal army, under General Lamorcière, was meant only to preserve internal order, and unless sup ported by France could not hope to resist the army of Piedmont. General Lamorcière suffered a dreadful defeat at Castelfidardo (18th Sept.), but with the remnant of his troops made his way to the port of Ancona, which he hoped to hold until reinforced by the soldiers of Napoleon III. But the expected assistance was not forthcoming, and on the 29th September Ancona was obliged to capitulate. Thus, together with Romagna, the Marches and Umbria were now separated from the Papal States, that is to say, Piedmont had seized three- fourths of the Pope's dominions. The Adriatic pro vinces were all lost, as were five of the ten provinces along the Mediterranean, and the population under the rule of the Pope was reduced from about 3,000,000 to about 685,000. Naples, too, was completely overcome, and its king, Francis II., an exile; so that when the Italian Parliament met in February at Turin all Italy, except the small strip of territory adjoining Rome, and Venice, which was still under Austrian rule, was subject to Victor Emmanuel. In March, 1861, Victor Emmanuel was declared king of Italy.
The new Italian kingdom was now an accomplished fact, but its existence was still precarious. Many of the great powers refused to recognise it officially, and Napoleon III., though he had opened up the way to the destruction of the Papal States, was still wavering. The Catholics of France were a strong body, and ex pressed their dissatisfaction in no uncertain tone. Mgr. Dupanloup, the liberal, was as vigorous in his protests as Mgr. Pie, the ultramontane. The question of a capital for the new kingdom was still to be met. Turin must be abandoned on account of its proximity to the Italian territory that had been ceded to France. Naples was out of the question for reasons of national unity. The choice lay between Rome and Florence, and Cavour, in the first Italian Parliament, declared that Rome must be the capital, but before he could realise his plans he died ( 6th June, 1861). He declared that the independence of the Holy See must be respected, and that the policy of Piedmont was then, what it had always been, a free Church in a free state. Negotiations were opened up with Rome through Passaglia, who had left the Jesuits in 1859, but the negotiations failed, as Pius IX. refused to recognise the spoliation of his territory. Passaglia published a work, Pro Causa Italica ad Episcopos Catholicos, in favour of the views of Cavour, and some other ecclesiastics supported this party. Passaglia himself fled to Turin, and Father Augustine Theiner defended the Papal sovereignty against such attacks in his celebrated book, Codex Diplomaticus Dominii Temporalis Sanctae Sedis. It was at the same time that Döllinger, whose views on the necessity of the temporal dominion of the Pope had been suspected, published Kirche und Kirchen, Papsttum und Kirchen staat.
Napoleon III. recognised the kingdom of Italy in 1861, but persistently refused to allow Rome to be selected as the capital. He was distrusted by Pius IX., and was detested by the supporters of Victor Emmanuel. While the question was still the subject of negotiation Garibaldi determined to settle it as he had settled so many other thorny problems of Italian poli tics. He gathered a force of about 2,000 men and raised his favourite cry "Rome or Death." But the Italian government, fearing the intervention of France, despatched a body of troops, who arrested him at Aspromonte ( August, 1862). At length in September, 1864, an agreement was concluded between Napoleon III. and Victor Emmanuel. It consisted of four articles, according to which Italy pledged itself not to invade the remnant of the Papal States, and, if necessary, to pre vent any such invasion, nor was it to offer any objection to the Pope organising an army of volunteers for the preservation of order in his dominions. On the other hand, France agreed to withdraw the French garrison from Rome according as the Papal army was organised, the withdrawal to be completed in two years. The Sep tember Convention, as this agreement was known, was denounced by the Pope and by the French Catholics as a betrayal of the Holy See. The Italian capital was transferred from Turin to Florence.
In the year 1866 things looked decidedly threatening for the Pope. The French troops had taken their de parture from Rome, while Italy, as the ally of Prussia in the war against Austria, secured possession of Venice. Negotiations were again opened up between Pius IX. and Victor Emmanuel about the vacant Italian bishoprics, but the main cause of disagreement still re mained unsettled. Nor was the home policy of the new Italian government such as was likely to recommend it to the Pope. Owing to its bankrupt financial condition, the entire ecclesiastical property was seized and sold. the money going to the state Treasury, while the state on its part undertook to pay the salaries of the clergy ( 1867). At the same time, Garibaldi began a new cam paign against the Papal States. He made a tour through Italy to rouse the people to aid him in capturing Rome. The French ambassador warned the Italian government to stop this campaign, and French, warships were held in readiness to be despatched to the assistance of the Pope. The government arrested Garibaldi, but continued to allow the enlisting of volunteers, hoping that disturbances might break out in the Papal States. When all was ready Garibaldi was allowed to escape, and arrived in Florence, where he gathered around his standard a band of recruits, and marched southwards towards Rome. Immediately the French fleet was de spatched from Toulon (28th Oct.), and two days later a French army marched into Rome. Garibaldi was already within a few miles of Rome, but the help which he expected in the Papal States was not forthcoming. General Kanzler, at the head of the Papal troops, and supported by a body of the French soldiers, advanced against him, and routed him at Mentana (3rd Nov.).
The French garrison remained in Rome for the de fence of the Papal States, much to the disgust of the Italian government; but Napoleon III. was so deter mined to uphold the Papal sovereignty that he refused to enter into an alliance with Italy and Austria, one of the terms of which would have been permission to Italy to capture Rome.* When it was evident that war was about to break out between France and Prussia in 1870 both sides began to bid for Italian support. Prussia promised a free hand in regard to Rome, while Napoleon III. recalled the French troops ( 12th July, 1870). Per sonally, Victor Emmanuel was in favour of supporting Napoleon, and of leading an Italian army across the Alps to his relief, but the popular feeling was entirely on the other side, and the king was obliged to abandon his idea.
In August, 1870, the French troops marched from Rome, and it was hoped that on their departure insur rections would be organised in the Papal States, and that the Italian government might have a decent pretext for intervention. But no such outbreaks took place, and
* Nielsen, op. cit., Vol. II., 377.
many of the ministers were against the plan of an un provoked attack. The news, however, that the French were defeated at Sedan, and that Napoleon III. was a prisoner in the hands of the Prussians, liberated Italy from all fear of France, and an immediate march upon Rome was determined upon. Victor Emmanuel for warded a letter to Pius IX., announcing the intentions of his government, and pledging himself to guard the independence of the Holy See ( 9th Sept., 1870). But the Pope, who had already learned, by bitter experience, the value of imperial or royal pledges, refused to hand over his dominions, and the employment of force became necessary. Two days later General Cadorna crossed the frontiers with an immense Italian army.
His orders were to march on Rome with all possible speed, so as to preclude all chance of European inter vention, and on the 17th September he was close to the walls of Rome. The Pope instructed General Kanzler to refuse to surrender the capital, though the smallness of the Papal army gave no hopes of a successful resist ance. The general was ordered to defend the city until a breach should have been made, so as to proclaim to the world that the Pope had not voluntarily surrendered his dominions, but, once a breach was made, the resist ance was to cease. The attack on Rome began on the morning of the 20th September, and by nine o'clock a breach had been made in the walls at Porta Pia. Pius IX. ordered the white flag to be hoisted, and negotia tions were begun between the two generals for a sur render of the city. The following day the Italian army made its formal entrance into Rome, while the last defenders of the Vatican marched away with heavy hearts through the Porta Cavalleggieri. All the old revolutionary exiles returned to the city, and stirred up demonstrations against the Pope and the clergy, while the vast body of the people viewed the progress of events in silence. The plebiscite was taken on 2nd October. Pius IX. warned his subjects to take no part in the elec tion. The result was that the vast body of those who were supposed to have voted declared in favour of union with the rest of Italy, and Victor Emmanuel issued a royal decree confirming the decision of the people, and annexing the remainder of the Papal States (11th Oct.). Pius IX. issued the Brief, Postquam Dei Munere, sus pending the Vatican Council, and on the 1st November he published the Encyclical, Respicientes ea omnia, ex communicating the usurpers, their abettors and advisers. But owing to the state of affairs in Europe the Pope could not hope for European intervention. France was already hopelessly beaten, Prussia favoured Italy, while Austria was unable to engage in a new war, and its government at that particular period was rather hostile to the Holy See.
The Quirinal palace was seized as a residence for Victor Emmanuel, and the Radical party demanded that the king should take up his residence in Rome, and that Rome should be declared the capital of Italy. But there were difficulties in the way. The capture of Rome had excited the indignation of Catholics throughout the world, and the governments of Europe began to realise that the position of the Pope was one of international interest, and could not be left to the whim of an Italian Parliament. A conference was proposed, but as a con ference could only end in confirming the status quo France objected. Others thought of a concordat, but the Pope's recent experience in Austria and Germany of the value of concordats made him unwilling to accept any such solution. At length, the Italian Parliament passed the Law of Guarantees* ( 13th May, 1871), by which the relations between the Pope and the Italian government were settled. According to this law the person of the Pope was declared to be sacred and in violable, and all crimes against him were to be punished as if they were directed against the king; but it was added that discussions on religious subjects were per fectly free. The latter clause nullified in a great measure
* Legge per le Guarentigie delle Prerogative del Sommo Pontefice e della Santa Sede, e per le relazioni dello Stato colla Chiesa.
the value of the guarantee, and it is under the shadow of free religious discussion that all kinds of brutal attacks on the Pope in some Italian newspapers have been allowed to go unpunished. The Italian government undertook to treat the Pope as an independent sovereign, and to allow him the precedence conceded to him by Catholic nations. He might retain his own soldiers for the defence of his person and palaces. The ambassadors of foreign nations at the Vatican should have the same rights and immunities as the envoys of the foreign powers at the Quirinal.
The Vatican, the Lateran palace, and the palace at Castel Gandolfo, were to be placed at the Pope's dis posal, together with an annual pension of 3,225,000 lire. He should have full liberty to exercise the functions of his office, and the absolute freedom of General Councils and conclaves for the election of a Pope were solemnly guaranteed. He was allowed his own post- office and telegraph office, and all his letters and tele grams were to be forwarded free of charge in Italian territory. His officials were to be protected by the civil authorities, and all foreign clergymen in Rome were to be treated as Italian citizens. In Rome and in the suburbicarian dioceses all seminaries, academies, and colleges for the education of the clergy were to be sub ject only to the Pope.
The future relations between the Church and State in Italy were also arranged. The government disclaimed all right to appoint or make suggestions about the appointments of bishops, nor were the bishops to be obliged to take an oath of loyalty to the king. With the exception, however, of those appointed to the suburbi carian sees, they should be Italians by birth, nor were any alterations to be made in regard to the ecclesiastical benefices over which the king already enjoyed the rights of patronage. The Exequatur was withdrawn for all ecclesiastical documents. But the value of these clauses was lessened by the provision that all ecclesiastical appointments, except to the suburbicarian sees, must be approved by the government before the persons who were so named could enjoy the revenues, and all de cisions of the ecclesiastical authorities referring to the temporal possessions of the Church required the Ex equatur before they could have civil force. This Law of Guarantees was declared to be a fundamental law of the state ( 1878), but the Italians have always maintained that at most it is only an Italian law, and is in no sense an international agreement.
Pius IX. refused to accept the Law of Guarantees, and two days after its publication he issued an Encyclical in explanation of his attitude. After renewing his protest against the seizure of the Papal States, he pointed out that unless the Pope had his own territory he must neces sarily be the subject of the Italian ruler, and the Law of Guarantees, which, on the face of it supposed such a subjection, entirely failed to secure the liberty necessary for the Holy See. Pius IX. refused to acknowledge such a guarantee, and refused to accept the salary that was offered to him by Italy. He remained shut up in the Vatican as a protest against the occupation of Rome, and his successors have maintained the same attitude. It is evident that the Roman difficulty cannot be settled by a Law of Guarantees passed by an Italian Parliament. The Pope, whose subjects are to be found in every nation, cannot be even apparently the dependent of any particular nation. His position must be secured by an agreement between the governments of the world, all of which have an interest in protecting his independence; and until an agreement, satisfactory to the Pope, has been arrived at the Roman question cannot be regarded as settled.
When the Law of Guarantees was promulgated it was determined to transfer the capital of the kingdom from Florence to Rome. Victor Emmanuel made his solemn entry into the city on 2nd July, 1871. Though the government had spared no expense in preparing a mag nificent reception, large numbers refused to take any part in the rejoicing, and the ambassadors of nearly all the powers withdrew so as not to be present at the ceremony. About the same time Pius IX. celebrated the jubilee of his coronation, and received the homage of the people and the congratulations of the nations and people of the world.
