Kitabı oku: «Letters From Rome on the Council», sayfa 36
The Jewish general and historian, Josephus, relates how he was shut up with forty companions in the valley of Jehoshaphat, and summoned to surrender by the Romans. They resolved to die first. The Bishops are not offered this alternative, but threatened with both at once. They are bidden to submit and then kill themselves, to subscribe the decree of the majority, and thereby sign the sentence which degrades and annihilates them, under pain of incurring anathema. That is the demand. The situation is an unprecedented one. And what of the 532 real or titular Bishops who have made the 13th and 18th July “dies nefasti” for the Church, and renounced so many rights and duties for themselves and their successors, like a cast-off garment? Perhaps it lightens their hearts and is a pleasant feeling to them to be able to say, “Thank God, I need not trouble myself any more about doctrine, tradition, or dogma; henceforth the one infallible oracle in the Vatican will attend to all that, and he again will devolve the burden on the lusty shoulders of the Jesuits, as he has done before. And how sweet and convenient it is to be a mere executor of papal decrees, while one's episcopal income remains untouched, and to be able to cover one's-self with the Medusa shield of a papal order in every difficulty, and every conflict with clergy, people or governments!” I heard a Bishop of this party say the other day, “Now first begin the golden days of the episcopate.”
It is reported that on the very day after the promulgation several Bishops experienced a certain reaction of sobriety, a feeling like what German students are wont to attribute to cats, and inquired of the high dogma-fabricating parties, the Legates and some members of the Deputation, whether they were really bound to believe, confess and teach all that is contained in the Syllabus, the Bull Unam Sanctam, etc., as e. g., the subjection of the secular powers to the Pope, the Church's power of inflicting bodily punishment with Pius who reigns gloriously, the burning of heretics with Leo x., et id genus omne. They are said to have been answered with a well-known Roman proverb, “Toto devorato bove, turpe est in caudâ deficere” – “You have swallowed the whole ox of papal infallibility, and the last Spanish addition with it, and you need not strain at the tail, i. e., the consequences; that indeed is the best part of this ox.”
The Bishops of the minority agreed before leaving Rome that they would none of them act alone and independently, in such further steps as would have to be taken concerning the decrees of the majority, but would all continue to correspond and act in concert. Meanwhile the Council has not been prorogued, but leave of absence is given to Bishops who can allege urgent reasons up to November 15. Perhaps in the interval the builders of the new Jesuit-Papal Zion, who stay behind, will prepare many a surprise for the Catholic world.
Future historians will begin a new period of Church history with July 18, 1870, as with October 31, 1517.
Are we really at the end of the drama? It appears so. On the same spot where, 1856 years ago, the first monarch of the world, Augustus, bade the attendants on his death-bed clap their hands in token of the rôle being well played out to the end, the Roman courtiers on July 18 have saluted by clapping of hands the first man proclaimed infallible monarch of the world by 532 spiritual satraps. The eight months' campaign has terminated in the preliminary closing act of July 18; the absolute Papacy celebrates its financially dear-bought, but otherwise easily obtained, triumph over the Church, which now lies defenceless at the feet of the Italians. It only remains to follow up the anathematized enemy, the Bishops of the minority, into their lurking-places, and compel each man of them to bend under the Caudine yoke amid the scornful laughter of his colleagues of the majority. Anathemas, the “ultima ratio” of Rome, have already been discharged at the fugitives, and every such shot of the Infallible is itself infallible.
Appendix I
Speech of Darboy, Archbishop of Paris, delivered May 20, on the Constitutio Dogmatica de Ecclesiâ.
There seem to me to be three points to be considered in reference to this Schema: its origin, its contents and scope, and its practical results.
And first as regards its origin and presentation to the Council at this time, it is enough to mention two facts, from which it may be judged whether the affair has been conducted regularly and in accordance with the dignity and rights of this venerable assembly.
