The Five Wounds of The Church

Foreword

In this book Antonio Rosmini points to 'ills' of the Church, and reveals their causes by means of a
thorough analysis which also enables him to suggest remedies for them. He realises, however, that
the application of such remedies is the responsibility of the pastors of the Church, and humbly
submits his thoughts to their judgment, begging them to search for adequate solutions to modern
needs by a return to the origins and to ancient tradition.

Rosmini notes defects and abuses in the Church, but in a twofold spirit of suffering and hope.
Saddened by the inevitable shortcomings of churchmen, he believed and trusted with complete
certainty in the infinite power of the Holy Spirit at work in the Church. From this living force the
Church draws its capacity for continual renewal.

In our own day, more than a century after Rosmini's death (1855), Vatican II has re-emphasised the
two elements, divine and human, of the Church. Sin is always possible, and does indeed exist in the
Church. But Christ reconciles and redeems his disciples while purifying their hearts. God knows
how to give his people the energy to renew the structures of the Church in accordance with the
human changes manifested by "the signs of the times interpreted in the light of the Gospel." The
book, meditated in the light of the Council, shows how right Paul VI was to call it "a prophetic
work." It would be interesting to compare its pages, and other writings of Rosmini, with the
conciliar texts.

The Five Wounds of The Church clearly points to God's truth and love in his faithful care for the
people of his covenant. Reading the book, we are comforted by the joy of discovering anew that
Christ "will be with us to the end of the age." He will be with his Church. And the Spirit of the Lord
will continue to purify and sanctify her with his gifts. On our part, as disciples of the Lord, we need
docility to his projected design, "the mystery hidden for ages and generations, but now made
manifest to his saints... Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Col 1. 26-27).

§ Clemente Riva,
auxiliary bishop of Rome.

The Five Wounds of the Church

Author's Note

This book, written seventeen years ago [1832] was published by me on the election of pope Pius IX.
Intended for a few friends, as I state in the conclusion, it was issued in other editions against my
wishes by pirate publishing houses. The result was greater publicity and swifter diffusion of the
study than I would have desired.

On the open market criticisms of the book varied from highest praise to abysmal condemnation.
One definite advantage, for which I was grateful, was the balanced comments made by certain
learned churchmen. This new edition of the work contains the amendments asked for in those
comments.

It may well be that in writing the study I exaggerated, in my zeal and pain, the evils afflicting the
Church (evils which permit the wicked to triumph and Christ's name to be profaned). This could
have offended many of the clergy, whom I am proud to claim as colleagues and brothers while
gladly recognising the holiness, learning and unwearying devotion of the many bishops and priests
who do battle for the Lord and labour to save souls. The Lord himself knows that I had no desire
whatsoever to detract from their merits.

In order to illustrate more clearly the sorrows which now afflict the Church, I often compared
modern conditions in the Church with those prevailing when faith and love burned more brightly
amongst christians. This led some to conclude that I proposed a return to ancient church discipline
as a universal remedy. This was never my intention. Modern discipline is as much the work of
divine wisdom as the old, which cannot remain unchanged forever, but has to be adapted to
circumstances by the Church under the continual assistance and suggestion of the Holy Spirit.

The aim of the book was simply to point to the agony of the Church. Remedies were touched upon
only incidentally, and would require a separate study.

Parts of the book appear to be defective and could lead the reader to attribute to me opinions that I
do not hold. For example, I note that historically speaking the demise of Latin contributed to
divided attitudes at worship between people and clergy. Without disapproving explicitly the
suggested use of modern languages in the sacred liturgy, I go on immediately to say that the clergy,
given suitable instruction, could overcome the disadvantage imposed by a dead language. It has
been rightly desired that I add an explicit disapproval of the opinion, censured by the Church, which
favours adoption of the vernacular in the sacred liturgy.

I have accepted this and other observations in the present edition [which Rosmini left unpublished
after his unhesitating submission to the condemnation of the work] and have corrected many
uncriticised passages. Other places needing amendment have still to be indicated [this has been
done in the critical edition, 1981].

It has been said that I wished to allow the people to choose their own bishops. Chapter 4 indicates
how erroneous this belief is. My only desire is that when a bishop is chosen the people testify to the
candidates freely and devoutly according to the spirit of the Church. Further clarification on this
point can be gained from the three letters on the subject already written and published by me, and
now added as an appendix to this edition.

Finally I beg forgiveness of my readers for defects remaining in my work and appeal to their charity
for a favourable interpretation of what I have said. I have written to assist, not to hinder; to unite,
not to divide; and I submit what I have written to the judgment of the Church in the spirit expressed
in my introduction to the work.
The Five Wounds of the Church

A Necessary Introduction

1. I began to write this book when staying at a country house near Padua. It was intended as a
release for my own interior sorrow, and perhaps as a comfort for others.

At first I hesitated. "Would it be right for an ordinary person like me to make a study of the ills of
holy Church? If all care for the Church of God belongs by right to her pastors, isn't there something
overbold in even thinking about her afflictions? And then writing about them! How can I mention
these wounds without disrespect to the pastors, as if they were unaware of them or unwilling to
remedy them?" But no fault can be found even in an ordinary person like myself if he considers the
ills of the Church out of zeal for her good and for the glory of God. And as far as I could see, I had
no other motive.

Moreover, whatever the value of my thoughts on the subject, there was no reason to conceal them;
if they contained anything harmful, it could be rejected by the pastors of the Church. I had no
intention of deciding anything. In setting out my thoughts on the subject, I wanted to submit them to
the pastors themselves, especially the pope, whose decisions will always be the sure criterion by
which to balance and correct all my opinions. The pastors of the Church do not always have the
opportunity of quiet thought in the midst of their administrative occupations; they themselves want
others to offer reflections which may help in the government of their particular churches and of the
universal Church.

Finally, I pondered the example of those holy people found in every age of the Church who, without
being bishops, spoke and wrote with admirable freedom and directness about the evils afflicting the
Church of their times, and about the need and the manner of restoring her. St. Jerome, St. Bernard,
St. Catherine and others come to mind. I am not comparing myself with these great figures in any
way, but I realised through reading them that there was nothing per se censurable in investigating
the difficulties which beset the Bride of Christ, and in drawing the attention of those who govern
the Church to what distresses her.

2. These considerations were sufficient to assure me that it was not rash for me to continue to
reflect upon the thoughts flooding my spirit about the present state and condition of the Church; nor
was there anything blameworthy in writing about them and communicating them to others.
Nevertheless, I was still undecided about the prudence, and indeed honesty, of such a course. I
realised that all modern writers on these subjects had fallen foul equally of both Church and state
despite their declared intention of following a mean between two extremes and satisfying both. It
became obvious that such matters could scarcely be treated with universal satisfaction, and I
foresaw the possibility of clashing with and offending both powers, rather than assisting them with
these reflections of mine.

However, I was at least thinking conscientiously, and even if I erred no one could hold this against
me. I was not looking for human approval, nor worldly advantage, and if individuals on both sides
(1) objected to what I had to say I could fall back on the witness of my conscience and await the
judgment against which there is no appeal.

3. On the other hand, I asked myself what could cause offence to persons on either side.
From the point of view of the state, there was only one reason for dissatisfaction, that is, my
inability to approve of leaving the nomination of bishops in the hands of the secular power. In
rejecting such a privilege considered in itself (although at one time conditions were such that the
Church acted prudently, not erroneously, in granting it), I was convinced that it was as harmful to
the state as to the Church, and a grave political error to believe the contrary. The reasons for this
seeming paradox are developed in the study and are such that they can be submitted to any
statesman capable of penetrating a problem, of conquering common prejudices rationally, of
foreseeing the long-term consequences of a political principle, and of calculating and harmonising
the concomitant causes from which alone the total effect of any maxim of state can be predicted and
measured. Consequently sustaining such an opinion shows as much care for the good of the state as
for that of the Church. Governments cannot reasonably hold this against me, but should rather
approve of it. Those who oppose my views can indeed accuse me of political ignorance, but is my
ignorance a reason for declaring war upon me? Even in politics, as someone said, it is often how
you read a thing that counts.

4. From the Church's point of view, there seemed no possibility for dissatisfaction except perhaps
for what the book contains about the exaggerations of papal reservations in elections. But this abuse
belongs to history, and common sense will show there is nothing to fear in indicating such obvious
abuses when the argument requires this. By doing so, it becomes clear that we are not taking sides
for the sake of upholding human opinion, but acting solely for the sake of the truth, and for the
cause of God and of the Church herself.

On the other hand, I did not think it correct to abstain from writing through fear of upsetting persons
whose good intentions might extend further than their limited views because I had every reason for
believing that the work would not displease the holy see, to whose judgement I intend to submit
everything I do. I have always recognised the view of the holy see as noble, dignified and
completely in harmony with truth and justice, and its dogmatic decisions as incapable of error. For
me, "abuse" is only what the popes call such, and as such have corrected, although as "abuse" it has
been exaggerated by heretics and by evil men, and to this extent I have been prepared to justify
these reservations (cf. 71).

One example comes to mind, amongst others. In 1538 Paul III entrusted a Congregation of
Cardinals, Bishops and Religious, under oath, with the duty of seeking and manifesting freely to his
holiness all the abuses and deviations introduced in the Roman court iteslf. The commission was
composed of highly respected members: four great cardinals, Contarini, Caraffa, Sadoleto and Pole;
three learned bishops, Federico Fregoso of Salerno, Girolamo Alessandro of Brindisi,
Giovanmatteo Gilberti of Verona; Cortesi, abbot of San Giorgio at Venice, and Badia, Master of the
Sacred Palace, who both became cardinals.

These exemplary men, well-known for their learning, prudence and integrity, faithfully fulfilled
their task, and in their report to the holy father pointed to reversions and reservations, together with
everything defective about appointments to benefices, as a major abuse. They also uncovered and
indicated the profound root of such abuse in "the refined flattery of lawyers", which impeded both
state and ministers of the Church in the right exercise of their power - a view indicated by myself
also.

These consultors could not have used clearer or more effective language in their report to the pope.
They say: "Your Holiness, taught by the divine Spirit who, as Augustine says, speaks in the heart
without the clamour of words, is perfectly aware of the root of these evils, and knows how certain
of your predecessors accumulated for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, as the Apostle
says. Their aim was not to learn their duty, but to make use of the study and cunning of others to
legitimise what they wanted. Hence the appearance of learned men (without counting the adulation
that follows power like a shadow, and the difficulty of speaking the truth to rulers) who taught that
the pope is the owner of all benefices and therefore (since an owner can sell his property without
injustice) incapable of simony; and that the will of the pope, whatever it may be, is the rule
according to which he may direct his works and actions. Consequently, what was desirable became
lawful. Holy Father, the source of so many abuses and grave evils in the Church of God lies here.
Like a Trojan horse, it has poured its appalling host into the Church, burdening and challenging it.
Knowledge of such shame is current even amongst unbelievers (Your Holiness should believe those
who are aware of this) who as a result mock the christian religion. It is through us that the name of
Christ is blasphemed among the nations."

Such considerations were sufficient to quieten all my doubts, and peacefully and freely I began to
write this little study. May God use it for his glory and the benefit of his Church.

Correzzola,
18th November, 1832

Chapter 1

The wound in the left hand off holy Church:

the division between
people and clergy at public worship(1)

5. The author of the gospel is the author of the human race. Jesus Christ came to save the whole
person(2), a being composed of body and spirit. The law of grace and love had therefore to enter
and take possession as it were of both the spiritual and bodily elements of human nature; it had to
be presented to the world as capable of so doing, and hence had itself to be composed partly of
ideas and partly of action. Its obligatory and enlivening force had to appeal equally to intellect and
to feeling, so that everything human, even dry bones, might hear the will of the Creator and spring
to life.

6. It was not sufficient for the good news to penetrate each individual human being. Because the
gospel was intended to save all mankind, it had both to act on the elements which make up human
nature, and to accompany it with its divine action in all its developments. It needed to support
mankind in all its possible states so that human nature's bias or tendency to evil might not plunge it
to destruction; it needed to oversee human development according to a beneficial law of progressive
improvement; it needed to relate with men and women and unfold itself as they developed. In this
way it would take its place in the societies they formed, regenerating and saving every human
association - family, nation, mankind itself - after saving individuals. It was to impose saving laws
on all these groups, and rule them in the name of God the peacemaker. Societies are the work of
human beings, and because divine law rules and governs men and women, it is also the natural
governor and ruler of all their work.

7. The apostles, taught by the word and example of their Master, were sent by him to instruct and
baptise all nations. Conscious of their responsibility, they went into the world displaying the
plenitude of spirit which necessarily corresponded to such a mission.
They had no intention of founding a school of philosophy. Even in a school which taught only the
truth, few people would have accepted such preaching from them. The philosophy schools in
Greece did not depend for the number of their students upon the quantity of truth taught, nor the
amount of error avoided. Speaking every possible language would have been insufficient for the
successful outcome of their undertaking. And the gift of tongues alone would only have expressed
ideas in different ways to persons in need of facts. The apostles, unlike philosophers, brought reality
to mankind, not words alone. At one and the same time, therefore, while unveiling luminous truths
and profound mysteries to human understanding, and offering the heroic example of their lives for
imitation, they were able to give a powerful impetus to action through the new direction and life
they brought to the world.

I must make myself clear. When I speak of the works which the disciples used to illustrate their
words and render them fully effective, I am not referring simply to the wonders they imposed on
external nature to prove the divinity of their mission. The power they possessed enabling them to
subject the laws of nature in homage and witness to the truths they proclaimed could only convince
people that their teaching was true. But the truth of the teaching could be proved in other ways, and
people could be convinced without being satisfied. As I said, although human nature longs to
discover truth in the order of ideas, and cannot rest until it finds truth, yet another exigency is
present in human hearts: they long for happiness in the real order of things, and gravitate towards it
by a law of their nature.

8. Did the apostles reinforce their sublime words with the virtues they practised? Were these the
works of which we are speaking? Certainly virtue is an essential need for human beings. Without
moral dignity they are despicable in their own eyes and consequently unhappy. And the apostles did
indeed reveal to corrupt mankind all the virtues they themselves had seen in their divine Master and
imitated.

Did this prove effective?

As a matter of fact, virtue as a human necessity had been oppressed and suffocated in mankind by
idolatry and the fictitious needs of evil. There could be no approval of the apostles' virtue at the
deepest level of human nature because that depth had become an abyss, guarded by the Cerberus of
human perversity, into which light could not penetrate. Virtue in the Lord's apostles was repaid by
the cruel ferocity of the sons of men who tore the apostles to pieces and delighted in shedding their
blood. The distinguishing features of virtue were either unrecognised, or known only as an
incitement to hate. Some amongst the better disposed might have glimpsed traces of its beauty, or
felt attracted by its divine fascination, but the unattainable perfection with which it was practised by
Christ's ambassadors could only lead to desperation in good persons as they beheld their own moral
weakness. From desperation, they would have descended to degradation which in its turn leads to
the torpor of death wherein, overcome by depravation, human nature extinguishes its own activity
and acquiesces in known vice.

Such an effect would only be reinforced by the sight of the supernatural virtues, new to mankind,
which appeared in the lives of these new messengers of Christ. Virtue of this kind was unintelligible
and unjustifiable without the wisdom whose first step is to declare insane all that human
enlightenment seemed to have conquered to its own advantage and self-congratulation.

9. Neither the stupendous miracles nor the virtuous example which accompanied the teaching of the
gospel were sufficient to enable it to penetrate and rule the essential elements and development of
human nature. Miracles could only indicate the truth of what was practised which, of itself,
remained sterile and ineffective; virtue could not be appreciated nor desired by persons immersed in
vice. At best, virtue could be admired vainly and in part only by the few who looked upon it as
prodigious but beyond imitation by ordinary mortals.

What was the source of power that made the apostles' words more than mere words, and distanced
them so effectively from the words available to the teachers of human wisdom? What was the
source of the saving strength which forced its way into the human heart and triumphed there? What
did the apostles add to their words in order to save the whole person, intellect and feeling, and to
submit the entire world to a cross?

If we wish to answer these questions, we have to recall the text of the mission received by the
apostles from Christ Jesus who said: `Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptising
them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'(3). No human teacher had ever
spoken in this way to his disciples. The command they received from Christ determined the manner
in which the apostles were to act relatively to the passive and active elements in human nature.
Relative to the intellect, which is passive insofar as it has to receive truth, they were to `teach all
nations'; simultaneously, they were to regenerate the will, which embraces all human activity and
indeed the whole human being, by `baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Spirit.' A sacrament was instituted in which a hidden, re-creative force of the one, triune
God would bring about the renewal of the earth and the revitalisation of humanity immersed in sin
and eternally lost. This sacrament would be the gateway to all the others.

10. The sacraments, the greatest of which originates in the sacrifice of the Lamb who had said to his
apostles in feeding them with his flesh before dying: `Do this in remembrance of me'(4), were the
mysterious rites and powerful works with which the apostles reformed the whole world. The
sacraments were words, this is, signs, but not words ever heard in the schools of Greek wisdom;
they were words which not only taught the understanding, but revealed to the heart the undying
beauty of truth and the factual rewards of virtue; words which unveiled to human feeling the hidden
God who had concealed himself in order to remain uncontaminated by impure humanity. The
sacraments were words and signs of God, creating a new soul within the old, creating new life, new
heavens and a new earth. The apostles added to their preaching catholic worship, which consists
principally in the sacrifice, the sacraments, and the prayers in which these are expressed.

11. The teachers spread by preaching were of themselves abstractions; the practical operative power
aroused by worship was the source through which human beings were to attain the grace of the
Almighty. Normally speaking, the two words moral and practical are confused, and given a
common meaning. Moral philosophy, for example, is synonymous with practical philosophy. Hence
when a philosopher teaches moral precepts, he is easily persuaded that this makes him virtuous, just
as his disciples by hearing and learning the definition of vice and virtue imagine themselves to
possess virtue and be unstained by vice. What unhappy arrogance! Diabolic intellectual pride
believes that good resides totally in the intellect; it is unaware that knowledge is only a tenuous,
elementary beginning to good. It fails to see that true, complete good appertains to real action and
effective will, not to simple understanding. Nevertheless such intellectual arrogance is a perpetual
seduction for mankind, as alluring today as it was when humans heard the tempter say: `Your eyes
will be opened, and you will be like God'(5).

12. Consequently, when the author of mankind decided to reform human nature, he was not
satisfied with proclaiming moral precepts to the understanding; he also bestowed upon the will the
practical strength to carry them out. He united this strength to external rites to show that he was
giving it to men and women freely, and could condition it as he wished. These rites were also
sacraments, that is, signs, because they were to harmonise with the nature of the intelligent being
they were to save, and communicate life and salvation through fitting signs and words.
13. Grace, which strengthens the will, is communicated through the understanding. It is an
intellectual feeling enabling a christian to sense his God, live on this sense, and be vigorous in
action. The apostles and their successors followed the example given them by their divine Master:
to the few sacraments instituted by Christ they added prayers, ceremonies, outward understanding
and noble rites so that public worship of mankind's Redeemer might be more fitting for this
Incarnate God and the assembly who believed in his word. They introduced nothing devoid of
meaning into his temple; everything said and done had to signify sublime, divine truths. There
could be nothing mute or shadowy in sacred assemblies gathered together for the purpose of
adoring and petitioning the Being who enlightens the understanding of intellective creatures. Divine
intelligence leaves its mark where it receives rational worship, and of itself penetrates and enlivens
rational natures. Those ceremonies and sacramentals which the Church adds, according to the
power she has received, to the worship instituted by Christ - worship which is the foundation of all
catholic worship - not only have their own meaning as the sacraments do, but share in the vital
strength of the sacrament by which sacred truths made known to the mind descend through faith to
the heart, diffusing the healing virtue that regenerates and reanimates the will for good.

14. But another observation may be made about the worship introduced together with christian
preaching. This worship, to which God united the grace to render men and women capable of
practising the moral precepts they had received, was not simply a spectacle for the people to behold.
The people were not to be present simply to look at what was happening without genuinely
participating in this drama of religious worship. Christ's faithful people could indeed have been
taught solely by watching what takes place in church like spectators at a sacred play, and God, as
absolute Lord of his gifts could, if he so wished, have united the enlivening influence of his grace to
the mere sight of the functions exercised by the priests. This was not his intention. He wanted to
adapt everything for mankind in the most fitting way; the people in God`s temple were themselves
to be an important element in worship. Sometimes what was done would be applied to them, as in
the case of the sacraments and ministerial blessings; sometimes the people, united with the clergy as
much through their own understanding as in will and function, would act with the clergy, as in the
prayers they said, in their responses to the priests, in the exchange of peace, at the offertory, and
even as ministers of the sacrament at weddings. In the catholic Church the clergy sometimes act as
God's representative, speaking to the people and directing them in God's name; at other times the
clergy mix with the people and, forming part of the Head of mankind united with his Body, speak to
God, awaiting his mysterious, divine action of moral healing and restoration. The sublime worship
of holy Church is thus a single action of clergy and people together, the result of orderly, reasonable
accord working to bring about a single, combined homage.

15. All the faithful, clergy and people, represent and form in the Church the marvellous unity
indicated by Christ when he said: `Where two or three are gathered in my name, in agreement about
everything they ask, there am I in their midst'(6). Elsewhere, speaking to the Father, he says: `The
glory which you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one'(7).
This unity in spirit, of which Christ speaks in such sublime words, often repeated, has its basis in
the `clarity of intellective light' imparted by Christ so that the faithful might be one with him, and
cling to the identical truth, or rather to him who is truth. In order to be in perfect agreement about
their petitions to God, it is necessary or at least very helpful for those coming together for prayer to
understand what they say before the throne of the most High. Perfect unanimity of feeling and
desires is, as it were, a condition imposed by Christ on the worship rendered him by christians if
their prayer is to be acceptable and he is to be in their midst.

It is worthwhile noting the emphasis Christ lays on this condition in order to distinguish between
true christian prayer and prayer springing as it does from material worship and unformed faith. He
is not satisfied with affirming that his faithful people be united at prayer, nor that they pray with
united will. He states expressly that he wants them to be united `in everything they ask of him.' This
is a measure of Christ's care for those belonging to him. He does not seek material unity, but the
unity of mind and heart which forms one person of the entire christian faithful of every condition
gathered around the altar of our Saviour - Israel which fights and advances as `one man', as
Scripture puts it. But the people are in harmony and perfectly united when christians in God's
temple carry out divine service generally speaking with one accord through understanding of their
own role and through their realisation of what is being done in church. All will then have the
common interest at heart and be present not only materially speaking, but with perfect
understanding of the sacred mysteries, prayers, symbols and rites which make up divine worship.
Hence it is necessary or at least highly useful that the people understand what is said and done in
the holy sacrifice, in the administration of the sacraments, and in all church services. Their
separation from the Church at worship through lack of comprehension is the first of those gaping
wounds dripping with blood in the mystical Body of Jesus Christ.

16. I do not mean to say that a Christian cannot pray well or offer acceptable prayer to God if
without any fault on his part he remains ignorant of the meaning of the Church's rites or unable to
understand explicitly what is said and done at public worship. I know indeed that `the Spirit', as St.
Paul says, `likewise helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought; but the
Spirit himself intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words'(8). I realise that the voice of simple,
uneducated people, if prompted by the Spirit, penetrates heaven itself. If it were not so, mankind
would be lost! I simply want to affirm that Christ and the Church have instituted divine worship,
composed of words and meaningful signs, for the christian people in order that they may respond
and take an active part in it. It follows, and is in conformity with the intentions of Christ and the
Church that the people, generally speaking, should assist at and fulfil the functions assigned them
with as much understanding as possible.

In this way fervour, appreciation, reverence and devotion increase at worship, and above all the
people are united to the clergy through better understanding of the clergy's true dignity. Love grows
between clergy and people, and amongst the faithful making up the people, through unanimity of
holy desires and religious feeling. Communication in spirit allows all to feel truly united in one
heart and soul as the family of God the Father. This in its turn contributes very effectively to the
diffusion in the hearts of the faithful of the very Spirit who prays and beseeches the Father with
sighs too deep for words. Such unity helps to keep the christian people warmly attached to their
teachers in Christ, and submissive and obedient to the clergy whose duty it is to direct them in the
way of salvation.

17. There are two principal reasons, it would seem, for such a painful and unhappy division in the
Church.
The symbols instituted by Christ and the rites added by the Church express and reflect all the
dogmatic and moral teaching of the gospel in language common, as it were, to every nation, that is,
the language of signs which visibly manifest the truth. However, in order to understand fully this
natural, universal language, those to whom it is spoken need first to know the truths of which they
are reminded by that language. Hence, the christian people understand and grasp the sublime
meaning of their worship only in so far as they have been instructed through the preaching of the
gospel. Consequently, Christ wanted the truth to be taught prior to the practice of worship. He said
first: `teach all nations'; then, `baptise them.' Lack of full, living instruction amongst christians
(impeded by the pagan prejudice that it is better to keep them half-ignorant, as incapable of
absorbing the great truths of faith) is the first cause of the wall of division raised up between the
people and the ministers of the Church.
18. I have mentioned full, living instruction. There is, of course, no lack of material instruction of
which we have perhaps more today than in any other age. Everyone has learned the catechism by
heart, and we know that the catechism contains in its formulas the simplest, most exact and final
expressions of dogmatic truth. Such concise formulas are the combined work of the learned of all
ages, assisted especially by the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Councils and in the Church
scattered throughout the world. Precise dogmatic formulas are certainly a sign of progress: every
word in them reflects the truth; through them teachers possess a sure method, without much study
on their part, of imparting the most profound and sublime mysteries to the faithful whom they
instruct. But is it altogether an advantage for teachers of christian truth to be dispensed from the
study of what they teach?

Although the faithful can easily be taught exact formulas, is it equally easy for teachers to penetrate
the understanding and subsequently reach the heart with such means? Doctrine has been
synthesised; its dogmatic expressions have been refined to perfection; formulas have been fixed and
rendered unique; but has this led to greater understanding for ordinary intelligences? On the
contrary, multiplicity and variety of expression would seem to offer a more suitable method for
making the truth available for ordinary people. One expression clarifies another, and what is
unsuitable for one person is very acceptable to another. The riches abounding in the divine word
enable every path and gateway to be used in the effort to make the word assimilable by the spirit of
the hearers. A solitary, fixed expression stands immobile and lifeless, and leaves the mind and heart
unmoved. The teacher who repeats by heart what he does not understand may recite exactly what he
has learned, but his frozen teaching will chill rather than warm his listeners.

Full, perfect expressions and formulas require greater understanding and better explanation if they
are to be grasped adequately. For the majority of people they are like dry bread which a baby will
only digest after it has been made into pap. Imperfect formulas, used long ago to teach christian
dogma, possessed one advantage in their imprecision. They did not communicate the truth whole
and entire to humanity, but allowed it to be assimilated a little at a time. Defects in these
expressions, if there were any, were remedied by lengthy comments which brought together and
united those parts of the truth apparently separated by the external word. Perhaps we should say that
the truth came together and united of itself in the minds and hearts it had entered, before confirming
and completing itself therein. Certainly the truth cannot operate in the human spirit if people are
satisfied with its dead image. Words expressing the truth exactly, but barely arousing attention, die
in the listeners' ears. It is true that we examine our children in the principal mysteries before
admitting them to the great sacraments of the Church; in turn the children recite the formulas, and
this is accepted as proof that they know them. Yet it is extremely doubtful whether children who
say the catechism by heart know the mysteries any better than those who have never heard of the
catechism.

Must we say then that the modern use of the cathechism does more harm than good to holy Church?
If it did, this would be a strange result for a method which, considered in itself, showed so much
promise. However, what St. Paul said about the law of Moses must be applied to these exceptional
compendia of christian doctrine: `They are certainly holy, just and good, and helpful when used
lawfully'(9). The defect lies in the user, not in the catechism, good in itself and excellent for modern
purposes because it is the outcome of inevitable progress affecting everything human within the
ambit of christianity. Conscientious and spiritual teachers can indeed use it well. The clergy must
realise that the good or evil produced by the catechism will be their responsibility. They will be held
to account for this, as they will be for all the other wonderful discoveries with which the Holy Spirit
continually enriches the Church of the Word. Dead in themselves, they await their life from the
wisdom of the clergy.
19. But it is not only the rites which speak to christians. Actions and visible signs were
accompanied by the spoken word added by Christ in founding his worship, and by the Church. At
the beginning language had to vary from one nation to another. Nevertheless Providence prepared
the Roman empire in order to overcome obstacles to prompt communication, and Latin was taken
almost to the ends of the earth. The peoples called to the gospel possessed a common language
enabling them to understand the words accompanying, explaining and, more importantly, forming
the sacraments and the rites. Words become the form of the sacraments because Christ wished to
speak clearly to the understanding through very determined signs. His mystical work would depend
upon the way in which he spoke to the intelligence. It was fitting, therefore, to unite the power of
the sacrament to the words used, not to the matter of the sacrament which of itself is changeable and
undetermined. The words indicate to the understanding the use to which the matter is put. In this
way the intelligence is enlightened by the meaning of what it sees, and strengthened by the grace
administered in the sacred rite. The grace of the sacraments, which work ex opere operato, is not of
course impeded by ignorance of the meaning of the words in persons who receive the sacraments,
although understanding their meaning enables christians to co-operate more effectively with grace
itself.

But wars and migrations changed languages. The Church's tongue ceased to be the language of the
people who, as a result of this immense change, found themselves in darkness. Intellectually, they
were cut off from the Church which continued to speak to them, about them and in them. Like
strangers in a foreign land, they were unable to reply to the unintelligible sounds whose meaning
they had long forgotten.

20. The diminution of living instruction and the demise of Latin were two calamities falling
simultaneously and for the same reason upon the christian people. Barbarian invasions flooded
southwards. The pagan spirit, and paganism itself, still formed the core of society; till then, christian
teaching had only taken hold of individuals. The conversion of the emperors brought powerful
people into the Church, but only as individuals. Christianity, however, was destined to receive total
obedience, and it was ordained that the word of Christ should penetrate society, judge both learning
and the arts after judging human beings, and be the seed bed for every culture, every human
achievement, and every social bond.

Providence condemned ancient society to destruction and shook it to its foundations. Judgment was
carried out by successive waves of barbarians, guided by the angels of the Lord. The Roman empire
was ruined, and its very ruins swept away by the invaders who thus prepared a clear site for
building the new society of believers.

In the history of mankind, the middle ages are an abyss separating new and ancient worlds, divided
from one another like two continents with an endless sea between them. On the scales of divine
wisdom, the two calamities of ignorance and of the loss of Latin which fell upon mankind in these
circumstances weighed less than the good intended through the radical destruction of social
institutions and habitual idolatry. This was the terrible judgment by which the eternal God hastened
the arrival on earth of a society baptised in blood and regenerated by his living Word.

21. Although God allowed the Church to be pierced by this agonising wound of separation between
priesthood and people at divine service and worship, is such a wound irremediable? Is it true that
the people, who took a very active part in christian worship when it was first instituted, are now to
have scarcely a material presence at worship? I say `scarcely' because it is very difficult for
civilised people to be present at rites which they neither understand nor share(10). Their repugnance
to attendance in christian churches then becomes an excuse for human imprudence to interpret
falsely our Redeemer's word `compel them to enter.'
If nations are capable of being healed, the ills suffered by the Church are certainly more curable. It
seems to me an insult to the divine Creator to imagine that Jesus, who begged his eternal Father to
make `his disciples one as he and his Father were one'(11), would permit such a wall of separation
between people and clergy to remain intact, and everything said and done at the celebration of the
divine mysteries to be overlaid with artifice. He cannot permit the people upon whom the light of
the Word has shone, and who have been reborn for the worship of the Word, to be present at the
great acts of worship as though they were statues or pillars in the Lord's temple, deaf to their mother
the Church at those solemn moments when she speaks and acts in her own person as Church. Nor
can he permit the priesthood, cut off from the people on some inaccessible, enclosed and injurious
height, to degenerate into an elite separate from church society as a whole, with its own interests,
laws and customs. For such are the inevitable consequences of an apparently slight cause. They are
the inevitable results of a priesthood retaining its material presence among the people, but in fact
cut off from the popular assembly of the faithful.

22. But if the wound can be healed, what dressing is to be used, and who will apply it?
Although we have shown the disadvantage resulting from the people's inability to understand Latin,
we do not think that the liturgy may fittingly be translated into the vernacular. Latin, Greek and
Oriental Churches have consistently retained their liturgies in the ancient languages in which they
were written, and we know that divine wisdom assists the catholic Church in her disciplinary
rulings as well as in her dogmatic and moral decisions. We accept this divine wisdom fully(12), and
recognise that the disadvantages of an unknown language in sacred services is compensated by
other factors. Putting the sacred rites into the vernacular would induce problems greater than the
remedies imposed.

The principal advantages of ancient languages are: they reflect the immutability of the faith; they
unite many different christian peoples in a single rite with the same sacred tongue, and thus impress
more surely the unity and greatness of the Church, and its common brotherhood; they give an other-
worldly, superhuman atmosphere through their sense of age and mystery (which explains pagans'
constant use of ancient, hence sacred and divine, languages in their religious ceremonies and
prayers); they offer a solid sense of reassurance to the people who realise that they are praying to
God in the same words employed for centuries by the holy men and women who preceded us in
Christ; they have been adapted by the saints to express fittingly all the divine mysteries.

The disadvantages of putting the liturgy and the prayers of the Church into modern languages are
principally as follows - in addition to the loss of the advantages mentioned above. The great number
of modern languages, besides entailing immense work, would be the cause of severe division
amongst the people; unity and concord, the very aim of this book, would suffer accordingly.
Modern languages are variable and unstable, and would bring constant changes to the essentially
stable character of what is sacred; such changes could not be given the sufficient continual
consideration needed to ensure they were not dangerous to the faith itself. The people,
understandably attached to the uniformity and stability of the worship they imbibed as children,
would be unnerved by these changes and disposed to think that religion varied according to
language. Modern languages would not always have developed sufficiently to express fittingly the
entire religious content of the ancient languages formed for this purpose by the spirit of christianity
through the work of the saints. I have not enumerated all the advantages of ancient languages, nor
all the disadvantages of modern languages, but what I have said is sufficient to show conclusively
that the damage caused by the separation of clergy from people in the sacred services cannot be
remedied by introducing new languages into the Churches. The use of these languages in place of
those consecrated by centuries would imply a cure worse than the disease.
23. If modern languages are excluded, only two solutions are at hand. First, the study of Latin
amongst the faithful should be encouraged as much as possible. Better teaching methods would be
of great help here. Second, the christian people should be given a thorough grounding in the
meaning of the sacred functions, while the literate faithful (and all should be able to read) need to
be introduced habitually to divine services with the help of books containing a translation of the
Latin used in church.

But we asked who would apply the dressing to the wound. The clergy. Only the catholic clergy can
prepare the remedy and then heal the wound we have described. The clergy have received a mission
involving every kind of loving work; their lips speak the work of life; Christ has made them an
instrument of salvation for humanity; they are salt, light, healers. What prevents the immediate
application of the remedies? Another wound, dripping blood like the first; that is, the insufficient
education of the clergy themselves.

Notes.

(1) "Division" here does not indicate separation in that communion and spirit which can never be
lacking in the Church of Jesus Christ, but absence of the strong, actual union springing up between
clergy and people when the latter understand fully the rites and prayers that the former carry out or
say in the divine services.

(2) John 7. 23

(3) Matt 28. 19

(4) Luke 20. 19; I Cor 11. 24-25 [Luke 22. 19]

(5) Gen 3. 5

(6) Matt 18. 20

(7) John 17. 22

(8) Rom 8. 26-27

(9) Rom 7. 12; 1. Tim 1. 8

(10) The foundation of oratories and marian associations was the work of holy men who saw that
the Church's public worship did not provide sufficient nourishment for the piety of the christian
people. Such foundations were vigorously opposed by the rigidity of persons more interested in
theory than in new circumstances. According to such opponents, these novelties in the Church,
unknown in ancient days, were almost an insult to normal church services, as though what had been
sufficient for the Church in the first centuries was sufficient no longer. These harsh, unbending
critics were unaware that sacred functions had become inaccessible to the people. St. Philip Neri,
St. Ignatius and men like them, whose only desire was the good of the people, are formidable
witnesses to the truth of what we say.

(11) John 17. 11 [John 17. 22]

(12) The following was defined in the dogmatic Bull: Auctorem Fide, promulgated by Pius VI:
"The proposition of the Synod [of Pistoia], which purports to show that the causes blamed in part
for the demise of principles relating to the good organisation of liturgy should be eliminated by
reinstating greater simplicity in the rites, by the use of the vernacular, and by speaking aloud, is
rash, offensive to pious ears and devisive in the Church where it encourages heretical gatherings."

Chapter 2

The wound in the right hand of holy Church:

the insufficient education of the clergy

24. Preaching and the liturgy were the two great schools open to the christian people in the finest
period of the history of the Church. Through preaching, the faithful were taught by the word; in the
liturgy, by words and rites, especially by the sacrifice and sacraments to which their divine Founder
united certain supernatural effects.

Both forms of instruction were complete. They were destined for the whole person rather than for
one element in human nature; and in penetrating human beings they conquered them. Words were
not intended only for intellectual understanding, nor were symbols restricted in their action to the
senses alone. By way of mind and senses, words and symbols touched the heart and infused
christians with a mysterious, divine feeling, superior to everything created.

Like the grace which was its source, this feeling was all-powerful in its operation. The words used
in preaching the gospel came from holy men who poured upon their listeners their own overflowing
spiritual abundance; the rites, already efficacious of themselves, were made more fruitful by the
honest and good heart of the faithful who had been prepared for the salvation they brought by the
preaching of their pastors and a clear understanding of everything done to them and by them in the
Church.

Priests came from the midst of christians such as these. They were formed for the honour of
ministering in the Church by instruction equal to their faith, which they had absorbed together with
the rest of the faithful in prayer when God visited his people with grace. It was this kind of teaching
which revealed religion in all its fullness to their understanding and intimate feeling. If we were
informed only about the faithful and their assemblies in the first days of the Church, we could easily
describe their priests.

This helps to explain certain episodes that seem incredible nowadays. For instance, a crowd appeals
for a layman as pastor and within a few days, despite his initial refusal, he becomes a proven
bishop. Thus in ancient days St. Ambrose, St. Alexander, St. Martin and St. Peter Chrysologus were
amongst the many examples of men suddenly elevated to the episcopate from a humble lay state,
from a hidden life or from a life devoted to secular responsibility. Set on a candlestick quite
unexpectedly, their splendour gave light to the whole Church

25. By the same standard, our own clergy are no better than our faithful. Generally speaking, it
cannot be otherwise. They come from amongst christians who have never understood anything of
the sacred ceremonies. As uncomprehending onlookers these christians have been present at
spectacles in which the part played by priests is obscure to them. Perhaps they have never had any
feeling for their own dignity as members of the Church, nor imagined or experienced the union in
one body and one spirit in which clergy and people, prostrate before almighty God, relate with him
and he with them. Many perhaps have considered the clergy privileged and enviable because priests
live on the fruit of their ministry; perhaps they have thought of priests as superiors exercising their
function in the same detached way as other rulers, rather than as a nobler part of the Body of Christ.
It would not have occurred to them as lay people that they are lesser members, but nevertheless
members, of this one Body which merits by a single action, prays with a single voice, offers a single
sacrifice and obtains from heaven a single grace. Hence we hear it said that church affairs are the
priests' business.

How can we begin to instruct and form in a truly outstanding, priestly tradition such ill-prepared
candidates? They are ignorant of basic elements that should be presumed present in them as suitable
for further development. When such individuals come forward, they have no idea of the kind of
knowledge required of priests, no idea of what they themselves desire in becoming priests, no idea
of what they are about to undertake as candidates for the priesthood.

26. Even worse is the way in which such lack of preparation is camouflaged in aspirants for priestly
education. Solid ground is the basis of all building, and this is especially true of priestly knowledge
which supposes a christian existence. The first grade of priesthood is in fact the christian himself.
This explains the complete lack of ecclesial understanding in candidates for the priesthood, and
their clear grasp of worldly ideas; they have never known anything else. Moreover, the worldly
spirit, concealed by their good behaviour, that they bring with their secular ideas is disguised for a
time by their clerical dress. Superiors are fooled, and cannot see that this is insufficient for the
Church of Christ, who has come to fill everything with himself, especially the minds of priests
destined to know and make known to others the grandeur of a religion that has to conquer and save
all mankind.

The poverty and misery of ideas and feelings which form the preparation and training of modern
ecclesiastics produces priests ignorant of the nature of christian laity, of christian priesthood and of
the sacred bond between them. Ministers with petty hearts and narrow minds, they grow up as
priests and leaders of churches, educating priests weaker and baser than themselves. In their turn
these become fathers amd teachers of others who necessarily sink lower with every generation,
because a "disciple is not above his master" (1) until God in his compassionate mercy comes to the
aid of his beloved Church (2).

27. Only great men can form great men. This is another merit of education offered to priests in
earlier ages; they were taught by the best men the Church possessed. The opposite is the second
reason for the insufficient education of modern priests.

In the first centuries the bishop's home was the seminary for priests and deacons. The holy life and
presence of the leader of the Church was a continual, sublime and burning lesson during which the
bishop's learning and pastoral practice were imparted together. Bishops like Alexander had
candidates like the young Athanasius; men like Sixtus educated heroes like Laurence. Almost every
great bishop trained a worthy successor in his own household - someone who would inherit his
piety, his fervour and his wisdom. This kind of instruction produced the great pastors who adorned
the first six centuries of the Church. Such teaching was broad and complete, and ensured the
handing on of the sacred deposit of divine, apostolic doctrine made known orally through family
tradition. Instruction itself was apostolic because men like Irenaeus, Pantaenus, Hermas and many
others had drawn their wisdom from the disciples of the apostles, just as these - Evodius, Clement,
Timothy, Titus, Ignatius and Polycarp are examples - had been educated at the feet of the apostles
themselves, to use a scriptural phrase.
Christians believed in grace, and believed that the words of a pastor established as teacher and ruler
of the Church by Christ received particular, unique efficacy from the Church's Founder. Faith like
this gave backbone and supernatural life to the teaching of doctrine indelibly impressed in the spirit.
Everything co-operated to make the teaching effective: the eloquence with which it was imparted,
holiness of life, serenity and seriousness in daily living, the deep conviction of the great man who
unfolded it.

Irenaeus has left us a description of his own initial training under the great bishop Polycarp. "I
remember much better what happened then than what has occurred since. The things we learn in
infancy and grow up with in spirit are never forgotten. I can even point to the place where blessed
Polycarp sat when he preached the Word of God. I remember vividly the gravity with which he
moved from place to place, his sanctity in everything he did, the dignity of his features and bearing,
the many exhortations he preached to his people. I can almost hear the way in which he described
his conversations with St. John and others who had seen Jesus Christ. He would relate the words he
had heard from their lips, and the details they had given him about our divine Saviour, and his
miracles and teaching. All that he said was in complete harmony with the holy Scriptures, as we
would expect from persons who had been eye-witnesses of the Word and of the message of life.
Through God's mercy I listened attentively and fervently to all these things, and inscribed them not
on tablets but in the depth of my heart. God has given me the grace to remember them always, and
to meditate on them in spirit" (3).

28. This was the type of wise, efficacious, ministerial education imparted by holy bishops to
develop their own clergy. As a result there was a constant supply of great men, conscious of their
sacred dignity as priests and replete with their priesthood. It is not necessary to indicate how such
training gave birth to intense unity between the chief pastor and his disciples, his children, who
formed his clergy. "Higher" or "lower clergy" were terms unknown in the Church at this time, and
only came into use much later. In olden days bishops were responsible for the unity of learning,
communication of holiness, a common way of life, and affection amongst the younger clergy for
whose sake their own constant renewal fitted them to be teachers, pastors and fathers.

Union of this kind led to admirable order and uniformity in the government of the Church, respect
for the priesthood, and the exercise of saving power over the people. Selected and educated under
this system, even a small body of clergy was enough for the needs of the Church. A simple priest
was held in greatest honour by his accession to the priesthood and, by his presence amongst the
clergy at the call of his bishop (4), received fitting consideration from people and churches.
Traditional, broadly based respect for the priesthood increased respect for the episcopate, while
priests naturally felt themselves bound by affective submission to their bishops (5).

29. We should not be surprised to find that these holy bishops jealously reserved the education of
the clergy for themselves. Even the instruction of the people was confided to others only with great
difficulty, and very rarely (6). Bishops were aware that Christ had entrusted to them the whole
flock, clergy and people together, and had filled them with his word, directing their sacramental
character principally towards mission and grace.

30. The religion of Jesus crucified conquered tyrants and heretics by the formation of sensitive and
virtuous clergy but it was destined by its invisible Head for an equally glorious victory over the
invading barbarians. As I have indicated, Providence sent barbarians from the north to destroy
ancient society from its foundations. The world at large could thus grasp the power of Christ's word
to survive the destruction of empires and of all human endeavour, to revitalise buried cadavers, and
to recreate ruined society in a manner worthy of Providence itself.
Human beings are social by nature, and the experience of total division, with its consequent
degradation, solitude, helplessness and despair, blots out all hope of survival. Instinctively people
turn to religion and the aid of the supernatural as their final safeguard; religion provides the hope
they need for complete revival in the midst of total disaster because this hope is as powerful as God
himself. Hence we see feeling for religion precede the development of every social instrument and
institution, and survive their destruction. Religion is pre-eminent at the birth of nations, and at their
revival from disintegration. In this way every culture and all social bonds are the offspring of
religion as nations come into being.

This providential disposition, by which nations are saved, prepared the way in due time, that is in
the middle ages, for christendom. The one, true religion was to be in no way inferior in its action to
false, imperfect religions which, despite their restricted vision of truth, had nevertheless been of
great assistance in the development of social bonds and progress amongst nations. True religion,
possessing complete truth, pure and full revelation, and redeeming power would indeed far surpass
in its social effects all that imperfect religion had achieved.

In the midst of their tremendous disasters, therfore, nations fled for help to the religion in which
they had already recognised such superiority in spiritual and divine matters, but now for the first
time they asked for assistance at a human level. The universal mother of the faithful answered the
appeal with her innate charity and became comfort, shield and organiser of devasted, despairing
peoples.

The clergy, without knowing how it came about, found themselves at the head of these peoples.
Having answered charity's irresistible call to help crumbling society, the clergy became against all
expectations the fathers of orphaned cities and rulers of abandoned public affairs. The Church was
suddenly flooded with worldly honours and riches flowing in of their own accord, like an ocean
pouring in through newly opened gaps in the sea wall.

31. The new work undertaken by the clergy in the sixth century was a tremendous burden to holy
bishops who beheld the Church groaning under the weight of earthly goods as it lost the precious
poverty so highly recommended by the early Fathers (7). At the same time, bishops themselves
were overwhelmed by worldly business which distracted them from divine contemplation, requiring
valuable time and energy previously devoted to preaching Christ's message to the faithful, to
training the clergy, and to public and private prayer.

St. Gregory the Great, who ruled the Church during this period, was inconsolable at the sight of the
dangers he saw necessarily accompanying the new career opening before the Church. His letters
refer constantly to his unhappiness about the circumstances which led him to act as acarius, or
treasurer to the emperor, rather than as bishop, and "under the flag of church government to be
tossed about and often submerged by the waves of the world" (8). This phrase is often repeated, and
is used in a letter to Theoctista, sister of the emperor Maurice, where Gregory wishes to impress on
her his own unhappiness at losing the peace he had enjoyed as a monk before becoming pope.

"Dressed as a bishop", he says, "I have returned to the world. Modern conditions subject me in my
pastoral duty (9) to more cares than I ever had in my life as a layman. The delight I enjoyed in my
retired life has vanished; promoted, or so it seems from an onlooker's point of view, I have been
inwardly demoted. I weep for my loss of the vision of the Creator. Every day I tried to separate
myself from the world and the flesh, to eliminate the fantasies that attracted my imagination, and to
behold the joy of heaven. From the depths of my heart I longed for God, and cried out: 'My heart
says to you: My face has sought you. Your face, Lord, do I seek' (Ps 26) [Ps 27, 9]. Without desire
or fear for anything in this world, I seemed to tower over everything created. I almost believe that
the Lord's promise through his prophet had been fulfilled in me: 'I will make you ride upon the
heights of the earth' (Is 58). With business concluded I want to return within, but find my way
barred by my own yapping thoughts. What is within has distanced itself from me, and made it
impossible for me to obey the cry of the prophet: 'Return to me with all your heart' (Ps 38) [Joel 2,
12]."

Gregory complains at length because: "earthly business makes it impossible for me not only to
preach about the Lord's miracles, but even to meditate upon them." The worry he undergoes from
worldly affairs undermines the unworldly glory of his position as bishop, and he is now amongst
those of whom it is said: "You did set them in slippery places; you made them fall into ruin" (Ps 72)
[Ps 73, 17] (10).

32. This, however, was the method used by Providence to achieve its aim of bringing the religion of
Christ into human society, or rather of creating a new, christian society. And Providence is never
betrayed by events. The christian religion entered all components of society in the middle ages, and
used them to administer balm to gangrenous wounds. Mankind, devastated and prostrate after
centuries of disaster, acquired new courage and new life. The religion brought into the world by
Christ became a mother to ancient humanity, which beheld itself rejuvenated after the round of
long, cruel trials to which it had been subject. She educated her new offspring, born of her divine
love. A new seed was sown which blossomed into the modern institutions of our civilisation.

This seed is social justice, unheard of in the ancient world, but essentially christian and always
resplendent despite the unceasing attempts by human passion to overshadow it. In fact, the great
King has dedicated his Providence to preserving his work. The aim of Providence, which has
everything at its disposition, is simple: the greater glory of the Beloved of God, and the sublime
destiny of the kingdom he has heroically conquered.

The result was what might have been expected: the rulers of the new nations forming the offspring
of the gospel perceived the power of this religion which had established their new states, and
consecrated their crowns to it. They themselves thus became unheard-of examples of christian
virtue. As a result the middle ages was a period in which almost every throne in Europe had a saint
as sovereign. The highest glory of these men was to be children and tributaries of the Church. Their
entire life was dedicated to understanding how to temper ferocious power with the meekness of the
gospel which had been preached by the bishops, and which they took as the source of equity in law
and of devout piety in government. But this is also the reason why the clergy were sinking to utter
corruption as rulers were ascending to greater holiness.

33. The clergy began their involvement in worldly affairs reluctantly, and easily lost heart when
burdened with temporalities. However, they soon grew used to them - the clergy were human - and
to secular business. New to this kind of existence and still lacking the cunning to protect themselves
from the dangers inherent in the work, they gradually lost the meek, spiritual behaviour proper to
pastoral government. Its place was taken only too soon by the ferocity and materialism proper to
secular governments. The clergy were happy to share the company of the rich, and to imitate their
way of life.

From that moment they lost all satisfaction with the little flock of Christ, and dedicated themselves
eagerly to political and economic administration. They had no difficulty in finding reasons for
persuading themselves that these occupations were also the most pressing for the Church. Self-
interest is never backward in inventing excuses for itself. The people's instruction and pastoral care
was unloaded onto the lower clergy as a troublesome burden, or at least a secondary responsibility.
In the 10th century, parishes - good, progressive and praiseworthy considered in themselves - were
instituted even in the cities under the eyes of the bishops, whose residences were no longer
flourishing schools of church wisdom and holiness for young, new hopes of the Church, but
princely courts crammed with soldiers and courtiers. Bishops' homes lost the fine character given
them by burning, apostolic zeal, by profound meditation and by the echoes of divine eloquence. The
highest praise they could merit was to be recognised as moderately bad, and as some kind of brake
to military pride. The pastoral care of the people at large was gradually left entirely to the lower
clergy. Little by little, parish priests became pastors in the eyes of the people, and the bishop's role
as pastor (11), entrusted to him by Christ, the only Pastor, was forgotten.

The lower clergy and the bishops were divided ever more effectively by their different and indeed
opposite employments. Common life ceased, and contact between the two elements of the clergy
lessened as it became more troublesome to both sides. Widely separated castes will always have
difficulty in finding common ground for communication. Naturally the respect and filial love of the
priests changed into frightened subjection, while the kind, paternal authority of the bishops took on
the appearance of a mixture of joking contempt and compassion. As a result the lower clergy fell in
the estimation of the people, and the higher clergy gained a kind of spurious honour (12). Is it to be
wondered that the door was left open to every sort of vileness in the ranks of priests, and that the
priestly character became despicable to priests themselves after sinking so low in the eyes of the
people?

It is true that preaching and the care of souls were put almost entirely into the hands of the lower
clergy. Such duties through their essential holiness could have kept these priests from the abyss.
Nevertheless, as soon as the higher clergy had almost no claim to dignity except riches and power,
the ambitions of ordinary priests naturally focused upon what they envied in their bishops. The
word of God, the sacrifice and the sacraments became the object of a pitiful trade which renewed a
thousand times daily Judas' sale of his divine Master. Sacred rites, devotions, prayers and even
dogmas were valued, preached and ministered to the people by the priests for the income they could
provide. The people themselves remained ignorant of many parts of christian knowledge and
wisdom, but were always perfectly aware of the special teaching about prayers for the dead,
blessings, the commandments of the Church and indulgences, all of which were profitable to those
who ministered them from the sanctuary. In fact, the people knew more about these matters than
can be found in christian doctrine.

As a result, priests fell to such a level of degradation that bishops imagined they could not even
think about them without loss of dignity. They certainly did not find it fitting to take trouble about
providing what they considered unnecessary education. Vice was everywhere. Attempts were made
to remedy it by means of laws and penalties, but these were simple legal instruments more in
keeping with secular than ecclesiastical government. They could not uproot moral evil, but were
simply intended to block vice at all costs and prevent its unrestrained overflow.

Finally the dykes gave way, and the Church was flooded with every kind of evil. Immense waves
battered it, toppling its pagan luxury and material grandeur. The mother of the faithful was
disowned by her own children, and entire nations fled from the tragic sight their own
shortsightedness was incapable of foretelling.

The episcopate was chastised by Providence in a sudden, unexpected move. Accustomed to

persuading themselves that their best interests were advanced through the acquisition of a few more
square metres of land, or greater power in temporal affairs, bishops failed to notice that nations
were retreating from their influence. The people whom they had deserted for the sake of material
advantage left them in return, and took with them everything that human beings normally possess.
While bishops were engaged with their own narrow self-interest, they suddenly found themselves
rejected, set aside and annihilated in hundreds of dioceses through some seemingly invisible
command. The episcopate in fact often had so small an opinion of itself that it abdicated
spontaneously (the bishops in Germany, France and England cashiered themselves, in a manner of
speaking).

But the episcopate can never perish completely, although it may be punished. The word of Christ
has established it until the end of time. It rose, therefore, from its lethargy, took fright at its peril
and realised that one of the primary causes of the disorder threatening it was the neglected
education of the clergy. The remedy eventually devised was the foundation of seminaries.

34. Seminaries were established to overcome the total lack of education amongst the clergy, just as
catechisms were intended to remedy the total lack of popular instruction. Courage was missing -
and return to the old style of education by which the bishop in person formed his people and his
clergy could not be expected. Burdens of this kind were the business of the lower clergy.
Nevertheless bishops were more vigilant, discipline was immensely improved, morals were
reformed, and great progress became apparent in the limited material sphere of activity then open to
the lower clergy for some centuries.

The art of providing great men for the Church was, however, not revived (although God provided
them for the Church in his own way on occasion). There was a dearth of priests who knew the vast
extent of their mission and recognised the sublime grandeur and universality of the Church. Priests
interiorly possessed and dominated by the Word, who formed the character of the earliest clergy,
were not being formed. There was no evidence of that feeling for the Word which absorbs the soul,
drawing it from the transitory to the eternal world where the spirit can catch fire to set the whole
world ablaze. I have to say again: only great men can form great men. Compare the teachers if you
want to have some idea of the disciples! On one side you have the bishops of long ago, or some of
the most famous men in the Church; on the other, the young professors in our seminaries. What a
contrast!

35. Think for a moment of the caution and care that went into the establishment of a non-episcopal
school for the people (13), and a fortiori for the clergy, in the early days of the Church! A bishop
would only institute such a school if he were sure of wisdom and holiness in the persons to whom
he entrusted it. This is clear from what we know of the foundation of the school of Alexandria, the
first of its kind, under St. Mark (14).

On the other hand, think of the apparent abundance of suitable lecturers available today for forming
the clergy according to the teaching and religion of Christ! Every diocese possesses a seminary, and
every seminary abundant staff. So many priests are easily available for this work that a bishop has
no dificulty in finding men to teach the candidates for the priesthood. Indeed, they can be changed
after a few years and promoted to some less impecunious benefice. New men can take their places,
although their only qualification is a senior course in a seminary, that non plus ultra of modern
ecclesiastical knowledge. They have no experience of life, and still have to learn the ordinary
principles of common sense from contact with the people. After their course they are put to work,
and honourably dispensed from further study.

Knowledge of religion has neither root nor unity in their spirit. What they learned at the seminary
was compartmentalised, or rather restricted entirely to those parts considered necessary for carrying
out perfunctorily and formally the ecclesiastical duties thought to be necessary for satisfying justice
towards people and government. The young priest's spirit is devoid of all sense and understanding
of religious knowledge. His ability lies in his memory which makes him in his own eyes more fit
for teaching than a truly learned man.

His students, needless to say, are also memory men. But it was of solid instruction, not of mere
memory work, that Clement of Alexandria was writing when he spoke of his own teacher as "a
Sicilian bee sucking at the flowers in the prophetic and apostolic fields in order to provide the
honey of genuine, incorrupt knowledge for the spirit of those who would listen to him" (15).

Finally, we must remember that in modern times the salary attached to a post is sufficient indication
of the opinion in vogue about the class of persons who undertake it. The low wage obtaining in
seminaries is enough to raise doubts about the worth of teachers whose idea of bliss is to leave the
seminary for the parochial benefice that has been their aim during their service in the seminary (16).

36. When instruction of the clergy was entrusted to inferior teachers of this kind, it was only natural
for them to eliminate the books of wise and holy men, and use in their place inferior textbooks
"adapted for youth", as their frontispiece proclaims, by little minds comparable to their own.
Everything is in proportion; one defect produces another; the meagreness and poverty of books
adopted in theological schools is the third cause of insufficient education amongst the clergy.

37. There are two kinds of books. Some are classics, solid books containing the distilled wisdom of
mankind, written by authentic representatives of such wisdom. Method, style and content are all
considered carefully for the benefit they can produce; amassing facts (erudition, in a word) is not
their sole purpose; universal truths, expressed with a sense of mankind's needs and hopes, form the
basis of their healthy, fruitful teaching.

The other kind of books consists of petty, one-sided works, without warmth or attraction, the
offspring of narrow minds. The immensity of truth is offered in tiny portions, proportioned to the
authors' powers of assimilation; the only real feeling these books convey is that of the writers'
fatigue in composing them. Books of this kind are rejected by mankind when it has outgrown
adolescence; they fail to appeal to human nature which scans them in vain for some reflection of
itself, of its thoughts and desires. Nevertheless, young people are condemned to make use of them,
although their instinct repudiates such works. As a result youth's natural longing to change them for
something better becomes an open door for the entry of subversive writings.

Another possible effect of mediocre books on young people is a growth of marked aversion to
study. Worse again is the outcome of the lengthy, restrictive courses in the schools. Frequently
students develop deep, hidden, life-long hatred against teachers, superiors of every kind, books and
the truths contained in books. This is genuine hatred, although often concealed under other attitudes
and expressed in other forms. If it surfaces, it provides an unpleasant surprise for persons
unconsciously affected by it. It appears unreasonable, and characterised by brutal disrespect and
ingratitude towards otherwise good teachers who have devoted energy and love to forming their
students.

38. At the beginning of the Church's existence holy Scripture was the only textbook in use for
popular and ministerial instruction. Scripture, we know, is mankind's own book, the book (Bible),
the writing, as its name tells us. In it, mankind is described from beginning to end. It opens with the
origin of the world and closes with its destruction. Human nature perceives itself in all its moods,
and discovers precise, sure and even evident answers to all the great questions it has posed itself.
The mind can rest satisfied with the knowledge and mystery contained in the Bible, and the heart
with law and grace. Scripture is "the large tablet" written in "common characters" (17). In it eternal
truth speaks in every way known to human language. Truth narrates, teaches, judges, sings.
Memory is nourished with history; imagination attracted by poetry; intellect enlightened with
wisdom; feeling moved in all these ways together. The teaching is so simple that the uneducated
believe it written for themselves; so sublime that the learned despair of grasping it. The text is
human in form, but the vehicle of God's own word. Hence "Scripture", says Clement of Alexandria,
"enkindles fire in the soul, and simultaneously directs the mind's vision fittingly towards
contemplation, broadcasting its seeds within us and bringing to germination the seed we already
possess" (18). If words like this can rightly be applied to books in general, they are much more
applicable to the divine word of Scripture.

39. This was the sublime book used in christian schools. In the hands of the great men who
expounded it, it became the nourishment of other great men. As long as bishops were personally the
teachers of clergy and people, they were also the authors who wrote for Church and society. Almost
all the great works in the first six centuries were written by bishops. Only exceptionally, in the case
of extraordinary men like Origen, Tertullian and others, do we find christian teaching confided to
non-bishops.

Books authored by bishops formed a second epoch, as it were, in the history of works employed in
moulding young men in christian and church schools; they were the heritage left by bishops to the
lower clergy when the total collapse of political society forced secular business upon the charity of
the episcopate. Bishops were then deprived of the work of formation of people and clergy which
they had hitherto regarded as inseparable from their pastoral care.

Insensibly (19) the lower clergy took their place. First came those nearest to the bishops and most
respected for their way of life, that is, the flourishing Orders of canons and monks provided by
divine Providence at that time to assist the Church in her need (20). This section of the clergy,
which undertook the bishops' work of educating christian youth for the ministry, accepted
reverently the heritage of the great pastors and fathers of the Church, and cherished it as a sure
norm for its own teaching. In this way bishops of previous ages continued for a long time to be
masters and teachers of youth through their writings. But there was an immense divide between
their living presence in the living word, and their presence in dead writings which could hardly be
revitalised by teachers in those unhappy times. The lower clergy did nothing original for five
successive centuries. They simply repeated the teaching and the instruction that had come down
from the great fathers (21). On the one hand, they lacked the authority that bishops possessed
through consciousness of their sacred dignity as teachers in Israel; on the other hand, intellectual
activity had been almost annihilated by the terrible circumstances which had made this a period of
rapine and devastation.

