Spain and the Vatican by S. B. Horton

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jan 19, 1911

Spain and the Vatican

By S. B. Horton

A VICTORY was scored by Premier Canalejas, of Spain, in the Chamber of Deputies, December 23, after a stormy all-night session in behalf of his “Padlock” bill. The bill originally prohibited the creation of further religious establishments in Spain, to become operative upon the passage of the measure. A compromise was effected by limiting the time of the law’s operation to two years. The Associated Press report of December 24 has this to say in regard to the matter:—

“The objection to the measure by the Holy See was based on the contention that whereas negotiations were under way for the revision of the concordat of 1851, Spain could not in good faith adopt any legislation adversely affecting the congregations until these negotiations had been concluded. It was claimed that, in the meantime, the status quo should be maintained.

“Canalejas insisted upon a ‘program of religious liberty,’ and maintained that the matter covered by the ‘Padlock’ bill was not properly a subject of diplomatic exchanges between Madrid and Rome. In this attitude he has the support of King Alfonso. Much bitterness was engendered; and Canalejas, himself an avowed Catholic, bore the brunt of the clerical opposition.

“The final fight was waged until the deputies were pretty well exhausted physically. Amendment after amendment was voted down. At seven o’clock this morning Canalejas intervened in a strong speech, disclaiming any hostility upon the part of the government toward the religious orders. He insisted, nevertheless, upon the necessity of passing the bill, in order that the government might resume negotiations with Rome.

“Señor Salaberry, the integralist, responding, declared that the opposition would fight to the bitter end; but Vasquez Mella y Candido, leader of the Carlists, finally surrendered, saying that he did so out of pity for the poor stenographers, after, however, registering a final protest on behalf of the Pope, who, he said, would be greatly grieved.”

The vote was 108 to 20, and it means that Spain has taken a long step toward religious liberty in a practical way. Of course, Rome will contend that this success will bring about an irreligious era, because of the discontinuance of the ecclesiastical control of the state. But an irreligious era is not a necessary outcome. Canalejas’s program evidently calls for a non-religious form of government in place of a religious. In this connection a letter to the editor of the New York Sun, published December 23, from R. A. M., correspondent of El Progreso, may be in place. We quote in part:—

“Deplorable as it is undoubtedly, every forward movement in Spanish politics is bound to assume an anticlerical aspect, because in Spain the church has become identified with absolutism. Therefore as the popular mind is being enlightened, it beholds in the church an obstacle to its betterment. People no longer want to go to the convents for the ‘poor’s soup,’ but want to possess the means of having it home-made. They are by leaps and bounds losing their belief in an eternal punishment, since they now hear that religion is a moral teaching, calculated to perpetuate a system which they deem an injustice. If the church, after having been Spain’s chief educator throughout history, finds herself now despised and defeated, let her shoulder the blame.”

It is written, “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” This principle is as true of the church as of individuals, and it will be interesting to know what the outcome will be between Spain and the Vatican.

S. B. HORTON.