The Temporal Sovereignty

OF —

The Holy See

BY

Rev. Johh Ivlina, S. J.

1892.

FR. PUSTET,

Printer to the Holy See and the S. Congregation of Rites

Fr. Pustet & Co.
New York and Cincinnati.





The Temporal Sovereignty

— OF —

The Holy See.

REY. JOHK MlHG, S . JT.

FR. PUSTET,

Printer to the Holy See and. the S. Congregation of Rites.

R'r. Fxjs'te't & Co.,
New York and Cincinnati.



Imprimatur,

Aug.
3

^ MICHAEL AUGUSTINE,

1892.

Archbishop of New York.

Copyright, 1892,

E . STEIN BA G K .

Firm Fr: Pustet & Co.

OtoEttfte'



PREFACE.

The following pages may be looked on by not a few as an untimely

publication. It has been said that the Roman question needs no

further discussion, that time itself has solved it and that the intelli-

gent portion of the Church has fully acquiesced in the solution.

Liberal sentiments may have suggested this view. Deeper reflec-

tion leads others to quite a different conviction. Matters bound up

with religion, with public justice and morality, do. not allow themselves

to be disposed of by main force and state-craft. If any attempt is

made to deal with them in this way, the result, according to the na-

ture of things, can be no other than general discontent, social disor-

ders and convulsions. In the face of this truth, evident to reason and

amply confirmed by the history of all ages, the question, whether the

Roman States ought to be subject or not to the civil rule of the

Pope, must be regarded even in our day, yet as little solved as it was

twenty-two years ago when the troops of Victor Emmanuel poured

into the Eternal City. For the Roman Pontiff claimed sacred and in-

contestible rights to the sovereignty over his old dominions, and this

sovereignty, far from being of merely political importance, is insepa-

rably connected with the spiritual welfare of the Church and the

moral health of human society. His opponents, however, have thus

far resorted against him to no other means than violence and in-

trigues.

It is the object of this pamphlet to throw some light on this strug-

gle now carried on during a quarter of a century, to set forth, on the

one hand, the sacred interests of justice and religion involved in the

cause which the Pope defends, and, on the other hand, the wrongs

committed and the evils threatened by his assailants.

The Author.

Prairie du Chien, Wis., June 1 6, 1892.



Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2016

https ://archive».org/details/temporalsovereigOOming



CONTENTS.

Page.

Preface 3

I. The Historical Rights of the Holy See
7

II. The Recent Occupation of the Roman States 14

III' The Teaching of the Church concerning the Temporal

Power of the Pope 21

IV. Independence a Prerogative of the Holy See 31

V. The Pope not Independent unless a Sovereign 38

VI. Reconciliation with the Italian Government Impossible, ... 45





The Temporal Sovereignty of the Holy See.

i.

The Historical Rights of the Holy See.

Human society is based on justice. Without this basis, however

rich its material resources, however high its intellectual culture may

be, it must necessarily collapse and be succeeded by universal con-

fusion. It is, therefore, chiefly by inquiring into right and wrong

that we ought to form our judgment on all matters touching the

social order. In the light of this axiomatic truth we should study the

Roman Question, which recent events have again made the subject

of much public discussion. For it is a question which pre-eminently

bears on society at large. The temporal sovereignty of the Pope

over the Roman States, since it concerns two hundred and fifty

millions of Catholics spread all over the earth and is bound up with

the dearest interests they have in common, cannot remain suppressed

or be restored without far-reaching consequences for the universal

peace.

But if we have to judge in this matter from the standpoint of jus-

tice, we must first of all search into the right of the Pope to the

Roman States. If such a right, certain and undeniable, exists, the

late occupation of Rome by the Italian government must be con-

demned as an enormous wrong, and as a redress the restoration of

the ancient royal-pontifical throne is demanded by the strictest of all

duties. The American mind being known for its strongly-developed

sense of justice, the Roman Question may well be presented to it

under this Aspect.

But has the Pope a clear and inviolable right to govern Rome as

its civil ruler ?

To show to evidence the legitimacy of the titles'on which his tem-

poral sovereignty is founded, it is necessary to trace them back to



8 The Temporal Sovereignty of the Holy See.

their origin in an early period of the Christian era.
1

I must, there-

fore, take the reader back to the times consequent on the downfall of

the Western Roman Empire. Barbarians had descended from the

East and North of Europe and, after conquering the once victorious

Roman legions, established new empires in Gaul, Spain, and Italy.

In 533 Justinian I., emperor of Constantinople, through his valiant

General Narses defeated the Ostrogoths in the Apennine peninsula

and overthrew their kingdom. Considering the country he had

wrested from them as his own by right both of inheritance and of

conquest, he reduced the greater part of Northern and Central Italy

into a dependency of the Eastern Empire. In 568 an imperial gov-

ernor or exarch, vested with absolute power, was sent over by Justin

II. and took up his residence in Ravenna.

But the hold which the emperors had laid on Italy was weak.

When as early as 568 the Lombards poured down from the Alps, the

exarch was unable to resist their inroads. During the long-pro-

tracted war which ensued, one portion of the exarchate after the

other revolted or fell a prey to the invaders, until in 752 the entire

domain was irretrievably lost. No less unsuccessful was the internal

administration of Italy. The East was at this time convulsed by

political revolutions and ecclesiastical heresies, which were generally

supported by the imperial government. The exarchs, powerless

against the Lombards, persecuted the Italian Catholics and in partic-

ular the Popes who condemned the heretical doctrines. It was during

this period that S. Martin I. was sent into exile, that the lives of sev-

eral Pontiffs were imperilled, and that many ecclesiastical possessions

were confiscated. Especially violent was the persecution which was

carried on by the Iconoclastic Emperor Leo the Isaurian, during the

pontificates of Gregory II. (7 15-731) and Gregory III. (731-741).

A policy of this kind could not but render the emperors, as well as

the exarchs odious and ruin their authority.

During this long period of universal distress, incessantly harassed

by the Lombards and unjustly persecuted by the imperial officers, the

people could find protection nowhere but in Rome at the hands of the

Pontiffs. And the arm that protected them was by no means weak.

•

1 On the origin of the Papal States see M. Gosselin, The Power of the Popes during

the Middle Ages, translated by Rev. M. Kelly
,
Vol. /.



9The Historical Rights of the Holy See.

Trom the time of Constantine the Great, the Catholic bishops were

not only exempted in many regards from civil jurisdiction, but even

shared, to a considerable extent, the judicial power and the adminis-

tration of the state. It stands to reason that a prominent share was

granted to the Roman Pontiff..

Moreover the see of Rome possessed a very large amount of land-

ed property offered, in the course of time, as patrimony of St. Peter

!

by the piety of the faithful. These estates were situated not only in

and around the Eternal City, but also in other parts of Italy, in

Sicily, Northern Africa, • Sardinia-, Corsica, and Dalmatia, and are

estimated to have covered eighty-five geographical square miles.

The large revenues derived from them were employed by the Popes

to assist the poor and afflicted, to support Christian schools for the

education of youth and the preservation of the ancient civilization,

often also to defray the expenses of the government, and to furnish

the necessary means for the defence of the country. By their spirit-

ual authority, the Roman Pontiffs settled doctrinal controversies,

restored peace to the Church, and not unfrequently also to the state,

reconciled political factions, exhorted the people to obedience and

submission, and the rulers to justice. They often negotiated with the

emperors on civil matters, and concluded peace with the invaders,

thus saving the Eternal City from pillage and destruction. In this

way the Popes exercised also in civil affairs a powerful and beneficial

influence, which increased in proportion as that of the much-hated

ministers of the emperor diminished.

At last, during the reign of the Iconoclasts, when the exarchs,

utterly defeated by the Lombard kings, persecuted Pope Gregory II.

and even sought his life, the duchy of Rome 1 in 726 threw off their

rule, as did also other districts, and promised civil obedience to the

Roman Pontiffs. The imperial authority was, nominally at least, still

recognized, but owing merely to Pope Gregory’s intervention; for the

people on their part were determined to renounce allegiance to the

emperor. And when the cities of the exarchate, one after the other,

1 Certain districts into which the exarchate was divided were called duchies
,
and their

.

governors dukes. The duchy of Rome included a part of Etruria with Sabina and a part

of Umbria and Campagnia, a territory nearly coextensive with what is now called the

patrimony of St. Peter and a part of Umbria and Campagnia di Roma , or with the do-

minion subject to Pius IX. from 1860-1870.



10 The Temporal Sovereignty of the Holy See.

were conquered by the Lombards, they regarded their new conquer-

ors as oppressors, and mostly submitted to the Roman Pontiff as-

their protector and political head.

After the destruction of the exarchate, the duchy of Rome, subject

to the Pope, represented the old Roman Commonwealth, being then

the only remnant of it in the West still independent and unconquered

by the immigrating barbarians. But its fall, too, seemed near at-

hand. Astolf, King of the Lombards, was approaching Rome after

having taken several of the neighboring cities. Pope Stephen asked,

the emperor Constantine V. for assistance, which, however, was not-

sent. As a last resort, he crossed the Alps in 753, to implore the pro-

tection of Pepin, King of the Franks. Twice the latter descended;

into Italy with an army and defeated the Lombards. The second

time, in 755, he wrested from them the exarchate of Ravenna,
1

re-

stored it together with several cities which had likewise placed them-

selves under pontifical protection, to the Holy See and the Roman

Commonwealth, and forced Astolf to do the same. The keys of the

cities and the deed of donation, as the restoration was called,
2

were

laid on the tomb of St. Peter, to testify that the grant was made to

the See of the Apostle and out of love and reverence for it. The

territory restored to the Pope comprised twenty-two cities, and was

bounded on the North and West respectively by the Po and the Ta-

naro, on the West by the Apennines, and on the East by the Adriatic

Sea. Some years later, Desiderius, King of the Lombards, added

the cities of Faenza, Imola, Ferrara, Ancona, Osino, and Umana.

Peace being now restored, the Emperor Constantine demanded

from Pepin the exarchate of Ravenna. But the emperor’s right to a

province which he himself had abandoned, was looked upon as ex-

tinct.
3 And the conqueror declared that he would never tolerate

that province to be wrested from the Roman Church, protesting under

oath that he had not been impelled by any human consideration to

make his expeditions into Italy, but solely by the love of St. Peter

and the hope of obtaining the remission of his sins.

