The secretary of the Propaganda next reminds his correspondent that Pius VI., in a brief of 20th March, 1791, had condemned a decree of the National Assembly of France, by which the clergy of that country were made pensioners of the state; and he adds that the Holy See had resisted a similar attempt of the English government in regard to the clergy of Corsica, when that island had fallen into their hands.
Examining the various vetoistical plans mentioned by Dr. Milner, Monsignore Brancadoro quotes the authority of the great and learned Pontiff, Benedict XIV., to show how decidedly opposed the Holy See has always been to every project directed to vest Catholic ecclesiastical appointments in the hands of a Protestant sovereign. This question is discussed in a brief of that Pope addressed to the Bishop of Breslau on the 15th of May, 1748, and his words are as follows: “There is not recorded in the whole history of the Church a single example in which the appointment of a bishop or abbot was conceded to a sovereign of a different religion”. He adds “that he would not, and could not, introduce a practice calculated to scandalize the Catholic world, and which, besides bringing on him a dreadful judgment in another world, would render his name odious and accursed during life, and much more so after death”.
2. The learned writer then proceeds to examine the various plans of granting to government certain powers in regard to the nomination of bishops, and explodes them all as replete with danger to religion, and well calculated to enslave the Church.
The plans proposed to lessen the Pope's unwillingness to grant to the sovereign the right of nomination were the following:—Some thought that the nomination should be limited to a certain class of persons who should have been approved of by the episcopal body after an examination and trial. Such a body might be the vicars-general, of whom two should be appointed for each diocese. The government was to be bound to choose the bishops out of this body. This plan was rejected, first, because it would really amount to vesting the nomination of bishops in a non-Catholic sovereign; and secondly, on account of difficulties created by the circumstances of the time and place.
Others proposed to give the government the right of excluding from the episcopal charge those obnoxious to itself. Monsignore [pg 053] Brancadoro says of this plan, that unless this right of exclusion were restricted by limits, it would be equivalent to a real power of nomination. But even so, even after due limitation, it was an absolute novelty in the Church, and no one could tell what its consequences might be. Besides, it was uncalled for, since the experience of so many centuries ought to have convinced the government that the ecclesiastics appointed to govern dioceses were always excellent citizens. Besides, it was the custom of the Holy See not to appoint to a vacant diocese until it had received the recommendation of the metropolitans and the diocesan clergy. This was a safeguard against improper appointments.
3. With respect to the restoration of the Hierarchy in England, Monsignore Brancadoro blames the motive which induced the English nobles to petition for such a change of church government, namely, the desire they felt to have bishops less bound to the Holy See. He declares that, although differing quoad jus, bishops and vicars-apostolic did not differ in reality, and that the Holy See was equally well satisfied with the bishops of Ireland, and the vicars-apostolic of England and Scotland.
4. The Secretary condemns, as worst of all, the plan of giving to the ministers the right to examine the communications that pass between the Holy See and the British and Irish Catholics. Such a right has never been allowed, even to a Catholic power, much less should it be allowed to a Protestant government. The case of France was not to the point, for there the right was limited to provisions of benefices alone. The government has no reason to be afraid: the Holy See has expressly declared to bishops and vicars-apostolic, that it does not desire any political information from them.
The two official notes we insert will be read in their original language with great interest. They are noble monuments of the zeal of the holy Pontiff, Pius VII., and of the vigilance with which the Holy See has always endeavoured to uphold the rights and independence of our ancient Church. Undoubtedly the wise instructions given in those letters had no small share in arousing that spirit with which a few years later our clergy and people resisted and defeated all the efforts of British statesmen to deprive our Church of her liberties, and to reduce her to the degraded condition of the Protestant establishment. The notes of the secretary of Propaganda are a fine specimen of ecclesiastical writing, illustrating the maxim fortiter in re, suaviter in modo.