A Significant Letter by W. W. P.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jan 4, 1912

A Significant Letter

By W. W. P.

In a recent autograph letter to Archbishop Falconio, then apostolic delegate in Washington, Pope Pius X expressed his views concerning the question, now so widely agitated, of securing peace among the nations of the world by means of arbitration treaties. This letter was directly presented to President Taft, so that it took on all the force of diplomatic correspondence and became in effect an official communication from the Pope of Rome to the people of the United States. The positions taken and the self-asserted authority emphasized in this letter are, therefore, of more than ordinary interest.

In a contribution to America (Oct. 7, 1911) a Roman Catholic writer expounds and interprets this letter from the Pope, and in order to avoid misrepresenting the meaning given to it we quote from his communication:—

The successor of St. Peter, as vicar on earth of the God and Prince of Peace, is the divinely appointed teacher, not only of the faith, but also of morals, teaching mankind both to believe and to do all our Lord has commanded. Wherefore, his approbation and support of the peace movement, besides being desirable on account of the influence he can wield in its favor, carry also the weight of his authority in the strict sense of the term; so that if he be ignored, there can be no hope of success. Neither conferences, nor tribunals, nor agreements, nor laws, can bring about what is the prerogative of the Prince of Peace, unless his vicar not only cooperates, but actually directs the work. . . .

When, in the third place, the Pope points out that he has been deprived of his proper functions in the peace movement, he is not making, as it were, a polite apology for not taking a more active part. He is complaining of the violence done him, which deprives the movement of an essential element of any success. Hence, every one zealous for peace should consider what can be done to set right this tremendous violation of universal order, the enduring impediment to the liberty of action of Christ’s vicar. The chief agent in the crime which renews itself daily was the Italian government, but nearly all nations are more or less accomplices; and it is the interest of every nation desirous of peace to end it. A few years ago the czar proposed a congress on disarmament, and among the first invited to it was the Roman pontiff. The Italian government, making of its crime a pretext, protested against his sharing in the discussion, because he was not a civil prince. It carried its point, and the congress came to nothing. That same government has been celebrating the jubilee of its first proclamation to the world of its intention to rob the Pope of his own city; and had appointed September 25, the forty-first anniversary almost to the day of its entrance into Rome, for the opening of an international peace congress. Even had the government invited him, the Pope, who declares peace to consist in order, could not countenance a peace congress bound up with the most grievous breach of order this age has seen. But the congress will not meet. Whether it be on account of the troubled state of Europe, which may at any moment involve in war the nations who were to have taken part in it, as many believe, or whether it be on account of the cholera, as the government pretends, it has perished before its birth. There can be no peace without an unshackled Pope as its guardian.

From this summary of the Pope’s letter, it is evident that the present head of the Roman Catholic Church abates nothing from the assumptions made by his predecessors in office, and that he still claims spiritual jurisdiction over the entire world. His approval of the peace movement is needed not simply because of his influence, but because of his authority. The work will be a failure unless he directs it.

But more significant than any other assertion is the claim that “every one zealous for peace” is under obligation to seek to restore to the Pope his temporal dominion as the first step toward peace, and the climax is reached when it is asserted that “nearly all nations are more or less accomplices” in the “crime” of depriving the Pope of his temporal rule. What is this other than a semiofficial notice from the Papacy to the President of the United States, that as head of this nation and a professed promoter of peace among the nations, it is his first duty to clear himself and the nation which he represents from complicity

in the “crime” of the Italian government in establishing a united Italy and in bringing to an end the government of the papal states? What is this other than a demand upon the nations of the world that they should reopen the case of the king of Italy versus the Pope and restore the head of the church to his former place as a temporal prince?

The very fact that the Pope of Rome deemed it expedient or necessary to send such a letter as this to his official representative in the United States, who no doubt followed instructions in presenting it to the President of the United States, demonstrates beyond a shadow of doubt that the head of the Roman Church feels assured of his power in this country, and is beginning to assert his authority in public affairs in a way which would have been most emphatically resented before the Roman Church became such an influential factor in the politics of the country.

The history which has been made in so many countries in the past is being repeated in America. First, the apparent submission to, and acceptance of, the principles of liberty; second, the use of this liberty to build up a power antagonistic to these very principles; third, the assertion of an external authority, worded most cautiously at first but with increasing emphasis, ending with the assumption of full right to control in both the spiritual and the temporal domain.

Certain it is that what the Roman Catholic Church has done for other countries, it is now attempting to do for America.

W. W. P.