THE BUILDER, AUGUST 1927
The Vatican Mistaken

By DR. LEO CADIUS

IN his encyclical letter To the Princes and Peoples of the
Universe, June 20, 1894, Leo XIII addresses himself to the Eastern
or Orthodox churches, inviting them to join the Roman Church and to
place themselves under the authority of the Holy See:

You have no reason to fear, as a consequence of your return to
Catholic Unity, any curtailment of your rights, of the privileges
of your patriarchs, or of the rites and customs of your respective
churches. For it has always been and will ever be the intention of
the Holy See, as it has been her most constant tradition, to treat
all nations with a noble spirit of condescension and to show the
greatest consideration for their origin and customs.

Note the expression: "with a noble spirit of condescension."

When the world war broke out, the Allies were anxious to secure the
aid of Italy. Let us suppose now that the French government
addressed an appeal for that purpose to the Italian government and
the said appeal contained the passage: "We Frenchmen, Latins like
yourselves, have always treated you Italians with a noble spirit of
condescension." If such an appeal had been published in the Italian
press, what would have been the effect? Indignation meetings and
demonstrations would have been held throughout the whole peninsula
and many of the infuriated Italians would have clamored for the
entrance into the world war on the side of the Central Empires. But
then, what government would have been capable of such a stunt?

The Czar of Russia exercised a sort of protectorate over the
adherents of the Eastern Church. He was the pope of those within
the Russian Empire. He ruled also over a round twenty millions of
Roman Catholic subjects, mostly Poles and Lithuanians. He never
looked upon them with any too great a favor. He frequently
persecuted them. It is not probable that the Pope's letter, with
its "noble spirit of condescension" tended to ameliorate their
unenviable lot.

Where was our Catholic press when the Holy Father, the White
Shepherd, handed that "condescending" amenity to the Eastern
churches ? The sheep bleat when there is something amiss with their
shepherd; for instance, when he fails to feed them at the
accustomed hour. But not our Catholic flock. It is too well
disciplined.

Mr. Charles C. Marshall, in his famous Open Letter to Governor
Alfred E. Smith of New York, quotes from the encyclical letter of
Pope Leo XIII on The Christian Constitution of States:

The Almighty has appointed the charge of the human race between two
powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, the one being set over
divine and the other over human things.... Over the mighty
multitude of mankind, God has set rulers with power to govern, and
He has willed that one of them (the Pope) should be the head of
all.

From the encyclical letter on The Reunion of Christendom Mr.
Marshall quotes: "We who hold upon this earth the place of God
Almighty." In a limited sense, all those in authority hold the
place of God towards their subjects; the parents over the children;
the teachers over the pupils; the ministers over their
congregations. Still, if President Coolidge asserted in a speech
that in the United States he holds the place of God Almighty, his
claim would be greeted with an outburst of hilarity.

There is such a thing as a sense of fitness of things. Hence it
caused no small amount of amusement in Germany when about two
decades ago Kaiser Wilhelm II, of happy memory, while addressing a
regiment of soldiers, mostly socialists, impressed it upon them
that they must regard their hated drillmasters, the noncommissioned
officers (unter-offiziere), as "the representatives of God."

The Kaiser talked, and the German people laughed and sneered, and
wondered if there was no way of muzzling him. He has never been
muzzled, but he is in Holland now.

The Pope talked and his Catholic flock imbibed his wisdom with a
reverence as if it was taking the Lord's Supper. As w e have
observed, the Catholic press admired in Pope Leo XIII principally
his altogether extraordinary diplomatic acumen.

Question: What kind of encyclical letters would he have issued, if
he had not been gifted with such prodigious diplomatic skill?

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

The promulgation of the Syllabus of Pius IX was shortly followed by
the Vatican Council, the first ecumenical council of the Roman
Church since that of Trent (1545-1565). The outstanding issue at
this Vatican Council was the proclamation of the dogma of papal
infallibility. It created among non-Catholics a most unfavorable
impression. It stirred up fresh distrust and hatred of the papacy,
and of the Catholic Church in general. Like the unfortunate
Syllabus it has conjured up petty persecutions, discriminations
against Catholics in business, in their academic and government
career. In reality, the dogma of papal infallibility is a harmless
doctrine. It has not conferred any new powers on the papacy. The
right of the Holy See to act as the supreme tribunal in religious
controversies has been accepted by the Catholic world all along.
Roma locuta causa finita, "Rome has spoken, the controversy is
ended," was the recognized Catholic principle.

