SOME say: What of it! Are not
Roman Catholics as good as Protestants? Yes, certainly they are. As
individuals there is no distinction before the law, and as neighbors
they are loved and respected. We, however, are not speaking of
individuals, but of a church organization that claims certain rights of
jurisdiction in civil affairs, and whose avowed principles are
diametrically opposed to liberty of speech, liberty of press, and
religious liberty in general, as understood by the founders of this
republic and incorporated into its fundamental laws. This we shall now
prove (1) from official Catholic documents, (2) from the actual
application of their principles to civil governments.
Official Catholic Documents
Pope Leo XIII, in an encyclical
letter, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, outlines "the Christian
constitution of states," by saying that "the state" should
profess the Catholic religion, and that the Roman pontiffs should have
"the power of making laws." "And assuredly all ought to
hold that it was not without a singular disposition of God's
providence that this power of the Church was provided with a civil
sovereignty as the surest safeguard of her independence."
He says of the Middle Ages:
"[then] church and state were happily united."– "The
Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII," pp. 113, 114, 119.
Benziger Bros., 1903.
"Sad it is to call to mind
how the harmful and lamentable rage for innovations which rose to a
climax in the sixteenth century, ... spread amongst all classes of
society. From this source, as from a fountain-head, burst forth all
those later tenets of unbridled license .... "Amongst these
principles the main one lays down that all men are alike by race and
nature . . . that each is free to think on every subject just as he
may choose .... In a society grounded upon such maxims, all government
is nothing more nor less than the will of the people ....
"And it is a part of this
theory . . . that every one is to be free to follow whatever religion
he prefers, or none at all if he disapprove of all ....
"Now when the state rests on
foundations like those just named–and for the time being they are
greatly in favor–it readily appears into what and how unrightful a
position the Church is driven .... They who administer the civil power
. . . defiantly put aside the most sacred decrees of the Church ....
"The sovereignty of the
people . . . is doubtless a doctrine . . which lacks all reasonable
proof."–Id., pp. 120-123.
The theory "that the church
be separated from the state," Pope Leo further calls a "fatal
error," "a great folly, a sheer injustice," and " a
shameless liberty."–Id., pp. 124, 125.
In his next encyclical letter, of
June 20, 1888, he calls it "the fatal theory of the need of
separation between Church and state," "the greatest perversion
of liberty," and "that fatal principle of the separation of
Church and state."– Id., pp. 148, 159
In his letter of January 6, 1895,
"It would be very erroneous
to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the
most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally
lawful or expedient for state and church to be, as in America,
dissevered and divorced.... She would bring forth more abundant fruits
if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed
the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public
authority."– Id., pp. 323, 324.
Among the many authorities that
could be cited, we have chosen that of Pope Leo XIII, because he is not
a medieval, but a modern, exponent of papal doctrines, which no Roman
Catholic would deny. Any one familiar with the phraseology of the
Declaration of Independence and the Federal Constitution cannot help but
see in the expressions of Pope Leo a declared opposition to the
fundamental principles upon which our government is founded. He urges
his followers not to be content with attending to their religious
duties, but "Catholics should extend their efforts beyond this
restricted sphere, and give their attention to national
politics."–Id., p. 131.
"It is the duty of all
Catholics . . . to strive that liberty of action shall not transgress
the bounds marked out by nature and the law of God; to endeavor to
bring back all civil society to the pattern and form of Christianity
which We have described. · . . Both these objects will be carried
into effect without fail if all will follow the guidance of the
Apostolic See as their rule of life and obey the bishops"–Id.,
"Especially with reference
to the so-called 'Liberties' which are so greatly coveted in these
days, all must stand by the judgment of the Apostolic
See."–Id., p. 130.
In his encyclical letter of
January 10, 1890, on "The Chief Duty of Christians as
Citizens" (id., pp. 180-207) he urges all Catholics to put forth
united action in politics in order to change the governmental policies
so as to bring them into harmony with papal principles. He says:
"As to those who mean to
take part in public affairs they should avoid . . . leading the lives
of cowards, untouched in the fight ....
