Chapter 3
The wound in the
side of holy Church:
disunion amongst the bishops
47. Before leaving this world, the divine Founder of the Church begged his heavenly Father to form his apostles into a perfect unity, as he and his Father formed the most perfect unity in their common nature. This sublime unity, which our Incarnate God spoke of in the wonderful prayer he offered after the supper, a few hours before his passion, was principally an interior unity, a unity of faith, hope and love. The Church can never exist entirely without this interior union of which its exterior union is effect, expression and outcome. "One body and one spirit," says St. Paul (1), summing up the matter.
The body he speaks of is marked by unity in external, visible things; the spirit, by unity in the invisible order. He adds: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all" (2). Once more, unity in the divine nature is the momentous foundation of the unity that scattered human beings must form as Christ gathers them under his wings and forms of them one Church. It is also the source of unity within the episcopate of the Church of Christ whose first bishops regarded union so highly. Cyprian expressed their common feeling in his book, On the Unity of the Church.
48. The apostles possessed and maintained this twofold unity in an eminent degree. Interior unity was ensured by their participation in the communion of doctrine and grace; exterior unity, by one amongst them being first (3), and by "the origin of the one episcopate held in its entirety by all together" (4). Only one of them held in particular what had been given in common to all. On that one, undivided rock was built the Church, of which all the other apostles, with the rock and upon the rock, likewise and equally formed the foundation.
49. The hierarchy's awareness of this perfect unity as the most beautiful expression and gracious reflection of the Church's interior unity in spirit endowed the first successors of the apostles with a sense of their own sacred dignity. Although scattered throughout many nations, they were conscious of forming a single body of the highest authority, and of actuating together the divine ideal of power as service. In them this power, like God, is undivided yet everywhere. They also realised that this tremendous unity was the covenant Christ left his apostles before his death, that is, before shedding his blood to seal the new and eternal covenant. Unity amongst his disciples, symbolised by the eucharistic Bread and the seamless cloak that clothed his divine body, was the final aim of all Christ's desires, as it was to be the outcome of his infinite sufferings. The desire which he laid before his Father was that "they should be saved in his name and so become one" (5).
50. The minds, and even more the hearts of the early bishops were dominated by this great concept of unity. As a result, they used every possible means to bind themselves together. All maintained exactly the same faith, and love for the whole body of pastors. Moreover, their first and strongest desire was that all should work together. This is obviously of the highest importance for proper government in the Church of God. In fact, one can only remain astonished at finding the same doctrine, the same discipline and even the same customs introduced by the vast system of government of holy Church in all the nations on earth. In comparison the differences are few and regard non-essentials.
51. How did this come about, and what keeps it in being?
1st, the bishops knew one another personally. Their acquaintance had begun before they were made bishops; it was the natural consequence of the admirable education that formed the great men from amongst whom the bishops of the Church were always chosen. Possible candidates had either been educated together in the schools of their own great bishops (6), or had been careful to know one another by travels undertaken for the purpose. Immensely long and difficult journeys were thought worthwhile for the sake of enjoying the company and conversation of holy, learned men. People were convinced that books were insufficient to communicate wisdom as it was then understood. It was not regarded as sterile knowledge, but as intimate understanding, deep feeling, practical conviction. Such wisdom was transfused and communicated by the presence, voice, gestures and smallest actions (7) of great men. Talent in young people, which dies or lies buried and inert if not sparked off by the talent of others, took fire and blazed.
St. Jerome came to Rome from Dalmatia to receive his basic education; he moved on to Gaul to visit the great men there; to Aquilea to hear St. Valerian whom tradition credits with gathering together many famous personages; to Apollinaris of Antioch in the east; and to Constantinople to become a student under Gregory Nazianzen. As an old man, he did not think it beneath his dignity to go to Alexandria to listen to St. Didymus in the search for truth which ends only with death.
What more can I say? Take for example, St. Orosius who, like many others, went halfway round the known world for the sake of understanding a simple question of church doctrine. He travelled from Spain to Africa to speak to St. Augustine about the heresies then plaguing the Church; St. Augustine sent him on to St. Jerome in Palestine for the same purpose. This was the way in which the most famous priests of the time learned their theology; the clergy were very anxious to know one another.
52. 2nd, the bishops, even the most isolated, were in constant correspondence, although they lacked the means of communication available to us. It is most impressive to see how a bishop like St. Vigilius of Trent sends relics of the martyrs of Anaunia, accompanied by letters of friendship, to St. John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, and to St. Simplicianus of Milan. Besides personal correspondence between bishops, there was also correspondence between churches, especially from the more important to those dependent upon them. Priests and people played their part in writing the letters which were read reverently at public assemblies on feastdays. The apostles were an example to their successors in this; letters of St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John, St. James and St. Jude today form part of the canonical Scriptures. popes Clement and Soter wrote to the Church at Corinth; St. Ignatius and St. Denis of Corinth wrote to various churches, but especially to the church at Rome (8), and to many others.
53. 3rd, the bishops visited one another out of mutual charity, or from zeal for church affairs. Their devotion embraced the universal Church even more than the particular church entrusted to them. They were conscious of being bishops of the catholic Church (9), and realised that one diocese cannot be separated from the entire body of the faithful just as a limb cannot be cut off from the human body, every member of which depends upon the blood flowing through the whole. Arms and legs do not have their own supply of blood, but depend upon the blood of the entire body (the same can be said about all corporal fluids which circulate according to their own laws, and about the simultaneous action of all the parts as they harmonise to produce a common effect, that is, common life which each section of the body shares and participates as its own life without reference to "a life of its own").
The Church is in a similar position. Each individual diocese has to live the life of the universal Church, remaining in vital, saving communication with it. The slightest separation leads to death; impediments to communication with the whole Church entail feeble, languid life proportionate to the power of the impediment to slow down and reduce vitality. A diocese affected in this way is like an arm bound tightly with rope; its sensitivity and movements are impaired. It may even be compared with an arm damaged in an accident and paralysed, or rendered insensitive, or frozen through lack of circulation, with functions arrested or suspended.
But concepts like these are unknown to most of the clergy, and as a result we necessarily have bishops whose views extend no further than the boundaries of their dioceses. In their own eyes they have fulfilled their episcopal duties well when they have made their usual appearances in the cathedral or in the seminary, when external affairs in the diocese have been attended to without complaint from laypeople, and finally when they have carried out the divine services described in the Pontifical and the bisops' Ceremonial (10).
54. 4th, assemblies and councils, especially provincial councils, were held frequently. The unity of the Church required unity of purpose, persuasion and affection, which cannot be achieved on command from a single person acting with authority. Of itself authority, when exercised by an individual, always tends to attract envy and animosity, irritating subjects rather than enlightening them. Hence St. Paul says: "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helplful" (11).
