{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_39622/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_39622","id":"gutenberg_39622","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39622","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - American","Category: Politics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Church and state"],"text":"Produced by Jonathan Ingram, Paula Franzini and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  Speak without being afraid that the wind will carry\n  away your words and sow them in fresh soils.\n                                           --_Zola._\n\n\n          The Church in Politics--\n                       Americans, Beware!\n\n\n             A Lecture Delivered Before\n             the Independent Religious\n             Society, Orchestra Hall,\n             Chicago, Sunday at 11 A. M.\n\n                   [Decoration]\n\n\n       By\n  M. M. MANGASARIAN\n\n\n\n\n           _The mass of the law-abiding and respectable\n           citizens is virtually agnostic. Where its\n           agnosticism is not reasoned out, it is\n           habitual and unconcerned. The orderly,\n           honest, duty-doing people who never think\n           about religion one way or the other form by\n           far the largest class in the community._\n\n                           --_David Christy Murray._\n\n\n\n\n  The Church in Politics--\n                 Americans, Beware!\n\n\nIn his letter on religion in politics, President Roosevelt takes the\nposition, I believe, that we may look forward to the day when a\nCatholic, for instance, may be nominated and elected to the presidency\nof the United States of America. He also intimates that to refuse to\nvote for a Catholic on account of his religion would be bigotry! The\nLutheran, Baptist and Presbyterian bodies have, if I am not mistaken,\nofficially protested against the president's pronouncement. These\nProtestant churches declare that it is not fair to call them bigots for\nobjecting to a Catholic for president.\n\nSpeaking only in the capacity of a private citizen, it is my opinion\nthat, according to the Constitution, a Catholic is not eligible to be a\ncandidate for president. Neither is a sincere and consistent Christian\nof any other denomination. Nor is a believing Jew. The Constitution\nexplicitly ignores the religious interests of the nation; it does not\neven so much as mention the name of God. Had the document been created\nby infidels it could not have been more indifferent to the subject of\nchurch or religion. The Constitution is a downright secular instrument,\nhaving as its end one, and only one, object--the rights of man. But the\nsupreme end of the church is God, not man; or man for God. There is\nthen, between the church and the Constitution, an irreconcilable\ndifference. It is because of this that the United Presbyterians, for\ninstance, who have a membership of about a million, refuse even to take\npart in elections, much less to accept office under a government that\ndeliberately ignores the Christian religion, as well as every other\nreligion. I submit that the United Presbyterians are quite consistent,\nand that they deserve the respect of all who hold that courage and\nsincerity are better than ambiguity and inconsistency. A Christian,\ntherefore, can accept a nomination to the presidency, for instance, only\nby either stultifying himself and belittling his church, or by\ndisregarding the Constitution, its spirit as well as its letter.\n\nNor would it be \"bigotry\" to contend that a Protestant or a Catholic\ncandidate, to whom God is first and country second, should under no\ncircumstances be voted into presidential power and influence. Even as it\nwould not be an act of intolerance to deny the presidency of this\ncountry to a foreign-born citizen, it would not be intolerant to deny it\nto Catholics, for example. They are simply not eligible. Both Protestant\nand Catholic ought to say, when invited to the office, that they can not\nconscientiously swear to maintain a Constitution which fails in its\nduties to the Creator, and that if elected they will obey God rather\nthan the Constitution, for a Christian can not serve two masters,\nneither can he be a Christian and not a Christian at the same time. I am\ngoing to quote a page from the history of modern France, to show that\nthat is precisely what the Catholic, at least, does when he comes into\npower--he obeys God, that is to say, the church, and forgets all about\nthe Constitution, that is to say, the rights of man.\n\nFrance has been a turbulent country. Its political weather has been more\nfrequently stormy than fair. It makes one nervous, almost, to read the\nhistory of France--it is so sensational. Its pages are lit up with the\nlightning. It is a sad and shocking story of intrigues, plots,\nconspiracies, treason, machination, finesse,--of manoeuvre and scandal,\nof sudden strokes and startling surprises, which have alternately cooled\nand heated the brain of the nation, and which have cultivated in the\npeople the unhealthy craving for excitement.\n\nLet it be admitted that the temperament of the people, its irritability\nor impetuosity, is in a measure responsible for this. But this in itself\nis not enough to explain the terrible punishments and misfortunes which\nhave fallen upon that nation. You are all familiar with the remark of\none of her great statesmen, Gambetta: \"The enemy, it is clericalism.\"\n\nAnother statesman, Paul Bert, said: \"It is not our domestic discords;\nit is not England; nor even the trained German legions, that constitute\nthe greatest menace to Frenchmen and the prosperity of France, still\nbleeding from her wounds, _but the man in black_.