THE PAPAL ELECTION by M. E. K.

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Feb 18, 1897

THE PAPAL ELECTION.

By M. E. K.

Now that the condition of Pope Leo XIII. is such that his death is expected to occur at any time, the matter of the election of his successor is beginning to be discussed. The present pope has ruled since 1878, but it is certain that he can not rule much longer. It is now reported that he has sent official notifications to the Catholic governments of Europe, Austria, France, Spain, and Portugal, that they can not exercise the right formerly claimed by them, to veto the election of the pope in case a man is elected to that office which they fear will be inimical to their interests. This statement calls up the manner of the election of the pope. The first bishop of Rome, who was nothing but a chosen presbyter, was selected by the Christians of that city, to take the lead in public worship, and to act as an overseer of the church. After the empire became nominally Christian, the emperor of Rome had much to do with the election of the bishop, or, as he finally came to be called, “pope of Rome.” Before the Papacy became independent of the eastern empires, in 753, the pope was chosen by the people of Rome, who were nearly all nominally Christian; but the emperor of the east reserved the right to veto or confirm the election. After the Papacy separated from the east, in 753, and joined itself to the nations of the west, the western monarchs claimed about the same right that the emperors of the east had done in regard to the Papacy. This right, tho rarely exercised, has never been given up by the monarchs of the west, and it is a matter of modern history that the emperor of Austria was strongly inclined to prevent Pope Pius IX., whom the present pope succeeded, from taking his seat after his election, because of the liberal principles which he at that time was known to hold and advocate. Great changes have taken place in the manner of electing a pope from what were practised in early times. Now the whole right to elect a pope rests in the College of Cardinals, composed of seventy persons, and, as these are almost entirely Italian, and the pope must be elected from one of their own number, the primacy is practically confined to men of the Italian race.

The special reason urged by the pope against any Catholic government taking any part, either by influence upon cardinals, a very common way, or by a veto, is that since these governments are now separate from the church, they have no right to meddle in the election of a pope. The principle of this contention is correct. Church officials, from the highest to the lowest, should be elected by the church, and civil governments should have nothing to do about it. The only reason why any government ever held that it had a right to participate in the election of a pope, was because of certain conditions which were the result of a union of these governments with the church, represented by the Papacy. One of these was that the Papacy claimed the right to appoint the bishops of the church in these various countries. In those days a bishop was a great man; he possessed a castle, had a host of armed retainers, and was, in fact, one of the peers of the realm. The monarchs of Europe thought that if the pope could thus appoint the lords of their empires, they, the kings, should have the right to have something to say about the election of the man whose power was continually thrust into their kingdom. Volumes have been written in regard to this question, and other questions of right and privilege growing out of the then mutual relations of the pope and the kings. The pope now claims that these relations are past, and that therefore the free action of the College of Cardinals in electing a pope must not be interfered with.

But we doubt very much if the Catholic Church is so separate from these governments as to warrant the pope in making such a statement. It is true that some of these governments are not openly pledged to maintain the Papacy as a civil power, and to do so while the Triple Alliance is in force, by any power, would be tantamount to a declaration of war upon the Alliance, since Italy, which forms one of the parties of the Alliance, holds the States of the Church as a part of its territory. But the results of the former Alliances of this government with the Papacy are still in existence. In some of these countries the bishops of the Catholic Church are still appointed by the pope. In Belgium the pope appoints whom he pleases, but the bishops’ salaries are voted in the annual budget, so that the Belgian Government will not pay a bishop who is obnoxious to it. In Austria the emperor selects three names for an appointment, and the pope appoints one of them. In all the Catholic countries the pope has some rights in the selection of bishops, and all the bishops consult him in regard to their respective fields, and the attitude they should take in their relation to the governments.

The very fact that the pope regards some of the governments of Europe as peculiarly Catholic, evinces that there is a distinct relation between the Papacy and those governments which does not exist between the Papacy and other powers. Now, so long as the Papacy has so much to do in the appointment of bishops in these countries, who wield so strong an influence upon the people, and thus affect government measures, keeping in force laws sustaining church dogmas and privileges fastened upon these governments, and embedded in their laws centuries ago, when the union between Church and State was much more marked than at present, it can hardly be truthfully said that there is not at present a union between the Papacy and these countries. There is such a condition as a tacit union without a specified treaty or “concordat,” as a treaty between the Papacy and the governments has been called. Hence, by virtue of the union which actually exists, these governments do have some right to take part in the election of a pope. Otherwise they have no compensation for the tremendous influence which the Papacy wields in those countries. It looks as tho the pope, while claiming all the advantages to the Papacy which come to it by a union to each of these governments, denies to these governments their right to interfere at all in church affairs, on the ground that such a compact does not exist. Evidently the death of the present pope will reopen the question of the relation of the Papacy to the governments of Europe, and very interesting developments may be expected.

M. E. K.