Note and Comment by F. M. W.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · May 4, 1916

Note and Comment

By F. M. W.

The Pope as Peacemaker

Will Pope Benedict XV head the peace commission which shall settle the terms of agreement between the warring nations? This very evidently is the position to which he aspires, and it is a rôle which many Protestants as well as Catholics would like to see him play. The numerous statements which have issued from the Vatican during the present conflict indicate, more than his so-called “paternal desire for peace,” that his ostensible purpose is to come into the limelight as the chief peacemaker. Benedict himself comes of the nobility. He is schooled in the art of diplomacy. According to the correspondent of the Paris Temps, he has shown his wonderful ability since his elevation to the papal see in bringing harmony out of the great confusion which existed in the government of the Vatican. This correspondent is represented by Current Opinion for April, 1916, as saying:—

“He has kept the peace within the church itself, a task of infinitely greater delicacy and difficulty than the warring world without can yet understand. The schism in Germany, about which so much was written in the first months of the war, has been definitely avoided. The difficulties incident to the occupation of Polish dioceses by the armies of Emperor William have been negotiated without offense to the Russian czar. There has been no breach with Austria, in spite of the latitude allowed to the heads of Italian dioceses in denunciation of the hereditary foe.”

According to a number of the Continental European dailies, “the original impression that Benedict XV is inadequate as a pacifier must be revised.” “The Pope, they point out, has restored peace within the church, and a correspondent of the Gaulois (Paris) argues that he may yet, therefore, restore it to the world.”

In the Rassegna Nazionale, an Italian paper, according to the Review of Reviews for April, there was published recently an interesting article from Signor Giuseppe Manacorda, a liberal Catholic. This writer of course does not speak for the clerical party at Rome, and expresses sentiments which could hardly be taken as representing their views. But he has infallible faith in the power of Benedict to bring about peace between the conflicting powers. He argues that the reverses which the church has suffered, especially in 1870, were really a blessing in disguise, in that thereby was “restored to the church its primitive character of an exclusively spiritual power, and since such a power is unique in the world, it appears today the most august of all.” He argues that on account of this unique position the Papacy is in a better position than at any other time to act in the rôle of peacemaker. He says:—

“The church alone can, if she will, pronounce the word that will sink deep into the hearts of the peoples and will most move them, since it is known that she alone can speak, when she wills so to do, even against her own apparent interest. In the midst of such a subversion of the idea of God, invoked on one side and on the other by the leaders of opposing countries, often supported in this by the foremost ecclesiastical dignitaries, it is hard for the afflicted peoples to avoid doubt and distrust; it is hard for them to refrain from asking themselves in what degree the religious ideal, the most perfect of all has become enslaved to state policy. Only the voice of Peter can resound above the clash of arms, far sounding as the voice of God, if he be willing to again become ‘a fisher of men,’ a rescuer of shipwrecked humanity.”

Nor are these sentiments expressed alone by Catholic representatives in the Old World. Leading men of that church on this side of the Atlantic are engaged in the same propaganda. Hon. W. Bourke Cockran, a prominent American citizen, for a number of years a member of the national Congress, a few days ago addressed a large and representative assembly in the city hall of Portland, Maine, on the subject “The Papacy in Peace and War.” This lecture was attended by Bishop Walsh of the Catholic Church, who presided. Seated by the side of the bishop were Hon. Oakley C. Curtis, governor of the State; Wilford G. Chapman, mayor of Portland, and other dignitaries. Mr. Cockran gave a highly colored picture of the potent influence for peace and civilization which the Papacy had proved through all the centuries of the past, picturing the system as the one hope of the downtrodden and oppressed through the Middle Ages and in other periods of trial through which the nations have passed. Referring to the present conflict, Mr. Cockran pictured Pope Benedict as the one ruler in all the world who is able to bring order out of the present chaotic conditions. The Portland Daily Press for March 27, 1916, reports him as saying:—

“There is no power on earth, save one, that can bring peace to the warring nations now engaged in this fearful death struggle, and that power is the same that has done it before—the Papacy. No other institution on the earth has the power as this power has to reconcile the differences of men and to force them to a realization that the modern doctrine of materialism that has held full sway for a hundred years, the doctrine that enlightened self-interest is a better guide than the authority of God revealed by the teachings of his church, is wrong and leads to nothing but this terrible struggle now on.”