As a result the people's opinion was sought continually. They were, we may say, the faithful counsellors of the Church's rulers (12) at this time. The bishop also gave an account to his people of his rule in the diocese (13); whenever posible he willingly accommodated and satisfied the desires of his people. Such a way of acting is highly commendable, and very fitting in the case of episcopal rule. Because his powers of government come from above, and enable him to rule with complete authority, the bishop must aim for what is good, not evil. His government is unlike that of secular rulers; its essential characteristics are humility, courtesy and immense charity; it is reasonable to the highest degree, and hence strong enough to be kind and compassionate (14).
Another result was communication between bishops and their priests. The opinion of the latter was sought in everything touching on government in the Church so that those entrusted with carrying it out would also play a part in forming the decisions to be taken. Decisions would thus harmonise more easily with public opinion, and be understood as reasonable in spirit by those obliged to put them into execution (15). Bi-annual (16) provincial councils, where the bishops met as brothers to consider common business, were another result. They pondered together the difficult cases they encountered in their individual dioceses, and reached consensus about measures for abolishing abuses; they decided causes, and appointed successors for deceased bishops. Successors appointed by bishops of the same province were known and acceptable to all and as such contributed greatly to safeguarding the perfect harmony which ensured one heart in the body of bishops. Interprovincial, national and ecumenical councils were yet another result.
55. 5th, the metropolitan had authority over the bishops of a province, while greater sees had several provinces and metropolitans subject to them. The orderly grading of church government was a powerful factor in unifying and knitting together, as it were, the whole body of the Church. The hierarchy was a compact and effective body, not a unity in name and title alone.
56. 6th, and finally, the overall authority of the Pope, the principal rock which alone remains forever unmovable in the great mass of the episcopate - that is, a true foundation rock - gives perennial identity to all the Church militant. In all their serious needs bishops and churches of the entire world appealed to him as to a father, judge, teacher, leader, centre and common source; persecuted pastors were comforted by him, the poor and deprived succoured, the faithful of all nations assisted in every way. By him the entire catholic world was enlightened, directed, defended, calmed and consoled.
57. In the early days of the Church, these six golden links constituted a chain of immense strength binding together the whole episcopate. They were indeed "golden" links, whose only materials were holiness, charity, loyalty to Christ's word and the example of the apostles, zeal for the Church founded with the blood of Christ and entrusted to the bishops, and fear and trembling at the thought of the account to be required of them one day by the Lord Jesus Christ, invisible head and pastor.
We have seen that the barbarian invasions which overthrew the Roman empire brought the Church into one of those new periods of movement, as they are called, in which she rises once more to begin a new journey. At such a time she shows fresh activity previously concealed through lack of opportunity for development, exerts a new type of action on mankind, and produces new benefits for the human race. The period we are speaking of here is characterised by the entrance of bishops into political government. The clear aim of Providence at such a decisive moment was, as we have said, to bring the religion of Christ into the heart of society, and sanctify it through its rule. Because the order of Providence is certain and cannot be impeded that aim was attained; but because all the human instruments used by Providence are necessarily limited and deficient, evil and disorder was the price paid for this achievement. One evil, to be numbered amongst those already mentioned, was disunion amongst the episcopate, the blow from the lance which struck and pierced the very heart of the gracious Bride of Jesus Christ.
58. We must consider the steps by which such cruel treatment came to be inflicted upon the Church. First, however, I would like to comment on the laws according to which God moderates the vicissitudes of holy Church.
The Church is made up of divine and human elements. Her eternal purpose, and the principal means by which that purpose is achieved, together with the promise that this means will never fail, are all divine. Divine, too, is the promise that the Church will never lack the light to know the truth of faith, the grace to be holy in accordance with faith, and the care of a supreme Providence to order everything in relation to herself. Beyond this, the other means which play their part in fulfilling God's eternal purpose are human. The Church is a society composed of human beings and, as long as they are on earth, of human beings subject to the imperfections and misery asssociated with mankind. As a result this society, in so far as it is human, develops and progresses subject to the common laws governing other on-going human societies.
But these laws which regulate human societies in their growth cannot be applied to the Church in their entirety precisely because she is not only human, but also in part divine. For example, the law stating "every society comes into being, moves towards perfection, then declines and perishes" is not wholly applicable to the Church which is assisted by an infinite force unaffected by human events. This force makes good her losses and renews her life when it is in decline. The Church is a special, unique society distinct from other societies because she carries within herself something over and above their human composition. In brief, the Church is as stable as the society of mankind in general which, brought into being along with human beings, ceases only with the disappearance of the last individual of the species.
In the case of other societies that are formed, destroyed and reformed, there exists a period of destruction consequent to the period of formation followed in its turn by another period of renewed formation. These formative and critical periods cannot be predicated of the enduring substance of human society in general nor of the Church of Jesus Christ, but only of their accidental modes of existence which alone are subject to initial organisation, destruction and reorganisation. When the force presiding over society's formation begins to act we have what we call a progressive epoch; when organisation ceases, we have a static epoch. The Church finds herself in both epochs successively: sometimes she is on the move towards new, potent development; sometimes she is at rest as though she had reached the end of her journey (17).
59. Another observation to be made relative to the law governing the dynamism of particular societies, if it is to be applied to the Church, is that in other societies recomposition follows destruction because the former tends to re-elaborate more successfully what has been destroyed. But in the Church, destruction and formation are simultaneous because in her they do not operate relative to the same object as they do in other societies. In the Church one order of things is destroyed while another is formed. Let us take as our example the extraordinary period in which the clergy were forced into the ambit of temporal government by the barbarian invasions (18). This period, the principal object of our attention, was a progressive epoch for the Church of God.
At the time, growth in the Church was concerned with a new order and a new organisation, that is, the sanctification of civil society. This society, pagan until then, had to be converted to Christianity; all its laws, its constitution and even its customs had to conform with the new directives of the gospel of grace and love. Simultaneously with this progress, another order of things was being destroyed. Progress and regression existed side by side in the Church. The new direction taken by the Church led it into the heart of civil society, but not without the great disadvantage of distracting the episcopate from its natural duties of INSTRUCTION and WORSHIP (19), and immersing it in secular business. Such work was an unexpected, unknown temptation for the clergy who sensed its danger (20) but possessed insufficient experience to resist and overcome it. In the long term, mankind underwent a fearsome trial: the holiness of the clergy fell abysmally, and the finest customs and traditions in the Church perished. Destruction went hand in hand with organisation, the inevitable effect of human limitation which appears even in the Church where progress and development are not exempt from the danger and decay affecting the Church's accidental mode of existence.