\" Did these statesmen\nspeak the truth? We shall ask history to answer the question. This much,\nhowever, we can say without consulting history, that today the French\nrepublic and the Catholic church are at swords' points. After trying to\npull together, church and state have separated--are completely divorced,\nand each suspects and fears the other. Let us try to explain the\nstrained relations between Rome and the French republic by a reference\nto the events in France from the time of the second republic to the\nFranco-Prussian war.\n\nIn 1848, after many attempts to maintain the monarchy, France returned\nto the republican form of government. The Catholic church, always\npowerful in the country, and having great interests at stake, to the\nsurprise of the nation, welcomed the republic with enthusiasm. The\nArchbishop of Cambrai, the bishops of Gap, of Chalons, of Nancy, and the\nCatholic periodicals, _l'Univers_, the _Moniteur_, etc., declared that\nthe republican form of government was of divine origin, and that there\nwere no other three words in all the world more sacred than the words\n\"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.\" In all the churches high mass was\ncelebrated, and a _Te Deum_ chanted in honor of the new regime. \"There\nare no more devoted and sincere republicans in France than the\nCatholics,\" wrote Veuillot in _l'Univers_, the organ of the church. In\nasking you to keep this in mind, I also request you to note that the\nCatholic church in America seems to be today just as devoted to the\nAmerican republic as the French Catholics professed to be to the\nrepublic of 1848. But let us not forget that this same clergy, during\nthe reign of the first Napoleon, introduced the following questions and\nanswers into every church catechism in use throughout the land:\n\n_Question:_ Why are we under obligations to our emperor?\n\n_Answer:_ Because, in the first place, God, who creates empires and\ndistributes them according to his pleasure, in blessing our emperor,\nboth in peace and war, has set him over us as our sovereign, and has\nmade him the image of himself upon the earth. To honor and serve the\nemperor is then to honor and serve God.\n\n_Question:_ Are there not special reasons why we are most profoundly\nindebted to Napoleon the First, our emperor?\n\n_Answer:_ Yes. For in difficult circumstances, he is the man whom God\nhas raised up to re-establish the public worship of the holy religion of\nour fathers, and to be our protector.... He has become the anointed of\nthe Lord by the consecration of the pope, the head of the Church\nUniversal.\n\n_Question:_ What shall be thought of those who fail in their respect to\nour emperor?\n\n_Answer:_ According to the Apostle Paul, those who resist the appointed\npowers shall receive eternal damnation to their souls.[A]\n\n    [A] _Catechisme a L'Usage de Tantes Les Eglises de L'Empire\n    Francais._\n\nOf course, when the first Napoleon fell, the Catholic church quickly\nwithdrew from circulation the catechism from which I have been quoting.\nIt was after considerable effort that I was able to secure a copy of the\nwork. The infallible church, then, was for Napoleon, heart and soul, as\nlong as he was in power. Without any conscientious scruples whatever,\nthe church hailed the tyrant, whose profession was wholesale murder for\nhis own glory--as the \"image of God on earth!\" In those days it meant\n\"damnation\" not to accept Napoleon as the anointed of heaven. Such a\nguide is the church!\n\nBut at last the church professed to be converted to liberty.\n\nNow we are in a position to appreciate the sudden and complete change of\nfront on the part of the French clergy. From staunch imperialists they\nhad been converted, judging by their professions, to the principles of\nthe French revolution. An era of peace and brotherhood seemed to open\nbefore that much troubled country. Priest and magistrate had both buried\nthe hatchet; church and school would now, after endless disputation,\nco-operate in the work of education, and the vicar of Christ and the\npresident of the republic shall join hands in the service of the people.\nThe new republic promised all this. The skies were serene and clear, and\nthe church bells rang in honor of the era that had just dawned.\n\nHaving inaugurated the republic, the next business before the country\nwas the election of a president. The Catholic church, having disarmed\nall suspicion and given tangible proofs of its conversion to\nrepublicanism, succeeded in nominating its own candidate to the\npresidency. This was Louis Napoleon, the nephew of the great Napoleon.\nTo elect its nominee, the church engaged in a most active campaign;\nsermons were delivered in every church; a house to house canvass was\nundertaken, and even the confessional was utilized to secure votes for\n\"the Star of France,\" as they called Napoleon.\n\nOn election day, each priest led his parishioners to the voting booth\nand saw that the ballots were properly deposited. The result was that\nLouis Napoleon was elected by 5,534,520 votes, out of a total of\n7,426,252 votes cast. That is to say, he had a majority of nearly three\nmillions.\n\nWhat made Louis Napoleon a favorite with the church? To answer that\nquestion we shall have to step onto the stage and peep behind the\nscenes. But to see what was transpiring behind the scenes in France we\nshall have to go to Rome.\n\nAbout the time we are now speaking of, the papal states in Italy were up\nin arms against the pope, who at this time still enjoyed his temporal\npower. He was still both priest and king. He had his own soldiers, his\nown generals, his cannons, guns and powder. He went to war; collected\ntaxes, administered the courts, and possessed all the prerogatives of a\nsecular sovereign. He was, of course, besides all this, also the vicar\nof Christ on earth. Unfortunately, like any other sovereign of those\ndays, the pope oppressed his subjects, and it was to put an end to their\ngrievances that the Italian states revolted, and made an attempt to\nestablish a republic in Rome. No doubt our own example in this country,\nas well as that of the French, encouraged the Italians in their efforts\nto free themselves from oppression. The republican movement spread\nrapidly--like the rushing waters of a reservoir that had at last broken\nloose. The whole peninsula was athrill with new aspirations. The\nItalians remembered the days of their pagan ancestors and took heart.