In Barcelona, Spain, Rosellon Street, a Protestant chapel is in process of erection, and its formal opening and dedication are to take place in the near future. Until now, no Protestant church building or chapel has been allowed in Spain to have its entrance right on the street, or wear in its architecture any signs of its religious character.
Great, therefore, is the alarm of his "eminence the Cardinal Casañas, bishop of Barcelona." And nothing is left undone by him to prevent such a sacrilege as is now threatening the city committed to his pastoral watchcare. He tells, in a recent pastoral letter, of his earnest and multiplied efforts in this direction.
He has invited the Catholic associations of Barcelona to present a remonstrance to the government "showing the necessity of wiping off from public gaze a church building which is an offense to the feelings of the whole Catholic community of Barcelona."
Not hearing any results from this effort, the bishop has addressed to his youthful Majesty, King Alfonso XIII., a long message in five parts, in which the prelate expresses the hope that, "by virtue of his religious sentiments and of the existing contracts with the Holy See," the ruler will not "tolerate the existence of a Protestant church building." He then goes on into an extended exposition of the Spanish Constitution and of the teachings of the Catholic Church, showing her "rights in demanding that said Protestant chapel shall disappear." I translate from the pastoral letter as summed up in Las Noticias of May 7, 1905.
The Spanish Constitution and Treaties on Religious Liberty.
The bishop first refers to the fact that Article II. of the Spanish Constitution states that "the religion of the state shall be the Catholic religion, and, altho no one shall be disturbed in the service of another worship, still no public manifestations shall be allowed except those of the Catholic Church."
He then quotes Article First of a treaty made with the Papacy in 1851, which says: "The Catholic, apostolic, and Roman religion shall continue to be, exclusive of every other one, the only religion of the Spanish nation, and shall enjoy, in all the dominions of his Catholic Majesty, all the privileges granted her by the law of God and the sacred canons."
Cardinal Casañas then exclaims: "How can we therefore consent to a Protestant chapel whose outward adornments shall say to every one passing by: Come in, this is a house dedicated to prayer! How can I, your bishop, tolerate that you, my beloved grey, shall be deceived into such a building, and find yourselves attending a Protestant worship! Does not such a deception call for God's vengeance and the indignation of the Christian people?"
Coming to the direct teachings of the church, the cardinal says: "Liberty of worship is in itself impious and absurd, because it is an impiety and an absurdity to suppose that man has the right not to worship God or not to worship Him in the way which He requires from all." "Quite another thing is civil toleration of worship. This does not imply the approbation of evil nor the right of doing it, but simply a permission granted in certain cases in which greater evil would result to the church or the state from complete prohibition than from toleration."
Notice that freedom of worship, wherever granted in Catholic lands, is only a matter of policy, and never of principle.
The cardinal goes on: "Until now, true philosophers have always said that nothing was so intolerant as truth. It remains for the advocates of freedom of thought and worship to declare that religious truth must be tolerant, and that we must admit as equally true both sides of a religious question. For instance, that Mary was always a virgin, as Catholics believe, and that she was not a virgin, as Protestants pretend. For that reason the Catholic, who is in possession of revealed truth, can never consent to admit that truth is not divine truth. Thus you see what becomes of the objections raised against Catholic intolerance."
Romish Sophistry.
From the above quotations the intelligent reader will see, with a little thought, that the argument of the Catholic prelate is based on a threefold confusion. First, he confuses our relations to God with our relations to man; next, he confuses the church with the state; and thirdly, he confuses truth and error as abstractions with the persons holding them.
In the first place, he declares that no man has a right to ignore or disobey God, which is perfectly true from the standpoint of man's relations with God. Then he affirms that truth can not tolerate error, or, in other words, that it would be absurd for the truth to say that error was right, which is also correct. And finally, he says that the Catholic Church can not admit that she is not in possession of absolute divine truth, which is certainly her privilege if she so desires.
This done, the shrewd disciple of Escobar cleverly turns around, and draws from each premise a wrong and wicked conclusion. To simmer down his threefold arguments into syllogisms, we have the following:
An impious man has no right to dishonor God by his godlessness; therefore the pious people must force him to be pious, too.
Truth is intolerant of error; therefore Catholics should refuse religious freedom to Protestants.
The Catholic Church can not admit that she is wrong or that Protestants are right; therefore every Catholic state should persecute Protestantism and every dissenting religion.
May 2nd, Cardinal Casañas had the joy of receiving a very polite letter from Villaverde, one of the Spanish ministers, informing him that he had taken great pains to present his letter to the government, and that the council of ministers had decided not to allow the opening of the chapel without first ordering the taking off of all the external signs obnoxious to his eminence.
The English Government, which had intervened in favor of said chapel, has been answered negatively by the Spanish Government.
Thus Spain is still clinging devoutly and blindly to the Mistress on the Tiber, the cause of so much of her shame and suffering.
Paris, France.