After the restoration of order and the location of barbarians in the conquered territories, new
teachers began to write books which, however, reflected the condition of their authors. That is, the
books lacked the authority, the broadmindedness and surety of thought which characterised the
bishops' work, and manifested in its place that of the lower ministers, inferior in dignity and
authority to the princes of the Church. New works inevitably lacked originality. They were
compendia or summae in which christian doctrine was set out in scientific order. Such compendia
were demanded by the need to facilitate understanding of ecclesial tradition now immensely
enriched by the work of centuries and impossible to study in its sources. These compendia
constituted the era of scholastic theology, the characteristic work of priest-teachers.

The first summa, which by its fame marked the beginning of this era, was that compiled in the 12th
century by the Master of the Sentences, Peter Lombard. It was, of course, an excellent idea to
epitomise the teaching scattered amongst the extensive writings of church tradition. The same
things repeated a thousand times increased the labour of study a thousandfold.
But it was not simply a question of restricting the repetition of christian doctrine, and stating once
what had been said endlessly. What touched the heart (22) and other human faculties was also
omitted; intellectual satisfaction alone was the aim. Consequently the new books did not speak to
the whole person as books of previous ages had done. They spoke to a single part of the human
being, to a single faculty - and one faculty never exhausts the resources of human nature.

Theological knowledge grew but wisdom decreased, and the schools acquired the narrow, restricted
character that helped form the students into a class separate from other human beings. Common
sense was left to ordinary mortals, while theologians devoted themselves to refined discussion. It
was only to be expected. The bishop was not only teacher, but father (23) and pastor, and as such
was capable of speaking persuasively and explicitly to the whole person. His mission did not cease
with a demonstration of the truth. He had to ensure that truth was loved, that human beings were
saved through the truth.

The priest is incapable of this, and realises that it is not his work. Hence he restricts himself to
placing the truth before the eyes of his disciples who argue with him almost as equals (24). He
works scientifically, that is, with a method related to the absolute and unchangeable in the objective
order of his subject, abstracting from persuasion which requires a varying approach. The scientific
method inevitably reduces the immense power of language, and easily gives rise to that element of
rationalism which developed fully in the 16th century into protestantism (25). At this point sacred
knowledge and the religion of Christ abandoned the clergy altogether and were, so to speak,
secularised.

40. Compendia and summae reached the height of their perfection in the 13th century with the
marvellous work of St. Thomas Aquinas. After that, learning in christian schools developed
immensely through the revival of history, criticism, languages and style, but fell back in doctrine.
Here we find scholastic teaching repeated, annotated and abbreviated in much the same way as the
fathers of the first six centuries of the Church were studied by their successors.

This comparison will not seem unjust to anyone prepared to look below the surface. The literary
revival of the 15th and 16th centuries attracted the attention of scholars; speculation was abandoned
for the greater satisfaction of imagination and feeling; the core of christian philosophy was rejected,
suffering the same fate as its vanished, perfect exposition. Students lost sight of the importance of
the sublime reasons intrinsic to the teaching of faith, which the majority of scholastics had upheld,
just as the scholastics themselves had lost sight of the importance of the fathers' profound, integral
way of explaining it. The scholastics had diminished christian wisdom by stripping it of everything
related to feeling and moral efficacy; their disciples (and we must repeat that disciples are not above
their masters) continued to curtail it, removing from it all that was profound, intimate and
substantial. The great principles were avoided, apparently to make things easier but in fact because
they were not understood. The successors of the scholastics reduced christian doctrine to miserable
formulas, isolated conclusions, and the practical knowledge needed by the hierarchy if it was to
parade religion before the eyes of the people in the way it had been known for centuries. This is the
fourth and last epoch in the history of books used in christian schools; theologians have succeeded
scholastics.

Scripture, fathers, scholastics, theologians: these are the steps by which we have arrived finally at
the wonderful books we use in our seminaries today. Their would-be knowledge is on a par with
their contempt for our elders. I believe that in centuries to come, which contain the hopes of the
imperishable Church, these books will be judged the most miserable, feeble works written in the
eighteen centuries of the Church's history. They lack spirit, principles, style and method (26). Their
"method" consists of a tidy, regular arrangement of subjects which simply indicates how easily their
authors exhaust their intellectual capacities. Finally, because they lack all appeal to feeling, talent
and imagination, these books manifest not a single episcopal or priestly characteristic. Let us call
them "lay-books", in the perjorative sense of the word. They can be used by teachers and
commentators whose only necessary qualifications are eyes to read, and by students with ears to
hear (27).

41. But if petty books go hand in hand with petty men, is it possible for them to form a worthy
school together, or produce adequate method in teaching? The inevitable lack of suitable method is
the fourth and last cause of the wound of the Church under discussion, that is, the insufficient
education of modern clergy.

We said earlier that the morals of the clergy perished in the Church when formation of heart and
mind (28) were separated in the schools. Later an attempt was made to remedy the appalling
immorality which sprang naturally from this division, and a good life, or at least some form of
regular life, has been revived in our well-conducted seminaries. However, the root of the difficulty
has not been seen, and no effort has been made to bridge the devastating gap between theory and
practice by endeavouring to form teachers who would also be fathers. And, as Chrysostom says:
"Generation is not enough to make a father; good education for the child is also needed" (29).

So far, energy has been directed to providing help and support where morals are lax. This is
certainly not sufficient for the Church. Morality in its ministers must find its root and nourishment
in the solidity and fullness of Christ's teaching. The purpose is not simply to form good human
beings, but christians and priests enlightened and sanctified in Christ. This was the first principle
and entire foundation of the method employed in the first centuries of the Church: knowledge and
sanctity were bound together inextricably, one growing from the other. More exactly it can be said
with perfect truth that knowledge was born of holiness because the former was desired only for love
of the latter. The kind of knowledge we are referring to was centred upon holiness, the ultimate aim.
Everything was united; and unity is the authentic characteristic of teaching destined to save the
world. Such teaching is not pure, ideal doctrine, but real practical truth which, without holiness, can
never be considered the wisdom taught by Christ. We would be deceiving ourselves if we thought
otherwise; foolish, we would imagine ourselves wise; we would be substituting a vain, dead image,
feeble and powerless, in place of the teaching of Christ.

42. St. Papias, a celebrated disciple of the apostles, was guided in his studies by this holy desire for
practical truth. Eusebius writes in his History: "Papias desired the company of persons who would
teach him the truth, and kept away from chatterboxes. He did not seek those who produced new
laws according to the dictates of their own human spirit, but people who spoke about the
commandments left us by the Lord to sustain our faith, and made known to us by truth himself.
When he met someone who had been a disciple of the elders, he kept a careful record of all he said.
For instance, he asked what had been said by St. Andrew, St. Peter, St. John, St. Philip, St. Thomas,
St. James, St. Matthew or other disciples of Jesus Christ, like Ariston or John the elder. He realised
that the instruction he obtained from books was less beneficial than that received viva voce from his
interlocutors. He noted in his writings that he had been a disciple of Ariston and of John the elder.
He often quoted them, and cited many things he said he had learned from them" (30).

This description left by Eusebius enables us to understand how holy men in the earliest days of the
Church were motivated by pure love of effective truth (the essential characteristic of Christ's
teaching), not by empty curiosity. Their aim went beyond knowledge to penetrate truth itself which
they relished as living, solid food. Teaching was not made dependent upon books alone, but rather
on the living word. In fact, the greatest mysteries were taught orally (31) at the wish of the people
because thus they experienced better the salvation brought by the word. This was one of the merits
of the method used by great men to form great men; teaching did not consist in a brief, daily lesson,
but in the life disciples led with their mentors, young clergy with great bishops. Needless to say,
such an advantage ceased as soon as instruction devolved entirely on the lower clergy, that is, on
instructors rather on pastors (32).

43. Knowledge is common to good and bad persons alike; the living, practical truth of the gospel
belongs only to the good. Where knowledge is the sole aim of teaching, therefore, the teachers'
moral qualities are not of prime importance. Virtue, however, was sought and required by the early
fathers, whose intention was directed towards the holiness of truth which, in its turn, demanded
holiness in those teaching the truth (33). Likewise no moral choice need be made of students if
subjects are purely scientific, without moral bias. If, however, the subject is moral wisdom, great
care must be taken to remove from the school all students without true desire for such wisdom.

This was the practice in the early history of the Church when it was easier to make a judicious
choice of students for the priesthood. Those called to the ministry were distinguished from those
without a calling by use of this sure, unique, moral criterion. Young people themselves knew what
they were coming for, and could prepare themselves accordingly. Moreover, holy, practical truth
has an immense advantage related to purely ideal truth: because its nature is essentially sacred and
divine, it imposes reverence for itself upon the student receiving it. As a result, teachers with the
sublime duty of communicating it to others experience a kind of revulsion and distate when they
have to impart it to unworthy students. Instinctively they feel guilty of profaning and violating the
sanctity of practical truth, and become very conscious of the meaning of Christ's command: "Do not
throw your pearls before swine" (34).

Clement of Alexandria has left us a description of ancient masters who "took time to weigh
carefully and discern amongst their disciples those capable of following what they were saying.
They paid careful attention to their conversation, morals, habits, general tenor of life, bearing and
dress; they wanted to know whether they were a highway, or rock, or a path trodden by passers-by,
or fertile land, or woodland, or rich well-kept soil that would bear fruit." They took Christ as their
model. As Clement says: "He revealed what was suitable for the few to the few, and kept it from the
multitude. The former not only comprehended it, but also formed themselves by it," that is, fulfilled
in their lives the truth they had come to know intellectually (35). But then we shall have very few
priests! Clement's answer to this objection is very simple: "Pray therefore the Lord of the harvest to
send out labourers into his harvest" (36).

44. The principle requiring "communication of Christ's living word, not repetition of a dead, human
word, in ministerial training" produced another consequence. All branches of knowledge came
spontaneously to subject themselves to the word and drew unity from it. Unity paid service and
homage to Christ, disposing hearts and minds to experience the beauty and riches of gospel
wisdom. There were not two kinds of education, one pagan and one christian, dependent upon
secular knowledge or christian knowledge, demanding a secular spirit on the one hand or its
opposite on the other. Young people were not first harmed by exposition to pagan writers and
distorted human motives, then healed and put on the right path by christian, ecclesial remedies and
directions. Christ's teaching was supreme and led to a single end. Secular studies thus served to
reinforce the faith of the students. Consequently men like Origen were trained in schools like that of
Pantaenus, and men like Gregory Thaumaturgus under teachers like Origen (37).

45. While truly christian studies drew their unity from the unity of their underlying principle, the
same principle helped to complete the studies and make them universal, especially in the field of
religion. The entire system of arcane mysteries, profound principles and great commandments
became the object of study without undue exclusions or excessive claims for one area or another.
Christ's word alone was loved and sought, and hence everything which could be investigated in that
word. The hidden life sought in that word was found through prayer, contrition and the liturgy,
channels of grace that nourished minds thirsting for justice with divine, supernatural light (38).

46. Only this method is worthy of the Church. Who will restore it, and bring back to the schools
great books and great teachers? In a word, who will heal the deep wound of insufficient education
amongst the clergy which daily weakens and agonises the exquisite Bride of Christ? Only the
episcopate has been commissioned to rule her, and endowed with the miraculous power of healing
which she needs. We are speaking, however, of a united episcopate, not of an episcopate internally
severed and divided. The whole body of bishops, with a single aim and operation, must undertake
this great work. But unity is precisely what is lacking amongst the pastors of holy Church in these
deceitful times. This deficiency forms the third wound of the Church, deeper and more painful than
the two we have already described.

Notes

(1) Matt 10. 24

(2) Note that we are not denying the existence of excellent priests in our own days, but speaking of
our desire for their increase.

(3) This quotation from a letter written by the holy bishop to Florinus to dissuade him from his
errors is to be found in Eusebius, Eccles. History, book 5, chap. 20 [PG 20, 486].

(4) The importance given to the priest as such can be gauged by recalling a passage in the letter of
the Martyrs of Lyon to pope Eleutherius. St. Irenaeus, then only a priest, was commissioned to
deliver the letter. He was introduced to the pope in the following terms: "We beg you to consider
him a man full of fervour in witnessing to Jesus Christ. This is the recommendation we give him. If
we thought that rank and dignity bestowed justice and virtue we would have recommended him as a
PRIEST of the Church, as indeed he is" (ibid., book 5, chap. 4)[PG 20, 439]. It is obvious that no
one would think of writing in such terms to the pope about a priest nowadays. The interest taken by
people and churches in the ordination of a new priest can be seen in the stories put about when
famous bishops of Palestine, amongst them Theoctistus of Caeserea and St. Alexander of
Jerusalem, ordained the great Origen as priest. St. Jerome attributes the stories to the jealousy of
Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria. There would be no jealousy, and no stories circulated, in the case
of a modern ordination!

(5) This unity and submission of people and clergy to their bishop is highly recommended in
St.Ignatius' letters to various churches. In his letter to the Trallians he praises Polycarp, bishop of
Trallia, after commending the perfect obedience of his people. He says: "He is a mirror of the love
that reigns amongst his disciples. His very bearing is instructive; his strength lies in his meekness
for which even the pagans have to respect him" [PG 5, 678]. In the letter to the church at Magnesia,
he has a word of special praise for the obedience of the priests "despite the youth of their bishop,
Damasus" [PG 5, 666]. In the letter to the Ephesians he praises the holy bishop, Onesimus, in the
highest terms, and commends the priests also because "all are closely united with him, but
especially the presbyterium, that is, the clergy. Grace brings them together in Jesus Christ with
perfect harmony as they break bread with the priests and bishop, sharing in the saving medicine that
confers immortality and banishes death" [PG 5, 662].
(6) St. John Chrysostom was greatly honoured when St. Flavian, bishop of Antioch, commissioned
him to instruct his people. Examples like this were rare in the Church. Bishops were prompted by
the outstanding virtue and wisdom of ordinary priests when they first permitted them to preach the
gospel. St. Augustine's exceptional talents moved Valerian, bishop of Carthage, to commission him
to instruct the people, as Chrysostom's talents had prompted St. Flavian. The same can be said about
the famous school of Alexandria, founded by St. Mark, where teachers were always persons well-
known for their extraordinary doctrine and holiness. At that time the qualifications needed for men
to teach in public were well understood, especially in the case of christian doctrine. It is surely a
disaster that such a great principle of salvation should be ignored today!

(7) I hope it will not displease or annoy modern readers if I take a famous passage from Origen as
proof of what I am saying. I refer to it simply as an undeniable historical reminder of the way in
which great men in the Church of the time considered poverty and freedom in relation to the clergy.
Origen, the great moulder of bishops and martyrs, spoke in a homily delivered at Alexandria about
the idolatrous priests who had received donations of land from the king of Egypt. He takes the
occasion to say: "Because the Lord himself wishes to be their portion, he does not wish to give a
share in the land to his priests. Be careful, those who are priests among you, to be the Lord's priests
rather than the priests of Pharaoh.

Pharaoh wanted his priests to be landowners, and cultivate the earth rather than souls; to work on
the land rather than keep the law of God. What does Jesus command his disciples? 'He who does
not renounce all that he possesses cannot be my disciple.' I tremble when I utter these words. I
become my own accuser, and pronounce my own condemnation. How can we have the courage to
read such words and preach them to the people when we not only do not renounce what we possess,
but want to acquire what we did not have before becoming disciples of Jesus Christ? Nevertheless,
even if our conscience condemns us, are we entitled to conceal what has been written? That would
make me guilty of a second fault. I confess before all you people that this is what the gospel says,
and that this is what I have neglected. But granted that we do know our duty, let us begin to act
responsibly here and now. Let us become priests of the Lord like Paul, Peter and John who had
neither gold nor silver, but possessed greater riches than the whole earth could provide for them."
(In Gen. Hom. 16) [PG 122, 251].

(8) Letters, book 9, letter 1: Nos enim sub colore ecclesiastici regiminis, mundi huius fluctibus
volvimur, qui frequenter nos obruunt [PL 77, 1118, book 11, not 9].

(9) This phrase, ex hac moderna pastoralis officii continentia, shows that presssure of worldly
affairs was a burden previously unknown to the episcopate.

(10) Letters, book 1, letter 5. The same complaints can be read in all Gregory's letters in book 1, in
letter 121 of book 9, and in the first letter of book 11 [PL 77, 442-538; 1050-1052; 1118].

(11) Hence in St. Gregory's time pastoral theology was understood as proper to bishops. In our own
seminaries, at least where pastoral science is taught, the phrase is used in relation to parish priests.
The bishop is not even mentioned in books of pastoral theology. However, the application of
"pastor" in an absolute sense to parish priests, to the exclusion of bishops, has its origin principally
amongst protestants who have eliminated the episcopate. This fate befell the episcopate because it
had in great part abandoned the signs by which it could have been recognised as founded by Christ.
The responsibilities imposed by Christ had been rejected, and generally speaking people had lost
sight of the true idea of a bishop. This was the principle and foundation of the errors of protestants
who then cut themselves off from the Church through heresy.
(12) We have to point out once and for all that we are always speaking in general terms. In this as in
other cases there are exceptions: holy bishops have always existed in the Church.

(13) Instruction for the people at this time was different from modern instruction. Holy Scripture,
and with it the immense canvas of the religion of Christ, was unfolded before the eyes of the
christian people. Hence it served to teach both people and clergy, as I have said above. In other
words, those chosen to form part of the clergy found in it the necessary preparation for their
eventual church education. We are so far from comprehending the great thought of the period that
the vast majority of our ecclesiastics are not only incapable of understanding what I am saying here,
but will, I am sure, take it badly.

(14) St. Jerome is a witness. De Viribus Illustribus, chap. 36 [PL 23, 651].

(15) Stromata, book 1 [PG 20, 456]. St. Pantaenus, who presided over the famous school of
Alexandria, is the teacher to whom Clement of Alexandria is referring.

(16) Modern needs demand for seminary lecturers stipends at least as high as the income in the
richest parishes. Moreover, teachers should not be changed from their positions except by
promotion as canons or capitulars, or even as bishops. St. Denis, St. Heraclas and the great St.
Achillas all passed one after another from the celebrated school of Alexandria to be bishops in that
city, the second after Rome. The ears and hearts of men were still ringing with St. Paul's words to
Timothy: find "men who will be able to teach others also" the great truths of the gospel. St. Paul
characterises these men as "faithful", and wants Timothy not only to give them the doctrine he has
received from Paul himself, but also to "entrust it to them." Et quae audistis a me per multos testes,
haec commenda fidelibus hominibus qui idonei erunt et alios docere (2 Tim 2. 2).

(17) Is 8. 1

(18) ibid., book 1 [PG 8, 697].

(19) I say "insensibly" because such changes never take place suddenly nor universally. Fleury, in
speaking of the five centuries following the first six, says: "The method of teaching was still the
same as in the early ages. The schools were attached to cathedral churches and monasteries where
either the bishop himself taught or some learned cleric or monk did so at the bishop's order. The
students worked at ecclesiastical science and at the same time received moral formation and
instruction about the work of their ministry under the eyes of the bishop." (Discourses etc.) [Fleury,
Histoire Ecclesiastique, IX, 21, {Paris, 1742, 36 volumes}].

(20) "Most of the schools were in monasteries, and in some countries the cathedrals themselves
were officiated by monks, as in England and Germany. Canons, who were founded about 750 under
the rule of St. Chrodegang, lived an almost entirely monastic life, and their houses were called
monasteries. I consider the monastries as one of the principal means used by Providence to
safeguard religion in those disastrous times. They were oases of learning and piety in the midst of
the desert produced in the world by ignorance, vice and barbarism. The ancient tradition of the
divine Office and the practice of christian virtue lived on in them, and young men were able to
behold these things reflected in the lives of their elders. Books from many centuries were preserved,
and new manuscripts prepared. This was a constant occupation of the monks. Very few books of
any kind would have come down to us if it were not for the monastic libraries" (Fleury, op. cit., ¦22
[XII, 72]).
The bishop himself lived with the canons, a proof that the primitive tradition of episcopal life had
endured for a considerable period. When secular affairs broke up the holy, common life of bishops
and canons, reforming councils composed of zealous bishops re-established ministerial life on the
same model. The same spirit lived on in the Church, ceaselessly endeavouring to make good her
losses. St. Charles himself wanted to share common, regular life with his clergy. This is a constant
desire, therefore, in the church's long history. Her spirit longs for this kind of life.

(21) "They studied religious doctrine", says Fleury, speaking of the monks, "in Scripture, in the
holy fathers, and in the discipline imposed by the canons. They had a high esteem for ancient
authors, but little original thinking and limited desire for wisdom. They studied, copied, compiled
from and abridged their predecessors. Bede, Rabanus and other theologians in the middle ages are
typical examples. Their works are collections of the holy fathers of the first six centuries. It was the
surest way of maintaining tradition" (Fleury, Discourse etc. 600-1100, ¦XXI)

(22) St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure and a few others are great exceptions who wrote in the noble
spirit of the first fathers.

(23) Clement of Alexandria says: "Those who catechised us are considered our fathers. A son is
someone who has been taught, provided that he acts in accordance with what he has learned. In this
sense Scripture says: 'My son, treasure up my commandments with you' (Prov 3)" (ibid., book 1)
[PG 8, 689].

(24) This explains why the learned followed Aristotle during these centuries. In the first six
centuries Plato was more acceptable.

(25) Today protestantism has abandoned revelation for the sake of pure reason, that is, for
systematic reason which is not reason at all, but the extreme, final development of the rationalistic
element brought by the scholastics (not by all, however, but by Abelard, Ockham, etc.) into sacred
teaching. This seed grew and caused damage also amongst catholics who did not, however, have the
courage to follow its development to ultimate conclusions which would have taken them outside the
ambit of the Church and revelation.

It is not dificult to indicate here its outcome amongst catholics. In dogmatic teaching, it resulted in
disputes amongst catholic schools of theology, especially regarding grace, which later proved
irreconcilable; in civil and canon law it resulted in the hair-splitting which in part deadened the
force of the best laws; in morals its effect was similar because it provoked all that was said and
done on the subject of probabilism. This in turn played a great part in the moral decline of the
christian people through its influence both on what we call laxism and on rigorism.

The theological controversies which proved so harmful to the unity and sanctity of the clergy are
only too well known, and I need say no more about them. Fleury wrote as follows about the
acrimonious quibbling of lawyers in the 13th century: "Consult the canons of the great Lateran
Council, or better still those of the first Council of Lyons, and you will understand the extent to
which litigants exercised their ingenuity to overthrow all laws and make them serve as pretexts for
injustice. This is what I call the 'spirit of sophistry', practised by lawyers and their adherence. They
were clerics, of course, the only people at the time to study civil and canonical jurisprudence,
medicine and other branches of science... If vanity and ambition for fame drove philosophers and
theologians to argue endlessly about unworthy subtleties, can we imagine that greed for money
would have had less effect on lawyers? What kind of clergy was this? The spirit of the gospel is one
of sincerity, candour, charity and disinterestedness. The clergy we have described, destitute of such
virtues, were in no position to preach them to others" (Discourse etc. 5, ¦XVII) [op. cit., XII, 72].
Fleury has the following to say about the effect of granting first place to human reasoning in the
schools. I cannot altogether agree with him. "The worst effect of the topical method (that is, the
method which taught that pro and contra were to be sought scholastic-wise in every argument) and
of despair about the possibility of finding the truth is the introduction and authorisation of probable
opinions in morals." The evil did not consist in introducing probable opinions, but in abusing them.
"This part of philosophy was treated no better in our schools than in those of others. Our learned
men, accustomed to contest the likelihood of everything, found ample material for debate in
morality, and often abandoned the right path in the interest of their own and others' passions. This is
the origin of the laxity found in our modern casuists, and I trace its beginnings back to the 12th
century when learned men were happy enough with some kind of balance in their conclusions,
although it did not always harmonise with common sense and the gospel. Their fine art in the use of
distinctions reconciled the irreconcilable" [op. cit., XII, 62].

(26) Writers like Tournely and Gazzaniga, amongst the best modern authors, will serve as
examples. They produce a large, truly erudite tome on grace. Only at the end of the book do they
touch vaguely on the question: "What is the essence of grace?", which they then leave unsolved as
of no importance. But knowledge of the essence or nature of the subject under discussion is surely
the first and most important step in the argument? The definition of a thing flows from knowledge
of its nature, and the definition itself is the fertile principle of all reasoning about the matter in hand.

(27) I beg the reader to believe that I have no desire to despise scholastics and theologians when I
compare their work with that of the fathers of the Church. On the contrary, I recognise their worth
and acknowledge their merits. I hope that the use I have made of the principal authors of the schools
in my other works, and my twenty years of effort to rehabilitate them, will absolve me from any
accusation of lack of respect towards them.

(28) Describing the student body of the 12th and 13th centuries Fleury writes: "I would hesitate to
quote from contemporary authors in painting the picture of student morality in this history of mine.
You would see them brawling amongst themselves and with ordinary citizens; exemption from the
jurisdiction of secular criminal courts formed their primary privilege; the pope was obliged to grant
the abbot of St. Victor the privilege of absolving them from the excommunication imposed by the
canons upon those who beat up the clergy; their violence normally began in the drinking houses
with wine and merrymaking, and finished with bloodshed and murder. Look at the portrait by James
of Vitri. All those students were clerics, destined to serve or govern the Church" (Discourse etc. ¦X)
[op. cit., XII, 64].

(29) Chrysostom.

(30) Eusebius, ibid., book 3, chap. 39 [PG 20, 295-298].

(31) "Hidden knowledge" concealed the most sublime truths from the unworthy. Doctrine of this
kind was taught orally only to disciples tested during a long period, and proven by their constant
resolution to strive for holiness in the christian life. All the ancient writers mention the prudence
and reverence shown towards revealed truths. Here it is sufficient to single out Clement of
Alexandria who speaks about it in his Stromata, book 1, and many other places.

(32) Remedies later used to revive the moribund education of the clergy did not go to the root of the
matter. As a result, this particular difficulty remained. One of the remedies of which I am speaking
was the foundation of universities which, however, only served to separate the clerics still further
from their bishops, as they still do today. Fleury says: "Another difficulty of universities is that
teachers and students were all clerics, and many beneficed, but without any possibility of exercising
their orders and functions outside their churches. They learnt nothing practical about preaching, the
administration of the sacraments, the government of souls. Experience would have been available to
them in their own countries where they could have worked under bishops and priests and followed
their example. Learned professors at the universities were mere theoreticians with ample time for
writing and developing useless arguments, and full of quarrelsome ambition motivating ever more
subtle distinctions. In the first centuries learned men were bishops overburdened with more solid
occupations" (Discourses etc. 5, ¦XX).

(33) Here again, one thing leads to another: bad method generates bad teachers. This contrasts
strongly with the esteem the ancients had for christian teachers, and what they expected of them. St.
Gregory Nazianzen, in a celebrated sermon entitled On Theology describes at length the
qualifications needed in a teacher of theology, indicating also the characteristics of the auditors and
the care to be taken in speaking to them: "It is not sufficient for anyone at all to philosophise about
divine truths; this is the work of persons purified in body and soul, or at least marching steadily on
the road to purification and already far advanced in meditation on holy things" (Orat. 33; cf. also
Orat. 29) [PG 36, 13; Orat. 27, not 33]. Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, book 1, and Pedagogy in
f.) [PG 8, 695-926; 247-684] speaks at length about the disinterestedness, spiritual light and
holiness required in a person capable of teaching sacred doctrine.

(34) Matt 7. 6

(35) Ibid., book 1 [PG 8, 702].

(36) Ibid., book 1 [PG 8, 693].

(37) According to St. Jerome, Origen used secular knowledge to lead to the faith philosophers and
other learned men frequenting his lectures (De viribus illus., c. 54) [PL 23, 663-667]. Origen's most
famous disciple, Gregory Thaumaturgus, speaks of the method used by Origen during his
formation. In his oration in praise of his master, delivered at the conclusion of his studies, Gregory
tells us that Origen began by correcting his way of life. Then he introduced him to the various
branches of knowledge in a way adapted to prepare and strengthen faith in his pupil. Origen did not
use compendia, but read all the principal philosophers with Gregory, helping him constantly to
discern truth from error in what he read. After these preliminary studies aimed at preparing the
student's mind and heart and arousing desire for more sublime and perfect doctrine, the sacred
books were opened as the source of doctrine about God. I know that it is impossible to do without
compendia nowadays, but I also know that nothing will ever be achieved by means of them alone;
students will not even be set on the highway of true knowledge.

Compendia can only be used to abridge what great authors have explained at length. I know that it
is impossible to read and explain all they have said, but they should be read and explained at least in
part. Even a part would be sufficient to inspire the student, and give him some idea of the grandeur
of christian wisdom, just as we can look at the foot of Hercules' statue and work out what sort of
man he was. Direct reading of the tests themselves will provide more than the outlines of
knowledge. For simple outlines, compendia are sufficient, and this indeed is their only legitimate
function. Knowledge gained in this way is like seeing a picture sketched by the art master, and in
part coloured by him. All that remains for the student to do is to finish colouring the picture in the
way his master has shown him.

(38) Clement of Alexandria always mentions the sacraments of Christ when he speaks in his works
about the study of knowledge. For him, the teacher is not simply an instructor, but a devoted
gardener who looks after every plant he has put in the ground. He adds: "There are two kinds of
gardening, one carried out without books, one with books. The person working for the Lord will
truly be a divine gardener if he sows good wheat, attends to its growth, and harvests it. 'Do not
labour for the food which perishes,' says the Lord, 'but for the food which endures to eternal life!'
But nourishment is taken by way of food, and by way of words, and peacemakers are truly blessed
whether they bring people to the peace of the Word and of the life of God by freeing them from
their battle against ignorance and error in this life through teaching the opposite, or nourish through
the distribution of bread others who hunger for justice" (ibid., book 1) [PG 8, 693].

In the quotation, this disciple of the apostles unites the distribution of bread with instruction by
word, after comparing instruction to the Eucharist in a previous passage. His description of the
master dedicated to sacred learning always depicts the teacher as a divine worker, a pastor, God's
minister. Shortly afterwards he goes so far as to say: "he is one with God himself"! Origen,
Clement's disciple, agrees. "The word of God should not be heard by anyone not holy in body and
soul. Shortly after hearing it, he has to go into the wedding banquet to eat the flesh of the Lamb and
drink the cup of salvation" (In Exod. Hom. 11) [PG 12, 381]. Note the beautiful union between
sacrament and word! Another passage from this great writer will underline the same message. In
one of his sermons, taken down as he preached them, he says: "You who are accustomed to come to
the mysteries know how carefully and reverently you receive the body of the Lord for fear you will
rightly be blamed if the smallest particle drops on the floor through your negligence. Granted such
care to safeguard the Lord's body, is it less of a sin to despise his word?" (In Exod. Hom. 23) [PG
12, 391, Hom. 13, not 23].

Chapter 3

The wound in the side of holy Church:

disunion amongst the bishops

47. Before leaving this world, the divine Founder of the Church begged his heavenly Father to form
his apostles into a perfect unity, as he and his Father formed the most perfect unity in their common
nature. This sublime unity, which our Incarnate God spoke of in the wonderful prayer he offered
after the supper, a few hours before his passion, was principally an interior unity, a unity of faith,
hope and love. The Church can never exist entirely without this interior union of which its exterior
union is effect, expression and outcome. "One body and one spirit," says St. Paul (1), summing up
the matter.

The body he speaks of is marked by unity in external, visible things; the spirit, by unity in the
invisible order. He adds: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is
above all and through all and in all" (2). Once more, unity in the divine nature is the momentous
foundation of the unity that scattered human beings must form as Christ gathers them under his
wings and forms of them one Church. It is also the source of unity within the episcopate of the
Church of Christ whose first bishops regarded union so highly. Cyprian expressed their common
feeling in his book, On the Unity of the Church.

48. The apostles possessed and maintained this twofold unity in an eminent degree. Interior unity
was ensured by their participation in the communion of doctrine and grace; exterior unity, by one
amongst them being first (3), and by "the origin of the one episcopate held in its entirety by all
together" (4). Only one of them held in particular what had been given in common to all. On that
one, undivided rock was built the Church, of which all the other apostles, with the rock and upon
the rock, likewise and equally formed the foundation.

49. The hierarchy's awareness of this perfect unity as the most beautiful expression and gracious
reflection of the Church's interior unity in spirit endowed the first successors of the apostles with a
sense of their own sacred dignity. Although scattered throughout many nations, they were conscious
of forming a single body of the highest authority, and of actuating together the divine ideal of
power as service. In them this power, like God, is undivided yet everywhere. They also realised that
this tremendous unity was the covenant Christ left his apostles before his death, that is, before
shedding his blood to seal the new and eternal covenant. Unity amongst his disciples, symbolised
by the eucharistic Bread and the seamless cloak that clothed his divine body, was the final aim of all
Christ's desires, as it was to be the outcome of his infinite sufferings. The desire which he laid
before his Father was that "they should be saved in his name and so become one" (5).

50. The minds, and even more the hearts of the early bishops were dominated by this great concept
of unity. As a result, they used every possible means to bind themselves together. All maintained
exactly the same faith, and love for the whole body of pastors. Moreover, their first and strongest
desire was that all should work together. This is obviously of the highest importance for proper
government in the Church of God. In fact, one can only remain astonished at finding the same
doctrine, the same discipline and even the same customs introduced by the vast system of
government of holy Church in all the nations on earth. In comparison the differences are few and
regard non-essentials.

51. How did this come about, and what keeps it in being?

1st, the bishops knew one another personally. Their acquaintance had begun before they were made
bishops; it was the natural consequence of the admirable education that formed the great men from
amongst whom the bishops of the Church were always chosen. Possible candidates had either been
educated together in the schools of their own great bishops (6), or had been careful to know one
another by travels undertaken for the purpose. Immensely long and difficult journeys were thought
worthwhile for the sake of enjoying the company and conversation of holy, learned men. People
were convinced that books were insufficient to communicate wisdom as it was then understood. It
was not regarded as sterile knowledge, but as intimate understanding, deep feeling, practical
conviction. Such wisdom was transfused and communicated by the presence, voice, gestures and
smallest actions (7) of great men. Talent in young people, which dies or lies buried and inert if not
sparked off by the talent of others, took fire and blazed.

St. Jerome came to Rome from Dalmatia to receive his basic education; he moved on to Gaul to
visit the great men there; to Aquilea to hear St. Valerian whom tradition credits with gathering
together many famous personages; to Apollinaris of Antioch in the east; and to Constantinople to
become a student under Gregory Nazianzen. As an old man, he did not think it beneath his dignity
to go to Alexandria to listen to St. Didymus in the search for truth which ends only with death.

What more can I say? Take for example, St. Orosius who, like many others, went halfway round the
known world for the sake of understanding a simple question of church doctrine. He travelled from
Spain to Africa to speak to St. Augustine about the heresies then plaguing the Church; St.
Augustine sent him on to St. Jerome in Palestine for the same purpose. This was the way in which
the most famous priests of the time learned their theology; the clergy were very anxious to know
one another.
52. 2nd, the bishops, even the most isolated, were in constant correspondence, although they lacked
the means of communication available to us. It is most impressive to see how a bishop like St.
Vigilius of Trent sends relics of the martyrs of Anaunia, accompanied by letters of friendship, to St.
John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, and to St. Simplicianus of Milan. Besides personal
correspondence between bishops, there was also correspondence between churches, especially from
the more important to those dependent upon them. Priests and people played their part in writing the
letters which were read reverently at public assemblies on feastdays. The apostles were an example
to their successors in this; letters of St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John, St. James and St. Jude today form
part of the canonical Scriptures. popes Clement and Soter wrote to the Church at Corinth; St.
Ignatius and St. Denis of Corinth wrote to various churches, but especially to the church at Rome
(8), and to many others.

53. 3rd, the bishops visited one another out of mutual charity, or from zeal for church affairs. Their
devotion embraced the universal Church even more than the particular church entrusted to them.
They were conscious of being bishops of the catholic Church (9), and realised that one diocese
cannot be separated from the entire body of the faithful just as a limb cannot be cut off from the
human body, every member of which depends upon the blood flowing through the whole. Arms and
legs do not have their own supply of blood, but depend upon the blood of the entire body (the same
can be said about all corporal fluids which circulate according to their own laws, and about the
simultaneous action of all the parts as they harmonise to produce a common effect, that is, common
life which each section of the body shares and participates as its own life without reference to "a life
of its own").

The Church is in a similar position. Each individual diocese has to live the life of the universal
Church, remaining in vital, saving communication with it. The slightest separation leads to death;
impediments to communication with the whole Church entail feeble, languid life proportionate to
the power of the impediment to slow down and reduce vitality. A diocese affected in this way is like
an arm bound tightly with rope; its sensitivity and movements are impaired. It may even be
compared with an arm damaged in an accident and paralysed, or rendered insensitive, or frozen
through lack of circulation, with functions arrested or suspended.

But concepts like these are unknown to most of the clergy, and as a result we necessarily have
bishops whose views extend no further than the boundaries of their dioceses. In their own eyes they
have fulfilled their episcopal duties well when they have made their usual appearances in the
cathedral or in the seminary, when external affairs in the diocese have been attended to without
complaint from laypeople, and finally when they have carried out the divine services described in
the Pontifical and the bisops' Ceremonial (10).

54. 4th, assemblies and councils, especially provincial councils, were held frequently. The unity of
the Church required unity of purpose, persuasion and affection, which cannot be achieved on
command from a single person acting with authority. Of itself authority, when exercised by an
individual, always tends to attract envy and animosity, irritating subjects rather than enlightening
them. Hence St. Paul says: "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helplful" (11).

As a result the people's opinion was sought continually. They were, we may say, the faithful
counsellors of the Church's rulers (12) at this time. The bishop also gave an account to his people of
his rule in the diocese (13); whenever posible he willingly accommodated and satisfied the desires
of his people. Such a way of acting is highly commendable, and very fitting in the case of episcopal
rule. Because his powers of government come from above, and enable him to rule with complete
authority, the bishop must aim for what is good, not evil. His government is unlike that of secular
rulers; its essential characteristics are humility, courtesy and immense charity; it is reasonable to the
highest degree, and hence strong enough to be kind and compassionate (14).

Another result was communication between bishops and their priests. The opinion of the latter was
sought in everything touching on government in the Church so that those entrusted with carrying it
out would also play a part in forming the decisions to be taken. Decisions would thus harmonise
more easily with public opinion, and be understood as reasonable in spirit by those obliged to put
them into execution (15). Bi-annual (16) provincial councils, where the bishops met as brothers to
consider common business, were another result. They pondered together the difficult cases they
encountered in their individual dioceses, and reached consensus about measures for abolishing
abuses; they decided causes, and appointed successors for deceased bishops. Successors appointed
by bishops of the same province were known and acceptable to all and as such contributed greatly
to safeguarding the perfect harmony which ensured one heart in the body of bishops.
Interprovincial, national and ecumenical councils were yet another result.

55. 5th, the metropolitan had authority over the bishops of a province, while greater sees had
several provinces and metropolitans subject to them. The orderly grading of church government was
a powerful factor in unifying and knitting together, as it were, the whole body of the Church. The
hierarchy was a compact and effective body, not a unity in name and title alone.

56. 6th, and finally, the overall authority of the Pope, the principal rock which alone remains
forever unmovable in the great mass of the episcopate - that is, a true foundation rock - gives
perennial identity to all the Church militant. In all their serious needs bishops and churches of the
entire world appealed to him as to a father, judge, teacher, leader, centre and common source;
persecuted pastors were comforted by him, the poor and deprived succoured, the faithful of all
nations assisted in every way. By him the entire catholic world was enlightened, directed, defended,
calmed and consoled.

57. In the early days of the Church, these six golden links constituted a chain of immense strength
binding together the whole episcopate. They were indeed "golden" links, whose only materials were
holiness, charity, loyalty to Christ's word and the example of the apostles, zeal for the Church
founded with the blood of Christ and entrusted to the bishops, and fear and trembling at the thought
of the account to be required of them one day by the Lord Jesus Christ, invisible head and pastor.

We have seen that the barbarian invasions which overthrew the Roman empire brought the Church
into one of those new periods of movement, as they are called, in which she rises once more to
begin a new journey. At such a time she shows fresh activity previously concealed through lack of
opportunity for development, exerts a new type of action on mankind, and produces new benefits
for the human race. The period we are speaking of here is characterised by the entrance of bishops
into political government. The clear aim of Providence at such a decisive moment was, as we have
said, to bring the religion of Christ into the heart of society, and sanctify it through its rule. Because
the order of Providence is certain and cannot be impeded that aim was attained; but because all the
human instruments used by Providence are necessarily limited and deficient, evil and disorder was
the price paid for this achievement. One evil, to be numbered amongst those already mentioned,
was disunion amongst the episcopate, the blow from the lance which struck and pierced the very
heart of the gracious Bride of Jesus Christ.

58. We must consider the steps by which such cruel treatment came to be inflicted upon the Church.
First, however, I would like to comment on the laws according to which God moderates the
vicissitudes of holy Church.
The Church is made up of divine and human elements. Her eternal purpose, and the principal means
by which that purpose is achieved, together with the promise that this means will never fail, are all
divine. Divine, too, is the promise that the Church will never lack the light to know the truth of
faith, the grace to be holy in accordance with faith, and the care of a supreme Providence to order
everything in relation to herself. Beyond this, the other means which play their part in fulfilling
God's eternal purpose are human. The Church is a society composed of human beings and, as long
as they are on earth, of human beings subject to the imperfections and misery asssociated with
mankind. As a result this society, in so far as it is human, develops and progresses subject to the
common laws governing other on-going human societies.

But these laws which regulate human societies in their growth cannot be applied to the Church in
their entirety precisely because she is not only human, but also in part divine. For example, the law
stating "every society comes into being, moves towards perfection, then declines and perishes" is
not wholly applicable to the Church which is assisted by an infinite force unaffected by human
events. This force makes good her losses and renews her life when it is in decline. The Church is a
special, unique society distinct from other societies because she carries within herself something
over and above their human composition. In brief, the Church is as stable as the society of mankind
in general which, brought into being along with human beings, ceases only with the disappearance
of the last individual of the species.

In the case of other societies that are formed, destroyed and reformed, there exists a period of
destruction consequent to the period of formation followed in its turn by another period of renewed
formation. These formative and critical periods cannot be predicated of the enduring substance of
human society in general nor of the Church of Jesus Christ, but only of their accidental modes of
existence which alone are subject to initial organisation, destruction and reorganisation. When the
force presiding over society's formation begins to act we have what we call a progressive epoch;
when organisation ceases, we have a static epoch. The Church finds herself in both epochs
successively: sometimes she is on the move towards new, potent development; sometimes she is at
rest as though she had reached the end of her journey (17).

59. Another observation to be made relative to the law governing the dynamism of particular
societies, if it is to be applied to the Church, is that in other societies recomposition follows
destruction because the former tends to re-elaborate more successfully what has been destroyed. But
in the Church, destruction and formation are simultaneous because in her they do not operate
relative to the same object as they do in other societies. In the Church one order of things is
destroyed while another is formed. Let us take as our example the extraordinary period in which the
clergy were forced into the ambit of temporal government by the barbarian invasions (18). This
period, the principal object of our attention, was a progressive epoch for the Church of God.

At the time, growth in the Church was concerned with a new order and a new organisation, that is,
the sanctification of civil society. This society, pagan until then, had to be converted to Christianity;
all its laws, its constitution and even its customs had to conform with the new directives of the
gospel of grace and love. Simultaneously with this progress, another order of things was being
destroyed. Progress and regression existed side by side in the Church. The new direction taken by
the Church led it into the heart of civil society, but not without the great disadvantage of distracting
the episcopate from its natural duties of INSTRUCTION and WORSHIP (19), and immersing it in
secular business. Such work was an unexpected, unknown temptation for the clergy who sensed its
danger (20) but possessed insufficient experience to resist and overcome it. In the long term,
mankind underwent a fearsome trial: the holiness of the clergy fell abysmally, and the finest
customs and traditions in the Church perished. Destruction went hand in hand with organisation, the
inevitable effect of human limitation which appears even in the Church where progress and
development are not exempt from the danger and decay affecting the Church's accidental mode of
existence.

60. What happened next? When the organisation intended by God was complete, and the period of
destruction had absorbed all that Providence had abandoned to its rapacity, the very existence of the
Church seemed in jeopardy. For a short time even the Church's new organisation appeared lost in
the ruins provoked by the onslaught that simultaneously with ecclesial progress had brought her to
the brink of destruction. The Church was deeply afflicted, and her faith was barely able to sustain
her in the crisis. Terrified she cried out to her divine Founder, who lay asleep as the boat was going
down. He awoke, and with one word of command calmed the wind and the sea. The Church now
knew through experience the disastrous effects of the destructive principle in her midst, and finally
set out to remedy it. A new static epoch began in which she undertook the repairs imposed by her
long, difficult voyage. Repairs and reinforcements were not progress and did not of themselves lead
to noticeable new development; they only served to renovate sections battered during the journey.
Nevertheless, a great distance had been covered, and the unsinkable ship, now put to rights, could
face other seas, other winds, other storms.

61. Providence's rule in governing the Church is that her organising force is always superior to the
force intent on its destruction; that the two forces operate simultaneously so that no time may be
lost (21); that the Church rest after its labour, without undertaking long journeys or great
enterprises, in order to repair damage suffered and be ready at the right moment for sailing
uncharted seas. For many centuries now, in fact from the never-to-be-forgotten year 1076, and
increasingly from the time of the Council of Trent, the Church has been working diligently to repair
the damage to church discipline and practice. Perhaps the time has come for the great ship to leave
port, and hoist sail for the discovery of some new and vaster continent (22).

62. Let us return to the subject in hand. In the preceding chapters we have examined the increasing
activity of a destructive force acting adversely upon the Church in the five centuries immediately
following the first six. We saw how the education of the people and clergy had suffered (23); now
we must consider how the same force damaged the union between bishops.

The immediate successors of the apostles were poor, humble persons whose attitude to one another
was governed by the simplicity infused in souls by the gospel and then expressed from the heart.
Such simplicity enables a person to communicate directly with his neighbour, making daily life
between saintly people easy, delightful, useful and holy. This was how the first bishops lived. But
once they had been surrounded and hemmed in by temporal power, access to them became difficult.
Worldly ambition invented titles, and established protocol, so that people had to swallow their pride
as the price of contacting their own bishops, although even this was a tribute based on deceit and
lies. Ever increasing demands brought business to a point where the preliminaries to discussion
between christians and princes of the Church were swamped by formal questions of procedure that
often eliminated any possibility of a reasonable solution. The mind of the pastor of the flock of
Christ was not engaged in meditating the sublime truths worthy of it, nor in listening to prudent
advice, but exhausted itself in the study and preservation of new rites in the Church, dependent
upon the new rules of protocol. Characters became diffident, glum, hesitant and deceitful through
prejudice and recrimination.

Everything else developed accordingly. A meeting of bishops, easy and peaceful enough in itself,
henceforth required long and serious preparation. Before attending it, a bishop would have to be
willing to study the protocol; when he presented himself, he would need considerable energy to put
up with the wearisome burden of etiquette which was often more than sufficient to put an end to the
life of failing, old men (24).

63. Difficulties of this kind, which divide bishops and tend to set them apart, are a sure sign of the
unconscious entry of ambition into their hearts. Is it possible to find a more effective cause of
division and even of schism than ambition and its two accomplices, avarice and desire for power? A
constant fact in the history of the Church is that "great temporal power united for a long period with
an episcopal see produces innumerable causes of disharmony."

Constantinople comes to mind immediately. Less than a century after its foundation the bishops of
New Rome, confident of the support of their neighbour, the emperor, aimed to overthrow the oldest,
most illustrious sees in the Church, and succeeded after sustained conflict in obtaining second place
in the Church (25). Not content with that, they set themselves up as rivals to Rome and provoked
the fatal Greek schism (26). The loss of the east to the Church was surely one of the terrible
consequences of the connection between the temporal power and the see of Constantinople!

In the west, the exarchate of Ravenna, founded in the 6th century, will serve as an example. The
archbishops of Ravenna soon threw off obedience and submission to Rome, and only extreme
measures were finally sufficient to humble them (27). However, the truly great source of discord
and dissension in the western Church were the anti-popes, especially in the 14th century when the
great schism of the west, although overcome, left deeply buried seeds of division, envy and secret
hostility amongst the christian nations. These seeds were nourished by all that took place during the
schism, especially the ever memorable councils of Pisa, Constance and Basel. The schism prepared
the way for the defection of the northern part of the Church a century later. Today, although it
ceased long ago in a material sense, its unhappy spirit lives on under cover of court flattery and
gallicanism, producing its fruits in the badly advised ecclesiastical projects of emperors and grand-
dukes [Joseph II, and Peter Leopold, Grand Duke of Tuscany], in the blind ambition of the four
German archbishops who lost their dominions whilst warring with the apostolic See, [Coblenz,
1769; Ems, 1786], the only loyal protector of their temporal states, and in all that was desired, said
and attempted recently in a catholic capital city to erect a patriarchate there and provoke a new
schism, [the "imperial" Council of Paris, 1811].

64. Such horrible lacerations on the wounded breast of the Bride of Jesus Christ are not surprising.
Although the first bishops obliged to undertake temporal affairs were at first truly holy and
sufficiently episcopal to regret deeply their new burden, the same was not true of all their
successors. Men dominated by a worldly spirit, by avarice and lust for power, took care not to
participate personally in the labour of preaching the gospel and of caring for souls that would be
undertaken by an impoverished, hard-working episcopate. Their only reward would have been
worry and anxiety, often combined with persecution, privations and martyrdom. The strength and
spirit of sacrifice required by a bishop was such that St. Paul's comment on it could well be
repeated: "If anyone aspires to the task of bishop, he aspires to a noble task" (28).

Saintly men rejected it for yet another reason. Their faith enabled them to perceive that its totally
divine dignity could be undertaken only at God's call and with his assistance; a humble sense of
their own indignity prevented their acknowledging in themselves the great virtues inherently
required by so sacred a ministry. Because candidates did not present themselves for episcopal sees,
the Church was left free to look for the holiest men available and choose them dispassionately
without the prejudice and lack of balance associated with pressure from electors and manipulation
by candidates for office. In this way the holiest and wisest men could be chosen.
But all this vanished as soon as the episcopacy ceased to be a purely spiritual power and added to its
burdens the administration of wealth and the care of temporal affairs. Holy men feared it as
insupportable and did all they could to avoid it. Some, like Loyola and his little company of tireless
labourers in the Lord's vineyard three centuries ago, went so far in their apostolic zeal as to vow
never to accept it (29). At the same time, the episcopate had too many unworthy candidates, that is,
all those who sought temporal power and found it too difficult to attain in its proper place outside
the Church.

This explains the rise of exterior, formal devotion on the part of the "nobility" amongst the bishops,
and the credit given to lesser members of the episcopate for their expertise in business and canon
law rather than for their zeal and capacity in wielding the sword of the divine word and guiding
souls to heaven. For the lay aristocracy, the great episcopal sees were seen only as means for
rewarding their adulators or ministers, or as suitable placements for their younger sons or even their
bastards.

It was not long before what began as rapacity for money became a political system and almost
constitutional in the state. I could offer examples of what I am saying from any European nation
whatsoever. In each and every one, church affairs were animated by the same standards and the
same spirit as those prevailing during the last days of the republic of Venice. Bishops within its
borders were all younger sons of the aristocracy, called to the episcopate before birth. In other
words, they were condemned to the episcopate by insatiable, cruel, presumptuous people who made
up for the condemnation by dispensing the pastor of the Church of Jesus Christ from his sacred
duties and willingly allowing him to lead a life of dissipation in idle negligence. Is it possible to
find amongst such men bishops who possess the outstanding charity and strength, and intimate,
truly pastoral union, which springs from common zeal for the good of the cherished Bride, the
Church, and from wisdom dependent for its growth and courage on shared ideals and uniformity in
action?

65. Persons whose only thought and interest is to help mankind follow the road towards truth and
justice are easily bound together by friendship and intimate correspondence. Because truth is
universal and unchangeable, union which has divine truth as its object is also universal, and
imposes no limit on the number of its members. Moreover, with truth as its bond, such a union is
permanent and stable, neither ceasing nor expanding in accordance with change in external
circumstances. And brotherhood amongst the early bishops did indeed possess gospel truth as
object and bond, and God himself as its foundation. But when the human spirit turns its attention to
enjoying earthly things, it inevitably desires to conserve and increase them. As a result, it is no
longer free to consecrate itself exclusively to the highest good which alone can be shared by all
without loss to anyone and takes its value from within, not from external, changeable things.

In these conditions, the human being is powerless and incapable of forming a truly loyal society of
perpetual, indissoluble friendship with others. The society to which he belongs will be conditioned
by circumstances. External formalities may indeed be observed in every respect, and conventional
signs of affection may be exchanged endlessly. Nevertheless, there is always an implied limit to the
union, inevitably accompanied by cautious apprehension and multiple reservations which weaken it
incredibly and cause it to change its very nature. "If? With whom? How? How much? For as long as
the union does not harm the real interests which the parties are aiming at..." - how many
qualifications are implicit in statements of this kind!

What will happen if rich, powerful bishops are the kind of people whose idea of bliss has been
nourished by life-long ambition for a rich diocese, rather than heroic persons of extraordinary
virtue? Can we doubt that our expectations of these apostles will have to be limited by their anxiety
about temporal possessions and power? Happy with what they already gained, they will never be
able to feel any great desire for maintaining spiritual correspondence with other bishops. When a
person is absorbed by material affairs litle time and will is left for writing living, truly ecclesial
letters. A very different disposition and attitude of spirit is needed, in addition to another type of
knowledge. If, miraculously, bishops manage to persevere in some kind of union and keep up their
correspondence, their letters will be studded with the type of qualifications and titles mentioned
earlier. No one will be put out, no one will be disturbed, no one will feel his dignity impaired; and
because there will be no increase in worry or labour, their self-proclaimed prudence will be
applauded by all.

66. The history of the Church also shows that bishops attaining secular dominion easily become
enemies, and involved in subversion, wars and all the horrible violence that has convulsed nations
for whole centuries. Atrocious onslaughts against humanity are fatal to a Church founded on love,
and scandalous to the highest degree when perpetrated by those to whom Christ has said: "I send
you out as sheep in the midst of wolves" (30). It was only natural for such bishops, now become
perhaps the most powerful of the circles of government, to want to hold on to their position, and to
do so by taking part in the struggles and quarrels common to the age. Power and wealth are of their
nature an inexhaustible source of disharmony to those defending entrenched gains or seeking to
enlarge them. Union amongst the bishops no longer reflected the holiness, continuity and
universality of early days. Agreements were limited and temporary, and took on the characteristics
inevitably connected with worldly interests. Alliances, leagues and conspiracies were the order of
the day. What a change! Could unity within the body of bishops possibly survive such divisions?
Gradually, necessarily, universally, bishops broke away from one another. Now, although the
causes of disunity have been eliminated in great part, disunion remains one of the most serious and
horrific wounds inflicted upon the grieving Church of God.

67. It is clear that bishops involved in worldly cares and business have to consort with powerful
public figures, just as it is clear that they cannot continue for long in such company without taking
on its way of acting in their own lives, families and homes. It is also clear that secular and ecclesial
ways of life are opposed to one another; persons accustomed to pomp, disorder and licentiousness
necessarily reject courtesy, order and austerity. Inevitably, bishops in posts of secular importance
are irritated by the presence of the people forming their flock, and by the lower clergy, occupied
exclusively in humble church functions and details of pastoral work. But they are also unhappy at
contact with their fellow-bishops. The free and easy company of the wealthy nobility is obviously
preferable and more advantageous.

68. As a result, dioceses were abandoned not for the sake of attendance at parliaments or national
councils, but in order that bishops might settle down at court. Contrary decrees of Councils were
powerless to prevent the abuse (31). Bishops enjoyed the pleasures of court life, and used their
opportunities for satisfying their insatiable desire for wealth; vanity, honours and dignity were their
aim. They took part in the cruel deceits of politics, and made war on the Church herself, on her
teaching and her disciplines. They became vile informers, sometimes for the sake of revenge on
their brothers in the episcopate, sometimes to encourage traitorous, sacrilegious outbreaks against
the pope, their father and teacher. Their wretched souls revived at the smile of the rulers they
flattered, whose infamous pleasures they shared, whose cruel wars they stupidly and basely
encouraged. They went so far as to call down God's blessing on battles, and sanctify pleasure with
solemn episcopal discourses prostituting the gospel and every form of piety (32). O God! These are
not possibilities. Everything I have mentioned can be exemplified in history where it is recorded in
indelible characters not to be erased by the passing of centuries nor washed away by the bitter tears
of the Church.
69. One of Providence's aims in enabling church government to acquire such influence in political
affairs was to provide mediators for peace between governments and citizens, between strong and
weak. For six centuries the Church had taught the latter submission and unparalleled meekness; it
was then the turn of the former to learn how to mitigate the exercise of power by subjecting it to the
Cross and through the Cross to justice. Rulers were no longer arbitrary judges of human affairs, but
ministers of God's people governing for the sake of justice and common well-being. The work
devolving on ecclesial power through the wonderful mission committed to the Church of Christ was
exercised by bishops who proclaimed the truth and, as Scripture says, became God's witnesses
before kings. Bishops like this were never lacking, despite the degradation of so many of their
brethren. They withstood outbursts of rage from rulers, and softened their fury; they took advantage
of the succeeding calm to indicate the existence of a moral power far superior to the material
dominion rulers possessed. A power for peace and of extraordinary meekness, it nevertheless
demanded its place as director and guide of brute force.

This power resided in the law of the gospel which gave rise to all the struggles undertaken by popes
of the middle ages in favour of peoples, that is, the faithful, against monarchies. Despite the
criticism and calumnies leveled against the Church on account of her involvement in struggles of
this kind - admirably generous struggles - their effect was to form in the world a completely new
sovreignty and monarchy, that is, a christian monarchy. Our eternal God made the unbridled
government of the rulers of this world depend for its model upon the peace-making government of
the bishops of the Church. Slaves vanished from the christian world because the Church of Christ
has only children; arbitrary power disappeared because the Church possesses only reasonable, holy
power; the few who used the majority simply as means were swept away because the power of the
Church is a ministry and service rendered by few to many, by persons sacrificing themselves to the
good of their neighbours.

All this God brought about through Christ. He either brought it about in fact or, if the results were
not satisfactory, by a severe, public judgment inflicted upon rulers whose power was useless for
defending themselves against the sentence. When the gospel directives permeated human attitudes,
they formed the elements of a new, common sense that passed judgment on monarchies with a
severity unknown except to christian peoples.

But this great mission of the catholic clergy has now been completed; the period of conversion for
society finished in the 16th century. Today all the signs of the times indicate the opening of a new
epoch for the Church which during the past centuries has been at work repairing the damage it
sustained. A vile clergy, rejected by the people, slave and adulator of rulers, can no longer mediate
between government and people, and times like ours arise in which irreligion and impiety prevail.
Church power loses its position; it no longer stands between the legal power of the ruler and the
moral power of the peoples, but absorbed by the former becomes one with it. It takes on the
appearance of a two-faced monster, cruel from one point of view, deceitful from the other.

Sometimes parading in military fashion, sometimes demurely clerical, it provides the world with
masses of armed men and useless priests. Kings are now in the public eye, either to be executed or
(which is worse) to enforce execution. Councillors are lacking: there is no one to mediate, to bless
treaties, or to receive oaths which, devoid of faith, are also devoid of sanctions; enemies are
suspicious of one another, and prepare for all-out war. It comes as no surprise to see this episcopate
incapable of resistance when the once catholic rulers of Russia, Germany, England, Sweden,
Denmark and other nations, dominated by caprice and passion, decide to constitute themselves
religious leaders and separate their states from the Church.
At times the bishops themselves were eager to take a leading part in dismembering the body of holy
Church. The schisms we are speaking of existed in practice before they were accomplished
outwardly. The final divisions were only an external formality, a change of name. Ecclesial power,
which alone was able to impede schism, had been incorporated into the power of the king as
bishops chose to be courtiers rather than churchmen. They were jealous and quarrelsome amongst
themselves, cut off from one another, from their head, the Roman pontiff, and from the universal
Church. Individual union with the ruler was their priority and for this they renounced their own
existence. They became slaves of men dressed in soft garments rather than free apostles of a naked
Christ. Are catholic nations any diferent today? What kind of union and devotion would the
episcopate show if a ruler decided to separate himself from the unity of the Church?

70. Let us imagine that the prostitution of the chief pastors does not reach such extremities
(although nothing can stop halfway: every evil and every good in society sooner or later develops
and reaches its peak). It remains true that the bishops' obsequious adherence to rulers, and their
continual involvement in business diminishes union in the body of bishops. Once a bishop has
become a minister of state, or influential in political circles, he has to beware of those about him
and even of his episcopal brethren; from that moment he becomes cautious, taciturn, reserved and
difficult to approach. In such circumstances, the political parties in a nation, and the ideologies
followed by various administrations, tear to pieces the body of bishops. The pieces sometimes
retain their external cohesion during periods of national tranquillity because openly the ancient way
of life in the Church proclaims only brotherhood and love. Underneath, however, there are cracks
and splits, made worse for being papered over by a hanging of pastoral meekness.

And what can be said about union between bishops of various nations? Having ceased to be bishops
of the catholic Church in spirit and action, they are now national bishops only, and as such
employed politically like others working for government. They behave as politicians with foreign
bishops and with the Church of God itself, making war and peace with them between intervals of
truce and threats.

The greatest absurdity ever seen in the Church took place in the 15th century when a council met
grouped in nations. Here the power received by the bishops from Christ to be judges of faith and
teachers in Israel was denied in fact when the dogmatic controversies of christianity were decided
by national votes, not by votes of bishops, who voted indiscriminately with priests and lay people in
each national assembly. This was the unhappy overture to the numerous diets and congresses,
springing from the deplorable councils of the 15th century, which the princes of Germany were to
call a century later at the reformation; it was also the origin of the multiple renunciations of the
ancient faith by lay magistratures passing judgment on religious matters. The bishops' vote had
finally been demolished by the lay power. Can we wonder at the presence of constitutional priests
in France and the monstrous system of a national church there?

71. It is time to reject national churches in which the episcopate is considered the first estate, or a
political party, or council of state, or group of courtiers. Nationality in the Church, which exists in
fact long before its formal appearance, is the direct opposite and mortal enemy of catholicity. How
is it possible for the head of the catholic Church, devoted to this Bride whose only Spouse is Christ,
to associate willingly with national or royal bishops?

