THE POPE AND THE WAIL NXTE feel a good deal
of sympathy with the Roman
Catholic correspondent who has written to us about the neutrality of the Pope. Here in this war is the widest. ranging question of morals which has ever been placed before the world. The answer to it must affect the civilization of all countries, for the question touches every principle of honour, truth, and justice in the international relations of men. The result of the 'war may prove that motives which we had supposed to be secured by Christianity are after all to be of little account in directing human actions. That is the situa- tion stated without exaggeration. And in the world in which this gigantic crisis is about to be decided there is a spiritual Power which claims infallibility in any judgment it may choose to deliver ex cathedra on matters of faith or morals. We say nothing about faith, but surely if ever there were • plain occasion for moral direction and moral judgment this war provides one. If a visitor from another planet suddenly appeared in our midst and were told that such was the crisis which occupied the thoughts of all men, and such the power of infallible guidance claimed by the spiritual bead of a great Church, he would say that there must necesarily be some relation and some contact between these two signal facts. The Pope, he would say, could not con- ceivably let the crisis pass without pointing out that one side or the other was fighting for an evil cause and trying to realize immoral ambitions to the detriment of Christen- dom. The stranger would not, of course, presume that Britain was right and Germany was wrong. He would want to hear the arguments of both sides. But he would certainly declare that the Pope, occupying the position he does and claiming the powers he does, could not possibly look on without uttering a censure or an admonition one way or the other. The claims of the Pope, he would reflect, could not survive the failure to meet such a test.
We have stated the case very baldly as it might present itself to a stranger who knew nothing of the difficulties which trouble the Pope, and nothing of the reservations and techni- calities which surround the doctrine of Papal infallibility. We might suggest, however, that even our Roman Catholic corre- spondent, whose letter we print elsewhere, assumes a wider doctrine of infallibility than has actually been asserted by the Vatican. The Pope does not claim, so far as we know, "the gift of infallibility in all matters of faith and morals." That, no doubt, is the common idea about the nature of Papal infallibility; but the claim, properly understood, is, we believe, somewhat narrower. The definition of infallibility was not drawn up till 1870. Infallibility, within the scope of the definition agreed upon, had previously been attributed to the Pope, but had not been dogmatically asserted. In 1870 the Vatican Council made this announcement "We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma, that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks en cathedra—i.e., when, in his character as Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, and in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he lays down that a certain doctrine concerning faith or morals is binding upon the universal Church—possesses by the Divine assist- ance which was promised to him in the person of the blessed Saint Peter, that same infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer thought fit to endow His Church, to define its doctrine with regard to faith and morals; and con- sequently that these definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable in themselves, and not in consequence of the consent of the Church." The Pope, as we understand the words, is deemed infallible not in any chance utterance (even though the subject of such an utterance be faith or morals), but in any utterance in which he solemnly speaks as the head of the Roman Catholic Church. Papal infallibility is, in fine, indistinguishable from the infallibility of the Church. But it will be asked: When does the Pope speak ex cathedra I When does he claim infallibility P Not all Roman Catholics answer that question in the same way. Some say that Whenever the Pope makes a statement as head of the Church the doctrine of infallibility necessarily attaches to it. But the majority, we believe, contend that infallibility is involved only when the Pope makes an explicit assertion of infallibility—when he places an obligation of faith or conduct on the Church dis- loyalty to which would be punished by exclusion. Cardinal Newman accepted the latter view of infallibility, which he set forth in his celebrated letter to the Duke of Norfolk. As a matter of fact, he was opposed to the policy of defining infallibility in 1870, and called the Cardinals who pressed on the policy an insolent and aggressive faction. But when infallibility had been defined he did not dissent from the definition. We need not go further into the nature of infalli. bility, but so much must be said lest we be accused of using the term in a loose and vulgar sense.
When all has been admitted, however, we cannot help feeling much sympathy, as we said at the beginning, with those who complain that the absence of any moral judgment from the Pope on the events of the war is a disturbing fact. We do not wonder that some Roman Catholics—and we dare say very many—are rendered uneasy by the Pope's silence, and are perhaps acutely distressed by it. If the Pope does not speak in this crisis of the history of the world, will a Papal
pronouncement on morals ever seem worth while again ? Innocent Roman Catholics of Belgium have been outraged and pillaged and killed. Their best-known Cardinal has been arrested and insulted because he dared to say what he sincerely believed was the truth. Are such things really to go un- challenged P We do not forget that since our correspondent wrote his letter the Pope has said something on the war. He has declared his earnest desire for peace to a German-American journalist, Mr. K. H. von Wiegand, who is the Berlin correspondent of the New York World. But it is not surprising that the statement has been interpreted as an intervention on behalf of Germany, since it memo to suggest that the United States should cease sending munitions to the Allies. Here is the statement:- - Send the American people and the American Press through your paper my greetings and my blessing, and convey to them my one mesaage that it will work unceasingly and disinterestedly for peace to the end that this terrible carnage and its attendant horrors and miseries may soon cease. Through this your country and your Press will be rendering a service to God, to the world and to humanity, the thought and memory of which will live through the ages to oome. If your country avoids everything that might prolong this struggle of nations against nations, in which the blood of hundreds of thousands is being shed and misery untold is being inflicted, then can America by its greatness and its influence contribute much towards a rapid ending of this terrible war. Pray and work untiringly, unceasingly, and unitedly for peace. This is my Easter memage to America."
Of course the phrase about avoiding "everything that might prolong this struggle" may bear some other interpretation than the obvious one, but it is quite natural that Germans should take it as referring to the supply of American muni- tions. In conversation with Hr. von Wiegand the Pope said :— 'I place my entire hopes for an early peace aspen the American people and upon the influence and power it has in the entire world. Just and impartial, and at all times neutral in its attitude and efforts to bring the war to an end, America, when the favourable moment comes for the initial step for a peace suggestion, may be certain of the utmost support of the Holy See. I have already let your President know through one of his highest friends."
These words seem to promise that an American peace policy would be unreservedly adopted as the Papal policy whatever the proposals might be. But we ought not perhaps to press the Pope's words too far, for he probably only meant to declare his passionate desire for peace—a desire which we shall all respect, and which comes most appropriately and naturally from the head of the Roman Church. The point, however, that concerns us now is that from first to last the Pope's message to America contains no moral censure or judgment. If there is censure at all, it applies equally to all the nations who have entered upon an unbrotherly war. If the Pope thinks that Germany has sinned in breaking her solemn pledge to protect Belgium, he does not say so. If he thinks that she has sinned in delivering up Belgium to military execution, he does not say so. If he thinks that she bus sinned in breaking nearly all the Hague Regulations, he does not say so. If he thinks that she, has sinned in killing non-combatants on the high seas, he does not say so. If be thinks that she has sinned in killing innocent hostages in Belgium, again he does not say so.
, We fear, in short, that the Pope's message to America will do nothing to relieve the uneasiness of those who feel with our correspondent. Our correspondent implies that the Pope dis- regards his duty to condemn immoral conduct because one of the chief sinners against morality is Roman Catholic Austria —the eldest child of the Roman Church. We shall not con- clude that that is the operative motive of the Pope. We do not know. We can imagine that the Pope considers his duty to be the maintenance of what be conceives as a "strict neutrality," just as President Wilson thinks his duty lies in what he calls a strict neutrality. For our part, we are sure that, however right the Pope may fancy his motives to be, a neutrality which is complaisant towards open crime is an altogether wrong and impossible conception of neutrality. Let us make every allowance for the Pope's difficulties in preserving the solidarity of his Church, and every allowance for the most rigid and narrow interpretation of infallibility that is permissible, and we still feel that the tremendous Papal claim cannot escape being brought to a very simple test. The claim of infallibility con- stitutes the Papacy a grand interpreter of civilization. But the Pope, when challenged by facts, places the onus of interpretation not on himself but on the United States. If it be said that the need to preserve his Church in union is his paramount duty, then we can only answer that politics ar forced above religion, and that the doctrine of infallibility fails to satisfy the very simple test. We fear—but here we write quite frankly as not belonging to the Roman Com- munion—that infallibility cannot of its nature, and never could, survive such tests as are now brought to bear upon it. It is a great superhuman pretension, which is found to he Illogical and unworkable in a vortex of human suffering pro- duced by intricate international politics. The test of events is too severe for it. We cannot see any other outcome than that many Roman Catholics should sadly recognize that technical or metaphysical explanations of infallibility after all avail nothing, and that Nemesis waits on all human claims which are pitched extravagantly high.
Previous page
