The Rise and Fall of Religious Liberty in America
By C. M. S.
In view of the invitation extended to Catholics by Sunday-enforcement advocates to join in the work of securing religious legislation in this country, we set forth in the last article the attitude of the Roman hierarchy toward this country and its fundamental laws. That attitude was shown to be plainly antagonistic in every particular. In view of that attitude, it is well to inquire what Rome proposes to do, and in what way she proposes to “co-operate” with those not of “the household of faith” in accomplishing5the reformation of the nation on principles approved or dictated by the Vatican. That she does not propose to be led by them, or even to co-operate with them on a plane of equality, is shown by the following:— The Protestant, whether he believes it or not, is an infidel in germ; and the infidel is a Protestant in full bloom. Infidelity exists in Protestantism as the oak exists in the acorn, as the consequence is in the premise.—“Plain Talk,” part 3, prop. 18, page 243. The Protestant is bound to be liberal to Catholics, but Catholics can not be liberal toward any party that rejects the church, and must hold them to be enemies of God; not on his own private judgment, but on the infallible authority of the church of Christ.—New York Tablet, Sept. 7, 1872. It can not be supposed for a moment that Catholics will unite on a plane of equality in a religious work with “infidels” and “enemies of God,” much less that they should accept “infidels” and “enemies of God” as their leaders in the movement for the renovation of this country upon religious lines. If it be objected that the Catholic Church of to-day is not the same illiberal organization that she was in 1872, we have but to quote the words of Cardinal Gibbons to show that she is the same to-day in purpose and in methods that she has been for centuries. He says, in appealing to Protestants to come back to the mother church:— In coming to the church, you are not entering a strange place, but you are returning to your Father’s home. The house and furniture may look odd to you. But it is just the same as your fore-fathers left it three hundred years ago.—“Faith of Our Fathers,” 43d edition, page 17. Amid the continual changes in human institutions, she [the Catholic Church] is the one institution that never changes. . . . She has seen monarchies changed into republics, and republics consolidated into empires—all this she has witnessed, while her own divine constitution has remained unaltered.—Ibid., page 83. This should be enough to settle the question as to whether the Roman Church is a more liberal institution to-day than she was when she was burning, racking, and hanging those whom she chose to term heretics. But if further evidence were desired, the doubter has but to go to some country dominated by the papacy, such as Spain, Portugal, Peru, Bolivia, or Ecuador, and begin Protestant evangelistic services. The last remaining shred of doubt upon that point would be ruthlessly torn away by the first experiment. Rome is the personification of intolerance wherever it is possible for her to carry out her modus operandi. Says Cardinal Gibbons (“Faith of Our Fathers,” page 285): “She is indeed intolerant of error.” In introducing this declaration, the cardinal says:— In all my readings, I have yet to find one decree of hers [the Catholic Church’s] advocating torture or death for conscience’ sake. The cardinal, then, has never read the bull of Innocent III, issued to his legate, Dominic, commanding him to put all the inhabitants of the city of Beziers, France, to the sword (“Du Pin,” Vol. II, page 151); in obedience to which sixty thousand Vaudois were buried beneath the ashes of the city, while the young boys and girls who were spared were turned over to the brutality of the soldiers. He has, then, never read the following utterance of Gregory VII (quoted by Cormenin, Vol. I, page 377):— People and kings should kiss his [the pope’s] feet; Christians are irrevocably submitted to his orders; they should murder their princes, fathers, and children if he commands it. It is difficult to understand how a cardinal of the church, versed in the history of the church, should never have read of the fate of Arnold of Brescia. Arnold was a republican, opposed to the whole hierarchical system, including the temporal power of the pope. He was condemned to silence by a council of the church at Rome, and was banished. But this did not satisfy, and he was seized, carried to Rome, condemned “by the judgment of the clergy,” and “executed by the officer of the pope.”—Milman’s “Latin Christianity,” Vol. IV, pages 270, 271. Possibly, too, he has never read the following question and answer:— Are heretics rightly punished with death? St. Thomas answers Yes, because forgers of money, or other disturbers of the state, are justly punished with death; therefore, also, heretics, who are forgers of the faith, and experience being the witness, grievously disturb the state.—“Dens,” page 89. Protestants being declared infidels, it is worth while to inquire how the Roman Church proposes to deal with infidels. We find the answer in “Dens,” Vol. II, No. 53, page 83. It is there declared that infidels “are not to be tolerated; because they are so bad that no truth or advantage for the good of the church can be thence derived;” and they are to be dealt with without trial or proof, on the ground of being incorrigible and rebellious from the beginning. Infidelity “is not to be tried or proved, but extirpated,” subject only to the condition that the extirpation may be suspended where “there may be reasons which may render it advisable that it should be tolerated;” for instance, where the church does not have the power to extirpate it. She does not require its extirpation in this country now, for she does not feel able; but when she has the power, the duty to do so will follow, or the above means nothing. What