In their secret letters the Northern Bishops have opposed the new definition only as being inopportune, and it is known that the French Opposition Bishops mean to take the same ground. But it deserves careful consideration whether this line of action can be really tenable or effective at the Council. Surely it may be certainly foreseen that the far more numerous, and, from its determined attitude, stronger party on the other side will answer, “If your only objection to the dogma is that it is unsuited for the times, you thereby admit its truth; for if you thought it doubtful or erroneous, you must have opposed the definition on that ground. By not venturing to assail its truth, you deprive your objection to its opportuneness of all weight, for when was ever a religious truth, on which eternal salvation depends, suppressed on such a ground as this? Does this holding back, inspired merely by fear of men, correspond to the ancient spirit and lofty mission of the Church? How many of her doctrines would she have dared to proclaim if she had chosen to wait on the approval of the age? Rather, for that very reason, must religious truths be loudly and emphatically proclaimed, when a contrary opinion is growing among men, because thereby an insidious heresy is marked out and judged by the supreme authority in the Church. Your plea of inopportuneness is therefore a fresh and urgent ground for adhering firmly to the solemn definition of Infallibility by the Council.”
How far better then would it be if these Prelates were to declare simply and directly, what the German Bishops have indeed said in their Pastoral, but, of course, in general terms only, and without express mention of the Infallibilist hypothesis; “This doctrine possesses none of the requisite conditions of an article of faith; it has no guarantee either of Scripture or Tradition, and no roots in the conscience and religious mind of the Christian world.” Such a line would be incomparably worthier of the Bishops, and would make their position far stronger and more unassailable. Instead of letting themselves, as is intended, be yoked, like willing prisoners, to the triumphal chariot of the sole infallible and sole defining Pope and lord, they would be making a beginning for the revendication of their ancient apostolical rights, which the Papacy has sequestered or robbed them of. They would be asserting, by implication, that the Papacy and the Church are not identical, and therefore that the Church cannot be made responsible for all decrees and actions of the Popes. Half-and-half courses, and false piety, in the tremendous crisis the Catholic Church is now entering upon, are not only powerless but fatal. And this half-heartedness, which looks only too like fear, will make the Ultramontane and Jesuit party all the bolder and stronger in their plans. And they continue still as firm as the rock of Peter. In the number for Oct. 2, p. 64, the Civiltà maintains, against a new French paper, the Avenir Catholique, that the relation of the Bishops assembled in Council to the Pope is simply one of most absolute subjection and obedience to Papal commands, and declares, on the authority of Ferraris, who is a classical authority at Rome, what is meant by præsidentia auctoritativa, viz., the Pope's right, not only to decide on everything, but to coerce all opponents, by ecclesiastical censures – excommunication, suspension, and deposition – and other judicial means.10 If the Pope strikes down every contradiction or refusal of a Bishop at once, with the thunderbolt of his anathemas, according to the Civiltà he no more violates the freedom belonging to the Fathers of the Council, than a man who keeps within his own rights in his dealings violates his neighbour's rights of property. We must remember, as to this definition of freedom, that the logic of the Jesuits has always gone its own way without troubling itself with the logic of the rest of mankind.
It deserves notice, however, that two months before the opening of the Council the Jesuits had traced out for the Bishops the extent and nature of the freedom they are to enjoy there. They do their part frankly enough in dispelling any illusion on the subject. If any complaint from the Bishops should be heard in Rome, such as was made by the Spanish and French Bishops at Trent, the Curia can reply that they were told all this beforehand. The Civiltà has the most direct sources of information, and may therefore be safely trusted when it says, in a recent number, “We are not the authors of the Papal thoughts, nor does Pius ix. speak and act under our inspiration, but we are certainly the faithful echo of the Holy See.” And, as an echo of the Pope, the Civiltà, in its last number, p. 182, gives a more precise explanation or statement of the infallibility of ex cathedrâ decisions, as extending, not only to all dogmas, but to “all truths and doctrines connected with the various kinds of revealed dogmas, and so to all sentences and decrees concerning the common weal of the Church, her rights and discipline.” In truth, if the Bishops don't even yet see the precipice to the edge of which they have been led step by step for years, and which they are just going to spring into, that is no fault of the Roman Jesuits, who have honestly done what they could to open their eyes. It is therefore to be earnestly wished that the Civiltà may be read and well weighed as widely as possible, for then one may hope they will be “forewarned, forearmed.” They have certainly had no lack of signs and warning voices, who are expected and are willing to subscribe the intended decrees of the Council. “The true echo of the Holy See” proclaims to the world that every Pope is, ever has been, and ever will be infallible, first, when he teaches or maintains anything in any way connected with revealed truths of faith or morals; secondly, when he decrees anything affecting the welfare, rights, or discipline of the Church. Clearly therefore, henceforth the question will be, not in what cases the Pope is infallible, but what are the few cases where he is not infallible. He, as being infallible, will have the first and only right to determine what is the welfare of the Church, and what it requires. And since, in the whole range of public life, of politics and science, there is scarcely anything not permanently or incidentally connected with the weal of the Church, and with its real or assumed rights and discipline, he will have it in his power to make every secular question a Church question. For it must certainly be anathematized as an error, as the Syllabus says, to affirm that the Pope has exceeded the limits of his power. How can he possibly do so on this theory? He is infallible alike in the definition of doctrine and in its application to concrete cases. He is therefore always right in every claim and every decision, and whoever opposes him, or does not at once unconditionally submit, is always wrong. Whatever demand he makes of any State or Sovereign, whatever law or constitution he abrogates, he must at once be obeyed, for he acts for the good of the Church, and he, as being infallible, can alone judge and settle what that is. The episcopate and clergy must blindly submit to his infallible guidance and serve dutifully under his banner, when he proclaims war against a State, or an institution.
Need we explain in detail what painful conflicts with their Governments and the Constitutions they have sworn to, Bishops and clergy, nay all Catholics, might be precipitated into on this system? What caused that lamentable persecution and oppression of Catholics in Great Britain, and their loss of civil privileges for centuries, but Paul v.'s prohibiting their taking the oath of allegiance to their Sovereigns? Although the oath contained nothing against the religious conscience of Catholics, the Pope condemned it because, identifying his own pretensions with the interests of the Church, he thought it intolerable that it denied the power of Popes to depose kings, absolve subjects from their allegiance, and excite revolt and treason against the Sovereign and the State. It is a maxim of the Decretals that no oath against the interests of the Church is binding.11 But what is for the benefit of the Church the infallible Pope determines. How often have Popes identified their own political interests with the good of the Church, and required and occasioned the breach of oaths and treaties! Thus Innocent iii. absolved John from his oath to observe Magna Charta, on his consenting to receive back his crown as a gift from him. When, in the fifteenth century, Eugenius iv. was at war with Francis Sforza, and the general Piccinino had promised not to attack him, the Pope absolved him from his promise, because it was prejudicial to the interests of the Papacy, and “a treaty prejudicial to the Church is not binding.” Charles v. and Francis i., in their treaty of Madrid, had stipulated that neither should have his oath dispensed without the consent of the other;