Chapter III. The papacy a foe to religious liberty.

WE presume it is already manifest to every unbiased reader that Romanism is a necessary and determined enemy of all liberty, civil and religious. Her cardinal principle takes away the right of private judgment, denying the subject the privilege of even obeying the clear teachings of conscience, thus forbidding him to use the very faculties God has given him, and for the proper exercise of which he alone is accountable. The people must receive their opinions from, and rely implicitly upon the priests; these are under the spiritual authority of bishops, and these under the Pope. Hence he alone has the right to think,—he alone has liberty: his is absolute. The people have an existence merely for the good of Christ’s vicegerent on earth, who owns them soul and body, life and property.

Rome—certainly none will deny—proves herself an enemy of religious liberty by condemning the use of the Bible. The Council of Trent declared:—“ It is manifest from experience that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the rashness of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it.” Accordingly they condemn its use, and do everything in their power to prevent people from reading it. Societies for its publication and distribution have been repeatedly condemned by the Pope. Surely an enemy of the Bible is an enemy of all liberty—personal and national.

And this hostility to the inspiring cause of all true liberty is unmistakably evinced even in the full-orbed light of this nineteenth century, and in this Protestant country, which owes its greatness to the unfettered Word of God. A warfare, bitter, unrelenting, almost fiendish, has been waged for years against its reading in our common schools. Even in their own schools, though catechisms and crucifixes and rosaries are abundant, the Bible, even their own version, is a rare book.

With separate organizations for almost everything, the Romish Church has no society for the distribution of God’s will to men. In fact, they have never yet published, in the vernacular, an authorized edition, without note or comment.* Here is an extract from the version in general use :—‘ Images, pictures or representations, even in the house of God and in the very sanctuary, so far from being forbidden, are expressly authorized by the Word of God.” (Comment on Second Commandment.)

* St. Liguori says:—“ The Scriptures, and books of controversy, may not be permitted in the vernacular tongue, as also they cannot be read without permission.” Cardinal Bellarmine declares:—“ The Catholic Church forbids the reading of the Scriptures by all, without choice, or the public reading or singing of them in vulgar tongues, as it is decreed in the Council of Trent.”

And even the burning of Bibles is not yet one of the lost arts; and the immutable Church seems loath to allow it to become such. In the year 1842 (Oct. 27), at Champlain, N. Y., according to a statement prepared and published by four respectable citizens appointed for that purpose, a pile of Bibles, brought from the priest’s house, was set on fire, and in open day, and in the presence of many spectators, burned to ashes. And the last year witnessed in unhappy Popery-cursed Spain a similar “act of faith,” accompanied by various Catholic ceremonies, and a tremendous philippic (a fiery, damning speech, or tirade) against the execrable heretics.

Liguori, one of Rome’s canonized saints, author of the “Glories of Mary,” and of a standard text-book on Moral Theology, exclaims with holy horror:—“ How many simple girls, because they have learned to read, have lost their souls.” The Freeman’s Journal once said:— “The Bible Society is the deepest scheme ever laid by Satan in order to delude the human family, and bring them down to his eternal possession.” Bishop Spotswood affirmed :—”I would rather a half of the people of this nation should be brought to the stake and burned, than one man should read the Bible and form his judgments from its contents.”

Catholicism is opposed to freedom of conscience. The Protestant Church holds—in fact the true Church in all ages has held—that God alone is Lord of the conscience, that this right He will not share with another, and that man should allow no miserable, arrogant human tyrant to usurp the throne of his Maker. Romanism, however, resembles all false religions in claiming the right to rule over the individual conscience; utterly denying its adherents the privilege of having any opinions except according to rules prescribed by an infallible Church. One of the recent Popes declared that “liberty of conscience is an absurd and dangerous maxim; or rather the ravings of delirium.” A bishop in the Council of Trent said, with the concurrence and approbation of the holy (?) fathers: —“Laymen have nothing to do but to hear and submit.” The New York Tablet recently informed its readers:—“There is no difference of opinion on this subject (the temporal power of the Pope), for we do not allow any difference on such questions. The decrees of the Church forbid it.” Father Farrel, of St. Joseph’s Church, New York, for the mortal sin of having written (Jan. 12, 1871) an exceedingly mild approval of a public meeting in favor of Italian Unity, was peremptorily ordered by Archbishop McCloskey—three holy fathers, the council summoned to try the case, and several politicians demanding the order—to retract his liberal ideas, that every people had a right to choose its own rulers, or immediately withdraw from the Church. So then there is only one mind, only one conscience in the Catholic Church. Priests are simply mirrors, to reflect the opinions and aims of His Infallibility, Pope Pius IX. What freedom can men retain after thus yielding the right of private judgment— after surrendering conscience? Very appropriately does one born in Catholicity, educated in her doctrines, and still in the enjoyment of her services, ask:—“ How long is this enlightened spirit of the nineteenth century to continue pandering to such narrow bigotry and prejudice as this?”