her policy was when that instruction was given, it is to-day, if Cardinal Gibbons knows the policy of the church; and there can be no question as to that. These, out of a mass of evidence that could be given, prove the cruel intolerance of the papal system, and the utterances of Cardinal Gibbons should be sufficient proof of the unchangeableness of the institution; while Rome’s declaration of her attitude toward Protestantism is sufficient proof that she will play no second part in any work she undertakes in this country toward the alteration of its institutions and its fundamental laws. Said the Christian Statesman: “Whenever they [the Roman Catholics] are willing to co-operate in resisting the progress of political atheism, we will gladly join hands with them.” Now the whole scheme of the government of the United States is “political atheism” in the sight of the papacy, and the hierarchy is doing, and proposes to continue to do, all in its power to stamp out such atheism by changing the very foundation upon which the government rests. In the view of the papacy, Protestantism itself, as well as the government, is infidelity; and Rome’s contest is not merely against the government as it is, but against the whole Protestant fabric. She will use professed Protestantism against the government, while that serves her purpose; and then, when her purpose has been attained, she will use the government against Protestantism. It was in harmony with that purpose that Pope Leo XIII gave the following instruction to his subjects:— All Catholics should do all in their power to cause the constitution of States, and legislation, to be modeled on the principles of the true church.—Encyclical of Leo XIII, 1885. This is an authoritative declaration of purpose, and shows that, contrary to the claims of Catholics everywhere, Rome can still meddle in the temporal affairs of nations when it suits her purpose so to do. Her subjects in America, who owe first allegiance to the church, are commanded in this encyclical so to alter the Constitution as to bring it into harmony with the principles of the true church. When that change has been effected, all that America stands for will have been swept away, and all that America has accomplished for the enlightenment, liberty, and uplift of the world will have been undone. America as she did stand was a mighty protest against everything papal. America remodeled by the papacy to harmonize with her purpose, will be the antithesis of what she was established to be, the antithesis of everything that her founders hoped for. And it is to bring about such a change that the National Re-6formers and allied organizations are inviting Catholic co-operation. What say the invited parties in reference to the proposed undertaking? Four years after the appearance of the encyclical of Leo XIII, commanding all Catholics to take up the work of bringing the Constitution and legislation of this country into harmony with “the principles of the true church,” the Catholic Lay Congress at Baltimore (Nov. 12, 1889) adopted the following pronunciamento:— There are many Christian issues to which Catholics could come together with non-Catholics and shape civil legislation for the public weal. In spite of rebuff and injustice, and overlooking zealotry, we should seek an alliance with non-Catholics for proper Sunday observance. Three years later came the Christian-nation decision of the United States, and Rome was not slow to grasp the advantage which that gave her. The decision was less than five months old when an article inspired by Vatican authorities was telegraphed from Rome to the New York Sun. The article was entitled “The Papacy and Nationality; Pope Leo and the United States,” and appeared in the Sun of July 11, 1892. After alluding to the aims of certain ecclesiastics in reference to this country, the writer says:— But Leo XIII has a still higher aim. . . . In his view the United States has reached the period when it becomes necessary to bring about a fusion of all the heterogeneous elements in our homogeneous and indissoluble nation. . . . The church has always been the able collaborator of all people in the work of national unity. . . . What the church has done in the past for others, she will, said, do for the United States. The founders of the American government did not feel the need of help from Rome. Rome had nothing which they felt they required in establishing a government of liberty and equality. What they feared was that they might be entrapped into adopting a policy which “would lead us back to the pope of Rome.” They knew what Rome had done for other countries and was still doing, and were in no way enamored of her course; and when she comes to us with such a promise of help, we instinctively ask ourselves what she has done for other nations. For answer we look to the Philippines, to the Central and South American states where no adverse administrations have interfered with her projects, and we turn away in pity over the sorrowful demonstration. Would she make another Philippines of the United States, and repeat here the record of robbery, rapine, and lust which the Taft Commission exposed there? Would she despoil the American people as she did the people of Mexico, of Peru? She has declared her intention of doing for us what she has done for other nations; she has organized a mighty federation of nearly all her numerous societies in this country for the avowed purpose of accomplishing her aims here; and deluded Protestants are striking hands with her in her first steps to that end. With these influences and powers working as they are, it will not be long till the ripe plum of political and religious leadership will fall into the ready lap of Rome. When the facts are marshaled in their proper order, they look one way, they speak one language—they look toward Rome, they speak of oppression. The next article, a recapitulation of the series, will close the study. C. M. S.