To Prince Bismarck’s first assertion, that the definition of papal infallibility was the unpardonable offence, which has been so strongly emphasized by Mr. Gladstone and re-echoed with parrot-like fidelity by the anti-Catholic press of Europe and America, Herr von Kirchmann makes the following reply:
“It is difficult to understand how so experienced a statesman as Prince Bismarck can ascribe to this decree of the council such great importance for the states of Europe, and particularly for Prussia and Germany. To a theorizer sitting behind his books such a decree, it may be allowed, might appear to be something portentous, since, taken from a purely theoretical stand-point and according to the letter, the infallibility of the Pope in all questions of religion and morals gives him unlimited control over all human action; and many a Catholic, when called upon to receive this infallibility as part of his faith, may have found that he was unable to follow so far; but a statesman ought to know how to distinguish, especially where there is question of the Catholic Church, between the literal import of dogmas and their use in practical life. In the Catholic Church as a whole, this infallibility, as is well known, has existed from the earliest times; its organ hitherto has been the Ecumenical Council in union with the Pope; but already before 1870 it was disputed whether the Pope might not alone act as the organ of infallibility. In 1870 the question was decided in favor of the Pope; but we must consider that the ecumenical councils have, as history shows, nearly always framed their decrees in accordance with the views of the court of Rome; and this, of itself, proves that the change made in 1870 is rather one of form than of essence. Especially false is it to maintain that by this decree a complete revolution in the constitution of the church has been made. To the theorizer we might grant the abstract possibility that something of this kind might some day or other happen; but such possibilities of the abuse of a right are found in all the relations of public life, in the state and its representatives as well as in the church. Even in constitutions the most carefully drawn up such possibilities are found in all directions. What a statesman has to consider is not mere possibilities, but the question whether the possessor of such right is not compelled, from the very nature of things, to make of it only the most moderate and prudent use. So long, therefore, as the Pope does not alter the constitution of the church, that constitution remains, precisely in its ancient form, such as it has been recognized and tolerated by the state for centuries: and wherever the relations between particular states and the court of Rome have been arranged by concordats, these too remain unchanged, unless the states themselves find it convenient to depart from them. We see, in fact, that this infallibility of the Pope has in no country of Europe or America altered one jot or tittle in the constitution of the Catholic Church; and where in particular countries such changes have taken place, they have not been made by the ecclesiastical government, but by the state and in its interest. In Germany even, and in Prussia itself, the Pope has, since 1870, made no change in the church constitution, as determined by the Canon Law; and when, in some of his encyclicals and other utterances, he has taken up a hostile attitude towards the German Empire and the Prussian state, he has done this only in defence against the aggressive legislation of the civil government. He has never hesitated to express his disapprobation of the new church laws, but he has in no instance touched the constitution of the Catholic Church or the rights of the bishops.”[256]
It seems almost needless to remark that there is no necessary connection between the doctrine of Papal infallibility and that of the essential organization of the church; that the jurisdiction of the Pope was as great, and universally recognized as such by Catholics, before the Vatican Council as since; and consequently that it is not even possible that the definition of 1870 should make any change in his authoritative relation to, or power over, the church. His jurisdiction is wider than his infallibility, and independent of it; and the duty of obedience to his commands existed before the dogma was defined precisely as it exists now; and therefore it is clearly manifest that the Vatican decree cannot give even a plausible pretext for such legislation as the Falk Laws.
“Not less singular,” continues Herr von Kirchmann, “does it sound to hear the party of the Centrum in the Reichstag and Prussian Landtag denounced as the occasion of the new regulations between church and state. The members of this party notoriously represent the views and wishes of the majority of their constituents, and just as faithfully as the members of the parties who side with the government. The reproach that they receive their instructions from Rome is not borne out by the facts; and if there were an understanding with Rome of the kind which their adversaries affirm, this could only be the result of a similar understanding on the part of their constituents. Nothing could more strikingly prove that the Catholic party faithfully represent the great majority in their electoral districts than the repeated re-election of the same representatives or of men of similar views. To this we must add that the Centrum, though strong in numbers, is yet in a decided minority both in the Reichstag and the Prussian Landtag, and has always been defeated in its opposition to the recent ecclesiastical legislation. If in other matters, by uniting with opposition parties, it has caused the government inconvenience, we have no right to ascribe this to feelings of hostility; for on such occasions its orators have given substantial political reasons for their opposition, and instances enough might be enumerated in which, precisely through the aid of the Centrum, many illiberal and dangerous projects of law have fallen through; and for this the party deserves the thanks of the country.