"Honor, then, to those who
shrink not from entering the arena as often as need calls, believing
and being convinced that the violence of injustice will be brought to
an end and finally give way to the sanctity of right and
religion."–Id., pp. 199-201.
They are urged to support (in
elections) only those men who will stand by the principles of union of
church and state:
"The Church cannot give
countenance or favor to those whom she knows to be imbued with a
spirit of hostility to her; who refuse openly to respect her rights;
who make it their aim and purpose to tear asunder the alliance that
should, by the very nature of things, connect the interests of
religion with those of the state. On the contrary, she is (as she is
bound to be) the upholder of those who are themselves imbued with the
right way of thinking as to the relations between church and state,
and who strive to make them work in perfect accord for the common
good. These precepts contain the abiding principle by which every
Catholic should shape his conduct in regard to public life. In short,
where the Church does not forbid taking part in public affairs, it is
fit and proper to give support to men of acknowledged worth, and who
pledge themselves to deserve well in the Catholic cause, and on no
account may it be allowed to prefer to them any such individuals as
are hostile to religion ....
"Whence it appears how
urgent is the duty to maintain perfect union of minds."–Id., p.
"Union of minds, therefore,
requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete
submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman
Pontiff, as to God himself." –Id., p. 193.
"The political prudence of
the Pontiff embraces diverse and multiform things; for it is his
charge not only to rule the Church, but generally so to regulate the
actions of Christian citizens. . . . The faithful should imitate the
practical political wisdom of the ecclesiastical
authority."–Id., p. 202.
"But if the laws of the
state are manifestly at variance with the divine law, containing
enactments hurtful to the Church, · . . or if they violate in the
person of the supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then
truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a
crime."–Id., p. 185. "If, then, a civil government strives
. . . to put God aside, · . . it deflects woefully from its right
course and from the injunctions of nature. Nor should such a gathering
together and association of men be accounted as a commonwealth, but
only as a deceitful imitation and make-believe of civil
organization." –Id., p. 181.
These are the exact statements of
Pope Leo XIII, taken from his authentic records, published by the
Catholics under the seal of the Church; and they show that the Papacy
stands, for the same principles today as it did in the Dark Ages. How
truthfully the Pontiff says: "And in truth, wherever the Church has
set her foot, she has straightway changed the face of things."–
Id., p. 107.
A letter from the Vatican
outlining the plans of Pope Leo XIII respecting the United States was
published in the New York Sun, July 11, 1892, and contains the following
"What the church has done in
the past for others, she will now do for the United States .... He
[the pope] hails in the United American States, and in their young and
flourishing church the source of new life for Europeans .... If the
United States succeed in solving the many problems that puzzle us,
Europe will follow her example."–"New York Sun," July
11, 1892; quoted in "Liberty," 1907, No. 4, p. 10.
How remarkably this coincides
with the prophetic prediction: "His deadly wound was healed and all
the world wondered after the beast." Revelation 13:3. Yes, it is
true that "as America, the land of religious liberty, shall unite
with the Papacy in forcing the conscience and compelling men to honor
the false sabbath, the people of every country on the globe will be led
to follow her example."–"Testimonies," Vol. VI, p. 18.
This country led the world from despotism to liberty, and it will lead
the way back.
The doctrine of Pope Leo XIII is
the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and it is taught in her schools in
the United States. One of their schoolbooks, "Manual of Christian
Doctrine, by a Seminary Professor," printed by J. J. McVey,
Philadelphia, 1915, and carrying the sanction of the Catholic Censor and
the seal of the Church, has this to say concerning the "Relations
of Church and State":
"Why is the Church superior
to the state?
"Because the end to which
the Church tends is the noblest of all ends.
"What right has the pope in
virtue of his supremacy?
"The right to annul those
laws or acts of government that would injure the salvation of souls or
attack the natural rights of citizens.
"What then is the principle
obligation of the heads of states?
