Roman Catholicism in America: A Study of the Present Condition and the Causes of the Rapid Growth of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States of North America
Date: 2026-08-15T00:00:00+00:00
Keywords: Church History

Roman Catholicism in America

A Study of the Present Condition and the Causes of the Rapid Growth of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States of North America

Professor Alexander Lopukhin

Royal Archives

2026

Copyright

The modern English translation and the cover design are © 2026 Royal Archives. All rights reserved.

The underlying source text is in the public domain.

Published by Royal Archives

First published 2026

Translated by Royal Archives

Source: Римский католицизм в Америке

Cover: Mission San Carlos Borromeo (Carmel Mission) by Edwin Deakin (American, 1838–1923), Wikimedia Commons, which is in the public domain.

Edition identifier: urn:royalarchives:roman_catholicism_in_america:en:1

Introduction

The Author

Alexander Pavlovich Lopukhin was born on the tenth of October 1852 in the village of Mityakino, in the Saratov province, the son of a parish priest. He was schooled first at the Saratov theological seminary and then, from 1874, at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, from which he graduated in 1878. Even as a student he had drawn near to the world of learned journals, doing correctional and literary work in their editorial offices and publishing, while still at the Academy, a substantial study of the Old Testament prophets. Languages came easily to him, and by the time he left the Academy he had already marked himself out as a gifted and disciplined young biblicist with an unusual command of English. That command shaped the course of his life.

In July of 1879 he was appointed psalmist—a reader and chanter—at the Russian embassy church in New York, and there he served for the next several years, into the early 1880s. It is on this American sojourn that the present volume rests. A man of learning set down in a young and restless country, Lopukhin watched its religious life with the double attention of a churchman and a scholar, and what he saw impressed him so deeply that it colored the whole of his later work. He came home neither a partisan of America nor its detractor, but its first serious Russian interpreter, convinced that a nation so unlike his own had a great deal to teach and a great deal to warn against.

On his return he made America the subject of his early scholarship. In 1881 he defended and published his master’s dissertation, Roman Catholicism in America, and over the decade that followed he issued a series of studies, sketches, and lectures on the religious and social life of the United States. Meanwhile his academic career advanced steadily: he was named professor of comparative theology at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy in 1883, and from 1885 held the chair of ancient civil history until his death. As an editor he became one of the most industrious figures in Russian church publishing, guiding the journal Strannik (The Wanderer) and launching, as a free supplement to it, the great enterprise for which he is best remembered—the Explanatory Bible (Tolkovaya Bibliya), a running commentary on every book of Scripture. He lived to complete only its first volume, his own commentary on the Pentateuch; he died on the twenty-second of August 1904, at the height of his powers, and the work was carried to completion by others across a dozen volumes between 1904 and 1913. He was buried at the Nikolskoye cemetery of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. The five American writings gathered here belong to the earliest and freshest season of that career—the reports of an observant young reader before he became the editor of the Russian Orthodox Bible.

The Work: Occasion & Purpose

The five pieces in this volume were written across roughly a decade and a half, but they form a single sustained inquiry: what does the religious life of the United States actually look like, and what can an Orthodox Russia learn from it? Lopukhin approached America at a moment when almost no serious Russian account of the country existed. “We often call Americans our friends,” he wrote in one of these prefaces, “but only rarely do we admit that we scarcely know them at all.” His purpose, first and last, was to close that gap—to replace rumor and caricature with patient, first-hand observation.

Religion in America (composed at the turn of the 1880s) is his broad survey of the American religious landscape: the extraordinary energy of a people who, cut off from the old centers of belief by an ocean, had not lost their religious instinct but intensified it, together with the ceaseless “ferment” of denominations that instinct produced.

Roman Catholicism in America, subtitled A Study of the Present Condition and the Causes of the Rapid Growth of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States of North America, was his master’s dissertation of 1881. It sets itself a precise historical question—how a body that began in “insignificance” had risen within a single century toward the first rank among American churches, and that in the very country that had first written the separation of church and state into its law.

Life Across the Ocean, subtitled Sketches of the Religious, Social-Economic, and Domestic Life in North America, is the largest and most personal of the five—a book-length travelogue that carries the reader from St. Petersburg through Vienna, Zurich, Geneva, Paris, and London, across ten days of ocean, and into the streets, churches, holidays, and households of New York. Its later chapters turn homeward to the small Russian community and its embassy church in the American city.

The Transoceanic West in Its Religious and Moral Aspect began as a set of public lectures delivered in St. Petersburg during Great Lent, later gathered into a book. Here the occasion is explicitly Russian: Lopukhin frames America as a case study offered to an educated Russian society that he saw drifting toward “religious individualization”—the ordering of belief by private reason rather than by the Church.

The Centenary of the Orthodox Mission in North America (1894) marks the hundredth anniversary of the arrival of the first Russian monastic missionaries at Kodiak Island in 1794. It is the most narrowly historical of the five, recounting the mission’s origins in the fur-trading voyages of the North Pacific and the labors of its first monks.

Taken together, the occasion of these works is one man’s determination to render America intelligible to his countrymen—its Protestant multiplicity, its Roman Catholic ascendancy, its constitutional experiment in religious liberty, and, closest to his heart, the young Orthodox mission planted on the same continent.

Argument & Structure

For all their variety of form, the five writings can be read as movements of a single argument, and it helps to see how each is built.

Religion in America opens from a single observation: the American people are intensely, restlessly religious, and their many confessions are less settled institutions than currents in a continuous search for religious truth. From this Lopukhin traces what he calls the process of “ferment”—the collision and reconciliation of diverse religious elements—through the Episcopal Church’s turn toward “catholicity” and its overtures to the Orthodox East, and on to the specifically American problems of religious liberty of conscience and religion in the public school. Its structure moves from a general diagnosis of the national temperament to particular test cases in law and education.

Roman Catholicism in America is the most rigorously organized of the five, built in three large parts: the first steps of Roman Catholicism on the continent (including the early Jesuit missions among the native peoples); its struggle for the freedom to exist amid Puritan and colonial hostility; and its external and internal growth into a major American body. Lopukhin’s governing question is causal—why growth so rapid, in soil so seemingly unfavorable—and he answers it historically, tracing the interplay of immigration, organization, and the discipline of a centralized church against the fragmentation around it.

Life Across the Ocean is structured as a journey and then a residence. Its first movement, “On the Way to America,” is pure travel writing—the European capitals, the Atlantic crossing. The second, “Beyond the Ocean,” settles into American life through its holidays and habits: Christmas and carnival, Easter in America, the Bible in America, the “kingdom of the dollar,” revival meetings, and the fraternal lodges he calls “the knights of mystery.” A third movement, “Native Echoes,” turns to the Russians abroad—their festivals and sorrows, the Russian church in New York, and the Americans who found their way into it—before closing with social and economic notes on emigration and the promise of the new land. The reader who wants Lopukhin the man, rather than Lopukhin the analyst, will find him here.

The Transoceanic West follows the shape of the lectures that produced it. A first reading argues for the importance of studying American religious-moral life at all, and surveys the American public conscience—its Sunday schools, temperance and civic societies, and the moral seriousness Lopukhin admired in American democracy. A second reading turns to what he saw as the doctrinal and practical difficulties of a purely Protestant order—the multiplication of sects and the “unlimited arbitrary will” of independent preachers—and then to the countervailing American striving toward church unity, the revivals, and the Episcopal reach toward firmer catholic ground. The movement is from what America does well to the deeper question its divisions raise, and back to the yearning for unity those divisions provoke.

The Centenary of the Orthodox Mission proceeds chronologically from the North Pacific voyages of Russian traders and the expeditions that fixed the relation of the Asian and American coasts, through the merchant Shelikhov’s decision to consolidate the scattered “sowing of Christian seeds” into a properly organized mission, to the arrival and first labors of the monks at Kodiak. It is narrative history, told with evident reverence for the “simple monks” who, expecting no such destiny, carried the Gospel to the ends of the earth.

Theological & Spiritual Significance

What gives these American reports their lasting interest is that Lopukhin never wrote as a mere correspondent. He read American religion theologically, and he read it as a mirror held up to his own society.

His deepest concern was the relation between religious truth and religious form. America struck him as living proof that “religious need lies in the very nature of the human spirit and is as eternal as the human spirit itself”—a standing rebuke to the “cold and soulless skepticism” he saw corroding an older Europe. He admired without reserve the vitality of American faith: a people among whom science and religion lived, as he put it, “in harmonious unity,” where educated men occupied themselves with religious questions and the skeptical literature of the old world “found almost no sale.” Against the materialism that had swept mid-century Europe, America seemed to him evidence that the human spirit turns back, inevitably, toward the mysterious and the holy.

Yet he saw the American situation as unfinished, even unstable—a vast “ferment” in search of a truth it could not quite reach. The multiplication of confessions and the authority he saw vested in the individual preacher and the individual conscience seemed to him to answer the hunger for religious truth with endless motion rather than rest. He was struck, accordingly, by every American movement toward unity and toward firmer, more ancient ground: the Episcopal turn to “catholicity,” the overtures toward the Orthodox East, the recurring protest of religious feeling against fragmentation. In these he read a genuine and hopeful longing.

His account of the rapid growth of Roman Catholicism belongs to the same analysis. He treated it not as a threat to be denounced but as a historical phenomenon to be explained—the success of a disciplined, centralized, and organized body in a landscape of division—and precisely as evidence of the same American hunger for authoritative, catholic form. His observations on Protestant and Roman Catholic America alike are reported as a historian reports, describing what each communion held and how each fared, without setting one against another as the arbiter of the whole.

For his Russian readers the moral was pointed but irenic. In The Transoceanic West he addressed an educated society he feared was drifting toward “religious individualization”—belief arranged by private reason—and he offered America as the classic instance of what follows when that tendency runs its course without settled ecclesial anchoring. America was, for him, at once an inspiration and a warning: inspiration in its undimmed religious energy and its civic moral seriousness, warning in the restlessness of a faith seeking form.

Running beneath all of this is a conviction that binds the five works into one: that the health of a people’s religious life depends not only on the sincerity of its belief but on the soundness of the form that carries it. Lopukhin credited America with an abundance of the first and worried about the second, and he was too honest an observer to pretend the two always went together. That tension—fervent faith seeking a stable and catholic shape—is the theological thread he followed across constitution, school, revival tent, and mission field alike.

The Centenary strikes a different and warmer note. There the significance is missionary and devotional: the wonder that the light of the Gospel reached Kodiak in the same years that the coasts of America were still being charted, carried not by a trained propaganda but by “simple monks” ready to endure every hardship for the truth. It is Lopukhin’s tribute to the zeal of the young Orthodox mission on American soil—the mission whose religious environment his other four studies had labored to describe.

Reception & Influence

These writings made Lopukhin, in effect, Russia’s first informed guide to American religious life, filling a gap he himself had named. Their afterlife is twofold. In their own moment they gave an educated Russian public a rare and detailed window onto a country it knew mostly by rumor, and Roman Catholicism in America, as an academic dissertation, earned him his master’s degree and the professorial career that followed. More broadly, they belong to the formation of the scholar who would go on to edit the Explanatory Bible and the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia — great works of accessible, popularizing scholarship whose animating conviction, that serious religious learning should be put within reach of ordinary readers, is already fully present in these early American reports. For the modern reader they carry a further, unlooked-for value: they are a thoughtful outside observer’s snapshot of Gilded-Age American religion—its revivals and lodges, its schools and Sunday schools, its constitutional settlement of church and state—seen through Orthodox eyes at the very moment the Orthodox mission on the continent was taking root.

The Text & This Edition

This edition presents a fresh modern English translation of five of Lopukhin’s Russian works on American religious life, prepared from the public-domain Russian texts as preserved in the digital library of azbyka.ru. The originals — Религия в Америке, Римский католицизм в Америке, Жизнь за океаном, Заокеанский Запад в религиозно-нравственном отношении, and Столетие православной миссии в Северной Америке — were written in the 1880s and 1890s; several first appeared as periodical essays or public lectures before being gathered into books. They are rendered here into clear, contemporary English while preserving the author’s inline emphasis, his paragraph structure, his own notes, and his scriptural references. Chapter and section numbers and scripture citations follow the house convention of Arabic numerals and a modern reference style. The translation aims throughout at faithful, readable prose that keeps the register of Lopukhin’s own nineteenth-century essayistic Russian without archaizing it.

A word on names and attribution. The author is given here as Alexander Lopukhin, a lay scholar and theologian; where his contemporaries styled him “Professor,” that title reflects his chairs at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. He is best known to posterity as the editor of the Explanatory Bible, and it is worth remembering, as one reads these youthful American studies, that they are the work of the same mind that would later undertake to comment on the whole of Scripture for a general Russian readership.

Because these are the observations of a nineteenth-century Russian Orthodox visitor, the reader will meet frank judgments about the Protestant and Roman Catholic America of the 1880s—its divisions, its enthusiasms, its rapid growth. They are presented here as historical testimony, in the author’s own voice, and are best read as one perceptive contemporary’s account rather than as a settled verdict on any communion. Where his information reflects the state of knowledge of his day, that too is part of the document’s interest.

Suggestions for Reading

A reader new to Lopukhin need not take the five works in order. Life Across the Ocean is the natural doorway: its travel narrative and its scenes of American holidays, streets, and worship introduce both the country and the observer, and its later chapters on the Russian church in New York place the author himself before us. From there, Religion in America and The Transoceanic West supply the analytic frame—the diagnosis of American religious “ferment” and the questions it raised for Russia—while Roman Catholicism in America rewards those who want Lopukhin at his most rigorous and historical. The Centenary of the Orthodox Mission is best kept for last, or read on its own as a self-contained history: it turns from the wide American panorama to the single thread that mattered most to the author—the Orthodox mission carried across the Pacific by a handful of monks, whose hundred-year story gives these studies of a distant land their quiet center of gravity.

Preface

A study of the present state and causes of the rapid growth of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States of North America.

In place of an introduction

The extraordinary success of Roman Catholicism on American soil is undoubtedly one of the most remarkable ecclesiastical-historical phenomena of modern times. In the span of a single century, it has risen from insignificance to nearly the first place among the religions of the United States. This fact is all the more remarkable because it has taken place in a country that was first to implement the principle of legal separation of church from state and whose public-governmental system represents a type of democratic republic that seems incompatible with the type of Latinized Christianity. Clarifying the causes and process of rapid growth of the Roman Catholic Church in the great American republic is the subject of this work. If this study were additionally to reveal certain features determining the general religious condition of the American people—a condition whose clarification is so necessary for the Orthodox Church in its holy mission recently begun on that same continent—then the author would consider his purpose fully achieved.

New York.

May 29 (June 10), 1881.

I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock and one shepherd (John 10:16).

The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask therefore the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest (Matt 11:37-38).

I. The religious state of the American people. Protestantism and its incompatibility with the national character. The search for one true church. Claims to the role of the one true church for the American people from three principal existing confessional forms—Methodism, Episcopalianism, and Roman Catholicism—and their groundlessness. II. The Episcopal Church and its position among the American people. Its consciousness of the instability of its principles and the search for firm support. Ritualism and its significance. The “bankruptcy of Protestantism.” The sermons of Dr. Ewer and the search for “catholicity.” The location of true catholicity and the attraction of Episcopalianism toward the Orthodox East. III. The Episcopal Church’s attempts to enter into communion with the Orthodox East. The question of church unity at its General Conventions of 1868, 1871, and 1874. The significance of these attempts and the alarm in the camp of Roman Catholicism. Conclusion.

In terms of religion, the American people present a deeply interesting subject for investigation—incontrovertible proof of the truth that religious need lies in the very nature of the human spirit and is as eternal as the human spirit itself. Separated from the ancient historical centers of religious belief by an immense ocean, this people have not merely failed to suppress the religious instincts within themselves; on the contrary, they have developed them to a degree unknown in the majority of European peoples at the present time. While the latter, exhausted by the prose of everyday centuries-long life, have succumbed to cold and soulless skepticism that corrodes national organisms, the American people, full of life and youthful fervor, are devoted with unbounded dedication to their inner development in all its forms and expressions—both in political-social and in religious-moral respects.

From the very beginning of their history, as they migrated into an unknown, wild country, this people had to shed the ancient traditions of the Old World—traditions that had been developed through a complex historical process and often constrained the free exercise of national forces or directed them toward barren activity. They stood face to face with nature and with it alone had to struggle to secure their existence. This mighty struggle developed in them energy and self-reliance, equalized the relations of their forces, balanced their physical nature with their spiritual, and from this developed that remarkable type of balanced human being whom Americans represent. The equilibrium of spiritual and physical forces constitutes the most characteristic feature of the American people. Thanks to it, they are free from extremes in thought and life, and in this respect more nearly approach the type of the perfect human being than any other people. This quality sharply distinguishes them from European peoples. Because of this same equilibrium in their physical and spiritual nature, they necessarily represent a type of balanced, all-sided popular development. In the Old World, national development proceeds through limited centralization, so that the national genius is concentrated chiefly in a small group of the higher classes and thus reaches its highest manifestation and development, while the general popular masses remain in the lethargy of dark ignorance. In the United States, by contrast, the national genius is diffused more or less evenly throughout the entire national mass; but because it spreads widely, it does not reach the height it does in Europe. The American people have numerous artists and poets who in their particulars show unmistakable signs of great national genius, yet despite this, their genius does not possess the mighty force that distinguishes the genius of first-rate European poets and artists. They are filled with philosophizing thinkers, and the best of them achieve remarkable strength of transcendental thought; yet at the same time in them there is not the mighty and unfettered scope of philosophical thought that characterizes the great philosophers of Europe. In refined thinking and free flight of human genius, the American people are undoubtedly still behind the principal European peoples and have not yet produced such geniuses as would have universal significance in the realm of pure thought or poetic creation. But in return, it has no rival in the Old World in that healthy practical thinking which often more quickly and truly grasps the actual essence of a subject than the most refined and abstract thought. Abstract questions of human existence that preoccupy European thought concern it little, but it follows with deep interest their practical manifestation in history and there finds a clear answer to the questions of its thought. Hence, while in Europe thought is in constant fluctuation and experiences periodic crises of extreme infatuations, American thought proceeds evenly along the path of continuous progressive development. And moreover, while European thought in its highest representatives in its strong flight completely tears away from life, losing itself in the transcendent height of misty speculation, American thought always goes only ahead of life, and the latter, having it as an accessible guide, easily and freely directs its course according to its indications. Such a relation of thought to life is displayed in all aspects of the American people. They are the freest people politically, yet they are at the same time the most conservative people. They are foreign to the utopian ideas of extreme European thinkers, and regard them with contemptuous indifference as useless fantasies obstructing the healthy development of practical life. Hence socialism, at which European states tremble, has found no soil among the American people and drags out a miserable existence in the squalid corners of German emigration.[1] They are the most educated people in the world, yet their education must be measured more in breadth than in height, and the course of their higher colleges cannot compare with the curricula of European universities. In social relations, they know no hereditary class divisions, and a person has open to him a wide field for activity in all spheres of life that he can reach through his own abilities and talents; yet at the same time, once a person has attained a certain position, it is surrounded by the same social honor and advantages that in the Old World are connected with historically-established positions. Finally, in religious respect, they are the most freethinking people, yet their freethinking at the same time finds limitation in the general conservatism of their character and therefore knows no such extremes as are inseparably linked with religious freethinking in Europe. Their religious freethinking is Christian freethinking, and it does not go beyond the bounds of positive Christian truths. European rationalism is as foreign to the American people as is European socialism.[2]

As a result of the harmonious development of physical and moral forces in the American people, there emerges a mental constitution that is in some sense a mediocrity. But this mediocrity should not be understood in the European sense. It does not constitute a weakness of productive forces, but is precisely the result of their healthy self-limiting action. Americans are a thoroughly young people. Their productive forces are characterized by all the freshness and ferment of youth. Thought in them works with amazing energy, and practice passionately receives the results of intellectual work. Therefore, if we employ the term “mediocrity” to designate their character, it should be understood in the sense of that healthy state of the organism which, despite all the ferment of vital forces within it, constitutes the surest guarantee of the moderation of its functioning. A sick or disordered organism is always more inclined to excesses and passions than a healthy organism, which through its normal development is more subject to the lawful requirements of moderate nature in all things. As a result of this, beneath external restraint, the American nature seethes with internal activity. Its forces, without going beyond the bounds of moderation, exhibit fervent energy within those bounds, and therefore the general level of vital activity in it is much higher than that average level which might be found in Europe. Alien to political utopias, the American people at the same time devote themselves with passionate dedication to their existing political system. The same holds true in religious respect. Alien to European destructive rationalism and deadening skepticism, the American people are devoted with youthful energy to positive Christian truths. The level of their religious character is as high as the level of their political consciousness. Their religious faith and political independence constitute two principal elements of their life, and in them chiefly they live, move, and have their being. Religious faith is for them the supreme ideal, their political system is their actual life. But as in every young organism the ideal has more vitality and attractiveness than reality, so too in the American people does their religious faith have even greater vitality than their political life.[3]

The American people owe their very origins to religious zeal. The “Pilgrim Fathers,” as the people respectfully call the first settlers of America, migrated to the newly discovered continent impelled by their religious zeal. They were ready to endure all the dangers of ocean travel and subject themselves to all the unforeseen hardships in a new land, provided only that they could preserve their faith. And upon arriving on American soil, their first thought was to establish a “kingdom of God” on earth—a form of society that would be the complete expression of their religious beliefs. They were so thoroughly imbued with religious spirit that their society was founded on the theocratic principle, almost in its Old Testament severity.[4] This was an extreme, and it is explained by the isolation of the Puritans’ position. As such an extreme, it could not be maintained during the subsequent historical development. With time, various nationalities began to arrive in the country, bringing with them a diversity of customs and religious beliefs. Settling among the Puritans, these adherents of different faiths made it impossible to continue the theocratic regime in all its original strictness, and therefore it naturally began to yield to other influences. The original American population consisted of English Puritans and Dutch. If the former represented strict, fanatical religious rule, the latter brought with them religious freethinking which, strengthened by the subsequent German element, became an important counterweight to theocratic extremism. From the interaction of these elements was formed the present character of American religiosity. The intensity of the Puritan religious system was so great that when it collided with the opposing element, it could lose only enough to limit its extreme manifestations. On the other hand, the freethinking of the Dutch-German element was not so great as to survive when it collided with Puritan enthusiasm, and therefore it was considerably subordinated to Puritanism. Hence the mean level of religiosity could only be such a level at which religiosity, showing traces of moderate freethinking, has the predominant character of Puritanism. Such is the character of the American people’s present religiosity. In particulars they tend toward religious freethinking, yet at the same time Puritanism remains the dominant element even in those localities where the opposite element might be expected to prevail.[5] Clearly Puritanism, having formed the foundation of the entire worldview of the first American settlers, had succeeded in taking such deep root in American soil and had even become embodied in political institutions, that for subsequent migrants it appeared as the fundamental spirit of American life, and therefore they, as newcomers, of necessity had to submit to it as the dominant mood, despite the fact that Puritanism as a church-religious community had long lost its first place in the country.[6]

[1] Justus Schwab, the leader of the socialist party in New York, is a German emigrant, and his ‘revolutionary club’ is a wretched and dirty beer tavern in a shabby quarter of the city

[2] On particular features of American religiosity see our ‘American Notes’ in the ‘Church Herald’ for 1880 and 1881.

[3] Remarkably, during the past century religious church life developed more strongly than the entire population of the country. According to careful investigation, at the end of the last century there were fewer than 1950 churches in the country. Since the entire population at that time was three and a half million, one church fell to every 1700 people. According to the last census of 1870, the total number of churches is shown as more than 72,000, which with a population of 38,000,000 gives one church per 529 people. In other words, while the population increased elevenfold, the number of churches increased nearly thirty-seven times. North American Review, Jan. 1876, p. 23. The condition of the religiosity of the American people can be determined by another fact, namely the quantity of church seating. According to statistical reckoning, from the population, excepting infants, the sick and the elderly, persons occupied with agriculture and care of the sick, servants on railroads, steamships, omnibuses, and other places requiring constant presence at their posts, only 58 percent could attend religious services. And the quantity of church seating is entirely adequate for this number. According to the 1870 census the population of the country numbered 38,558,371 people, and the number of church seats was 21,665,062, that is, somewhat more than 55 percent. Thus for only 3 percent no church seats had been provided. In 1860, when the population was smaller, the number of church seats nearly reached the necessary figure. The population was 31,443,321, and the number of seats 19,128,751, that is, for 57 percent of the population. Ten years earlier, namely in 1850, the number of seats was even in excess of need. The population consisted of 23,191,876 people, and church seats numbered 14,234,825, so that the latter were for 61 percent of the entire population. See Dale, Impressions of America, 190–191, New York, 1879. The apparent decrease in the proportion of church seats in recent decades is explained by the fact that during this time external emigration arrived in such enormous masses that church-building activity could in no way keep pace with it and therefore lagged behind the course of population growth.

[4] Bancroft, History of the United States of America, Vol. I, Ch. IX, p. 293 and elsewhere. Centenary edition, Boston, 1876.

[5] New York, for example, was founded by the Dutch, and from its founding until the present has been the principal port where diverse and varied emigration arrived. Its population now has a fully cosmopolitan character, and yet the stamp of Puritanism still lies upon the character of its people’s religiosity. See ‘Church Herald’ for 1880 in our ‘American Notes.’

[6] A century ago the major religious societies stood in the following order of importance: Congregationalist (Puritan), Baptist, Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran, German Reformed, Dutch Reformed, and Roman Catholic. According to the 1870 census they already stood in the following order: Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Christian, Lutheran, Congregationalist, and Protestant Episcopal (Anglican). This order is based on the comparative number of churches belonging to each society. If judged by the number of church seats, the order would remain the same for the first four, but the Congregationalists and Episcopalians would exceed the Lutherans and Christians. If judged by the value of church property, the Roman Catholic Church would take second place, and the Episcopal fifth. If finally judged by the number of members belonging to the societies, Methodism and Roman Catholicism would come first. This order remains the same to the present time, except as regards property value, in which the Roman Catholic Church is generally supposed to take first place according to the 1880 census. Diman, Religion in America 1776–1876. North American Review, vol. CXXII, pp. 22–23. American Almanac for 1881, p. 46.