60. What happened next? When the organisation intended by God was complete, and the period of destruction had absorbed all that Providence had abandoned to its rapacity, the very existence of the Church seemed in jeopardy. For a short time even the Church's new organisation appeared lost in the ruins provoked by the onslaught that simultaneously with ecclesial progress had brought her to the brink of destruction. The Church was deeply afflicted, and her faith was barely able to sustain her in the crisis. Terrified she cried out to her divine Founder, who lay asleep as the boat was going down. He awoke, and with one word of command calmed the wind and the sea. The Church now knew through experience the disastrous effects of the destructive principle in her midst, and finally set out to remedy it. A new static epoch began in which she undertook the repairs imposed by her long, difficult voyage. Repairs and reinforcements were not progress and did not of themselves lead to noticeable new development; they only served to renovate sections battered during the journey. Nevertheless, a great distance had been covered, and the unsinkable ship, now put to rights, could face other seas, other winds, other storms.
61. Providence's rule in governing the Church is that her organising force is always superior to the force intent on its destruction; that the two forces operate simultaneously so that no time may be lost (21); that the Church rest after its labour, without undertaking long journeys or great enterprises, in order to repair damage suffered and be ready at the right moment for sailing uncharted seas. For many centuries now, in fact from the never-to-be-forgotten year 1076, and increasingly from the time of the Council of Trent, the Church has been working diligently to repair the damage to church discipline and practice. Perhaps the time has come for the great ship to leave port, and hoist sail for the discovery of some new and vaster continent (22).
62. Let us return to the subject in hand. In the preceding chapters we have examined the increasing activity of a destructive force acting adversely upon the Church in the five centuries immediately following the first six. We saw how the education of the people and clergy had suffered (23); now we must consider how the same force damaged the union between bishops.
The immediate successors of the apostles were poor, humble persons whose attitude to one another was governed by the simplicity infused in souls by the gospel and then expressed from the heart. Such simplicity enables a person to communicate directly with his neighbour, making daily life between saintly people easy, delightful, useful and holy. This was how the first bishops lived. But once they had been surrounded and hemmed in by temporal power, access to them became difficult. Worldly ambition invented titles, and established protocol, so that people had to swallow their pride as the price of contacting their own bishops, although even this was a tribute based on deceit and lies. Ever increasing demands brought business to a point where the preliminaries to discussion between christians and princes of the Church were swamped by formal questions of procedure that often eliminated any possibility of a reasonable solution. The mind of the pastor of the flock of Christ was not engaged in meditating the sublime truths worthy of it, nor in listening to prudent advice, but exhausted itself in the study and preservation of new rites in the Church, dependent upon the new rules of protocol. Characters became diffident, glum, hesitant and deceitful through prejudice and recrimination.
Everything else developed accordingly. A meeting of bishops, easy and peaceful enough in itself, henceforth required long and serious preparation. Before attending it, a bishop would have to be willing to study the protocol; when he presented himself, he would need considerable energy to put up with the wearisome burden of etiquette which was often more than sufficient to put an end to the life of failing, old men (24).
63. Difficulties of this kind, which divide bishops and tend to set them apart, are a sure sign of the unconscious entry of ambition into their hearts. Is it possible to find a more effective cause of division and even of schism than ambition and its two accomplices, avarice and desire for power? A constant fact in the history of the Church is that "great temporal power united for a long period with an episcopal see produces innumerable causes of disharmony."
Constantinople comes to mind immediately. Less than a century after its foundation the bishops of New Rome, confident of the support of their neighbour, the emperor, aimed to overthrow the oldest, most illustrious sees in the Church, and succeeded after sustained conflict in obtaining second place in the Church (25). Not content with that, they set themselves up as rivals to Rome and provoked the fatal Greek schism (26). The loss of the east to the Church was surely one of the terrible consequences of the connection between the temporal power and the see of Constantinople!
In the west, the exarchate of Ravenna, founded in the 6th century, will serve as an example. The archbishops of Ravenna soon threw off obedience and submission to Rome, and only extreme measures were finally sufficient to humble them (27). However, the truly great source of discord and dissension in the western Church were the anti-popes, especially in the 14th century when the great schism of the west, although overcome, left deeply buried seeds of division, envy and secret hostility amongst the christian nations. These seeds were nourished by all that took place during the schism, especially the ever memorable councils of Pisa, Constance and Basel. The schism prepared the way for the defection of the northern part of the Church a century later. Today, although it ceased long ago in a material sense, its unhappy spirit lives on under cover of court flattery and gallicanism, producing its fruits in the badly advised ecclesiastical projects of emperors and grand-dukes [Joseph II, and Peter Leopold, Grand Duke of Tuscany], in the blind ambition of the four German archbishops who lost their dominions whilst warring with the apostolic See, [Coblenz, 1769; Ems, 1786], the only loyal protector of their temporal states, and in all that was desired, said and attempted recently in a catholic capital city to erect a patriarchate there and provoke a new schism, [the "imperial" Council of Paris, 1811].
64. Such horrible lacerations on the wounded breast of the Bride of Jesus Christ are not surprising. Although the first bishops obliged to undertake temporal affairs were at first truly holy and sufficiently episcopal to regret deeply their new burden, the same was not true of all their successors. Men dominated by a worldly spirit, by avarice and lust for power, took care not to participate personally in the labour of preaching the gospel and of caring for souls that would be undertaken by an impoverished, hard-working episcopate. Their only reward would have been worry and anxiety, often combined with persecution, privations and martyrdom. The strength and spirit of sacrifice required by a bishop was such that St. Paul's comment on it could well be repeated: "If anyone aspires to the task of bishop, he aspires to a noble task" (28).
Saintly men rejected it for yet another reason. Their faith enabled them to perceive that its totally divine dignity could be undertaken only at God's call and with his assistance; a humble sense of their own indignity prevented their acknowledging in themselves the great virtues inherently required by so sacred a ministry. Because candidates did not present themselves for episcopal sees, the Church was left free to look for the holiest men available and choose them dispassionately without the prejudice and lack of balance associated with pressure from electors and manipulation by candidates for office. In this way the holiest and wisest men could be chosen.
But all this vanished as soon as the episcopacy ceased to be a purely spiritual power and added to its burdens the administration of wealth and the care of temporal affairs. Holy men feared it as insupportable and did all they could to avoid it. Some, like Loyola and his little company of tireless labourers in the Lord's vineyard three centuries ago, went so far in their apostolic zeal as to vow never to accept it (29). At the same time, the episcopate had too many unworthy candidates, that is, all those who sought temporal power and found it too difficult to attain in its proper place outside the Church.
This explains the rise of exterior, formal devotion on the part of the "nobility" amongst the bishops, and the credit given to lesser members of the episcopate for their expertise in business and canon law rather than for their zeal and capacity in wielding the sword of the divine word and guiding souls to heaven. For the lay aristocracy, the great episcopal sees were seen only as means for rewarding their adulators or ministers, or as suitable placements for their younger sons or even their bastards.
