Kitabı oku: «Letters From Rome on the Council», sayfa 27

In the last part of his speech Strossmayer discussed the Catholic rule of faith, which had been completely changed and violated by the comments of the members of the Deputation of Faith on the Schema. The principle of at least moral unanimity was, he said, a sacred one, corresponding to precedent and pleasing to the faithful. There were whole volumes of the holy Fathers extant on this principle, as of Irenæus, Tertullian, Augustine and Vincent of Lerins, who in common with all others maintained that there are three essential conditions for proving a divine tradition and propounding an article of faith, antiquity, universality and agreement. They all thought the tradition of the Roman Church a principal river, whereby the whole earth was watered, but they regarded the traditions of the other Churches also as tributaries by which the river must be constantly fed, or it would in course of time be dried up. They all ascribed the first authority to the witness of St. Peter's successor, but that authority was only manifested clearly to the Catholic world after being reinforced by the consent of all the other Churches. This divine rule would be completely overset by the personal infallibility of the Pope, to the great injury of faith. If it is said that the definition is earnestly desired by many, it must be replied that it is also desired by the worst enemies of the Church, who openly say in writing and by word of mouth that it is the best means for destroying the infallibility of the Church. That fact alone would explain the alarm and anxiety of so many of the most learned Fathers of the Council. Strossmayer dwelt in conclusion on the danger that would result from the definition for the Southern Sclaves and Catholic Croats, who lived side by side with eight million persons out of the unity of the Church. Not only would the return of these separated brethren be barred, but it might be feared that the Catholic Croats would be driven out of the Church. He therefore always hoped, and entreated the holy Father, that he would emulate the example of the humility of St. Peter in his martyrdom, and of Christ who was exalted by his Father because He had humbled Himself to the death of the Cross, and magnanimously have the subject withdrawn.

The speech was listened to with great attention, and became the topic of conversation in all circles at Rome, and even Bishops of the other party paid a high tribute to it. As yet 24 Bishops have spoken against the dogma and 35 for it, – most of the latter having no real dioceses.

Two interesting episodes have intervened. Last week the police refused the Prince Bishop of Breslau his visa for Naples, because he could show no permission from the Presidents of the Council to go there. This implied that the Fathers are civil as well as spiritual subjects of the Pope. The Bishop, who was wearied out with the objectless proceedings in the Council Hall, sent to Fessler, the Secretary of the Council, for the requisite permission; Fessler replied that he could not give it, and referred him to the President de Angelis, who tried to represent the whole affair as a mistake. It had not been so ill meant, and at most only the departure of the Orientals was intended to be prevented, he said, and he authorized Fessler to instruct the police to give the permission. But that was the most complete indorsing of what they had done, and proved that the Pope meant to use his temporal power for managing the Council and controlling the actions of the Fathers. On that account the departure of the Prince Bishop had been hindered, and the whole affair involves the question of ecclesiastical freedom and international right. Does a member of the Council thereby lose or prejudice his rights as the subject of a foreign state, or is the freedom of individual Bishops suspended while taking part in it? So anxious is the Pope to give up nothing which may serve for dominating the Council, that he restricts the Bishops in the most harmless exercise of personal freedom, which at other times he would never have thought of. I will not dwell on the insult in this procedure to the King of Prussia, whose safe-conduct was no more respected than the Emperor Sigismund's at Constance, for a graver question is at stake, – that of international right and freedom of the Council. Meanwhile they reckon on Prussia taking no further notice of the affair, and the Prince Bishop has given up his journey after these difficulties. France, too, has quietly endured a series of insults, and so they hope not to have to abolish the regulation or disavow the police.

Rome cannot admit the principle of international right in this case, without giving up one of her own principles, the Inquisition, according to whose laws foreigners can be arrested, imprisoned, and put to the question. No secular tribunal limits its power, and every Bishop therefore could in theory be brought before it. By papal law the Pope might at any moment have Cardinal Schwarzenberg arrested, and if the right has become inapplicable, that is due to the influence of foreign states and the modern spirit, whose restraints on the full exercise of Church authority it is the office of the Council to remove, as the Syllabus, Bull of Censures, Schema de Ecclesiâ, etc., prove. According to Roman canon law, freedom at the Council is inconceivable.