Preface (Cont.)

Subsequent emigration, down to the present time, has not produced essential changes in this general mood. Waves of European emigration, despite their apparent heterogeneity, quickly dissolve in the sea of American native population, and over it continues to hover the spirit of Puritanism. The heterogeneity of the emigration elements, in submitting to the dominant mood, nonetheless exerted its own influence on the state of this mood. Left to itself, Puritanism had a strong tendency to degenerate into a dry, harsh, and lifeless system of theological knowledge, without the vitalizing, humane sentiment. European emigration, through its diverse pressure upon it, constantly smoothed its overly rigid and angular features and infused into its dry forms the vitalizing streams of individual religious feeling. From the organic combination and self-limitation of diverse elements is formed the general religious condition of the American people. As the mass of the present American population consists of elements of all possible nationalities settled on the original island of the Anglo-Saxon race, so too the general religious mood of this mass represents diverse features merged under one common covering of Puritanism. Since the principal constituent parts of emigration in recent decades have been German and Irish settlers, these nationalities exert the strongest influence on the cultural and religious character of the country. Hence, beneath the common Puritan spirit in American religiosity, the features of German religious individualism and Irish religious romanticism stand out especially brightly. Thanks to the collision of such heterogeneous elements, American religiosity could acquire the same balanced character that distinguishes the American people in other respects. In it, no one of the three elements composing it could achieve extreme development—neither stern Puritanism, nor extreme German individualism, nor diffuse Celtic romanticism. All three of these elements balance one another. By this equilibrium are explained all the essential features of American religious life. Thanks to the general high level of vital forces in the young American people, their religious feeling is likewise distinguished by fervent vital activity and youthful freshness. In it there is not that weariness and bluntness of feeling observed in the aging peoples of Europe and manifested in the form of indifference or skepticism. Their religious needs are strong and insistent, and they openly and enthusiastically satisfy them. German individualism introduces personal critical self-consciousness into this feeling and gives faith logical meaning, raising it thereby to the degree of clear religious self-consciousness. Celtic romanticism gives religious faith a strong aesthetic coloring, raising it thereby above ordinary logically-acknowledged feeling. Finally, Puritanism, with its strict form, restricts the extreme development of both German individualism and Celtic romanticism, and in this way restrains them within proper bounds, preventing one-sidedness in development. Hence is explained that remarkable fact that the theological thought of the American people constantly works in the realm of religious truths, yet never goes beyond the bounds of faith into the dark realm of skepticism and negation; religious feeling is distinguished by extraordinary energy, yet rarely crosses the bounds of logical coherence; aesthetic feeling plays an important role in religious cult, yet never overflows into excess of external forms. The mark of moderation lies on all aspects of its religious life.[1]

If the general result of the collision of diverse religious elements was the creation of equilibrium in the general religious mood of the American people, then on the other hand the organic interaction of such different elements of necessity had to produce constant oscillation and movement of the religious forces composing this mood. Hence arises that religious ferment which constitutes the most well-known and characteristic feature of American religiosity. Religious forces of the people, finding reconciliation in the general mood, cannot merge into indifferent unity, and therefore the process of ferment and assimilation is the natural and necessary result of the given condition. The character of the ferment process itself is determined by the general state of religiosity. The religious feeling of the American people, as was said above, is distinguished by strong energy. The people are extraordinarily sensitive to matters of religious truth. They cannot regard with indifference the various manifestations of religious truth. They hunger for it in its unmistakable, undisputable, categorical form. Therefore, religious ferment in the American people is precisely a search for religious truth. But to what extent do the given conditions of their religious life correspond to the national striving to find religious truth?

Americans, both by their very origin and by their present predominant character, are a Protestant people. Northern America owes its very settlement to Protestantism, which, fleeing persecution in the Old World, sought freedom for its development in the New. Roman Catholicism to this day remains an exotic plant on American soil and is only beginning to become acclimated to it. Therefore, when considering the religious character of the American people in the proper sense, we must keep in view Protestantism as their general confessional form, as the fundamental principle of their very religiosity. Hence the answer to the question posed can be found in defining the principles of Protestantism and their relation to the fundamental character of the American people.

Protestantism, as a religious system, is founded on two main principles, from which all its content logically develops. As a negation of the system that had carried external church organization to the point of suppressing all personal initiative, it began to teach that the church is only an invisible society and that members can be joined to it only by the most general principle, namely only by faith—so that anyone who believes they are redeemed by Christ is thereby a member of the church, whatever their particular opinions on all other matters. Second, in opposition to the Roman Catholic system, which denied to the individual their own participation in determining true doctrine, it rejected the authority of the church and determined that every person, through their own reason based solely on sacred Scripture, can and should determine what their religious teaching and their moral code should be. The logical and necessary consequence of these principles was that each person became wholly responsible for themselves in the matter of religious and moral teaching. With the rejection of the church as a visible society and teaching authority, there emerged extreme individualism, in which the entire burden of responsibility fell upon the individual, who solely through their own forces had to build their salvation. Such a system, considered psychologically, corresponds to the national character distinguished by critical independence of thought, preferring its own independent judgment to any public authority. It corresponds best to the mental constitution of the German people, and hence the extreme development of Protestant ideas in them, which at the same time take weak root among Romance peoples having an opposite mental constitution. If salvation indeed depended only on faith alone, human consciousness could easily reconcile itself to this fundamental principle of Protestantism. But faith itself, if it possesses vitality, must of necessity express itself in a certain form, upon which in turn depends the more or less true observance of it. By virtue of unlimited individualism, faith had to assume many forms, expressing its content in various ways. With such diversity, the question naturally arises: which of these forms represents the most adequate expression of one common truth of faith? With weak sensitivity to religious truth, this question would not be important, and people would be satisfied with the general content of the form. But with strong energy of religious feeling, it becomes of enormous importance. The people search for such a form as would more fully and truly express the faith they hold, and cannot be satisfied with a form that in their opinion is not adequate to the content. It is with such energy of feeling that the American people are distinguished, and hence in them that religious ferment which constitutes the characteristic feature of their religious life. In this search for truth, by virtue of the fundamental principle of Protestantism, each individual is presented exclusively to themselves. They have no such greater and firmer authority to which they could turn for help and upon whose decision they could rely. Hence religious thought passes through many forms and is in constant oscillation and doubt concerning the result of its logical work. The result of this ferment is that fragmentation of religious forms in which American religiosity is manifested. This fragmentation itself, together with the instability of forms, is clear proof of the inadequacy of individualism in finding the form that would fully express truth. Such a form can be only one. Awareness of this truth might find a counterweight in intellectual individualism, but as soon as the force of intellectual individualism proves not developed enough to sustain the weight of responsibility, the principle of Protestantism can only be a burden for the religious consciousness of the people, and sooner or later it will attempt to shed this burden and find a principle more corresponding to its character.

If we compare these fundamental principles of Protestantism with the fundamental features of the American people’s character, it will appear that despite their apparent correspondence to each other, there is an essential difference in them. The fundamental feature of the American character, as shown above, is healthy mediocrity, which is conditioned by the state of self-limiting elements and forces. By virtue of this healthy mediocrity, as an expression of the equilibrium of forces, the American character is foreign to extremes. It is distinguished by independence, yet at the same time it loves moderation. It will not tolerate any external restriction, but at the same time it imposes on itself such restrictions as might seem to be constraints for less freedom-loving characters, and it submits to them with amazing precision. Discipline nowhere attains such broad development as in America. In schools it reaches the degree of military precision and is applied with equal severity to both male and female institutions. Public opinion nowhere exerts such power over individuals as in this land of freedom, and violation of established social rules is punished with pitiless severity. Both in social and especially in religious respect, the character of the American people shows traces of strict Puritanism, which gives everything a strict disciplinary stamp. Clearly, such a character does not correspond to the unlimited individualism presented by Protestantism, and this discrepancy is clearly revealed in the history of the development of American religious consciousness. The first stage of this development was recognition of one exclusive, unchanging form of doctrine, outside of which everything was condemned as impious and harmful, and the system itself was raised to the degree of an infallible church authority, though this was obviously in open contradiction to the fundamental principles of Protestantism that lay at the base of this system. Such was the era of the dominion of the initial, pure, strict, and exclusive Puritanism. With time, out of necessity this exclusive system had to yield in part to new incoming elements that brought with them the features of German freethinking and Romantic sentimentalism. This collision of opposite elements resulted in such an oscillation of forces that beneath the apparent general cover of Puritanism the actual center of religious consciousness was lost, and religious ferment began. Religious consciousness became fragmented, the people lacked one common guiding principle of faith, and relying solely on their own forces, gave themselves over to the search for religious truth. With the intensity of religious feeling, the ferment was strong; sects arose and disappeared, religious consciousness now intensified, now weakened. By force of inertia, the process of centrifugal development reached its highest point; sects not only fragmented into the smallest units but also became extremely intolerant of one another. Fine confessional polemics became the dominant mood of preaching and theological literature. This process reached its extreme development before the Civil War, when it at the same time found correspondence in the process of political decentralization. At that time the country presented a chaotic mixture of both religious and political opinions. When the process of political decentralization reached an extreme development followed by a crisis that gave opposite direction to the people’s political consciousness, this crisis was likewise a turning point in the people’s religious consciousness. The heavy blow of war shook the national organism to its very foundations, and a terrible abyss opened before the people’s consciousness—the abyss to which the process of decentralization had brought them. As if frightened by this abyss, the people’s consciousness abruptly turned in the opposite direction; a rapid process of centralization began. With such a reverse process of political consciousness, religious consciousness could not continue along its former direction. The crisis and the turning it produced penetrated so deeply into the inner life of the people that it exerted an irresistible effect on all national forces and gave them all a new direction. The idea of national unity began to strengthen in the people, and the political party representing the principles of decentralization increasingly began to fall. In religious matters, the new process made itself known in the fact that religious ferment began to weaken, religious consciousness, exhausted by fruitless searching for truth according to the principles of individualism, began to seek for itself a more firm and reliable support, and therefore small sects began to group themselves around larger communities.

[1] The process of historical development of theological thought in the country corresponds fully to this interaction of forces gradually establishing the present type of American religiosity. In the development of the latter three distinct phases stand out clearly. The first phase, coinciding with the exclusive dominance of the Puritans, represents a period of speculative thought, when theology was exclusively occupied with great questions about the relation of man to God. “Every thinking mind strove to penetrate the mysteries, at the contemplation of which even angels tremble.” Metaphysical questions penetrated all of life, and in the schools logic was considered the chief science. Samuel Hopkins was the typical thinker of this epoch. When European emigration—German and Irish—increased, the new religious element which they brought had an influence on the theological thought of the country, and it entered into the second phase—moral and practical. Instead of the former speculative-metaphysical questions, thought occupied itself with moral-teaching questions and saw its ideal in the realization in human relations of evangelical truths of love and brotherhood. Channing was the representative of this second phase, who was a true apostle of Christian humanism, whose influence was expressed in the great act of the liberation of slaves. The third phase, which has not yet fully formed into a final type, began after the civil war and makes itself known in the tendency toward the development of the aesthetic or romantic side in religion. This is the aesthetic phase, and its influence is reflected everywhere, even among such sects which heretofore fanatically denied any aesthetic element in worship. This tendency expresses itself in the development of church architecture, the elaboration of specific ritual practices, and in various decorations of places of worship. Cf. North American Review, vol. CXXII, pp. 42–46.

Preface (Cont.) (2)

Such a process continues to the present day. Signs of it are on one hand a lesser confessional irritability, so that preachers only rarely touch on confessional differences and occupy themselves chiefly with the general truths of Christianity,[1] and on the other—a clearly developing idea of religious unity.[2] Religious consciousness is evidently increasingly weary of fruitless ferment and beginning to hunger for unity, which could give rest and reliable support to personal consciousness. This hunger manifests itself in the fact that more and more frequently before the religious consciousness of the American people arises the ideal of a “future church,” which should be created from the motley mixture of present sects. In religious journals this idea has played an important role in recent decades and represents the best confirmation and manifestation of the process of religious centralization outlined by us. The ideal of the “future church” is naturally conceived differently, and each of the confessional communities now dominant supposes that it is destined to gather around itself the divided and scattered Christendom and that it will embody in itself the idea of the one church. Such claims are made both by the principal Protestant communities and especially by the Roman Catholic Church. Among the former, Methodism and the Protestant Episcopal Church stand out especially. Methodism represents one of the strongest religious communities on the American continent, and thanks to a certain coincidence of its religious principles with the intensity of religious feeling in the American people, many consider it to be a specially American confessional form.[3] It is therefore more understandable that the Methodists themselves make claims to leadership among American religious communities. In the principal Methodist organ, a detailed article was published on this subject, the author of which says that in the past successes of Methodism and its present fundamental principles lies the portent of its final superiority over all other Christian communities, and therefore it is precisely Methodism that is destined to be the “future church” of the entire country.[4] The principal organ of the Episcopal Church, on the other hand, says that Methodism lost its pure vitality when it separated from its “mother church,” and therefore can never correspond to the needs of coming generations; and if any church is destined to be the future church of the country, it is only the Episcopal Church.[5] For its part, Roman Catholicism confidently proclaims that the future of the country is in its hands and only it will lead the American people to unity in religion and make it as religiously united as it is politically united.[6]

Thus in the consciousness of the American people there vaguely ferments the idea of religious unity, and they seek such a church as, free from one-sidedness, could by its Catholic universality satisfy their many-sided needs. The American people are many-sided by their very composition. They have been formed and continue to be formed from a multitude of various nationalities which annually flow into their organism through emigration. Into it enter not only various peoples of the European continent, but also native primitive American tribes, African Negroes, and Asian Mongols. This entire diverse mass is gradually transformed into one people, forming one physical body and one spirit. From the fusion of such diverse elements, American character obviously cannot have one-sidedness. Such a nature can only be many-sided, with equilibrium of forces, both in physical and spiritual nature. Hence in religious respect, it can be satisfied only by such a church as is as many-sided in its catholicity as the people themselves are many-sided. Do any of the three churches named present signs of such Catholic many-sidedness?

If we examine Methodism and consider its fundamental principles, we shall at once discover its inadequacy in the sense of a Catholic Church capable of satisfying the religious consciousness of the American people. Methodism by its very origin is a new phenomenon in the realm of religious life and therefore lacks historical authority behind it. It constitutes a protest against the dead formalism of the Anglican Church, and as such is an artificial or temporary phenomenon, and therefore lacks the seeds of future development. As an offspring of Protestantism, it is of necessity one-sided and lacks signs of catholicity. As a Protestant phenomenon, it is at the same time the child of that individualism from which American religious consciousness suffers and earnestly seeks salvation in more firm principles. The particular feature of Methodism among other Protestant communities lies in the fact that it is a religion of feeling in its extreme intensity.[7] While in other Protestant confessions reason individualism prevails, constructing its salvation on the basis of the interpretation of sacred Scripture, in Methodism there prevails the individualism of feeling, seeking salvation in the attainment of religious ecstasy. It spread rapidly among the American popular masses, and this is explained by the abundance of religious feeling in the American people. But by this very fundamental principle, it cannot have a future in the country. Now it constitutes the religion of the lower masses and among others of the Negro population. With the development of these popular masses to the degree of equilibrium of reason and feeling, it will lose all soil beneath it. Clearly, Methodism cannot be the “future church” whose idea ferments in the consciousness of the American people.

Greater claims to a great religious mission of uniting the American people into one religious body are apparently made by the Episcopal Church. This church represents a community which in its foundation is considerably free from the common defect of Protestantism—extreme development of individualism. It occupies the middle ground between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism as two opposite systems. From this side it apparently appears free from both the extremes of Protestant individualism and the opposite extreme of Roman papacy, and therefore more corresponds to the balanced character of the American people. But upon closer examination of its inner character, its essential weakness is revealed. The Episcopal Church in the United States is an offshoot of Anglicanism, and therefore has in its foundation the same principles on which Anglicanism arose and exists. The latter by its essence is a moderate protest against Roman papacy. Having torn itself away from its historical backbone, Anglicanism found itself severed from its historical past and without a definite foundation in the present. As a result, it began to seek support for itself in nationalism and became the state church of England. However shaky such a position, it was still able, with the aid of the state, which took it under its care, to organize itself into an independent community and has sufficient foundation for its existence. As a state church it came also to the New World. But with the proclamation of the independence of the United States, it lost its sole support in the English state and found itself in a difficult position. The only way out for it was either to develop its Protestant principles to their extreme logical consequences and thus sink into the general sea of Protestant ferment, or on the other hand to return to its historical past and reunite with Roman Catholicism. However, its organism, though artificially created, managed to achieve sufficient equilibrium between the two extremes so that it could not entirely lean toward either side. Parts of it fell away and were absorbed by both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, but the whole organism continued to maintain its existence. Feeling its inner weakness, Anglicanism on American soil also attempted to lean on the state. But since here, by virtue of the principle of separation of church and state, it could not become a state church in the English sense, it still sought to maintain close relations with the state through adopting the forms of the state institutions of the United States into its church organization. For this purpose the Episcopal Church in America developed a “constitution” which makes its organic system almost identical with the political system of the country, with the difference that it has no executive power corresponding to the President of the United States.[8] In this correspondence of its church organization to the country’s political organization it undoubtedly finds considerable support, since the American people, highly valuing their political system, regard more sympathetically and favorably a church which has a similar organization. This explains the fact that it was able to preserve its independent existence on American soil and did not perish after losing its support in the English state.[9] But besides this external feature, the Episcopal Church has inner qualities as well, which give it advantages over many other religious communities of the country. By its essence, it is a compromise between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Rejecting the extremes of the papacy system, it did not at the same time fall into the opposite extreme—Protestant individualism. Thanks to the positive nature of the Anglo-Saxon race, it took the form of moderate Protestantism and stopped there. In England this form found support in the state, and therefore it easily became the state religion. If on one hand in this union it found external support for itself, then on the inner side such a union was for it equivalent to slavery, with its inevitable consequences of moral weakening. In America, on the other hand, it, lacking state support, of necessity had to rely only on its inner principles and seek in them the source of its vitality. Hence is explained the undoubted fact that the Episcopal Church in the United States is distinguished by much greater vitality compared to Anglicanism. But this in turn leads to a new consequence. Distinguished by greater inner self-consciousness compared to Anglicanism, the Episcopal Church in America of necessity experiments more boldly with the inner foundations on which its organism rests. With such bold critical self-examination, its inner organic weakness is clearly revealed. It does not have positive principles in its foundation, and the secret of its existence is explained precisely only by compromise. In dogmatic respect it vacillates between Protestantism and Catholicism, in ecclesiastical matters it seeks dubious support in nationalism. Such compromise apparently gives it equilibrium between the two extremes, but this equilibrium is unstable and is maintained only by the temporary coincidence with similar equilibrium in the external conditions of its existence. The American people are formed from diverse elements which, entering into organic combination, create a race foreign to extremes and on the contrary balanced in its forces and functioning. But this equilibrium is not external but organic and therefore positive. Meanwhile, equilibrium in the Episcopal Church, as founded on compromise, is only, so to speak, mechanical, external, and as such does not correspond to the positive, organic equilibrium of the American people. On the contrary, at the first attempt to compare the principles lying at the foundation of the Episcopal Church’s organism, their complete discrepancy is revealed. In 1853 such an attempt was made and it revealed the entire groundlessness of the Episcopal Church as a religious system capable of satisfying the needs of the American people. In view of the intensified process of dissolution and fragmentation of Protestantism, the appearance of various forms of unbelief, and the strengthening of Roman Catholicism, leaders of the Episcopal Church were seized by a serious question: where to seek salvation from this state of affairs? Naturally they turned to the Episcopal Church itself; but upon examining its inner condition, they came to a sad conclusion that it cannot in its present state satisfy the religious needs of the American people and is not capable of “doing the Lord’s work in this land and in this age.”[10] The result of this self-awareness was that it, having lost faith in its adequacy and stability on the principles on which it now rests, began to seek more firm support somewhere outside itself, and hence its constant vacillations and searches for catholicity, which characterize its recent history. Thus the Episcopal Church, even by its own consciousness, cannot satisfy the religious needs of the American people and consequently cannot become the “future church” in the United States. It does not have such positive principles as would correspond to the positive nature of the American people. In that case, only a third claimant to the future of the country remains, namely Roman Catholicism.

[1] In an article on the recently published sermons of the well-known American preacher Rudder, a critic says: “In the numerous volumes of sermons coming from the press at the present time, the most remarkable thing is the tendency to avoid controversial points between sects and parties and to focus on principles which are equally held by all.” N. Y. Times, April 11, 1881. Cf. North American Review, Jan. 1876, article ‘Religion in America 1776–1876.’

[2] A learned author of a philosophical treatise on religion in America over the past century says: “The prevailing impulse of American religion, according to common conception, serves the fragmentation into an endless diversity of sects. But nothing could be more certain from a review of our religious history than the gradual strengthening of a tendency in the completely opposite direction. It is true that a multitude of sects is a present fact, and in a country where expression of opinion on all subjects is not restricted, such a result is not surprising; but the majority of small communities are only waves on the surface of a current, which appear for a moment and then disappear forever. In their most repellent forms they are only social growths which arise mainly from foreign sources. The most characteristic fact of our religious history, as the census of 1870 clearly shows, is not the tendency of American Christianity to fragment into a multitude of sects, but its inclination toward concentration under a few major denominational types. This conservative preference on the part of the vast majority for stable church order is the chief and undoubted distinction of our religious life. Whatever the tendency was in the previous period, at the present time it is beyond question in this direction.” Diman, ’Religion in America 1776–1876’, in North American Review vol. CXXII, p. 31.

[3] Cf. N. Y. Herald of September 12, 1880. MacDonald, the British representative of the Episcopal Conference in Cincinnati, in his report says that “Methodism by its very nature is the national church in America.” Article ‘American Methodism as seen by an Englishman.’ A remarkable feature of it is that it arose from nothing and in one century managed to occupy the first position in the country among religious confessions, growing and expanding at the expense of other confessions. When the first Methodist conference assembled in Baltimore in 1784, they had only 60 preachers conducting worship in barns and under the open sky, but according to the 1870 census Methodism already had 25,000 parish organizations with church property valued at 70,000,000 dollars. North American Review, Jan. 1876, p. 25.

[4] Galaxy for 1868. Catholic World, vol. VIII, p. 145.

[5] “Our own church is destined to be the church of the future in our country,” says the Episcopal Churchman. “It is a church of apostolic establishment and origin, with pure, uncorrupted faith, with a duly authorized hierarchy, with the Word and sacraments of the Gospel, and through them with the right to communicate divine grace, without which all would be ineffectual words and forms. Whatever is said about others, one cannot deny that all this is truly in relation to our church. We do not find that all this, in all details, is applicable to any other church in this country except ours.” Churchman, July 25, 1868.

[6] Hecker, Catholic Church in the U. S. p. 22.

[7] “The enormous popular influence of Methodism,” according to an American writer, “lies in its bold turn from the theology of reason to the theology of feeling.” North American Review, Jan. 1876, p. 26.

[8] See ‘Constitution adopted in General Convention in Philadelphia, October 1789.’ It is ordinarily found in the appendix to the journals of the general triennial conventions. See, for example, in Journals of General Convention for 1868, 1871, 1874, and 1877.

[9] “The Revolution dealt this church a heavy blow. It was reduced almost to nothing, many despaired of the possibility of this community’s continued existence except in connection with the state.” North American Review, Vol. CXXII, p. 18.

[10] To the general convention of 1853, numerous memorials of this kind were submitted by the most prominent representatives of the Episcopal Church. Later they were collected and published as a separate book by Bishop Potter in 1857 under the title ‘Memorial Papers,’ but then this book was found to be harmful to the church and all copies of it were destroyed, so we are using only extracts from it, made in Catholic World, Vol. VIII, in the article ‘The Church of the Future.’

