Political Romanism

Preface

'T^HE object of the writer of this little volume has not been to present arguments, but to set forth facts. He has been satisfied that t^ie high claims of the Roman Catholic Church to the supreme political power of her head, the Pope, over all the kings, rulers, and governments of the earth, is not fully understood by the American people, as it should be in order that the dangers which threaten our free institutions from this quarter may be averted. He is also fully satisfied that no logic is so convincing and unanswerable as the logic of facts ; and hence he has presented, in a small compass, the facts of

4 PREFACE,

history on this question for the past eleven hundred years, so that every one may see for himself what the Pope claims, and what the Romish Church claims for him, on this momentous question.

The facts set forth in the following pages are the undeniable facts of history, and the deductions drawn from them are the legitimate and necessary consequences of them, and which no man of intelligence will for a moment question. The authorities quoted, whether Protestant or Romanist, are all standard authorities, and therefore every quotation may be fully relied on as authentic.

The writer has endeavored to present to the reader such a complete compend of Roman Catholic teaching on this question, as to furnish every thing necessary for a full and perfect understanding of the doctrine of Rome on the political supremacy of the Pope, so that the object and aims of the hierarchy in this country may be fully understood by every one.

PREFACE. 5

Hence he has been especially particular to quote freely from the Allocutions, Encyclicals, and Syllabus of Pius IX, so that the reader may see that the civilization of the nineteenth century has had no effect whatever in liberalizing the Pope, or causing him to relinquish one jot or tittle of his high claim to political supremacy over the nations of the earth. He has also quoted largely from the protests, speeches, and resolutions of American Roman Catholics, clerical and lay, to show that the great mass of the Roman Catholic Church in this free country are just as strong advocates of the political supremacy of the Pope as the Papists of the Middle Ages were.

In the hope that the facts set forth in this little volume may contribute to the awakening of the public mind on this important question, the vmter submits it to a candid public, praying that his beloved native land may never be cursed with the withering shadow of Papal despotism, but that the tree of liberty, planted

6 PREFACE.

by the hand of Divine Providence in this fair heritage of freedom, and watered with the tears and blood of our fathers, may continue to grow and extend its branches, until all the oppressed and downtrodden children of earth shall find a secure retreat and safe protection beneath its shade.

G. W. HUGHEY.

Lebanon, Illinois, September, 1871.

Contents

CHAPTER. PAGE.

I. The Question Stated and Explained, . 9 II. Bishop Purcell on the Temporal Power —

O. A. Brownson on Gallicanism, . . 28

Chapter I. The Question Stated And Explained

THE POPE OF ROME claims not only the right to govern, as a civil prince or ruler, what is, or has been, styled "The Patrimony of St. Peter," and which has just now been wrested from him by the King of Italy, and which we fondly hope he may never regain ; but he also claims, by virtue of his office as Vicar of Jesus Christ, at least an indirect supreme authority in temporals over all the kingdoms of the earth. In order that we may have the question fully before us in the beginning of our investigation of this important question, we will present a statement of the lO POLITICAL ROMANISM,

different views taken of this question even by Roman Catholics themselves, so that we may not appear to do them injustice in our remarks in the following pages. Bellarmine, than whom a higher authority among the standard writers of the Church of Rome can not be fourd, states the different theories of the temporal power of the Pope as follows : *

"The first is, that the chief Pontiff, by Divine rights hath the fullest power over the whole world, as well in ecclesiastical as in political affairs.

" The other opinion, placed on the other extreme, teaches that the Pontiff, as Pontijf, and by Divine right, hath no temporal power, nor can he, in any manner, govern secular princes, nor deprive them of their kingdom and authority, although they otherwise deserve to be deprived — all the heretics of our times teach so.