In a former letter I gave an inaccurate account of the Prince Bishop's conduct towards the priest Jentsch, at Liegnitz, being misled by statements in the Roman newspapers.¹⁰⁵ The text of the explanation accepted by the Bishop shows that no principle was conceded or denied, and he said himself that he agreed in substance with Jentsch.

The arrival of Father Hötzl in Rome seemed for a time likely to produce still more serious conflicts, for his affair looked as if it would oblige the minority to give expression to their view of Döllinger's teaching on the necessity of general consent for the œcumenicity of a Council. Those who had undertaken the instruction of Hötzl cared less for converting him than for using the opportunity to provoke dissension among the minority. He was told that an explanation, not a retractation, was all that was demanded of him, and when the explanation he offered was found unsatisfactory another was proposed to him on May 31. The crucial passage in it was read and examined by leading bishops of the minority, whose names were calculated to inspire complete confidence. Hötzl had some cause to think he had saved honour and conscience, and responsibility to man and God, when he sought the judgment of liberal German Bishops and resolved to abide by it. But though they disliked the passage, they thought it difficult to know how to save a man who had come to Rome in such childish confidence, and did not feel justified under the circumstances in urging him to go to extremities and sacrifice himself to their interests. It was not their place to drive him to a breach with his Order or a loss of personal liberty, at a time when they had not themselves publicly, solemnly and decisively repudiated the doctrine imposed on him. Still less did they want to compromise themselves or break up their harmony before the time. And their hesitation may have led Father Hötzl into his mistake; he was acting in concert with the minority when he signed.

I give only a brief preliminary notice of the most important points in to-day's sitting. After Dinkel, who spoke very well, and Domenec, Bishop of Pittsburg, who was much interrupted, Maret made a longer speech, which he delivered in a very loud voice, as deaf persons are apt to do. In the course of it he declared that it would be called a vicious circle for the less to give power to the greater, as would be done if the Council, which was said to possess a lower authority, were to confer on the Pope – a higher authority – the prerogative of infallibility. Thereupon Bilio struck in very excitedly, crying out “Concilium nihil dat Papæ nec dare potest, sed solummodo recognoscit, suffragia dat, et Sanctus Pater quod in Spiritu Sancto ipsi placet decidit.”

In yesterday's sitting a postulatum for the close of the general debate was prepared, which is said to have received 150 signatures. After Maret's speech it was at once produced and the close voted. Little more than 60 prelates have spoken, and above 40 were waiting their turn, amongst whom were Haynald and other considerable persons. The continuation of the debate had been reckoned upon and much was hoped from it; but now that the example has once been set of using the well-known clause in the order of business in the interests of one party, the step may be repeated in every succeeding debate. The Opposition will be driven into greater firmness by this occurrence, which they had foreshadowed in the half-threatening formula at the end of their great Protest. The question is now forced upon them, whether they were in earnest in what they then said.

Fifty-Third Letter

Rome, June 4, 1870.– The first impression made on the minority by the violent closing of the general debate led many of them, in discussing it directly after the sitting, to say they would take no further part in the debates. A great meeting was arranged for to-day at Cardinal Rauscher's to decide the question. It was the largest international gathering of the Opposition yet held, including nearly 80 Bishops, but was for that very reason difficult to manage. Two possible courses were discussed – to remain in Rome but take no further part in the debates, as not being free, and vote at the end non placet against the infallibilist Schema, or simply to issue a protest against the injustice they had suffered, and continue to take part in the proceedings. The former view was supported principally by the Hungarians, North Americans, the leading French Bishops, and men like Strossmayer, Simor, Haynald, Darboy, Dupanloup, Clifford, Conolly (represented by proxy), and others. They insisted that words were of no further avail, and they should show their sense of the want of freedom by acts, so that, as far as in them lay, no decree should be carried which had not been thoroughly discussed. In this way the œcumenicity of the Council would be denied without coming as yet to a breach in Council or a disturbance in the Church; for they could no longer recognise the Council as legitimate, nor yet retire, for to retire would precipitate the most extravagant decisions and lead to an open conflict. There were many reasons why it could no longer be held legitimate, such as its composition, the order of business, the pressure exercised on the Bishops by the Pope personally or through his officials, the notorious design of getting dogmas promulgated by a majority, etc. It would be simply a degradation to give in any longer to such a farce. In Parliaments speeches were not altogether useless, for if they could not influence votes they enlightened public opinion, but at this so-called Council most of their hearers were quite incapable from their standard of cultivation of appreciating theological arguments, not to add that the moral standard of many among them was such that, even if they were convinced, they would not act on their convictions. And speeches, which were not made public, could produce no effect out of doors. To debate under these circumstances would only be to incur a large responsibility for the entire conduct of the Council. But if the Opposition refrained from discussion and left the field free to the majority, the differences among them would soon be made manifest. The Curia could hardly hold out against so serious a demonstration, but if it remained obstinate, no further doubt would be possible in the Church as to the opinion of the minority about the Council.