"Their principle obligation
is to practice the Catholic religion themselves, and, as they are in
power, to protect and defend it.
"Has the State the right and
the duty to proscribe schism or heresy?
"Yes, it has the right and
the duty to do so.
"May the state separate
itself from the Church?
"No, because it may not
withdraw from the supreme rule of Christ.
"What name is given to the
doctrine that the state has neither the right nor the duty to be
united to the Church to protect it?
"This doctrine is called
Liberalism. It is founded principally on the fact that modern society
rests on liberty of conscience and of worship, on liberty of speech
and of the press.
"Why is Liberalism to be
"Because it denies all
subordination of the state to the Church."–Pp. 131- 133.
We respectfully ask: With such
avowed principles taught in Catholic schoolbooks, would it be safe to
allow Romanized textbooks to be used in our public schools?
Pope Paul IV sets forth this same
papal doctrine. We read:
"On February 15, 1559,
appeared the Bull Quum ex apostolatus officio of which the most
important heads are these:
"(1) The Pope as
representative of Christ on earth has complete authority over princes
and kingdoms, and may judge the same.
"(2) All monarchs, who are
guilty of heresy or schism, are irrevocably deposed, without the
necessity of any judicial formalities. They are deprived forever of
their right to rule, and fall under sentence of death. If they repent,
they are to be confined in a monastery for the term of their life,
with bread and water as their only fare.
"(3) No man is to help an
heretical or schismatical prince. The monarch guilty of this sin is to
lose his kingdom in favor of rulers obedient to the
Pope."–"Life and Times of Hildebrand," Arnold Harris
Mathews, D. D., p. 238. London:1910.
Later papal-encyclicals show the
same attitude toward Protestants. Here is a sample from the encyclical
of Pope Pius X. Speaking of the Reformation of the sixteenth century, it
"That tumult of rebellion
and that perversion of faith and morals they called reformation and
themselves reformers. But, in truth, they were corrupters, for
undermining with dissensions and wars the forces of Europe, they paved
the way for the rebellions and the apostasy of modern times, in which
were united and renewed in one onslaught those three kinds of
conflict, hitherto separated, from which the Church has always issued
victorious, the bloody conflicts of the first ages, then the internal
pest of heresies, and, finally, under the name of evangelical liberty,
a vicious corruption and a perversion of discipline unknown perhaps in
mediaeval times."–"Encyclical Letter of Our Most Holy Lord
Pius X," quoted in Supplement to "The Tablet," June 11,
1910, p. 950. London:England. *24
Application Of Papal
Principles To Civil Government
The Jesuits in this country
endeavor to make us believe that it is not within the pope's domain to
"meddle with the civil allegiance of Catholics" or to
interfere with a ruler's governing of his subject and that, should any
pope "try such interference, he would be going beyond the limits of
his proper authority; Catholics would be under no obligation to obey
him–nor would they obey him."–"The Pope and the American
Republic," by J. E. Graham, p. 3. But it is understood that this is
only "mission" literature written for the American people, who
can best be won by such sentiments, and that it does not apply to
Catholic countries; nor will it apply to our own when conditions here
can be changed.
King Henry Iv Versus Pope
We do not suppose that such
writers have forgotten the claims of so many popes that civil
magistrates are not exempt from the rule of Christ, or from the
governing power of His Vicar, and that "the church never
changes." Nor can any well-read man have forgotten that Pope
Gregory VII on the twentysecond of February, 1076, excommunicated Henry
IV, "forbade him to govern Germany and Italy, dispensed all his
subjects from the oath of allegiance they had taken to him, and forbade
every one to obey him as a king?"–"Life and Times of
Hildebrand,'' A. H. Mathews, D. D., p. 109. London:1910. Pope Gregory
VII wrote the following letter on September 3, 1076:
"To All the Faithful in
Germany, Counseling them to Choose a New King: "Gregory . . . to
all the . . . bishops, dukes, counts, and all defenders of the
Christian faith dwelling in the kingdom of Germany... Henry, king
socalled, was excommunicated · . . he was bound in bondage of
anathema and deposed from his royal dignity, and that every people
formerly subject to him is released from its oath of allegiance ....