Preface (Cont.) (3)

Roman Catholicism cherishes the brightest hopes for its future in the United States. According to Roman Catholic publicists, the future of the North American republic belongs precisely to Roman Catholicism, which alone can lead the people to religious unity and make it as unified in religious respect as it is in political respect.[1] The extraordinary successes of Roman Catholicism in the country, which it has achieved in the course of one century, apparently justify such hopes. If in a single century it has risen from insignificance to nearly the first position in the country and developed an organization before which weakened Protestantism, torn by internal discord, trembles, then it is natural to expect that, relying already on this mighty organization, it can without difficulty spread its dominion over the small Protestant communities and absorb them into its mighty organism. But such a conclusion would be hasty and would not correspond to the actual significance of the premises. The principal source of the rapid spread of Roman Catholicism in the United States, as will be shown below, was emigration—that is, it owes its increase not to its own internal organic growth but to a purely external process—the accumulation or gathering of already formed Catholic masses. Such a process of increase did not occur at the expense of the American people but apart from it. Consequently, from this side, the past successes of Roman Catholicism, for all their extraordinary character, have no relation to the religious problem concerning us regarding which church can in the future become the one church of the united American people, and therefore do not provide grounds for concluding about future successes. But Roman Catholicism has another side to its development. It has not only arrived from Europe on American soil, but has also attempted to become acclimated on it, to take root in the organic environment of the American people themselves. In this respect, it directly approaches our problem and presents important data for investigation. The success of these attempts, as well as the general receptivity of American soil toward Roman Catholicism, constitute direct data for our question. This success, considered from its external side, does not have, as will be shown below, important significance, and numerically it far from constitutes a firm foundation for all the newcomer Roman Catholic population. But it has another—inner side, and in this respect it deserves serious attention. This is the moral side of success, and it can serve as an indicator of the general predisposition of the American people toward Roman Catholicism. What then is the expression of this predisposition and what degree of intensity does it have in this direction? We saw that the American people, both by their origin and by their present state—are a Protestant people. The principles of Protestantism have had wide development in them and have expressed themselves in wandering sectarianism. They have considerably become embodied even in the political institutions of the country and have penetrated into the character of social life. From this side, Roman Catholicism, as an opposite religious system, can encounter only opposition from the American people, which indeed has passed through their entire century of independent life and manifested itself both in indirect legislative measures against Roman Catholicism and in open anticatholic movements of the popular masses. But at the same time, in the very religious-Protestant character of the American people, through various turns of its historical development, there were increasingly revealed features of the inadequacy of Protestantism as a religious system corresponding to the people’s fundamental character. Its extreme individualism proved to be in contradiction to the healthy mediocrity of the American character, and when it reached the greatest development, it necessarily had to be followed by a reaction in favor of a process of centralization. The people began to be wearied by the fragmentation of their religious condition and, in view of the discrepancy of individualism with their character, began to seek a single church which could give authoritative rest to their religious feeling exhausted by fruitless labor and, removing from them the unbearable weight of personal responsibility, would appear as a mighty and infallible guide on the path of salvation. With the birth of the idea of a single church, religious consciousness sought that actual foundation around which ferment could settle and which would be capable of receiving the heterogeneous elements of ferment into its organism and thus creating a single church. If in this process many stopped at Methodism and the Episcopal Church, an even larger number began turning to Roman Catholicism. The latter presented in this respect important advantages over the first two. It had behind it such historical antiquity as neither Methodism nor the Episcopal Church could match; and for rational consciousness, wearied by the changeability of sectarian forms, this historical antiquity presented the chief guarantee of stability and immovability of the principle. It presented such a mighty organization as no Protestant community could develop. Finally, its confessional and disciplinary system had all the external signs of the “one” church which religious consciousness sought in vain in the systems of Protestant communities. In view of such undoubted advantages of Roman Catholicism over Protestant communities, it would seem an inevitable supposition that the inclination of the religious consciousness of the American people in seeking the single church would undoubtedly and irreversibly happen in favor of Roman Catholicism. In reality, however, this has not happened and cannot happen. Roman Catholicism, presenting immeasurable advantages compared to Protestant communities in the sense of an integral, unchanging, historical church, at the same time has in itself many aspects which contradict the religious, intellectual, and sociopolitical sense of the American people. If the American people are wearied by the burden of personal responsibility in the matter of salvation laid upon them by Protestantism, they nonetheless possess such a developed sense of personal independence that in no case will they tolerate its restriction to the extent that is inevitable in Roman Catholicism. They hunger only for such a church to which they could relate freely as to the supreme tribunal of their personal conscience. If the American people present a mediocre intellectual character, this mediocrity is not such as to tolerate the stubborn denial of progressive development of thought which is inseparably linked in their conception with the idea of the Roman Catholic Church.[2] Finally, they feel the complete discrepancy of the principles of Roman Catholicism with their political and social character. And indeed, in this respect, the Roman Catholic tendency toward extreme centralization, with its latest apotheosis in the person of the infallible pope, stands in complete contradiction to the historical sense developed and strengthened in the American people.[3] It will forever serve as an insuperable barrier on the path to Roman Catholicism. Individual people, especially those who deeply feel the inadequacy of Protestantism, will convert to the Roman Catholic Church, despite its discrepancy with the principles of the people’s sociopolitical life. But the sense of the whole people will never be able to reconcile this contradiction, and therefore Roman Catholicism cannot become that “one church” of the American people whose idea vaguely ferments in their religious consciousness.

Thus, despite the developing need in the American people to have one strong church which in religious respect would become parallel with its governmental system, among the present confessional forms it does not have one which could actually realize its idea. Methodism is too new and unstable in its form and is one of the extreme manifestations of Protestant individualism which wearies the people. The Episcopal Church itself lacks a firm foundation and still more cannot take upon itself the entire weight of the American people. Finally, Roman Catholicism, despite its historical stability, in turn sins by the extreme development of the principle of centralization and as such stands in an insoluble contradiction with the entire character of American worldview.

Where, then, is the desired solution?

II

Of the three major Christian denominations, the one most suited to the American character is undoubtedly the middle one—that is, the Episcopal Church. It is free from both the extremes of individualism and the opposite extremes of Roman Catholicism, and therefore if any of these named churches is destined to become the single church of a united American people, it is the Episcopal Church. In its history there was already a period when the golden dream was approaching realization. Even before the outbreak of the Civil War, which served as the definitive turning point in the consciousness of the American people, the people began to show signs of weariness with sectarian, fruitless ferment, and many of the most perceptive minds, attuned to the spirit of the age, sought rest in the great religious communities. The Episcopal Church, as free from the extremes of Roman Catholicism, was then more than any other suited to the emerging mood and began a bountiful harvest. “From 1850 to 1856 the numerical growth of its members far exceeded the growth of previous periods. Its clergy ranks strengthened both in numbers and influence. The spirit of unprecedented activity seemed to have arisen in it, and besides, there was a notable inclination to gather around itself the other Protestant denominations and unite them with itself into one church body. This inclination found approval even outside its own membership. Many of those who had never before called themselves by any particular Christian name, attracted by its dignity and order, began to look upon it as the most desirable of all Protestant communities. Distinguished dissenters turned their eyes toward it, seeking refuge from that schismatic abyss into which their various vessels had nearly capsized. Great mutuality from both sides and full sympathy with the movement from its side—that was all that seemed necessary for creating the unity which fractured Christianity has long desired. This was the most favorable moment for it. The iron was hot for forging. The wheat was ripe for harvest. Deep peace presented favorable conditions for deliberation and investigation. The spirit of organic life was kindled in the people and they showed an inclination toward the closest union with one another. Only a strong will and a skillful hand were necessary to remove certain remaining obstacles, and the triumph of Episcopalism in the country could have been secured.”[4] This important moment in the history of Episcopalism, however, did not lead to the results one might have expected. The Episcopal Church, thanks to this spiritual awakening within itself and the general demand of the age, of necessity, before undertaking the great mission of uniting Christian communities, had to carefully examine its own internal capacity for such a mission. This necessity was recognized by its best representatives and from them at the 1853 convention came a series of memorials of which mention was made above. From these memorials it is evident that if the religious consciousness demanded greatly a church that could satisfy the “great moral and social needs of the age,”[5] then all the more clearly appeared the inadequacy of the Episcopal Church in meeting them. The demand of the age forced deeper inquiry into the essence of Episcopalism and in this internal analysis the whole instability of its foundations was revealed. Resting as it did on compromise between two extremes, it could still maintain balance between them in ordinary quiet circumstances. But in the strong movement that began around it in the 1850s, it found itself in a difficult position. The foundations provided by compromise were too unreliable and unstable to withstand the strong thrust of the people’s spirit. It demanded solid positive foundations, which the Episcopal Church did not possess. And so it, recognizing the magnitude of the demand addressed to it and at the same time feeling its own weakness and inadequacy in meeting it, wavered in its very foundation. The more it needed positive foundations, the more strongly appeared before it the unreliability of its own foundations. Such an indefinite and abnormal condition could not be permanent. It had to find a way out. If its own foundations were weak, it was necessary to seek them elsewhere. Before it stood Protestantism on one side and Roman Catholicism on the other. The first could not serve as support for Episcopalism because it itself suffered from instability. Thus only Roman Catholicism remained. But to seek support in Roman Catholicism for Episcopalism meant to renounce itself and erase its own past history. It arose as a protest against the abnormal development of Roman Catholicism and therefore accepting what had once been rejected would be an unconditional denial of its right to exist. Yet it did have a right to exist even as an external balance for the extremes. If it was now unstable in its foundations, this meant only that it had not established balance between the extremes with sufficient precision and, denying both extreme Protestantism and extreme papalism, had not consistently carried through the principle of balance and therefore had not retained the essential elements that constitute the necessary condition for stable existence. Such an inevitable process of thought led the more consistent representatives of the Episcopal Church to careful analysis of its middle position and they discovered that the whole cause of Episcopalism’s instability lay in the fact that, having rejected Roman Catholicism, it had nonetheless retained certain truths that constitute the essential elements of church life, and thus had not held to the true middle point but had leaned toward Protestantism. As soon as the true cause of Episcopalism’s unstable position was found, there naturally arose the desire to remove it. If this cause lay in immoderate inclination toward Protestantism, then obviously the only means of establishing balance remained—to shift the center of gravity in the direction of Roman Catholicism. And indeed a process of such shift did begin and it expressed itself in the movement known as Ritualism.

[1] This dream runs like a red thread through all the journalistic and historical literature of Roman Catholicism in the United States. More detailed examples will be given elsewhere.

[2] The idea of the incompatibility of Roman Catholicism with intellectual progress and the course of modern civilization nowhere has such prevalence as in America. The well-known book by Draper is the expression of general American views on Roman Catholicism. Cf. Pamphlet Roman Catholicism in the U. S., New York, 1879; Barnum, Romanism. Catholic World, Vol. VIII, article ‘Hypnotics.’ Vol. V, article Rome or Reason. The latter articles constitute a refutation of widespread views.

[3] This idea is developed with particular fullness in Thompson’s work: The Papacy and the Civil Power, New York, 1879. See also Roman Catholicism in the U. S., particularly Ch. VI; Fortnightly Review, Jan. 1876, article ‘The Catholic peril in America,’ etc.

[4] Catholic World, Vol. VIII, pp. 149–150.

[5] Excerpts from Memorial Papers in Catholic World, Vol. VIII, article The Church of the Future.

Preface (Cont.) (4)

Ritualism, considered in its general features, is precisely a reaction against the immoderate incursion of Protestant principles into the system of Episcopalism. In it two directions are noticed which, however, share one and the same general aim. One of them wishes to restore in Episcopalism only those principles and forms by which it was distinguished in the age of the Reformation and from which over time it had deviated in the direction of Protestantism. The other is not limited to this and aims to restore in the church those forms which existed in it even before the appearance of Anglicanism.[1] Both directions agree in the conviction that present-day Episcopalism is not the true expression of that church movement which was only a limitation of the abuses of Roman Catholicism but had gone into an undesirable extreme of Protestantism and thus deviated from the essential principles of truly church life. The so-called “XXXIX Articles,” which constitute the symbolic expression of the essence of Episcopalism’s doctrine, are in the opinion of Ritualists purely “Protestant articles fastened to a Catholic liturgy,”[2] and as such should be rejected or radically revised. While legally these views have not yet been expressed in any formal determinations, in practice they have already been widely applied. Ritualistic churches in New York, the chief center of American Ritualism, have substantially transformed their worship, and it strikes with the splendor and magnificence of its forms, by which it thus essentially differs from the Protestantized simplicity of ordinary Episcopal churches. In transforming the worship, Ritualistic churches naturally had in view either ancient Anglicanism or even Roman Catholic forms, and therefore the liturgical and ceremonial side in them presents considerable similarity with Roman Catholic worship, and essentially differs only in that it is performed not in Latin but in English. Splendid vestments, icons, crosses, incense—all this bears the Roman Catholic imprint.[3] But Ritualism is not limited to the restoration of only the external forms lost in the Protestant movement but also strives to adapt the very doctrine of the church to those true principles from which Episcopalism had deviated. Thus Ritualism, contrary to the symbolic book of Episcopalism, recognizes all seven sacraments, permits confession, recognizes transubstantiation in the Eucharist, the invocation of saints, prayers for the dead, and the foundations of celibate monastic life.[4] What then is Ritualism in its inner essence? It is evidently a movement in the direction of those forms and principles of truly church life from which deviation had come to appear to a certain part of Episcopalians as sectarian delusion, extreme Protestantism and consequently a denial of the essential elements of life in the true Christian church. But such a movement, in order to realize its fundamental idea, must have in view not only the general ideal of true church life but also its more or less concrete realization, with which it could conform itself in its direction. Otherwise the movement either will be in constant process of wavering or will plunge into an undesirable extreme. This question has deep vital significance for Ritualism and seriously occupies the leading minds of its best representatives. The whole fate of Ritualism depends on the solution of it one way or another, and Ritualism has already made more than one attempt to resolve this question for itself.

In the 1860s, when the spirit of the age was pressing most insistently the questions about the direction of the religious consciousness of the American people, Ritualism was manifesting extraordinary vitality within itself. If pure Episcopalism had proven inadequate before the demands of the age, then Ritualism tried to take its place and in its quality as a “Catholic” church opened its embrace to the weary and exhausted Protestantism. Its preachers with remarkable sensitivity noted the mood of the time and openly began to attack Protestantism as a completely unsuccessful and even false movement and proclaimed that the only salvation could be only in the return to “Catholicity,” as the true expression of true church-religious life. Particularly prominent in such preaching was the well-known New York Episcopal preacher with a Ritualistic inclination, Doctor Ewer. In the autumn of 1868 he came forward with a series of sermons in which with remarkable force and boldness he proclaimed the complete failure of Protestantism in satisfying the demands of the religious spirit of humanity and depicted in vivid colors the sad condition of church life in the realm of Protestantism. These sermons of his, under the general title: “The Failure of Protestantism,” produced a deep impression on American society[5] and the newspapers gave exact stenographic accounts of them. They represent a very characteristic expression both of the general religious condition of the American people and especially of the movement which grew out of dissatisfaction with this condition. In them with remarkable force is expressed the thirst of the American religious spirit for that true “Catholicity” which it vainly seeks among the Christian denominations existing in America. In this sense they have direct relation to our subject and therefore we consider it necessary to briefly set forth their fundamental ideas.[6]

The present religious condition of the American people, in the opinion of the preacher, is passing through one of those crises which from time to time have occurred in the religious-church life of humanity as a result of departure from the true principles of Christianity. Already in the first centuries of Christianity one of such crises occurred—namely the appearance of Arianism, and the consequence of this crisis was that “uncorrupted Christianity rose up in its strength against error and true, pure, apostolic faith was thus restored and confirmed.” In the Middle Ages another crisis occurred. Roman errors slowly grew and developed until finally in the 11th century serious Catholics in the eastern part of the church, no longer able to bear the spreading evils, rose up in their greatness to condemn them; and the Orthodox Eastern (or Greek) Church determined to break communion with Rome, which separation continues to this day.[7] Meanwhile in the Roman part of Christianity those same errors continued to grow and new ones were added to them, until finally in the 15th century serious people throughout the West rose up in their greatness against them and produced the so-called ‘Reformation.’ Protestantism came to dominance but with it the crises did not cease. On the contrary they took a worse form. Protestantism, having rejected firm church principles, stepped upon the slippery path of rationalism, and from this, besides continuous small crises, there is being prepared a general and most terrible crisis for all religious-Christian consciousness. In the midst of it unbelief grows and develops, practical life becomes freed from the influence of religious-Christian principles and the ‘communion of saints’ is destroyed. It is too one-sided in its narrow individualism and too cold for religious enthusiasm, so that in it there is no outlet for those by nature enthusiastic persons who could find their happiness only in complete renunciation of gray practical life to devote themselves to service of a higher divine ideal (monasticism). Because of the one-sided abstractness of its principles, it has proven inaccessible to the popular masses and therefore has degenerated into aristocratism—with brilliant preaching and high fees for church pews.[8] But even in the intelligent classes themselves its wandering instability develops indifference, in consequence of which very many, weary of the changeability of forms, reject all forms of church life and live by general Christianity alone, losing themselves in its vague indefiniteness.[9] Thus Protestantism itself shows its wretched inadequacy to satisfy the religious demands of humanity. It constitutes a completely unsuccessful and harmful movement and is preparing a terrible crisis. One must seek salvation from it. But this does not mean that salvation from it should be sought in Romanism. “This would mean returning from an evil consequence to the cause of all evils.”[10] No, salvation should be sought “in the restoration of the ancient, Catholic and apostolic foundations, free from the admixture of Roman errors.” The signs of the age show the beginning of a movement in this direction, a movement toward the restoration of the “Catholic Church in its continuous life as a divine institution, furnished with supreme authority and adapted to the needs of all ages.”[11] But what is the “Catholic Church”? Does it exist on earth and if it does, where? “The Catholic Church is a living organism, universal in space and universal in time—back to Christ himself.” It is a living body having one organic head; a visible body with invisible life, and this life, this soul of the Church, is Christ.[12] As a visible, living organism, it obviously must exist in space and time. Protestant communities cannot be this organism because their historical life does not go back to the very source of the church’s origin as a continuously living and developing organism. “But suppose I turn to our (Episcopal) church. I find that it as an organism, with its hierarchy and church life, goes back into the Middle Ages of England, and through the early period of Britain—even to the times of the apostles. Here apparently there is something Catholic. But do not hurry. The life of the Roman Church I can trace equally continuously to the apostles. The same distinctive feature of continuous existence back to the apostles is found also in the Greek Church.”[13] If one looks carefully at these three churches, it will turn out that between them there are important differences. “Rome has a pope and the cult of Holy Mary the Ever-Virgin, which is not in the Greek and Anglican organisms.”[14] But if one looks even more carefully, one can notice that although these three churches—Anglican, Greek and Roman—differ in some respects, they are remarkably similar in everything else. “All three have a hierarchy of bishops, priests and deacons. All have a sacred altar of the awful sacrifice as the central purpose in their churches. All have vested clergy. All have days of saints and solemn church seasons. All have a ceremonial side in their worship. All trace their life from the first century. All have magnificent ceremonies and processions; the Greeks have the most brilliant, the Romans less so and Anglicans even less. All recognize the authority of the universal councils. All have the same apostolic succession and the same sacraments. Here, thus, I begin to find the Catholic Church. Those not many particular features by which the Greek, Anglican and Roman churches differ from one another are simply local; but all those many features in which they agree form for me visibly, firmly and distinctly the great Catholic Church; one in space as in an organism, and one in time; existing equally in Russia, and in Italy, and in England, and in America, in Mexico, in Germany and Brazil—everywhere, existing also in the 19th century and also in the Middle Ages and in early periods—unchangingly and unchangeably. All that in the Anglican, Greek and Roman communities which all three hold in common and which they have held everywhere, always and by all—that is Catholic. All else, every particular feature which we have but Rome and the Eastern Christians do not have, or which Rome has but we and the Greeks do not have, or which the Greeks have but we and Rome do not have—that is simply local, particular, not Catholic.” Trying to give a vivid explanation of his theory, Ewer resorts to a well-known comparison of the church with a tree. “For simplicity,” says he, “let us take a tree. For eight feet above the ground the trunk stands single and undivided. Somewhere at the ninth foot it divides into two main branches. The eastern we shall call the Greek branch, and the western we shall call the Latin branch. Six feet higher on the Latin branch, that is at fifteen feet above the ground, this western branch divides into two large branches. The outermost of them we shall call the Anglican branch, and the other we shall call the Roman. These two branches and the Greek branch go upward to 19½ feet from the ground. And thus there exist three great branches, each with its own foliage, Anglican on the west, Roman in the center and Greek on the east. If now you look only at the top of the tree, you will see before you three separate groups of vegetation, although the foliage and color are the same. But look at the entire tree and—you will see a symbol of the Catholic Church—one organism from root to top.”[13] The branching did not destroy the unity. But why have these three churches broken off all relations and communication with one another? “In reality the unity of the organism was not destroyed; communication between its three parts is only interrupted temporarily until there occurs in the one Church of God that differentiation which, as Spencer remarkably shows, is the law of all growth; differentiation which in its final phase appears not as complete separation but as final unity in manifold diversity, harmony of coordinated parts. Thus we have found what the Catholic Church is.”[15]

[1] Catholic World, Vol. V, p. 64, article Ritualism.

[2] Ibidem, p. 64.

[3] We personally had the opportunity to attend services in ritualistic churches and observe their peculiarities. A description of one of the ritualistic churches, namely St. Alban’s, is found in Catholic World, Vol. V, article Ritualism.

[4] Catholic World, Vol. VIII, p. 830; Vol. V, p. 57. In New York State there are several ritualistic ‘brotherhoods’ having a monastic character.

[5] New York Times, November 16, 1868, editorial comment.

[6] In this exposition we use a stenographic report printed in the best and most serious American newspaper New York Times for 1868 in issues of September 28, October 6, 9, 30, and November 16.

[7] N. Y. Times, September 28, 1868.

[8] This position evidently applies especially to American Episcopalianism, which as a result acquired the name of an aristocratic religion.

[9] In America one can meet many persons who are very pious and religious but who do not belong to any confession, considering themselves simply Christians. We personally know several such persons, among whom some are respected and more than elderly people. This religious impersonality is even expressed in a special community called the ‘Christians,’ which recognizes no confessional form for itself.

[10] New York Times, September 28, 1868.

[11] The concluding words of the first lecture on Sunday, September 27. N. Y. Times, September 28, 1868.

[12] N. Y. Times, October 6 and 30, 1868.

[13] N. Y. Times, October 30, 1868.

[14] Regarding this statement, a Roman Catholic critic says: “We are astonished by Dr. Ewer’s statement that the Greek Church does not have a cult of the Virgin Mary, the Ever-Virgin, on account of which many Anglicans, like Pusey, opposed to the Roman Church on this account, seek communion with the schismatic Greeks; but among them this cult is carried to such an extreme as there is nothing comparable to in the Latin Church.” Catholic World, Vol. VIII, p. 520. It must be kept in mind that this tirade was written in 1869 and consequently after the Roman Church’s proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

[15] N. Y. Times, October 30, 1868. Applying his theory to Protestantism, Ewer says, among other things: “Suppose that separate branches of this tree are cut off from time to time and placed in vessels with water around a large tree. Being without roots, those longest cut off are all dead; meanwhile those recently cut off are still green with deceptive life and will soon wither and die. These cut branches standing without trunk and root around a living tree would be suitable symbols for Protestant sects.”

Preface (Cont.) (5)

The arguments presented by the venerable Doctor Ewer[1] expressively depict the condition of the religious spirit of the American people—especially the Episcopal community. It is a complete consciousness of the inadequacy of those religious principles by which it now lives and a thirst for the higher principles of “Catholicity.” Weary of the fragmentation and variability of Protestant forms, it seeks the firm unity of the great church organism, the one Catholic Church.[2] But in seeking this Catholicity there strikes at the same time the vagueness of consciousness about where exactly pure Catholicity can be found and by what path to come to it. Recognizing the abnormality of the present condition, the religious spirit of the American people instinctively guesses in what it can find the saving way out and seeks it in “Catholicity” but Catholicity itself is only instinctively felt by it and in it there is yet no clear and distinct consciousness that could directly point it toward the desired way out. Ewer, through his analytical process of thought, arrives at recognizing Catholicity in three main church communities namely the Anglican, Greek and Roman. From a certain perspective he is right, but the Catholicity found in such a way presents something so indefinite, impersonal and organically disunited that for concrete consciousness it presents no tangible guarantee of the viability of such Catholicity as an organic, living body of the church. Meanwhile in the very process of his thinking lie the data for a more satisfactory solution of the problem. The process of religious-church development took place through a series of crises arising from deviation of this development from its original pure Catholicity. When deviation threatened dangerous consequences for the church the most truth-sensitive parts of it rose up against such deviation and separated themselves from those in error. This separation, judging from its origin, obviously had as its purpose the better preservation of uncorrupted Catholicity. The first phase of this separation was expressed in the separation of the Eastern Church, which first perceived the deviation of the Roman Church from the path of true development. The deviation meanwhile in the erring part, namely the Roman Church, continued to increase until finally other parts also perceived this deviation, obviously less sensitive to truth than the first separated part, and they also separated from the erring one. Thus Anglicanism occurred. Thus we have one church developing unwaveringly along a false path and two other churches which rose up against such error and separated from it for the preservation of pure Catholicity. But they separated at different times. The first separated as soon as deviation from truth became noticeable in the Roman Church while the second lived for whole centuries in union with an admittedly erring church and separated from it only when the error had become unbearably obvious. Both the one and the other church separated with the purpose of preserving pure, uncorrupted Catholic faith. But from this it naturally follows that pure Catholic faith can be found in greater inviolability and purity in that church which proved most concerned with the preservation of true and uncorrupted faith and hastened to separate itself at the first signs of deviation from truth in the Roman Church. The second, meanwhile, having lived for whole centuries more in organic connection with the erring church, by necessity became itself imbued with error, and when finally it recognized the abnormality of the Roman Church’s development, then for the preservation of Catholicity simple separation was no longer sufficient for it; it had not only to separate but also to purify itself from contracted errors, and from this Anglicanism appeared not only as a separated church but also as a Protestant one. Because of the reaction against the intensified evil, it had to not only separate from Roman Catholicism but also push away from it, and from this it did not remain on pure Catholicity but went into Protestantism. But Protestantism is the opposite and most dangerous error. It does not satisfy the religious spirit of humanity which thirsts for Catholicity. Thus the only way out remaining is—to turn to that church which first perceived the deviation from truth and separated itself for its preservation. By its separation it protected itself from participation in the further development of the false direction and did not experience the crisis that led to Protestantism. If thus, where pure, uncorrupted Catholicity still exists, it must exist in that very church which first perceived the error and separated itself from it. By the admission of Ewer and others, this Catholicity exists. If so, then the direct and natural consequence from Ewer’s very analytical process of thought can only be that Catholicity in its pure truth exists only in the Eastern Church. Anglicanism, as having been nourished by the juices of a contaminated organism, in its effort to free itself from them, deviated into Protestantism. Roman Catholicism, as the cause of all these crises, is itself a contaminated organism. There remains only that organic part which separated at the time when deviation from truth had only just arisen and in it lies pure Catholicity. This part is the Holy Eastern Catholic Church. As having preserved within itself pure and uncorrupted Catholicity, it is the organic center of true Catholic faith and from this center other church communities can receive pure Catholicity—through bringing their religious principles into harmony with its Catholic principles. Such Catholicity, represented by the Eastern Church, is not an abstract concept to which Ewer came but is a living, concrete truth embodied in a living, historical and integral organism of the church.

Thus Ewer need only have carried his analysis further to its final natural conclusions and instead of indefinite Catholicity he would have come to a concrete church organism preserving within itself this Catholicity from those very times when, as a result of the beginning error developing, it was necessary to separate and isolate it from the process of false development. But if Ewer did not come to such a natural and logical conclusion, then to it the general consciousness of the entire Episcopal Church in America is involuntarily inclined.

