# Petri Privilegium/III/Appendix 2

Layout 2
II.
LETTER OF H. E. CARDINAL ANTONELLI TO THE NUNCIO AT PARIS.
Rome, March 19, 1870.
My Lord,—The Marquis de Banneville, ambassador of his Majesty, read me, a few days ago, a despatch forwarded to him under date February 20 last, from Count Daru, Minister of Foreign Affairs, relative to the affairs of the Council. In this communication, of which the ambassador was kind enough to leave me a copy, the aforesaid minister, referring to the resolution come to by the French Government not to take part in the deliberations of the General Council, desiring at the same time its liberty to be guaranteed fully and absolutely, states that such resolution was based on the supposition that that venerable assembly would occupy itself solely about the sacred interests of the Faith, and would abstain from touching questions of a purely political order. But the publication (he says) by the 'Augsburg Gazette' of the canons appertaining to the draft of constitution on the Church and on the Roman Pontiff, showing that there is question of deciding whether the power of the Church and of her Head extends to the whole aggregate of political rights; the Government, keeping firmly to the resolution of leaving, upon this point also, entire liberty to the deliberations of the august assembly, intends to exercise the right given it by the Concordat of making known to the Council its opinion on questions of such nature.
Passing to the examination of the said canons, the minister sums up their contents (on which he wishes to comment) in the two following propositions: First, 'the Infallibility of the Church extends not only to the Deposit of Faith, but to all that is necessary for the preservation of such Deposit'; and secondly, 'the Church is a society divine and perfect; its power is exercised at once in foro interno et externo; is absolute in the legislative, judicial, and coercive order, and is to be exercised by her with full liberty and independence from any civil power whatever.' Hence, as corollaries of these two propositions, he deduces ​the extension of infallibility to all that is thought necessary for the defence of revealed truths, and consequently to facts, whether historical, philosophical, or scientific, external to revelation: as also the absolute subordination to the supreme authority of the Church of the constituent principles of civil society; of the rights and duties of Government; of the political rights and duties of citizens, whether electoral or municipal; of all that relates to the judicial and legislative order, as well in respect of persons as of things; of the rules of public administration; of the rights and duties of corporations, and, in general, of all the rights of the State, not excluding the rights of conquest, peace, and war.
Next the minister passes on to note the profound impression which the simple enunciation of such doctrines must produce in the entire world; and asks at the same time how it could be possible for the bishops to consent to abdicate their episcopal authority, concentrating it in the hands of one alone; and how it could have been imagined that princes would lower their sovereignty before the supremacy of the Court of Rome.
Lastly, concluding, from all that has been set forth, that political and not religious interests are being discussed in the Council, Count Daru demands that the Governments be heard, or at least admitted to bear testimony to the characters, dispositions, and spirit (disposizioni di spirito) of the peoples they represent; and in particular that since France, by reason of the special protection which for twenty years she has exercised over the Pontifical State, has quite special duties to perform, he demands that the Government of that nation be permitted to exercise its right of receiving communication of projected decisions touching politics, and of requesting the delay necessary for bringing its observations before the Council, before any resolution be adopted by the same.
This is an abstract of the dispatch communicated to me by the Marquis de Banneville. I have thought proper to inform your Lordship of it; with the view, moreover, of communicating to you some short considerations which I think necessary to put in a clearer light the points touched upon by the minister, and to reply to the deductions made by him with respect to the points submitted to the deliberations of the Council.
And first, I cannot dispense myself from manifesting to your Lordship the satisfaction with which the Holy Father received the declaration expressed at the beginning of Count Daru's despatch, and repeated in the sequel, of the fixed intention of the ​French Government to respect, and cause to be respected, in any event, the full liberty of the Council, as well in the discussion of the constitution referred to as of all others which shall hereafter come to be proposed to the examination of the venerable assembly. This declaration, which does great honour to the Government of a Catholic nation, is considered by the Holy See as the natural consequence of that protection which, for more than twenty years, France has exercised towards it; a protection which has called forth several times public demonstrations of gratitude on the part of the Supreme Pontiff, who always, but especially at the present moment, cannot do less than recognise and appreciate all its importance.
But, coming closer to the object of Count Daru's despatch, I must say frankly that I am quite unable to understand (non mi è dato di comprendere) how the declarations contained in the draft of Constitution on the Church, and the respective canons—published in the 'Augsburg Gazette' by a breach of the Pontifical secret—could have produced so grave and profound an impression on the mind of the French Cabinet, as to induce it to change the line of conduct which it had properly traced out for itself in regard to the discussions of the Vatican Council. The subjects treated in that draft of constitution, and in the canons appertaining to it, whatever modification they may undergo in the sequel from the judgment and decision of the Episcopate, are no more than the exposition of the maxims and fundamental principles of the Church; principles repeated over and over again in the Acts of former General Councils, proclaimed and developed in several Pontifical Constitutions, published in all Catholic states, and particularly in the celebrated dogmatic Bulls beginning 'Unigenitus,' and 'Auctorem Fidei,' where all the aforesaid doctrines are generally confirmed and sanctioned; principles, finally, which have constantly formed the basis of teaching in all periods of the Church, and in all Catholic schools, and have been defended by an innumerable host of ecclesiastical writers, whose works have served for text in public schools and colleges, as well Government schools as others, without any contradiction on the part of the civil authority, but rather, for the most part, with the approbation and encouragement of the same.
Much less would it be possible for me to agree upon the character and extent given by the minister to the doctrines contained in the aforesaid canons. In virtue of them there is not attributed, either to the Church or the Roman Pontiff, that direct and absolute power over the whole aggregate of political rights, of which ​the despatch speaks; nor is the subordination of the civil to the religious power to be understood in the sense set forth by him, but in another order of quite different bearing.
And in truth the Church has never intended, nor now intends, to exercise any direct and absolute power over the political rights of the State. Having received from God the lofty mission of guiding men, whether individually or as congregated in society, to a supernatural end, she has by that very fact the authority and the duty to judge concerning the morality and justice of all acts, internal and external, in relation to their conformity with the natural and divine law. And as no action, whether it be ordained by a supreme power, or be freely elicited by an individual, can be exempt from this character of morality and justice, so it happens that the judgment of the Church, though falling directly on the morality of the acts, indirectly reaches over everything with which that morality is conjoined. But this is not the same thing as to interfere directly in political affairs, which, by the order established by God and by the teaching of the Church herself, appertains to the temporal power without dependence on any other authority. The subordination also of the civil to the religious power is in the sense of the pre-eminence of the sacerdotium over the imperium, because of the superiority of the end of the one over that of the other. Hence the authority of the imperium depends on that of the sacerdotium, as human things on divine, temporal on spiritual. And if temporal happiness, which is the end of the civil power, is subordinate to eternal beatitude, which is the spiritual end of the sacerdotium, it follows that in order to reach the end to which it has pleased God to direct them, the one power is subordinate to the other. Their powers (I say) are respectively subordinate in the same way as the ends to which they are directed.
It results from these principles that, if the infallibility of the Church extends also (not, however, in the sense indicated by the French despatch) to all that is necessary to preserve intact the Deposit of Faith, no harm is thereby done to science, history, or politics. The prerogative of infallibility is not an unknown fact in the Catholic world; the supreme magisterium of the Church has dictated in every age rules of faith, without the internal order of States being thereby affected (risentirsene), or princes ​being disquieted thereat; rather, wisely appreciating the influence which such rules have on the good order of civil society, these have been themselves, from time to time, the vindicators and defenders of the doctrines defined, and have promoted, by the concurrence of the royal power, their full and respectful observance.
It follows, moreover, that if the Church was instituted by its Divine Founder as a true and perfect society, distinct from the civil power and independent of it, with full authority in the triple order, legislative, judicial, and coercive, no confusion springs therefrom in the march of human society, and in the exercise of the rights of the two powers. The competence of the one and the other is clearly distinct and determined, according to the end to which they are respectively directed. The Church does not, in virtue of her authority, intervene directly and absolutely in the constitutive principles of governments, in the forms of civil regulations, in the political rights of citizens, in the duties of the State, and in the other points indicated in the minister's note, But, whereas no civil society can subsist without a supreme principle regulating the morality of its acts and laws, the Church has received from God this lofty mission, which tends to the happiness of the people, while she in no way embarrasses, by the exercise of this her ministry, the free and prompt action of Governments. She, in fact, by inculcating the principle of rendering to God that which is God's, and to Cæsar that which is Cæsar's, imposes at the same time upon her children the obligation of obeying the authority of princes for conscience sake. But these should also recognize that if anywhere a law is made opposed to the principles of eternal justice, to obey would not be a giving to Cæsar that which is Cæsar's, but a taking from God that which is God's.
I proceed now to say a word on the profound impression which the minister expects will be made throughout the world by the mere enunciation of the principles developed in the draft of constitution which forms the object of his despatch. In truth it is not easy to persuade oneself how the doctrines contained in that draft, and understood in the sense above pointed out, can produce the profound impression of which the minister speaks; unless indeed their spirit and character be wrested, or that he speaks of those who, professing principles different from those professed by the Catholic Church, cannot of course approve of such principles being inculcated and sanctioned afresh. I say afresh; because the doctrines contained in that document, as I have already ​remarked, far from being new and unheard of, embrace no more (non sono nel loro complesso) than the reproduction of the Catholic teaching professed in every age and in every Church, as will be solemnly proved by all the pastors of the Catholic name, called by the head of the hierarchy to bear authentic witness, in the midst of the Council, to the faith and traditions of the Church Universal. It is to be hoped rather that the Catholic doctrine, once more solemnly confirmed by the Fathers of the Vatican Council, will be greeted by the faithful people as the rainbow of peace and the dawn of a brighter future. The object of confirming those doctrines is no other than to recall to modern society the maxims of justice and virtue, and thus to restore to the world that peace and prosperity which can only be found in the perfect keeping of the divine law. This is the firm hope of all honest men, who received with joy the announcement of the Council; this is the conviction of the Fathers of the Church, who have assembled with alacrity in such numbers at the voice of the Chief Pastor; this is the prayer which the Vicar of Jesus Christ is always sending up to God in the midst of the grievous troubles which surround his Pontificate.
For the rest, I do not understand why the bishops should have to renounce their episcopal authority in consequence of the definition of Pontifical Infallibility. This prerogative is not only as ancient as the Church herself, but has been, moreover, always exercised in the Roman Church, without the divine authority and the rights conferred by God on the pastors of the Church being thereby altered in the least degree. Its definition therefore would in no way go to change the relations between the bishops and their head. The rights of the one and the prerogatives of the other are well defined in the Church's divine constitution; and the confirmation of the Roman Pontiff's supreme authority and magisterium, far from being prejudicial to the rights of bishops, will furnish a new support to their authority and magisterium, since the strength and vigour of the members is just so much as comes to them from the head.
By parity of reason—the authority of the pastors of the Church being strengthened anew by the solemn confirmation of Pontifical Infallibility—that of princes, especially Catholic princes, will be no less strengthened. The prosperity of the Church and the peace of the State depend upon the close and intimate union of the two supreme powers. Who does not see then that the authority of princes not only will not receive any blow from the pontifical supremacy, but will instead find therein its strongest ​support? As sons of the Church, they owe obedience, respect, and protection to the authority placed on earth by God to guide princes and peoples to the last end of eternal salvation; nor can they refuse to recognise that royal power has been granted them for the defence also and guardianship of Christian society. But by the very fact of the principle of authority receiving new vigour in the Church and in its head, the sovereign power must necessarily receive a new impulse, since it has from God a common origin, and consequently common interests also. And so, if the wickedness of the age, by separating the one from the other, has placed both in troublesome and painful conditions, to the great injury of human society, closer relations will unite both in indissoluble bonds for the defence of the grand interests of religion and society, and will prepare for them the way to a brighter and more prosperous future.
From what has been said up to this point it results clearly that the Council has not been called to discuss political interests, as the despatch of Count Daru seems to indicate. We may conclude, therefore, that the French Government, finding no longer a sufficient reason for departing from the line of conduct it had set itself to follow in respect of the Council, will not desire to insist on the request for communication of the Decrees which will be submitted to the examination and discussion of the venerable assembly of bishops. On which point indeed it occurs to me to observe that the right claimed for his purpose by the minister on the ground of the Concordat in force between the Holy See and France, cannot, in my opinion, find any support in that act. In the first place, no special mention of this particular point is found in the articles of that convention. Then, further, the relations of Church and State on points belonging to both powers (punto di mista competenza) having been regulated by the Concordat, the decisions, which may be come to by the Vatican Council on such matters will in no way alter the special stipulations made by the Holy See, as well with France as with other governments, as long as these place no obstacles in the way of the full keeping of the conditions agreed upon. I may also add that if the Holy See has not thought fit to invite Catholic princes to the Council, as it did on other occasions, every one will easily understand that this is chiefly to be attributed to the changed circumstances of the times. The altered state of the relations between the Church and the Civil Governments has made more difficult their mutual action in the regulation of things religious.
I desire however to hope that the Government of his Majesty ​the Emperor, fully satisfied with the explanations given by me in the name of the Holy See to the various points of Count Daru's despatch, and recognising at the same time the difficulties in which the Holy Father might find himself, will not insist further on the demand of communication beforehand of the drafts of constitutions to be examined by the Fathers of the Council. Were such demand conceded, there would be question of things tending to embarrass the free action of the Council. Moreover, since the Church is keeping within the limits assigned to her by her Divine Founder, no anxiety need remain to the Government of his Majesty on account of the deliberations which may come to be adopted by the Episcopal assembly. Finally the French Government will thus give, by the very fact, a new proof of those dispositions of goodwill which it has manifested in respect of the full liberty of the Conciliar deliberations, and of the confidence which it declares it reposes in the wisdom and prudence of the Apostolic See.
Your Lordship will please read this despatch to Count Daru, as also leave him a copy.
Meanwhile receive, &c. &c., (Signed)G. Card. Antonelli.