\nThe charmed and charming words, \"Liberty! Constitution!\" were upon every\nlip. Soon the heavens would beam with the radiant star of Garibaldi. The\nmovement was so irresistible that the pope, Pius IX, was compelled to\nmake terms with the leaders. It was agreed that, henceforth, the\ncountry, instead of being governed exclusively by the clergy, as\nheretofore, should be governed by two chambers, the members to one of\nwhich should be appointed by the pope; the members to the other should\nbe elected by the people. The two chambers, however, as was to be\nexpected, could not get along together. The priests were not used to\nobeying, they were used to commanding. They obeyed only God. Moreover,\nthe secular members undertook to interfere in church matters, which the\npriests would not tolerate, although they themselves never refrained\nfrom interfering in secular matters. The deliberations became anarchic\nin parliament. The priests declared they represented God and could never\nbe in the wrong. Whoever they may have meant by the word \"God,\" he was\ninvariably on the side of the priests. This, the other members declared,\nwas not fair, as it tied up their hands and made them as helpless as the\ndelegates to a Russian _Douma_ are today. Things went from bad to worse;\nmurders became daily occurrences. The pope, fearing assassination, fled\nfrom Rome. His departure was hailed with joy. Rome unfurled the\nrepublican flag from the dome of St. Peter's. The pope was a fugitive.\nRome was free.\n\nTo crush this republican movement and restore the runaway pope to his\nthrone, the church needed an agent. The agent must be strong enough to\nstrangle the Italian republic and to recover for the pope his temporal\npower. Spain was too decrepit to be summoned to the task. Austria had\nalready too much of Italy in her grip; the only nation that could\ndisinterestedly fight for the pope would be France.\n\nObserve now the double role which the church was playing: In France she\nwas an ardent republican, in Italy she anathematized the republic as a\nblasphemy against God. In France she was ringing bells in honor of the\nrights of man, in Rome she was firing shot and shell into the Italian\nrepublicans. In France the republic was of divine origin, in Italy, it\nwas the work of the devil. Let us state it frankly, the church was a\nrepublican in France, not from love but from policy. History will\nconfirm our statement.\n\nBut we have not yet answered why Louis Napoleon was such a favorite with\nthe church. On the eve of the elections in France, Napoleon, who was one\nof the candidates for the presidency, sent a letter to the _nuncio_ of\nthe pope in Paris, in which he expressed his personal opinion, an\nopinion which at the time looked quite harmless, that, for the peace of\nItaly and the prestige of the Catholic world, the temporal power of the\npope should be maintained. Few people were reflective enough to suspect\nthat there was in those words a pledge on the part of the candidate to\nemploy, if elected to the presidency, the resources of France in the\nservice of Rome.\n\nNaturally enough, not long after his election, the church called upon\nNapoleon to fulfill his promise. But to make a promise is very much\neasier than to fulfill it. How was the president going to persuade the\nFrench to make war upon a sister republic? It was clearly to the\ninterest of the French to have the republican form of government spread.\nBut it was to the interest of the church to overthrow the Italian\nrepublic and restore the pope to the vatican. The French must,\ntherefore, prefer the interest of the pope to the interest of their own\ncountry. Americans beware!\n\nOn the 30th of March, 1849, Louis Napoleon succeeded in getting a\nfavorable vote from the assembly upon the following proposition: \"If for\nthe maintenance of the integrity of the Kingdom of Piedmont, and for the\npreservation of the interests and honor of France, the executive power\nshall deem it necessary for the enforcement of its negotiations to\noccupy temporarily any given point in Italy, the national assembly shall\nlend him its cordial and effective support.\"[B] A short time after,\nNapoleon dispatched to Rome a force under the command of Oudinat, with\nsecret instructions to reseat the pope on his apostolic as well as\ntemporal throne. On the 30th of April the French republican army opened\nfire on the Italian republicans defending Rome. The French were\nrepulsed. When the news of the disaster to the French forces reached\nParis it threw the country into a state of delirium. Scarcely anybody\nnot in the conspiracy had suspected that the innocent looking measure\npresented to the assembly by the president of the republic really\nauthorized the declaration of war against Italy; and no one so much as\nimagined that \"a given point in Italy\" meant Rome, or that \"the\ninterests and the honor of France\" required the restoration of the\nprinciple of absolutism in Italy. But it was too late; the assembly had\nbeen caught in a trap. The disgrace and the defeat were matters of fact\nwhich could not be undone.\n\n    [B] _L'Eglise et La France._ O. Jouvin, page 22.