Episcopalism, as we have said above and as it is defined by Ewer, is a “Catholic Church elaborated on Protestant principles.”[3] As based on compromise between two opposite principles—Roman Catholicism and Protestantism—it contains within itself an internal contradiction which manifests itself in any more or less deep church-religious movement. In ordinary times it still apparently shows integral and organic vitality; but as soon as there comes any period with a new strong demand from the side of church-religious life, then immediately its internal inadequacy is exposed. The opposite elements composing it show their irreconcilable opposition and the entire church organism is put in danger of disintegration. Its heterogeneous parts cease organic activity and in this clearly show an inclination toward assimilation with whole organisms standing outside Episcopalism. From this many Episcopal priests pass into Roman Catholicism and many laity go into extreme Protestantism. In the general direction of the community the same opposition is evident and while one party inclines toward Roman Catholicism the other shows no less inclination toward Protestantism. The first finds its expression in Ritualism while the second finds its expression in the so-called “Reformed Episcopal Church” which in its principles is nothing other than Protestantism carried further than ordinary Episcopalism.[4] In view of such a condition of Episcopalism the words of a Roman Catholic publicist receive some justification when he says: “The Episcopal Church must labor either for us or for Protestantism. It has no field of its own for harvest and no middle ground for an honest spirit. It has already sent many talented and pure souls to the house of truth and purity and we Catholics daily receive those whom it has brought to our doors.”[5] But an organism, although suffering from opposition of essential elements and principles of life, still has within itself the instinct of self-preservation and therefore Episcopalism, feeling its own internal inadequacy, seeks support from without. If individual members of it, unable to bear the contradiction of the principles composing the Episcopal Church, seek internal reconciliation and rest in accepting these principles in their separate existence and complete expression and therefore embrace either Protestantism or Roman Catholicism, then for the whole organism such an outcome is certainly impossible and would be equivalent to self-denial or suicide against which the faint spark of organic life within it rises up. Having no sufficiently firm ground beneath it Episcopalism seeks it from without and in doing so naturally it could only turn where it could find positive principles without the extremes of Protestantism or Roman Catholicism. And it turned to the Orthodox East. While in Protestantism the flickering deceptive lights of religious inspiration gradually yield place to the darkness of rationalism and in Roman Catholicism the progressive development of extreme papalism increasingly Latinizes Catholic Christianity, in the East unwaveringly continues to shine the bright sun of pure Catholic Christianity and its rays invitingly beckon and caress all seeking light. As soon as Episcopalism turned its eyes to the East, it at once understood that if light of Catholicity could come to fractured Christianity it could only come from the East. Ex Oriente lux. In this life-giving light the Episcopal Church saw hope both for its own existence and in it arose the passionate desire to draw closer to the source of this light. From this came a series of attempts on the part of Episcopalism to enter into closer communion with the Orthodox Church of the East.

III

The striving of Episcopalism toward unity with the Orthodox East manifested itself with particular force precisely in that period when in the consciousness of the American people with particular insistence there became evident the tendency toward religious and political unity when the idea of one strong church began to demand factual realization and when at the same time most clearly appeared the inadequacy of the existing churches and sects to embody this idea. In that very year when the bold speeches of Doctor Ewer rang out about the bankruptcy of Protestantism and the necessity of seeking salvation in Catholicity in the autumn of the same year there assembled the usual triennial general convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of America. The venerable assembly of prelates and laity of the Episcopal Church had already been predisposed in its sympathies toward the East and therefore the question of relations with the Orthodox East had already been placed before it by the time itself; but acceleration of its resolution was further assisted by the fact that members of the Anglican Church, in which too the need for unity with the East was felt, in order to give their striving a more real basis decided to inspire the initiative of actual relations on this subject to the American Episcopal Church as more independent in its activity. To the 1868 general convention the English society—“The Eastern Church Association”—submitted a long memorial on this subject. “Seeing,” it is stated in the memorial, that it has pleased the great Head of the Church in recent years to place in the hearts of people in different parts of Christianity belonging to different religious communities long in disagreement (variance) a deep conviction that this division is contrary to the will of Him who is the Prince of Peace and Friend of unity and that it has arisen in many cases not so much from essential difference in the foundations of faith as from mutual unfamiliarity and misunderstandings and more than anything from the lack of mutual love and conscious that such division among Christians at present serves as one of the chief causes of the spread of unbelief and irreligiousness and a chief obstacle to the salvation of souls; and thinking also that all who grieve over the division of Christianity have upon them a solemn obligation to strive as much as depends upon them to reunite them and restore the unity of spirit in the bond of peace your memorialists respectfully wish to direct the attention of the venerable assembly to: 1) what has already been done with God’s help to achieve this holy purpose and 2) the grounds which apparently indicate that the Church of America is especially adapted by Divine Providence to take upon itself the initiative at this critical moment for undertaking the most desirable measures for the restoration of communion between the Anglican community and the great Orthodox Churches of Russia Constantinople and Greece.[6] Restoration of communion is presented as desirable with all Christian denominations but the attention of the Episcopal assembly is directed first of all to the East and for the following reason. “While,” continue the memorialists, “the disagreements between us and the Church of Rome are so great that all hopes or efforts for reunion with it would be worse than useless such an insurmountable obstacle does not exist with respect to drawing closer to the East and that therefore with God’s help the unity of churches could be restored in this direction. In any case this undertaking is worthy of an attempt. Obviously the first step in this unknown field of labor should consist in preparing the ground for future investigations removing obstacles placed in the way by various prejudices misunderstandings and ignorance becoming acquainted with the sentiments of our Eastern brothers toward us and clarifying to them our desires.”[7] With precisely such a purpose the named society was formed and it has already labored considerably in this respect but at the same time according to experience it came to the conviction that the most adapted for accomplishing the great work of restoration of church unity is the American Episcopal Church. The memorialists “most respectfully declare that the American Church is more capable of taking upon itself the initiative on this delicate subject than the Church of England. Not constrained by state control independent in its church and civil organization it apparently by Providence itself is destined to pave the way for the union not only of states but of churches into a sacred federal union. Continuous friendly relations between Russia and the United States and close commercial relations between the two countries give confidence that these proposals from the American Church for reunion would be favorably received by the Russian government both ecclesiastical and civil and this at the same time would undoubtedly also be pleasing to the majority of members of the American Church who in their diocesan conventions have already expressed lively interest in the subject. Another important motive for beginning action lies in the actual proximity of the two churches in the region of the Pacific coast recently ceded by Russia to the American government. This region contains many Orthodox residents and there has long existed a Russian mission on the Aleutian Islands. Is it not incumbent upon the American Church to care for these sheep without a shepherd without violating the rights of their recognized spiritual authorities?”[8]

The venerable assembly of representatives of the Episcopal Church as we have said above was already prepared by the very demands of the age for the question which with such insistence was proposed by the memorial of the “Eastern Church Association” and therefore naturally it could not be left without some resolution. But its resolution could not take place in the circumstances then existing. Despite all the urgency of the need for its resolution this question was at the same time extraordinarily difficult. History had developed no preparatory premises for it except the consciousness itself of the necessity for resolution. It was necessary first to investigate the logical and historical data on which the question itself is based so that one could proceed to the actual realization of the striving for unity with the Orthodox East. Without such investigation it could be only pious aspirations without any guarantee of achieving practical results. But for such work a special organ was necessary which would specially devote itself to the development of preparatory data as necessary material for the resolution of the main question. No such organ existed in the Episcopal Church and therefore it was necessary to create one. The idea of such an organ first and foremost arose as the result of the memorial of the named association. When the memorial was presented for discussion at the convention it met with energetic approval. A resolution was submitted to the assembly on the question of church unity and it was adopted by both houses of the convention in the following form:

Whereas the restoration of the unity of the churches is a matter of great importance for without the restoration of unity it is impossible for it to perfectly carry out its mission in the world and

[1] At present he serves as rector of the Episcopal Church of St. Ignatius in New York and from time to time continues his preaching on ‘seeking the Catholic Church.’ N.Y. No. 50 West, 40th Street.

[2] Another no less powerful exponent of this seeking for ‘Catholicity’ is Dr. Knox. See his brilliant article ‘The Organic Unity of the Church’ in Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review for October 1876.

[3] New York Times, September 28, 1868.

[4] See ‘The Principles’ of the Reformed Episcopal Church in its organ Episcopal Recorder, April 16, 1881. ‘The Principles’ were worked out in 1873.

[5] Catholic World, Vol. VIII, p. 470.

[6] See Journals of Proceedings of the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopalian Church in 1868, Appendix IV, p. 427.

[7] Journals of the Proceedings, 1868, p. 428.

[8] Journals of the Proceedings, 1868, p. 430.

Preface (Cont.) (6)

Whereas in the opinion of many the signs of the age clearly point to a strong and constant growth of the desire among the churches to see the restoration of such unity then

Resolved: in agreement with the House of Bishops that a joint committee of the two houses constituting the general convention consisting of an equal number of bishops priests and laity should be appointed as the organ of relations with other branches of the church and with various Christian communities which desire information or communication on this subject. Said committee should be called: Committee of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America for the Unity of the Churches.[1]

Having taken the first essential and necessary step toward the resolution of the question namely by establishing a special organ for this the general convention at the same time attempted to outline the first point in the development of the subject itself. It took into account the indication in the memorial of the “Eastern Church Association” of the proximity of the Orthodox Church to the Episcopal Church actually coming into contact with one another on the American continent and therefore adopted the following resolution:

“Whereas mutual friendship happily exists and constantly grows between the Russian and American peoples and a cordial drawing together of the entire Anglican community and the Orthodox Eastern Church toward better mutual understanding and recognition as equal integral branches of the Catholic Church of Christ requires careful concern from both sides to avoid misunderstandings as far as possible and in view of the petition of the lower house in England to the upper: to take measures to open relations with the Eastern Patriarchs and Metropolitans with the purpose of establishing such a relationship between the two communities as to enable the laity and clergy of both to commune in the sacraments and ordinances of one another without breaking their connection with their own church then

Resolved: in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies assembled in general convention that we request the House of Bishops to take such measures as in its wisdom it shall find best not only for promoting more intimate relations and better mutual acquaintance between our and the Eastern community but especially for securing the spiritual needs of our people who shall settle in the territory of Alaska with proper respect for the rights and dignity of the Russian Church.”[2]

The practical results of the resolutions and measures adopted by the convention were to appear at the next regular convention. In the intervening three years the newly established organ on the question of church unity began energetic relations with the churches of the East. The special committee on church unity which received the name “Russian-Greek Committee” not only conducted written relations but also sent a deputation to the East for closer acquaintance with the condition of the Orthodox East and the attitude of the Orthodox Church toward Episcopalism. The committee had great comfort in the fact that the East for its part responded with lively sympathy to the seeking from its side of church truth: the Patriarchs and Metropolitans of the Eastern churches warmly expressed their desire to see church unity restored and for their part offered various means measures and conditions for this. When in 1871 the new regular general convention assembled the Russian-Greek Committee already had a store of material which shed some light on the relations of the Orthodox East to the Episcopal Church seeking unity with it. The data collected by the committee produced an encouraging impression on the convention and the House of Bishops submitted the following resolution:

“Resolved: in agreement with the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies that in view of the cordial reciprocal declarations of brotherly respect so frequently received in the course of the past three years from the Patriarch of Constantinople the Patriarch of Jerusalem the Metropolitan of Athens and the Most Holy Governing Synod of the Orthodox Russian Church by the prelates of the Church of England and the representatives of this (American) Church both clerical and lay she gratefully accepts the friendly action by which the authorities of the holy Orthodox Church have deigned to permit the holy rite of burial for the dead of our community and that she earnestly desires the continuation and growth of such brotherly relationship and mutual good exercise of love;

Resolved that the committee should continue its existence for relations with the holy Orthodox Church of the East and

Resolved that upon said committee is laid also the obligation to take further measures to acquire and communicate such information as may be mutually important and interesting to this Church and the holy Orthodox Church of the East and to publish it when it is found to be necessary and prudent.”[3]

Relations were actively continued and in the course of the following three years. The messages from representatives of the Orthodox East with even greater readiness expressed sympathy with the holy striving of the Episcopal Church and the Russian-Greek Committee considered the work of preparatory work on the question of church unity so far advanced that further continuation of it exceeded its original authority and it wished to transfer it to a more competent organ—the bishops. At the general convention in 1874 the Russian-Greek Committee submitted such a resolution:

“Resolved that the general convention had great satisfaction in learning of the love and brotherly tone of the messages received from Anthimus Patriarch of Constantinople Sophronius of Alexandria Hierotheus of Antioch Theophilus Metropolitan of Athens and President of the Holy Synod of Greece in response to the communication of the actions of the general convention sent through the joint committee;

Resolved that we believe that the establishment of full and free communion and mutual relationship of Christian brotherhood between the great Eastern Churches and our own constantly increases in importance and hope and we earnestly pray to the Supreme Head of the Church that His Spirit may direct our counsels so as to remove from both sides all obstacles which pride prejudice or error of human weakness may present to prevent its accomplishment.

Resolved that we desire the continuation and growth of friendly relations with our brothers of the holy Eastern Churches in full confidence that from both sides there will be full recognition of all feelings and rights which may be endangered by improper or unconscious intrusion.

Resolved that since the work to come in the future in case of relations will consist for the most part in communication with the hierarchy of the various branches of the holy Eastern Church which may be more conveniently done by bishops of the Church in arising cases the joint committee requests to be excused from further conducting this subject.”[4]

With the cessation of the activity of the Russian-Greek Committee there ended one period of the actual attempt of the American Episcopal Church at reunion with the Orthodox East. Since the further phase of the development of this striving has not yet been expressed in any more or less definite and tangible facts the clarification of the character of this striving can and should for now be limited to only this first period. If one looks at the matter from an external perspective the results of the attempts present nothing that could be considered as having more or less significant importance for the great question. All the more important therefore is its inner aspect. Both the very fact of the formation of a special organ for relations with the Orthodox East and its activity show how strongly the Episcopal Church was conscious of the necessity of seeking support from the East. Its significance emerges most clearly from those responses with which the Roman Catholic press of the country accompanied these attempts. Roman Catholicism itself claims the first role in the North American republic and cherishes the dream that it will become the single future church of the country. Therefore it is extremely jealous toward all other denominations and communities which make the same claims. The Episcopal Church is one of its first rivals in this respect and therefore it watches its movements with greater vigilance than all others. But at the same time it fully understands that with its own forces alone it is far from adequate to its claims to the first church-religious role in the country. More than that Roman Catholicism finds even that it with its existing forces and in its present condition has only so much significance in the country as to serve as an intermediary link for the unification of the American people under the banner of Roman Catholicism. In the opinion of an authoritative Roman Catholic publicist the Episcopal Church has positively a providential significance for the Roman Catholic Church and is destined by Providence itself to serve as the transitional point into Roman Catholicism for all seeking church truth. The prejudice against Roman Catholicism itself is so great and so deeply rooted they say that many seekers of truth would never have entered the bosom of this church if there had not been a transitional step in the form of Episcopalism. Not finding satisfaction in Protestantism and at the same time hating Roman Catholicism they choose the Episcopal Church seemingly free from both extremes. But having perceived the shakiness of its principles they then pass into Roman Catholicism with greater ease and consistency.[5] In view of such significance of the Episcopal Church for the purposes of Roman Catholicism for the latter it is very important that it continue its existence in its present shaky form and therefore it endeavors in every way to keep it in an isolated condition and places every conceivable obstacle to its strivings for reunion with other more firm and positive church organisms in which it could find reliable support for its own independent existence. Therefore when the Episcopal Church turned to the Orthodox East there arose in Roman Catholicism a great commotion the Roman Catholic press sounded the alarm and came forth fully armed to combat the dangerous tendency of Episcopalism. Journals became filled with articles having direct relation to the burning question all directed to one end—to prove the impossibility of union of the Episcopal Church with the Orthodox and to present the historical and dogmatic inadequacy of the latter which supposedly exhausts its own history and can find salvation only in the bosom of Roman Catholicism.[6] Not considering their own forces sufficient the American press brought up reserves of French Jesuits and in particular to humiliate the Orthodox Church put into circulation the well-known malicious pamphlet of an apostate from Orthodoxy Jesuit Prince Gagarin on the Russian clergy[7] and brought out an entire book on the present condition of the Russian Church in which someone concealing himself under the vague name “a former resident of Russia” with Jesuitical subtlety and cleverness makes a selection of facts cleverly directed again to proving the impossibility of union of the Episcopal Church with the Orthodox.[8] In all this literature together with the proof of the impossibility for Episcopalism to find recognition in the East with particular vividness runs also the thought that the East itself is in a process of church decomposition must itself seek support from without and that sound sense the “best sons” of it long ago already indicated where to seek support and salvation. As if factual confirmation of this thought there appeared extensive biographical literature. In it is presented a series of “noble sons of the East” who having perceived the “errors of the schismatic church” turned to the unchanging mother of truth that is into the bosom of Roman Catholicism and thereby factually proved not only the inadequacy of Orthodoxy to satisfy the religious demands of the best people but also marked out and paved the way for all the East to the footsteps of the Vicar of Christ on earth.[9] Apostates from Orthodoxy were brought forward as great heroes of truth and presented as noble pioneers of church truth and all this for the instruction and edification of Episcopalians who had shown the dangerous tendency in their striving for reunion with the “schismatic” East.

[1] Journals of the Proceedings, 1868, p. 43.

[2] Journals of the Proceedings, 1868, p. 160.

[3] Journals of the Proceedings, 1871, p. 196.

[4] The Journals of the Proceedings of the General Convention, 1874, Appendix, p. 556.

[5] Catholic World, Vol. VIII, concluding remarks of the article ‘Church of the Future.’ The unknown author of the article (most likely the editor of the journal, Hecker) counts himself among such seekers of truth who have finally found it in the bosom of Roman Catholicism.

[6] This character particularly distinguishes a series of articles by the Barnabite Toldini, placed in volumes XX and XXI of Catholic World under the heading ‘The Future of the Russian Church.’ Among other numerous articles of this kind let us point out the articles: ‘Anglican and Greek Church’ (Vol. II); ‘Anglicanism and Greek Schism’ (ibidem); ‘The Patriarchate of Constantinople’ (Vol. III); ‘Greek Schism’ (Vol. X); ‘Anglicanism at Present’ (Vol. XX), etc.

[7] The Russian Clergy. By Prince Gagarine. To popularize this book, Roman Catholic journals additionally put out several articles explaining and confirming the author’s fabrications. See, for example, Catholic World, Vol. XV, article ‘Russian Clergy.’

[8] The actual title of the book is The Russo-Greek Church, by a former resident in Russia. Catholic World, in a biographical note (Vol. I), frankly states that it was written with the aim of showing the absurdity of the Episcopalians’ yearnings toward the East.

[9] This biographical literature is extensive and presents, besides separate monographs, a whole series of journal sketches. Among separate books we point out the very widespread biography of Prince Golitsyn: Brownson, Life of Prince Demetrius Gallitzine, New York, 1872. In Catholic World articles of this same kind were placed: ‘Madame Swetchine’ (Vol. I); ‘A Russian Religious’ (ibidem); ‘The Story of a Sister’ (Vol. V); ‘Nathalie Narishkine’ (Vol. XXV), etc.

Preface (Cont.) (7)

However tendentious the literature presented may be, and however obvious its hidden thoughts and aims, it at least maintains outwardly a mask of propriety and respectability, with some exceptions. But the question was obviously too important for Roman Catholicism to hide its agitation behind a mask of scientific or literary calm. Therefore it came forward directly with polemic against the aspirations of the Episcopalians, and here it fully revealed its fears about the realization of the dangerous aims of Episcopalianism. The Roman Catholic press, with polemical and sarcastic zeal, began to pursue the Episcopalians at their general conventions, and even the ordinarily respectable and restrained journal (Catholic World) descended to theatrical buffoonery in its articles on the resolutions of these conventions concerning relations with the East. Since the revelation of a tendency toward the East in Episcopalianism, no convention passed without this journal pursuing it with mockery in specially dedicated articles. Regarding the resolution of the general convention of 1868, it said, among other things: “In relation to other Christian confessions the Episcopal Church is particularly unfortunate. It has communion with no community in the entire world. It excludes itself from other Protestant sects on the grounds that they are irregular, while itself calls itself a branch of the Catholic Church—that is, those who speak for it call it by this name. Other branches are the Eastern Churches and the Roman Catholic Church; at least so say those who say anything about this branch theory. With these other branches the Episcopal Church has no communion at all, and most likely never will have. There is no need to speak of the Roman Catholic Church, for its language and actions have always been decisive and clear. But the Eastern branches have condemned Anglican doctrine and ordination even more decisively than the Episcopalians have condemned their Protestant brothers. There was never a case where a Greek bishop agreed to give communion to a member of the Anglican branch without his renouncing his errors; and the rejection of the ordination of Anglican priests is just as certain in the East as in the West. Moreover, doctrines specially condemned by the Thirty-Nine Articles are held as firmly by the Eastern branches as by the Western. Why then do our high-church friends beg patronage from the Greek Church? It will not help them. They may crawl on their faces before the Metropolitan of Moscow and arrange compromises; but though like a gentleman he will be courteous with them, he will have a low opinion of them and will say in his heart: gentlemen, if you do not have your own legs to stand on, it seems to me it would be better for you to sit down.”[1] “All the attention of the Episcopalians,” says the same Roman Catholic organ, “is devoted to the East, and if they found there even a fleeting smile as a sign of recognition, it would gladden their hearts. Now perhaps they will receive it, because they have gone so far as to even recognize the jurisdiction of the Greek Church in Alaska.”[2] To the general convention of 1871, the Greco-Russian Committee presented certain factual material about the sympathy of the East to the aspirations of the Episcopal Church, and the Roman Catholic journal continued to mock maliciously. “Another thing occupying us is the magnitude of the task, again piled on the committee which must seek unity with the Eastern heretical churches. In this respect, besides the exchange of courtesies, so little has been done that we fear the means are inadequate to the goal. The Anglicans have already declared their willingness to drop Filioque from the Creed and thus renounce the doctrine of the Trinity, but this apparently does not bring these two or four communities closer to each other. The Eastern Churches still call the Anglicans heretical and say they have no ordination, while the latter in all humiliation crawl before the bishops of Constantinople and St. Petersburg and beg for the slightest smile of recognition. We do not think the committee has done its work, and like the prophet who urged the priests of Baal, we ask them not to fall behind. These venerable patriarchs perhaps sleep or are absent on a journey.”[3] “We are simply pained to see in the Episcopalians a lack of self-respect in their attempts to deal with the ‘holy Orthodox Eastern Church.’ This community, though it has true ordination, holds doctrine condemned by the Thirty-Nine Articles and has openly and manifestly anathematized Protestantism. Why then do the Episcopalians agree to be beaten and whipped in the face for the sake of a unity that is utterly impossible? If this pleases them, there is nothing for us to regret; but even for the sake of common humanity we protest against this.”[4] “The Eastern Churches,” the publicist declares categorically, “will never recognize the Episcopalians as anything other than a sect of Protestants.”[5]

But enough. We shall not cite other unworthy outbursts with which the Roman Catholic press was marked during this time. In themselves they have no significance for us, but they are important for characterizing the attitude of Roman Catholicism toward the question under consideration and for evaluating the movement of Episcopalianism toward unity with the East. If by the law of historical criticism, the diminishing of the significance of a known fact by a party hostile to it is a sure sign of its real importance to that party, then from the relation of the Roman Catholic press to the tending of the Episcopal Church toward the Orthodox East is determined the real significance of this fact. It really has enormous significance for the fate of Roman Catholicism in the United States. The Episcopal Church in its present unstable position serves, as the Roman Catholic organs themselves admit, only as an intermediary link for the acquisitions of Roman Catholicism on American soil. About half of Roman Catholicism’s converts come from Episcopalianism or through it. If the Episcopal Church should truly find support in communion with the Orthodox East, then it would cease to be a serving instrument for Roman Catholicism and—either would itself acquire stability in its existence, or more likely would direct those seeking church truth toward the East. In either case it would be a heavy loss for Roman Catholicism, and in the latter almost fatal. This explains its anxiety about the tending of the Episcopal Church toward the Orthodox East, and this anxiety becomes even clearer to the critical eye in the seemingly light mocking form of its relation to the fact.

As for the positive significance of the fact under consideration, it is difficult to exaggerate it. The actual realization of some unity between the Episcopal Church and the Orthodox East would give the ecclesiastical principles of the latter their first and most reliable basis for penetrating into the body of the American people, in which, as we have seen, there is no lack of receptivity to true ecclesiastical-religious principles, and on the contrary there exists a strong seeking for these principles. But ecclesiastical unity of both churches is possible only on the basis of preliminary agreement in faith. “The Orthodox Church,” says Metropolitan Isidore in his message to the Episcopal Church,[6] “considers preliminary agreement in faith absolutely necessary for practical mutual participation in the sacraments, since the former is the only possible foundation or basis for the latter. And to achieve this most desirable goal, it would be necessary to make a careful study and investigation of the differences in doctrine between the two churches; and to facilitate this, the great principle of mutual help will undoubtedly be found in the spirit of peace and love that animates both churches, both the Orthodox and the Anglican, and in those prayers for peace throughout the world and for the unity of the holy Churches of God which are offered to God of truth and mercy by the Eastern Churches, and which are doubtless also shared by the Anglican Churches.”[7]

In these few words with categorical precision is expressed both the foundation on which from the Orthodox point of view the realization of church unity is possible, and the means which can lead to this unity. A detailed investigation of these means does not enter into our task and would divert us far from the direct purpose of the work, and therefore, to conclude our sketch of the religious condition of the American people, we shall only generalize the material it presents.