On the other side it was urged that all which could be gained by such a demonstration would be gained equally by a declaration showing how the forcible closing of the general debate had undermined the foundations and future authority of the Council. They owed it to the world to do more than merely give reasons against the legitimacy of the Council; they must debate and bring forward the objections to the infallibilist doctrine itself, and thus give public testimony of their convictions. Most of the Germans took this view, which many French Bishops readily acceded to, when they observed that the Hungarian phalanx had been broken up. Perhaps other and more subordinate motives helped to establish this opinion, but many of its advocates are men of no decided resolution, and men who in reality want only a semblance of resistance and are already secretly prepared to yield at the last moment. It was thought strange that at this assembly, which had been summoned to consult on the means of meeting the violent coup of the majority, a German Archbishop was present who had joined the enemies of his party in subscribing the proposal for closing the debate the day before.

The draft of the Protest finally adopted against this act of violence had been brought to the meeting by Cardinal Rauscher, and bears marks of the antagonistic elements it combines. Yet it contains one passage, which may perhaps be appealed to hereafter, “Protestamur contra violationem nostri juris.”¹⁰⁶

Fifty-Fourth Letter

Rome, June 6, 1870.– There have been indications for some time past that the dénouement was likely to be precipitated. The Pope himself declared that it was impossible to keep the Bishops here in July. The great debate, with 106 speakers inscribed, wearied every one, and the tropical heat increases the exhaustion and disgust. But the minority maintained their resolve to carry on the general debate to the end, while the majority counted on its absorbing the discussion of the separate chapters of the Schema, and accordingly Fessler announced that the speakers were at liberty to treat of points which belonged properly to the special debate. His party considered that, if the general and special debate were mixed up in this way, they might insist at the end that the separate chapters required no further discussion, since everything had been said already, and so they might come sooner to the decision they so earnestly desired. Very few speakers have attempted any theological argument – perhaps only Conolly, Dinkel and Maret; and this made it easier to mix up the general and special discussion, which again has helped to give a vague and rambling character to the debate. It was clear that after 106 or more speeches on the preliminary question, there were still five weary debates to come on the preamble and each of the four chapters, so that, unless the discussion was to be forcibly closed, it must either last on through the whole summer, or a prorogation be allowed while the main question was still unsettled. The first expedient seemed hardly practicable, and could only be held out in terrorem, so that the Court really had to choose between an act of arbitrary power or a prorogation of the Council, which last would be equivalent to a great victory of the minority. There was no want of attempts to get up an agitation for an adjournment. It seemed a happy escape from grave embarrassments to those secular and untheological counsellors of the Pope, who have given up the notion of infallibility, and on the contrary are convinced that the definition involves the separation of Church and State, the fall of the temporal power and the loss of the accustomed resources of the Papacy. These men do not expect an isle of Delos to rise out of the sea for the Pope when the States of the Church are swallowed up, but they are excluded from any influence on the Council. The more full the Pope is of the one grand subject of his infallibility, the less will he listen to Antonelli, to whom the mysteries in which he is not initiated are a nuisance, and who hates the line taken by Manning and the French zealots and apostolic Janissaries, and would like nothing better than an ambiguous formula leaving things just where they are.

