[Luigi Monti, “Italy and the Pope”, 1878.]
It has been a source of great surprise to me, after twelve years' absence from America in the service of the United States Government in Italy, to notice the erroneous impressions that many people have received with reference to the actual relations existing between Italy and the Pope, or rather between Italy and the Papacy. I frequently hear and read of the prisoner of the Vatican, of the sacrilegious spoliation of the Church, of the persecution of the monastic orders, of the desecration of the churches and holy houses, of consecrated nuns driven out from their convents, of holy monks reduced to beggary in the streets, of the impious Victor Emmanuel stealing the property of the Church;—in fact, the late king of Italy is often spoken of as another Henry VIII of England, who confiscated the Catholic Church property, and either pocketed it himself or else gave it away to his favorites.
My object in this paper is to give a statement of facts, in order to correct these erroneous impressions, especially in regard to the temporalities of the Church of Rome.
It should be understood in this respect that when I speak of the temporalities of the Church of Rome, I exclude entirely from it the question of religion, which has nothing at all to do with the matter, though many, especially Catholics outside of Italy, confound the two. In Italy, this distinction is clearly and definitely understood, even among the common classes.
The Pope was clothed with two distinct attributes [since the 8th century]. He was not only the supreme head of the Catholic Church, but also temporal and absolute sovereign of a very small kingdom. In his first character he was revered and honored as Vicar of Christ, infallible in his promulgations of the dogmas of the Church, Supreme Pontiff, and Father of the Faithful. In his second character, however, he was considered merely as a temporal ruler of men, subject to the same errors and vicissitudes as any of them, and only entitled to more deference and personal consideration by reason of the sacred office with which he was invested.
This distinction the most conscientious Catholics and the most learned doctors of the Church have never denied.
The claim of the Pope of Rome to the temporal sovereignty of the territory and the people of the so-called patrimony of St. Peter is very old. If long possession constitute a right to rule over a country and its people, as those who believe in the divine right of kings assert, then certainly the Pope of Rome is by right the legitimate temporal ruler of the Roman State, and no one could deny him that right. But in the nineteenth century, this legitimist claim has been entirely set aside, and modern civilization has conferred this right of ruling upon the people themselves, to whom it legitimately belongs. Self-government is to-day the law of the civilized world, nor do I suppose that there is any American, whether Catholic or Protestant, who would deny this right, either to his own or to any other people.
But waiving this right, recognized by all liberal governments, let us see whether the popes of Rome ever held possession of the Roman State by any right beyond the right of temporal sovereignty, which is variable, and subject to all the changes and chances of earthly possessions.
Who first gave the temporal sovereignty over Rome and its territory to the popes? They say, Constantine, Emperor of the Romans, after he was converted to Christianity and had transferred the seat of the empire to Constantinople.
Many deny the authenticity of this cession; but we will leave aside this immaterial question. Granted, therefore, that Constantine gave the popes the royalty over the territory and people of Rome. Was it by divine right that Constantine held the Roman empire? Constantine was a pagan till within a few years of his death. His right, therefore, was the same as that of any other ruler, conqueror, or king, the right of force—earthly right and not divine.
This claim was, however, contested both by the people of Rome and by the Longobard kings. For several centuries after Constantine the popes were elected by the people of Rome, were ruled by their will, and were defended by them against the irruptions of the Goths, Vandals and Longobards. These latter especially made frequent incursions into the Roman States about the tenth century. The popes, unable to resist the invaders single-handed, asked assistance, first from Pepin, then from Charlemagne, kings of the Franks. Both of these, and the Countess Mathilda, who claimed the right of possession over the territory of Rome, confirmed and extended the gift of Constantine to the popes. This confirmation of the grant, and Mathilda's donation, are more historically authentic than Constantine's gift, therefore they are fully admitted.
But by what right did these sovereigns thus dispose of a kingdom? Pepin and Charlemagne were Franks; they came with large armies to Italy, defeated Desiderius, the last of the Longobard kings, and were crowned Roman emperors by the popes. It was therefore by the right of conquest, the right of the sword,—earthly rights,—that such disposition was made. Mathilda's right was no better; hers was merely a right of descent from her ancestors who had conquered the territory.
These grants, however, extended to a very small tract of land, which was afterward called the patrimony of St. Peter, viz.: the city of Rome, the Campagna, and a narrow strip of land down to Ostia and Civita Vecchia. Ravenna was still held by the Greek emperors; Benevento was a Longobard duchy; the Marches of Ancona were under several independent lords; Bologna was a republic,—and so on.
For several centuries the popes were engaged in continual petty wars with their neighbors, and by degrees extended their rule over these states. In all these wars the Catholic religion had nothing to do with the question: it was not the head of the Church, but the sovereign of Rome who desired to extend his temporal dominion, or to defend it against the encroachment of the other petty rulers or republics of Italy;—a temporal ruler against temporal rulers, worldly interests in opposition to worldly interests. There was nothing religious or divine about these wars, for all the other rulers and peoples of Italy were good Catholics themselves, and were not fighting against the head of their religion, but against another temporal ruler of a small portion of Italy.