In the religious life of the American people there are acting at present three forces having different significance. The most important of them is a potential force, which, expressing itself in the seeking by the American religious spirit of absolute church truth, makes itself known in dissatisfaction with the present forms of ecclesiastical-religious life and in an unclear but nonetheless strong striving toward Catholicity as the general expression of the ecclesiastical-religious ideal. This force acts throughout the entire American religious world, without distinction of churches, sects, and confessions. Another force is the force of Episcopalianism as a church more or less approaching the ideal of Catholicity. This force struggles for its own independence as an autonomous church and even makes claims to realize in itself that church truth which the American spirit hungers for, and thus to give real existence to the potential striving of this spirit. But at the first attempt its inner weakness in accomplishing this great task becomes evident; therefore it itself seeks external support, and as one that has preserved in itself more than others the wholeness of Catholic traditions, this church more clearly than others knows where to seek firm Catholic principles in their unshakeable historical wholeness, and hence its tending toward the Orthodox East and its seeking of unity with it. In this respect the Episcopal Church serves as a pointer to the wandering American spirit toward that Catholic Church which it dimly seeks and in which it can find ultimate rest. From such a position of Episcopalianism it becomes completely clear also the enormous significance that the actual realization of its striving toward unity with the Orthodox Eastern Church could have for directing the religious consciousness of the American people. Finally, the third force is Roman Catholicism, which appears as an independent and actively persistent claimant to the title of the one Catholic Church, which alone can satisfy the demands of the American religious spirit. Relying on its deep historical antiquity and with the help of its powerful ecclesiastical organization, it not only serves as a brake on the striving of the American religious spirit toward the Orthodox East, but also makes great conquests for its own benefit, directing this spirit into the bosom of its own church as the sole representative of true Catholicity. In the course of one past century it has achieved extraordinary success in this regard and has made not only enormous factual acquisitions but has also gained great public significance, representing a pledge of future successes. A detailed investigation of the facts and causes of these successes of Roman Catholicism on American soil constitutes the special purpose of this work, and to it we now turn.

* * *

[1] Catholic World, Vol. VIII, article General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church, p. 467.

[2] Catholic World, ibidem, p. 467.

[3] Catholic World, Vol. XIV, p. 510.

[4] Catholic World, Vol. XX, p. 468.

[5] Catholic World, Vol. XX, p. 471.

[6] We use the English text of this message in Journals of Proceedings of the general convention of 1874, Appendix X.

[7] Journals of Proceedings, 1874, Appendix X, pp. 545–546.

Part One. The First Steps of Roman Catholicism on the Continent of North America

(A sketch of the missionary activities of the Jesuits among the Indians in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries).

I. The Indians, their intellectual, moral, and religious condition. – II. The first attempt at missionary work and its failure. The penetration of the Jesuits into the interior and the establishment of permanent missions. The missionary methods of the Jesuits and their fruits. – III. Epidemics and their harmful effect on the success of missionary work. Dangers and hardships. – IV. The destruction of the tribe converted to Christianity and the loss of the fruits of missionary work. – V. Christianity in the state of New York. – VI. The penetration of the Jesuits into the Mississippi valley and the fruits of missionary labors. – The loss of the fruits of missionary efforts.

Roman Catholicism, during the storm of the Reformation movement, which deprived it of half of Europe, hastened to compensate itself in other parts of the world. The newly discovered continent presented a vast field. The very discovery of it, according to the common conviction of Roman Catholic publicists, has a providential significance for compensation to the Roman Catholic Church for the losses it suffered during the Reformation.[1] Across its immeasurable expanses lived pagan peoples. The gaze of the head of Catholicism turned there, and he sent his spiritual warriors to conquer these peoples. This field was fraught with many dangers and hardships; but Roman Catholicism had people capable of overcoming anything difficult and dangerous. The Order of Jesuits, born amid the very storm of the Reformation and having sworn to despise all dangers and hardships, was the most reliable instrument for this purpose. Northern America it chose as its exclusive domain, and the exploits of missionary activity by its members there represent one of the astonishing pages in the history of the country.

Exploration and colonization of the country proceeded slowly. In the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, European colonies began timidly to settle the shores of North America. From the south colonization was conducted by the Spanish, from the north by the French, and from the east by the Dutch and English. At the site of present-day New York in the seventeenth century stood a poor Dutch colony called New Amsterdam, and further north on the St. Lawrence River stood the tiny French fort of Quebec. Beyond the coastal strip lay an unknown country inhabited by unknown peoples. Behind the walls of the colony began impenetrable forests, into the depths of which settlers did not venture despite their great greed for valuable furs which they saw among the Indians. The first pioneers who brought Christian civilization into the interior were Christian missionaries, the ‘black robes,’ as the Indians called the Jesuits because of their long black garments, and to them belongs exclusively the credit for exploring the interior of North America. The most valiant among them were French Jesuits. Their exploits constitute an almost legendary epic in the history of the country, and the more remarkable because all its features are composed of real historical facts.[2] If this missionary activity is not unparalleled in the force of Christian self-sacrifice, it is nonetheless unique in the environment in which the Jesuits had to work. Here Christianity met the lowest level to which humanity had descended in religious and moral respects, and the highest Christian culture in the person of highly educated Jesuits collided with its antithesis—in the person of beast-like savage Indians.

I

The Indians inhabiting North America consisted of a multitude of small tribes scattered across the entire continent. Among them the principal ones were the tribes living in the vicinity of the Great Lakes, in the basins of the St. Lawrence, Hudson, and Mississippi rivers, namely: the Hurons, who lived in the southern parts of present-day Canada, the Iroquois, who occupied the area of present-day New York state, and the Illinois, who lived along the Mississippi River. All of them were at the lowest level of development, in a state of primitive savagery and barbarism. Some of them led a wandering life across immense forests and plains, moving from one place to another and carrying all their possessions on their backs. Others already showed the beginnings of settled life. The Hurons and Iroquois lived in villages consisting of a fairly large number of huts, of the most primitive construction, though sometimes quite large in size, like barns with only an opening at the top for the escape of smoke from a fire lit in the middle of the hut. Men occupied themselves exclusively with hunting, fishing, and war, while women conducted all domestic work, which consisted in planting corn and tobacco, raising children, sewing leather clothing by means of threads made from plant roots, and preparing various things necessary for the wretched savage household. With particular skill they made small boats from birch bark, so light that the Indians usually carried them on their shoulders from one river to another. Clothing was prepared with some ornamentation, with fringe, for which they used porcupine quills. Men, however, in the summer time took little thought for clothing and are ordinarily described by the Jesuits as being ‘as naked as your hand.’[3] Children resorted to clothing only when needed in winter cold, but women were always clothed and always as modestly as ‘the most pious ladies in France.’ War was considered the most honorable occupation. Indian weapons consisted of bows and arrows, spears, clubs, and tomahawks. Since the Indians before the seventeenth century were not acquainted with the use of iron, their arrows and spears had points of sharpened stone, and the tomahawks themselves resembled stone axes. This primitive weapon they used with astonishing skill. Pitched battles, however, were unknown to the Indians. Their warfare consisted of bands of warriors making unexpected attacks on enemies or hostile villages, burning and killing, taking scalps, and carrying off captives. All the glory and valor of warriors was based on the number of scalps taken from the heads of slain enemies.[4] Prisoners were subjected to savage torture.[5] They were tortured with every conceivable affliction, limbs were cut off gradually, they were burned with slow fire, and finally hacked to pieces, boiled in kettles, and eaten. The cries and wails of the sufferers delighted the torturers, and stubborn silence enraged them. Sometimes, however, no torture could force even a sound of pain from the unfortunate victim. To their last breath, amid the flames, the sufferers continued to revile their torturers and sing their war songs. This drove the torturers to despair, since it was considered an ill omen for the people. When attacking a village all was subjected to fire and destruction, women and children were indiscriminately killed, and sometimes the latter were eaten before the eyes of their mothers. After a successful raid all that remained of the village were heaps of ashes and dead bodies. Wars became especially destructive in the middle of the seventeenth century, when the coastal tribes received firearms from the Europeans, which gave them an advantage over other tribes unfamiliar with their use. Some of the latter were literally wiped from the face of the earth by their opponents.

Morally the Indians were complete savages, and the unwritten natural moral law barely made itself known under the dominion of animal passions. They recognized no law, and this independence, according to the expression of one Jesuit, ‘enslaved them to the most base passions.’[6] ‘They are lazy, deceitful, fickle and inconstant, liars and natural thieves, so that theft is considered glory among them; cruel, dishonorable, ready to promise everything to those who are generous toward them, and at the same time ungrateful. Generosity and favor toward them only increases their natural audacity. He fears me because he looks after me, they say. Gluttony and love of pleasure are stronger than all the vices prevailing among the Indians. They indulge in the most shameful way of life even before reaching the age to understand the shame of what they do.’[7] Polygamy was the prevailing custom, though not among all tribes. Marriage consisted of a simple transfer of a gift to the bride or her parents. Divorce was accomplished at the whim of one of the parties. Among the Hurons there existed a form of temporary marriage, or trial marriage, lasting two to three days or a week. Some beauties changed husbands up to twenty times before making a final choice.[8] The position of women was most wretched. Before marriage her life was mired in animal passions, and after marriage it became a life of constant hard labor. ‘Their women were their mules,’ says a contemporary observer.[9] Despite the wretchedness of Indian life, they nonetheless had joyous feasts consisting of singing, dancing, contests of various kinds, and the serving of meat from slain buffalo, bear, or dog. Smoking tobacco was the highest pleasure. Often meals had a religious character. Then guests were given a fixed portion which each had to eat, however large it might be.[10] Otherwise misfortune threatened the host. Gluttony was considered a virtue and often competitions were organized between eaters for a package of tobacco. The Indians made no provision for food, eating what the hunt gave them; therefore sometimes they wallowed in plenty, and sometimes, especially in winter, died of hunger, subsisting on bark and roots.[11] But in the moral character of the Indians there were nonetheless some bright traits showing the human nature. They had their own code of courtesy, whose rules could not be violated without fear of public censure. A defenseless and unarmed traveler could in most cases count on hospitable welcome, and prisoners who distinguished themselves by particular bravery in defense were sometimes given the privilege of being spared from burning, if not from torture. When needed they readily helped each other. When a family found itself without shelter, the inhabitants of the village together built it a hut. When a young woman married, other women of the village provided her with firewood for a whole year, thereby freeing her from one of the hardest tasks of an Indian woman—gathering wood in the forest for the fire. They had a division into noble and common, rich and poor; but even the poorest Indian, in case of lack of his own food, could consider himself secure from hunger. He needed only to enter the nearest wealthy hut, sit by the fire, and the women without a word would give him food.[12] But these traces of humanity were mere glimmers in the murk of a beast-like existence.

[1] Such a view is predominant among Roman Catholic historians and publicists in the United States. See, for instance, White, Sketch of history of Catholic church in the United States in Volume IV of Darras History of Catholic church introductory preface; Hecker, Catholic Church in the United States, New York 1879, etc., in the introductory prefaces.

[2] The history of this remarkable epoch has, for some strange reason, been very little worked over in American literature. Until now only one specialized study has been devoted to it, namely the work by Parkman—The Jesuits in North America in the XVII Century (Boston 1867): constituting the second part of his large work entitled France and England in North America. Then several incidental studies in various large courses of American history, for instance, in Bancroft’s History of United States (12th edition 1859, Vol. III), Shea’s Catholic missions, several articles and monographs in Catholic journals—and nothing more. Meanwhile, this epoch presents a mass of raw material awaiting its working up. These are reports, notes, and letters left by the very workers in the missionary field. Almost every missionary kept a record of his life and activity, and all annually submitted official reports to their superiors. Both the reports and the notes present precious material for becoming acquainted with the life, customs, and beliefs of the Indians. Some of them have been published in English translation, for instance, in the book Kip’s The early jesuit missions in North America 1846 (the entire book consists of a simple translation of Jesuit letters) and Shea’s Discovery and Exploration of the Mississipi Valley; but the majority remain to this day in the French original, and moreover in editions of limited circulation. We had at our disposal both the translations and the original editions, which we were able to consult in the best libraries of New York—the Astor Library and the Mercantile Library. The original work under the general title: Relations des jesuites. Quebec. 1858. In three volumes.

[3] Lalement Relation des Hurons, 1639, 82.

[4] Letter of Marest in the edition of Kip, p. 218.

[5] Letter of the Jesuit Rahl to his brother from 1723, in the edition of Kip, pp. 40 and 41.

[6] Letter of the Jesuit Marest to his friend from 1712. Translated in Kip’s work, p. 194.

[7] Ibidem.

[8] Champlain, 1627, 90. Parkman, introd. XXXV.

[9] Parkman, Jesuits in N. A. introd. XXXV.

[10] Letter of Rahl. 37.

[11] Le Jeune, Relation, 1634, 74.

[12] Brebeuf, Relation des Hurons, 1636, 118; Ragueneau Relation, 1650, 28. Marquette, Narrative in Shea’s Discovery and Exploration of Mississippi Valley, pp. 22, 23, and following.

Part One. The First Steps of Roman Catholicism on the Continent of North America (Cont.)

Their religious worldview stood at one level with their moral, and represented crude fetishism. For the childish consciousness of the Indian, the entire world was an animate being, all objects were spirits (oki or manitou) which according to their disposition could bring him harm or show mercy. The river, mountain, lake, forest, beast, bird, snake—all was full of spirits, all could listen to the Indian’s requests and fulfill them. Often a hunter, wounding an animal, would humbly ask its forgiveness. A fisherman, before casting his net into the water, would address speeches both to the net itself so that it would catch fish, and to the fish so they would not fear to enter the net, assuring them that the greatest respect would be shown to their bones. Each Indian had his own special guardian spirit, in the form of some animate or inanimate object, which was acquired through dreams, and to which he prayed, offering sacrifice in the form of tobacco or the spoils of the hunt. ‘It would be difficult to say,’ says Jesuit Maret, ‘what consists the religion of our Indians. It consists entirely of superstitions which nourish their faith. Since all their knowledge is limited to familiarity with animals and the necessary needs of life, their idolatry is also limited to these.’[1] But traces of abstract religious thought were also noticed among them. The spirits were not considered inseparable from objects, but on the contrary constituted a separate realm and only manifested themselves in the form of different objects. By preference they were embodied in animal forms, sometimes they also took human form, and sometimes lived in stones; but they took all their forms freely, by their own choice, and therefore often changed them. The savage’s thought clearly attempted to rise higher along the path of abstraction; but here it became lost in obscurities and dissolved in mist. The idea of monotheism dimly slumbered in the Indian’s consciousness, and with all the efforts of his mental capacity could not rise higher than the crude form of the master of all beasts or the so-called Great Hare (Monabozho), to whom the world owes its origin.[2] Conceptions regarding the essence of this Great Hare differed among different tribes: sometimes he appeared as an actual hare of enormous size, sometimes as some extraordinary man. According to one tradition, after creating the world, he flew to heaven, from where he influences the fates of men.[3] Here with greater clarity glimmers forth a theistic idea, although to the Jesuits it seemed so obscure that they denied the Indians any concept of God.[4] In any case, it is remarkable that among the Indians the missionaries found no word which could express the idea of God and therefore resorted to descriptive form: ‘The Great Master of Men,’ ‘He Who Lives in Heaven,’ and the like. But at the same time the structure of Indian worldview, by which each group of beings had its chief or master, gave the missionaries the opportunity to lead the consciousness of savages to the concept of God as the Great Master of all things,[5] so that among them there could easily develop the concept of that Great Spirit under which they even now understand the idea of God. In the realm of other religious questions the Indian’s thought as if groping wandered in darkness. The creation of the world, although attributed to the Great Hare, was not creation in the absolute sense, but rather a transformation of a disorderly or even destroyed by flood world. The Indians traced their own existence not to a general Creator of the world, but to animals, the different species of which different tribes considered their ancestors. Thus some traced themselves from the bear, others from the carp or other fish, and so on,[6] and found in themselves the virtues and qualities characterizing these animal ancestors. They believed in the immortality of the soul, in future life—with reward and punishment, the first being assigned to the best hunter and warrior, who had killed the most animals and enemy men, and the latter awaiting the lazy and cowards. Relations between men and spirits were direct. Each himself worshipped his guardian spirit and offered it sacrifice. An organized class of intermediaries or priests did not yet exist; but the beginnings of such a class were already appearing in the form of shamans, who stepped forward as men most closely connected with spirits, and thanks to this close connection with the higher world possessed special means for saving people from various evils and illnesses. These shamans very often turned out to be the worst enemies of the missionaries, all the more because the latter in their preaching first of all sought to undermine the confidence of the Indians in these self-appointed intermediaries between them and the spirits.[7]

Such was the soil on which the Jesuits had to sow the seeds of Christianity. It was stony soil, which in order to be brought to a state to receive and grow the seed sown upon it required not only long and stubborn labor, but skilled and tireless laborers. ‘Nothing can be more difficult than the conversion of these Indians. They must first be transformed into humans, and then made into Christians,’ wrote one of the laborers on whom this task fell.[8] ‘Reason in this people is completely suppressed and they are almost incapable of submitting to the yoke of the Gospel. But the farther they are from the kingdom of God, the stronger our zeal should be to bring them near to it and give them the opportunity to enter it,’ says the same zealous missionary.[9] And indeed, the missionaries undertook the work with the zeal that only the force of Christian genius could inspire, and accomplished exploits before which pale the legendary deeds of heroes of ordinary culture.[10] At the same time these exploits show that the renowned order can fulfill its motto—Ad majorem Dei Gloriam—even apart from the political intrigue which principally earned it historical fame.

II

The starting point for the Jesuits’ missionary activity was the fort of Quebec. Around it lived Indians more or less accustomed to the French.[11] With them the Jesuits began their preaching. The first thing necessary was to learn the Indian language, and this was no easy task. In the absence of any literary aids, and given the originality and fragmentation of the Indian language, it was difficult even to approach its study, and difficult to make oneself understood by the Indians. But the Jesuits were accustomed to overcoming all difficulties, and began the study of the language through Indian children. They lured these human-like creatures, naked and red-skinned, to them, caressed them, and through them gathered the necessary stock of words.[12] By fortunate chance, there was in the fort an Indian who had previously been captured by the French and taken to Paris, where he had managed to become acquainted with the French language. The Jesuits turned to him as an instrument of Divine Providence especially sent to acquaint them with the Indian language; but the Frenchified savage was extremely lazy and fickle, and his attention could be maintained only by packages of tobacco.[13] Having barely managed to gather a meager stock of words, the Jesuits immediately set about translating into the Indian language the most necessary prayers and set out to preach.[14]

[1] Letter of the Jesuit Marest to the Jesuit Ghermont, from November 9, 1712, in Kip’s translation, pp. 199, 200.

[2] The Indian tradition recounts the creation of the world as follows: ‘In the beginning of all things, Nanabozho in the form of the Great Hare was on a raft, surrounded by animals that recognized him as their chief. No land was visible. Wishing to create the world, the Great Hare persuaded the beaver to dive for mud, but the beaver soon came to the surface dead. After him the otter made an attempt with the same result. Then the muskrat volunteered to perform this task. It dived, remained underwater for a day and a night, and finally appeared on the surface of the water, upside down, and seemed to be dead, with its paws tightly clenched. When the other animals opened its paws, there was a grain of sand in one of them. From this the Great Hare created the world.’ Perrot, Memoire sur les Moeurs, coustumes et Religion de l’Amerique Septentrionale, Chap. 1.

[3] Letter of the Jesuit Rahl to his brother of October 12, 1723, in the translation of Kip, p. 32.

[4] ‘The people of these lands received from their ancestors no knowledge of God,’ says the Jesuit Rageneau. – Ragueneau, Relation des Hurons, 1648, 77.

[5] Letter of the Jesuit Marest in Kip’s edition, p. 202, presents an interesting example of this.

[6] Letter of Rahl from 1723 in the translation of Kip gives an interesting exposition of this Indian Darwinism. Pp. 32–34.

[7] ‘The influence of these charlatans,’ says the Jesuit Marest, ‘is a great obstacle on the path to the conversion of the Indians. I cannot tell you how many times I should have perished under their blows if not for the particular protection of Divine Providence protecting me from their fury. On one occasion, among many, one of them would have split my head with his tomahawk if I had not dodged at the very moment his hand was raised to strike me.’ Letter from 1712, in the translation of Kip, p. 201.

[8] Letter of Marest from 1712, in the translation of Kip, p. 194.

[9] Ibidem, p. 195.

[10] We are acquainted with the well-known stories of Mayne Reid and James Fenimore Cooper, in which are depicted with romantic features the exploits of various pioneers in America. The exploits of Christian missionaries were not included in these stories, but they, with their historical authenticity, are undoubtedly more interesting and more majestic than the exploits of fictional heroes.

[11] The Indians of this part of the continent had no conception of white people until the seventeenth century, and when they first saw them before them, they thought they had fallen from the clouds. Parkman’s Pioneers of France. p. 348.

[12] When studying the language, the Jesuits wrote down the words they collected on paper, which greatly amazed the Indians. They regarded the ‘white thing’ into which the Jesuits looked when checking words with superstitious fear, and in response to the Indians’ questions, they would name things in Indian words. ‘When we ask the Black Robe, he does not answer us, but looks at the white thing and tells us his thoughts. This white thing must be a spirit that tells him everything,’ the Indians reasoned among themselves. J. G. Shea Discovery and Exploration of the Mississipi Valley, notes of the Jesuit Hennepin, p. 128.

[13] Interesting information about the study of Indian languages is found in the report of the mission director, the Jesuit Le Jeune. ‘How grateful I am to the one,’ writes the Jesuit, ‘who supplied me with tobacco last year. At every difficulty I give a package to my teacher to make him more attentive. The providence of God is wonderful and His mercy is boundless.’ Le Jeune, Relation 1633, 7.

[14] The Jesuits were the first to become acquainted with Indian dialects, to appreciate their linguistic features, and to bring them under grammatical forms. ‘One cannot deny,’ writes the Jesuit Rahl, ‘that the Indian language has its true beauties and is distinguished by an extraordinary power in expression and means of expression. I shall give an example. If I asked you: why did God create you, you would answer: so that I might know Him, love Him and serve Him, and thereby achieve eternal glory. But if I posed this same question to an Indian, then he, according to their manner of expression, would answer as follows: thus the Great Spirit thought about us: let them know Me, let them love Me, let them honor Me and obey Me, so that then I might allow them to enter my wonderful bliss.’ Letter of the Jesuit Rahl to his brother, in the translation of Kip’s edition, p. 28.

Part One. The First Steps of Roman Catholicism on the Continent of North America (Cont.) (2)

Father Lejeune, the Jesuit superior of the mission, made the first attempt at missionary work among the Indians. In late October 1633, a party of twenty Indians departed on their usual winter migration to sustain themselves by hunting. The Jesuit went with them. Birch canoes swiftly glided along the St. Lawrence River, and after three weeks arrived at its headwaters, where the party hid them in bushes and began their wandering life through the surrounding territory. It was already mid-November; deep snow had fallen and quite severe frosts had set in. All around was a wilderness covered by impassable forests and hills. Through it the Indians stretched out—men, women, and children—carrying all their possessions or dragging them on long sleds. Accustomed to such wandering life, the Indians bore its hardships fairly easily, skillfully gliding over the snows in their snowshoes, scrambling up hills, pushing through dense forests, and clambering over heaps of fallen wood. But for the Jesuit, such a life was torment. Burdened like the others, he constantly fell from lack of practice in his snowshoes or sank in deep snows; the snow clung to his snowshoes, making them heavy, and he dragged his legs forward with pain and suffering.[1] Having traveled a certain distance, the party would stop; the men would clear a space from snow, and the women would hastily construct a shelter covered with bark and hides. Inside, a fire would be lit and the party would warm their benumbed limbs. They remained there until game could be found for up to ten versts around for food. The entire shelter occupied a space of about thirteen square feet, and in it the entire party of twenty people would eat and sleep in one solid mass around the fire, together with dogs. Through the cracks of the shelter, cold wind blew, and on the other side, the flame of the fire burned unbearably, spreading stifling smoke. When snow storms prevented smoke from rising through the upper opening, it filled the shelter so that the Indians could barely breathe, tears streamed from their red eyes, and to the Jesuit even the letters of his prayer book seemed written in blood. “Wretched unbelievers,” the Jesuit exclaimed, “they spend their life in smoke and their eternity in flames!”[2] Unable to bear such a place, the Jesuit would go outside the shelter to read his prayer book, but there a fierce storm raged in the forest and trees crackled from the frost. The missionary had to withdraw from the shelter not only from the smoke but from the very company of the Indians. When there was no smoke in the shelter, the Indians, having just eaten a freshly killed deer or dog, would sprawl around the fire and engage in lively conversation. Such occasions could have been convenient for the Jesuit to instruct the Indians in the beginnings of Christianity, but he did not dare even approach the conversing group. They often conducted such filthy conversations and everyone, without exception the women and children, used such indecent words that the missionary could not bear them, so he would withdraw again into the forest.[3] But worst of all for the Jesuit was the medicine man accompanying the party. He was a cunning Indian who found it easier to live at the expense of others than to provide for himself through hunting. He presented himself as a person who was in close relations with various spirits and through his spells could cure diseases and bring luck in hunting. The Indians believed him and before setting out to hunt would turn to him for assistance, which he would provide by imploring the spirits with songs, dances, and various shouts. The Jesuit saw in him his main obstacle to converting the Indians and therefore tried at every opportunity to show the absurdity of his incantations and the ineffectiveness of his mediation, at the same time demonstrating the power of the cross and helping the sick with medical means. The medicine man, for his part, saw in the Black Robe his worst enemy and did not miss the chance to cause him trouble, turning the Indians against him, mocking him, and even threatening him with death. Once, as if seized by madness, he cried out for all weapons to be taken from him, for the spirit was urging him to kill someone. His eyes looked at the Jesuit with such evil and frenzied hostility that he had to withdraw into the forest.[4] On another occasion, he pretended to be the Jesuit’s friend and undertook to teach him the language. The missionary rejoiced at this change in his enemy and, under the medicine man’s guidance, compiled a translation of the principal Christian prayers. But when he attempted to instruct the Indians in these prayers, at each word the entire party burst into wild laughter, and the Jesuit understood the medicine man’s trick—he had taught him the filthiest words of the Indian language under the guise of pious words. Sometimes the medicine man would simply begin to mock the Jesuit and the entire party would join him, making the Black Robe the target of their wit and mockery. “Look at him!” the medicine man said. “His face is like a dog’s!” The Indians picked up this jest and tore the Jesuit apart with criticism. “And his head is like a pumpkin!” “And his beard is like a hare’s!” The Jesuit had nothing left to do but withdraw sadly from the witty company and find solace alone in his prayer book.[5]

So the days passed one after another. The hunters set out each day to hunt and the kill was immediately boiled in pots and eaten. But the further winter advanced, the scarcer and scarcer the game became. The Indians began to move more frequently from place to place, but this only exhausted and weakened them further. Often for several days the hunters returned empty-handed, and then the entire party suffered terribly from hunger. The women collected acorns and tree bark, and from these prepared food. But then the Christmas holiday approached and the Indians were hungrier than ever. In vain the medicine man increased his incantations, raved and cried out, calling the spirits for help; the hunters constantly returned empty-handed. At last hunger reached such a degree that all the Indians, including the medicine man himself, turned to the Black Robe to ask him to intercede with his Great Spirit on their behalf. Hope illumined the Jesuit and he hastened to use the opportunity to instruct them in the truths of Christianity. He set up a cross before the shelter, made all the Indians kneel before it with arms raised and crossed, and read the prayer he had translated, making the Indians repeat it after him, with a promise to abandon their superstitions and obey Christ, whose image they saw before them, if only He would give them food and deliver them from starving to death. Then, blessing the hunters, the Jesuit sent them out to hunt. One can imagine his joy when they returned with a good catch. Everything came alive at once; the pots boiled over and the Indians smoked their pipes merrily and contentedly, forgetting the terrible hardship they had just endured. The missionary exulted and began to demonstrate the reality of Christian prayer and the cross; but the satiated Indians proved worse than the hungry ones—they would not listen to the Jesuit, and the medicine man even threatened him menacingly: “Hold your tongue! You make no sense!” The entire party took up the medicine man’s words and fell upon the missionary with their usual mockery and wit, while he looked silently into his prayer book with heavy sadness in his heart.[6]

During the winter there were several more such cases of terrible famine and the Jesuit again tried to bring the Indians under the yoke of the gospel, but all was in vain, so he lost all hope for the success of the mission. Besides, he himself had been exhausted to the utmost degree by the hardships of this life, the marches, and the hunger; he fell ill and took the first opportunity to return to Quebec.