It is certain that the fourth chapter, dealing with the infallibility of the Pope, is the turning-point of the whole Schema. For whatever is brought forward in the former chapters about the power and origin of the primacy in Peter and its continuance in the Popes, about which there is no difference among us, – and certainly in the first and second chapters this seems to exceed the right measure – is unmistakeably connected with the infallibility in the fourth chapter. So entirely is this infallibility the grand object of the Vatican Council, that some have indiscreetly asserted it is in a sense the sole object. And with reason, for the fabrication of such a dogma must always remain the weightiest act of an Œcumenical Council; and moreover the other questions to be dealt with are either of far less importance, or have long since been settled and only require revision, as, e. g., questions about the being and attributes of God, the reality and need of revelation, the duty of faith, and the relation of faith to reason. Yet this serious question of infallibility was neither indicated in the Bull convoking the Council nor in the other public announcements referring to it, and with good reason, because on the one hand the Catholic world had no desire for a settlement of this question, nor was there any other ground producible for meddling with what had always hitherto been a subject of free inquiry among theologians, and on the other hand there are many and grave evils, partly endangering the salvation of souls, which the Pope out of his care and affection has thought it more needful to deal with.
It is certain that the first stirring of this question came from without, from religious and secular journalists, and that too in an impertinent manner, against all ecclesiastical and traditional precedent and all rules of hierarchical order and usage, by seeking to put a pressure on the conscience of the Bishops through demagogic agitation, and to intimidate them with the prospect of intrigues in their dioceses which would make the government of them impossible. Nay, matters have come to such a pass that the Fathers of the Council, however piously and courageously they may be simply following their conscience, are accused of having paid an improper deference to party opinion, by promoting the introduction of the infallibility question in consequence of these violent agitations, and all of us appear to have lost something of dignity and freedom through the tumult raised before the doors of the Council-chamber. And such a judgment, which is in the highest degree mischievous and injurious to our honour, can hardly be endured without damage and disgrace to this venerable assembly, an assembly which must act independently and not under pressure from without, which must not only be, but appear to be, free.
It is further certain that the question brought before us to-day has been introduced against the natural and logical order of the subjects in hand, and thereby the cause itself is prejudiced. The rest of the Schema de Fide ought first to have been submitted to our consideration, on which we have already debated and have the arguments of both sides so fresh in our memory that the final discussion would have been all the easier. Then again the Schema de Ecclesiâ begins quite incorrectly with the primacy. Neither its first compilers nor any theologians before now were of opinion that the treatise on the Church should begin with that. And furthermore, our studies have been directed to the questions intended to come on for consideration according to the order originally announced.
And lastly, it is certain that the precipitate introduction of the question of infallibility by reversing the original order has contributed to the injury rather than the honour of the Holy See. For as, according to the Bull Multiplices inter, motions are to be sent in to a special Congregation, which then reports to the Pope, who either accepts or rejects its decisions, it follows that the authors of this motion have compelled the Holy Father to make a decision in his own case and in reference to a personal prerogative, and have thereby – no doubt unintentionally – failed to show a fitting regard for his high position, if they have not rather directly injured it.
If I am right on all these points – and such appears to be the case – it is impossible to discuss and decide upon the question of infallibility, thus originating and thus introduced, without paving the way for the insults of unbelievers and the reproaches which threaten the moral authority of this Council. And this should the more carefully be avoided, because writings and reports directed against the power and legitimacy of the Council are already current and widely circulated, so that it seems more likely to sow the seeds of contradiction and disunion among Christians than to quiet men's minds and lead to peace. If I may venture to add a practical remark to this portion of my speech, I should say that some have with good reason declared this question to be inopportune, and that there would be equally good reason for abstaining from any decision, even if the discussion of it were opportune.
On the contents and tendency of the Schema I shall make only a few observations.