From that time the Popes reigned over Rome and the above-men-

tioned cities as sovereigns independent of the Eastern Empire and

1 The exarchate of Ravenna in its more restricted sense
,

or as it was bounded in its

lastyears of existence, corresponds nearly to the modern Romagna.

3 Gosselin
,
p. I. § 40 .

3 Ibid. §§ 42 and 43 .



irThe Historical Rights of the Holy See.

ot Pepin, who as Roman patrician was but their protector. 1 Charle-

magne, in 774, solemnly confirmed his father’s donation and prom-

ised to add some new territories, which promise, however, unforeseen

circumstances prevented him from fulfilling. Crowned emperor by

Pope Leo III. in 800, he did not obtain more than the protectorship

of the Holy See; and of the Church, for the new dignity was created

only for the purpose of consolidating the Pope’s sovereignty and

securing his independence of any political power both in the East

and in the West.
2

This is, in short, the origin of the Ecclesiastical States, and, at the

same time, a clear evidence of the legitimate titles to sovereignty

over them by the Roman Pontiffs. For by that very same right by

which the Popes first attained possession of them, they ruled over

them for eleven hundred years down to our days. They never re-

nounced their claims established in the eighth century, not even when

residing in Avignon (1306-1376); nor were they ever divested of

them. For, though often forced to leave the Eternal City, they

•were always led back to it, their absence being considered as an exile

into which they were driven by sheer violence. No event has ever ex-

tinguished or weakened their titles; neither an empire nor a meeting of

Powers has ever looked on them as void or forfeited; even as late

as 1814, when the international Congress of Vienna was held, they

were regarded as valid. Indeed the right of the Holy See to sover-

eignty, founded on the historical facts stated above, is altogether cer-

tain and undeniable. The civil supremacy over Rome and the ex-

archate of Ravenna was lost by the Eastern Emperor and in full justice

transferred to the Roman Pontiffs. The emperors no* longer had a

claim to a country which for a considerable length of time they

were unable and, of late, even unwilling, to defend and to govern in

peace and justice. The Roman people urged the Pope to t^ke the

government of the commonwealth into his hands. For more than a

century he had been their only protector and the only support of

order, and now there was nobody else powerful enough to rule and

defend them. Under the circumstances the Pontiff alone could be

their sovereign.

A right thus established is as certain and incontestable as any on

earth can be. This is the conviction not of Catholics alone. Even

1 Gosselin, p 1 , § § 36 and 66 .
2 Ibid. § § 45 and 69 .



12 The Temporal Sovereignty of the Holy See.

Gibbon defends the temporal dominion of the Popes and considers

as their noblest title to it the free choice of a people whom they

had redeemed from slavery .
1

This right of the Popes is not only certain and undeniable, but

also sacred. The sovereignty over the Roman State's was conferred,

or rather, urged on them by the people out of respect for their spir-

itual authority, and out of gratitude for the benefits which they also

in temporal affairs derived from the same, and it was restored to

them, in part at least, by King Pepin out of reverence of St. Peter and

his See in Rome. It was thus bestowed to the Holy See and to the

Church, and in consequence was consecrated to God.

The right of the Popes was furthermore divine, because their sov-

ereignty was evidently established and preserved by a special dispen-

sation of Divine Providence. It sprang from the spiritual suprem-

acy of the Roman Pontiffs on the one hand, and the migration of the

Teutonic nations on the other, both which causes have to be traced

Tack to God. The supremacy of St. Peter was instituted by Christ,

and was by the death of the Apostle attached to the See of Rome.
a

The migration of the Northern nations and their descent into the

Roman Empire was intended by God, in order to destroy the degen-

erate heathens of the West, to people Europe with new races and to

engraft Christianity on them. And both these causes necessarily

resulted in the Papal sovereignty. From the downfall of the West-

ern Empire things took such a course that the Roman Pontiffs, true

to their office, naturally became the sovereigns of Rome and the ter-

ritory around it. No less evident was God’s intervention in the pre-

servation of the temporal power of the Popes. A hundred and seven-

ty-one times
3

were they despoiled of their dominions by kings, em-

perors, or powerful factions. But it could never be done, as Cardinal

Manning remarks
4

without a disturbance of political affairs through-

out Europe. And every time were the Popes, by an example unheard

of in the history of any dynasty, re-established on their throne. If we

see a phenomenon recur regularly, we do not doubt but that it was pro-

duced by a force acting according to some fixed law. If we cannot

1 The Decline and Fall of the R. Empire, Ch. xlix.

2 See Mgr. J. Schroeder
,
American Catholics and the Roman Question,//. 29-31.

3 La Verita nella Soluzione della Questione Romana, C. vi.

4 Independence of the Holy See. 187 7.



The Historical Rights of the Holy See. ij

separate things or change their relations without causing disturbances,,

we understand what order and connection is required by nature itself.

Should we, then, not likewise recognize the operation and design of a

higher power in the preservation and repeated restoration of the tem-

poral sovereignty of the Popes, in spite of all human efforts to destroy

it ? Should we not infer that it enters the providential order as afao

tor necessary for the peace and welfare of the Christian nations ?



f

II.

The Recent Occupation of the Roman States.

If the Papal sovereignty was thus founded on a right certain,

sacred, and divine, how could it be suddenly abolished in the second

half of the nineteenth century ? Have events occurred which annulled

its ancient titles ? Has a new order of things sprung into existence

with the progress of our age and lawfully done away with all former

claims, however just, however respectable for their antiquity? Or have,

•on the contrary, crime and injustice prevailed and succeeded in shat-

tering the very foundations of society ? Let us in brief review the

causes that led to the dethroning of the Pope. They must be still

fresh in the memory of many a reader.

Ever since the beginning of this century, Italy was undermined

by secret societies professing anti-Christian principles, and pursuing

the ends of the French Revolution, ends which consisted in nothing

less than the overthrow of the Church and of any civil government

resting on a Christian basis. After many unsuccessful attempts they

were at last, in the beginning of the Pontificate of Pius IX., ready to

carry out a deep-laid plan. Italy, they gave out, heretofore divided

into numerous principalities, some of which were ruled by foreigners,

was to be united into one body-politic. The project was undoubted-

ly patriotic and could not but flatter the hopes of the whole nation

and meet with hearty co-operation. But as the new movement

towards national union was started by the secret societies, so it was

also to be controlled by them and to be directed to such an issue as

would establish their universal sway. Victor Emmanuel was to be

proclaimed king of the united Italy, yet with the understanding that

he should obey their orders and be nothing more than a tool in their

hands. Anxious as he was to increase the splendor of his house, he

was willing under any condition to further their plans by all means

in his power. Louis Napoleon, raised to the throne of France by the

Revolution, and in his turn bound to promote the same, was pledged

14



The Recent Occupation of the Roman States. 1

5

to drive the Austrians from the peninsula, formally to recognize the

new kingdom, and to ward off from it foreign intervention in favor

of the deposed dynasties, and particularly of the Holy See.

The war between France and Austria broke out in the spring of
%

1859.' At the same time an insurrection was stirred up in Tuscany

and the Papal provinces of the Romagna, and supported by money

and weapons from Piedmont. After the war was brought to a close,

the integrity of the Pontifical States was guaranteed by the belliger-

ents in the treaties of Villa Franca and Zurich, but notwithstanding

this, the revolting provinces were occupied by the Piedmontese

•troops, and soon after a plebiscit was obtained for their annexation

to the subalpine monarchy. The following year, under the pretext

•of restoring order, the Piedmontese troops occupied the Marches

and Ancona, which had likewise been incited to rebellion.. The Pon-

tifical army under La Moriciere was crushed, at Castel Fidardo and

Ancona, by a sudden and treacherous attack contrary to the usages

of civilized nations, whilst Louis Napoleon assured the Pope that no

invasion of the Roman States would be tolerated. Another plebiscit

followed, as also the annexation of these provinces to Piedmont. In

1861, after Naples and Sicily had been conquered in a like manner,

the new kingdom of Italy. was formed .and officially recognized in

Paris, Rome being proclaimed its capital. The next object in view

was the occupation of the Eternal City.

But here hostilities .suddenly came to a standstill. The French

Catholics, by their energetic protests, forced the emperor to desist

from open persecution of the Holy See. A convention was in conse-

quence concluded on the 15th of September, 1864, in whichLouis Na-

poleon agreed to withdraw his troops from Rome, and the Piedmon-

tese government guaranteed the integrity of the Papal dominions.

Italy, it was said, was henceforward to rely only on moral means to

carry into effect her plan of national union. These moral means

•consisted in inciting the Roman population to insurrection, and the

Pontifical army to treason. When such methods would not avail,

Garibaldi, in' 1867, again took up arms and, with a body of despera-

does attached to his.person and some royal soldiers, attacked the

. Roman troops, whose ranks were then composed chiefly of heroic

youths gathered from all parts of the Church. This time, however,

he was defeated and shamefully put to flight..



i6 The Temporal Sovereignty of the Holy See.

tmnn
“e the Franco-Prussian war. After the rest of the French

ps had been withdrawn from Rome, Prince Bismarck, in order

Itar^^H- f
y fr°m Carrying asslstance to France, instigated theahan radicals to demand from their government the occupation

of Rome under c.rcumstances so favorable; and Count Arnim thePrussian minister at the Vatican, displayed extraordinary a«iv
yn urthertng the scheme. Accordingly Victor Emmanuel, L a le r

full of protestations of filial love and zeal for the Holy See, demanded

LT b t
P

h

the SUrrend6r 0f the lining Ecclesiastical domin-
,
but without awaiting an answer and making a formal declaration

war, sent an army of 60,000 men and a train of 150 pieces of anil
lery, to make an attack on the Eternal City, and, after a bombardment
0 five hours, gamed possession of it on the 2oth of September, 1870Again the suffrages were taken for a plebiscit, and then Rome wasmade the seat of the Italian government. The Pope was deprived of
all his'possessions except the Vatican. As a compensation an annual
income, the sacredness and inviolability of his person, and the pre-
rogatives of a sovereign were guaranteed to him by an act of Parlia-
ment, yet With no security that this enactment would be carried out
with more faithfulness than the solemn treaties had hitherto been kept

Roma!T
r

F ff
^ a" thiS d°ne ? ^ th°Se Wh° dispossessed the

Roman Pontiff any superior claims which invalidated his » Had
Victor Emmanuel as King of Piedmont, or as head of the house of
Savoy, acquired a title to the Papal States ? He did not even pre-
tend to have one. Had the secret societies any real claims, because
they were the representatives of the Revolution, the negation of
Christianity ? Who might dare to say so ? Could the plebiscit divest
the Pope of his royalty ? The plebiscit taken was not the voiee of
the people. The voters were the Revolutionists, strangers drawn
into the cities, the rabble bribed and excited. The better classes the
conscientious Catholics, who formed the majority of the citizens’ did
not vote at all, just as nowadays they refrain from taking any part in
the elections and shun any participation in the new government
or in legislation. The votes were taken after the cities had been oc-
cupied by the Piedmontese troops and thus all freedom was pre
eluded. Voting for the Pope was impossible, as up to this hour
every manifestation in his favor is violently suppressed. *

1 See the Roman Question by the Bishop of Salford,
( 1889), Chap. 'vi



The Recent Occupation of the Roman States . 17

And even had the plebiscit been the genuine expression of the

popular will, it could not have abolished the Pope’s right to sov-

ereignty. No such power is inherent in the will of the subjects.

