No. 2.
[Extract.]
Mr. Jay to Mr.
Fish
No. 349.]
United States Legation, Vienna, September 10, 1871. (Received September
27.)
Sir: In my No. 346, of September 6,* * * I quoted
the remarks of a diplomat in regard to the marked change in the policy of
Germany on the Romish question, which during the last few weeks had been
inaugurated by the Prince Bismarck; and to the substitution, in consequence,
of a new prime minister for Bavaria, of the Döllinger school, in place of
the Count Bray, who has just returned to his post as the representative of
Bavaria at this court. An official communication lately made by the Bavarian
minister of public worship to the archbishop of Munich exhibits the cold
character of this new policy against the clerical party, and throws light
upon the views then expressed on the importance to Germany of a
corresponding policy on the part of the Austrian ministry, and the anxiety
lest the clericals should secure a predominance in the then pending
elections. The Bavarian government, in this document, assume, as did the
Count de Beust in his correspondence on the Roman question, both before and
after the adoption of the dogma of papal infallibility, that the dogma
introduced a new doctrine into the church, at variance alike with the rights
of sovereign governments and with the rights of Catholics; a doctrine which,
if acquiesced in, would change entirely the olden relation between Church
and State, and which would inevitably compel, on the part of Austro-Hungary,
the repeal of the concordat. The Bavarian government, following the example
set by Austria, upholds the principle that the archbishops and bishops are
subject to the laws of the State, and that they have violated these laws in
the publication of the dogma. The importance attributed to this document as
throwing the whole force of the government of Bavaria, with the approval of
the court of Berlin, against the papal party, and in favor of that headed by
Br. Döllinger, who have assumed the title of “Old Catholics,” as indicating
their opposition to the new dogma, that I append a translation of its more
essential passages as I find them in the “German Correspondent” of Berlin of
the 6th September. There are indications that the “Old Catholics” do not
propose to act simply on the defensive, but that they are thinking seriously
of attempting the inauguration of a series of reforms, which, if carried out
by combined efforts in Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and Belgium, would
result in a new reformation, and perhaps open the way for their qualified
union with the Church of England. Among the reforms proposed and accepted at
a meeting at Linz, again approved at Heidelberg, and which are to be
presented for final approbation at a great meeting soon to be held at
Munich, are the following:
1. Each community to have the right to choose its own priests.
2. Priests to be sufficiently paid by the community.
3. Compulsory celibacy must cease.
4. The chapters must be dissolved.
5. Masses and the service of the church to be spoken and read in the common
language of the province.
6. No separate payments for masses, burials, or baptisms.
7. Inequalities between the burials of rich and poor must cease.
8. Auricular confession must cease.
[Page 32]
9. Pilgrimages, processions, and begging missions must cease.
10. The worship of pictures, statues, and images must cease.
11. The relic swindle (religmin schwindel) must be discontinued and be
proceeded against by the State.
Should this programme be accomplished, by the assistance of the Prince
Bismarck, it would go far to establish the parallel suggested by the German
minister between that diplomat and Martin Luther. The result of the Austrian
elections is announced in favor of the Hohenwart ministry, securing for that
minister the necessary two-thirds in the new Reichsrath to accomplish the
amendments of the constitution. This result has been obtained by an alliance
between the clerical party and the Czechs, promoted, as it is freely charged
by the German press, by the active influence of the government, through its
officials and bureaux; and the dissatisfaction of the Austro-Germans is
intense. It seems to me not improbable, that the completeness of Count
Hohenwart’s success may naturally incline him to a policy rather more
conciliatory than has been expected, and that the last imperial conference
at Salzburg may not be without its influence in deciding his course. To that
conference the minister president was invited, as was also the Count
Andrassy, neither of them having attended at Gastein.
* * * * * * * *
One thing would seem quite clear, and that is, that the Prussian Emperor and
his suite have returned to Berlin, fully persuaded that the Austrian court
are prepared to forget that there ever was a battle of Sadowa, or a treaty
of Prague, with secret conventions, making it a dead letter. The general
impression is, that Russia has looked with jealousy upon the two
conferences. The Russian minister, Mr. Novikoff, paid me a visit on the 7th
instant, to thank me for a newspaper-slip I had sent him, announcing the
preparations in New York for the reception of the Prince Alexis. He had
returned to Vienna only the night before, after an absence of some weeks,
and asked me whether there was much excitement in Vienna about the
conferences. I said that there seemed to be much less anxiety on the subject
than I had found on my return to Vienna a week before, and that the
impression was gaining ground that, on the part of Austria, it was a matter
of courtesy, and that Beust had not entered into any agreement. He said, not
in writing.
* * * * * * * *
I have, &c.,
[Translation.]
Documents from the Minister of Worship in Bavaria
against the dogma of infallibility.
Berlin, September 6, 1871.