It was not long before what began as rapacity for money became a political system and almost constitutional in the state. I could offer examples of what I am saying from any European nation whatsoever. In each and every one, church affairs were animated by the same standards and the same spirit as those prevailing during the last days of the republic of Venice. Bishops within its borders were all younger sons of the aristocracy, called to the episcopate before birth. In other words, they were condemned to the episcopate by insatiable, cruel, presumptuous people who made up for the condemnation by dispensing the pastor of the Church of Jesus Christ from his sacred duties and willingly allowing him to lead a life of dissipation in idle negligence. Is it possible to find amongst such men bishops who possess the outstanding charity and strength, and intimate, truly pastoral union, which springs from common zeal for the good of the cherished Bride, the Church, and from wisdom dependent for its growth and courage on shared ideals and uniformity in action?
65. Persons whose only thought and interest is to help mankind follow the road towards truth and justice are easily bound together by friendship and intimate correspondence. Because truth is universal and unchangeable, union which has divine truth as its object is also universal, and imposes no limit on the number of its members. Moreover, with truth as its bond, such a union is permanent and stable, neither ceasing nor expanding in accordance with change in external circumstances. And brotherhood amongst the early bishops did indeed possess gospel truth as object and bond, and God himself as its foundation. But when the human spirit turns its attention to enjoying earthly things, it inevitably desires to conserve and increase them. As a result, it is no longer free to consecrate itself exclusively to the highest good which alone can be shared by all without loss to anyone and takes its value from within, not from external, changeable things.
In these conditions, the human being is powerless and incapable of forming a truly loyal society of perpetual, indissoluble friendship with others. The society to which he belongs will be conditioned by circumstances. External formalities may indeed be observed in every respect, and conventional signs of affection may be exchanged endlessly. Nevertheless, there is always an implied limit to the union, inevitably accompanied by cautious apprehension and multiple reservations which weaken it incredibly and cause it to change its very nature. "If? With whom? How? How much? For as long as the union does not harm the real interests which the parties are aiming at..." - how many qualifications are implicit in statements of this kind!
What will happen if rich, powerful bishops are the kind of people whose idea of bliss has been nourished by life-long ambition for a rich diocese, rather than heroic persons of extraordinary virtue? Can we doubt that our expectations of these apostles will have to be limited by their anxiety about temporal possessions and power? Happy with what they already gained, they will never be able to feel any great desire for maintaining spiritual correspondence with other bishops. When a person is absorbed by material affairs litle time and will is left for writing living, truly ecclesial letters. A very different disposition and attitude of spirit is needed, in addition to another type of knowledge. If, miraculously, bishops manage to persevere in some kind of union and keep up their correspondence, their letters will be studded with the type of qualifications and titles mentioned earlier. No one will be put out, no one will be disturbed, no one will feel his dignity impaired; and because there will be no increase in worry or labour, their self-proclaimed prudence will be applauded by all.
66. The history of the Church also shows that bishops attaining secular dominion easily become enemies, and involved in subversion, wars and all the horrible violence that has convulsed nations for whole centuries. Atrocious onslaughts against humanity are fatal to a Church founded on love, and scandalous to the highest degree when perpetrated by those to whom Christ has said: "I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves" (30). It was only natural for such bishops, now become perhaps the most powerful of the circles of government, to want to hold on to their position, and to do so by taking part in the struggles and quarrels common to the age. Power and wealth are of their nature an inexhaustible source of disharmony to those defending entrenched gains or seeking to enlarge them. Union amongst the bishops no longer reflected the holiness, continuity and universality of early days. Agreements were limited and temporary, and took on the characteristics inevitably connected with worldly interests. Alliances, leagues and conspiracies were the order of the day. What a change! Could unity within the body of bishops possibly survive such divisions? Gradually, necessarily, universally, bishops broke away from one another. Now, although the causes of disunity have been eliminated in great part, disunion remains one of the most serious and horrific wounds inflicted upon the grieving Church of God.
67. It is clear that bishops involved in worldly cares and business have to consort with powerful public figures, just as it is clear that they cannot continue for long in such company without taking on its way of acting in their own lives, families and homes. It is also clear that secular and ecclesial ways of life are opposed to one another; persons accustomed to pomp, disorder and licentiousness necessarily reject courtesy, order and austerity. Inevitably, bishops in posts of secular importance are irritated by the presence of the people forming their flock, and by the lower clergy, occupied exclusively in humble church functions and details of pastoral work. But they are also unhappy at contact with their fellow-bishops. The free and easy company of the wealthy nobility is obviously preferable and more advantageous.
68. As a result, dioceses were abandoned not for the sake of attendance at parliaments or national councils, but in order that bishops might settle down at court. Contrary decrees of Councils were powerless to prevent the abuse (31). Bishops enjoyed the pleasures of court life, and used their opportunities for satisfying their insatiable desire for wealth; vanity, honours and dignity were their aim. They took part in the cruel deceits of politics, and made war on the Church herself, on her teaching and her disciplines. They became vile informers, sometimes for the sake of revenge on their brothers in the episcopate, sometimes to encourage traitorous, sacrilegious outbreaks against the pope, their father and teacher. Their wretched souls revived at the smile of the rulers they flattered, whose infamous pleasures they shared, whose cruel wars they stupidly and basely encouraged. They went so far as to call down God's blessing on battles, and sanctify pleasure with solemn episcopal discourses prostituting the gospel and every form of piety (32). O God! These are not possibilities. Everything I have mentioned can be exemplified in history where it is recorded in indelible characters not to be erased by the passing of centuries nor washed away by the bitter tears of the Church.
69. One of Providence's aims in enabling church government to acquire such influence in political affairs was to provide mediators for peace between governments and citizens, between strong and weak. For six centuries the Church had taught the latter submission and unparalleled meekness; it was then the turn of the former to learn how to mitigate the exercise of power by subjecting it to the Cross and through the Cross to justice. Rulers were no longer arbitrary judges of human affairs, but ministers of God's people governing for the sake of justice and common well-being. The work devolving on ecclesial power through the wonderful mission committed to the Church of Christ was exercised by bishops who proclaimed the truth and, as Scripture says, became God's witnesses before kings. Bishops like this were never lacking, despite the degradation of so many of their brethren. They withstood outbursts of rage from rulers, and softened their fury; they took advantage of the succeeding calm to indicate the existence of a moral power far superior to the material dominion rulers possessed. A power for peace and of extraordinary meekness, it nevertheless demanded its place as director and guide of brute force.
This power resided in the law of the gospel which gave rise to all the struggles undertaken by popes of the middle ages in favour of peoples, that is, the faithful, against monarchies. Despite the criticism and calumnies leveled against the Church on account of her involvement in struggles of this kind - admirably generous struggles - their effect was to form in the world a completely new sovreignty and monarchy, that is, a christian monarchy. Our eternal God made the unbridled government of the rulers of this world depend for its model upon the peace-making government of the bishops of the Church. Slaves vanished from the christian world because the Church of Christ has only children; arbitrary power disappeared because the Church possesses only reasonable, holy power; the few who used the majority simply as means were swept away because the power of the Church is a ministry and service rendered by few to many, by persons sacrificing themselves to the good of their neighbours.
