Rome, the Hope of the Nations
For centuries the hope of millions of the human family centered in Rome. Of the pretended successor of St. Peter it might be truly said, as was said of one of old: “Whom he would he slew; whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down.” Before the Roman pontiff, princes and potentates bowed the knee, and kings and kingdoms rejoiced in his blessing or trembled before his anathema. But in God’s good providence there came about a change. The Reformation of the sixteenth century set in motion influences which brought about a reaction in the political and religious worlds. Men began to think for themselves. By thousands the papal yoke was discarded, and the yoke of Christ, representing civil and religious liberty, was taken on. The power of Rome was greatly weakened. But these revolutionary changes in the civil and religious worlds have wrought no change in the papal system. In principle the Roman Church of today is the Roman Church of the dark ages. The principles of papal domination enunciated by Gregory VII and Innocent III are as firmly believed and taught by their disciples at the present time as in the days of those popes; and Rome today looks forward with fond anticipation to the time when she will recover her old-time prestige, and the power which she once enjoyed among the nations of men. She fondly anticipates a union of Christendom, recognizing the pontiff of Rome as the head of all the churches. One of the latest expressions of this hope on the part of the church is voiced in an interview recently given by Cardinal Gibbons to representatives of the press. The Baltimore American of September 29, reports his words as follows:— The reunion of the scattered branches of Christendom is a consummation devoutly to be wished, and I would gladly sacrifice the remaining years of my life in lending a helping hand toward this blessed result. The first essential requirement is the recognition of the sovereign pontiff, who, as the successor of St. Peter, is the divinely appointed head of Christendom. Every organization, whether religious, civil, or political, needs a head for its peace and security, as well as for its very existence. Once the proper position of the Pope is recognized, I do not believe that the other controverted doctrines are as formidable as commonly imagined. When a proper explanation is given of the various dogmas upon which Christianity is founded, I am persuaded that the logical sense of the people would prompt them to accept. And if the various Christian denominations of the United States were once united, working with one heart and one spirit, what a wonderful influence our Christian forces would exert in the civilization and the Christianizing of mankind! What amazing things would then be done for society and humanity! The union of the churches would bring about an era of civilization unknown in history. You and I may not live to see it, but it will come, I hope, and then the one undivided church will flourish and triumph. The cardinal declares that in the bringing about of this union “the first essential requirement is the recognition of the sovereign pontiff, who, as the successor of St. Peter, is the divinely appointed head of Christendom.” Should this be accomplished, the cardinal believes that the Christian forces would exert a wonderful influence in the Christianizing of mankind, and that “amazing things would then be done for society and humanity.”9 Surely Rome could never expect to do for society and humanity more than she has done for them in the past. In the noontide of her power she had abundant opportunity to make effective those Christianizing forces and civilizing influences which she now desires to see set in operation. She did according to her own will. Upon many of the nations of the world she placed her own indelible stamp. Surely it is proper to judge of what she would do in the future by what she has done for mankind where she has had centuries of unlimited sway. But the sad fruits of her utter failure are too apparent. In Spain, which at one time boasted of her great universities, and under Saracen government stood as the center of educational influence in all Europe, we find, after nearly a millennium of Roman rule, fifty-eight per cent of the population above ten years of age unable to read and write. Conditions are even worse in Portugal, where over seventy-three per cent of the people above ten years of age are unable to read and write their own tongue. Here the domination of Rome became so oppressive that a few years ago the people freed themselves from her yoke. Her priest-ruled king was forced to abdicate, her monasteries were opened, many of her priests and monks were banished, and a representative form of government was established. In Italy, the seat of Roman Catholicism in the world, the situation is but little better than in Spain. More than forty-eight per cent of the population above ten years of age are unable to read, and this per cent would undoubtedly be even higher than this had it not been for the anti-Roman influences which have been at work for years in that country. The revulsion of feelings on the part of the people of Italy led them to establish a government free from Roman domination, and impose upon the pontiff restrictions which would perhaps be imposed by no other government of earth. Rome’s influence previous to the great Revolution transformed France, one of the fairest and most fruitful states of Europe, into a condition of bankruptcy and penury, and the people themselves from disciples of priestcraft to atheists and infidels. For more than a century France has been endeavoring to recover from the blighting influences of church rule, and it has succeeded to such an extent that at the present time only a little more than fourteen per cent of its population over ten years of age are placed in the illiterate column. In Italy thirty-eight per cent of the persons entering into the marriage relationship are unable to read or write. In England and Wales only one and eight-tenths per cent of this class of persons are illiterate. Thirty-eight per cent of the men enlisting in the Italian army are illiterate as against five tenths of one per cent of the army enlistments in Switzerland and three hundredths of one per cent in Germany. These comparisons speak for themselves. Rome’s Second Opportunity