It was not long till difficulties began to arise between the government and the Pope. The first controversy broke out about the appointment of Italian bishops, the government insisting that by the Law of Guarantees the appointments must be confirmed by the civil authorities before those selected could be legally recognised, while the Pope forbade the newly named bishops from demanding such confirmation, as it would imply a recognition of the Law. It looked for a time as if a real Kulturkampf was going to break out in Italy, but the government shrank from such a contest, and gradually a modus vivendi was agreed upon. The opening of all kinds of Protestant churches, and the establishment of Bible Societies in the city of the Popes were naturally resented by Pius IX., while the abolition of the faculties of theology, and the secularisa tion of the Italian universities showed the spirit of the new government.
In 1872, two bills were introduced in order to apply to Rome the laws for the suppression of monasteries and the sale of ecclesiastical property which had been in force in the remainder of Italy. The Italian kingdom was nearly bankrupt, and in the Parliament the radical element, which, owing to the Pope's forbidding Catholics to be electors or elected, was very strong, urged that these laws should be passed. They received the sanction of the king in July, 1873, and the houses of the religious orders in Rome were seized and converted into government buildings. Owing to the fear of inter national complications, the head houses of the orders which were spread into other countries, and the national colleges in Rome, were spared. The Minerva was seized and converted into the Ministry of Worship, the Colle gium Romanum was taken from the Jesuits, and its library appropriated. Pius IX. protested in vain against these new attacks. The hope of aid from France was gradually disappearing according as the Republican party became strong, but the heart of the aged Pontiff was consoled by the redoubled sympathy of Catholics throughout the world. Mgr. Dupanloup came to Rome in 1874, and on his return wrote an able statement of the case of the Holy See against Italy. In 1876, the Liberals were defeated, and the Left came into office for the first time, under the leadership of Depretis. His term of office is marked by one long list of shameless corruption and public scandals, the only object of the government being apparently to hold office and enrich its members.* Religious processions outside churches were strictly forbidden, and a Catholic congress at Bologna was suppressed ( 1876). In November of the same year Pius IX. lost his Secre tary of State, Cardinal Antonelli, and Cardinal Simeoni was appointed to succeed him. The ministerial party were very violent in their references to the Pope, while the speech of Victor Emmanuel at the opening of the Parliament in November, 1876, seemed to forebode new attacks. A bill was shortly after introduced to prevent the clergy, under threats of very severe penalties, from using their influence to promote political objects, and Mancini, the Minister of Justice, was very violent in his references to the clergy and to the Pope. It was passed in the Chamber of Deputies in January, 1877, and in March the Pope delivered a strong allocution, emphasis ing the fact that the measure afforded a new proof that the boasted independence of the Holy See was only a delusion. The Italian government felt constrained to issue a reply, and in May the Senate rejected Mancini's penal code against the clergy.
In June, 1877, Pius IX. celebrated the golden jubilee of his episcopate, and crowds of pilgrims flocked to Rome from all parts of the world to take part in the cele bration. On the same day (3rd June) Victor Emmanuel
* Bolton King, Italy of To-day, London, 1901, p. 3.
celebrated the thirtieth anniversary of the Piedmontese constitution, but its coincidence with the Papal jubilee only served to show how little attention was still paid to the king of Italy in the city of the Popes. A few months later the king took ill, and, having been recon ciled to the Church, and having received the last Sacra ments, he passed away ( 9th January, 1878). Pius IX. did not long survive him. In the beginning of Feb ruary, 1878, he took ill, and those who knew him recog nised that his end was near. On the 8th February he asked that the last Sacraments should be administered, and on the afternoon of that day he breathed his last. The tolling of the church bells and of the great bell in the Capitol announced to the people of Rome that the earthly sorrows of Pius IX. were at an end.
(b) PIUS IX., THE SYLLABUS AND THE VATICAN COUNCIL
-- Acta Pii IX. ex quibus excerplus est Syllabus, Rome, 1865. Rinaidi, Il Valore del Sillabo, Rome, 1888.
Viéville, Le Syllabus Commenté, &c., Paris, 1879. Tosi, Vorlesungen über den Syllabus, Vienna, 1865. Heiner, Der Syllabus, &c., Mayence, 1895.
THE VATI CAN COUNCIL
--Acta et Decreta Concilii Vaticani, Collectio Lacensis VII., Freiburg, 1892.
Granderath, Geschichte des Vatikanischen Konzils, 3 Bde., Freiburg, 1903-6.
Cecconi, Storia del Concilio Ecumenico Vaticano, 4 vols., Rome, 1873-9.
Ollivier, L'Église et État au Concile du Vatiran, 2 vols., Paris, 1879.
Manning, The True Story of the Vatican Council, London, 1871. Friedrich, Geschichte des Vatikanischen Konzils, 4 vols., Bonn, 1887.
The most important events for the Church during the reign of Pius IX. were the definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, the publication of the Syllabus in 1864, and the celebration of the Vatican Council ( 1869- 70). Already in 1849, when the Pope was an exile in Gaëta, he issued a letter to the bishops of the Church re questing them to explain their views and the opinions of their flocks upon the subject of the Immaculate Concep tion (2nd February). The replies of most of the bishops were favourable to the definition, and the Pope appointed a commission of theologians, the principal of whom were Perrone, Schrader, and Passaglia, to examine the replies, and the tradition of the Church. Passaglia prepared a very learned defence of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which he published in 1854.* After the theological commission prepared their report a number of the bishops were invited to be present in Rome for the definition. On the 8th December, 1854, Pius IX. solemnly promulgated the Bull, Ineffabilis Deus, by which it was defined as of Catholic faith that the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first moment of her conception, by a special grace of God, and in considera tion of the merits of her Son, Jesus Christ, was pre served from all taint of original sin. This definition marks an important step in the history of Papal Infallibility, for on this occasion the Pope, without the co-operation of a General Council, and by his own independent and sovereign authority, laid down a doc trine which must be accepted by the whole Catholic world. Such a course of action seemed to imply Papal Infallibility.†
The definition of the Immaculate Conception was re ceived with enthusiasm, especially in Italy, Spain, France and Austria. Hardly a dissentient voice was raised against either the doctrine itself or against the action of the Pope. The apparition at Lourdes in 1858 gave a new impetus to devotion to Mary, and from that period Lourdes has been remarkable for its series of miracles, and for the throngs of pilgrims who flock thither from all parts of the world. From that time, too, the May devotions to the Blessed Virgin were taken up with greater zeal.
In 1855, Pius IX. concluded a concordat with Austria, which was extremely favourable to the Holy See, and in 1862, he invited a great number of the bishops to be present at Rome for the canonisation of the Japanese Martyrs. The question of publishing a Syllabus of the false doctrines which were then current had engaged the
* Passaglia, De Immaculato B. M. V. Conceptu, Rome, 1854.
† Bellamy, La Théologie au XIXe Siècle, Paris, 1904, pp. 51-2.
attention of the Pope almost from the beginning of his pontificate. The alarming spread of rationalism, naturalism, and indifferentism began to threaten the very foundations of the Catholic religion, and to exercise no little influence on the utterances and publications of a certain section within the Church. The programme of de Lamennais and the L'Avenir school, the teaching of Gioberti and Ventura in Italy, the Traditionalism of Bautain and of Louvain, the philosophic naturalism of Hermes and of the new school of German apologists, the unbridled liberty claimed for scientists by Döllinger and his associates in the Munich Congress ( 1863), and the remarkable speech of Montalembert on a "Free Church in a Free State" at the Mechlin Catholic Congress ( 1863), served as a warning to the Pope that even in Catholic circles grave misunderstandings existed, which rendered an authoritative explanation imperative. A commission was established at Rome under the presi dency of Cardinal Bilio, and in 1864 the Syllabus, together with the Bull, Quanta Cura, was published.
The syllabus contained 80 Propositions, 14 of which refer to naturalism and rationalism, 4 to indifferentism and latitudinarianism, 20 to socialism, communism, Bible Societies and errors about the Church and her rights, 17 to the question of the relations between Church and state, 12 to Christian and natural morality, 10 to Christian marriage, 2 to the Temporal Power, and 4 to Liberalism. The Bull, Quanta Cura, singled out six teen propositions for particular condemnation. Though most of the errors touched upon in both these documents had been already condemned by the Holy See, yet the publication of the collection of doctrinal errors in such solemn form created a great sensation, both in Catholic and non-Catholic circles. The enemies of the Church, interpreting the document in their own peculiar way, raised the cry that the Pope had now declared the utter irreconcilability of the Catholic Church with modern progress, that the Church was opposed to liberty in all departments, and that the teaching of the Syllabus was out of harmony with the principles of civil government. The history of the last forty-five years has proved how groundless were such assertions, but, at the time, they were not without an effect upon many, both inside and outside the Church. Napoleon III. issued a circular to the French bishops, forbidding them to publish the Syllabus and the Encyclical until further notice ( 1st Jan., 1865); and four days later a decree was issued which limited the prohibition to the first portion of the Ency clical. But the bishops, following the leadership of men like Mgrs. Pie, Guibert, and Mathieu, took very little notice of the imperial prohibition. Mgr. Dupanloup issued a pamphlet, La Convention du 15 Septembre et l'Encyclique du 8 Décembre, which removed many mis understandings about the meaning of certain condemned propositions, and went far to allay the feeling of unrest that had been caused by the Papal documents. In 1864, two days before the publication of the Syllabus, Pius IX. communicated to some of the car dinals, under the seal of secrecy, his intention of convok ing a General Council, and requested the cardinals present in Rome to furnish him with a statement of their views. Nearly all of them were in favour of holding a Council. In March, 1865, he appointed a central com mission of five cardinals, the president of which was Patrizzi, to report on the advisability of a Council, the obstacles which must be overcome, the rules for such an assembly, and the subject-matter of the discussions. The commission advised the Pope to consult the more prominent bishops in the Church, and in April and May, 1865, letters were sent to thirty-six of the leading bishops of the Latin rite, and later on to the principal bishops of the Oriental rite. The replies of the bishops were favour able to the idea of a General Council, and the majority recommended that the future Council should direct its attention to the leading errors aqainst Christian teach ing, the relations between Church and State, discipline, the missions, and the union of the Eastern and Western Churches.
In 1867, Pius IX. invited the bishops of the world to attend the celebration of the eighteenth centenary of St. Peter in Rome. Great numbers from all parts of the Church accepted the invitation, and in a public consis tory, held on the 26th June, 1867, the Pope announced his intention of convoking a General Council. The bishops, in their reply (2nd July), congratulated the Pope on his resolve, and promised their earnest co operation. The work of preparation was now pushed forward rapidly. The central commission advised that five auxiliary commissions should be established, one for doctrine, one for ecclesiastical-political questions, one for missions and the reunion of the churches, one for discipline, and one for religious orders, and that in addition to the Roman theologians and canonists dis tinguished scholars should be invited from all parts of the world ( 11th Aug., 1867). This suggestion was accepted, and theologians and ecclesiastical historians of repute were requested to come to Rome. Hefele, Schrader, Hergenröther, Alzog, Hettinger, were among the distinguished representatives of Germany and Austria. Professor Feye represented Louvain, Gay, Freppel, Gibert, Chesnel were amongst the French scholars, Canon Weathers, Rector of St. Edmunds, attended from England, and Dr. Corcoran, of Charles ton, attended from America. Many of the German and Austrian bishops urged that Döllinger should be sum moned, but for reasons, which later events showed to be well justified, the Roman authorities refused to follow their advice.
The central commission was charged with deciding who should be invited to the Council. In regard to the cardinals and bishops actually governing dioceses there could be no difficulty. The usage of former Councils showed that the cardinals must be included, while the position of the bishops was guaranteed by the divine constitution of the Church. The invitation of the titular bishops raised some discussion, but they were finally included, as were also the principal abbots and the generals of religious orders, while the procurators of absent bishops and representatives of cathedral chapters were not allowed a definitive vote in the deliberations of the Council. In regard to those Christians not in com munion with Rome it was decided to send a special cir cular letter to each of the Eastern bishops, and to issue a general invitation to Protestants; but both these bodies declined to take part in the Council. Furthermore, owing to the change that had been introduced in the relations of the modern states towards the Church, it was decided to deviate from the usage of previous Councils, and to issue no special invitation to the representatives of the Catholic governments. The Bull, Aeterni Patris, solemnly convoking the Council for the 8th December, 1869, was issued in June, 1868.