“The present action of the state against the Catholic Church would be unjustifiable, if better grounds could not be adduced in its favor. For the attentive observer, however, valid reasons are not wanting. They are to be found, to put the whole matter in a single word, in the great power to which the Catholic Church in Prussia had attained by the aid of the constitution and the favor of the government—a power which, if its growth had been longer tolerated, would have become, not indeed dangerous to the existence of the state, but a hindrance to the right fulfilment of the ends of its existence.”[257]
Neither the Vatican Council, then, nor the Catholics of Prussia have done anything to provoke the present persecution. To find fault with the German bishops for accepting the dogma of infallibility, after having strongly opposed its definition by the council, would be as unreasonable as to blame a member of Congress for admitting the binding force of a law the passage of which he had done everything in his power to prevent. Their duty, beyond all question, was to act as they have acted. This was not the offence: the unpardonable crime was that the church, as soon as she was unloosed from the fetters of bureaucracy, had grown too powerful. We doubt whether any more forcible argument in proof of the indestructible vitality of the church can be found than that which may be deduced from the universal consent of her enemies, of whatever shade of belief or unbelief, that the only way in which she can be successfully opposed is to array against her the strongest of human powers—that of the state. A complete revolution of thought upon this subject has taken place within the last half-century. Up to that time it was confidently held by Protestants as well as infidels that, to undermine and finally destroy the church, it would be simply necessary to withdraw from her the support of the state; that to her freedom would necessarily prove fatal. The experiment, as it was thought, had not been satisfactorily tried. Ireland, indeed, had held her faith for three hundred years, in spite of all that fiendish cruelty could invent to destroy it; but persecution has always been the life of the faith. In the United States the church had been free since the war of independence, but of us little was known; and, besides, down to, say, 1830 even the most thoughtful and far-sighted among us had serious doubts as to the future of the church in this country.
But with the emancipation of the Catholics in Great Britain, the new constitution of the kingdom of Belgium, and the completer organization of the church in the United States, the test as to the action of freedom upon the progress of Catholic faith began to be applied over a wide and varied field and under not unfavorable circumstances. What the result has been we may learn from our enemies. Mr. Gladstone expostulates for Great Britain, and reaches a hand of sympathy to M. Emile de Laveleye in Belgium. Dr. Falk, Dr. Friedberg, and even the moderate Herr von Kirchmann, defend the tyrannical May Laws as necessary to stop the growth of the church in Germany; and at home the most silent of Presidents and the most garrulous of bishops, forgetting that the cause of temperance has prior claims upon their attention, have raised the cry of alarm to warn their fellow-citizens of the dangerous progress of popery in this great and free country. Time was when “the Free Church in the Free State” was thought to be the proper word of command; but now it is “the Fettered Church in the Enslaved State,” since no state that meddles with the consciences of its subjects can be free.
If there is anything for which we feel more especially thankful, it is that henceforth the cause of the church and the cause of freedom are inseparably united. We have heard to satiety that the Catholic Church is the greatest conservative force in the world, the most powerful element of order in society, the noblest school of respect in which mankind have ever been taught. Praised be God that now, as in the early days, he is making it impossible that Catholics should not be on the side of liberty, as the church has always been; so that all men may see that, if we love order the more, we love not liberty the less!
“I will sing to my God as long at I shall be,” wrote an inspired king; “put not your trust in princes.” No, nor in governments, nor in states, but in God who is the Lord, and in the poor whom Jesus loved. From God out of the people came the church; through God back to the people is she going. We know there are still many Catholics who trust in kings and believe in salvation through them; but God will make them wiser. The Spirit that sits at the roaring Loom of Time will weave for them other garments. The irresistible charm of the church, humanly speaking, lies in the fact that she comes closer to the hearts of the people than any other power that has ever been brought to bear upon mankind.
Having shown that the oppressive ecclesiastical legislation of Germany was not provoked by the church, and that its only excuse is the increasing power of the church, Herr von Kirchmann reduces all farther discussion of this subject to the two following heads: 1st. How far ought the state to go in setting bounds to this power of the Catholic Church? and 2d. What means ought it to employ?