But as soon as the majority became aware that some of the more colourless Bishops of the middle party were working for the prorogation of the Council, they resolved to be beforehand with them. Their postulatum for closing the debate with its 150 signatures was got ready on Thursday the 2d, but was not meant to be presented till the Saturday. But the great excitement at the close of Maret's speech gave them the opportunity for striking the blow on Friday, when the close of the general debate was carried by a large majority. The order of business undoubtedly gave the Presidents the right of putting it to the vote, and moreover they have more than the letter of the law on their side. They might have urged that, as the general and special debates were not kept separate, most of what was now omitted might be supplied afterwards, and the Fathers who had missed their turn would have five other opportunities of speaking. They might have also alleged, in excuse of hurrying the proceedings, the constantly growing impatience and disgust generally manifested in the assembly, and the uselessness of all minute discussion of details. It is enough to mention as indicative of the prevalent feeling of the majority, that they received the Bishop of Pittsburg with derisive laughter when he ascended the tribune, and that they muttered at every affectionate or respectful allusion to the Pope by an Opposition speaker, “Et osculatus est Illum.”¹⁰⁷ Under these circumstances Conolly omitted nearly half his manuscript. The majority might have urged the further excuse that far more of their own speakers than of their opponents were excluded by the close of the debate. Some 27 of the latter had as yet spoken against 36 infallibilists, which however, considering that the minority are only a fourth of the Council, tells in their favour.

But if we examine the matter more closely, the Opposition has lost all it had left by the close of the general debate, viz., freedom of speech. It has been sacrificed to the caprice of the majority, for the subsequent debates may be closed in the same way: that on the primacy because it is no new subject, and that on infallibility because the general debate turned wholly upon it. So the Opposition had nothing left them but to protest, unless they would summon courage for a decisive act. But their protest is as feeble as the last; it is simply directed against the abuse of an order of business they had already protested against, and then themselves accepted by continuing to take part in the Council. A party intoxicated with success cannot be restrained or conquered by these paper demonstrations, nor even the sympathy of the Catholic world be gained; a definite and firm principle is requisite for that. After all their experiences it may be called a harmless amusement for the minority to present protest after protest, with the certainty that they will be laid by unnoticed and unanswered.

The French Bishops of the minority held a meeting on the 3rd, from which they came away troubled and undecided. The Germans take the matter less seriously. Their past presses heavily upon them. They had an opportunity, when the second regolamento was issued at the end of February, and again at the Solemn Session at the end of April, of either getting their views accepted or bringing the Council to an end. But they were not then strong enough for that. Now at the eleventh hour a last though less favourable opportunity is offered them. But at the international meeting at Cardinal Rauscher's last Saturday, their views were again set aside, for the assemblage of the whole body of Opposition Bishops brought to light the unpleasant fact of a gulf between the intellectual leaders and the mass of the minority, which makes any real leadership impossible. And this is the more lamentable, because the men who since the opening of the Council have risen to so important a position were almost unanimous; for Hefele and Rivet, Bishop of Dijon, were almost the only ones among them, except Ketteler, who rejected the energetic measure of holding aloof from the debates for the future and protesting by silence. It seems that Hefele wanted to recognise the Council as still having some claim. The other leaders succumbed, unwillingly and predicting evils, to the will of the majority, who were satisfied with the protest drawn up by Rauscher.

But all is not yet lost, and the tactics actually adopted may perhaps in skilful hands be made as effective as the rejected policy. Between Pentecost and the feast of the Apostles from 80 to 90 speakers might make their voices heard. If we consider that more than 100 speakers had enrolled their names for the first and tolerably irregular debate, and that 49 speeches were suppressed, it is clear that the great question of the primacy and infallibility of the Pope would require a much longer time for uninterrupted and complete discussion, and thus the adjournment would remain as probable and as inevitable as before. The Court and the majority would perhaps shrink from depriving the proceedings of all dignity, weight and completeness by a fresh coup d'église, as such an attempt might appear even to them too bold and dangerous in the special debate on the principles of the Church. And if such an attempt was made, it would perhaps exhaust at last even the patience of the patient Germans, and lead them to muster all their forces for the last contest. One must admit that if orthodox Catholicism is only to be saved by an adjournment of the Council this is not much to the credit of the Church. But the reason why so many prefer a prorogation to a decisive conflict is because they fear that many present opponents of the doctrine might at last vote for its definition and betray their consciences through fear of men, and that many who vote against it and insist on the necessity of unanimity would ultimately accept and teach a dogma false in itself and carried by illegitimate means.

