"ROME AND THE CHAPTER OF BRESLAU.
"Although a year has already elapsed since Prebend Knauer was chosen Bishop by the Chapter of Breslau, the appointment has not yet been confirmed at Rome, notwithstanding that the diocese has been two years without a bishop, and that other bishops, much more lately chosen, have been confirmed long ago. The circumstance excites, however, no surprise; for Knauer is a moderate, and humane, perhaps even a liberal-minded man. And yet it is somewhat strange that the Chapter of Breslau should submit so patiently to see its own and Knauer's honour so abused by Rome, and the rights of the diocese so disregarded! To object to this, that the Pope considers Knauer unfit for his office, were absurd. How should the Pope know aught about it, unless from informers, (his divine qualifications being now no longer admitted,) since the Chapter, by its choice, has declared him to be fit, and since it cannot be supposed that a college of venerable men would elect as bishop an unsuitable person, merely for the sake of appearances—not to advert to the influence of the Holy Spirit, whose efficacy would thus have been unrecognized in the election! But how can the Pope have more faith and confidence in a few pitiful informers, than in a whole college of men upon oath? How can he place these men in such an equivocal light before the eyes of the world, and so impede their usefulness in the diocese! Should this, however, happen, will not the Chapter incur a moral obligation, to vindicate its own and Knauer's honour, as well as to preserve the rights of the diocese? Hitherto the Chapter of Breslau has been silent. Is this from meekness? No one recognises in this silence an act of Christian forbearance, but somewhat very different! Of course, the people have learnt in the catechism, 'The Church is the community of all Christians, not the Pope.' People have strange notions in our day, especially about Church and State, freedom and the rights of man! All would fain have freedom and their rights, and, as they say, their warrant is in the Bible!
"It will here be objected, however, that the Pope, having the right of confirming, has, consequently, also the right to refuse confirmation. Let us cast all else aside, even reason and honour, and consider the matter from the point of view of historical right, acquired by force. The Pope, then, has the right to confirm the bishop, consequently also to refuse confirmation; but the Chapter, in like manner, has the right of choosing, and, consequently, of not choosing—perhaps even the right of refusing admission to a bishop not elected by themselves. It is not difficult to determine whether Rome or the Chapter of Breslau would fare the worst in such a contest.
"Or may not the informers, who throw suspicion on the sentiments and fitness of Knauer, perhaps be members of the Chapter; and the Italians, presuming on their want of unity, venture to enact in Germany a part they have not dared for long? The silence of the Chapter and the impudence of Rome are scarcely capable of any other explanation. Should it indeed be so, and should individual members of the Chapter have sacrificed the welfare, the rights and privileges of the diocese, to their private ambition, their jealousy, or to other interests, and thus have made a level road for the Italians again to enter Germany, then would we call upon these men, who bear rule in the diocese, and whose part it is to promote our welfare, and to protect our rights and liberties, to vindicate their trust, if they do not wish to incur the reproach of want of principle, and dereliction of their duty.
"Are those days to return, in which it was necessary to send gold-laden cavalcades to Rome, in order to become a bishop? If so, the Canons of Breslau would have but faint chance of a mitre. It is very remarkable what the Italians have of late demanded of us Germans. We are commanded to pray that the Spaniards may return to their old ecclesiastical bondage! Who have been the leaders of this bloody drama? Perhaps the disobedient people? Espartero, and such like! We know in Germany, and almost every school-boy knows it, that, next to the tyranny of royalty, the bloody slaughtering of this fine people has been for the most part occasioned by the licentious, lazy, Rome-subjected priesthood! We also know that the French Revolution was not occasioned by Danton, Camille Desmoulins, and others of their stamp; but by the tyranny of Louis XIV., the profligacy of Louis XV., aided by the shameless excesses of the court nobility, lay and clerical. No less are we aware that the Thirty Years' War was not caused by Luther and Melancthon, but had been hatching for centuries by Rome and the lay and clerical nobility of Germany. It is, indeed, most necessary that we pray for ourselves and for the Spaniards, but it shall be for the freedom and independence of ourselves and them—in union with which alone can true religion and morality exist—and not for slavery and dependence, which can at best engender dissimulation and hypocrisy.
"A Chaplain.">[
Well did I know that I was subscribing my own sentence; and yet, on closer consideration, I could not believe that the Hierarchy, or Church as it is called, would treat both truth and justice with such open scorn as I found that it could, through Dr. Ritter and the vicar-ship of Breslau.
About six weeks after the appearance of the article, I received a note from Dr. Ritter,* in which he called upon me to tell him, on my priestly word of honour, whether I were the author of the article, "Rome and the Chapter of Breslau," or had taken any part in the drawing up or despatching of it. Dr. Ritter, the vicar of the bishopric, a priest, nearly sixty years of age, with grey hair, dared to call me to account for speaking the truth!—me, who, as a priest and proclaimer of the truth, had lately been sent into the world with the commission, "to speak the truth without fear of man,"—Dr. Ritter, who himself had sent me forth, ventured to call me to account for doing so! And is religion thus to be turned to mockery and reproach! Should I not speak the truth? or had I not spoken the truth? I had written down that the Romish priesthood were preeminently the cause of the German Thirty Years' War, and of the Revolutions in France and Spain. Are these not facts of historical notoriety, contained in every manual, and should I not dare to write them? I had also asserted that the calumnies and want of unanimity among the candidates for the bishopric, were probably the reasons for the Pope daring so long to delay the confirmation of Bishop Knauer, and keeping the diocese in confusion. The divisions and quarrels of the candidates for the bishop's mitre were known to all the diocese, and also who had principally contributed to the retiring of the humane Bishop Sedlinitzky—much indignation was felt at the discord occasioned by clerical ambition; and I, forsooth, should not give utterance to the opinions of my fellow-citizens and colleagues! Dr. Ritter, then, placed falsehood and hypocrisy on the altar, and desired that I should honour them, in calling me to a reckoning for my truthfulness.
* DR. RITTER'S DECREE.
"Public opinion points to you as the author of the article
entitled "Rome and the Chapter of Breslau," and signed "A
Chaplain," in No. 135 of the Saxon Vaterlands-blatter. I
hereby require you, on your word of honour as a priest,
distinctly to declare, by return of post, whether you are
the author of the above-named article, or the sender of it,
or, in fact, whether you had any share in the drawing up or
despatching of the same.
"Ritter,
"Canonical Vicar and General Administrator of the
Diocese,
"Breslau, December 20, 1842."
Had I given vent in words to my first angry feelings,—had I not allowed some weight to the existing relations between the higher and inferior clergy,—had I not, in short, considered the situation of my orphan sisters—Dr. Ritter would indeed have received a very different reply from that, which, after the exercise of much self-control, I sent him. After calm reflection and consultation with a man of experience, I came to the resolution, that as I had written in the name of my fellow-citizens and colleagues, I ought not to make any concession prejudicial to their rights, and must rely for protection on the laws.