All this God brought about through Christ. He either brought it about in fact or, if the results were not satisfactory, by a severe, public judgment inflicted upon rulers whose power was useless for defending themselves against the sentence. When the gospel directives permeated human attitudes, they formed the elements of a new, common sense that passed judgment on monarchies with a severity unknown except to christian peoples.
But this great mission of the catholic clergy has now been completed; the period of conversion for society finished in the 16th century. Today all the signs of the times indicate the opening of a new epoch for the Church which during the past centuries has been at work repairing the damage it sustained. A vile clergy, rejected by the people, slave and adulator of rulers, can no longer mediate between government and people, and times like ours arise in which irreligion and impiety prevail. Church power loses its position; it no longer stands between the legal power of the ruler and the moral power of the peoples, but absorbed by the former becomes one with it. It takes on the appearance of a two-faced monster, cruel from one point of view, deceitful from the other.
Sometimes parading in military fashion, sometimes demurely clerical, it provides the world with masses of armed men and useless priests. Kings are now in the public eye, either to be executed or (which is worse) to enforce execution. Councillors are lacking: there is no one to mediate, to bless treaties, or to receive oaths which, devoid of faith, are also devoid of sanctions; enemies are suspicious of one another, and prepare for all-out war. It comes as no surprise to see this episcopate incapable of resistance when the once catholic rulers of Russia, Germany, England, Sweden, Denmark and other nations, dominated by caprice and passion, decide to constitute themselves religious leaders and separate their states from the Church.
At times the bishops themselves were eager to take a leading part in dismembering the body of holy Church. The schisms we are speaking of existed in practice before they were accomplished outwardly. The final divisions were only an external formality, a change of name. Ecclesial power, which alone was able to impede schism, had been incorporated into the power of the king as bishops chose to be courtiers rather than churchmen. They were jealous and quarrelsome amongst themselves, cut off from one another, from their head, the Roman pontiff, and from the universal Church. Individual union with the ruler was their priority and for this they renounced their own existence. They became slaves of men dressed in soft garments rather than free apostles of a naked Christ. Are catholic nations any diferent today? What kind of union and devotion would the episcopate show if a ruler decided to separate himself from the unity of the Church?
70. Let us imagine that the prostitution of the chief pastors does not reach such extremities (although nothing can stop halfway: every evil and every good in society sooner or later develops and reaches its peak). It remains true that the bishops' obsequious adherence to rulers, and their continual involvement in business diminishes union in the body of bishops. Once a bishop has become a minister of state, or influential in political circles, he has to beware of those about him and even of his episcopal brethren; from that moment he becomes cautious, taciturn, reserved and difficult to approach. In such circumstances, the political parties in a nation, and the ideologies followed by various administrations, tear to pieces the body of bishops. The pieces sometimes retain their external cohesion during periods of national tranquillity because openly the ancient way of life in the Church proclaims only brotherhood and love. Underneath, however, there are cracks and splits, made worse for being papered over by a hanging of pastoral meekness.
And what can be said about union between bishops of various nations? Having ceased to be bishops of the catholic Church in spirit and action, they are now national bishops only, and as such employed politically like others working for government. They behave as politicians with foreign bishops and with the Church of God itself, making war and peace with them between intervals of truce and threats.
The greatest absurdity ever seen in the Church took place in the 15th century when a council met grouped in nations. Here the power received by the bishops from Christ to be judges of faith and teachers in Israel was denied in fact when the dogmatic controversies of christianity were decided by national votes, not by votes of bishops, who voted indiscriminately with priests and lay people in each national assembly. This was the unhappy overture to the numerous diets and congresses, springing from the deplorable councils of the 15th century, which the princes of Germany were to call a century later at the reformation; it was also the origin of the multiple renunciations of the ancient faith by lay magistratures passing judgment on religious matters. The bishops' vote had finally been demolished by the lay power. Can we wonder at the presence of constitutional priests in France and the monstrous system of a national church there?
71. It is time to reject national churches in which the episcopate is considered the first estate, or a political party, or council of state, or group of courtiers. Nationality in the Church, which exists in fact long before its formal appearance, is the direct opposite and mortal enemy of catholicity. How is it possible for the head of the catholic Church, devoted to this Bride whose only Spouse is Christ, to associate willingly with national or royal bishops?
This question alone offers abundant reasons for explaining the limits placed on episcopal power by the pope, and the papal reserves which aroused endless complaints and calumnies (33). Was there any other way of saving the Church as its parts disintegrated and bishops fell away than by strengthening it at its centre and making it more active? Circumstances of this kind made it necessary for the head of the Church to grasp the reins, sadly fallen from his hands, before his other-worldly carriage vanished over the cliff. If any iota of freedom remains in the Church (and without freedom the Church has as much life as a human being without air), it is to be found concentrated in the see of Rome, and not in bishops subject to catholic princes. Exception must be made, however, for the freedom enjoyed by the Church in the United States of America and other non-catholic regions where alone catholicism can still breathe more or less freely. I say "more or less" because every effort has been made and is being made universally to intimidate the pope, whose energy is spent in maintaining his always precarious liberty. He is free as Samson was amongst the Philistines, on condition that he constantly exert his energy to break the new ropes used to bind him.
Nevertheless, he is free, despite all the pitiful treaties he is forced to negotiate with "the kings of the earth and the rulers who take counsel together against the Lord and his anointed" (34). Precisely because he is free and unconquerable by human endeavour in virtue of the power that sustains him, "the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain." All hell and earth rise against him, the only rock they have never thrown down; innumerable dissensions are calmed for the sake of inflicting harm on the visible head of the Church. Because he is free, even national bishops and clergy join with the ungodly, with heretics and with rulers in violent hatred of their common father, the bishop of Rome. He is the only obstacle they encounter on their path to diaspora, on the road they have taken through ignorance, weakness, prejudice, corruption and diabolical malice to the betrayal of Christ and to Judas-like despair.
And still they do not understand! The only words of consolation remaining for the faithful disciples of the betrayed Christ amidst the overwhelming sufferings of the Redeemer's Bride are the words he spoke before his crucifixion: "You are Peter, and on this rock I shall build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it" (35).
72. Another deplorable effect of the false position continually dividing the bishops was the jealousy with which rulers regarded them. When they became part of the ruling nobility, bishops shared its contested history, and were feared or opposed by rulers in the same way as nobles. They were spied upon, constantly restricted in their work, and imprisoned not only within state boundaries, but even in their dioceses. State policy kept them apart, impeded their attendance at councils, which they themselves were forbidden to convoke, and subjected them to endless humiliations. Their political power naturally diminished as the power of the aristocrcy decreased, but their particular weakness made their territories easier prey for spoliation than those of the nobles who also envied them.
Their final abasement was to be awarded salaries.