From the experience of the mission superior, the Jesuits saw that the wandering tribes presented too rocky soil for sowing the seeds of Christianity and that missionary activity among them, for all the difficulties and dangers connected with it, promised no substantial fruit. Then they decided to direct their activity to the settled tribes, and specifically to the Huron tribe, which lived in large villages at the headwaters of the St. Lawrence River, in the vicinity of the Great Lakes. The labors here would be no less, and the dangers would be incomparably greater, but there were greater missionary advantages, since the missionaries could settle in the villages and, constantly having the Indians under their supervision, could gradually instill and teach them Christianity both by word and by example. Indians of this tribe came each year in their birch canoes to the fort to sell furs. The Jesuits took advantage of one such occasion and, in a party of three, set out on their holy work to the land of savages.[7]

After a long and tiring journey in canoes, the Jesuits arrived at their destination in the land of the Hurons, where they settled in one of the principal settlements of the tribe. The Indians received them hospitably and with united effort erected for them a shelter like the other Indian shelters. But the Jesuits themselves made innovations in it that astounded the Indians. They divided the shelter into three compartments connected by wooden doors; one was an entrance, another a hall, and the third a chapel, where an altar was set up, icons were hung, and sacred vessels were placed. Indians from neighboring villages came to look at this wonderful and unprecedented innovation. But what astounded them even more were the various things the Jesuits had brought and arranged in the shelter. Clocks seemed especially wondrous to them. They considered them a spirit that lives, eats, hears, and speaks.[8] A hand mill was another marvel, and the Indians never tired of turning it. The Jesuits had other things as well, such as a microscope, a prism, a magnet, and all this astonished the Indians to the extreme, convincing them that the black robes were the greatest wise men and stronger than any medicine men. The Jesuits of course used this opinion and extracted all the benefit from it for their direct purpose. The Hurons were in constant enmity with the Iroquois, who often made raids on their villages and devastated them. The Jesuits advised them to build walls around their villages; the Indians eagerly took to this task and under the guidance of the Jesuits erected something like fortresses, according to the rules of the military science of that time.

Having adequately secured their position and become familiar with the language, the Jesuits began their missionary work. They started with children, as they were more receptive and unreserved. They gathered them around their dwelling, showed them various interesting things, and at the same time did not miss the opportunity to teach them prayers and the sign of the cross. Translating into language they could understand the prayers Pater Noster, Ave, Credo, and the Ten Commandments, the Jesuits made the children repeat them and after a set period released them to play, rewarding the best of them with toys, peas, or apples. The Jesuits managed this instruction so that the children enjoyed it. With pleasure they would watch the children in their games draw crosses on the ground and sing the learned prayers. Adults often came to these gatherings and likewise attentively listened and repeated the prayers after the Jesuits. The missionaries took advantage of this, explained to them the rudiments of Christian teaching, and showed them pictures of paradise and hell. The Indians showed their approval with signs, but to the exhortations to be baptized they ordinarily answered that all this was well for the French, but the Indians were a completely different people. The Jesuits, however, did not insist and continued patiently to prepare the ground for accepting Christianity. But they did not miss the chance to baptize the dying, especially children, and were filled with joy when they managed thus to transform little savages into little angels.[9] The Jesuits especially tried to work on the Indians’ imagination, and for this reason gave their assemblies as much ceremonial character as possible. In teaching the truths of religion, pictures were of extraordinary importance. With a picture in hand the Jesuit would solemnly appear at the Indians’ gathering, show the astonished savages the torments of sinners and the bliss of the righteous, and offer them a choice.[10]

The special strength of the Jesuits as missionaries lay in their ability to adapt to any circumstances and use them to win the affection of the Indians. They lived exactly as the Indians did and tried to enter into all their needs, rejoiced in their joys, and shared their sorrows. Besides missionary work, they engaged extensively in charity and acts of mercy. Dividing the shelters among themselves, they constantly made rounds visiting them and cared for the sick. Their medical knowledge, which enabled them often to heal the sick successfully, inspired special affection in the Indians toward them. And when once a Jesuit predicted to them a solar eclipse and his prediction came true, the Indians looked upon him as an incarnate spirit.[11] Amid their continuous labors they still found time for scholarly pursuits. In the evenings, by firelight, they kept their records, sometimes on birch bark for lack of paper.

[1] ‘My God, what torment!’ he exclaims. ‘The snow caved in under our feet and we sank to our waists. The snowshoes and feet were so weighed down with snow that when we pulled them out of the drifts, it seemed as though someone were tearing our limbs. Or imagine a man loaded like a mule, and then judge how pleasant the life of savages is.’ Relation, 1634, 67.

[2] Relation, 1634, 71.

[3] ‘If swine and dogs could speak, they would use more decent language. The maidens and young women are covered decently enough outside, but their conversations among themselves are as filthy as sewers,’ remarks the Jesuit. Relation 1634, 32.

[4] Relation, 1634, 201–207.

[5] ‘They constantly tormented me with thousands of mockeries and unpleasantness,’ says the Jesuit. ‘And I, so as not to irritate them further, spent entire days without opening my mouth.’ Relation 1634, 207. It is remarkable, however, that all these mockeries had no malicious character and passed without trace, as is the case with spoiled or bad children, so that the Jesuit could soon return to his work. With such mockeries and nicknames, the Indians constantly teased one another, and they were never accompanied by serious hostility.

[6] Relation, 1634, 74 and following.

[7] The Jesuits were introduced to the Indians by the fort commander, Chauilly, who said among other things: ‘These are our fathers. We love them more than we love ourselves. All the French people honor them. They do not come to you for your furs. They have left their friends and their country to show you the path to heaven. If you love the French as you say you do, then love and honor these our fathers.’ The Indians listened attentively to this speech, looking at the Black Robes, and then responded with magnificent speeches, exhausting all the store of their flowery rhetoric, and one after another invited the Jesuits into their canoes. Le Jeune, Relation 1633, 274.

[8] ‘They thought that watches could understand, especially when one of us for a joke would strike with a hammer at their last strike, saying that it was enough to ring, and the ringing would cease. They called them the chief of the day. When they strike, the Indians think they are speaking, and ask how many times the chief has already spoken. They also ask us what he eats. They patiently wait for whole hours to hear the chief speak. Brebeuf, Relation des Hurons, 1635, 33.’

[9] Report of Le Jeune, 1636, 89.

[10] Pictures were chosen by the Jesuits to suit the tastes of the Indians. It is interesting in this respect to have a letter from the Jesuit Garnier to his friend in France. ‘Send me,’ he writes, ‘an image of Christ without a beard.’ The Indians’ dislike of beards is well-known. Then he requests several other pictures, depicting the torments of hell in various forms and the bliss of paradise—in just one form. The faces in the pictures should be full, not in profile, with open eyes directed at the viewer. All pictures should be in bright colors, but without any plants or animals, as they distract the Indians from the main subject. – All these characteristics of Indian tastes are observed among the Indians to this day. One painter once caused a bloody quarrel between a party of Sioux, when he depicted one of them in profile, for which his companions began to tease him by calling him half-human. Letter of the Jesuit Garnier in Parkman’s work, p. 133.

[11] Parkman, Jesuits in N. A. p. 118.

Part One. The First Steps of Roman Catholicism on the Continent of North America (Cont.) (3)

Gradually new Jesuits joined the first three, settled in neighboring villages, and with united effort fought against the stronghold of the devil.[1] Neither the discomfort of smoky and cold dwellings, nor the hunger which they often had to endure, nor the rudeness and savagery of the surrounding society troubled the Jesuits or weakened their zeal. They did not shrink from anything to snatch even one soul from the power of the devil, and sometimes snatched one amid the most terrible bacchanalian frenzy of the devil’s slaves. Parties of Hurons constantly went forth against their enemies the Iroquois, attacked their villages, burned them, and led away captives. Once a captive was brought to the village where the Jesuits were. He was suffering terribly; his hands were broken and maimed. Upon arrival in the village, he was treated with apparent kindness; he was offered the best food and was given, according to Huron custom, to a warrior who had lost his nephew, to take his place. But the captive’s actual fate was beyond doubt. The Huron received him with apparent affection and addressed him kindly: “My nephew, when I heard that you were coming to me, I was very glad, thinking that you would remain with me and take the place of one I lost. But now I see that your hands are broken and maimed so that you can never use them again, and I change my mind. Therefore, be brave and prepare yourself for death this night, as a courageous man.” The captive coldly asked what kind of death it would be. “By fire,” replied the other. “That is well,” said the captive. The Jesuits watched with horror the fate awaiting the captive, but were unable to save him. Then they tried to save him from eternal fire. With sincere compassion and tenderness they spoke to him, and when he showed himself attentive to their teachings, they baptized him. Having secured his eternal salvation, they waited with relative calm for the execution of his sentence. Meanwhile, night fell and enormous crowds of Indians gathered from all sides. A row of fires blazed, surrounded by ranks of warriors with burning sticks in their hands. Through these fires the captive had to pass, driven on by burning sticks. Smoke, heat, the fierce cries of the torturers and the wild screams of the tortured captive—all this presented a vivid picture of hell, which the Jesuits watched with horror. But when day broke and the last spark of life had gone out in the martyr, they breathed more freely and comforted themselves with the thought that the martyr had at last found rest in the bliss of paradise. The disfigured remains of the captive were afterward eaten by his torturers.[2]

The Jesuits had been witnesses to such and similar scenes many times in this dark realm of wild barbarism. All their labors and efforts to shed light on this dark environment seemed in vain. They still had no converts, and so far had only managed to baptize those who were passing from their deathbed into eternity. But then an unexpected event occurred. An adult Huron, influential and respected in his tribe, yielded to the persuasion of the Jesuits and agreed to be baptized. This was an event of extraordinary importance, and the Jesuits hastened to use it with the greatest possible advantage for their mission, deciding to perform the baptism with the pomp and solemnity that their resources permitted. And indeed, the wild wilderness had to be witness to an unprecedented spectacle. Indians gathered in crowds around the shelter of the Jesuits: young and old warriors with unkempt hair on their heads and painted faces; adorned young women and wrinkled old women wrapped in dirty deerskins—all watched with superstitious curiosity the ceremony of the sacrament of baptism and the black robes themselves, who were now dressed in gleaming church vestments. Their kneeling, the mysterious tinkling of a bell, the movement of a censer spreading pleasant smoke, unlike the smoke from fires in Indian shelters, the excited state of the one being baptized—all this made a compelling impression on the savages.[3] The missionaries exulted and foresaw a great harvest. At last a breach had been made in the fortress of the devil; the darkness of paganism was beginning to yield to the light of Christianity. The baptism described was followed by several others, and the triumph of faith seemed assured. But the prince of darkness did not wish to surrender his domain without a struggle, and to retain it, he brought into play all the tricks of his satanic wisdom, to do nothing but take revenge on the black robes who had made an invasion into his kingdom.[4]

III

A life consisting of continuous wars with neighboring tribes and filled with real and imaginary dangers had developed among the Indians strict suspicion toward everything that went beyond the bounds of their ordinary understanding. For a time it could be suppressed by actions in which the Indians saw direct benefit for themselves, but at any other occasion it could manifest itself with even greater force. The Jesuits, in any case, seemed to them fearful people. Where they came from and what they wanted, the Indians asked themselves involuntarily. This was a mystery to them. From their actions, the Indians could only guess that the black robes were great medicine men and could cause people harm or benefit. They were convinced that each people had their own medicine men, and the medicine men of enemy tribes brought upon them all manner of calamities. Were not the black robes too perhaps sent to cause them harm? This unclear suspicion quickly found support in their own medicine men, who especially hated the Jesuits for exposing the absurdity of their incantations. Circumstances soon gave them the opportunity to actually prove their suspicion concerning the black robes. Due to a terrible drought, the corn planted by the Indians completely perished. The medicine men constantly climbed onto roofs and howled incantations, enticing the thunder birds; but the sky remained cloudless. Seeing all their efforts vain, the medicine men then accused the Jesuits of this. A red cross stood before their shelter, and the medicine men announced that it was this that frightened the thunder birds. The Indians became troubled, and decided to cut down the cross. All the entreaties of the Jesuits, frightened at the threatened desecration of the cross, were in vain; the wild crowd stood firm. Then the Jesuits’ usual ingenuity saved them. “You say,” said one of them, “that the red color of the cross frightens the thunder birds. Then paint it white and see if thunder will come?” The Indians obeyed and the cross was painted white; but the thunder birds still did not appear. The Jesuits took advantage of this opportunity. “Your spirits cannot help you,” they said; “and your medicine men deceive you with their lies. Now ask for help from Him who created the world, and perhaps He will hear you.” To this the Jesuits added that if the Indians renounced their sins and would listen to the true Great Spirit, they themselves would ask Him on their behalf. The Indians promised to do everything the black robes desired. Then the Jesuits arranged several processions, said nine masses to their principal intercessor, St. Joseph, and, to their great joy, soon a heavy rain fell, which convinced the Indians of the efficacy of the magic of the black robes.[5] But fate was already preparing still greater misfortunes for them in the future.

Epidemics often ravaged among the Indians. The uncleanliness of their life, irregularity in their diet, the alternation of gluttony with terrifying famines—gave all the conditions for the development of disease, and sometimes they devastated entire villages and even tribes. One such epidemic broke out among the Indians in late 1637. Death passed from one village to another and everywhere wrought devastation. The shelters of the Indians became places of lamentation and death cries. Everything was seized with horror; only the black robes were unafraid of death. They fearlessly visited the shelters and everywhere comforted and calmed the despairing savages, giving them Christian last rites and baptizing the dying. By dull fires in the shelters sat gloomy figures of Indians wrapped in dirty hides. Some wailed over the dead, others uttered death cries. The Jesuits had some medicines and, as far as possible, they alleviated the sufferings of the sick, but they cared most for saving their souls. “This life is short and miserable,” they said to the hopeless sick. “It matters little whether we live or die.” And then they explained the future life, showing pictures of paradise and hell. The Indians readily understood the torments of hell, but did not value the bliss of paradise highly. When asked by the Jesuits where they wished to go, the Indians answered in a way that often disturbed the missionaries. “I wish to go where all my ancestors and relatives have gone,” they ordinarily answered. “This paradise is good for the French,” said one; “but I wish to be among Indians, because the French will give me nothing to eat when I come there.” “Where do you wish to go rather—to paradise or to hell?” a Jesuit asked a dying Indian woman. “To hell, if, as you say, my children are there,” answered the unfortunate mother. “And do they hunt there in heaven, go to war, and have feasts?” asked a dying warrior. “Oh no.” “Then I do not wish to go there; it is not good to be lazy,” answered the savage.[6] Those who answered satisfactorily to such questions the Jesuits would immediately baptize, by touching a wet cloth or sprinkling drops of water with the pronouncement of sacred words.

Meanwhile the epidemic continued its devastating work. The Indians in despair resorted to all manner of means to appease the spirit of plague, making offerings of tobacco and roasted dogs to it. One medicine man, having fasted seven days, received a revelation that the plague would be driven away if scarecrows were set on all the shelters, and indeed all the shelters were quickly adorned with effigies. The Indians suggested to the Jesuits that they too set a scarecrow on their shelters, but they announced that their cross protected them better than any scarecrows. The medicine men performed incantations, climbed onto the shelters, and cried out to the invisible spirit of plague: “If you want meat, go to our enemies; go to the Iroquois!” But all was in vain. Seeing the futility of all their means against the plague, the Indians then turned to the Jesuits. “What must we do so that your God will have pity on us?” they said to the Jesuits. This occasion was favorable for missionary work and one of the missionaries, Father Brébeuf, immediately answered: “Believe in Him: keep His commandments; renounce your faith in dreams; take only one wife and be faithful to her; abandon your superstitious festivals; cease your wild assemblies; do not eat human flesh; never make sacrifices to demons, and make a vow that if God delivers you from this plague, you will build a chapel to render to Him thanksgiving and praise.”[7] The savages listened attentively to these conditions, but they seemed hard to them. Conferring among themselves, they decided to ask the Jesuits whether they could not confine themselves to merely building a chapel. But Brébeuf decisively rejected this proposal and the matter came to nothing. In one village, however, the Indians accepted all the conditions. Seized with terror, they were ready to make all kinds of promises just to be delivered from the plague. Even the chief medicine man was inclined toward the Jesuits: walking through the streets, he loudly proclaimed that the God of the black robes was their leader and that therefore they should live according to His will.[8]

[1] The Jesuits considered the Huron country one of the strongest bulwarks of the devil’s kingdom. ‘It was,’ in the expression of the Jesuit Lalement, ‘one of the principal strongholds and, as it were, the castle of demons.’ Relation des Hurons 1639, 100.

[2] Report of the Jesuit Le Mercier, 1637, 114. On another occasion, at a similar cannibalistic feast, the Indians threw into the Jesuits’ lodge the roasted arm of a captive, inviting them thereby to partake in the feast. Report of Lalement, 1639, 70.

[3] Parkman, France and England in N. A. II, 112.

[4] ‘The devil felt constrained,’ says the Jesuit Le Mercier; ‘he could not bear the solemn baptism of several of the most prominent savages.’ Report 1638, 33. The Jesuit Garnier, in a letter to his brother, alludes to the commotion produced in the kingdom of darkness by the mission’s success, and adds: ‘You cannot imagine what consolation we have seeing the devil arming himself against us and using his servants to attack us and trying to destroy us out of hatred for Jesus Christ.’ Parkman, Jesuits in N. A. p. 113.

[5] Report of Brébeuf, 1635, 41.

[6] Report of Le Mercier and Brébeuf, 1637.

[7] Report of Le Mercier, 1636, 114, 116, 150, and others.

[8] ‘What consolation,’ exclaims the Jesuit Le Mercier, ‘to see God being glorified by the mouths of the offspring of Satan.’ Report 1637, 127 and 128.

Part One. The First Steps of Roman Catholicism on the Continent of North America (Cont.) (4)

The Jesuits exulted and rejoiced at the success of the mission, but soon their joy turned to horror. Among the Indians appeared a medicine man who enjoyed unlimited influence over the savages and to the Jesuits seemed the very embodiment of Satan, as he himself believed himself to be. After several failed incantations, he began to accuse the black robes of causing the plague, and everything instantly changed in regard to them. With the speed of lightning a fateful thought spread through the Indian villages. The baptism which the Jesuits performed on the dying was considered by the Indians as healing magic; now they began to consider it a killing potion. Everything about the Jesuits now became an object of terror to the Indians. They had a picture of the Last Judgment at the door of their shelter; the Indians now thought it was a potion: dragons and serpents seemed to them demons of the plague, devouring the Indians. On top of a neighboring tree the Jesuits had a weather vane for determining wind direction; the Indians watched it with horror and thought it spread disease and death in all directions. The clocks themselves, which had formerly been objects of curiosity, became objects of terror, and the Jesuits had to stop them, since the Indians suspected their ticking announced death. The usual chanting of the Jesuits at mass was considered hostile incantations spreading the plague.[1] If such suspicions had been directed at the Indian medicine men, the Indians would quickly have done away with them, but the Jesuits seemed to them sorcerers whom they feared. Therefore, they began first to oppose them passively and held night meetings. Boys began throwing sticks and stones at them when they approached the shelters. The sick would lock themselves in and not admit them. But nothing could stop the Jesuits from their charitable work with the sick and instruction of the dying, especially children. Hearing the cries of a sick child through cracks, they would boldly push in and enter the shelter; they would ask to buy something, talk about hunting, war, everything except the plague and the sick child. Then, having quieted their suspicion somewhat, they would ask to see the sick child and, feeling his pulse, would seem to accidentally touch him with a corner of cloth moistened beforehand with water, whisper the words of baptism and—the child was saved. The Jesuits performed many such secret baptisms without arousing suspicion among the adults who forbade them to perform it. Once a young Indian woman was walking through the village carrying a sick child on her back. Two Jesuits approached her and while one of them occupied the woman with his rosary beads, the other secretly baptized the child.[2] But the devil came into fury because we brought many of these innocent infants to heaven, says Lemercier.[3] The Indians’ suspicion of the Jesuits continued to intensify; they held night meetings more frequently and became bolder in saying that the black robes were destroying the people. Some said that the Jesuits had hidden a human body in their shelters which had infected the country (a result of their misunderstanding of the Body of Christ offered in sacrifice during mass); others attributed the plague to a serpent; others to a demon which the Jesuits supposedly carried in a gun they once had; some said that the black robes had killed a child in the forest with an awl in order to kill Huron children through sorcery; others suspected that the Jesuits had enchanted clothes which were the cause of the people’s calamities.[4] In August 1638, a general popular council was assembled to discuss the situation. Councils were ordinarily held at night, by firelight. Indians from all the Huron tribes gathered for this council. “I never saw anything darker,” writes the Jesuit Lemercier. “They looked at each other like corpses, or like men who already feel the terror of death. When they spoke, they spoke only in sighs, recounting the sick and dead in their families. All this was to stir up the poison of rage against us.”[5] The Jesuits were summoned to the council, and there one after another the Indians began to accuse them of the destruction of the people. The Jesuits defended themselves and tried to explain the cause of the plague; but the more they defended themselves, the more fiercely the rage of the Indians burned against them, until finally they ceased to listen to their answers and with cries and threats demanded that they hand over the enchanted clothes that were destroying their country. In vain the Jesuits said they had no such clothes. The noise and rage intensified. “If you do not believe me,” said one of the most fearless and courageous missionaries, the Jesuit Brébeuf, “then go into our house, search everything, and if you do not know which clothes are enchanted, take all our clothes and throw them into the lake.” Such resolution of the Black Robe somewhat confused the savages, and this time the Jesuits avoided the danger threatening them. The Indians ended the meeting and left the Jesuits in peace, although an old warrior, passing by Brébeuf, remarked to him: “if someone of our boys splits your head, we will say nothing against it.” And the missionary continued fearlessly to preach to the remaining assembly about the necessity of obeying the Great Spirit and the danger of offending Him.[6]

The danger for the Jesuits, however, did not pass. The decision of the general assembly regarding them remained undecided only because among the Indians were some who took the Jesuits’ side and moderated the rage of the hostile party. The latter, however, did not abandon their view of the Jesuits as the principal culprits of the people’s calamity and began to conduct secret councils separately. After one of such councils, some of the converts secretly informed the Jesuits that their death had been decided upon. A sign of this was the increasing boldness of the savages toward them, so that whenever they left their shelter they had to expect a tomahawk or a stone. The Jesuit Rageneaux wore on his chest a cross with a crucifix and the image of a skull. An Indian, thinking it was sorcery, tore this cross from him. The missionary tried to take it back, but the Indian seized an axe and raised it over the Jesuit. Rageneaux stood motionless, awaiting the blow. This firmness so affected the savage that, muttering, he lowered the axe and departed. An Indian attacked the Jesuit Lemercier with a burning brand and, thrusting it at his face, said that he should be burned alive; and one young warrior openly said: “I have eaten enough of the colored flesh of our enemies; now I wish to taste white flesh, and I will eat yours.” In view of such a situation, the Jesuits clearly saw their danger. They, a handful of brave men thrown into a wild wilderness, could expect help from nowhere save above, and they, preparing for death, prayed only that their blood would be the seed of Christianity. Brébeuf had a vision—of a cross which slowly moved toward them across the sky from the land of the Iroquois. “How large is this cross?” asked the other Jesuits. “Oh, large enough to crucify all of us on it,” he answered.[7] Foreseeing inevitable destruction, Father Brébeuf wrote a farewell letter to Quebec to the mission superior Lejeune, entrusting its delivery, in case of death, to some of the converts. The letter breathes unconquerable Christian zeal and complete self-sacrifice, which distinguished these missionaries.[8] In view of the threatening danger, the Jesuits, however, did not lose their composure and tried to apply one measure to placate the rage of the Indians. The Hurons had a custom by which those condemned to death gave a farewell feast. The Jesuits held such a feast, inviting the savages, who came gloomy and with sidelong glances, ate their portion, and left silently. The effect of this measure seemed at first undecided, but in reality it proved beneficial. The Indians were pleased with the feast, which gave new strength and courage to the supporters of the missionaries. After the feast a whole week passed peacefully for the Jesuits[9] and the Indians’ mood brightened, which was also aided by the decrease in mortality. Gradually the threatening danger completely passed; the Jesuits were delivered from death, although they took this as a bad sign for the mission, since only the blood of martyrs serves as the seed of Christians.[10]

The mission among the Hurons was an outpost of civilization and Christianity, thrown into the midst of a wilderness separated from the European coastal colonies by an impassable distance of thousands of versts. The only route of communication between them was the St. Lawrence River with its various tributaries; but even this route was convenient only for the Indians, who with their birch canoes would sometimes float down the river, sometimes push through the forest, bypassing rapids or hiding from hostile parties roaming the forests hunting not so much beasts as people. Missionaries undertook this journey only when absolutely necessary, when they had exhausted all the means needed to continue the mission. Since the opening of the mission among the Hurons, the Jesuits had made considerable progress, had many converts and even more catechumens; with the increase of the work, the need for means to conduct it increased, but meanwhile their means were exhausted to the extreme. Clothes and pictures wore out, paper ran short, bread for mass was barely obtained through meager cultivation of wheat, and wine was so scarce that the Jesuits used it only drop by drop at mass.[11] By 1642 the mission had fallen into such a desperate state in this respect that the Jesuits decided to send one of their members to Quebec to acquire the necessary means and items for the mission. The task fell to Isaac Jogues, who set out with a party of Hurons bringing their furs for trade with the French. The journey was extremely tiring; they had to carry the canoes and all their contents on their backs over dry land thirty times; but the travelers were nonetheless very glad and considered themselves fortunate when they arrived in Quebec, having avoided the main danger of this journey—meeting the war parties of the savage Iroquois, who were the mortal enemies of the Hurons and watched for them on the river.

