Year: 1860

The Pope as u Temporal Men


arch.


i We notice quite lengthy article in the las
number of the Enquirer, from correspondent
taking exceptions to the remarks we recent


made in relation to affairs in Italy - tn


temporal sovereignty Of the Pope, and tn


Intervention Of France and England. Th


writer denies, in the first place, the charge c


despotism, which we, in common with tn


liberals Of both hemispheres, prefer agains


His Holiness; and, second, impugns tn


motives of the alliance, and, if we read Alright


contends that the movement against tn


temporal dominion of the Pope finds n


appreciable amount of sympathy with tn


Italian people themselves. He attempts, il


asuggestive kind of way, to draw from histor,


picture exceedingly forid of the mild an.


salutary sway Of the pontffs, from the earlies


date of their existence as political power t.


the present time. A reference of this question


to history must, however, appear especially


unfortunate, to all who have given history al


impartial study; and, upon its authority


(some of the historians being Catholics them


Selves we reitsrate that, between papacy il


its political pretensions and the worst form
despotism, there is so little difference as no,


to allow of preference. And here let it be
understood that we wage no war against the
Pope as the head of the church-with his
spiritual powers we have nothing to do. II
is in his character of temporal monarch,
invested with absolute power, and laboring
assiduously for self-aggrandizement, that we
stand antagonistic to him as naturally as to
the representative Of any otker monarchical
system within or without the pale Of
christsndom.


The writer goes on triumphantly to assert
in behalf Of history:


"That, of all the dynasties in Europe, this
alone was not founded in robbery and blood
shed. Running along these eleven centuries,
we shall also find that, though powerful at
times above all other governments, the Popes
never endeavored to extend their territory a
single inch. We find that, in many contest
with powerful Prince and Sovereign, they
espoused the cause Of the people"


The second and third of these propositions
we promptly deny. The cause of the people
politically was never espoused by the Popes,
except to advance their own selfish and
ambitious interests. The first proposition we
may admit (under protest. without yielding
the least in the argument. Going back with
him as far as the last quarter of the eleventh
century Qo73), we find Hildebrand Pope
Gregory VID first and suddenly displaying
the whole plenitude Of the absolute power Of
the papal throne-the slow growth, it is true,
Of ages. His crafty usurpation of all authority,
and complete subjugation of kings and people,
are too familiar to require repetition. 1t is
here, perhaps, that the fact first presents itself
to the student of history that not so much
royalty as despotism is the enemy of mankind
that the welfare of society is not to be found
in the dominion of a priestly power, but alone
in freedom and individual rights. The scene
before the inner walls the fortress of Canosa,
W! ere the abject Henry, prostrated in snow
and frost for days and nights in succession,
sued for absolution, will be regarded with
indignant horror to the latest posterity.
Says the historian: "No holy motive, it was
c0ercivs force that drove him 1.-THE king) to it;
gnashng his teeth, he kissed the rod that
struck him, and in his person the insolent
priest trampled all the kings of the earth, all
nations in the dust p


The subtle plan for the establishment of
this political hierarchy was twofold to elevate
the spiritual condition above all dependence
upon civil relations and civil power, making
the clergy supreme lords of the laity, and then
to give the Pope absolute power in every
department of this empire. Hence, the
spiritual state, which had been originally
democratic, then aristocratic, was converted,
with progressive increase of accurately
defined grades of rank and power, (and not
always without resorting to bloodshed,)
gradually into monarchical aut utocraey !-the
Pope supreme legislator and judge, and in all
things infallible! And thus we find, accord
ing to the same authority, that all the Popes,
from Hildebrand to Boniface, were, without
contradiction, the supreme heads of christen-
dom, and all strove to be its autocrats. Of
the arrogance and cruelty exercised by some
of these potentates we forbear to speak in
detail. Nor have the political pretensions Of
the Holy See undergone any material change,
so far as the evidence of impartial writers
enables US to judge. Somuch for the grounds
on which we base the charge of despotism.


But the writer seems to doubt whether the
people of the Romagna ever take any partic-
ular interest in movements against the
temporal dominion of the Pope, and he calls
for proof on this head. A Catholic historian
of acknowledged celebrity says: "In Rome
itself, and in the States of the Church, the
Popes shared the deplorable fate of all the
sovereigns Of their time. 4 4 The tyrants
of the European kings, the rulers of christen-
dom, were often captives in their own capital,
the victims of some noble lords, the objects of
the derision or compassion of the Roman
women" To this may be added the testimony
of NJ. Edmond About, the last writer upon
the Roman question, (himself also Catholic.)
He says: "This legal power of the Pope is
founded on numerous abuses, and has at
all times created malcontents. Deduct the
conservative party-that is to say, the men
who have interest in the maintenance of that
government, and the unfortunate wretches
whom it has reduced to state of impassive
brutishness-ando all the rest arc mall alcontents."


With regard to the intervention of France
and England, except so far as it promises,
intentionally or otherwise, to overthrow an
odious system of political tyranny, and give