The Religio-Political Principles of the Papacy
IMMEDIATELY after the close of the recent political campaign, Hon. Theodore Roosevelt, the President of the United States, gave to the public a letter in which he expressed his views as to the bearing which a candidate's religious profession should have upon his fitness for public office. From this letter we quote:— To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or, because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against that liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of American life. You are entitled to know whether a man seeking your suffrage is a man of clean and upright life, honorable in all his dealings with his fellows, and fit by qualification and purpose to do well in the great office for which he is a candidate; but you are not entitled to know matters which lie purely between himself and his Maker. Referring to the opposition against Mr. Taft, based upon the report that his wife and brother were Roman Catholics, President Roosevelt further said:— As it happened, they are not; but if they were, or if he were a Roman Catholic himself, it ought not to affect in the slightest degree any man's supporting him for the position of President. . . . I believe that this republic will endure for many centuries. If so, there will doubtless be among its presidents, Protestants and Catholics, and very probably at some time, Jews. The President's outspoken utterance in favor of religious liberty is timely, and ought to have a wide influence. The position which he takes against making one's religious views a test of his qualification for a political office is thoroughly sound, and is in harmony with both the American and the Christian idea of religious liberty. But in his application of this principle to Roman Catholics, the President evidently overlooks the fact that the papacy is a political organization, and that it maintains political principles diametrically opposed to the liberties granted by the Constitution of the United States. If Roman Catholics confined their religious views to the proper sphere, the principles enunciated by the President could be applied to them as well as to Protestants, but when they include within the pale of religion, political opinions subversive of free government and personal liberty, these so-called religious views, which are really political in their nature, become a subject of proper inquiry when one who holds them becomes a candidate for a public office. This view of the matter has been quite clearly stated in an open letter to President Roosevelt prepared by a committee representing the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. From this letter, we make some extracts:— Of course it is subversive of the basic principle of a real separation of church and state to permit the religious belief or non-belief of any candidate for public office to determine the casting of one's vote for or against such candidate, except when that very religious belief or unbelief antagonizes this principle and all those rights and liberties that are included therein and safeguarded thereby. We agree with you, therefore, that those citizens are to be severely criticized who vote against a man merely because he is a Unitarian, a Jew, a Methodist, or any other religionist. But are you not aware of the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has again and again for centuries back, and down to modern times, through the official head and other authorities, denounced as wholly wrong, and as things to be tolerated only so long as they can not be changed, the complete separation of church and state, full religious liberty, freedom of conscience, of speech, and of the press, and that, moreover, it proclaims its teachings and principles to be unchangeable? . . . Are we not, then, compelled to maintain that a loyal Roman Catholic who fully understands the allegiance required of him by the pope can never sincerely subscribe to the federal Constitution, or, if he does subscribe to it, never can be expected to abide by it, enforce, and defend it? . . . We protest that it is neither personal feeling nor religious antagonism which determines our attitude in this matter, but solely our disagreement with the Roman Catholic Church on this basic political principle, a disagreement growing out of the rejection and denunciation by the Roman Catholic Church of that very principle which you admonish all faithfully to uphold, not only in theory but in practise. The views of the President as expressed in his letter were dealt with in a series of resolutions presented at a recent meeting of the Philadelphia Baptist Ministerial Association. The resolutions read:— Whereas, The President of our country has seen fit to denounce from his high office as unwarranted bigotry the action of some of our citizens who refuse to ignore religious tenets in connection with their voting; therefore be it— Resolved, That, as was our fundamental teaching, we steadfastly maintain that man's religious faith, that is, his attitude toward God, should not be made a test for any political office, but his moral and intellectual attainments alone should be considered, leaving him absolutely free in purely religious matters. Resolved, That, as we understand the facts, the Roman Catholic Church lays a claim on its clergy and its members not only for submission to ecclesiastical superiors in matters of opinion, but in all matters of daily life, and has for centuries, whenever it was possible, sought to visit physical pains and penalties on the disobedient, and has taught until now, and still continues to teach, bitter hostility to our public schools and our separation of church and state, and seeks to get from our government a recognition at Washington as a foreign political power, entitled, like other powers, to a representation here, and therefore is, and claims to be, very much more than a religious organization, even a very real and wily and mighty political organization, controlled from abroad by men who are neither familiar with, nor in sympathy with, our governmental ideas. Resolved, That we appeal from our President, excited and seemingly ignorant of church history, to our President, cooled off and better informed. Resolved further, That it is not in accord with our American liberty that men be called bigots who exercise the right of private judgment in matters of so much importance as their vote. Discussion upon these resolutions was deferred for two weeks, when a spirited debate upon them was expected. It was only to be expected that the Roman Catholics would be highly pleased with the position taken by President Roosevelt. An editorial paragraph in the New World (Chicago) voices their feeling in this matter:— President Roosevelt's letter to the5gentleman from Ohio is destined to become a historic document. Centuries hence Catholics will be quoting it against intolerants throughout the civilized world. Letters and comments by various persons of more or less prominence have appeared in the public press, and altogether a wide-spread interest in this subject has been awakened.