The Church In Politics-Americans Beware! Part 1

The Church In Politics--Americans Beware!

by M. M. Mangasarian.

_The ma.s.s of the law-abiding and respectable citizens is virtually agnostic. Where its agnosticism is not reasoned out, it is habitual and unconcerned. The orderly, honest, duty-doing people who never think about religion one way or the other form by far the largest cla.s.s in the community._

--_David Christy Murray._

The Church in Politics-- Americans, Beware!

In his letter on religion in politics, President Roosevelt takes the position, I believe, that we may look forward to the day when a Catholic, for instance, may be nominated and elected to the presidency of the United States of America. He also intimates that to refuse to vote for a Catholic on account of his religion would be bigotry! The Lutheran, Baptist and Presbyterian bodies have, if I am not mistaken, officially protested against the president's p.r.o.nouncement. These Protestant churches declare that it is not fair to call them bigots for objecting to a Catholic for president.

Speaking only in the capacity of a private citizen, it is my opinion that, according to the Const.i.tution, a Catholic is not eligible to be a candidate for president. Neither is a sincere and consistent Christian of any other denomination. Nor is a believing Jew. The Const.i.tution explicitly ignores the religious interests of the nation; it does not even so much as mention the name of G.o.d. Had the doc.u.ment been created by infidels it could not have been more indifferent to the subject of church or religion. The Const.i.tution is a downright secular instrument, having as its end one, and only one, object--the rights of man. But the supreme end of the church is G.o.d, not man; or man for G.o.d. There is then, between the church and the Const.i.tution, an irreconcilable difference. It is because of this that the United Presbyterians, for instance, who have a membership of about a million, refuse even to take part in elections, much less to accept office under a government that deliberately ignores the Christian religion, as well as every other religion. I submit that the United Presbyterians are quite consistent, and that they deserve the respect of all who hold that courage and sincerity are better than ambiguity and inconsistency. A Christian, therefore, can accept a nomination to the presidency, for instance, only by either stultifying himself and belittling his church, or by disregarding the Const.i.tution, its spirit as well as its letter.

Nor would it be "bigotry" to contend that a Protestant or a Catholic candidate, to whom G.o.d is first and country second, should under no circ.u.mstances be voted into presidential power and influence. Even as it would not be an act of intolerance to deny the presidency of this country to a foreign-born citizen, it would not be intolerant to deny it to Catholics, for example. They are simply not eligible. Both Protestant and Catholic ought to say, when invited to the office, that they can not conscientiously swear to maintain a Const.i.tution which fails in its duties to the Creator, and that if elected they will obey G.o.d rather than the Const.i.tution, for a Christian can not serve two masters, neither can he be a Christian and not a Christian at the same time. I am going to quote a page from the history of modern France, to show that that is precisely what the Catholic, at least, does when he comes into power--he obeys G.o.d, that is to say, the church, and forgets all about the Const.i.tution, that is to say, the rights of man.

France has been a turbulent country. Its political weather has been more frequently stormy than fair. It makes one nervous, almost, to read the history of France--it is so sensational. Its pages are lit up with the lightning. It is a sad and shocking story of intrigues, plots, conspiracies, treason, machination, finesse,--of manoeuvre and scandal, of sudden strokes and startling surprises, which have alternately cooled and heated the brain of the nation, and which have cultivated in the people the unhealthy craving for excitement.

Let it be admitted that the temperament of the people, its irritability or impetuosity, is in a measure responsible for this. But this in itself is not enough to explain the terrible punishments and misfortunes which have fallen upon that nation. You are all familiar with the remark of one of her great statesmen, Gambetta: "The enemy, it is clericalism."

Another statesman, Paul Bert, said: "It is not our domestic discords; it is not England; nor even the trained German legions, that const.i.tute the greatest menace to Frenchmen and the prosperity of France, still bleeding from her wounds, _but the man in black_." Did these statesmen speak the truth? We shall ask history to answer the question. This much, however, we can say without consulting history, that today the French republic and the Catholic church are at swords' points. After trying to pull together, church and state have separated--are completely divorced, and each suspects and fears the other. Let us try to explain the strained relations between Rome and the French republic by a reference to the events in France from the time of the second republic to the Franco-Prussian war.