" The third is the middle, and is the common opinion of Catholic theologians, that the Pontiff, as Pontiff, has not directly and immediately any temporal power, but only spiritual power ; yet, on account of the spiritual power, he hath,

* M'Clintock on the Temporal Power of the Pope, pp.

especially indirectly y a certain power, and that stcpreme^ in temporal matters/'

The second view set forth by Bellarmine as that " held by all the heretics of his time," is the view also held by that party in the Romish Church known as Galilean, who always denied the supremacy of the Pope as held by the Ultramontane party, both in spiritual and temporal things. But the Galilean party has always been largely in the minority, while the Ultramontane party has always been the dominant, the controlling party; and it never was more so than at the present time. Gallicanism has been completely and entirely eradicated from the Church of Rome by the proclamation of Papal infallibility, and the Ultramontane doctrine is the doctrine of the entire Roman Catholic Church.

The teachings of the Galilean divines and universities, however, afford a cover behind which the defenders of the Romish Church in England and the United States retreat when pressed with the true teachings of their Church in regard to the temporal power of the Pope. Hence, nothing is more common than to hear them roundly deny his temporal stipremacy, and declare that the Church holds no such sentiment.

Cardinal Wiseman, in his lecture on the '' Supremacy of the Pope," denies any temporal power as belonging to the Pope at all, by virtue of his office as Pope, and contends for only a spiritual supremacy. He says: ''What then do Catholics mean by the supremacy of the Pope, which for so many years we were required to abjure, if we would be partakers of the benefits of our country's laws } Why, it signifies nothing more than that the Pope, or Bishop of Rome, as the successor of St. Peter, possesses authority and jurisdiction, in things spiritual, over the entii^e Church, so as to constitute its visible head, and the vicegerent of Christ upon earth." (Lectures on the Doctrines of the Church, p. 226.)

Again he says: "The supremacy which I have described is of a character /?/r^/j/ spiritual, and has no connection with the possession of any temporal jurisdiction. . . . Nor has this spiritual supremacy any relation to the wider sway once held by the Pontiffs over the destinies of Europe. That the headship of the Church won naturally the highest weight and authority in a social and political state grounded on Catholic principles, we can not wonder. That power arose and disappeared with the institutions which produced or supported it, and forms no part of the doctrine held by the Church regarding the Papal supremacy." {Ibid, pp. 227, 228.)

Here Cardinal Wiseman teaches the sentiments of the heretics, as stated hy Bellarmine. But how far his statements are correct concerning " the doctrine held by the Church regarding the Papal supremacy," we shall see as we proceed with our inquiry.

Dr. Milner gives us the same view of the temporal power of the Pope as that presented by Cardinal Wiseman. He says : ^^

" It is not, then, the faith of this Church that the Pope has any civil or temporal supremacy by virtue of which he can depose princes, or give or take away the property of other persons out of his own domain ; for even the incarnate Son of God, from whom he derives the supremacy which he possesses, did not claim, here upon earth, any right of the abovemefitioned kind. On the contrary, he pos-

* End of Controversy, pp. 282, 283.

itively declared that his kingdom is not of this zvorld ! Hence, the Catholics of both our islands have, without impeachment even from Rome, denied, upon oath, that 'the Pope has any civil jurisdiction, power, superiority, or pre-eminence, directly or indirectly, within this realm.' But, as it is undeniable that different Popes, in former ages, have pronounced sentence of deposition against certain contemporary princes, and, as great numbers of theologians have held (though not as a matter of faith) that they had a right to do sOy it seems proper, by w^ay of mitigating the odium which Dr. Porteous and other Protestants raise against them on this head, to state the grounds on which the Pontiffs acted and the divines reasoned in this business. Heretofore, the kingdoms, principalities, and states composing the Latin Church, when they were all of the same religion, formed, as it were, one Christian republic, of which the Pope was the accredited head. Now, as mankind have been sensible at all times that the duty of civil allegiance and submission can not extend beyond a certain point, and that they ought not to surrender their property, lives, and morality to be sported with by a Nero or a Heliogabalus, instead of deciding the nice point for themselves, when resistance became lawful, they thought it right to be guided by their chief pastor. The kings and princes themselves acknowledged this right in the Pope, and frequently applied to him to make use of his indirect temporal power, as appears in numberless instances."