The convocation of the Council, while pleasing to the vast body of the Catholic clergy and people, roused the bitter enmity of the radical-liberal party throughout Europe. Even in Catholic circles very sharp controver sies broke out, especially in France and Germany, between what may be designated, for convenience sake, the liberal and conservative schools of thought. The feeling, which was already running high, became in tense after the publication in the Civiltà Cattolica in January, 1869, of the views of a French correspondent, who announced that people in France desired the defi nition of Papal Infallibility, and that they hoped the fathers of the Council would pass it with acclamation. This was reproduced by L'Univers in Paris, and imme diately all other subjects were forgotten except Papal Infallibility. Le Français, the organ of the French Liberal Catholics, attacked the Civiltà and L'Univers.
But the ablest opponent of Papal Infallibility at this period was Ignatius von Döllinger, professor of ecclesi astical history in the University of Munich. As a his torian Döllinger stood in the front rank of his profession, and, as a writer and speaker, had done wonders for the Catholic Church in Germany; but as his reputation for learning became greater, his respect for Church authority grew less. He was looked up to as the head of the movement amongst a certain section of Catholic pro fessors and scientists which aimed at asserting the abso lute independence of science from theology and from ecclesiastical supervision, and as such he was regarded with suspicion in Rome. The knowledge that he was distrusted only served to embitter his feelings, and from 1867 it was well known that Döllinger must be reckoned among the strong opponents of the Council. In 1868, (10th to 15th March) he contributed a series of letters directed against the Civiltà to the Allgemeine Zeitung. These letters were devoted principally to the question of Papal Infallibility, and at once attracted general atten tion on account of the ability and bitterness with which the teaching was assailed. Nothing was omitted which could possibly damage the Papacy, or which was likely to stir up German Catholics against the future definition. The agitation in Germany now became general, and the excitement became so great that the situation was thoroughly alarming.
Döllinger was the trusted councillor on ecclesiastical affairs of the Liberal ministry in Bavaria, and it was pro bably due to his influence that the Prime Minister, Prince Hohenlohe, determined to invite the governments to in tervene. In April, 1869, the latter issued a circular to the Bavarian ambassadors abroad to sound the governments to which they were accredited about the advisability of taking joint action in regard to the approaching Council; and a little later, submitted a series of questions to the theological and law faculties in the University of Munich. But the circular of Prince Hohenlohe did not meet with the response that he expected. Prussia and England refused to intervene, or to send representatives to the Council. Austria-Hungary took up the same attitude. France decided, after some hesitation, not to send an official representative, and allowed its bishops full freedom to follow their own views. Spain and Portugal adopted the same line of action. Italy, however willing to interfere, was constrained to keep quiet, and Russia alone of the nations of Europe forbade its bishops to obey the summons to Rome.
But, though the hopes of diplomatic intervention had! practically vanished, the agitation in Germany became more violent and threatening. An address from a number of laymen was prepared at Coblenz against Papal Infallibility and presented to the bishop of Treves, and a similar address, signed by most of the Catholic professors and professional men in Bonn, was forwarded. to the archbishop of Cologne. In August, 1869, the Catholic members of the German Tariff Parliament pre pared a document for presentation to the German bishops, but in general it was moderate and respectful in its tone. By means of the press and of anonymous. pamphlets the excitement was kept at fever heat, and the opposition against Infallibility assumed more general proportions.
In August, 1869, Döllinger published the book Janus. It contained the substance of the five articles already published in the Allgemeine Zeitung, and was a very able summary of all the historical objections that could be urged against Papal Infallibility. Fortunately refu tations of this work were not wanting. The best of these was undoubtedy Anti-Janus, written by Professor Hergenröther of Würzburg University. Like Döllin ger, he, too, was professor of church history, and held a leading position among Catholic scholars in Germany, but, unlike Döllinger, he knew how to combine thoroughly scientific investigation with due respect for the divinely constituted authority of the Church.
The bishops of Germany were in a peculiarly difficult position. Whether personally in favour of Infallibility or opposed to it, they could not fail to be alarmed at the dangerous tendency of the movement. In the circum stances, it was thought best to hold a meeting of their own body at Fulda in September, 1869. The assembly was attended by sixteen bishops, one bishop elect, pro fessor Hefele, 'who had been appointed to the see of Rottenburg, and the procurators of three absent bishops. They determined to send a private letter to the Pope, in which the arguments against the advisability of the defi nition, especially in so far as it would affect the Church in Germany, should be set forth at length. This docu ment was signed by about two-thirds of those present. At the same time they issued a pastoral letter to the Catholics of Germany, which was well calculated to allay the excitement and uneasiness that Döllinger and his friends had so industriously instigated. They pointed out that the Council could not define any teaching that was not already contained in the Scriptures or in Tra dition, that it could not define anything that would be opposed to the rights of the state or the interests of true science, and that, as Jesus Christ had promised that the Holy Ghost would be present to direct the Church till the end of time, the Holy Spirit would assist the delibera tions of the Council. The pastoral was read in all the Catholic churches of Germany, and made an excellent impression
Naturally, too, in France the question of a General Council, and of the decrees it was likely to publish, called forthN warm discussions. Already in France the leading Catholics were divided into two clearly distinct schools, the conservative school with Mgr. Pie as its head, and L'Univers as its principal organ, and the liberal school under the leadership of Mgr. Dupanloup of Orleans, and having for its organs Le Correspondant and Le Français. The announcement that Mgr. Maret, dean of the theological faculty at the Sorbonne, and bishop in partibits, was about to publish a work on the Council was sufficient to open the discussion. Mgr. Maret was well known to be unfavourable to the definition of Papal Infallibility, and when two volumes of his work, Du Conciie Général et de la Paix religieuse, appeared in Paris in September, 1869, it was, as had been ex pected, strongly Gallican in its tendencies. It was publicly attacked by Mgr. Pie, and by others of the French bishops and clergy. About the same period Père Hyacinth, another of the Liberal leaders, announced his withdrawal from the Carmelite order and from the Church.
In October the Correspondant, the organ of the Liberal Catholic party, which was supported at this time by Dupanloup, Montalembert, Falloux, de Broglie, Perraud, Foisset, Cochin, &c., published an article against Infallibility. The article was unsigned, but it was generally suspected that Dupanloup either wrote the article himself or inspired one of his friends with the top ideas. Though up till this time the bishop of Orleans had taken no part in the discussions, it is not to be assumed that he remained an idle spectator. In August, 1869, he made a tour in Germany, and had long interviews with Döllinger and his friends. It is almost certain that he was the author of an anonymous brochure on the Council sent to the German bishops before the meeting at Fulda. After his tour through Germany he returned to his diocese, and in November, 1869, before setting out for the Council, he issued a letter to the clergy of Orleans, in which, while professing his loyal submis sion to the decisions of the Council, he argued long and trenchantly against both the opportuneness of the defi nition of Papal Infallibility, and against the doctrine itself. He blamed Louis Veuillot and L'Univers for a great deal of the bitterness that had been created, while Mgr. Dechamps of Mechlin and Manning also received a share of his attention. The letter was attacked sharply by L'Univers and by many of the French bishops. Mgr. Dechamps issued the first of a series of letters against it in November, 1869.
In Belgium the feeling in favour of Papal Infalli bility was general. Mgr. Dechamps, Archbishop of Mechlin, was a prominent supporter of it, and issued a learned pamphlet in support of his opinions ( 1869), while the archbishop was warmly assisted by the professors of Louvain University. In England Cardinal Manning was recognised as one of the leading men in the move ment for the definition, and he was ably helped by Ward in the Dublin Review, and by most of the English Catholics. Only the Liberal section, Sir John Acton and his friends, relying mainly upon the Munich School, opposed Infallibility. Le Page Renouf published a pamphlet on the condemnation of Pope Honorius ( 1868), and in the same year another of the converts, Edmund S. Ffoulkes, addressed a bitter letter to Archbishop Manning. In Ireland, public opinion was entirely in favour of Infallibility. Whatever about the earlier teaching in Maynooth, Dr. Murray was a strong sup porter of Infallibility, as is evident from his work, De Ecclesia,* which, although published before 1870, did not require any change or emendation. In the United States and Australia there were hardly any opponents of the definition.
While these controversies were going on the central commission was at work, preparing the general regula tions for the Council, and the special commissions were engaged in drafting the schemata, which should be submitted to the fathers. The central commission ap pointed the officials, amongst these being Bishop Fessler, who was named Secretary to the Council. It arranged that the general congregations of the Council should be held in the northern aisle of St. Peter's, and that the fathers should take their seats according to their different ranks, cardinals, patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops, abbots, and generals, and in these different groups according to the order of their appointment. They arranged that the fathers of the Council were to select four committees, each consisting of 24 members, to deal with the four classes of subjects to be laid before the Council, namely, faith, discipline, the Oriental Church, and the religious orders. Only the Pope could directly and authoritatively place a matter for discussion before the Council, the others only indirectly through the president and a commission appointed to examine such proposals. When the Council met, the four com mittees were to be elected. Each of these committees first discussed the schema that had been already pre pared by one of the preparatory commissions, and they submitted the schema for discussion to the general con gregation of the Council. If, after due discussion, the
* Published in 1860.
schema was accepted, a public session of the Council could be held at once in the presence of the Pope, and the decree could be solemnly promulgated. If, however, serious changes had to be made, or if the schema was rejected entirely, the committee should reconsider the schema, and submit it again in an improved form. The voting at the general congregations was by word of mouth, and might be either Placet, Non-Placet, or Placet iuxta modum. The latter formula, which meant that the person so voting favoured the scheme, but demanded certain amendments, could not be employed at the public solemn sessions. In these a person must vote either Placet or Non-Placet. The auxiliary commissions pre pared their schemata, and submitted them for approval to the General Congregation, so that before December, 1869, the rules for the transaction of business at the Council, and the agenda paper to be laid before the fathers were ready. Special prayers were ordered in Rome and in the whole Church that God might bless the deliberations of the assembly.
In the beginning of December, 1869, Rome was thronged with strangers who came either to take part in the Council or to witness the solemn inauguration cere monies. On the 2nd December a pre-synodal meeting. was held at which the Pope published the brief, Inter Multiplices, determining the regulations for the Council, and the officials were publicly appointed. On 8th De cember, 1869, the solemn opening took place in the Basilica of St. Peter's. Despite the unfavourable weather, and the danger of invasion which even then threatened Rome, the ceremony was of a most striking character. The Council was declared to have begun, and the Second General Session was fixed for the 6th January, 1870. The highest number present at the Vatican Council was 774, 49 of whom were cardinals, 10 patriarchs, 10 primates, 127 archbishops, 529 bishops, 6 abbots nullius, 16 general abbots, 26 generals of re ligious orders, and one apostolic administrator. The total number entitled to be present was about 1,050, so that about 280 were absent through age or sickness or for some other satisfactory reason. If the Vatican be regarded from the point of view of numbers it is the fourth largest General Council ever held in the Church, being surpassed only by the Second and Fourth Lateran Councils, and the Second Council of Lyons; but in regard to the number of bishops present the Vatican Council is the largest and the most represen tative Council in the history of the Church. The fathers of the Council were present from nearly every country in the world, so that it could not be said that any part was left without due representation.
Though the question of Infallibility was not yet on the schemata to be submitted to the Council, yet the controversies of the previous year had brought it into considerable prominence, and from the very beginning of the Council the friends and opponents of the definition were not idle. Bishop Dupanloup of Orleans was pro bably the most active of the opponents, and was ably assisted by Cardinal Mathieu of Besançon, and Arch bishop Darboy of Paris. Cardinal Schwarzenberg of Prague was regarded as the leader of the German- Austrian opponents, and Dr. Kenrick of St. Louis stood at the head of the American section. Many of these men opposed the definition because they believed that it would alienate the sympathy of many outside the Church who were disposed to inquire into the claims of Catholicity, and might prove a stumbling block, besides, to some Catholics whose judgments had been prejudiced by the liberal tendencies of the age. They considered that the definition of Infallibility was not necessary in the circum stances, and that, therefore, it should not have been raised, and when raised should be postponed.