\n\nA moment ago I called attention to the double role of the church. I now\nask you to see how the church was trying to drag the French nation into\nthe same insincerity and duplicity. Think of a nation which had created\nthe Revolution, which had overthrown the monarchy, and had inscribed\nupon its banner \"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity\"--think of such a nation\ngoing to war against one of its neighbors for following its example! The\ncreators of liberty were urged to become its assassins. Into this\nludicrous, absurd, nay, infamous role, was the French republic dragged\nby Napoleon and the power that had made him president of the republic.\nAmericans beware!\n\nOn the 29th of June the French forces made a second attack upon Rome,\nputting the republicans to rout and restoring the pope to the vatican,\nwhence a short time before he had fled to a place of safety. The French\nrepublic has now destroyed the Italian republic. The words, \"Liberty,\nEquality, Fraternity,\" shall no longer be heard in Rome. The republican\nflag has been taken down from St. Peter's. The pope is king again.\nMazzini, Armellini, Saffi, Garibaldi and their colleagues, become\nexiles. France refuses them an asylum. France, the country of the\nRevolution, of the rights of man, of the republic with its glorious\nmotto, \"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity\"--refuses to shelter the Italian\nrepublicans! It was to the interest of France to give these men the hand\nof fellowship; it would have been to the honor and glory of France to\nhave opened her doors to these deliverers of an oppressed nation, but it\nwas not to the interest of the church, and the church comes first;\nFrance must be sacrificed to Rome. Americans beware!\n\nThe Italian patriots crossed the channel and found in Protestant England\nthe asylum which the country that had introduced the republic into\nmodern Europe denied them.\n\nIt was then that our great friend, George Jacob Holyoake, opened his\nheart and his home to the patriots of Italy. For many years and at\nfrequent intervals both Mazzini and Garibaldi were his guests, and he\nhelped to win for them the friendship of generous men who raised the\nfunds to continue the rebellion, which was ultimately crowned with\nsuccess.\n\n              Pioneers! O, Pioneers!\n\nI can not think of these brave men and their work without recalling\nWhitman's bugle call:\n\n              Pioneers! O, Pioneers!\n      Till with sound of trumpet,\nFar, far off the daybreak call--hark, how loud and clear I hear it wind,\nSwift! to the head of the army!--swift! spring to your places,\n              Pioneers! O, Pioneers!\n\nBut let us proceed:\n\nOne day, somewhere about 1852, the people of France, when they rose in\nthe morning, found that their republic had disappeared. Not only was the\nItalian republic no more, but the French republic had gone too. The same\npower that had driven the republicans out of Rome had driven them out of\nFrance. As if by a sponge, the free institutions of the country and the\nconstitution, were wiped out by one sweep of the hand. The first places\nwhich, after this _coup d'etat_, Napoleon III visited, were the\nchurches. He walked up to the altar in each church which he visited on\nhis triumphal journey through France, and knelt down for prayer and\nworship. How did the clergy receive him? What did they say to this\nbetrayer of the nation, this traitor, who had violated his solemn oath?\nLet me reproduce the words of the oath which Napoleon took on the day of\nhis inauguration as president of the republic:\n\n\"In the presence of God and before the people of France, I solemnly\nswear to remain faithful to the democratic republic, one and\nindivisible, and to fulfill all the duties which the Constitution\nimposes upon me.\"\n\nWhat did the church say to this man who had trampled the Constitution of\nthe country under his feet, and had commanded French soldiers to fire\nupon Italian republicans in the streets of Rome, and upon French\nrepublicans in the streets of Paris? History has preserved the exact\nwords of bishops and cardinals addressed to Napoleon, the usurper: \"You,\nsire, have re-established the principle of authority, as indispensable\nto the church as it is to the state.\" Again, \"How can we worthily\nexpress our gratitude to a sovereign who has done so much for religion!\"\nand the bishop of Grenoble proceeds to enumerate the services of\nNapoleon to the church: The restoration of the Pantheon to the church,\nwhich an impious government had converted to secular uses by dedicating\nit to the atheist poets and philosophers of France; the creation of a\nnational fund for the saying of mass for the indigent poor; the\nappointment of chaplains on all vessels flying the imperial flag; the\nsuggestion of a pension for aged priests; the granting of perfect\nliberty of action to the ministers of the church, which liberty of\naction the church will use to confirm the principle of authority and to\nteach the nation submission to the government and its laws. \"Behold,\"\ncries the bishop, after enumerating these benefits, \"our reason for the\ngratitude we feel.\" The Cardinal of Bourges, the bishops of Marseilles,\nof Frejus, of Aix, of Bordeaux, of Poitiers, and, in fact, of every\nimportant diocese in the country, in the same way praised Napoleon, the\nemperor, and declared he was the special messenger of heaven, and the\nsaviour of Christianity, \"whom God will never forsake, because in the\nhour when God's vicar on earth was in trouble, he saved him from his\nenemies.\"\n\nThey called Napoleon a Constantine, a Charlemagne. And the same clergy\nwho, a few years ago, had pronounced the words, \"Liberty, Equality,\nFraternity,\" as the holiest in all the world were now busy erasing them\nfrom the public buildings and monuments of the country. If the republic\nwas after \"God's own heart,\" if the rights of man were first proclaimed\nfrom Calvary, as the clergy declared during the republic, why did they\nmake almost a saint of the man who restored oppression and absolutism in\nFrance? Were they not sincere when they published in the papers that\nthere were not in all France more loyal republicans than the Catholics?