Papal infallibility means that the Pope is inerrant in matters of
religion and morals when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, officially
as the head of the Church. As a private theologian he can err. But
against his ex cathedra decision there is no higher appeal.

Since the proclamation of that dogma, the question has risen to the
front: When is a papal pronouncement strictly ex cathedra? The
theologians have not as yet reached an agreement on that point. For
instance, they are divided in their opinion whether the Syllabus of
Pope Pius IX is an infallible dictum. The majority seem to favor
its non-infallible character.

In the American Church Monthly (Episcopalian, New York) of
February, 1927, the Reverend Alan Whittemore, in an article of
unusual merit on Church Unity, asserts that according to many
recognized Roman Catholic authorities the Holy Father has made but
two infallible pronouncements during the whole course of the
Church's history.

Though a papal pronouncement, like the Syllabus, need not be
accepted as an infallible utterance, it carries, nevertheless,
great force. A Catholic is forbidden to defend a thesis that has
been proscribed by the Syllabus. If a priest would, for example,
still uphold the theory that the papacy is vastly better off
without the secular power--Central Italy--he is liable to be found
guilty of contumacy and to be removed from office. This shows to
what extent freedom of speech is restricted in the Roman Church.
While the proclamation of the new dogma has practically neither
augmented nor diminished the powers of the papacy and produced no
visible benefits for the Church, it has had annoying consequences.
It has cast a fresh stumbling block in the path of the
non-Catholics by whom it is still utterly misunderstood. It has
released a deluge of ridicule on the Church, ridicule mixed with
hatred and disgust. And perhaps 90 per cent of the Catholics
themselves misinterpret it. Our religious teachers have been
explaining all along what it means and what it does not mean. They
will have to keep up explaining till dooms day. And all because a
powerful group of theologians, rigorists of the old school, love to
multiply dogmas. They are bent upon restricting the freedom of
thought and of speech. Their hobby must be gratified no matter at
what loss to the peace and welfare of the Church.

Bishop Ketteler of Mayence, the father of socio-economic welfare
work in Germany, Bishop Hefele of Rottenburg, the eminent
historian, and other leading churchmen had vigorously declared
themselves against the advisability of proclaiming the trouble
breeding dogma, and had voted against it. John Ignace von
Doellinger, the foremost scholar in the Church, bolted the Council.
The revolt he inaugurated proved abortive. But it was by a close
margin that a great schism was averted.

The Vatican Council was interrupted by the Franco-German war of
1870-1871. It is to reconvene in the near future. If I am informed
correctly, a tentative program has been mailed to the bishops
throughout the world. Its contents have so far been kept from the
public. The suspicion seems justified that something will be
"slipped over" on the Catholic people. Probably a new dogma, or
several dogmata, will be hatched out that will irritate the world,
be misunderstood by 99 per cent of the people, and bring annoyance,
mortification, and, perhaps, even persecutions on millions of the
faithful. The priests will have a few more additional doctrines to
explain.

The recent crisis in Mexico has revealed one thing: the American
Protestants are almost solidly in sympathy with the Calles
government. Does that straw not indicate which way the wind is
blowing?

In view of the sad experience we have had with the Syllabus and
Papal Infallibility, it would seen a timely move, if the Knights of
Columbus petitioned the Pope that he publish sufficiently in
advance the tentative program of the coming Council. Feeble as
Catholic public opinion is in the Vatican-ridden American Church--
feeble towards the Vatican--it may nevertheless risk a faint
whisper intimating to the Holy Father that he warn the
irrepressible restrictionists and dogma sponsors to use a little
caution. Given free reign, they will again start to dance and jig
around their idol whose name is Excessive Restriction. It is our
good, well meaning, patient Catholic people, that will have to pay
the fiddler.

But why should it be up to the Knights to present such matters to
the Vatican? Could not our American bishops and priests attend to
it? They could, but they will not do so. They are tongue-tied. They
dare not utter a wish that might displease the Holy Father. Not
only their career, their prospects of advancement, but their very
livelihood is at his mercy. Moreover, many of our bishops,
including our most influential dignitaries, are themselves
restrictionists, particularly in the question of church government.
While those who are inclined towards latitudinarianism will for
other reasons prefer to observe a judicious silence. They know that
the restrictionists are sitting in the saddle at the Vatican.

