10. Comsummation of Nationalism

§80. NATIONALISM
and IMPERIALISM

Queen Victoria, Empress of India

A. Nationalism

Nominal derivation. “The word ‘Nationalism’ was born in the course of the past century, soon after the birth of three ‘isms’: ‘Liberalism,’ ‘Socialism,’ and ‘Communism.’ All four words have highly respectable origins . . . ‘nation,’ ‘liberty,’ ‘society,’ and ‘community.’ . .. The ‘ism’ was accepted to mean either a theory founded upon these principles or qualities, or an organized activity which, adopting some special interpretation of the principle, built up a theoretico-practical system; or, finally, a collective sentiment favoring in any way the tendency represented by the ‘ism’ in question... . From the very beginning, the ‘ism’ connoted an excess, a supervaluation of what the original substantives—liberty, society, and community—signified. . . . Nationalism, too, must be classed along with the other already mentioned, ‘isms’ which during the nineteenth century usurped the place rightfully belonging to the concepts from which they originated. Thanks to nationalism, the nation’s character as the community of a people organized on the basis of its traditions, history, language, and culture has come to be perverted; for nationalism is interpreted as being the principal efficient and final cause of the community. Nationalism, too, takes on a broad variety of colors ranging from the most extravagant to the quite moderate, and all the way from the philosophic to the sentimental.”^{[p. 519]}

‘ Don Luigi Sturzo, Nationalism and Internationalism (New York: Roy Publishers, 1946), pp. 1-5.

Excesses. This nationalism ought not to be confused with legitimate patriotism. Nevertheless, the fact is that people have often confounded the terms, and this is doubtless why Pope Pius XI, in condemning the abuses of the theory, was careful to direct his strictures against “excessive nationalism.” By a strict use of terms this would be redundant, for nationalism as defined above is by nature excessive, but a too academic insistence on this meaning would easily expose Catholics to accusations of lack of patriotism or advocacy of a pale cosmopolitanism. The nationalism here considered, especially during its romantic honeymoon of the nineteenth century, was a perversion or exaggeration of this legitimate patriotism; sometimes it concealed itself “behind the cloak of a love of fatherland.” Carlton Hayes has listed certain abuses or excesses attendant upon nationalism: “The spirit of exclusiveness and narrowness. . . . Secondly, nationalism places a premium on uniformity. .. . Thirdly, nationalism increases the docility of the masses. . . . Fourthly, nationalism . . . focusses popular attention on war and preparedness for war. .. . As the fifth, sixth, and seventh outstanding evils of nationalism, respectively, Jingoism, imperialism, intolerance.. . .” ²

The “nationalistic generation”—one might almost designate that which lived and acted between 1848 and 1871. Italy and Germany achieved national unification; the United States preserved its own. Hungary and the Balkans won national autonomy; Poles, Czechs, and Irish strove vainly to obtain theirs. Japan awoke to Jingoistic music, and the ancient Habsburg monarchy, antithesis of nationalism, began its last waltz; and the final fruit of nationalism was imperialism.

Popular nationalism. The Middle Ages had not been entirely without experience of nationalism, but the rise of national literature during the Renaissance and of national monarchies against the condominium of papacy and empire have been rather generally taken as the transition to modern times. This modern nationalism, however, as has been previously indicated, remained largely a dynastic affair. True popular enlistment in the nationalistic movement may be dated from Danton’s levée en masse, the total mobilization of the French people during the Revolution for repulse of foreign invaders. In the course of the French Revolution a new loyalty was born: whereas the king thought it not unpatriotic to negotiate secretly with brother monarchs to extricate himself from his position of subservience, the new concept of the French nation branded this as treason, indeed, a crime deserving the death penalty. Governments of the future must remember that they were the ^{[p. 520]}nation’s servants; even a monarch must be a “King of the French,” and not of France. In their sacred trilogy—liberté, égalité, fraternité—the men of the Revolution came to include nationalism under the last term.

°Canton Hayes, Essays on Nationalism (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1926), pp. 258-60.

Philosophic nationalism. This emotional French nationalism, when imperialistically imposed on other European peoples by Napoleon Bonaparte, provoked popular national movements in Italy, Spain, Germany, and elsewhere. In Germany, an effort was made by Fichte, Hegel, and others to give the concept a philosophic basis and expression. Fichte’s Letters to the German Nation were an omen of an entity as yet unborn in what had been for so long termed “The Germanies.” Romanticism contributed its share: it proceeded to invest death for one’s national idea with glory reminiscent of the legendary Valhalla, soon to be reincarnated by Richard Wagner. To be sure, all Germans were by no means intoxicated with Wagner nor crazed by Nietzsche, but the aristocracy of what proved to be the dynamic German state was influenced greatly by Hegel’s apotheosis of Prussian military bureaucracy. For Hegel, “the state is the march of God through the world”; if so, the way of this divine juggernaut is strewn with wreckage of human dignity and Christian culture. The Bismarckian Second Reich (1871-1918) became the proximate expression of this type of nationalism, before a more hideous caricature appeared in the Nazi Third Reich (1933-45) .

Ethnic nationalism. As the nineteenth century progressed, nationalistic sentiment grew in many subject peoples of Europe. It was compounded of the foregoing in varying degrees, but also recognized special new ingredients. Earnest, even fanatical groups strove to revive submerged nationalities; in some cases, it may be feared, artificially created them. Mazzini thus created “Young Italy” to forge a new Italian nation out of the medieval principalities, and in its image many other nationalistic “youngsters” came forward: in Ireland, Poland, Norway, and the Balkans. For nationalist agitators, freethinkers as they often were, it became almost a sacred dogma that no ethnic group might legitimately continue under the political rule of another nation or state. Languages were revived or purged of alien expressions; historical sagas of the past retold and appealed to; songs, customs, costumes took on almost religious significance; and finally the demon of nationalism—not to imply that all nationalism was diabolical—utilized religion to his purpose. A chorus of protest against ultranational regimes began which reached its crescendo only in the supposed vindication of Versailles-Trianon (1919) .

Revolutions of 1848-49, while generally Liberal in aspiration, also manifested many nationalistic strivings. The Irish insurrection in Tipperary ^{[p. 521]} met with little success (July, 1848), and Norwegian “Young Norway” agitation was chiefly literary. But in Central Europe it was another story. A brief civil war in Switzerland replaced the loose confederation of cantons with a new federal constitution. Italian unification under papal presidency was seriously proposed, and initial Sardinian successes against tottering Austria seemed to promise replacement of foreign by native rule. Throughout Germany crowns toppled, and at Frankfurt a National Assembly planned a constitution for a united Germany. All this could not have taken place had not the Habsburg monarchy been momentarily shaken and Metternich forced to flee. Hungary declared its independence and Bohemia demanded a separate administration. Because, however, these revolutionary groups were disunited, while the Austrian aristocrats and generals rallied together under Schwarzenberg, a disciple of Metternich, the revolutionaries were defeated or cowed—with some assistance from Russia. In Central Europe —Austria, Hungary, Germany, Italy—the pieces were put back much as they had been previously.

