TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPE.
The Catholic Mirror of October 26 says that “the Holy Father does not wish territory in order to make converts by force of arms, but, merely, in order to be independent. . . . The temporal power and the independence of Italy are incompatible. The Holy Father is head of the whole church, and can not sacrifice her rights in the interests of one particular state.” The Mirror then quotes from the London Spectator, a supposedly Protestant paper, that which we print below. It will give our readers an idea of how some Europeans look upon the temporal power of the pope, and how at last its restoration may be considered necessary. “It is next to impossible that the pope should cease to desire an earthly sovereignty in the interest of his spiritual position. Signor Crispi’s notion that the inspiring motive of that desire must be ‘lust of power,’ or vanity, or greed, is utterly unfair. Leo XIII. may have any foibles the Italian Premier likes; but if he is faithful to his office, he must desire, wholly apart from the immense influence of tradition on his mind, what may be called physical independence, inviolability for himself, a punitive power over the great ecclesiastical establishments, and, moreover, a place in which he can set forth his idea of the right way to govern men. It is asserted every morning that he is independent now; but is that strictly true? Suppose the pope settled in Avignon, or Bonn, or Toledo, would the world regard him as independent of France or Germany or Spain? Yet, if invested with the privileges of an ambassador, he would be no more at the mercy of any of those states than he is now at the mercy of Italy. At this moment he is specially guarded by Italian police during the fêtes, lest the Anarchists or fanatic Liberals should make an attempt upon the Vatican or upon his personal safety.” “It is quite true that Italy, for the time, protects the pope conscientiously; but suppose the Great War to end to the disadvantage of France, and Italy to develop anti-clerical feeling—both of them at least possible occurrences—what would the independence of the pope be worth then? It would in Catholic eyes, at all events, be worth nothing at all, and it is Catholics, not Protestants, who are anxious that it should be preserved. It would be simply impossible under such circumstances for the pope to lay an interdict on Italy, so that his independence in the exercise of at least one spiritual power would be gone, probably forever. Popes do not nowadays lay interdicts. Quite true; and the British Parliament does not nowadays pass ecclesiastical laws; but suppose Parliament were forbidden by France, Germany, or America to pass them any more! Should we think the independence of Parliament unaffected?” “The desire of the Papacy for a kingdom of its own, beyond the possibility of justifiable human interference, seems to us perfectly natural, and from the papal standpoint perfectly justifiable. It can not be gratified because of the opposing conditions, just as the desire for Christian unity can not be gratified because of the opposing conditions; but it gives no just occasion for either anger or mockery, and it will not die away.”