They are not the ultimate source of civil power. Nor is it true that

power is conferred only through the will of the people. It may be

conferred by God Himself. And the sovereignty over the Roman

States has evidently been bestowed upon the Popes by a special dis-

pensation of His Providence. But even when the people may right-

fully choose their rulers, they cannot depose them. Their consent

to be ruled by a family or a certain succession of persons is irrevoca-

ble as long as the dynasty has not evidently become unable to carry

on the government either by itself or through competent ministers,

and as long as it abides by the fundamental laws agreed upon. For

it is by such a consent that the state is constituted and organized,

the dynasty being made its head, and the subjects its members. But

the ^tate is and must be of itself imperishable; else there would be

no peace and tranquillity, no security, no steadiness in our social re-

lations. When, a fewr years ago, the Southern States wished to

secede, was the withdrawal of their consent to form a Union with the

North respected ? Were they not prevented from permanent seces-

sion by a bloody war? and that for the very reason that the Union

was by its nature indissoluble? Still a political union does not im-

ply in its idea indissolubility so evidently and so necessarily as the

state or commonwealth.
1

What has been said of the misrule of the Fopes, in order thereby

to prove their inability for political government, rests on the wilful

exaggerations and misrepresentations of the Revolutionists. Enough

has been said and written to disprove this accusation against the

Papacy.
2

There are complaints in all countries, and a host of them in the

new Kingdom of Italy. Those which were heard in the former Papal

States have been traced back by the most careful students, not to

the Ecclesiastical government, but to the national defects of the

Italians, and to the pernicious working of the secret societies. It

1 Mgr. J. Schroeder, The American Catholics and the Rom. Question, pp. 47-56.

2 See F. Maguire, Rome, its Ruler, and its Institutions, and particularly in the Ap-

pendix the report of the Count de Rayneval to the French minister of Foreign Affairs

;

Card. Hergenrother, Der Kirchenstaat.



1 8 The Temporal Sovereignty of the Holy See.

would, indeed, be a most singular phenomenon, if the Popes, called to

govern the whole Church and to exercise a world-wide influence,

were unable to rule over a state of so small dimensions as the Papal

dominions. In fact, on no throne on the face of the earth ever sat

so much integrity and justice, and such profound statesmanship as on

the See of Rome. Nothing but rank hatred or blind prejudice could

suggest the thought that the Roman Pontiffs are an effete or dis-

abled dynasty.

Lastly, has the right to political union, claimed by the whole of

Italy, superseded the particular right of the Sovereign of Rome ?

Italy is not entitled to unite in contravention to rights already exist-

ing, or to an order of things lawfully and justly established; nor will a

union contrary to justice ever be prosperous in the long run. It is

moreover a false supposition that the interests of Italy are by their

nature more universal than those of the Holy See. Italy is but a

particular country, whereas the Roman See governs the Catholic,

that is, the universal Church. Italy’s national and political relations

regard only the temporal prosperity of one people, whilst the rights

and affairs of the Church, ruled by the Bishop of Rome, regard the

spiritual welfare of all the nations of the globe. But shall Italy

be deprived of the possibility of uniting politically, because the Holy

See is within its boundaries ? By no means. She can unite without

dethroning the Pope. She may unite into a confederacy of states,

the Papal territory being one of them, or the Pope being entrusted

j with the presidency, as in fact the proposal has been made. She will

by doing so not risk her national greatness. Italy has no greater

benefactors, no greater promoters of knowledge, arts, and civilization

than the Popes, no power commanding more respect, no attraction

more forcibly drawing other nations to her than the Holy See. With-

out it Rome would be of no importance, and without Papal Rome Italy

will at most be a power of the second rank, whilst with it she may be

second to no other nation.

The most careful inquiry, then, shows that the Italian government

has no right whatsoever to the Roman States. The occupation of

Rome, therefore, was an evident wrong, and open violation of jus-

tice. Wrong, too, were the means employed in accomplishing that

unjust act; for they consisted in conspiracy, insurrection, treachery,

untruthfulness, and the premeditated breach of compacts and of us-



The Recent Occupation of the Roman States . 19

ages established by international laws. And the higher and the

more sacred the right of the Pope is, the greater was the wrong

in violating them. The usurpation of the Papal territory was the

suppression of a sovereignty, the highest of all civil rights. It was

the murderous destruction of a commonwealth. It was a robbery

committed against the Church of God, and hence a sacrilege, an

act which even the ancient heathens would have abhorred. It

was the disturbance of the order established in human society and

wonderfully upheld through many centuries by Divine Providence.

It was a crime which the whole human race ought to detest and to

avenge. For if the oldest throne in the civilized world, based on

undeniable, sacred, and divine rights, a throne occupied by so many

distinguished rulers, a throne resplendent with the sanctity of re-

ligion, a throne that had been the source of civilization and the sup-

port of peace for all European nations, if such a throne can be over-

turned with impunity, by open violence and injustice, by treason and

conspiracy, by the infraction of the most solemn treaties almost at

the moment when they were concluded: what government can still

rest on a solid basis ? what order of right and justice is still sure and

steadfast ? what assurance of tranquillity is yet left to human society ?

The usurpation of the Pope^s temporal sovereignty is a wrong to

which the Church can never be reconciled, and which she must resist

by all means in her power, even now after more than twenty years

have elapsed since its perpetration. The faithful all over the world

see the head of the Church despoiled of the lawful means by which

he has to carry on the ^ecclesiastical administration, and thrown

either upon the charity of his subjects or the mercy of his enemies in

the discharge of his divine office. They see their father, the Vicar of

Christ, injured, afflicted, imprisoned, and insulted, and feel them-

selves injured in him, until the wrong is redressed.

The Pope himself can never acquiesce in his deprivation of sover-

eignty. This is not a personal right of his which he may renounce

at pleasure. It belongs to the Holy See, to which it is given in

trust by Divine Providence. He can never resign it, especially since

he has promised under oath, when he received the Cardinal’s purple

and when he ascended the Pontifical throne, to assert and maintain

the temporal dominion of the Roman Church. Any Roman Pontiff,

if solicited to surrender it, must act like Pius VII. When Radet, a



20 The Temporal Sovereignty of the Holy See.

General of Napoleon I., came to him and said: “Holy Father, by

command of the emperor, I must call upon you to abdicate your tem-

poral dominion or go with me to prison,” the Pope replied: “We

have not the power to renounce that which does not belong to our-

selves, neither are we ourselves otherwise than the administrators of

the Roman Church and of her temporal dominion. This dominion,

the emperor, even though he cut our body in pieces, will never ob-

tain from us.’'



III.

The Teaching of the Church concerning the Temporal Power

of the Pope.

There are evils which, however grievous they may be, it is better

to bear with resignation, than to resist with obstinacy, not merely

because they cannot be overcome by any human effort, but chiefly

because they are in the providential order of God turned into plenti-

ful sources of blessings. Death and destruction are seen everywhere

in the universe, and yet nature does not perish, but always rises to

new life and always reasserts its wonderful harmony. In the moral

world individuals, as well as society, are stimulated to heroic deeds

by unavoidable suffering. The Church of God, in particular, has

attained to the fulness of her strength by enduring cruel persecu-

tions. Ought not Catholics, then, to moderate their complaints with

regard to the material losses which religion suffered by the French

Revolution, and especially with regard to the deprivation of the

temporal power which the Holy See had to suffer in consequence of

the recent union of Italy ? Is it not possible for the Pope to recon-

cile himself with his present condition in Rome and, submitting to

the necessity in which he is, to resigp his territorial sovereignty ?

Should he not be all the more inclined to do so, because he has not

received from Christ any temporal dominion, and because the Church,

spiritual as she is, has by the very despoliation of her earthly pos-

sessions, ever been but renewed and invigorated ?

To answer these and similar questions which at present are not

unfrequently agitated, we must enter into the design of Divine Provi-

dence and inquire into the purpose for which the temporal has been

joined with the spiritual power in the Roman See. We must deter-

mine whether the two powers have been united only provisionally

and incidentally, or, on the contrary, have been made inseparable by

an intimate and, as it were, natural union, the one being necessary

for the operation of the other. This problem is not solved by the

21

<



22 The Temporal Sovereignty of the Holy See.

simple remark that the spiritual should not be mixed up with the ma-

terial and temporal.' On this earth the material and the immaterial

do not stand apart, but are not unfrequently closely knit together.

Thus in man, soul and body are so united that the action of the

former, though spiritual, is in a measure dependent on that of the

latter. If in a like manner also the spiritual authority of the Vicar

of Christ has been blended with temporal power by God’s Providence,,

they cannot be separated again by human policy without disadvantage

to religion.
“ What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”

This is in fact the view taken in this matter, not merely by

ultramontane theologians, but by the Church herself. She dis-

tinctly and definitely teaches that the temporal sovereignty over the

Roman States has been conferred on the Pope by a special dispensa-

tion of Divine Providence as a necessary safeguard for the free and

unimpeded exercise of ’his spiritual supremacy. We are, therefore,

compelled to regard the same not as a temporary or superabundant,

but as an indispensable provision for the freedom of the Holy See

and the welfare of the Christian flock.

Ever since their foundation the Church considered the Papal

States as highly important for her well-being. This we must con-

clude from the extreme penalties which she inflicted on those who

ventured to usurp or invade them, and from the care which she took

to defend and preserve them and render them practically inalienable.