"Let another ruler of the
kingdom be found by divine favor, such an one as shall bind himself by
unquestionable obligation to carry out the measures we have
indicated."–"Records of Civilization Sources and
Studies," edited under the auspices of the Department of History,
Columbia University," Vol. XIV, pp. 105-107.
Any person who had any dealing
with the excommunicated king became thereby himself excommunicated. If
the king did not secure release from this "band" within a
year, he was to lose his kingdom and be put to death, or if he repented
after the year passed he would be imprisoned in a monastery, and fed
with bread and water till his death, and this finally became his fate.
Henry had to set out across the dangerous Alps in midwinter. "The
cold was intense, and there had been heavy falls of snow, so that
neither men nor horses could advance in the narrow road alongside
precipices without running the greatest risks. Nevertheless, they could
not delay, for the anniversary of the King's excommunication was drawing
near." The men walked, and the queen was placed in "a kind of
sledge made of oxhide, and the guides dragged [it] the whole way."
At last they arrived at Canossa, where the pope temporarily abode.
"Then, in the penitent's
garb of wool, and barefoot, the King appeared before the walls of the
fortress. He had laid aside every mark of royalty, and, fasting, he
awaited the pleasure of the Pope for three days. The severity of the
penance was enhanced by the coldness of the season. Bonitho speaks of
it as a 'very bitter' winter, and says that the King waited in the
courtyard amid snow and ice. Even in the presence of Gregory there
were loud murmurs against his pride and inhumanity."–"Life
and Times of Hildebrand," pp. 126-128. At last through the
intercession of others the pope admitted the king and released him of
the excommunication, January 28, 1077.
Pope Gregory VII himself
acknowledged the whole proceeding with evident satisfaction in a letter
to the princes of Germany, dated January 28, 1077, in the following
"At length he came in person
with a few followers to the town of Canossa where we were staying. Not
a sign of hostility or boldness did he show. All his royal insignia he
laid aside, and, wretchedly clad in woolen garments, he stood
persistently for three long days with bare feet before the gate of the
Castle. Constantly and with many tears he implored the apostolic mercy
for help and consolation until he had moved all who were within
hearing to such pity and depth of compassion that they interceded for
him with many prayers and tears. They expressed wonder at the unusual
hardness of our heart, and some even insisted that we were exercising,
not apostolic severity, but the ferocious cruelty of a
tyrant."–"ParaUel Source Problems in Medieval
History," F. Duncalf, Ph.D., and A. C. Krey, M. A., p. 89. New
York and London:1912.
And yet the pope had the audacity
to extract from the humiliated king the promise of a meeting among the
princes of Germany, where "the pope as judge" was to decide
whether Henry was to be "held unworthy of the throne according to
ecclesiastical law" or not. (Id., p. 51.) And finally the pope
excommunicated Henry the second time, March 7, 1080, and a new king,
Rudolph of Suabia, was elected, the pope sending him a costly crown.
Civil war ensued, which deluged Germany in blood, and Rudolph, the king
of the papal party, was slain. This is not an isolated case.
"When, in the year 1119,
Calixtus excommunicated Henry V, the Pope also solemnly absolved from
their allegiance all the subjects of the Emperor."– "Life
and Times of Hildebrand," p. 284.
Other Popes Meddle In Politics
On May 24, 1160, Pope Alexander
III excommunicated Frederic Barbarossa, "and released his subjects
from their allegiance." Pope Innocent III "deposed and
reinstated princes and released subjects from their oaths" as if he
were a universal ruler. In 1208 he placed the whole kingdom of England
under "interdict," excommunicated King John in 1209, and
deposed him in 1212, releasing all his subjects from their allegiance to
him, and invited King Philip of France to occupy England in the name of
the pope. John was finally forced to surrender the kingdom into the
hands of the pope, to be returned to him as a fief. The barons,
displeased with such transactions, forced the king to sign the
"Magna Charta," a document of liberty. But the pope declared
it null and void.