\nThe interest of the church required the overthrow of the French\nrepublic, as it did of the Italian, and the interest of the church is\nfirst. Already in France people were displaying banners on which were\ninscribed the words, \"God save Rome and France.\" Rome first. Americans\nbeware!\n\nOn the 16th of October, Napoleon entered the palace of the Tuileries as\nemperor. The cheers and cries of the populace, congregated in the\ngardens and shouting \"_Vive l'Empereur_,\" brought him out upon the\nbalcony. He stood between King Jerome upon his left, and the Archbishop\nof Paris upon his right. On that same day Victor Hugo fled from Paris\nfor his life. The archbishop in the palace with Napoleon; Victor Hugo in\nexile! My countrymen, beware!\n\nUnder the Napoleonic regime the schools rapidly passed into the hands of\nthe clergy. France had labored sincerely and made many sacrifices to\nreform the schools and to oust the priest--the priest who had declared\nthat \"the brains of young Frenchmen should be pinched, if necessary, to\nmake them obedient to the authority of the church.\" Michelet, the\nglorious Michelet, was deposed from his chair in the College of France\nand a clerical given his post. The same fate overtook Vacherot and\nRenan. No professors in the Sorbonne, or in any institution, who did not\nbow to the pope and his creature on the throne of France, were permitted\nto teach. Secret orders and religious schools sprang up everywhere like\nmushrooms over-night. The emissaries and the missionaries of the faith\nbecame exceedingly busy in the acquisition of property. In a small town,\nsuddenly, as it were, a few beggarly monks and nuns make their\nappearance; they have not where to lay their heads; the community has to\nprovide them with the necessaries of life. A short time after, this same\nreligious colony is in possession of the finest establishments in the\ntown, with long bank accounts to their credit. Wealth flows into their\ncoffers from rich widows and dying millionaires. Every faithful Catholic\nleaves his estate to the parish priest, or to some religious order.\nProperty accumulates by leaps and jumps. What happens in one town\nhappens in every other; the country is overrun with the agents of a\nforeign power. The church is making hay while the sun shines. As some of\nthe principles of free government were still in force, even with\nNapoleon on the throne, these religious orders were asked to obey the\nlaw and secure a permit before pursuing their vocation. They answered\nthat the church was above the state, and that they must obey God rather\nthan men. The emperor advised them, from policy, at least, to apply for\na license, which would certainly be given to them, but it is of no use.\n\"We are citizens of heaven,\" declared the monks and priests, \"we do not\nobey laws, we make them.\" What! Shall the bride of Christ wait upon the\nsecular powers for permission to serve God! Abomination! the church that\ncan elect a president and afterwards elevate him to the throne, can\nafford to dispense with the laws as it did with the constitution. Under\nthe republic it was \"Long live France,\" with the Catholics in power it\nis \"Long live Rome and France.\"\n\nEncouraged by the flatteries of the church, Napoleon invited the pope to\nParis to place the crown upon his head, even as a former pope had\ncrowned his uncle, the first Napoleon, in the church of _Notre Dame_.\nThe pope was beside himself with joy. The opportunity had come for the\nvicar of Christ to ask for greater concessions from France--yes, from\nthat infidel France, which had converted the Church of St. Genevieve\ninto a Pantheon for atheist poets and philosophers. He sent word to the\nemperor that he would be glad to go to Paris to crown the faithful son\nof the church, but--but, the other Catholic sovereigns would not like\nit. It would make them jealous. Could not, therefore, Napoleon come to\nRome to be crowned in St. Peter's cathedral? But the emperor realized\nthat if he went to Rome, he would never be thought as big a man as the\nfirst Napoleon, who not only brought the vicar of Christ to Paris, but\nwho also took the crown from his hands and placed it himself upon his\nown head. He wrote an autograph letter, which he sent to the pope by a\nclerical messenger of great influence, urging the pope to come to Paris.\nThen the pope threw aside the mask and opened his heart to the emperor:\nYes, I will come; you have done much for the church, for our holy\nreligion, but I will not come until you have altogether purged the\ncountry of every kind of heresy. How could the emperor expect the vicar\nof Christ to set his foot upon a soil where Protestant and Jew enjoyed\nequal freedom of worship with the Catholic--listen to that; how could\nthe pope visit a country that allowed freedom of thought and speech, and\nof the press; that allowed civil marriages; that did not legally compel\neverybody to go to mass on Sundays; that did not punish with pains and\npenalties all those who departed from the Catholic faith? Let the\nemperor exalt Catholicism over all the sects,--make it _the_ religion of\nthe state, abolish civil marriages, refuse freedom of assembly to\nheretics; and then will the tiara of the pope lend its _eclat_ to the\ncrown of the emperor. And this is the church that shortly before had\npledged its word of honor to the principles of the republic--\"Liberty,\nEquality, Fraternity!\" See what happens to the republic when the\nCatholics are in power. \"The lamb and the lion shall lie down together.