This question alone offers abundant reasons for explaining the limits placed on episcopal power by
the pope, and the papal reserves which aroused endless complaints and calumnies (33). Was there
any other way of saving the Church as its parts disintegrated and bishops fell away than by
strengthening it at its centre and making it more active? Circumstances of this kind made it
necessary for the head of the Church to grasp the reins, sadly fallen from his hands, before his
other-worldly carriage vanished over the cliff. If any iota of freedom remains in the Church (and
without freedom the Church has as much life as a human being without air), it is to be found
concentrated in the see of Rome, and not in bishops subject to catholic princes. Exception must be
made, however, for the freedom enjoyed by the Church in the United States of America and other
non-catholic regions where alone catholicism can still breathe more or less freely. I say "more or
less" because every effort has been made and is being made universally to intimidate the pope,
whose energy is spent in maintaining his always precarious liberty. He is free as Samson was
amongst the Philistines, on condition that he constantly exert his energy to break the new ropes used
to bind him.

Nevertheless, he is free, despite all the pitiful treaties he is forced to negotiate with "the kings of the
earth and the rulers who take counsel together against the Lord and his anointed" (34). Precisely
because he is free and unconquerable by human endeavour in virtue of the power that sustains him,
"the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain." All hell and earth rise against him, the only rock
they have never thrown down; innumerable dissensions are calmed for the sake of inflicting harm
on the visible head of the Church. Because he is free, even national bishops and clergy join with the
ungodly, with heretics and with rulers in violent hatred of their common father, the bishop of Rome.
He is the only obstacle they encounter on their path to diaspora, on the road they have taken through
ignorance, weakness, prejudice, corruption and diabolical malice to the betrayal of Christ and to
Judas-like despair.

And still they do not understand! The only words of consolation remaining for the faithful disciples
of the betrayed Christ amidst the overwhelming sufferings of the Redeemer's Bride are the words he
spoke before his crucifixion: "You are Peter, and on this rock I shall build my church, and the
powers of death shall not prevail against it" (35).

72. Another deplorable effect of the false position continually dividing the bishops was the jealousy
with which rulers regarded them. When they became part of the ruling nobility, bishops shared its
contested history, and were feared or opposed by rulers in the same way as nobles. They were spied
upon, constantly restricted in their work, and imprisoned not only within state boundaries, but even
in their dioceses. State policy kept them apart, impeded their attendance at councils, which they
themselves were forbidden to convoke, and subjected them to endless humiliations. Their political
power naturally diminished as the power of the aristocrcy decreased, but their particular weakness
made their territories easier prey for spoliation than those of the nobles who also envied them.

Their final abasement was to be awarded salaries.

It is useless to add that they were kept light-years from the centre of christian unity, or that support
was given to every dissension between bishops and their head. Tares were sown, and rebellion was
praised, secretly sustained, and rewarded. The pope, father of fathers, supreme judge of the faith
and universal teacher of christians, was unable to communicate freely with his brethren and sons,
with men commissioned by Christ to govern the Church with and under him. He could neither
correct them, nor summon them before him, nor could they appeal to him against injustice (36). His
decisions in matters of faith and morals had to be submitted before publication to a lay tribunal
which declared itself superior to every ecclesiastical tribunal. In fact, it was not a tribunal which
decided, but the political calculation of a ruler - not a Turk or a Jew, but a baptised child and subject
of the Church (37) from which he had received his christian instruction and which he had sworn at
baptism to support. As child and subject he could be warned, admonished and punished like any
other member of the faithful amongst the people. The Church is no respecter of persons, because all
are truly equal before the law of Christ.
Finally, in the course of centuries, a new police agency, unrivalled for its punctiliousness and
nuisance-value, was set up especially for ecclesiastics. Under its surveillance, the catholic clergy
suffered torments like those of some early christian martyrs who died slowly after being smeared
with honey, stood in the sun and exposed to attack from insects, bees and leeches.

However, time was required to bring this system to perfection. Its ramifications were the tireless,
learned work of lawyers upon whom governments can depend for support on every occasion,
although the general idea of the system sprang from the false position of a decadent clergy. It was
one of those thoughts which work and rule in the minds and policies of rulers long before any of
them formulate it explicitly, or become aware of it, or make an ideology of it. Finally, some far-
sighted politician makes it his own and raises it to the level of a system which takes its name from
the minister who first saw it and used it as an instrument of policy. From then on, the system works
of its own momentum, and is guided methodically to perfection.

Who would imagine that we are indebted to a bishop for a political system so dangerous to the
freedom and existence of the Church! And to a pious bishop, who was nevertheless a minister to a
king. But even Richelieu, when overthrowing the aristocracy for the sake of his own freer exercise
of power, was unaware of forming the modern monarchy people find intolerable and against which
popular power rebels. It is also intolerable to the clergy, but they submit because they are weak.
Their only hope of salvation is their secret cry to heaven for a new Moses to free the people of God
from Eygpt. May the Lord who dwells in the flame of the burning, unconsumed bush, send him
soon to his oppressed Church!

73. A little thought will show that the wealth of the clergy, when not used for works of charity, is
also a very fertile source of disunion amongst the people of God. Ordinary people are envious of the
clergy, nobles hate them for possessing what they consider their right, and kings are gnawed alive
with avarice. Further reflections show that clerical wealth has no corresponding force to protect it
because the clergy are per se unarmed and defenceless, and it is a general principle that any
unprotected wealth is appropriated by the powerful, whose desires are inevitably stimulated at the
sight of the treasure available. It is clear that weakness in its owners is the summary reason, or
rather occasion for the repeated spoliations of the Church throughout the ages.

It also explains why the nobility have suffered less than the clergy in this respect, although they too
have lost their possessions when attacked by a stronger force. The French revolution is a good
example of this, although it is not as unique as generally supposed.

But the worst aspect of the spoliation of the clergy is the ignorance which leads men to think that
the wealth of the Church forms a single reality with the Church and christian religion. The clergy
themselves have unfortunately provided grounds for such a prejudice. Because their only defence
against plunder of their temporalities was to deprive the aggressors of spiritual benefits, they made
sacriligious theft inseparable from renunciation of religion. The penalty was certainly just; it was
also effective in periods of faith. But it provoked rulers, absolutely determined to despoil the clergy,
to cut themselves off from holy Church.

If the clergy are sensible, they will act with greater caution nowadays. Excommunications attached
to appropriation of church property lead to greater offences, because it is indeed worse to despoil
with the knowledge that this will entail separation from the Church, than simply to despoil. It is, of
course, more difficult to imagine greater crimes and irreverence amongst religious people of strong
faith where malice is confined within certain limits. In this case, and in determined circumstances,
excommunication can be used to defend the riches of the Church, as we said (38). But it is useless
in times of disbelief and at moments when passion and perversity have risen above normal levels to
dare any evil. Excommunication in these cases serves to incite and provoke worse excesses.

Perhaps catholicism would have been saved in some nations if it had been freed of the wealth
endangering it - as ships in storms are lightened at all costs for the sake of saving human lives. A
poor clergy, which had abandoned the immense riches of the Church, or parts of them, in Sweden,
Denmark and England to men like Gustavus Vasa, Frederick I and Henry VIII, might have saved
themselves and the various nations by reviving the faith with the means used by the apostles in
planting it!

But is it really possible to find an immensely wealthy clergy courageous enough to impoverish
itself, or even with enough sense to understand that impoverishing the Church is to save her? Long,
sad experience tells another tale. But perhaps the generous appeal for freedom we have heard
recently will not have been made in vain, nor fallen harshly on the ears of those appointed by God
as the custodians of Israel (39). What a noble appeal it was! It is clear that whatever we may think
of him in other respects, the person [Lacordaire] who made this appeal is dominated by one great
thought lifting him above all pettiness to a level of extraordinary feeling for catholicism.

Perhaps, too, there is something to be said for the popular feeling of unrest which, struggling to
express itself, takes on the first available forms, even when these are inadequate because of their
materialism, or contradict the feeling itself. This unrest, accompanied by continual complaints about
financial impositions, may spring from a secret source which the people themselves have still not
uncovered; it may hide religious needs where irreligion seems to have triumphed completely.

Perhaps the real need is for freedom to allow religion to communicate directly with the heart of the
people irrespective of the mediation of rulers and governments. What seem irreligious outbursts,
even to their perpetrators, often result from confusing and substituting for true religion a minister of
religion hated for his severity. Divine Providence may be preparing a new mingling of nations not
for the sake of diminishing taxes (revolutionaries tolerate great impositions patiently), but
incredibly enough for the sake of liberating the Church, whose Lord holds in his hand all that is.

Notes

(1) Eph 4. 4

(2) Eph 4. 5-6

(3) Deus unus est, et Christus unus, at una Ecclesia et Cathedra una super Petrum, Domini voce
fundata, says St Cyprian in one of his letters (Epis. 40) [PL 4, 345].

(4) Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis pars in solidum tenetur. (Lib. de Unit. Eccl. I) [PL 4, 516,
CC 3, 252].

(5) Pater sancte, serva eos in nomine tuo, quos dedisti mihi: ut sint unum, sicut et nos (John 17. 11).

(6) For example, St. John Chrysostom was educated under St. Meletius at Antioch. Socrates tells us
expressly that the holy bishop recognised the promise in John Chrysostom, and as a result educated
him personally for three years before baptising him and then ordaining him successively reader,
subdeacon and deacon. Amongst Chrysostom's companions were Theodore and Maximus, later
bishops respectively of Mopsuestia in Cicilia and Seleucia in Isauria. Diodorus, their master in the
spiritual life, was bishop of Tarsus. Basil, a friend of St. John Chrysostom, was made a bishop as a
young man. Here is a whole nursery of bishops who were friends as students. An example in the
west can be seen in the school of St. Valerian, bishop of Aquilea. When St. Jerome visited him, he
found amongst the bishop's group of disciples St. Cromatius, later successor of St. Valerian at
Aquilea, Heliodorus, another bishop-to-be, and famous, learned priests, deacons and lesser
ministers, who included such men as Rufinus, Jovinus, Eusebius, Nepotian, Bonosus and others. It
is well known that in Africa St. Augustine's house, or rather monastery, was a seedbed of bishops.

(7) This is especially true in the supernatural order. Holy people communicate with their whole
being and pour out, as it were, the spirit of holiness on those near them. Christ himself expressed
this most effectively when he said: "He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, out of his
heart flow rivers of living water" (John 7. 38).

(8) In this letter to the church at Rome St. Denis says: "Today we have celebrated the Lord's day,
and have read your letter. We shall continue to read it for the sake of our instruction, as we do with
the letters already sent to us by Clement" (Eus. His. Eccl ., book 4, c. 23) [PG 20, 384 ss]. Seven
letters of this great bishop of Corinth are extant, written to the faithful of different churches.
Besides the letters to the church at Rome we have those to the Lacedaemonians, the Athenians, the
Nicodemians, the church of Amstris in Pontus, the church of Gortyna in Crete, and to the Gnossians
also in Crete. Better known are the six beautiful letters of St. Ignatius to the Ephesians, Magnesians,
Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, and Smyrnians. This shows the vast extent of the
correspondence between bishops, priests and people at this time.

(9) They often signed themselves as such.

(10) St. Cyprian speaks as follows about the care bishops should have for the universal Church:
Copiosum Corpus est sacerdotum concordiae mutuae glutine atque unitatis vinculo copulatum, ut si
quis ex collegio nostro haeresim facere, et gregem Christi lacerare et vastare tentaverit, subveniant
ceteri. Nam etsi pastores multi sumus, UNUM tamen GREGEM pascimus, et oves universas, quas
Christus sanguine suo et passione quaesivit, colligere et fovere debemus. (Epis. 68 ad Steph) [PL 3,
995-6].

(11) 1 Cor 6. 12

(12) "Nothing was done in the Church without consultation; reason, order and the will of God alone
were to rule." "Assemblies have this advantage: normally someone is present to indicate the right
solution, and bring others to reason. Mutual respect develops, and shame impedes public injustice.
Weak characters are supported by the strong. It is not so easy to corrupt an assembly as to win over
one person, or a ruler. The person ruling without consultation is inclined to follow his own
unsupervised passions... In every city the bishop always consulted his priests, deacons and senior
ministers in important matters. Often he asked advice from the whole people when they were
involved, as in the case of ordinations" (Fleury, Discourses, II etc.).

(13) St. Cyprian gave an account of his government to the people. When persecution prevented his
doing this personally he did it by letter, and some of these letters have survived (v. Epis. 38) [PL 4,
338-342]. Two centuries later St. Augustine did the same for his people. His sermons kept them
informed about the needs of the Church, and provided a detailed account of what he himself had
done. (Sermons 355, 356) [PL 39, 1568-1581] are especially noteworthy in this respect.

(14) "Popular assent was valued so highly in the first six centuries of the Church that if people
rejected a bishop, even after his consecration, they were not forced to accept him, and a suitable
person was appointed in his place" (Fleury, Discourses etc. II) [op. cit., V, 293]. St. Augustine
explains the reason for this in words spoken to his own people: "We are christians on our own
behalf, and bishops on yours" (Serm. 359) [cf Serm. 340, PL 38, 1483. "Vobis enim sum episcopus,
vobiscum sum christianus"].

(15) St. Cyprian, in a letter written in hiding in a period of persecution, pleads solitude as his reason
for not replying to a letter sent to him by some of his priests: "because", he says, "at the beginning
of my episcopacy I decided not to make any decision without your advice and the assent of the
people" (Epis 14) [Epis. 5, PL 4, 240]. In this he followed the constant example of the apostles.
Take, for instance, the way the apostles proceeded in the choice of deacons. The apostles certainly
had the power to choose whom they wished. Nevertheless, they proposed the question to the faithful
with great delicacy and prudence so that the faithful themselves could nominate those they thought
most worthy and suitable for the office: "Therefore, brethren, pick out from among you seven men
of good repute, whom we may appoint to this duty... and what they said pleased the whole
multitude' (Acts 6) [cf 3-5] who chose the first seven deacons of the Church.

(16) The fifth of the twenty disciplinary canons of the Council of Nicea requires provincial councils
to be held twice a year [cf SC 2, 35].

(17) We have therefore two epochs and two periods. A progressive epoch exists when a new order
of things gets under way; a static epoch when this new order has been formed and fully actuated.
Between the two epochs, there is a period during which society works towards its own realisation as
it brings to perfection the new order holding its attention. We call this a formative period. A critical
period follows upon perfect actuation of a new mode of existence in the Church because human
affairs are always characterised by movements of some kind and, in this case, by inevitable decline
and destruction.

(18) Force of circumstances provided several reasons for impelling the clergy to undertake secular
business against their own will. A celebrated historian indicates another motive which we can add
to those already mentioned: "The Romans had the highest contempt and antipathy for these new,
uncouth, ferocious conquerors (the barbarians) who were, moreover, pagans or heretics. On the
other hand, confidence and reverence for the bishops, all of whom were Romans and often members
of the wealthy aristocracy, increased considerably." He continues: "As time went on, christian
barbarians became members of the clergy and brought with them their own traditions. Not only
clerics, but bishops also were hunters and warriors. They came to form part of the ruling class and
as such were obliged to attend assemblies of state which were simultaneously parliaments and
national councils" (Fleury, Discourses etc. VII) [op. cit., XIII, 210].

(19) In the earliest days of the Church, the seven deacons chosen by the apostles were appointed to
serve christians at table when the apostles declared that temporal affairs were not their proper
business. They indicated the two episcopal functions as follows: Nos vero ORATIONI et
MINISTERIO VERBI instantes erimus (Acts 6. 4). Prayer corresponds to worship, and preaching to
instruction.

(20) Proof of this may be found in the fears expressed in their writings by St. Gregory and other
bishops when first plunged into worldly business. But doubts and complaints gradually ceased
within the Church. It was symptomatic of the clergy's growing love of wealth and power.

(21) The first six centuries do perhaps provide an exception to this rule. During this time almost the
only force at work was directed towards formation. Nevertheless, opposition was present, although
it developed in pagan society outside the Church.
(22) A period of destruction, therefore, follows a period of restoration. But this kind of restoration is
proper to the Church at rest, not to the Church on the move. A period of formation is simultaneous
with destruction; as a time of great undertakings, the former denotes progress which, however, is
succeeded by the onset of fatigue denoting stasis. A time characterised by motion, therefore,
contains two extremely active forces, one working for growth, the other for destruction. A time of
rest is also marked by two forces at work, both of which, however, lack vitality. One patches up, the
other corrodes but more from negligence than direct action. The situation is like that prevailing
when a road has been built but not maintained.

(23) Chap. 1 and 2

(24) "Bishops treated one another as brothers, with great love and little formality. Titles such as
'Holiness', 'Most Reverend', and so on, can be attributed to late customs introduced into the
decadent Roman empire where everyone received a title indicative of his place in society" (Fleury,
Discourses etc. V) [op. cit., V, 285]

(25) The see of Constantinople gained first place after Rome in 381 at the Council of
Constantinople. Its self-imposed name, "New Rome" was of considerable assistance here.

(26) Protection from the state encouraged these archbishops to rebel against Rome. They succeeded
in obtaining from the emperor a so-called Typos, a decree cutting them off from the church of
Rome! This Typos was later surrendered to the pope when the bishops submitted to Leo II.

(27) Ravenna returned to the Roman obedience in 677 under pope Donnus, only to rebel again in
708. Providentially the Exarchate was destroyed once and for all in 752 by Astolfus, king of the
Lombards, after lasting only 180 years. Divine Providence used these barbarian invaders of the
Church's territory to enhance Roman dominion by overthrowing political power at Ravenna.

(28) 1 Tim 3. 1

(29) Many take scandal at the sight of the great work done in the Church by religious who are not
pastors but in possession of privileges releasing them from episcopal jurisdiction. Surely it is clear
that this is a means designed by Providence to sustain the Church of God at a time when bishops
were occupied with worldly grandeur? The foundation of the mendicant friars in the 13th century,
and of clerks regular in the 16th, was obviously aimed at supplying the deficiencies of what was
unhappily called the secular clergy

(30) Matt 10. 16

(31) The council of Antioch in 341 does not mention the then unknown abuse of episcopal
residence at court, but it does forbid bishops, priests and other clerics from visiting the emperor
without permission and without letters of presentation from provincial bishops, especially the
metropolitan. The penalty for disobedience was excommunication and deprivation of office! This
shows how highly church freedom was prized, and worldly splendour feared. In 347, the council of
Sardica ordered bishops to send deacons as their representatives at court even for affairs of charity.

(32) A quick glance at the life of the tyrant, Christian of Sweden, and the bishops who surrounded
him, is sufficient to convince one of this. The Church was lost to the nation through bishops of this
kind. The same can be said about Germany and England.
(33) For example, the kings of France decided that they would have the right to appoint persons to
ordinary benefices at the death of a bishop in the state. Can it be helpful to the Church to extend the
rights of bishops in these circumstances? On the contrary, they should be restricted so that the
Church may be able to defend some residual element of her freedom and repeat to the king what
Gregory IX wrote to Frederick II: Esto quod in collatione beneficiorum in orientibus succedas, ut
dicis, episcopis: majorem in hoc ipsis non adipisceris potestatem. [You may indeed have some
power in conferring benefices on eastern bishops; but you will get no more] (cf. Oderic Raynald,
A.D. 1236) [Annales Ecclesiastici, XXI, p. 29]. The pope said this to a sovereign who wanted more
rights over a vacant see than those of the bishop himself!

(34) Ps 4 [Ps 2.2].

(35) Matt 16. 18

(36) When churchmen had acquired great possessions, rulers claimed to dispense and donate them
to bishops. They were a gift, according to the phrase used for investiture in the middle ages. The
condition upon which investiture depended was an oath by which the king forced the bishop to
promise whatever he wanted from him. Eadmer (Lib. 2 Histor. Novorum) [cf. PL 159, 400] tells us
that William II of England made his prelates swear, amongst similar things, that they would not
appeal to the pope, nor go to Rome, without royal leave. But all christians can appeal to the
supreme bishop by divine right; such free recourse depends upon the intrinsic constitution of the
Church, and opposing it implies an attempt to destroy the Church. Abuse of this right should be
noted and corrected, but the right of appeal itself cannot be eliminated. In the same way, all
christians have the power freely to go to their common father, the bishop of Rome. These rights
form part of the liberties of christianity which are to be defended, not destroyed, by civil
governments. Part of this defence is to prevent their use as an excuse for wrong-doing. But it is also
true that under the pretext of eliminating abuse connected with the use of these liberties, rulers
became despots over the Church and applied brute force where moral force alone should be present.
Needless to say, they took steps to avoid punishment for their crimes.

(37) St. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. ad Civ.) [cf. PG 35, 976]: Quid vero vos, principes et praefecti,
quid igitur dicis? Nam vos quoque potestati meae lex Christi subjecit. Imperium et nos gerimus;
adde etiam praestantius. This is the teaching of the catholic Church.

(38) The Church was very moderate in her use of canonical penalties at better moments of her
history. She was afraid of causing despair in the guilty cut off from her membership. In the council
held at Carthage by St. Cyprian in 251 after the persecution of Decius, the case of apostates from
the faith who had fallen away during the persecution was examined. After lengthy discussion it was
decided "not to deprive them of all hope of communion lest they become worse and return to the
world and pagan life on seeing the Church closed to them." Human weakness was amply provided
for!

(39) I am referring to the proposal made by a priest of the French clergy in which he suggested that
government stipends should be renounced for the sake of regaining freedom. It was a generous
proposal, worthy of the early days of the Church, although perhaps made inopportunely; it is a
reminder of the freedom so highly prized by St. Paul that he preferred to renounce the right to
maintenance, which he shared with the other apostles, rather than put it at risk. St. Paul chose to add
manual work for his daily bread to his immense apostolic labours: "All things are lawful for me, but
I will NOT BE ENSLAVED by anything" (I Cor 6. 12). Such noble feelings appear out-of-place
nowadays, but there are hearts ready to accept them. The seed sown will not die without bringing
forth fruit because the word of God never returns empty.
But why has the person proclaiming this divine word and valuing the liberty of the Church so
highly now made such freedom available to the wicked? [Rosmini is referring to the policy
expressed in four articles of L'Avenir, 27th, 30th October, 2nd, 5th November 1830.] Why does he
not see that freedom is a right exclusive to truth? Why has he put the rights of unchangeable truth
on a par with falsehood, and raised godless humanity to a level proper only to humanity divinised
by Christ? Why does he not stop to adore in the Church, that is, in the society of the children of
God, the column and foundation of truth, rather than attempt to find it in the society of mankind and
amongst the children of Adam? The system certainly is coherent: if truth is the possession of sinful
humanity, so is freedom. But I cannot see how it is possible to separate truth and justice; for me,
truth forms part of the society of the just; error has no right to freedom. Man is not born free, but
made free by Christ, from whom he receives the light of truth and the glory of justice. Only those
aware of not possessing the truth, but endlessly searching for it without even a lying persuasion of
success can ever affirm in desperation: "all human ideas have equal right to develop and attempt to
win weak and vacillating popular persuasion." This is not what a catholic would hold. The catholic
is aware of possessing the truth whose dignity and infinite price he recognises. He knows that he
has no power to alienate its rights. This explains why the head of the catholic Church has spoken
out against such teaching presented in the name of catholicism, and has refused to recognise it as
such. May God grant this man, whom we admire and love, the light to return to himself, the courage
to conquer self-love and the flattery of friends and enemies, and come back whole-heartedly and
loyally to the path of truth where he has rendered such great service and shown such affectionate
devotion. He will never have a better opportunity of being coherent with himself than by openly
retracting his errors and submitting fully to the See everlastingly entrusted with the teaching of
truth.

Chapter 4 (Part one)

The wound in the right foot of holy Church:

the nomination of bishops left in the hands of civil government.

74. Every free society has an inherent right to choose its own officers. This right is as essential and
inalienable to it as its right to existence. A society which has ceded to others the choice of its own
ministers has ipso facto alienated itself; its existence is no longer its own. Those on whom the
choice of ministers depends can destroy it at will. In this case, its existence does not depend on its
own decision, but on concession from others. Its apparently stable existence is very misleading.

75. One society which for all catholics certainly has a right to exist, and therefore a right to
freedom, is the Church of Jesus Christ, who conferred this right when he said: "I am with you
always, to the close of the age" (1). Christ, her Founder, has guaranteed the Church's existence by
his unfailing word which will not pass away though heaven and earth come to an end. The Church
of Jesus Christ, therefore, cannot cede her government to others; she cannot sell or otherwise
alienate her choice of rulers because she cannot destroy herself. Any absolute concession of this
kind is invalid, a contract without foundation, a pact without substance, amd like every other
agreement to evil, null and void.

76. Christ chose his apostles at the beginning of the Church, the apostles chose their successors (2),
and these successors have always retained (3) without fail the choice of those to whom they consign
the deposit of faith which will be handed on unaltered until the end of the world. They alone will be
held to account for what the Master has entrusted to them. The blame for the choice of bad bishops
in the Church will fall upon their predecessors who first renounced their choice of successors or did
not at least use all the means in their power to ensure successors worthy of receiving the sacred
deposit of word and work left by Jesus Christ.

77. The government set up by Jesus Christ in his Church is very different from worldly dominion.
As a service to mankind and a ministry of salvation for souls (4) it is not dependent upon the
arbitrary will of unbending authority, nor does it imagine that it rules by naked right.
Founded on humility and reason it is malleable, and has as its norm the subjects for whom it was
established, so that it is constitutionally disposed to direct all things to good, not evil. The only
advantage it has, and the only right it can boast of, is its right to be of assistance to mankind.

This was quite clear in the first centuries of the Church, and accounts for the admirable principle
applied in all church government, but especially in the choice of the leading pastors: THE CLERGY
JUDGE, THE PEOPLE ADVISE. If there were question of a strict, rigid right, christian people
could have had no part in the choice of bishops. Wisdom and love, however, quided and gently
tempered the right received by the leaders of the Church of Christ. They did nothing arbitrarily,
secretly or fancifully. Taught by Christ himself they wished to call upon the witness and advice of
others, in the knowledge that counsel coming from the entire body of the faithful would be best,
because least subject to error. In this way the Church of the faithful acted as a single person whose
head sees itself different from the other members, but without refusing to serve them nor wanting to
isolate itself from them.

Popular choice, therefore, designated bishops and priests (5). It was only right that those who had to
abandon their own souls (and when I say "souls" I refer to what is most prized by people of living
faith) into the hands of another person should know what kind of person he was, and have
confidence in his holiness and prudence (6).

It is different if bishops and priests are pastors in name only, and no longer the trusted friends and
fathers of believers who yield to their care all that they are and all they have. The people no longer
care what pastor is given to them if the clergy's duty is reduced to formalities, or to carrying out
worship ceremoniously, on a par, I almost said, with the pagan priests of old (7). When christian
religion, which teaches its people to adore in spirit and in truth, has descended as low as this, can
the people care - if the right to choose a pastor has passed from one owner to another as if it were a
piece of property - about a man they do not know or, if they know him, neither trust nor esteem him
and perhaps have come to despise him?

Public indifference about religion comes in for a great deal of intemperate criticism, but what else
can be expected from people educated to accept as their bishop any unknown stranger for whom
they lack common affection and ties of gratitude? What else can be expected if they have never
experienced his holiness in practice (please God he is holy!), nor even heard of him, or having seen
and heard him are not impressed? If the people are expected and encouraged to be indifferent to
their pastors, are they not also required to be indifferent to what the pastors teach in doctrine and
morals, and presumed to have lost confidence in ministers of religion? In a word, the people's
interior needs and anguish can be set aside and religion can be considered superfluous to their
requirements - or, at most, sufficient in its outward, material aspect.

Indifference to their pastors also obliges the people to blind, I should say, unreasonable obedience, a
perfect synonym for religious indifference (8). To have succeeded in obtaining this amongst
christian people is equivalent to subverting them and destroying christianity from within, although
outwardly christians may cling to its form. All that remains is an unhappy people unconsciously lost
to religion through hidden, slow, steady corruption. Its religious interests have been extinguished,
and it has become practically independent of its bishops (9). As far as the people are concerned, any
ordained person can preside in the sanctuary and carry out its unintelligible ceremonies. It is not
surprising that the words of a 3rd century father of the Church can still be applied rightly to the
people today: "God provides pastors for the churches according to the people's deserts" (10).

78. If we want to discover the origin of this disaster, we have to go back to the glorious, but fatal
epoch which heralded for the Church what we have called "the period of society's conversion." This
epoch explains all church history after the first six centuries because it contains the germ of all
succeeding prosperity and disaster. It is the epoch in which the clergy weighed heavily in the
balance of power and, because of their power, grew rich proportionately (11).
It is clear that a rich, property-owning clergy will inevitably attract the interest of government
policy, which will want to subject such clergy to itself and hence influence the choice of its leaders.
The first sees to fall to lay power in this way were Antioch and Constantinople, the imperial
residence, where the patriarchs enjoyed considerable power (12).

79. The battle with secular power over the choice of bishops lasted many centuries. The Church
defended herself with decrees and canons, but these were respected according to the piety of rulers
and the religious feeling of the people. Diminishing freedom in the choice of clergy is a sure sign of
the lowering of faith, morals and piety in governments and nations. Let us outline its history.
Already in the 6th century, the ruler's placet began to weigh more heavily in the balance of those
choosing a bishop than the merits of candidates. Canons of various councils ruler against the danger
and defended freedom of choice.

Pope Symmachus, in a council held in 500 at Rome in the presence of 218 bishops, published a
decree confirming the canonical election of bishops against the continual wilful interference of lay
power. The decree begins: "We cannot permit any power of decision in the church to those whose
duty it is to follow rather than to command," and then goes on to confirm the ancient manner of
choosing bishops with the consent of the clergy and people (13).

In 535, the council of Clermont (14) decreed that a biship be ordained at the choice of clergy and
citizens and with the consent of the metropolitan, without pressure from the nobility, without
intrigues, and without enforced signing of the decree of election by means of fear or bribes. The
penalty for taking part in these misdemeanours was excommunication from the church which the
candidate wished to rule (15).
The same care in safeguarding elections from influence by civil government is seen in the 2nd and
3rd councils of Orleans, 537 (16) and 538 (17), in the council of Auvergne, 535, and others. The
decrees of these councils show how the Church felt the necessity of defending herself in some way
from secular power which unfortunately never ceased to hack away at her and appropriate her
rights.

Shortly afterwards government in France succeeded in enacting in church law the principle of royal
assent which had already become practically necessary in episcopal appointments. The famous
canon of the 5th council of Orleans, 549, which embodied this principle, did however safeguard the
rights of clergy and people (18). Of course, it is not unreasonable to require the assent of
government. On the contrary, it is certainly in conformity with union and peace in a Church which
wishes her ministers to be acceptable to all, and hence a fortiori to those who rule the people.
Nevertheless, this assent involves great danger in so far as it easily becomes an obligation (19) or a
bestowal of government favour. In this case, the Church which is by favour free is also by justice
(20) enslaved. Favour is per se arbitrary; and in our case it means that the choice of the most worthy
candidates as pastors of the Church depends upon the will and even caprice of the ruling lay power,
and the men and women who gain most influence over it.

This is, in fact, what happened. Assent was a favour; obligation was a favour; and finally favours
were put up for sale at a stiff price, and bought with coin minted from the Church's goods (21), with
personal debasement, and the sale of one's own soul (22).
Such a danger caused the 3rd council of Paris, 553, held four years after the council of Orleans, to
reassert the ancient freedom of choice in a canon which omitted mention of royal assent.

Canon 8 of this synod affirms: "No bishop may be ordained against the will of the people, but only
the one freely requested by the unimpeded will of clergy and people. No one will be imposed by
royal command or under any other condition against the will of the metropolitan and the bishops of
the province. If anyone dares to set himself up as bishop at the command of the king, he shall be
held unworthy to be received by the other bishops of the province who will look upon him as
unlawfully ordained."

Gregory the Great, convinced of the importance of freedom for the Church, realised that bishops
dependent for their advancement upon secular power were its slaves. At the death of Natalis, bishop
of Salona, metropolitan of Dalmatia, the pope wrote in 593 to the subdeacon, Antoninus, governor
of the provincial patrimony: "Inform clergy and people of the city immediately to agree about a
choice of bishop, and send the decree of election so that he may be ordained with our consent,
according to ancient practice. Above all, be careful not to allow royal power, or patronage from
highly placed persons, to have any influence in the election. A bishop ordained in this way is
constrained to obey his protectors; church goods and discipline suffer accordingly" (23).

In 615, the 5th council of Paris also insisted upon freedom in the choice of bishops, but Clotharius
II, although he emphasised his desire to see the council's decrees upheld in the matter, modified the
council's decisions by insisting that only the bishops he wanted, or those sent from amongst suitable
priests at court, should be ordained. This edict was also put into force under Dagobert, his successor
(24).
However, the council of Chalons-sur-Saone under Clovis II in 650 declared once more that all
elections without exception were null and void if not carried out according to the norms laid down
by the fathers (25).

At this time in France there was a continual, secret struggle, carried on with threats and flattery,
between the king and the clergy; the former wished to have the choice of bishops in his own hands,
the latter wanted it to remain free (26). The outcome of the struggle varied from time to time, but
the general effect was constant, intolerable pressure upon the Church which, without suffering
outward oppression, often felt the weight of force.

The popes were certainly not idle in face of the ever-increasing danger of royal interference in the
choice of bishops. They knew that such interference by rulers would place the Church in royal
hands. Gregory II, for instance, went so far as to write to the emperor of the East, warning him not
to interfere with the Church's sacred right to nominate her own leaders (27). But appeals were
useless. While royal pressure was increased constantly, the Church's only answer was restricted to
promulgation of new laws and new canons.

The 7th ecumenical council, held at Nicea in 787, also added its weight in defence of the Church
with a canon against secular pressure and its tendency to justify its own interests. "Every choice of
bishops, priests or deacons made by the nobility is void according to the norm which states: 'anyone
obtaining a see by means of pressure from rulers will be deposed, and those communicating with
him will be expelled.' It is necessary for candidates to the episcopate to be chosen by the bishops, as
the holy fathers decreed at the council of Nicea" (28).

The synod held at Thionville (29) in 844 solemnly warned the royal brothers Lotharius, Ludovic
and Charles that churches were not to be left without pastors. Because the choice of bishops
depended upon these rulers, and conflict between them took away the time and effort that should
have been applied to the Church's interests, the Church inevitably shared the vicissitudes of lay rule.
The fathers declared with great dignity and freedom: "We warn you that sees without pastors,
vacant as a result of your disagreements, must without delay or taint of heretical simony receive
bishops given by God in accordance with the authority of the canons, designated by yourselves in
conformity with normal procedure, and consecrated by the grace of the Spirit."

About this time pope Nicholas I, a strenuous supporter of everything related to the canons, was not
afraid to speak with great dignity on several occasions against the abuse of interference in the
choice of bishops by the lay powers. One example may be seen in his letter to the bishops in the
territory of Lotharius. He commanded them under pain of excommunication to warn the king to
depose Ilduin from the see of Cambrai which Lotharius had given him despite his unworthiness and
canonical irregularity, and to allow "the clergy and people of that church to choose a bishop for
themselves according to canonical prescriptions" (30).

The 8th ecumenical council was held at Constantinople in 869 under Nicholas the Great's successor,
Hadrian II. By this time the freedom of the Church had suffered considerably (31), and the fathers
felt it necessary to protest with all their power in defence of freedom by insisting upon the
application of the ancient rules governing the choice of bishops who, under pain of deposition (32),
were not to be ordained by authority and command of the nobles. Powerful lay figures were
forbidden to interfere in the choice of bishops except at the invitation of the Church (33).

It was useless! Reason and justice make little impression upon people in the grip of passion,
especially when the use of force is open to them. Christian princes paid no attention to the
exhortations, commands or threats of their mother, the Church, but made further inroads on her
freedom by means of legal subtleties and violence.

I am speaking in general terms, of course; there were docile, respectful monarchs who obeyed.
Moreover, I must add that all rulers were influenced to some extent by the continual decisions and
church laws which popes and synods published endlessly about church discipline, at the centre of
which decrees about the choice of bishops held pride of place. Rulers were cautious about extending
their power of patronage over episcopal elections, and used only the most refined devices in their
attempts to elude canon law; their usurpations were clothed with declarations of respect that
rendered them open contradictions and condemnations (34). Nevertheless, the Church had to stay
on the alert and reinforce her efforts through the valour of those in Israel who fought the Lord's
battles - men calumniated by the world which attributed their courage to ambition and pride,
although justice demanded they should defend the deposit of faith entrusted to them and so avoid
condemnation by Christ, the judge, who would one day ask for a rigorous account of their trust.

80. One of these valiant leaders was Hincmar, the great archbishop of Rheims in France who,
towards the end of the 9th century, defended freedom of choice in episcopal elections with the
nobility and uprightness of a true bishop. It will be sufficient to relate what happened between him
and King Louis III.

Hincmar presided at the council of Fismes in 881. Odo, bishop of Beauvais, had died and a cleric
named Odoacer, presented himself before the council with a decree of election from the clergy and
people of Beauvais obtained with the favour of the court. The council had the right to examine the
candidate before confirming him in office, and did so, finding him unworthy. A letter to the king
was drawn up in which the fathers set out their reasons for being canonically unable to consecrate
Odoacer. A group of bishops was deputed to take it to the king at court where it caused a great
outcry: "When the king permitted the choice of bishops, the bishop he wanted should be elected
(35). Church property is in his power and he can give it to whomsoever he wishes" (36). The king
wrote the usual hesitant, self-contradictory letter to Hincmar in which he affirmed his desire "to
follow his advice both in affairs of state and in church affairs," begging Hincmar to be as solicitous
for him as he had been for the kings who preceded him, and then adding, as a proof of his
willingness to follow his advice, "I would like with your consent and through your ministry to give
the see of Beauvais to Odoacer, your dear son and my trusted servant. If you do me this favour, I
shall honour all those you hold dear" (37).

Can a pastor be given to Christ's flock in order to do someone a favour? Can souls redeemed by the
blood of God-Incarnate be entrusted not to a holy, prudent man, but to a court favourite supported
by the king for the sake of profit from the wealth of the diocese? Could there possibly be a greater
reversal of values?

Hincmar was equal to his duty. He replied that "the council's letter contained nothing disrespectful
to the king or opposed to the good of the state. Its aim was to maintain the right of the metropolitan
and the provincial bishops to examine and confirm the choice according to the canons." He added:
"Saying that you are master of church elections and property is to speak the language of the devil.
Remember the promise you made and signed at your consecration, and placed upon the altar of God
in the presence of the bishops. Have it read with your Council present. Do not imagine that you can
introduce into the Church what the great emperors, your predecessors, never dared to lay claim to. I
hope that I shall always retain the loyalty and devotion I owe you - and I was very solicitous about
your election. Do not, therefore, return evil for good by trying to dissuade me in my old age from
following the holy rules that I have put into practice, thanks be to God, for the thirty-seven years of
my episcopate. I do not want your promises, and ask for nothing except what you give to the poor
for the sake of your salvation. Remember, ordinations contrary to the canons are simoniacal, and all
those taking part in them share in their guilt. I am not speaking out of my own head, nor is this just
my opinion. I am telling you what Jesus Christ, and his apostles and saints reigning with him, have
always affirmed. Be careful to listen to them. The bishops are meeting in council to undertake a
regular election, with the clergy and people of Beauvais, and with your consent."

Bishops speaking the truth to kings in this way, without meaning disrespect, believed they were
giving rulers the greatest proof of their faithful, undying devotion. How little that is recognised! But
what hope would rulers have of hearing the truth and word of God if bishops concealed it from
them? If they would only learn to detect the true tone of apostolic freedom, which contains no
disrespect or disloyalty!

Catholic governments should learn to esteem language like this, and recognise that the presence of
men who speak according to conscience is a great gift from God, rendered still more precious when
they are prepared to stand up to royal anger and the even worse persecution of flatterers and servile
ministers for the sake of what is right. This is true, unshakeable loyalty that does not take refuge in
unctuous lies appearing to augment the power of rulers in this world, but which in fact undermine
its foundations and lead to its ruin.

The Church, "column and foundation of truth" has always held that rulers should not be misled,
even when they want to be deceived and punish those who refuse to deceive them. Such loyalty on
the part of the Church is given in friendship as a support, in justice and truth, for the throne. How
grossly its fidelity has been interpreted and misunderstood! Mortal enemies of rulers calumniate it,
and their supporters conceal it because they know perfectly well that Church and state would
prosper in mutual harmony if the ruler paid attention to the stern words of the Church. Hence their
all-consuming desire to persuade him that the Church wants invariably to detract from his rights,
and that the apostolic freedom of popes and bishops is nothing more than ambition and audacious
violation of royal dignity.

This was how Louis III's ministers presented Hincmar's loyal, dignified reply to the king. The letter,
which should have enhanced the young man's respect for the venerable bishop, embittered him
instead. The king's reply was intended to humiliate the old man: "If you do not consent to the
election of Odoacer, I shall take it for granted that you do not want to render me due respect (38),
nor support my rights, but intend to oppose me in everything. If I were speaking to an equal, I
would use all the power I have to safeguard my dignity (39), but I have the greatest contempt for
any subject who wishes to reprove me. Do nothing further in this matter until I have informed my
brother, the king, and my royal cousins. Then we shall call a council of all the bishops of our
kingdoms (40) who will act as our dignity requires. Finally, if necessity urges, reason will guide our
next move."

If Hincmar had acted from ambition or self-interest, a reply of this nature, which threatened his
good standing with the king, would undoubtedly have changed his attitude. But a person acting
according to conscience cannot give way. A ruler cannot force such an individual to betray him
because his loyalty towards the king depends upon his loyalty to God. He is loyal for the sake of
duty, not self-interest.

Hincmar, in fact, replied without hesitation, first giving the lie about his lack of respect and
obedience to the secretary who had written on the king's behalf. He then added: "With regard to
what you have said about reason guiding your next move if necessity required it, I realise you were
trying to intimidate me. You have no power, however, except that which comes from above. And
may it indeed please God to free me from this prison, either through you or through anyone else he
pleases - free me, I mean, from this old, sick body of mine so that I may appeal before him whom I
long to behold not because I have merited anything but evil, but because of his freely bestowed
grace. If I sinned in consenting to your election, against the will of others and despite many threats,
I ask God to punish me in this life, not in the next. However, since you are so anxious about
Odoacer's election, let me know when the bishops of the province of Rheims and those deputed by
you for the council of France can meet. I shall get there, if I am still alive. With Odoacer send those
who have chosen him, whether they are from the court or from the church of Beauvais. Come
yourself if you like or send representatives. Then we shall see whether Odoacer has entered the fold
through the gate. But tell him that if he does not come, we shall search for him throughout the
province of Rheims and condemn him as the usurper of a church. Never again will he hold any
church office anywhere in this province. Those sharing his guilt will all be excommunicated until
they have given satisfaction to the Church."

Bishops in the first centuries of the Church could not have spoken better, but these splendid words
had no effect. Louis III's courtiers, in their eagerness to show their devotion to the king, induced
him to use force and impose Odoacer at Beauvais with violence. The church tolerated him, without
however inscribing him in her list of pastors. A year later he was excommunicated for this and other
crimes, and deposed. In the meantime Louis III had died and given an account of his conduct to the
final judge (41).

81. Attempts by lay powers to gain control of episcopal elections had been greatly facilitated by the
division between people and clergy resulting from the causes already examined. As the split grew,
and the people became more corrupt, the choice of worthy pastors was not a major pre-occupation.
On the other hand while greed was an increasingly important motive in driving candidates to
compete for the wealth, fulsome pomp and dignity now attached to a bishopric, banditry was
essential in obtaining it. In these circumstances it is not difficult to understand how a degraded
poeple could be bribed, split up into factions, incited to riot and finally induced to support flatterers
reflecting their own vices, rather than the virtue proper to bishops.

Popular disorder then became a good reason for excluding the people altogether from the choice of
bishop, first in the east where lay power had already taken control of elections, and later in the west.
The canons, which principally depended for their sanctions on the people, lost their force. The
clergy, without realising that they were instinctively if not consciously playing the political games
of the rulers, reserved all choice of bishops to themselves alone without any consultation or
evaluation of the will of the great mass of the faithful. Amongst the clergy a few, the cathedral
canons, soon took precedence over the rest (42), and obtained for their own group the privilege of
choosing the bishop. They also succeeded in confirming in church law the status they had abrogated
for themselves. With the people and a great part of the clergy excluded from the choice of bishops,
the electing body was seriously weakened and rendered incapable of maintaining its right of choice
against those who wanted to control it.

82. In these circumstances, while French popes were resident at Avignon (43), papal reservations,
accompanied by appropriation of income from vacant sees together with annates as an inevitable
consequence, reached their peak. At first, rulers welcomed and even requested them because they
tended to weaken still further sanctions connected with the Church's right to choose her pastors
(44). Sanctions which protect rights must be as strong as the law is extensive, and it is impossible
for a single person, whatever his level of authority, to exert pressure proportionate to the right of
choice of new bishops throughout the world. But universal reservations and world-wide extension
of the right to choose bishops imply acceptance of responsibility out-running any corresponding
force of sanction. Such a right, without equivalent sanctions, has no lasting power. Nations begin to
complain, and the humiliation of concordats is then imposed on the mother of the faithful by the
discontented children she is forced to bargain with (45).

The final result is the horrible wound afflicting the body of the Church when the choice of bishops
has been taken from the people and clergy, chapters have been deprived of their rights and popes of
reservations, the nomination of bishops in catholic nations has fallen into lay hands, and the
confirmation of nominations, which remains dependent upon the head of the Church, means little or
nothing. At this point, violence under the cloak of benevolence has done its worst, and brought
about "the Church's enslavement, while preserving every formal liberty" (46). However, before
describing the tremendous agony of such a horrible wound, and speaking of the Church's imaginary
freedom and actual enslavement, I have to point to other reasons which brought the choice of
bishops to this deplorable level, and to continue the history of the struggles and sufferings of popes
and bishops in their effort to prevent the agony and to keep the Church truly free, as it was
constituted for all time by its divine Founder.

83. After the barbarians, under the guidance of the northern chieftains, had conquered southern
Europe, they took their titles from the lands they had subdued. They became kings of France, Italy,
England, not kings of the French, Italians, English, that is, of persons. But it was impossible for
individuals, however strong, to retain possession of these vast areas. As we have said, the power of
sanctions is governed by a law which affirms that "the sanction suitable for defining a right must
correspond with the extension of the right itself." The new rulers invented or adopted the holding of
land in feud as a means for retaining their ownership of landed estates although granting their
usufruct to others who thus became faithful guardians of the lands in question. Otherwise, kings
would have faced rebellion especially from comrades-in-arms unwilling to lose their share of the
conquests.

The king's beneficiaries, united with him by common interests, were his feals who gave their name
to the feudal system. They swore fealty and vassalage on stipulated terms which included especially
the provision of fighting men, and of their own services under arms, when the king went to war. It
was an excellent system for the times: the conquerors safeguarded the ownership of their lands
while retaining the services of others by ceding to them attractive usufructs which reverted to the
king at the death of feudatories whose successors were then invested at the royal pleasure (47).

The new masters of Europe soon realised that their policy was better served by entrusting their
lands to bishops and churches than to warriors-at-arms. Church feuds and lordships existed from the
time of Clovis. However, Charlemagne in particular appreciated the importance of this discovery.
"Charlemagne", says William of Malmesbury, "gave nearly all the lands to the Church in order to
weaken the ferocity of the Germanic nations. He saw instinctively and wisely that men in sacred
orders would not abandon their sworn service as easily as lay people. Moreover, if the churchmen's
own laypeople rebelled, they could be restrained by power of excommunication and other very
severe penalties" (48).

The generosity of rulers towards bishops was in one respect the outcome of piety, but also the kind
of gift made to judges by parties to a suit. Moreover, the very nature of these royal benefits almost
necessitated the enslavement of the Church. Bishops became vassals, obliged to take their oath and
pledge fealty at the hands of the king (49). Like the king, they had at heart the greatness of their
own land, and followed him as comrades and fellow-soldiers in the expeditions and wars he cared
to undertake.

It was impossible for them to pay much attention to the words of St. Paul: "No man, being a soldier
of God, entangles himself with secular business" (50), and equally impossible not to look upon the
king only as their temporal lord with themselves as his servants sharing, through his benevolence, in
his riches and power. They forgot that their sovereign was also a simple layman, a son of the
Church, a sheep of their flock, and that they themselves had been set over the Church of God by the
Holy Spirit to rule it. In a word, they could not be simultaneously the king's men (51) and men of
God. "No man can serve two masters" (52).

84. The use of temporalities for a temporal purpose blinds men to reality, especially in the case of
the Church whose entire power and freedom belong to the spiritual, invisible order of things.
Granted a connection, therefore, between great external power and the spiritual power of episcopal
responsibility, it is not surprising to behold bishops, themselves human beings, as blind rulers. The
temporal power received from the ruler was mingled and confused with the spiritual power received
from Christ; inevitably, the invisible power disappeared, as it were, and was lost to the bishop's
sight. The word "episcopacy" was then attributed to the benefice attached to the bishopric, and it
became impossible to conceive how episcopal responsibility could be separated from the benefice,
or how the former could subsist without the latter. Common phrases in use at the time indicate how
true this is. All the elements are mixed together within them, and instead of stating that the king
bestows the temporalities accompanying the bishopric, they affirm that: "He grants or confers the
episcopacy"; "He confers the episcopal dignity"; "He commands or orders so-and-so to be bishop";
"By order of the king, so-and-so shall be ordained" (53).

I must insist that these ways of speaking did not bear, at the time they came into vogue, the full
meaning expressed by their words, but they were open to the force which would one day be
attached to them. The process always follows these steps; first phrases are coined, and for some
time have no real significance; they are feeble accommodations of truth to passion, in a word, lies.
At the same time, however, the phrases conceal hidden tendencies, dependent upon a law impelling
a human being to speak the truth and hence to actualise words which would otherwise be unreal. To
a person capable of penetrating the depths of mankind, current ways of speaking and expressions
foreshadow the path a nation is about to take, and can be used as signs by which to prophesy what is
to befall a society.

Language which identifies temporalities with episcopal office, and considers the distribution of
bishoprics to be equivalent to the bestowal of grants dependent for their nature on the will of the
donor, clearly indicates the subservience and corruption practised by clergy already enslaved to
secular rulers by their preference for worldly wealth over the freedom brought by Christ. Such
language also indicates the continual tendency of rulers to dominate all things, and conquer the
Church as they had conquered their territories. The personal piety of individual rulers and the
distaste of public opinion in so far as it continued to uphold religious principles temporarily
restrained the natural development of this tendency which, however, had eventually to land whither
gravity was taking it and bring forth the fruit it contained in germ.

In fact, with the exception of purely arbitrary acts of interference in elections, rulers began by
recognising the Church's right to choose her own pastors. Later, when they started to confer
bishoprics of their own volition, they normally tempered the novelty of their injustice with pious
language destined to mollify bishops and people still too rigid and tenacious in their adherence to
church law and the truth (54).
Charlemagne's piety, uprightness and policy went further, and restored to the Church the portion of
freedom that the Merovingian kings had usurped. Louis the Pious followed the example of his
great-hearted father (55). But successive kings acted very differently.

85. The nature itself of fiefs demanded that they be repossessed by the king at the death of each
bishop, and that their revenues, called regalia, should be at the royal disposition. However, matters
went further than that. Greed for these revenues caused rulers to leave churches bereft of pastors for
long periods (56); elections were delayed on the pretext of the need for royal permission (57); the
gospel and the salvation of souls thus became dependent upon the king's will and pleasure, and
above all on his acquisitiveness. Because ordinary priests also shared church revenues, it was
decreed that the Church of God should no longer have the right to ordain even a humble priest
without the king's grace and favour (58).

86. Matters went further. Lawyers, the equivalent in royal households of demagogues in corrupt
society, thought up an extraordinary argument. "The most important element in a situation attracts
that which is less important; but fiefs are the most important amongst church properties; therefore
all other church properties must be considered as fiefs and be subject to the same legislation" (59).
The final conclusion drawn from this piece of sophistry permits all church goods, as properties of
first rank, to be considered "ennobled holdings". They soon became "royal holdings" (60), from
many points of view. The king was no longer content with his feudal rights, but claimed the same
rights over all church property without distinction. He wanted the regalia, that is, the revenues of
vacant benefices (61) which reverted to the ruler on the death of the beneficiary, from all church
goods. Needless to say, he often disposed of them arbitrarily as though they were his own property
(62). Sometimes unfettered church possessions were made to look like fiefs. In this way, tithes and
other unencumbered benefits were enfeoffed (63) and little by little devoted to the welfare of lay
people, as often happened with true fiefs at the death of bishops and abbots (64). Spiritualities,
which were considered indivisible from temporalities, also fell into the hands of lay people,
especially soldiers, who ruled in abbeys as abbots over monks, and in dioceses as bishops over the
clergy (65).

87. The indivisible connection between spiritual and temporal caused spiritualities to be usurped
along with temporalities. As a result, investiture was carried out by the ruler with ring and pastoral
staff, symbols of spiritual power; bishoprics were left entirely vacant if the ruler reserved their
revenues for himself (66); rulers influenced every election (67); episcopal sees were on offer to the
highest bidder; dioceses of the Church were governed by base retainers whose only merit was the
baseness that made them loyal to rulers in imitating their vices; degradation and corruption
overflowed in clergy and people. The evils which oppressed the Church in this pitiful state of affairs
later had an equally deleterious effect (unrecognised by the rulers) on the state itself. Violence,
disturbances and divisions springing from these evils brought the progress of civilisation to a
standstill. Rational human nature and christian religion, which could together have brought nations
peacefully to higher levels of development, without injustice to civil power, were powerless to act.

Notes

(1) Matt 28. 20

(2) Paul and Barnabas "appointed elders in every church," that is, appointed bishops and priests
(Acts 14. 22) [Acts 14. 23].

(3) St. Paul had consecrated Titus as bishop of Crete. Writing to him later, he ordered him to do the
same in other cities: "This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what is defective, and
appoint elders" that is, bishops, "in every town as I directed you" (Titus 1. 5).

(4) "A man is called to the episcopate not to command, but to serve the Church with such courtesy
and humility that both he and the Church may benefit" (Origen, Hom. in Matt. 20, 25) [cf. PG 13,
1392-3]. Underlying this statement is the principle directing all christian rule, not only that of the
Church. "Christian government must be altogether different from pagan government which is hard,
proud and vain." This kind of teaching is constant in the fathers.

(5) The Roman Pontifical still contains a ceremony according to which the bishop asks whether the
ordinands have a good reputation amongst the people. That I have to call it a "ceremony" indicates
its true value today.

(6) "God's choice and the presence of the people are imperative when a bishop is ordained. The
people are present so that everone may be sure the bishop chosen is the best, most learned, holy and
virtuous person available. In this way, no one will regret the choice, nor have any reason for
wanting to change it" (Origen, Hom. 22 in Numbers, and 6 on Leviticus) [cf. PG 12, 744; 469].

(7) This is the kind of concept unfortunately predominant in the world. People believe, or pretend to
believe, that the work of the christian priest should be confined within the material walls of the
church. Not long ago, the elder Dupin said in the French Chamber of Deputies (23rd February,
1833): "J'ai le plus profond respect pour la libertá due prætre, tant qu'il se renferme dans ses
fonctions: si cette libertá átait attaquáe, je serais le premier ê la dáfendre; mais que le prætre se
contente du maniement des choses saintes, ET QU'IL NE SORTE PAS DU SEUIL DE SON
ÁGLISE, hors de lê, il rentre pour moi dans la foule des citoyens; il n'a plus de droits que ceux du
droit commun. " Did Jesus Christ enclose the priesthood within the walls of churches when he said:
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations," and "You are the salt of the earth?" When did the
Church's divine Founder, who taught that "true worshippers worship the Father in spirit and truth,"
speak about churches built with bricks and mortar? Is the power of binding and loosing to be
exercised only in church? When the Lord ordered the truth to be declared from the housetops, when
he sent out his priests with the words: "as the Father has sent me, so I send you," when he
commanded the gospel to be taken before kings and governors, did he intend to put bounds to the
exercise of the priesthood as Dupin does? However, Dupin's ignorance or prejudice is excusable in
the sense that it is the effect of the whole sad system governing public affairs, and of the harassment
imposed upon religion by politics.

(8) St. Leo the Great was well aware that imposing a bishop on an unwilling people was equivalent
to depriving them of their bishop. This was one reason why the saintly pope stood firm in
maintaining the ancient discipline of the Church which provided for the choice of bishops by
clergy, people and provincial bishops. I quote one of the many passages of St. Leo which proves my
point. In 445, he wrote as follows to Athanasius, bishop of Thessalonica (chap. 5): "When a bishop
is being selected, give first preference to the person desired by united consent of clergy and people.
If several people receive votes the metropolitan should choose the most loved and meritorious
candidate. It is essential to exclude all those unwanted and unasked for, if the people are not to be
crossed and end by despising or hating their bishop. IF THEY CANNOT HAVE THE
CANDIDATE THEY DESIRE, THE PEOPLE MAY FALL AWAY FROM RELIGION
UNDULY"; ne plebs invita episcopum non licuerit habere quem voluerit [PL 54, 673]. That is the
opinion of a man like Leo! See also his letters to the bishops of the province of Vienne, chap. 3, and
Rusticus of Narbonne, chap. 7. [PL 54, 633-634; 1203].

(9) In passing from one province to another the faithful, as well as the priests, had to obtain letters
from their bishops to show they were in communion with their own church. This gives some idea of
the close union and dependence in olden days between people and bishops. The council of Arles,
314, ordered that "governors of provinces who become christians when in office must, like other
members of the faithful, carry letters of communion from their own bishops. The bishop of the
place where they work must keep an eye on them and excommunicate them if they offend against
church discipline."

(10) Origen, In Iudic. Hom. 4 [PG 12, 968-9].

(11) Even before this epoch emperors, as soon as they became christian, emdeavoured on occasion
to play a role in the choice of bishops. This was not wholly their fault. Base, deceitful bishops were
ready to prompt them to subversive action against church constitution. A secular ruler is very easily
misled, especially in church affairs, by hypocrisy and boldness or even ignorance on the part of bad
priests. In this respect Athanasius, the great defender of the divinity of the Word, had more than
sufficient grounds for complaint against the emperor Constance. He wrote: "This man thought hard
about how to transform the law and eliminate the constitution established by the Lord and handed
down to us by the apostles. He decided to change church custom and set up a new way of
appointing bishops. He sends bishops, escorted by soldiers, from as far as fifty days' journey away.
The people do not want these foreigners who, instead of being welcomed by them, have to go to the
local magistrates with letters and threats" (Epis. ad solitariam vitam agentes). It is clear from this
passage that the choice of bishops by clergy and people was considered an important element in
church constitution, and held to be of divine institution and part of the apostolic tradition. St.
Cyprian also declares this method of choosing bishops to be of divine right: de traditione DIVINA
et apostolica observatione descendit [PL 3, 1027]. St. Athanasius' complaint against Constance for
sending bishops ex illis locis et quinquaginta mansionum intervallo disjunctis merits further careful
reflection!
(12) Nevertheless, the emperor's decision had to be accompanied by the canonical choice of clergy
and people. For example, Epiphanius, patriarch of Constantinople about the beginning of the 6th.
century, reported his election to pope Hormisdas. After saying that he had been chosen by the
emperor Justinus and all the nobility, he added: "and with the consent of the priests, monks and
people." Simul et sacerdotum et monacorum et fidelissimae plebis consensus accessit. [SC 5, 666]

In the same century, the letter of pope Agapit was read at a synod of Constantinople under the
patriarch Mennas. Speaking of Mennas' election, Agapit says that imperial consent to the choice
was only incidental,and insists on canonical election, that is, election by clergy and people. The
pope's words were: Cui, licet, praeter caeteros, serenissimorum imperatorum electio arriserit,
similiter tamen et totius cleri ac populi consensus accessit, ut et a singulis eligi crederetur. [PL 66,
50]. They express the true spirit of liberty in the Church [PL 66, 50].
Why did the patriarchate of Constantinople act at times with such blatant venality? Why was the
papacy sold on occasion? Because the wealth of these sees was no longer used in works of charity,
but for self-aggrandisement. Worldly people spend nothing on dignities bringing them no benefit.

(13) From the first centuries until modern times the Church always laid great importance in
maintaining intact the method of choosing bishops by common consent and according to the
decision of the clergy. Because I am convinced that this point is connected with the divine
constitution of the Church, I would like to offer some quotations from works prior to the 6th
century which show the Church's constant care in safeguarding elections from all influence by lay
authority. The council of Nicea already felt the need of emphasising apostolic and divine custom in
elections (canon 6) [cf SC 4, 35]. This proves that the freedom of the Church was in danger of being
threatened as soon as emperors became christian. Subsequent councils published similar decrees for
the same reason in order to support the ancient, lawful form of choosing bishops with the
concurrence of clergy and people. See, for example, the council of Antioch (canons 19 and 23) [SC
2, 594-595].
The Apostolic Canons, n.29 [SC 1, 30] state: "If a bishop uses the influence and favour of secular
rulers to obtain his see, he shall be deposed and excommunicated. The same penalty is applicable to
those in communion with him."
Celestine I, about the beginning of the 5th century, issued a similar decree: Nullus invitis detur
episcopus; cleri, plebis et ordinis consensus et desiderium requiratur [PL 50, 434].

St. Leo the Great, pope from 440 to 461, whom we have already quoted several times, was always
intent on guaranteeing free, canonical form in episcopal elections. It is sufficient to note the decree
sent to Anastasius, bishop of Thessalonica: Nulla ratio sinit, ut inter episcopos habeantur, qui nec a
clericis sunt electi, nec a plebe expetiti, nec a provincialibus cum metropolitani judicio consecrati
[PL 54, 673].

(14) Can. 2 [Council of Claremont CCSL, CXLVIII A 106].

(15) Can. 4 [Can.4-5, ibid].

(16) Can. 7 [CCSL, CXLVIII A, 100].

(17) Can. 3 [CCSL, CXLVIII A, 115]. Fleury, in summing up the work of this council, says: "the
ancient form of election for provincial bishops with the consent of clergy and people was
recommended probably because of the difficulties introduced concomitantly with temporal
possessions" (Fleury, Discourses etc. XXXII, LIX etc.) [op. cit., V, 168)
(18) Can. 10 [CCSL, CXLVIII A, 151-2] Nulli episcopatum praemiis aut comparatione liceat
adipsci, sed cum voluntate regis JUXTA ELECTIONEM CLERI AC PLEBIS.

(19) Unfortunately this happened. The formulas in use in France under the Merovingians, and
recorded by Marculfus (lib. 1. 5, v. also P. Sirmondus, Concilia Antiqua Galliae, tom. II, appendix,
Paris, 1629), speak about the king's power to command the election of bishops, not of his consent to
it. "With the counsel and consent of our bishops and nobles, according to the desire of the clergy
and people of the same city, called N. above, we commission you as bishop in the name of God.
Hence by this present COMMAND, we decide and order the above-mentioned city, and the
possessions of its church, and the clergy, to come under your authority and government." Writers of
this period frequently mention that so-and-so has been made bishop BY THE KING'S
COMMAND. Formulas of petition are still extant in which the people ask the king to issue his
edict. Petitions were needed to obtain orders. And what orders they were!