Already in the first Ecumenical Council in the West, in that of the.

Lateran in 1123, the sentence of excommunication was pronounced

against those who dare invade or plunder the possessions of the

Roman Church. The Council of Trent 1 confirmed this penal law,

and Pontifical bulls have, up to this day, kept it in full force.
2

The

Council of Lyons, held in 1245 under Pope Innocent IV., excommuni-

cated Emperor Frederick II. for seizing upon the Ecclesiastical States.

The Council of Constance, in 1414, thought it necessary to use all.

its power to preserve the Papal dominion intact and undiminished

during the vacancy of the Holy See. What the Popes undertook in

order to guard their states, or to recover them when wrested from

their hands, what they preferred to endure rather than to resign

their sovereign rights, it is not necessary to mention here; the

1
Sess. XXII. De Reformations

,
,C. ii.

s
Constitutio Sedis Apostoticce, Series I. $ 12, published by Pius IX. n. 1869.



The Teaching of the Church. 23

sufferings, the exile, and the captivity of Pius VI., Pius VII., and Pius

IX. are still fresh in the memory of the present age.

In 1567 the sainted Pope Pius V. published the bull Admonet Nos,

afterwards confirmed by several of his successors and also by Pius

IX.,
1

by which under the penalty of excommunication he inhibited

designing, advising or consenting to the alienation of the Pontifical

States or any portion of them, even under the pretext of evident ex-

pediency. The observation and maintenance respectively of this law

is promised under oath b.y the Cardinals when receiving the purple, or

previous to going into Conclave, and by the Pope when acceding to

the Pontifical throne.

The end for which the Papal dominions were thought to be of such

high importance was marked out already by Pope Nicholas I. (858-

867). In one of his letters
2
he maintains that the Roman Empire

had been established as a protection of the temporal sovereignty of

the Holy See in behalf of the freedom and supremacy of the Roman

Church. We find the same idea more fully developed in the re-

nowned bull Fundamenta Militantis Ecclesice. issued by Pope Nicholas

III. in 1278 and embodied in the Canon Law.
3

By this constitution

it is provided that no king, marquis, duke, count, or baron be elected

or named Roman Senator or Ruler. The avowed object of the pro-

vision is that the See of St. Peter, established in Rom’e on its own

soil, should enjoy full liberty in all its actions and deliberations, and

the election of the Roman Pontiff and the creation of Cardinals

should be perfectly free.
4

With the fullest clearness and with such force and authority as

must remove all doubts from the Catholic mind the necessity of the

temporal power for the free exercise of the spiritual has been taught

in our century, when no longer the ambition of individual rulers, but

the anti-Christian Revolution, unsettling the whole civilized world,

makes war on the Holy See with the intent to overthrow Christianity.

For it always so happens that, when more light js needed on a relig-

ious question, either on account of rising heresies or of peculiarly

embarrassing circumstances, the Church expounds the deposit of di-

vine truth committed to her more forcibly, definitely, and explicitly.

1 Constitutio Sedis Apostolicce
,
Series II., § 13.

2 Epistola LXXX.
3 Sext. Decret. lib. /., tit. VI. De electione et electi potest.

4 See the Roman pamphlet La verita nella Soluzione della questione Romana, C. III.



24 The Temporal Sovereignty of the Holy See.

Never since the reign of the Revolution in Italy have Pius IX. and

his Holiness Leo XIII. ceased to inculcate in their consistorial ad-

dresses and Apostolical Letters the necessity of the temporal sov-

ereignty of the Holy See for the freedom and independence of the

supreme spiritual authority. There are no less than six Apostolical

Letters and thirteen Allocutions, in which they have solemnly spoken

of this subject.
1

Pope Pius IX. in the Encyclical Letter Qyi nuper
,

June 1 8, 1859, says:

“ We openly declare that, in order to exercise without any impedi-

ment its sacred power for the good of religion, the temporal power

is necessary for the Holy See/’

In the Apostolical Letter Cum catholica Ecclesia of 26th of the fol-

lowing March he more fully develops his views:

“ Since the Catholic Church, founded and instituted by Christ our

Lord to take care of the eternal welfare of men, has by virtue of her

divine institution the nature of a perfect society, she must enjoy

freedom to such an extent as not to be subject to any civil power in

the discharge of her ministry. And since for proper freedom of ac-

tion she needed such safeguards as are conformable to the condition

and wants of the times, it came to pass by a special dispensation of

God^s Providence that, when the Roman Empire collapsed and was

1 The following are the Apostolical Letters and Allocutions referred to :

• APOSTOLICAL LETTERS.

A. OF PIUS IX.

Qui nuper
,
June 18, 1859. Cum caiholica Ecclesia

,

March 26, i860.

Nullis certe verbis
,
Jan. 19, i860. Intimo mcerore

,

Sept. 10, i860.

Respicientes
,

Nov. 1, 1870.

B. OF LEO XIII.

Inscrutabili
,
April 21, 1878.

ALLOCUTIONS.

A. OF. PIUS IX.

Quibus Quantisque, April 20, 1849. Quibus notum, July 13, i860.

Si semper antea, May 20, 1850. Novos et ante hunc diem , Sept. 28, i860.

Ad gravissimum, June 20, 1859. Jamdudum
,
March 18, 1861.

Maximi animi nostri, Sept. 26, 1859. Maxima quidem
,
June 9, 1862.

Luctuosis exagitali
,
March 12, 1877.

B. OF LEO XIII.

Ubi primum, March 28, 1878. Post excitatos, March 24, 1884.

ConvocareTid nos, Aug. 4, 1881. Tempestitnim quoddam. Dec. 30, 1889.



The Teaching of the Church. 25

divided into many states, the Roman Pontiff, whom Christ appointed

the head and the centre of the whole Church, obtained a civil prince-

dom. In this way has God Himself with great wisdom provided

that in the midst of so many and diverse temporal rulers the Sov-

ereign Pontiff should have that political liberty which is so necessary

for him, to exercise his spiritual power, authority, and jurisdiction

without any impediment all over the world.
39

1

No sooner had his Holiness Pope Leo XIII. acceded to the pon-

tifical throne, than he demanded in his first Encyclical Letter. Inscru-

tabili, of April 21, 1878, the restoration of the Roman States to the

Holy See, and alleged as a reason for this demand that the civil

principality was necessary to preserve and defend the unlimited free-

dom of his spiritual power.

But did the Sovereign Pontiffs in these utterances make use of

their teaching authority, and had they the outspoken intention of

binding all the faithful by them ? The answer to this question we

may infer from two Pontifical documents. In the Encyclical Letter

Quanta cura
,
of Dec. 8, 1864, Pope Pius IX, declares that by virtue

of his apostolic ministry he has condemned the errors of our times

in several of his Apostolical and Encyclical Letters and Allocutions,

and among them he expressly mentions the Allocution Maxima qui-

dem of June 9, 1862. Accordingly the Encyclical Letter was, by his

order, accompanied by the Syllabus, which exhibits the diverse erro-

,neous propositions condemned by the pontifical acts. Now what

does the Syllabus show ? It first states as condemned the proposi-

tions which assert the incompatibility of the temporal with the spir-

itual power, and maintain that the abolition of the temporal domin-

ion of the Holy See would contribute to the liberty and welfare of

1 Cum catholica Ecclesia a Christo Dominofundata et instituta
,
ad sempiternam homi-

num salutem curandam, perfects societatisformam vidivince. suce institutionis obtinuerit
,

ea proinde libertate pollere debet
,
ut in sacro suo ministerio obeundo nutli civili potestati

subjaceat. Et quoniam ad libere, ut par erat, agendum, iis indigebat .prcesidiis, quce

temporum conditioni ac necessitati congruerent
,
idcirco singulari prorsus divince provi-

dentios consilio factum est
,

ut cum Romq,num corruit imperium et in plura fuit regna

divisum
,
Romamis Pontifex

,
quern Christus totius Ecclesice suce caput centrumque con-

stituit, civilem assequeretur principatum. Quo sane -a Deo ipso sapientissime consultum

est
,
ut in tanta temporalium principum multitudine ac varietate Summus Pontifex ilia

frueretur politica libertate
,

quce tantopere necessaria est ad spiritualem suam potestatem
,

auctoritatem etjurisdictionem toto orbe absque ullo impediment exercendam.



26 The Temporal Sovereignty of the Holy See.

the Church. Then it goes on to remark that besides these errors

noted explicitly, there are several others condemned by implication,

because at variance with the doctrine laid down concerning the civil

princedom of the Roman Pontiff and most firmly to be adhered to

by all the faithful.
1

As documents in which this doctrine was clear-

ly set forth, it points out the Apostolical Letter Cum catholica Ec-

clesia and five different Allocutions, all of them asserting the neces-

sity of the Pope's temporal sovereignty. These then, at least, are

evidently acts which contain authoritative teaching and lay all Cath*

olics under obligation.

Nor did the Roman Pontiffs alone raise their voices. When on

the occasion of the canonization of the Japanese Martyrs, in 1862,

Pope Pius IX. had convened the Catholic hierarchy from all parts of

the world, and two hundred and sixty-five Cardinals and bishops had

assembled around his august throne, he, in the Allocution Maxima

quidem on the 9th of June, gave expression to the great joy he felt

over the unanimity with which the entire episcopacy had both in letters

to him and in their charges to their flocks set forth the providential

establishing of the temporal sovereignty of the Holy See and the

necessity of the same for the freedom of the supreme spiritual

authority.

“ It gives us pleasure,” said he, “ to mention the wonderful unan-

imity with which you, together with all the bishops of the entire

Catholic world, our venerable brothers, both in letters written to US'

and in your charges to the faithful, have never ceased. ... to teach that

the civil princedom of the Holy See has been bestowed on the Roman

Pontiff by a special dispensation of Divine Providence, and that the

same is necessary to the end that he, exempt from subjection to any

prince or civil government, may, with the fullest freedom, exercise

throughout the whole Church the supreme power and authority of

feeding and ruling the Lord's flock conferred on him by Christ, and

1 Prceter hos errores explicite notatos
,
alii complures implicite reprobantur, proposita et

asserta doctrina quam Catholici omnesfirmissime tenere debent
,
de civili Romani Pon-

tificis principatu. (Ejusmodi doctrina luculenter traditur in Alloc. Quibus quantis-

que
,
20 April

,
1849; in Alloc. Si semper antea , 20 Maji, 1850; in Litteris apost.

