TOPICS OF THE DAY.
ITALY AND THE PAPACY. THE fetes in Rome, on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the surrender of the city to Italy, the angry and injudicious speech of Signor Crispi, the dignified utterance of King Humbert, and the protests of the Pope, have once more revived discussion as to the possibility of a recon- ciliation between the Papacy and the Italian Kingdom. Many ardent Catholics, and almost all Protestants, believe that this reconciliation is ultimately inevitable, and that the only question for consideration is a practicable plan. They therefore concede to all plans a certain measure of consideration ; and we have heard of at least ten since the Papal States were absorbed into the secular Kingdom. One set of theorists believe that Italy will repent and restore Rome to the Papacy ; another set are convinced that some Pope will declare him- self content with spiritual sovereignty ; a third main- tain that if the Pope is proclaimed King in Rome, and Humbert I. his hereditary Vicar-General, that singular bit of juggling will reconcile all conflicting claims. Last week there was a project, attributed to one of the Cardinals, for purchasing Rome for the Catholic world at a cost of only £200,000,000, and this week we see that the Town Council of Avignon is under the curious illusion that future Popes will live there,—that is, will pass under the direct authority of the most anti-clerical Assembly in the world. We question if there is any solid foundation for any of these ideas, and should, if we ventured on prophecy, predict that if Italy endures as a State the conflict between the Vatican and the Quirinal will go on for ages, now vehement, now latent, occasionally forgotten, and sometimes affecting politics, but never, in theory, ceasing to exist. Those who discuss the subject seem to us always to keep out of sight the most serious of the many difficulties on both sides. It is assumed, for instance, that Italy co-Mid, if so disposed, surrender " Rome and a port," and forgotten that in so doing she would be surrendering her safety. The very object of demanding " a port," otherwise useless, as well as the city, is to enable the Pope-King, if threatened with insurrection, to introduce at will a foreign force for the protection of his independence. It is said that he would as an Italian be too " patriotic " to do this, but that is an entire misconception of the situation. A good Pope can no more be " patriotic " than—we write in all reverence—Christ could. He represents in his theory Christ on earth, and his clear moral duty is to think of the universal Church, its safety and independence, and not of this or that secular Kingdom. Pius IX. was on one side of his mind " Italianissimo," and admitted as much, but he introduced the French Army into the heart of Italy. A Pope can be threatened by a populace as well as by a foreign Power, and if Rome were surrendered to the Papacy, it may be taken as certain that insurrection would be chronic. To provide that a Pope, threatened in his functions by an irritated mob, should introduce only Italian troops, would be futile, because it would revive almost at once the very situation against which the Papacy is now protesting. We venture to say that within two years of the surrender of "Rome and a port " to the Papacy, Rome would be garrisoned either by Frenchmen or Austrians or Spaniards, and that all fair-minded opponents would hold the Pope blameless for having summoned the foreign troops. It is impossible to expect a nation which wishes to remain a nation to run a risk like that, which can never be diminished by any change in European politics within the range of human foresight.