The British ''Roman Catholic bishops, the vicars apostolic, and their coadjutors," in setting forth their views on the rights of the king and the power of the Pope, give the same view as that set forth by Cardinal Wiseman and Dr. Milner, as may be seen in Elliott on Romanism, vol. ii, pp. 167 and 8.

Bishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio, in his debate with Alexander Campbell, gives the same exposition of the temporal power of the Pope as that given by Wiseman and Milner, and quotes, with full approbation, from Bishop England's speech before the Congress of the United States, the following : *

"We are now arrived at the place where we may easily find the origin and the extent of the Papal power of deposing sovereigns, and of

* Campbell and Purcell's Debate, p. 344.

absolving subjects from their oaths of allegiance. To judge properly of facts we must know their special circumstances, not their mere outline. The circumstances of Christendom were then widely different from those in which w^e now are placed. Europe was then under the feudal system. I have seldom found a writer, not a Catholic, who in treating of that age and that system, has been accurate, and who has not done us very serious injustice. But a friend of mine, who is a respectable member of your honorable body, has led me to read Hallam's account of it, and I must say that I have seldom met with so much candor, and w^hat I call so much truth. From reading his statement of that system it will be plainly seen that there existed among Christian potentates a sort of federation, in which they bound themselves by certain regulations, and to the observance of those they w^ere held not merely by their oaths but by various penalties ; sometimes they consented the penalty should be the loss of their station. It was, of course, necessary to ascertain that the fact existed before its consequences should be declared to follow ; it was also necessary to establish some tribunal to examine and to decide as to the existence of the fact itself, and to proclaim that existence, x^mong independent sovereigns there was no superior, and it was natural to fear that mutual jealousy would create great difficulty in selecting a chief, and that what originated in concession might afterward be claimed as a right. They were, however, all members of one Church, of which the Pope was the head, and, in this respect, their common father; a7td by ttnivei'sal consent it was 7'egnlated that he should examine^ ascertain the fact, proclaim it, a^nd declare its consequences. Thus he did, in 7'eality, possess the power of deposing monarchs and of absolving their subjects front oaths of fealty, but only those monarchs who zvere members of that fedemtion, and in cases legally p7^ovided for, and by their concession, not by divine right, and dicring the tenn of that federation and tlie existence of his commission. He governed the Church by divine right, he deposed kings and absolved subjects fror/i their allegiance by hitman concession. I preach the doctrines of my Church by divine right, but I preach from this spot not by that right but by the permission of others.

"It is not then a doctrine of our Church that the Pope has been divinely commissioned either to depose kings, or to interfere with republics, or to absolve the subjects of the former from their allegiance, or interfere with the civil concerns of the latter."

"The following,'' says Dr. Elliott,* "are the opinions of the universities of Sorbonne, Louvain, Douay, Alcala, and Salamanca, on the temporal power of the Pope, and furnished to the English Roman Catholics at their request :

" I. That the Pope or cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Rome, has not, nor have any civil authority, power, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence whatsoever within the realm of England.

" 2. That the Pope or cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Rome, can not absolve or dispense his majesty's subjects from their oath of allegiance, upon any pretext whatever.

"3. That there is no principle in the tenets of the Catholic faith by which Catholics are justified in not keeping faith with heretics, or

* Elliott on Romanism, vol. ii, p. 168.

other persons differing from them in religious opinions, in any transactions either of a public or a private nature."

I have been thus particular in giving so fully the views of the Galilean faction of the Romish Church on the temporal power of the Pope, which has been adopted from political considerations by the Roman Catholic divines of England and the United States, that every occasion may be taken away for accusing me of unfairness in presenting the views of Roman Catholics on this important question. I have given those who charge Protestants with misrepresenting the doctrines and teachings of their Church the privilege of speaking out fully on this question, and explaining what they are pleased to call the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church in regard to the temporal power of the Pope. Before proceeding to present the real Catholic doctrine of the sitpreme temporal power of the Pope, as held and taught by the Popes themselves, their general councils, and their admitted standards of theology, I wish to make a few observations on the foregoing extracts.