The intentions of the new Bavarian government, in their dealings with the
partisans of the dogma of papal infallibility, are succinctly and
perspicuously explained in the official communication lately made by the
Bavarian minister of public worship to the archbishop of Munich. This
document opens with some introductory observations, showing the complete
unanimity which reigns among the different members of the government as
to the demeanor imposed on the state by the most recent proceedings in
the Catholic Church; after which it proceeds to reply to the complaints
addressed by the archbishop to the King of Bavaria. The prelate had
maintained that the design of the parties who opposed the resolutions of
the Vatican council on 18th July, 1870, was solely to excite public
opinion against the Church and her exercise of the sacred office of
instructress, thus provoking a general apostacy, to be followed in due
time by a persecution of the faithful; and that such assaults on the
rights of the church would at the same time endanger social order in the
country and the safety of the state. To these declarations of the
archbishop the official communication in question makes the following
reply:
[Page 33]
“Though the Bavarian government folly apppreciates the value of perfect
harmony between the state and the church, and lays the greatest stress
on the maintenance of friendly relations between them, its paramount
duty nevertheless is to safeguard the rights of the state. These rights
would be undoubtedly infringed were the resolutions of 18th July, 1870,
to be published, in disregard of the constitutional provisions touching
the placetum regium. Though the archbishop, in
his pastoral of 14th April, energetically insists on the innocuousness
of the Vatican resolutions, it is the conviction of the government that
they cannot be treated with indifference, and that the creed of the
Catholic Church is essentially altered By the promulgation of the dogma
of infallibility. It is, indeed, alleged by the episcopate that the
conciliar decrees have only elevated into a dogma what had been always
believed in the Catholic Church, but against this allegation the voices
of many eminent Catholics have been raised. It admits of no doubt that
the important modification in the teachings of the church, which the
acceptance of the new doctrine implies, totally changes the relations of
the church to the state; and the question which now awaits solution is
to know what the attitude of the government to the new dogma shall be.
In normal circumstances the State sedulously refrains from all
interference in matters of faith, but in the case before us it is
incumbent on the government to come to a decision. With the mere
declaration of the bishops (some of whom have recanted their previous
opinions) that papal infallibility was always taught and believed in the
church, that the truth of the dogma was not called in question in Rome,
but merely the opportuneness of the definition, and that the
infallibility of the Pope implies no danger to the State, the government
cannot rest satisfied; it must not and dare not subordinate the
political administration to the judgment of the church, especially as it
has to protect the interests of its other subjects who hold a different
faith. After a conscientious examination of the copious materials at its
disposal, the government is convinced that those judge rightly who
contend that a great innovation has been introduced into the doctrine of
the Catholic Church, and that the state must take its measures
accordingly. To do this the government has an incontestable right, since
the innovation is of such a character as not only to affect the internal
relations of the Catholic Church and alter its position to the State,
but even to menace the fundamental principles of the Bavarian
constitution, and the civil rights of non-Catholic citizens. It may be
objected that the same danger formerly existed when the infallibility of
the church was exercised in æcumenical councils, in conjunction with the
Pope; but it was really a very different case. As infallibility was
considered an attribute belonging to the collective church alone, and
having for its exponent the more or less unanimous opinion of the
prelates assembled for free deliberation and discussion in an æcumenical
council, there was much less danger of its perversion and abuse, than
when it is independently and exclusively wielded by the head of the
church. It may, of course, be maintained that the Popes will restrict
themselves to the domain of faith and abstain from encroaching on the
sphere of the state; but this we have no right to assume. The dogma of
infallibility directly threatens the concordat existing by law, and with
it the constitution of the state. Hence, it is the duty of the
government to obviate the mischievous consequences of this
ecclesiastical innovation, and the placetum
regium places the legal means in its hands. The bishops have
already transgressed the laws of the country, by disregarding the
special provisions of the constitution, when the placetum was expressly refused them. But the direct tendency
of such an open manifestation of contempt for the Bavarian laws is to
diminish their authority in the eyes of the people; and the declaration
of the archbishops and bishops on this point cannot weaken or alter this
fact. They arrogate to themselves a sort of sovereign position—the
position of an equal and independent power; they assume the character of
a contracting party in a state treaty, and place themselves on a footing
which the state can never concede to them. As to the pretense that the
placetum regium is required only for
ecclesiastical ordinances which concern the affairs of the state, but
not for such as treat of mere matters of belief, the constitution
provides that all laws and ordinances emanating from the ecclesiastical
authorities, whether they regard matters of faith or matters of
discipline, shall in no case be promulgated till the royal authorization
has been obtained. The document terminates with the following words:
“The menace against the fundamental rights of the Bavarian state, which
is implied in the dogma of the personal infallibility of the head of the
church, and the violation of the constitution involved in the disregard
of the placetum regium, force the Government to
resort to measures which it would willingly have avoided. It will therefore refuse its aid and co-operation in the
promulgation of the new dogma, and in the
execution of injunctions issued by the spiritual authorities with
regard to its recognition and establishment. The Government
will firmly abide by the principle that the steps which the
ecclesiastical authorities may decide on taking against those members of
the Catholic Church who reject the new dogma will
affect in no degree the civil and political rights of the
parties concerned. Should it be deemed necessary, further measures will
be adopted by the state to protect the independence of
the civil jurisdiction from ecclesiastical coercion.”