The most active of the friends of Infallibility were Manning, Dechamps, Martin of Paderborn, and Senestréy of Regensburg. The elections for the four committees were to be held at the general congregation on the 14th December, and both parties drew up lists of candidates especially for the committee on faith. The candidates put forward by the party supporting Infalli bility were nearly all elected. The primate of Austria was perhaps the only man on the committee opposed to the definition. Cardinal Bilio was appointed president of this committee.
The debate on the schema Constitutionis Dogmaticae, which dealt with the principal errors of the day, materi alism, pantheism, rationalism, and with the Catholic teaching as opposed to the false theories of such schools of thought, was begun on the 28th December. The de bate lasted till the 14th January, and during this period thirty-five bishops had spoken for or against the schema. The majority of the Council were in favour of accepting it, but many amendments were suggested in order to give it a more practical form. In the end, it was re turned to the committee on faith in order that the pro posed changes should be made, and the discussion on ecclesiastical discipline began. Though the question of Papal Infallibility had raised such bitter controversies it was not included in the schemata prepared for discussion, nor was it yet formally before the Council. In December Archbishop Dechamps of Mechlin sent in a request to the congrega tion appointed to deal with such proposals, that Papal Infallibility should be defined by the Council, and he was supported by the Belgian bishops, and by the profes sors of Louvain. About the same time the leading sup porters of Infallibility, Dechamps, Manning, Martin of Paderborn, Senestréy of Regensburg, Spalding of Baltimore, &c., agreed that a petition, demanding the definition should be prepared and circulated in order to obtain the signature of the fathers. It was signed by 380, and about 100 other bishops signed other petitions of a similar kind, so that altogether about 480 of the fathers requested that Papal Infallibility should be placed upon the schemata. On the other hand, the opponents of Infallibility were not idle. Cardinal Schwarzenberg of Prague, Cardinal Rauscher of Vienna, Strossmayer of Diakovár, Darboy of Paris, and Dupanloup of Orleans, were particularly active. Instead of one common petition against the definition, five separate ones were sent in. The first of these from the German, Austrian, and Hun garian bishops bore the signature of 64 fathers, the second, mainly from the French and Portuguese, was signed by 40, the third, from the Italians by 7, the fourth, mainly from the North Americans, England and Ireland, by 23, and the fifth, from the Orientals, by 16. The prominent American bishops against Infallibility were Kenrick of St. Louis, Purcell of Cincinnati, Connolly of Halifax, and M'Closkey of New York. The two Irish bishops who signed this counter petition were Moriarty of Kerry, and Leahy of Dromore, while the two English signatures were those of Errington, the former coadjutor of Westminster, and Clifford of Clifton. The two petitions were considered by the Con gregation charged with the examination of such pro posals on the 9th February, 1870, and, with the excep tion of Cardinal Rauscher of Vienna, all the members of the Congregation voted in favour of Papal Infallibility being included in the programme of the Council. Pius IX. approved of their decision.
The debate on ecclesiastical discipline began on the 14th January. The matters dealt with referred princi pally to the duties of bishops, their obligations of resi dence, of holding regular visitations, and synods, both diocesan and provincial. Afterwards the discussions on the duties of the clergy began, and the question of pub lishing one common catechism for use in the entire Church. Owing mainly to the sharp division amongst the fathers on Papal Infallibility the debates were very protracted, and without much fruit. No definite canons were arrived at, and many began to fear that unless some change in the method of procedure were adopted the Council could never hope to do any good work. Finally, on the 22nd March, a brief was read from the Pope, pre scribing several important changes in the rules for con ducting discussion. The most notable of these was the one by which the Pope empowered the presidents of the congregation, at the written request of ten fathers, to put the question of closing the debate to the congregation. If the majority approved of the closure, the debate must cease, and the votes must be taken. The schema on discipline was returned to the committee, and from the 22nd February till the 18th March no general congre gations were held. During this period the committee on faith was busy at work on the schema, De Fide Catholica, and changes were being made in the Council hall so as to render it more easy for all the fathers to hear the different speakers.
The committee on faith had been busy at work re arranging the schema, De Doctrina Christiana, which had been returned to them on the 10th January. They were assisted by several theologians, notably Kleutgen and Franzelin. On the 14th March the first part of the new schema, entitled Constitutio Dogmatica de fide Catholica, was distributed among the fathers. The de bate began on the 18th March, and owing mainly to the new procedure was productive of more fruit than those which had gone before. On the 19th April the constitu tion was passed, and on the 24th April the third public session was held in the presence of the Pope, when the constitution was solemnly proclaimed. The constitution dealt with God, with man's knowledge of God, with revelation, the inspiration of the scriptures, faith, and with the relations of faith to human reason.
The excitement both within and without the Council became greater every day, especially among the French and the Germans. The greater part of the German and Austrian bishops were opposed to the definition, but their opposition was based principally on the dangers of such a definition in Germany rather than on objections to the doctrine itself. About one-third of the episcopate in France were in the ranks of the minority against Infalli bility, but they, too, professed, as did, indeed, nearly all on the same side, that they opposed it not for doctrinal but for prudential reasons. Possibly, too, a false notion of patriotism led some of them to resist the condemnation of Gallicanism. Archbishop Darboy of Paris, and Dupan loup, were the leaders of the French minority, and they seem to have spared no pains to secure a victory for their views. For such a result they would have welcomed even the direct interference of the French government. But the vast body of the clergy and people of France were sound on the question of Infallibility, as was shown by the subscriptions raised in France to defray the expenses of the Council, and by the number of addresses in favour of Infallibility that poured in from France, even from the priests of the dioceses, the bishops of which were most strenuous in resisting the definition.
Several sharp controversies broke out in France during the Council. Archbishop Dechamps of Mechlin, and Bishop Dupanloup of Orleans, carried on a public correspondence. But possibly the letters that attracted the most attention, and were most widely read were those of the French Oratorian, Père Gratry, against Mgr. Dechamps. The letters were remarkable for their bold ness of statement and lively style rather than for sound ness or accuracy, and by the very confidence with which the writer charged ecclesiastical authors with ignorance or deception were well calculated to stir up strife. He received the congratulations of men like Strossmayer, but the majority of the French bishops were very severe in their condemnation of Gratry's letters. It is only fair to say that after the definition he withdrew his statements, submitted unconditionally to the decision, and died a fervent Catholic. Amongst those who offered him their felicitations after the publication of his attacks upon the Council many Catholics noted with pain the presence of the great Catholic champion of former days, Montalem bert. His letter to Père Gratry was peculiarly offensive in its tone, and gave great pain to Pius IX. It was par ticularly unfortunate that Montalembert died shortly after ( 21st Feb., 1870) without having publicly withdrawn his remarks, but before his death he informed his wife that if the Council were to define Papal Infallibility he would willingly submit to its decision.* Two articles were printed in Paris, one entitled La Situation des choses à Rome, in the columns of the Moniteur, and the other in pamphlet form, Ce qui se passe au Concile, both of which were calculated to give very erroneous impres sions of affairs at the Council, and of the action of the majority. Some of the French bishops were strongly suspected of having at least inspired these articles, and Archbishop Darboy certainly recommended them to Napoleon as giving very useful information about the proceedings in the Vatican.†
In Germany Döllinger continued his unbridled cam paign. From the 16th December, 1869, till the 19th July, 1870, a series of sixty-nine articles, entitled Römische Briefe, appeared in the Augsburg Allge meine Zeitung. They were intended to stir up the German people against the acceptance of Papal Infalli bility, and for this purpose the writer spared no misrepre sentation and abuse. His attacks were directed against the Pope, the bishops who favoured Infallibility, the rules of procedure, and the arguments used in favour of the definition. These letters were afterwards published in book form by Quirinus. Döllinger had probably a large share in the production of these letters, but the in formation was supplied mainly by Friedrich, the theolo gian of Cardinal Hohenlohe, and by Sir John Acton.‡ In January, 1870, Döllinger published an appeal against Infallibility, in which all the arguments that might be urged from history against the doctrine were put for ward in their most exaggerated form. His appeal had a great effect in Germany. The civil authorities of the city of Munich at once offered him the freedom of the city, and addresses of congratulation poured in upon him from all parts of the country, notably from the univer sities of Breslau, Bonn, Prague, and from the academies of Münster and Braunsberg. Very able replies were issued by Hergenröther of Würzburg, Scheeben,
* Granderath, op. cit., Vol. III., p. 601.
† Idem., II., p. 554.
‡ Idem., II., pp. 599-602.
Stöckl, Zahn, and Cecconi, and the bishops of Germany publicly disassociated themselves from the Döllinger campaign. The excitement was still kept up mainly by lying reports about the Council circulated in the German Liberal newspapers, and associations were formed to resist the "Roman novelties." The move ment spread into Switzerland, and was not confined to those outside the Church. The Liberal Catholics of Switzerland tried to organise addresses to Dr. Greith, Bishop of St. Gall, who was the only Swiss bishop to resist Infallibility, but Dr. Greith discountenanced such a step. They founded a Liberal Catholic paper to sus tain their views, and most of the priests who afterwards joined the Old Catholic party in Switzerland were con tributors to this journal.
Nearly all the leading newspapers had correspondents in Rome during the Council, and the reports from these correspondents tended to increase the excitement. In the absence of reliable information all kinds of wild rumours were put in circulation, and even earnest Catholics were gravely troubled. In Germany and Austria the Allgemeine Zeitung of Augsburg, and the Neue Freie Presse of Vienna, contributed their share in manufacturing and retailing scandals about the proceed ings in Rome, while in England, where fortunately the bulk of the Catholic people and clergy were undisturbed, the Times and the Saturday Review conducted a highly discreditable campaign. The Spectator was nearly the only English Protestant paper that maintained an im partial and, at times, even a sympathetic attitude.
On the 6th March, 1870, the question of Papal Infalli bility was included in an addition to the schema, De Ecclesia Christi, which had already been issued to the fathers. But in the ordinary course of events the dis cussion on Infallibility might have been indefinitely postponed. The second schema, De Fide, that on dis cipline, and the greater portion of the schema, De Ecclesia, had precedence. The majority of the bishops were of the opinion that on account of the excitement which raged round Papal Infallibility the question should be discussed and determined immediately. Besides, they foresaw the danger of a Piedmontese inva sion and the prorogation of the Council, and they dreaded the consequences of an indefinite postponement of the definition after it had become the subject of such bitter controversies. Hence, in March, several petitions were sent to Cardinal Bilio, president of the committee on faith, requesting that the Infallibility of the Pope should be taken out of its ordinary course, and submitted to the Council without delay. The minority of the fathers objected to any such interference with the course of business, and Cardinal Bilio was rather inclined to favour their representations. But the representatives of the majority appealed directly to the Pope, and on the 27th April the Cardinal President announced to the members of the committee on faith that the schema, De Romano Pontifice should be taken up. The decision was approved by all the members with two exceptions. The decision was announced to the general congrega tion on the 29th April, and seventy-one bishops signed a protest against it to be presented to the Holy Father. The committee on faith proceeded to consider the suggestions that had been sent in, and to draft the formal decrees. There was great difficulty in finding an acceptable formula for the defi nition of Papal Infallibility. Some proposed that it should be defined that the Pope was infallible to the same extent as the Church itself was infallible, but as the object of the Church's infallibility had not yet been defined, Cardinal Bilio suggested that it should be stated merely that the Pope was infallible whenever, as Supreme Pastor, he taught that something should be accepted by the whole Church as de fide divina, or something should be rejected as opposed to divine faith. This formula, though it seemed to limit the sphere of Papal Infallibility very considerably, was agreeable to most of the com mittee except to Manning and Senestréy, and it was determined to submit the matter to the general congre gation where other amendments might be made.
On the 13th May the general debate began in the Council, on the four chapters of the schema, De Romano Pontifice. It lasted from the 13th May till the 13th June, during which time fourteen general congregations were held, and sixty-four speeches made by bishops from all parts of the world. The principal speakers in favour of Infallibility were Cardinal Patrizzi, Garcia Gil, arch bishop of Saragossa, Dechamps of Mechlin, Manning of Westminster, Cullen of Dublin, and Spalding of Balti more, while the most notable opponents were Darboy of Paris, Schwarzenberg of Prague, Rauscher of Vienna, Strossmayer of Dioková4r, Hefele of Rottenburg, Clifford of Clifton, MacHale of Tuam, Connolly of Halifax, and Greith of St. Gall. The opponents, as a rule, professed only to speak against the opportuneness of such a defini tion, but in reality a great portion of their arguments was directed against the doctrine itself. On the 13th June Cardinal de Angelis put the question of the closure to the meeting, and the vast majority voted in favour of closing the general debate. A protest was lodged against this proceeding by Cardinals Mathieu, Schwarz enberg and Rauscher in the name of eighty-one bishops.