(20) Flattery and vanity coin meaningless expressions of this kind which quickly gain a life of their
own. It is strange that people fail to notice how language like this sooner or later appears satirical,
and fails to win for rulers the genuine respect which is their due. We have an example in a passage
from an otherwise learned writer of the last century. He was taken to task for having said that in the
period we are speaking of "the clergy enjoyed freedom of election by royal concession, while the
king was the ruler and judge over the election" (as though these two things were mutually
compatible). He defended himself by saying that by royal concession he meant that kings were no
longer guilty of usurpation! But this is like saying that thieves who spare your person grant you
your life! And this writer was a sincere supporter of lay power. He writes: Jus eligendi penes
clerum erat. Sed quia saepe reges electionum usum interturbaverant, assensum in merum imperium
vertere soliti, Ecclesia Gallicana his qui veterem electionum usum restituerant, ut Ludovico Pio,
plurimum, se debere profitebatur. Eorum certe beneficiorum erat asserta et vindicata sacrarum
electionum libertas, etc. (N. Alex., Ad calcem..., Dissert. XI in saec. XV et XVI). [N. Alexandre,
Historia Ecclesiastica, Paris 1770-1774]

(21) St. Gregory of Tours wrote in 572: Jam tunc germen illud iniquum coeperat fructificare, ut
sacerdotium aut venderetur a regibus aut compararetur a clericis [PL 71, 1032]. The saint wrote this
after relating facts about clerics who had bought sees from kings, rather than obtaining them by
merit of their pastoral zeal.

(22) The gothic kings usurped nomination of the papacy itself by interfering in canonical election.
When they were driven out of Italy, Justinian retained the right to confirm the popes in office. His
successors demanded a large sum of money for the confirmation. New popes paid this until the
accession as emperor of Constantine Pogonatus in 668.

(23) II Ind. c.III, ep. 22. St. Gregory was very attentive to the freedom of episcopal elections. It is a
frequent subject in his letters. v. amongst others, lib. III, ep. 7 [L.V, ep. 27 PL, 754; L. VII, ep. 19,
PL 873].

(24) The self-contradictory edict states: ideoque definitionis noströ est, ut Canonum statuta IN
OMNIBUS conserventur... Ita ut, episcopo decedente, in loco ipsius, qui a metropolitano ordinari
debet cum provincialibus a clero et populo eligatur. These beautiful words are followed
immediately by: Et si persona condigna fuerit, PER ORDINATIONEM PRINCIPIS ordinetur: vel
certe, si DE PALATIO eligitur, per meritum personö et doctrinö ordinetur. This was the way in
which lay government intended to uphold canonical decrees IN OMNIBUS!!!

(25) Can. 10
(26) As we can see from the facts, Gregory of Tours (lib. 4, chaps 5 and 6) [PL 7l, 273] relates that
the bishops begged Cato, canonically elected bishop of the church of Claremont, to allow himself to
be consecrated without awaiting nomination by king Teobald, 554. He also reports (L 6, chap. 7)
[PL 71, 739] that Albinus succeeded Ferreolus at Uzes extra regis consilium. When Albinus died, a
certain Jovinus was ordered by royal COMMAND to accept the bishopric. The bishops of the
province, however, opted for a canonical election, and appointed the deacon Marcellus before
Jovinus could be installed (lib. 7, chap. 3l) [PL 71, 379]. When the people of Tours asked the king
to grant them Euphronius, whom they had canonically chosen as bishop, he answered:
PRAECEPERAM ut Cato Presbyter illic ordinaretur, et cur est spreta IUSSIO NOSTRA (lib. 4, 2,
15) [lib. 4, chap. 25, PL 71, 280]. After king Clothaire had appointed Emeritus bishop of Saintes,
the church there had to tolerate him, but at Clothaire's death he was deprived of his office by
Leontius and the provincial bishops because he lacked canonical election (562) (lib. 4, chap. 26)
[PL 71,280]. Likewise the bishops of Aquitaine took prompt measures to bestow the church of Aqui
on the priest Faustinianus, despite Chilperic's attempt to give the see to count Nicetius. Constantine
Rancaglia was correct when he wrote: "It is clear that as a result of the bishops' opposition to royal
authority when the king tried to confer dioceses, rulers were never in tranquil possession of the
arbitrary power they claimed in episocpal elections." He adds: "The Church has never freely
consented to this claim, although like a compassionate mother she has often had to tolerate it to
prevent further damage" (cf. Alexandre, op. cit., saec 1, Diss. VIII, prop. III, scholion -
animadversiones, pars I)

(27) Amongst other things, he wrote these remarkable words to Leo the Isaurian: Quemadmodum
Pontifex introspiciendi in palatium potestatem non habet ac dignitates regias deferendi: sic neque
imperator in Ecclesiam introspiciendi et electiones in clero peragendi" (epist. II ad Leon Isaurum)
[PL 89, 522].

(28) can. 3

(29) Can. 2

(30) Epis. 58 [Epis. XLI, PL 119, 841-2].

(31) At this time the French bishops could not leave the kingdom without express permission from
the king; nor could a metropolitan send a bishop as his legate outside the state. Hincmar of Rheims
makes this clear in his letter to pope Hadrian in 869.

(32) Can. 12. Apostolicis et synodicis canonibus promotiones et consecrationes episcoporum et

potentia et praeceptione principum, factas interdicentibus, concordantes, definimus, et sententiam
nos quoque proferimus, ut si quis episcopus, per versutiam vel tyrannidem principum, hujusmodi
dignitatis consecrationem susceperit, deponatur omnimodis, utpote qui non ex voluntate Dei, et ritu
ac decreto ecclesiastico, sed ex voluntate carnalis sensus, ex hominibus, et per homines, Dei donum
possidere voluit vel consensit.

Can. 22. Promotiones atque consecrationes episcoporum, concordans prioribus conciliis, electione
ac decreto episcoporum collegii fieri, sancta haec et univeralis synodus definit et statuit atque jure
promulgat, neminem laicorum principum vel potentum semet inserere electioni patriarchae, vel
metropolitae, aut cujuslibet episcopi; ne videlicet inordinata hinc et incongrua fiat confusio vel
contentio; praesertim cum nullam in talibus potestatem quemquam potestativorum vel caeterorum
laicorum habere conveniat, sed potius silere ac attendere sibi, usquequo regulariter a collegio
ecclesiastico suscipiat finem electio futuri Pontificis. Si vero quis laicorum ad concertandum et
cooperandum ab Ecclesia invitatur, licet hujusmodi cum reverentia, si forte voluerit, obtemperare se
asciscentibus; taliter enim sibi dignum pastorem regulariter ad Ecclesiae suae salutem promoveat.
Quisquis autem saecularium principum et potentum, vel alterius dignitatis laicus adversus
communem et consonantem, atque canonicam electionem ecclesiastici ordinis agere tentaverit,
anathema sit, donec obediat ac consentiat quod Ecclesia de electione ac ordinatione proprii praesulis
se velis monstraverit.

(33) These canons were remarkable "in so far as they were published in the presence of the emperor
and the senate" (Fleury) [op. cit., VII, 370]. The council issued other canons in defence of the
Church's freedom. Chief amongst them are: Canon 21. "Powerful figures will respect the five
patriarchs and leave them in peaceful possession of their sees, without detracting from the honour
due to them." Here we can see that the patriarchates were under greater pressure than other sees
because of the wealth and power connected with them. Canon 14. "Bishops must not leave their
churches in order to meet rulers or governors. They are not to dismount or prostrate in their
presence. They must retain their authority to admonish them when necessary." Canon 17.
"Patriarchs have the right to convoke metropolitans to their council when they think fit. The latter
cannot excuse themselves on the grounds of their being detained by the ruler." And they added:
"We reject with horror ignorant assertions maintaining that councils cannot be held except in the
presence of the ruler."

(34) An example of the way in which command and petition, submission and authority, piety and
force were intermingled can be found in Louis II's letter to Adon, archbishop of Vienne. He wrote
to impel the archbishop to make a certain Bernarius bishop of Grenoble on the grounds that he was
a cleric of the emperor Lotharius, who wanted to raise him to the episcopacy. "Our brother
Lotharius has begged our kindness (mansuetudinem nostram) to grant the see of Grenoble to a
cleric of his named Bernarius. We were very glad to do this (quod nos benignissime fecimus)." It is
not difficult to understand that here "our kindness" shields a degree of force. First he does what he
wants; then he humbly asks the Church for it. "Hence we warn your Holiness to obey (obedias) our
brother without delay (mox) if he sends you the above-mentioned cleric for ordination. We assure
you that we have granted our concession for his consecration to this church of Grenoble." Charles
the Bald and Louis III wrote similar recommendations which often contain more contradictions than
words. Sometimes they add to their requests the clause: "... provided he is not found unworthy,"
which did at least leave the scrutiny to the metropolitan. What these clauses really meant, however,
can be seen by what we shall shortly have to say about the council of Fismes and Louis III. [Here
and elsewhere, Rosmini depends for his sources on Fleury, op. cit.]

(35) This is how usurpations evolve. 1st, the lay power prevents the Church from making her choice
without prior permission from the ruler; 2nd, this permission is then granted simply as a royal
favour which can be bestowed or denied at will; 3rd, this favour has to be paid for; 4th, the favour
which permits the election is sold on condition that the king's candidate is chosen.

(36) Note the usual confusion of ideas in the minds of these court lackeys: church property, which
is only incidental, now becomes substantially important, and indeed comprises the whole of the
episcopacy. Does church property belong to the Church or not? Is civil government entitled to
dispose of the property of others?

(37) Hincmar, Ep. 12, t. II, P. 188 [cf. Fleury, op. cit., VIII, 77]

(38) "Respect for the king" consists in betraying the Church of Christ, and the souls bought with his
blood, in order to gratify the king.
(39) Rather excessive dignity!

(40) It was a "point of honour" on the part of a simple member of the faithful to impose a council on
all the bishops of the kingdom in order to force them to make "a law not for the sake of justice but
to satisfy his own will," which he styles his dignity! Hope of corrupting a national council for the
sake of revenging oneself on an upright provincial council is difficult to understand, but we have
seen similar hopes produce the same results today. Who thought up the national council of Paris?

(41) Those who believe that nothing takes place in human affairs outside the wise rule of
Providence must be struck by the timely coincidence between the death of young Louis III and the
warning he received from Hincmar about the bishopric of Beauvais. When the metropolitan replied
to the king's decision to insist upon the election of Odoacer in defiance of the canons, he said
amongst other things: "If you do not remedy the evil you have done, the Lord will put it right in his
own good time. The emperor Louis did not live as long as his father, Charles; your grandfather
Charles did not last as long as his father, Charles, nor your father as long as his father. When you
are at Compiëgne in their place, glance down at the graves of your father and grandfather, and do
not set yourself up against the one who died for you, and rose from the dead to die no more. You
will soon leave this world, but the Church, with her pastors, under Jesus Christ, their head, will last
forever according to his promise." Fleury, who cannot be accused of credulity, quotes these words
of the archbishop, commenting: "Hincmar's threat can be considered a prophecy in the light of
Louis' premature death in the following year" (Fleury, op. cit., LIII, 31).

(42) This took place in the 12th and 13th centuries. At Hincmar's time (9th century), as we see from
a letter of his, the rural as well as the urban clergy took part in the election of the bishop. Hincmar,
writing to Edenulfus, bishop of Laudun, ordering him to preside over the election of a new bishop
for Cambrai, says: quae electio non tantum a civitatis clericis erit agenda, verum et de omnibus
monasteriis ipsius parochiae, et de rusticanarum parochiarum presbyteris occurrant vicarii
commorantium secum concordia vota ferentes. Sed et laici nobiles ac cives adesse debebunt:
QUONIAM AB OMNIBUS DEBET ELIGI, CUI DEBET AB OMNIBUS OBEDIRI [he must be
chosen by all who have to obey him]" [PL 126, 268-269]

On the other hand, Hincmar's insistence shows that even then this custom tended to be neglected.
Innocent III, at the end of the 12th century, attributes the right of election in one of his decretals ad
cathedralium ecclesiarum clericos (de caus. posses. et propriet. c. 3) [PL 214, 852]. Finally the 4th
Lateran council, 1215, restricted the right to cathedral canons (can. 24-26). This was certainly based
on good reasons, granted the conditions of the time; but the reasons and circumstances forcing the
Church to do this were themselves disastrous.

(43) Pope Clement V in 1306 extended pontifical reservations to bishoprics. Benedict XII, elected
in 1334, made them practically speaking universal. At the end of the century, Boniface IX extended
annates to bishoprics, making them perpetual.

(44) This observation explains an otherwise inexplicable fact. The Council of Basle, supported by
lay power, annulled papal reservations. What was the fundamental policy of rulers who sided with
the council? They did not intend to destroy, but to weaken reservations in order to take control of
them. The conduct of the French kings is proof of this. Charles VII receives the decrees of Basle
with a great show of enthusiasm and declares them law in the assembly of Brouges where he
publishes the pragmatic sanction. Why? A little later Charles, and his successors Louis IX and
Charles VIII, ask the pope to reserve the appointment to certain bishoprics and confer them
according to royal wishes. They wanted reservations, but weak reservations so that the pope would
do as they desired. The true spirit of their policy was to abrogate reservations for the sole purpose of
first weakening them and then using them to evade church law.

(45) Amidst the disasters of fifteen centuries, the Church has never perhaps been brought so low as
when she was compelled to make such treaties with the faithful! This humiliation is due to the sins
of the clergy. "... if the salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltness be restored? It is no longer good
for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men" (Matt 5, 13). I say this
because it is impossible to hide the fact that concordats are treaties and are called such by the popes
themselves: Nos attendentes concordata dicta vim PACTI inter partes habere etc. (Constit., 14 Sept.
1544, apud Raynald) [Annales Ecclesiastici, XXI, an. 1554].

However, no treaty binds when it becomes immoral, and treaties with the Church are not to be
understood in the sense that they can infringe upon the fullness of power possessed by the Church
for the good of christians. This power is free, and can never be bound. I am not hereby condemning
all concordats, but deploring their necessity. The truth is that neither concordats nor any other
human convention can serve to derogate from the Church's divine, unchangeable rights. The
legislative power she has received from Jesus Christ cannot be restricted in any way, nor can her
fullness of authority in carrying out all that tends towards what is good be lessened. She can
command and intimate her faithful without limit whatever she finds necessary and useful for their
eternal salvation and for the growth on earth of the kingdom of Christ.

(46) Hadrian I, the great pope who wrote to Charlemagne (784) informing him that lay authority
had no place in the choice of bishops and that he should leave elections free, used as his final and
most persuasive argument that he himself, although pope, did not interfere with the choice, in order
to leave it free. He declared: "Numquam nos in qualibet electione invenimus nec invenire habemus.
Sed neque Vestram Excellentiam optamus in talem rem incumbere. Sed qualis a clero et plebe...
electus canonice fuerit, et nihil sit quod sacro obsit ordini, solita traditione illum ordinamus" (Tom.
II Conc. Gall., pp. 95 e 120) [Sirmond, op. cit., II, pp. 95, 119, 120].. The initial force of this
extremely powerful argument was lost to the popes at the time of reservations.

(47) Lay fiefs in France became hereditary only towards the end of the second line of kings, as
Antonio Dominici proves in his De Praerogative Allodorum, chap. 15 [Paris, 1645]. As far as
heirless churchmen were concerned, fiefs necessarily remained personal.

(48) De gestis regum Anglorum, Lib. V. Carolus Magnus pro contundenda gentium illarum
(germanicarum) ferocia, omnes pene terras Ecclesiis contulerat, consiliosissime perpendens, nolle
sacri ordinis homines tam facile quam laicos fidelitatem domino rejicere. Praeterea, si laici
rebellarent, illos posse excommunicationis auctoritate et potentiae severitate compescere.

(49) This was not all: there are never any limits. The oath required of bishops as feudatories was
later demanded from bishops as such per extensionem, as lawyers would say using the clause to
justify the usurpation. The Church protested by forbidding the oath on the part of bishops who
received no temporal benefit from the ruler. Nimis de JURE DIVINO quidam laici usurpare
conantur, cum viros ecclesiasticos, nihil temporale detinentes ab eis, ad praestandum sibi fidelitatis
juramenta compellunt. Quia vero, secundum Apostolum, servus suo domino stat aut cadit, sacri
auctoritate concilii prohibemus, ne tales clerici personis saecularibus praestare cogantur hujusmodi
juramenta. (Innocent III, IV Lat. Council, c. 43) [SC 13, 975]

(50) 2 Tim 2, 4 [Douai Version]

(51) The person invested with a fief by the king was called homo regis. There is no better way of
expressing the absolute ownership exercised by the king over this human "royal possession."
Imagine a man like Peter, Paul, or Chrysostom, or Ambrose becoming homo regis instead of homo
Dei. Note also that at the time homo had become synonymous with "soldier" (v. Du-Cange, Closs.
med. et infim. latinitatis, voc. Miles) [Paris, 1678]

(52) Matt 6. 24

(53) Fulbert of Chartres (Ep. 8) [PL 141, 219] writes of Frank, chancellor of King Robert, that he
became bishop eligente clero, suffragante populo, DONO REGIS. As I have said, this phrase was
already in common use, although its inexactness had not yet been noticed. We have mentioned
amongst the formulas given by Marculfus, the king's command to the bishop-designate. It also says:
PONTIFICALEM in Dei nomine COMMISSIMUS DIGNITATEM.. Such a manner of speaking
has to be interpreted even by a zealous defender of sovereign rights who explains: quod saniori
sensu et magis canonico intelligi non potest quam de regiorum jurium et feudorum investitura et
concessione quae Clodoveus rex ecclesiis manu liberali contulerat (Hist. Eccl. saec. XIII, XIV,
Dissert. VIII, art. III) [cf. N. Alexandre, op. cit., and PL 71, 274]. Similar phrases abound in the
writings of the times.

(54) The Praeceptum de Episcopatu of the Frankish kings was qualified in the following way
according to Marculfus: Cognovimus antistitem illum ab hac luce migrasse, ob cuius successorem
sollicitudinem congruam una cum pontificibus (vel proceribus nostris) plenium tractantes,
DECREVIMUS illustri viro illi pontificalem in ipsa urbe committere dignitatem. [PL 87, 704]

(55) Pope Hadrian I had warned Charlemagne about his obligation to leave the choice of bishops
free from interference. The great emperor accepted the admonition from the head of the Church
with meekness that denoted true breadth of spirit in a christian ruler far more effectively than
resistance and disobedience. Charlemagne expressed and sanctioned this freedom in the
Capitularies of Aix-la-Chapelle by the following decree; "Cognisant of the sacred canons, we have
granted our assent to church law (so that holy Church may be more securely in possession of its
honour and dignity) that requires bishops to be chosen by their own diocesans, clergy and people,
according to the norms of the canons, in accordance with their meritorious lives and gifts of
wisdom, without regard for persons or regalia, that they may thus assist their subjects in every way
by word and example." In 806, Louis the Pious confirmed Charlemagne's law in public capitulary
after the synod of Aix-la-Chapelle.

(56) Usurpation reached its climax in the 11th century. Two examples in which archbishops of
Canterbury play a part may be mentioned here. Lanfranc, appointed bishop by William the
Conqueror, had to petition for the temporalities enjoyed by his predecessors. The king replied
angrily: se velle omnes baculos pastorales Angliae in manu sua tenere. This historian who relates
the episode (Gervasius Doroborensis, In Imaginationibus de discordiis inter monachos
Doroborenses et Balduenium Archiespic., p. 137) says that the bishop was stunned by the king's
reaction, and prudently remained silent lest the king do still greater harm to the Church. We can
understand even more clearly the state of the Church at the time by examining what occurred to
St.Anselm under William II. According to Eadmer (lib. 1 Hist. Novor.) [London 1623],
Willilam left churches and abbeyy without pastors in order to enjoy their revenues sedibus
vacantibus. Anselm, as primate of England, thought it his duty to complain to the king pointing out
the harm resulting from the absence of bishops and abbots, and begging him to abandon a practice
damaging the kings's own soul. Eadmer continues: non potuit amplius spiritum suum rex cohibere,
sed oppido turbatus cum iracundia dixit: Quid ad te? numquid abbatiae non sunt meae? Heu, tu
quod vis agis de villis tuis, et ego non agam quod volo de abbatiis meis? The bishop had to insist
respectfully that the king remember that the property of the Church was the sovereign's only in so
far as he had to defend and safeguard it. In fact, it belonged to God, and was intended for the
maintenance of God's ministers. The king burst out: "Pro certo noveris, mihi valde contraria esse
quae dicis. Non enim antecessor tuus auderet ullatenus patri meo dicere: et nihil faciam pro te."
This was the position of church property and freedom at the time, under the pressure of lay ideas
and power.

(57) The Church was always averse to such dependence; the struggle between a Church which
wishes to function freely and secular power wanting to dominate it is a continual feature of history.
Difficulties often arose over elections carried out without prior permission from the king. Richard I
complains in a letter (about 1190) to the bishop of London regarding an election concluded without
his first being consulted: Quod si ita est, regiam majestatem nostram non modicum esse offensam;
he declares: Non enim aliqua ratione sustineremus quod a praefatis monachis vel ab aliis quidquam
cum detrimento honoris nostri in electione episcopi fierit: et si forte factum esset, quin in irritum
revocaretur.

At the time of king Richard, lay power had made unbelievable progress in its invasion of church
rights and in suffocating church freedom, rendering ever weaker the Church's possibility of
resistance. The Church would certainly have gone under if God, who guards it, had not raised up
popes of superhuman calibre to liberate it once more. What would the Church have said, in brighter
moments of her history, if secular rulers had claimed authority over choice of her pastors and forced
her to beg permission for evey new episcopal election? What would men like Ambrose and
Chrysostom have said if they had heard that a son of the Church wished to bind his mother's hands
and force her to work as a slave for a master? But even in the 10th century, the Church in the east
showed that she felt the full indignity of the treatment meted out to her. Cedrenus relates that
Nicephorus Phocas had forbidden bishops to be chosen without his permission. According to the
historian, this was the greatest of the crimes Nicephorus had perpetrated: id omnium gravissimum
quod legem tulit, cui et EPISCOPI QUIDAM LEVES ATQUE ADULATORES (this is the root of
the evil) SUBSCRIPSERUNT, ne absque imperatoris sententia ac permissu episcopus vel eligeretur
vel ordinaretur [cf. Thomassin, Ancienne et nouvelle discipline de l'Áglise, touchant les bánáfices,
et les bánáficiers, Paris, 1678-79]. When Phocas died, Polieuctes, patriarch of Constantinople,
refused John Zymisca, successor to Phocas, both entrance to the church with the faithful and
coronation unless he first made satisfaction for his crimes, and in particular abrogated the law by
which Nicephorus had attempted to destroy the freedom of the Church. Emperor John agreed, and
publicly tore up the document.

(58) The formulas of Marculfus (n. 19) include the Praeceptum de Clericatu, that is, the patent
issued by the king to those wishing to become clerics. It is called precept because every word of the
king is a command, according to the usual lying flattery. If I were capable of counselling rulers, I
would suggest they abolish all falsehood in court language, and base their power solidly ON
TRUTH. This alone would be sufficient to strengthen and consolidate their thrones. But I would be
ridiculed, I know. Anyway, bishops did sometimes ordain clerics without bothering about royal
permission. An archbishop of Rheims wrote to Gerbertus [later pope Sylvester II] that he had been
"accused of lese-majesty as a result of conferring ecclesiastical orders without royal authority and
leave" (Gerbert, Ep. 57) [PL 239, 95].
The French kings also wanted the faithful to depend upon their placet in retiring from the world and
consecrating themselves to God in religious life. Hincmar, however, in a letter to Charles the Bald,
says expressly that such a law was never accepted by the Church (v. P. Cellotti, The Council of
Douzi) [Louis Cellot, Paris 1658].

(59) v. N. Alexandre, In saec. XIII et XIV, Dissert. VIII, art. I. [Alexandre, op. cit., t. XVI, p. 211]
(60) The excuse was that "royal holdings" were granted greater protection and safeguards, but does
not civil power exist to defend all ownership on equal terms?

(61) "Benefices", a word still used universally by the Church, has its origin in "military benefices"
later extended to "ecclesiastical benefices", assigned by monarchs of the new nations in the middle
ages. The word reminds us that the clergy had unwittingly sold their freedom to the ruler for the
sake of riches.

(62) The Church protested, and tried to defend herself against this kind of usurpation, but what
could she do against force? Her only support was the authority of the canons, of which I give a few
examples. Redditus vero viduatae Ecclesiae integros reservari apud oeconomum ejusdem Ecclesiae
placuit (Council of Chalcedon, 451) [SC 4, 1709]

Stabili definitione consultum est, ut de caetero observaretur, ne quis ad eam Ecclesiam, quae
episcopum perdidisset, nisi vicinae Ecclesiae episcopus exequiarum tempore accederet, qui
visitatoris vice tamen ipsius curam districtissime gereret, ne quid ante ordinationem discordantium
in novitatibus clericorum subversioni liceret. Itaque cum tale aliquid accidit, vicinis vicinarum
Ecclesiarum inspectio, recensio, descriptione mandatur (Council of Riez, 493, Can. 6) [SC 4, 536].
In 524 and 525, the Councils of Valentia and Ilerda, in Spain, confirm the norms of Chalcedon [SC
5, 749, 759].

The 2nd Council of Orleans, 553, canon 6, [SC 5, 927] decreed that at the death of a diocesan
bishop, the neighbouring bishop. when carrying out the funeral, should call the clergy together,
make an exact inventory of that church's possessions and entrust them to zealous and careful
persons, as the Council of Riez states.

The 5th Council of Paris, 614, [cf. SC 6, 1389-1390] decreed in canon 7 that no one, even at the
king's command, should interfere with the property of any deceased bishop or cleric under pain of
excommunication. Such property should ab archidiacono vel clero in omnibus defensentur et
conserventur.

The celebrated Hincmar of Rheims wrote to the bishops and principal clergy of his province in the
9th century (Ep. IX): "Et sicut episcopus et suas et ecclesiasticas facultates sub debita discretione in
vita sua dispensandi habet potestatem ita facultates Ecclesiae viduatae post mortem episcopi penes
oeconomum integrae conservari jubentur futuro successori ejus episcopo; quoniam res et facultates
ecclesiasticae NON IMPERATORUM ATQUE REGUM POTESTATE SUNT ad dispensandum
vel invadendum, sive diripiendum, sed ad defensandum, atque tuendum." Hincmar wrote in the
same fashion to Charles the Bald (Epis. XXIX), and repeats himself in various other letters, ex. gr.
XXI, XLV [PL 126, 258, 260].
Gerbert, another famous bishop of Rheims, who later became pope Sylvester II, reaffirms the
teaching in letter 118 to clergy and people [PL 139, 240].

Constant repetition of the canons and insistence upon the law prevented rulers laying hands on the
Church's revenues without incurring public disapproval until the end of the 9th century. Hence in
882 the Annales Bertiniani, for example, note as a crime that the emperor Charles the Fat had
granted the revenues of the church of Metz for the use of Hugh, son of Lothaire the Younger, quas
sacri canones futuro episcopo reservari praecipiunt [PL 115 and 125].
(63) It is well known, and noted in the corpus of canon law, that tithes were usurped as fiefs by lay
people, and granted as fiefs by rulers, or even by bishops and rectors of churches (v. L'Estravagante
de iis quae fiunt a Praelat. sine consensu capit. 17).

(64) v. ex. gr. Alexandre, op. cit., saec. VIII et XIV, Dissert. VIII, art. III.

(65) The Council of Meaux, 845, acted with apostolic freedom in admonishing Charles the Bald
when he oppressed the Church by granting its possessions to lay people. "... against all authority,
against the decrees of the fathers and the entire tradition of christian religion, lay people have lived
as lords and masters in regular monasteries amongst priests, levites and other religious, ruling and
judging their life and customs as if they were abbots. They have also dispensed them and, according
to the rule, confided to their care the souls of men and the tabernacle of God without the permission
or even the knowledge of the bishop." Cf. can. 10 and 42. The fathers decree, therefore, ut praecepta
illicita jure beneficiario de rebus eccclesiasticis facta a Vobis (they are addressing Charles the Bald)
sine dilatione rescindantur, et ut de caetero ne fiant, a dignitate Vestri nominis regii caveatur. They
remind him energetically that even the soldiers who crucified Christ did not go as far as insulting
him by rending his cloak: "ante oculos reducentes tunicam Christi, qui vos elegit et exaltavit, quam
nec milites ausi fuerunt scindere, tempore vestro quantocitius reconsuite et resarcite: et nec violenta
ablatione, nec illicitorum praeceptorum confirmatione res ab Ecclesiis vobis ad tuendum et
defensandum ac propagandum commissis auferre tentate; sed ut sanctae memoriae avus et pater
vester eas gubernandas vobis, fautore Deo, dimisereunt, redintegrate, praecepta regalia earumdem
ecclesiarum conservate et confirmate (Can. II) [SC 9, 962-988]
It is noticeable that this council distinguishes between allodial, unconditional grants to the church
and feudal grants. The king is reproved especially for dispensing the former to lay people

(66) The appendix to Flodcardus contains the following Notitia de Villa Novilliaco. Defuncto
Tispino archiepiscopo, tenuit Dominus, rex Carolus Remense EPISCOPIUM in suo dominatu, et
dedit villam Novilliacum in beneficio Anschero Saxoni [PL 135, 410], that is, to a soldier. Here it is
obvious that temporalities have been confused with the episcopacy. But there is truly no limit to the
efforts and improvisations of greed and power united in obtaining their own satisfaction. When
rulers were pressed by the Church not to leave dioceses without pastors for lengthy periods, they
invented certain commissionaries, called chorepiscopi, whom they sent in place of bishops while
they themselves retained the episcopal revenues. These non-pastors were a great affliction to the
church. Complaints and decrees against the chorepiscopi flooded in from 9th century councils.
Eventually, after causing endless problems in the the Church, these anomalous beings were
eliminated. Flodoardus comments on a letter of Hincmar to pope Leo IV (lib. III, Hist. Remensis, c.
10): In hac vero epistola, de his quos temeritas chorepiscopalis ordinare, vel quod Spiritum
Sanctum consignando tradere praesumebat, requisivit. Et quod terrena potestas hac materia saepe
offenderet, ut videlicet episcopo quolibet defuncto, per chorepiscopum solis pontificibus debitum
ministerium perageretur, et res ac facultates Ecclesiae saecularium usibus expenderentur, sicut et in
nostra Ecclesia jam secundo actum est [PL 135, 151].

(67) The steps by which rulers gradually usurped the choice of bishops, beginning with petitions
and recommendations, and finishing with commands and violence may be seen in Thomassin, Vet.
et Nov. Eccl. Discipl. p. 1, lib. 1, c. LIV [Thomassin, op. cit., P. II, L. I, c. LIV]

Chapter 4 (Part two)

The wound in the right foot of holy Church:

the nomination of bishops left in the hands of civil government.

88. Under pressure of this kind, the clergy gradually lost all sense of their own dignity and freedom.
Unaware of the value of what had disappeared, they were quite satisfied with the wealth and
temporal power that replaced it (68).
It would not be true to say that the Church, in the midst of such humiliation, lacked a voice to
proclaim the truth which can never be silenced. The Church would cease to exist if she stopped
announcing the truth. But she spoke out of her affliction, sobbing and moaning like a survivor of
some tragic accident.

I shall content myself with referring to a passage from Florus, deacon of Lyons in the 10th century,
who wrote a book entitled The Election of Bishops. At that time, the choice of bishops was carried
out under pressure that eliminated all practical freedom. Florus wanted to define these elections
according to the laws of holy Church, and refute the opinion, then circulating at court under the
guise of a point of law, "that the legitimacy and ratification of episcopal elections depends upon the
royal will."

Florus begins by setting out clearly the true teaching about the choice of bishops. "It is obvious to
all who hold priestly office in the Church of God that the ordination of bishops must be governed
by the authority of the sacred canons and church custom which depend upon THE DISPOSITIONS
OF DIVINE LAW AND APOSTOLIC TRADITION. Therefore, when a see falls vacant at the
death of its pastor, one of the clergy of the diocese, chosen by common consent of that clergy and
all the people, appointed openly and solemnly by public decree, and consecrated by a lawful
number of bishops, will rightly take the place of the deceased bishop. There is no doubt that divine
dispensation and judgment will confirm what has been carried out in such an orderly and lawful
manner by the Church of God. These things will be found in the conciliar statutes of the fathers, and
in the decrees of the popes of the apostolic see. They have been confirmed ceaselessly from the
beginning by the Church of Christ."

St. Cyprian's letter to Antonianus, in which he speaks of the election of Cornelius, is quoted by
Florus as proof of this teaching: "The bishop was chosen by the decision of God and his Christ,
according to the witness given by all the clergy with the support of the people, and by the consent
of the senior priests and good men (bonorum virorum)."

Florus continues: "It is clear from the words of St. Cyprian that for almost four hundred years from
apostolic times, all the bishops of the Church of God were ordained, and legitimately governed the
christian people, without reference to human power. There is a straightforward argument for
maintaining that this freedom of the Church was upheld, generally speaking, in the ordination of
bishops when rulers became christian. Because the whole world was ruled by a single emperor, it
was impossible for him to know and choose all the bishops who were to be ordained throughout the
vast lands of Asia, Europe and Africa. Nevertheless, ordination celebrated by the holy Church
according to apostolic tradition and with due religious observance was always complete and valid.

Later, custom required that in some countries episcopal ordination should take place after
consultation with the ruler, but the aim here was to develop fraternal ties, keep the peace, and
maintain harmony with secular authority. It was never intended for the sake of verifying the
ordination or rendering it more authoritative. Ordination can be conferred only at God's command
and with the consent of the faithful members of the Church; it does not depend upon royal power.
The episcopate is not a human post, but a gift of the Holy Spirit... Hence a ruler sins gravely if he
thinks that he can bestow as a benefice that which only divine grace confers. In matters of this
nature, his authority has to support what has been decided, not forestall the decision" (69).

89. But it must be admitted that lay power, after centuries of persevering effort in enslaving the
Church by alternating benevolence with oppression, had finally reached its limits of conquest. The
Church in the 10th century seemed weary of appealing and protesting in vain against usurpation; it
could scarcely draw sufficient breath to speak; if it spoke at all, its words were hesitant and
subdued.

This was the worst century in the Church's history. The clergy, blinded by temporalities and
accustomed by now to barter dignity and conscience, had gone astray. Moreover, Otto I, by
humiliating the great nobles, had strengthened royal power and made it almost absolute. This was a
great advantage to society, but at the same time created an additional, severe threat to an enslaved
Church when the power of the monarchy turned its attention to usurping church rights. As royal
power increased, precedents and abusive customs served to encourage usurpation of church rights
(70). As a result, freedom of choice in episcopal elections was almost totally lost by the beginning
of the 11th century.

Abbot Ingulfus, a contemporary of William the Conqueror, thus describes conditions in England:
"For years now, there has been no free, canonical election of prelates; episcopal and abbatial office
has been conferred at the pleasure of the royal court by investiture with the ring and the pastoral
staff" (71).
The pope complained about the France of Philip I in a letter to Procleus, bishop of Chalons: "We
have been informed on good authority that Philip, king of the Franks, has been transformed into one
of those modern rulers whose evil profiteering has led them to trample their mother in the dust. It
seems that he has oppressed the churches of Gaul to the limit with this detestable crime. It is
particularly sad that this should have happened in France, a land known previously for its
outstanding prudence, religion and power, and its great devotion to the church of Rome" (Ep. 35)
[cf. PL 148, 317] (72).

St. Anselm, bishop of Lucca, wrote about the Germany of his time to the antipope Guilbertus:
"Your king is continually selling bishoprics, and issuing edicts which forbid, without prior royal
approval, the appointment of bishops elected by the clergy or requested by the people. He has
constituted himself keeper of the gate, about which the Truth said: 'To him the gatekeeper opens.'
You tear to pieces the limbs of the catholic Church which you have oppressed throughout the
kingdom and reduced to the status of a slave to be used as you think fit. You deprive the Church of
her freedom with your detestable subservience towards the emperor. You say that everything -
bishoprics, abbeys and all churches without exception - are subject to imperial rights. But the Lord
speaks of my Church, my dove, my sheep, while Paul affirms: '...one does not take the honour upon
himself, but he is called by God just as Aaron was'" (73).

90. In such disastrous times, when the Church of God seems on the brink of inevitable destruction,
Christ awakes, mindful of his promise. He raises up some exceptional person of immense, super-
human moral power, capable of affronting every difficulty, resisting all pressure, and towering over
all around him. Under such a person, the Church reasserts herself, and her losses are made good; the
kingdom of the eternal God is rejuvenated. My readers will know that God's messenger in the
period we are dealing with is Gregory VII.
This truly remarkable man succeeded to the see of Peter in 1073. His predecessor had already been
informed of the unbridled wickedness and inconceivable despotism Henry IV had shown towards
his christian subjects, and of the injuries he had inflicted upon the Church. St. Alexander II,
however, had died before being able to treat this profound, mortal wound in the body of Christ (74).
Providence reserved for Hildebrand, a humble monk, the tremendous task of deliberately cutting
away the cancer that softer treatment had not been able to cure (75).

He had first refused the papacy, but later accepted it for conscience' sake as the will of God. He
knew that a pope wishing to fulfil his duty in those terrible times would fall victim to them, and
took up his office in a spirit of sacrifice. Immediately he made it clear to all that his concept of the
episcopacy was at one with that of the early bishops of the Church. He wrote to his fellow-bishops:
When we realise how short life is, and how foolish the world's reassurance, we can well understand
that a bishop is truly worthy of the name if he suffers persecution for the sake of justice. Hence we
have decided to incur the enmity of the wicked by obeying God's commandments rather than
provoke God's anger by basely conforming to evil desires" (76).

91. Nevertheless, he first tried every way known to fatherly kindness and patience in order to bring
Henry to his senses. He failed: papal messengers, letters and loving admonitions were all treated
with disdain and contempt.
He called a synod of bishops and cardinals to counsel him, and the following facts were put to
them. The pope as father of the faithful had taken various steps to recall his wayward son; Henry,
for his part, had replied with derision and insults, and stepped up his opposition; in particular he had
attempted to provoke schism in the Church of Lombardy and Germany with the help of corrupt
bishops who had willingly served his purpose. The imperial letters, brought by ambassadors present
at the synod, were then read aloud vituperating the pope; the ambassadors themselves addressed
Gregory in full council in the following terms; "Our Lord the king commands you to resign from
the apostolic see and the papacy, which is his, and cease cluttering up this holy place" (77). Finally,
current circumstances, the difficulties of the times and the need of strong remedies for an otherwise
incurable situation, were all considered. The fathers, without exception, agreed that this was
certainly a moment in which firmness was undoubtedly expedient, and to be used in the last resort.
The Church should not be abandoned; an example of constancy in the Church's service must be
given for the sake of future generations.

The fathers of the synod also noted that Henry had been crowned under precise conditions sworn on
oath; on his election as emperor a valid contract had been struck between him and his christian
people, with obligations binding on both parties. In turn the people had sworn allegiance on
condition that the principal agreements about protection and freedom of religion were maintained.
Moreover, the Church of her nature was the mother and guardian of christians, and had accepted the
imperial oaths in her own name and of the people. While the people could not fittingly free
themselves from their oaths, the Head of the Church, as interpreter and judge of sworn promises,
could and should take steps to safeguard the people and their religion.

The fathers concluded that the pope, for the sake of the Church and the faithful, was obliged in
conscience to pass sentence declaring the emperor false to his oaths, and the people free in
consequence from theirs. This is the ground and true explanation of the advice given unanimously
by the synodal fathers to pope Gregory VII (78). As a result, Gregory in 1076 was obliged in
conscience to excommunicate Henry IV, and declare his subjects free from their oath of allegiance.

92. This great event marked an epoch, the beginning of a period of renewal in the Church. It was the
signal for a tremendous battle between the Church, struggling to free herself after years of
humiliations, and the power that had for so long oppressed her. Three centuries of strife were
needed for victory. The Church would scarcely have cast off her enslavement to lay power before
the great western schism tore her asunder; the schism would hardly be remedied before heresy
broke out in northern Germany. Only with the Council of Trent was the Church able to rest. In the
meantime, the two great principles laid down by Gregory VII, freedom for church authority and
moral integrity amongst the clergy, had been firmly established. The former brought immediate
fruit by strengthening the Church, enabling her to conquer her enemies, and preparing the way for
the Council of Trent which, in its turn, led to the application of the second principle and consequent
amelioration in clerical discipline and morals.

93. The horrible, threefold struggle with oppression, schism and heresy was inevitable. Schism and
heresy are the offspring of oppression and outlive their mother. The seed of these evils had
germinated when Gregory VII became pope; his remedy for them was strong and forthright, but
could not prevent their development, although it did finally enable Gregory to emerge victorious.
The pope found the Church in a state resembling that of the soil after mid-winter. Although days
begin to get longer, the sun is not yet strong enough to overcome the rigours of winter. But its
moment will come; the frozen earth will soften, and life will stir once more.

94. I would like to make a comment, which I hope will be useful, on one element of the united
decision of the synod and pope, that is, on the discharge of Henry's subjects from their oath of
allegiance to him. This measure has occasioned serious accusations and calumnies against the
apostolic see.

As we have said, the aim of divine Providence in drawing the Church into the vortex of worldly
wealth and power (which began with the conversion of the Roman emperors, but came to a head
when the barbarian invasions destroyed the empire and founded modern kingdoms) was to hallow
society on the basis of individual sanctification, and to implant the gospel at the centre of law and
public affairs. The immediate benefit brought by religion to society was clearly seen in the increase
of justice and equity in the various branches of public administration, but it could also be
recognised in the long term by its constant, powerful action on the very nature of supreme power,
the character of which changed under its influence.

The change was carried out so wisely, gradually and delicately, however, that the nature of supreme
political power had been transformed before anyone was aware of what the gospel had silently
achieved. Afterwards it was very difficult to discover the manner and stages in which christian
religion had effected this most important transformation. Pagan or natural monarchy was absolute
and christianity made it constitutional. No one should be upset by this word, which is applicable to
the situation, although I fully agree that it has been misused in modern times. If I am allowed to
develop my argument fully, readers will see that it has no connection with dangerous modern
problems in which people seek what is good without clearly recognising it. A minister of state,
celebrated statesman and author who cannot be suspected of supporting revolution, has written: "It
was the popes who reared present-day european monarchy... The characteristic of this monarchy,
which enabled it to rise above all preceding government, was a fundamental law it had received
according to which kings, prompted by the spirit of justice and love infused in mankind by the
gospel, ceded the right of punishment to courts appointed for the purpose" (79).

This writer, who correctly affirms that humanity is unable to establish a political constitution,
recognised nevertheless that the monarchy, in becoming christian, had been endowed with
fundamental laws. It is clear, therefore, that when I speak about "constitution", I am pointing to
something very different from the ideologies of benevolent theoreticians which rival parties attempt
to impose on peoples and kings. I am describing not a human but a divine constitution, rising of its
own accord from centuries of effort, and from a mysterious power at work in the circumstances of
history.

The constitution I have in mind is the spontaneous effect of commonly accepted teaching, resulting
from its evident vigour of persuasion at work in monarchs and subjects, and its capacity to make
rulers and peoples act in accordance with its dictates. I maintain that stable, unchangeable teaching
of this kind, which won acceptance in european society, is gospel teaching, and that the
consequence of such belief in kings and their subjects is "their abandonment of arbitrary impulse for
the sake of following unchangeable principles." This is the same as saying that rulers submitted to
the constitution imposed on them by the gospel, and thus accepted and recognised the immortal
principle and germ of all civil reform.

A constitution of this kind certainly did not blaze forth in its perfection the moment emperors
became christian. We have to emphasise that we are speaking of an actual constitution. First the
gospel had to be known and accepted by peoples and sovereigns; then it had gradually to penetrate
their hearts and conquer their persuasion; next, over the centuries, consequences had to be drawn
from gospel principles and applied to the principles of government; finally, christianity had to
acquire sufficient power over monarchs to enable them to affirm: "We are christians; we want to be
consistent with our principles, and allow the law of the gospel to guide, rule and conquer our
passions." This is what happened in fact, but only a little at a time. Not until the force of religious
feeling had fully unfolded itself in their hearts could sovereigns humble themselves, and become
constitutional rather than absolute rulers in honour of the God who had become the brother of
mankind. But I maintain that when this constitution was realised, it was not confined to the single
article mentioned by the author cited above; it contained other articles, and all those yet to be
unfolded in the same way to the nations.

95. Three states, therefore, can be distinguished in christianity's relationship with political power:
that prevailing before rulers entered the Church; that at issue when christian rulers had not been
influenced by the saving influence of the gospel; that present when this influence had produced its
best effects on their behalf.

As long as rulers remained outside the ambit of the Church of Christ, she could teach her heavenly
doctrine only to the people. She urged the faithful, burdened by the tyranny of evil rulers who
adored false gods, to bear their oppression peacefully, and look upon everything that occurred as
ordered in the designs of Providence. Providence watched over them; power lay in the hand of
pagan rulers so that in this way Providence might work for the good of peoples; all power in fact is
from almighty God; sin is the only real evil, virtue the only true good. "Take care," the Church said,
"to be virtuous, and leave all other care to the heavenly Father. When he sees fit, that is, when he
sees another order of things will furnish more merit for eternal life, he will change the
circumstances, and provide christian rulers. In the meantime, respect the rulers he gives you, and
obey them in everything not opposed to the laws of God. Fight and die for them, not out of fear but
in conscience, aware that in them you honour God who from on high rules all human affairs."

When rulers accepted the faith, the Church continued to address the people in the same way, but
also began to instruct the rulers themselves. However, because the gospel had not yet struck deep
root within them, she had to speak in private, not in public. On the one hand, she told the people she
would never consent to rebellion, even against a tyrant; as the people of Christ, they were to profess
humility, sacrifice and submission. On the other hand, she had a clear word for rulers, to whom she
spoke separately. They were to acknowledge that they were human beings, and that all human
beings were equal before God, who would judge rulers just as he judged the least of their subjects,
although more severely because it is written: "Those who rule will suffer the hardest judgment."
The Church also pointed out that to the eyes of faith rulers occupied a frightening and unenviable
position in which only justice and love could help them avoid hell and save their souls; that rulers
should not overesteem and covet the honours pressed upon them in life and certain to abandon them
at death; that rulers were appointed leaders by Providence for the advantage of the christian people,
not for their own benefit, because their office was a ministry - a service - in which being first meant
being last of all. When rulers became her christian children, the Church proclaimed these sublime
yet human truths to them and impressed them deep in their hearts.

She was listened to with respect, and to their amazement rulers found themselves in possession of a
new kind of dignity springing from the lowliness proper to the cross of our Saviour and beyond the
possibilities of human power and glory. These truths overcame all opposition, and in time the
kingdoms of Europe came to be ruled by christian heroes who practised the virtues of the gospel in
all their perfection. They administered and fought for justice; yet they helped the poor, their
newfound brothers, whom they fed and served with their own hands. They recognised Christ in the
person of the poor, and went so far as to bend their own backs under the precious burden of the sick
left to die in the streets.

The Church no longer spoke separately to princes and peoples after instructing them individually in
the theory and practice of the gospel. Like a good mother, she brought them together and spoke to
both of them, but first to the rulers. Reminding them that as her children they had been enlightened
by the gospel, she asked them if they wanted to live by the gospel. When the answered that they did,
she went on to tell them they had been made heads of God's christian people in order to keep the
peace, to administer justice and above all to maintain and protect religion, the greatest good
available to the people. They accepted this, and affirmed that it was their greatest glory to govern
God's people justly and peacefully, and defend their mother, the Church of Christ, before whom and
the people they swore on oath what they had declared.

The Church insisted that they should give some security for their oath; the people could put their
confidence in their rulers as images of Christ only if they were given a pledge that they would never
be governed by rebellious princes unfaithful to the Church. The surety the rulers promised was their
abdication if they disobeyed the Church. As enemies of the Church, they could not worthily bear a
christian crown making them vicars of Christ, the only king of the ages, and they willingly accepted
that their subjects' oath of allegiance should oblige only as long as they themselves were faithful to
their duty towards the Church. It was only right that the Church's children should be ruled by other
devoted children, and it was clear to all that a ruler who is a minister of Christ and entrusted with
the good of the faithful, ceases to be such when he brutally attacks Christ himself. Rulers and
subjects were then invited to swear on the gospel, and to make their mutual oaths the lasting and
unchanging foundation of christian kingdoms. Religious observances of these rules would bring
lasting happiness to all; their neglect would result in malediction and tribulation.

All this is not a dream. It is a fact, and explains the constitution of christian kingdoms that was born
in the middle ages when the spirit of the gospel had conquered and subjected the highest authority
in civil society. Rulers imbued with the teaching of Christ were captivated by it, and would have
sacrificed all they had rather than renounce it. They were sure of themselves, and not afraid to
promise on oath what they saw as just and reasonable; they wanted to bind their descendants to the
same principles, and thought themselves fortunate in being able to do so. Their peoples, entrusted to
them by the King of kings, were brothers who had received the same baptism as themselves.

Love and equity towards them combined with burning devotion for the faith, prevailed over
ambition and love of power. For the sake of the faith and the good of their people, they were happy
to bequeath to their successors sovereignty which was less than absolute in form, but enhanced in
fact by greater justice and compassion through its religious consecration. Thrones dedicated to the
service of an eternal law of love and justice (to serve which alone is truly to reign) necessarily grow
in moral dignity, stability and consistency. The christian constitution governing kingdoms was
partly written and partly unwritten, but it was agreed to unanimously, and affirmed without
hesitation by rulers and people alike. Because all held the same views and the same religion, there
was no need to change what was accepted as common good. Hence all desired to uphold it.
Sometimes it was codified more precisely with special laws such as those which governed the
Roman empire and the kingdom of Germany. Let us see what happened in the case of Henry.

96. When Henry was threatened with final deposition by the German nobles assembled at Trier, he
appealed in person to the pope at Canossa, begging him to lift the sentence of excommunication
without delay. The reason he gave was related to the "palatine decrees", according to which a king
out of communion with the Church for a year and a day was declared unworthy of his office, and
ipso facto deposed without hope of regaining the throne (80). The year had almost expired, and this
prompted the pope, deceived by the emperor's external attitude of repentance, to grant Henry
absolution. The "year and a day" rule about excommunication in force in Germany, was paralleled
in all other christian kingdoms by a similar agreement between king and people. All interested
parties were convinced without doubt that heresy and infidelity on the part of the ruler were
grounds for his deposition, and that the oath of allegiance bound subjects only on condition that the
ruler remained a faithful, catholic christian (81).

97. From this it is clear that deposition of a christian ruler depended upon an accusation to be tried
before a church tribunal. Only the Church makes decisions in matters of faith, and it is her duty to
protect or excommunicate faithful of every state of life. Moreover, it was the Church, mother of all
christians, who had brought together and united princes and people in a new and moving pact of
love which the world could only admire. As the sole depository of the hallowed pact, she was its
only fitting interpreter and, in a case of its attempted violation, the judge who would decide whether
a violation existed, before the parties involved could take practical steps to vindicate their rights.

Before christian conventions between peoples and their rulers came into being, humble subjection
formed part of divine law (82). At this time, the Church did not recognise any case in which
christian subjects could refuse obedience to their ruler in lawful matters. Later sovereigns
themselves accepted the dictates of equity and love, and embellished their rule by submitting it to
enlightenment dependent upon the gospel, the principles of which became the governing law of
their kingdoms. Kings no longer desired to be slave-masters; they wanted to be ministers and vicars
of Jesus Christ for the benefit of free men, and promised on oath to act as such. Of their own free
will they chose to oblige themselves to be respectful children of the Church of Jesus Christ. At that
moment sovereignty fell under what we may call "human-cum-church" law, and the Church
recognised the possibility of cases in which subjects might be freed from their oath of allegiance.

Such a change in society did not take place instantly but gradually, as we have said, without
attracting attention. The first occasion offered to the Church of pronouncing such a decisive
judgment was under Gregory VII, and it is not surprising that the pope's action appeared innovative
to many of his contemporaries who for this reason saw it as an occasion for calumniating him,
although the Church had long before exercised some jurisdiction on the same grounds of public
christian law without arousing any opposition or surprise. Previously, however, she had interpreted
the laws broadly rather than strictly, without openly contradicting obstinate, powerful vice.

98. Those who still oppose the church's attitude towards Henry IV take their stand on troubles
which, they say, plagued society as a result of the Church's open battle with the empire. I would ask
them, however, to consider whether these evils were not rather one of the reasons for the Church's
abstaining from extreme action (83) in the century preceding Gregory's pontificate. In this case, the
Church's unwillingness to act precipitously throughout most of the 11th century cannot be used as
an argument against her jurisdiction when she was finally impelled to take steps against intolerable
evil at the end of this appalling period. I would also ask them to consider whether Gregory's action
was such as to cause necessarily the evils that ensued.

99. In fact, the tremendous struggle which took place was not fought between priesthood and
empire, as is commonly believed, but "in the name of priesthood and empire." In reality, the
priesthood was divided. One part fought for the Church, and was the Church; the other battled for
its own interests against the Church, disguising itself under the flag of zeal for imperial rights. The
nobles and people stood unanimously for the pope (84), opposed by rich and powerful bishops. The
reason is obvious: the pope had not declared war on the king, whom he held in great affection; still
less did he want to impugn his rule, or his rights. The pope's quarrel was with simoniacal and
dissolute clergy; his conscience obliged him, at the cost of his own life if necessary, to exterminate
the vices they practised so openly that unchecked they would have destroyed the Church (85).

The dissolute clergy, on their part, had every reason to fear the integrity and holiness of this second
Samson whom God had raised to the apostolic see to free the people of Israel. Moreover, the
bishoprics bought so dearly from Henry were a source of power and influence in the national
government, and their occupants stood together in a formidable alliance motivated by the kind of
force that only hatred of virtue can produce. Gregory was the object of every attack that malice
could invent (86), while the bishops took as their common slogan: our duty is the defence of the
sovereign's rights.

But which right in particular were these bishops defending? Henry's right to practise simony and
protect clerical concubinage? Gregory VII was attacking nothing else, and had never laid claim to
any royal right. His one purpose was to prevent traffic in bishoprics, and their prostitution to evil
men. He finally excommunicated the emperor because he had no other means for impeding the
final, total ruin of the Church when faced with a man who, under the influence of evil counsels
offered by bishops as bad as himself, sank ever lower.
The corrupt clergy were not only responsible for Henry's moral lapses (87); they kept him anchored
to his degradation, and prevented the struggle with the pope from coming to an end. This was only
to be expected. War ends when the enemy is conquered, and the only enemy at this point was the
corruption present in clerical counsellors.

Let us imagine that Henry had listened to Gregory; or that after his reconciliation with the pope at
Canossa, he had not been led astray once more by evil bishops using him as a screen for themselves
and their own vices. The storm would soon have blown itself out. The king, absolved without delay
from the excommunication, would have remained in perfect peace with the Church. He would have
retained his kingdom, to the great joy of the pope. But if the struggle between priesthood and
empire had ended at birth, as its nature required, what would have happened to the simoniacal,
concubinary bishops forced upon their people? The bishops themselves recognised the possible
conequences for their vices, their frivolity, their dearly bought benefices, their women, and their
favour in the eyes of their repentant royal accomplice. This is the obvious explanation for the
despair of such people when they heard of Henry's reconciliation with the pope, and their
determination to use every means to cause a new rupture between their sovereign and the pope and
Church (88).

100. Surely no further proof is needed that imperial rights were not the object of the bitterly
protracted conflict? Let us examine what occurred half a century later between Henry V and Pascal
II. This great pope spoke the language of his early predecessors; by his way of acting he showed
that the apostolic spirit had not been extinguished in the see of Peter, and that the gospel of Jesus
Christ, who reigns forever, is the same yesterday and today. I feel obliged to quote the actual words
used by Pascal when he proposed an agreement with Henry. They shine like a dazzling light to
witness that even in the worst of centuries the Church could not be deprived of the elevated ideals
which raise the christian priesthood above all earthly grandeur and wealth, and allow it to depend
upon the word of God alone. This passage from Pascal II will also show that the popes were acutely
aware of the truth we are constantly vindicating: the enslavement and corruption of the clergy
springs from their involvement in worldly affairs.

In brief, the pope proposed the renunciation of fiefs and all worldly honours in exchange for the
restoration of freedom for the clergy. It was an unparalleled act of generosity, and a truly sublime
proposal at such a moment in the Church's history. It still has to be recognised at its true value by
church historians, but justice will be done one day, and it will stand as a glorious monument in the
history of the Church. To its contemporaries, however, Pascal's noble, dignified and apostolic
proposal appeared the height of absurdity. The German clergy were appalled, and rebelled against
the pope; the emperor, who had already sworn to accept the proposal, also rebelled. No other
outcome was possible. For at least the third time, the clergy, infatuated by worldly riches, blocked
the peace between priesthood and empire. The empire refused obedience to the Church in order to
render abject service to degenerate clergy who, with neither honour nor liberty to sell, know how to
captivate their fellowmen with flattery and adulation. The empire was only a pretext and accessory
in this great struggle carried on by corrupt clergy fighting with great cunning for their own interests
in the name of imperial rights and with the armed support of the empire.

Let us hear what Pascal says in writing to the emperor.

"The prescriptions of divine law and the sacred canons forbid priests to take part in worldly affairs
or attend court, except for appeals on behalf of condemned persons and those treated unjustly... In
your kingdom, however, bishops and abbots are so involved in worldly affairs that they have to
attend court often, and serve as warriors... Ministers of the sanctuary have become ministers of state
as a result of the cities, duchies, margraviates, mints, castles and other things pertaining to service in
the kingdom which they have accepted from the sovereigns. Hence the now established custom in
the Church that bishops-elect are not consecrated until they have received investiture at the hands of
the monarch (89). Sometimes, others are invested during the lifetime of the bishops. Our
predecessors Gregory VII and Urban II were greatly disturbed by these and numerous other evils
which occured as a result of lay investiture and convoked frequent episcopal councils to condemn it.
Clerics possessing churches obtained in this way, and persons responsible for the investiture, were
to be excommunicated in accordance with the apostolic canon stating: 'If a bishop attains a church
through the intervention of the secular power, he shall be deposed, and those in communion with
him excommunicated...' Therefore we command all regalia to be reconsigned to you, dearly beloved
Henry, our son, and to the kingdom, in so far as they clearly belonged to the kingdom at the time of
Charles, Ludovic, Otto and the other princes, your predeceesors. We forbid and prohibit under pain
of anathema any present or future bishops or abbots from being involved with regalia, that is, cities,
duchies, margraviates, palatinates, mints, imposition of tolls, court fees, rights of hundreds, royal
residences with their possessions, military service and fortresses... we also decree that churches,
with offerings and other hereditary possessions clearly not belonging to the kingdom, retain their
freedom, as you promised Almighty God before the whole Church on the day of your coronation"
(90).

Is this the language of a usurper?

It is impossible to prove ambition or avarice in the popes if we consider the generosity entailed in
such willingness to relinquish temporal power legitimately acquired over many years in the service
of the state (91). What kind of exchange was demanded of the secular power for church
renunciation of these extensive rights? Was there some secondary end in view, or some political
trickery being plotted at Rome? God will judge between those who think so, and Rome. What popes
want from rulers is FREEDOM for a Church oppressed almost to extinction. Their pretended
ambition and avarice finishes precisely here, I may add (92). They have never wanted anything else.
But it is the freedom and existence of the Church which is abhorrent to rulers; demanding and
vindicating it is the popes' one unforgiveable sin in these struggles. The world still echoes with
complaints about insults to the throne, and attempted usurpation of national rights but an underlying
spirit of injustice and falsehood has motivated both the present outcry against these popes, and the
books published last century. This is the real reason for the affected concern about royal rights at a
moment in history when everything possible is being attempted to eliminate monarchs from the face
of the earth! The only persons unaware of it are the monarchs themselves!

The proposition I am maintaining, that is, "The struggle between priesthood and empire is in reality
a struggle between degenerate clergy refusing reform and the Church wishing to reform them," is
clear beyond possibility of doubt throughout the history of the conflict. It is sufficient to open any
one of the chroniclers of the time, whatever side or opinion he supports, to see on every page
evidence for the truth I affirm. The proofs almost jump from the text. It is surprising, therefore, to
come across modern historians capable of ignoring so obvious a truth that one might say it was
recorded by contemporaries in characters penned with tears and blood. Further proof would be
useless in the light of the documents available, but the ignorance mentioned above prompts me to
relate one relevant fact which, although true, has been so obscured and obliterated that it will be
new to many. Because it appears new, it needs to be substantiated carefully out of respect for public
opinion. It is deliberately not connected with the struggle in imperial Germany so that the truth I am
maintaining can be seen to apply to all the conflicts between popes and rulers at the time. I refer,
therefore, to relationships between Pascal II and Henry I of England.

101. Henry, like every other ruler in this period, did what he liked with bishoprics, The pope
warned him that he could not market what was sacred; that it was the Church's responsibility to fill
vacant sees; that the successors of the apostles had to be called by Christ through canonical
elections. The king rejected the pope's affirmations. Letters and embassies passed between them
(93). The pope and the primate of England, St. Anselm, stood their ground. St. Anselm had already
suffered persecution and exile for freedom's sake from Henry's predecessor, William, who despite a
change of policy resulting in Anselm's honourable recall to his see was unable to corrupt the
archbishop or obtain from him the homage rendered by bishops at their investiture. A new embassy
composed of three bishops for the king and two monks for the primate went to the pope to end the
dispute with Anselm. The pope's dignified and supportative letters to Anselm were read in the
presence of bishops and nobles convened by the king (94), and the matter seemed to be concluding
with the royal surrender.

But as peace was apparently in sight and the violated rights of the Church were about to be restored
to her, the three episcopal ambassadors to the pope complicated and retabled the whole question
with a gross lie that enabled them to win back the king, and to prolong the slavery of the Church.
The falsehood, afterwards unmasked and punished by the excommunication of these bishops,
asserted that the pope had spoken to them privately and given the king leave to do what had been
forbidden in the letters. According to the bishops, the pope had not wanted to put this in writing for
fear of having to make similar concessions to other rulers (95). The two monks forming part of the
embassy denied the story, and in turn were insulted and silenced. Every hope of agreement
vanished, but not because of the king's obduracy. The cause lay in the damnable wickedness of
obsequious, simoniacal and infamous bishops.

