the tendencies of the Jesuits, Leo yet showed himself well
disposed towards, and even amenable to, views of a diametrically
opposite kind; and as soon as the Vatican
threw itself into the arms of France, and bade farewell
to the idea of a national Italy, the policy ofThe Papacy and the Modern Democracy.
equilibrium had to be abandoned. The second phase
in Leo’s policy could only be accomplished with the aid of the
Jesuits, or rather, it required the submission of the ecclesiastical
hierarchy to the mandates of the Society of Jesus. The
further consequence was that all aspirations were subjected to
the thraldom of the Church. The pontificate of Leo XIII. is
distinguished by the great number of persecutions, prosecutions
and injuries inflicted upon Catholic savants, from the prosecution
of Antonio Rosmini down to the proscription directed against
the heads of the American Church. Episodes, such as the
protection so long extended to the Leo Taxil affair, and to the
revelations of Diana Vaughan (the object of which last was to
bring Italian freemasonry and its ostensible work, the unity of
Italy, into discredit), together with the attitude of the Ultramontane
press in the Dreyfus affair, and later towards England,
the invigoration of political agitation by the Lourdes celebration
and by anti-Semitism, were all manifestations that could not
raise the “system” in the estimation of the cultured and civilized
world. Perhaps even more dangerous was the employment of
the whole ecclesiastical organization, and of Catholicism
generally, for political purposes.
No one will be so foolish or so unjust as to hold Leo XIII. responsible for the excesses committed by the subordinate departments of his government, in disclosing prosecuting and sometimes even fraudulently misrepresenting his aims and ends. But all these details, upon which it is not necessary to dwell, are overshadowed beyond all doubt by the one great fact that the ecclesiastical regime had not only taken under its wing the solution of social questions, but also claimed that political action was within the proper scope of the Church, and, moreover, arrogated to itself the right of interfering by means of “Directives” with the political life of nations. This was nothing new. for as early as 1215 the English barons protested against it. But the weakening of the papacy had allowed this claim to lapse for centuries. To have revived it, and to have carried it out as far as is possible, was the work of Leo XIII.
It would be both presumptuous and premature to pass a final verdict upon the value and success of a policy to which, whatever else be said, must be accorded a certain meed of praise for its daring. Even in 1892 Spüller, in his essay upon Lamennais, pointed out how the latest evolution of Catholicism was taking the course indicated by Lamennais in his Livre du peuple (1837) and how the hermit of “La Chênaie,” who departed this life in bitter strife with Rome, declared himself to be the actual precursor of modern Christian Socialism. He hinted that the work of Leo XIII. was, in his eyes, merely a new attempt to build up afresh the theocracy of the middle ages upon the ruins of the old monarchies, utilizing to this end the inexperience of the young and easily beguiled democracies of the dawning 20th century. To comprehend these views aright, we must first remember that what in the first half of the 19th century, and also in the days of Lamennais, was understood by Democracy was not coincident with the meaning of this expression as it was afterwards used, and as the Christian Socialists understood it. Down to 1848, and even still later, “Democracy” was used to cover the whole mass of the people, pre-eminently represented by the broad strata of the bourgeoisie; in 1900 the Democratic party itself meant by this term the rule of the labouring class organized as a nation, which, by its numerical superiority, thrust aside all other classes, including the bourgeoisie, and excluded them from participation in its rule. In like manner it would be erroneous to confuse the sense of the expression as it obtains on the continent of Europe with what is understood under this term in England and America. In this latter case the term “Democracy,” as applied to the historical development of Great Britain and the United States, denotes a constitutional state in which every citizen has rights proportionate to his energy and intelligence. The socialistic idea, with which the “Démocratie Chrétienne” had identified itself both in France and Belgium, regards numbers as the centre of gravity of the whole state organism. As a matter of fact it recognizes as actual citizens only the labourer, or, in other words, the proletariat.
On surveying the situation, certain weak points in the policy of the Vatican under Leo XIII. were manifest even to a contemporary observer. They might be summed up as follows: (1) An unmistakable decline of religious fervour in church life. (2) The intensifying and nurturing of all the passions and questionable practices which are so easily encouraged by practical politics, and are incompatible in almost all points with the priestly office. (3) An ever-increasing displacement of all the refined, educated and nobler elements of society by such as are rude and uncultured, by what, m fact, may be styled the ecclesiastical “Trottori.” (4) The naturally resulting paralysis of intelligence and scientific research, which the Church either proscribed or only sullenly tolerated. (5) The increasing decay and waxing corruption of the Romance nations, and the fostering of that diseased state of things which displayed itself in France in so many instances, such as the Dreyfus case, the anti-Semitic movement, and the campaign for and against the Assumptionists and their newspaper, the Croix. (6) The increasing estrangement of German and Anglo-Saxon feeling. As against these, noteworthy reasons might be urged in favour of the new development. It might well be maintained that the faults just enumerated were only cankers inseparable from every new and great movement, and that these excrescences would disappear in course of time, and the whole movement enter upon a more tranquil path. Moreover, in the industrial districts of Germany, for example, the Christian industrial movement, supported by Protestants and Catholics alike, had achieved considerable results, and proved a serviceable means of combating the seductions of Socialism. Finally, the Church had reminded the wealthy classes of their duties to the sick and toilers, and by making the social question its own it had gone a long way towards permeating all social and political conditions with the spirit of Christianity. (F. X. K.)
VI.—Period from 1900 to 1910.
On the 3rd of March 1903 Leo XIII. celebrated his Jubilee with more than ordinary splendour, the occasion bringing him rich tributes of respect from all parts of the world. Catholic; and non-Catholic; on the 20th of July following he died. The succession was expected to fall to Leo’s secretary of stale, Cardinal Rampolla; but he was credited with having inspired the French sympathies of the late pope; Austria exercised its right of veto (see Conclave, ad fin.), and on the 8th of August, Giuseppe Sarto, who as cardinal patriarch of Venice had shown a friendly disposition towards the Italian government, was elected pope. He took as his secretary of state Cardinal RaphaelPius X. Merry del Val, a Spaniard of English birth and education, well versed in diplomacy, but of well-known ultramontane tendencies. The new pope was known to be no politician, but a simple and saintly priest, and in some quarters there were hopes that the attitude of the papacy towards the Italian kingdom might now be changed. But the name he assumed, Pius X., was significant; and, even had he had the will, it was soon clear that he had not the power to make any material departure from the policy of the first “prisoner of the Vatican.” What was even more important, the new regime at the Vatican soon made itself felt in the relations of the Holy See with the world of modern thought and with the modern conception of the state.
The new pope’s motto, it is said, was “to establish all things in Christ” (instaurare omnia in Christo); and since, ex hypothesi, he himself was Christ’s vicar on earth, the working out of this principle meant in effect the extension and consolidation of the papal authority and, as far as possible, an end to the compromises by means of which the papacy had sought to make friends of the Mammon of unrighteousness. It was this spirit which informed such decrees as that on “mixed marriages”;
