CHAPTER XVIII

MADISON LETTER NUMBER NINE-ATTITUDE OF THE AMERICAN PARTY TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

HERE is no subject on which the American party has been more misunderstood and misrepresented than in regard to its relations to the members of the Roman Catholic Church. It has been charged by its enemies with being hostile to religious freedom, and as making war on the Catholics on account of their peculiar modes of faith and worship. The motive which prompts. these accusations is obvious. The purpose is to fasten the odium of intolerance and of a disposition to deny to individuals the right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences on the American party. But I affirm that all these charges are untrue. The American party seeks to interfere with the religion of no man. It cheerfully acknowledges that that is a matter which rests, and should continue to rest, between each individual and his Creator. It recognizes the freedom of religious opinion, and of religious worship in the broadest sense of the terms. It is as tolerant of the religious sentiments of Catholics as of Protestants. It proposes to interfere no more with the religious faith and worship of the one than of the other. Individual members of the order may be disposed to go further, but I challenge the production of evidence to show that the American organization, as a party, asserts any such doctrines. Turn to the authentic exposition of the principles of the party announced at Philadelphia, and see if it gives countenance to any such idea. The only provisions in the Philadelphia platform which bear on the subject of Catholicism in any form are the following, viz.: The Fifth: "No person should be selected for political station

(whether of native or foreign birth) who recognizes any allegiance or obligation of any description to any foreign prince, potentate, or power, or who refuses to recognize the Federal and State Constitution (each within its sphere) as paramount to all other laws as rules of political action." And the Tenth which is in these words: "Opposition to any union between Church and State; no interference with religious faith, or worship, and no test oaths for office."

It cannot be pretended that either of these indicate any disposition to interfere with the freedom of conscience, or to persecute Catholics on account of their faith or worship. On the contrary the doctrine emphatically proclaimed in the tenth section above quoted is: "no interference with religious faith"; "no union between Church and State"; and "no test oaths for office."

And yet, in the face of these solemn declarations of the creed of the party, our enemies persist in charging us with intolerance and persecution for opinion's sake.

This leads us to inquire why and in what respects there is any antagonism between the American party and the Roman Catholics?

That there is a controversy between the Americans and the Ultramontane branch of the Roman Church will not be denied. But that controversy is not of a religious character, but purely political. It has nothing to do with the faith or worship of the members of that division of the Church, but relates entirely to certain political opinions avowed by them in regard to questions not of an ecclesiastical character, but affecting the policy of the State. With the Gallican branch of the Roman Church, which professes the same religious faith, and practices the same forms of worship with the Ultramontane branch, but which repudiates the obnoxious political opinions, the American party have no controversy whatever. They can cordially extend to them the embrace of brotherhood, and sustain them, without any sacrifice of principle, for political office.

The Roman Church is now, and has been for near three

hundred years, divided into two great parties. One of these is known as the Gallican, or French branch, and the other as the Ultramontane, or Italian branch.

The latter maintain that the power of the Pope is supreme in temporal as well as spiritual things. They hold that he is lord over all kings, and potentates, and governments of the earth, that the subjects and citizens of all government owe to him a higher allegiance than to their immediate sovereign; and that the Pope has the power to subvert republics, to nullify laws, and to absolve both subjects and citizens from their allegiance to any sovereign or republic which may incur his displeasure.

The Gallican branch of the Church recognize the supremacy of the Pope in all ecclesiastical matters, but utterly repudiate it in all temporal or political affairs.

Great misconception has arisen in the minds of men from not understanding the difference between the two branches. of the Roman Church. And our adversaries, with a cunning worthy of Jesuits, have studiously endeavored to keep this important division in the background, whenever an American endeavors to show the danger of the Ultramontane doctrine, and its irreconcilable antagonism to the principles of our Constitution, they deny that the Roman Church entertains any such doctrines, and quote largely from members of the Gallican branch to prove their proposition.

Begging my readers not to lose sight of this marked distinction between the two branches of the Church, I will now endeavor to exhibit, from the highest authority, the present position of parties on this most important question.

Politicians are not generally very well informed on questions of an ecclesiastical character, and they may, therefore, be very naturally led into error by not understanding matters of detail.

A striking illustration of this fact was exhibited but a little more than a year ago in the Congress of the United States. In the course of a debate in that body some allusion was made to the claims of the Pope to supremacy in temporal affairs. This at once drew from Mr. Chandler, himself a

member of the Gallican branch of the Church, an eloquent reply in which he utterly disclaimed and denied any such assumption on the part of the Pope. The members of Congress, not being profoundly versed in Catholic lore, were at once silenced, and the speech went to the country as a conclusive answer to the unjust charge against the Church. But unfortunately for Mr. Chandler, neither Protestants nor the members of the Ultramontane branch of his Church were disposed to rest quietly under his exposition of the doctrines of the Church. The press, both in this country and Europe, teemed with articles denunciatory of the speech of Mr. Chandler as insincere, or founded in ignorance or cowardice.

Professor McClintock was among the first to correct the error. He said, "If Mr. Chandler had been well informed on the subject he would have told his auditors there are two parties in the Catholic Church on this question: one (the Ultramontane party) affirming, and the other (the Gallican party) denying that the Pope, by reason of the spiritual power, has also a supreme power, at least indirectly, in temporal matters."

He then proceeds to state the relative strength of the two powers, and shows that the Ultramontane is largely in the ascendency, and that the Gallican party is a mere faction which is rather tolerated than cherished by the Church. Indeed Gallicanism is stigmatized as the "half-way house to Protestantism."

Professor McClintock then says:

"It remains for me briefly to set forth the present state of Roman Catholic opinion. The Ultramontane doctrine is held, 1, by the Pope; 2, by all the cardinals without exception; 3, by all, or nearly all the Italian bishops; 4, by a majority of the bishops of Germany, Spain, and Portugal; 5, by about two-thirds of the French bishops. Among the religious orders it is held, 1, by the Jesuits without exception, as no man can be admitted to the order who denies it;

2, by a majority of the members of the other (sixty or more) religious orders, which vie with each other in devotion to the Pope, each of them having a General at Rome. As for the Catholic journals, I, the Civito Catalica at Rome was established for the very purpose of maintaining this theory, and does maintain it most effectually; 2, the Historisch Politische Blatter, the most eminent Papal journal in Germany, is strongly Ultramontane; 3, the Univers of Paris is more Ultramontane than Bellarmine; 4, the Belgian papers, I think, without exception, are on that side; and 5, Brownson's Review in this country, is what I have shown you above. *

"I have now done all that I promised to do in the beginning. May I not hope that, after reading this letter, you will rise in your place in Congress at the first convenient opportunity and restate your theory of the Church? Does not your reputation as a scholar and a gentleman need such a vindication as you can only make by 'defining your position' anew? If you do not do this, my confidence in your candor and ingenuousness will have been sadly misplaced. If you do, I beg you to read in the course of your speech, the following truthful passage from the coryphaeus of Roman Catholic editors in America:

""There is, in our judgment, but one valid defence of the Popes in their exercise of temporal authority in the middle ages over sovereigns, and that is that they possess it by divine right; or that the Pope holds that authority by virtue of his commission from Jesus Christ, as the successor of Peter, the prince of the Apostles, and visible Head of the Church. Any defence of them on a lower ground must, in our judgment, fail to meet the real points in the case, and is rather an evasion than a fair, honest, direct, and satisfactory reply. To defend their power as an extraordinary power, or as an accident in Church history, growing out of the peculiar circumstances, civil constitution, and laws of the times, now passed away, perhaps forever, may be regarded as less likely to displease Non-Catholics and to offend the