Section 3. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (10)

The third section treats of “ecclesiastical persons” and the first chapter is devoted to the question of “metropolitans,” to whom in accordance with Catholicism’s usual tendency toward centralization the right of appeal by priests against the actions of their immediate bishops is granted.[1] In determining the rights and privileges of the metropolitan, the council showed a tendency toward decentralization, and the prelates passed over in silence the aforementioned right of appeal and the metropolitan’s intervention in episcopal governance. But the Roman Curia immediately noticed this omission, and to the three points defining metropolitan rights (reporting to the sacred seat about bishops who fail to observe residence laws, convening provincial councils, and bearing the cross), it added two new ones, by which he is granted the right: to supply what has been neglected by bishops through negligence in cases determined by law, and to receive appeals against episcopal decisions.[2] Then is established the method of electing bishops (c. III), which consists in the following: every three years each bishop sends to his metropolitan and the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide a list of persons whom he considers worthy of the episcopate with detailed exposition of their distinguishing qualities. When a see becomes vacant, the bishops of the province gather in a synod or in some assembly and discuss the aptitude of candidates put forward by each of them. After secret examination, three names are sent to Rome with records of election. By this presentation the Pope appoints one to the see and raises him to episcopal dignity. Such an order has existed since 1861 everywhere.[3] Having then devoted several chapters to questions about the life and activity of the clergy and a special chapter (c. V) to preaching, which has extraordinary importance in America, where Protestantism reduces all church life to brilliant preaching, the prelates with particular care dwell on the question of ecclesiastical education. The earlier councils already made efforts toward establishing seminaries in each diocese, but even by the time of this council many dioceses still lacked seminaries. Therefore the prelates express the desire that, if it is not yet possible to establish them everywhere, then at least each metropolitan province should have its own seminary, whose maintenance should be the combined responsibility of all bishops within it.[4] The prelates distinguish two levels of education: the minor seminary or praeparatorium, where boys meeting the conditions prescribed by the Council of Trent are admitted,[5] and the major seminary (seminaruim major), where clerics hear lectures on dogmatic and moral theology, canon law, hermeneutics, and sacred eloquence. If the seminary serves as a common institution for an entire province, then study should not be limited to merely elementary ecclesiastical sciences, but instruction should include a full course of exegetics and Eastern languages, as well as the latest philosophical systems, explained in such a way that the students might resolve all difficulties and objections presented by modern unbelief. “For now, the prelates say, we must contend not with heresies and often refuted errors of the ancients, but with new opponents—unbeliefs, and indeed more heathen than Christian, who care neither for God nor for the divine, and yet are most learned (cultissimis) and ingenious (ingeniosis), who preach that everything in heaven or on earth should be measured by reason (ratione mitienda dictitant), and thus they flatter the pride innate in human nature and seduce those who do not guard themselves against danger. To such, if truth cannot convince them, the mouth at least must be shut (os obstruendum est), so that by the empty sound of their words they might not scandalize the inexperienced.”[6] By requiring of students a strict moral discipline as the best ornament of learning, and by permitting the German language in provinces with a preponderant German population, the prelates conclude their determinations on ecclesiastical education.[7]