Modern historians are obviously unjust when they abandon the substance of the question and
concentrate on procedural accessories, or forget what is being fought for in order to concentrate on
the persons engaged in the fighting. The combatants or their leaders were popes and sovereigns, but
the cause of the struggle was the clergy. The popes fought to restore the ancient virtue and dignity
of the clergy; rulers to support clerical vice. Sovereigns were thus reduced to the state of
mercenaries in the service of the dregs of ecclesiastical life who protected themselves, as always,
behind the shields of others.

102. Should the head of the Church have allowed himself to be frightened by the brute force at the
disposition of the corrupt clergy? Should the courage of Peter's successors be compromised by the
difficulties they faced, or their care for the salvation of the moribund Church entrusted to them be
diminished by the thought of the unshakeable obstinacy of ecclesiastics to whom salutary warnings
and laws meant nothing? It was impossible for sovereign pontiffs to degrade themselves in this
way. They set about their true work in a spirit of magnanimity and sacrifice, spurred on by their
faith in the word of Christ that assured them of final victory.

On the other hand, no reform has ever been achieved in history without great upheavals. Ingrained,
universal abuses have never been destroyed without opposition and contradictions; nations have
never regained their lost dignity without sacrifice; peoples have never achieved happiness without
great undertakings and suffering. Certainly the catholic Church, a great community of peoples,
could not pretend to rise from the depths of its vile enslavement to the height of freedom without an
immense convulsion in society. However, considerations of this kind are beyond the capacity of
petty minds engaged in confident scrutiny of the great leaders of christian nations called by
Providence to undertake the reform of mankind.

103. Let me put a question to the protestant historians most opposed to the popes. Hume and
Robertson cannot deny that "the restoration of human society and of the Church from their lowest
level of degradation coincided with the turning point which was the pontificate of Gregory VII"
(96). The unprejudiced eye will note that this is not a casual coincidence, but one dependent upon
noble acts of humanity carried out by the pope, and inveighed against by these historians. The long-
term effects of Gregory's action were beneficial to civil society as well as to the Church, because
the well-being of the former is connected with that of the latter. There is, in fact, only indivisible
good at stake. However, we are only examining the freedom of the Churh in its choice of bishops
(97), and must keep to the point.

104. Gregory's cry for freedom shook the Church of God out of her lethargy. The unaccustomed
call to arms was welcomed by those who recognised its value: faith, justice and ecclesial dignity
revived in the hearts of men; individual churches, and holy bishops throughout the Church at large,
answered the appeal (98) and enrolled in the common cause. Ancient decrees and protests against
secular usurpation, which had scarcely been heard in the preceding century (99), were reaffirmed in
treatises and canons.

The work was manifestly guided by God. Human astuteness could never have aided the Church in
such extremities. Here was a man almost unique in history who came from nowhere, rose to be
pope and initiated a complete reform in an old, corrupt world. He stood up to rulers and internal
enemies alike, and in a few years succeeded in dealing heavy blows against the worst and most
deep-rooted disorders of the time through the eleven councils he held. He purged the Church, and
finally left to his successors rules he had formulated and refined for sustaining church government
under attack.

Only the design of God could have provided the long series of popes who succeeded Gregory VII,
and inherited his spirit of courage and uprightness - Victor II, Urban II, Pascal II, Gelasius II and
Callixtus II. All these men looked upon Gregory as their common father and teacher (100), and
continued his work of ensuring freedom for elections and of moral reform. They laboured
consistently, and kept to the great plan he had outlined for them (101). Nothing less would have
sufficed. One lifetime was not enough for the firm perseverance and continual effort required to
apply the basic norms for reform. Only the indefatigable, courageous preaching of truth in an
apostolic spirit by a succession of popes succeeded in immortalising Gregory's ideals. In the end, it
seemed as though one, long pontificate had overcome prejudices, conquered passions and instilled
the constant force of reason into the minds and hearts of sovereigns who finally bowed to Christ,
solemnly renouncing their usurpations at Worms in 1122 and at the ecumenical Council of the
Lateran in 1123, exactly forty-nine years after Gregory had anathematised for the first time the
abuse of investiture. Divine Providence finally perfected and sealed the great work through a series
of unexpected events and circumstances that led Otto IV in 1209, Frederick II in 1213 and 1220,
and Rudolf I in 1275 to renounce the abusive rights of regalia, sequestration and temporary
requisitions which still hampered considerably the Church's freedom.

105. The Church, and the holy see which guided her, finally won the great battle completely when
Rudolf made his sworn promises at Lausanne. Freedom of elections was now assured forever, it
would seem, and the flock of Jesus Christ could move ahead to renewed life.
At this moment, however, the devil found a new and more subtle means for disturbing the peace
and prosperity of the Church. These means were - I scarcely dare say it - unlimited reservations.
The holy see had justly and rightly triumphed in its struggle with secular power, and had inevitably
gained power in its turn. Necessity had all but forced reservations upon it, although other quite
deplorable reasons had in part provoked such a serious change in church discipline. The holy see
has, of course, the right to reserve to itself ecclesiastical elections when some extraordinary need
requires. We must repeat that the see of Rome possesses in perpetuity the right to act to save the
Church from danger. But all other interested parties were united in opposing ordinary and universal
reservations.

Complaints arose almost simultaneously with reservations and as early as the 13th century Gregory
IX, in order to satisfy the English, had to promise to cease conferring benefices already under lay
patronage (102). Shortly afterwards, the Council of Lyons was asked without success to intervene
(103). Rome's failure to respond caused a universal decline in respect towards "the mother of all the
churches", and resulted in demonstrations against her. In England Edward III annulled papal
provisions (104). In France, the Gallican clergy made their own decrees, imposing laws on the pope
which in 1406 were accepted by Charles V as state law. The Council of Constance, although
pressed on all sides to abolish papal reservations, refrained from doing so out of reverence for the
pope, but the result was very different in the case of the Council of Basel which with less patience
and greater courage attacked reservations unreservedly. The decrees of Basle against reservations,
reversions and annates were rapturously accepted by France, which had worked so hard for them,
and in 1438 they were embodied into the well-known pragmatic sanction. Germany followed suit in
1439, and shortly afterwards weakening papal resistance resulted in the concordats of Eugene IV
(1446) and Nicholas V (1448) (105). This time the Church was at fault; we acknowledge this, as the
popes have done so candidly. The question of investiture had ended in victory for the apostolic see;
reservations produced her abject humiliation.
106. The worst result of the situation, even after the problem had been resolved to some extent,
were the tremendous consequences felt within the Church itself. It is true that conflict over
investiture had been fought more bitterly, but the Church's wounds were not excessively deep, and
were comparatively easy to heal. Rome had battled valiantly, disinterestedly and magnanimously
for justice against brute force, depravity and deceit (106), and had emerged from the struggle very
creditably.

The outcome in the question of reservations was quite different. Here, nations, churches and rulers
were only aware of Rome's self-interest. They reacted with disgust rather than anger - and disgust is
far more damaging; the loss of temporalities through violent persecution is much less serious than
the loss of moral dignity. Providence, which never abandons the primary see, now had to submit it
to a dire, bitter trial in order to purify it from avarice. Violence, hatred and contempt were allowed
free rein against avarice which yields only to superior force.

Rome's defeat, moreover, left in people's hearts strong feelings of opposition to the papacy destined
to weaken ruinously the Church of Jesus Christ. This circumstance was to prove extremely
favourable to the heresies of the 16th century when rulers, scandalised by the holy see, had lost their
esteem and love for it, and were no longer prepared to support it. Many, in fact, were glad to see
rebels swarm against the popes from within the ranks of the clergy and demand freedom from their
ancient, heavy yoke.

This freedom. however, was only another name for licence, and implied far more than rulers could
then perceive. It stood for the independence of natural reason from positive revelation of any kind,
and for the deadly rationalism that in years to come would grow like a poisonous plant,
overshadowing the whole world, changing ways of life, overthrowing monarchies and rendering
problematic the future of mankind. Revolution in France and Europe has its roots in this distant
source.

107. Another terrible consequence of reservations, as we have said, was the surrender to secular
powers of the nomination of bishops (107), and the resultant loss of freedom in elections which had
cost so much to Gregory VII and men like him for whole centuries afterwards. We cannot say that
Rome surrendered a part of this precious freedom for the sake of economic advantages in the
concordat of Bologna in 1516, nor can we willingly blame Leo X for an act that showed great
foresight, and was read to the fathers of a general council (108). But we have to deplore the
disastrous consequences of the time which made such a convention necessary, and to mourn the
outcome of such a wise decision of pope and council. A great part of the precious freedom of
elections was abandoned once more to lay powers, and entire centuries of strife and acrid
disagreement in the Church and the world were set aside as meaningless.

Notes

(68) Elmoldus (in Chronico Slavorum, lib. 1, c. 69 and 70) [ed. Schmeidler, Leipzig 1909] offers an
example of the abjection of the clergy by quoting words of bishop Arturicus which show clearly
how ministers of almighty God could be influenced by material advantages. "Episcopal investiture
is proper to imperial dignity alone which, after that of God, is the highest and most excellent dignity
to be found on earth." (A bishop declares that, after God, imperial dignity is the highest possible.
Has he forgotten that any temporal sovereign whatsoever in the Church is a layman, a son of the
Church?). "The honour of investiture has been acquired at great price" (It is not a question of an
honour. Appointing to bishoprics is a sacred duty, a sacred and inviolable right of the Church. Can
the Church sell this right? Can rulers barter for it? Isn't this plain simony?) "Our worthy emperors
have not lightly entitled themselves 'LORDS OF THE BISHOPS'" (A bishop praises lay rulers
because they call themselves lords of the bishops.) "They repaid this injury" (it was an injury,
therefore?) "with great wealth from their lands" (Can the Church's freedom be compensated with
money? Can the only riches left to the Church by Christ be thrown away for the sake of the wealth
bestowed by a king?) "by which the Church has benefitted and been embellished" (by virtue? or by
some fatuous outward show?). "The Church should not consider herself degraded by surrendering a
little in this way; nor should she be ashamed to subject herself to one person if, as a result, she can
dominate many" (What extraordinary advice from a successor of the apostles! The Church does not
want to dominate people, but to save them; domination depends on wealth, salvation on the word of
God and the Holy Spirit. If the Church were the servant of one person alone, even for the sake of
ruling everyone else, she would be repudiated by Christ). This bishop's language is so strange that I
am forced to quote it in Latin lest readers think that I have invented it, or altered it when putting it
into English. "Investiturae pontificum imperatoriae tantum dignitati permissae sunt, quae sola
excellens, et post Deum in filiis hominum praeminens, hunc honorem non sine faenore multiplici
conquistavit. Neque Imperatores dignissimi levitate usi sunt, ut episcoporum domini vocarentur, sed
compensaverunt noxam hanc amplissimis regni divitiis, quibus Ecclesia copiosius aucta, decentius
honestata, jam non vile reputet ad modicum cessisse subjectioni; nec erubescat uni inclinari per
quem possit in multos dominari.

Who would have believed that Alexandre could have commented here: praeclare dictum!?

(69) Cum ministerium suae potestatis in hujusmodi negotium peragendo adjungere debeat, non
praeferre [Florus the deacon. PL 119, 11-13]. This is a correct statement of what rulers can do to
help the Church. They are not its legislators, but have to see that laws and dispositions of the
Church are put into practice as the Church desires.

(70) This did not occur immediately. Otto I was a pious, religious ruler, ranking third with Alfred
and Charlemagne. There is ample evidence to prove his respect for the Church and her authority.
For example, he replied to a noble, who requested the property of a certain monastery in order to
maintain his soldiers, that he would sin against Christ's command: "Do not give what is holy to
dogs," if he gave the Church's property to laypeople. He was of great assistance to the church of
Rome and supported freedom of election in the case of popes. It was not Otto who ended by
violating church freedom. The Church's liberty was destroyed by the increased power handed on by
Otto to unworthy successors incapable of sharing his magnanimity and breadth of mind. I may add
here that another circumstance which eventually led to the final destruction of church liberties in the
first half of the 11th century was the religious fervour of devout rulers like Otto I and Otto III, and
the holy emperor Henry. They laid hands on the Church with a sincere desire to help her; the
Church, sensing the advantage which would accrue to her, made no opposition. Nevertheless, this
was the reason why their successors found themselves in possession of church temporalities which
they could then use for their own evil purposes.

(71) A multis annis retroactis nulla electio praelatorum erat mere libera et canonica; sed omnes
dignitates tam episcoporum quam abbatum per annulum et baculum regis curia pro sua
complacentia conferebat. [Historia monasterii Croylanensis 664-1091, Oxford, 1648, in Rerum
Anglicarum Scriptores, vol. I].

(72) Inter caeteros nostri hujus temporis principes, qui Ecclesiam Dei perversa cupiditate
venumdando dissipaverunt, et matrem suam ancillari subjectione penitus conculcarunt, Philippum
regem Francorum gallicanas ecclesias in tantum oppressisse certa relatione didicimus, ut ad
summum tam detestandi hujus facinoris cumulum pervenisse videatur. Quam rem de regno illo
tanto profecto tulimus molestius, quanto et prudentia et religione et viribus noscitur fuisse potentius,
et erga Romanam Ecclesiam multo devotius (Ep. 35) [PL 148, 317].

(73) These ideas were circulated by imperial lick-spittles. The saintly bishop of Lucca met them
head-on and confuted them in a noble, frank and apposite book reminiscent in its language of the
early Church. As we have already said, holy Church was never entirely without such a voice. In his
introduction to book 2, Anselm offers in synthesis his whole position: opitulante Domini nostri
clementia, qui nos in sermones nostros suo mirabili nutu regit atque disponit, accingimur
respondere his qui dicunt, regali potestate Christi Ecclesiam subjacere, ut ei pro suo libito, vel
prece, vel pretio, vel gratis, liceat pastores imponere, ejusdem possessiones vel in sua vel in cuius
libuerit jura transferre [PL 149, 455-6]. The answer which Anselm goes on to develop is erudite and
forceful.

(74) Before dying the pope had cited Henry to appear at Rome and make reparation to the Church
for the crime of which he had been accused by the Saxons. Hence, when Gregory VII became
bishop of the apostolic see he found the case already opened by his predecessor who had exhausted
himself in attempts to stem the evils in the Church, suppress simoniacal elections and reclaim the
Church's liberties. Otto of Frinsinga says of him: Ecclesiam jamdiu ancillatam in pristinam reduxit
libertatem. (lib. 6, 34) [Alexandre, op. cit., saec. XI-XII, cap 1, art. 10, par. 18].

(75) Contemporary statements are always interesting. For this reason I try to justify all I say by
reference to living witnesses, especially when dealing with a subject retouched and confused by
biased historians. Martinus Scotus (in Chronic. ad ann. 1075) thus describes the situation. "He (that
is, the emperor Henry) was not afraid to do all he could to defile and pollute the one, beloved Bride
of Christ with concubinaries, that is, heretics, by selling simoniacally the spiritual offices of the
Church and the free gifts of the Holy Ghost by means of contracts contrary to catholic faith. These
and other things were witnessed by churchmen of the time who, zealous like Elias for the house of
God with God's own zeal, appealed sorrowfully through legates by letter and in person to
Alexander, bishop of the apostolic see, about Henry's unheard-of wickedness, and about numberless
other crimes committed in Germany by crazy, simoniacal heretics led by Henry... After the death of
Alexander, lord apostolic, the apostolic see was governed by Gregory, called Hildebrand, a monk.
On hearing the outcry and the just complaints of catholics against king Henry, and the enormities he
had inflicted upon them he was inflamed with God's own zeal and declared the above-mentioned
king excommunicate chiefly for simony." [Alexandre, op. cit., saec. XI-XII, diss. II, art. 1].
Contemporary writers agree in describing Henry as a figure of unrestrained vice in private life, a
despot relative to his subjects, and basely sacrilegious towards the Church. Nevertheless, writers of
the last century were able to give him their support. For them, Gregory is the villain - Gregory the
just, who magnanimously abandoned his quiet life to confront the tyrant, protect an oppressed
people, and save christendom from the brink of destruction. To their eyes, Gregory appears vilely
ambitious, meriting humanity's obloquy and execration. But we must praise heaven which moves
protestants themselves to recognise Gregory VII not only as the true defender of the Church, but
also of mankind, and as the demiurge of modern civilisation! (v. the German work entitled
Hildebrand and His Century) [Johannes Voigt, Hildebrand als Papst Gregor VII und sein Zeitalter
aus dem Quellen bearbeitet, Weimar 1826].

(76) Ep. 2, lib. 9 [PL 148, 605].

(77) A contemporary recalls the fact: Cum igitur dissimulare amplius tanti facinoris malitiam non
posset, apostolicus excommunicavit tam ipsum, quam omnes ejus fautores, atque omnem sibi
regiam dignitatem interdixit, et obligatos sibi sacramentis ab omni debito fidelitatis absolvit: quia
quod verecundum etiam est dicere, praeter haereticam quam praelibavimus culpam aderant in
sancto concilio nuntii illius sic audentes latrare: "Praecipit Dominus noster rex, ut sedem
apostolicam et papatum, utpote suum, dimittas, nec locum hunc sanctum ultra impedias"... Igitur
quem sui solius judicio Dominus reservavit, hic non solum judicare, verum etiam suum dicere, et
quantum in ipso est, audet damnare: quam ob causam omnis illa sancta synodus jure indignata,
anathema illi conclamat atque confirmat (S.Anselmi Lucensis, Paenitentiarius, in ejus Vita cap. 3
[PL 148, 913].

(78) This was the unchallenged teaching common to all social law amongst christians at the time.
Monarchs were in fact constitutional although the word had not come into use. The Council's
decisions presuppose this fact. Paolo Benriedese, in his Life of Gregory VII, relates how the fathers
responded to Gregory's sombre declaration of the actual state of affairs: Tua, sanctissime Pater,
censura, quem ad regendum nostri temporis saeculum divina peperit clementia, contra blasphemum,
invasorem, tyrannum, desertorem, talem sententiam proferat, quae hunc conterat, ET FUTURIS
SAECULIS TRANSGRESSIONIS CAUTELAM conferat... Tandem omnibus acclamantibus
definitum est, ut honore regio privaretur, et anathematis vinculis tam praenominatus rex, quam
omnes assentanei sui colligarentur. Accepta itaque fiducia, Dominus Papa, EX TOTIUS SYNODI
CONSENSU, ET JUDICIO, protulit anathema. [PL 148, 39-104]

(79) Joseph de Maistre.

(80) Ut si ante hanc diem excommunicatione non absolvatur, deinceps JUXTA PALATINAS
LEGES indignus regio honore habeatur, nec ultra pro asserenda innocentia sua audientiam
mereatur; proinde enixe petere, ut solo interim anathemate absolvatur etc. (Lambertus
Scafnaburgense, ad annum 1076). These "palatine laws" can only be a de facto constitution.

(81) Henry recognised, as stemming from the Church's tradition, this condition attached to
kingdoms of christian rulers. In a letter to Gregory VII he wrote: me quoque, licet indignus inter
christianos sum, ad regnum vocatus, te teste, quem sanctorum Patrum traditio soli Deo judicandum
docuit, nec pro aliquo crimine NISI A FIDE (quod absit) exorbitaverim, depondendum asseruit.

St. Thomas, whose writings draw upon church tradition more extensively and accurately than those
of other authors, and whose conclusions are considered faithful echoes of the Church, maintains that
this "constitutive law" of christian kingdoms has its source and origin in the constitution of the
Church founded by Jesus Christ. In other words, the ipso facto deposition of a cahtolic king because
of heresy on his part is not simply an explicit or implicit convention agreed between rulers and
people with the Church as mediator (S.T. II-II, 13, 2). What is certain, however, is that this
convention was not put into practice until the teaching underlying it had been fully agreed and
accepted as good and just by both people and rulers. Until that moment, the heads of the Church
were unable to exercise the right they possessed over the faithful. This has not been sufficiently
considered by those who are surprised by its lack of exercise in the first centuries of the Church,
and hence conclude that it is an abuse. The Church had first to reform individuals; only then could
she reform society and apply at a social level the laws demanded by christendom.

(82) This has to be understood in the sense of St. Paul's Omnis potestas a Deo, [all power is from
God] and St. Peter's subditi estote OMNI HUMANÖ CREATURAE propter Deum [be subject to
every human creature for God's sake]. Thus St. Thomas expressly teaches that it is against divine
law for subjects to withhold allegiance from a non-believing ruler. Est ergo contra jus divinum
prohibere quod ejus judicio non stetur, SI SIT INFIDELIS (In Ep. 1 ad Cor. c. 6). On the contrary,
if the ruler is a christian, St.Thomas grants the posssibility of the dissolution of the oath of
allegiance on the authority of the Church. Et ideo quam cito aliquis per sententiam denuntiatur
excommunicatus propter apostasiam a fide, ipso facto ejus subditi sunt absoluti a dominio ejus et
juramento fidelitatis, quo ei tenebantur. (S.T. IIa, IIae, q. XIII, a. 2).

(83) Henry himself, in a letter to the pope, states that Julian the Apostate remained undeposed not
because the Church lacked the right to depose him, but because of prudence on her part. Cum etiam
Julianum Apostatum PRUDENTIA sanctorum episcoporum non sibi, sed soli Deo deponendum
commiserit. [PL 147, 499]
This was the common opinion at Henry's time. How did this way of thinking change amongst
christians? What is the origin of MODERN opinions on public christian rights? This is a question of
some importance.

(84) According to Bruno (Historia etc.) [Bruno of Magdeburg, Liber de bella Saxonica cf. MGH,
Scriptores, V, pp. 327-384] it was the princes, Swabians and others as well as Saxons (the only
plaintiffs according to certain modern historians), who had recourse to the pope. After describing
Henry's dissolute life and his unheard-of tyranny, Bruno goes on: Gens vero Svevorum, audita
Saxonum calamitate, clam legatos suos ad illos misit, et foedus cum eis fecit, ut neuter populus ad
alterius oppressionem regi ferret auxilium. Eandem querimoniam fecerunt ad invicem OMNES
PENE REGNI TEUTONICI PRINCIPES, sed tamen palam nullus audebat fateri.

A large majority of the German princes gathered at Gerstenge were in favour of electing another
king, but were dissuaded by a letter from Gregory VII in which he pleaded in a true, evangelical
spirit for agreement and harmony. Some years later the princes, gathered at Trier, again wished to
elect another king, but finally left the decision to the pope. Through their envoys they sent the
following message to Henry who was ready at the time to accept any condition: Tametsi nec in
bello nec in pace ulla unquam ei justitiae vel legum cura fuerit, se LEGIBUS cum eo agere velle
(these laws, according to which the German lords wished to act in Henry's regard, could only have
been fundamental laws, that is, the christian constitution of the state) et cum crimina quae ei
objiciuntur omnibus constent luce clariora, se tamen rem integram Romani Pontificis cognitioni
reservare etc.

It is clear that the case had been remitted to the pope by the German nobility whose right it was to
elect the king. It is also clear from other words in the same document that this electoral body held in
good faith its right to choose another king for the state if Henry were to persist in his unlawful
attitude. The legates were instructed to inform Henry of the satisfaction imposed upon him by the
state for his violation of the laws, and then add: Porro si quid horum praevaricetur, tum se OMNI
CULPA, OMNI JURISJURANDI RELIGIONE, OMNI PERFIDIAE INFAMIA LIBERATOS, non
expectato ulterius Romani Pontificis judicio, quid reipublicae expediat, communi consilio visuros.
[Alexandre, op. cit., saec. XI-XII, diss. 2, art. 5, quoting Lambertus Scafnaburgensis, Annales 1076]
This was public law at the time. The language used by the German princes was never challenged by
Henry, nor reproved by the pope; no one found it strange or contrary to justice and equity. Only
modern philosophers are scandalised by it, and rebuke...the rebels!

(85) Hugo Flavanense described the true cause of the conflict between priesthood and empire in the
following terms: OB HANC IGITUR CAUSAM, quia scilicet sanctam Dei Ecclesiam castam esse
volebat (Gregorius), liberam, atque catholicam; quia de sanctuario Dei simoniacam, et neophytorum
haeresim, et foedam libidinosae contagionis pollutionem volebat expellere, membra diaboli
coeperunt in eum insurgere, et usque ad sanguinem praesumpserunt in eum manus injicere, et ut
eum morte vel exilio confunderent, multis cum modis conati sunt dejicere. SIC surrexit inter
regnum et sacerdotium contentio, ac crevit solito gravior sanctae Dei Ecclesiae tribulatio. (In Chron.
Virdunensi) [PL 154, 293] (v. Fleury, Rebellion of the Concubinary Clergy, lib. 62, 13). All the
bishops supporting the emperor and encouraging rebellion against papal admonitions had already
been excommunicated for simony, heresy, dissoluteness and other crimes of every kind; these were
the people to whom Henry had sold church benefices. A pope wishing to govern the Church with
clergy like this, and longing to reform it, needed great courage, especially at a time when secular
power was implicated in the same vices and manipulated by the most degenerate section of the
clergy.

(86) Violence, calumny, sophistry and lies of every kind were employed against Gregory VII by
clergy whose indecencies he wished to correct, despite their fawning presence around Henry as his
pretended counsellors and ministers. Guibert, archbishop of Ravenna, and later anti-pope, went so
far as to falsify the decretal of Nicholas II which he circulated as proof that the election of popes
had been consigned totally to the emperor. People were deceived, questions confused, and quarrels
prolonged by falsehoods of this kind whose authors were the clergy.

(87) From his youth Henry had been manipulated by clergy of the worst kind. Men like St.
Annonous had been driven away because they refused to flatter him and encourage his evil
tendencies. Bruno [of Magdeburg, op. cit., PL 147, 493] attributes Henry's descent to the depths of
immorality to his intimacy with Adalbert, bishop of Bremen. Hac igitur episcopi non episcopali
doctrina, rex in nequitia confortatus ivit per libidinum praecipitia sicut equus et mulus, et qui
multorum rex erat populorum, thronum posuit in se libidini cunctorum reginae vitiorum etc.

Henry wrote to Gregory in a moment of repentance (true or feigned?) and, in accusing himself of
his crimes, put part of the blame for them on his counsellors: Heu, criminosi nos et infelices! partim
pueritiae blandientis instinctione, partim potestativae nostrae et imperiosae potentiae libertate,
partim eorum, quorum seductiles nimium secuti sumus consilia, seductoria deceptione, peccavimus
in caelum et coram vobis, et jam digni non sumus vocatione vestrae filiationis. Non solum enim nos
res ecclesiasticas invasimus, verum quoque indignis quibuslibet et simoniaco felle amaricatis et non
per ostium sed aliunde ingredientibus Ecclesias ipsas vendidimus, et non eas, ut oportuit,
defendimus etc. (v. t. 1 Constitut. Imperial. Goldasti) [Alexandre, op. cit., saec. XI-XII, diss. 2, art.
11; cf. Goldastus, Collectio Constitutionem Imperialium, Frankfurt 1655-1673]

(88) The bishops supporting Henry were in despair when the emperor appealed to Gregory VII for
absolution from excommunication, thus abandoning them to their fate. The removal from the
emperor's court of Robert of Bamberg, Uldabric of Costreim and other principal counsellors in the
emperor's misdeeds was one of the conditions for absolution imposed on the king by Gregory.
These bishops, and others from Lombardy whose life followed a similar pattern, protested
vigorously and threatened rebellion out of zeal, they said, for the royal dignity that Henry had
dishonoured by humiliating himself in such a fashion before the pope. Henry ceded to their
pressure, and returned to his vomit. The logic employed by these bishops was scarcely convincing.
Royal dignity had been dishonoured because the emperor had permitted his vices to be corrected by
the pope; therefore they, the bishops, must give the king a practical lesson in how to comport
himself.

(89) The fiefs are the true origin of investiture.

(90) Divinae legis institutionibus sancitum est, et sacris canonibus interdictum, ne sacerdotes curis
saecularibus occupentur, neve ad comitatum nisi pro damnatis eruendis, atque pro aliis qui injuriam
patiuntur, accedant... In vestri autem regni partibus, episcopi vel abbates adeo curis saecularibus
occupantur, ut comitatum assidue frequentare, et militiam exercere cogantur... Ministri vero altaris,
ministri curiae facti sunt, quia civitates, ducatus, marchionatus, monetas, turres, et caetera ad regni
servitium pertinentia, a regibus acceperunt. Unde etiam mos Ecclesiae inolevit, ut electi episcopi
nullo modo consecrationem acciperent, nisi per manum regiam investirentur. Aliquando etiam vivis
episcopis investiti sunt. His et aliis plurimis malis, quae per investituram plerumque contigerant,
praedecessores nostri Gregorius VII et Urbanus II felicis recordationis Pontifices excitati, collectis
fraequenter episcopalibus conciliis, investituras illas manu laica damnaverunt, et si qui clericorum
per eam tenuissent Ecclesias, deponendos, datores quoque communione privandos percensuerunt,
juxta illud apostolicorum canonum capitulum quod ita se habet: si qui episcopus saeculi
potestatibus usus, Ecclesiam per ipsas obtineat, deponatur, et segregentur omnes qui illi
communicant... Tibi itaque, fili carissime Henrice rex, et regno regalia illa dimittenda praecipimus,
quae ad regnum manifeste pertinebant tempore Caroli, Ludocivi, Ottonis, et caeterorum
praedecessorum tuorum. Interdicimus etiam et sub anathematis districtione prohibemus, ne qui
episcoporum seu abbatorum praesentium vel futurorum, eadem regalia invadant, id est, civitates,
ducatus, marchias, comitatus, monetas, telonium, advocatias, jura centurionum, et curtes quae regis
erant, cum pertinentiis suis, militiam et castra. - Porro Ecclesias cum oblationibus et haereditariis
possessionibus, quae ad regnum nanifeste non pertinebant, liberas manere decrevimus, sicut in die
coronationis tuae omnipotenti Domino in conspectu totius Ecclesiae promisisti. Ep. XXII [PL
163,283]

(91) Others accuse this great-hearted pope of not having sufficiently upheld the rights of the Church
in wishing to abandon its temporalities to the avarice of others. I would like to offer a comment on
the situation which can be judged by others more clear-sighted than myself. It seems to me that
wealth and temporal power enjoyed by the clergy produce more far-reaching effects than corruption
in a section of the clergy. Generally speaking, they also cause over-confidence in the value of
human means as a help to religion. I am inclined to think that these temporalities have sometimes
been defended too vigorously, as I shall expalin. In the early days of the Church, the ruling
principle was: "It is better to relinquish temporal benefits than defend them at the cost of greater
spiritual harm." Freedom and holiness are absolute requirements in the Church; temporalities are
not absolute, and do not demand an absolute, unconditioned defence.

St. Augustine's homilies to the people, for example, show how little he was concerned about
temporalities, not only personally but also relative to the Church. Homily 116 is particularly clear
on the matter: "Anyone wishing to disinherit his children in order to leave what he has to the
Church will have to find someone other than Augustine to take his gift. And please God I am right
in saying that this will not be easy." The last sentence indicates that Augustine' view was shared
with his fellow-bishops. He adds: "What a great bishop Aurelius of Carthage was! Once a certain
man without children, and without hope of children, left all he had to the Church, keeping only the
income for himself. Children arrived, and the bishop restored all that had been given in the first
place. The person concerned wasn't even expecting it. In the eyes of the world, Aurelius could have
kept what was given, but not in God's eyes" [Serm. 355, PL 39, 1572].

St. Ambrose writes in a similar spirit: Quid igitur non humiliter responsum a nobis est? Si tributum
petit (imperator) non negamus. Agri Ecclesiae solvunt tributum: si agros desiderat imperator,
potestatem habet vindicandorum, nemo nostrum intervenit. De Basilicis tradendis, n. 33 [Sermo
contra Auxentium de basilicis tradendis, PL 16, 1060].

On the subject of taxes, I would add also that people have sometimes been too eager to support
exemption from taxes for ecclesiastical property. When the Church owns great possessions, this
privilege is hateful in the extreme, and against equity. I would add that it has brought the Church
more harm than good even in the material order. It is largely responsible for the existence of the
terrible word mortmain, and for the principle expressed by Barbosa: Regnorum utilitas postulat ut
bona stabilia sint in commercio hominum non privilegiatorum ET EXEMPTORUM. (lib. 2, de
Pensionibus, vol. 26, n. 19) [Agostino Barbosa, Praxis Methodice exigendi pensiones, Lyons 1712].
Equitable treatment would require that the state renounce regalia in relationship to all those
properties not originally true fiefs, and that church property be taxed in the same way as other
properties.

(92) Pascal II knew that the problem was bedevilled by suggestions from wicked men. He wrote to
the king of England: "In the midst of all these contradictions, your majesty must not believe any
rumour about our wishing to lessen your power in any way, or even about our claiming more than
this in the promotion of bishops. All that is necessary is that you, for love of God, should abandon
your claim which clearly contradicts God's law, which cannot be exercised in God's sight, and
which cannot be granted if we ourselves wish to be saved. We shall give you willingly anything else
you care to ask, and we can grant, according to God's will; we shall redouble our efforts to further
all that can serve to increase your honour and dignity. And do not think that abandoning this
sacrilegious usurpation will weaken your power at its core. On the contrary, you will rule more
efficiently, from a stronger base, and with greater honour, because divine authority will rule in your
kingdom." Pascal's last words here are particularly impressive and noteworthy because they point to
a fact observed by a profound, modern thinker: "Although the popes have opposed rulers who
oppress the Church, they have never debased them. Rather, when rulers have submitted to the
authority of the Church, their sovereignty has gained something sacred in character that reflects the
splendour of the divinity." Pascal's words to the king of England deal precisely with this point: Nec
existimes quod potestatis tuae columen infirmetur si ab hac profana usurpatione desistas. Imo tunc
validius, tunc robustius, tunc honorabilius regnabis, CUM IN REGNO TUO DIVINA REGNABIT
AUCTORITAS. (Eadmero, lib. 3, Historia Novorum) [Pascalis II Epistolae et Privilegia, PL 163,
72]. One could add that he alone is capable of ruling who serves God, justice and truth.

(93) When Henry I sent his first embassy to Rome to seek the right of investiture of bishops, Pascal
II replied with a letter worthy of the head of the Church. "You ask for an indult from the church of
Rome granting you the right and the faculty to constitute bishops and abbots by investiture, and to
have subject to royal authority that which the Lord almighty has declared pertinent to his own
action alone. For the Lord says: 'I am the door; if anyone enters through me, he shall be saved.'
When kings take it upon themselves to be the gate, those who enter through them are not shepherds,
but thieves and robbers, as the Lord says: 'He who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but
climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber.' Truly, if your majesty were to ask us
some great favour which could be granted justly in God's sight and in accordance with the integrity
of our office, we would willingly do it for you.

But what you ask is so fundamentally unworthy, that in no circumstance could the catholic Church
justify and accept it. St. Ambrose suffered extreme pressure rather than grant the emperor dominion
over the Church. He declared: 'Do not over-reach yourself, lord emperor, by thinking that you have
some imperial right to command in matters pertaining to God. Do not exalt yourself but, if you wish
your reign to endure, subject yourself to God. It is written: to God, the things that are God's; to
Caesar, Caesar's. Palaces belong to emperors; churches to priests. You have rights over the walls of
cities and towns, not over the sacred walls of churches. Do you want to live with an adulteress, a
woman not joined in lawful wedlock? Has your majesty never heard that a church not joined in
lawful marriage is adulteress? And that everyone recognises the bishop as the lawful spouse of the
church?... If you are a son of the Church, let your mother marry legitimately by accepting her lawful
spouse not at man's instigation, but through the work of Christ, God and man.' The Apostle
witnesses that bishops are chosen by God when they are chosen canonically: 'And one does not take
the honour upon himself, but he is called by God, just as Aaron was.'

And St. Ambrose says: 'It is believed rightly that the person asked for by universal consent is the
one chosen by divine judgment.' A little later he adds: 'When all agree about the nomination, there
is no doubt that it is the Lord Jesus who has prompted the desire, judged the request, presided over
the ordination, and bestowed his grace.' David, in speaking of the church, said: 'Instead of your
fathers sons are born to you; you will make them princes in all the earth.' It is the Church who
generates sons and makes them princes... It would be monstrous to say that a son generates his
father, and that man has to create God! And it is clear that priests are called gods in holy Scripture
because they are God's vicars... This is the reason why through our predecessors the apostolic and
Roman church has never hesitated to oppose courageously the usurpation which kings have desired
and sought through this vile rite of investiture, and why oppression of the worst kind, which has
continued to afflict and outrage her until now, has been unable to make her yield. And we trust in
the Lord that Peter, prince of the church and first amongst bishops, will not lose the courage of his
faith even in us" (Eadmerus, lib. 3, Historia Novorum;) [Paschalis Papae Epistolae et Privilegia, PL
163, 70-71].

(94) Pascal's letter to Anselm states: "You know, in your wisdom, how effectually, forcefully and
severely our fathers fought in times past against investiture, that POISONOUS ROOT OF
SIMONIACAL DEPRAVITY. In the pontificate of Urban, our worthy lord and predecessor whom
we remember and revere in Christ, bishops and abbots from various parts of the world met in
council at Bari. Your holiness and ourselves were there, as those who accompanied us remember
very well, when sentence of excommunication was passed on that plague. We ourselves, who
possess the same spirit as our fathers, feel the same way about the matters, and bear witness to the
same truths." This letter is dated 11th December 1102. [Pascalis II, Epistolae et Privilegia, PL 163,
106-107].

(95) Pascal replied to the outrageous lie of the three court bishops: "We call Jesus, who scrutinises
mind and heart, to witness that from the moment we have undertaken the responsibility of this holy
See such an abominable crime has never entered our mind. May God guard us from the hidden
poison that would prompt us to say one thing, and to think another. It was against lying prophets
that the cry went up: 'May the Lord destroy all lying lips.' Could we excuse ourselves before the
eternal judge if even our silence alone had been the cause of the Church's defilement with
poisonous and bitter fruit? The Lord himself instructed priests about their duty when he said
through the mouth of the prophet: 'I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel.' He is a
poor watchman who neglects his duty and allows the city to be taken by the enemy. What
responsibility is left to bishops in the Church if the staff, symbol of the pastoral office, and the ring,
sign of the faith, are bestowed by the hand of a layman? If we were to allow overbold laymen to
undertake what we know to be the priests' responsibility, the honour of the Church would be
debased, her discipline relaxed, and all christian religion humiliated. It is not the layman's business
to allocate churches, nor a son's duty to defile his mother with adultery. The layman's duty is to
defend the Church, not to apportion it. When Uzziah took upon himself the office of priesthood, he
was struck by leprosy; when the sons of Aaron offered unholy fire, the fire came forth from the
presence of the Lord and devoured them etc.." [Pascalis Papa II, Epistolae et Privilegia, PL 163,
105-106]. And he goes on to prove that it is unlawful for the ruler to confer bishoprics at will.
Finally he excommunicates those imposing bishops upon dioceses, and those who had meanwhile
received investiture at the hand of the king.

(96) "The abuses inherent in feudal government and their consequent debasement of taste and
morals had been on the increase for many years, and reached their final term, it seems, at the end of
the 11th century. This epoch saw the beginning of progress in a better direction, and marks the
moment from which we can note changes and events whose influence assisted the elimination of
confusion and barbarism, and their substitution with order, coherence and regularity." (William
Robertson, 1721-93) [The History of the Reign of the Emperor Charles V, London 1769, Section 1].
(97) Useful and serious research could be carried out in order to discover "the sense of justice,
equity and humanity stimulated in barbarian society by Gregory VII, and its beneficial results." For
example, Gregory, in a council held at Rome, promulgated a law for the protection of shipwrecked
persons. "On whatsoever shore they land, they are to be treated decently in their distress, and their
persons and belongings are to be left unmolested: Ut quicumque naufragium quemlibet et illius
bona invenerit, secure tam eum quam omnia sua dimittat (Council. IV Rom. sub Gregor. VII). This
is one of the humane laws which became part of public common right in Europe.

(98) It would be impossible to describe how severely men like St. Peter Damian, St. Anselm of
Canterbury, St. Anselm of Lucca, St. Ivo of Chartres and later St. Bernard and other great
churchmen, laboured and suffered for the freedom of the Church as a result of the impetus given
them by Gregory.

(99) We quote from several councils held in the 11th century after Gregory had raised the banner of
reform and liberty. Nullus ecclesiasticum aliquem honorem a manu laicorum accipiat... Nullus
presbyter capellanus alicujus laici esse possit, nisi concessione sui episcopi. (Council of Clermont,
1095, canons 15 and 18) [SC 12, 831]
Monacus, qui ecclesiasticum de manu susceperit beneficium quia non intravit per ostium sed
ascendit aliunde sicut fur et latro, ab eodem separetur officio. (Council of Nçmes, 1096, canon 8)
[SC l2, 937]
Nullus laicus det vel adimat presbyterum Ecclesiae sine consensu praesulis. (Council of Tours) [SC
12, 930]

(100) In his profession of faith at the Lateran Council, 1112, Pascal II affirmed that he accepted the
decrees of his papal predecessors: Et praecipue decreta Domini mei papae Gregorii VII, et beatae
memoriae papae Urbani: quae ipsi laudaverunt, laudo; quae ipsi tenuerunt, teneo; quae
confirmaverunt, confirmo; quae damnaverunt, damno; quae repulerunt, repello; quae interdixerunt,
interdico; quae prohibuerunt, prohibeo in omnibus, et per omnia, et in iis semper perseverabo. [PL
163, 471].

(101) All these popes, including those who reigned briefly, fought with great energy and
selflessness for freedom of elections. It is impossible to describe all they did. Here we refer to some
of the principal decrees issued in the many councils they held.
Victor III, who reigned only two years, held a council at Benevento in 1087 and published the
following decree: "We declare that from now on anyone receiving a bishopric or abbacy from the
hand of a lay person will not be considered as bishop or abbot, nor entitled to receive reverence as
such. Moreover, we ban such a person from the nave of St. Peter's, and forbid him entrance to the
church until he repents and relinquishes the position he has received as a result of these serious
crimes of ambition and disobedience which we can only describe as wicked idolatry. The same
applies for lesser positions and dignities in the Church. Again, if any emperor, duke, prince,
margrave or other secular power whatsoever presumes to bestow a bishopric or any other
ecclesiastical honour, he will be subject to the same punishment. The 318 fathers of the Council of
Nicea thus excommunicated traders in simony judging both sides to be anathema." [PL 149, 963-
964]

Urban II defended the freedom of elections in the three councils he held at Melfi, Clermont and
Rome in 1089, 1095 and 1099. Two canons of the Council of Clermont state:
1. "The catholic Church shall hold the faith inviolate, and be free from all subjection to secular
slavery;"

2. "Bishops, abbots and other members of the clergy shall not receive any ecclesiastical dignity
from the hand of rulers, or from any lay person whatsoever."

Pascal II convened eight councils, five in Rome, 1102, 1105, 1110, 1112 and 1116, and three at
Guastalla, 1106, Troyes 1107 and Benevento 1108, in all of which he issued decrees against the
abuse of secular domination in episcopal elections. Pascal's magnanimity, equity and courtesy in
this battle for freedom in elections is almost unbelievable. And the liberty he fought for was
strengthened and vindicated. The language used at the Council of Guastalla shows that the efforts of
the popes were beginning to bear fruit in the reform of the Church. "For a long time evil clerics and
laymen have oppressed the catholic Church, causing many schisms and heresies to spring up in
modern times. But because divine grace has removed from the scene the authors of this evil, the
Church is repossessing her freedom. Now, therefore, it is necessary to destroy totally the causes of
these schisms. Hence, in accordance with the constitutions left by our predecessors, we forbid all
lay investiture. Any cleric harming his mother, the Church, by violation of this decree shall be
deposed from his office; any layman, refused entry into the church."

Gelasius II was attacked, driven from Rome and, like his predecessors, persecuted for his constant
defence of the same rights.

After incredible efforts Callixtus II, who had solemnly condemned investiture in the presence of
420 fathers at the Council of Rheims, succeeded in obtaining peace when Henry V surrendered his
claim to investiture. It will be useful here if we quote the bishop of Chalons, the pope's nuncio to
the emperor. After the agreement had been signed in front of many witnesses, the emperor denied
with great effrontery that he had made any promises. The nuncio proved his bad faith by drawing
attention to his signature, and the witnesses gave evidence against him. The nuncio then declared to
the emperor the true state of affairs: "Your Lordship will find us faithful in all our promises. His
Lordship the Pope has no intention of lessening imperial or royal rights in any way, as some
mischief-makers have maintained. He declares to one and all that they must serve you by providing
soldiers and everything else that you and your predecessors have been accustomed to receive. You
are wrong, however, if you think your kingdom has been harmed because you can no longer trade in
bishoprics. You should consider this a benefit and advantage for your realm, and be glad about it.
By abandoning this pretension for love of God, you relinquish what is contrary to the
commandments of the Lord." [PL 163, 1085]. This is what was at stake, and I defy modern sophists
to prove that the pope sought anthing else.

(102) Ep. XIII [cf. Thomassin, op. cit., t. 2, lib. 1, c. 43, 8]

(103) Ann. 1245 [cf. Thomassin, op. cit., t. 2, lib. 1, c. 43, 9]

(104) Ann. 1343 [cf. Thomassin, op. cit., t. 2, lib. 1, c. 44, 3]

(105) The first of these two concordats was signed at Frankfurt, the second at Aschaffenburg under
Frederick III.

(106) I have already pointed out that the popes' refusal to take part unnecessarily in episcopal
elections enabled them to offer strong arguments to others for refusing. Pope Hadrian was on very
solid ground when he wrote to Charlemagne: Numquam nos in qualibet electione invenimus, nec
invenire havemus and he went on to draw conclusions about Charlemagne's interference in
episcopal elections: Sed neque vestram excellentiam optamus in talem rem incumbere. Sed qualis a
clero et plebe...electus canonice fuerit, et nihil sit quod sacro obsit ordini, solita traditione illum
ordinamus? (Tom. 2, Conc. Gall., p. 95 and 120).

During the conflict over investiture, the popes were continually assuring rulers that, other than the
freedom of the Church, they had no secondary motive in elections nor desire to influence them; they
did everything they could to remove this suspicion from the minds of rulers. Pascal II wrote to
Henry II of England: Inter ista, Rex, nullius tibi persuasio profana surripiat, quasi aut potestati tuae
aliquid diminuere, aut NOS IN EPISCOPORUM PROMOTIONE ALIQUID NOBIS VELIMUS
AMPLIUS VINDICARE (Eadmero, lib. 3, Histor. Novor.) [Pascalis Papa, Epistolae et Privilegia,
PL 263, 72]

Alexander III (12th century) was very careful in matters of this kind. after building the city of
Alexandria and naming its first bishop, he declared that he had no intention of prejudicing its future
elections of bishops: De novitate et necessitate processit quod nulla praecedente electione,
auctoritate nostra, vobis et Ecclesiae vestrae electum providimus. Statuimus ut non praejudicetur in
posterum quominus electionem liberam habeatis, sicut canonici ecclesiarum cathedralium, quae
Mediolanensi Ecclesiae subjacent. [PL 200, 1064].
The popes of the time acted with great consideration in the question of elections.

(107) The nomination to bishoprics had been ceded to the English king by papal indult shortly
before Leo X's concordat with Francis I. Is it possible that Hadrian VI, successor to Leo X, would
cede to Charles V, his monarch-pupil and the kings of Spain who followed him, the nomination of
Spanish bishops out of gratitude for help in obtaining the papacy? Could the freedom of the Church
be handed over to repay private and personal obligations as though it were nothing more than
common currency? This would be truly infamous generosity.

(108) Alexandre has an extraordinarily insensitive remark on elections: Jus plebis in reges
christianissimos ECCLESIAE GALLICANAE LIBERTATIBUS et antiquo more ab Ecclesia tacite
saltem approbato transfusum est. (Hist. Eccles. saec. I, Dissert. 8).
Liberties which subject the Church of God to temporal rulers should rightly be called "enslavement
of the Gallican church."

Chapter 4 (Part three)

The wound in the right foot of holy Church:

the nomination of bishops left in the hands of civil government.

108. As we have said, the de facto power of the popes reached its peak after the abolition of
investiture. At the same time monarchies suffered considerably; the nobility took advantage of the
struggle to rebel, and in some parts of Europe succeeded in founding minor, independent
principalities. After the return of peace, papal power declined through the use of reservations and
other money-making restrictions which, humanly speaking, should have served to augment it.

Monarchs, however, used this moment of calm to make good their losses, and did all they could to
increase their power and authority. Finally, in the 15th century Louis XI of France, a cruel king
undeterred by moral principles, taught his European colleagues how to subdue the nobility with
harsh, strong blows, and render royal dominion absolute. This in substance was the policy of the
courts, although put into practice with various degrees of vigour. It was persevered with until
Francis I and Charles V completed the foundations of the great work which gave sovereignty in
Europe a new form and nature.

The popes of the 16th century had to negotiate with these two kings; resultant treaties forced the
relinquishment by the popes of a large part of the freedom of choice of episcopal appointments.
Nomination to bishoprics fell within the power of the king; the holy see simply retained its power to
confirm the nomination. In effect, the new style of discipline, which still prevails and causes one of
the most painful and bitter wounds in the crucified Spouse of Christ, divided the reservations
between sovereigns and popes.

109. Not everyone sees it like this, however. To many, it appears that the pope's power to confirm
secular nomination ensures sufficient freedom to the Church. I suspect that in better times reasoning
of this nature would have been considered a dressing for covering the wound rather than a cure - a
diplomatic ruse, in a word.
Let us examine what the Church thought about elections before this final state of discipline evolved,
and what the churchmen of old would have maintained about the nomination of bishops left in the
hands of civl government.

In the 9th century (and in the 10th, when usurpation was at its height) lay power was constantly
increasing its interference in episcopal elections and as a consequence its power over the liberties of
the Churh. As we have seen one of the means employed to further secular claims was the demand
that the appointment should not take place before royal permission for the election had been sought
and granted. It could not have been said that this, as mere diplomacy, interfered with free choice.
Nevertheless, the Church at the time considered this royal claim as a violation of its liberty.

We have seen how Hincmar and other bishops protested strongly against the fetters thus imposed on
the Church. They declared that a diocese having to ask leave of its ruler before choosing a bishop
would be forced to choose the ruler's candidate. If this was their opinion about events in their own
time, what would they have thought if the problem had concerned the nomination of the person to
the see rather than simple permission to choose him? They would certainly have had far more
convincing reasons for holding that the bishops appointed would be those imposed on churches by
the will of the ruler. Papal confirmation would have been considered a formality never to be
refused, provided that the person concerned were free from public or at least known
misdemeanours. But is freedom from public infamy sufficient to characterise a suitable bishop for a
diocese, or to ensure that he is wanted by the diocese? Is there any freedom left to the Church, and
if so what is its value, when the desires of the churches have been neither consulted nor heard?

110. Another step taken in this century by lay power as it began to prevail in elections were royal
petitions. Could anything be less harmful or less influential than petitions, which might always be
rejected by the electors? But what did the Church think of them? St. Ivo of Chartres, a great bishop
noted for his efforts to reconcile Church and state (109), considered royal petitions as annihilation
of church freedom (110). His protests against them were supported by the most intelligent and holy
prelates of the time. But which is the greater: simply to manifest a desire in favour of someone, as
rulers did to electors in those days, or actually to nominate the person desired? If a ruler was
considered to be interfering in canonical elections simply by showing which candidate he favoured,
what is the position when rulers nominate bishops, and popes can at most, but not always, refuse to
confirm the nomination?
In fact, certain conditions are required for such refusal. First, the person nominated will have been
accused of some serious misdeed, as we have said; second, the misdeed will have come to the
notice of the head of the Church; third, the offence will have been sufficiently proved. But this is
not all. Before denying confirmation, the pope has to be careful not to anger the ruler too seriously,
nor cause a greater evil for the Church. This in turn depends upon the ruler's temperament and
religious feeling, and still more upon the ministers directing him and the whole complex of
circumstances and diplomatic relationships in which the holy see is involved. It is very easy,
especially in times of unbelief, and in moments of coldness and universal hostility towards the holy
see, for any ruler to put pressure on the pope. Is there at present any true freedom, rather than pro
forma freedom, in the choice of bishops? What would the Church have said in days of old about
such conditions?

111. But I would prefer not to judge present-day freedom of the Church according to the standards
of her first centuries. Let me compare it with the way of thinking of leading churchmen in the 9th
century when the Church slept, as it were, almost unaware of her enslavement to rulers. Despite her
condition, freedom was still recognised for what it was. Later, I would like to examine the thought
of the following century when the Church tore off her shameful halter, and strong, holy popes relit
the torch of freedom. We shall see what these great popes would have said about modern episcopal
elections, in catholic nations for the most part, which depend upon the will of the sovereign. Two
events will enable us to understand better whether they would be satisfied with them.

Henry V unleashed a tremendous persecution on Pascal II which included imprisonment, contempt,

forced labour, threats of death, plundering of papal cities and territory, violence, confiscations and
all the consequent unhappiness of good, defenceless people at the mercy of barbarian soldiers not
only directed but incited by the anger of the perjured emperor. And what did Henry succeed in
obtaining from the great-hearted pope? He was granted the privilege of investing bishops with
episcopal revenues by means of staff and ring on condition that these bishops were first chosen
canonically, freely, without simony or violence (111), and under other conditions restricting the
privilege still further. Henry thought he had won the battle by squeezing the privilege out of the
pope. Nevertheless, it gave him no right of any kind to interfere in elections or ordinations; his part
was reduced to consenting to the choice, and to allowing the chosen bishop to take possession of his
diocese. Yet the whole church seemed to rise up against Pascal, accusing him of diminishing church
freedom and threatening schism, because he had allowed the king to carry out an unsuitable
ceremony, that is, to invest the bishop with pastoral staff and ring, signs of episcopal jurisdiction.
The king protested that his only intention in carrying out the ceremony was to confer the
temporalities upon the bishops (112). This was not sufficient for the Church which saw that pastoral
investiture entailed the assent of the ruler if the newly-elect were to be bishop in fact. Councils,
meetings of bishops, and gatherings of cardinals took place everywhere in protest against the
concession extorted from the pontiff, while threats to break with obedience to this saintly pope were
heard on all sides.

Only heroic humility on Pascal's part prevented the cauldron from boiling over. He first recognised
that he had exceeded his duty, and then called a council in the church of St. John Lateran at which
he appeared as a self-confessed criminal, laid down his papal insignia, declared himself ready to
abdicate the papacy in satisfaction to the Church, and submitted himself to whatever penalty the
fathers judged fitting. He said: "I recognise and confess my mistake in that document, which I drew
up without the advice and accompanying signature of my brethren, although moved to do so not by
fear for my own life, safety or glory, but only by the dire necessity pressing upon the Church in her
extreme peril. It contains no obligatory condition or promise, but I desire, with God's help, to
correct it. I leave the mode of correction to the council and judgment of my brethren gathered here,
so that through it the Church may suffer no damage in the future, and my own soul may not be
harmed."

After examining the matter, the Council passed the following sentence: "That so-called privilege
was extorted with violence by King Henry from our lord pope Pascal for the sake of the imprisoned
and for the freedom of the Church. Gathered now with our lord pope in this Council, we, with the
authority of the Church and according to the judgment of the Holy Spirit, condemn it as deserving
canonical censure, declare it invalid, set it aside completely, and under pain of excommunication
judge it to be totally inefficacious and without authority." A similar judgment added the following
reason for the condemnation: "The document has been condemned because such a privilege
concedes that a person canonically chosen by the clergy and people may not be consecrated before
being invested by the king. This is contrary to the Holy Spirit and canonical decisions" (113).

These fathers, and the whole Church of the time, judged it unacceptable that a bishop, although
lawfully elected by clergy and people, should need the royal assent and investiture before being
consecrated. What would have been the consequences if Pascal (114) had destroyed free, canonical
choice and bestowed upon the emperor the privilege of nominating the person to be consecrated?
There can be no doubt that conditions in the 16th century, when a pope thought that it was a lesser
evil for the the Church to grant episcopal nomination to a secular ruler rather than suffer the
consequences of not doing so, would have been considered intolerable. I shall forego other
reflections on these events, although I think they deserve profound meditation.

112. The judgment of the 12th century Church on royal nomination can also be gauged from an
event which took place under Innocent II. At the death of the archbishop of Bourges, Louis VII left
the clergy and people of that city free to choose their own bishop provided Peter de Castra, whom
he swore not to accept, was excluded. Nevertheless, Peter was elected and, while at Rome,
consecrated by the pope who refused to admit the king's right to exclude anyone. "There is no true
freedom of choice if the ruler can exclude anyone he wishes, unless of course it is proved before an
ecclesiastical judge that the candidate lacks the necessary qualifications. In such a case, the king's
voice must be heard, in the same way as that of other christians" (115).

Here, although the case is only concerned with allowing the king to exclude someone, the popes
considered that church freedom had been violated. Liberty is a very delicate matter, and can be
harmed by the slightest interference. What would Innocent II have said if perpetual nomination of
all bishops of the kingdom had been at stake? We must be careful not to surrender to the pressures
of ignorance and avarice by condemning the popes' judgment as exaggerated. This would be an
insult to the memory of these saintly men who retained the true, noble ideas of freedom which Jesus
Christ has bestowed upon his Church (116).

I can call upon prudent, holy contemporaries like St. Bernard, whose catholicism was quoted as a
model even by Napoleon, as witness to what I say. The abbot of Clairvaux agreed completely with
Innocent II, although he begged him to exclude Peter de Castra from the diocese of Bourges.
Bernard's loyalty and freedom in his communications with Rome cannot be doubted. When he
wrote to the cardinals, his letter was a plea for the king, not a denial of principle. "We cannot
excuse the king for his illicit oath, nor for having upheld his oath unjustly. Nevertheless, he does
this out of shame, rather than deliberately. As you know, breaking an oath is despicable amongst the
Franks, even though the oath itself has been sworn unlawfully (although no one who thinks about
the matter doubts that unlawful oaths are invalid).

However, we do not want to excuse him even here; we simply ask you to forgive him because of his
anger, youth and royal position. You can do this if you accept that mercy is higher than judgment,
and that a boy-king can be pardoned provided it is made clear that forgiveness may not be presumed
for the future. So excuse him if you can. The freedom of the Church is to be respected in all matters,
of course, and due reverence is to be maintained for the archbishop consecrated by the pope. This is
the king's humble request, seconded by our sorely afflicted Church" (117). St. Bernard found no
grounds for excusing a ruler who had interfered with the choice of a bishop by excluding one of the
candidates; he recognised that church freedom had been injured by the exclusion. What can be said
about royal nominations in the light of these immutable, ecclesial principles? Is their introduction in
the 16th century indicative of freedom or slavery? Is this period a cause for rejoicing or sorrow
amongst the Church's children.

113. The malignant nature of this wound in the Church can be recognised more clearly if we realise
that royal nomination implies the abandonment of all the norms cherished and upheld by the Church
throughout the centuries in her choice of bishops. Let us consider these great principles (abandoned
in practice in the Church in 1516, but never in desire) one by one.

The Church has always held as an inviolable principle that "the best person available should be
chosen as bishop." This maxim is correct, evident and in conformity with a high ideal of the
episcopate. The Church does not hold that a determined measure of learning, goodness and
prudence is enough for the episcopate; however exceptional a man's qualifications, they are still not
sufficient for an office considered "a burden to angels." Granted that no one is worthy to be a
bishop, it is necessary to choose the best available person (118).

The concordat establishing royal nomination was forced to substitute the ancient requirement with
the following: the nominee must be "a serious person, a doctor in divinity or law, and at least 27
years of age" (119). The best person is no longer required; a suitable person is sufficient. It is true
that the nominating ruler is still obliged to choose the best man available, but the Church has no
guarantee that this will be done. The Church can only reject the nominee if he is not a serious
person, not a doctor of divinity or law, or lacks the required age. The diocese for which he is
destined has no further assurance in his regard.

But when it chooses its own bishop, it can make its own investigations; when the provincial bishops
or the pope chose the bishop, it was always the catholic Church which made the choice. The church
knew, she had to know, what was required, and if she chose badly it was herself she was injuring.
No one else was harming her. But when a bishop is imposed upon a diocese, it has to take him
provided he is sufficiently qualified.

Let us examine the qualifications. "A serious person, doctor in divinity, and at least 27 years of
age." Even if the Church could ascertain the presence of these qualities before confirming the
nomination, what would that guarantee for the diocese? Is every serious graduate in divinity or law
suitable and sufficient for a diocese? In any case, the qualifications are so broad as to be
meaningless in practice. In the last analysis, we shall be reduced to having bishops with the sole
negative quality of not being seriously incriminated in the public eye. The holy see's review of the
nominee cannot go beyond this, and if it did, its struggles with rulers would never end. The bishop
is chosen finally not because he is the best person available, but because he is not guilty of wrong-
doing or, to put it more exactly, because there is no definite accusation against him. Such negative
goodness is not sufficient even to form a good christian.

114. Another inviolable, ecclesial principle in the choice of bishops was that the priest chosen
should be "known, loved and wanted by those whom he has to govern" (120), that is, by the clergy
and people of his future diocese. Exceptional qualities are not sufficient in the bishop of a diocese,
according to the principles governing the Church's ancient practice, if the person concerned is
unknown, temperamentally incompatible with his future subjects, or undesired by his diocesans for
any reason whatsoever. Churches, like human beings, have more confidence in one priest than in
another. Its desire to have as father and pastor the priest it feels more at home with is good and
reasonable. Why should it not be satisfied? But if the ruler nominates the bishop, the people's
wishes are rarely listened to. Another lasting principle of the Church, a norm full of prudence and
love, has been set aside.

115. A third unchanging principle in the Church is that a priest chosen as bishop "should have been
enrolled for a lengthy period amongst the clergy of the diocese he is to govern, and not be sent there
as a stranger from a distant country" (121). A person who has grown up, as it were, in the diocese
knows its customs, its personnel, its needs and means of satisfying them. He himself will be known
and esteemed for the services he has rendered during his years as father of his people and brother to
the clergy. His virtue, hard work and outstanding way of life will have brought him close to people
who reverence him.

This evident gospel princple is disregarded when nomination depends upon the king who naturally
enough either cannot, or will not, or does not pay any attention to such matters. He sends his
favourites to the diocese wherever he finds them, not only from outside the diocese but from outside
the province or even from another country. It is highly unlikely that a foreigner, sometimes ignorant
of the language and coming perhaps from a detested country, could ever become "father" to the
many who will depend upon him for life and strength; still less will a royal favourite and courtier,
known as the ruler's righthand man, gain the confidence and friendship of his people.