"The Emperor Frederick II
was excommunicated by Gregory IX; his subjects were released from
their allegiance, and he was deposed by Innocent IV [in 1245].
Boniface VIII, who meddled incessantly in foreign affairs, [explained
the pope's] two swords [to mean, that the temporal sword of] the
monarch is borne only at the will and by the permission of the
Pontiff."–Id, p. 286.
Modern Rulers Walk The Road To
One more example of a later date
may be of interest. For centuries France had been under the controlling
power of the Papacy, and in the Revolutionary period she attempted to
shake off the shackles. But, the fetters were so strong and the chains
so heavy, that she found herself unable to do so, till finally the
Association Law of 1901 and the Separation Law of 1905 granted religious
liberty to all denominations alike. Rome, however, does not want
liberty, but sole control, and so her thunderbolts were hurled against
the "injustice" of France, till the impression was created
that Rome was fighting for "liberty." It is the same old stow.
The Papacy always feels oppressed where it is not given a free hand to
control. F. T. Morton (member of the Massachusetts bar) says:
"It is not in defense of
religious liberty the pope is attacking the French republic, but
because the republic has placed all religious bodies alike under the
regime of religious liberty, equality, and toleration, and this he
calls the law of oppression." –" The Roman Catholic Church
and Its Relation to the Federal Government," p. 110. Boston:1909.
See also "Papal Attack on France," in the Nineteenth Century
Magazine, April, 1909, and "Papal Aggression in France," in
Fortnightly Review, October, 1906.
In a Catholic booklet, Rev. J. T.
Roche, LL.D., says of the French law:
"Three hundred million
dollars' worth of property has been swept away by a single legal
enactment, because the French laity did not have an influential,
efficient, and vigorous press to protest against this colossal
injustice. The Cardinal Archbishop of France a few weeks ago made the
statement, that if one tenth of the money put into churches and
religious institutions, had been expended on their Catholic press,
this property would never have been confiscated. This utterance has
been well borne out by the results already achieved in Germany. That
country today has over two hundred Catholic daily papers, and a great
number of weekly and monthly periodicals. It has a great lay society,
the Volksverein, which devotes its energies to the upbuilding of the
press .... From end to end of the country, the people are kept in
touch with what is going on in governmental as well as church circles.
There is unity of thought and action .... It has become a universally
accepted axiom amongst us, that the church in any country is no
stronger or weaker than its official press."–"The Catholic
Paper," pp. 9, 10; printed by "Catholic
Register and Canadian Extension." Toronto, Can.:1910.
Attorney F. T. Morton quotes the
following from newspaper clippings concerning a mass meeting of nearly
8,000 Catholics, held in Brooklyn, N. Y., Feb. 3, 1907, to protest
against the Separation Law of France:
" Even Bismarck had to pass
on his way to a metaphorical Canossa."–"The Roman Catholic
Church," p. 114. Boston:1909.
The Roman Catholic weekly, The
Tablet, of London, March 21, 1914, pp. 440, 441, has an article on
"French Catholics and the General Elections," which we wish we
had space to copy in full, as it shows the way leaders in the Roman
church instruct her people, and marshal them in mass in times of
elections. We quote:
"'Catholics have had their
duty in this matter long ago placed before them by the Pope to unite
together under their Bishops on the platform of religion.'...
"'Catholics above all
things' was to be their motto.
"The only purpose was to
form a vast association of Catholic citizens to act together for ends
which he summed up as follows:–' What we want is religious peace (1)
by the revision of the laws which have attacked our liberties, and (2)
by an understanding between the State and the Head of the Catholic
Church.' . . .
"In accordance with these
principles it was determined to constitute at once a
Committee to multiply organizations which would group Catholics
together for this work, and that action should be taken as far as
possible in the fortheoming electoral struggle.