It is useless to add that they were kept light-years from the centre of christian unity, or that support was given to every dissension between bishops and their head. Tares were sown, and rebellion was praised, secretly sustained, and rewarded. The pope, father of fathers, supreme judge of the faith and universal teacher of christians, was unable to communicate freely with his brethren and sons, with men commissioned by Christ to govern the Church with and under him. He could neither correct them, nor summon them before him, nor could they appeal to him against injustice (36). His decisions in matters of faith and morals had to be submitted before publication to a lay tribunal which declared itself superior to every ecclesiastical tribunal. In fact, it was not a tribunal which decided, but the political calculation of a ruler - not a Turk or a Jew, but a baptised child and subject of the Church (37) from which he had received his christian instruction and which he had sworn at baptism to support. As child and subject he could be warned, admonished and punished like any other member of the faithful amongst the people. The Church is no respecter of persons, because all are truly equal before the law of Christ.
Finally, in the course of centuries, a new police agency, unrivalled for its punctiliousness and nuisance-value, was set up especially for ecclesiastics. Under its surveillance, the catholic clergy suffered torments like those of some early christian martyrs who died slowly after being smeared with honey, stood in the sun and exposed to attack from insects, bees and leeches.
However, time was required to bring this system to perfection. Its ramifications were the tireless, learned work of lawyers upon whom governments can depend for support on every occasion, although the general idea of the system sprang from the false position of a decadent clergy. It was one of those thoughts which work and rule in the minds and policies of rulers long before any of them formulate it explicitly, or become aware of it, or make an ideology of it. Finally, some far-sighted politician makes it his own and raises it to the level of a system which takes its name from the minister who first saw it and used it as an instrument of policy. From then on, the system works of its own momentum, and is guided methodically to perfection.
Who would imagine that we are indebted to a bishop for a political system so dangerous to the freedom and existence of the Church! And to a pious bishop, who was nevertheless a minister to a king. But even Richelieu, when overthrowing the aristocracy for the sake of his own freer exercise of power, was unaware of forming the modern monarchy people find intolerable and against which popular power rebels. It is also intolerable to the clergy, but they submit because they are weak. Their only hope of salvation is their secret cry to heaven for a new Moses to free the people of God from Eygpt. May the Lord who dwells in the flame of the burning, unconsumed bush, send him soon to his oppressed Church!
73. A little thought will show that the wealth of the clergy, when not used for works of charity, is also a very fertile source of disunion amongst the people of God. Ordinary people are envious of the clergy, nobles hate them for possessing what they consider their right, and kings are gnawed alive with avarice. Further reflections show that clerical wealth has no corresponding force to protect it because the clergy are per se unarmed and defenceless, and it is a general principle that any unprotected wealth is appropriated by the powerful, whose desires are inevitably stimulated at the sight of the treasure available. It is clear that weakness in its owners is the summary reason, or rather occasion for the repeated spoliations of the Church throughout the ages.
It also explains why the nobility have suffered less than the clergy in this respect, although they too have lost their possessions when attacked by a stronger force. The French revolution is a good example of this, although it is not as unique as generally supposed.
But the worst aspect of the spoliation of the clergy is the ignorance which leads men to think that the wealth of the Church forms a single reality with the Church and christian religion. The clergy themselves have unfortunately provided grounds for such a prejudice. Because their only defence against plunder of their temporalities was to deprive the aggressors of spiritual benefits, they made sacriligious theft inseparable from renunciation of religion. The penalty was certainly just; it was also effective in periods of faith. But it provoked rulers, absolutely determined to despoil the clergy, to cut themselves off from holy Church.
If the clergy are sensible, they will act with greater caution nowadays. Excommunications attached to appropriation of church property lead to greater offences, because it is indeed worse to despoil with the knowledge that this will entail separation from the Church, than simply to despoil. It is, of course, more difficult to imagine greater crimes and irreverence amongst religious people of strong faith where malice is confined within certain limits. In this case, and in determined circumstances, excommunication can be used to defend the riches of the Church, as we said (38). But it is useless in times of disbelief and at moments when passion and perversity have risen above normal levels to dare any evil. Excommunication in these cases serves to incite and provoke worse excesses.
Perhaps catholicism would have been saved in some nations if it had been freed of the wealth endangering it - as ships in storms are lightened at all costs for the sake of saving human lives. A poor clergy, which had abandoned the immense riches of the Church, or parts of them, in Sweden, Denmark and England to men like Gustavus Vasa, Frederick I and Henry VIII, might have saved themselves and the various nations by reviving the faith with the means used by the apostles in planting it!
But is it really possible to find an immensely wealthy clergy courageous enough to impoverish itself, or even with enough sense to understand that impoverishing the Church is to save her? Long, sad experience tells another tale. But perhaps the generous appeal for freedom we have heard recently will not have been made in vain, nor fallen harshly on the ears of those appointed by God as the custodians of Israel (39). What a noble appeal it was! It is clear that whatever we may think of him in other respects, the person [Lacordaire] who made this appeal is dominated by one great thought lifting him above all pettiness to a level of extraordinary feeling for catholicism.
Perhaps, too, there is something to be said for the popular feeling of unrest which, struggling to express itself, takes on the first available forms, even when these are inadequate because of their materialism, or contradict the feeling itself. This unrest, accompanied by continual complaints about financial impositions, may spring from a secret source which the people themselves have still not uncovered; it may hide religious needs where irreligion seems to have triumphed completely.
Perhaps the real need is for freedom to allow religion to communicate directly with the heart of the people irrespective of the mediation of rulers and governments. What seem irreligious outbursts, even to their perpetrators, often result from confusing and substituting for true religion a minister of religion hated for his severity. Divine Providence may be preparing a new mingling of nations not for the sake of diminishing taxes (revolutionaries tolerate great impositions patiently), but incredibly enough for the sake of liberating the Church, whose Lord holds in his hand all that is.
Notes
(1) Eph 4. 4
(2) Eph 4. 5-6
(3) Deus unus est, et Christus unus, at una Ecclesia et Cathedra una super Petrum, Domini voce fundata, says St Cyprian in one of his letters (Epis. 40) [PL 4, 345].
(4) Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis pars in solidum tenetur. (Lib. de Unit. Eccl. I) [PL 4, 516, CC 3, 252].
(5) Pater sancte, serva eos in nomine tuo, quos dedisti mihi: ut sint unum, sicut et nos (John 17. 11).
(6) For example, St. John Chrysostom was educated under St. Meletius at Antioch. Socrates tells us expressly that the holy bishop recognised the promise in John Chrysostom, and as a result educated him personally for three years before baptising him and then ordaining him successively reader, subdeacon and deacon. Amongst Chrysostom's companions were Theodore and Maximus, later bishops respectively of Mopsuestia in Cicilia and Seleucia in Isauria. Diodorus, their master in the spiritual life, was bishop of Tarsus. Basil, a friend of St. John Chrysostom, was made a bishop as a young man. Here is a whole nursery of bishops who were friends as students. An example in the west can be seen in the school of St. Valerian, bishop of Aquilea. When St. Jerome visited him, he found amongst the bishop's group of disciples St. Cromatius, later successor of St. Valerian at Aquilea, Heliodorus, another bishop-to-be, and famous, learned priests, deacons and lesser ministers, who included such men as Rufinus, Jovinus, Eusebius, Nepotian, Bonosus and others. It is well known that in Africa St. Augustine's house, or rather monastery, was a seedbed of bishops.