Thus it was down even to our own days. After the French Revolution and the first Napoleonic rule of France, the so-called "Holy Alliance," in making the redistribution of Italy, gave to the Pope the Roman States in the same way and by the same right—the right of the sword—as they gave Naples and Sicily to the Neapolitan Bourbons, Lombardy and Venice to Austria, Tuscany to the Grand Duke of the house of Lorraine, and Parma, Modena and Lucca to various Austrian dukes and duchesses. The powers who parceled out Italy among their protégé's called themselves "The Holy Alliance," though there was very little of holiness about them, at least on the ground of their being good Catholics; for the emperor of Russia was a schismatic, the kings of England and Prussia were Protestants, and Talleyrand, who concocted the whole, was an atheist [and apostate ex-bishop]. It was worldly interest, of the earth, earthy, with nothing divine about it.
The right of the popes to rule as absolute sovereigns over that very small strip of Italian soil was therefore a worldly right, and had nothing at all to do with his religious office. This distinction is thoroughly understood in Italy; I do not believe that there is a Catholic theologian in that country who would assert—as a dogma of the Church necessary to salvation—his belief in the temporal right of the Pope to these few square miles of territory.
I will now attempt to give a summary of the events that have taken place in Italy from the accession of the late Pope to the entrance of the Italian troops in Rome,—including the suppression of the temporal power, and the laws that have been passed by the Italian Parliament respecting the popes and the religious corporations.
The so-called "Holy Alliance" fancied themselves to have smothered every spark of aspiration in the Italian people after liberty and independence, by parceling out Italy into so many little principalities, each ruling under the protection of Austria. The Austrian emperor, as possessor of Lombardy and Venice, and as related to all the other small kings and dukes, who were nothing more than his lieutenants, ruled supreme. He assumed the charge of protecting them all, including the Pope, against any revolutionary attempts on the part of their subjects. The Italian people groaned under the yoke of Austrian despotism, but never resigned themselves to it.
The history of those years of Austrian oppression is a history of one long struggle of the people against their foreign rulers; and of bloody executions, imprisonments, and expatriations on the part of the latter.
In 1820, the Carbonari insurrection in Naples brought the Austrian army to the support of the weak king of that state. The conspiracies in Lombardy and Venice filled the Austrian prisons with the best and worthiest Italian patriots. It is enough to mention Silvio Pellico to recall to mind the horrors practiced by Austria on the Italian political prisoners. There were also constant attempts at revolution in Piedmont, Tuscany and the Papal States. Gregory XVI., all intent on religious questions, allowed his government to be directed by a camarilla totally subservient to Austria, and obeying her smallest dictates. Scarcely a year passed without some attempt at revolution being made throughout Italy.
In 1830, these political troubles assumed serious proportions; there were conspiracies in Sicily, Naples, Lombardy, Tuscany, Piedmont. Louis Napoleon, afterward Emperor of the French, at the head of the patriots of the Papal States, had hoisted the banner of rebellion against the temporal power of the Pope in the Marches of Ancona. But Austria interposed again and suppressed with her bayonets the insurrectionists in both the Roman and Neapolitan states. Executions, imprisonments, exiles were the order of the day. Louis Napoleon escaped with difficulty from the pursuit of the Austrian troops and the Papal police; his brother, who was also engaged in the movement, died at Forli.
For the next sixteen years it was the same story; Austria ruled supreme through seven small potentates who merely followed her dictation and obeyed her will. The Pope was no better than any other of the petty princes of Italy, Austria occupying militarily several towns and fortresses in his states.
In 1846, Gregory XVI. died, and the late Pope, Pius IX., was elected. He came from a noble and respected family, the Counts Mastai Ferretti of Sinigaglia. He was one of the youngest popes who ever occupied the chair of St. Peter. His personal character was one of the loveliest that ever adorned the holy seat,— pure, sincerely religious, compassionate, earnestly solicitous for the welfare of the faithful intrusted to his charge and of the people subject to his dominion. Hardly had he been a few days on the throne when he felt the humiliation of being, in his temporal government, a mere vassal of Austria. The innumerable petitions sent him by the families of thousands of men who had been imprisoned or exiled for political causes by the government of his predecessor, moved his paternal, loving heart. He demanded from Austria the withdrawal of her troops, as he justly and patriotically felt that the successor of St. Peter should rule by love, not by the sword,
and that a foreign one. By a general amnesty for all past political offenses, he restored all the prisoners and exiles to their families, and a few months afterward he granted to the States of the Church a constitutional form of government, thus allowing to laymen the privilege of sharing in the civil and political administration, which heretofore had been exclusively the prerogative of the clergy.