I. It is remarkable, that neither Cardinal

Wiseman, Dr. Milner, Bishop England, nor the five universities referred to, give us a single authority from Pope, council, or canon law, to sustain their views, or rather their explanations of the temporal power of the Pope! Why is this ? They could not have been ignorant of the fact that their explanations of the doctrine of their Church, unless supported by a7tthoritative documents, were only their opinions, and of no binding force whatever. If it had been possible for them to have fortified their positions by authoritative documents, such as the acts and decrees of general councils, Papal bulls, decretals, etc., the circumstances under which they were placed make it certain that they would have produced them ; for their opponents, of whom they complained as misrepresenting and slandering the Church of Rome, were continually presenting, in support of the charges they brought against her, the acts of her general councils, the bulls and decretals of her Popes, and the declarations of her canon law. Against these oAUhoritative documents, those learned Roman Catholic divines place their explanations of the temporal power of the Pope, unsupported by a single autJiojniy, and ask us to accept their unauthorized and unsupported explanations as the doctrine of their Church on this important question !

2. Every one of the above parties, when tiiey gave the opinions and explanations above, gave them with the distinct knowledge and understanding, that they were given not as authoritative statements of the views and teachings of the Church of Rome, but merely as opinions v^hich must be held '^subject to the judgment of the Church." This Cardinal Wiseman states on page eight of the preface to the work from v/hich I quote. He says :

*' I need not say, that in this publication, as in every other that proceeds from my pen, / completely subject myself to the jitdgnient of the ChiL7xh, and mean to presei^ve tJie strictest adherence to every thing that she teaches!' If the Church should condemn these opinions, every one of those v/ho have expressed them, if living, would renounce them also, for this is the very principle of Roman Catholicism. Consequently such documents and opinions are of no force whatever in controversy on this question, and none are more fully aware of this than are Roman Catholics themselves ; and the very fact that they rely on such documents, and bring up such testimony as this, in defending their Church from the grave charges which are brought against her under this head, is proof positive of a conscious weakness of their cause.

3. The circumstances that called forth some of these declarations are strongly against those who hold the views they set forth on the temporal power of the Pope. The circumstances which called forth the declarations of the Universities were of the most momentous character to the Roman Catholics of Great Britain. They were struggling to obtain th^ir political rights ; but this very question of the temporal power of the Pope was in the way. The British Government, after its sad experience for ten centuries with the See of Rome, was fearful of a return of former troubles, and it was guarding against the possibility of their recurrence. The Roman Catholics, having learned priidence, at least, by their privations of political privileges, were anxious to have their disabilities removed ; but the claims of the Pope and the teachings of the Church were in their way.

So, instead of going to the authoritative acts and decrees of the Councils of the Church to learn what her real doctrines and the claims of her Pontiffs were, the British Catholics appealed to the Universities, which they knew had no more power nor authority to declare what the claims of the Pope or the teachings of the Church were than they themselves had. The most effective way to quiet the fears of the Government would have been for them to show,/h?;^ the history of the past^ that those fears were groundless, and that the Pope made no claim to temporal supremacy. If my character is assailed in a certain point, the most effective method for me to adopt to vindicate myself is to go to the record I have made and show the charge is false. But this the British Catholics did not do, because they knew that the facts were all against them, and their only chance to make out a case in selfdefense was to resort to yesuitical cunnings and get the testimony of the Universities, which would satisfy the unsuspecting, and, at the same time, it would be of no binding force, either on Pope, Council, or the Catholic subjects of the British Government.