Cum catholica Ecclesia
,
26 Mart, i860; in Alloc. Novos

,
28 Sept, i860; in Alloc.

Jamdudum
,

18 Mart., 1861; in Alloc. Maxima quide?n 9 Junii, 1862.) Sylla-

bus, § 9.



The Teaching of the Church. 27

provide for the greater good, the welfare, and the needs of the

Church and the faithful.”
1

Then again the bishops in an address, read by the Dean of the

Sacred College and signed by all present, expressed their belief con-

cerning this point.

“ We acknowledge the civil principality of the Holy See as neces-

sary and as evidently founded by God’s providence, and we do not

hesitate to declare that in the present order of human society the

same principality is by all means required for the good and free gov-

ernment of the Church and of souls. For the Roman Pontiff, the

head of the Church, ought not to be subject, nor even the guest, of

any ruler, but residing in his own dominion and realm, he should be

independent and guard and defend the Catholic faith and govern the

whole Christian community with a noble, august and tranquil

liberty.”
2

In reply to this address the Pontiff said that he regarded the sen-

timent expressed as a proof of the bond of charity that closely united

the bishops not only with one another, but also with the Holy See,

the Chair of truth.
3

Five hundred and thirty-five prelates prevented from going to

Rome sent in by letter their adhesion to the address read in the

1 Juvat potius hac de re comme7norare miram prorsus consensionem
,
qua vos ipsi una

cum aliis Venerabilibus Fratribus universi catholici orbis\sacrorum Antistitibus
,
nunquam

intermisistis et epistolis ad nos datis et pastoralibus litteris adfideles scriptis hujusmodi

fallacias detegere^ refutare ac simul docere
,
hunc civilem Sanctce Sedis pi incipatum Ro-

mano Pontifici fuisse singu lari divince providentice consilio datum, illumque necessari-

urn esse, ut idem Romanus Pontifex
,
nulli unquaj?i principi aut civili potestati subjectus

,

supremam universi gregis dominici pascendi regendique potestatem auctoritatemque ab

ipso Christo Domino divinitus acceptam per universam Ecclesiam plenissima libertate

exereere ac majori ejusdem Ecclesice ac fidelium bono, utilitati et indigentice consulere

possit. Collectio Lacensis Tom. VI. p. 88 1 .

2 Civilem Sanctce Sedis principatum ceu quiddam necessarium ac providente Deo man!

feste institutum agnoscimus
,
nec declarare dubita?nus

,
in preesenti rerum humanarum

statu hunc ipsum principatum civilem pro bono ac libero Ecclesice animarumve regimine

omnino requiri. Oportebat sane totius Ecclesice Caput
,
Romanum Pontijicem, nulli prin-

cipi esse subjectum, imo nullius hospitem
,
sed in proprio doi?iinio ac regno sedentem sui-

metjuris esse, et in nobili, tranquilla et alma libertate catholicam fidem tueri ac propug

-

nare totamque regere ac gubernare Christianam republicam. Collect. Lacensis
,
Ibid,

p. 884 .

3
Collectio Lacensis

,

Tom. VI. p. 890 .



28 The Temporal Sovereignty of the Holy See

.

consistory.
1

Eight hundred bishops have thus with one voice sol-

emnly and explicitly asserted the necessity of the temporal sovereign-

ty of the Holy See.

The same doctrine was embodied in the decrees of several Provin-

cial Councils, held subsequently both in Europe and in America. The.

Fathers of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore expound it in

the very words of Pius IX. drawn from his official acts .
2

The Fathers

of the Fourth Provincial Council of Quebec enacted the following

declaration concerning the Pope^s temporal sovereignty:

“ In agreement with all the bishops of the Catholic world and all

writers truly worthy of the Catholic name, we acknowledge and

openly assert that this temporal power is not only legitimate and in

full accordance with the institution of Christ and the teaching of the

gospel, but also necessary to the Holy See, in order to exercise its

apostolic power with greater liberty and safety all over the earth.”
8

The voice of the episcopacy re-echoed in the hearts of all Catho-

lics, who signed numerous protests against the usurpation of the Papal

provinces by the Piedmontese government, and henceforth supported

the Holy See in every possible way, by the enthusiastic assurances of

their love and obedience, by pecuniary means, nay, by the sacrifice

of their lives.

Now a doctrine authoritatively enjoined by the Holy See and, in

submission to the same, solemnly professed and officially set forth by

the whole body of the Catholic bishops, is not only binding on all the

faithful, but also infallibly true. For the entire episcopacy of the

Church, succeeding to the body of the Apostles, is in its authoritative

teaching rendered infallible by the supernatural assistance of the

Holy Ghost. The necessity, therefore, of the temporal sovereignty

of the Holy See is no more an open question; it has been decided by

the highest tribunal on earth and must be regarded as a certain and

infallible truth.
4

1
See La Sovranit& temporale dei Romani Pontifici propugnata dal suffragio dell’

orbe cattolico, Parie VII. 2 Tiiul. II. Cap. /., n. 47.

3 Omnibus episcopis orbis Catholici
,
omnibusque scriptoribus Catholico nomine vere dig-

nis assentientes
,
agnoscimus etpalam asserimus

,

istai?i potestatem temporalem non tantum

legitimam ac institutioni Christi et evangelicce doclrince admodum consentaneam, sed et

necessariam esse Sedi Apostolicce
,

quo liberior et tutior potestatem Apostolicam toto orbe

terrarum exerceat. Tit. V.

4
See Stimmen aus Maria Laach vol. 36,//. 529-533; D. Palmieri S.J. de Romano



The Teaching of the Church. 29

We must, however, still more exactly determine the nature and the

object of this decision. Above all we ought to understand that the

teaching of the Church, though infallible, does in our case not settle

a question of divine faith

.

The necessity of the Pope’s temporal

power is not and never has been considered a Catholic dogma, a

truth revealed by God Himself. It is neither contained in Scripture

or Tradition, nor is it essential to the primacy of the Holy See,

which is altogether spiritual. Still it is closely connected with the

latter. The supreme spiritual power of the Sovereign Pontiff is by

its very nature, and therefore by divine right, endowed with perfect

freedom. But this freedom is as to its enjoyment necessarily de-

pendent on certain conditions agreeing with the respective state of

human society. To define these without any error lies within the

province of the teaching authority of the Church. For she is empow-

ered by Christ not only to preach and expound His teachings, but

also to decide any point of doctrine necessarily connected with the

revealed truths, or with the belief in them. And' the decisions

made by her on any such point are binding on all the faithful,

and must be adhered to with firm assent .
1

Accordingly the doctrine

of the necessity of the Pope’s temporal sovereignty, though not one

contained in divine revelation or resting immediately on God’s author-

ity
,
is nevertheless to be regarded as undoubtedly true, resting on

the infallible teaching authority of the Church as its basis.

The necessity itself, moreover, is not an absolute
,
but a relative one.

This is clearly understood from the official acts themselves, in which

it is taught. Temporal sovereignty is not absolutely necessary for

the Holy See, it is necessary only for the free exercise of its essential

power, the spiritual supremacy. Nor has it been declared to be ab-

solutely necessary even for this end; for it is not required under all

circumstances, and for every, even the least degree of freedom, but

only in the present order of human society, and for the full and altogeth-

er unimpeded freedom in the universal discharge of the apostolic min-

istry. Consequently we must infer that it is likewise not necessary

for the existence of the Church, but for her well-being, inasmuch as

without it she could not discharge the mission entrusted to her in its

Pontifice, p. 506 ; Mgr. J. Schroeder, American Catholics and the Rom. Quest, p. 35

;

La Verity nella Soluzione della Questione Romana, C. III.

1 Encycl. Quanta Cura, Dec. 8, 1864.



30 The Temporal Sovereignty of the Holy See.

full extent all over the world. Such relative necessity, therefore, of

the temporal sovereignty of the Holy See is maintained by the teach-

ing authority of the Church and can no longer be called into ques-

tion by any loyal Catholic.



IV.

Independence a Prerogative of the Holy See.

Does the necessity of the Pope’s temporal power rest on authority

-iilone ? Are there no reasons founded on the nature of things that

support it ? Or are we, obliged as we are to submit to the decision

of the Church, not allowed to inquire into them? Yes, there are such

reasons, and it is lawful to search into them. The Church herself in-

vites us to do so, for she has expounded them in her own official acts

with admirable clearness. So strong and plain are they in them-

selves, apart from any ecclesiastical teaching, that, convinced by

them, not only theologians, but also statesmen, not only Catholics,

but also Protestants and unbelieving historians and philosophers have

asserted and do still assert the necessity of the Pope’s territorial sov-

ereignty. The gist of all these reasons is, that independence is a

necessary prerogative of the Holy See, and that temporal sovereign-

ty is a necessary safeguard of its independence.

To start with correct and well-defined ideas, we must distin-

guish a twofold independence of the Sovereign Pontiff, the one

official, and the other personal. The former is his independence of

any earthly power in the exercise of his spiritual supremacy over the

universal Church; the latter, his independence of any king or magis-

trate, also in things temporal and political. The necessity of the

Pope’s official independence cannot be questioned. His authority is

not derived from the state. He has received it from the Son of God

Himself, who said to St. Peter: “ Feed my lambs, feed my sheepf
1

and,

“ I say to thee : thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church',

and the gates of hell shall notprevail against it. And I will give thee the

keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth
,

it shall be loosed in heaven.”
2

Thus entrusted by God Himself to St.

Peter and his successors, the supreme power over the Church is beyond

J
St. John, xxi., 15-18. 2 Si. Matthew, xvi., 18-20.