It is not a question of asking if a holy people can sanctify themselves under such a bishop; if the
flock were holy, a shepherd would not be required at all. But if we take the christian people as they
are, and want to help them put the gospel into practice, this kind of bishop is not sufficient. On the
other hand, if the aim is to dechristianise the world, let the present system prevail. We shall see how
long rulers will be able to govern their new creation.

116. It may be objected that a good ruler will be able to maintain under some form these ancient
principles, which the Church can never renounce. In that case, why has the Church not written into
the treaty that rulers should be born good?

But even if the ruler is a good person, can a layman be expected to exercise great theological insight
in the midst of the responsibilities and diversions entailed by the work of government and by the
pleasures of court life? Will he understand and appreciate the supreme importance of the great
norms of church discipline, and have sufficient apostolic zeal to list them first in his order of
priorities? Will he then be strong enough to put them into practice against the flattery, intrigue and
base passions that he will encounter in the ministers upon whom he depends? That is asking a great
deal from the poor man.

Let us grant the existence of such a prodigy. He would still be insufficient. The ruler must not only
know and desire to uphold the unalterable norms of church discipline; he must also be capable of
enforcing them by knowing each local church as it knows itself. After identifying himself with the
universal Church, he then has to identify himself with each local church. This, of course, is
impossible.

Finally, without going further, one certain principle, confirmed by universal experience and
springing from the nature of the case, will be enough to throw light on the problem. "Generally
speaking, only the moral body or moral person concerned is capable of judging what is best for
itself." The reason underlying this principle is enlightened self-interest which always provides the
most watchful and secure guide. Exceptions may be found, but in general this law, which governs
all moral bodies and societies, is always true. It is especially applicable to the Church whose
interests are spiritual and moral and, as a result, straightforward, simple, consistent and enlightened.
It follows that if pastors of churches are appointed from outside ecclesial competence, their
nominators will never act with the same sure judgment that churches would use on their own behalf,
and have in fact used for centuries. This is enough to show that under the system of royal
nomination, churches' rights are trampled upon. How can the people of God be denied their right to
have the best possible pastor? The church which chooses its own pastor has only one interest, the
good of souls; the ruler has multiple interests. In the nomination of bishops, is it possible for the
ruler to give priority to the interests of the Church over all the other interests and preoccupations
pressing upon him and his ministers? If it were... well, we would have as king an apostolic hero!

The ruler will have to be satisfied with having in the bishop a consistently faithful subject. This
would certainly be the case granted that the bishop were a holy man, filled with the spirit of the
gospel and of the Church. But the king has no right to require anything further of the bishop who
cannot act as his secret agent or, if I may put it like this, as a stool-pigeon for the police. This would
debase the nature of the episcopacy and violate its fundamental norm: "No one who fights for God
entangles himself in temporal affairs" - a rule so delicate that a single thought can damage it. In a
word, there is a a massive difference between loyalty to the gospel, which has its source in
conscience and its foundation in uprightness and justice, and political loyalty springing from the
bonds of human interest and founded on utilitarian notives. A bishop is a man of justice, and should
be free to be so; the christian ruler cannot use the sacred character of the episcopate for political and
economic speculation. We know that the ruler's guiding principle (and we are speaking in general of
people of good faith) is political in everything except religion. In these circumstances we cannot
expect such an important matter as the nomination of bishops, which requires a pure, spiritual aim
unmixed with political motives, to be sufficiently safeguarded when entrusted to a person who tends
to be motivated politically in all he does. There is every reason for doubting that the interests of
religion will prevail over political interest under such conditions. And in speaking about politics, I
am talking about something always alert for its own advantage, and capable of useing everything
for its own benefit. In which case, what can we expect of a bishop chosen for political reasons? I
leave the answer to the reader's imagination. The Church has no need of offspring born of politics.

117. There was a time when the Church considered simony extremely harmful and degrading, and
fought bitterly against it. Is simony disguised as politics less damaging than open simony because it
is comparatively painless? Painless gangrene and agonising cancers can be equally fatal. The
material motives involved in the nomination of bishops, and the intrigues set on foot to obtain
dioceses from rulers, are refined, modest - shall we say "decent"? - simony, masked by painless
courtesy but nonetheless terminal if not cut out.

It is true tha accusations of simony are judicially untenable nowadays, but is this a sign that such a
disgusting vice has been eradicated, or rather that it has found an unassailable refuge?

Why do rulers make such an effort to appropriate the right to nominate bishops? If they were
anxious about the good of the Church, they would leave her to choose her own bishops. They
cannot possibly imagine that their choice would be better for the Church than her own. If they want
only bishops who are faithful subjects in accordance with gospel principles and the spirit of the
Church, they would still allow the Church to make her own choice because the bishop's loyalty is in
proportion to his holiness and apostolic zeal. A worthy bishop will inevitably be loyal because of
his christian faith. He will be loyal, even at the cost of his own life; but he will not be a flatterer, an
embezzler, a courtier ready to jump to attention whenever the king or his ministers or the
government beckon in his direction. He will guide and enlighten through his interpretation of the
law of the gospel (122). But if this is not the reason why the ruler puts such importance on
episcopal nomination, it is clear that he is seeking positive, human support for his authority in
preference to the support which has divine justice as its origin. Isn't this simony, and aren't we
forced to recognise that secular nomination of bishops springs from a simoniacal root denaturing,
degrading and ruining the Church? If the ruler were seeking only the spiritual good of the church,
he would trust neither himself nor his ministers in his nomination of bishops, but take the Church as
his counsellor and follow her advice (123).

118. But I would go further than this. In my opinion, leaving the Church free to choose her own
pastors benefits the temporal, as well as the spiritual interests of rulers. This seems paradoxical at
first sight, and the common run of politicians has always looked upon it as such. Higher and broader
considerations of long-term self-interest, however, lead one to see the practical truth of the
following principle: "What is just, and conforms to the spirit of christian religion, is generally
speaking most useful for a christian ruler." I speak in general terms because I am offering the
principle as a rule of state. Let us apply it to the matter in hand.

A bishop not chosen by the ruler will be a mediator between ruler and people. The ruler can depend
upon him entirely because the catholic Church has always insisted that it is unlawful for subjects to
rebel against their own ruler for any reason whatsoever. The pastor chosen by the Church will be
invested with an ecclesial spirit leading him to inculcate in subjects submission, obedience and
long-suffering even under great oppression. The people, who recognise him as impartial, a priest of
Christ depending upon the law of the gospel, will accept his teaching in accordance with the
example of meekness he offers them.

The case is quite different when bishops have been appointed by the ruler. People look upon them
as state officials with interests identical to those of government. What these bishops say loses all its
great moral and religious force, and is quite useless for the ruler's purpose. A mediator who takes
sides ceases ipso facto to be a mediator. It is true that the ruler will find political support amongst
the clergy in so far as they belong to the nobility, possess great estates and enjoy estensive contacts
with the rich. Nevertheless, the force proper to the Church and the gospel, the force of justice
producing unshakeable effects in human hearts, the force of God himself at work conquering the
world, is no longer present in countries where bishops are appointed by government. The ruler has
overreached himself, and loses more ground than he has gained.

Religion also suffers severe damage. It becomes odious in the eyes of people, and shares in the
hatred political factions succeed in rousing against rulers. Incapable of defending itself, it is even
less able to help sustain government. In our own days we have seen this happen in France. The
clergy could not restrain the rebellion to which it fell victim along with the king, because in France
clergy and ruler formed a single political entity as a result of the royal nomination of bishops.

What a tremendous and frightening lesson! The clergy who suffered nobly and gallantly at the
guillotine were learned, devout, heroic men, yet still had little influence over a nation which of itself
was not insensitive to christian values and virtues. Great qualities were not sufficient. Gallicanism
and regal religion had ruined the clergy whose original sin was to be dependent upon royal
constitution. The hatred which made the clergy the butt of immense contempt and bitterness was in
reality hatred of the king who persecuted the clergy and, together with the clergy, religion itself.

119. Another consideration may be helpful. I can understand that a person seeking to overthrow a
reigning sovereign may find it useful to look for support amongst bishops ready to sell their souls
by preferring temporalities to religion. On the other hand, I maintain that a lawfully recognised
christian ruler will find no greater support in his kingdom than dispassionate men prepared to tell
him the truth even at the cost of falling from favour. The greatest good available to a christian ruler
lies in knowing and furthering justice, together with everything of value to christian religion.
Granted this, there is certainly no better way of obtaining upright men as bishops than by receiving
them from the spirit of God acting within the Church herself - unless, of course, one imagines that
secular government comprehends and possesses the spirit of God, of the clergy and of the Church. I
am so sure of this that if a ruler, capable of choosing bishops, wished to have loyal men free to
proclaim the truth, and desired to appoint them himself, I would advise him to do so secretly. Only
thus would he be able to act wisely; once it were known that he was making the choice, he would
inevitably be deceived.

But who is prepared to recognise the value of the modest, frank, evangelical freedom proper to the
episcopate? No ruler or politician can rise sufficiently above ordinary considerations to see that
gospel freedom possessed by bishops would prevent government from the ever-present possibility
of dangerous negligence and passion amongst its members. Many states would have been spared
revolution and anarchy if freedom had been appreciated at its true worth. But, as I have said, the
advantages present in this check on injustice and passion amongst rulers are ignored, and the
assistance it could give to stable government rejected in favour of worldly prudence whose only aim
is blind, unrestrained search for power. Every limitation put to the power of government is
considered a threat to policy.

People seem to imagine that power can continue to exist after arriving at a point where it freely
undertakes every just or unjust project it cares to think of. They do not realise that unlimited power
brings its own destruction. An absolute monarch in the fullest sense of "absolute" would not survive
for more than a few days; the de jure limits he dreams of destroying, become de facto limits
strengthened and increased. As someone wisely said: "Rulers who wish to abolish all subjection to
the Church become slaves of the people." This alone explains our modern politics.

Let me offer a thought which I think will be accepted as correct by the unprejudiced and
clearsighted despite the dust stirred up by revolutionaries and their supporters, and the systematic
bias affecting modern studies of 11th century history. "The free clergy, represented by Gregory VII,
were of more assistance to emperor Henry IV, even in temporal matters, notwithstanding their
apparent opposition, than his sycophantic, subject clergy who were the real cause of his downfall."

It is not difficult to prove this strange thesis if we examine the case of the German barons.
The Saxon and German nobility, exasperated by Henry's excesses and tyranny, rebelled against the
emperor, complained bitterly about papal slowness and moderation in passing judgment on him,
and threatened to elect a new emperor of their own accord without waiting for the pope. It was the
pope who wished to make peace and act as mediator between the parties. He moved slowly to see if
Henry would come to his senses, in which case he promised to support him. The nobility, unable
any longer to stomach the injuries Henry had inflicted upon them, elected a new emperor, Rudolf of
Swabia, without the consent of the pope, whose aim was reconciliation. The struggle was protracted
indefinitely, and Henry was ruined.

If Henry had listened to the pope, he would have been one of the great emperors. Dissensions would
have been settled through the mediation of the clergy whose freedom would have enabled them to
speak and act as mediators. On the other hand, the clergy whom Henry had enslaved by selling
them their dioceses were responsible for leading him away from this path and dragging him to
dethronement, exile and poverty. They counselled him badly, urging him to disregard justice in
upholding his authority, and to claim unlimited power. According to them Henry had the right to do
good or evil unreservedly - or rather to do evil, because no one disputed his right to do good. Henry
was brought down by servile clergy. A truly loyal clergy - loyal to the gospel, not to ephemeral
policy - would have saved him (124).

120. The unalterable desire to seek support at any cost in the episcopate for unlimted authority to
subject the people, irrespective of justice, led lay government to nominate bishops fatal to the
Church. Outwardly they may act like bishops (it is impossible to do otherwise today), but in fact
they are servants of the ruler disguised as bishops, rather than free ministers of God. Because the
loyalty sought from them depends upon human motives, they are inevitably persons attracted by
temporal favours.

Care has to be taken to avoid nominating men capable of rising above the things of this world, to
whom wealth and honours received from the ruler appear a miserable burden to be accepted
patiently for love of God, but without enthusiasm (125). Men of this kind, whom "truth has made
free." are feared by the politicians of this world as obstacles and hindrances to carrying out their
ridiculous policies. Hence the church rarely sees them amongst her bishops (although they were
plentiful enough in her early history), the world lacks sincere preachers of the gospel, eternal justice
is deprived of teachers and priests, and rulers find themselves without loyal friends and counsellors.

The need of bishops who render loyal service to rulers by setting forth the truth is another proof that
mediocrities, as we said before, are not sufficient for the episcopate which requires immense
prudence and strength of character. Bishops have been told by Christ what is demanded of them:
"The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep" (126). These words indicate a strict obligation,
not a counsel, and show that ordinary human goodness suffices to make of a bishop only a wolf or
dumb dog, as scripture calls shepherds unable to die or bark for the sake of their sheep. What king
is sufficiently conscientious to nominate as bishops men prepared to die rather than remain silent in
the face of truth?

121. Other disadvantages spring from royal nomination. Kings and governments consider
bishoprics as political offices, and choose bishops according to the prevailing system of
government. Naturally enough, such bishops share the same political views as their masters, and
cannot remain neutral in the midst of party politics. They certainly cannot devote themselves
disinterestedly to the study of the eternal rules of truth and justice, nor be content with maintaining
and preserving peace and love amongst men on the basis of the divine, universal laws of the gospel.
Where the nomination of bishops is in the power of laymen, the system governing appointments
will vary in its application according to changes in cabinet and ministerial policy. Bishops will
support one party today, another tomorrow; there will never be a period in which good bishops,
known for their impartiality, will be chosen. Vested interests and private passions will be catered
for; only the spiritual good of the people and the well-being of the Church of Jesus Christ will be
neglected.

122. I prefer not to mention the dangers to the Church, and even to the state, from regal nominations
to the episcopate in the case of royal insanity, wickedness, or enmity towards the Church, or from
evil royal counsellors opposed to the Church. The consequences of such circumstances are as well
known as those arising when rulers are deceived, as always happens, by heretics with a formidable
capacity for lying, flattery and religious seduction. Royal courts are full of such people forever alert
to entrap those best and worst disposed towards the Church, but especially those most zealous on
her behalf (127). Heresy disguises itself as piety, and cannot easily be recognised by lay theology; it
speaks smoothly, encourages ambition, indulges passion, and does not hesitate to lie and
dissimulate. Really good rulers are deceived, and nominate heretics who simulate catholic teaching
long enough to grasp power and destroy the nation before revealing themselves in their true colours.
All this has occurred recently in the history of the Church. I would prefer, however, to point to
another danger which is actually present in the Church, although more difficult to detect and
therefore more dangerous.

123. In every corner of the earth an untiring power has been at work, and continues to work,
spreading poisonous seeds of schism throughout the Church of God. A strain of schism has been
developed, although its fruits are not yet visible. Its supporters, many of them in good faith, have
used all kinds of methods to persuade the rulers of Europe that this system is a necessary safeguard
for their authority and power against the catholic system, which they accuse of being a human
invention designed to further the ambition of the head of the Church.

Monarchs are inevitably deceived; they are never sufficiently far-sighted and acute in their love of
truth to judge correctly between this schismatic system and the true teaching of the Church. Their
only way of discovering the truth is to turn their attention from vagrant, unauthorised teachers, and
listen to the pastors of the the Church according to their position in the hierarchy. Ultimately their
belief will focus on Christ, who has declared his Church to be founded upon Peter. But every ruler,
alas, has his own theologians, and believes himself justified in following the counsels of a few
bishops in his kingdom.

It is a vicious circle, of course. Having nominated these bishops as his private theologians, he can
never be sure that they speak with the voice of God. The only church capable of speaking to him in
this way is a Church free from slavery, with its own hierarchical order; individual members of the
Church, in contradiction with the whole, cannot be the voice of God. The truth cannot be unfolded
by private theologians or royal bishops prepared to uphold any kind of extravagant opinion. Rulers
will find only themselves and their counsellors' interests reflected in this kind of advice.

In the meantime the schismatic system I am speaking of has already conquered much ground and is
spreading further, assisted by the royal nomination of bishops, the most apt means for securing its
success. It is clear that rulers with schismatic tendencies will nominate bishops whose like-minded
views they can determine beforehand. Moreover, because this schism is like a fire smouldering
under ashes, it is equally clear that the pope, despite his power to confirm or deny royal
nominations, cannot impede the secret destruction of the Church, especially in distant nations with
whom communications are rendered difficult by policy, language and other causes. In Italy, where
information is more easily available, the pope may be better able to act.

Retractions, declarations and oaths are only palliatives for persons without conscience; for those
who set out to deceive, they are very suitable tools of trade. Experience shows what actually takes
place. When all the bishops of a kingdom are political nominees, schism - irreparable, complete,
unchecked - will appear on the slightest provocation. It was only the happy inconsistency of the
French clergy which prevented the schismatic church of France from being in the majority on the
occasion of Napoleon's concordat with Pius VII. Although national pride in France had laid the
European foundation for the schismatic system I am speaking of, in practice piety and devotion
prevailed over schismatic theory. Divine Providence alone prevented the formation of conditions in
which the small schismatic church could have prevailed on a national and even international scale.
By relating Napoleon's policy with the true Church and the pope, conditions rendered the schismatic
faction powerless, although still active and arrogant (128).

124. Abuses and disorders are certainly possible when bishops are chosen in their own dioceses or
provinces, but they are always limited, and their resulting corruption will not spread to the whole
nation, nor become an evil system or principle ruling all elections and directly influencing the
overthrow of the entire kingdom. Royal nomination, however, puts an awesome power for evil
within the grasp of one man alone. When the nomination is then handed over to a cabinet, a
tremendous force, outliving the ruler, is established outside the Church, and lasts as long as the
principles directing the government.

Schism has already begun to spread; its foundations, quite different from the stones used to build up
the Lord's temple, have been laid all over Europe. Yet, despite the danger to the Church, no one
seems disturbed! According to the prudent of this world, all is going well; according to the super-
prudent, catholics should not have the temerity to open their mouths. Silence is the only safeguard
against disturbances and wild rumours; anything likely to cause trouble is rash imprudence.
Encouraging this kind of prudent silence is a most effective weapon in the arsenal of those quietly
undermining the Church. All their vocal opponents are traitors and counter-revolutionaries.

In the meantime, the Church suffers, and appreciates only too well the prophet's agonised cry:
"Behold in my peace is my bitterness most bitter" (129). As a result, you marvel at hearing a voice
breaking the deathly silence to indicate how the Church can save herself, and you find that it
belongs to some ordinary, faithful christian, or humble, courageous priest. And if we are going to be
fair, we must admit that it was two poor priests who dared to petition the bishops of their country
when the catholic religion was replaced by state relgion during the revolution in France. They wrote
as follows about the nomination of bishops: "As long as religion can choose its own bishops, it has
nothing to fear. Persecution and starvation will not destroy it, just as they could not destroy the
Churches in the east, in Germany, or in England, which perished beause of the corrupting influence
of power in the formation of the episcopate. Bishops in these countries either deliberately sold their
independence or else were blind to the limited opposition people free in their beliefs could bring
against sacrilegious aggression. It is your turn now, bishops, to stand against the cold fury of
authority. The few of you left have grown old under past trials; your age has been noted; you cannot
live long, and our enemies rejoice at the thought of being able to appoint priests they trust as you
die. Their presence in your ranks will weaken you without destroying your unity. But their veneer
of modesty will soon be wiped away, and ambition will drive them to sign any kind of agreement.
When the last of you comes to die, he will be able to descend to the grave convinced that his funeral
is also a requiem for the entire church in France."

125. There is no hope that the Church will rise from her oppression and enjoy the free choice of
bishops without which she cannot subsist; all power is on the side of the schismatics; the Church
has nothing to show but weakness. Neither bishops, nor popes, can remedy the evil in present
circumstances; human energy is useless. Nevertheless faith and the word of God are still available,
to be proclaimed to a denying world. The Lord's heralds, sent to announce the word, will save their
own souls by carrying out their mission; silence will be their downfall.

This is not a new experience for the Church, which has been bereft of human hope and visible
assistance on other occasions - at all times, in fact. Providence rules, and wants to reserve all glory
for itself; only Jesus Christ, the invisible head of the Church, is to be exalted. He will triumph when
his enemies think they have finally conquered, and when his faithful followers have been deprived
of all help except his.
Without freedom to choose her bishops the Church is lost, but it is here especially that the almighty
Providence of him who has received from the Father "all authority in heaven and on earth" effects
more than human intelligence can conceive.

126. The christian people, and the christian nations who form this people, possess a constitution
depending on divine right, based as it is on existing facts, which themselves depend upon divine
right because God alone directs all that actually occurs (130). This constitution cannot be violated
without seriously adverse consequences for a nation breaking its laws. Moreover, the nation
concerned will not regain a healthy equilibrium until it has restored this constitution whose simple,
universal and unchangeable laws revolve on two axes: first, on a supreme right; second, on a
universal fact which results from the sum of all events. In other words, we have first a supremely
legislative power or, we could say, a power which proclaims the supreme laws; and there is also a
power sanctioning these laws. These two powers are never united in a single person, but always
pertain to different persons. This needs some explanation.

The christian people have in their midst the voice of the Church proclaiming unceasingly the law of
the gospel, that is, perfect justice. Acting as the herald of this law, the Church functions as its
legislative or promulgating power. But what sanctions this law in the present life? The Church is
defenceless, in a worldly sense; her essential characteristic is expressed in Christ's words to the
apostles when he commissioned them: "Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves" (131).
By its very nature, the Church possesses no temporal sanctions; God has divided the law from its
sanctions, and instituted another power to govern the latter (132). He has committed the
proclamation of the law to the Church, and reserved for himself its temporal sanction so that no
human being may be able to take the glory to himself, or lord it over his neighbour. The Church
cannot take the glory because of her physical weakness; civil government is still less capable of
doing so because brute force can never be a source of glory for a human being.

Nevertheless, God does not inflict temporal sanctions by means of miracles, generally speaking. On
the contrary, he has organised his faithful people in such a way that they themselves become the
sanction of divine law. In this way, he has bestowed the power of sanctioning the law on his own
people. Let me explain further.
In the christian people and its member nations, three de facto powers can be discerned; government,
nobility and people. If any one of these powers is guilty of misdemeanour, it provokes opposition
and punishment from the other two, which unite to defend justice against attack from the third
power. I have to insist that this is simply a matter of historical fact; during the whole of my
exposition about what actually takes place, I abstain from all question of rights. It is clear that each
power can only be restrained from wrongdoing if the other two are always stronger; only thus can
their temporary alliance in support of justice prove to be an effective sanction.

The degree of efficacy in the sanction, and the protection it affords justice, will depend upon the
relative strength of the alliance directed against the criminal partner. Because justice can be
offended by any one of the three powers, the best division of strength in its defence is undoubtedly
that "which provides in every case the maximum sanction for justice against the offending power."
Consequently the division of strength most favourable to justice in the christian people is that which
establishes perfect equilibrium of force between the three powers in such a way that each has a
quantity of force equal to that possessed by either of the other two. The offending partner will then
be consistently outnumbered two to one. If, however, one of the three powers becomes stronger
than the other two put together, tyranny prevails, at least potentially; if two combine in favour of
injustice and against the minority partner, they conspire against the state itself; if all three powers
attack justice, their violence would not be directed against themselves, but against the Church, and
the nation would first lose its catholicism and later break off from christianity - heresy and impiety
would reign. These are the three radical disorders of christian civil society.

It is difficult to say what would be the final result for a nation cut off from the Church, and hence
withdrawn from the magisterium of truth. It no longer belongs to the people of God of which we are
speaking; either it puts itself or finds itself amongst unbelieving nations, which are subject to their
own ills. Its sufferings, however, will be greater than those of other unbelieving nations because it
falls under an unceasing law of degradation whose consequences are unforeseeable unless checked
by extraneous forces. In fact, history has not yet provided an example of a nation subject to all the
changes such a law could impose upon it; every nation faced with certain extremes has turned back
from the abyss opening up before it, and either moved nearer to the catholic Church or re-entered it.

However, leaving aside this case of death through apostasy, let us look at the other two evils
afflicting christian nations, that is, tyranny and conspiracy against the state. A catholic nation
affected by them will not find peace until it has eliminated the source of its cancer and re-
established the law governing its divine constitution by renewed possession of two powers with
combined forces greater than that of the third, and hence capable of imposing sanctions when
justice is violated.

127. Providence used this constitution, proper to christian states, to ensure free choice of bishops
when one of the three powers attempted to control it. At one time, when the nobility exerted all its
force to subject the choice to its own will, divine Providence used the combination of king and
people to vindicate the Church's right, and to restore freedom to elections (133). When the people
attempted the same abuse, king and nobility helped the Church overthrow it (134). Devout
monarchs rendered great services to the Church which she will always remember. Sovereigns
themselves, however, finally invaded and dominated elections, giving rise to the tremendous
struggle that began or rather broke out under Gregory VII when nobility and people stood for the
Church against royal usurpation.

After the defeat of kings and emperors, the nobility rose again and took charge of elections and
dioceses more cleverly by ensuring that the choice of bishops depended upon cathedral chapters,
with the people and the majority of the clergy excluded. With certain honourable exceptions,
chapters were a channel for concentrating the power of the nobility. But once more kings put
pressure on the nobility, humiliated them, and finally overcame them. In turn, rulers obtained the
nomination of bishops, and hence maximum influence in their appointment, although such
influence took the form of legal protection to be used cautiously, courteously and diplomatically.

Now, schism is growing, and the Church, the world and tottering thrones are in search of a saviour.
A glance at the world is sufficient to indicate which of the three powers available to Providence
remains to be used to sanction once more the law of justice, and restore to the Church that complete
freedom to exist that has never been violated with impunity. We do not need to peer into the
shadows, or undertake any guessing-game; the sanction imposed by Providence is being put into
operation all over Europe and the universe. England, Ireland, the United States, Belgium are already
free to choose their bishops, and Providence will ensure the same freedom in every nation on earth,
whatever the cost. Kings need have no doubt about this. The people are the rod used by Providence
for its purpose. Rebellion is abominable, and condemned as such by the Church, but what the
Church and all good people abhor is used as an instrument by the power of Jesus Christ, to bend all
things to his will. As Lord over kings and peoples, who draws good from every affliction, he will
use even the power of the wicked for his own purpose.

128. The whole of Europe is doomed to upheaval because the only means of avoiding disaster is to
restore the Church of God to her full freedom, and to submit to her in justice - and this,
unfortunately will never be recognised and accepted. Armies, negotiations, and every other means
will be employed in vain; they are like the assistance given to prolong the life of a man dying in
agony. Intelligence is not lacking, needless to say; what is wanting is faith and a sufficiently strong
love for justice. Disbelief denies Providence any place in the government of events, and refuses to
accept to accept that the Church has a mission to be fulfilled at any cost. People persuade
themselves that they can live without the Church, and so render themselves incapable of
understanding the sacred cry of christian nations for LIBERTY.
The reason these nations give for rebellion is false; they lie to themselves because, although they
are instinctively aware of the true reason for their rebellion, they are incapable of expressing it. We
need to learn that christians, who are essentially free, can only serve other human beings, whom
they will not accept in the place of God, on condition rulers learn from the magisterium of the the
Church the gospel law of humility and meekness that an enslaved Church is incapable of teaching
them. There could still be time if these truths were grasped! And Europe possesses a person [Pius
IX] capable of understanding them, worthy of respect for the many misfortunes he has overcome,
for his wisdom and experience, for the kindness and delicacy which has won him millions of
children rather than subjects, and for the uprightness of his motives. Perhaps the truths I have tried
to express in my poor way will help him in his efforts to establish justice as the foundation of his
throne! Can this shepherd of his people break the blockade of prejudice and find a completely new
way of freeing the Church and, through her, of saving the nations? There could be no greater
honour or glory than this for a ruler who depends as much upon his piety as upon his army, whom
God has protected for his own purposes in the midst of so many dangers, and who, while defending
the Church with his sword, is the successor of an apostle. Perhaps my prayer and my offering will
be answered, and I shall see him crowned anew, immortally, before I die.

Notes

(109) St. Ivo's letter to Pascal II offers a very clear picture of the spirit of concord and peace
directing his constant effort to do all in his power to establish and maintain harmony between state
and Church. Amongst other things in the letter, we read these noble words: Novit enim Paternitas
vestra, quia, cum regnum et sacerdotium inter se conveniunt, bene regitur mundus, floret et
fructificat Ecclesia. Cum vero inter se discordant, non solum parvae res non crescunt, sed etiam
magnae res miserabiliter dilabuntur. [PL. 162, 246]

(110) Cf. letters 67, 68, 126 [PL 162, 85-87; 87-88; 138]. In letter 102 he affirms: Non licet regibus,
sicut sanxit octava synodus, quam romana Ecclesia commendat et veneratur, ELECTIONIBUS
EPISCOPORUM SE IMMISCERE. [PL 162, 121]

(111) Ut regni tui episcopis et abbatibus LIBERE PRAETER VIOLENTIAM ET SIMONIAM

ELECTIS investituram virgae et annuli conferas. (William of Malmesbury, lib. 5 De Gestis regum
Anglorum) [PL 179, 1379]

(112) Non Ecclesiae jura, non officia quaelibet, sed regalia sola se dare assereret (Henricus). (Peter
Diaconus, lib. 4, Chronici cassinensis, chap. 42) [PL 173, 866]

(113) Et hoc ideo damnatum est, quod in eo privilegio continetur quod electus canonice a clero et
populo, a nemine consecretur nisi prius a rege investiatur. Quod est contra Spiritum Sanctum et
canonicam institutionem. [PL 179, 1379].

This privilege was defective on two counts. First, the bishop could not undertake the government of
his diocese without the assent of the king, which could be denied arbitrarily or in a deliberate
attempt to harm the Church. The Church was impeded in the exercise of her ministry, received on
the authority of Jesus Christ with the right to exercise it freely throughout the world. Hence Pascal
II insisted that the king's dissent had to be motivated by just and lawfully proven reasons. Second,
the word "investiture" is equivocal. "To invest a bishop" could have meant conferring upon him
episcopal jurisdiction. Attributing this to lay powers would certainly be heresy, and contrary to the
Holy Spirit. A third defect may be noted. The king's wish to put the bishop in possession of the
unfettered temporalities of the diocese would be an act of injustice and oppression if it depended
upon royal authority rather than upon the privilege granted him by the Church, sole owner of her
own temporalities. On the other hand, justice required that the king invest the bishop with the fief,
which remained royal property over which the feudatory possessed only usufruct. However, the
distinction between the two types of dominion was obscured by contemporary jurisprudence, as we
have seen, and all the Church's goods were regarded as fiefs.
This depended upon the nature of government at the time rather than on royal avarice. Royal
possessions were better defended than others. The advantage thus accruing to feudal estates gave
rise to "proferred fiefs".

(114) He confessed his guilt in another council held at the Lateran in 1116. Describing how he was
induced to bow to Henry, he depicts the circumstances in moving words that illustrate clearly his
noble humility: "'After the Lord had done as he pleased with what was his own, and handed me and
the Roman people over to the king, I beheld the daily repeated horror of looting, fire, slaughter and
adultery. I wanted to rid the Church and the people of God of such affliction. What I did, I did to
free God's people. I did it for humanity's sake, because I am dust and ashes. I admit I acted wrongly,
and I beg you to ask God to pardon me. That sacrilegious and damnable document was drawn up in
a military encampment. I anathematise it once and for all so that it may be held in execration, and I
ask you to do the same'. And all replied: 'Amen, amen.'" [SC 12, 1225]. Only these disastrous
circumstances forced from Pascal a concession that is a trifle in comparison with royal nomination
ceded to rulers four centuries later.

(115) Judicante verum non esse electionis libertatem ubi quis excipitur a principe, nisi forte docuerit
coram ecclesiastico judice illum non esse eligendum: tunc enim auditur ut alius [Thomassin, op.
cit., t. 2, lib. 2, par. 11]

(116) The Church is never bereft of these ideas because they are eternal as truth is eternal. Julius II,
the immediate predecessor of Leo X, is an example of a 16th century pope holding the same views
as popes throughout the centuries. He conferred bishoprics against the king's wishes, just as
Innocent VIII had done at the end of the 15th century with the diocese of Angers. Whether they
acted honourably or not is a question which does not concern us. What is certain is that such
conduct on the part of popes indicates true and unchangeable ideas about the freedom of the
Church.

(117) Ep. 219 [PL 182, 384].

(118) This principle was strenuously upheld in the early Church. In the 2nd century Origen, for
example, insisted upon it. Speaking of the way in which Aaron was chosen as high priest in the Old
Testament, he shows that it foreshadowed the choice of bishop in the New. "Let us see how the high
priest was chosen. Moses convened the assembly, says the sacred text, and declared: 'This is what
the Lord has commanded.' Although the Lord has commanded the institution of the high priest, and
chosen him, Moses nevertheless convenes the assembly. The presence of the people is required at
the ordination of a priest so that all may know and witness that the person chosen for the priesthood
is the best, most learned, holiest and most virtuous person amongst the people: Ut sciant omnes et
certi sint quia qui praestantior est ex omni populo, qui doctior, qui sanctior, qui in omni virtute
eminentior, ille eligitur ad Sacerdotium (Hom. VI in Levit.) [PG 12, 469]. This teaching is constant
in the Church's tradition. In the 9th century the visitator, that is the bishop sent by the metropolitan
and the ruler to preside at an election, made the following speech to the assembled electors: "We
command you from on high, and through the loyalty you have sworn to preserve towards God and
our lord emperor Ludovic, in order that you may not incur the penalty of excommunication and
anathema which brings us to trial before the court of the great judge, that you do not hide from us
the person in this assembly whom you know to be the best, most learned, and most virtuous: ut eum
quem meliorem et doctiorem et bonis moribus ornatiorem in ista congregatione conversari noveritis,
nobis eum non celare dignemini..." (Inter formulas promotionum episcopalium) [Simond, op. cit., t.
2, p. 646].

(119) Words taken from the concordat.

(120) Cf. n. 77 ss. If a bishop were unknown to his diocesans, it was possible to declare him
unlawfully imposed upon the see. St. Julian I in a letter to christians of the east decided that
Gregory, bishop-elect of Alexandria, fell into this category: quia nec multis notus, nec a presbyteris,
nec ab episcopis, nec a populo postulatus fuerat. [PL 8, 897]
St. Celestine I declares: Nullus invitis detur episcopus (Ep. 2) [PL 50, 434], and St. Leo: Qui
praefuturus est omnibus, ab omnibus eligatur (Ep. 14) [PL 54, 634]

(121) This is the common opinion of the whole of the ancient Church: EX PRESBYTERIS
EJUSDEM ECCLESIAE, VEL EX DIACONIBUS OPTIMUS ELIGATUR. (St. Leo, Ep. 14) [PL
54, 674]
Innocent I in his letter to the synod of Toledo condemns the case of Rufinus: Qui contra populi
voluntatem et disciplinae rationem episcopum, LOCIS ABDITIS ordinaverat. [PL 20, 489].

(122) Rulers and subjects would benefit by understanding the true nature of loyalty. It does not
consist in debasing oneself by selling one's conscience; it is always accompanied by justice and
sincerity. For this reason, I feel I can present this book not only as a sign of devotion to my mother,
the Church, but also as a proof of loyalty to my sovereign. I hope it will be accepted as such. The
idea of gospel loyalty which I have in mind is a constant in church tradition. An example relative to
the election of bishops is found in the 11th century when the king of France imposed an ignorant,
unworthy bishop on the church of Chartres. The canons of the cathedral begged the archbishop of
Touron and the bishops of Orleans and Beauvais to put pressure on the king to make good the
damage inflicted on church discipline. The following section of their letter illustrates our point: "Do
not hesitate out of respect for the king as though loyalty demanded this. You will be truly loyal to
him if you correct what needs correction in his kingdom, and persuade him to accept the correction"
(Fulbert of Chartres, Ep. 132) [PL 141, 276].

(123) One of the strongest reasons for the Church's desire to avoid lay domination of appointment
to bishoprics was her realisation that such a system would inevitably lead to simony. In the council
of Rheims, when peace with Henry was at stake, Callixtus II declared that he would do all in his
power to eliminate simony in the Church: quae simonia per investituras contra Ecclesiam Dei
innovata est [SC 12, 1289]. Pope Pascal II had already indicated lay influence in conferring
bishoprics as the ROOT of simony. In 1102, the Lateran Council renewed the prohibition against
accepting dioceses and their temporalities at the hands of laypeople: Haec est enim simoniacae
pravitatis RADIX, dum ad percipiendos honores Ecclesiae, saecularibus personis insipienter
homines placere desiderant [SC 12, 1095].

The fact was obvious to all, and holy bishops in the Church never ceased deploring it. St. Anselm of
Lucca calls the bishops' dependence on rulers a "seedbed of simony". According to him christianity
cannot last for long under such a system: Quis enim non advertat hanc pestem seminarium esse
simoniacae haereseos, ET TOTIUS CHRISTIANAE RELIGIONIS LAMENTABILEM
DESTRUCTIONEM? Nempe cum dignitas episcopalis a principe adipisci posse speratur,
contemptis suis episcopis et clericis, Ecclesia Dei deseritur... (lib. 2) [PL 149, 467].
The aim was to destroy simony, root and branch, in the Church. What is our present aim - to ignore
the root because it lies underground? Lick-spittle jurisprudence may try to persuade us to do so, but
no conviction can endure without its being founded on the rock of truth. It cannot last, because the
Church of Christ is destined to last.

(124) This hypothesis is strengthened by what actually took place in the case of another Henry, the
great king of France. The pope at the time only desired a catholic king for France; he had nothing
personal against Henry, and no political pretensions in the matter. But the catholic confederates in
France were not satisfied with this. In their letter to Cajetan, the papal legate, they urged the pope to
nominate a king for France, and cited the favourable decision of the Sorbonne in support of their
case: Sorbona huius sententiae est, urgetque pontificem ut ipse regem Galliae pronuntiat
declaretque; alioquin Gallia conclamata est, expersque remedii. Et esse hanc potestatem pontifici
regem declarandi, rationibus plane evidentibus, multisque exemplis ostendunt. Immo adjungunt, ubi
pontifex regem pronuntiaverit, isque in Gallia denuntiatusque fuerit, continuo a clero et ab omnibus
catholicis receptum iri (sub an. 1592, 16 April) [Annales Ecclesiastici, XXI, 1592].

The pope, however, acted as mediator, without supporting either extreme. His mediation threw the
balance in favour of Henry who forsook his heresy, was reconciled with the pope, and finally
acknowledged as king by pope and people. There is no doubt that Henry would have fallen
irremediably if he had continued in his heresy. The pope, therefore, did not harm Henry in the way
his clergy, who had sold themselves to him, would have done by inciting him to rebel against the
pope and the Church. On the contrary, the pope's assistance enabled Henry to return to the Church
and gain the affection of his people. This is an example of the way in which the Church free from
government restraint reminds rulers of their true interests and at the same time supports their
authority.

(125) The famous Cardinal Godfrey, Abbot of Vendome, in his work on Investiture, dedicated to
Callistus II, observed acutely: Ex iure autem humano tantum illis debemus (temporal rulers)
QUANTUM POSSESSIONEM DILIGIMUS, quibus ab ipsis vel a parentibus suis Ecclesia ditata et
investita dignoscitur [PL 157, 219].

(126) John 10. 11

(127) Arianism spread in this way. All heretics, in fact, have depended upon government support,
and upon rulers deceived by heretics, for their extension throughout the world. Church history is
full of examples of bishops forced upon their diocesans by the brute force of lay powers. In the 16th
century, heretical bishops were imposed upon the sees of England, Sweden and elsewhere. They
were not to be found universally because heresy was often able to destroy the episcopate altogether,
with the help of a secular arm incapable of defending itself from false religious systems without
depending in great part upon the heads of the Church and believing in their teaching, the only
living, supreme, lasting voice here on earth. Rulers can scarcely wait for a ecumenical council to be
convened, and it is not always possible to arrange such an extraordinary assembly; but they can
avoid deception if they keep in mind the words of the gospel: "I will build my Church upon this
rock," and believe them.

(128) There is no doubt that Richelieu favoured political absolutism. He can therefore be considered
an unbiased witness when he declares gallicanism to be schismatic. He sensed the presence of a
schismatic spirit even when "a local church supposes that it can decide questions related to the
interests of the Church as a whole, and to those of all christian states, because such matters are to be
settled by the pope and ecumenical councils." What then is the position when a national church, a
bishop, a counsellor, or a professor of theology undertakes not only to settle such a question, but to
settle it contrary to the practice and declarations of councils and popes? Surely this is schism.
Rulers cannot in good conscience adhere to teaching of this kind, nor can they conclude in good
faith that in accepting such teaching they have sought truth sufficiently in the doctrine of holy,
catholic Church. They cannot affirm sincerely that they have acted only to protect their own rights,
and have never injured those of others.

(129) Isaiah 38. 17 [Douai Version].

(130) When I say that facts or events fall under divine right, my words need to be interpreted
correctly. I am not justifying evil occurences opposed to divine law. I simply want to affirm that all
that happens or is permitted has a providential order and purpose related to the glory of Christ.
Christ's glory, resulting from all that actually takes place in the world, is of divine right.

(131) Matt 10. 16

(132) The Church certainly has the power to sanction its laws in different ways. However, we are
speaking here of a higher sanction, always fully effective, not of church sanctions.

(133) In the 8th century, feudalism caused bishoprics to fall into the hands of domineering soldier-
barons. Charlemagne and Pepin defended the Church. Pope Zachary gave Pepin the personal
privilege of nominating bishops for the purpose. Pipinus a quo per maximum Carolum et
religiosissimum Lodovicum imperatorum duxit rex noster originem, exposita necessitate huius
regni Zaccariae Romano Papae, in synodo, cui Martyr Bonifacius interfuit, ejus accepit consensum,
ut acerbitati temporis, industria sibi probatissimorum, decedentibus Episcopis, mederetur. (Abbot
Lupo di Ferrara, Ep. 81) [PL 119, 546-547].

(134) There are, therefore, two periods to note in the attempt by nobility and rulers to dominate
elections. One period is characterised by undisguised assault on the power of appointment; the other
by astuteness and gradual infiltration of the position.

In France, the supreme power combined with the people to injure the Church and combat the
nobility. Here we see a conspiracy against the state. In the parliament of 1615, the people stood for
gallicanism while clergy and nobility defended the catholic system. The catholic party maintained:
Clerum et nobilitatem convenire in eandem sententiam, nec ideo contrariam opinionem valere quia
ita populus censet: duorum vota et calculos uni praevalere (cf. Barthol. Grammont, Lib. Hist. ad an.
1615) [Historia prostatae a Ludovico XIII sectariorum in Gallia rebellionis, Toulouse, 1623].
In 1673 the clergy maintained their stand, but changed sides in 1682. Nominated by the despotic
Louis XIV, the bishops were now on the king's side. Gallicanism became the normal state of things,
overcoming all opposition.

Nevertheless this attack of king and people on state and Church helped to bring down the throne.
With the nobility almost annihilated, the king found himself face to face with the people whom he
had encouraged to rise. Two powers in confrontation without a mediator between them cannot agree
for long. The people dethroned and murdered the king. The lesson is clear: the search for unlimited
power is false policy. Extremes meet. The penalty of overreaching oneself is to lose one's balance
and fall irremediably.
It is a remarkable fact that Cardinal Richelieu stood for the Church against Galicanism, although he
paved the way for the triumph of the latter by oppressing the nobility and strengthening royal
absolutism. This great political genius could not see the consequences of his policy. There are many
others who deceive themselves in the same way.
Chapter 5

The wound in the left foot:

restrictions on free use by the Church of her own temporalities

129. It is clear from what has been said that the fall of pagan Rome, predicted by Scripture when
speaking of "Babylon", was designed by Providence as more than an act of justice vindicating the
blood of the martyrs and extirpating the final roots of idolatry; it also served to further the divine
policy of the King of kings in his government of the human race. A new child of the Church of
God-Incarnate was to take the place of the old, decrepit society. Sealed with a sacred, indelible
mark on her forehead, she would be immortal like her mother, and together with her would move
forward along the road of progress in the context of a hitherto unknown civilisation.

But the glory accruing to the divine element in the Church of Christ needed to be tempered and
counter-balanced through the humiliation undergone by the human element in the Church in order
that all the good achieved might be attributed to God and his Christ, not to mankind. Hence God in
his wisdom permitted the barbarian conquerors providentially entrusted with the destruction of the
Roman empire and unconsciously prompted to become disciples of Christ, to introduce the
feudalism that finally extinguished the freedom of the Church and gave rise to all her afflictions. In
the last analysis, increased wealth would not have been sufficient to debase the clergy to levels we
have described, nor would temporal possessions have produced such consequences if they had
remained independent. In fact, God has used temporal sovereignty to ensure the liberty of the
apostolic see, enabling at least the head of the Church to escape universal bond-service, and thus be
prepared to liberate the Church's members, the great work Rome still has to carry through.

130. There is no doubt that feudalism, if not the sole source of all the Church's ills, was by far the
most important factor in their origin. It was a system dependent upon the pagan lordship of the
barbarians, combined with bond-service and vassallage towards temporal rulers.

As lordship, it divided the clergy from the people (1st wound). It also split the clergy themselves
into "upper" and "lower" classes, substituting for the ties between father and son the dissensions of
ruler and subject. As a result, clerical education was neglected (2nd wound), and divisions emerged
amongst the bishops who formed the upper clergy. Devotion to their own rights of lordship, and
those of the rulers whose vassals they were, led to neglect of their brotherhood, separation from the
people, and detachment from the body of the episcopate (3rd wound). As bond-service, feudalism
made bishops, as feals and liegemen, personal subjects of the temporal lord. The Church and all it
possessed was thus chained ignominiously to the chariot of lay power and dragged wherever
temporal policy dictated. Exhausted, and effectively robbed of all the endowments she had received,
the Church was incapable even of keeping and defending the nomination of her own pastors (4th
wound).

I maintain that feudalism subjected the Church and all she had to these afflictions because barbarian
rulers were accustomed to consider others within their territory as vassals, and instinctively looked
upon the church from this point of view. Time-serving lawyers soon changed the fact of barbarian
despotism into a theory of rights by claiming that "the principal involves the accessory." Because
royal fiefs were the principal, the free possessions of the Church had to be considered on a par with
them, and hence subject to feudal law. In this way feudalism absorbed everything, holding in bond
the Church's persons and possessions.
131. I am not dealing here with the question of sovereignty, which concerns the see of Rome only,
and has not occurred in other dioceses, at least for a long time. Sovereignty, as an expression of
independent dominion, does not entail vassallage and its consequent restrictions on the free use of
wealth, which corrupt and debase the clergy. Restrictions on temporalities are the miserable cause
of the Church's incapacity in maintaining her ancient standards governing her possessions, in
keeping her affairs in order, and in acquiring, administering and disposing goods according to her
own spirit. This lack of suitable control over the administration and use of the Church's
temporalities in accordance with traditional standards and the ecclesial spirit is the fifth wound that
still afflicts and agonises her mystical body.

132. The few remaining traces of the feudal system are quickly vanishing as nations grow more
civilised; the Church is no longer involved with feudalism. But the legal principles, customs and
spirit of the system live on in government policy and modern codes of law affected by this
disastrous heritage from the middle ages. I indicate the cause in order to examine its effects.

133. The early church was poor, but free. Persecution did not deprive her of freedom of
government, nor did the violent appropriation of her possessions damage her true liberty. She was
free of vassallage and enforced protection; she was no man's ward and paid no compulsory legal
fees. But restrictions on the use of church temporalities were introduced by conditions which made
it impossible for the Church to maintain her own traditional standards in the acquisition,
administration and use of material benefits. As she gradually declined from these standards, which
served to neutralise the corrupting and illusory aspects of temporalities, she was threatened by
increasing danger. Let us see what these standards were.

134. The first requirement was that the acquisition of temporalities should depend upon
spontaneous offerings. "Whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace be to this house!'... And remain
in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the labourer deserves his wages" (1).
The last words express the rule of the apostles, repeated more than once by St. Paul (2). Christ
obliged the faithful to maintain those working for the gospel, and bestowed upon the latter the right
to be maintained. But although Christ commanded maintenance, its obligation did not reduce the
spontaneity of the offering which depended upon the deeper, free acceptance of his gospel, and
willing incorporation into the body of the faithful. Human spontaneity ceases only when moral
obligation is enforced with violence. Christ's one sanction was the words: "And if anyone will not
receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or
town" (3). Punishment for refusal to accept the obligation was left to divine justice, in the spirit of
meekness proper to the divine lawgiver who promised nevertheless that justice would be done in
good time (4).

The story of Ananias and Sapphira proves the same point: Peter said: "While it remained unsold,
did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your own disposal?" (5). In the same
way, the collections ordered by St.Paul in the churches of Galatia and Corinth on behalf of the
needy at Jerusalem were left to each believer's spirit of charity and discretion: "On the first day of
every week, each of you is to put something aside, and store it up, as he may prosper" (6).

135. Moreover, the obligation Christ imposed on the faithful of maintaining the clergy did not
extend beyond the strict needs of the preachers of the gospel who were told: "to remain in the same
house, eating and drinking what they may provide," edentes et bibentes quae apud illos sunt. St.
Paul used Christ's own expression when he wrote: "Do we not have the right to our food and
drink?" (7). If it were left to the faithful to decide spontaneously what was necessary for the basic,
obligatory maintenance of the clergy, offerings which exceeded the limits of this need would
naturally depend even more upon the people's own initiative.
136. Tertullian is a witness that heartfelt spontaneity was still the rule at the end of the second and
beginning of the third century. "Each one who can, puts aside some money monthly, or when he
decides. No one is forced; all give spontaneously. These funds are the investments of piety" (8).
This rule reappears more or less clearly in the Church's finest centuries. She insisted that the faithful
were not to be forced or fraudulently solicited to make offerings. At the end of the 9th century, the
3rd Council of Chalons issued decrees against these abuses in order to safeguard spontaneity of the
gifts offered to the Church by the faithful (9).

137. Tithes, which God had assigned in the Old Testament to the Levites, were not confirmed by
Christ under the new law. The reason, I think, is that the Author of grace did not want to add any
extra burden to that required by the nature of things. Circumstances imposed only the maintenance
of the clergy upon the faithful for whom they were working. There is no mention of any specific
offering because needs would vary according to the number of workers. A predetermined amount
would sometimes be excessive, sometimes insufficient. However, the Lord did not forbid tithes; he
left them dependent upon the discretion of the faithful. As a result, the old rule was kept
spontaneously in the first centuries, especially by christians coming from the synagogue (10). As
late as the 6th century, Justinian forbade the forceful exaction of offerings and the use of
ecclesiastical penalties for their non-observance. The decree seems to have been published at the
insistence of bishops who wanted to preserve ancient customs (11).

The Church could and did command what had previously been custom. She first did this
spasmodically during the 6th century (12), and later extended the precept universally when she
found it fitting or necessary in order to ensure the maintenance of the clergy. Spontaneity only
ceased when the offerings were enforced by sanctions imposed by the secular arm. This came about
with the advent of feudalism in the 8th century (13).

138. Here we have to take into account a new species of rights introduced into the world by the
gospel. We shall call them church rights. Previously, there had existed only rights in strict justice,
and benefactions: the former were subject to coercion, the latter were totally free. But in reforming
the world, the divine lawgiver inserted a third kind of moral action between the two already known.

An example of this lies in the right given by Christ to ministers of the sanctuary to live from the
altar. The only sanction he imposed was the threat of heavenly punishment. Other examples are
church laws whose only sanctions are canonical and spiritual penalties; the greatest punishment the
Church can inflict is to cut off from the body of the faithful the disobedient and contumacious who
are thus deprived of the benefits of church communion. This kind of punishment is altogether
unknown and alien to temporal government: "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them;
and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you" (14). We can easily
imagine what occurred when church temporalities were no longer free possessions of the Church,
but held under the dominion of temporal rule. Offerings were extracted by force, the only power of
coercion available and understood by the secular arm which imagined that its work in this respect
was a special benefit conferred on the Church: et qui potestatem habent super eos, benefici vocantur
["and those in authority over them are called benefactors"].

139. It was certainly just, and not at all contrary to the spirit of the gospel and the Church that
possessions already obtained through spontaneous donations should be safeguarded, like all other
kinds of ownership, by force exercised in the public good. Offerings made freely, once and for all,
take on the nature of rights in strict justice. But the use of force is repugnant to the ancient rule
when there is a question of impelling the faithful to make donations or offerings, as in the case of
tithes, first fruits, and other obligations. Moreover, it cannot be maintained that the original
spontaneity of offerings is forfeited because they have become customary. Asserting that a free
donor is strictly speaking a debtor simply because he has continued to give over a long period is
legal sophistry.

140. Coercion of previously spontaneous offerings, the first kind of enforced restriction imposed on
the Church in her relationship to temporalities, lessens charity between faithful and clergy who
were no longer bound by the love proper to benefactors and benefitted, or rather proper to mutual
benefactors exchanging spiritual and temporal benefits: Si nos vobis spiritualia seminavimus,
magnum est si nos carnalia vestra metamus? ["If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too
much if we reap your material benefits?"] (15). The easy, natural relationship between mutual
benefactors is replaced by the cold, odious connection between debtor and creditor, which deprives
the latter of the joy of giving and the former of gratitude in receiving. Moreover, the clergy, now
sure of their maintenance, did not experience any fluctuation in offerings proportionate to their
work.

141. A much more harmful restriction, however, was that which confused free and freely donated
possessions belonging to the Church with feudal tenure, which tended to absorb every other type of
holding. What belongs to the Church, it was asserted, belongs to the feudal lord served by persons
in the Church. This kind of restriction on church temporalities is expressed clearly in the language
of the period. Local churches were called mortmain, a harmful term, still in existence, indicating a
category of serfs (16). This evil seed, after producing poisonous fruits in the clergy, finally brought
forth our modern confiscations and the solemn decree of 2nd-4th November, 1789, in which the
national assembly of France declared all church property to be at the disposition of the state. The
revolution undertaken in the name of civilisation thus inherited the spoils of feudalism.

142. The second requirement protecting the Church from the corruption towards which
temporalities could of themselves incline her was that goods should be possessed, administered and
dispensed in common. Initially the faithful brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the
apostles' feet. Distribution was made to each as any had need: prout cuique opus erat (17). We can
only admire the love and union between the believers, and wonder at the common life amongst
clergy and faithful. "The company of those who believed were of one heart and one soul, and no
one said that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common" (18).
The marvellous sight of this hitherto unknown brotherhood impelled Philo, although a Jew, to write
a book in praise of what he beheld amongst christians in Alexandria. Saints throughout christian
history have taken this brotherhood as the finest model of christian love. Chrysostom, for example,
longed to introduce it amongst his people at Constantinople. It was the final perfection of what Livy
tells us about Rome's outstanding centuries when, he says, private patrimonies were limited and
public ownership extensive.

143. This requirement was preserved for a long time amongst the clergy. The bishops, as successors
of the apostles, normally distributed each month what was necessary for the maintenance of the
clergy who worked for the gospel in their dioceses. The funds came from church possessions; no
one had anything of his own. When Constantine permitted wills to be made in favour of the Church
in 32l, he laid down: "Everybody is entitled to leave the property he wishes to the holy and catholic
council of the catholic Church" (19).

Later the Church expressly forbade to individual clerics the concession of goods alienated for the
purpose from common possessions. The prohibition can be found in a rescript of the 5th century
attributed to pope St. Gelasius which was also intended to ensure proper administration and
conservation of church temporalities (20). Valentinian's law forbidding legacies in favour of
individual members of the secular or regular clergy (21) was dictated by the same spirit in the
Church. Holy men like Ambrose and Jerome did not object to this law, but they complained bitterly
about churchmen who, to their shame, might have provoked it. "I do not regret the law, but I am
sorry that we have merited it. Wounds have to be cauterised, but it is lamentable that we cause these
wounds in ourselves. Let there be an heir by all means, but let it be the Church, the mother, nurse
and guardian of the flock. Why should we stand between mother and children?" (22). St. Jerome
wanted to protect the intrusion of individual monks and members of the clergy between the Church,
as depository of pious offerings, and the children to whom she dispensed her wealth according to
their need. Temporalities held in common and administered by the wise love of bishops after
consultation with their clergy (23) were of great assistance in producing and safeguarding increased
union amongst the clergy, and between the clergy and people.

144. When the gospel spread into the countryside, however, churches had to be established far from
the cathedrals, and separate funds were necessarily assigned to them (24). This was first done by
way of exception; monasteries, deserving churches and pilgrims were amongst the beneficiaries
allowed the temporary usufruct of such funds, as pope Symmachus, ruling in the 6th century (25),
makes clear. Hence the name "precary" (26). But possession, administration and use of church
temporalities gradually lost contact with their original source in common ownership as individaul
benefices made greater inroads into the common life of the clergy desired by the Church. Despite
the frequent laws and canonical dispositions designed to restore it, the Church finally failed to
safeguard the common life in its clergy. She was thwarted once more by the barbarous system of
feudalism.

145. Feudalism involves vassallage, which alone is sufficient to make it repugnant to the freedom
characteristic of the Church. But possessions of the feudatory acquire in addition a special kind of
restriction resulting from the personal vassallage of the subject enjoying their usufruct. This is
another reason why feudalism is intrinsically opposed to ecclesiastical office and the spirit of the
Church, the personal existence of whose ministers vanishes in the divine constitution Christ left to
his Church.

Her ministers no longer represent themselves, but the Church; the whole body of the Church acts
through them in all they do by virtue of the power proper to the head. Like a foot or arm in the
human body, the various organs reflect no individual personality. A perfect mystical unity is the
foundation of this wonderful constitution. The members of the human body wishing to assert
themselves individually would ruin the beauty and proportions of the body, either making it a
monster or destroying it altogether; and the same must be said of the the Church. Yet this is
precisely what the feudal system set out to do. Each vassal can only stand for himself, for the person
he serves, and for what belongs to that person.

Moreover, vassallage and service, granted to temporal rulers, fulfilled essentially temporal and
secular functions. As long as riches were unfettered, they could be used for spiritual purposes, and
wealth in the Church's free possession was so used. It was administered and dispensed in a spirit of
love to maintain the Church's ministers and support divine worship. The outstretched hands of the
poor, of widows, lepers, slaves, pilgrims and the destitute became vaults where the Church could
deposit her treasures without fear of theft.

The mother of the faithful could accomplish all this without abandoning her ecclesial ministry; she
did indeed minister to her children with motherly love and christian mercy (27). The vassal, the
bond-servant who has to think of serving his master, and administer what he possesses in such
service, has another aim, quite different from that of the Church. He is no longer bonus miles Jesu
Christi ["a good soldier of Jesus Christ"]; he is entangled with the affairs of this life, despite the
apostle's command (28). He is an isolated individual, a man like everyone else, a courtier sharing
the luxury of court life, perhaps the leader of an armed troop. As he becomes lord or baron on his
own behalf and that of his ruler, the Church ceases to be visible in him; he is no longer bishop and
leader of his church, and of the people once united with him.

146. This tremendous, unnatural transformation of churchmen impressed the minds of medieval
bishops with the idea of their own individuality, and weakened the notion of unity in the episcopal
and clerical body. It loosened the ties that gave the whole body of the Church its capacity for every
kind of good, and obscured the splendour it had possessed in its finest hours; it broke up dioceses
according to state and feudal boundaries; and finally it split up and lessened church temporalities
which both as effect and cause symbolised either the moral unity or disgregation of those
administering them. Eventually, almost all church property came to be administered and enjoyed by
individual clerics. Hence the philosophical meaning of "benefices", rooted in the word itself;
benefice is a technical word in feudal vocabulary indicating in the first instance the lands granted in
usufruct by a ruler to his courtiers and messmates in recompense for services rendered.

147. We need to realise that when an idea or a form impresses itself on human intelligence and
imagination, it becomes the norm or model of all other thoughts and ways of acting capable of
absorbing it. Notions unable to assimilate it become subordinate and accessory to it, like dependents
crowded around their master. In the Church's early history, unity was the dominant idea in christian
minds. As a result, everything the faithful and clergy said and did in church dispositions, in their
reciprocal care of one another, and in the administration of possessions was illumined and governed
by the unity of Christ. Feudalism, on the other hand, was founded on the totally different idea of
division, which springs from the notion of lordship or dominion. This system governing the
temporal order impressed its fundamental form of lordship deeply in the minds of ecclesiastics with
disastrous consequences for the Church.

148. Force, violence, personal valour and lordship constituted the norm for the barbarians who
conquered Europe. Little by little the Church imbued their uncouth minds with its own contrary
idea. Naturally, the opposed notions struggled for mastery, and the conflict took on an aspect
common to every engagement between two societies dominated by contrasting ideas. On the one
hand, they fight quite openly, each side using its own weapons; on the other, they attempt some
kind of conciliation and fusion. Each idea becomes partly subject to the other, although they
preserve their mutual incompatibility.

In our case, barbarian governments, while oppressing the Church, tried to subject and remodel it
completely in accordance with their idea of mutual, individual lordship sustained by force. Almost
unwittingly, however, they absorbed intimately the contrary idea of service, morality, unity and
spirituality proper to the Church. Hence the contradictory features of actions which expressed
immense piety and generosity towards the Church, and extremely injurious despotism and
irreverence. The type of action depended upon subjection to their own original outlook, or to that
acquired from the Church's teaching.

The same occurred with the clergy. They taught ferocious barbarians the meekness of the gospel,
opening their minds to the ecclesial idea of unifying charity. At the same time, they themselves
suffered in the great conflict by absorbing the opposite idea. The result was an extraordinary
mixture from within clerical ranks of holy, heroic efforts to maintain the unity of Christ, combined
with sacrilegious disorders, degrading abasement and individualistic tendencies destroying the unity
of the christian, ecclesial community. Conflict between the two ideas, and contradictory actions in
both temporal and ecclesiastical orders, is characteristic of the middle ages, and is alone sufficient
to explain all the occurrences of the period, but especially the strife between empire and Church.
The Church and its dominant idea can never perish because Christ's word lives on, although heaven
and earth may pass away. Whenever the idea of violent, temporal domination and disunion - so
contrary to the idea proper to the Church - prevails and compromises the very existence of the
clergy, the Church rises like an awakening giant, repels the invader and renews in herself and in her
ministers the idea on which her life depends (29).

149. All this helps to explain the vicissitudes suffered by church temporalities. Medieval lords,
acting in accordance with their idea of individuality and lordship, not only looked upon the
Church's unfettered possessions as fiefs, but appropriated them, disposed of them as though they
were their own, bestowed them on lay people, and alienated them. Usurpations of this kind
provided ample fuel for conflict between rulers and the Church which fought the abuses with
conciliar enactments, papal decrees and canonical penalties.