During these months besides the debates in the general congregations a war of pamphlets was carried on briskly outside the Council. The most remarkable of those issued against Infallibility were those of Rauscher, Hefele, and Kenrick of St. Louis. Another, published in Paris, defending the view that Infallibility could not be defined unless the fathers were, practically speaking, unanimous, attracted a great deal of attention. The necessity of moral unanimity for a conciliar definition was strongly supported by the opponents of Infallibility. They relied principally upon the dictum of St. Vincent of Lerins, Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, on the supposed testimony of Bellarmine, and the proce dure of the Council of Trent, but against such a view the testimony of common sense, and the history of previous General Councils furnished invincible arguments.
The special debate on the particular chapters of the schema opened on the 6th June, and on the 2nd July the first two chapters were passed. On the 11th July the third chapter was accepted, and now only the fourth chapter dealing with Papal Infallibility remained. The difficulty of finding a suitable formula for the definition of Papal Infallibility still continued. The theologians, Franzelin and Kleutgen, were called into consultation, but without any result. At last Dr. Cullen, of Dublin, proposed a formula (18th June) which, with a few slight changes, gave general satisfaction. The debate over the Papal Infallibility was long, and at times heated. All the leading supporters and opponents of the definition explained their views. On the 13th July the voting on the whole chapters of the schema took place, and out of the 601 Fathers present 451 voted Placet, 88 non-Placet, and 62 Placet iuxta modum. The public session for the solemn ratification of the decrees was fixed for the 18th July, and during the intervening days the minority made strenuous efforts to secure the insertion of their amend ments in the text, or to get the solemn definition post poned. Six of their number, Darboy ( Paris), Ginouthiac ( Lyons), Simor (Gran), Scherr ( Munich), Ketteler ( Mayence), and Rivet ( Dijon), went on a deputation to Pius IX. to induce him to make certain changes in the proposed decrees, but the Pope declined to interfere with the decisions of the Council. Dupanloup suggested in a letter to the Pope that after the votes had been taken the solemn ratification should be postponed till some more favourable occasion, but his suggestion was not accepted. The minority were, therefore, obliged to make up their minds either to attend the public session, and vote against the definition, or to take their departure from Rome before the session could be held. As the vast body of them did not wish to create dissension or to give pain to the Holy Father, they resolved to leave Rome.
On the morning of the 18th July the public session was held. Of the fathers present, 533 voted Placet, and only two, Fitzgerald of Little Rock, and Riccio of Cajazzo in Sicily, voted non-Placet. When the votes were counted Pius IX. solemnly promulgated the decree, and the two bishops who had voted against the definition imme diately expressed their adhesion to the decree.
From this day the interest in the proceedings of the General Council gradually lessened. War was declared between France and Germany on the 19th, July, and most of the fathers took their departure from Rome. It was well known that an invasion of the city by Victor Emmanuel might be expected immediately. The debate on the schema on discipline was begun, but it was not concluded when the city was surrounded by the forces of Italy. On the 20th October Pius IX. issued a decree proroguing the Council. Some of the Fathers, notably Manning, Cullen, and Spalding (Baltimore), were anxious that the Council should continue its work in Mechlin, but the plan did not find any support.
There was great anxiety in some quarters in regard to the position of the bishops who voted in the minority, but, as events proved, this anxiety was groundless. The bishops of Germany on their return home were in a pecu liarly difficult position. Many of their own body had laboured strenuously against the definition, and whether belonging to the majority or minority in the Council they could not fail to recognise that the agitation against In fallibility was assuming alarming proportions. It was decided by the bishops to hold a national assembly of their body at Fulda on the 18th August, 1870, and from this meeting a pastoral letter was issued to the German Catholics proclaiming the dogma of Infallibility. The letter was signed by all the bishops except five, four of whom immediately issued individual pastorals of a similar character. Hefele, who had been the most ex treme of the German bishops against the definition, and who was in constant correspondence with Döllinger, wavered for a time, but at length on the 10th April, 1871, he published the decree on Papal Infallibility. The bishops of Austria loyally accepted the decree, as did the bishops in France. Dupanloup wrote a special letter of submission to Pius IX. as did Maret, the dean of the Sorbonne. Darboy, the archbishop of Paris, declared his adhesion to the doctrine. The few bishops in England, Ireland and America, who considered the definition in opportune, willingly accepted it once it had been ratified by the Pope. Dr. Kenrick of St. Louis did not, how ever, retract certain pamphlets which he had written during the Council, and which had given great offence.
The majority of the priests and people imitated the example of their bishops. In France practically only two of the clergy fell away from the Church, Père Hyacinth and the Abbé Michaud. But in Germany, owing mainly to the campaign conducted by Döllinger, there was a stronger opposition.* The archbishop of Munich, on his return from the Council, assembled the members of the theological faculty at Munich, and implored them to forget the past, and join hands as of old in defence of the Church, but his entreaties were received by the majority with coldness. An address of protest against the Vatican decrees was issued by forty-four lay professors. On the 25th August, 1870, a meeting of the clerical opponents was held at Nürnberg, under the presidency of Döllinger. There were present besides, Reischl and Friedrich from Munich, Reusch, Langen and Knoodt from Bonn, Baltzer and Reinkens from Breslau, Dittrich and Michelis from Braunsberg, Löwe, Sales, Mayer and von Schulte from Prague. The last named was a layman. They issued a protest against Infallibility.
The position of the archbishop of Munich, was very trying on account of the attitude of the university. In October, 1870, he wrote to the professors of the theo logical faculty requesting an expression of their views on the recent decrees. Seven of them, amongst whom was Reischl, wrote a joint letter expressing their complete adhesion to the decrees, and the professor of canon law did likewise. Friedrich replied refusing submission, and Döllinger kept silent. In January the archbishop
* For the Old Catholics, cf.: -- Schulte, Der Altkatholisismus, Giessen, 1887.
Friedberg, Aktenstücke die Alkathol. Bewegung Betreff., &c., Tübingen, 1876.
Friedrich, Ignaz von Döllinger, 2 Bde., Munich. 1891- 1901.
Michael, Ignaz von Döllinger, Innsbruck, 1892.
again implored Döllinger to submit, and towards the end of the month Döllinger wrote asking for more time for consideration. After repeated delays he replied finally on the 28th March, refusing to submit. The ecclesiastical students were forbidden to attend his course, and as he still remained obdurate in his refusal, the decree of excommunication was issued against him ( 17th April, 1871), and two days later, the same sen tence was published against Professor Friedrich.
Bonn was another great centre of resistance, and after the definition had been promulgated, some of the pro fessors in Bonn were particularly active in stirring up opposition. In September, 1870, the archbishop of Cologne requested the professors of the theological faculty in Bonn, who had opposed the decrees, to explain their position, and on their refusing to give satisfactory replies, Hilgers, Langen, Reusch and Knoodt were sus pended. The archbishop made repeated efforts to induce them to submit, and it was only when they had definitely joined the Old Catholic party that the sentence of excom munication was issued against them in March, 1872. Dieringer separated himself from the others, and made his submission ( January, 1871), but his position at Bonn was so difficult that he retired from the university. The bishop of Ermeland was obliged to take severe measures against Professors Michelis and Menzil of Braunsberg, and Baltzer and Reinkens of Breslau were suspended and excommunicated ( 1872).
The governments of Europe refused to accept the suggestions of Bavaria, and decided to allow the Council to proceed without any interference, but the ambassadors were ordered to watch the proceedings closely, and to keep their governments well informed on the course of events. Austria and Prussia maintained this attitude throughout, though both countries favoured the minority, and though Count Arnim, the Prussian ambassador, made frantic appeals to Bismarck to be permitted to intervene. In English government circles the letters of Sir John Acton were calculated to produce a very unfavourable impression, but Dr. Manning was able to neutralise such influences by his conversations with Odo Russell, the English diplomatic agent in Rome.* The attitude of France to the Council was most im portant, as the withdrawal of the French troops in Rome might have proved disastrous for its further con tinuance. M. Ollivier was called upon to form a ministry in January, 1870, and though personally friendly to the minority, he realised that the majority of the French bishops, and the whole body of the clergy and people supported the definition. Hence, he decided to take no action. But M. Daru, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the intimate friend of Pare Gratry and Mgr. Dupanloup. was of a different mind; and in a despatch sent in February he took up a decidedly threatening attitude. Fortunately, however, owing to political disagreements, he tendered his resignation in April, 1870, and Ollivier was free to carry out his policy of non-intervention. Some of the minority, especially Darboy and Gratry, sought to win over Napoleon III., but their efforts failed, and the troops of France re mained in Rome till the definition had been promul gated.
After the definition France maintained its friendly attitude, and offered no objections to the promulgation of the decrees. Spain, Portugal, and Belgium adopted a similar line of action. Italy raised no formal objec tions, but contented itself with issuing a cryptic despatch to its officials about safeguarding the clauses of the penal code. Austria took up a hostile attitude, re jected the concordat of 1855, and tried to enforce the Placitum Regis, as did also Bavaria. The smaller states of Germany, Baden, Würtemberg, &c., opposed the decrees, while Switzerland was most extreme in its opposition.
The opposition to the definition had been so bitter in
* Cf., Purcell Life of Manning, Vol. II., pp. 432-448.
Morley Life of Gladstone, Vol. III., pp. 509-12.
Germany, Austria and Switzerland that it could hardly be expected that all parties would follow the example of the bishops and submit to the decrees. The Munich School were the leaders of the rebellion, as they had been the leaders in the opposition, and the efforts of Döllinger and Friedrich of Munich were ably seconded by Hilgers, Reusch, Langen, and Knoodt of Bonn and Reinkens of Breslau. Professor Michelis of Braunsberg made a tour in Germany, Austria and Switzerland in order to stir up resistance, and von Schulte, the pro fessor of Canon Law in Prague, gave his party great help in their negotiations with the different govern ments. Committees were formed in Cologne for North Germany, and in Munich for the southern states. The governments of Prussia, Bavaria, Austria, Baden, and Hesse gave the party every assistance, and the profes sors who refused to submit were retained in their chairs despite the protests of the bishops.
In September, 1871, a conference of the opponents of the definition was held at Munich. Representatives were present from all parts of Germany, and the English and Russian Churches also sent delegates. The orthodoxy of the Jansenist sect in Holland was recognised, and negotiations were opened up for union with the Russian and English churches. On the motion of Professor von Schulte it was agreed to organise an independent sect. Döllinger made an earnest appeal to the meeting not to raise up altar against altar, but to remain, as they claimed to be, members of the Catholic Church. He was supported only by Professors Cornelius and Stumpf, and on the resolution of von Schulte being carried Döllinger refused to have any part in the new sect, and remained isolated from both parties. Loos, the Jansenist bishop of Utrecht, was invited to administer the sacrament of Confirmation in Germany, and made a tour through the country in June and July, 1872.
At the second congress held in Cologne ( Sept., 1872) the rules for the new organisation were drafted, and a committee appointed to arrange for the election of a bishop. The principal members of this committee were Friedrich, Michelis, Reusch, von Schulte and Maassen; while, at the same time, another committee was appointed to work for the re-union of the Chris tian sects. Döllinger was the leading man on this com mittee. Bismarck was consulted as to the wisdom of electing a bishop, and gave his consent; and a meeting of the representatives of the new sect was summoned at Bonn. Twenty-two priests and fifty-five laymen took part in the assembly. The total number of Old Catholic priests in Germany at that time was about thirty-eight. Professor Reinkens received sixty-nine votes, and was declared duly elected. He proceeded to Rotterdam, where he was consecrated on 11th August, 1873, by Heydekamp, the Jansenist bishop of Deventer. He issued a pastoral on the day of his consecration, in which he defended the method of his election, and claimed to be the only legitimate Catholic bishop in Germany. Pius IX. excommunicated him on the 11th November, but in spite of the sentence of excommuni cation he was officially recognised by Prussia, Baden, and Hesse, and the two former voted large sums of money for his support. Bavaria allowed Dr. Reinkens to make visitations, and to administer confirmation, though his jurisdiction was not formally recognised.