A question of very great importance in the life and activity of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States is that concerning church property. Its property position gives it special grandeur in the country compared to other confessions and often brings it into conflict with the state. The council devotes an entire section (Titulus IV) to this question; because of its importance we devote a separate chapter to it below, and therefore confine ourselves here merely to noting that the council insists on the Church’s fullest right to dispose of church property, denying any intervention of civil authority.[8] The following section is devoted to the question of the sacraments. Besides the usual and general determination regarding the significance and administration of sacraments, the council faced many particular questions occasioned by local conditions of the country. Thus, in examining the sacrament of baptism, the question arose of the validity of baptism administered by Protestant sects. Most of them regard baptism as a mere ceremony, “which has no significance for the salvation of the soul,” and therefore perform it often negligently. In view of this, the question arose how to regard such baptism in the conversion of Protestants to Catholicism. “Hence those whom God’s special grace calls away and leads out from their ranks must almost always be rebaptized. Yet not all who are baptized by heretics should be rebaptized. The priest in each case should make detailed investigation of all the conditions of the baptism administered to the convert, and only then should administer the sacrament again when the invalidity of the former baptism is fully evident.”[9] In examining the sacrament of the Eucharist, the question arose concerning the material for it, and especially wine. America is only beginning to cultivate the grape and in wine production remains entirely dependent on Europe. But since one cannot be certain of the purity and integrity of wines imported from Europe, the prelates express the desire to establish a special community in Florida, which should be entrusted with the special care of preparing material for the administration of various sacraments—wine, oil, and so forth. This community might also keep beehives and supply the various dioceses with pure wax candles. Meanwhile they caution priests against using for the Eucharist wines commonly sold under the names port, sherry, madeira, malaga, and rather to choose Bordeaux, Sauternes, Catawba, Isabella, and other wines less subject to alteration or adulteration, and concerning whose “whole nature there is no sufficient ground for doubt. However, the wine necessary for the sacrifice must be obtained from the most genuine producers, who should be Catholics of known integrity; and since at present, when cultivation of vineyards is beginning almost everywhere and there is a large supply of genuine wine, so much the more easily can it be achieved that there might be no excuse for negligence in such an important matter.”[10] The prelates devote an extensive chapter to the sacrament of penance, which so often troubles Protestants, and in the chapter on indulgences they try carefully to establish and clarify their true meaning as the Church’s right to free from temporal punishment for sin.[11] “Let the preachers of the divine word teach the faithful thus, and let them not confuse the true and established dogmas of the Church with the opinions of theologians. Let them make this clear and instill it steadily and teach it so soundly that the faithful might easily refute the absurd and frequently repeated cavils (cavillationes) of heretics, many of whom either from ignorance, and even more from malice, daily attack (debacebantur) this teaching and practice of the Church.”[12] In the question of marriage also there are several distinctive features occasioned by local conditions of the Church’s position. The prelates condemn the doctrine of free love spread in America, and even more those who “wish to introduce impure polygamy again. Such folk come together like apes, animals without spirit.”[13] In view of the known ease of American attitudes toward marriage, the prelates with particular insistence affirm the true teaching of the Church and strictly rebuke contrary teachings in their pastoral letter to the clergy and people. “We recall (the true teaching of the Church), they say, to strengthen our solemn exhortation to our flock not to heed the false and debasing theories concerning the subject of matrimonial relations which are boldly put forth by enemies of the Church. According to these theories, marriage is a mere civil contract subject to the jurisdiction of civil authority and from which an aggrieved or unsatisfied party may free himself through divorce so as to be able to contract new agreements. This stands in obvious contradiction to the words of Christ: what God has joined, let man not divide. As the guardian of God’s holy law, the Church condemns this false theory, which would lead to consistent polygamy, no less contrary to the unity and stability of Christian marriage than that shared polygamy which to the scandal of Christianity is found in our realm. No state law can authorize divorce so as to allow divorced parties to contract new agreements; and any such new agreement contracted while so divorced parties are alive contains the crime of adultery. We point with sorrow to the scandalous increase of those unlawful divorces, which more than any other cause undermine the foundations of morality and prepare the complete destruction of the foundation upon which society is built.”[14] The council exhorts against mixed marriages with heretics;[15] meanwhile in practice there are even cases when Catholics in remote localities far from church centers enter into marriage with Protestants who in fact turn out to be even unbaptized. In such cases the marriage in the eyes of the Church is not marriage at all. Often, however, those so united live in good agreement and good faith, and when a priest, learning of the unlawfulness of their union, proposes to them to formalize their cohabitation, sometimes the unbaptized party refuses. For such cases the prelates request from the Pope authority to grant missionaries who frequently visit these remote places the power to validly (in radice) repair such marriages.[16] The council also found that in most provinces of the United States the determination of the Council of Trent regarding secret marriages had not been proclaimed. In some districts the proclamation is subject to doubt. The prelates insist on exact fulfillment of the determination.[17]

The sixth section is devoted to determinations concerning the conduct of worship and the seventh treats the establishment of uniform discipline.[18] In the area of ecclesiastical discipline the prelates encountered the fact that over the vast expanse of the United States there existed great diversity in the observance of certain church ordinances. This was especially noticeable in the observance of feasts and fasts. “In some places seven or eight feasts are celebrated, while in others four times as many. The observance of fasts, apart from Lent, also varies from place to place.”[19] The prelates were troubled by such deviation from the Church’s unified teaching and appealed to Rome with a petition that uniform practice be established in this matter. But remarkably, Rome proved more liberal in this respect than the council’s prelates, and in its response said that it was better to respect the existing customs of each diocese, and that if changes were necessary, each bishop could separately appeal to the Pope about it.[20] But the feast of the Immaculate Conception was declared a feast of patronage for the United States and therefore made obligatory throughout the country.[21] In other respects uniformity is established. The prelates desire complete uniformity in all that pertains to Christian instruction and prayer books. A catechism should be composed according to Cardinal Bellarmine’s catechism, adapted to the particular position of Catholics in the United States.[22] Prayer books that have not received episcopal approval should not be used by Catholics.[22] The prelates forbid the raising of money for church or charitable needs through places of amusement, for such a method occasions public scandal and “exposes the Catholic name to ridicule and mockery by those of other faiths.”[23] Then they exhort Catholics to refrain from such entertainments which are known in American cities under the name of picnics and excursions.[24]