In 1848, after many attempts to maintain the monarchy, France returned to the republican form of government. The Catholic church, always powerful in the country, and having great interests at stake, to the surprise of the nation, welcomed the republic with enthusiasm. The Archbishop of Cambrai, the bishops of Gap, of Chalons, of Nancy, and the Catholic periodicals, _l'Univers_, the _Moniteur_, etc., declared that the republican form of government was of divine origin, and that there were no other three words in all the world more sacred than the words "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." In all the churches high ma.s.s was celebrated, and a _Te Deum_ chanted in honor of the new regime. "There are no more devoted and sincere republicans in France than the Catholics," wrote Veuillot in _l'Univers_, the organ of the church. In asking you to keep this in mind, I also request you to note that the Catholic church in America seems to be today just as devoted to the American republic as the French Catholics professed to be to the republic of 1848. But let us not forget that this same clergy, during the reign of the first Napoleon, introduced the following questions and answers into every church catechism in use throughout the land:

_Question:_ Why are we under obligations to our emperor?

_Answer:_ Because, in the first place, G.o.d, who creates empires and distributes them according to his pleasure, in blessing our emperor, both in peace and war, has set him over us as our sovereign, and has made him the image of himself upon the earth. To honor and serve the emperor is then to honor and serve G.o.d.

_Question:_ Are there not special reasons why we are most profoundly indebted to Napoleon the First, our emperor?

_Answer:_ Yes. For in difficult circ.u.mstances, he is the man whom G.o.d has raised up to re-establish the public worship of the holy religion of our fathers, and to be our protector.... He has become the anointed of the Lord by the consecration of the pope, the head of the Church Universal.

_Question:_ What shall be thought of those who fail in their respect to our emperor?

_Answer:_ According to the Apostle Paul, those who resist the appointed powers shall receive eternal d.a.m.nation to their souls.[A]

[A] _Catechisme a L'Usage de Tantes Les Eglises de L'Empire Francais._

Of course, when the first Napoleon fell, the Catholic church quickly withdrew from circulation the catechism from which I have been quoting.

It was after considerable effort that I was able to secure a copy of the work. The infallible church, then, was for Napoleon, heart and soul, as long as he was in power. Without any conscientious scruples whatever, the church hailed the tyrant, whose profession was wholesale murder for his own glory--as the "image of G.o.d on earth!" In those days it meant "d.a.m.nation" not to accept Napoleon as the anointed of heaven. Such a guide is the church!

But at last the church professed to be converted to liberty.

Now we are in a position to appreciate the sudden and complete change of front on the part of the French clergy. From staunch imperialists they had been converted, judging by their professions, to the principles of the French revolution. An era of peace and brotherhood seemed to open before that much troubled country. Priest and magistrate had both buried the hatchet; church and school would now, after endless disputation, co-operate in the work of education, and the vicar of Christ and the president of the republic shall join hands in the service of the people.

The new republic promised all this. The skies were serene and clear, and the church bells rang in honor of the era that had just dawned.

Having inaugurated the republic, the next business before the country was the election of a president. The Catholic church, having disarmed all suspicion and given tangible proofs of its conversion to republicanism, succeeded in nominating its own candidate to the presidency. This was Louis Napoleon, the nephew of the great Napoleon.

To elect its nominee, the church engaged in a most active campaign; sermons were delivered in every church; a house to house canva.s.s was undertaken, and even the confessional was utilized to secure votes for "the Star of France," as they called Napoleon.

On election day, each priest led his parishioners to the voting booth and saw that the ballots were properly deposited. The result was that Louis Napoleon was elected by 5,534,520 votes, out of a total of 7,426,252 votes cast. That is to say, he had a majority of nearly three millions.