I will merely mention, in illustration of this, that it was lately thought very necessary to distribute a Disquisitio Moralis de Officio Episcoporum, discussing whether a Bishop does not greatly violate his conscience by voting for a decree to define the personal and independent infallibility of the Pope, without having any previous conviction of its being a revealed doctrine always held and handed down in the Church as such. The treatise is well written, but no such bitter irony against the Episcopate is contained in the pasquinades, and it is obvious that the author has not underrated their weakness from the fact that many Bishops would vote differently if the voting was secret. There are some among them too who doubt if papal absolutism and a power which kills out all intellectual movement is not better than truth and purity of doctrine, and if the responsibility of individual Bishops is not superseded by a decree of the Pope, at least when issued “sacro approbante Concilio.”

To judge from to-day's debate on the preamble, one would imagine the Opposition neither knew how to speak nor how to keep silence. None but the French, who have put down their names to speak, appear to have much desire to take any further part in the discussion. Perhaps they think it ludicrous to take any serious part in a debate which may be suddenly broken off, and speak, as it were, with a halter round their necks. And those who had thought the right plan was to keep silence henceforth were the best speakers of the Opposition; they do not therefore fall readily into a policy they disapproved. Their view is that, as the majority has done its worst and the minority has not the spirit to follow the counsel of its leaders, it is no longer worth while to fight against a result which cannot be permanent.

This weak and vacillating attitude may possibly only be a momentary consequence of the sudden commencement of a discussion which seemed distant and for which they were unprepared. On the other hand the confidence of the majority increases, and they announce the close of the debate on Corpus Christi. If the minority remain as undecided as they were at the Conference at Cardinal Rauscher's, an unfavourable issue must be feared, and this will be their own fault, for sacrificing their cause at the very moment they have for six months been preparing for, through some of them not choosing to be silent and the others not choosing to speak.

The main argument urged against taking further part in the discussion is that the historical and traditional evidences against infallibility had been prepared by men who lost their turn through the closing of the general debate, and cannot be brought forward in the special debate which is only about changes in the text of the decree. The majority have thereby testified their refusal to listen, not to certain speakers, but to a certain portion of the theological argument, and thus they prevent the investigation of tradition which is so unwelcome to them. Only secondary matters can be discussed now, while the main point is left untouched. To many, and especially the Hungarians, this seemed a betraying of the cause. The Hungarians absolutely refuse to take any further part in the debates, for in their eyes the Council has already condemned itself, and they cannot too soon publish their opinion to the world by recording their non placet. They are therefore dissatisfied with the Germans, who prevented stronger measures being adopted, and some of them – like Simor, who would not go on attending the sittings – have even refused to sign the Protest to the Pope, because it involves too much deference to the Council. There are accordingly only 81 signatures, for the Archbishop of Cologne has also refused to sign, but on grounds precisely opposite to those of the Archbishop of Gran.

Meanwhile the Vicar-General here is organizing all sorts of demonstrations for the happy result of the Council in the sense of the Court party. There were to be three processions this week, and no pains were spared to induce persons of rank, including ladies, to take part in them. In many cases the attempt failed, for it is idle to deny that a large portion of the Roman citizens of all ranks turn away with indifference and contempt from St. Peter's, and of course from all religion too.

The Unita Cattolica predicts with triumphant confidence that God will yield to their pious importunities (Iddio obbedira), the Holy Ghost will fill the Council Hall, descend upon each of the Fathers and work the miracle of making them all boldly confess the infallibilist doctrine. As in the year 33 the people, who surrounded the house where the Pentecostal miracle was wrought, asked, in amazement at the new tongues of the Apostles, “Are these who speak Galileans?” so in 1870 they will hear the Bishops and Cardinals proclaim papal infallibility and will ask themselves, “Are not these the men who wrote as zealous Gallicans?” The Spirit of God will work this “noisy miracle” (strepitoso miracolo).

A remarkable Petition has for some time been hawked about, begging the Pope to promote St. Joseph to be General Protector of the Catholic Church. Many have objected that it is unfair to disturb the “riposo di San Giuseppe,” but the notion finds much favour in the Vatican.

It is impossible to foresee at this moment how the great decision will turn out. The majority are evidently consolidating their plans, and the argument may be heard among them that, if papal infallibility were an error, the devil would not have stirred up the war which is being carried on against it. But one may still always assume that 120 Bishops will say Non placet, unless some miserable formula of compromise is hit upon. But the real decision will be when the Pope determines to ignore these 120 opponents and proceed to the order of the day.