Nationalist striving did not cease, though there was a tendency for votaries to desert liberal and romantic slogans for realism and what Bismarck later bluntly termed “Blood and Iron.” Hence, “the first half of the nineteenth century was an age of philosophy; the second half of the century was an age of science. . .. The revolutions of 1848 had seemed to prove, not only that certain theorists were wrong, but that all theories were unimportant.. . . The international system of the European states took on during these decades those characteristics that came to be called the ‘Armed Peace,’ which paralleled the development and spread of the centralized national states as a standard political form.” ³

Nationalist achievement under these new auspices seemed to justify a new series of “isms”: realism, materialism, militarism. With superior military assistance from France, Italians had little difficulty in winning national unification during 1859-61 at the expense of Austria, and cold-blooded seizure of opponents’ weak moments enabled the new kingdom of Italy to annex Venetia (1866) and absorb the last of the Papal States (1870) . Bismarck’s Prussia meanwhile forced Denmark to cede “German” Schleswig-Holstein (1864) and expelled multinational Habsburg Austria from Germany (1866). Then Bismarck stampeded the south German states into a new German Reich after a successful war against France (1871). Defeated Austria had to capitulate to Hungarian nationalism by according equal status in the Austro-Hungarian dual monarchy (1867), but many submerged nationalities still clamored for redress within the revamped state. But they were not so strong as the ^{[p. 522]}Hungarians and failed to achieve national status. The Poles revolted unsuccessfully once more (1863), and Irish Fenian agitation produced no immediate result. It was only with British backing that Greece could continue to maintain her independence against Turkey; and Servian, Bulgarian, and Rumanian graduation from autonomous principalities to complete independence awaited the nod of Russian Pan-Slavism. But on the whole, in Europe national boundaries were more tightly drawn and national unities more closely cemented. Yet this national order was presently to make for international disorder, even anarchy.

3 Robert Binkley, Realism and Nationalism (New York: Harper and Bros., 1953), p. 1.

Nationalism during the third quarter of the nineteenth cetury contributed strongly to an amazing imperialistic expansion during the last quarter. “Synchronizing with the revival of protective tariffs and the extension of socializing legislation toward the close of the 1870’s was a tremendous outburst of imperialistic interest and activity. The outburst was common to all the great powers of Europe, except Austria-Hungary; and it was so potent that during the next three decades greater progress was made toward subjecting the world to European domination than had been made during three centuries previous.” }

Nationalism and industrialism often went hand in hand because pride of nationality demanded an industrial system inferior to none and kindred economic interests cemented existing national states. “Advancing industrialization . . . nicely synchronized with a marked access of nationalism. . . . In the circumstances, it was but natural that this spirit of rivalry should find expression in the economic and industrial field as well as in the strictly cultural and political domains.” ⁵

Industrial progress tended to increase production, specialize labor, and develop natural resources. Acquisition of further advantages than one’s neighbor tempted a nation on to political imperialism in the interest of developing international trade. To some degree—though Hayes warns against the Marxist overstress of this theory—the search for additional consumers for increased production could lead industrialists beyond national boundaries. Here they might encounter competition from fellow industrialists who, if keenly alive to the situation, would refuse to allow their national markets to be taken from them. If they were of the same stage of industrial development as their competitors, they usually ^{[p. 523]}were able to hold their own, at least with the assistance of a protective tariff. European merchants, therefore, would entertain favorably sale to countries on a lower level of material civilization or less industrially advanced. Such markets could be found in the unappropriated regions of Africa, among the politically impotent nations of Asia, and in the economically dependent countries of Latin America. Here a foreign trader might encounter his erstwhile competitor from another European country. Here again competition could arise, but the field was so vast and inviting and the changes and chances of fortune so varied that all, even tiny Belgium, felt that they could enter the race with fair prospect of success. When a competitor did secure a footing in an undeveloped area he would strive to monopolize his advanmtage. In Africa this could be achieved by outright annexation of colonies or assumption of protectorates over weaker native states. In Asia, rival spheres of influence were set up in the existing, but backward civilizations of China, India, Persia, Afghanistan, Turkey, Arabia, and Siam. In Latin America, the powers worked more cautiously for fear of the Monroe Doctrine, but concessions of mines, oil wells, etc., were obtained, loans made to governments and revolutionary juntas, and public works contracted for. By this ceaseless activity the period witnessed a transformation of the world. But the industrial and commercial shares were not equal. Perhaps agreement might have been reached had the differences been exclusively commercial—for businessmen as such usually feared war—but they were more than that.

‘Carlton Hayes, Generation of Materialism (New York: Harper and Bros., 1941) , p. 216.

“The sequence of imperialism after 1870 appears to have been, first, pleas for colonies on the ground of national prestige; second, getting them; third, disarming critics by economic argument; and fourth, carrying this into effect and relating the results to the neo-mercantilism of tariff protection and social legislation at home.... But in the last analysis it was the nationalistic masses who made it possible and who most vociferously applauded and most constantly backed it.... Into the imperial-mindedness of the masses . . . neatly fitted the preaching of Darwinian sociology that human progress depends upon struggle between races and nations and survival of the fittest.”

In Europe, long-standing national hatreds existed. Imperialism seemed to the chauvinist merely nationalism grown to maturity, and “our empire” became the dream of politicians, a dream with which they sought to indoctrinate the masses. To safeguard their national and colonial domain, each country embarked on a military career. Each sought protecting alliances. For years, Europe knowingly and willingly played with ^{[p. 524]}fire. Russians posed as the liberators of all the Slays, a pointed hint to Austria to relinquish her provinces of Bohemia, Moravia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia, and Slavonia. Austria, incensed at unruly Slavic subjects and Russian and Serbian sympathy for them, threatened reprisals and warned Russia to keep her distance in the Balkans. Italians spoke of Italia Irredenta—lands not yet freed from Austrian or French rule. French diplomats tried to avert German national unification, failed, and next clamored for “revenge” for the loss of Alsace-Lorraine. Germans then retorted that they were but recovering stolen property, gloated over their comeback as a great power, and demanded a “place in the sun” in the international field, presumably at the expense of that British empire “on which the sun never set.” Great Britain preached brotherly love, democracy, and the “white man’s burden” over the backs of millions of subjects. Spain clutched desperately at the last remnants of her old dominions in the New World until American “dollar diplomacy” demanded their surrender. France, Spain, Italy sought “compensation” in Africa. Still small voices came from Ireland and Poland demanding independence, but the Great Powers usually said, “Hush.”

Politicians looked war straight in the eye; in Bismarck’s phrase: “They watch each other, and then one of them puts his hand in his pocket, his neighbor readies his own gun in order to be able to fire the first shot.” Officially, at least, they did not flinch. Each country’s leaders told their citizens that they were on the defensive and were in large part believed. Peace advocates toiled frantically for disarmament and usually were made laughingstocks. Only the popes knew what was wrong: the nationalism that had raised its hand against Boniface VIII at Anagni was about to commit suicide. The tongues of those nationalistic towers of babel raised during the sixteenth century against the theocracy were to be confounded. Peoples half-fearfully, half-excitedly continued to await war. Politicians, civil or military, tinkered with their alliances and military machines. Some cynically speculated on the time best suited for the next war; others coolly. It came, and, it seems, was the beginning of the end of “modern” civilization.