Prussia and Baden also passed laws, according to which the Old Catholics were to get the partial or exclu sive use of some of the churches, and were entitled to receive a share of the Church property ( 1874). In March, 1875, Pius IX. issued an instruction forbidding the Catholics to hold any services in churches in which the government permitted the Old Catholic clergy to officiate. In consequence of these measures very many of the churches in Prussia and Baden passed into the hands of the Old Catholics. The sect established itself on the lines of the Protestant churches with a synod com posed both of clergy and laymen, a synodal commis sion of a similar kind, and a bishop whose main duty was to confirm and ordain clergy. At the annual synods changes were made regarding confession, fasting and holidays in 1874; and in 1875, in order to promote union with Protestants, Tradition was more or less abandoned, the authority of the deutero-canonical books was ques tioned, indulgences were rejected, the Mass and the Sacraments were explained in a very un-Catholic way, the apostolic succession was recognised in the English Church, and to please the Greeks the Greek formula was accepted in place of the Filioque. The vernacular ritual and liturgy were permitted. But for many years the question of the celibacy of the clergy led to long and heated discussions. The governments of Prussia and Baden were consulted on this subject in 1877, but they refused to interfere. The Jansenists warned the Old Catholics against a married clergy, and the Bavarian representatives declared that they would never accept such a change. Notwithstanding their efforts, a reso lution was carried in 1878 permitting the Old Catholic clergy to marry. The bishop, five priests, and sixteen laymen voted against it, while nineteen priests and fifty- six laymen voted in its favour. In 1880, the use of the German liturgy was made universal and obligatory. The total number of Old Catholics in the German Empire in 1880 was something less than 50,000.
The Old Catholic sect in Germany was dependent entirely for support upon the civil authorities, and during the Kulturkampf Bismarck and his followers gave them every assistance. But as the governments began to recognise that the vast majority of the Catholics had no sympathy with the sect, and as the bitterness of the struggle with the Church began to pass away, the civil authorities showed less interest in the Old Catholic movement. As a result, many of those who had fallen away returned to the Church; while those who remained, influenced by Protestantism and Ration alism, drifted more and more from the Catholic doctrine. The Prussian government continues its financial support to the Old Catholic bishop of Germany, who resides at Bonn; conferences of the body are held annually, but the failure of the movement is recognised by all parties. In the official census returns the Old Catholics are not distinguished from the Catholics, and, hence, it is diffi cult to determine accurately their total numbers.
In Austria the opposition to the definition was very violent, but the action of the Austrian and Hungarian bishops helped to calm the excitement. The govern ment, which was already Liberal at that period, rejected the concordat, forbade the bishops to publish the decrees, and afforded every assistance to the opponents of Infalli bility. But the number of Old Catholics in Austria was never large. They refused to recognise the juris diction of the German Old Catholic bishop, but, at the same time, they erected a parish in Vienna, and entrusted it to one of their priests, Aloysius Anton. The govern ment refused at first to recognise them as a legal reli gious body, but at last, owing mainly to the action of Professor von Schulte, formal recognition was accorded them in 1878. Having received legal recognition they proceeded to elect a synodal commission to superintend their organisation in Austria; but they have never elected a bishop. The movement followed the same downward course as in Germany, and at present nobody takes any serious notice of the Austrian Old Catholics. According to the census of 1900 they formed 0.1 per cent. of the total population of Austria.
Nowhere outside Germany was the opposition to In fallibility more violent than in Switzerland, but after the definition only three priests refused to submit, the most prominent of whom was Herzog. The govern ments of the Protestant cantons, Berne and Basle, spared no pains to protect the refractory clergy against the censures of the bishops, and the most violent measures were used against the Catholic priests. It was hoped that the Old Catholic movement might be utilised for the establishment of a national church wide enough for all classes of Christians. By a law passed in 1874 the schism was officially recognised, and the Old Catholics taken under the protection of the government.
In the same year it was decided to establish an Old Catholic faculty of theology at Berne, and a commission consisting of Herzog and the two Protestant professors, Rippold and Müller, was appointed to draft a scheme. In November the faculty of theology, of which Dr. Friedrich was appointed dean, opened their course of lectures. Two members of the faculty were Protestants of the most liberal type. Only eight students presented themselves, though the government pledged itself to give the theological students considerable financial assistance. After 1878 the persecution began to die away, and the Catholics were strong enough to outvote the new sect at the election for the local ecclesiastical committees. The result was that the Old Catholics lost their influence at Berne, and most of the churches they had captured were returned to their original owners. In Geneva the persecution of the Catholics was particularly severe, and as the clergy refused to take the oath pre scribed for them, they were expelled from the city, and Père Hyacinth was installed as parish priest of Geneva. The churches throughout the canton were taken from the Catholics and handed over to the schismatical body. In other parts of Switzerland too, Old Catholic parishes were formed.
Several attempts were made to unite all the Old Catholic bodies in Switzerland under a common organi sation. In an assembly held at Berne in 1874 the titles Old Catholic and Liberal Catholic were rejected, and it was determined to adopt the designation "Christian Catholic National Church." In 1875, the scheme of organisation was accepted by the delegates, and in 1876 Herzog was elected bishop. He was consecrated by Dr. Reinkens in September, and took up his residence in Berne. Many of the Protestant cantons officially recognised him, and Geneva and Berne voted money for his support. In the same year the use of the vernacular language in the liturgy was allowed; confession was abolished, as was also clerical celibacy. During the succeeding years most of the other distinctively Catholic practices and beliefs were gradually abandoned in the hope of effecting a union with the Protestant churches of England, America and Scotland, while, on the other hand, many of the people who had joined the sect, disgusted by such a policy, returned to the Catholic Church. The sect continues to maintain itself in Switzerland, but it is at present hardly distinguishable from the Protestant bodies. In Italy attempts were made to found a "Catholic national church." A clergyman named Panelli was elected bishop, but his previous history gave no hope that he was likely to have much success. The attempt, as might be expected, ended in complete failure. In France Père Hyacinth after many wanderings, settled in Paris, and declared himself rector of the Gallican Catholic Church ( 1879). Two priests joined him, and immense sums were sub scribed in England and America to assist him in his propaganda, but, as in Italy and Spain, the movement found little sympathy amongst the population for which it was intended.
(c) LEO XIII. and PIUS X.
De T'Serclaes, Léon XIII., son Action Politique et Sociale, 3 vols.,
Lille, 1894- 1907. Spahn, Leo XIII., Munich, 1905. Ricard, Léon
XIII., Paris, 1895.
Reilly, Life of Leo XIII., London, 1887.
O'Byrne, Life and Pontificate of Leo XIII., London, 1903; Life of Pius X., New York, 1904. Marchesan, Papst Pius X., 2 vols., 1905-6. King, Italy To-Day, London, 1901.
Prior, Is the Pope Independent? Rome, 1907. Orsi, op. cit.
Pius IX. died on the 7th February, 1878. It was feared by many that during the interregnum the Italian government might attempt to seize the Vatican, and to interfere with the liberty of the conclave, but the Italian statesmen were too prudent to attempt such a course. The conclave hall was prepared in the Vatican under the direction of Cardinal Pecci; and after the usual time for the obsequies of Pius IX. had elapsed sixty-one cardinals entered the conclave on the 17th February, 1878. The cardinals having drawn up a solemn protest against the occupation of the Papal States proceeded to the election of a Pope. From the beginning Cardinal Pecci was a favourite candidate. The number of votes cast in his favour steadily increased, till, at length, on the 20th February, the required majority was secured, and he was proclaimed under the title of Leo XIII.
The new Pope, Vincenzo Gioacchino Pecci was born at Carpineto, in the Papal States, in March, 1810, and was educated at the Jesuit Colleges in Viterbo and in Rome. In 1837, he received the priesthood, and was appointed Papal delegate at Benevento, where he had a sharp struggle to suppress the roving bands of brigands. In January, 1843, he was appointed nuncio in Belgium, where he remained till his recall in 1845. The following year he was selected as bishop of Perugia. As bishop of Perugia, the future Pope was indefatigable in his labours on behalf of education and religion, and his pastoral instructions attracted widespread attention. In 1854, Pius IX. created him a cardinal, and in 1877, appointed him cardinal camerlengo; an office which im posed upon him the duty of preparing for the conclave. The election of Leo XIII. was well received by all parties, and very different views were expressed as to the line of policy he would propound.
The situation of the Papacy at that particular juncture was exceedingly critical. Besides the difficulties with the new kingdom of Italy, all official relations had been broken off with Germany and Russia. Austria, domi nated at the time by the Liberal party, carried on a hostile campaign against the Church. The Republican party of the Gambetta school in France had proclaimed war upon religion, and were gradually concentrating all the powers of the state in the hands of their party. Spain was torn by political division between the friends of the reigning dynasty and their Carlist opponents, while the state of religion in Portugal could not afford much con solation to the new Pope. The war between Capital and Labour was being waged with unexampled bitterness, and to the no small danger of religious interests. Modern governments, under the influence of the current liberal theories, were gradually repudiating the Chris tian principles in regard to family life, marriage and education, which had been formerly regarded as the basis of civil society; while, over all, was heard the cry that the Catholic Church was the enemy of progress and en lightenment. Pius IX., it was asserted, had bidden defiance to the modern world, and the modern world had responded to his challenge by repudiating the doctrines and discipline of the Catholic Church.
Leo XIII. made no secret of the tact that he intended to adopt a policy of conciliation, to re-establish good re lations between the Papacy and the civil powers; and most of the governments of Europe gladly responded to his friendly overtures. It was only in Italy that the struggle went on between the Papacy and the invaders of the Papal States without any hopes of a satisfactory issue. Like his predecessor, Leo XIII. refused to acknowledge the validity of the title by which the kingdom of Italy held Rome and the Papal States. He remained shut up in the Vatican territory, disregarded the Law of Guarantees, protested against the action of the usurpers, and renewed the advice to the Catholic people of Italy to abstain from voting at Parliamentary elections, lest by their doing so they might seem to acknowledge the legality of the government ( 1878, 1881, 1886). Nor can it be said that the Italian government left any other policy open to the Pope. From 1876 the Left were in power in Italy with Depretis as Prime Minister. They were bitterly hostile to the Holy See, and took no measures to encourage a friendly settlement of the difficulties between the Vatican and the Quirinal. The royal Exequatur on the appointment of bishops, by means of which the government refused to hand over the revenues of the bishoprics to those appointed by the Pope, without the approval of the king, and the rights of patronage which the king of Italy claimed over many of the Italian bishoprics, notably those in Piedmont, Sardinia, Naples and Sicily, were a source of constant friction between the Pope and the government during the whole reign of Leo XIII.
Till 1881, however, Leo XIII. did not adopt an un friendly attitude. But in that year occurred the painful scenes in connection with the funeral of Pius IX., when an organised attempt was made to throw the coffin of the late Pope into the Tiber ( 13th July, 1881). Such a dis graceful incident created a great sensation throughout the world, and helped to show the worthlessness of the Law of Guarantees. The Pope, in his allocution (4th Aug.), protested against such violence, and his protests were warmly supported by a section of the Italian people. The suppression of the religious orders, the appropria tion of the goods of the Church, the glorification of Gambetta after his death in 1882, and the erection of a statue in Brescia to Arnold of Brescia, in the presence of a delegate of the king and four Cabinet Ministers, helped to increase the bitterness of the struggle. The lawsuit begun by one of the Vatican employees, Martinucci, who had been dismissed, and the decision of the civil courts that they had jurisdiction in the case, showed that, in spite of the Law of Guarantees, the government meant to treat the Pope as a subject, and the Vatican as Italian territory. Cardinal Jacobini, Secre tary of State, issued a protest to the powers against such a claim ( 1882).* The government, too, insisted on applying to the property of the Propaganda the law re garding ecclesiastical goods, and of converting it into Italian securities. Considering the low state of Italian finances at the time, this change meant a serious loss to the funds of the Propaganda; and, besides, the property of the Congregation of the Propaganda should have been considered as international rather than Italian. The courts, however, decided otherwise, and in 1884 the change was carried out.†
* T'Serclaes, op. cit., Chap. XV.
† Prior, op. cit., Chap. V.
