'STAND FAST IN THE FAITH'

New Zealand Tablet, 1 July 1915, Page 11

'STAND FAST IN THE FAITH'

(A Weekly Instruction specially’ written for the ‘ - • 1 N.Z. Tablet by Ghimel.) V ; ; • *. 'v- •' -THE PRISONER - IN THE VATICAN. • j A great number, of people suppose that the expression, ‘ The , prisoner, "in the ’Vatican, which the Pope applies to himself, is an- empty phrase, invented to gain sympathy, and that the confinement. of ; ■ the Pope within his palace is purely -a matter of choice. Even a high-placed lecturer in the Dominion has recently been speaking (if report be true) in this strain. Let us examine- the position, for the question is bound to pass out of the academic stage, when the remapping of Europe takes place at the end of the war. In order to have a correct idea of the Pope’s Temporal Power, it may be as well to give the Pope’s own view of it. I quote from one of Pope Leo XIII. many utterances: ‘ The temporary sovereignty is not absolutely requisite for the existence of the Papacy, since the Popes were deprived of it during several centuries, but it is required in order that the Pontiff’s independence may display itself freely, without obstacles, and be evident and apparent in the eyes of the world. It is the social form, so to say,- of his guardianship, and of his manifestation. It is necessarynot to existence, but to a right existence. The Pope who is not a sovereign is necessarily a subject, because (in the social existence of a monarchy) there is no mean term between subject and sovereign. A Pope, who is a subject of a given government, is continually, exposed to its influence and pressure, or at least to influences connected with political aims and interests.’ Obviously to be the subject of any given king cannot be the normal position for the head of a world-wide Church. And some of our opponents, at least, ought to be able to appreciate this attitude. Anglicans, for example, who make no claims to Catholicity, who are satisfied to have their Church confined to one race, very logically insist that the head of their Church shall be the reigning king. It would be very awkward if the highest civil authority in the country had to bow down before some ecclesiastical authority. But is it a matter of choice or of necessity that the Pope should be ‘ a prisoner in the Vatican.’ It is a matter of practical necessity, and that for two very good reasons: —•

(a) The Pope could not very well leave his own territory (the Vatican Palace is his own) and- appear openly on Italian territory, unless he went to pay an official visit to the Italian King and received a return visit from that monarch. The President of the French. Republic, for example, does not run over to London for a visit, however short, without paying an official visit to the King of England. Failure to do so would be a serious breach of etiquette, and would lead easily enough to diplomatic complications. The Empress Eugenie lost her crown when the French Republic was set up. No one would expect her to accept the Republic in a friendly spirit, and the present authorities, even after these forty-five years, would not care to have her living openly in Paris. Now the case of the Pope (unjustly despoiled of Rome that once was his) and the present Italian King is much the same as these two cases. ' Benedict XV. could not wander round the streets of Rome without calling on King Emmanuel, and that would be equivalent to accepting the Italian

domination; in other words, it would be making the head of the world-wide Church a subject of an Italian king.

(b) It is quite certain that the Pope could not appear in the streets' of Rome without grave ' danger to his life. He would no doubt be treated with the greatest veneration by devout Catholics, and with respectful consideration by men of no-religion. But,’ writes one thoroughly acquainted with life in Rome, 'there is in the .city a very large body of social democrats, anarchists, and the like, not to mention the small nondescript rabble which everywhere does its best to

■bring' discredit upon socialistic principles mere handful; perhaps, but largely composed of fanatics and madmen, : people ,half hysterical from failure, poverty, vice/ and an indigestion of so-called “free-thought.” * These would not be slow in taking advantage of the Pope’s liberty,'and the Italian authorities; even if they were willing, would not be able to protect the Pope’s life. I-say, “even if willing.” Perhaps, times are changing, but when the body of a dead Pope (Pius IX.) was being transferred from its temporary resting-place in St. Peter’s to the Church of St. Lawrence, the then Italian authorities took no steps to prevent a band of ruffians throwing the remains into the Tiber. If that contemptible plot was unsuccessful, no thanks is due to the Italian Government.’