The Schema does not deal with the infallibility of the Church, which we all believe, and which has been proved for twenty centuries, but lays down as an article of faith that the Pope is, alone and of himself, infallible, and that he possesses this privilege of inerrancy in all matters to which the infallibility of the Church herself extends. It must be well understood that the Schema does not refer to that universally admitted infallibility, which is the invincible and inviolable strength of dogmatic decrees and decisions binding alike on all the faithful and all their pastors, and which reposes wholly and solely on the agreement of the Bishops in union with the Pope, but that it refers – though this is not expressly stated – to the personal, absolute and exclusive infallibility of the Pope. On the former kind of infallibility – that of the Church – complete harmony prevails among us, and there is therefore no ground for any discussion, whence it follows that it is the second kind of infallibility which is in question here. To deny this would be to disguise and distort the doctrine and spirit of the Schema. And moreover, the Pope's personal infallibility is not maintained there as a mere opinion or commendable doctrine, but as a dogma of faith. Hitherto the opportuneness and admissibility of entertaining this question has been disputed at the Council; that dispute is now closed by the Pope's decision that the matter can no longer be passed over in silence, and we have now to consider whether it is or is not opportune to declare the personal infallibility of the Pope a dogma.
To deal rightly with this subject and come to a decision, it is requisite that the formula or definition of the doctrine should be laid before us, that it should be proved by sure and unquestionable evidence, and finally, that it should be accepted with moral unanimity.
There is the greatest difficulty in fixing the form or definition of the doctrine, as is shown by the example of those who first composed and then revised the Schema, and who seem to have expended much – perhaps fruitless – labour upon it; for they indulge in ambiguous expressions which open the door to endless controversies. What is meant by “exercising the office of the supreme teacher of Christendom”? What are the external conditions of its exercise? When is it certain that the Pope has exercised it? The compilers of the Schema think of course that this is as clear as, e. g., the œcumenicity of a Council. But they thereby contradict themselves, for a Council is only then held œcumenical by the body of the faithful scattered over the world when the Bishops are morally unanimous, and therefore infallibility would still depend on the consent of the episcopate if the same principle is to be applied to papal decrees. The authors of the Schema either eliminate this consent or they do not. In the former case they are introducing an innovation, and an innovation which is unprecedented and intolerable; in the latter case they are only expressing an old and universally received view and fighting a man of straw. But in no case can they pass over in silence the necessity or needlessness of the consent of the episcopate, for that would be to infuse doubts into the faithful and throw fresh difficulties in their way in a question of such vast importance and all that at present hinges on it.
The compilers only define the subject-matter of papal infallibility by saying that it is identical with the infallibility of the Church. But that explanation is inadequate until the Council has defined the infallibility of the Church. Hence it is clearly a logical fallacy to prefix the Schema on the Primacy to that on the Church. Of the infallibility of the Church we know that it always acts within the proper limits of its subject-matter, both because the common consent of the Bishops is necessary and because the Church is holy and cannot sin, while the compilers of this Schema on papal infallibility on the one hand, according to their own statement, exclude the consent of the Bishops, and on the other hand have not undertaken to prove that every Pope is holy and cannot sin.156
But if a form of definition was really discovered, it would have to be confirmed by solid and certain proofs. It would have to be shown that this doctrine of personal infallibility is contained in holy Scripture, as it has been always interpreted, and in the tradition of all centuries, that it has the moral assent not merely of some but of all Fathers, Doctors, Bishops and Theologians, and that it is in perfect harmony with all decisions and acts of the General Councils, and therefore with the decrees of the fourth and fifth sessions of the Council of Constance – for even supposing they were not œcumenical, which I do not admit, they would show the mind and common opinion of the theologians and Bishops.157 It would further have to be proved that this doctrine is neither contradicted by historical facts nor by any acts of the Popes themselves, and lastly that it belongs to that class of truths which the Council and Pope in union can decide upon, as having been acknowledged for revealed truth always, everywhere and by all.