Bishops loyal to the rulers absorbed the idea of individuality along with their fiefs. It led them to
dispose of church properties as their own possessions. Unmindful of common ownership, prelates
alienated church temporalities which they enfeoffed, exchanged, bestowed on laymen, and spent on
high living and making war. The Church replied with innumerable canons and decrees whose effect
was to tie the Church still closer to the alienation, administration and disposal of church property.
Simultaneously, the lower clergy were divided from the bishops, and had to be protected
assiduously by the Church against the despotism and cruelty of their pastors. One consequence was
the frequent dissension between chapters and bishops, which often lives on today; another was the
irremovability of parish priests, which deprives bishops of the power to remedy promptly the
scandals and spiritual afflictions imposed on the people.

150. But the Church's divine Founder did not want the principle of communion in church
temporalities to perish, either relative to their possession or to their administration and use.
Monasticism and religious life, which make express, public profession of this saving principle, rose
and flourished at this time. The faithful, guided by christian instinct that never fails them, became
more inclined to bestow their offerings and donations on the regular clergy who upheld the ancient
requirement, than upon the secular clegy. When the 3rd Lateran Council (1179) decreed the
restitution of tithes enfeoffed on laypeople, the latter restored them for the most part to the
monasteries rather than to the churches owning them. This was later permitted by the popes,
provided the local bishop gave his consent (30).

151. A third, precious requirement in ancient days was that "the clergy should use church
temporalities only for the strict needs of their maintenance; the remainder to be applied to pious
works, especially in alms for the poor." Christ founded the apostolate on poverty, and on
abandonment to Providence which would have moved the faithful to support those evangelising
them. He himself was the perfect examplar: "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but
the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head" (31), and he made his own way of life the condition
for those wanting to follow him. Peter had abandoned even his humble nets in order to follow his
naked Master. Although the apostolic college had its own fund supported by the offerings of the
faithful, the money was held in common as an example for later Church practice. When the
paralytic asked him for alms, Peter could reply: Argentum et aurum non est mihi ["I have no silver
and gold"] (32). Needs were satisfied by the apostles' right to live in the homes of the welcoming
faithful who thus received more than they gave. St. Paul instructed his disciple, Timothy, in the
same way of life: "There is great gain in godliness with contentment; for we brought nothing into
the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world; but if we have food and clothing, with
these we shall be content" (33).
Hence in the finest period of the Church, entering the ranks of the clergy was equivalent to a
profession of evangelical poverty (34). The phrase "secular clergy" had not been invented, and
appeared only in times of ecclesiastical decadence when the clergy seemed to have sided with the
world. The profession of poverty was for long the glory of the priestly ministry; the majority of men
called to the priesthood abandoned their possessions or gave them away to the poor. As Isidore of
Pelusium said: tum voluntaria paupertate gloriabuntur ["they will glory in voluntary poverty"] (35).

The administration and distribution of the Church's wealth could thus be entrusted to sincerely
disinterested persons acting as trustees for the poor. Julian Pomerius, after speaking of the voluntary
poverty of bishops Paulinus of Nola and Hilary of Arles, who abandoned great wealth to become
poor men of Chirst, adds: "It is easy to understand, therefore, that holy men like this (who had
renounced everything to become followers of Christ) were perfectly aware that the Church's
possessions are made up simply of the devotion of the faithful, of satisfaction for sins, and of what
belongs to the poor. They never used this wealth for their own benefit as though it belonged to
them, but accepted it in trust for the poor. The Church holds its possessions in common with those
who have nothing, and cannot therefore share them with people who already have enough of their
own. Benefiting the well-off means throwing away what is distributed" (36).

The clergy, as poor men themselves, took their maintenance from the common purse proper to the
needy. The bishop, as first amongst the poor and the one responsible for the distribution, could
rightly take something for himself (37) and the lower clergy. This rule was so deeply rooted in
people's hearts that it was not judged fitting for a priest to live off the Church if he had his own
patrimony. Because he did not belong to the poor, he had no right to depend upon the Church, nor
take from the needy what was theirs. This was correct, and reaffirmed by Julian: "Those with their
own money, who still want a share in the distribution, sin gravely when they accept what belongs to
the poor. The Holy Spirit is surely speaking about the clergy when he says: 'They feed on the sin of
my people.' The poor, who have nothing, receive the nourishment they need, not sins; the rich do
not receive nourishment - they have that already - but take upon themselves the sins of others. The
same applies to poor people who can work to support themselves; they should not presume to take
what belongs to the weak and sick.

The Church should not have to disburse assistance to those not in need, lest she should be unable to
help the indigent. And those who serve the Church are altogether too worldly if they imagine they
should receive earthly wages (38) rather than eternal rewards... If a minister of the Church has not
enough to live on, the Church gives him what is necessary but nothing over and above, so that he
may not lose the reward which he can now look forward to with certainty, as the Lord himself has
promised. As for those who ask for nothing, but nevertheless live off the Church without any real
need - well, it is not for me to say what kind of sin they commit by depriving the poor of their food.
People like this should assist the Church with what they have, not burden her with what they waste
as if they had the right to live in the community without intending to feed the poor, help our guests,
or use their own money for our daily needs" (39).

152. Prior to the middle ages abuses against this noble requirement were the result of human
weakness; they were not characteristic of clerical life which, in fact, repudiated them. But the
standard could not be maintained, generally speaking, when the Church's possessions, having lost
their original nature, fell under the feudal system, and the principal churchmen themselves became
feudatories. From that moment, the disbursement of goods was governed by another law; instead of
flowing down to the poor, they either remained stationary or finished in the rapacious hands of the
local lord. The idea of "trust", the first concept characterising the possession of church
temporalities, perished or at least lost its force for many; absolute ownership prevailed, and sacred
trust was violated.
153. The division of common holdings into benefices assigned to individual clerics also prevented
episcopal distribution of subsidies to the clergy in proportion to their labours and deserts. A human
stimulus to the fulfilment of their sacred duties was thus lost to the clergy, who became financially
independent of their bishops.(40)
Another serious disadvantage was the decline of the splendid example of public, ministerial
maintenance of the poor on the part of the Church, which inevitably led also to neglect of spiritual
instruction for the needy. The constant care taken by the Church for the poor, whom it considered
its very own, had enabled its material assistance to be viewed as spiritual instruction, so that the
needy had a twofold stimulus for gratitude towards her maternal care. She merited and received
love and reverence as mother of body and soul.

But with the withdrawal of the clergy from this work, the daily practice of charity was, as it were,
secularised. Separate institutions were established for various works of charity which gradually
came under the control of lay people. In the designs of Providence the great advantage here was the
immense increase of zeal amongst christians in the exercise of works of charity; on the other hand,
works of charity, having been cut off from the spiritual wisdom proper to the Church, now became
exercises in philanthropy without reference to God and the salvation of souls. The seed was sown
for modern social assistance, and only when the clergy renews its generosity and largeheartedness
will the characteristics of divine love be restored.

As we look forward to that time (which perhaps is not so distant), let us hope that there will no
longer be a wall of division between laypeople and clergy. Such separation leads to lack of spiritual
understanding amongst the laity who thus tend to materialism with all its sterile consequences. But
lay co-operation is of the highest practical value when the barriers of division have been abolished,
and the two parties have become one body in Christ, just as head and members form one human
body.

As we were saying, however, the distribution of benefices impeded the spontaneous flow of
ecclesial wealth into the hands of the poor. The obligation of almsgiving was parcelled out amongst
the beneficiaries without supervision or wise control on the part of the bishops. From that moment,
the poor ceased to be a sacred charge consigned to the care of the churches.

154. The fourth requirement governing church temporalities and safeguarding the integrity of the
clergy was that "ecclesiastical wealth used for pious, charitable purposes, should also be assigned to
fixed, determined works to prevent arbitrariness and self-interest from interfering in disbursement
of finances." As church riches grew and abuses increased, the Church intervened, although defects
in administration were spasmodic and contained. Church resources were allotted to definite
purposes according to a fourfold division: for the support of the bishop, the lower clergy, the poor,
and the upkeep of church buildings and cult. The Councils of Agde, 506, and Orleans, 511, decreed
this division on the basis of older canons. Gregory the Great recalls it in many of his letters (41). It
is certain that the best remedy against the corruption accompanying riches was the establishment of
laws regulating the precise uses to which they could be applied (42). Abuse is inevitable if the
employment of great wealth is left to the arbitrary decision of the person to whom it is entrusted.
The corruption and ruin of many monasteries has almost certainly to be attributed to the lack of a
law definite enough to determine the principal uses of the great riches possessed by religious
houses. As a result, abbots and other superiors controlling finances spent the income as they
pleased.

155. But feudalism amongst ecclesiastics made this requirement impossible. Feudalism can be
reduced in principle to an armed aristocracy whose interests, along with the interests of the local
lords, demands the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the great families, that is, in very
restricted circles. Worldly power depended upon this concentration of wealth, and consequently
opposed its equitable distribution in brotherly love. Benefices were thus a necessary institution to
assure the maintenance of the weakest elements in the clergy, who would have starved to death
without some safeguard against the rapacity of the great lords, bishops included. Bishops no longer
formed part of the people as in ancient days when episcopal ordination entailed the profession of
poverty (however noble one's origins) and acceptance of a place amongst the poor; they were now
members of a ruthless, dominant aristocracy. Henceforth, abuse became law. The Church's canons
were either evaded by endless sophistry (43) or openly and violently broken. The fourfold division
of church wealth, and the application of income for fixed purposes, became intolerable. The ancient
rule sank without trace, along with its guiding spirit.

156. The fifth requirement safeguarding the Church from the danger of riches in the centuries
before feudalism was "a generous spirit, prompt to give, slow to receive." The great rule fixed in
human hearts was Christ's noble, astounding word: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (44).
This was the good news the Church brought to a world enslaved by selfishness; it was a light
shining in all that the Church did and undertook. Bishops considered temporalities and their
administration a burden, to be borne only from motives of charity (45). Laws making difficult the
alienation of donated property were not yet in force; offerings were accepted reluctantly, and
distributed freely. St. Ambrose refused donations and legacies if he knew that poor relatives of the
donors would suffer as a result : non quaerit donum Deus de fame parentum... misericordia a
domestico progredi debet pietatis officio (46) ["God does not look for offerings that leave relatives
hungry... mercy must begin at home"]. The Church could do this because its spirit was unfettered,
especially by the so-called protection exercised by secular rulers.

One effect of the restrictions forced upon the Church by this system was her inability to act with the
splendid generosity so often shown by early bishops. I have already mentioned the ideas of St.
Augustine in this respect. In a sermon preached to the people, the bishop of Hippo had to defend
himself against the accusation that "bishop Augustune gives with total generosity, but takes
nothing." What a glorious accusation! (47). As a result, so the complaint ran, the church of Hippo
received no benefactions and no legacies. Possidius, in his life of Augustine, tells how the bishop
restored property donated to the church by one of the wealthy townsmen who, despite having no
further legal claim to the land, asked for it back on behalf of his son. Augustine returned it, and
refusing a large sum which the man sent for the poor, reminded him that he was doing wrong.

Possidius also mentions Augustine's reaction to the envy of one of the lower clergy because of
episcopal control of church finances (48). The bishop who, like all bishops of his time, spoke about
everything to the people of God, referred to this in a sermon. He said that he would gladly have
lived on collections from God's people rather than be burdened with responsibility for finances,
which he was ready to cede to the people so that all God's servants and ministers might live by
sharing at the altar as did the priests of the Old Testament. But the laypeople refused his offer
absolutely (49).

157. St. John Chrysostom explained in a sermon to his people why the Church accepted fixed,
regular donations rather than live, as it had done previously, on occasional collections from the
faithful. The clergy were forced to do this not for themselves, but for the sake of the destitute
affected by the lessening of charity amongst the faithful. "Your tightfistedness has brought the
Church to this state. If things were done according to the laws reaching back to apostolic times, the
Church's income would flow without fail and without fear of diminution from your good will. But
you are all seeking treasure on earth now, and locking up your wealth in vaults, while the Church
has to spend money on widows, virgins, travellers, captives, the handicapped and mutilated, and
other needy persons. So how can the Church act otherwise?" (50).

158. The change which took place in the Church during the period of barbarism can only be
deplored. The clergy, noted previously for their uprightness, generosity and charity in their best
representatives, fell from their own high standards, and began to merit the accusations made against
those "those whose avarice makes felt its power." We must examine the two causes contributing to
this decline: the influence of the barbarian rulers, and the way in which the Church was forced to
defend herself in its endeavour to avoid a greater evil.

159. As we have seen, feudalism altered the nature of church temporalities, leaving them open to
frequent alienation through concessions made to laypeople by rulers and by feudal bishops
themselves. The Church had to legislate against these abuses, and as a result her laws tended in
exactly the opposite direction to that of the fifth ancient requirement we are examining. From now
on her decrees sought "to facilitate maximum acquisition and preservation of temporalities, and
impede all possible alienation of goods." Legislators usually react to the worst aspect of abuse, and
often exaggerate in their attempts to enforce the right. They also tend to overlook the possible
effects of new legislation in cases of extreme outrage, as ours was; they fail to note how diminished
freedom of action impedes other benefits, and as a result they prevent the best use of a situation as
they block abuses. Finally, it is also possible that legislation legitimately directed against abuse may
live on after the abuse has been eradicated. In this case, human nature is continually restrained and
fettered by laws which have lost their justification.

In particular, it certainly was a great evil to deprive church temporalities fraudulently of their
original purpose by putting them to profane use as rewards for worldly services, or as sinecures.
This was definitely not the intention of their pious benefactors. But it was also an immense good for
bishops, with the advice of their clergy, to be able to renounce, when opportune, gifts and legacies
offered to the Church, to sell and disburse possessions to the needy without too many difficulties
and formalities. In this way the Church was able to help mankind in all its afflictions. The Church is
rich enough if her treasure is love, and her administration beneficence; the Church is happy enough
if she can repeat St. Ambrose's dictum: "Aurum Ecclesia habet, non ut servet, sed ut eroget, et
subveniat in necessitatibus" [The Church's wealth is not to be hoarded, but used to alleviate
necessity] (51).

It is truly painful, and damaging to the true interests of the Church, as well as scandalous, if public
opinion is generally convinced that the Church's hands are always extended to receive, but never to
give. It is sad to find people thinking that what the Church puts into her treasury never leaves it; the
result is contempt, envy, the elimination of generosity amongst the faithful, and the suspicion that
the Church's wealth goes on accumulating over the centuries irrespective of the needs of the poor,
of commerce and of a nation's self-defence. Governments are presented with an excuse for
intervening in the disposition of church temporalities, and use the opportunity to impose shameful
laws of amortization; the people grow more and more disenamoured of the clergy and the Church;
unbelief spreads; those who hate the Church curse and malign her; and finally the ruling faction, or
the mob incited by subversive elements, uses violence to break open the locked vaults and plunder
the treasure of the sanctuary. As far as I am concerned, it would be preferable by far if the Church
of God avoided all these evils rather than abound in temporalities. In these circumstances it would
be better if she took no steps to prevent even deliberate alienation of part of her wealth.

160. Ecclesiastical admonitions, canons and punishments gradually domesticated the barbarian
conquerors and prevented their use of church temporalities in their own interests. But secular
authority not only damaged the Church through violence and expropriations; the effect of its
generosity towards the Church, and of the laws dictated in a worldly and profane spirit for the
safety and protection of her possessions, was far worse. Civil government has no feeling for what
concerns the Church; every time it interferes in ecclesial matters, it chills and deadens her spirit.

Charlemagne and Otto I benefited the Church. Nevertheless, the unfortunate donation of fiefs
(dependent not only on devotion to the Church but also on a policy which desired simultaneously to
diminish the power of the nobility and to subject that of the bishops) proved to be a hook on which
the clergy were caught. From that moment, the secular power interfered unceasingly in church
affairs; temporal favours and endearments from rulers destroyed the freedom which is the air on
which the Church lives.

Temporal power can assist the Church only by brute force, the sole means naturally available to it.
But force by its nature is diametrically opposed to the spirit of the Church. What kind of impression
is made by a Church whose weapons are chains, batons and the sword? This horrible monstrosity is
repugnant to good and bad alike. Yet temporal rule knows no other way of offering protection,
which it imposes without limit; it commands, and extends its command as far as possible. Although
incapable of understanding the Church's true good, it claims to be her judge and imagines that it can
benefit her on its own level. It administers her goods as though they were its own, without realising
how different they are; it wants to accumulate all it can, and spend as little as possible; if necessary,
it enriches the Church with privileges and immunities, granting her special, exaggerated and
sometimes unjust protection contrary to civil equity and detested by those who cannot share such
rights (52). The requirement demanding generous giving and hesitant acceptance of wealth,
although part of the nature of the Church, becomes impossible to practise when her possessions are
no longer in her free use, but subject to lay power.

161. There was yet another special requirement ruling the Church's activity in early days, and
demonstrating her extraordinary character. The sixth requirement impelled her "to want the
administration of her possessions to be made public."

We have seen that in early times bishops explained everything, including their use of temporal
benefits, to their people and clergy. Moreover, the priests and deacons involved in ecclesiastical
administration had to have the approval of the christian people, according to apostolic tradition (53).
They had to be known and trusted. St. Paul, for example, suggests with great delicacy that the
christians at Corinth choose their own representatives to take their alms to the needy brethren at
Jerusalem: "On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as
he may prosper, so that contributions need not be made when I come. And when I arrive, I will send
those whom you accredit by your letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems advisable that I
should go also, they will accompany me" (54).

He was bishop and apostle; all authority was in his hands. Nevertheless, he left the choice of envoys
to his people: omnia mihi licent, sed non omnia expediunt ["all things are lawful for me, but not all
things are helpful"] (55). The Corinthians could not have doubted St. Paul's trustworthiness, but this
was not sufficient. When there is a question of temporal interests, the apostle wishes to be as free as
possible. He reserves the use of his apostolic authority for cases where it is necesary; the rest he
leaves to the people, who are glad to undertake their responsibility. There is a good, natural
satisfaction in using one's own judgment and interest in carrying out what can be seen as
necessaary. St. John Chrysostom was not afraid to give an account of his administration of church
income; "And we are ready to inform you of our administration" (56). The same spirit and practice
animated the other bishops of old.
162. The proper use of the Church's possessions is not sufficient, nor is it enough that rulers should
be informed of what is done with them. The people who make the offering should also be aware of
what is carried out. It would be an incredible help to the Church in the first place if all her
possessions, especially those belonging to religious orders, were tied by her own wise laws to uses
determined in the greatest possible detail. Each good work should be assigned a suitable sum,
neither too great nor too small, and a clear, annual statement of income and expenditure for these
works should be published, enabling God's faithful to approve or disapprove of the administration.
Governments would be informed in the same way, and this ought to be sufficient. On no account is
it fitting or expedient that justice and charity, according to which the Church administers her
temporalilties, should be hidden under a bushel. On the contrary, it is highly desirable that it should
be put on a stand to give light to all. The faithful would respond favourably; instruction and
example would be available to the whole world; and only then in the light of public opinion, would
human weakness amongst the Church's ministers be capable of resisting inevitable temptation.
When human beings cannot conceal their sins, they do not sin - or at least they do not go on sinning
for long. An obligation to present the faithful, and the general public, with an account of their
administration would provide the stimulus necessary for awakening many drowsy consciences, and
ensure that church offices were in the hands of honest, sincere, devout persons.

163. Finally, I would like to indicate briefly a seventh and last requirement, that is: "the Church
should administer her temporalities watchfully and carefully." The Church has always insisted on
this from those entrusted with her administration; her possessions belong to God and the poor, and
any loss through negligence or inertia on the part of administrators would amount to sacrilege. It
was disregard of this important requirement which gave governments greater opportunity for taking
over churh administration and perpetuating the restrictions imposed on the Church and her
temporalities.

164. It is true that the Church, persecuted and oppressed, has always been at odds with temporal
authority, whether friendly or otherwise. She has also had the much greater burden of providing for
the good of souls. There has never been sufficient time available for her to obtain perfect method in
administration, nor a completely secure organic economy. If we consider what the Church has
received during the centuries of her existence, and how much has been lost through lack of serious,
careful administration, we can only imagine where the Church would be now if her temporalities
had always been wisely administered. But the limited energy of the human spirit is never enough
for two simultaneous undertakings, despite their mutuual connection. The spiritual aims of the
Church necessarily absorbed almost all her attention, and very little practical application could be
devoted to the care of her temporalities until the more important part of her legislative discipline
(directly concerned with the salvation of souls) could be finalised. Moreover, only experience could
show the immense damage inflicted on the spiritual element in the Church by neglect of her
material affairs.

Christ's example is sufficient to persuade me that at the beginning it is impossible, and not even
fitting, to pay much attention to temporalities. I think he made do with an unfaithful administrator
even amongst the apostles to show us that the rule of the spirit was to be the one object which did
not permit of distraction, even at the risk of material failure. Let me conclude by pointing out that
Pascal II's generous proposal of renouncing all fiefs is sufficient evidence for what I say. The great
man had laid the axe to the root of the evil tree, but his own time was too soft to sustain such a
remedy.

165. This book, begun in 1832 and completed a year later, lay forgotten for some years. The time
did not seem ripe for publishing what had been written only as a release for my own sorrow at the
sight of the afflictions endured by the church of God. But now (1846) that the invisible head of the
Church has chosen as pope a person [Pius IX] who seems destined to renew our age and give the
Church the impetus necessary for a new, glorious stage of unimaginable development, I have
remembered these pages and willingly entrust them to friends who have shared my sorrow, and now
look forward with me in hope.

Notes

(1) Luke 10. 5, 7

(2) 1 Cor 9. 4, 15; 1 Tim 5. 17-18

(3) Matt 10. 14

(4) Matt 10. 15

(5) Acts 5. 1-11

(6) 1 Cor 16. 2

(7) 1 Cor 9. 4

(8) Modicam unusquisque stipem mentrua die, vel cum velit, et si modo possit, apponit; nam nemo
compellitur, sed sponte confert. Haec quasi deposita pietatis sunt (Apol., c. 39) [PL 1, 533].

(9) Thomassin, p. 3, lib. 1, c. 23, par. 2 [Thomassin L., Vetus et Nova Ecclesiae Disciplina, Lucae
1728]

(10) Irenaeus, lib. 4, c. 34 [PG 7, 1025]. Origenes, Hom. in Num. [PG 12, 640-655]. Where St.
Cyprian says: At nunc de patrimonio nec decimas damus (De Unitate Ecclesiae, c. 5) [PL 4, 535],
Liber de Unitate Ecclesiae], he seems to be reproving the less fervent who did not pay tithes.

(11) Lib. 39, Cod. de Episcop. et Cleric. [Thomassin, op. cit. p. 3, lib. 1, c. 7, par. 12].

(12) E.g., at the end of the 2nd Council of Macon, 585 [SC 6, 673-680].

(13) In Capitul. An. 779, 794, 801 [cf MHG, Legum sectio II, Capitularia Regum Francorum].

(14) Matt 20. 25-26; Luke 22. 25-26

(15) 1 Cor 9. 11

(16) "Husbandland was not the property of serfs who as a result were called mortmain because they
had no right of ownership" (Cibarario, Dell'Economia del medio Evo, lib. 33, c. 3) [Turin 1839].

(17) Acts 4. 35

(18) Acts 4. 32

(19) Cod. de sacros. Ecclesiis, lib. 1.

(20) Gratianus, Caus. XII, q. 2, c. 23: nec cuiquam clerico propotione sua aliquid solum Ecclesiae
putetis deputandum, ne per incuriam et negligentiam minuatur: sed omnis pensionis summam ex
omnibus praediis rusticis urbanisque collectam ad antistitem deferatis.

(21) L. Valentiniani 20. De Episcopis et Clericis, lib. 14. Cod. Theod. Tit. 2, ad Damasum R.P.

(22) Ep. ad Nepotianum [PL 22, 532-3]. St. Ambrose also mentions this law of Valentinian: Quod
ego non ut quaerar, sed ut sciant quid non quaerar, comprehendi, malo enim nos pecunia minore
esse, quam gratia. A little later he adds: "The Church's possessions are at the disposition of the poor.
How many captives has the Church ransomed, how much food has she distributed to the hungry,
and how much help to refugees?" [PL 16, 1018].

(23) Berardi [Gratiani Canones genuini... t. 1. p. 2, p. 423, Turin 1754] states: Etenim ea aetate
quotiescumque negotium ecclesiasticum peragendum erat, episcopus cleri consilium convocato
synodo, expetebat.

(24) Postea vero primum factum, ut presbyteris ruralibus, quod parochos adpellabant, bonorum
administrationem concederent, eorumdemque exemplo presbyteris illis, qui in civitatibus titulos,
sive ecclesias regere dicebantur. Id etiam totum constat ex concilio Aguthensi, cui praefuit idem
Caesarius anno 506, praesertim vero can. 32, et 33 [Berardi, op. cit., p. 464].

(25) Gratianus, op. cit., caus. XVI, q. 1, c. 61.

(26) A modern author notes that in the beginning, enjoyment of goods was not granted to
individuals where a group of priests was lacking: car dans celle-ci la vie comune maintint encore
quelque temps l'ancien átat de choses (Walter, Manuel de Droit Ecclësiastique, par. 204) [traduit de
l'Allemand, p. 323, Paris 1840].

(27) The same idea is expressed by Julius Pomerius (5th century). Nunc autem quod christiani
temporis sacerdotes magis sustinent quam curant possessiones Eccleiae, etiam in hoc, Deo serviunt:
quia si Dei sunt ea quae conferuntur Ecclesiae, DEI OPUS AGIT, qui res Deo consecratas, non
alicuius cupiditatis, sed fidelissimae dispensationis intentione non deserit. Quapropter possessiones
quas oblatas a populo suscipiunt sacerdotes, NON SUNT INTER RES MUNDI DEPUTARI
CREDENDAE, SED DEI. (De Vita Contemplativa, lib. 2, c. 11) [PL 59, 461].

(28) LABORA SICUT BONUS MILES Christi Jesu. Nemo militans Deo implicat se negotiis
saecularibus (2 Tim 3.4).

(29) We have said that the two ideas of individuality and organic unity proper to the barbarian
empire and the Church respectively are irreconcilable, and that their momentary peaceful fusion is
more apparent than real. Again, individuality seems at times to have annihilated its opposite,
although the Church has always reasserted herself in moments of extreme crisis and renewed its
own outlook. But this does not mean we have to predict unending conflict between temporal and
spiritual powers. Peace is possible and will be achieved, but on one condition: the temporal power
has to reject completely the notion of individuality, a relic of barbarian violence and feudalism, and
reestablish itself on the idea of the Church which cannot perish. Conciliation is impossible between
the two ideas, but perfectly feasible between the spiritual and temporal orders. Temporal regimes
have to change from being lordships to civil societies. And such a desirable change is now
beginning to take place after a thousand years of strife. The whole of European society is taking part
in this new birth. The expulsion from governments of uncivilised dominion, which threatens the
peace of the world, is the great work prepared by Providence through the intestine struggles of
humanity which have been carried on under the formal appearance of centuries old conflict between
lay and ecclesiastical power, and still burn under the ashes until the work is brought to perfect
completion.

(30) Decr. Greg, lib. 3, tit. 10, c. 7; lib. 5, tit. 33, c. 3; and in lib. 3, tit. 13, c. 2, par. 2.

(31) Matt 8. 20; Luke 9. 58

(32) Acts 3. 6

(33) 1 Tim 6. 6-8

(34) Julian Pomerius states expressly: Itaque sacerdos, cui dispensationis cura commissa est, non
solum sine cupiditate, sed etiam cum laude pietatis, accipit a populo dispensanda et fideliter
dispensat accepta; QUI OMNIA SUA, AUT PAUPERIBUS DISTRIBUIT, AUT ECCLESIAE
REBUS ADJUNGIT, ET SE IN UMERO PAUPERUM, PAUPERTATIS AMORE, CONSTITUIT;
ita ut UNDE PAUPERIBUS SUBMINISTRAT, INDE ET IPSE TAMQUAM PAUPER
VOLUNTARIUS VIVAT. (De vita Contemplativa, lib. 2, c. 11) [PL 59, 455]

(35) lib. 5, ep. 21 [PG 40, 1522].

(36) De Vita Contemplativa, lib. 2, c. 9 [PL 59, 454-455]. Special note should be taken of the
sentence: quod habet Ecclesia cum omnibus nihil habentibus habet commune. It shows that in the
opinion of the time, the Church's goods were for common, not individual use.

(37) This rule is noted in the decree of Gratian where it is given as one of the apostolic canons: Ex
his autem, quibus episcopus indiget (SI TAMEN INDIGET) ad suas necessitates et peregrinorum
fratrum usus et ipse percipiat, ut nihil ei possit omnino deesse.

(38) In the light of these words, benefices are even less desirable because they remind us of gifts
made by lords of this world to persons coveting them.

(39) Julian Pomerius [op. cit., PL 59, 454-455].

(40) This is clear from St. Cyprian's order that two readers, Celerinus and Aurelius, should be given
the same assistance as the priests: ut et sportulis eisdem cum presbyteris honorentur [PL 4, 333]. St.
Gregory makes the same point in several of his letters, one of them to a bishop: de redditibus
Ecclesiae, quartam in integro portionem Ecclesiae tuae clericis, secundum meritum vel officium,
sive laborem suum, ut ipse unicuique dandam perspexeris, sine aliqua praebere debeas tarditate (lib.
11, ep. 510 [PL 77, 1293].

(41) [PL 77, 521. 541. 612. 863. 1293]. In Spain there was a threefold division of church
temporalities. The part destined for the poor was united with the portions of the bishop and the
lower clergy.

(42) Probably the four divisions depended in quantity upon the varying needs of the recipients.
Berardi [op. cit. p. 394], commenting on a canon of pope Gelasius, says: In quo sane illud
observandum est, quadripartitam illam ecclesiasticorum redituum distributionem non adeo rigide
esse intelligendam, ut ad proportionem quandam, ut vocent, geometricam, non ad arithmeticam
rationem exigatur.
(43) One of the worst manipulations of language or, to put it more simply, plain lying, is the use of
the term commendam. The law forbade a person to possess more than one benefice. To evade this
stipulation the administration of benefices was entrusted and commended to individuals.
Administration of the temporalities of monasteries and bishoprics was thus handed over to
laypeople who had no hesitation in taking the incomes for themselves. It was rather like entrusting a
sheep to a wolf. The whole of jurisprudence was riddled with similar harmful lies.

(44) Acts 20. 35

(45) "God is my witness that the care of church temporalities, which people think we want to
dominate, is a burden for me, undertaken only because of the service of love I owe my brethren, and
the fear of God. If I could carry out my duties without it, I would be more than happy" [PL 33, 481].

(46) In Luke, c. 18 [PL 15. 1880-81].

(47) [PL 39, 1571].

(48) Human nature is never free from defects, but here we want to distinguish partial and
exceptional errors from those which have become universal practice and threaten the fabric of
society by eliminating the foundations on which it rests.

(49) Sed nunquam id laici suscipere voluerunt (Possidius, Vita August.) [PL 32, 53]

(50) Hom. 11 [21], In ep. ad [1] Cor [PG 61, 179-80].

(51) The wonderful teaching of St. Ambrose and other fathers is recorded in Corpus Iuris Canonici,
where mention is made of the spirit of generosity in the Church, and her willingness to melt down
the sacred vessels in order to help the living vessels redeemed through the blood of Christ (cf.
Gratian, op. cit., caus. 12, q. 1, can. 2, 20, 21).

(52) Exemption from taxes has to be considered in separate periods because all modern european
states have changed their nature since their inception. In the first period, these states were lordships.
Contributions from subjects became the private possession of the ruler who as lord administered the
state on his own account. Consequently he was bestowing something of his own when he entrusted
a public office to the person of his choice. Nobles and ecclesiastics were exempt. But european
states gradually changed into true societies through the hidden influence of christianity and
especially that of the popes. The question now arises: is it according to equity that in a civil society,
church temporalities should be exempt from taxes? If these temporalities do not exceed what is
necessary for the maintenance of the clergy, and the remainder is given to the poor, exemption from
taxes would not seem equitable; if temporalities exceed these limits, or are no longer applied to
their original charitable purposes, it is reasonable to tax them on a par with other possessions. At
least, this would be the most decent and useful solution for the Church itself.

The formalities needed to convalidate the alienation of private possessions were added to in the case
of church temporalities. For instance, the length of time needed for prescription was increased; and
on the other hand, wills in favour of the Church were more easily made than other testaments, from
a legal point of view. Was this just? If these dispositions were intended to defend the Church
against fraudulent usurpation of her goods (always more prevalent than usurpation of private
possessions), they cannot be considered unreasonable. Again, these laws often benefited justice in
so far as the amendments they entailed prepared the way for juster laws applicable to all citizens.
The formalities required by roman law for the validity of wills, for instance, had certainly become
excessive. The Church appealed for their reform in her own regard, and thus paved the way for
greater liberty for all in testamentary affairs. But when legislation has been corrected, it is not
desirable for the Church in civilised nations to possess any privileges which benefit her in temporal
matters. All she needs is the sacred, inviolable right which is natural to her, that is, complete
freedom both to accept and administer the spontaneous offerings of the faithful, and to disburse
them according to the spirit of love which animates and informs her.

(53) The choice of the first deacons is instructive on this point. The apostles summoned the body of
the disciples and said: "Therefore, brethren, pick out from among you seven men of good repute,
full of the Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint to this duty" (Acts 6. 2). The assembly is left
to make the choice according to its own good judgment ("Pick out from among you"); the apostles
reserve for themselves confirmation of the choice and the ordination of those elected. The fullness
of authority received from Christ was used as a little as possible. Prudence of this kind should be a
divine rule for all holding authority in the Church.

(54) 1 Cor 16. 2-4

(55) 1 Cor 6. 12

(56) In Ep. ad [1] Cor, Hom. 21 [PG 61, 179].

Appendix:

On the choice of bishops by clergy and people.

Three letters of Antonio Rosmini Serbati, priest,

to Canon Giuseppe Gatti.

Letter 1
Stresa, 8th June 1848

Dear Canon,

Thank you for the favourable mention in your magazine about The Constitution according to Social
Justice which I published recently at Milan. Allow me to give substance to my thanks by taking this
opportunity of clarifying the point you were commenting on when you said that Rosmini would like
"to admit a democratic element even in ecclesiastical government".

I long to see union develop everywhere, and discord vanish completely. Union is love, and love is
true union; it is our divine Master's commandment for human societies as well as for individuals.
Because I love the people intensely, I desire union between people and clergy more than anything
else. But I do not mean that people have a direct part in the government of the Church. I realise
clearly that Jesus Christ entrusted this government to his apostles and their successors, the bishops,
who together form an admirable hierarchical unity through the primacy of honour and jurisdiction
bequeathed to the supreme pontiffs by St. Peter. The people can only intervene lovingly as advisers
in a father-child relationship which varies in manner or degree according to the impulse of love and
prudence at work in holy Church.
It was this kind of participation in the choice of bishops that I had in mind when I proposed in the
book a return to the ancient custom of election by clergy and people. This only gave the people the
opportunity of expressing their opinion of the candidates, of testifying to their good character, and
of welcoming the person enjoying their confidence.

I also said that this way of choosing a bishop was of divine right, and had been approved by
innumerable conciliar canons. But I certainly did not mean, nor did I say, that the various ways and
customs used in elections by clergy and people were of divine right. Nor does the people's exercise
of a God-given right in the choice of bishops mean that the Church cannot change the form of the
election. I have spoken about this elsewhere, and intend to deal with it more thoroughly later on. In
accordance with this spirit of charity governing all her actions, as I have said, the Church can
change the form of elections for very serious reasons without doing wrong.

In order to express my opinion unambiguously, I think it useful to add that I am speaking of a

divine moral right, not the vastly different divine constitutive right. Violation of the former does not
establish grounds for invalidity; bishops nominated by civil governments are true pastors, as the
Council of Trent has defined (Sess. 23, can. 8), provided they have been confirmed and given their
mission by the supreme pontiff. This distinction between constitutive and moral divine right
reconciles the views of differing ecclesiastical authors on the question. Granted there is no express
declaration of the Church on the matter, one is free to support any of the views, and I use this
liberty to take what I consider the middle way. Opinions can be reconciled by saying that elections
by clergy and people are not of divine right if we are speaking of divine constitutive right, but are of
divine right if we speak of it in so far as it is simply moral right.

In fact, divine constitutive right relative to the making of bishops is found only in sacred ordination
and the Church's mission. Both these things are completely independent of the people and every
other lay power, as the Council of Trent teaches: "Moreover, this holy synod teaches that no
episcopal, priestly or other ordination in sacris requires for its validity the consent, nomination or
authority of the people or civil power or judiciary. Rather, we insist that all those rashly accepting
and exercising these ministries after nomination and installation by the people, civil power or
judiciary alone are not to be held as ministers of the Church, but as thieves and robbers who do not
enter through the gate" (1).

Divine moral right is reduced to the right that the Church has to be free in the choice of her pastors,
and in all her other functions. The corresponding duty in the faithful, whatever their position, and of
all other societies, is to leave the Church perfectly free. This freedom is of divine right, and it was
not the Church who first spontaneously surrendered herself to the chains limiting it. She was
oppressed by those trampling underfoot the divine right guaranteeing her essential freedom, and
attempting to deprive her of this liberty and involve her in endless wrongs by every way known to
violence, seduction and legal subtlety. The Church had to submit to limits placed upon her natural
liberties in order to avoid greater evils. As far as choice of bishops was concerned, she never
spontaneously offered the nomination of all episcopal sees of certain states to the lay power unless
constrained, by bitter circumstances and after long struggles, to make such a sacrifice. History is no
one's monopoly, and it fully justifies the Church in this respect.

Indeed, the Church never ceased proclaiming to rulers and peoples the full liberty which is her right,
while asserting her hold over that part of freedom which remained to her; she never withheld
permission or praise from the zeal of priests and ordinary faithful who defended her liberties by
word or in writing. I love this divine freedom as Jesus Christ, whose Bride is the Church, loved it,
and as every devoted child of the Church, especially every priest, must love it. This love alone, and
no other end, forced me to speak up and show my burning desire for the restoration to the Church of
full freedom to choose her pastors. As far as I can see, this freedom is more important than any
other because it embraces and strengthens all the rest. The fullness of freedom cannot be restored to
the Church until the nomination of bishops, now fallen into the hands of lay powers, comes to an
end.

These nominations by lay powers do not depend upon exceptional circumstances; they are
permanent and lasting. As such they are an evident lessening of the Church's freedom, and a bond
preventing her from freely and unrestrainedly choosing whomsoever she thinks most worthy of a
bishopric. As far as I am concerned, they are a violation of the divine right of ecclesial freedom on
the part of those imposing on the Church the bitter necessity of conceding them.

Divine moral right related to the choice of pastors demands:

lst. that these elections be carried out freely by the Church, that is, by ecclesial authority. This
freedom is immensely restricted and diminished by granting nomination to secular authority. The
Church cannot be sure that the most worthy person will be elected, nor the person most trusted by
the people. This is particularly the case where governments do not recognise the catholic religion as
that of the state, but admit and protect indiscriminately all faiths and religions. Any lessening of the
freedom of the Church in the choice of her pastors violates her divine right, because Jesus Christ
has made her free and independent. It is imperative that full freedom of the Church in these
elections be reasserted and re-established as far as possible;

2nd. that the christian people have a voice in the elections. Their witness should be sincerely
accepted; they should not even be morally forced to receive as pastor a person in whom they have
no confidence and who may indeed be totally unknown to them. Jesus Christ has said that the sheep
know their shepherd (2).

I am not making suggestions about how this should be done. That is another question. The most
relevant way has to be sought, but this should not be difficult in times when the people can easily
nominate their parliamentary representatives.

I did not say either what means or steps should be taken to reassert full liberty of episcopal elections
in the face of lay governments. This depends entirely on the wisdom of the Church and of the
apostolic see which presides over her, just as it is her business to judge definitively if the time is
ripe, as I hope it is, for this great work of regeneration.

Here I would like to note that even if my hopes for our present moment of history are unfounded, I
do not believe that I would be acting rightly by holding back what I long to say. Past events in the
Church show that reforms are prepared little by little. Before they can be put into practice, many
voices are raised to point them out, with the approval of the Church and her spirit; before legitimate
authority judges the moment opportune or succeeds in undertaking the work effectively, great
numbers of faithful and priests have eagerly proposed and incessantly requested reforms. I am
persuaded therefore that discussing the necessity of asserting full liberty for the Church in episcopal
elections is not harmful, except perhaps to me, and that it is possible to prepare the ground for
future developments in a way acceptable to the Church and in full conformity with her spirit. I am
not seeking the things which are my own, but those of Jesus Christ, and it is this which impels me
to say what I feel in my heart.

But let us return to the question of clergy and people related to freedom of elections. Mentioning the
people should not be a cause for wonder. There are always holy, prudent men and women with the
sense of Christ amongst them. The people are a part of the mystical body of Christ; together with
their pastors and incorporated with the Head, they form a single body. In baptism and confirmation
they have received the impression of an indelible, priestly character. I do not mean that they share
in the public priesthood or have any jurisdiction; still less that ecclesial jurisdiction has its source in
them, as heretics say. This jurisdiction comes immediately from Christ to the episcopate ordered
towards unity under Peter. Nevertheless, the ordinary christian possesses a mystical, private
priesthood giving him special dignity and power, and a feeling for spiritual things. The clergy,
hierarchical and non-hierarchical, has its rights, but so have the christian people. Clergy and people
enjoy freedom within the limits prescribed by sacred tradition and the laws of the Church; all are
free in Christ. For example, the christian people can and must oppose a bishop openly teaching
heresy; they can and must separate themselves from an intruder in a see, or a schismatic. Their
sense of the supernatural teaches them to do this, and gives them the right to do it (3).

The fathers of the Church taught that the people's part in the choice of their pastors derived from the
divine law. They took their proofs from:

1. the old law;

2. the account in the Acts of the Apostles of the election of St. Matthias, St. Timothy, and the seven
deacons;
3. Places in the letters of St. Paul;
4. reasons intrinsic to the teaching of Christ, such as the tenderness and reasonableness proper to
ecclesial government, christian dignity, the purpose of ecclesial service, greater security springing
from public judgment, and so on;
5. the immediate, unwritten tradition of Christ and the apostles.

It would take me too long to develop and confirm all these headings by reference to the fathers and
ecclesiastical writers. I shall simply choose some of the most authoritative and noteworthy
witnesses to indicate the divine and apostolic tradition of the more famous churches.

First, at the head of all the others, is the church of Rome, mother and ruler of the whole world,
whose tradition is attested by St. Clement, pope and martyr, an immediate disciple of the apostles,
in his first letter, still extant, to the church of Corinth. The title and context of the letter indicate that
it was written in the person of the church of Rome. "Our apostles knew through our LORD JESUS
CHRIST that there would be disagreement about the nomination of future bishops. Because of this
perfect foreknowledge, they constituted the above-mentioned [bishops], and HANDED DOWN A
RULE FOR FUTURE SUCCESSION so that when they died their ministry and office might be
accepted by other proven men. They were either constituted, therefore, by the apostles, or from then
on by other outstanding men WITH THE CONSENT AND APPROBATION OF THE WHOLE
CHURCH. Those chosen, therefore, will have ministered without fault to the flock of Christ
humbly, tranquilly and generously, and WILL HAVE OBTAINED THE UNQUALIFIED
APPROVAL OF ALL. To dismiss them unjustly from office etc" (4).

I do not believe it possible to find a more noteworthy and authentic testimony of the tradition of the
church at Rome than these words of the saintly pope who received directly from St. Peter the rule
about choosing and establishing bishops as Christ himself had taught it. Our quotation shows that
bishops were constituted, that is ordained, sent and chosen by other bishops (this, I think, is the
meaning of "by other outstanding men"), but not without the consent, approbation and acceptable
witness of the whole Church, that is of the people also. This way of acting, therefore, forms part of
divine and apostolic tradition.
A witness as authoritative as St. Clement must surely be considered sufficient to prove that the
christian people's active presence in episcopal elections is of divine and apostolic right, according to
the tradition of the Roman church. Nevertheless, I should like to offer additional testimony from the
Apostolic Constitutions, book 8, chap. 4. "I, Peter, as first amongst you, declare that the person to
be ordained bishop is to be without fault in all things, AND CHOSEN BY ALL THE PEOPLE AS
THE MOST WORTHY. This is how bishops have always been selected. When a person has been
nominated, therefore, without objection on his part, he will give his consent in an assembly of the
PEOPLE, the presbyterate and all the bishops who are present. This assembly will take place on a
Sunday. The president of the assembly must ask the presbyterate and the PEOPLE if this is THEIR
CHOICE. If they agree, he goes on to ask if ALL witness to the person's worthiness for such an
office, if he has carried out his duties to God and his fellow creatures rightly, if he has been a good
husband and father, and a good living person. When ALL have testified truthfully, and not
conventionally, that this is so, the question about his worthiness is to be put for a third time before
Christ as God and judge, and in the presence, as it were, of the Holy Spirit, the saints and the
administering angels. Every word, as we know, should be certified by the mouth of two or three
witnesses. When they have agreed for the third time that the candidate is worthy, all should be
asked individually for their assent, and listened to as they give it swiftly. Then, in silence, etc."

This constitution, whose words are put in the mouth of St. Peter himself, clearly indicates that the
active presence of the people in episcopal elections forms part of apostolic tradition (5). St.
Clement, in the quotation from his synodal letter given above, shows that the apostles received this
commandment from Christ. The Apostolic Constitutions reaffirm the point when they make the
apostles say (book 2, chap. 2): "About bishops, we HAVE HEARD FROM OUR LORD" and they
go on: "if in some small parish there is no one of a suitable age, but a person can be found whom
HIS FELLOW CITIZENS JUDGE worthy of the episcopate because of the maturity and discipline
he shows even as a young man, let him be appointed for the sake of peace if he IS WITNESSED
TO BY ALL". On the basis of these and other texts, John Beveridge maintains that in such matters
"divine and apostolic law coincide" (6).

St. Clement's successors remained faithful to this tradition as we can see from the acts of St.
Cornelius (7), Julius (8), Zosimus (9), Boniface I (10), Celestine (11), Leo the Great (12), Hilarius
(13), Hormisdas (14), Gregory the Great (15), Hadrian I (16), the incomparable Gregory VII (17),
and of Urban II, Pascal II (18) and innumerable others. All these witnesses, according to the deposit
of Roman tradition, constantly required and defended the people's active presence in episcopal
elections.

It is impossible to date the beginning of the people's active presence in episcopal elections; there is
no known year, papal decree or conciliar canon marking its inauguration. One of the rules accepted
by theologians for recognising apostolic traditions is their remote and undatable orgin. We have to
accept as our conclusion what pope Liberius affirmed before the Emperor Constantine: the Roman
church has received its traditions orally from St. Peter himself (19); or, according to the corpus of
canon law attributed to pope Anacletus: "God himself granted the people a part in the choice of
their pastors" (20).

Some ill-advised attempts are being made today, it would seem, to maintain that the ancient
tradition of the Roman church in listening to the whole body of the faithful is ecclesiastical rather
than divine and apostolic. This is thought a better way of justifying the popes of the last centuries
who, because of circumstances, had to concede the nomination of bishops to different catholic
rulers, but in our view it is mistaken. Later we shall outline the correct way allowing us to follow
our deep desire of preserving and defending for the Roman church the glory of having received her
authoritative traditions from the prince of the apostles who founded that church - a glory vigorously
and correctly upheld by all the popes. We say with pope Innocent I: "Everyone knows and is aware
that what was handed down to the church of Rome by Peter, the prince of apostles, must be
observed by all. No external authority or example can derogate from this" (21). For this reason the
councils refer to the ancient tradition of the Roman church when specifying the part of the people in
the choice of bishops. The 3rd Council of Orleans offers one example (22).

Before Constantinople rose to power, the church of Alexandria came immediately after the church
of Rome in order of precedence. What was the Alexandrian tradition about the active presence of
the christian people in episcopal elections? The fathers who witness to this tradition affirm that the
people's part was of divine and apostolic right. The tradition of St. Mark is in complete harmony
with that of St. Peter. We can begin by citing St. Athanasius, the most noteworthy of the great men
in the church of Alexandria.

We must remember that it was the arian heretics at the time of St. Athanasius who were the first to
infringe and overthrow what the apostles, taught by Christ, had established about the choice of
bishops by clergy and people. For this purpose they depended upon pressure applied by the
Emperor Constance who supported them. St. Athanasius in his battle against the arians and the
temerity of Constance describes the Emperor's methods as follows: "[Constance] thought he would
change the LAW OF GOD by violating the Lord's statutes handed down through the APOSTLES.
He wanted to overthrow church custom and invent a new kind of ordination. He sent bishops
backed by the military to unwilling people great distances away. His only recommendation and
notification were threats and letters to the magistrates" (23).

Here, this great father witnesses in accordance with the tradition of his church that it was against the
law of God, and against the statutes given by Christ to the apostles who handed them on to the
Church, to commission bishops against the wishes of the people whom they had to pasture as their
flock, or to commission them when they were neither known to the people nor recommended by
their good works.

Athanasius offers a similar witness to prove that Gregory, who took Athanasius' place in the see of
Alexandria, was an intruder. "If there had been any valid accusation against us, it should have been
supported not by arians or heretical opinion but according to the ecclesiastical canons and the
WORDS OF PAUL: when the PEOPLE HAVE GATHERED, with the spirit present to those
ordaining in the power of our Lord JESUS Christ, everything should be carried out and completed
in the PRESENCE OF THE PEOPLE and clerics who requested the candidate. Nor was it right that
the candidate, who was imported by the arians from another region and almost bought the bishopric,
should impose himself with the backing of civil judges and by force upon those WHO DID NOT
ASK FOR HIM, DID NOT WANT HIM, AND WERE ALTOGETHER IGNORANT OF WHAT
WAS GOING ON. When ordinations take place as a result of patronage, and not ACCORDING TO
THE DIVINE LAW, church canons are set aside, and pagans are encouraged to blaspheme and
bring accusations against us" (24).

He repeats and explains this elsewhere, maintaining that the intruder Gregory "was not ordained
according to the canons, nor called to the episcopate according to APOSTOLIC TRADITION. He
was sent by the governmnet, and imposed in great splendour by the military" (25).

Origen, another great luminary of Alexandria, spoke according to the same tradition of his church
and confirmed it with the law given by God in the Old Testament, commenting on Leviticus:
"Moses called together the assembly and said to them...", he said: "...nevertheless, although the
Lord commanded the institution of the high priesthood and chose the high pirest, the people also
gathered. When a priest is ordained, therefore, the people must be present so that all may know and
be sure that the most worthy, learned, holy and virtuous person amongst them has been chosen for
the priesthood in the presence of all. Thus, there will be no reproaches later, nor doubts about the
incumbent. The APOSTLE INSISTED on this when speaking about sacerdotal ordination.
Moreover, the candidate must be well thought of by outsiders" (26).

These fathers, therefore, affirmed the necessity of the people's active presence in elections on the
basis of agreement between the two divine laws of the Old and New Testaments, according to the
teaching and tradition of their churches. In the passage from Origen, the reason given for the
presence of the people is: "so that all may know for sure that the most worthy, learned, holy and
virtuous person amongst them has been chosen for the priesthood in the presence of all." It has been
held in the Church that it is not sufficient in choosing pastors to be satisfied with finding a person
possessing only negative good qualilties; every effort must be made to discover the person endowed
with the greatest possible positive attributes - in other words, the most worthy among the entire
people. If this is the teaching and rule of the Church how can it be sincerely put into practice when
nominations are left to lay governments who decide these matters in the secrecy of cabinet
meetings?

Origen indicates (homily 30 on the book of Numbers) the great disparity between the choice of a
simple priest and that of a bishop. The latter is compared to the leader of the Hebrew people whom
Moses appointed only through divine revelation and in the presence of the people, although he had
of his own initiative nominated the elders who, according to Origen, correspond to simple priests.
Yet Moses could have done it. "Why does he not dare to act and to choose? Because he did not
want to leave an example of presumption to his successors" (27). St. John Chrysostom agrees with
Origen (28).

This tradition in the church of Alexandria is not contradicted by the remarks of Sts. Epiphanius (29)
and Jerome (30) about the clergy of Alexandria who chose a bishop from their own number
immediately after the death of St. Alexander in order to aviod sectarian strife among the people. St.
Ephiphanius says that this came about because Athanasius, although designated by Alexander as his
successor, had been sent on a mission to the imperial court by Alexander himself, and could not be
elected in his absence. Achilla was made bishop instead. However, Epiphanius' declarations are
generally reckoned erroneous by the best critics. There is no doubt that Athanasius, as he himself
says, was Alexander's immediate successor. At most, therefore, if Achilla ever existed and has not
been mistaken for the great Achilla, predecessor to Alexander, he would have occupied the see
temporarily and in Athanasius' name until his return. The statements of the two fathers only indicate
that there was no delay in electing a bishop when one died; they do not prove that the people took
no active part in the election. As Thomassin states, it proves that "the priests of Alexandria were
first in authority at an election" (31), which is undoubted. It does not prove that the people took no
part, or gave no witness, approval or acceptance.

If matters had been otherwise, the heretics would not have objected to Athanasius' election on the
grounds that the people's consent was lacking. Or, if they had objected on these grounds, it would
have been sufficient to reply that this was the custom and tradition of the church at Alexandria. This
was not the way the objection was resolved: Athanasius' election was shown to have been public
and solemn, carried out unanimously with the enthusiastic approval of the whole christian people
(32). Finally, we must believe that St. Athanasius knew perfectly well the tradition of his own
church when he showed that Gregory had unlawfully usurped the see of Alexandria because,
amongst other defects, Gregory's election had not been carried out "according to the words of Paul,
in the presence of the people and the spirit of those ordaining, in the power of our Lord, Jesus Christ
(33). Origen also must have known this tradition if he considered the active presence of the people
to be required by the old and new law of God.
We find the western church, or rather the universal Church represented by St. Clement and the
church of Rome, and the eastern church represented by St. Athanasius and the church of
Alexandria, in agreement in their witness to the origin of the people's active part in episcopal
elections from the immediate tradition of Christ and the apostles, with the support of the written law
in Old and New Testaments, interpreted in the light and spirit of the tradition itself. These churches
agree in affirming that the active presence of the people in these elections is of divine right.
Nevertheless, we can still consult the churches of Africa in the person of St. Cyprian and the
bishops of his time, worthy representatives of those churches.

St. Cyprian's synodal letter (No. 58), written in his own name and that of forty-two other African
bishops mentioned at the beginning of the epistle, was not sent to an individual, but to the churches
of Spain: ad cleros et ad plebes in Hispania consentientes, after the fall of two Spanish bishops,
Basilides and Martial, during the persecution. Cyprian writes: "We recognise that choosing a priest
in the PRESENCE AND SIGHT OF ALL THE PEOPLE, when his worthiness and suitability are
supported by PUBLIC WITNESS AND TESTIMONY, comes down to us FROM DIVINE
AUTHORITY. In Numbers 20, the Lord commanded Moses: 'Take Aaron and Eleazar his son, and
bring them up to Mount Hor before the whole assembly; and strip Aaron of his garments, and put
them on Eleazar his son; and Aaron shall be gathered to his people, and die there.' The Lord
commands the priest to be appointed BEFORE THE ASSEMBLY; he teaches that priestly
ordinations cannot come about WITHOUT RECOGNITION ON THE PART OF THE PEOPLE
WHO ASSIST at the ordination. THE PRESENCE OF THE PEOPLE, allowing evil to be
uncovered and good to be recognised, contributes to a just and lawful ordination scrutinised by the
JUDGMENT OF ALL CONCERNED.

This is what indeed happened ACCORDING TO DIVINE TEACHING in the acts of the Apostles
when the apostle Peter spoke to the people about the man to be ordained in the place of Judas: 'Peter
stood up amongst the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty'
(Acts 1)." Cyprian goes on to cite the example of the election of the seven deascons: "This was
carried out DILIGENTLY AND CAREFULLY IN THE PRESENCE OF THE WHOLE PEOPLE
to prevent the choice of an unworthy person as minister at the altar or in the place where the priest
functions," and he concludes: "What we hold to in practically all our provinces as the rightful
celebration of ordination is to be preserved and held as of DIVINE AND APOSTOLIC
OBSERVANCE. The people for whom the new leader is ordained, the bishops of the province and
the neighbouring districts are to gather so that the bishop may be chosen in the PRESENCE OF
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE FULLY CONVERSANT WITH THE LIFE OF INDIVIDUALS AND
AWARE OF HOW EACH HAS BEHAVED HIMSELF" (PL 3, 1025-1027).

I shall go no further. I think that the documents are sufficient to support my contention that the
active presence of the people in episcopal elections is of divine right. It is clear that this is not an
arbitrary opinion of my own; it is founded on unassailable ancient witness.

I am afraid, however, that this opinion may cause scandal (although it is not mine, but that of
persons close to the fount of tradition, that is to Christ and the apostles and their legitimate
successors who received the sacred deposit to be handed on to the nations), and I feel I should
attempt to prevent it. Let me say therefore to those who may take scandal:

"Brothers, if you were to confine yourselves to asserting an opinion different from my own, I would
have no complaint. But you will not allow me to dissent from you in something which the Church
has not defined in your favour, and you immediately accuse me of heresy, error and rashness. What
you should do, if you think I am mistaken, is to attribute the error to learning inferior to your own. I
have always confessed my own fallibility, and maintained and shown in word and deed that I wish
to submit, as the lowliest of the faithful, to every decision and intention of the holy, apostolic,
Roman Church. This is my complaint about you, but in order to convince you that any kind of
heresy and error are improbable let me ask you to consider the following.

St. Clement, pope and martyr, disciple of the apostles, successor of St. Peter, vicar of Jesus Christ,
wrote to the church of Corinth in the name and person of the Roman church. He maintained that
bishops should be constituted with the active presence of all the people, according to the ordinance
left by Christ to the apostles. If this statement were mistaken (which was impossible), is it possible
that the apostolic church of Corinth, which certainly possessed the recent traditions of Christ and
the apostles, would not have been scandalised? If the letter had contained error, is it impossible to
believe that there would have been no public protests, or that the letter could have been read without
opposition in the public churches almost as though it were inspired by God himself?
Knowledgeable people (34) tell us that letters of this kind, although addressed to particular
churches, are held to be directed to all the churches alike. In this case, is it possible that there could
have been absolutely no sign of protest against the error or heresy which you now uncover in this
teaching because I have affirmed it? St. Clement's successors could never have reconfirmed in their
own letters without protest or censure what Clement had handed on to them. Pope Liberius, on the
contrary, speaks of Clement as one of the first and greatest of his predecessors, who had received
and faithfully transmitted from one to another the tradition of the apostle Peter: quam ipsi a beato et
magno apostolo Petro acceperunt (35).

When St. Athanasius wrote to the bishops and to all in the catholic world who professed the solitary
life, he maintained that the faithful had some part in the choice of bishops by divine and apostolic
tradition. Wasn't he afraid that one of those bishops, or one of the churches, or at least the pope of
the time would have condemned him and accused him of error or heresy? On the contrary, he was
supported by the pope and the universal Church, and considered as the upholder of unsullied faith.
Pope St. Julius in a council condemned Gregory as a usurper of the church of Alexandria, giving as
one of his reasons the absence of an active presence of the people at the election - the same reason
given by Athanasius, who did not hesitate to come to Rome "where", he said, "only fear of God
reigns, without external pressure, and anyone is free to offer his opinion" (36).

St. Cyprian, in union with practically all the bishops of Africa, wrote freely and with great certainty
to the bishops of Spain about the obligatory active presence of the people at episcopal elections. It
was, he maintained, "according to divine teaching, and had its basis in divine authority, in divine
and apostolic tradition." The whole Church proclaimed him as a true witness and teacher; no one
accused him of heresy or error, or thought of doubting what he said.

The whole Church, all the churches and their bishops, agreed about this: their traditions were
exactly the same on the point. And this is the basis on which I have dared to say, without disrespect
to the Church or its spirit, canons and decrees, that the people have a divine right to some part in the
choice of the pastors who have to feed them and lead them to salvation.

Another consideration will help to prove that it is not heretical, nor even rash, to hold that the
faculty given to the Christian people of showing their opinion in the election of their pastors is of
divine and apostolic tradition. It is common teaching amongst theologians that a doctrine common
to all the churches, especially those founded by the apostles, must be considered of apostolic
institution if its origin cannot be traced. Now history shows as an undeniable fact that in the greatest
churches in the world, in churches founded by the apostles, in the churches of Rome, Alexandria,
Antioch, Constantinople, Ephesus, Caesarea, Heraclea, Corinth, Thessalonica, Carthage and others,
the people took an active part for many centuries in the ordinary choice of bishops. A bishop
without the support and approval of the people was considered an unlawful usurper (37). This alone
would be sufficient to indicate that the custom was established by the apostles according to the
spirit of God and the teaching of Christ.

Do you know what you are doing when you refuse to recognise the force of this argument, and deny
the apostolicity of even one ecclesial tradition based upon it - or of the other arguments on which it
rests? You deny the apostolicity of all traditions and destroy any way of demonstrating the
apostolicity of any tradition. This is a real, serious danger.

I think I can conclude, therefore, without deserving censure (38), with Alexandre's words: "I accept
it is of divine and apostolic practice that the people vote in sacred elections by bearing witness to
the candidate; I deny that the people vote definitively" (39). This is exactly what I say, neither more
nor less.

However, I still believe it necessary to answer an objection which could arise as a result of the
centuries-old change throughout a great part of the catholic Church in the discipline governing the
election of the chief pastors. Is there no fear that by admitting the divine right of the people's active
presence in elections, the Church may be censured for exceeding the limits of her power in
modifying a custom depending upon divine right, or for having acted imprudently?

If I thought that this were the logical conclusion of the teaching I have expounded, I would never
have accepted nor expounded it.

I have answered this objection elsewhere, but will gladly go over it again in the hope that the
argument will be useful for well-intentioned opponents who have not yet seen it.

I do not want to make use of the opinions of various theologians about the powers of dispensation
which they attribute to the pope, even in matters of divine right, when there is just cause. Suarez
(40) and others list these opinions. I would point out, however, that Melchior Cano distinguishes
two kinds of divine precepts, changeable and unchangeable. When particular cases arise in which
the former, such as a vow or an oath, impede a greater spiritual good, the Church can dispense from
them. This affirmation of Cano has not been condemned. Similarly, maintaining that the Church has
the faculty to dispense with popular consultation in episcopal elections in order to avoid a greater
evil, cannot be condemned despite the people's divine right to active presence. Hence, according to
uncensured theological opinion, it does not follow that admitting elections by clergy and people to
be of divine right leads to the conclusion that the Church, in changing the form of elections, has
overstepped the limits of her authority.

In the second place, theologians admit that matters of apostolic institution are also said to be of
divine right, as St. Thomas notes (41). But Aquinas, and many others, grant the pope's faculty to
dispense in their regard.

In the third place, we have to distinguish between divine right and the object of divine right. The
object of divine right is not always determined by the right itself, and hence the Church has the
power to vary its determinations according to the needs of circumstances. The marriage contract, for
example, is the object of divine right because it constitutes the matter of the sacrament. Divine right
does not specify all the formalities required of the contract in order that it may be suitable matter for
the sacrament of matrimony: the contract is the indetermined object of divine right. Consequently,
the Church has the power to determine it, and add to it those conditions and formalities which she
considers most helpful to the spiritual and temporal well-being of the Christian people. She can also
vary these formalities according to different social conditions at various moments of history. The
Church uses her power to declare the same kind of contract valid matter of the sacrament of
marriage in one period and invalid in another. Before the Council of Trent, clandestine marriages
were considered valid by the Church; after the Council, the marriage contract was suitable matter
only if entered upon in the presence of the parish priest and two witnesses. We must not conclude
from this that the matter of sacraments is not of divine right, or that the Church in changing the
matter of the sacrament of marriage has diverged from divine right. She has simply determined in
various ways the object which divine right itself had indicated in a general way without fully
determining it.

The same can be said about the method of electing bishops, which is an object of divine right not
fully determined for every circumstance. The authority of the Church has to determine it according
to the needs and well-being of the christian people. Hence the modifications in the method of
choosing diocesan pastors throughout the centuries have been subject to the authority of the Church
which, moved by the Holy Spirit, determines what is most in harmony with the progress of the
kingdom of God.

Fourthly, we have to remember the point made initially: we are dealing with divine moral right, not
divine constitutive right. For example, theft and aggression are forbidden by divine right.
Nevertheless, I can give away my wallet to someone threatening my life. When I hand over what
belongs to me, I am not violating divine right; that is done by the person obliging me to part with
my property. The same must be said about the freedom proper to the Church: it remains all of a
piece, whole and entire, by divine right. Nevertheless, this inalienable and non-prescriptible
freedom has often been undermined and violated. The Church has been forced to tolerate its
diminution, and to abandon the less important part of it in order to save what is essential.

The concession of episcopal nominations to christian rulers should be considered in this light. The
Church has never made such a grant freely and spontaneously, nor was she ever the first to ask
rulers to accept it. She did it because, all things being equal, she wisely thought it was the lesser evil
in the difficult circumstances in which she found herself. On the Church's side, there has never been
the least infringement of divine right: she had suffered the infringement, not caused it.

Fifthly, we have to note that, despite the pressure of circumstances, which included the barbarism of
the times and consequent ignorance, the ease with which violence and mob rule were invoked (42),
negligent churchmen (43) and the domineering temporal power of barbarian princes who oppressed
their peoples with iron determination and possessed the force which alone upheld public order in
those uneasy centuries, the Church, when she had to yield, did not grant episcopal nominations (44)
to the princes without preserving the principle at least in legal form and burdening the great
concession with every qualification which could diminish its evil effects.

The pinciple was saved according to legal form in the sense that absolute monarchs, according to
public law then in force in Europe, represented the people alone, and attended only to their interests.
According to this law, it was considered that the people gave their witness to future pastors through
their rulers. In a civil context, the people did nothing except through their prince; lay lawyers
extended this maxim to ecclesiastical and spiritual orders. Whatever the intrinsic value of this law,
the law itself was in force, accepted and trusted.

With regard to the qualifications accompanying the concession of nominations, it must be noted that
the prince's proposal has no force unless it is confirmed by the pope who before the confirmation
can draw upon the witness he judges necessary from the faithful about the nominee. This proves
that the Church retains also de facto the maxim that ordinarily speaking the voice of the flock is not
altogether excluded in the choice of its pastor.
Sixthly and lastly, right has to be distinguished from the exercise of right. The former may indeed
be of divine institution, but it does not follow that its exercise is of divine origin, nor that the
Church cannot regulate the exercise of the right in different ways. The fact that the Church for just
causes suspends the exercise of the people's right to an active presence in the choice of bishops does
not mean that the right itself is abolished. No church document could ever support such a
proposition.

History in fact while showing that to a great extent the people were excluded from active
participation in the choice of bishops, provides no proof, as far as I know, that anything more than
the exercise of the people's right was suspended. Moreover,the Church regulates and when
necessary suspends the exercise even of natural and divine rights in many other cases. There is a
natural right to eat, confirmed by divine law (45), but suspended and regulated by the Church
without abuse of authority when she imposes fasting and abstinence upon her children amongst the
faithful.

The faithful also share by divine right in the eucharist according to Christ's positive commandment.
Nevertheless the Church imposes positive conditions on the exercise of this right when she
demands fasting from the previous midnight, and other dispositions regulating the reception of the
eucharist. For instance, the exercise of this right is totally suspended in the case of excommunicated
persons, and restricted to one daily reception of communion for healthy people. Bishops have a
divinely instituted right to govern the Church in which the Church has made them overseers, to care
for the Church of God (46), but the Church, in the person of the pope, has the faculty of making
laws limiting their jurisdiction, and even suspending entirely the exercise of their functions.

It is clear, therefore, that the Church has authority to regulate and suspend for just causes the
exercise of all rights of any kind possessed by the faithful without the destruction or abolition of
radical rights by such intervention. It follows that the Church, in her wisdom, could suspend or limit
(47) the exercise of any part played by the people in the choice of her pastors. The almost universal
suspension of such a right over many centuries is not an obstacle to the argument because its
essence remains unchanged. The length of the suspension is determined, according to the Church's
decision, by the causes upon which it depends. On the other hand, centuries are only a brief time in
the long life of the Church. It is clear, therefore,that the distinction between right and the exercise of
right is alone more than sufficient to justify the Church's action, and leave intact the ancient
teaching that the faithful people received from Christ through the apostles the faculty to give their
assent in good faith when bishops are chosen.

For the rest, I have already explained in a work recently published the part of the people in the
choice of bishops, and emphasised the urgent necessity, as it seems to me, of abolishing the
extraordinary nature of present elections in order to restore legitimate, canonical practice. What I
have written here is simply a small sign of my gratitude and esteem for what you have done.

Notes

(1) Sess. 23, c. 4

(2) John 10

(3) In letter 68, St. Cyprian supports this right and duty of the christian populace to cut itself off
from an unbelieving bishop. The basis of his argument is that the people have the power to express
their opinion at the election of their pastors. Propter quod plebs obsequiens praeceptis dominicis et
Deum metuens a peccatore praeposito separare se debet, nec se ad sacrilegi sacerdotis sacrifica
miscere, quando ipsa maxime habet potestatem eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi
[PL 3, 1025).

(4) The following learned comment was added to the text here: locus, si qui alius, apprime utilis ad
intelligendum quae fuerint partes cleri et populi in episcoporum ordinatione. katàstasis ad apostolos
et episcopos, suneudãkesis ad plebem spectat [Cotelier J-B, SS. Patrum qui temporibus apostolicis
floruerunt... ex Mss. Codicibus eruit..., vol. 1, p. 173, Amsterdam 1724].

(5) St. Leo the Great certainly had in mind the primitive tradition when he wrote, commenting on a
phrase of St. Paul: ut apostolicae auctoritatis norma in omnibus servaretur, QUA PRAECIPITUR ut
sacerdos Ecclesiae praefuturus non solum ATTESTATIONE FIDELIUM, sed etiam eorum qui
foris sunt testimonio muniatur (Ep. 89).

(6) Cf. Codex Canonum Ecclesiae primitivae illustratus, lib. 2, c. 2, ¦7 [William Beveridge, London
1678].

(7) In a letter to Fabius, bishop of Antioch, quoted by Eusebius, H.E. (lib. 6, c. 43), Cornelius also
shows that Novatus had usurped the apostolic see by means of a sadly irregular election. One of the
defects indicated was a lack of popular consent: cui universus clerus multique ex populo
refragarentur... Cf. St. Cyprian, ep. 24 [PL 4, 294-5].

(8) St. Julius' letter in defence of St. Athanasius, preserved for us by Athansius himself, shows no
signs of scandal at Athanasius' statement that the people have an active presence in the choice of
bishops according to divine law. On the contrary, it recognises and accepts Athanasius' teaching
that Gregory could not be accepted as bishop of Alexandria because neque plebi cognitum neque
postulatum a presbyteris (Athan. Ap. c. 2) [PL 8, 897].

(9) St. Zosimus condemns Lazarus and Herod as usurpers in the episcopate because the people did
not want them: plebe et clero contradicente, ignotos, alienigenas intra Gallias sacerdotia usurpasse
(Ep. 3) [PL 20, 651, ep. 3].

(10) St. Boniface in one of his Constitutions decrees that the person is bishop: quem ex numero
clericorum - divinum judicium et universitatis consensus elegerit [PL 20, 750].

(11) St. Celestine writes to the bishops of Gaul: nullus invitus detur episcopus - cleri, plebis et
ordinis consensus requiritur. Ep. 2 [PL 50, 434, ep. 5].

(12) No one appreciated more than St. Leo the Great the advantages of maintaining the freedom of
the people in the choice of their pastors. Many of his letters witness to this ancient tradition. For
example: Cum de summi sacerdotis electione tractabitur, ille omnibus praeponatur, quem cleri
plebisque consensus concorditer postularit - metropolitano defuncto, cum in locum alius fuerit
subrogandus, provinciales episcopi ad civitatem metropolitanam convenire debebunt, ut omnium
clericorum atque omnium civium voluntate discussa ex presbyteris eiusdem ecclesiae, vel ex
diaconibus, optimus eligatur (Ep. 84) [PL 54, 673, ep. 14].

Expectarentur certe vota civium, testimonia populorum, quaereretur honoratorum arbitrium, electio
clericorum, quae in sacerdotum solent ordinationibus, ab his qui norunt PATRUM REGULAS,
custodiri. - Teneatur subscriptio clericorum, honoratorum testimonium, ordinis consensus et plebis.
Qui praefuturus est omnibus, ab omnibus eligatur. - Nullus invitus et non patentibus ordinatur; ne
civitas episcopum non optatum AUT CONTEMNAT AUT ODERIT ET FIAT MINUS
RELIGIOSA QUAM CONVENIT, cui non licuit habere quem voluit. - Nulla ratio sinit ut inter
episcopos habeantur, qui nec a clericis sunt electi, nec a plebibus expetiti, nec a provincialibus
episcopis cum metropolitani judicio consecrati (Ep. 89) [PL 54, 632-634, ep. 10].

(13) In his first letter pope Hilarius asks for a report from a bishop who had consecrated another
without popular consent: nullis petentibus populi [PL 58, 15].

(14) This saintly pope saw a clear sign of God's will in the voice of the people requesting someone
as their bishop. In a letter (25) he writes: istam sacerdotibus ordinandis reverentiam servet electio,
ut in grave murmure populorum divium credatur esse judicum. Ibi enim Deus, ubi simplex sine
pravitate consensus [PL 24, 663].

(15) St. Gregory the Great was very careful about requiring the people's consent, according to
ancient tradition, before confirming bishops in their sees. Letters 56, 58, book 1, and letters 3, 8, 20,
book 2, are directed not only to the clergy, but also to the people at Rimini, Perugia, Naples and
Nepi. Both groups are exhorted to take part in the election of their bishops. Other places in
Gregory's letters confirm the same teaching: (lib. 2, ep. 19) qui dum fuerit postulatus, cum
solemnitate decreti omnium subscriptionibus roborati et dilectionis tuae testimonio litterarum, ad
nos veniat sacrandus [PL 77, 578, ep. 37].
(Lib. 2, ep. 15) saltem tres viros rectos ac sapientes eligite, quos ad hanc urbem generalitatis vice
mittatis, quorum et judicio plebs tota consentiat.
Gregory's care in maintaining freedom in the choice of bishops and people was a matter of principle
for him. His letters are very clear on this point.

(16) This pope took Leo and Gregory as his examples of delicate non-intervention in elections,
which he left completely free. As a result, he was better able to defend their freedom against
usurpation by rulers. He wrote, for instance, to Charlemagne: numquam nos in qualibet electione
invenimus nec invenire havemus. Sed neque vestram Excellentiam optamus in talem rem
incumbere. Sed qualis a clero et a plebe, cunctoque populo electus canonice fuerit, et nihil sit quod
sacro obsit ordini, solita traditione illum ordinamus (Concil. Gall. t. 2, p. 96 and 120) [Thomassin,
op. cit., p. 2, lib. 2, c. 20, par. 2].

(17) St. Gregory VII was as careful as his predecessors, including St. Leo the Great and St. Gregory
the Great, in maintaining ancient tradition and claiming full freedom for clergy and people in
episcopal elections. For example:

1. He writes to the clergy and people at Carnot that they should choose their pastor: praemissis
orationibus, atque triduano ieiunio et elemosinis (lib. 4, ep. 4 et 5) [PL 148, 468].

2. He orders the bishop of Orleans to be deposed as a usurper because sine idonea cleri et populi
electione [the quotation cannot be found in PL, but may be seen in Rosmini's source, Thomassin,
op. cit., p. 2, lib. 2, c. 31, par. 4, 5].

3. He congratulates the clergy and people at Orleans because they had conincally elected Sanson as
bishop.

5. He writes universo clero et populo Arelatensi exhorting them to choose their bishop (lib. 6, ep.
21)
6. He writes on the same subject to the clergy and people of Rheims (lib. 8, ep. 16; v. Also lib. 8,
ep. 17-20, lib. 9, ep. 18).

7. The council of Rome 1080, under GRegory VII, prescribed the method of canonical election in
can. 6, which begins: Instantia visitatoris episcopi, qui ab apostolica vel metropolitana sede directus
es, clerus et populus, remota omni saecularia ambitione, timore eatque gratia, apostolicae sedis vel
metropolitani sui consensu, pastorem sibi secundum Deum eligat [SC 12, 637].

It would take too long to indicate all that Gregory VII did in defence of free elections by clergy and
people. Thomassin thinks that the great battle over investiture between Church and empire would
not have taken place if Henry IV had allowed canonical election by clergy and people before
investiture (op. cit. p. 2, lib. 2, c. 38, par. 2). It is sufficient to say that this truly great pope was as
careful as Gregory I, Leo and Hadrian in the delicacy with which he normally refused to intervene
in elections in order to ensure complete freedom to clergy and people, according to ancient law. Cf.
Appendix, letter 3.

(18) These two popes and their successors took the path indicated by Gregory VII, the great
reformer of ecclesial discipline, and strongly upheld the right of clergy and people to take an active
part in the choice of bishops.

(19) St. Athan. Apol. 2 [PG 8, 1352-53].

(20) Ejectionem quoque, ut supra memoratum est, summorum sacerdotum sibi DOMINUS
reservavit, licet electionem eorum bonis sacerdotibus et SPIRITUALIBIUS POPULIS, concessisset
(can. 2, dist. 79).

(21) Ep. 1 ad Decentium Ep. (can. 2, dist. 11) [PL 20, 552].

(22) can. 3 [SC 5, 1275].

(23) Ep. omnibus ubique solitariam vitam agentibus, n. 74 [PG 15, 1235].

(24) Ep. encyclica ad omnes ubique comministros Domino dilectos, n. 2 [PG 15, 977].

(25) Ep. omnibus ubique solitariam vitam agentibus n. 14 (PG 15, 1201].

(26) In Levit. Hom. 6, c. 8 [PG 9, 396].

(27) L. M. Franc Hallier explains Origen's mind in this way: Qui (Origenes) notat Moysen elegisse
presbyteros quos ipse norat: populo vero ducem nequaquam, nisi ex divina revelatione et synagoga
congregata, eligere ausum fuisse: simili enim ratione episcoporum, qui sunt populi duces,
electionem videtur ecclesia maioris momenti censuisse, quam ut episcoporum, INCONSULTA
PLEBE, arbitrio permitteret (De Sacris electionibus... p. 1, sect. 1, c. 2, a. 40 [Paris 1636, inserted in
Migne, Theologiae Cursus Completus, Paris 1840, p. 258].

(28) In Act. Ap, Hom. 14. [PG 32, 115-6] This father holds the same doctrine. He deduces the need
for the people in elections as much from the example of the old law as from that of the apostles. He
notes that the apostles did not choose the deacons propria sententia, and adds: prius rationem
reddunt multitudini, quod etiam nunc fieri oportet. He makes a similar comment when speaking of
the choice of St. Matthias. Iam illud quod Petrus agit omnia ex communi discipulorum sententia,
nihil auctoritate sua, nihil cum imperio (In Act. Ap., Hom. 3) [PG 32, 34] ), despite his recognition
of Peter's full power to choose alone. We can take this great father as an authoritative witness of the
tradition of Antioch and Constantinople. If the teaching in these churches had been different, St.
John Chrysostom would have been aware of it, and not have interpreted the Scripture as he did.

(29) Haeres. 69, n. 11 [PG 23, 701].

(30) Ep. ad Evangelum [PL 22, 1194].

(31) Vetus et Nova Eccl. disciplina. p. 2, lib. 2, c. 2, par. 6.

(32) Epistola encyclica Concilii Alexandrini, in Athan. Apol., 2 [PG 15, 992 ss].

(33) Ad Ep. Orthodox. n. 2 [PG 15, 977].

(34) Cf. Beveridge, op. cit. in the edition of the Apostolic Fathers.

(35) St. Athan. Ep. ad omnes ubique solitariam vitam agentes [PG 15, 1214].

(36) ibid. n. 29.

(37) Note once more that the active presence of the people in episcopal elections is, we say, of
purely moral divine right. Hence considering a bishop as usurper when he takes possession of a
diocese against the will of the people is a consequence of ecclesiastical right only, that is, the
Church refuses to bestow jurisdiction or mission upon him because she wants him to have the
consent of the people required orally by divine and apostolic tradition.

(38) When an author is attacked on the basis of what he has written, a discussion can take place
from which truth may emerge. This is not at all the case when he is blamed on the basis of his
supposed intentions. My own intentions were at stake when it was suggested that I wanted the
sacred liturgy to be celebrated in the vernacular. I have never said a word about this, nor ever
desired other than what the Church wants and has decided. The accusation arose because I pointed
out historically the causes now preventing the christian people from taking the active part assigned
to them in the divine services by the rites and spirit of the Church. From a historical point of view I
said that the division between the people and the officiating clergy came about gradually from two
causes: inadequate instruction given to the people about the sacred functions, and the loss of Latin
with the development of modern languages. Although I said no more than this, it was sufficient to
allow some to infer that I wanted to have the functions in the vernacular. Can they deny what I said
historically

speaking? They cannot, but they go on to add of their own accord what I have not said. "Therefore,"
they conclude, "you want the vernacular." Brethren, read ahead a little in my book and your fears
will be found groundless. I have indicated historically the two causes of the difficulty, and their
remedy, that is, better instruction for the clergy. If the clergy were better educated in the vital spirit
of ecclesial worship, they would appreciate the importance of instructing the people and find a way
to do this. They would enable the people to share more intimately and deeply in the sacred rites, and
in everything the Church says and does in relationship to them. This is all I said, and nothing more,
in The Five Wounds of the Church, and it shows clearly that I am not in favour of those who
misunderstand the divine wisdom of the church and would like her to change the language she uses
in sacred functions. But in order to remove all scruple, I hereby solemnly declare that I hold
completely all that is said about the matter in the bull Auctorem Fidei, especially in propositions 33
and 66 {Mansi, Coll. conc., 38, 1276]

(39) In Saecul. diss. 8 [Alexandre, op. cit., saec. 1, diss. 8, prop. 3].

(40) De Legibus, lib. 10, c. 6 [Suarez, Tractatus de Legibus ac Deo Legislatore, Lyons 1619, pp.
735-741].

(41) Quodlib. 4, a. 13, and Quodlib, 9, a. 15; In IV Dist. 27, q. 3, a. 3, ad 2.

(42) This was the wholly exceptional and temporary cause which enabled Pepin to receive from
pope Zachary the faculty of filling empty bishoprics: ut acerbitate temporum industria sibi
probatissimorum descendentibus episcopis mederetur. Lupus, Ep. 81 [PL 119, 546-7].

(43) The negligence of churchmen in maintaining freedom in elections according to ancient law is
witnessed by councils of the time: in ordinandis metropolitanis episcopis antiquam institutionis
formulam renovamus, QUAM PER INCURIAM OMNIMODIS VIDEMUS OMISSAM. Itaque
metropolitanus episcopus a comprovincialibus episcopis, clericis vel populis electus, congregatis in
unum omnibus comprovincialibus episcopis, ordinetur (2nd Council of Orleans). The same can be
seen in the 5th Council of Paris, can. 1, which re-established iuxta statuta patrum elections by
clergy and people [SC 5, 927; SC 6, 619].

(44) The 7th and 8th councils were held in the 8th and 9th centuries when invasion from the north
had submerged western and southern Europe in barbarism, destroyed ancient social ties and
overwhelmed more civiliesed peoples with ignorance and disaster. But the common opinion, which
attributes to these councils the people's elimination from an active presence at episcopal elections is
false. A careful examination of their canons shows that these councils did exactly the opposite by
resisting the intrusion of rulers and their nobles in the elections, and sustaining the freedom of the
Church: Omnis electio a principibus facta episcopi aut presbyteri aut diaconi, irrita maneat
secundum regulam quae dicit: Si quis episcopus saecularibus potestatibus usus, ecclesiam per eas
obtineat, deponatur, et segregentur omnes qui illi communicant (Cant. Ap. 30). Oportet enim ut qui
provehendus est in episcopum, ab episcopis eligatur; quemadmodum a sanctis patribus qui apud
Nicaeam convenerunt, definitum est ... (2nd Council of Nicea, can. 3) [SC 15, 43]. The title given to
this canon by Hervet [Canones Sanctorum Apostolorum..., Paris 1561] runs as follows: quod non
oportet a principibus eligi episcopum. Clearly there is no question of excluding the people's witness.
This council abrogates nothing previously established by the Church, but renews the apostolic
canons and the decrees of the 1st Council of Nicea which certainly do not exclude the people. The
council's only aim is to protect the freedom of episcopal elections against intrusion by lay powers
which at the time tended to appropriate violently the rights of the people and of the Church. When
the council requires bishops to carry out the election in accordance with tradition, it does not
prevent the people from continuing to express their wishes and bear witness as they had done
before.

The 8th council (4th Constantinople, 869) renewed the same ordinance in canons 12 and 22,
without abrogating or changing ancient traditions. As it says: concordans prioribus conciliis.
Athanasius the Librarian gives the following rásumá of canon 12: Statutum est etiam istud
admodum Ecclesiae Dei proficuum, ne favore principum eligantur episcopi. It is true that after
ordering neminem laicorum principum vel potentum semet inserere electioni vel promotioni
patriarchae vel metropolitae, aut cuiuslibet episcopi, ne videlicet inordinata hinc et incongrua fiat
confusio, it adds: praesertim cum nullam in talibus potestatem quemquam potestativorum vel
ceterorum laicorum habere conveniat, sed potius silere, ac attendere sibi, usquequo regulariter a
collegio Ecclesiae suscipiat finem electio futuri pontificis [PL 129. 1 ss., can. 12, pp. 154-5, can. 22,
p. 160].

This raises no difficulties, however. 1st. It is universally accepted that no layman has the power to
choose a bishop. This has always been the responsibility of church authority, that is, of the bishops
and the pope. We have to distinguish between the power to elect, and the people's right to give
witness, which is all we defend. 2nd. The council is speaking of individual laypeople, not of the
body of the faithful, and intends to exclude pressure from rulers and nobles. 3rd. The council orders
laypeople to hold silence until the end of the election. Hence it permits their consent and acceptance
after the election. 4th. The council permits laypeople invited by the church not only to express their
witness and acceptance, but to take part in the election provided they do so modestly: si vero quis
laicorum ad concertandum et coooperandum ab Ecclesia invitatur, licet hiusmodi cum reverentia, si
forte voluerit, obtemperare se asciscentibus. 5th. The council wants election to ecclesial orders to be
carried out as usual, decently and canonically, and defends it against intervention by any lay power
attempting to overthrow its result. Quisquis autem saecularium principum et potentum, vel alterius
dignitatis laicus high-ranking laypeople are always referred to in the singular - adversus communem
ac consonantem atque cononicam electionem ecclesiastici ordinis agere tentaverit, anathema sit...
6th. And finally, it must be observed that the people's active presence at elections ceased only
gradually in the eastern church after these councils. This went hand in hand with the degraded state
of the people when rights were abolished by the absolutism of civil governments. As princes and
nobles were excluded from elections, the presence of the people ceased either through their
indifference, or lack of freedom, overthrown by lay power in order to usurp the people's place in
elections

Defending the Church's modern discipline in every way is an excellent thing, but it must be done
truthfully and loyally, as the Church desires. Justifying the modern practice of the Church must not
occasion a bias against the glory she has acquired through ancient practice. There is nothing to be
gained by imitating certain Greek authors of the late empire like Zonara [cf. PG 134-5] and
Balsomone [cf. PG 112, 119, 137, 138] whose prejudices in favour of their own times, when people
took no active part in elections, caused them to lie in maintaining that the faculty for the people's
active presence had been abolished by the 1st Council of Nicea whose canons were referred to by
2nd Nicea and 4th Constantinople.

This is not my own subjective interpretation of the councils. Louis Thomassin explains them in the
same way, clearly indicated by the councils themselves. He says in reference to 2nd Nicea: ut ergo
Nicaeni Concilii Canone ita episcopis adsignabatur summa electionum potestas, ut cleri populique
nihilominus momenti aliquid haberent suffragia, quorum tamen omnium arbitri et judices essent
episcopi; non aliter Nicaenae II. Synodi canone supra laudato, ita constitutitur episcoporum quidam
auctoritatis apex, ut nec clero tamen, nec populo sua excutiantur suffragia... (Vetus et Nova
Ecclesiae disciplina p. 2, lib. 2, c. 26, 1). Thomassin makes the same observations about the 8th
ecumenical council, and offers numerous examples to show that the people's active presence in
episcopal elections continued after the council, in accordance with the ancient canons.

(45) Gen 2. 15-17; 9. 2-5

(46) Acts 20. 28

(47) It is certain that even now a city which has lost its bishop can express its opinion about a
trustworthy successor if it wishes to do so. This has happened on more than one occasion in modern
times, and the Church has never reproved these spontaneous manifestations of public opinion
amongst the faithful. The Roman Pontifical still contains, in the rite of ordination to the priesthood,
a ceremony in which the people are asked to witness to the good character of the candidate. As
Hallier says: nec hoc nostro tempore populus excusatur, si de meritis vel demeritis ordinandorum
interrogatus reticeat, indignorum ordinationi aeque ac dignorum consensum praebendo. [Hallier, op.
cit., art. 1, p. 199].

Appendix:

On the choice of bishops by clergy and people.

Three letters of Antonio Rosmini Serbati, priest,

to Canon Giuseppe Gatti.

Letter 2
Rome, 21st October 1848

Dear Canon,

In your kind reply to my letter of June 8th, 1848, about the divine right to choose bishops freely, ou
courteously invited me to answer the difficulties raised about the way in which this most important
right of free choice may be restored to the Church and put into practice.

You believe it will be difficult for a ruler to renounce spontaneously his nomination of bishops, and
equally difficult to determine how canonical elections may be carried out without disturbances and
other problems. Such difficulties would have been serious in other periods, for example, a century
ago. At present I think they have no weight or, if they have, they can easily be overcome provided
the clergy wish to overcome them. When the clergy desire it, there is no freedom of the Church
which cannot be re-established within a short time. Brute force has to give way to moral force; what
is reasonable and just always finds a way to be put into practice.

In this letter, I shall deal only with the first difficulty: the fear that catholic monarchs may refuse to
renounce spontaneously their usurped right to episcopal nominations. I think that this reluctance
arises principally from the veil of ignorance long obscuring this matter of episcopal elections from
the christian people. If the ignorance is removed, the light of truth will do the rest.

All I want is to ensure that everyone, lay people included, realise that the choice of bishops is of
divine right and that, as I explained in the previous letter, the Church's entire freedom is of divine
right, especially her freedom in elections. The Church abandoned a great part of this right, after
fighting for centuries to save it, in order to avoid greater evils at a moment when hard-pressed civil
society was collapsing, and to impede the threat of greater usurpations on the part of lay power
which at the time of Francis, king of France, had become absolute. All that is needed is to preach
this from the rooftops, and make people understand why the restoration of free choice is a
supremely urgent need in the Church of our times. Lay people especially must be informed that this
is the only way in which the clergy can be reformed and rendered capable of facing present-day
needs in society. I do not mean that our modern clergy are lacking in doctrine and virtue, but that
these must be increased so that the word of the gospel may be better appreciated in the preaching,
life and saintly works of the clergy. A spiritual revival amongst the clergy is desired by all except
the devil and his angels. The way to attain it has been pointed out: everyone must be persuaded that
the quickest, surest and only way to reach it is to abolish the Church's slavery in the choice of her
ministers, and restore her full freedom.

Christian rulers will have their conscience roused when they are persuaded that they are doing great
harm to the Church (and the clergy has to enlighten them about this) by retaining the nomination of
prelates instead of leaving the Church completely free, as the nature of episcopal elections demands.
Generally speaking, I have no doubts about catholic sovereigns. I believe in their right intention,
their piety, their attachment to the Church, and the influence exercised over them by the great
example of many ancestors distinguished for their piety and submission to the Church. If only one
of them begins to take the right path, others will follow. I believe that God will bless them if they
are loving children of the Church, glad to leave her free and to vindicate her freedom.

While I believe that sovereigns are capable of this magnanimous and saintly act of justice which
leaves the Church complete freedom of action, I also recognise that public opinion is necessary to
stimulate this good work. On their part, the clergy have to form public opinion by instructing people
about the matter. The clergy is subject at present to such tremendous calumny because the bishops
are nominated by the rulers. The faithful receive their bishops without knowing or loving them,
without having loved them or seen proof of their good works, without trusting them - and the
diocesan clergy do the same. The bishop is imposed on clergy and people, and has to be taken as he
is. He may be an excellent person, of course, but he will have to fight indifference and aversion
before his presumably excellent talents and virtues can be used in the service of his flock.

The matter is different if the bishop is supported by his people. For example, seminary studies are
under discussion. Give me bishops nominated by clergy and people, and these studies will change
direction immediately. Perhaps people have little respect for their pastor; perhaps the clergy of the
diocese are scarcely in union with him; all will be put right if he is chosen by the clergy with the
witness of the people. But bishops falling under suspicion as tools of the ruler, are necessarily seen
as contrary to reforms and liberties which lessen the arbitrary power of the ruler. False though this
suspicion may be, it exists, and causes great damage to the Church, religion, and the souls of the
faithful. It ceases when the bishop is no longer seen as the favourite or the beneficiary of the ruler
nominating him

I could go on, but this is only a letter. There is not a single point of reform in church matters which
could not be satisfied by the free choice of bishops. All that is required is for learned churchmen to
deal with the matter in extenso and illustrate the infinite beneficial consquences of free elections.
Enlightened public opinion would insist on this freedom, and rulers would undoubtedly grant it.

You are afraid that rulers would hold on to concessions made previously by the Church, and
perhaps threaten greater evils in their own interests rather than lose the moral influence they
appreciate bishops possess over the people.
I do not think that such interest, calculated at increasing the power of rulers by sacrificing the
freedom of the Church and the rights of the people, has any place in modern society. Our rulers, it
seems to me, are too farsighted to make such a mistake about their own interests. They cannot be so
blind after so many lessons.

Bishops nominated by rulers, as they are today, cannot enjoy much influence over free peoples
jealous of their newly-acquired liberty. Hence rulers cannot rely on the influence of such bishops
who, in the eyes of the people, are tainted with an original sin. But it is much more displeasing to
see that, while bishops considered partisan cannot move the people in favour of the ruler
nominating them, they cannot exercise such influence in support of the faith, morality and religion.
Surely it is not in the ruler's true interest to help form a people composed of immoral disbelievers,
indifferent to good works, and deaf to the words of their bishops? This is the way in which rulers
have been overthrown by mob rule, and it will go on until rulers and people become docile to the
voice of the Church, their mother and teacher. And this will not happen as long as bishops are
nominated by rulers.

If justice is the only solid foundation for government, let rulers begin by being just and generous
towards the Church which existed before them and will exist after them, and by sincerely desiring
the presence of impartial arbitrators between themselves and the people. Both sides will esteem and
love bishops as authoritative peacemakers if they are freely chosen by the Church without the
intervention of rulers, who have nothing to fear if they are seeking for justice. An outstanding, just
ruler possesses no greater good than the presence around him of ministers of the God of peace and
justice who are prepared to speak the truth candidly.

Three centuries have shown conclusively that princes (and when I say "princes" I mean any other
kind of government also) are incapable of nominating great men to episcopal sees. This is why
religion has been reduced to its present state. There is a good deal of complaint about the present
dominant irreligion amd immorality, but its causes and remedies go unexamined. If you try to offer
suggestions, new Jeremiahs lift their eyebrows and are almost prepared to call you a heretic or at
least innovator. Their ignorance causes them to destroy the love amongst men of good will that
could so assist the progress of the kingdom of God on earth. The past three centuries, when the
church has been enslaved regarding her choice of bishops, have provided very few large-minded,
holy, learned and active pastors - and this is harmful to rulers, people, order, freedom, faith and the
temporal well-being of the world.

If these things were insisted upon, rulers might well conclude that they had put the Church in
chains, and been punished accordingly by God. Can any ruler affirm in good faith that he has
always chosen the most worthy persons for vacant sees? His incapacity for doing so will not excuse
him before Jesus Christ. Rulers, and lay power in general, do not and cannot recognise the true
needs of the Church, nor appreciate rightly the sublime qualities required of a pastor. A fortiori,
they are incapable of choosing the best out of many possible pastors, even when temporal interests
do not intervene to bias their judgment. The laity may well do its own work well; it will never carry
out completely that of the Church.

In conclusion, let me say that rulers' enlightened self-interest, on temporal and spiritual planes, will
counsel the restoration to the Church of freedom to choose her own pastors. I hope they will listen
in time to this advice coming from a person without authority, but with love in his heart. If the
advice is ignored, their peoples will know how to act in their own self-interest, and begin
unfortunately to reclaim freedom of choice of bishops which their masters obstinately cling to. This
freedom is a sacred right of people as well as of clergy - in the way I have indicated - and the best
guarantee of freedoms accorded in constitutional government. Although the christian people seem
indifferent about episcopal elections at present, they will one day appreciate their importance, and
redeem them.

Appendix:

On the choice of bishops by clergy and people.

Three letters of Antonio Rosmini Serbati, priest,

to Canon Giuseppe Gatti.
Letter 3
Rome, November 1st. 1848

Dear Canon,

In my last letter to you I confined myself to answering your difficulty about possible opposition to
the restoration of ancient liberties in episcopal elections on the part of rulers who might want to
cling to the concessions granted them by the Church. I made no promise about answering the
second difficulty which considered disadvantages arising from the desire to activate the precious
right of clergy and people in the catholic Church to choose their pastors. I did not promise to answer
because I doubted whether it was proper for me to do so. I realised that it was not my business to
indicate the least disadvantageous way (there are always disadvantages in human affairs) of
restoring and up-dating ancient discipline. There are various modes of procedure for ensuring the
active presence of clergy and people in episcopal elections, and indicating the most suitable
depends upon the circumstances of different localities. Even in early times, when the canonical
form of elections by clergy and people was in force, there were different ways of arranging the
elections in practice, although in substance nothing changed.

Moreover, I still hope that the bishops, aware of the circumstances of our time, the great needs of
the Church, and the immense possibilities rising from the demand for freedom, will come together
in the spirit of the Lord after so many years of disunion and isolation to deal with matters which
interest the government of their churches. Today more than ever the Church needs collective
wisdom, and unity in spirit and practice: she has to feel the greatness of the Lord's promise that he
would be present where two or three are gathered in his name. My hopes grow as I see the bishops
of Germany moved by the spirit of the Lord to come together and discuss important religious
matters vital to the nation and the salvation of the people. The assembly of Wurzemburg will be
imitated by others, and brotherly union will increase among bishops of provinces and nations.

This was the spirit which gave such a wonderfully strong and uniform impulse in the early Church
to the sanctification of the flock as it made its pilgrim way through the world and fought as one man
in the army of the Lord. I am speaking of catholic bishops, that is, of bishops acting in full
communion with and due submission to the pope as first amongst them, upon whom the entire
episcopate depends for unity, order and existence. Without a first, there is no second, although
being first does not mean existing alone.

The fact is that the plenitude of power founded in the apostolic see lacks no right required to
regulate and order the universal Church. Nevertheless, the directives emanating from the supreme
head of the Church would be useless without the effective obedience of the other bishops, presiding
over the individual churches, whose proposals, advice and wishes when put forward unanimously
enable the apostolic see to depend increasingly upon their co-operation and zeal for the Church, and
to recognise more clearly what is advantageous for ecclesial discipline. Omnia mihi licent, sed non
omnia expediunt: prescribing what the majority of bishops do not want to accept, or find almost
repugnant, is neither helpful nor opportune, and hardly in keeping with the requirements of charity
and prudence. Reforms, and their appropriate effects upon discipline and order, depend in the first
place upon the apostolic see, and then on the help and co-operation given to the apostolic see by the
bishops.

As I said, this made me doubt whether it would be suitable for me to express my opinion about the
best way of arranging episcopal elections, if the ancient discipline of election by clergy and people
were to be restored to the Church. But I reflected that expressing a private opinion is not unlawful,
nor harmful to the Church. In fact the Church does not normally decide on great reforms until they
have been insisted upon for some time, and universally desired. Their usefulness and necessity has
first to be discussed before the Church can make a decision. This is why the Church, acting in
accord with inspired wisdom, asks for the opinion of private theologians, even in general councils.
Let me finish what I was saying, therefore, and try to answer your second question in some way. In
matters of such importance for the good of the Church, permit me to say with Job's friend:
conceptum sermonem tenere quis poterit? ["Who can withold the word he has formed within?"]

First of all, the nomination and choice of bishops is so undoubtedly important that those taking part
in it, whoever they are, can never be too careful nor too concerned in ensuring that it is done as well
as possible. The Council of Trent insists and trusts that "the most worthy be chosen. Their whole
life from youth to maturity should be a witness to ecclesiastical bearing and discipline according to
the qualifications required by the fathers of old" (1). All those having an active part in the election
undertake an immense responsibility before God and man because there is no doubt whatsoever that
the well-being of human society, of the Church, the people and the lower clergy go hand-in-hand
with the quality of the bishops.

It is certain that private judgment, greatly influenced by particular longings and inclinations, is often
deceived. Favours and recommendations frequently determine decisions unconsciously. In any case,
a person acting alone cannot normally take into account all that has to be considered. On the other
hand, a unanimous judgment is not so easily deceived nor affected by prejudice because the truth
becomes clear and acceptable as individual leanings cancel one another out, and particular lights
and insights gradually grow to completion in unity. As pope Siricius (2) and pope Innocent I (3)
affirm: "A judgment confirmed by the comments of many people is complete."

Moreover, when everyone can state his opinion and the majority prevail, any suspicion of
favouritism is eliminated, and all are assured that everything has been done to discover the truth.
The heightened possibility of finding the truth more easily when many agree, and its clearer
recognition and acceptance by all, is a twofold reason prevailing in the ancient discipline governing
the choice of bishops. Tertullian writes: "Our chief men and elders hold their positions on the
witness of others; they have not bought their honours" (4). Lampridius tells us that the emperor
Alexander Severus, although a pagan, was greatly surprised to see how christians succeeded in
choosing excellent pastors by universl suffrage, and wanted to imitate their system in the choice of
provincial governors. He decided to present written lists of those he intended to promote to this
position, and urged the people to make known, with proofs, any wrong-doing they may have
noticed in the candidates (5). And I would like to note here how the beneficial influence of the
Church on civil government began even under the pagan emperors as they were induced to abandon
spontaneously the trappings of despotism.

It will be helpful if we indicate the substance of the question before we tackle it in depth. Removing
what is accidental and accessory will greatly simplify the matter. Substantially, the questions
consist in two problems: that the best possible persons be chosen as pastors of the Church; and that
they be recognised as the best by the flock entrusting to them the care of their souls. Optimum
suitability and agreement among the flock about such suitability are the two conditions which, when
fulfilled, ensure the best possible choice. The way of achieving these two essential conditions is
irrelevant, provided they are achieved. Different times and social conditions indicate some metods
of obtaining these conditions as preferable to others, and this explains why the Church's discipline
has varied the mode of election in different periods.
But the best and most effective way is undoubtedly that established by Leo the Great: "The person
governing all should be chosen by all" (6), although this could not always be adopted because of the
accidental disadvantages associated with it through ignorance and barbarism in the people, priestly
ambition, and the ease with which mobs were aroused. Qualifications had to be introduced which
sacrificed the best mode of election in order to avoid greater evils. Nevertheless, it was used almost
unchanged for eight centuries in the eastern church (7). In the western church (8) it was abandoned
only after eleven centuries, and then gradually and as little as possible until the elections fell almost
entirely into the hands of absolute monarchs eager to reign in the temple which had placed a limit to
their authority and proved the constant, unconquerable obstacle to absolutism or, as we should call
it, despotism.

At present the question is reduced to understanding whether social conditions have changed for
human society since all the episcopal nominations of a nation were abandoned to the sovereign
power of a single ruler, on condition of confirmation by the apostolic see. Can the best mode of
episcopal elections which, as St. Cyprian writes, "comes down from divine authority" (9) and "is to
be observed and retained zealously on the basis of divine and apostolic tradition" (10), be restored
partially or completely, or is hope for its revival to be entirely abandoned? The Council of Trent, in
speaking of elections, declared that "nothing was to be changed granted the present conditions"
(11), but these words make it clear that changes are possible and perhaps obligatory when
circumstances differ.

What we have to keep in mind is that the old and best way of choosing bishops, in accordance with
divine and apostolic tradition, ceased only with the onslaught of barbarism. As Lupus, abbot of
Ferrara, pointed out, the privilege granted by pope Zaccharias to Pepin was in reality forced from
him acerbitate temporis (12) ["in bitter times"] as the social structure and organisms dependent
upon the Roman empire fell apart and collapsed under the unceasing waves of invasion from the
north. But even in this tremendous social upheaval the Church clung to its tradition as long as
possible, and frequently tried to restore the ancient discipline which disorder and ignorance had
overthrown.

In the light of these facts does it not seem wholly conformable to the spirit and desire of the Church
to maintain that the time is now ripe for the restoration of ancient custom? Barbarism has ceased,
society has been reorganised, civilisation has returned and progressed; if the cause is no longer
operative, why should the effect be prolonged? The rule can be re-applied when the exception has
been set aside. And times have certainly changed the world and social order since the Council of
Trent.

Three principal causes necessitated the derogation of the old form of episcopal elections by clergy
and people: popular ignorance which made the people indifferent to the choice of bishop (13); riots
and disorders marring the election of bishops by the people; and pressures exerted by the barbarian
kings who gradually moved towards absolutism and despotism. These monarchs tolerated no rein
on their authority and continually disputed the rights of the Church. This in turn provided a new
reason for popular indifference about the election of pastors: the people's servile condition
accustomed them to carry out the orders of their masters.

Ignorance, the first of the three causes, has vanished; culture is well-nigh universal. The same
applies to the third cause; absolutism is daily disappearing in Europe before the advance of
constitutional government, in which the people take part. The second cause, the fear of party
factions, dissensions and scandals in the episcopal elections, remains a real danger. If elections are
left to the people, it is to be feared that bad priests, glad to be courtiers and lick-spittles of absolute
monarchs as long as they can distribute episcopal sees, will turn their partisan flattery on the people
when the latter's opinion influences ecclesiastical promotion. At this point, our question is reduced
to seeing whether it is possible to re-establish the substantial mode of ancient choice without danger
from this very serious disadvantage.

The difficulty appears greater than it is as long as the parts played respectively by people and clergy
in the choice of bishops are not clearly defined according to the spirit of the Church. According to
this spirit, the people never take on the final role of arbiters; the people never decide absolutely who
is to be their pastor. Pope Celestine affirmed this in writing to the bishops of Puglia and Calabria:
"The people are to be led, not followed. Nor should we consent to whatever is unlawful, but rather
warn them, in their ignorance of what is unlawful" (14). Hincmar, the great archbishop of Rheims,
unambiguously instructed the people and clergy of Beauvais that their choice of bishop was to be
submitted to him as metropolitan for examination and confirmation: "I want you to realise
beforehand that you will not obtain as bishop anyone you knowingly send to me as canonically
irregular. Moreover, you will be punished for your disregard of the canons in such an unlawful
election. If your unlawful choice of bishop is refused by us and our suffragan bishops, we shall
choose someone in accordance with the canons of Laodicea who will not bow to your wayward
desires" [cf. PL 126, 260].

But if the people are not to have a definitive word in the choice of their pastors, what are their
duties and natural rights in the great work? Altogether, there are three basic responsibilities, all
interconnected.

1. To bear witness to the virtue and suitability of the pastor they are to receive. Their testimony
should have great weight with the person who has to choose the pastor. Consequently, the people
also have the right to make known defects "so that in the people's presence good and evil may be
discerned," as St. Cyprian says (15).

2. To express their desire and request for the pastor whose virtues they witness to. Hence the
bishops of Alexandria, in suypporting the election of St. Athanasius against the calumnies of the
arians, maintained that he became bishop at Alexander's death when "the entire crowd, together
with the whole assembly of the catholic church, united as one body and soul, cried out and shouted
for Athanasius as bishop of the church. They publicly begged this of Christ, and beseeched us for it
for many days and nights, neither leaving the church nor allowing us to leave it. We ourselves, this
city, and the whole of the province are witnesses of the fact" (16).

3. To refuse a bishop who has been chosen, provided the refusal is the work of the majority or the
more reliable part of those belonging to the diocese. St. Celestine prescribes that "no bishop shall be
given to people unwilling to receive him" (17). This is a kind of veto recognised by the Church as a
right belonging to christian people.

The Church is guided by supernatural wisdom in leaving these responsibilities to the people when
they choose their pastors. As I have said, and I would like to repeat, such an important choice is
subject to deception if it is left in the hands of a single person or small group. Negligence in cases
like this is easily possible when public opinion cannot be roused, or can be overcome without
difficulty. On the other hand, the principal cause of good effects in pastoral government is the love,
esteem and trust that the faithful have for the pastor who is to guide them to eternal life.

Popes St. Celestine (18) and Leo (19) take special note of this reason when they order bishops to be
chosen from the clergy of the diocese over which they are to rule. This very ancient decision of the
Church was approved by the kings of France in their Capitularies: "Bishops should be chosen by
clergy and people from their own diocese according to the decrees of the canons" (20). But when
the people no longer had a voice in the elections, this outstanding arrangement was frequently
neglected. It cannot be neglected if the election depends upon the testimony and choice of the
christian people because they can only choose from amongst the priests of their own diocese whom
they "have known in their daily lives, and seen in action" (21), or from eminent persons famous in
the Church for virtue, learning and prudence, whose merits are universally recognised. In this last
case, the exception does not exclude the rule because it maintains its spirit.

It will help here if we first determine the composition of the people or christian populace called by
the spirit and canons of the Church to exercise in the choice of bishops the three responsibilities
previously mentioned. Unbelievers are certainly excluded; bishops are sent to evangelise them. In
this case, the people are incapable of giving an opinion, and missionaries are sent by the Church
according to the model given by Christ to the apostles commissioned to convert pagan nations to
the gospel. St. Athanasius, for example, ordained Frumentius bishop for the Indians, and popes
often commissioned men in the same way.

Heretics and schismatics are also excluded from the christian people who give their witness at
episcopal elections. The impious and indifferent play no part because of their disinterest in the
choice of a good pastor. Persons guided in their preference by worldly aims or interests cast a vote
null and void of its nature. The damage they could cause is to be rectified by the clergy who, as
judges at the election (as we have hinted above), can exclude such votes. The christian people or
populace, therefore, are to be understood as the good, more enlightened members of a diocese. Only
their vote will have any weight, and it is the clergy's duty to decide wisely who they are. In his first
letter to the Corinthians, St. Clement, bishop of Rome and immediate disciple of the apostles, states
expressly "he was glad, as the whole Church could witness" that the apostles had ordered the most
suitable and illustrious men in the Church to be appointed bishops after their death. Later, when the
ancient discipline was modified and the choice of bishops was entrusted to the cathedral chapters
alone, church law indicated that the person elected should be the one chosen "unanimously or by the
larger and more reliable part of the chapter" (22).

All these factors intimately persuade me (although it is only a private opinion, of course, and
unauthoritative) that it is possible and necessary in the modern circumstances of catholic nations to
restore fully the great norm of St.Leo the Great: "The person governing all should be chosen by all."
The choice of bishops, therefore, should depend upon:

1. the devout, christian populace of the diocese;

2. the clergy of the diocese;
3. the provincial bishops, with the metropolitan at their head;
4. the Roman pontiff as arbiter and supreme adjudicator.

How can the christian populace take part in the elections without the risk of the disorders and riots
detested by the Church and condemned by several councils, especially by canon 13 of the Council
of Laodicea (23)?

I think this depends upon several factors, one of which I mention here. A register could be opened
by each parish priest of the diocese where the faithful who so desired could give their opinion about
the choice of bishop, indicate the canonical irregularities incurred by those who might be chosen,
and nominate the priest they think most worthy to be future pastor of the diocese.

The people would have to be convinced of the importance of choosing the best possible pastor. This
could be done by public prayers and appropriate instruction in sermons, especially about the need to
vote with a right intention. I would also like the parish priest to invite twelve of the older
parishioners to discuss the matter with him when the registers have been closed (they could perhaps
be left open to the people for eight days). Those invited should have made their Easter communion
and be available for the meeting (which would also encourage respect for old age, not a bad thing
nowadays). The priests of the parish should also be present at the discussion. The registers should
be scrutinised and the result sent, with the minutes of the discussion, to the rural vicar or the dean.
In this way the people would have ample opportunity for expressing their wishes by witnessing to
the best persons available, without the dangers of mob rule and factions.

Let us examine the part to be played by the diocesan clergy. I think it would be advantageous and
helpful if the diocesan clergy were to meet in the episcipal city or cathedral where canons of the
cathedral, rectors and spiritual directors of seminaries, lecturers in letters, philosophy and theology
(who should not be accorded more authority or importance than usual) and rural vicars or deans
could be designated as electors. This assembly would be sufficient to indicate clearly the
preferences of the diocesan clergy.

Its first duty would be to examine carefully the votes of the people presented by the rural vicars.
After the votes have been counted and the names of those chosen made known, the assembly should
first decide if it agrees with the most popular choice. If this is impossible, because of canonical
irregularities or other causes, it should examine the remaining names and try to choose one of them.
If this is impossible, another person should be chosen by majority vote and the causes prompting
refusal of the people's nominations and substitution of their own nominee should be made known.
The dean of the chapter, the vicar capitular or a canon chosen by the assembly should sign the
proceedings which should always contain the name of the people's first choice, and that of the
assembly of the diocesan clergy. The proceedings are to be forwarded to the metropolitan.

The provincial bishops should meet as arbiters with the metropolitan on the day appointed and after
examining the account of the election confirm the people's nomination or that of the diocesan
clergy. If neither of these persons possesses the canonical qualifications, or the bishops decide to
choose an obviously more worthy priest, the result of this decision should be submitted to the pope
as supreme judge for his confirmation and final decision. If the provincial bishops, diocesan clergy
and people agree about the choice, this person should be presented to the pope. If two persons are
nominated by the three groups of electors, both should be proposed. Finally, if there are separate
nominations from people, clergy and bishops, all three should be submitted to the pope's decision.

Please don't say that this way of choosing a bishop is long and complicated. It has a definite order,
and can be arranged quickly if those in charge carry it out properly. And even if it were to take time,
this would be compensated by the guarantees provided for good episcopal elections in an
atmosphere of universal satisfaction: "[this holy synod] believes that their sublime office can never
be sufficiently well provided for... " (24).

One thing needs to be noted carefully. There should be no change at all in the mode of election
prescribed for the papacy. It is the wise, orderly outcome of long and mature experience, where
electors, already sufficiently numerous, are always eminent, illustrious men in the Church of God,
familiar with the needs of the universal Church whose interests they have to consider. The Council
of Trent insisted emphatically that they should be chosen for their excellence from christian nations
at large: "the supreme pontiff should choose suitable persons from all christian nations in so far as
this can be done conveniently. It is highly necessary that the Roman pontiff, who by his office has
care of the whole Church, should exercise his concern by calling to his side educated and cultured
men as cardinals" (25).
The election of a pope is altogether exceptional in so far as it is not a question of choosing only a
bishop of Rome, whose clergy is represented by the cardinals, but also of electing the head of the
universal Church. The condition of the Church as a whole is inevitably best known to the sacred
college which, as the pope's senate, assists him in governing it. No change or new law, therefore, is
needed in the pope's election. The best choice of supreme head of the Church is fully guaranteed
and assured provided the laws regulating it, confirmed by experience, are put into practice together
with the prescriptions of the Council of Trent.

It may be objected that there is no mention of the intervention of civil authority in the description of
what appears as the most advantageous way of choosing bishops. Should civil authority have no
weight in the choice of bishops?

First, let us distinguish civil power, which can be expressed in various forms, from the person of the
king. The latter is personally only one of the faithful and as such must be judged by God and the
Church according to his merits or demerits. Riches and power give him no advantages before the
law of God or before spiritual power. Of himself, and abstracting from privileges, he is a member of
the faithful in the diocese where he resides and can register his vote, together with his reservations
and recommendations, in the same way as others. The person whose responsibility it is will
consider and weigh it freely.

If civil authority or power wishes to assist the Church, it must do so when the Church desires and in
the way she desires, not arbitrarily. If the Church asks for the intervention of civil power in order to
uphold legitimate episcopal elections already carried out, civil authority will act well by supporting
the execution of what the Church has decided. In times when episcopal elections were disturbed by
mob violence, the Church sometimes asked the civil authorities to maintain order, and prevent
factions from impeding the chosen bishop in taking possession of his see. On the other hand, civil
authorities often took advantage of these requests by the Church to intervene in the elections
themselves beyond the bounds permitted by the canons and desired by the Church. This was a
deplorable, baneful abuse of force (26).

You may insist that civil power has great interests at stake in the election of bishops whose moral
influence will not upset public affairs, and consequently would seem to have good reason for
claiming some part in such elections.
I do not deny this, but the matter has to be considered from all points of view in order to arrive at a
balanced conclusion.

In modern forms of government all citizens are free to express their opinion in administrative and
political affairs, and bishops as persons enjoy the same freedom as others. It is not a defect in a
bishop if he disapproves injustice and abuses in public administration, or refuses to be silent about
them. On the contrary, bishops as teachers of nations should hold the balance of justice, and
prudently and lawfully protect the oppressed against the abuses of public authority. They should
love great and small alike, rulers and subjects, governors and governed. It is clear that if the
government were able to exclude the best and sincerest priests from the episcopate, or choose those
whom it thought loyal and blindly indifferent to public ills, men of perfect justice would never
occupy positions as bishops. There would be no bishops possessing public confidence and capable
of safeguarding governments from popular excesses, nor bishops capable of protecting the people
from arbitrary government. Neither side would hear the truth from bishops, nor find in them
mediators and teachers of concord and peace.

By all means let the civil government have an influential part in episcopal elections in order to
exclude those who could truly damage public order. But this must not be an arbitrary faculty
destined to exclude anyone it happens to object to - much less to choose its favourites. It should not
be a faculty exercised secretly, nor an absolute or arbitrary power, but one obliged to declare its
reasons for excluding certain persons. The causes for exclusion should be formulated beforehand;
accusations should be proved factually; arbitrary acts damaging individual citizens in the new forms
of government must be completely rejected.

If the civil power is to exercise its right as well as possible, I would suggest that the metropolitan
notify the civil government of the names of those chosen when he communicates them to Rome.
Defects or political crimes imputed by the civil authority to those persons could be submitted by
way of protest to the pope, the supreme tribunal of the Church, within a fixed time, and the pope
could decide whether the political accusations were well founded (27). The accusation would then
be accepted or rejected, but its acceptance would depend upon positive facts presented by the
government proving that the person nominated had overstepped the limits of freedom, by
manifesting opinions subversive of public order or had been guilty of some political misdoing.

Outside these cases, government representations would have no weight, especially in view of the
form of elections proposed here which would make the choice of a dishonest or dishonourable
person almost impossible. After all, he will have been considered the best person for the episcopate
by decision of the people and the bishops. In this way, all will have their due: the Church will
regain her freedom, and governments their legitimate influence; reasonable and christian concord
will be established between civil government and church authority.

My dear Canon, you have herewith my opinion about the way in which episcopal elections would
best be carried out. I hope it has answered your question.

Notes

(1) Sess. 6, De Reform., c. 1.

(2) Ep. 4 [PL 13, 1157, ep. 5].

(3) Ep. ad Victricium Rathomagensem Episcopum [PL 20, 471].

(4) Apolog. 39 [PL 1, 532].

(5) Vita Alexandri Severi, c. 45.

(6) Ep. 10, ad Episcopos Viennenses [PL 54, 634].

(7) The seventh and eight synods deprived the people of their right to a place in the election of
bishops.

(8) Generally speaking, choice of bishop by clergy and people was continued after the 8th
ecumenical council, especially in the west. Gregory VII fought desperately to maintain the ancient
custom, as his letters show, and it was retained in great part even in the following century. Cf. St.
Bernard, Ep. 12, 17 [PL, 182, 116-117].

(9) Epist. 58 [PL 3, 1025-1027].

(10) Ibid.

(11) Sess. 24, De Reform. c. 1.

(12) Epist. 81 [PL 119, 546-547].

(13) Domenico Cavallerio in his Commentaria de Iure Canonico [Naples 1786] notes how the
people had become completely indifferent to the choice of their pastors towards the end of the 12th
century: variis et frequentibus regum ad episcopos constituendos nominationibus suffragia populi
ferme ceciderant, et quo tempore sub Callisto II (ann. 1120-1125) canonicae electiones restitutae
sunt, populi non multum videntur fuisse suffragiorum appetentes (p. 1, c. 22, par. 13)

(14) Can. 2, d. 62 [PL 50, 437].

(15) Epis. 68. [PL 3, 1025-1027].

(16) Vita S. Athanasii in nova edit. eius operum [PG 15, 628-629].

(17) Epis. 2, c. 5 [PL 50, 434].

(18) Epis. 2, ad epis. narbonens. [PL 50, 434].

(19) Epis. 12 ad Anast. [PL 3, 1027].

(20) Lib. 1, Capitular., c. 85 [PL 97, 521, c. 78]. The emperor Honorarius had also forbidden: ne
clerici ex aliena possessione vel vico, sed ex eo, ubi Ecclesiam esse constiterit, ordinentur (lib. 33.
C. Th. de Episcopo).

(21) St. Cyprian, Epis. 88 [PL 3, 1027].

(22) Cap. Quia proter. c. 57. Cavallerio writes in his Commentaria de Iure Canonico (p. 1, c. 22,
14): Dignitates ecclesiarum conferendae sunt dignioribus, et hinc potius ponderanda quae
numeranda suffragia. Sed ne in rixas et turbas suffragiorum ponderatione evaderent electiones,
moribus receptum est, ut maior pars exprimat totius corporis consensum. cf. Cabassut, Theor. et
Prax. Iur. Canon, lib. 2, c. 24 [Lyons 1660].

(23) Peter de Marca (De C.S. et I, lib. 8, c. 6. n. 2) [De Concordia Sacerdotii et Imperii Paris 1641]
is wrong when he states that this canon excludes from election the lowest class of the people.
Oxlous, which he translates as vilem plebeculam means "riots and seditions", as others have pointed
out. Cf. Thomassin, op. cit., p. 2, lib. 2, c. 2.

(24) Sess. 24, De Reform. c. 1.

(25) ibid.

(26) Pope Simplicius seems to have warned Basil, pretorian prefect of Odoacre, to stand by during
the elections of bishops in order to suppress riots and seditions with force. Basil then seems to have
claimed that elections could not take place without him. Cresconius, bishop of Tivoli, complained
about an edict of Basil in the Roman synod of 502: Hoc perpendat sancta synodus, si praetermissis
personis religiosis, quibus maxime cura est de tanto pontifice, electionem laici in suam redigerint
potestatem: quod contra canones manifestum est [SC 5, 473]. Theodoric, king of the Goths,
nominated Felix III as pope in order to bring to an end two months of dissension and fighting at the
death of the bishop of Rome. Felix was the most qualified amongst the Roman clergy, and the
senate and people spontaneously accepted him, as king Atalaricus' letters make clear (cf.
Cassiodorus, lib. 8, ep. 15).

For the same reason, John IX laid down in the Roman synod of 898 that the new pope should be
consecrated, not elected, in the presence of the civil magistrates and the public forces of order: Quia
sancta romana ecclesia plurimas patitur violentias, pontifice obeunte: quae ob hoc inferuntur, quia
absque imperatoris notitia et suorum legatorum praesentia fit CONSECRATIO: nec canonico ritu et
consuetudine ab imperatore directi intersunt nuntii, qui violentian et scandala in eius consecratione
non permitterent fieri... [PL, 69, 748].

The councils themselves frequently asked wise rulers, devoted to the Church. to choose bishops in
order to avoid serious disturbances. However, rulers wanted this exception to be a normal right
which they could exercise as they wished. Instead of helping the Church when disorders and
violence forced her to turn to them for assistance in suppressing the disturbances, they claimed as of
right the continual power to choose bishops, even though they themselves might have fallen into
heresy. This explains the Church's unending complaints and repeated efforts to reclaim from rulers
the freedom to choose her pastors. Ubi ille canon, ut ex palatio mittatur is, qui episcopus futurus
est? aut quod genus canonis quo licitum est militibus Ecclesiam invadere et episcopos constitutere?
(Epis. ad solitariam...) [PG 15, 1223].

(27) Cavallerio writes [op. cit., 1. 23, par. 2] of the royal assent required under the Franks before
consecration: Consensus autem regius, electioni accedens, non nuda erat probatio, sed potius ex
causis facta confirmatio, licebatque ideo regibus factam electionem expendere et ex causis reiicere.
He adds shortly afterwards: Causae autem, quibus licebat regibus electos excludere, erant illa ipsae,
quae electiones minus legitimas faciebant, petebanturque vel ex electionum vel personarum vitiis.
This is unexceptional, but he then continues: si electus minus aptus esset servitio regis. This sprang
from the feudal system, but could not be required in modern times when bishops are not, and cannot
be, servants of kings or civil powers.