As regards the common clergy, you could not induce a group of
priests to draw up such a petition. If you succeeded, it would be
of no avail. The Vatican would frown upon such a move. It would
scent a spirit of unrest and insurgency to be promptly crushed.
Such matters, like demanding for the common clergy and for the
laity a voice in the government of the Church, cannot be presented
to the Vatican without implying a criticism of its past policies
and, perhaps, of its present policy. Such criticism will not be
countenanced. The Vatican is accustomed to be fed adulation and
wants nothing but adulation and servility.

An individual priest who presumes to criticize the Vatican is
laughed at as a joke. He could not make himself heard. And if he
should succeed in making himself heard, he will be regarded by our
good conservative Catholic masses an impudent rebel, a scabby
sheep, a weed in the garden of the Church. He is liable to be
denounced by the loyal Catholic press as a wretch who, inflated by
insane conceit, has been shipwrecked in faith. At best, he is
pitied as a hopeless fool who has thrown himself in the path of the
most powerful steam roller on the face of the earth. He is a
ridiculous mouse who attempted to bell the cat. Many of the
bishops, most of the best educated priests and laymen and, in
short, the greater part of the American Catholic intelligentsia,
may secretly approve of his stand, but it is doubtful whether even
one person will dare to side with him openly. He will need a strong
sense of humor and an imperturbable mental poise to bear his stigma
with equanimity. For if he has any common sense at all, he cannot
help asking himself: Can I be possibly right when so many good
people condemn me and nobody defends me ? On the other hand, the
restrictionists and dogma spouters who bring needlessly odium and
even persecutions on the Church are applauded as the pious
loyalists, as the courageous champions of the faith. They are in
the inner counsels of the Lord and on terms of familiarity with the
Holy Ghost. In fact, they are the mouthpiece of the Holy Ghost.
Their wisdom and virtue is extolled during their life time, they
are granted the papal blessing on their deathbed and they die with
the sweetest and happiest smile on their face, conscious of having
kept their faith, and confident that St. Peter will receive them
with a brass band at the gates of paradise. And as most of them are
really good and virtuous people, we allow them cheerfully to be
entitled to all that. They mean well and we bear them no grudge.

Maybe my pessimism is unwarranted. The Marshall Smith
correspondence has furnished us a pleasant surprise. The valiant
Governor of New York, the most popular Catholic layman in the
United States, has, after consulting a highly esteemed priest,
virtually repudiated the papal doctrine of the superiority of the
Church over the State. He has done so amid the applause of almost
the entire nation, the Catholics emphatically included.

WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS

Mr. Marshall has induced the Governor to make that "declaration of
independence," as the Literary Digest has characterized his summary
of political principles. There is a ray of hope that the American
Catholics may still further emancipate themselves from the Italian
Autocracy in the Vatican. They may yet succeed in being placed on
a footing of equality with the Italians in the Catholic world
church.

Both Mr. Marshall and Governor Smith are entitled to
congratulations. They have advanced us a step towards clearing up
the Vatican problem. But that problem is far from being disposed
of. I venture the following statements:

First. The American Catholics are, without exception, loyally
devoted to their country and to its Constitution.

Second. The Vatican has no ambition whatsoever of supplanting the
government of the United States, or for that matter, of any
government in the world.

Third. However, if Roman Catholicism in the United States keeps up
the rate of increase it has maintained in the last half century,
then, owing to a certain peculiarity in the hierarchic organization
of the American Church, in fifty years from now the Vatican will be
the super-government hovering over the federal government. The
latter will be at the mercy of the Italian Autocracy. The Autocracy
will, perhaps, make no use of its tremendous latent power. Or, what
seems more probable, it will make only a very moderate, a very
broadminded and a very beneficent use of it. But that is not the
issue. The question is: Does the American people want to be at the
mercy of the great foreign Autocracy--of any foreign power?

Perhaps I have made a rash, irresponsible statement. In my work The
Shadow of the Vatican, which will shortly appear serially in these
pages, I endeavor to prove my contention. I will be glad to be
corrected and to be shown that I have essayed to give a false
alarm.

There are millions of American non-Catholics today who, devoid of
all religious prejudice, view the form of government of the Roman
Church with a certain uneasiness. Why not discuss the problem
openly and candidly and try to dispose of it one way or the other?
At any rate, such a discussion may tend to clear the atmosphere.