31



32 The Temporal Sovereignty of the Holy See.

the domain of state jurisdiction. It is more universal than the latter
not restricted to any particular country, having the whole world sub-
ject to itself. It does not need resources procured by the civil so-
cety; for being absolute and unlimited, it involves all the means
necessary to achieve its end. It has for its object not the temporal
prosperity of one nation, but the eternal salvation of mankind Be-mg sp,ritual, the authority of the Holy See is not only distinct from
any civil jurisdiction, but also superior to it by so much as the im-
material transcends the material, and the eternal the temporal
The papal authority, therefore, descending from God, is by right

and by tts own nature free and independent. It must, moreover
under all circumstances, be free also in fact. Indeed, were it, while
actually exercised, subject to any earthly influence, it would be de-
graded and would fail to work out the salvation of mankind For itwould then no longer be directed by the will and the law of God, but
y merely human views, and would not aim at truth and holiness

but at worldly interests. Hence it is of peremptory necessity that in
the actual discharge of his high office the Sovereign Pontiff be exempt from any control by the civil power, and be beyond the reach ofany temporal sway. Were he to submit to the secular rule, he would
betray his own dignity, as well as the eternal welfare of men
From the nature of the primacy of St. Peter and the freedom nec-

essary for its exercise there follows with necessity also the personal
independence of the Pope. He being the Vicar of Christ, entrusted

tie f thfT

SS10n

u

UP°n £arth
’
and the SpirhUaI rulerand father of all

oerfo f

t6a

u

§ the“ Go(fs truth
>
sanctifying their souls and

performing for them the highest mysteries, can ever a Christian with
decency be competent to keep him subject in earthly affairs, or to ex-
act obedience from him, and if this be refused, to constrain and

cold t th l

And ' f f°r Chri8tianS such a nght is not befitting

the k I ?
'^Propriety be conceded to those who are outside

the kingdom of God ? Certain it is, no civil magistrate could
fprce the Sovereign Pontiff to obedience without shocking the feelings
of every Christian heart, and without disturbing the peace and tran
quillity of the entire Church. Undoubtedly a right "so unicorn,Ig
has not been established by divine wisdom.

g

Then, to advance a still more convincing proof, a dignity or pow-
confers on the person in whom it is vested all its rights and ^re-



33Independence a Prerogative of the Holy See.

rogatives, being, as it were, embodied in him. The majesty of the

civil rulers is an illustration of this axiom. Consequently the person

of the Pope must be endowed with all the prerogatives inherent in

his supreme authority over the Church. But this authority is, as

was said above, not only distinct from the civil power, but also su-

perior to the same. It is the continuation of the mission which Christ

had upon earth, and therefore partakes of the sublimity and majesty

peculiar to the King of kings. Because it is spiritual, it refers im-

mediately to eternal salvation and hence is instituted to order also

the things of the state, not directly by interfering with them as far as

they regard merely temporal prosperity, but indirectly, by rendering

them subservient to man’s ultimate end. This is no exaggeration.

Christ commissioned the Church and her supreme head to preach the

gospel also to kings and rulers, and to introduce the moral law re-

vealed by Him not only into private, but also into public life. For He

said to His Apostles : “ Teach ye all nations ... .Go ye into the whole world

andpreach the gospel to every creature

This we must infer also from the object to which the apostolic

authority ot the Pope refers. He has, as the head of the Church,

received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that is, he has to lead

men to their ultimate and supreme end. Now to this end everything

must be subordinate; all human actions must tend to it, all human

relations must be in harmony with it; every power must move and

operate in its direction. Is the Pope, then, not the judge also of the

morality of civil and political actions ? Is he, as the bearer of the

keys of the kingdom of heaven, not the ruler of rulers, because he is.

bound to forbid them what is contrary, and to enjoin on them what

is necessary, to man’s salvation? Is he, as the head of the Church

and the father of the faithful, not empowered to warn and to guide

the civil magistrates that are within his fold (for he does not judge

those without, according to the teaching of the Apostle (I. Cor., v, 12)

and to oblige them to abstain from whatsoever is detrimental to their

own souls or injurious to the flock of Christ? Led by such consider-

ations we must conclude that the person of the Pope is in no respect,

not even in civil matters, subject to the state, that, on the contrary,

he stands above it, and by a higher power raises it to a sublimer

order and directs it to a nobler end.

Should temporal rulers ever attempt to exact obedience from him*



34 The Temporal Sovereignty of the Holy See.

though only in civil affairs, he could in the fulness of his authority

and with a view to the welfare of the Church, annul their injunctions

and ordain his own civil independence. And, if he did so, nobody

could appeal to a higher tribunal against him, on the score that he

had overstepped the limits of his powder. For whatever he binds on

earth, is bound also in heaven, and whatever he looses upon earth

is loosed also in heaven.

There is no doubt whatever among Catholic canonists and juris-

consults about the civil independence of the Pope. They all agree

that it is due to him by divine right, because it grows out of the

spiritual supremacy conferred on him by Christ .
1

Catholic princes,

too, during the ages of faith, never regarded the Roman Pontiff

otherwise than as their father, and tendered him by solemn acts their

submission and reverence. He had precedence before them all; he

was their arbitrator in their differences, and their censor when they

did wrong; he admonished them conscientiously to administer jus-

tice, in the same way as he exhorted their subjects to obedience.

Nor have kings and emperors on this account lowered their maj-

esty. Their crowns only shone with a brighter lustre, reflected on

them from above, and their dominions were united in more perfect

peace and harmony. Those times have passed away. Still, even in

our days, when Christianity is, as it were, banished from political life,

the states which guarantee religious liberty cannot ignore the Pope’s

civil independence. For if liberty is guaranteed to the Catholic

Church, everything that is necessarily implied in her nature and her

constitution must be granted to her and be left intact. Protestant

denominations cannot complain as if thus a privileged position were

demanded by us. We must demand the independence of the Pope

consistently with our religious convictions, but they cannot claim

independence for their prelates, because they acknowledge no su-

preme jurisdiction in them.

It might seem, however, that all the conclusions thus far reached

might be granted, and yet the Pope's sovereignty be safely denied.

Let his civil independence be a prerogative ever so undoubted, is it

necessary for him always to assert and. to enjoy it ? The question is,

indeed, not an idle one. A right or a prerogative is one thing, and

its actual enjoyment another. The Church has in her concordats

1 See Atig. Lehmkuhl. S. J. Theoloijia Moralis, Vol. /. 139.



Independence a Prerogative of the Holy See. 35

with Catholic governments, for weighty reasons, resigned many a

right undoubtedly inherent in her. Bishops and priests nowadays

in most countries enjoy no personal immunity, though in former

days they did, and, as the Council of Trent says, by divine and

.ecclesiastical law.
1

Christ Himself, whilst on earth, did not make

use of all His rights. Though the King of kings, He condescended

to obey the civil government and to pay tribute to Caesar. May

the Pope not likewise resign his civil independence ?

The answer must be given decidedly in the negative. The reason is

that the loss of his personal independence must, to a great extent

-entail the loss also of his official independence. Civil dependence

and spiritual supremacy to be exercised with full freedom are, in the

present state of affairs, irreconcilable in one and the self-same hu-

man person. It is true, they were not so in Christ. But He visibly

governed the Church when she as yet consisted of few persons, where-

as His Vicar rules her when spread all over the world. He is God,

His Godhead shining forth by numberless miracles. His Vicar is

but man. And in a merely human being any dignity, though super-

natural and divine in its origin, exists and operates after the manner

of human nature, whose faculties it employs, and therefore also

partakes, to a certain extent, of human weakness. Hence it is, that

if its bearer be punished or corrected, it will lose its prestige, and

will no more be duly respected, and that if the person in whom it is

^vested be brought into subjection, its exercise, too, will become

more or less dependent. As a man obnoxious to human passions,

the spiritual head of the Church will, if civilly subject, at times lack

sufficient strength to resist the influence exercised on him by those

in higher power; he will be open to the fear of losses or the hope of

temporal advantages; he cannot without danger and great difficulty

censure his own ruler when he does wrong or oppresses the Church;

he can scarcely reject offers made, in order to induce him to enact

laws or to make appointments which rather serve political purposes,

than promote the spiritual welfare of Christendom.

If fear and hope cannot cloud his intellect or bias his will, he may

at anytime be prevented by force from exercising his jurisdiction

’both within and without the state of which he is a citizen. He must

iin any case be a Pontiff displeasing any other Power than that to

- 1 Sess. xxv. de Reform, c. 20.



36 The Temporal Sovereignty of the Holy See.

which he owes allegiance, because he will always be suspected of

having been elected to his office by the influence of his monarch, or

of being swayed by the same in the government of the Church. His

laws and decrees will, therefore, be mistrusted by foreign nations and

often be refused, particularly at the time of international animosities.

These are not mere imaginations, but tangible realities. For whilst the

Popes are not free from human infirmities, the temporal rulers,

whether monarchic or republican, are, on the whole, extremely jealous

of power and most eager to extend their sway. Consulting history,

we observe nearly in every one of its periods and in every country,

in England, in Germany, in France, in Italy, in the East, a tendency

in the secular power to gain the ascendant over the spiritual and

to rise on its subserviency to unlimited absolutism. And such at-

tempts were mostly but too successful, as long as the struggle was

carried on with dependent prelates. Does not this fact prove that

the Pope at least must be civilly independent ? Does it not show to

evidence that, whilst the evils resulting from the dependence of the

bishops may be remedied by him, the consequences of his lack of

freedom are irretrievable ?

On the strength of such considerations not only canonists, but

also the statesmen of nearly every civilized nation aver that the

Pope’s actual independence is necessary. Nor is this astonishing.

In whatever state the Catholic religion is professed, there the gov-

ernment is highly interested in the perfect freedom of the Roman

Pontiff, who, by his teaching and his laws, exercises an unbounded

intellectual and moral influence' on the Catholic subjects. For this

reason the Italian government guaranteed to the Pope all the pre-

rogatives of a sovereign by an act of Parliament, and through its

ministers at all the European courts acknowledged its duty, and pro-

fessed its intention, to uphold the perfect independence of the Holy

See. The sincerity of these declarations must, for very good reasons,

be doubted, but they show at least how the Italian politicians felt

themselves compelled to deal with the Roman Question in the face

of Europe. In reality, in their diplomatic answers the Powers all

insisted on the Pope’s personal independence .
1

In the light, then, of both faith and reason, the Sovereign Pontiff,

the Vicar of Christ, is in every respect officially and personally in-

1 .SifvThe Roman Question by the Bishop of Halford, p. 12.



37Independence a Prerogative of the Holy See.

dependent of any earthly power, he is so not by any human law, but

by the nature of his spiritual supremacy, and therefore by the will

of Christ, and must be so during all the ages in which he governs the

Church of God on earth,



y.

The Pope not Independent unless a Sovereign.

One point still remains to be discussed. The Pope’s independence,,

official and personal, granted, is there but one way of realizing it ?

Is a civil princedom necessary to establish it, or are other means

sufficient ? The Italian government, in 1870 at least, pretended to

render the Pope independent, though deprived of his states, and

many Catholics, misled by the liberal views, entertained hopes that

the project was feasible. But the hopes of the latter prove just as

vain as the pretensions of the former are deceitful.

