p. 8 | The President, the Pope, and the Cardinals

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Tacoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Apr 25, 1912

The President, the Pope, and the Cardinals

By William Warren Prescott

IN the three years and a little more during which the Hon. William H. Taft has occupied the position of the chief executive of this nation, he has in several instances shown his readiness to yield to the skilful diplomacy of the representatives of the Roman Church, and his conduct in this respect is being severely criticized by a large number of journals which stand for the separation of church and state in the United States. In view of these facts, it is not surprising that the recent visit of Maj. Archibald Butt, the President's aide, to Pope Pius X at the Vatican has awakened much interest, and has been the subject of much surmising. It was reported, on apparently good authority, that Major Butt conveyed a personal letter from President Taft to the Pope, and that he was entrusted with a personal reply from the pontiff, but nothing very definite was stated concerning the nature of the correspondence until an article appeared in the New York Times of April 14, 1912, which will doubtless attract much attention. The first paragraph of this article runs thus:—

That President Taft has made up his mind to follow the custom of the non-Catholic courts and governments in Europe, on the subject of the precedence to be accorded to cardinals in the United States, no matter whether foreign or native, has been strikingly shown by the fact that he despatched his principal aide-de-camp, Maj. Archibald Butt, to Rome, entrusted with purely private letters to Pius X and King Victor Emmanuel.

The subject-matter of the President's letter to the Pope, and the further purpose of Major Butt's visit to the Vatican, are discussed in the following paragraphs:—

It is generally understood that the letter from President Taft to the Pope was for the purpose of expressing to him the satisfaction felt in all parts of the United States over the recent elevation of three distinguished American citizens to the sacred college, and also to recall his pleasant intercourse with the Holy Father at the time when he visited Rome while he was still Secretary of War, in order to settle, in a manner satisfactory alike to the church and to the American government, the difficult and troublesome questions regarding the friars' lands in the Philippines, a problem involving a large amount of money.

It is also known that Maj. Archibald Butt, while at the Vatican, was directed by Taft to discuss, unofficially and privately, with the papal Secretary of State Merry del Val, and other leading members of the sacred college and of the pontifical court, the problem of precedence which had arisen in connection with the official rank and status of cardinals in the United States.

It is plainly intimated in this article that the cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church will hereafter take precedence in this country, as they do in the Old World, over all representatives of foreign powers, over all cabinet officers, over the Speaker of the House, and over the Vice-President. According to the new order of things, if a cardinal of the Roman Church should visit an American man-of-war, he would be entitled to salutes and naval honors reserved for a foreign royal personage. To quote:—

There has never been any difficulty about the status of cardinals in Italy, and whenever any foreign or Italian member of the sacred college has visited an Italian man-of-war, he has been received and welcomed on board with all the naval honors reserved for royalty.

So it will undoubtedly have to be in the United States, which now, in matters of international comity, feels itself under the necessity of complying not only with the demands, but also with the ethics of jus gentium.

The question of discrimination in favor of one church over another is treated plainly if not satisfactorily:—

The point raised about discrimination in favor of one church at the expense of another, can not be said to apply to the case of cardinals. They are something beyond ministers of the gospel and ecclesiastics. Indeed, a cardinal is not necessarily a priest; for instance, old Cardinal Mertel, who was the principal legal counsel of the sacred college, and indeed of the Papacy. With his short-cropped, reddish-gray whiskers, he presented a striking contrast to the other members of the sacred college at great ecclesiastical pageants.

But a cardinal is, from a purely secular point of view, a very great personage, who is regarded and treated everywhere abroad not as a dignitary of the church, but as a foreign prince of the blood.

Reference is made to the clash between Governor Foss of Massachusetts and Cardinal O'Connell at the dinner in Boston on St. Patrick's day, and the way is prepared for a cardinal to be accorded the first place in Washington:—

Here in America, where we now have four cardinals who are citizens of the United States, a somewhat unique difficulty has arisen in connection with the precedence of cardinals, attention to which was called the other day by the attitude of the governor of Massachusetts at the St. Patrick's day dinner, at which the President of the United States, and also Cardinal O'Connell, archbishop of Massachusetts, were among the guests of honor.

At Washington the President would probably have quickly settled the status of Cardinal O'Connell in accordance with the rules that prevail at the court of St. James's and in other non-Catholic capitals, that is to say, he would have conceded to Cardinal O'Connell, as also to Cardinals Farley, Gibbons, and Falconio, the “pas” over the foreign ambassadors, who precede every one else, even the Vice-President of the United States and the Speaker of the House, also all the judiciary.

But as this St. Patrick's day dinner took place, not at Washington, but at Boston, the position of the governor of the State came into consideration. The governor complained that he had not been given a place at the table superior to Cardinal O'Connell, which he considered his due on the ground that he was the sovereign executive of Massachusetts, with powers of life and death in that State, and with all the attributes of rulership. Strictly speaking, he regarded himself as the first personage in the State, but yielded the “pas” as a matter of courtesy to the chief magistrate of all the States, namely, President Taft. He insisted on ranking next to the President and before the cardinal, and when this was denied to him by the organizers of the St. Patrick's day banquet, he remained away.

An article of similar import, written by a correspondent, appeared in the Washington Post of March 25, 1912. The purpose of such articles in the leading papers of this country is unmistakable. The people are thus being educated to expect that the practises of Catholic countries in the Old World will be followed in this country, and that the claims of the Roman Catholic hierarchy to precedence over all other dignitaries will be allowed. It is a part of the well-organized campaign to place the Roman Catholic Church on vantage-ground, and to swing America into the column of Catholic countries. Whether the protests which are now being made will be effective in preventing this official recognition of the Papacy by the government of the United States may be regarded as doubtful, and it seems more than likely that this republic will be betrayed into the hands of Rome, and that the Church of Rome “may make of the United States, according to a dream that is no longer merely visionary, the first Catholic nation of the world.” The prophecies are being fulfilled.

W. W. P.