Romanism shows itself an enemy of religious liberty, by opposing the freedom of the press. Protestantism courts the light, loves the truth, and invites discussion, believing that error is inherently weak, and cannot present arguments which will sway the enlightened conscience of the educated masses. It is willing that the two should enter the lists, well assured that the former will gain an easy victory. Of the freedom of the press, it is, therefore, the stanch defendant; it has nothing to fear from discussion; everything to hope. On the other hand, of this liberty the Pope is a deadly foe. He denominates it “that fatal license of which we cannot entertain too much horror.” Weak, indeed, must be the cause which dares not undertake its own defense; corrupt must be the Church that endeavors to shut out the light of God; insecure must be the foundations of a system of religion which dreads, and, as far as lies in its power, prohibits public discussion. And assuredly this hatred of a free press is thoroughly antagonistic to the spirit of the age.

Nor are Papists less hostile to another support of religious liberty, the education of the masses. Rome detests the very term, popular education. Her maxim is, “Ignorance is the mother of devotion and order.” Accordingly, we nowhere find in Catholic countries good public school systems. They are the glory of Protestant lands. In this respect compare Spain with England; France with Prussia; Lower Canada with New England; Ireland with Scotland. In Protestant countries the people are intelligent, thrifty, industrious, moral; in Roman Catholic nations the masses are poor, degraded, ignorant, vicious. In Canada East, it is said, not more than one in ten can read; in Italy not one in fifty. In Ireland there reigns, even in this day, the ignorance, superstition and brutality of the dark ages. In Spain, out of a population of less than sixteen millions, according to the last census, more than twelve millions can neither read nor write. Certainly none will deny that such ignorance endangers civil and religious liberty.

In face of these, and countless similar facts which might be adduced, how astounding the frequent assertions of the Papal literature of the present day! The Catholic World, a monthly magazine published in New York, actually has the hardihood to affirm that Catholicism has ever shown itself the guardian of civilization, the friend of liberty, the advocate of Republican forms of government; that it fosters science, encourages education, and places no shackles on reason. And the same periodical denounces, in unmeasured terms, the civilization of the present day, defends the Crusades, advocates the dogma of Infallibility, asserts and reasserts the immutability of the Church, fights our common school system, and is ready to deluge Italy in blood to secure the restoration of the Pope to temporal power. Does warmth of devotion to the cause of Republicanism such as this enkindle a flame on liberty’s altar? Do we broil our beefsteak by the glowing fires of an arctic iceberg? Shall we entrust the cause we love to the hands of its enemies ?

Protestantism, now as ever, boldly presents itself to the world, challenging the fullest investigation; demanding an unfettered press, an open Bible, a free platform, an untrammelled conscience, liberal education, full discussion and fair play, having faith to believe that truth will ultimately triumph. Romanism fetters the limbs of freedom, represses independence of thought, trammels conscience, cuts the nerve of individual energy, and saps the foundations of all true liberty. Father Farrel presumes to breathe the hope that Italy may be free, and is summarily decapitated. A German writes “Janus,” an unanswerable refutation of Papal infallibility ; his work is placed in the list of condemned books, and Papists forbidden to read it. Hyacinthe conscientiously endeavors to bring the Church of his love into harmony with the spirit of the age, to extract the molar teeth from the growling despot, and is excommunicated. E. Ffoulkes candidly writes his impressions of Romanism; he is excommunicated and his book condemned. Thus Popery treats her own sons.

Without religious liberty, to which Romanism has ever shown herself an enemy, civil liberty is manifestly impossible. To establish the most perfect system of Republicanism in Spain, or Ireland, would be to cast pearls before swine. Despotism, government by brute force, is the only government fitted, or in fact possible, to those who, having sold reason and conscience, are ignorant, prejudiced, superstitious, passionate, brutal. Thus the Roman Catholic Church is at once a school and an engine of despotism. So long as it retains sway, promulgating its doctrines, civil liberty is a boon beyond the reach of its subjects, nay, would in fact be, as it once proved in France, and may again soon, their greatest curse. What Catholic countries need is education, virtue and individual self-restraint, at once fitting for, and bringing after them, true, lasting, heaven-bestowed freedom.

With an apt quotation from Gattini, the noted Italian, we close this chapter:— “Civilization asks what share the Papacy has taken in its work. Is it the press? Is it electricity? Is it steam? Is it chemical analysis? Ts it free trade? Ts it self-government? Is it the principle of nationality? Is it the proclamation of the rights of man? Of the liberty of conscience? Of all this the Papacy is the negation.” *

* Father Hyacinthe, in a letter addressed to Bishops, urging reforms, says:—”The result, if these documents (the Encyclical and Syllabus) were treated seriously, would be to establish a radical incompatibility between the duty of a faithful Catholic and the duty of an impartial student and free citizen.”

Download a PDF file of this article.

Please follow and like us: