Section 3. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (8)

When the Federal Constitution, and under its moral pressure soon also the majority of the private constitutions of the individual states, placed religious affairs outside of state jurisdiction and thereby separated Church from State, for Roman Catholicism this was equivalent to liberation from the slavery and oppression in which it had existed before the declaration of independence. Refusing to interfere in religious affairs, the State left them to their own internal development and the management of them to the Church’s own internal centers and organizations. This order of things proved extraordinarily fruitful for Roman Catholicism and it is to this above all that it owes its success and rapid growth in the country. Its liberation from state jurisdiction, which had constantly expressed itself in negative and hostile ordinances toward it, gave it the ability to grow rapidly in numbers and openly and unhindered to unite the surging wave of Catholic emigrants into one integral body of the Church. And the State’s complete non-interference in church affairs gave the church hierarchy the ability to grow and develop absolutely freely from any external influences, solely according to the internal organic necessity and direction of the head of Roman Catholicism—the Pope. Having renounced all jurisdiction in the realm of religion, the State thereby transferred jurisdiction concerning the Roman Catholic Church to itself and its head—the Pope, that is, it established an order of things which from the standpoint of Roman Catholicism is considered ideal, which it constantly strives to achieve and for which it conducts continuous struggle with European States. Thanks to such an order of things the Roman Catholic Church in the United States enjoyed such freedom in its life and activity as it does not enjoy in any European country. “There is no part of the civilized world,” says Bishop Spalding, “where there are now more favorable conditions for Catholics to do great and eternal work for the benefit of the Church, its children, and the age, than here in the United States. Pius IX, as it is reported, was in the habit of saying that only in America was he truly a Pope. Surely nowhere else did he have greater freedom of action. In the appointment of bishops, in the formation of dioceses, in the approval and promulgation of laws for the guidance of church discipline, the Pope encounters no obstacles in this country. Bishops also have the most complete freedom in the discharge of their high office. The Levites who are designated to serve at the altar are fully entrusted to their hands for preparation and education by whatever system seems to them most suitable for the formation of a perfect man of God; and public opinion and the customs of the people assist them in their efforts to entrust the care of souls only to the worthy.”[1] This complete freedom of the Roman Catholic Church is evident in every line of the history we have traced of its development, and moreover entirely to its advantage. Its hierarchy is created by internal organic necessity of growth, and the Roman Pope with powerful hand appoints the first bishop, entering into no conditions and negotiations with the government of the country, which at the same time immediately declared itself outside of all connection with this matter. Then the Pope completely freely elevates the first bishopric to the rank of a metropolia, while in Europe armies were destroying his eternal seat. In 1809 the supreme Lord of Roman Catholicism in Europe is led into captivity, but for the United States he continues to remain Pope and in captivity signs decrees by which he creates a series of new bishoprics, and these decrees have full legislative force across the ocean.[2] The rapid development of the Church creates the need for collective management of it, and behold, bishops meet without hindrance at councils for the general discussion of the Church’s needs and make decrees which require no external, non-ecclesiastical approval and confirmation except the approval of the supreme head of the Church—the Pope. In 1849 the Pope in Europe is forced to flee from the eternal city, his historical seat, and the bishops of the United States peacefully and freely assemble in regular councils and themselves offer refuge to the Pope among them.[3] During the Pope’s exile he creates several metropolias which transform the previous provincial Church into a national one, receives from America a generous Peter’s Pence and moral support in the person of the prelates of the Baltimore Council, who raised on his behalf a solemn voice and issued a conciliar letter to the clergy and people in which the supreme rights of the Pope are affirmed and proven.[4] In 1852 the prelates completely freely, according to the internal needs of church life, assemble at a plenary or national council, freely discuss the needs of the Church, work out decrees and disciplinary rules which acquire legislative force solely by the approval of the Pope. Finally the Pope elevates the first metropolia to the rank of a primacy, convenes the Second Plenary Council which elaborated independent canon law for the Church in the United States, confirms the cardinalate—all this completely freely, without any interference from the civil government of the country, and moreover at a time when in Europe his every activity encountered opposition from the government, which soon turned into open persecution, expressed in the well-known German Kulturkampf. And during the last quinquennium, when persecution of Roman Catholicism was occurring in Europe, now in the form of cultural struggle in Germany now in the form of persecution of the Jesuits in France, in the United States Roman Catholicism continued to grow and develop widely and unhindered, the Jesuits peacefully teach in their numerous colleges, bishops assemble at councils and the Pope with powerful hand, unhindered, appoints bishops and manages the entire organism of the Church. The State, by virtue of its juridical separation from religion, puts no obstacle in the way of the Pope’s full authority to govern the Church, and to the Church itself, as a community of its own citizens, offers general assistance and protection. In view of this, the important significance becomes clear which the juridical principle of separation of Church and State has for the successful development of Roman Catholicism in the United States. And the late Pope Pius IX was completely right when, amid the difficulties surrounding him in Europe, he exclaimed: “The United States is the only country in which I am truly Pope in the eyes of the government.”[5]

XIII

The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore was the last and most complete expression of the life, strength, organization and successes of Roman Catholicism in the United States, and therefore is interesting not only for the canon law it elaborated but also for its very external composition. It was convened by the Archbishop of Baltimore, Spalding, for October 7, 1866.[6] This council, according to the conviction of all Roman Catholics in the United States, was to appear as the highest expression of the Roman Catholic Church in the country and because of such importance the question even arose in society concerning its very name. “The name Plenary,” says a Catholic publicist, “sounds strange to some ears and occasioned discussion in the public press. In ordinary conversation this council is often given the name of national, and it would probably have been its official name as well, had it not been for the foresight of the holy seat. Rome, illuminated by wisdom from on high and rich with the experience of centuries, looks upon the striving for nationalism in the Church as one of the greatest dangers that could follow, even almost as a harbinger of schism. When it intended to propose to American prelates the convening of a council of all bishops of the various provinces of the country, the question immediately arose concerning its official title. National was not liked, General was too broad, Provincial was too narrow. One learned ecclesiastical historian suggested the name Plenarium, a title given to general councils of the African Church in the fifth century, councils which were famous for the genius of Augustine and their clear condemnation of Pelagianism. This name was approved. It avoids the narrowness of nationalism while fully expressing the idea of a plenary council of all prelates of the American Church.”[7] “The purpose of the plenary council was clearly indicated by the holy seat. Strictly speaking, provincial councils could present all necessary legislation. But there would be danger of losing uniformity. Even regarding the best men of advanced age, the truth is justified that where there are many people, there are many minds. To prevent too sharp implementation in practice of this diversity of views, it was considered wise to occasionally convene all bishops together so that by united counsel measures could be adopted which would maintain the American Church as one not only in faith and essential points of doctrine but even in important among secondary matters of that kind. There is no need to expatiate on the advantages of such uniformity. The plenary council thus has in view the needs of the entire American Church and does for it what the provincial council does for one ecclesiastical province. Canon law is necessarily limited to general terms and cannot be equally applied everywhere. The greater part of it even consists of decrees given for special localities under special conditions, so that only their principle can find universal application. It often happens that general rules must be modified to correspond to other needs, other times, and other circumstances. This is one of the first duties of local councils. They propose and put into action such decrees which their wisdom and experience may indicate as necessary for the realization of the true spirit of general law. They do not contradict, and much less abrogate canonical rules; on the contrary they strengthen their observance.”[8]

Two weeks were appointed for the council sessions. If the council had limited itself to this time, then naturally it could not have accomplished its important tasks. The Archbishop understood this and tried to develop a preliminary plan and enable the council to better and more fully express its legislative wisdom. This plan he sent out at the beginning of 1866 to the archbishops, bishops, heads of monastic orders and all who had the right to attend the council. Then he convened an assembly of theologians to conduct preparatory work and investigations. They were drawn from both monastic orders and the ordinary clergy; many of them were professors of theology or canon law; some held high posts or were known for their learning. This learned assembly (coetus) met daily as long as most of its members could remain in Baltimore, and during this time all the principal points were carefully investigated and appropriate corrections were made. Some of the learned theologians, unable to attend in person at the assembly, sent their written works, so that, according to the expression of a Catholic publicist, “the best talents of the country performed this preliminary work.”[9] The result of this preparatory work was an entire volume of a collection of various legislative decrees and ordinances of the Church. It undoubtedly eased the labor of the council members and indeed “it would have been difficult to understand how without this preparation the work of the council could have been accomplished at all.”[10]

The council consisted of a magnificent assembly of prelates and representatives of theological science, as each prelate had the right to have learned theologians with him: the president—four theologians, archbishops three each, and bishops two theologians each. The council sessions opened with a solemn procession, in which participated seven (7) archbishops, thirty-seven (37) bishops, one (1) apostolic administrator, two (2) abbots in mitres, twenty-two (22) general vicars, nineteen (19) heads of monastic orders, thirty-one (31) officials, seven (7) rectors of seminaries and ninety-three (93) theologians.[11] “Seldom was Rome itself a witness to a more imposing assembly and even more rarely to one so remarkable in its character,” remarks the historian. “Even in respect to numbers, this council was one of the greatest assemblies of prelates since the Council of Trent.”[12] More than forty thousand people gathered to witness the spectacle of the conciliar procession.[13] Along the streets through which the procession passed, there was scarcely a house that was not decorated. “It was undoubtedly one of the grandest and most beautiful Catholic demonstrations ever witnessed in this land of freedom where all sects and communities gather. The council presented one of those remarkable lessons which American common sense will not forget and which little by little will lead them to the understanding that where there is unity there is life.”[14]

Council work was conducted according to a strictly formulated and determined plan, on the principle of division of labor. All council members were divided into seven congregations, among which the material to be discussed was distributed. Each congregation had a bishop as its president, and also had a vice-president and church notary. The congregations were to discuss among themselves, in a preliminary manner, the proposed measures. The result of these deliberations, collected by the notary with the votes and arguments for and against, in case of disagreement, was then presented to the bishops. The latter in turn held private sessions where they dealt only with questions already subjected to the discussion of theologians. Secretaries kept detailed minutes of all that occurred at these meetings. The question was then transferred to the general assembly and finally presented to the council sessions where the decrees received their final form and sanction, making them binding. Sessions took place in the cathedral and consisted of a solemn Mass, after which the decrees were read and proclaimed as law, which needed only the approval of the Pope.[15] “As to the very order of deliberations, the bishops found it best to adopt the same order usually found in the legislative assemblies of the United States. Each had the right to propose whatever he wished, if only he did it in writing and in Latin. But a question proposed by a member could not become the subject of deliberation unless another prelate joined the first in demanding attention to the given matter. No one had the right to deviate from the given plan or the section which was the subject of discussion. In all other respects not only was complete freedom of opinion provided, but even encouraged, as long as speakers did not exceed the bounds of propriety. If anyone transgressed these bounds, or uselessly prolonged his speech, any member could demand a call to order; the promoter was obliged to watch for the observance of the rules of order, and in case of doubt the final decision belonged to the president. All members were obliged to attend the sessions, and under penalty could not leave sessions before the completion of the work.”[16]