Democrat and sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1853-1866, 1855-01-25
VOL. 2. NO. II.

IN the Catholic Church, in all other church.
cs, there have been found few individuals Of
less discretion than zeal. who have, from mista-
ken view of the Christian duties, thought il a
merit on themselves to impute 10 religion di-
rect secular power which il intended
by God, nor understood by good, prudent TO
exercise We see it in the careless writings Of
certain Catholic scholars, as we find il in the
preaching and discipline Of many othtr dencmi-
nations But in the Catholic Church those inei-
vi,.ual opinions have beendis .ontenaneed by the
bishops, and in other churches they have grown
much out of practice; by all they are considered
as rendering unto God the things which are Cse-
sar's- The assertion by individuals, or the prac-
tce by few Popes, of any power, docs not make
that power right That only is OF faith which Is
so declared li which is for all times and an cir
cunstances
The most distinguished instance Of the exercise
of the Papal power of deposing monarch, is
that by Gregory VII, (Ganganeli,) } who excom-
municated and Geposed the Emperor Henry ".
The peculiar character of these times / have al
ready noted. The peculiar character Of Henry
may be learned from history. He was corrupt,
venal, turbulent, cruel, blaspheInous, hypocriti-
cal. He had violated his coronation oath and
was engaged in enorTnties that drew from every
part of Germany and the north of Italy, appeals
TO the Pope ur the exercise of those powers which
the Pontiff held from the Emperor; and when the
Pope was exercising his admitted legal powers
against the Emperor, Henry called a council, and
caused to be passed and promulgated sentence
of deposition against Gregory, the Pope.
or course, this drew fram Rome sentence Of
excommunication, and accommodation, unless
removed within year. to assist in working
out dopositi0ns The Princes Of Germany, even,
assembled to elect successor to Henry; but the
accommodated EmI eror, in full acknowledge
ment of the power of the Pope, hastened to Italy,
made submission, saved himself from dethrone-
ment, returned to his German home fourfold more
a child of the dtvil than lac Lad been, depc-
sed, and die a miserable outcast. Though those
events took place at a time and under circunstan-
stances when little regard was paid to the nice
ties of temporal distinctions, yet the Pope (Greg-
ory) did not claim that his action in deposing the
Emperor by divine right, because he knew,
and all knew, that, by a law of the Empire, Hen
ry had forfeited the Imperial throne, and that the
Pope was as much authorized to depose him for
violating a Law Of the Empire, as he was to
communicate him for open violation of the com
mands of God and the Church,
In a letter from Gregory VII. to the German
Lords, he, the Pope, expressly declares that he
did not pretend to ground himself merely the
divine power of finding and loosing, but on the
laws of men-that is, the constitution or laws OF
the Empire as wei as the laws Of God, and, ac-
cording to the last named code, as well the
quirement of the former, Henry deserved, not on
ly to be excommuncated, but also to be deposed
of his imperial dignity.
The most distinguished writer Of the time Of
Gregory VII, Peter Daimler, shows that Gregory
did not depend alone upon his spiritual power,
but acted upon the authority of the constitution
of the Empire If Gregory had claimed, and
Others had admitted divine right alone to de-
pose an Emperor, his apoiogist would scarcely, at
such time, have presented the smaller night OF
human authrrity-
The following, from a work ON the temporal
power of the Pope, by Mr.. Gosselin, is directly to
the point, and will illustrate this part of my re-
marks:
s-From these observations it follows, in fact.
first that Gregory VII, the first that ever pro
nounced sentence of deposition against soyer-
cien. did pot pretend to ground his proceedings
solely on the divine right, but on laws both hu-
man and divine Secondly, tnat IN the opinion
of Gregory VII. and of las successors, well as
Of all their eotemporaries, the deposition Of
communicated Prince was not a necessary conse-
auence Of accommodation, and did not follow
from the divine power of binding and loosing,
alone, but from special provision of a human
law, and principally from the laws OF the Empire,
which declared deposed of his throne any Prince
remaining obstinatiy under accommodation
whole year.
..These important factson proved, there IS no
difficulty ia understanding how the Popes could
naturally cite in support of their sentences of ex
communication and deposition against Princes,
the divine power of linding and tossing, though
not considering it as the sole title of that depo-
sing power which they claimed. 1t is, III fact,
evident flat- AT Il Time NntH tOiStlIutioDd
attached the penalty of deposition TO excommuni-
cation or heresy, the Popes sentence against such
excommunicated or heretical lrince was grounded
both on the divine right and on human law
1t was founded on the diEine right, not merely II
so far as it declared te Prince heretical or excom
municated but still IN so FAR as II eniighten-
! ed the conscience of his subjects on the extent
and limits of the obligation arising from the oath
of allegiance which they had taken TO him. Ii
was founded on human law, also, IN so far as II
declared IL e prince deprived OF his rights, IN pun
ishment of his remaining obstinately IN heresy or
accommodation. Lit Is eovious, Also, why the
Pope's sentences mentioned only the divine pow
or of binding and loosing for it was on that di-
vine power that the sentence was really grounded,
considered in its principal, direct and immediate
object; for the deposition was effected by excom-
munication-its natural result, according to the
constitutional law then in force.'
While ! have asserted, and with the little time
allowed me, referred you to the authorities upon
which ny assertions rest. that the Popes of the
middle age did not declare that their interference
with the temporal powers of Kings and Emperors
was authorized by their spiritual commissions, as
Bishops of Rome; and that their antagonistic and
summary proceedings towards offending soyer-
eigns, with gard to their temporal powers of the
| latter, were authorized by constitution formed
by these sovereigns or their predecessors, | do
not pretend to assert that the power was always
/ rightly used. / do not deny ambitious or yenge-
| full motives to the Popes. Nothing in my creed
or theirs presents such a conclusion, and nothing
! in their conduct renders such a conclusion urrea
sonalle. / only say that the spiritual power here
is not in question and there and at that time, the
/ power to depose-power humbly conferred-was
never called in question by the deposed mon
I archs.
| ,Pbey admitted the constitutional right and
| mower. though they may have called in question
the jasficc OF the act With the Justice Of the pro-
4 Al Il.