\"\nYes? But what will happen to the lamb? The divine church and a merely\nhuman Constitution can co-exist in the same country only on one\ncondition--the \"divine\" shall swallow up the human. This is what has\nhappened in Spain; this is what has happened in Italy; this is what\nhappened in France under the Catholic regime, and this is, in our\nopinion, what will happen in America, should Rome ever come to be\ninstalled at the White House in Washington! \"Ah,\" you say, \"the\nCatholics will never do in America the things they have done in Europe.\"\nNo? Are there two kinds of Catholics? Is the Church of Rome divided? Is\nthere any reason why they should hesitate to sacrifice America, if need\nbe, to the \"Glory of God,\" if they did not hesitate to sacrifice France?\nAt any rate, all one can do is to give warning and to point to the\nlesson of history. More than that no one can do, at present, at least.\n\nIn this connection, I must make an explanation. I respect the right of\nmy neighbor to be a Catholic. I am ready to fight for the protection of\nhis liberties as I am for my own. It gives me real pleasure to admit\nalso that there are sincere, brave, noble and pure minded men and women\nin all the churches. What I am trying to do is to prove, by citing\nhistory, that a supernatural order and a merely human state can not pull\ntogether. The attempt has always resulted disastrously. The church is\nsupernatural, the state is human. Either the one or the other must rule.\nIf the church submits to the state, it ceases to be divine, for how can\na divine institution be subject to a man-made state? It would be like\nasking God to obey man. Besides, a state is made up of Jews,\nunbelievers, heretics, Turks and pagans, as well as of Christians. How\ncan such a state make laws for Christians?\n\nIf, on the other hand, the state would be subject to the church, there\nwill only be the church. We will in that event have no further use for\nfreedom, for instance, as we would not know what to do with it, since we\ncan not use it to criticise or disagree with the church, or help to\nbuild up a new church. When we have God for a teacher, or his vicar on\nearth to rule us, what would liberty be good for? It follows then, that\nthe Catholic church can not consistently be subject to any secular\npower, being a \"divine\" institution. This statement can not be\nsuccessfully controverted, and if so, we call the attention of the\npresident of the United States to it, as well as of all those who\nbelieve that it is possible to have Rome in the White House and be a\nrepublic at the same time.\n\nNor should people complain because I am so earnest about this matter. If\nit is a virtue in the Catholics to labor night and day to convert this\ncountry to their faith, as they say they are doing, why is it improper\nin me to try to protect the free institutions of the country? I have\nnot said anything against Catholicism which Cardinal Gibbons has not\nsaid against what he calls the infidels. In one of his recent letters he\ndeclared that no agnostic or atheist should be given office in this\ncountry. Why may a cardinal stand up for his church, and not I for the\nsecular state? If the framers of the Constitution desired only\nChristians, or believers in a church of some kind as office holders,\nthey would not have left the name of the deity out of the nation's\ncharter. According to the Constitution, the only persons really eligible\nto office are the infidels, or at any rate, those only who are willing\nto place the interests of the country above even those of God or church.\nAre Catholics willing to do that? We ask once more, are Catholics\nwilling to do that?\n\nAnd we do not have to ask the future to answer that question. The past\nhas answered it in unmistakable fashion. What today is the difference\nbetween Austria, for instance, and America? In Catholic or religious\nAustria, the interest of the church is above the rights of man. It is\nwell for religion to be free, but it is not free in Austria; it is well\nfor thought and speech to be free, but they are not free in Austria.\nWhy? Because the interests of the church come first. In secular America,\nreligion is free, thought and speech are free. Why? The rights of man\ncome first in a secular state. The church has the power to make an\nAmerica out of Austria. But will she do it? Yet if she had the power to\nmake an Austria out of America would she hesitate to do it? Americans\nbeware!\n\nBut let us return to Napoleon III and Pius IX. Encouraged and emboldened\nby his successes, and his increasing power over the emperor, as well as\nby his command of the resources of France for his own throne, Pius IX\nabout this time promulgated the famous dogma of the infallibility of the\npope. Until then, the church, or ecclesiastical councils, shared\ninfallibility with the pope, but henceforth the pope alone shall be\ninfallible, and councils and conclaves would no longer be needed to\ndecide religious questions. Thus, to the principle of absolutism was\ngiven a new endorsement. As soon as he became infallible, the pope\nannounced a new dogma--the immaculate conception of the virgin. The\nchurch had never held that Mary herself, like her divine son, was born\nof the Holy Ghost, but Pope Pius declared she was, and his word became\nthe belief of the church universal. About this time Mary began to appear\nto shepherds and young girls in the fields, confirming the word of the\npope that she was born of the Holy Ghost.\n\nAt the commencement of 1854 there appeared a pamphlet by an abbot who\nwas not yet ready to accept the virgin birth of Mary. The writer charged\nthat a certain woman of Grenoble was personating the Virgin Mother of\nGod in these reputed appearances to shepherds and young people. Mlle. de\nLamerliere, the accused woman, sued the abbot for defamation of\ncharacter. To the profound regret of the church, the young lady lost her\nsuit. From that time, her name became \"The Apparition!