It is not difficult to imagine the effect of these liberal measures on the minds of all the Italians, who had been groaning under the brutal despotism of Austria and her lieutenants. From one end of Italy to the other the name of Pius IX. ran from mouth to mouth as the messenger of God, come to deliver them from bondage. They saw in him a new Gregory VII., a new Julius II., placing himself at the head of the Italian people with the cry: "Out with the barbarians from Italy!" The liberals, who had so long conspired to free their country, felt that they had now a leader in the head of their religion who sanctioned their uprising as a holy crusade against the foreign oppressors of Italy. Political demonstrations took place in every city, which the governments were unable to restrain; finally the enthusiasm of the oppressed people throughout Italy burst all bounds.
On the 12th of January, 1848, Sicily rose in insurrection against the King of Naples; Piedmont, Lombardy, Venice, Tuscany, Naples, Parma, Modena—all Italy in fact—followed the example. The fires that had been smoldering for thirty years and more now burst out almost simultaneously, and with just so much the more intensity for having been so long repressed. The watchword of the liberal movement was: "Long live Pius the Ninth!"
Austria, taken by surprise, and unable to stem the current in its first rush, adopted the usual policy of deception. She went to work preparing her arms, and in the meantime advised the petty rulers of Italy to pretend to yield, especially as the movement was sanctioned and blessed by the head of the Church. The King of Sardinia, the King of Naples, and all the dukes granted to their peoples a constitution in imitation of the Pope, and, although unwilling, were compelled to give way to the desire of the people, who cried aloud for a war against Austria which should liberate Lombardy and Venice from her rule.
Of all these princes, one alone was sincere in this general crusade against Austria,—Charles Albert, father of Victor Emmanuel. But their combined forces were inadequate to compete with the overwhelming power of Austria, whose army was protected by the famous fortresses of the Quadrilateral. Charles Albert was defeated at Novara, abdicated his throne in favor of Victor Emmanuel, and went into exile in Portugal, where he died. The Roman army was defeated at Vicenza; other volunteers were routed in other parts of Northern Italy, and the Austrian invaders were marching southward. The King of Naples, taking advantage of the defeat of the patriot armies, suppressed the constitution, defeated the Sicilian revolutionary army, and repossessed himself of the island.
I need not narrate the confusion, irritation, and discouragement that followed these several defeats among the liberal patriots. The aspiring hopes of so many years had received a sudden check. The exasperation of men under such circumstances is always extreme, and the very violent ones take advantage of it for their visionary ends. Until then everything had appeared to be enthusiasm, love, brotherhood, among the people, confidence in their princes, and veneration, worship, blessings, for the pope, who had been the chief promoter of the . redemption of Italy from foreign oppression; but the disappointment and chagrin caused by these reverses, the treachery of the King of Naples, the defection of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, brought about a reaction and revulsion in their feelings. The remnants of these defeated patriotic armies flocked into the only places which they could enter with safety, viz.: Piedmont, Tuscany, Rome; a few got into Venice, where they held out for some time against Austria. Piedmont was forced to sign a humiliating peace and to dismiss all her volunteers, who joined their fellow-patriots gathered in Tuscany and Rome.
The people of those two parts of Italy were in a high state of agitation, which, being increased by the influx of all the defeated volunteers, ran naturally to extreme measures. These the respective governments were unable to suppress. The Grand Duke, afraid of the people and afraid to displease Austria, ran away, and sought asylum with the King of Naples at Gaeta. The people immediately afterward proclaimed the republic. At Rome the agitation was still worse. Pellegrino Rossi, the famous professor of Roman law at the University of Paris, whom the Pope had recalled from exile and appointed his prime minister, was stabbed while alighting from his carriage to enter parliament. The assassins were never discovered. Some accused the republicans of the murder, because he was a constitutional monarchist; others the ultra-clericals, because he was a liberal and a layman.
This political assassination—the only one recorded in the history of the Italian revolution—made a terrible impression on the mind of the Pope. He distrusted his own good acts. The good which he had generously intended to do for the welfare of his people and of Italy had turned to evil,— or, at least, the enemies of Italy made him think so. The increasing agitation of the defeated patriots and the advice of those who strove to alienate him from the cause he had taken so much to heart, persuaded him that his religious office was jeopardized. On a political or administrative question, Pius IX., in the goodness of his nature, would ever have yielded to the will of the people—witness the amnesty he had granted, the constitutional government he had proclaimed; but the bare suggestion that his liberal acts as a prince would in the remotest way be of injury to his holy office, was sufficient to change his views, and to cause him to look with regret upon the acts he had done.
Unable, therefore, to stem the current of the revolution of which he had at one time been the leader, the Pope privately abandoned Rome, took refuge at Gaeta with the King of Naples and the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and threw himself entirely into the arms of the despots and foreign enemies of Italy; and from that day forward his political.acts —mark that I am speaking of his acts as the temporal king of Rome, not as the head of the Catholic religion—were totally dictated by them.