§81. THE PAPACY
and ITALIAN
NATIONALISM
(1846-78)

Pope Pius IX

A. Pius IX and Liberalism (1846-50)

Giovanni Mastai-Ferretti (1792-1878) was chosen to succeed Pope Gregory XVI on June 16, 1846, by a reputed thirty-four of forty-nine votes. The conclave had been comparatively free, inasmuch as Austrian and French pressures nullified one another. Cardinal Mastai was a handsome, affable, conciliatory cleric, who was believed to be well disposed toward new ideas. As a member of a pontifical embassy to Chile in 1823, ^{[p. 525]}he was the first pope to visit the New World. He had been noted for his charity as bishop of Imola and Spoleto, and this had not excluded conversation with Liberal leaders. His protection of refugees after the failure of the Bologna uprising of 1832 was remembered, and the progressive leader Rossi assured everybody that “in the house of Mastai‑Ferretti is Liberal down to the family cat.” It is not surrising, therefore that Cardinal Lambruschini, connected with the late repressive regime, would be passed over for this genial Politique. But though acclaimed as “Il Papa Liberale,” Pio Nono had few illusions; on the day of his election he is said to have exclaimed: “Today the persecution begins.”

Early concessions. The new pontiff was nonetheless resolved to do everything in his power to reconcile the Liberal movement to the Church. He named the conciliatory Cardinal Gizzi as secretary of state, and appointed a commission of cardinals to reform administration and the civil code, An amnesty was granted to all political prisoners arrested by his predecessor; unfortunately these when liberated only swelled the ranks of agitators urging the pope on to yet more “progress.” The amnesty was criticized by Chancellor Metternich, and the pope s concession of a civil guard led to the resignation of Cardinal Gizzi in July, 1847. Pius IX went on to mitigate restrictions on the press, but this concession was soon abused by masonic publications with “betweenthe-lines” communications for Liberal conspirators. The pope was, indeed, cheered in the Roman streets by Italian Liberals; Adolphe Thiers, supporter of Louis Philippe, hailed the program in the French Chamber of Deputies; Viscount Palmerston sent Lord Minto to Rome to help manipulate the Liberal enthusiasm. Mazzini poured in instructions for his “Young Italian” lieutenants.

Liberal zenith. To the horror of Metternich and his associates the pope still went forward. In March, 1847, he had mitigated censorship; in June he created a council of ministers; this was followed by a group of lay notables to represent the communes and advise on civil administration. The new council of state met for the first time in October, 1847, under the presidency of Giacomo Antonelli (1808-76), lay cardinal since 1846, and the pope’s chief political advisor during most of his pontificate. Though Metternich had occupied Ferrara in July, 1847, as a sign of his august displeasure, the pope protested but went on his Liberal course. In December, 1847, he agreed to ministerial responsibility: civil officials would depend for continuance in office upon a parliamentary majority. Early in 1848 the rulers of the Two Sicilies, Sardinia and Tuscany, conceded constitutions in order to allay discontent of the Liberals, and on February 8 an uprising in Rome demanded a similar grant. On March 14, 1848—the day that an “elderly Englishman,” Metternich in ^{[p. 526]}disguise, stole out of Vienna—Pio Nono granted a constitution: the “Fundamental Statute for Temporal Administration of the Papal States.” There were to be two houses: a high council of life members named by the pope, and a council of deputies elected by the people. All legislation, however, was subject to review by a supreme court: the college of cardinals, and ecclesiastical and foreign affairs were excluded from the legislature’s competence. Cardinal Antonelli took office as the first premier on March 16, 1848. All of Italy seemed to have become Liberal except for the Austrian-dominated territories, and there groups shouted “down with the barharians.,” Some Roman troops marched to the northern frontier with Pius’s blessing; when, however, newspapers interpreted this as a papal declaration of war, the pope explained that they were merely guards. Early in April, the pope sent a prelate to discuss Italian confederation with the king of Sardinia. The papacy, far from obstructing Italian Liberal nationalism, seemed a beacon.

Liberal excesses. Revolts had been engineered in Habsburg-held territories, but expulsion of Austrian regular troops was beyond the powers of a militia. Hence patriots demanded an Italian crusade to expel the foreigners from Italy, and Liberals would fain have Pius IX repeat Julius II’s slogan: “Fuori i barbari.” But in response to suggestions that he declare war on Austria, the pope asserted in an allocution of April 28, 1848, that although he did not approve of Austrian oppression, yet “we have deemed it our duty to protest formally and loudly in this solemn assembly against a design which is so foreign to our thoughts, seeing that we, although unworthy, hold on earth the place of him who is the Author of peace, the Friend of charity, and considering that, faithful to the divine obligations of our supreme apostolate, we embrace all countries and all nations in the same sentiments of paternal love.” At the same time the pope extinguished the hopes of the Clerical Federalists: “We cannot avoid repelling, before all the nations of the earth, formation of a new Republic, to be constituted out of all the states of Italy.” This was the crisis of “papal Liberalism.” By this pronouncement Pio Nono forfeited the support of intemperate Italian nationalists and Liberals, but at the same time he opened the way to new papal prestige among all men of good will as an unbiased arbiter and impartial champion of international peace and justice.

Roman Republic. Roman Radicals denounced the allocution and on May 3 replaced Antonelli as premier with Count Mamiani who announced that henceforth the pope would merely “pray, bless, and par- don.” Pio Nono retorted that he would retain “full liberty of action,” and search for a moderate premier began. The pope felt that he had ^{[p. 527]}found one in Pellegrino Rossi, but the latter was stabbed to death as he opened parliament on November 15. The Civic Guard sided with the assassins and a Radical ministry was forced upon the pope. Presently the most infamous decrees appeared under the papal name. Pius informed the diplomatic corps: “Gentlemen, I am a prisoner.” During the night of November 24, the Bavarian ambassador, Graf Spaur, assisted the pope, “disguised as a priest,” to escape to Gaeta in the Two Sicilies, where King Ferdinand II, who had subdued his own Liberals, gave him asylum. Meanwhile a Radical Liberalism triumphed at Rome. The papal commission delegated to rule in the pope’s absence was disregarded, and Mazzini arrived to head a junta which announced a plebiscite for December. Since the pope threatened all taking part with excommunication, the Radicals carried the day and on February 9, 1849, declared Pius IX deposed in favor of a “Roman Republic.” On February 18 all ecclesiastical property was secularized and other Italian states invited to imitate this “Young Italian” regime at Rome. On March 29 Mazzini became one of the triumvirs and on occasion occupied the papal throne in St. Peter’s; Armellini set up placards: “Down with Christ; long live Barabbas”—a sample of the lunatic fringe of Freemasonry.

