At the time of the last Presidential election, more or less was said in regard to Mr. Taft’s relationship to Catholicism. It was stated that Mr. Taft’s brother and his wife were Catholics, and more or less prejudice was aroused against him because he himself was a Unitarian. Immediately after the election, Mr. Roosevelt made public a letter which had evidently been written before. In that letter the President said:
“You ask that Mr. Taft shall let the world know what his religious belief is. This is purely his own private concern and is a matter between him and his Maker; a matter for his own conscience; and to require it to be made public under penalty of political discrimination, is to negative the first principles of our government which guarantee complete religious liberty, and the right of each man to act in religious affairs as his own conscience dictates.”
“To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against that liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of the American life.”
Referring to Mr. Taft’s brother and his wife and the statement that had been made that they were Roman Catholics, Mr. Roosevelt said:
“As it happens they are not; but if they were, or if he were a Roman Catholic himself, it ought not to affect in the slightest degree any man’s supporting him for the position of President.”
Against this letter from the President, the New York members of the Synodical Congress of the Lutheran Church took decided action and gave to the press a letter which argued that
“a consistent Roman Catholic can never sincerely subscribe to the Federal Constitution, or if he does subscribe to it, he never can be expected to abide by it, enforce it, and defend it. Papacy and Vaticanism can not be separated from the Roman Catholic religion.”
The letter however declares:
“We do not wish to be understood as tho we mean to accuse the bulk of the Roman Catholics of being disloyal American citizens. We sincerely believe a great many do not fully realize the position the hierarchy of their church maintains with reference to the principle in question.”
Thomas F. Burke, a priest of the Paulist Fathers, was reported in the New York Times to the effect:
“The Catholic Church has always taught that the state is of itself an independent and perfect society. In his encyclicals, and especially in those in which he spoke in the highest terms of American institutions, Leo XIII insisted clearly upon this point: ‘There are two powers that govern mankind—the ecclesiastical and the civil. These have their distinct spheres and their distinct limits.’”
“No matter how much the church may advocate the union of church and state where ideal conditions prevail, no matter how much she has insisted upon such a union in other lands and in other times, she has never advocated a union of church and state in America. . . . With conscientious rectitude, therefore, every Catholic does, unequivocally, subscribe to the Constitution.”
Copyright 1909, Underwood & Underwood, N. Y.
Hon. Jas. S. Sherman, Vice-president of United States.
On the two sides of the question many have ranged themselves since. Many Protestants have taken sides with the Lutherans; many have kept silent. Many have commended the words of Mr. Roosevelt; some have condemned him; others have said nothing.
If all Catholics had ever taught, and were now talking even as this Paulist priest, doubtless many Protestants would feel differently, but the Western Watchman, one of the leading Catholic papers of America, published in St. Louis, in its issue of October 21 plainly declares:
“The Catholics of this country are Romans. They swear by the pope, they STAND UP FOR PAPAL AUTHORITY. WE PLACE NO LIMITATIONS ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE VATICAN. Any man who is not with the pope, is excommunicate with us.”
That, of course, taken in connection with what Thomas F. Burke says, would clearly show that if conditions were different in America, Roman Catholics would hold to the union of church and state, with the Roman Catholic Church the established church; and yet on the other hand, under the present Constitution of the United States, Mr. Roosevelt is right. We do not know how he could take any other ground than that which he has taken. Just as soon as we rest the matter of suffrage, or citizenship, on one’s religious belief, that principle would disfranchise every one who would in any wise connect religion with the state or admit of religious legislation. Not only that, it would restore the Inquisition of the medieval ages.
There are Protestant sects, like the Reformed Presbyterians, who would hold that this government ought to recognize God in the Constitution and place the various usages, laws, and institutions of Christianity on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land. That, of course, would not mean the Christian religion, but would mean that sect’s understanding of just what was the Christian religion; just the same as if the Catholics should have their way, it would mean their understanding of what the Christian religion is. That would also be true of the great Protestant Church Federal Council, which completed its organization recently in the city of Philadelphia; for that council also believes in placing certain religious tenets on an undeniable legal basis. Logically its members would be disfranchised as truly as Roman Catholics would be; because the principles they have adopted are certainly inimical to absolute religious freedom—the 1776 ideal. They place paramount to civil government in civil things a religious body.
The true ground, and the only ground upon which the question can be decided is the ground of the Federal Constitution. The glory of that great far-seeing document is that under its protection and principles men of the greatest religious differences may dwell in peace. Just as long as the Constitution is preserved in its integrity, people of all creeds, religious belief or no religious belief, can dwell in equality under its overshadowing aegis, and be alike good citizens. Just as long as they abide by the Constitution and the laws framed in harmony therewith, there is religious liberty for all. They may disagree, each may consider the other as unworthy of everlasting life, as unchristian in the fullest sense; the Protestants may be counted hopeless heretics by the Roman Catholics, and the Roman Catholics, the mystery of iniquity by Protestants; yet just as long as the principles of the Constitution are in force, all parties stand equal before the law; and that is the right which they ought to have and which ought to be maintained under the Constitution forever; that men could agree to disagree forever if they were so minded; and that no coercion whatsoever should be brought to bear, not only upon either class of those above mentioned, but upon any other class; those who might disagree with both of the great parties, or those who had no religious belief at all. The ground of citizenship lies not in any kind of religious belief or no religious belief, but first of all on the equality of man as recognized by the Constitution; and secondly on his civil conduct as a citizen.
If these principles are regarded; if our Federal Congress and Supreme Court will abide by these principles; if no legislation whatsoever is permitted which has a tendency to connect religion or religious institutions in any wise with the government, if all religious legislation inimical to religious liberty is rejected, set aside; if the liberty of the individual is preserved according to the design of the builders of the government, religious liberty will be assured to its subjects forever, whatever the religion of the people.
Now if Roman Catholics believe in religious liberty, they will not say as the Western Watchman has said, that Lutherans171should be disfranchised because they did not believe in Roman Catholic Presidents; nor would Lutherans or any other class advocate the same thing regarding Roman Catholics. Let every legislator and judge and citizen stand for the principles of the Constitution whatever others may do or howsoever others may be protected by that worthy-to-be-honored instrument. Let President Taft abide by the Constitution. When liberty ceases in this government, it will be because these things have been disregarded by Congress, by legislators, by courts, by executives. Then woe be to the nation, to the church, and to the people!