All this our Schema omits. But when the question is of defining a dogma, the Fathers must have sufficient evidence laid before them and time allowed them for weighing it. As it is, neither the original nor the revised draft of the Schema supply such arguments as might illustrate the matter and clear up all doubts, and as little is sufficient time allowed – as is generally notorious – for unravelling this complicated question, solving its difficulties and acquiring the necessary information about it. In such a matter, where a burden is to be laid on the conscience of the faithful, a hasty decision pronounced without absolute certainty is dangerous, while there is no danger in a fuller discussion and in not deciding till it can be done with complete certainty of conscience.
It would finally be necessary that the doctrine of the personal and independent infallibility of the Pope, after being clearly expressed and certainly proved, should be accepted by the Fathers with moral unanimity; for otherwise we must fear that the definition would be regarded as a papal constitution and not a decree of a Council.158 It is a duty to impose a truth of faith on all Christians, but this difficult and sacred right can only be exercised by the Bishops with the greatest caution. And therefore the Fathers of Trent, as you all know, whatever sophistical objections may be raised, did not pass their decrees on dogmatic questions by numerical majorities, but with moral unanimity. I content myself now with referring to the perplexity of conscience among the faithful, which must arise from passing this dogma over the heads of the minority, and thus giving a handle for questioning the validity and authority of this Council.
Two leading remarks may suffice on the practical consequences of the dogma, for the only object of bringing forward the personal infallibility as an article of faith is to make the unity of the Church more compact and the central authority stronger, and thus to supply an efficient remedy for all abuses.
As regards unity and central authority, I must first make the general observation that they exist and must be preserved, not however in that shape which we may fancy or which approves itself to our reason, but as Jesus Christ our Lord ordained and as our fathers have maintained it. For it is no business of ours to arrange the Church according to our good pleasure and to alter the foundation of the work of God. The necessary unity in faith and that of the common central authority under fatherly guidance exists and has always existed among Catholics, or else one would have to say that there had been some essential defect in the Church of the past, which all will certainly deny.
The unity of doctrine and Church communion and the central authority of the Pope remain then unshaken, as they always flourished and flourish still without any dogmatic definition of infallibility.
Let it not be said that this unity will hereafter be closer when the central authority is stronger, for this inference is fallacious. Mere unity is not enough, but we must have that unity and that measure of it which the nature and scope of the thing, as well as the law and the necessity of life, demand. Else the thing itself might lamentably perish by being forced into too rigid an unity, from its inward vitality being cramped, disturbed and broken through the external pressure. Thus even in civil matters the unity of freemen, who act for themselves under the law, is indeed looser but more honourable than the unity of slaves tormented under an arbitrary tyranny. Permit us to retain that unity which belongs to us by the ordinance of Christ, and that means of unity – viz., the central authority of the Pope – which our forefathers acknowledged and honoured, who neither separated the Bishops from the Pope nor the Pope from the Bishops. Let us loyally hold fast to the ancient rule of faith and the statutes of the Fathers, and the more so since the proposed definition is open to many grave objections.
And again we can hardly doubt that this expedient would be powerless for healing the evils of our time, and it must be feared would rather tend to the injury of many. The matter must not be regarded only from a theological standpoint, but also in its bearings on civil society. For we in this place are not mere head-sacristans or superiors of a monastery, but men called to share with the Pope his care for the whole Church; allow us therefore to take the state of the world into our prudent consideration.
Will personal and independent infallibility serve to rouse from their grave those perished Churches on the African coast, or to wake the slumbers of the East, which once bloomed with such flowers of intellect and virtue? Will it be easier for our brethren, the Vicars-Apostolic, to bring the heathen, Mahometans, and schismatics to the Catholic faith, if they preach the doctrine of the Pope's sole infallibility? Or will the proposed definition perhaps infuse spirit and strength into Protestants and other heretics to return to the Roman Church and lay aside all prejudices and hatred against it? And now, first, for Europe! I say it with pain, – the Church is everywhere under ban. She is excluded from those congresses where nations discuss war and peace, and where once the authority of the Holy See was so powerful, whereas now it is bidden not even to proclaim its views. The Church is shut out in several European countries from the Chambers, and if some prelates or clergymen here and there belong to them, this appears a rare occurrence. The Church is shut out from the school, where grievous errors advance unchecked; from legislation, which manifests a secular and therefore irreligious tendency; and lastly, from the family, where civil marriage corrupts morals. All those who preside over the public affairs of Europe avoid us or hold us in check.