"The call to united action
thus sounded finds a strong reenforcement in the pastorals of the
Bishops. Thus Cardinal Andrieu, Archbishop of Bordeaux, has reminded
his flock that they should use their votes, and that in doing so they
are bound in conscience to vote only for those candidates who shall
have promised to respect the rights of God and the Church. 'Those,'
declares His Eminence, who decline to make this promise are
undeserving of your confidence, and if, from fear or from
self-interest, you vote for them, you make yourselves responsible
before God and men for the harm that may be done by their sectarianism
to our religion and to our country.
Archbishop of Chambery, has written in the same sense. Even still
stronger is the note struck in a Joint Pastoral issued by the six
Bishops of the Province of Bourges. They open by declaring that with
the elections in view it is their right and their duty to speak about
them to their people, who are under an obligation, not only to vote,
but to vote right.
To vote is not an indifferent,
because it is a political, act, for politics cannot escape from
Christian morality or claim independence seeing that conscience is
binding in public as well as in private life'....
"Catholics have gone to the
ballot as individuals, disunited and without a programme. This time
they should unite on behalf of the interests of religion. Now more
than ever before united action is necessary sub vexillo Christi ....
The Bishops proceed to lay down the line of conduct to be followed by
Catholic electors; to refuse to vote for all candidates who shall take
their stand on the laws described as secular and intangible; to vote
unhesitatingly and without arriere pensee [mental reservation] for
every Catholic candidate-Republican, Royalist, or
Imperialist–because he is a Catholic, and determined above all to
defend and demand the rights of God and of the Church; to vote for
those Liberal candidates who give a satisfactory pledge to support the
Catholic claims. From this it will be seen that the laymen's movement
is in full accord with the directions of the Bishops."–Pp. 440,
Now, as the Roman Catholic Church
rests one of its main propositions on the fact that it is the same the
world over, and never changes, and seeing that it is governed in every
country by the same rules of the Roman Curia, with the pope at its head,
we know that the same regulations apply to the United States as to the
Republic of France. As an illustration of this fact we find that, when
the Poles of Milwaukee, Wis., in their city election of 1912, voted the
Socialist ticket, the Roman Catholic paper, Western Watchman, of April
11,1912, commented thus:
"We are sorry for the Poles.
It is a shame that their clergy have them not under better
control."–Quoted in "Protestant Magazine," December,
1913, p. 568.
When Mr. T. J. Carey of
Palestine, Texas, in a letter to Archbishop John Bonzano, the Papal
Delegate, of Washington, D. C., dated June 10, 1912, asked:
"Must I as a Catholic
surrender my political freedom to the Church?"
the Archbishop answered in a
letter dated June 16, 1912:
"You should submit to the
decisions of the Church even at the cost of sacrificing political
principles."–Frontispiece in "Protestant Magazine,"
Many other incidents could be
cited if space permitted.
Let no one, therefore, claim that
the Catholic Church is not active in politics. As a sequel to this
Catholic Action in France, we read in the Minneapolis Journal, December
7, 1920, in the report of a sermon by Dr. P. B. Donally, O. M. I.
(Catholic) of London, England, preached at the Pro- Cathedral in
Minneapolis, the following significant words:
"'The Church, Christ's
Masterpiece.'... Amid the universal crash of nations, thrones, and
doctrines, she is the one moral force that remains standing.
"Protestant England sends
its ambassador to the Pope of Rome. Lutheran Germany, through her
representative at the Vatican, seeks light and counsel from the Vicar
of Christ. And the infidel government of France has walked the road to
We have seen the reason why the
Republic of "France has walked the road to Canossa"; namely,
through the activities of Catholic bishops, and their organizations, in
elections. As sure as that same power is operating in other countries,
they too will walk the road to Canossa. What a delight it seems for the
leaders of the Roman church to look back to the grand scene at Canossa,
and see a mighty king standing with bare feet in snow and cold for three
days, begging the pope to allow him to rule his own country. This is the
Roman ideal, it appears. We could continue this subject by relating
Rome's fight against government officials of Spain, Mexico, etc.,
bringing its activities in politics up to date, but space forbids. To
sum up: Rome is unchanged in principle, and will do today what it did in
the Middle Ages, whenever opportunity offers itself.
