What Diplomatic Relations With Rome Would Mean to This Country
By L. A. S.
The abolition of the concordat and the separation of church and state in France, is one of the most noteworthy events in recent years. The foremost figure in the movement which brought about this result, is the ex-premier of France, Emile Combes. A statement set up from this eminent individual, of the reasons for this action on the part of the French republic, is naturally, therefore, of particular interest. We give, accordingly, some paragraphs from a contribution by ex-Premier Combes on this subject to The World To-Day, the editor of which refers to it as being one of the most “important papers published within recent years.” The query may arise in many minds as to just what harm would result from the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and the Vatican,—a thing for which Rome has been and is now persistently and patiently working. Ex-Premier Combes answers this query by his statement of the practical workings of such a system in the republic of France. The papacy is not, as regards the territory of the United States, a foreign power. It is a power existing in the United States, but of a different order from it, being a spiritual and not a political power. The two powers can exist harmoniously in the same territory only by virtue of keeping within wholly separate spheres of action; the church must be kept separate from the state. But diplomatic relations are set up only between powers which are acting within a common sphere. The setting up of diplomatic relations with the Vatican would mean that this government had consented to negotiate with a power existing in the United States, yet independent of it; in other words, to allow within its own territory a power concerning itself with the affairs of state, yet independent of the state; for one power does not have diplomatic relations with another power subordinate to itself. The head of the papacy is in Italy, but its body extends around the world. That such action on the part of this republic would be suicidal is a truth too evident to require demonstration. Ex-Premier Combes says:— The moment the state decided to enter into negotiations with the Catholic Church, it implicitly recognized the latter as a power relatively independent of itself, and therefore deemed co-operation necessary for its labors in the field of social progress. A monarchical government could submit to such a conception without acting in opposition to its principles. . . . A republican government, however, could not do so without denying the fundamental principles of its constitution. The republic remains merely a word, void of meaning, unless it stands for the sovereignty of the nation. But when we speak of the nation’s sovereignty, we must necessarily put aside all suppositions in regard to any authority whatever dealing with it on a footing of equality, dictating terms to it and accepting them by contract only in the guise of compensations. Should the United States government consent to treat with the papacy, it would set up in its own territory a power independent of itself, a power claiming the right to exercise political as well as spiritual authority, and even to be above and to possess rightful authority over all other political powers. It would establish by its side a power not only ready to exercise equal sovereignty, but even claiming superior sovereignty to itself. The principle of church and state union, to which the papacy so firmly holds, has its full potency only when the state is subordinate to, and controlled by, the church. This is Rome’s ideal, so fully attained in the past, and constantly kept in view at the present time. The hand of Rome would then be everywhere in the affairs of the state, co-operating with the state in whatever was for Rome’s interests, but stoutly opposing the state when those interests were deemed in jeopardy. The sovereignty of the state would, erelong, be set aside and treated with contempt. This is precisely what the papacy has done in those countries, such as Spain and Austria, which have diplomatic relations with her. This is what she was doing in France, and this is what forced upon that republic the necessity of breaking loose from its relations with Rome. On this point ex-Premier Combes says:— Not one law submitted to our legislative bodies during the last thirty years has, during the parliamentary debates, escaped the assault of the entire clerical clique, and failed to be represented to the faithful as being the work of the evil one. . . . It really seems as if the clergy had passed the word to free itself from all its legal obligations, for it eagerly seized every opportunity for disavowing them, adding to these disavowals the most insulting language directed at the republic. . . . They had so thoroughly acquired a taste for deriding and insulting the domestic policy of the republic that they unhappily soon came to treat the foreign policy of the country with the same license. The whole civilized world has been in a position to appreciate the highly appropriate manner in which the journey of the president of the republic through Italy was managed. The visit of the chief of the French government to the Italian ruler was called for by the most elementary principles of courtesy as well as by the reciprocal interests of both nations. Yet the pope has pretended to regard it as an infraction of his dignity. Asserting his fictitious rights to sovereignty, he has denounced the president of the French republic to the Catholic powers of Europe as a criminal guilty of lese-majeste.5 The ex-premier further says:— That the church, while united to the state by a covenant conferring on its representatives a legal authority, as well as all the advantages of public functionaries, should attempt to destroy, in the name of its own teachings, the doctrines of the state, vilifying them and ruining them in the minds of those who listen to its organs, constitutes one of those stupefying anomalies which it is the duty of the republican party at once to bring to an end. Still, this is the part played by the Catholic clergy for thirty years past. Rome desires diplomatic relations with civil governments with a view wholly to the advancement of her own interests. She makes just that use of those relations where they are established. The whole history of the French republic’s relations with Rome since its establishment thirty years ago, had taught him, M. Combes says, “without any possible doubt, that the Vatican was fully resolved to preserve only the material and moral advantages which the concordat offered to the Catholic Church, but that it had forever repudiated the political obligations as well as those to the community, which form the equivalent demanded by the state. Indeed,” he adds, “how could his mind have retained the least uncertainty on this subject, when he had read in the unalterable constitution, solemnly promulgated by Pope Pius IX, in virtue of his papal infallibility, and amid the applause of an ecumenical council, the enumeration of the rights belonging by grant of the Divinity to the successor of St. Peter, in contradiction to the blasphemous pretensions of modern governments? That constitution, well known under the name of the Syllabus, speaks loud and distinct enough to prevent a sincere mind from being in danger of mistaking its wording.” M. Combes quotes from the doctrines of the Syllabus: “That the Roman Church, as the superior of all governments, is a perfect organization, by right and in all respects independent of civil power;” also other like provisions, citing references where these doctrines are set forth. Any intelligent person is prepared with these facts before him, to understand the significance of Rome’s guarded and politic but persistent efforts to establish diplomatic relations with the government of the United States. L. A. S.