(7) This is especially true in the supernatural order. Holy people communicate with their whole being and pour out, as it were, the spirit of holiness on those near them. Christ himself expressed this most effectively when he said: "He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, out of his heart flow rivers of living water" (John 7. 38).
(8) In this letter to the church at Rome St. Denis says: "Today we have celebrated the Lord's day, and have read your letter. We shall continue to read it for the sake of our instruction, as we do with the letters already sent to us by Clement" (Eus. His. Eccl ., book 4, c. 23) [PG 20, 384 ss]. Seven letters of this great bishop of Corinth are extant, written to the faithful of different churches. Besides the letters to the church at Rome we have those to the Lacedaemonians, the Athenians, the Nicodemians, the church of Amstris in Pontus, the church of Gortyna in Crete, and to the Gnossians also in Crete. Better known are the six beautiful letters of St. Ignatius to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, and Smyrnians. This shows the vast extent of the correspondence between bishops, priests and people at this time.
(9) They often signed themselves as such.
(10) St. Cyprian speaks as follows about the care bishops should have for the universal Church: Copiosum Corpus est sacerdotum concordiae mutuae glutine atque unitatis vinculo copulatum, ut si quis ex collegio nostro haeresim facere, et gregem Christi lacerare et vastare tentaverit, subveniant ceteri. Nam etsi pastores multi sumus, UNUM tamen GREGEM pascimus, et oves universas, quas Christus sanguine suo et passione quaesivit, colligere et fovere debemus. (Epis. 68 ad Steph) [PL 3, 995-6].
(11) 1 Cor 6. 12
(12) "Nothing was done in the Church without consultation; reason, order and the will of God alone were to rule." "Assemblies have this advantage: normally someone is present to indicate the right solution, and bring others to reason. Mutual respect develops, and shame impedes public injustice. Weak characters are supported by the strong. It is not so easy to corrupt an assembly as to win over one person, or a ruler. The person ruling without consultation is inclined to follow his own unsupervised passions... In every city the bishop always consulted his priests, deacons and senior ministers in important matters. Often he asked advice from the whole people when they were involved, as in the case of ordinations" (Fleury, Discourses, II etc.).
(13) St. Cyprian gave an account of his government to the people. When persecution prevented his doing this personally he did it by letter, and some of these letters have survived (v. Epis. 38) [PL 4, 338-342]. Two centuries later St. Augustine did the same for his people. His sermons kept them informed about the needs of the Church, and provided a detailed account of what he himself had done. (Sermons 355, 356) [PL 39, 1568-1581] are especially noteworthy in this respect.
(14) "Popular assent was valued so highly in the first six centuries of the Church that if people rejected a bishop, even after his consecration, they were not forced to accept him, and a suitable person was appointed in his place" (Fleury, Discourses etc. II) [op. cit., V, 293]. St. Augustine explains the reason for this in words spoken to his own people: "We are christians on our own behalf, and bishops on yours" (Serm. 359) [cf Serm. 340, PL 38, 1483. "Vobis enim sum episcopus, vobiscum sum christianus"].
(15) St. Cyprian, in a letter written in hiding in a period of persecution, pleads solitude as his reason for not replying to a letter sent to him by some of his priests: "because", he says, "at the beginning of my episcopacy I decided not to make any decision without your advice and the assent of the people" (Epis 14) [Epis. 5, PL 4, 240]. In this he followed the constant example of the apostles. Take, for instance, the way the apostles proceeded in the choice of deacons. The apostles certainly had the power to choose whom they wished. Nevertheless, they proposed the question to the faithful with great delicacy and prudence so that the faithful themselves could nominate those they thought most worthy and suitable for the office: "Therefore, brethren, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, whom we may appoint to this duty... and what they said pleased the whole multitude' (Acts 6) [cf 3-5] who chose the first seven deacons of the Church.
(16) The fifth of the twenty disciplinary canons of the Council of Nicea requires provincial councils to be held twice a year [cf SC 2, 35].
(17) We have therefore two epochs and two periods. A progressive epoch exists when a new order of things gets under way; a static epoch when this new order has been formed and fully actuated. Between the two epochs, there is a period during which society works towards its own realisation as it brings to perfection the new order holding its attention. We call this a formative period. A critical period follows upon perfect actuation of a new mode of existence in the Church because human affairs are always characterised by movements of some kind and, in this case, by inevitable decline and destruction.
(18) Force of circumstances provided several reasons for impelling the clergy to undertake secular business against their own will. A celebrated historian indicates another motive which we can add to those already mentioned: "The Romans had the highest contempt and antipathy for these new, uncouth, ferocious conquerors (the barbarians) who were, moreover, pagans or heretics. On the other hand, confidence and reverence for the bishops, all of whom were Romans and often members of the wealthy aristocracy, increased considerably." He continues: "As time went on, christian barbarians became members of the clergy and brought with them their own traditions. Not only clerics, but bishops also were hunters and warriors. They came to form part of the ruling class and as such were obliged to attend assemblies of state which were simultaneously parliaments and national councils" (Fleury, Discourses etc. VII) [op. cit., XIII, 210].
(19) In the earliest days of the Church, the seven deacons chosen by the apostles were appointed to serve christians at table when the apostles declared that temporal affairs were not their proper business. They indicated the two episcopal functions as follows: Nos vero ORATIONI et MINISTERIO VERBI instantes erimus (Acts 6. 4). Prayer corresponds to worship, and preaching to instruction.
(20) Proof of this may be found in the fears expressed in their writings by St. Gregory and other bishops when first plunged into worldly business. But doubts and complaints gradually ceased within the Church. It was symptomatic of the clergy's growing love of wealth and power.
(21) The first six centuries do perhaps provide an exception to this rule. During this time almost the only force at work was directed towards formation. Nevertheless, opposition was present, although it developed in pagan society outside the Church.
(22) A period of destruction, therefore, follows a period of restoration. But this kind of restoration is proper to the Church at rest, not to the Church on the move. A period of formation is simultaneous with destruction; as a time of great undertakings, the former denotes progress which, however, is succeeded by the onset of fatigue denoting stasis. A time characterised by motion, therefore, contains two extremely active forces, one working for growth, the other for destruction. A time of rest is also marked by two forces at work, both of which, however, lack vitality. One patches up, the other corrodes but more from negligence than direct action. The situation is like that prevailing when a road has been built but not maintained.
