The Five Wounds of the Church

A Necessary Introduction

1. I began to write this book when staying at a country house near Padua. It was intended as a release for my own interior sorrow, and perhaps as a comfort for others.

At first I hesitated. "Would it be right for an ordinary person like me to make a study of the ills of holy Church? If all care for the Church of God belongs by right to her pastors, isn't there something overbold in even thinking about her afflictions? And then writing about them! How can I mention these wounds without disrespect to the pastors, as if they were unaware of them or unwilling to remedy them?" But no fault can be found even in an ordinary person like myself if he considers the ills of the Church out of zeal for her good and for the glory of God. And as far as I could see, I had no other motive.

Moreover, whatever the value of my thoughts on the subject, there was no reason to conceal them; if they contained anything harmful, it could be rejected by the pastors of the Church. I had no intention of deciding anything. In setting out my thoughts on the subject, I wanted to submit them to the pastors themselves, especially the pope, whose decisions will always be the sure criterion by which to balance and correct all my opinions. The pastors of the Church do not always have the opportunity of quiet thought in the midst of their administrative occupations; they themselves want others to offer reflections which may help in the government of their particular churches and of the universal Church.

Finally, I pondered the example of those holy people found in every age of the Church who, without being bishops, spoke and wrote with admirable freedom and directness about the evils afflicting the Church of their times, and about the need and the manner of restoring her. St. Jerome, St. Bernard, St. Catherine and others come to mind. I am not comparing myself with these great figures in any way, but I realised through reading them that there was nothing per se censurable in investigating the difficulties which beset the Bride of Christ, and in drawing the attention of those who govern the Church to what distresses her.

 2. These considerations were sufficient to assure me that it was not rash for me to continue to reflect upon the thoughts flooding my spirit about the present state and condition of the Church; nor was there anything blameworthy in writing about them and communicating them to others. Nevertheless, I was still undecided about the prudence, and indeed honesty, of such a course. I realised that all modern writers on these subjects had fallen foul equally of both Church and state despite their declared intention of following a mean between two extremes and satisfying both. It became obvious that such matters could scarcely be treated with universal satisfaction, and I foresaw the possibility of clashing with and offending both powers, rather than assisting them with these reflections of mine.

However, I was at least thinking conscientiously, and even if I erred no one could hold this against me. I was not looking for human approval, nor worldly advantage, and if individuals on both sides (1) objected to what I had to say I could fall back on the witness of my conscience and await the judgment against which there is no appeal.

3. On the other hand, I asked myself what could cause offence to persons on either side.
From the point of view of the state, there was only one reason for dissatisfaction, that is, my inability to approve of leaving the nomination of bishops in the hands of the secular power. In rejecting such a privilege considered in itself (although at one time conditions were such that the Church acted prudently, not erroneously, in granting it), I was convinced that it was as harmful to the state as to the Church, and a grave political error to believe the contrary. The reasons for this seeming paradox are developed in the study and are such that they can be submitted to any statesman capable of penetrating a problem, of conquering common prejudices rationally, of foreseeing the long-term consequences of a political principle, and of calculating and harmonising the concomitant causes from which alone the total effect of any maxim of state can be predicted and measured. Consequently sustaining such an opinion shows as much care for the good of the state as for that of the Church. Governments cannot reasonably hold this against me, but should rather approve of it. Those who oppose my views can indeed accuse me of political ignorance, but is my ignorance a reason for declaring war upon me? Even in politics, as someone said, it is often how you read a thing that counts.

4. From the Church's point of view, there seemed no possibility for dissatisfaction except perhaps for what the book contains about the exaggerations of papal reservations in elections. But this abuse belongs to history, and common sense will show there is nothing to fear in indicating such obvious abuses when the argument requires this. By doing so, it becomes clear that we are not taking sides for the sake of upholding human opinion, but acting solely for the sake of the truth, and for the cause of God and of the Church herself.

On the other hand, I did not think it correct to abstain from writing through fear of upsetting persons whose good intentions might extend further than their limited views because I had every reason for believing that the work would not displease the holy see, to whose judgement I intend to submit everything I do. I have always recognised the view of the holy see as noble, dignified and completely in harmony with truth and justice, and its dogmatic decisions as incapable of error. For me, "abuse" is only what the popes call such, and as such have corrected, although as "abuse" it has been exaggerated by heretics and by evil men, and to this extent I have been prepared to justify these reservations (cf. 71).

One example comes to mind, amongst others. In 1538 Paul III entrusted a Congregation of Cardinals, Bishops and Religious, under oath, with the duty of seeking and manifesting freely to his holiness all the abuses and deviations introduced in the Roman court iteslf. The commission was composed of highly respected members: four great cardinals, Contarini, Caraffa, Sadoleto and Pole; three learned bishops, Federico Fregoso of Salerno, Girolamo Alessandro of Brindisi, Giovanmatteo Gilberti of Verona; Cortesi, abbot of San Giorgio at Venice, and Badia, Master of the Sacred Palace, who both became cardinals.

These exemplary men, well-known for their learning, prudence and integrity, faithfully fulfilled their task, and in their report to the holy father pointed to reversions and reservations, together with everything defective about appointments to benefices, as a major abuse. They also uncovered and indicated the profound root of such abuse in "the refined flattery of lawyers", which impeded both state and ministers of the Church in the right exercise of their power - a view indicated by myself also.

These consultors could not have used clearer or more effective language in their report to the pope. They say: "Your Holiness, taught by the divine Spirit who, as Augustine says, speaks in the heart without the clamour of words, is perfectly aware of the root of these evils, and knows how certain of your predecessors accumulated for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, as the Apostle says. Their aim was not to learn their duty, but to make use of the study and cunning of others to legitimise what they wanted. Hence the appearance of learned men (without counting the adulation that follows power like a shadow, and the difficulty of speaking the truth to rulers) who taught that the pope is the owner of all benefices and therefore (since an owner can sell his property without injustice) incapable of simony; and that the will of the pope, whatever it may be, is the rule according to which he may direct his works and actions. Consequently, what was desirable became lawful. Holy Father, the source of so many abuses and grave evils in the Church of God lies here. Like a Trojan horse, it has poured its appalling host into the Church, burdening and challenging it. Knowledge of such shame is current even amongst unbelievers (Your Holiness should believe those who are aware of this) who as a result mock the christian religion. It is through us that the name of Christ is blasphemed among the nations."

Such considerations were sufficient to quieten all my doubts, and peacefully and freely I began to write this little study. May God use it for his glory and the benefit of his Church.

Correzzola,
18th November, 1832