In 1887, Depretis died, and Signor Crispi became Prime Minister. A regular campaign was begun, under the inspiration of the freemason lodges against the Church. In 1888, the penal code of Zanardelli was in troduced. According to this code (Art. 101) everybody who did anything to put the state, or any part of the state, under foreign domination, or to alter the unity of the state, was to be condemned to perpetual imprison ment with hard labour. Any clergyman who abused his ministry to excite contempt for the Italian laws or insti tutions, or to attack the acts of authority, was to be fined and temporarily deprived of his benefice (Art. 174), and any priest who performed acts of public worship contrary to the rules laid down for him by the government was to be fined and imprisoned for three months (Art. 175). The bishops and clergy denounced such a penal law, and the Pope protested against it in an allocution delivered in June, 1888, but in the same month the measure became law. Decrees were also issued against religious education in the Italian schools; and the congregational teaching in the Italian schools in the East was laicised ( 1888).
In 1889, a statue was erected in honour of the apostate monk, Giordano Bruno, and on the 9th June the monu ment was to be unveiled. All the freemason lodges of Italy sent their contingents to the celebration, and for days, to the great pain of most of the inhabitants, the streets of Rome rang with denunciations of the Pope and of the clergy. The members of the ministry, though secretly abetting the movement, were obliged, in public decency, to take no part in the celebrations. Signor Crispi was particularly cynical in his attitude towards the Vatican, and in 1890 the ministerial organs declared that the Pope had no territory of his own, that the Italian government had merely given him the use of the Vatican palace. When the Pope was obliged to impose a small tax upon visitors to the Vatican galleries ( 1890) his action was denounced as being opposed to the Law of Guaran tees. The Italian religious confraternities and charitable societies were possessed of considerable wealth owing to the donations made to them for the support of their good works. Under the pretence of laicising charitable works in Italy, the goods of these confrater nities were seized, and placed at the disposal of the state, and by the same law priests were prohibited from taking seats on the boards of charity.
In 1891, Crispi went out of office, and was succeeded by Di Rudini, who was much more moderate, but he was unable to keep his groups together, and Signor Giolotti was called upon to form a ministry. Italian political administration had now reached its lowest ebb. Corrup tion in government circles was universal, and the bank scandals opened the eyes of the world to the condition of things in Italy. Then came the rebellion in Sicily and in other parts of the kingdom with which the ministry was not able to deal. It became necessary to recall Signor Crispi and invest him with almost dic tatorial powers. To divert public attention he pushed forward the colonial policy of Italy, but the overwhelm ing defeat inflicted upon the army of Italy by the Emperor Menelik of Abyssinia at Adowa put an end to the dreams of Italian colonisation. The country was sick of such administration, and, as a result, the strength of the Socialist party increased by leaps and bounds.*
The Catholics who obeyed the orders of the Pope, and accepted the formula, "ne eletti, ne elettori," had been organising their forces, and had adopted a pro gramme of social reform. They had started co-operative societies and co-operative banks over the country, and in the municipal and district elections their success in 1894 was astonishing. For a while it seemed as if Signor Crispi was anxious to make a bargain with them in order to secure their assistance against the Socialists and Radicals, while, on the other hand, the Radicals strove hard to effect a union with the Catholic forces on the ground of social reforms. But the great celebrations
* Bolton-King, op. cit., p. 6.
organised in Rome for the jubilee of the taking of Rome ( 1895) put an end to hopes of a peaceful settlement. Leo XIII. felt obliged to reiterate once more his protests against the violence done to the Papal government. In 1897, Di Rudini, who had been called to office upon the fall of Crispi, issued a circular against the Catholic asso ciations, in which he compared them to the anarchists and conspirators against the public peace. Such charges were ably refuted by the president of the Catholic organi sations; but in the bread riots of 1898 the government found an excuse for the dissolution of the Catholic societies, and for the punishment of several priests, who were accused of having encouraged the riots, especially in Milan.* The Cabinet of Rudini was, however, over thrown, and was succeeded by that of General Pelloux, who allowed the Catholic societies to be re-established. In 1890, King Humbert was assassinated, and in the general movement of horror at such a crime it was hoped that some arrangement might have been arrived at, but these hopes soon disappeared. The young king, Emmanuel III., declared himself the defender of the tra ditions of his house. Leo XIII. issued a protest against his succession to the throne in December, 1900, and in 1903, when the rumours became current that the presi dent of the French Republic intended to visit the king of Italy at Rome, the Pope besought him not to do what the Emperor of Austria and the King of Portugal had already refused to do.
But if Leo XIII. failed to settle the conflict between the Papacy and Italy, his efforts were more successful with the other nations of Europe. In Germany the Kulturkampf was still raging, while Russia and Switzer land were also at war with the Church. On the day of his election Leo XIII. forwarded a letter to the German Emperor in which he expressed a hope that His Majesty would strive to procure a restoration of peace and repose of conscience for his Catholic subjects. The Emperor was personally anxious for peace, and Prince Bismarck,
* Bolton-King, pp. 89-100.
alarmed at the growth of Socialism, was not unwilling to negotiate at the Vatican for the support of the Centre party. But he hoped to induce the Pope to recognise the main principles of the May Laws, on condition that these laws were not enforced. Leo XIII. refused to do so, and the negotiations fell through for a time. But they were renewed with better success in 1882. The establishment of a German embassy at the Vatican, and the withdrawal of many of the anti-Catholic laws, the visit of the Prince Imperial to Rome in 1883, and the acceptance of the Pope's mediation in the dispute with Spain regarding the Caroline Islands ( 1885), tended to secure better relations between Germany and the Holy See. In 1888, the present Emperor, William II., ascended the throne, and since his accession he has en deavoured to meet the wishes of his Catholic subjects. He visited the Pope in 1888, 1893, and in 1903. Owing to the conflicts between France and the Holy See the constant aim of Germany in latter years has been to secure a share in the Protectorate that had been entrusted to France, over the Christians in the East, but Leo XIII. steadily refused to take any steps injurious to French interests. In 1902, a convention was agreed upon between the Emperor and Pope, by which a theological faculty was established at the University of Strassburg.
The disputes with Switzerland were also settled. The letter addressed by the Pope on the day of his election to the president of the Swiss Confederation was badly received, and the war against the Church was carried on with renewed vigour. But in 1882 the results of the plebiscite on the education question, and the example of Germany induced the Swiss authorities to initiate a more conciliatory policy. In 1883, an arrangement was made by which Mgr. Mermilod was allowed to return from exile, and in 1884, Mgr. Ferrata, the Papal nuncio at Paris, was despatched to negotiate with the Federal Council. Finally, a convention was accepted by both parties in 1888, by which all the outstanding disputes between the Vatican and Switzerland were settled.
For many years Russia had carried on a terrible cam paign against the Catholic religion in Poland and in the other provinces of the Empire. Pius IX. had protested again and again, but in vain, until finally in 1877 the Russian representative at the Vatican was guilty of ex treme rudeness towards the Holy See, and was dis missed. Leo XIII. notified the Czar, Alexander II., of his elevation to the Papal throne, and congratulated him on his frequent escapes from the hands of the assassins in 1879 and 1880. Negotiations were opened through the Papal nuncio at Vienna for a settlement of the per secution of the Catholics in Poland and of the Uniates, but before the agreement was concluded Alexander II. was murdered ( 1880). His successor, Alexander III., was not badly disposed towards the Catholics, and in 1883, a convention was signed regulating the appoint ment to bishoprics and the erection of a seminary. But the terms of the compact were not observed by Russia. The old persecution still continued. In 1888, steps were taken to bring about another agreement, and a Russian diplomatist was despatched to the Vatican. The rapid advances made by Austria in the Balkan Provinces, and the conclusion of the alliance with France tended to secure more merciful treatment for the Catholic subjects of Russia.
With the Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria the Pope maintained friendly relations, and both powers co operated in spreading Catholicity and Austrian influence in the Balkans after the treaty of Berlin. By his own personal intervention Leo XIII. secured the abdication by the king of Portugal of certain privileges which endangered the spread of Catholicity in India; while Spain was saved from a bloody struggle between the re presentatives of the reigning dynasty and their Carlist rivals mainly by the interference of Leo XIII. Ireland, America, England, and Scotland merited on different occasions the close attention of the Pope. But it was for France that Leo XIII. showed the greatest affection. Remembering how France had been for ages the protector of the Holy See, he spared no pains to avert the rupture which the enemies of the Church so eagerly desired. He believed that the failure of the Catholics in France was due to their want of union and loyal accept ance of the Third Republic. Hence, he was never tired of urging upon French Catholics, lay and clerical, the necessity of rallying their forces, and defending the liberties guaranteed to them by the Republican constitu tion. But though the policy was the only prudent one in the circumstances it was doomed to failure on account of the fixedly hostile attitude of the Republican authorities, and the half-hearted obedience or sullen rebellion of many of the Catholics.
Leo XIII. aimed, however, at doing more than merely establishing good relations with the governments of the world. He aimed at preparing the way for a return to the Christian principles of family and social life, by lay ing bare the sources from which the evils that affect modern society really spring. Hence it is that he devoted so much attention to the great Encyclicals, which in themselves forced men of all classes to turn their atten tion towards the centre of Catholicity. In the first Encyclical of his pontificate ( Inscrutabili, 1878) he laid stress upon the benefits which the Catholic Religion has conferred, and can confer, upon civil society, and upon the falsehood of the charges made against the Papacy as being the enemy of progress and of secular governments. In the Arcanum ( 4th Feb., 1880) the great principles of Christian Marriage are carefully explained, while in the next year the Diuturnum ( 29th June, 1881) was devoted to an exposition of the modern contempt for all civil authority. Such a spirit of rebellion sprang, according to the Pope, from the irreligion of the age, and could be repressed only by a return to the Christian theories of government. Coming so closely upon the assassination of the Czar, Alexander II., and the widespread character of the Anarchist and Nihilist movements, the Encyclical of the Pope aroused universal attention. The Immor tale Dei ( 19th Nov., 1885) was devoted to an exposition of the relations between Church and State, and to a com parison between the foundations of modern governments and the doctrines of the Christian religion. The Ency clical, Libertas ( 20th June, 1888), gave a luminous ex planation of personal, civil and religious liberty.
In his study of modern society Leo XIII. could not fail to notice a specially disquieting feature of modern society, namely, the organised and bitter conflict that was being waged between Capital and Labour. Towards such a struggle the Catholic Church could not afford to adopt an attitude of mere neutrality. Many of the theories put forward by the Socialist parties could not be accepted, nor could the action of some of their bodies merit approval; but, on the other hand, the working classes had undoubtedly grievances, for the redress of which they were justified in agitating. Hence, in the first Encyclical which, Leo XIII. issued on social politics he condemned the doctrines and policy of the Socialists, Communists, and Nihilists ( 28th Dec., 1878). Such an Encyclical was specially appropriate at a time when the lives of the rulers of Europe were in deadly danger, as was shown by the attempts to assassinate the Emperor of Germany and the Kings of Spain and Italy. But though the Pope strongly reprobated Socialism and Communism he was no unfeeling spectator of the wrongs of the labouring classes, nor was he opposed to labour organisations. The Catholics in Germany, Austria, Belgium and France had put forward a social programme in opposition to the Socialist demands. Leo XIII., who already, as bishop of Perugia, had given serious attention to the labour question, was obliged as Pope to make a profound study of the same problem as it affected the different nations of the world. The agrarian troubles in Ireland ( 1880-1883), the action of Cardinal Manning in England, the cause of the Knights of Labour in America ( 1887), the pilgrimages of French working men brought to Rome by MM. Léon Harmel and the Count de Mun ( 1889), kept the problem well before the Pope and his consultors. The attempts made by M. Decurtins, with the approval of Leo XIII., to bring about an international agreement for the protection of labour, and the favour with which the Pope regarded the attempts made by the Emperor William II. to give this proposal effect in the Conference at Halle in 1890, showed that Rome was fully alive to the possibilities of the Christian Democracy movement. Finally, in 1891, after having heard the views of competent men not alone in Italy but also in France and Germany, Leo XIII. pub lished the Rerum Novarum ( 1891), which was henceforth to form the programme for Catholic social action throughout the world. This was followed by special letters to the Catholic Democratic parties in Italy, Ger many, Austria, France and Spain, in which, while warn ing them against the dangers of Socialism, he congratu lated them on the success which their organisations had attained. Three years before his death the publication of Graves de communi ( 18th Jan., 1901), which may be regarded as the complement of the Rerum Novarum, brought home to the world that Leo XIII. did not despair of concluding a peace between Capital and Labour on the lines laid down by the principles of Christian morality.