Whatever the abstract possibilities may be, practically this inde-

pendence is in the present order of things not secured, unless the Holy

See has a temporal dominion of a moderate size. Of this a few re-

flections will convince us. We have to demand full freedom and in-

dependence not only .for the Pope himself, but also for his court and

his functionaries and ministers, who form one official person with him.

He cannot by himself govern the Church, spread all over the surface

of the earth, he needs organs, and indeed a great many, tribunals

and offices, through which he acts and speaks, gathers information,

administers justice, and renders decisions. Were these subject to a

government distinct from that of the Sovereign Pontiff, the exercise

of the papal authority would, in effect, be dependent on the civil

power, since it could at any moment be interfered with, impeded,

and biased by political considerations. Would the government of the

United States be free and unobstructed, if freedom were granted to

the president alone, but his secretaries and their assistants and clerks

were subject to the laws of a particular state and could be swayed

by its policy ?

Moreover the Pope is in need of a regular income, to keep up his

dignity in a befitting manner, to defray the expenses of his adminis-

tration, and to promote the interests of the Church. If he draws

revenues from a civil power, he becomes by this very fact depend-

38



The Pope not Independent unless a Sovereign. 39

ent on it; if he receives contributions from the faithful, he is in a

kind of dependence on them, which does not become his exalted

position, and imperils the intregrity of his officials. A regular and

safe income sufficient for his needs can, without any disadvantage to

his freedom, be derived only from a temporal dominion; and a vast

multitude of functionaries, exempt from any danger of being politi-

cally influenced in their actions, can subsist only in a territory over

which the Pope is the sovereign.

Then, if the Roman Pontiff has no territorial sovereignty, he is

unprotected from the covetousness of the potentates and the oppres-

sion of unchristian governments. Whenever their longing for

absolute power is no longer refrained by conscience, or their hatred

of Christianity is no longer checked by external restraints, the civil

rulers may and will rob the Pope living within their territory, insult

and attack him, put him in prison or intercept his communication

with the universal Church; they may by threats and promises exercise

any pressure they like, if not on the Pope personally, on account of his

sublime virtues, at least on his officials; and lastly they may without

difficulty meddle with the election of a successor after his death. It

would be childish to think that in our age of unbelief, events of this

kind are impossible; they are now more than ever to be dreaded. We

hear it said that acts of violence might be prevented by an interna-

tional treaty. But would not the Pope thus become dependent, not on

one Power alone, but on several ? And how could the working of

such an agreement be ensured ? Does not the fulfilment of compacts

between the supreme rulers depend altogether on the good will of

those who conclude them, just as the value of guarantees depends on

those who give them ? Besides, since in our days nearly all states

have constitutional governments with elective representation and

full freedom for political parties, princes cannot for a considerable

length of time be surety for their own acts. Much less could they

hinder the waves of political agitation from reaching that city

of their empire which is the seat of the Pope, and from disturbing

and perplexing the ecclesiastical administration.

Hence there is practically no difference between the Pope who is

the subject of a ruler and the Pope who has no territory over which

he reigns. The state to which he is subject is no greater danger for

his freedom, than the state which nominally grants him exemption,



40 The Temporal Sovereignty of the Holy See.

but is free to exert its influence on his administration by force as

well as policy. We know from history how often the Roman Pon-

tiff was exiled or imprisoned by temporal rulers; we have heard

complaints that his ministers in their official acts, and the Cardinals,

when in the Conclave, have not been free from undue influence and

selfish views. What would happen, if the Pope were not a reigning

sovereign, and if the government of the Church were carried on within

the reach of a civil power ? After an experience of seven years

after the occupation of Rome, Pius IX., though by law declared in-

dependent, was obliged to say to the Cardinals in a Consistory:

“ In Rome he (the Pope) must be either a sovereign or a captive; and

never will there be peace, security, and tranquillity throughout the

Catholic Church as long as the exercise of the supreme apostolic min-
A.

istry is left exposed to the agitation of parties, to the arbitrary power

of rulers, to the vicissitudes of political elections, to the designs and

actions of men, who prefer their own interest to what is just.”
1

It is in the nature of things that every Pope who is not a prince

will be compelled to make the same experience and to repeat the

same complaint.

The conclusion, therefore, stands that the Pope's freedom and

independence will never rest on a solid basis, and will never be perma-

nently established, unless he is at the same time a spiritual and a

temporal sovereign. Of course, God may direct the rulers and ani-

mate them with love for justice and religion, for their hearts are in

His hands, or He may frustrate their iniquitous onslaughts, and inspire

the Pope and his ministers with such lofty sentiments as will always raise

them above temporal or merely human views. But. a divine interfer-

ence of this kind is altogether preternatural and does not lie within

the usual providential order. According to His wisdom which we

know from His works, God always employs proportionate means

for the attainment of His purposes, and founds permanent institutions

for ends permanently to be achieved, without obstructing the operation

or diminishing the freedom of His creatures. Accordingly, we must

expect the independence of the Holy See to be secured by a perma-

nent arrangement of society, and such an arrangement, we maintain,

must, in the present order of things, consist in providing a civil

princedom for the spiritual head of the Church.

1 Allocution Luctuosis exagitati ofMarch \ 2th , 1877.



The Pope not Independent unless a Sovereign
. 41

Many statesmen, and many authors, who differ from us in religion,

€ully agree with the Catholic view on this point. Some of them

show a friendly or at least fair disposition towards the Church, and

-therefore demand for the Holy See the possession of the Roman

.States not only as a matter of justice, but also as a condition neces-

sary for its free and unimpeded action. Thus acted, for instance, the

Lords Liverpool, Eldon, Castlereagh, Sidmouth, Melville, Brougham,

Landsdowne, Ellensborough, Normandy,
1

the English historian

Alison,
2

Thiers,
3

and Guizot.
4

Others assume a hostile attitude

towards the Papacy, but are compelled by the evidence of truth

.to plead for its temporal dominion, as were, for instance, Greg-

-.orovius
5
and La Guerroniere

;

6

or they see in the downfall of the

civil power the imminent ruin of the Church herself, as did King

Frederick II.
7

and Count Cavour.
8

A few reflections on ecclesiastical history are yet needed, because

this has been alleged as disproving the necessity of Jihe temporal sov-

ereignty. The Pope, it is said, was repeatedly and even for a con-

siderable length of time without a princedom, and nevertheless wield-

ed his full spiritual authority. During the first centuries of the

Christian era the Roman Pontiffs were not only not princes, but were

persecuted by the Roman emperors, or were at least subject to them:

and yet did not the Church at that very time develop a marvellous

strength, and spread over the whole earth? This is undoubtedly a

historical truth. But is persecution the state in which the Church is

intended by God to remain? Could she, if it were so, fulfil the task

imposed on her by Christ Himself, which consists in teaching all na-

tions, in fermenting, as it were, the whole rational creation with her

moral principles, and in ordering human life, both private and public,

to a supernatural ultimate end? Destined as she is to be the moun-

tain of the house of the Lord to which all nations flow (Is. xxii.), she

1 See The Roman Question by the Bishop of Salford, tiage io.

—

Card. Manning
,
The

(Independence of the Holy See, Preface.

2 History ofEurope, 1789-1815, vol. III. ch. 57.

3 In a speeeh delivered in the Legislative Assembly in Paris
,
April 13, 1865.

4 Deglise et la societe
,

page 77.

5 History of the City of Rome, vol. III.,, page 5., and vol. IV., page 386.

6 The Pope and the Congress, page
7, 1859.

7 lti a letter to Voltaire
,
Corresp. II., 99.

8 Diplomatic Documents presented to the Chambers, page 95. Turin. 1859.



42 The Temporal Sovereignty of the Holy See.

cannot always remain concealed in the catacombs, but must, freed

from all shackles, hold a position commanding reverence and submis-

sion. Then, who will deny that in the condition in which she was

during those centuries, she was in many ways greatly injured, that

the supreme pastor was prevented from exercising his universal office

and the bishops from preaching the gospel and governing their flocks?

God permitted those persecutions in order to manifest the supernat-

ural origin of the Church, and in the absence of ordinary means, sup-

ported her by preternatural intervention which tended to corroborate

the Christian faith. But miracles cannot always take the place of the

ordinary means of subsistence. During the following four centuries,

from Constantine the Great to King Pepin, the Holy See was in part

subject to the Roman emperors, in part free. Its freedom was con-

tinually growing, until it finally developed into perfect independence,

not by ambitious intrigues, but by the natural course of events. Its

subjection was intone respect less harmful than it would be now, inas-

much as the Roman Empire then comprised all civilized nations, a

circumstance which rendered an international position of the Papacy

less necessary. Still the civil dependence in which the Popes then

were, was attended with many disadvantages for their freedom, as

will easily be understood from the cruel death to which some of them

were put, from the exile into which others were driven, and from the

pressure exercised on them by heretical emperors.

From the time of King Pepin down to our days the Popes were sov-

ereigns of the Roman States, though not unfrequently political fac-

tions in Rome and tyrannical kings and emperors interfered with

their rule and forced them to leave their princedom. Yet all such

attacks on them greatly disturbed the peace and tranquillity of

Europe. It was at this period of history that the Papacy reached

together with the fulness of its freedom, also the fulness of its might

and authority, and it was then that it bestowed the greatest benefits

on human society by civilizing, pacifying and uniting all natioris.

In the fourteenth century the Popes took up their residence in the

city of Avignon, remaining sovereigns, yet being exposed to the in-

fluence of the French court. It is known how strained the relations

between the Ploly See and Germany became in cpnsequence, and how

utterly impossible it was to bring about a reconciliation. Concern-

ing England at this time the historian Green writes: “ The English



43;The Pope not Iiidepeudcnt unless a Sovereign.

scorned a French Pope and threatened his legates with stoning when

they landed .”
1 The abode of the Roman Pontiffs resulted in the

great Western schism, in which first two and later three Popes were

elected. In the nineteenth century Napoleon I. devised a scheme to

remove the head of the Church from Rome to Paris. And what was

the object he had in view? To rule the religious as well as the polit-

ical world, after he had brought the Pope into subjection by depriv-

ing him of his temporal power.
2 When the project failed, the em-

peror made him a prisoner and precluded him from communication

with the Church.