The abandonment of Rome by Pius at this critical moment, when a strong hand at the helm might have prevented the evils that followed, enabled the red republicans to take control of the government. Mazzini proclaimed the republic at a moment when the cause of independence had been defeated everywhere.
Austria was fast approaching the Roman States; but Louis Napoleon, then President of the French Republic, with the excuse of re-instating the Pope ^although twenty years before he had conspired to dethrone his predecessor), but in reality to gain a footing in Italy for future contingencies against Austria, and to secure the Catholic vote in France for his imperial aspirations, sent an expedition against the Roman republic. Austria was on the frontiers. Spain sent a division to Ancona; the King of Naples another by way of Terracina. Thus three foreign nations and the soldiers of one of the worst tyrants of the present age—the infamous Bomba of Naples—inundated the Roman States with their bayonets and cannon, in order to restore the temporal power of the Pope.
The small Roman patriotic army, after sustaining a six months' siege and bombardment in Rome, in which many thousands on both sides lost their lives, capitulated, and the Pope returned to the city and to his temporal power, supported by the bayonets of France, which remained there for the next twenty years.
The Papal government attempted to raise an army; but, mistrusting the Roman people, it hired mercenaries from every nation of the earth. The legion of Antibo was composed of French, Irish Zouaves, Canadians, and adventurers of all sorts. So here was the anomaly of a small Italian potentate who, in order to subdue his subjects, was obliged to call in the aid of three foreign nations and a tyrannical neighbor; and in order to rule over them, was forced to have a garrison of the army of one of the most powerful nations of Europe, with foreign mercenaries from the four quarters of the globe.
One who possesses sentiments of patriotism, dignity, and national spirit, can imagine what the feelings of the Romans and other Italians must have been, to see their country invaded and oppressed by so many foreign bayonets in order to uphold a small kingdom of less than a million of souls.
The situation in Italy in 1850 was as folfows: The King of Naples ruled, despotically and with a Nero's hand, Naples and Sicily. They say the Pope, but the Italians say the French, ruled militarily the Papal States. The Emperor of Austria governed Lombardy and Venice. Tuscany, Parma, Modena, were each nominally under the rule of their own dukes; but divisions of Austrian troops occupied these states, in order to protect the rulers against their Italian subjects. Foreign bayonets, therefore, controlled almost every particle of Italian soil, with the exception of a small kingdom in the northern corner—Piedmont.
Victor Emmanuel, after the abdication of his father, Charles Albert, and the treaty of peace with Austria, retired into his kingdom; but, unlike every other prince of Italy, who, after having sworn to a constitution, became false to his oath and suppressed it, he maintained the charter granted by his father, and ruled in a constitutional form, calling to the head of his cabinet such liberal patriots as Massimo d'Azeglio and Cavour. Piedmont became, therefore, the nucleus and focus of all the patriots of Italy.
The events that took place from 1850 to 1870 are of too recent occurrence to require a detailed account; so, I will only summarize them.
The Italians, after the failure of the revolution of 1848-9, looked upon Piedmont, as they had previously looked upon Pius IX., as the star to lead them in the path of independence against foreign oppression. They could make no discrimination in favor of the Pope, in his temporal capacity; he ruled no more by the will and love of his people, but by the same means as were used by the other petty despots of Italy,—by foreign bayonets. D'Azeglio, and after him, Cavour, recognizing the impossibility of attacking Austria single-handed, sought the alliance of the French, and succeeded in obtaining the assistance of Louis Napoleon. In 1859, upon the refusal on the part of Piedmont to discharge her volunteers whose names were enrolled from every part of Italy, Austria declared war. The French army, with Napoleon at its head, came to the assistance of Victor Emmanuel, and after the battles of Magenta and Solferino, Austria was forced to cede Lombardy in the peace of Villafranca.
During this war, Tuscany, Parma, and Modena revolted against their dukes and joined Piedmont. Bologna and Umbria revolted against the Papal government, and the foreign mercenaries were unable to suppress the revolt, except at Perugia, where they committed bloody excesses. After the peace of Villafranca, all these states annexed themselves by a universal vote to the kingdom of Piedmont The Papal government protested against the annexation of Bologna and its territory, but Louis Napoleon would do nothing toward re-instating the Pope by force of arms, under the plea that these states were not part of the patrimony of St. Peter, so called; they had been acquired by force of arms, and were therefore subject to the fate of wars.
Piedmont had now acquired by war and annexation the whole of northern and central Italy, with the exception of Venice, and the power of Austria had been crippled. These events caused a ferment among the eight millions of people of Naples and Sicily, who watched for any opportunity to break out in open revolt. The death of Ferdinand II., which had happened a short time before this, had left the kingdom in the hands of his son, Francis, a very stupid and feeble youth. Sicily attempted several risings, which were temporarily suppressed. On the news of these, Garibaldi organized a small body of volunteers in Genoa to go to their assistance—;only one thousand in number, but veteran patriots who had fought in all the battles of Italy for independence. In June, 1860, he came to the assistance of Sicily and landed at Marsala, hoisting the flag of "Italy and Victor Emmanuel." The Sicilian patriots rallied to his banner, and in a short time he defeated the King's army, and was proclaimed Dictator of Sicily. Receiving further re-enforcements from Italy, he crossed into the continent, and proceeded through the Neapolitan states as on a triumphal march; the King's army scarcely attempting any serious resistance, unsupported as it was by the people, who rose against it at Garibaldi's approach. He entered Naples the day after the King abandoned it, without firing a gun.
