Section 3. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (12)

In reviewing the council’s determinations, the prelates in their pastoral letter dwell on such aspects of church life which could not find more or less detailed exposition in the determinations themselves. Thus, they devote a special paragraph to the question of “the relationship of Church and state,” and it is so important in the sense of clarifying both the views of the Roman Catholic Church on this subject and the actual state of these relations in the United States that we find it necessary to cite the general part of it here. “The Church’s enemies,” the prelates say, “do not fail to depict its claims as incompatible with the independence of civil authority, and its action as hostile to the state’s activity for the development of society’s well-being. Not only are these accusations unsupported by facts, but the Church’s power and influence appear to be the most effective support of earthly authority by which society is governed. True, the Church does not proclaim the absolute and visible independence of civil authority, for it teaches with the apostle that ‘all authority is from God’; that the earthly ruler is His servant and that the power of the sword which he uses in exercising authority is given him from above (Rom 13:1-5). For the Church’s members obedience to civil authority is not subjection to irresistible force; and not merely a condition of peace and security; but a religious duty founded on obedience to God, by whose authority the civil ruler exercises his power. But this power, as subordinate and granted, must always be exercised according to God’s law. By prescribing anything contrary to this law, civil authority exceeds its authority and has no right to obedience. Disobedience to God can never be lawful, as clearly declared by the apostles Peter and John before the tribunal which sat to judge them: ‘Whether it is right in God’s sight to listen to you rather than to God’ (Acts 4:10). This undeniable principle does not, however, lead to the same consequences in the Catholic system as in the systems of sects. In the latter the individual is the supreme judge of what the law of God commands or forbids, and consequently is able to claim the sanction of the supreme law for what in the end may be, and often is, only the prompting of an undisciplined mind or inflamed imagination. And from civil government one cannot expect recognition of an authority which has no guarantee of its divine character and limits in its application, without plunging the state into disorder and anarchy. A Catholic has a guide in the Church as a divine institution, which gives him the means to distinguish what God’s law forbids or permits, and this authority the state is bound to recognize as supreme in the sphere of moral teaching no less than dogmatic. There may be cases when individual Catholics make an incorrect application of this principle; or when, while recognizing the principle of obedience to civil authority as a divine obligation, the seat of this authority might be the object of doubt, owing to a division of opinion prevailing regarding this important fact. The Church makes no claim to decide such matters in the earthly order, for it is not the judge in civil disputes, though it has always, when invited to do so, endeavored to remove misunderstandings from which contentions so often arise and to give advice for the common good, maintaining the peace of society and the rights of justice.”[1]

The acts and determinations of the council published to the world undoubtedly constitute an important legislative monument which will long serve as a guide for the church life of the Roman Catholic population in the United States. As to the value which Catholics themselves place on it, one can judge from the following passage of a Catholic publicist:

“Reading them involuntarily one is struck by the wisdom and prudence which characterize them. After divine assistance, of course not denied to so holy an undertaking, here you find that American common sense, extraordinarily precise and practical, which in dealing with elevated subjects takes them chiefly from their positive side and, while not losing sight of principle, always adapts them to time and circumstances. If the disciplinary side is very rich in this book, then pure theory occupies little space. The council before all else wished to be a work of organization. No less remarkable in what it did not say than in what it said, it apparently embodied the counsel of the poet: semper ad eventum festinat; there are neither unnecessary details nor useless erudition; everything bears the stamp of legislation, soberly yet firmly reasoned, in which nothing is omitted that can illuminate and convince the mind, and nothing is allowed to lengthen the brief text or complicate a simple matter. This is a stately monument of simple and severe proportions; art apparently is neglected in it, but in any case it does not seem to be absent. If it were permissible in view of so great a work to draw attention to a secondary detail, we would say that seminarians studying these acts will find in them a model of that beautiful Latin which unfortunately is too rare in theological treatises.”[2]

XIV

“We willingly acknowledge, say the prelates of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, that very great benefits have been derived for religion from the fact that religious men in our dioceses have performed their work. There has always been such a thought among our forebears and we still retain the same opinion, that by their labors much is lightened of the burden laid upon bishops; timely help is given to the secular clergy burdened with pastoral duties, and finally the faithful people receive very many blessings from more than one source.”[3] With such a solemn acknowledgment of the services of monastic orders for the cause of Roman Catholicism in America did the council’s prelates find it necessary to open their treatise on those in the monastic life. This acknowledgment corresponds to their services to the Roman Catholic Church and perhaps does not even fully appreciate them. Monastic orders always constitute an important element in the organizing activity of the Roman Catholic Church. They are its warriors, whom it sends to all lands of the world for the conquest of nations. Bound by no personal interests and living only by the will of the supreme head of Roman Catholicism, they at his first gesture leave their homeland and selflessly go to the most distant ends of the earth, to the impenetrable wilds of deserts, to the midst of bloodthirsty savages, and preach to them the gospel of love and submission to the “vicar of Christ” on earth. “I confess,” writes Leibniz, “I have always looked with ardent admiration at monastic orders; they are something like a heavenly army on earth. They constitute one of those special qualities which make one regard with respect the Church that has preserved the name and marks of Catholicism, so that it alone produces and fosters these brilliant examples of elevated virtues and ascetical life.”[4] But if the services of monastic orders are generally important for the Roman Catholic Church, then in the United States they acquire even greater importance in view of the special conditions of the introduction and development there of Roman Catholicism. The growth of the Roman Catholic population in this country proceeds so rapidly and under conditions unprecedented in history that the organizing activity of the Church would far from correspond to the needs if it could not dispose of a ready, easily moveable, selfless force in the form of monastic orders. Therefore, a history of the development and progress of Roman Catholicism in the United States would be incomplete if it did not indicate the irreplaceable services rendered to its cause by monastic orders, all the more since these services constitute one of the reasons for the rapid spread and contemporary strength of the Roman Catholic Church in the country.