The same is also true, in a certain sense, concerning the speech of Bishop England before the Congress of the United States. It is true Roman Catholics have never been deprived of their political rights and privileges in this country; but the v/ell-known claims and character of their Church can not but cause uneasiness in the public mind for the safety of our free institutions, when we see the increase of Roman Catholicism in this country ; and it was to remove this uneasiness from the public mind that the Bishop made the address before Congress. But why did he not show, from the history of the past, that no such fe?trs need be entertained t This would have at once removed the whole difficulty, and set the public mind at rest on this question. But this is precisely what that learned prelate would not attempt, because he knew too v/ell that the whole history of his Church was against the explanation he was attempting to give of the temporal power of the Roman Pontiff.

4. But it is here admitted by these learned Roman Catholic divines that ''it is undeniable''

that the Pope of Rome did dethrone kings and sovereign princes during the middle ages. The fact itself is fully admitted. But they tell us this was not done by " Divine 7nghtl' but by ''human concessionr Bishop England tells us that during the confusion that prevailed in mediaeval times, in order to prevent difficulties that might arise among the princes of Christendom, they entered into ''a sort of federation," of which the Pope, .as the head of the Church, was the head, and therefore possessed the right to enforce, even by excommunication and deposition, the terms and agreements of their articles of federation. He says :

*'Thus he did, in reality, possess the power of deposing monarchs, and of absolving their subjects from oaths of fealty; but only those monarchs zvlio were members of that federation, and in the cases legally provided for, and by their concession, not by Divine right, and during the term of that federation and the existence of his commission. He governed the Church by Divine rigJit, he deposed kings and absolved subjects from their allegiance by human concession!'

Unfortunately for Bishop England, and those who take this view, or rather give this explanatioii of the temporal power of the Pope, all the facts of history are against them. The Pope never claimed the right to depose sovereigns, and release their subjects from their obligation of allegiance to them ^^ by htimmi concession^' but always by '' Divine right!' This I shall prove by the most undeniable facts of history. Now, just here is the point in controversy. Did the Popes of the middle ages claim the right to depose kings and absolve their subjects from their obligations of allegiance by "human concession," as claimed by their modern apologists, or did they claim to exercise this prerogative over the kings of the earth by " Divine right," as the successor of St. Peter and the vicars of Jesus Christ.'^ If they claimed that right by "human concession," as here contended by Bishop England, Dr. Milner, Cardinal Wiseman, and others, then, as they contend, when the circumstances passed away which called that power into being, that power or right itself passed away also. But if, on the other hand, they claimed and exercised that power by " Divine right," as the successors of St. Peter and vicars of Jesus Christ, the right inheres in the office of Pontiff, and can not pass away; for it is a right and power that inheres in Papacy itself A change of circumstances may come over the Papacy, and it may lose the power to enforce this right; but this does not impair the right in the least, and Pius IX has the same Divine and inaliejiable right to depose heretical sovereigns to-day as Gregory VII or Innocent III had. It is true, the circumstances of society during mediaeval times were such as enabled the Popes practically to carry out their claim to temporal supremacy; but the claim itself did not originate in that condition of society, nor in the consent of the princes of Christendom ; and should circumstances ever become such again (which may God in his mercy forbid), the same claim would be practically carried out by the Pope, as we shall conclusively prove in the following pages.

Chapter II

BISHOP PURCELL ON THE TEMPORAL POWER— O. A-. BROWNSON ON GALIJCANISM.

BEFORE giving the views of the Ultramontane majority in the Church of Rome, which includes all her acknowledged standards, her Popes, her Councils, and her canon law, we will hear Bishop Pur cell once more. He says : " Christian charity and common sense, truth and justice, require imperatively that no one should be condemned without a hearing, or be charged with holding sentiments which he disavows. Here is the fullest, the clearest, the most unequivocal disavowal of the doctrine of the Pope's deposing power. We would be among the first to oppose him in its exercise ; and we would be neither heretics nor bad Catholics ; and we each of us bishops swear by the very words of the oath, ' Persequar et tnt-

* Campbell and Purcell's Debate, p. 353.