Having completed his business, Father Isaac set out with his party on the return journey. The journey against the current was even harder, but the party worked cheerfully and eagerly with their oars, pleased at the successful completion of their task. All was quiet around and only the sound of water being parted by the oars of twelve canoes was heard. Suddenly the riverside forest shook with a wild war cry, a hail of bullets and arrows poured down on the travelers, and from the bushes there paddled out toward them a flotilla of Iroquois war canoes. The Hurons, seized by terror and surprise, made for the shore and, abandoning everything, fled, leaving the missionary with two young Frenchmen who had voluntarily agreed to serve the Jesuits and several baptized Indians. Soon part of the party was killed and most were taken captive; among the latter were the Frenchmen and the missionary. Considering them leaders of the party, the Iroquois attacked them with particular fury, stabbed them with knives, beat them with clubs, and gnawed their fingers with their teeth. Then the victors, with wild exultation, loaded their canoes with booty and captives and set out for home, into the present-day state of New York. After thirteen days they arrived at the first Iroquois village. The cries of the victors announced their arrival and from the village there ran out crowds of old and young Indians with clubs in their hands. Before the entrance to the village they formed themselves in two rows, making a narrow passage, and through this “narrow path of paradise,” as Jogues expresses it, the captives had to pass one by one amid the cries of exulting Iroquois who struck them with clubs. One blow knocked Father Isaac to the ground, but other blows immediately forced him to rise and he made his way through the entire row unsteadily. Then began a series of tortures and sufferings too abominable even for description. They gnawed his hands, cut his fingers, plucked hair from his head and beard. Finally, when he had been brought to unconsciousness from loss of blood, they tied him at night to stakes driven in the ground, stretching his limbs so that, lying on his back, he could not move in the slightest. Having sated their savagery, the Indians set their children to “pet” the Frenchmen, and these little demons took hot coals from the fires and placed them on the naked bodies of the captives, scooping hot ashes on them, reveling in their hissing on the bloody bodies of the sufferers.[12]

[1] Parkman, Jesuits in N. A. p. 115.

[2] The Jesuits employed all possible methods for baptizing children so that their parents, who in no way would consent to allow them to be baptized voluntarily, would not notice. Their reports are full of such cases. The following two cases, described by the Jesuit Le Mercier, are of interest: ‘On the third day of May,’ he relates, ‘Father Pierre Pijart secretly baptized in Anonatahae a small child of two months in manifest danger of death, without the knowledge of the parents, who would not have given their consent. He used the following method. Sugar works wonders for us. He said he wanted to give the child a little sweetened water to drink, and at the same time dipped his finger in it. When the child’s father began to suspect something and cried out to him not to baptize, he gave the spoon to a woman standing beside him and said to her: ‘Give it to him yourself.’ She approached the child and found him asleep, and at that very moment Father Pijart, under the pretext of seeing if he was really asleep, touched his face with his wet finger and—baptized him. Forty-eight hours later the child went to heaven. A few days before this, this missionary had used the same method to baptize a boy of six or seven years. His father, who was very ill, had refused several times to be baptized; and to the question of whether he wished his son to be baptized, answered: no. ‘At least,’ said Father Pijart, ‘you will not object to my giving him a little sugar’—‘No, but you must not baptize him.’ The missionary gave the child sugar once, then again; and at the third spoonful, before putting the sugar in the water, he sprinkled the child with water, pronouncing the words of the sacrament at the same time. A little girl watching him cried out: ‘Father, he is baptizing him!’ The child’s father was greatly alarmed, but the missionary said to him: ‘Did you not see that I was only giving him sugar?’ The boy soon died afterward; but God showed His mercy to his father, who is now in perfect health.’ Report of Le Mercier, 1637, 165.

[3] Report 1638, 12.

[4] Parkman, p. 114.

[5] Report 1638, 88 and following.

[6] Report of Le Mercier, 1638, Ch. II.

[7] Parkman, pp. 109, 118–121, 144, 145, and others.

[8] In this letter, among other things, it is said: ‘We shall perhaps have to shed our blood and our life for the cause of our Teacher, Jesus Christ. It seems that His goodness will accept this sacrifice; as for me, as an atonement for my great and countless sins, and that He will thus crown the service and burning desires of all our fathers here… May His name be blessed forever, that He has chosen us, among many who are better than we, to help Him bear His cross in this land. In all things may His holy will be done. If you hear that God has crowned our labors, then bless Him; for in Him we live and die… Finally we ask you and all our fathers not to forget us in prayers and in the bloodless sacrifice.’ Signed Jean de Brébeuf, François Le Mercier, Pierre Chatelain, Charles Garnier, and Paul Rageneau. The letter is dated October 23, 1637, at Ossosane, or the Residence of the Conception. See in Parkman, p. 122 and 123 the French original of the letter.

[9] Le Mercier attributes this change to the intercession of St. Joseph, whom, from November 6, they began to honor with a series of masses. 1638, 44.

[10] Report of Lalement, 1639, 56 and 57.

[11] The Jesuits, however, soon learned to make wine from wild grape, which grew abundantly in the forests. As concrete proof of the scarcity of the mission’s resources, some letters of the Jesuits survive, written on birch bark. Letters of Pierson and Chaumonot in Carayon’s edition. Parkman, 130.

[12] In the Catholic magazine The Catholic World, in the October issue of 1872, a detailed biography of Isaac Jogues appeared: “Father Isaac Jognes, S. J.” There it is described in detail all these atrocities of the Iroquois, which were, however, common to all natives with respect to prisoners. See also the Protestant historian Parkman in the cited work, ch. XVI, pp. 211–240.

Part One. The First Steps of Roman Catholicism on the Continent of North America (Cont.) (5)

The cruelty of the Iroquois was not only savage but refined. They tortured and tyrannized the captives so as not to deprive them of life and to prolong it for further torments. After the first fit of savagery, they gave the captives time to recover somewhat and then took them to neighboring villages, and in each place the sufferers had again to endure the same series of tortures. Meanwhile, war parties of the Iroquois brought new captive Hurons, among whom were even those converted to Christianity by the Jesuits. The missionary-martyr did not miss the chance to convert others to the truth even amid his own sufferings. Once he managed to persuade two Huron captives to accept Christianity, but there was no water for baptism. A corncob was thrown to them for food and it had several drops of dew on it. Father Isaac baptized them with these drops. Three of the captive Hurons were burned alive and the missionary and Frenchmen awaited the same fate. But a gathered council of Indians decided to spare them alive, although one of the Frenchmen soon paid with his life for teaching an Indian boy to make the sign of the cross, which seemed like sorcery to the boy’s father. Private attempts at murder constantly threatened Isaac, and he lived in hourly expectation of the tomahawk, a blow from which he would have considered deliverance from suffering. But death seemed to flee from him. With time, the Indians, seeing his gentleness, gave him considerable freedom. In late autumn, a party of Iroquois set out on their usual winter hunt and took the Jesuit with them. Hungry and almost unclothed, he dragged himself along after the Indians through impassable forests, carrying heavy burdens heaped upon him. At the camps Father Isaac gathered wood, lit fires, and cooked the game. But since the Indians had in advance dedicated all their game to the god of the hunt (Areskoui), Father Isaac did not dare even touch the demonic sacrifice and thus starved amid plenty, sustaining himself on bark and roots. He slept in a smoky shelter with dogs, but sometimes in the middle of the night he would go out into the forest to pray and recite passages of holy scripture that remained in his memory. In a secluded place he carved the form of a cross on bark and, kneeling amid snow and ancient pines, half-clad in dirty hide, he prayed with tears, and in this found his only comfort. The Indians soon began to tire of him and sent him back to the village, where he was given to an Indian family. There he was a constant witness to the savagery of the Iroquois. War parties continually brought captives, tyrannized them and burned them. Life became unbearable to him and he longed for death. His only comfort amid this nest of barbarism and inhumanity was that he secretly conversed with children, instructed them in the truths of Christianity, and baptized many, while awaiting death from a tomahawk or fire. But he was not destined to die there. A party of Iroquois, setting out with furs to the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam (present-day New York), took him with them, hoping to get a good ransom for him. The Dutch offered them ransom, but the Indians asked so much that the matter seemed hopeless; the sufferer had to return again to the land of his torturers. Then one Dutchman took pity on him and offered means to escape from the Indians. Father Isaac long hesitated to accept this means of salvation, but finally decided to flee. The Dutchman hid him in his house and concealed him until the Indians left the colony. Then the Jesuit boarded a ship and sailed to France, where he was greeted as an apparition, as he was thought to be dead. Word of him reached the royal court and Queen Anne of Austria, calling him to her, kissed his hands mutilated by the Iroquois. The self-sacrificing missionary, however, was not captivated by this fame and honor; he fell at the feet of the superior and asked permission to return again to missionary work. But here a difficulty arose. His hands had been so maimed that by canon law he could not celebrate the Eucharist. The matter was referred for the Pope’s consideration.[1] Having heard the account of the matter, the Pope exclaimed with enthusiasm: It is unworthy that a martyr of Christ not drink the blood of Christ, and the missionary set out for missionary work the following spring, never to return. Setting out as an envoy for peace negotiations with the Iroquois, who had shown inclination to make peace with the French, he perished from the treacherous tomahawk of his former torturers.[2]

The mission meanwhile remained in its former desperate and abandoned state. When word reached the superior of the mission in Quebec of the unfortunate outcome of Isaac Jogues’s embassy, he outfitted another expedition and sent the Jesuit Bressani to deliver letters and necessities to the missionaries. He was given six recently converted Hurons and a French boy for service. It was early spring, when the route was not yet so dangerous from Iroquois attacks; and the travelers hoped to pass through safely. Before setting out, however, they confessed and prepared for death. The spring journey on the river was difficult, and on the very first day of travel, one canoe capsized and Bressani nearly drowned. On the third day a snow storm arose and slowed their progress, and on the next day they encountered what they most feared—a war party of Iroquois, who like demons burst from the bushes and captured the entire party including Bressani, killing one Huron. This was in late April, and in mid-July Bressani wrote a letter to the general of the Jesuits in Rome, in which he said among other things: “I do not know whether your paternity will recognize the handwriting of one whom you formerly knew very well. This letter is stained and badly written; for the writer has only one finger left on his right hand, and he cannot keep from blotting the paper with blood flowing from wounds still open. His ink is gunpowder mixed with water, and his table is the earth.”[3] Then he describes all his torments. After the successful capture of captives, the Iroquois thanked the sun for their victory and plundered the captured canoes; then, taking the killed Huron, they cut him into pieces, roasted him, and ate him before the eyes of the captives. The next day they set out for home, and there the captives, especially Bressani, had to endure all the tortures and sufferings that savage Iroquois instinct could devise. His hands were cut to pieces, he was beaten with clubs until he was covered with blood, and then placed on an elevation like a scaffold for the crowd to mock. Here he was stripped naked, and while he trembled with cold, he was forced to sing. Having satiated their savage instincts themselves, the Iroquois, as was customary, gave the captives over to the children for torture, and these, imitating the adults, forced the Jesuit to dance and sing, urging him on with sharp sticks and plucking hair from his head and beard. “Sing,” cried one. “No, be silent,” objected another, and when the wretched Jesuit obeyed one, the other burned him with red-hot iron, and all continually cried to him: “we will burn you; we will eat you; I will eat your leg, and I will eat your arm.”[4] These scenes were repeated every evening for a week. Every evening the chief went through the camp and shouted: “Come, come, children, pet our captives,” and the little demons began their petting again, applying hot coals and heated stones to the bodies of the captives, biting off fingers and nails with their teeth, etc. The poor boy, only 13 or 14 years old, who accompanied the Jesuit, underwent the same tortures as the adults. But over the Jesuit himself the Iroquois exhausted all their savage inventiveness: they hung him by his feet from a tree, placed food on his naked body for dogs to eat along with him, and finally brought him to such a state of exhaustion that they themselves were horrified. “I could not think,” writes the wretched sufferer, “how difficult it is to kill a man.”[5] Finally a council was held to decide the final fate of the Jesuit. He longed for death, but the council, to his surprise, decided to spare him alive and gave him to an old Indian woman in place of her relative killed in war. The old woman, however, found him useless for her household and with the first party going to New Amsterdam, sent him for sale to the Dutch. To the credit of the latter, they did not begrudge ransom for the sufferer from the hands of his torturers; they clothed him and sent him to a French fort. Recovering somewhat there from the tortures, the maimed Jesuit again risked the journey to the Hurons in the spring of the next year, 1645, and this time arrived safely in early autumn of that same year.[6]

During their missionary exploits, the Jesuits had to fear not only the savage bands of Iroquois, but also the severity of nature itself. During their journeys from one village to another, they faced the danger of becoming lost in the forest and dying from hunger, or even freezing to death in winter. The latter fate befell an elderly Jesuit Noue in 1646. Having once set out to a newly built French fort to say mass, he became lost in the forest. He had no warm clothing, and meanwhile a fierce snow storm arose. Exhausted, he fell on his knees and sought the only refuge in prayer. This prayer was his last. He was found later; he stood on stones, with open eyes and hands crossed on his chest, a frozen corpse.[7]

Such were the dangers and difficulties with which the Jesuits had to contend. But these individual cases were only the beginning of calamities, harbingers of the terrible fate of the entire mission among the Hurons and of this tribe of Indians itself.

IV

The epidemic produced terrible devastation in the villages of the Hurons. “Where eight years ago,” writes Father Vimont, there were a hundred shelters, now scarcely five or six are visible. The leader who once had eight hundred warriors now has only thirty or forty; and instead of fleets of three or four hundred canoes, we see less than a tenth of that number.[8] Such a calamity overwhelmingly affected the moral state of the Hurons. They became weak and cowardly, suffered constant failures both in hunting and in conflicts with enemy tribes. But the weaker they became, the bolder and more daring became their worst enemies the Iroquois. They began to make more frequent raids on neighboring Huron villages and more boldly attacked their parties on the St. Lawrence River, constantly capturing and leading away captives, sometimes by the hundreds.[9] An especially great advantage over the Hurons was given to them by firearms, which they obtained from the Dutch in exchange for furs and which they mastered with remarkable speed. They were, in Vimont’s words, the scourge of the infant church of the Hurons.[10] Winter was still relatively a safer time; but as soon as the ice melted on the rivers, the Iroquois appeared everywhere on their fast canoes and spread death and destruction. Soon they penetrated into the interior of the Huron country and the account of their deeds there is a tale of horror and terrible atrocities.

[1] The Catholic W, 1872, Oct.—Historian Shea conjectures that the decision in this matter belongs to Pope Urban VIII. Shea, p. 310.

[2] Details of the life of Isaac Jogues can be found in Relation des Hurons 1647; the cited monograph in The Catholic World 1872, October; Parkman, loc. cit., ch. XVI; Bancroft’s History of the U. S. III, ch. XX.

[3] Relation abregèe, chap. II. Parkman, ch. XVII, p. 252. and others.

[4] Relation abregèe, p. 122.

[5] Ibidem.

[6] Report of Ragueneau, 1646, 73. The life and suffering of the Jesuit Bressani are described in the report of Vimont for 1644, in his own report, titled Relation abregèe, and in various letters of the Jesuits. See also about him Parkman, loc. cit. XVII; Bancroft, loc. cit., XX, and others.

[7] The fate of the Jesuit Noé is described in the reports of Lallemant (1646, 9) and Bressani.

[8] Report 1644, 3.

[9] When the Jesuit Isaac Jogues was in captivity, the Iroquois brought in a party of a hundred prisoners, and burned most of them. Parkman, loc. cit., p. 223.

[10] Parkman, 251.

Part One. The First Steps of Roman Catholicism on the Continent of North America (Cont.) (6)

By 1645, the Jesuits had spread their missionary network throughout the entire Huron country. There was no village where one or two missionaries were not present. Afflicted by calamities, the Hurons proved more docile, more readily inclined to the persuasion of the Jesuits, and converted to Christianity. In the principal villages, the population was already half Christian, and in all of them chapels had been established and the services were properly conducted, at the sound of a small bell. The most important center of the mission was the village of Ossosane, or, as the Jesuits called it, the Conception Mission, not far from Lake Huron. Other missions were located in the villages of St. Joseph, St. Ignatius, St. Michael, and St. John the Baptist—thus named by the Jesuits in honor of the saints for whom the missions were founded.[1] Christianity was not merely nominal, but touched the moral life of the Indians. The converted rarely took part in the burning of captives, and sometimes even protested against it.[2] The pagan faction was still strong and at times produced outbursts of rage against the Jesuits, accusing them of the people’s calamities. ‘Your prayers[3] are killing us,’ said the pagans. ‘Your books and your prayer beads have bewitched our country. Before you came, we were happy and prospering. You are sorcerers. Your spells kill our corn and bring disease and Iroquois upon us.’ Sometimes they resorted to fabrications to arouse hatred against the Jesuits and spread monstrous rumors that found credence among the gullible savages.[4] In 1648, the fury of the pagan faction grew to such a pitch that a French novice of the Jesuits, killed by Indians, fell victim to it.[5] But this was the last outburst of paganism, and the Indians themselves soon solemnly repented before the Jesuits, begged their forgiveness and assistance in their misfortunes.[6] After this, the Jesuits were able to continue their missionary work in peace. Having distributed the Huron settlements among themselves, they performed masses in all of them, taught the savages the truths of the faith, and rejoiced at a rich harvest. But their joy was short-lived. The ‘scourge of the new church’ soon struck it down with a mortal blow.

In the southern part of the Huron country there was a fairly large settlement, named by the Jesuits the City of St. Joseph. It consisted of four hundred families and was one of the strongest bulwarks against Iroquois attacks. In the summer of 1648, all the warriors of the settlement set out on a raid and war against the Iroquois. The village was left with only women and children, and among them was the Jesuit Daniel. On the morning of July 4th, he was celebrating mass in a birch-bark chapel. The mass had just ended and the Indian population was kneeling to receive the final blessing, when suddenly a terrible cry rang out: ‘Iroquois! Iroquois!’ All at once everything was set in motion. Daniel rushed out of the church and, seeing the Iroquois climbing over the stockade, gathered several warriors for defense and threw himself back toward the church, where trembling and weeping crowds of women and children had gathered. Some of them were not yet baptized, and the missionary hastened to secure eternal salvation for them in the face of inevitable earthly death. He moistened his cloth and, sprinkling it on the crowd, pronounced the words of baptism. ‘Brothers,’ he said, ‘today we shall be in heaven.’ And the Iroquois, breaking through the weak defense, had already rushed into the village. The air rang with wild cries of triumph. ‘Flee,’ cried the missionary to his unfortunate flock, ‘I shall remain here and we shall meet again in heaven.’ The flock fled and many managed to escape into the forest through hidden paths. A wild band of savage beasts approached the chapel. Daniel walked toward them with courage and composure. When they saw him in his gleaming vestments, with a fearless gaze directed at them, they stopped in amazement; but then recovered, drew their bows, and pierced him through with a shower of arrows, and he fell while whispering the name of Jesus. The savages threw themselves upon him with cries, tore off his garments, hacked his body, and gathering his blood in handfuls, washed their savage faces with it to acquire his fearless courage. The entire settlement was then engulfed in flames, and the next day nothing remained but a heap of ashes and a mass of burned bodies, while the Iroquois, triumphantly and with seven hundred captives, returned home for their bloody orgies.[7]

The settlement of St. Joseph was, so to speak, the protective fortress for the entire Huron country. With its destruction, the Iroquois gained an open entrance into the country, and the following spring they renewed their raids. Within the country, not far from each other, lay the settlements of St. Ignatius, St. Louis, and St. Mary. The first of these, after the destruction of St. Joseph, was the most exposed to attack, and therefore the Jesuits surrounded it with strong and high palisades, according to the rules of military engineering, so that with the greater or lesser steadfastness of the warriors, it could easily withstand Iroquois assaults. But the Iroquois, savage as they were, were also calculating warriors. They waited for the most favorable moments to attack. The inhabitants of St. Ignatius, frightened by the fate of St. Joseph’s settlement, remained vigilant throughout the entire winter and the warriors did not go out to raid. By spring, when their meager supplies were exhausted and they were not expecting an Iroquois attack, they set out to hunt, leaving only women, children, and elders in the village. This was exactly what the Iroquois were waiting for. On March 16th, before dawn, a war cry suddenly rang out beyond the walls, and barely had the sleeping population time to wake before knives and tomahawks began their bloody work. Of the entire population of four hundred, only three managed to escape, rushing half-naked into the forest and managing to bring the terrible news to the neighboring settlement of St. Louis. Most of the warriors were hunting, but about one hundred and fifty men remained for defense, and they resolved to die fighting the Iroquois. There were two missionaries there—Brébeuf and Lalement. The converts begged them to flee while it was possible. But the courageous soldiers of the cross wished to live and die with their spiritual children, and they consoled them with their teachings and conversations. Meanwhile, barely had the sun risen when the well-known war cry of the Iroquois rang out beyond the walls, and these demons, maddened by the intoxication of blood, made a terrible attack on the palisades. The Hurons bravely met them and withstood the assault. Twice they attacked and twice were forced to retreat. Then they gathered at the base of the wooden wall and began desperately hacking at it until they made several breaches. In these a desperate struggle ensued. Life, death—all depended on its outcome. Behind the fighting Hurons stood the Jesuits, encouraging them by their presence and blessing, baptizing catechumens and giving absolution to the dying. Finally the Hurons could not hold out, the Iroquois broke in, and the entire population, together with the Jesuits, was taken captive. The settlement was immediately set on fire, and the remaining captives were led to the ruins of St. Ignatius where the usual tortures began. The fury of the Iroquois fell with particular force upon the Jesuits, and especially on Brébeuf, whose courageous bearing enraged their savagery. They bound him to a post and began to cut his limbs, while he, in a steady voice, consoled his spiritual children and imperiously threatened his torturers with eternal flames. To silence him, the Iroquois cut off his lips and filled his mouth with red-hot iron; yet he did not utter a single cry of pain. Lalement was brought to him, wrapped in pitch-soaked birch-bark. When the latter saw the condition of his superior, he cried out in a broken voice: ‘We are a spectacle to the world, to angels and to men,’ and then threw himself at Brébeuf’s feet. But the Iroquois tore him away and set fire to the birch-bark. Brébeuf’s own sufferings were grievous, the sufferings of his faithful helper and colleague were likewise grievous, but still more grievous was it for him to hear that some of the converted and baptized Hurons, to save their own lives, renounced Christianity and their teachers and, together with the Iroquois, vied with one another in devising torments for the Jesuits. One such apostate declared that the black robes had poured much cold water on the heads of others (to baptize them), and therefore it would not be amiss to reward them with hot water. And so indeed they heated water to boiling and began to pour it on Brébeuf’s head. ‘We are baptizing you so that you may be happy in heaven!’ they cried. After countless such tortures, they scalped him, cut open his chest and drank his blood to absorb his courage. Finally a chief tore out his heart and devoured it. Thus died one of the noblest missionaries, the heroic Brébeuf. He came from a high Norman family and had a brilliant career before him, but he abandoned it for the work of Christ and died the death of a martyr, a death that was the object of amazement to his savage torturers.[8]

When the settlements of St. Ignatius and St. Louis were burning and perishing at the hands of the Iroquois, the smoke was visible in St. Mary’s settlement, where the main camp of the mission was located under the direction of Rageneau, Bressani, and their colleagues. In mortal fear they awaited the same fate; but the Iroquois, satiated with savagery, withdrew to their own country. Nevertheless, the mission had received a mortal blow. St. Mary’s settlement was now completely exposed, and the Iroquois could destroy it at the first opportunity. Terror at their invasion spread through all the small Huron villages, and the inhabitants themselves burned them and fled into the inaccessible forests. Then the Jesuits, holding a council, decided to transfer the mission camp to one of the islands of Lake Huron, considering it less accessible to the Iroquois. But there they had to struggle with another enemy—hunger. Many Hurons fleeing from the Iroquois arrived on the island with the Jesuits, but there was nothing to eat. Having suffered through the winter, living on roots and acorns, the Jesuits saw no further possibility of staying there and decided to abandon the mission altogether. ‘Not without tears did we leave the land of our hopes and our hearts, where our brothers gloriously shed their blood,’ the missionary notes on this occasion.[9] The scourge of the Iroquois soon swept over the unhappy country once more and put an end to the entire Huron people. ‘When I,’ writes the Jesuit Rageneau, ‘only thirteen years ago came to the headwaters of this great river (the Ottawa, tributary of the St. Lawrence), I found its banks inhabited by Huron[10] tribes, who knew not God and, in their unbelief, considered themselves gods on earth; for they had everything they desired: abundance of fish and game, and profitable trade with neighboring peoples. Moreover, they were a terror to their enemies round about. But from the time they accepted the faith and began to worship the cross of Christ, He gave them the heavy burden of that cross and made them prey to poverty, torment, and cruel death. In a word, they, as a people, have been wiped from the face of the earth. Our only consolation is that they died as Christians, having a share in the inheritance of the true sons of God, whom He chastens whom He loves.’[11]

Thus ended this terrible catastrophe, this heroic attempt by a handful of missionaries to bring the light of Christianity and civilization to the depths of a land of wild barbarism.