(23) Chap. 1 and 2
(24) "Bishops treated one another as brothers, with great love and little formality. Titles such as 'Holiness', 'Most Reverend', and so on, can be attributed to late customs introduced into the decadent Roman empire where everyone received a title indicative of his place in society" (Fleury, Discourses etc. V) [op. cit., V, 285]
(25) The see of Constantinople gained first place after Rome in 381 at the Council of Constantinople. Its self-imposed name, "New Rome" was of considerable assistance here.
(26) Protection from the state encouraged these archbishops to rebel against Rome. They succeeded in obtaining from the emperor a so-called Typos, a decree cutting them off from the church of Rome! This Typos was later surrendered to the pope when the bishops submitted to Leo II.
(27) Ravenna returned to the Roman obedience in 677 under pope Donnus, only to rebel again in 708. Providentially the Exarchate was destroyed once and for all in 752 by Astolfus, king of the Lombards, after lasting only 180 years. Divine Providence used these barbarian invaders of the Church's territory to enhance Roman dominion by overthrowing political power at Ravenna.
(28) 1 Tim 3. 1
(29) Many take scandal at the sight of the great work done in the Church by religious who are not pastors but in possession of privileges releasing them from episcopal jurisdiction. Surely it is clear that this is a means designed by Providence to sustain the Church of God at a time when bishops were occupied with worldly grandeur? The foundation of the mendicant friars in the 13th century, and of clerks regular in the 16th, was obviously aimed at supplying the deficiencies of what was unhappily called the secular clergy
(30) Matt 10. 16
(31) The council of Antioch in 341 does not mention the then unknown abuse of episcopal residence at court, but it does forbid bishops, priests and other clerics from visiting the emperor without permission and without letters of presentation from provincial bishops, especially the metropolitan. The penalty for disobedience was excommunication and deprivation of office! This shows how highly church freedom was prized, and worldly splendour feared. In 347, the council of Sardica ordered bishops to send deacons as their representatives at court even for affairs of charity.
(32) A quick glance at the life of the tyrant, Christian of Sweden, and the bishops who surrounded him, is sufficient to convince one of this. The Church was lost to the nation through bishops of this kind. The same can be said about Germany and England.
(33) For example, the kings of France decided that they would have the right to appoint persons to ordinary benefices at the death of a bishop in the state. Can it be helpful to the Church to extend the rights of bishops in these circumstances? On the contrary, they should be restricted so that the Church may be able to defend some residual element of her freedom and repeat to the king what Gregory IX wrote to Frederick II: Esto quod in collatione beneficiorum in orientibus succedas, ut dicis, episcopis: majorem in hoc ipsis non adipisceris potestatem. [You may indeed have some power in conferring benefices on eastern bishops; but you will get no more] (cf. Oderic Raynald, A.D. 1236) [Annales Ecclesiastici, XXI, p. 29]. The pope said this to a sovereign who wanted more rights over a vacant see than those of the bishop himself!
(34) Ps 4 [Ps 2.2].
(35) Matt 16. 18
(36) When churchmen had acquired great possessions, rulers claimed to dispense and donate them to bishops. They were a gift, according to the phrase used for investiture in the middle ages. The condition upon which investiture depended was an oath by which the king forced the bishop to promise whatever he wanted from him. Eadmer (Lib. 2 Histor. Novorum) [cf. PL 159, 400] tells us that William II of England made his prelates swear, amongst similar things, that they would not appeal to the pope, nor go to Rome, without royal leave. But all christians can appeal to the supreme bishop by divine right; such free recourse depends upon the intrinsic constitution of the Church, and opposing it implies an attempt to destroy the Church. Abuse of this right should be noted and corrected, but the right of appeal itself cannot be eliminated. In the same way, all christians have the power freely to go to their common father, the bishop of Rome. These rights form part of the liberties of christianity which are to be defended, not destroyed, by civil governments. Part of this defence is to prevent their use as an excuse for wrong-doing. But it is also true that under the pretext of eliminating abuse connected with the use of these liberties, rulers became despots over the Church and applied brute force where moral force alone should be present. Needless to say, they took steps to avoid punishment for their crimes.
(37) St. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. ad Civ.) [cf. PG 35, 976]: Quid vero vos, principes et praefecti, quid igitur dicis? Nam vos quoque potestati meae lex Christi subjecit. Imperium et nos gerimus; adde etiam praestantius. This is the teaching of the catholic Church.
(38) The Church was very moderate in her use of canonical penalties at better moments of her history. She was afraid of causing despair in the guilty cut off from her membership. In the council held at Carthage by St. Cyprian in 251 after the persecution of Decius, the case of apostates from the faith who had fallen away during the persecution was examined. After lengthy discussion it was decided "not to deprive them of all hope of communion lest they become worse and return to the world and pagan life on seeing the Church closed to them." Human weakness was amply provided for!
(39) I am referring to the proposal made by a priest of the French clergy in which he suggested that government stipends should be renounced for the sake of regaining freedom. It was a generous proposal, worthy of the early days of the Church, although perhaps made inopportunely; it is a reminder of the freedom so highly prized by St. Paul that he preferred to renounce the right to maintenance, which he shared with the other apostles, rather than put it at risk. St. Paul chose to add manual work for his daily bread to his immense apostolic labours: "All things are lawful for me, but I will NOT BE ENSLAVED by anything" (I Cor 6. 12). Such noble feelings appear out-of-place nowadays, but there are hearts ready to accept them. The seed sown will not die without bringing forth fruit because the word of God never returns empty.
But why has the person proclaiming this divine word and valuing the liberty of the Church so highly now made such freedom available to the wicked? [Rosmini is referring to the policy expressed in four articles of L'Avenir, 27th, 30th October, 2nd, 5th November 1830.] Why does he not see that freedom is a right exclusive to truth? Why has he put the rights of unchangeable truth on a par with falsehood, and raised godless humanity to a level proper only to humanity divinised by Christ? Why does he not stop to adore in the Church, that is, in the society of the children of God, the column and foundation of truth, rather than attempt to find it in the society of mankind and amongst the children of Adam? The system certainly is coherent: if truth is the possession of sinful humanity, so is freedom. But I cannot see how it is possible to separate truth and justice; for me, truth forms part of the society of the just; error has no right to freedom. Man is not born free, but made free by Christ, from whom he receives the light of truth and the glory of justice. Only those aware of not possessing the truth, but endlessly searching for it without even a lying persuasion of success can ever affirm in desperation: "all human ideas have equal right to develop and attempt to win weak and vacillating popular persuasion." This is not what a catholic would hold. The catholic is aware of possessing the truth whose dignity and infinite price he recognises. He knows that he has no power to alienate its rights. This explains why the head of the catholic Church has spoken out against such teaching presented in the name of catholicism, and has refused to recognise it as such. May God grant this man, whom we admire and love, the light to return to himself, the courage to conquer self-love and the flattery of friends and enemies, and come back whole-heartedly and loyally to the path of truth where he has rendered such great service and shown such affectionate devotion. He will never have a better opportunity of being coherent with himself than by openly retracting his errors and submitting fully to the See everlastingly entrusted with the teaching of truth.