What made Louis Napoleon a favorite with the church? To answer that question we shall have to step onto the stage and peep behind the scenes. But to see what was transpiring behind the scenes in France we shall have to go to Rome.

About the time we are now speaking of, the papal states in Italy were up in arms against the pope, who at this time still enjoyed his temporal power. He was still both priest and king. He had his own soldiers, his own generals, his cannons, guns and powder. He went to war; collected taxes, administered the courts, and possessed all the prerogatives of a secular sovereign. He was, of course, besides all this, also the vicar of Christ on earth. Unfortunately, like any other sovereign of those days, the pope oppressed his subjects, and it was to put an end to their grievances that the Italian states revolted, and made an attempt to establish a republic in Rome. No doubt our own example in this country, as well as that of the French, encouraged the Italians in their efforts to free themselves from oppression. The republican movement spread rapidly--like the rushing waters of a reservoir that had at last broken loose. The whole peninsula was athrill with new aspirations. The Italians remembered the days of their pagan ancestors and took heart.

The charmed and charming words, "Liberty! Const.i.tution!" were upon every lip. Soon the heavens would beam with the radiant star of Garibaldi. The movement was so irresistible that the pope, Pius IX, was compelled to make terms with the leaders. It was agreed that, henceforth, the country, instead of being governed exclusively by the clergy, as heretofore, should be governed by two chambers, the members to one of which should be appointed by the pope; the members to the other should be elected by the people. The two chambers, however, as was to be expected, could not get along together. The priests were not used to obeying, they were used to commanding. They obeyed only G.o.d. Moreover, the secular members undertook to interfere in church matters, which the priests would not tolerate, although they themselves never refrained from interfering in secular matters. The deliberations became anarchic in parliament. The priests declared they represented G.o.d and could never be in the wrong. Whoever they may have meant by the word "G.o.d," he was invariably on the side of the priests. This, the other members declared, was not fair, as it tied up their hands and made them as helpless as the delegates to a Russian _Douma_ are today. Things went from bad to worse; murders became daily occurrences. The pope, fearing a.s.sa.s.sination, fled from Rome. His departure was hailed with joy. Rome unfurled the republican flag from the dome of St. Peter's. The pope was a fugitive.

Rome was free.

To crush this republican movement and restore the runaway pope to his throne, the church needed an agent. The agent must be strong enough to strangle the Italian republic and to recover for the pope his temporal power. Spain was too decrepit to be summoned to the task. Austria had already too much of Italy in her grip; the only nation that could disinterestedly fight for the pope would be France.

Observe now the double role which the church was playing: In France she was an ardent republican, in Italy she anathematized the republic as a blasphemy against G.o.d. In France she was ringing bells in honor of the rights of man, in Rome she was firing shot and sh.e.l.l into the Italian republicans. In France the republic was of divine origin, in Italy, it was the work of the devil. Let us state it frankly, the church was a republican in France, not from love but from policy. History will confirm our statement.

But we have not yet answered why Louis Napoleon was such a favorite with the church. On the eve of the elections in France, Napoleon, who was one of the candidates for the presidency, sent a letter to the _nuncio_ of the pope in Paris, in which he expressed his personal opinion, an opinion which at the time looked quite harmless, that, for the peace of Italy and the prestige of the Catholic world, the temporal power of the pope should be maintained. Few people were reflective enough to suspect that there was in those words a pledge on the part of the candidate to employ, if elected to the presidency, the resources of France in the service of Rome.

Naturally enough, not long after his election, the church called upon Napoleon to fulfill his promise. But to make a promise is very much easier than to fulfill it. How was the president going to persuade the French to make war upon a sister republic? It was clearly to the interest of the French to have the republican form of government spread.

But it was to the interest of the church to overthrow the Italian republic and restore the pope to the vatican. The French must, therefore, prefer the interest of the pope to the interest of their own country. Americans beware!