Papal restoration. At Gaeta, Pope Pius had named Cardinal Antonelli secretary of state, a post which the latter held until his death in 1876. During April, 1849, Antonelli summoned all Catholic sovereigns to assist in restoring the Roman pontiff to his dominions. By this time the reactionary Schwarzenberg ruled in Vienna, and the Second French Republic had taken a conservative turn with its “prince-president,” Louis Napoleon Bonaparte. In Ma y, 1849, Austrian troops, having restored the archdukes in Lombardy, pressed into the Papal States. In April Bonaparte despatched French troops, though their first attack was repulsed by Garibaldi. In June Spanish troops arrived to help the pope. These three powers, with the Neapolitans, entered Rome on July 3, 1849, and overthrew the Republic. Restoration of pontifical authority wäs élayëd when Bonaparte, in .order to save th^-CLiberal side of his face at home, _-proposed certain reforms as conditions of papal restoration. ,Supported by Francis Joseph of Austria, Pius IX refused and Bonaparte yielded. The pope then set up a reform commission on his own initiative, but did not himself return to Rome until April 12, 1850.

Papal intransigence. Pius IX was now free from his officious liberators, although a French garrison remained in Rome until 1866. The pope and Cardinal Antonelli had returned to Rome disillusioned about Liberalism. Everything compatible with the divine monarchical constitution of the papacy had been done to conciliate the Liberals without ^{[p. 528]}appeasing their importunate demands. Henceforth there would be no more experiments, and strict conservatism would be the rule. Though by no means vindictive—an amnesty was granted—Pius IX henceforth imposed stern restraint upon Liberals and Radicals. Progress and reform would be achieved by benevolent despotism. In this policy the adroit Cardinal Antonelli perhaps achieved as much success as was possible in the face of European opinion now largely convinced that papal temporal sovereignty was an anachronism, a relic of medievalism. The old system of legatine- government was -restored, and education committed to Jesuit supervision. The Jesuit review, Civilta Cattolica, became the organ of an uncompromising and sometimes extreme Ultramontanism. Reforms in administration, agriculture and commerce were introduced by Anto . His administta tion, although neither democratic nor pro‑
gressive, was tolerably just and prosperous, so that the average citizens of the Papal Stites, much to the disgust of expatriate or foreign agitators, were disposed to leave things well enough alone. But this could scarcely endure, since the Papal State still lay athwart any prospective united Italy. How could Italy be unified so long as Rome cut it in two? The Lateran solution of 1929 was still far in the future, the idea of papal presidency of an Italian federation had been repudiated by the Holy See. Just as Austria could never countenance German unification at the expense of her multinational monarchy, the Papal State could scarcely approve of Italian unification without renouncing its independence and its international position. Just as Bismarck’s Prussia resolved to realize German unity without Austria, so Cavour’s Sardinia began to dream of a “Kingdom of Italy,” papal opposition notwithstanding. Since to all proposals of cession of papal territory or temporal prerogatives, Pio Nono and Cardinal Antonelli opposed an unwavering “non possumus,” an irresistible material force began to move toward an immovable spiritual object.

The Roman Curia under Pius IX was after 1850 more exclusively preoccupied with spiritual affairs, and temporal concerns were left to Cardinal Antonelli. If the moral tone of the curia became better, its ability and learning were rated lower by critics. The trend to specialization continued and the cardinals were now seldom consulted as a body. Organizational activity during the long pontificate was unparalleled; by (1869 Pius IX had named all of the 739 Catholic bishops except 81. He erected 29 archbishoprics, 33 vicariates, 15 prefectures, and restored the English, Dutch, and Palestinian hierarchies. With his encouragement, ^{[p. 529]}Rome witnessed the foundation of new Latin American, North American, and Polish colleges, and the reorganization of the Irish and English.

Diplomatic activity was intense. Repeatedly the Holy See clashed with the Russian government for violation of the pact of 1847, and in 1866 ssued a documented exposition of Russian infractions of religious agreements regarding the Polish and Ruthenian Uniates. The pope, however, did not endorse the Polish uprising of 1863. He repeatedly denounced the Kulturkanmp f in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. The French, English, and Portuguese hierarchies came in for chiding on occasion for either weakness or internal disputes. But if the pope was strongly authoritarian, his winning personality repeatedly disarmed his opponents: bishops summoned to Rome for reprimands often returned strong Ultramontanes. Pio Nono’s nervous and variable temperament, however, made his policies frequently seem inconsistent or improvised.

The Oriental Church, as will be noted elsewhere more in detail, was an object of the pope’s solicitude, though he was accused of favoring Latinization and extinction of patriarchal autonomy. The bull Reversurus (1867), fusing two Armenian primatial sees, provoked a temporary schism, which was repeated soon afterwards when the norms of that document regarding prelatial jurisdiction were applied to the Chaldean Rite. Other Catholic Rites evaded the regulations or observed them under protest. Happily the disputes led eventually to better understanding on both sides and more conciliatory treatment by the Roman Curia.

Indifferentism was denounced again by the watchful pontiff. Thus Qui Pluribus (1846) set forth relations of Faith and reason; Singulari Quadam (1854) condemned Rationalism; Eximiam rejected Guenther’s errors and Gravissiinas those of Froschammer. The encyclical Quanto Con ficiamur Moerore deplored indifferentism in Italy (1863) and Tuas Libenter (1863) warned against latitudinarian trends at German theological conventions; Liberal Secularism was indicted in the allocution Acerbissimum against civil marriage (1852) . The encyclicals Etsi Multa and Quod Numquam (1875) rejected false notions of Church-state relations, and the royal placet was repudiated in an allocution during 1877.

The Immaculate Conception. In 1830 the Blessed Virgin had herself suggested definition of her unique prerogative by thrice appearing to the Daughter of Charity, St. Catherine Labouré, during July, November, and December at the mother house in Paris. St. Catherine was directed to promote wearing of a medal with the invocation: “O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.” Such medals ^{[p. 530]}began to appear in 1832 with the authorization of Hyachinthe de Quelen, archbishop of Paris. Father Jean Etienne, superior-general of the Vincentians and of the Daughters of Charity, formed a confraternity. Authenticated benefits, such as the conversion of the Jew, Alphonse Ratisbonne, soon spread the fame of this Miraculous Medal. While in exile at Gaeta during 1849 Pope Pius sent a circular letter to the Catholic hierarchy requesting their views regarding a definition of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Replies were overwhelmingly favorable, and on December 8, 1854, the pope formally , defined that “the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary was, by ^-the singular favor and privilege of Almighty God in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, preserved free from all stain of original sin from the first instant of her conception, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be firmly and co stantly lieved by all the faithful.” This declaration, Inc flabilis Deus (Denzinger 1641), is cited by many theologians as a clear example of an ex-cathedra papal dogmatic definition independently of a general council. At Lourdes, France, four years later, the Blessed Mother graciously acknowledged the tribute of the universal Church by introducing herself to St. Bernadette Soubirous as “The Immaculate Conception.” There too she opened to mankind a fountain of healing waters bringing to many health of soul and body—though occasioning not a few Rationalist headaches.