THE TEMPORAL POWER, 29

pugnaboy salvo meo ordine^ in the sense specified, which is the only true sense, the assumption of any such power by the Pope, or the Pope for the assumption of any such power. '' For ten centuries this power was never

CLAIMED BY ANY PoPE. It CAN, THEREFORE, BE NO PART OF CaTHOLIC DOCTRINE. It HAS NOT GAINED ONE FOOT OF LAND FOR THE PoPE. It IS NOT ANYWHERE BELIEVED OR ACTED

UPON IN THE Catholic Church. Nor can

IT BE, AT THIS LATE DAY, ESTABLISHED, IF ANY MAN COULD BE FOUND MAD ENOUGH TO MAKE

THE ATTEMPT. Let thcse go before the American people as the real principles of Catholics concerning the power of the Pope. And, if we must pronounce a judgment on the past, let it be remembered that when the Pope did use this power it was when appealed to as a common father, and in favor of the oppressed."

The capitals and italics in the above are his own. It is true. Christian charity forbids that a man should be charged with holding sentiments which he disavows, tmless it is apparenty cr can be shozvny that he is endeavoring to conceal his I'cal sentiments ; then justice demands that his hypocrisy shall be made manifest by showing what his real sentiments are. Nothing is more common than for men who entertain sentiments subversive of the best interest of society to deny those sentiments, or attempt to explain them away, when they are pressed in debate. Now, I will not charge Bishop Purcell with holding sentiments which he here disavows ; but I will charge him with not presenting the real doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church on the temporal power of the Pope. Whatever may be his sentiments, or the sentiments of his fellow-bishops in this country, the above extract does not present the sentiments of the Roman Catholic Church, as we shall very soon demonstrate. Nor can Bishop Purcell, nor any other bishop, nor all the bishops in the United States in council assembled, give us authoritatively the views of the Church on this or any other question. This can only be done by the head of the Church, the Pope, or a General Council, over which he or his legates preside. To this testimony we intend to appeal from this attempt to cover up the real sentiments of the Romish Church, and show that her authoritative teaching is diametrically opposed to the declarations of Bishop

Purcell, and the Galilean teachings in general. I do not want the reader to forget the last sentence quoted from Bishop Purcell : " And if we must pronounce a judgment on the past, let it be remembered that when the Pope did use this power it was when appealed to as a common father, and in favor of the oppressed ! '*

We shall see, as we proceed, how fully this declaration of the Bishop is sustained by the facts of history. Indeed, I am surprised that any man at all conversant with the facts of history should make such a reckless statement — a statement contradicted by the whole history of the Papal despotism.

We will now hear what one of the ablest defenders of Catholicism in the United States has to say on this Gallican doctrine of the temporal power of the Pope — Dr. O. A. Brownson, in his Review, one of the ablest Catholic journals ever published in America, outspoken and ultramontane in the extreme, and indorsed by twenty-five Catholic bishops in this country, among whom is John Baptist, Bishop of Cincinnati. In his review of a work written by M. Gosselin, a Gallican writer, on ''The Power of the Popes during the Middle Ages," in which the writer takes precisely the position taken by Cardinal Wiseman, Dr. Milner, Bishop England, and Bishop Purcell, Dr. Brownson says : *

" This excellent author, no doubt, believes that he has hit upon a theory which enables him to vindicate the conduct of the Popes and councils of the middle ages, in their relations to temporal sovereigns, without incurring the odium attached to the higher ground of Divine right, and this, he will pardon us for believing, is his chief motive for elaborating and defending it. He can not be unaware that the doctrine he rejects is the most logical, the miost consonant to Catholic instincts, the most honorable to the dignity and majesty of the Papacy, or that it has undeniably the weight of au- .thority on its side. The principal Catholic authorities are certainly in favor of the Divine right, and the principal authorities v/hich he is able to oppose to them are of parliaments, sovereigns, jurisconsults, courtiers, and prelates and doctors, who sustained the temporal powers in their wars against the Popes. The