Francis II. retired to the fortress of Gaeta with what few troops remained faithful to him, and Garibaldi was likewise proclaimed Dictator of Naples. He set to work organizing his volunteers into a more regular army, so as to drive the King from his last refuge; but without a navy and siege artillery, the struggle would have been a long one, and he therefore sought the co-operation of Piedmont. Victor Emmanuel came to Garibaldi's assistance with his army and besieged the place while his fleet blockaded it on the sea side. After a feeble resistance, and the departure of the King and his household, the fortress capitulated.
Having thus liberated Sicily and Naples, Garibaldi resigned his dictatorial powers, called the people to express their will as to the form of government they desired to adopt by universal suffrage, and, like Cincinnatus, retired to his island home of Caprera. The people of both states almost unanimously voted for annexation to the constitutional government of Victor Emmanuel; their deputies entered the Parliament at Turin, which now comprised the representatives of all Italy, except Venice and the reduced territory of Rome. This Parliament, after mature deliberation and long discussion, voted the change of title in the king to that of King of Italy, and declared Rome the capital of the kingdom, transferring the seat of government temporarily to Florence.
It is useless here to enter into details respecting the long and ineffectual attempts on the part of the Italian government to come to an understanding with the Papal Court as to arrangements about its temporal power. The government offered every guarantee consistent with the principle of unity, liberty and independence. Every offer was met with the famous answer, non possumus. There was the anomaly of a nation wishing for political liberty and foreign independence, thwarted in its desires by the head of the religion she professed, and thwarted, too, to the end that the spiritual head of the Italian people might still hold temporal possession of a few square miles of territory, in order to do which, he must allow the very heart of the nation to be militarily occupied by a foreign power, that left him only a shadow of authority.
With respect to Venice, Italy felt that either by treaties or by arms, she would get rid of the Austrians; but with Rome, there was always the religious sentiment, and the regard due to the sacred person of the Pope, which made it a very delicate and difficult question.
The foreign occupation of Venice was easily settled. Italy, in 1866, allied herself with Prussia against Austria, and after the Jailer's defeat at Sadowa, obtained it in the treaty of peace. But the French still held Rome. Italy could not make war against France on that account, and tried many means to obtain her end by negotiation, but in vain. The Radicals took advantage of it, and created continual embarrassment to the government by their repeated attempts to atlack Ihe French: firsl, Garibaldi, who had lo be surrounded and arrested by the Italian troops at Aspromonte, next, Nicotera, whq was defeated by the French near Rome. In fact Italy, which, after so many years of revolutions and wars devoted to the cause of liberty and independence, needed peace and rest to organize her administration, to reform her laws and to correct the abuses of so many centuries of foreign dependence and domestic tyranny, was kept in a state of constant turmoil, feeling Ihe humiliation of foreign bayonets in the very heart of the country. Twenty-five millions of people were deprived of free access to their natural capital, in order that the Pope of Rome, the smallest of the former princes, should retain a shadow of sovereignty over a small tract of land, which now scarcely contained half a million inhabitants.
Mark that this was not a question of religion, nor of enmity against the Pope as supreme head of the Church, for those twenty-five millions of people were all, with few exceptions, Catholics.
But 1870 came. Germany crushed the power of Napoleon at Sedan, Italy remaining neutral. The French division, that for twenty years had occupied the Roman States, was recalled, and the patrimony of St. Peter was left in the charge of her foreign mercenaries. The Italian government notified the Papal Court that its army would occupy the Roman State. It was supposed that the overwhelming force which Italy could command, would remove any idea of resistance. We know, and it will readily be believed, considering the mild and benevolent nature of Pius IX., that he refused his sanction, and discountenanced any idea of resistance and bloodshed. But in his temporal affairs he was just now as much the subject of his foreign mercenaries as he had before been of the French, and his predecessors, of the Austrians.
General Kanzler, his minister of war, General Lamoriciere, General De la Charette, insisted with fanatical zeal upon resistance. Mark, that there is not an Italian name among these generals, and they had hardly an Italian soldier among their troops! Is it to be wondered at, therefore, that the Italians should feel irritated and indignant against the temporal power of the popes, which required the aid of foreign bayonets to sustain it in Italy; and which, now that both Austria and France were unable to use their armies, was forced to employ foreign mercenary soldiers for protection?