The Syllabus of Errors, issued on the tenth anniversary of the Immaculate Conception, December 8, 1864, was the chief object of Liberal scandal, pharisaic or otherwise. This was a compendium of censures of modern errors accompanying the encyclical Quanta Cura. This Pantheism, Naturalism, Rationalism, Indifferentism, Latitudinarianism„ Socialism, Communism, and Liberalism, together with pseudo-Bible societies, secret organizations, and “clerical-liberal” ententes. The Syllabus was a summary of modern errors briefly stated. Unfortunately Cardinal Antonelli s éditmg of the document was somewhat at fault, so that some of the propositions, when thus read out of the context of^Jthe original documents, were a little startling, such as: “The Roman pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself to and compromise with progress, with Liberalism and with modern civilization.’ Bismarck, Gladstone, and Bonaparte were dismayed by this reprobation. Bishop Dupanloup of Orléans undertook to explain that whereas the abstract errors noted had already been often condemned in the past, the Church would always be disposed to be merciful to human wanderers in good faith, and to take into consideration special circumstances requiring toleration of what could, however, never be proclaimed as an ideal. But however explained, nineteenth-century European Liberals found the Syllabus absurd^{[p. 531]}—though some twentieth-century thinkers are beginning to have doubts about the vaunted merits of “modern civilization.”

Diplomatic preparation. Recent events had discredited the “Young Italians” and the “Clerical Federalists”; now it was the turn of the Liberal Monarchists. In 1850 Count Cavour became a member of the Sardinian cabinet, and two years later Hg ctôr Emmanuel (1849-78) named him premier, a post that he filled almost uninterruptedly until his death in 1861. Thoug prooclaiming a flee Church in a free state,” Cavour abolished canonical jurisdiction and right of sanctuary, suppressed a number of abbeys, expelled the Jesuits, and interfered with hölyâys o£ obligation. His bill for civil marriage, however, had to^- be postponed in the wake of Pio Nono’s denunciation (1852) . Abroad, Cavour declared war on Russia in 1855, not so much because of any Sardinian grievance, as to win the good will of Russia’s foes, Great Britain and France. At the Paris peace conference in 1856 Cavour had an opportunity to denounce Austrian rule in Italy to the Concert of Europe and to begin to exert that pressure on Bonaparte, now Napoleon III, which finally extorted from the latter a pledge of intervention on behalf of Italian liberation. Bonaparte’s predicament lay in this: Liberals urged this ex-rebel to befriend Italian patriots; Catholics demanded that he protect the temporal power of the papacy. Bonaparte tried to temporize until 1858 when Orsini’s near miss with a bomb jogged his memory.

Military consummation. Assured of Bonaparte’s backing and of Palmerston’s benevolence, Cavour provoked war with Austria in April, 1859. This short contest ended in July with severe defeats for Austria, which encouraged liberals in the duchies and the Romagna to revolt and invite Sardinian annexation. As soon as Bonaparte perceived that destruction of papal sovereignty was in prospect, he made a separate peace with Austria whereby the latter ceded Lombardy to Sardinia, but retained Venetia. The Sardinians were incensed, but had to acquiesce in the lead of their powerful ally, and even to cede to him his previously stipulated price for help: cession of Nice and Savoy to France. While Bonaparte then tried to persuade the pope through ghostwritten pamphlets to cede all papal territories outside of Rome, his secret attitude was virtually that of an alleged remark to Cavour: “Get the thing over with quickly”: face the pontiff with an accomplished fact. The papal reply was “non possunhus”: we cannot yield what is ours. Cavour sent agents into the duchies and the Papal States to engineer plebiscites which in March, ^{[p. 532]}1860, declared for annexation to Piedmont-Sardinia. With Cavour’s secret knowledge, Garibaldi sailed from Genoa in May to seize Sicily. In August with some connivance of the British navy he crossed to the mainland, and captured Naples on September 7. On September 18 Garibaldi’s forces overwhelmed the few papal troops at Castelfidardo. The survivors retreated to Ancona where they were forced to surrender on September 29. Several months were needed for “mopping up,” but in March, 1861, Victor Emmanuel of Sardinia was proclaimed king of Italy and named Cavour his first premier. Pope Pius, whose territory had been reduced to Rome and vicinity, where a French garrison prevented further annexation, refused to recognize the new kingdom officially—although privately he is said to have admitted a patriotic Italian pride in the exploits of Cavour and Garibaldi against whom he held no personal animosity.

Legal aftermath. Cavour died in June, 1861, and his successor, Baron Ricasoli, offered to reach accord by promising the pope sovereign status and permanent endowment—terms which Pio Nono consistently rejected. The Jesuit review Civilta Cattolica continued to reflect the intransigent curial viewpoint, while compromising journals, such as Il Conciliatore of Milan and Il Mediatore of Turin, were discouraged in their search for accord between curia and royal court. Large-scale confiscation of ecclesiastical property in the legations had followed on the proclamation of the new Italy, and yet royal edicts of 1863 and 1864 invoked the exequatur and placet in true regalist fashion. Civil marriage was authorized by the new regime in 1865. During 1866 in order to curb a supposed “Austro-Bourbon-Clerical” conspiracy, the “Law of Suspects” jailed 6,825 members of a non-political “Association for Defense of Catholicity.” In 1867 the increasing financial difficulties of the kingdom were relieved by confiscation of more church property, with a promise to pay salaries to a reduced number of clergy. St. John Bosco, personal friend of both pope and king, alone succeeded in negotiating a modus vivendi (1867), whereby suppression of twenty-six sees was authorized, and provision made for confirmation of episcopal nominations. Yet in 1868 the papal decree, Non Expedit, forbade local Catholics to take an oath to the Italian constitution.

Precarious protection. Though Bonaparte had recognized the kingdom of Italy, he had done so on the express condition that Rome would not become its capital. The storm of Catholic protest raised by Bishop Dupanloup convinced him that he must maintain the remnant of the Papal States. In summer, 1862, Garibaldi called his bluff. Organizing two thousand volunteers, he marched on Rome with the cry: “Rome or death.” He got neither, for the Italian government, frightened by ^{[p. 533]}French threats, arrested him—though soon allowing him to “escape.” By a Convention of 1864, Victor Emmanuel undertook to protect Rome from seizure so that the French troops might be withdrawn within two years. The pope enlisted volunteer defenders from all nations under the Swiss General Kanzler. As soon as French troops departed, Garibaldi made another attempt to capture Rome in October, 1867, but returning French forces reinforced the papal troops to repel the Italians at Mentana. Garibaldi was captured and sent to Caprera. Failing to have the “Roman Question” settled by international pact, Bonaparte was obliged to continue a token French garrison at Rome for the protection of the pope. This force deterred the Italian government from a move which would involve France.

Rome’s fall was inevitable as soon as the Italian kingdom had obtained certain information of French reverses during the Franco-Prussian War (1870) . The Roman garrison was recalled on July 26, 1870, and the capture of Napoleon III on September 2 relieved the Italian government from any further anxiety on the part of France. On September 8 King Victor Emmanuel informed the pope that Rome was about to be seized, but promised to guarantee his safety. Pio Nono retorted: “They speak of guarantees. Who will guarantee these guarantees? Your king cannot guarantee them. Your king is no longer king; he is dependent on his parliament, and that parliament depends on the secret societies.” The United States Minister King and Assistant Secretary of the Navy Fox offered the pope American naval vessels for flight, but Pio Nono pointed to a crucifix on his table and remarked: “This is all my artillery.” On September 11, General Cadorna crossed the frontier with sixty thousand troops. Although effective papal resistance was impossible, Pius IX ordered his forces to defend the Roman city walls until a breach was made, in order to demonstrate that he yielded only to force. At nine o’clock on September 20, 1870, the Italian troops broke through the Porta Pia and the papal forces surrendered. The Papal State, founded in 755 by donation of Pepin of Frankland, came to an end with General Kanzler’s capitulation.