The World War gave the Papacy a
new hold on the nations of Europe. Mr. Michael Williams, an eminent
Catholic editor, says: "Before the World War . . . there were few
national representatives at the Vatican." But now "a spiritual
movement such as the world has not seen since the Crusades or the
conquest of the Roman Empire by the earlier members of the same church
[has taken place]. In that movement the laity are participating in close
cooperation with the ecclesiastical leaders."–"Current
History Magazine," Aug., 1926. And what a change has taken place!
"A total of thirty-one
countries now maintain official diplomatic relations with the Vatican
.... To this number it is expected here both France and the United
States will be added ....
"As a consequence the
Vatican is today in diplomatic relations not only with all of the
great Catholic countries of the world and most of the Protestant
nations, but it has succeeded in entering into semi-official relations
with several of the great nations with other religions, such as
Turkey, Japan, and China." –By mail from Rome, printed in
Minneapolis "Tribune," April 10, 1921.
Such pressure was brought to bear
on the smaller nations not having diplomatic relations with the Vatican,
that Latvia felt the need of having a "pull" there too.
"The papal authorities
agreed to extend their recognition to Latvia and to make Riga the seat
of a Roman Catholic archbishop, provided the government of Latvia
would turn over to the archbishop the Cathedral of Riga. Though the
cathedral had been in the continuous possession of the Lutherans for
more than three hundred years, the government accepted the condition
of the Vatican."–Bishop Edgar Blake, in New York
"Christian Advocate," Sept. 23, 1926.
Now the Vatican is strongly
urging the United States to begin diplomatic relations with the Holy
See. We read in a New York Herald-Tribune- Minneapolis Journal cable for
April 15, 1934:
"Rome, April 14–The
preparation by President Franklin D. Roosevelt of a favorable public
opinion now appears to be considered at the Vatican . . . of a
resumption of diplomatic relations between the United States and the
Holy See .... The Roosevelt administration has progressed from a
merely friendly attitude to a definite willingness to dispatch a
minister to the Holy See as soon as the American public–and
especially Congress–can be put into the frame of mind to accept the
"The frequent and amiable
contacts of the President and Archbishop Cicognani, Apostolic Delegate
to Washington, are said to have done much to prepare the ground, but
at the Vatican the greatest hope is pinned to the clear-cut assurance
which Postmaster General James A. Farley gave the Pope when he was
received last August."–Minneapolis "Journal," April
What this diplomatic relation
will cost this country in concessions to the Vatican. time alone will
tell. We venture to say that it will be of a different nature from that
of Latvia, and infinitely greater in its consequences! But Protestants
seem to be so fast asleep that they do not even dream of danger. Dr.
Samuel Hanson Cox says:
"Our greatest national
dangers arise from our lamentable apathy; as this arises mainly from
our ignorance. While men slept, says our Saviour, the enemy sowed
tares. And if 'the price of liberty is eternal vigilance,' it ill
becomes the heirs of such a boon, from such ancestors as ours, to lose
or even to peril the freedom which was purchased by them at the cost
of blood. Nor will any thing like indifference suit the occasion.
America expects every citizen, as Christ every Christian, to do his
duty. And to omit this–on any pretense–is criminal. It is suiting
and serving the enemy. It is servility and subserviency to the common
foe. Sleep on, says Rome, and we will have you! We need do nothing,
but only omit to do our duty, and we act for him; and our ruined
posterity may remember only to accuse us, only to execrate our
memories. Shall we then be indifferent, and so abet the interests of
antichrist? What could we do more truly to favor the worst adversary
of this most noble and desirable nation?"–"The History of
the Popes to A. D. 1758," Archibald Bower, Esq., with
Introduction by Rev. Samuel Hanson Cox, D. D., p. xi of Introduction.