On the 30th of March, 1849, Louis Napoleon succeeded in getting a favorable vote from the a.s.sembly upon the following proposition: "If for the maintenance of the integrity of the Kingdom of Piedmont, and for the preservation of the interests and honor of France, the executive power shall deem it necessary for the enforcement of its negotiations to occupy temporarily any given point in Italy, the national a.s.sembly shall lend him its cordial and effective support."[B] A short time after, Napoleon dispatched to Rome a force under the command of Oudinat, with secret instructions to reseat the pope on his apostolic as well as temporal throne. On the 30th of April the French republican army opened fire on the Italian republicans defending Rome. The French were repulsed. When the news of the disaster to the French forces reached Paris it threw the country into a state of delirium. Scarcely anybody not in the conspiracy had suspected that the innocent looking measure presented to the a.s.sembly by the president of the republic really authorized the declaration of war against Italy; and no one so much as imagined that "a given point in Italy" meant Rome, or that "the interests and the honor of France" required the restoration of the principle of absolutism in Italy. But it was too late; the a.s.sembly had been caught in a trap. The disgrace and the defeat were matters of fact which could not be undone.

[B] _L'Eglise et La France._ O. Jouvin, page 22.

A moment ago I called attention to the double role of the church. I now ask you to see how the church was trying to drag the French nation into the same insincerity and duplicity. Think of a nation which had created the Revolution, which had overthrown the monarchy, and had inscribed upon its banner "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity"--think of such a nation going to war against one of its neighbors for following its example! The creators of liberty were urged to become its a.s.sa.s.sins. Into this ludicrous, absurd, nay, infamous role, was the French republic dragged by Napoleon and the power that had made him president of the republic.

Americans beware!

On the 29th of June the French forces made a second attack upon Rome, putting the republicans to rout and restoring the pope to the vatican, whence a short time before he had fled to a place of safety. The French republic has now destroyed the Italian republic. The words, "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," shall no longer be heard in Rome. The republican flag has been taken down from St. Peter's. The pope is king again.

Mazzini, Armellini, Saffi, Garibaldi and their colleagues, become exiles. France refuses them an asylum. France, the country of the Revolution, of the rights of man, of the republic with its glorious motto, "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity"--refuses to shelter the Italian republicans! It was to the interest of France to give these men the hand of fellowship; it would have been to the honor and glory of France to have opened her doors to these deliverers of an oppressed nation, but it was not to the interest of the church, and the church comes first; France must be sacrificed to Rome. Americans beware!

The Italian patriots crossed the channel and found in Protestant England the asylum which the country that had introduced the republic into modern Europe denied them.

It was then that our great friend, George Jacob Holyoake, opened his heart and his home to the patriots of Italy. For many years and at frequent intervals both Mazzini and Garibaldi were his guests, and he helped to win for them the friendship of generous men who raised the funds to continue the rebellion, which was ultimately crowned with success.

Pioneers! O, Pioneers!

I can not think of these brave men and their work without recalling Whitman's bugle call:

Pioneers! O, Pioneers!

Till with sound of trumpet, Far, far off the daybreak call--hark, how loud and clear I hear it wind, Swift! to the head of the army!--swift! spring to your places, Pioneers! O, Pioneers!

But let us proceed:

One day, somewhere about 1852, the people of France, when they rose in the morning, found that their republic had disappeared. Not only was the Italian republic no more, but the French republic had gone too. The same power that had driven the republicans out of Rome had driven them out of France. As if by a sponge, the free inst.i.tutions of the country and the const.i.tution, were wiped out by one sweep of the hand. The first places which, after this _coup d'etat_, Napoleon III visited, were the churches. He walked up to the altar in each church which he visited on his triumphal journey through France, and knelt down for prayer and worship. How did the clergy receive him? What did they say to this betrayer of the nation, this traitor, who had violated his solemn oath?

Let me reproduce the words of the oath which Napoleon took on the day of his inauguration as president of the republic:

"In the presence of G.o.d and before the people of France, I solemnly swear to remain faithful to the democratic republic, one and indivisible, and to fulfill all the duties which the Const.i.tution imposes upon me."