Papal-royal relations. After a managed plebiscite on October 2, the king announced that “Rome and the Roman provinces form an integral part of the kingdom of Italy.” The pope retorted on November 1 with a formal protest and excommunication for all “invaders, be their dignity what it may.” With the king usurping the papal palace of the Quirinal, the pope immured himself as the “prisoner of the Vatican”: neither he nor his successors set foot on Italian soil from September, 1870 to 1929. True, the Italian government in May, 1871, voted the “Law of Guarantees” ^{[p. 534]}assuring the pope of personal inviolability, freedom of communication with the outside world “in spiritual matters,” use of the Vatican and Lateran palaces with Castel Gandolfo, and an annual subsidy of 3,225,000 lire. Pius IX rejected this unilateral governmental fiat which would make of him a national chaplain. While the government proceeded to new confiscations, the pope retained the Non Expedit decree: no loyal Catholic ought to vote or take office under the king. The pope survived the king by one month, dying on February 8, 1878, after the longest pontificate since St. Peter. During his funeral procession, delayed to 1881, Freemasons attempted to throw the coffin into the Tiber. Though they were restrained, papal prestige seemed to have reached a new nadir.

§92. FIRST VATICAN
COUNCIL
(1869-70)

Vatican Council I

A. Conciliar Preparations

Papal preparation. Pope Pius IX consulted the curial cardinals during December, 1864, on the expediency of holding an ecumenical council. When the majority pronounced in favor of the proposal, a secret circular letter during 1865 ascertained that informed and distinguished prelates through the world also for the most part favored convocation. The German civil war somewhat delayed preparations, but by 1867 the pope was ready to commit himself publicly. Despite Cardinal Antonelli’s forebodings, Pius IX told some five hundred bishops assembled at Rome to celebrate the eighteenth centenary of the martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul, June, 1867, that he would call a general council “in order to bring necessary and salutary remedies to the many evils whereby the Church is oppressed.” A year later he fixed the opening date for December 8, 1869.

Preparatory commissions. From March, 1865, a commission of cardinals had been named to consider the organization of the proposed council. From questionnaires sent to various bishops, a summary of the doctrinal and disciplinary points needing treatment was made. The cardinals decided to name five subsidiary commissions to work under their direction in drawing up the agenda for these questions, and leading theologians, canonists, and historians were assigned to elaborate the schemata, according to a mode of procedure devised by Karl Hefele, the historian of the councils, and subsequently bishop of Rothenburg. Among the hundred consultors were the Jesuit theologians, Franzelin and Shrader, and the historians Alzog, Hergenroether, Hettinger, and Haneburg. Newman and Doellinger were invited to participate, but declined.

Personnel. The Catholic prelates who comprised the Council included, ^{[p. 535]}over 200 Italians, 70 Frenchmen, 40 Austro-Hungarians, 36 Spaniards, 19 Irishmen, 18 Germans, 12 Englishmen, and 19 from smaller European countries. There were 40 from the United States, 9 from Canada, and 36 from Latin America, while 120 came from the British Commonwealth as a whole. There were prelates from the Catholic Oriental Rites; only Czar Alexander II of Russia hindered his bishops from coming. Papal invitations had also been issued to important Dissident and Protestant leaders. Although the Dissident patriarchs ignored the papal appeal, some of their bishops displayed interest and might have responded had they been permitted by their religious or secular superiors. Papal invitations to the Protestants were greeted by angry demonstrations before Luther’s new monument at Worms. But the French Huguenot, François Guizot, made a courteous reply.

Ultramontane majority. Since it was well known that the question of papal infallibility was likely to come up at the Council, parties began to form among the hierarchy regarding the opportuneness of its definition. With negligible exceptions, the great majority of the bishops endorsed the doctrine itself; the division was chiefly based on the expediency of definition at this particular time. The leader of the majority favoring immediate definition was the able theologian and conciliatory prelate, Archbishop Des Champs of Malines, Belgian primate in law and fact. The majority “whip” or floor leader was the inflexible, uncompromising Archbishop Manning of Westminster. In general, bishops from strongly Catholic lands, such as the Italians and Spaniards, tended to belong to the majority. Among these was Cardinal Bilio, head of the Commission on Faith, and as such almost the Council’s “prime minister.” Prominent majority spokesmen were Bishops Gasser of Brixen, Martin of Paderborn, Pie of Poitiers, Cullen of Dublin, and Spalding of Baltimore. The clerical majority was vehemently, if not always prudently, backed by Catholic editors of the Civilta Cattolica, and the militant laymen, W. G. Ward of the Dublin Review and Louis Veuillot of the Univers.

Inopportunist minority. A considerable minority of the prelates, comprising many from predominantly Protestant or secularistic countries, deemed immediate definition of papal infallibility inopportune. They were led by Cardinal Rauscher, archbishop of Vienna, and their most active agent was Bishop Dupanloup of Orléans. Other prominent spokesmen were Cardinal Schwarzenberg of Prague, Archbishop Melchers of Cologne, Archbishop Darboy of Paris, and Bishops Haynald of Kalocza, Strossmayer of Bosnia, Clifford of Cifton, and Moriarty of Kerry. Subsequently when overborne on the opportuneness of the definition, this ^{[p. 536]} group strove to qualify the definition by restrictive clauses. Newman inclined to this group, along with the lay leaders, Lord Acton and the comte de Montalembert.

Foes of papal infallibility itself were few: chiefly Hefele, Maret, a surviving Gallican, and Kenrick of St. Louis. All eventually submitted, unlike their outside supporter, Doellinger, who went far beyond them in opposition.

Governmental attitudes. Premier Hohenlohe of Bavaria tried to excite concerted opposition to the Council by a circular to chancelleries in April, 1869, but met with slight response. Bismarck of Prussia and Beust of Austria contented themselves with warning the Council to remain in the spiritual sphere. France’s foreign minister Daru threatened interference, but was overruled by Premier 011ivier, a tolerant liberal. Prime Minister Gladstone of Great Britain became anxious, but was persuaded by Foreign Minister Lord Clarendon and Archbishop Manning that Victoria’s crown was safe from papal aggression. Only the Russian czar banned attendance.

Masonic manifesto. As a gesture of defiance against the Council, some seven hundred Freemasons assembled at Naples, December 8, 1869, to proclaim: “The undersigned delegates of the various nations of the civilized world, assembled in Naples as members of the Anti-Council, issue the following principles: They proclaim the liberty of reason against religious authority, the independence of man against the despotism of Church and state, free education against teaching by the clergy; and they acknowledge no other foundation for human belief than science. They proclaim that man is free and they insist on the abolition of all official Churches. ... Freethinkers regard the idea of God as the source and support of every despotism and of every iniquity . . . they regard all the Catholic dogmas as the very negation of society....” But before they could air more blasphemies, the police dispersed the agitators lest they be harmed by popular violence. But even with many pinches of salt, this bombast contained many secularist objectives subsequently realized.

