p. 3 | Rome’s Self-Assertion by C. M. S.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · May 27, 1909

Rome’s Self-Assertion

By C. M. S.

THE Roman Church is beginning to speak again with authority to the great ones of earth. She is speaking out in America with greater boldness than ever before because of her growing power and influence; and less than a month ago she chose to make a shining example of America’s ambassador to France, Mr. White.

The approaching marriage of the American ambassador’s daughter to a German Catholic count in Paris furnished the occasion for Rome to demonstrate her intolerant authority. The ambassador and his family belong to the Episcopal Church. Cardinal Kopp, the bishop of Breslau, would not grant a dispensation for the Catholic count to marry the ambassador’s daughter unless the couple would agree not to have any other religious ceremony. Ambassador White, who desired that a marriage ceremony should be performed in the Episcopal church which he regularly attends, protested strongly against the intolerant requirement, and cited precedents; but the Catholic cardinal was obdurate. There could be no sanction of the marriage by the Catholic Church and no Catholic ceremony if there was to be any other religious ceremony.

Ambassador White, as a protest against the attitude of the ecclesiastical authorities, decided not to attend the ceremony. The American ambassador to England, Mr. Whitelaw Reid, who had come over to Paris from London to attend the wedding, remained away from the ceremony out of deference to the feelings of his brother diplomat. Concerning his position in the matter, Mr. White said:—

Both my public and my private life demonstrate my freedom from religious bias; but under the circumstances, and as the representative of a country eminent for its religious toleration, although predominantly Protestant, I have decided not to attend the service at St. Joseph’s.

The Catholic papers of America have taken the matter up and are making much of what they term the ambassador’s bigotry. The Western Watchman of April 22 declares that Mr. White

“did a very silly thing in so doing, and one for which he will not receive any thanks from either the President or the American people.” It is probably true that neither President nor people will take the trouble to encourage Mr. White for his stand. The American people have forgotten how to protest against the violation of some of their most sacred rights, and it need not be expected that the government will tender thanks to any one under such circumstances, while Catholicism exercises so great power and influence in the government.

The editor of the Western Watchman boldly asks: “What right has our ambassador to criticize the laws of the Catholic Church? What right has he to protest against their enforcement?” He might with no greater inconsistency have asked, “What right has any one to think or speak, or even to be alive, who is not an ardent supporter of the Catholic Church?”

To illustrate the intolerant conditions imposed upon Protestants who marry Catholics, we quote from the same editorial:—

A Protestant marrying a Catholic may not bring his or her Protestantism into the family. The atmosphere of the home must be absolutely Catholic. The Protestant party must be, to all intents and purposes of the family, a Catholic. The children must be brought up Catholics, even should the Catholic parent be taken from them. To bring them up Catholics, it is necessary to teach them by word and example respect for the church and her laws, and to promote in every possible way their Catholic education. A mixed marriage demands that the Protestant party shall leave all Protestantism outside when entering the home where Catholic children are to be brought up. This is of such strict obligation that neither the Catholic parent nor the children can assist the Protestant parent to practise his or her religion. Were the Protestant consort to fall sick, neither the Catholic consort nor the children could go for a Protestant minister to administer Protestant rites to the dying parent. When a Protestant enters a home blessed by the church, his or her Protestantism must be forever dormant within the precincts of such home. There is no religious toleration in a Catholic home. . . .

The church never gives a dispensation save when the Protestant party forgoes all rights under such laws or customs. We can not too often repeat that the Catholic Church allows no religious toleration in a home blessed or founded by her.

This is Rome’s position stated by her own representative. Let Protestants who are fondly nursing the delusion that Catholicism is growing more liberal digest these words. All honor to Ambassador White for refusing to “go to Canossa,” taking with him the government he represents. It was stated in one despatch that Rome thought it a good opportunity to make an example of a prominent American as a protest against the reputed liberal tendencies of the American branch of the church. She has certainly illustrated where she stands, and has told the world plainly enough what it may expect when the dominance toward which she is aiming has been achieved. Says the self-reliant doubter, “That system will never accomplish her purpose—the world will rise up against it.” But she is accomplishing her purpose, and the world is so far from rising up against it that it is not even awake. C. M. S.