Finally in our own days the Pope lost Rome and its provinces by

the usurpation of the Piedmontese government, and the secret work-

ing of the Revolution. But it is claimed that complete independence

with ample revenues are guaranteed to him, and that, though he did

not accept the guarantees, his spiritual authority is as great and as

highly respected as ever. I shall presently show that with regard

to Italy the Pope has not so much freedom as is due to him in his

capacity of the bishop of Rome, nor as much as is granted to the

bishop of any diocese in a free country. With regard to the rest of

the world, he maintains his authority in no other way than by 'not

submitting to the Italian government, by refusing its offers, and by

constantly protesting against its usurpation. But a struggle between

him and the country in which he lives cannot last forever; it must

sooner or later end, either in the bloody triumph of the Revolution,,

or the restoration of the Roman States to the Holy See.

History, studied without prejudice, on the one hand convinces us

of the necessity of the temporal power of the Pope for the freedom

of his apostolic ministry, on the other, reveals to us a special dispen-

sation of Divine Providence in connecting with the Roman See a

civil principality at an early period of the Christian era, in preserv-

ing the same in the course of time in spite of so many obstacles, and

in thus providing the spiritual head of the Church with all the means

required for the free exercise of his authority.
3

The necessity of the Pope’s temporal power for his unimpeded!

1 A Short History of the English People, p. 229.
2 Alison

,
History of Europe, 1789-1815, vol. Ill

,
Ch.lvii.

3 See F. Dupanloup
,
Bishop of Orleans, The Papal Sovereignty, Ch. vii.



44 The Temporal Sovereignty of the Holy See.

freedom being thus placed beyond any reasonable doubt, the

usurpation of his dominions must be considered as an attack on

his spiritual authority, and consequently as detrimental to the welfare

of the whole Church. What is of greater importance for any society

than an efficient government? Wherever this is obstructed, the life of

the social organism must be impaired, if not altogether extinguished.

How can particularly the Church prosper, if the Sovereign Pontiff is

mistrusted and disobeyed, if he is no longer free to teach, to condemn

the prevalent errors, to remove the dangers for the purity of morals,

to settle controversies and reconcile opponents, to appoint bishops,

to superintend the education of youth, and especially the training of

the clergy, and to promote the propagation of the faith in heathen

countries? Must not her vitality be lowered, her strength and effi-

cacy be weakened, the faith of many be imperilled, and the bonds of

union be loosed ? And what shall become of religion, if the Church,

in which it is embodied, is thus enfeebled in her head and her mem-

bers ? True, the Church will not perish, though the despoliation of

the Roman Pontiff should last for a longer period. For Christ has

foretold her existence to the end of time. Yet it is evident that but

for a special protection of God she is bound to lack that degree of

unity, holiness and efficacy, with which the divine Founder wished

her to be endowed.



Reconciliation with the Italian Government Impossible.

If disastrous consequences must at any time attend the suppres-

sion of the Papal sovereignty, they will of necessity most plentifully

result from the persecution now raging against the Holy See. The

Revolution, which united Italy and now governs it, takes no care to

avoid or to mitigate the evils connected with the changes it brought

about. On the contrary, it purposes them; it endeavors to intensify

them; for its avowed object is the overthrow of the Holy See and

the extermination of Christianity. The leaders of the Revolutionary

movement have not concealed their intentions. Victor Emmanuel

in the letter in which, in 1870, he demanded from Pius IX. the sur-

render of the yet remaining Papal dominions, says:

“A tempest of peril is threatening Europe. Under the cover of

the war which is desolating the centre of the continent, the party of

the Cosmopolitan Revolution is increasing its hardihood and audacity,,

and is preparing especially in the provinces governed by your Holi-

ness, to give the last blows to the Monarchy and the Papacy.”

To this statement of the king let me add the sayings of some

Italian premiers. Count Cavour at the Congress at Paris in 1856

presented a formal document to the plenipotentiaries of France and

England, which was described as “ a manifesto of war against the

temporal and spiritual power of the Papacy,” and in preparing this

war he said on one occasion that “ the temporal power was so closely

connected with the spiritual that the one could not be separated

from the other without the prospect of the destruction of both.”

De Pretis said in an address to his constituents: “ Italy of to-day, if

it has not written an immortal book, has written an .immortal decree,

that is, the suppression of political clericalism, the liberation of civil

Christianity, the emancipation of religious thought and the free wor-

ship of humanity.” Cairoli said: “The catechism is an immoral

book, which should be banished from our homes.” Signor Crispi,.



.46 The Temporal Sovereignty of the Holy See.

once an intimate friend and companion of Mazzini and Garibaldi, a

freemason of the thirty-third degree, and an avowed atheistfbelieves

that the Italian people is called to destroy Catholicism, and that

^between the revolutionists and the Pope there can be no truce.

Some years ago he declared that the Catholic Church must be over-

thrown, and not long ago he expressed his intention of reducing the

Pope to the condition of a simple bishop of Rome. Guiseppe

Ferrari, one of the most prominent revolutionary leaders, said: “The

Italian Revolution represents Italy risen against Christian Europe

—

against the system of Christianity.”
1

What these men have proclaimed as their programme they have

carried out to the best of their power. No sooner had the Piedmont-

ese government in 1859 and i860 taken possession of the Papal

provinces under pretext of restoring order, than it promoted the

diffusion and cultivation of every false doctrine, relaxed the restraints

of lust and impiety, inflicted undeserved penalties on Catholic bish-

ops and ecclesiastics of every grade, threw them into prison and

allowed them to be harassed with public insults whilst it grante'd im-

punity to their persecutors and to the assailants of the dignity of the

Roman Pontiff. 2

The Italian Parliament once opened, the enactment of laws most

hostile to the Church commenced. Schools and Colleges, and of late

also the beneficent institutions, were wrested from her and delivered

up to her most embittered enemies. Civil marriage was forced on

the people. All the clergy without exception, bishops included, were

declared subject to military conscription; wherefore many a priest

was since compelled to serve in the Italian army. The religious

orders were suppressed and banished. Numberless sacred buildings,

which for centuries had been held in veneration by the entire Catholic

world, were torn down or profaned. The property of the Church,

not excepting that of the Propaganda, notwithstanding her sacred

and inviolable rights, was mostly confiscated. At last a penal code

was sanctioned and put in force, which makes it absolutely impossible

for priests and bishops, and even the highest ecclesiastical authorities,

to condemn or oppose any order, disposition, or decree of the govern-

1 See Card. Mannings Independence of the Holy See, Preface ; The Bishop ofSalford

,

the Roman Question; La Verity nella Soluzione della Questione Romana.

2 Encycl. letter
,
Respicientes of Pius IX., Nov. I, 1870.



Reconciliation with the Italian Government Impossible. 47

ment, however injurious to the Church, to enforce any ecclesiastical

law colliding with those of the state, to publish or commend any letter

of the Roman Pontiff containing a censure of a governmental act,

or to raise their voice in any way for the restoration of the Pope’s

temporal sovereignty. The new code completely enslaves the Church

to the state.

The most outspoken hostility against Christian religion was mani-

fested, when on the feast of Pentecost, 1889, the statue of Giordano

Bruno was unveiled with great pomp in presence of a numerous

assembly, in which were seen a hundred and eighteen deputies and

seventeen senators of the Italian Parliament. The extraordinary

honors which were rendered to a man disgraced by shameful immor-

ality, cowardice, inconstancy, and hypocrisy, fallen away from a

religious order, from the priesthood, and from the Christian religion,

plunged into the ignominious errors of pantheism and atheism, con-

demned at last by the Church and publicly executed in Rome in 1600

for his heinous crimes and his obstinacy in heresy and jnfidelity,

could mean nothing else than an insult to the Holy See and a solemn

and public profession of unbelief and hatred against the Christian

religion. That this was the real purpose was but too manifest from

the banners of Satan which were displayed in the procession, and

from the discourses held and the writings published on this occasion,

in which the holiest things were turned into ridicule, and absolute

freedom of thought was exalted.
1

In this state of affairs the question can no more be seriously put

whether or not the Pope should reconcile himself with united Italy

by resigning his temporal power and accepting instead of it the

guarantees offered for his independence. There is on the part of

the Italian statesmen no desire of reconciliation, no intention of pro-

tecting his freedom. They have but one object in view which they

pursue with ingrained hatred—the overthrow of the Papacy. Before
they have reached this end, their hostility will not abate. And even

were this not their avowed purpose, and were their promises sincere,

they could never by laws or by treaties establish the independence

of the Holy See on a solid basis; they could only subvert it and thus

damage the supreme spiritual authority of the Church.

1 Allocution Quod nuper of Leo XIII., June 30, 1889.



48 The Temporal Sovereignty of the Holy See.

The Holy Father, therefore, must again and again protest against

the usurpation of his states; he must on all occasions claim his rights

and his restoration to them, in order not to create a prejudice

against them by his silence; he must set forth his legitimate titles

and dwell on the injustice committed by the usurpers; he must

condemn those who have perpetrated so enormous a wrong against

the See of St. Peter, and deter others from participation in their

crime; he must assert and defend the possessions entrusted to him

by God’s special providence as means altogether necessary for the

free exercise of his apostolic ministry and for the welfare of the

Church.

Placed on the apostolic rock he cannot give way, but is bound to

resist the tempest which now rages against Christian religion. Seated,

on the Chair of St. Peter, he is obliged to lift up his voice like a

prophet and unceasingly to recall to the minds of men the true

knowledge of right and justice, to bear witness before the whole

world to the trutn of God, to point out to human society the impend-

ing dangers, and to counteract by word and deed the machinations-

openly and secretly directed against the foundations of the Church.

Not the Pope alone, however, the great Leo XIII., must fight the

good fight. We are his children. How could we leave him alone

in his struggle and affliction and not raise our voice with his against

the enormous wrong done to the Holy See and the still greater evils-

that threaten it ? We form the Church militant, whose divinely-

appointed and courageous leader he is. We are obliged to follow

him into the brunt of the battle which is fought for the kingdom of

God. At stake there is the freedom of the See of St. Peter, the

freedom of the spouse of Christ who has given life to us, the freedom

of the mystical body of which we are members. In the very age in

which we live the love of political freedom has seized the nations,,

and in particular the people of our beloved country, and has given-

them a marvellous strength to perform heroic deeds. What enthu-

siasm then should Catholics not show, and what sacrifices should

they not be willing to make for the much sublimer freedom of the

Church purchased by the blood of Christ ?