Discharging an Obligation to the Roman Catholic Church
By W. W. P.
It is a fundamental doctrine among Roman Catholic writers upon the subject that although a distinction (not separation) is to be recognized between the church and the state, there is yet the same intimate connection and relation between the two as between the soul and the body. History demonstrates that wherever it has been possible to do so, the Roman Catholic hierarchy has put this principle into practise, and has either, through the instrumentality of concordats, established the exact nature of this relationship, or has assumed a sort of protectorate over the state by virtue of which the civil authority was made subject to ecclesiastical control. The recent experiences in France growing out of the annulment of the famous Concordat which had been in force for a century, illustrate the tenacity with which the Papacy clings to emoluments which it has secured from the state, and the turmoil which it is capable of creating when it is deprived of state aid. In any country where Protestants are in the majority, the Roman Catholic Church never urges a concordat; but, adopting that principle of expediency which has characterized this organization from its beginning, it freely consents to the separation of the church and the state. In such circumstances this policy results more favorably to the Roman Catholic interests and prevents Protestants from gaining those supposed advantages which arise from an alliance with the state. As the power and influence of the Roman Catholic Church increase in any country, their tendency to exert a controlling influence in the affairs of state becomes more prominent, and their use of the solidarity of the Roman Catholic Church as a political power becomes more apparent. The members of all other denominations unite with political parties as individuals, and they look for political rewards, not on account of church connection, but as citizens who have served well their party. In marked contrast with this is the Roman Catholic method. As indicating the difference and as an illustration of the present Roman Catholic aggressiveness in political matters, we submit a portion of an editorial in the Western Watchman (Roman Catholic) of December 16 in which the appointment of Mr. Richard Kerens as ambassador to Vienna is discussed. We invite attention to these utterances:— At the close of the November election, when it became evident that Mr. Kerens was not to be senator from Missouri, we demanded for him, in the name of the hundreds of thousands of Catholics who had supported Mr. Taft, because of his honorable course on every question where the Church was concerned, that he should reward him with a first-class ambassadorship. We were bold in making this demand, first, because the Catholics of the country deserved recognition from the President; and, secondly, because we were sure that the new President was conscious of the obligation. We assured him that he could in no better way discharge that obligation than by honoring with a first-class foreign appointment a man whom every Catholic, lay and clerical, in the land loved and honored. . . . There was not one bishop in the United States who did not desire Mr. Kerens's appointment, and some of them so assured the President. . . . We rejoice at it [Mr. Kerens’s appointment] for several reasons. We feel that Mr. Kerens has suffered very much politically for his pronounced and uncompromising Catholicity. He would be senator from Missouri to-day if he had been less of a Catholic. If there are any honors which a public man can receive because of his devotion to the Catholic Church, we feel it our duty to try to secure them for him. Then Mr. Kerens had deserved very well of the whole Catholic Church. He had given largely of his ample means to promote her charities and activities in all parts of the country; and always in the silent, modest, and unostentatious way characteristic of the man. . . . He has many strong friends in and out of his party. But if his personal worth and the support of his friends proved inadequate to save him from neglect, the Catholics of the land came manfully to the front and saved the day. The reasons given for demanding the appointment of Mr. Kerens and the frank avowal of the cause of the success of the effort in his behalf are worthy of note: (1) “The Catholics of the country deserved recognition from the President;” (2) “The new President was conscious of the obligation;” (3) All the bishops of the United States favored this appointment, “and some of them so assured the President;” (4) “Mr. Kerens had deserved very well of the whole Catholic Church;” (5) When considerations of personal worth and the support of his friends were not likely to prevail, “the Catholics of the land came manfully to the front and saved the day.” In view of these remarkable declarations we are led to inquire: (1) For what reason did Mr. Taft feel conscious of any obligation to the Catholics of the country, unless he was conscious that the hierarchy had used their influence over their communicants to furnish a large block of votes for the Republican candidate for the presidency? (2) Why should the opinion of a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church be desired or sought concerning the appointment of an ambassador to a foreign court? (3) What bearing do the donations of Mr. Kerens to the Roman Catholic charities have upon the question of his fitness to represent the United States at the Austrian court? (4) How could Catholics save the day for Mr. Kerens unless they appealed to the power of the church as a voting factor in political contests? (5) Has it already come to this that the Roman Catholic Church in the United States can openly demand political favors and insist upon their being granted in return for the influence of the church in a presidential election? Those optimistic writers and speakers who have no forebodings of evil because of the rapid growth of the Roman Catholic Church in America may find food for profitable reflection in this latest outburst of politico-religious zeal, and this self-confessed mixing of the Roman Catholic Church with politics. It forcibly suggests what we may expect in the future.