And what sort of remedy do you offer the world, which is diseased with so many uncertainties about the Church? On all those who are seeking to shake off from their indocile shoulders even the burdens imposed on them from of old and reverently accepted by their fathers, you would now lay a new, and therefore difficult and odious, burden. All those who are of weak faith are to be crushed by a new and inopportune dogma, a doctrine never hitherto defined, and which, without any amends being made for the injurious manner of its introduction, is to be defined by a Council of which many say that its freedom is insufficiently attested. And yet you hope to remedy everything by this definition of personal and exclusive infallibility, to strengthen the faith and improve the morals of all. Your hopes are vain. The world either remains sick or perishes, not from ignorance of the truth and its teachers, but because it avoids it and will not accept its guidance. But if it now rejects the truth, when proclaimed by the whole teaching body of the Church, the 800 Bishops dispersed over the world and infallible in union with the Pope, how much more will it do so, when the truth is proclaimed by one single infallible teacher, who has only just been declared infallible? For an authority to be strong and effective, it is not enough for it to be claimed; it must also be accepted. And thus it is not enough to declare that the Pope is infallible, personally and apart from the Bishops, but he must be acknowledged as such by all, if his office is to be a reality. What is the use, e. g., of an anathema, if the authority which pronounces it is not respected? The Syllabus circulated through Europe, but what evils could it cure even where it was received as an infallible oracle? There were only two large countries where religion ruled, not in fact but de jure– Austria and Spain. In both of them this Catholic order fell to the ground though commanded by the infallible authority; perhaps indeed in Austria on that very account.
Let us take things as they are. Not only will the independent infallibility of the Pope not destroy these prejudices and objections which draw away so many from the faith, but it will increase and intensify them. There are many who in heart are not alienated from the Catholic Church, but who yet think of what they term a separation of Church and State. It is certain that several of the leaders of public opinion are on this side, and will take occasion from the proposed definition to effect their object. The example of France will soon be copied more or less all over Europe, and to the greatest injury of the clergy and the Church herself. The compilers of the Schema, whether they desire it or not, are introducing a new era of mischief, if the subject-matter of papal infallibility is not accurately defined, or if it can be supposed that under the head of morals the Pope will give decisions on the civil and political acts of sovereigns and nations, laws and rights, to which a public authority will be attributed.159 Every one of any political cultivation knows what seeds of discord are contained in our Schema, and to what perils it exposes even the temporal power of the Holy See.
To explain this more minutely in detail would take too long and might be indiscreet, for were I to say all, I might easily bring forward things it is more prudent to suppress. However, I have delivered my conscience, so far as is allowed me, and so let my words be taken in good part. I know well that everything in the world has its difficulties, and one must not always shrink from action because greater evil may follow. But I put the matter before the reverend fathers, not that they may instantly conform to my opinion, but in order that they may give a full and ripe consideration to the arguments of all parties. I know too that we must not childishly quail before public opinion, but neither should we obstinately resist it; it is wiser and more prudent often to reconcile one's-self with it, and in every case to take it into account. I know, lastly, that the Church needs no arm of flesh, yet she does not reject the approval and aid of civil society, and did not, I think, look back with regret from the time of Constantine to the time of Nero. So much for the practical consequences of the Schema.
Finally, my desire is (1.) that the Schema should be deferred for a later discussion, because it has not been introduced into the Council in a sufficiently worthy manner; (2.) that it should meanwhile be revised, and the limits of infallibility more accurately marked out, so as to leave no handle for future sophistries and attacks; (3.) but, best of all, that the question of infallibility should be let drop altogether on account of its manifold inconveniences.