It was, of course, a mere useless bloodshed on the part of these foreign generals. Lamoriciere was defeated at Castelfidardo, and the Zouaves and other mercenaries were driven from Porta Pia at Rome, at the point of the bayonet. Many lives, however, were lost in this useless resistance, and many Italian mothers had to weep for their sons murdered by foreign fanatics under the plea of defending the head of their Church, whom, as their spiritual Father, no one wished to harm.
Thus Italy was finally brought together under one free constitutional government, not a single foreign bayonet disgracing her soil, from the Alps to Sicily. The seat of government was transferred to Rome, and Victor Emmanuel was proclaimed from the Capitol King of Italy.
Let us now examine what has been the conduct of the Italian government toward the Pope in his religious capacity.
I insist so often upon this distinction between the temporal and the religious attributes of the Pope, because I have noticed that the further I get from Italy the less this distinction is understood. Like a double star which, seen in the distant heavens, appears as one, but when brought near to our vision by a telescope discloses distinctly its quality, so people away from Italy confuse into one the double character of the Pope, which is definitely and distinctly separated in the Italian mind.
As I represented in the beginning, Italy was divided until 1856 into eight small principalities, exclusive of the Prince of Monaco and the republic of St. Marino. One by one the people of these several states rebelled against their rulers, annexed themselves to the kingdom of Piedmont, and so was formed the Italian kingdom.
What was the treatment of those small princes after they had been expelled from their principalities? They were dethroned, exiled from Italy; all their palaces, parks, and domains were incorporated into the public domains of the crown of Italy. The Pope in his temporal capacity could not have been treated otherwise. His public domains, of course, fell to the crown of Italy. But I will now relate the way in which the Pope was treated personally, in contradistinction t« the other princes of Italy.
By the final annexation of the Roman States, Italy became a kingdom of twentysix millions of inhabitants. These twentysix million souls are all Roman Catholics, with the exception of a few thousand Waldenses in a small district of the Alps.
The very first article of the Italian constitution is: "The Roman Catholic religion is the religion of state." It is not to be conceived, therefore, that a nation composed of Catholics, and which in the first article of its political charter proclaims the Catholic religion as the religion of state, should illtreat and abuse the sacred person of the supreme head of the religion she professes.
When the Italian Parliament first assembled in Rome, one of the principal laws passed accorded a proper recognition and endowment of the Pope, as head of the religion of state. The following are some of the principal articles contained in that law (I am quoting from memory): Inviolability of the person of the Pope, with the rights, honors, and prerogatives of a king; the palace of the Vatican (the socalled prison) with its eleven thousand rooms, grounds, gardens, museums, library, etc., for his residence; and its extra-territoriality, viz.: that the Italian government renounces all political, civil and criminal jurisdiction over that locality and residents thereof, as if it were outside of Italy; inviolability of the mail sent from, or addressed to the Papal Court, and its free transmission through the Italian post-offices and mail routes; the cardinals to be entitled to the rights, honors and prerogatives due to a prince of the royal blood, the archbishops and bishops to those of a minister of state; a revenue of three million francs yearly assigned on the interest of the public debt for the personal use of His Holiness; with many other rights and privileges. This is certainly very different treatment from that which the other six kings and dukes who were dethroned and expelled from Italy received at the hands of the Italian government. The Pope, under the advice of those who desire to keep up the ill feeling between Italy and the Papacy, refused to accept these concessions, and sought assistance from all the Catholics of the world, who generously responded to his appeals, millions of dollars having been remitted to Rome by the faithful. The Italian government on its part has regularly remitted a check every year for three million francs to the secretary of state of the Pope, which has been as regularly returned with a polite note, stating that His Holiness could not receive this money from a government that has usurped his temporal rights; and the minister of the finances has deposited the check in the treasury, subject to the order of the Pope, or of his successors; for the money, being voted by Parliament, is a part of the public debt of Italy. There is therefore accumulated into the Italian treasury, since 1870, some twentyone million francs,—over four millions of dollars,—which, when better counsels prevail in the Vatican, can be made use of for the service of the Church.
I will now answer another charge that is laid against Italy and Victor Emmanuel, viz: the suppression of the religious corporations, so called, which include convents and monasteries, and also the reversion of the revenues and other property belonging to them to the uses of worship, under the administration of the government. This is called abroad a spoliation, a sacrilege, a robbery of the property of the Church; and poor Victor Emmanuel, who had nothing more to do with it than to sign the law passed by Parliament, and order it to be executed, just as any other constitutional king, or president of a republic would do, is described as a thief, robber, heretic, and many call him excommunicated, though Pius IX. never directly excommunicated him, although he was advised to do so by the ultra-clericals.
Now let me explain this question in its legal bearing. And first of all, what were these religious corporations? This would be a very difficult question to answer in a short article, for it would take us back to the Middle Ages, as many of these conventual fraternities date back a thousand years or more, and arose from many sources, some political, some religious, some charitable. But this alone is sufficient for our purpose, viz: that all these convents, monasteries, and other religious associations, besides being authorized by the Church of Rome, were also recognized by the secular governments of Italy as legal corporate bodies, and enjoyed many rights, immunities, privileges and prerogatives granted to them by the many governments that had ruled Italy for several centuries.