Did Rome learn a lesson from her experience with the nations of the Old World? What use has she made of the new opportunities afforded her in the western hemisphere? What are the results of her rule in South America and the Catholic states of North America? It has been a repetition of her history in Europe. At the present time in Mexico seventy-five per cent of the people are unable to read and write, in Bolivia eighty-two per cent, in Brazil eighty-five per cent. Contrast these figures with the seven and seven-tenths per cent of illiteracy found in the United States, including the total population, both native and foreign born. And in the nations of the western hemisphere upon which Rome has placed her heavy hand there is working the same revulsion of feelings against papal domination. This is apparent particularly in the countries of South America. As expressed by Bishop H. C. Stuntz, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, “The stars in their courses are fighting against Rome in South America.” This has been shown in many striking instances during the last few months. In the Outlook of October 18, Prof. George H. Blakeslee, the head of the department of history in Clark University, recites some of the influences which are now at work in South America derogatory to the interests of the church. In the month of June the students in Santiago and Valparaiso went on a strike as a protest against the presence of the papal nuncio. For a week they refused to attend lectures or classes. At the same time some fifty thousand of the citizens, it is estimated, met together in the capital and petitioned the president of Chile for the nuncio’s expulsion. “These demonstrations were not limited to a few extremists, but were engaged in by many thousands of people.” One cause of this anticlerical outbreak was the belief that the papal delegate was obtaining immense sums of money by mortgaging monastery property, taking this money out of the country and sending it to Rome. Ecuador, so long religiously intolerant, Professor Blakeslee says “has made all ecclesiastics ineligible for congress, has secularized all cemeteries, and established complete religious freedom.” In Uruguay the same principles are at work. In the adoption of the new constitution it is agreed by both political parties “that a section shall be inserted in it providing for the disestablishment of the church.” Perhaps one of the most striking instances showing the change of feeling toward the Roman Church in South America is the recent action of Bolivia in providing “that only civil marriages are legal, and that if a religious service is desired this must be celebrated after the civil marriage has been performed.” The cemeteries have been released from the power of the clergy and placed under state control; and “the famous Corpus Christi procession, which plays so prominent a part in the religious life of Latin America, has been forbidden by law in La Paz, the capital of Bolivia.” Nor is this all. As stated in these columns two weeks ago, on Oct. 4, 1913, the chamber of deputies of Peru, by vote of sixty-six to four, repealed the clause in the law prohibiting freedom of worship, thus “permitting freedom of worship and of conscience to the Peruvian people.” What has wrought this change of attitude on the part of the people of these various countries? Why have the nations of the Old World—France, Italy, and Portugal—thrown off the papal yoke? Why is it that for the last few years a strong anticlerical party has existed in Spain, seeking to secure the same liberty? Why is it that in Chile, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Uruguay, and Mexico, where Rome has had her latest opportunity to demonstrate what she can do for the people, such strong reactionary influences should now be at work? It is because, instead of giving to the people the liberty which they crave, she has exploited them for her own selfish ends. Her rule has ministered to ignorance, illiteracy, and degradation. As stated by Wiley, “The noon of the Papacy was the midnight of the world;” and when men have begun to think for themselves, when they have had one little taste of the liberty vouchsafed to them by their Creator, they have turned in bitterness against the power which was seeking to hold them down in slavery of mind and conscience. Hence, in view of this record of Rome, but little assurance is afforded for the future by the bright picture drawn by Cardinal Gibbons. These nations have complied with the first essential requirement. They have recognized the Roman pontiff as the sovereign head of Christendom, but lo, in the history of not one single government have the amazing things in behalf of society and humanity of which the cardinal speaks been apparent. And when the claims of Rome are recognized in America, as he