Against the slave trade in Africa Leo XIII. raised a vehement protest. The unfortunate natives of Central Africa were at the mercy of gangs of Arab merchants, who descended upon the unprotected villages, and carried off all who were likely to bring a fair price in the slave markets. The conference at Berlin in 1888 had con demned such a practice, but national jealousies deprived the decrees of the conference of much of their practical value. Cardinal Lavigerie, Archbishop of Carthage, and the White Fathers organised by him, carried on a crusade for the conversion and the protection of the natives. The Pope commissioned him to preach throughout Europe against the abominable practices of capturing and enslaving the natives of Central Africa, and in pur suance of the Pope's commands the cardinal preached and lectured in nearly every country in Europe. As a result of his efforts anti-slavery committees were organised in the different countries, and large sums of money were collected to help the movement. Belgium, which was most closely affected by the slave raids, responded generously to the wishes of the Pope. Strong military expeditions were organised against the Arabs, and, mainly by the help of Leopold II. and the Belgian anti slavery Committees, the trade in African slaves was sup pressed. The union of all the Christian bodies was dear to the heart of Leo XIII. In order to win over the Russian Church he spared no pains to keep up good re lations with the Czar of Russia. In 1880, on the occa sion of the Centenary of SS. Cyrillus and Methodius, he addressed the Encyclical, Grande Munus (30th Sept.), to the Slavs, recounting the efforts which the Holy See had always made on their behalf, and urging them to imitate the glories of their patron saints. A great Slav pil grimage visited Rome in 1881, and the hierarchy was re-established in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Vicariates apostolic were created for Bulgaria, and the erection of a seminary determined upon ( 1883). The schism which had been created in the Armenian Church during the Vatican Council was healed, and the two schismatical bishops came to Rome and made their submission ( 1879, 1880). In the same year the Sultan allowed the exiled Armenian bishop to return, and he was created cardinal by Leo. in the consistory held in December, 1880. The next year an Armenian college was founded at Rome.
In 1803, the Eucharistic Congress was held at Jeru salem in order to bring about a better understanding between the Eastern and Western Christians, and in 1894, a conference of the representatives of the Christians of the Oriental rite was held at Rome. As a result of the conference Leo XIII. issued the Encyclical, Orientalium dignitas ecclesiarum ( 30th Nov., 1894), in which he laid down the relations between the Latin missionaries and the Eastern Christians. The Coptic hierarchy was estab lished and a patriarchate created at Alexandria for the Copts of Egypt. The activity displayed by the Pope on the question of the Eastern Churches was resented both by Russia and by the patriarch of Constantinople, but in spite of their opposition the missionaries belonging to the Jesuits, Dominicans, Assumptionists, and Augustin ians laboured with considerable success in Bulgaria, Turkey, and Palestine. Besides his efforts for the Christians of the East, Leo XIII. often turned his atten tion to the conversion of England, and was anxious to encourage every movement which had for its object the return of the English people to the unity of the Christian faith. In his remarkable Encyclical, Ad Anglos ( 15th April, 1895), he deplored the effects of the separation begun in the sixteenth century, and entreated the mem bers of the English Church to labour and pray for the re-union of Western Christianity.
Strenuous efforts were made during the pontificate of Leo XIII. to develop the work of the Christian missions. By his letters the Pope recommended the Propagation of the Faith, the Society of the Holy Infancy, and similar institutions to the charity of the Catholic world; while he encouraged the missionaries of the different religious congregations to continue, and, if possible, to increase their efforts in spreading the faith amongst the heathens. By his friendly action he secured protection for the Catholic missionaries from the Emperor of Japan, the Empress of China, and the King of Persia, while he succeeded also in inducing the King of Portugal to forego the ecclesiastical privileges claimed by Portugal in India to the great detriment of the spread of the Catholic Church in that country.
Leo XIII. did not, however, neglect the internal de velopments in the Church. He was anxious to show by practical work that the charges made against the Church as being the enemy of learning and science were ground less; and, hence, during his pontificate, he made earnest efforts to raise the standard of ecclesiastical studies, and to direct them into proper channels. Hardly had he been elected Pope than he determined to grapple with the problem of a Christian system of philosophy. The progress of Neo-Kantism, Positivism, and the other systems so dangerous to the foundations of the Christian Revelation, did not escape the attention of Catholic scholars, but in their efforts to construct a system that would harmonise the conclusions of science with the teachings of Revelation, many of them had come into conflict with the Church. Hence, Leo XIII. determined to recommend the system which, had been built up by the great medieval masters, and which, allowing for the changes necessitated by the progress in physical sciences since that time, seemed best suited to reconcile faith and reason. In his Encyclical, Aeterni Patris ( 4th Aug., 1879), he warmly recommended the study of the philosophy of St. Thomas to Catholic students. In doing this the Pope did not wish that Catholics should regard St. Thomas as an infallible guide, or that they should not be allowed to depart from his teaching on matters, where it had been proved to have been incorrect; but only that, taking the leading principles of the system laid down by St. Thomas, they should test, modify and develop these principles in the light of modern physical science. An academy of St. Thomas was inaugurated at Rome in 1880, and a commission appointed to prepare a careful edition of his works. In a letter to Cardinal Dechamps of Mechlin the Pope advised the establishment of a chair of Thomistic Philosophy in Louvain University ( 1880). The Belgian bishops readily complied with the wishes of the Pope; and Mgr. Mercier, at that time professor in Mechlin seminary, was called to fill the new chair. Eight years afterwards ( July, 1888) the Pope recom mended the foundation of a special Institute of Thomistic Philosophy at the same university, and in order to meet the financial difficulties Leo XIII. came to the rescue with a sum of £6,400. Since that time the Louvain Philosophical Institute has been the leading centre of the Neo-Scholastic movement. Scholars have gone there from all parts of the world, and the Neo- Scholastic system has been introduced into most of the Catholic colleges and universities.
Nor was the quick eye of the Pope slow to detect that in another direction Catholic scholars required en couragement. The rapid development of historical studies in the nineteenth century, and the application of history to theology, opened up a new field full of great possibilities. From his position as custodian of the treasures of the Vatican library and archives, the Pope could do much to impede or further historical research; while, as Head of the Church, his advice in regard to ecclesiastical studies was sure to meet with, a generous compliance. Gregory XVI. had appointed as Keeper of the Vatican archives Father A. Theiner who, during the reign of Pius IX., published many valuable collec tions of Pontifical documents. On the retirement of Theiner in 1870 Cardinal Pitra took charge of the Vatican archives, and succeeded in inducing Pius IX. to permit a few French scholars to make researches in the archives. In 1879, Leo XIII. appointed Cardinal Hergenröther archivist, and threw open the archives to scholars from all parts of the world. In his letter addressed to the Cardinals, Pitra, Hergenröther and Luca, in 1883, the Pope warmly recommended the study of history, and pointed out how much evil had been done to the Catholic Church by the mis-statements, ex aggerations and omissions of unfriendly historians since the days of the Magdeburg Centuriators. He com manded these cardinals to organise the book department of the Vatican library, so as to make it a thoroughly), equipped research library for those engaged in work at the archives or the manuscripts of the Vatican.
The liberality of the Pope in opening the treasures of the Vatican to students of history was thoroughly appreciated by scholars of all shades of opinion, and most of the countries in Europe hastened to take advan tage of the concession by sending representatives to undertake researches in Rome. The French School was established in 1873, and is presided over at present by the learned Mgr. Duchesne. It has done much good work, especially in publishing the Regesta of the Popes of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The Aus trian Historical Institute was established in 1880, and has as its head at present Professor Pastor, the learned historian of the Popes. The Prussian Institute was founded in 1888, and that of Belgium in 1902. Besides these, the Görresgesellschaft of Germany, the Leo- gesselschaft of Austria, Bavaria, Baden, Saxony, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Holland, Spain, Russia, Poland and Hungary and England, are represented at the Vatican archives.
The spread of rationalism and materialism, and the application of these false systems of philosophy to the study of history, opened the way for a general attack upon the authority of the Sacred Scriptures. The books of Scripture were treated as any other literary or his torical documents, and subjected to the same species of criticism. Their accuracy and authority were im pugned, and their inspiration either denied entirely or restricted. In the midst of such confusion even Catholic scholars were at times puzzled as to the attitude they should adopt. To remove such uncertainty Leo XIII. published the Encyclical, Providentissimus Deus ( 18th Nov., 1893), in which the authority of the Sacred Scrip tures, the advantages to be derived from a close study of them, and the principles of interpretation to serve as a guide for Catholic scholars, are clearly explained. By the brief, Vigilantia ( 30th Oct., 1902), Leo XIII. estab lished a Biblical Commission, composed of Scriptural scholars drawn from all parts of the world; and for the encouragement of biblical studies the present Pope, Pius X., has conferred upon this body the power of giving degrees in Sacred Scripture ( 23rd Feb., 1904).
Like his predecessor, Leo XIII. was anxious to en courage devotion to the Blessed Virgin, more especially by the recitation of the Rosary. In 1883, he ordered the daily recitation of the Rosary during the month of October, and by the Encyclical, Inter Plurimos ( 1885), the October devotions were firmly established. Three other Encyclicals inculcating the recitation of the Rosary appeared in 1891, 1892, and 1893. In 1889, he published an Encyclical on devotion to St. Joseph, the Patron of the Universal Church, and in 1893, he estab lished a special feast in honour of the Holy Family. In 1889, the Feast of the Sacred Heart was raised to the dignity of a double of the first class. St. Thomas was declared Patron of all Catholic educational institutions, St. Vincent, Patron of charities, and St. Camillus of Lisle, Patron of hospitals.
The policy of Leo XIII. was one of conciliation, and in a great measure his policy succeeded. It was only with France, for which the Pope had always showed a special tenderness, that his policy could be said to have failed. In spite of the advances of the Pope, the Republic separated itself inch by inch from the traditional policy of France, and the rumours of the approaching visit of the president of France to the king of Italy were already current when the medical bulletins announced that Leo XIII. was ill. Little hope of his recovery was entertained, but he lingered on till the 20th July, 1903, when he quietly breathed his last. Leo XIII. had succeeded to the Papacy at a particularly critical period in its history. He had great difficulties to contend with, but, at the same time, he had great opportunities; and it must be admitted that he utilised these opportunities to the fullest extent.
On the 31st July, 1903, the cardinals assembled at the Vatican for the election of a successor, and on the 4th August Cardinal Sarto, having received the required number of votes, was proclaimed Pope under the title of Pius X. The new Pope was born in 1835, was edu cated at Padua, and was ordained priest in 1858. After many years spent as curate and parish priest he was appointed bishop of Mantua in 1884, and in 1893 cardinal and patriarch of Venice.
Pius X. set himself from the beginning to develop the inner life and organisation of the Church in accord ance with his motto, "to renew all things in Christ." With France, however, he was involved in serious difficulties, which finally culminated in the withdrawal of the French embassy from Rome, and the separation of Church and State. In Italy he endeavoured to unite the different sections of Catholics; and without with drawing entirely the prohibition against taking part in Parliamentary elections he has allowed the prohibition to lapse in places where the Catholic vote was re quired to keep out a particularly dangerous enemy of Catholic interests. In the arrangements and organi sation of the Roman Congregations he has introduced several important changes, notably that by which the duties of the Propaganda are restricted entirely to missionary countries ( 1908); and in the reform of the canon law he has undertaken many of the reforms suggested by the bishops at the Vatican Council. The most important result of the codification of canon law that is being pushed forward rapidly at Rome is the decree on the Marriage laws ( 1907). The attention of the Pope, too, was directed to the spread of dangerous views subversive of the dogmas of the Christian religion. In order to put an end to misunderstandings, and to ex plain clearly the position of the Catholic Church, he published the Syllabus of Errors ( Lamentabili, 4th July, 1907), in imitation of the Syllabus of Pius IX., and a few months later the solemn condemnation of Modernism in the Encyclical, Pascendi dominici gregis. Special attention, too, has been devoted to the difficult problems that have arisen in connection with biblical studies, and the Pope has spared no efforts to create a Catholic school devoted specially to biblical researches in Rome ( 1909).
END OF VOLUME I.
[ Previous | Main Contents ]