On the other hand, it is next to impossible that the Pope should cease to desire an earthly sovereignty in the interest of his spiritual position. Signor Orispi's notion that the inspiring motive of that desire must be " lust of power" or vanity or greed, is utterly unfair. Leo XIII. may have any foibles the Italian Premier likes; but if he is faithful to his office, he must desire, wholly apart from the immense influence of tradition on his mind, what may be called physical independence, inviolability for himself, a punitive power over the great ecclesiastical establish- ments, and, moreover, a place in which he can set forth his ideal of the right way to govern men. It is asserted every morning that he is independent now ; but is that strictly true ? Suppose the Pope settled in Avignon or Bonn or Toledo, would the world regard him as in- dependent of France or Germany or Spain? Yet, if invested with the privileges of an Ambassador, he would be no more at the mercy of any of those States than he now is at the mercy of Italy. At this very moment he is specially guarded by Italian police during the fetes, lest Anarchists or fanatic Liberals should make an attempt upon the Vatican or upon his personal safety. It is quite true that Italy, for the time, protects the Pope conscien- tiously ; but suppose the Great War to end to the disad- vantage of France, and Italy to develop anti-clerical feeling —both of them at least possible occurrences—what would the independence of the Pope be worth then ? It would, in Catholic eyes at all events, be worth nothing at all, and it is Catholics, not Protestants, who are anxious that it should be preserved. It would be simply impossible under such circumstances for the Pope to lay an interdict upon Italy, so that his independence in the exercise of one spiritual power at least would be gone, probably for ever_ Popes do not nowadays lay interdicts ? Quite true ; and the British Parliament does not nowadays pass ecclesiastical laws; but suppose Parliament were forbidden by France, Germany, or America to pass them any more! Should we think the independence of Parliament unaffected ? The desire of the Papacy for a Kingdom of its own, beyond the possibility of justifiable human interference, seems to us perfectly natural, and from the Papal standpoint perfectly justifiable. It cannot be gratified because of the opposing conditions, just as the desire for Christian unity cannot be gratified because of the opposing conditions ; but it gives no just occasion for either anger or mockery, and it will not die away.
We have omitted, we are quite aware, one contingency which is of importance to the discussion. It is frequently urged that the next Pope, or the next after him, may not be an Italian, and that if he is not, he may content himself with his spiritual position. An American Pope, for example—and it is of an American Cardinal that these reasoners are secretly thinking, because only an American, would be exempt from the passionate jealousies which divide the States of Europe—might even despise an earthly crown. It would suffice him to be the first ecclesiastic in the world, the spiritual Sovereign of the oldest Christian Church with subjects in every land and devotees in every city. We cannot, we confess, see the force of that sug- gestion. In the first place the chance of any Cardinal not an Italian being elected is exceedingly remote. He could be elected, of course, as could any baptised negro from the banks of the Congo ; but the election is exceedingly improbable. The machinery of the Papacy is centralised in Rome, and the host of able, and perhaps bigoted, men who manage it would not understand a non-Italian Pope, would not fully trust him, and would be expecting some- thing very like revolutions. It is by their judgment in great part that Cardinals are judged, their judgment and that of the whole co-optating body now in a majority Italian. Even supposing that majority to cease, why should we imagine that the foreign Cardinals would combine against the Italian candidates ? The Germans would not vote for a Frenchman, or the Frenchmen for a German, while neither would be greatly attracted by a Hungarian, and all alikewould be shocked to think of electing an American, who would be an unknown quantity introduced into the most conservative of establishments, and who, we may remark en passant, would be certain of the bitter dislike of the Spanish Cardinals. The distaste of a Frenchman for a German is cordiality compared with the distaste of a Spanish-American for the presumptuous and oppressive Anglo-Saxon of the North. The Papacy, we believe, will remain Italian ; but supposing it did not, why should it be assumed that an American Cardinal would resign the claim to temporal power ? He must live in Rome, and would feel the want of certainty as to his independence as much as any predecessor, while he would be even more afraid of being distrusted by the whole ecclesiastical body throughout the Catholic world. He would have the whole corporation to think of, in Santiago as much as in Paris, and the corporation admittedly desires that its chief should be a secular Sovereign, and Sovereign of Rome. An American Pope, we fancy, would be ultra-orthodox, as rigid as any Calvinist about dogma, and even haughtily urgent in pressing the claim of his Church to the secular Sovereignty of Rome. He might govern Rome, no doubt, in a very different way from the Italian Popes ; but the very ambition to do that, and to prove that the misgovernment of Rome was, so to speak, accidental, and no inevitable consequence of ecclesiastical rule, would strengthen the desire to press that the old dominion should be restored. It is vain to predict the future of Rome, or even to consider it over- much ; but we can see no ground for believing that a reconciliation between the spiritual and secular powers there abiding is within the chances upon which statesmen care even to reflect.
Previous page