B. Conciliar Deliberations

Conciliar commissions. The Vatican Council, like any numerous assembly, had to do much of its work through committees. The assigned commissions were: (1) Faith and Dogma; (2) Ecclesiastical Discipline and Canon Law; (3) Religious Orders and Regulars; (4) Oriental ^{[p. 537]}Churches and Foreign Missions; (5) Ecclesiastical-Political Affairs. As it turned out, only the material prepared by the first two commissions was ever discussed in the Council, and but part of the agenda of the first of these was voted on. Archbishop Manning seems to have effected a coup in the selection of members of the majority for the key commission on Faith and Dogma. Though his tactless stroke displeased the minority, it did not involve coercion, for there was full opportunity for episcopal discussion during the general conciliar meetings.

Rules of procedure. The pope reserved the right to propose questions for consideration through the presidents: Cardinals Reisach, De Luca, Bizzarri, Bilio, Capalti, and De Angelis. The bishops might also submit subjects for discussion to the commissions, and these would deliberate on proposals to recommend to the pope for introduction. Bishop Fessler acted as secretary of the Council. The theologians’ printed schemata were to be distributed before any matter was discussed in a general congregation, so that anyone desiring to speak might notify one of the presidents beforehand. In case that difficulties arose or amendments were proposed, these would be referred to the commissions which would deliberate on the matter and make recommendations to the general congregations. When discussion had concluded on any point, the bishops voted: placet non placet, or placet iuxta modum to signify respectively approval, disapproval, or approbation on condition of amendment. Once a congregation, a virtual corrimittee of the whole, had settled a point, this might then be formally voted in a public conciliar session.

In practice, the bishops tore to pieces the theologians’ lengthy and academic schemata, and the real formulation of the definitions thus reverted largely to the Commission on Faith. This meant that the proposed formula would represent the wishes of the opportunist majority. Nevertheless the minority had ample chance to exhaust their objections in lengthy speeches; had their arguments been better, they would—salva praesentia Spiritus Sancti—have won over the majority in that time. Premier 011ivier, a master of parliamentary procedure, thought the Vatican method of discussion fair and just; his chief criticism lay in that too much latitude was given the minority for the good of efficient business. This view of a French Liberal may balance accusations by Doellinger and Friedrich in their Letters From Rome under the pseudonym of “Quirinus.” These future “Old Catholics” claimed that the majority ran roughshod over the minority by arranging for larger Italian than German representation, packing the Council with dependent titular bishops, and bribing leaders with offers of red hats. These gratuitous assertions were in large part based on the assumption that the Council was supposed to do business according to parliamentary theories of proportional ^{[p. 538]}representation. Actually titular bishops numbered only 36 out of 750, voting was not by nations but by individuals, and insinuations of coercion or bribery by the pope are utterly groundless.

First session. The first public session of the Vatican Council was opened by Pope Pius IX in St. Peter’s Basilica on December 8, 1869. Over 600 bishops were present, and during the course of the Council the number rose to 774. The Mass of the Holy Spirit and inaugural formalities occupied the first session.

Second session. Since the congregations had no decrees ready for voting, the second session of January 6, 1870, confined itself to recitation of the Profession of Faith by members of the Council.

Third session: Dei Filius. The third session convened on April 24, 1870, to adopt the dogmatic constitution, Dei Filius, by a vote of 667 placet. This constitution was divided into four positive chapters, with corresponding negative canons:

(1) “De Deo Creatore” anathematized theories of the production of the world other than by creation of all things from nothing by God, freely and for his own glory; denials of spiritual existence; and pantheistic identification of God with the universe.

(2) “De Revelatione” defined that God can be known by human reason per ea quae facto sunt, and that man can be instructed by Revelation through the canonical Scriptures, to be accepted as decreed by the Council of Trent.

(3) “De Fide” pronounced anathema on those who would say that divine revelation contained contradictions, so that God cannot exact faith in Revelation, nor make Revelation credible through external signs sufficient to induce a free and certain assent.

(4) “De Fide et Ratione” declared that divine revelation contained mysteries incomprehensible to human reason, and yet by no means contradictory to the science of today or the future.

Fourth session: Pastor Aeternus. On July 18, 1870, the dogmatic constitution on the Church, entitled Pastor Aeternus, was adopted by a vote of 533 to 2. This defined that:

(1) St. Peter had received a true primacy of jurisdiction from Christ;

(2) the Roman pontiffs had succeeded to St. Peter in this office by divine right;

(3) the pope enjoyed full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, over each particular church, and each one of the faithful; and finally

(4), “we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals ^{[p. 539]} to be held by the Universal Church, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. But if anyone—which may God avert—presume to contradict this our definition, let him be anathema.”

Conclusion. The dogma on infallibility was at once proclaimed by Pius IX amid the thunder and lightning of Sinai as a summer storm surged about St. Peter’s. The next day the Franco-Prussian War forced postponement. Though reduced numbers continued informal discussion during the summer, the Council was prorogued on October 20. That this adjournment has become definitive may be deduced from Pope John XXIII’s announcement of a Second Vatican Council.

Debates on Faith. Cardinal Rauscher opened the public debate on December 28, 1869, by criticizing the proposed schema, “De Fide,” as too long, vagie, and academic. Archbishop Kenrick made a similar observation and was supported by others. The schema was sent back to committee, “mangled and pulled to pieces” in Bishop Ullathorne’s view. A revision, in large part prepared by Bishop Martin of Paderborn, was resubmitted on March 1, 1870. This was eventually accepted without any noteworthy changes of expression save two. First the attribution of all modern errors—Rationalism, Pantheism, Materialism, Atheism, etc.—to Protestant origins was strenuously criticized as unfair by Bishops Strossmayer of Bosnia and Meignan of Chalons. Some murmured at Strossmayer’s defense of heretics, and the cardinal-president felt it necessary to remind Strossmayer of the distinction between Protestants as individuals and Protestantism as a religion. After some disagreement, provoked by Strossmayer’s stubborn and arbitrary presentation, the passage was toned down. Second, Bishop Ullathorne of Birmingham, New-man’s ordinary, proposed and carried the alteration of the proposed designation, “Roman Catholic Church,” to “Catholic and Roman Church,” in order to avoid giving even verbal countenance to the Anglican Branch Theory. Thus amended, the schema was adopted in general session.