These grants were all civil grants that one government gave and another could take away. The property which they owned had been given to them either by the governments or by donations for some specific purposes, some religious, others charitable,—as, for instance: the Hospitaliers, whose duties were to keep public hospitals and dispensaries for the poor; the Jesuits, to keep public-schools; the Dominicans, to preach against heresy, and to extirpate it by means of the tribunals of the Inquisition; the Hierosolimetans, to ransom the Christians captured by the Algerine and other pirates, and carried into slavery in Mohammedan countries; and so on.
Mark, that I do not enter into the question as to whether the state or municipal hospitals which have risen in Italy are better regulated than those under the charge of the monks; whether the Jesuits were better public instructors than laymen; whether the tortures, autos-da-fe, and prisons of the Inquisition did more harm than good to the Catholic religion; to what use were converted the immense revenues of the Hierosolimetans when piracy was suppressed in the Mediterranean, and there were no more Christian slaves to be ransomed in Africa; I only express the opinion of the most learned law doctors and legislators that a state has the right to revoke grants given to corporations, when the objects for which they were established have ceased to exist, or the revenues been misappropriated;—to say nothing of the extraordinary personal privileges that these corporations and the members thereof enjoyed, which were all, without any exception, inconsistent with a constitutional form of government. I will mention a few of these to show how very extraordinary they were. For instance: all convents had the right of asylum, and immunity from civil jurisdiction. This meant that if a man committed a murder or any other crime, and had the opportunity to escape into a church or convent, or even into the landed estates belonging to them, the civil or military officers had not the right to enter and arrest him there. The monks could expel him, and thus hand him to the police; but they could likewise allow him to remain there, or evade the pursuit of the public force, and eventually escape into a foreign country. If a crime was committed within their inclosures, the civil power had no right to take cognizance of it, but the corporation would look to the punishment of the criminal through the tribunal of the Inquisition, or the sacred tribunals. If a priest or a monk committed a crime, even outside of the church or convent inclosure, he could not be tried before a common tribunal, but before a sacred one, and his punishment or imprisonment would be different and separate from that of any other citizen. In fact, in every state of Italy, there were prisons exclusively for priests and monks. The civil government lent them their police and public force for executing the decrees of these religious tribunals, bat the jurisdiction was exclusively their own.
The property and estates of the religious bodies were exempt from taxation; their administration was free from any control, often even from any religious control; and the incumbents were permitted to apply the revenues to any object which suited them, whether religious or worldly, or even to their private use. This applies to all revenues, whether belonging to religious corporations, or to bishops' sees. Whence arose the word nepotism, but from this application of the church revenues to the enrichment of the family of the incumbent of a high religious office?
It would take volumes to catalogue the abuses that had sprung from the irresponsibility of these religious corporations, which were, both in their property and in the individuals which composed them, irresponsible to, and, in fact, above, the laws that governed all other property and all other citizens. It is clear, therefore, that this state of things could exist no longer, after Italy had became a free and constitutional government.
The law of Parliament, abolishing the religious corporations, was passed in order to put a stop to these extraordinary privileges which were utterly inconsistent with freedom and equality before the law. These religious associations having been therefore abolished as legal entities, the administration of the property belonging to them reverted to the state, as they ceased to be legal bodies.
I will here give a summary of this law, quoting from memory, as I have no means of reference here. It decrees that on and after the date of its passage, all religious corporations cease to exist as legal bodies. (Note that the expression of " religious corporations" does not apply merely to monks and nuns, as many imagine; but includes many others whose members were laymen, and went under the names of " congregations," owning chapels, estates, and other property, and in their corporate rights enjoying exemptions, privileges, and immunities.) The churches, chapels, convents and estates belonging to them to revert to the state; the churches and chapels to be used for public worship; the convents to be given to the cities, towns, villages ordistricts in which they were situated, and to be applied to public use, such as hospitals, schools, lyceums, academies, etc. j other real estate to be sold, the funds derived from them invested in the public debt, and the income applied by the government for the public worship, in the same manner as the income derived from the sale of land and other property belonging to bishops' sees, which also reverted to the state; all works of art, with the exception of those in churches or chapels, to become public property of the localities in which the convents were situated, to form public museums; the libraries contained in them to become likewise property of the public libraries of such cities, towns, or villages; the monks belonging to any of the suppressed convents to receive a life pension according to the religious rank they held, and to have the preference to the appointment of vicar, rector, chaplain, or officiating priest in the church or chapel of the monastery to which they had belonged, before any other priest; the nuns, also with a suitable pension, at liberty to return to their families or remain in their nunneries during their life-time, but when too few in number, to be assembled with others of the same order in one or more convents; no new novice would be recognized by the government as a member of a religious corporation on and after the passage of the law.