We naturally might expect that Catholics themselves would take this view of the head of the church, but it is the more surprising to find professed Protestants advocating the same principle. Many are doing this. Perhaps the words of Dr. R. J. Campbell, one of England’s popular clergymen, may be taken as fairly representative of this pro-papal sentiment among Protestants. Shortly after the beginning of hostilities, Dr. Campbell, in an address in the London City Temple, gave expression to his convictions as to the manner in which permanent peace might be maintained after the close of the present conflict. He said:—

“Would it not be possible for the Christian forces of the world to combine after the conclusion of peace for the one purpose of preventing a recurrence of this horrible strife? If we could not unite upon anything else, surely we might unite upon this one practical object.

“I would suggest that the Pope, as the head of the largest Christian communion, should be induced to take the initiative in the matter, and call Protestants to his counsels in connection therewith. Such action should be taken in concert with all the Christian churches of the world, however designated. Protestantism generally would support it, would be morally bound to do so.

“No one but the Pope could do it effectively, for the reason just given, that he is the head of the largest and most international organization of those who profess and call themselves Christians. The metropolitan of the great Eastern Church—or, rather, of that great branch

out of the four or five belonging to it in which the people of Russia are included—could not do it. The Archbishop of Canterbury, for obvious reasons, could not do it. He is the spiritual head of Anglicanism only, and Rome would not respond to an invitation issued from that quarter.

“What is wanted is something analogous to a general council of the whole undivided church of Christ,—not a general council in the ordinary sense, of course, because not directly concerned with questions of faith and morals,—but it would be a wonderfully impressive gathering all the same, and no doubt lead to even greater things—the ultimate reunion of Christendom, for instance.

“The Pope is the proper person to summon such an assembly. And there is a precedent for it in the Council of Trent, to which Protestant delegates were invited, but refused to come. Had their response been favorable instead of unfavorable, who knows what strife and anguish Europe might have been saved in the last three hundred years?”

In a more recent address Dr. Campbell reiterates this statement which he made at the beginning of the war, and emphasizes anew his convictions regarding this matter. In his late delivery, according to the Austin American of April 2, 1916, from which we quote, he again advocates the calling of a general council of Christendom, of which the Pope shall be the head, to lay plans for the maintenance of permanent peace. He inquires,—

“Could the Pope be got to do it as soon as the war is over? No one could charge him with pro-Germanism then, and it would not matter a button if they did. His personal opinions would not be in question.

“What the assembly would be expected to do would be to place on record its abhorrence of war between Christian powers, and to pledge itself to bring all reasonable pressure to bear upon civilized governments and peoples to render a world conflict like the present impossible for all time to come. We should have had our lesson by then, and be more than disposed to listen to the appeal.”

And Dr. Campbell hopes that even more than a political peace might be secured by such a congress. He hopes that it might result even in the adjustment of religious differences. He argues that as the church by its great influence in the Middle Ages brought about what was called the Truce of God, whereby hostilities were limited to certain periods, so that same influence might be exerted for the settlement of all controversies:—

“There is not a church in Christendom that would not join in it through its appointed representatives. And the vast conference thus convened would not end in smoke. As the outcome of it there might be a tribunal established more authoritative and effective than that of The Hague, to say no more. Perhaps we should get even further than that in, shall we say, the direction of adjusting our religious differences too, and unifying civilization once more on that basis.”

And who can say that this hope of Dr. Campbell’s will not be realized from his standpoint? The Scriptures of truth mention the possibility of such a combination. In fact, we are told that in the last days there will be brought about a great coalition of just such a character. The prophecy declares that the governments of earth will “have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. . . . For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.” Rev. 17:13-17.

For long years the Papacy has bewailed its widowhood, the loss of its temporal power. But there will come a time when she shall say in her heart, “I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.” Rev. 18:7. But she knows not that these words are but the prelude to her final overthrow.

We cannot predict, of course, the order of events in the future, nor tell how rapidly the changing kaleidoscope of time will bring about a fulfilment of the words of God. We do not know whether Benedict XV will take a prominent hand in the bringing about of peace, or whether his counsels will be ignored by the nations engaged in the present war. But we do know that in the end, whether as the result of the present conflict, or later, the Pope will come once more, for a little time, into what he considers “his own.” We believe this is inevitable, for the reason that the prophecy of the Word clearly indicates that it shall take place.

The manner in which the nations of the Old World are coming under the influence of the Vatican, by returning to the old-time practice, even on the part of Protestant states, of sending representatives to the papal court, shows clearly the state of affairs among the nations of Europe as relates to their present attitude toward the Pope.

We can only watch and wait, recognizing in every successive step of fulfilling prophecy the times in which we are living, and the portent of the rapidly shaping events in the political and religious worlds. They admonish us to watch and be ready, “for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.”

F. M. W.