\" The church gave\nher a famous advocate, Berryer, to appeal the case; the abbot was\ndefended by Jules Favre. The higher court of Grenoble confirmed the\ndecision of the lower court, which under ordinary circumstances would\nhave put an end to the new dogma. But it did not. The church was in\npolitics and had therefore many ways of getting over a little\nembarrassment like that.\n\nBut the church did more than promulgate new dogmas. About this time, in\nBologna, the little child of a Jew, Martara, suddenly disappeared from\nhome. Careful search by the distracted father proved that the priests\nhad carried him off to bring him up as a Roman Catholic. The\nanti-clerical party poured forth hot shot at a church that would steal,\nnot only the goods, but also the children, whenever it had the power to\nbreak into people's homes. Even the emperor pleaded with the pope for\nthe return of the child to its outraged parents. But it was all in vain.\nThe church, the Holy Catholic church, was in the saddle, and she would\nride the nation to please herself. The pope replied that as this was a\nmatter pertaining to the salvation of the child's soul it was a\nspiritual question, and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the state.\nShortly after another boy disappeared precisely in the same manner, and\nwas discovered in the Catholic seminary. The French ambassador pleaded\nwith the pope as before, but the church was a divine institution, and\nthe secular authorities were guilty of impertinence in attempting to\ncriticise her conduct or to give her advice. It was impossible to live\nnext door to such a power peaceably. In every Catholic country there\nwere two kingdoms, the one within the other; two sovereigns, the one the\nrival of the other. And the result was, as we said it would be a moment\nago, the \"divine\" church swallowed up the secular state whenever it\ncould.\n\nIn 1864 Pius IX issued his famous encyclical, in which he boldly\ncondemned the \"pernicious\" doctrine of the rights of man. For the\nedification of Americans who hope some day to see a Catholic in the\nWhite House at Washington, let us quote one or two passages from this\npapal bull:\n\n\"We (the pope) can not pass over in silence the audacity of those who\nteach that except in matters pertaining to the church, the decrees of\nthe Apostolic See are not binding upon the conscience.\" Which means that\nthe pope must be obeyed in secular as well as in religious matters.\nAmericans beware!\n\n\"There are also those who have the audacity to declare that the supreme\nauthority given by Jesus Christ to the Apostolic See is subject to the\nsecular authorities,\" which means that the pope is the real head of the\nnation as well as of the church and that she will not obey any man-made\nconstitutions.\n\n\"_Our predecessor_ of blessed memory, Gregory XVI, described as a\nmadness[C] the doctrine of liberty of conscience and of worship,\" which\nmeans that with the Catholic church in power there will be only one\nchurch. Then the encyclical proceeds to enumerate the errors which all\nCatholics condemn:\n\n   [C] _De delire._\n\nError XVIII. To say that Protestantism is a branch of the true Christian\nchurch, and that a Protestant could be as pleasing to God as a Catholic.\n\nError XXI. That the Catholic church has no right to call itself the only\ntrue church.\n\nError XXIV. That the church has no right to resort to force.\n\nError XXVII. That the holy ministers of the church have no right to\ninterfere in matters temporal (this proves the charge that the Catholic\nchurch is in politics).\n\nError XXXVI. That there can be state churches in any country other than\nthe Catholic church.\n\nError XLVII. That the schools should be independent of the authority of\nthe church.\n\nError LV. That the state ought to be separated from the church.[D]\n\n    [D] _Encyclique Addressee par N. S. P. Le Pope Pie IX._ For the\n    sake of brevity we have not translated the above passages in\n    their entirety, but their _meaning_ has not been sacrificed to\n    brevity.\n\nThere is much in the passages quoted to make every lover of free\ninstitutions to ponder over seriously and long.\n\nBut let us hasten to the concluding chapter of that period in history\nreaching from 1848 to 1870, with which we have been dealing. The third\nNapoleon began to realize that after all he was a mere figure-head in\nthe empire which he had created by violating his own oath and abrogating\nthe constitution. The real sovereign of the French was Pope Pius IX. In\nother words, the relation between pope and emperor was that which the\nbible suggests should exist between husband and wife. The pope was the\nhusband, the emperor was the wife, and, as commanded in the bible, a\nwife must obey her husband. Napoleon more than once made attempts to\nfree himself from the ever-tightening grip of the pope, but only to find\nthat he was helpless. For instance he had written to the pope about\nreforms in the papal states, urging the Holy Father to curb the abuses\nof the clergy and to introduce modern methods in the government of his\nterritory. But he was compelled to apologize for presuming to give\nadvice to the vicar of Christ. On another occasion, the emperor was\nfoolish enough to suggest that Frenchmen must obey the laws of their own\ncountry before those of a foreign power. Did he mean Rome, by \"a foreign\npower?\" He was clearly made to understand that the Catholics in France\nwere first the subjects of the pope, and then the subjects of the\nemperor. Despite these failures to free himself from the authority of\nthe church, the signs of insubordination on the part of the emperor\nincreased. Napoleon's principal weakness was vacillation. He never\nfinished an undertaking. His resolutions were like fire-rockets, they\nfell to the ground as soon as they shot up in the air. Vacillation means\nweakness. Napoleon after all was like clay in the hands of the pope. The\npope had made him, and the pope could unmake him.