It must be noticed, from the above summary, that the law does not forbid any one to remain, or make himself or herself a monk or a nun, as many have supposed, and as I have often heard said. The law only abrogated their right of legal corporations, enjoying certain privileges and immunities. The monks could at their will unite together into the same house or convent, and live in a conventual form, and the nuns likewise, in the same way as they do in the United States; and many in Italy have done so. In some places they have even bought of the government the very convents they lived in, and reside there. But these are now private houses, enjoying no rights of immunity, asylum, or cloister, the members thereof subject to the protection of the law, as is every other citizen, and if any one wishes to leave the association, he or she is at liberty to do so. Heretofore, if any monk or nun wished to leave his or her convent, it was not permissible to do so; and if they escaped, the police, at the request of a superior or an abbess, would arrest them and carry them back by main force. Could any such laws be consistent with a free government?
The law in Italy now is "a free church in a free state;" and, although it proclaims the Catholic religion as the religion of state, because the people are all Catholics, and assumes the charge of the entire support of the service of the church, yet it does not impose it upon any one. The government has taken away the administration of the property of the church from the hands of the clergy and monastic orders, and placed it in that of the ministry of worship and instruction; the bishops and clergy are paid salaries as regularly as any other officer of the state, as is the case in France and in Austria. It is true that the Italian bishops have been ordered by the court of Rome to refuse their salaries, as the Pope has done his, though the lower clergy are permitted to receive their stipends, and they certainly are better and more regularly paid now than they ever were before.
We can easily understand that the higher clergy, who heretofore have enjoyed the irresponsible administration and disposal of enormous revenues, should be dissatisfied; but the lower clergy do not find fault with it, as every one can see for himself who travels in Italy. This is the best answer that Italy can give to this outcry about persecution of the Pope and the Church, which, curiously enough, comes from foreign countries and foreign Catholics, and especially those in Protestant countries, as if the Italians were heretics or Mohammedans; yet all the churches in Italy are open, not every Sunday, but every day; the religious services are performed with the same fervor and display as before; processions go through the streets; the host is carried to sick beds in a processional form as before; if a cardinal rides or walks out, he is greeted with the same respect, reverence, and public honors as before; the officers, both civil and military, are bound by law to extend to them the same public marks of respect and the same military honors as to royal princes.
It is true that the cardinals have given up going out in their Renaissance coaches, with three red-liveried servants behind; and the Pope's huge, clumsy, gilded carriage, surrounded by the mediaeval pikes of the Swiss guards, the broadswords of the Guardia Nobile, and other military paraphernalia, is no longer to be seen in the streets of Rome; but nobody has forbidden His Holiness to go out in it, if he wished. Probably most good Italians, and I have no doubt others, think that in these modern days of civilization, anti-military sentiments, rule of law, etc., the Father of the Faithful may well dispense with even the outward useless show of pikes, swords and bayonets, and rely exclusively on the love and religious sentiments of his dutiful children.
The court of Rome, although very bitter against Italy, has never accused or charged the government with heresy or schism. There has not been any excommunication launched either against the King, or the government, or the people. In several Papal allocutions and bulls there have been warnings that those who execute certain acts decreed by the Italian government would incur the censures of the church; but never a regular bull of excommunication. For in such case the interdict would suspend every religious service in every church of Italy; the people would be released from their oath of allegiance to the King; no confession, absolution, or communion could take place, except in extremis, and so forth,—none of which things have taken place.
The reason for this is very evident, for, even among the most ultra Catholics, no matter what expressions they may use in their over-zeal against Victor Emmanuel and the Italian government, when it comes to the discussion of a formal and authoritative act of the Holy See, such as an excommunication would be, they cannot prove that either the King or Parliament or people have ever offended or rebelled against any of the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, but are forced to admit that their acts have been exclusively on matters pertaining to the temporalities. As I stated before, no theologian will dare to assert that it is a dogma of the Church to believe in the temporal power of the Pope.
Everywhere outside of Italy, people, especially Catholics, talk about the temporal power of the Pope as if it were still an open question, and prophesy about the possibility that the arms of France, or Austria, or Spain, may re-establish it in Italy. Little they think that every Italian, though Catholic, would rise to repel any foreign invader of his country, under whatever pretense he came, whether political or religious. These foreign, over-zealous Catholics hardly seem to realize the injury that would accrue to the Catholic religion itself, if the Pope were to be restored to his former petty temporal kingdom by the power of the sword.
The Italians have had enough of foreign bayonets under pretense of religion, and they do not believe in them any longer, for they know that they are for earthly purposes and not divine; and they do honestly believe that the Pope will be far more powerful for all religious and moral purposes simply as spiritual head of the Church, than as King of Rome; that his influence will be more felt, both among Catholics and other Christians, if earthly and temporal interests are not intermixed with his holy office.