Discussion on discipline. While the Commission on Faith was revising the original schema, the Council’s members proceeded to discuss disciplinary matters. Although these considerations never came to a vote, they reveal some clerical opinions. Many bishops complained that too much was said in the agenda about episcopal duties and not enough about their rights. Others objected to excessive disciplinary centralization at the Roman Curia. German bishops staunchly defended their ^{[p. 540]}catechism of St. Peter Canisius against proposed obligatory and general use of the one by St. Robert Bellarmine. Bishop Verot of Savannah, who repeatedly leavened proceedings by saving humor, inveighed against apocryphal hagiography and incongruous homilies. Bishop Martin thought there might be some merit in clerical beards. The only serious disagreement arose when the Chaldean patriarch, Joseph VI Audo, protested against what he characterized as a Roman tendency to Latinize the Orientals. Later he defied an order of Cardinal Barnabo, prefect of Propaganda, and went into virtual schism. He was subsequently reconciled to Pope Leo XIII, and a more generous curial policy adopted.

Primacy debate. The Council was proceeding slowly, so slowly that it seemed unlikely that discussion of papal primacy could begin during 1870. Accordingly Pope Pius advanced the question so that debate opened on May 13. As far as papal primacy, exclusive of infallibility, was concerned, discussion centered on its nature, for its institution and perpetuity were unanimously ratified at once. The chief concern of the minority was about the seeming omission of the hierarchy,a fear that the bishops might be reduced to mere papal deputies. Rauscher accordingly proposed that papal power i’ ioceses be termed extraordinary rather than ordinary, but his amendment was defeated. Bishop Freppel of Angers concluded the debate by explaining certain terms and pointing out several fallacies, and with a last-minute addition, the chapter on the primacy was accepted by July 13. Bishop Strossmayer, an ardent Croatian nationalist, often increased the tension by his blunt language. But both during and after the Council he accepted the doctrine of papal primacy; the speech against this said to have been delivered by Strossmayer on June 2, 1870, is a forgery, still being exploited by the Converted Catholic, etc.

Infallibility debate. Excitement naturally reached its zenith during the discussion of papal infallibility. The theologians’ schema having been set aside for one prepared by Cardinal Bilio, first Cardinal Guidi of Bologna secured the alteration of its title from “the infallibility of the pope,” to the more accurate, “infallible magisterium of the pope.” Cardinal Rauscher spoke for the minority in proposing as an amendment the formula of St. Antonine: “The successor of St. Peter, using the counsel and seeking for the help of the universal Church, cannot err.” But the majority objected that this savored too much of the Gallican theory that papal decrees do not become valid save with the consent of the Church. Archbishop Landriot of Rheims favored the distinction employed by Bossuet and Fénelon: that between the infallibility of the see and its occupant, sedis et sedentis. This, too, was set aside. Many other verbal changes were proposed, among them some by Bishop Amat of Los Angeles. Finally, Bishop Gasser of Brixen made a long address ^{[p. 541]}discounting the fears of those who saw in the definition an infallibility separate from that of the Church. He pointed out that to prescribe conditions for the exercise of papal infallibility was unnecessary and impractical. Archbishop Manning had alread ar ued that definition of papal infallibilit would appèal to wavering conservative Protestants, and supporte his thesis by an account of his own conversion andt o-date citations. At the conclusion of these debates, the minority had dwindled from an estimated 136 in January to 88 in July—the Americans had apparently been the national group most impressed, for their original 24 non placet had declined to 9. Of the 88 hold-out opponents, only two actually repeated their vote in the public session, the others absenting themselves. But all of the minority subsequently subscribed to the dogmatic definition.

Episcopal Unanimity. All of the opposition bishops of the Vatican Council, then, without exception submitted. Formal professions from Central Europe were, indeed, slow in coming, but not so much from episcopal reluctance to subscribe, as from fear of governmental reaction. Bishop Hefele, a long waverer, promulgated the decrees on April 10, 1871. Bishop Maret of the Sorbonne, who had published a book against papal infallibility in 1869, loyally retracted any adverse statements. Bishop Strossmayer, despite importunity from schismatics, remained faithful.

Faithful majority. In France, but thirty to forty clerics were tempted into some phase of the German Old Catholic movement, but they included no prominent individuals save Abbé Michaud, vicar at the Madeleine in Paris, and Père Hyacinth, Carmelite preacher of the Notre Dame Conferences. Though fears were entertained for them, Père Gratry, John Henry Newman, and Lord Acton joined the vast majority of the clergy and faithful in ready acceptance of the Vatican definitions, and the few dissenters became just other bits of driftwood from St. Peter’s bark.

Origins. Dr. Johann Ignaz Doellinger (1799-1890) had distinguished himself prior to the Vatican Council as a brilliant, if none too sound or submissive, scholar. His exasperation with the vigorous Ultramontanism of the Civilta Cattolica school had led him to an ardent ecclesiastical nationalism suspicious of the Roman Curia. Before and during the Council, Doellinger criticized papal leadership in a series of articles signed “Janus” or “Quirinus.” About the Vatican Council he obtained information ^{[p. 542]}, highly inaccurate and exaggerated, from his friends, Lord Acton and Dr. Friedrich, consulting theologian of the Febronian Cardinal Hohenlohe.

Schism. After the Council, Archbishop Scherr of Munich in reporting the conciliar decrees to the university faculty and its dean, Doellinger, remarked: “Now we are going to work anew for Holy Church.” Doellinger, however, retorted, “Yes, for the old Church; they have made a new one.” This incident of July 21, 1870, foreshadowed and furnished a name to the “Old Catholic” movement in Germany and Switzerland. During August, 1870, Doellinger conferred at Nuremburg with other professors of Central European universities, including Friedrich, Schulte, Reusch, Langen, and Reinkens. They decided not to acknowledge the Vatican Council as ecumenical and consequently rejected its definition of papal infallibility. When they appealed for a new council outside of Italy, the German bishops on August 30 published their own adhesion to the conciliar decrees, and requested prayers for the hesitant. Though Archbishop Scherr and other members of the hierarchy accorded the disaffected ample time for reflection, on March 28, 1871, the dissidents sanctioned an article in the Allgemeine Zeitung in which they compared the Vatican Council to the Latrocinium of Ephesus. Excommunicated on April 23, Doellinger united kindred spirits on May 28 to plan a congress which met the following September under Schulte’s presidency. When the majority moved from protest to organizing a sect, however, Doellinger separated from the movement to live in excommunicated isolation until his death.

Sectarianism. During 1873 an assembly of twenty-two priests and fifty-five Old Catholic laymen at Cologne elected Joseph Reinkens bishop of the new sect, and he received consecration from the Jansenist prelate of Deventer, August 11. Though excommunicated by Pope Pius IX on November 11, 1873, during the same year Reinkens was recognized as “Catholic bishop” by the governments of Prussia, Bavaria, and Hesse-Darmstadt. During 1874 the Bonn congress of the Old Catholics adopted an ecclesiastical constitution worked out by Schulte. Each national church was declared independent, and government was shared with lay delegates. A loose union was effected with the Utrecht Jansenists in 1889, but even with considerable secular backing, the combined sectaries never exceeded 150,000. After the Kulturkampf, they not only declined in numbers, but began to discard Catholic teachings and practices, such as clerical celibacy, auricular confession, and fasting and abstinence. They eventually reached some understanding with the Anglicans, and intercommunion was sanctioned between Anglicans and Old Catholics n 1931. ^{[p. 543]}

This Webpage was created for a workshop held at Saint Andrew's Abbey, Valyermo, California in 2002....x.... ’ “”.