\n\nTo be just to the emperor, we must also make allowances for the\ninfluence which the queen, Empress Eugenie, exerted over him. She was a\nSpaniard, very worldly, and yet very pious. She was one of those women\nto whom the priest was God in miniature.\n\nStrange as it may seem, Napoleon's son, on the other hand, the prince\nand presumptive heir to the throne, at whose birth the pope had sent\nEugenie the golden rose, was an avowed free thinker. Napoleon now sided\nwith his queen, and now with his son. He had no mind of his own. It was\nin one of his independent moods that he decided to make a final effort\nto shake off Rome from his shoulders. He entered into a secret\narrangement with Victor Emmanuel of Italy, who was then seeking to seize\nRome as the capital of United Italy, to help humiliate Pius IX. Napoleon\npromised to let Garibaldi march upon Rome. From the moment that the\nCatholics discovered this plot to rob the pope of the city of Rome,\nNapoleon was doomed. The church not only showed its displeasure plainly,\nbut it made it also evident that it would not accept any apologies this\ntime. Napoleon's resolution sickened again. He became alarmed for his\nthrone. He saw the sword of Damocles hanging over his head by a single\nhair. He hastened to explain, but the priests who had called him a\nConstantine, and a Charlemagne, now called him a Nero, and a Pontius\nPilate. Like Judas, he had betrayed his master. It was in the vain hope\nof once more swinging around the Catholic world to his support that the\nemperor tapped the resources of his country to advance the Catholic\nfaith. Bent upon this errand he sent an expedition to Syria, another to\nChina, another to Mexico. Everywhere France must become the defender of\nthe Catholic church. It was not to the interest of France to waste its\nsubstance in a sort of Catholic crusade, tramping from east to west, for\nthe glory of the church, but it was only by sacrificing France to the\nvatican that Napoleon hoped to change the frown of the pope into a\nsmile. Finally it occurred to the emperor that a war with Germany, the\nrising Protestant power of the north, would restore his popularity with\nthe church. He would humiliate Germany, overthrow the iron chancellor,\nand convert Berlin into a Catholic capital.\n\nSuch a conquest would give Catholicism an immense prestige, and it would\nmake of Napoleon really another Charlemagne. The war was declared. It\nwas an act of sheer madness. The whole nation was going to be thrown\ninto the mouth of the cannon to please Rome and to regain her favor for\nFrance. But it was survive or perish with Napoleon.\n\nHe did not have the shadow of a foundation for a quarrel with Germany.\nThat country was willing to withdraw the candidacy of a Hohenzollern for\nthe Spanish throne. But Napoleon demanded more. France had been injured,\nhe declared, and Germany must be punished for it. It must be stated that\nNapoleon counted on the co-operation of the King of Italy in the attack\nupon Germany. But when the war was declared Victor Emmanuel demanded\nthat before he can send an Italian army to the aid of the French,\nNapoleon must recall his soldiers from Rome. The French were still\nkeeping an army in Rome to maintain the pope upon his throne. Victor\nEmmanuel asked the French to vacate Rome. This Napoleon was willing\nenough to do, but the Catholics in France threatened to \"boycott\" the\nemperor if he left the pope to his fate. It was a critical situation.\nThe Italians would not budge unless the French soldiers were recalled\nfrom Rome, and the French would not support the emperor if they were. In\nthe meantime, the victorious Germans were before the walls of Sedan.\nAnon, the cannon's roar was heard in the streets of Paris. A wave of\nblood, red and palpitating, was sweeping onward upon the fair land of\nFrance. The nation was upon her knees, mangled, bleeding, torn, ruined.\nThe \"faithful\" were marching the streets with \"God save Rome and\nFrance.\" It was too late. The church in politics cost France the\nslaughter of her armies, the criminal waste of her savings, the\ndestruction of her cities, the loss of two of her provinces--Alsace and\nLorraine--and imposed upon her a blood tax, the enormity of which was\nappalling. Americans beware!\n\nAnd if France did not go the way of Spain, it was because, when she\nreturned to the republican form of government once more, she put no\nfaith in the professions of loyalty to the republic by the priests, and\nrefused to consider their candidate to the presidency. By ousting the\nchurch from politics in France, that unhappy country has recovered her\nhealth, has entered the path of peace and progress, and is today one of\nthe freest and foremost nations of the world.\n\nWhat can the church do for a people? Look at Spain.\n\nWhat can a country do without the church? Look at regenerated France.\n\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's note:\n\n\n  In general every effort has been made to replicate the original text as\n  faithfully as possible, which may include some instances of no longer\n  standard or incorrect spelling, grammar, hyphenation and punctuation.\n  The use of accents on non-English words was irregular and mostly absent;\n  this has not been altered. Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.\n\n  The following changes were made to repair apparently typographical\n  errors:\n\n  p. 4  \"irritability or impetuousity\" impetuousity changed to impetuosity\n  p. 10 \"The words, \"Liberty, Equality,\" Fraternity,\"\" extra \" removed\n  p. 15 \"Could not, therefore, Napoelon\" Napoelon changed to Napoleon\n  p. 16 \"If the church submtis\"  submtis changed to submits\n  p. 19 \"the true Christion church\" Christion changed to Christian\n  p. 20 \"has not been sacrificed to brevity[.]\" period inserted","title":"The Church In Politics\u2014Americans Beware!","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":7930}