V

In the face of this horrible and bloody end to the missionaries’ first attempt, did their zeal for the holy cause not weaken? It even intensified. ‘The Jesuits never retreated a single step; but as in a brave army new battalions advance to replace the fallen, so with them there was never a lack of heroism and enterprise for the cause of the cross and French dominion.’[12] Having failed in the Huron country, they resolved to carry their mission to the midst of the most terrible and bloodthirsty savages, the Iroquois themselves, and attempt to bring this indomitable scourge of all the missions under the gentle yoke of the gospel.

[1] Report of Ragueneau 1646, 56.

[2] The baptized Indian Stephen Totiri, witnessing the tortures by which his countrymen were tormenting a captured Iroquois, boldly rebuked them and threatened them with eternal fire and demons. He baptized the wretched man amid the fury of his torturers, who pushed him during the baptism and cried out: “Don’t baptize him! Let the devils burn him after we burn him!” Report of Ragueneau, 1646, 56; 1648, 53.

[3] The natives usually called Christianity prayer.

[4] The shamans spread a rumor that a young woman, baptized by the Jesuits and dead soon after, had come back to life and told how she was received in the “French heaven.” As soon as she appeared there, they seized her, bound her in chains, and subjected her to every kind of torment. That is how they treat all the converted there. The French, and especially the Jesuits, spend their time doing this. So when the Jesuits baptize natives, they have in view nothing other than to prepare people for themselves in heaven for torment.—Report of Ragueneau 1646, 65.

[5] Ibid. 1648, 77.

[6] In relating this, Ragueneau presents a remarkable specimen of native eloquence. At a council assembled for this purpose, an old native addressed the Jesuit Ragueneau with the following speech: “My brother, began the eloquent speaker. Look here, all our tribes are gathered. (He named them one by one). We are but a handful; you are the prop and the strength of this people. Thunder has fallen from heaven and the earth has cracked. We shall fall into the crevices if you do not support us. Have pity on us. We are here not so much to speak as to weep over our losses and yours. Our country is merely a skeleton, without flesh and sinews, and its bones hang by threads. The demon of hell has put a tomahawk into the murderer’s hand. Are you, sun, whose rays shine upon us, responsible for leading him to this deed? Why did you not darken your light so he would be struck with horror at his wickedness? Were you his accomplice? No, because he walked in darkness and did not see where he struck. That wretched murderer thought he was aiming at the head of a Frenchman, but the blow fell on his country and dealt it a mortal wound. The earth opens to receive the blood of an innocent victim, and its crevice will swallow us. We are all guilty. The Iroquois rejoice at his death and exult; they see that our weapons have turned against ourselves, and they know well that our people are near the end. Brother, have pity on this people. You alone can restore it to life. You can gather its scattered bones and close the crevice that has opened to swallow us. Have pity on your country. I call it yours because you are its lord; as for us, we have come here like criminals to receive your judgment, if you do not pardon us. Have pity on those who condemn themselves and come begging for forgiveness. You gave strength to the people by settling among them; and if you abandon us, we shall be like a wisp of straw torn from the earth and scattered by the wind. This country is like an island flooded by waves—until the first storm that destroys it entirely. Strengthen it in its foundation and posterity will never cease to praise you. When we first heard of this murder, we could do nothing but weep; and now we are ready to accept your orders and fulfill your demands. Speak then, and ask for whatever satisfaction you wish; our life and our will are all yours. And even if we have to rob our own children to satisfy you, we will tell them they must blame not you, but him whose crime has made us all guilty. Our anger is against him; but toward you we feel only love. He has destroyed our life, but you will restore it if only you speak and tell us what we should do for you.”—Ragueneau, having cited this speech, says that it is a simple translation of it. If so, then his remark that eloquence is more a gift of nature than an art is beyond question.

[7] Report 1648, 8–17. Report of Ragueneau 1649, 3–5. Bressani, 247.

[8] Report of Ragueneau 1649, 13. The remains of both missionaries were later found in a disfigured and half-burned state.

[9] Bressani, Abridged Report, 288.

[10] Literally—Algonquian, the general name of the tribes, to which the Hurons also belonged.

[11] Ragueneau, report 1650, 27.

[12] Bancroft, History of U. S. Vol. III, 141.

Part One. The First Steps of Roman Catholicism on the Continent of North America (Cont.) (7)

After the final destruction of the Huron country, the Iroquois roamed there for several more years, finishing off the scattered remnants of the unfortunate tribe and taking them captive. Their boldness now knew no bounds and they seriously threatened the French colonies themselves. The settlers dared not venture beyond the walls of the forts, for the Iroquois, like wild beasts, lurked in the forest hunting human prey. Finally, however, continuous wars of many years’ duration had greatly exhausted their bloodthirsty instincts, and when they suffered a slight defeat in a skirmish with the French, they resolved to enter into peaceful negotiations with them. The French were delighted and hastened to take advantage of the opportunity to give it a name by one river, and with the names of the last four four counties of New York State are called.[1] In 1654, the Jesuit Lemoine set out for the country of the Iroquois, the Onondaga tribe. He was traveling along the bloody footprints of the Jesuits Jogues, Bressani, and thousands of Huron captives and martyrs, but no fear could stop the Jesuit from his missionary work. He boldly appeared in the village of the tribe and was rewarded for his courage. There he met thousands of Huron captives, most of whom were Christians, knew him personally, and therefore greeted him with joy. He immediately celebrated mass for them, gave communion to many, and baptized children and adults who had not yet been baptized. The Jesuit witnessed a remarkable sight. These Christian captives, whom the Jesuits had mourned as lost, proved to be fruitful seed of Christianity among the fierce Iroquois. Through them, Christianity had managed to open a path to the wild consciousness of the fierce conquerors, and to the Jesuit’s amazement, they were inclined to accept baptism. Lemoine returned to Quebec with glad tidings and set forth the prospects for converting the Iroquois. The following year, Jesuits Dablon and Chaumonot set out for the Iroquois and established a permanent missionary post. The Indians received them warmly, and the Huron captives enabled them quickly to build a chapel, where worship began. ‘Instead of marble and precious metals,’ writes Dablon in his diary, ‘we used only bark; but the path to heaven is as open through a bark roof as through vaults of gold and silver.’[2] Little by little, other tribes began to accept Christianity, and Jesuits constantly arrived from Quebec, establishing new posts in various settlements of the savages. It seemed that the pagan darkness feared the light and was scattered before it everywhere. But paganism was still strong among the Iroquois, and at any convenient opportunity it could take revenge on the bearers of Christianity. When many baptisms of Iroquois had already been performed, their medicine men began to preach to the people that this baptism was sorcery that was killing the children. ‘What these French ‘black robes’ call baptism,’ they said, ‘is evil sorcery performed to destroy our children. Our salvation consists in their immediate death. The dark night is the most convenient time for this.’ This idea spread like lightning among the Iroquois, and in a secret nighttime council they resolved to kill all the black robes. This hellish plot would undoubtedly have been carried out had not the Jesuits learned of the danger in time. Their resourcefulness saved them from certain death. As had happened once before, they arranged a feast for their executioners. The gluttonous savages, of course, did not refuse to come to the banquet offered by their destined victims, and while they were thus occupied with eating, the Jesuits unobtrusively got into the canoes prepared in advance and disappeared, setting out for Quebec, which was their only shelter. This was March 20, 1658, three years after the missionaries had penetrated into the Iroquois country.[3]

This event was the occasion for war between the Iroquois and the French, and it continued for two years with savage ferocity. The Iroquois took French prisoners and their Indian allies captive and, as was their custom, burned them, while the French in turn responded with cruelty toward Iroquois captives. But despite all this, the war did not have the seeds of prolonged duration. Among the Iroquois, there was already a strong Christian faction that sympathized with the French and desired peace with them. One important leader was a Christian and on every occasion protested against the burning of captives, did not allow the missionary chapel to be destroyed, and gave the Huron captives the opportunity to pray fearlessly in it and sing sacred hymns. As a result, one of the most peaceful tribes (the Onondaga) inclined toward peace with the French; others followed, with the exception of the fierce Mohawks, who continued the war for a few more years, until finally, abandoned to themselves, they too were forced to make peace, signed at Quebec on August 31, 1666. The Jesuits waited impatiently for this moment and again took up the holy work. A year after the peace was concluded, three Jesuits set out for the country of the most indomitable and fearsome enemies of Christianity—the Mohawks, who were more hostile to Christianity and the French than any other Iroquois tribe and who burned and tortured more Christian captives, among whom were the Jesuits Jogues and Bressani. But the blood of martyrs does not perish without trace; it was the fruitful seed of Christianity. The Mohawks, despite all their external untamed nature, proved amenable to the missionaries’ persuasion, and conversions among them became so frequent that the Jesuits requested helpers from Quebec. Little by little, the network of missionary work was spread throughout the entire Iroquois country, and in the heart of present-day New York State, in a land of terrible barbarism and cannibalism, the regular celebration of the Roman Catholic Mass began. In 1670, sixteen years after the opening of missionary work among the Iroquois, the cross was already raised high over the entire land of these savages, and especially among the Mohawks, who had appeared to be the most hopeless and stubborn barbarians. Among them was particularly evident the process of spiritual regeneration. The former wild nature struggled mightily against the new principle and yielded. From among the converted Iroquois emerged some who were ready to endure any torture from their pagan brothers for their faith and bore it patiently. Even examples of virtue appeared that were the object of admiration for the missionaries themselves. In the latter regard, the Iroquois maiden Catherine Tegakwita was especially renowned, whom the Jesuits called the New Geneviève.[4]

The Jesuits, however, did not long enjoy the fruits of their labors. In 1664, the territory of present-day New York State passed into the hands of the English, who brought with them a new policy toward the Indians and Jesuits. The English rulers began to view jealously the influence that France, through the Jesuits, held over the Indians, and their first action was to undermine this influence. Particularly zealous in this was the governor Dongan. From the beginning of his administration (1683), he resolved to expel the French Jesuits from his territory, and to this end began to incite the Indians against the Jesuits, promising to give them ‘better fathers’—English Jesuits—and to build churches for them. His efforts were not fruitless. The French Jesuits began to suffer insults and violence and finally had to withdraw from the field of their many years of labor.[5]

Thus ended the missionary work among New York State by French missionaries. To them first belongs the honor of enlightening this dark land of wild barbarism. They were the first to open a path here for Europeans. It was a bloody and dangerous path, but through their self-denial they achieved that which transformed fierce cannibals, whose enjoyment and occupation consisted of hunting humans and burning them, into obedient Christians. The fruits of their labors are visible to this day. The remnants of the ancient Indian tribe, still living in New York State, preserve the faith of their first teachers and remain unmoved by all persuasion of Protestant missionaries.[6]

VI

Meanwhile, while the wild nature of the Iroquois was still not broken and they were the scourge of all neighboring tribes, the Jesuits penetrated into the most remote regions with their preaching of Christianity and civilization. The remote tribes, constantly threatened by the fierce Iroquois, proved willing to ally themselves with the French, from whom they calculated they would find support in their struggle against the Iroquois. These regions were still quite unknown. But if the Iroquois penetrated there to satisfy their bloodthirstiness, why should not the peaceful messengers of the cross penetrate there as well? Among the Jesuits of Quebec, several zealous missionaries came forward, declaring their readiness to go preach to these peoples. The Bishop of Quebec himself, Laval, proposed to undertake this missionary work, but the lot fell to the Jesuit René Menard. In 1660, he set out on his journey with almost no preparations, relying, by his own words, ‘on Providence, which feeds the birds of the wilderness and clothes the wild flowers of the forests.’[7] After a long and exhausting journey, he arrived at the ruined remains of the Huron missions and then set out to the distant west, never to return. It is presumed that he became lost in the impenetrable forests and died of hunger. Some of his things were later found among the Sioux savages.[8] Thus ended the first attempt at missionary work in the distant west. But its fate did not frighten the courageous preachers of the cross. In 1665, a new missionary, Allouez, set out on the same path, and he achieved his destination more successfully. Passing by the great lakes, he arrived in the country of the Chippewas, who had never seen a white man, and from all the surrounding villages assembled to look at him. The Jesuit convened a people’s council, offered trade with the French and help against the Iroquois. For a year he lived among them, built a chapel, and taught the savages to sing the Pater and Ave. Moving from one tribe to another, he encountered the Illinois, who aroused his curiosity with accounts of a great river on whose banks they lived. ‘They have no forests,’ he says, ‘but instead vast prairies, where herds of deer and buffalo and other animals graze on tall grass. Their country,’ he notes, ‘is the best field for the gospel.’[9] Penetrating further west, he reached the country of the Sioux, and from them too heard of the great river, and was the first among Europeans to learn its name, recording it in his report in a somewhat abbreviated form: Mississippi.[10] But he was not the one to whom belongs the final discovery and exploration of this river. That belongs to another Jesuit, Marquette, who was the first to paddle down almost its entire length in a frail canoe and who first determined its course and its mouth.

[1] The Iroquois were divided into five tribes: Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca. The name of the first tribe has survived to this day in the name of one river, while the names of the last four give their names to four counties of New York State.

[2] Journal de Dablon, 1655, Nov. 18.

[3] Shea, History of the Catholic Church in the U. S. p. 315.

[4] The Jesuit Cholonec describes her virtues and holiness in detail in a long letter of August 27, 1715, to Augustin Leblanc, the procurator of Canadian missions. Her father was a pagan, and her mother a Christian, who baptized her when she was four years old. At twenty she contracted smallpox, which so disfigured her face that she nearly lost her sight. From that time on she shut herself in a hut and became a hermit, occupied solely with the mortification of the flesh. Notably, the practice of mortification of the flesh gained wide prevalence among the natives, especially among women. “They went to such extremes,” writes Cholonec, “that when this came to our knowledge, we felt obliged to moderate their zeal. Besides the ordinary instruments of mortification they used, they invented a thousand new means of causing themselves suffering. Some lay in the snow during the most severe cold; others stripped completely naked in solitary places and remained so for long periods, exposing themselves to the harshness of the season, on the banks of frozen rivers and in places where the wind blew especially hard. There were even some who, having broken the ice in lakes, plunged themselves in up to the neck, remaining there as long as was necessary for ten recitations of the rosary. One of them did so three nights in a row, and this caused such a fierce fever that we thought she would die. Another astonished me by her simplicity when I learned that, not satisfied with using this means of mortification for herself, she had plunged her own three-year-old daughter into the frozen river with her, pulling her out half-dead. When I rebuked her sternly for such madness, she answered with a simplicity that amazed me, saying that she had not thought she was doing anything wrong, but that, knowing her daughter would surely sin against the Lord someday, she wished to impose in advance the punishment that her sin would deserve.” The letter is full of characteristic details from the lives of the newly converted natives. It is published in translation in the edition of Kippe, pp. 81–116.

[5] Shea, History, p. 321–325.

[6] In New York State at the present time there are some 2,500 Iroquois, and they are all Catholics. Shea, History, p. 324.

[7] Letter of Mesnard in Bancroft, History, Vol. III, 146.

[8] Bancroft’s History, Vol. III, 148.

[9] Report of Allouez 1666, p. 105–110. Bancroft, Vol. III, 151.

[10] Ibidem, Report, p. 111.

Part One. The First Steps of Roman Catholicism on the Continent of North America (Cont.) (8)

The Jesuit Marquette arrived in Quebec in 1666, labored for several years in missionary work among the tribes scattered in the vicinity of the great lakes, and there too first heard of the great river, ‘the father of waters.’ He resolved to penetrate to its banks and earnestly prayed that the honor of being the first to discover and spread the gospel among the peoples dwelling on its banks would fall to him. To his great good fortune he found support in the governor of Canada, who took his idea warmly to heart, gave him as an assistant the learned Frenchman Joliet, with whom Marquette began making preparations for an expedition, sketched out a rough map of the river on the basis of accounts from the Indians, and on May 17, 1673, two canoes with Marquette, Joliet, and five companions set out on Lake Michigan into unknown waters. The Indians told all sorts of horrors about this remote region and said: ‘These peoples never spare foreigners; their mutual wars fill the river banks with parties of warriors; the Great River abounds in monsters that devour both men and canoes; excessive heat causes death.’ But the courageous Jesuit replied to all these warnings: ‘I shall joyfully lay down my life for the salvation of souls.’[1] A month later the travelers finally entered the long-desired Mississippi River, ‘with such joy,’ Marquette notes, ‘as I cannot express.’ The learned Jesuit was a very observant man, and in his letter he records all the peculiarities of the river and its banks, and this record is of the greatest natural historical interest. Their canoes sped rapidly down the current of the great river, passing through a wilderness, ‘terrible for its complete absence of humans.’ Finally on June 25, they saw a footprint on the bank and a path leading into a beautiful prairie. There they landed and set out to find a village. These were the first white men who had ever set foot on the soil of present-day Illinois. In the distance they saw an Indian village. Placing themselves under the protection of Divine Providence, they resolved to announce themselves with shouts. The Indians heard, and an old Indian came out to meet them and greeted them with signs. But this tribe’s language proved understandable to Marquette. The Indian invited the travelers into his lodge and they passed under the devouring gaze of a crowd of savages. Marquette declared that he was an emissary of the Great Spirit, who had entrusted him with teaching them to know Him, and his companion (Joliet) was the representative of the great chief of the French people in Canada, who had chastened the Iroquois and grants peace to all peoples. The Indian chief listened carefully and then addressed them with a magnificent speech, which was recorded by Marquette and represents an interesting specimen of the Indians’ natural eloquence.[2] After this reception, the Indians prepared a great feast for the guests. ‘It consisted of four courses,’ writes the Jesuit, ‘and we had to partake in it according to all their rules. The first dish was a large bowl of sagamite—an Indian dish, boiled in water and seasoned with fat. The master of ceremonies, taking a spoonful of sagamite, brought it three or four times to my mouth, as is done with children among us. He did the same with Joliet. For the second course, he brought a dish containing three fish; he took care to remove the bones and, blowing on them to cool them, put a piece in my mouth, just as we feed birds. For the third course, they brought a large dog that had just been killed; but learning that we did not eat it, they removed it. Finally, the fourth course consisted of a piece of wild buffalo, and the fattest parts of it were placed in my mouth.’[3] The Indians so liked the white men that six hundred of them accompanied them to their canoes.

The travelers sailed on, and after many adventures and dangers reached the mouth of the Arkansas River. There they met Indians who already knew Europeans and traded with the Spanish, and were able to finally determine where the mouth of the Mississippi lay. At first they had supposed that this river flowed into the California Gulf, but now they were convinced that ‘the Mississippi undoubtedly has its mouth in the Mexican Gulf.’ This was all they were seeking, and therefore they decided to return, especially since continuing further they might fall into the hands of the Spanish, who were then at war with the French. On July 17, they turned their canoes back and began the difficult journey against the current of the river. All this journey, attended by many hardships and dangers, is remarkable if only for its length. In their frail canoes these travelers covered more than 2,700 miles. ‘If all this journey,’ says Marquette, ‘had resulted in the salvation of even one soul, I would consider all its hardships repaid; and I have reason to think so, for when I was returning and passing the Peoria Indians, they brought me to the bank a dying child, whom I baptized shortly before he died.’[4]

The fame of the discovery made by Marquette spread throughout the world and aroused the ambition of the French, who hastened to derive trading and political advantages from it. But for the missionary himself, the salvation of souls was dearest. He soon returned to the newly discovered region, preached the gospel to the Indians, who proved to be a peaceful and simple-hearted people, and there died in 1675. ‘The good missionary,’ a historian remarks on this occasion, ‘died on the banks of the stream bearing his name. Near the mouth, the boatmen dug a grave for him in the sand. But afterward, forest wanderers, when in danger, invoked his name. The peoples of the west will raise him a monument.’[5]

After Marquette came a succession of other missionaries who, using the path already opened, could boldly carry the preaching of the cross. Among them was particularly remarkable Gravier, who was the first to establish an organized mission, studied the Illinois language, and brought it under grammatical rules.[6] Thanks to the efforts of a series of missionaries, the Illinois were already in the early eighteenth century mostly Christians, zealously observing the rites of the Roman Catholic Church. In a letter from 1712, the Jesuit Marest wrote of them as follows, which at the same time generally characterizes the missionary methods of the Jesuits:

‘Christianity has softened the wild customs of the Illinois, and their behavior now is distinguished by pleasantness and propriety, so that some Frenchmen have begun to marry their daughters. We find in them, moreover, obedience and zeal in the performance of Christian virtues. In our mission we observe the following order every day. Early in the morning we gather the catechumens in church, where they pray, receive instruction, and sing some hymns. When they leave, mass begins, at which all the Christians are present, men on one side and women on the other; then they pray, are given a sermon, after which each goes to his work. We then spend our time visiting the sick, give them necessary medicines, instruct them, and comfort those who are in grief. In the afternoon, there is catechetical instruction, at which all are present—Christians and catechumens, men and children, young and old—and each, without distinction of age or status, answers the questions posed by the missionary. Since these people have no books and are by nature careless, they would soon forget the principles of religion if reminders were not provided through these almost continuous instructions. Our visits to the lodges occupy the rest of the day. In the evening, all gather again in church, hear the instruction given them, pray, and sing some hymns. On Sundays and feast days, in addition to the usual pious exercises, there is instruction given after evening prayer. The zeal with which these good neophytes go to church at all hours is wonderful. They interrupt their work and run from distant places to arrive in time. They usually end the day with private meetings in their own dwellings, men separately from women, where they repeat prayer with singing, sing hymns, until late at night. These hymns are the best instruction for them; they retain them most easily, as the words are set to tunes to which they are accustomed and which they like. They frequently approach the sacraments, and among them it is customary to confess and receive communion once every two weeks. We were forced to appoint special days on which they must confess, otherwise they would not give us time to perform our own duties. These are Friday and Sunday of each week, when we hear their confessions, and on these days we are besieged by a crowd of penitents. The care we take of the sick inspires them with confidence in us, and it is in such moments we especially reap the fruits of our labor. Their obedience is perfect, and we generally have the consolation of seeing them die in peace and with firm hope soon to be united with God in heaven.[7]’

Thus Christianity succeeded in transforming the savages, those very ones of whom the same Jesuit says that ‘they must first be converted into humans, and then we must work to make them Christians.’[8]

By the beginning of the eighteenth century, Roman Catholicism, thanks to the extraordinary energy and enterprise of the sons of Loyola, had thus managed to spread itself among most of the tribes inhabiting the continent of North America. It seemed that this vast continent was forever brought under the submission of the Roman Curia, seeking compensation for the lands lost in Europe, and it hoped to rely upon it when volcanic upheavals shook its historical throne in the Old World. But this hope was not destined to be realized. Soon began an intensified migration of Europeans to the new continent, and a bitter struggle broke out between the newcomers and the natives, and for the latter it was fatal. Relying on their superiority in battle, the colonists ruthlessly exterminated the Indians, so that entire tribes either perished from bullets or withdrew into the wilderness.[9] With the Indians perished also the fruits of the Jesuits’ missionary labor. At last came a difficult time for the Jesuits themselves. With the increase of the Protestant population, which constituted the majority of the settlers, and with the establishment of English rule in the country, severe laws began to be enacted against Roman Catholicism in general and against the Jesuits in particular, which finally deprived them of the possibility of activity, so that it became not only impossible to develop missionary work, but even impossible to preserve the fruits gained by previous labors. It was clear that on the native population, doomed to death by the incoming culture, Roman Catholicism could not establish its power on the new continent. Then it attempted to turn to the incoming element to achieve the same goal through its mediation. But here it encountered such obstacles—in the form of popular prejudice and the stern anti-Catholic laws expressing it—that one had to await a great historical upheaval in the country before one could openly undertake a new field of activity. The clarification of the state of the religious spirit which for a time halted the development of Roman Catholicism, and the origin of the upheaval which again gave it freedom to grow, constitutes the subject of the next section. Since this section, by the nature of its subject, includes the question of the relation of church and state in a country that presents an example of the most complete realization of the principle of separation of these two orders and the proclamation, according to general understanding, of complete freedom of religious conscience, then in view of both the importance and interest of the subject itself, and especially the prevalence of unclear understanding of this relation in Russia, we believe it necessary to dwell on this question with greater detail and thoroughness than even our direct task would require.

* * *

[1] Marquette in the letters of Tiveno and Hennepin, English edition 1698. Bancroft, Vol. III, 156.

[2] He said, among other things: “I thank you, black robe, for taking the trouble to come visit us. Never has the earth been so beautiful, the sun so bright for us, as today. Never has our river been so calm, or so free from rocks, which have been moved by your canoes. Never has our tobacco had such a pleasant smell, and our corn never been so tasty. Here is my son, whom I give to you so you will know my heart (upon saying this, the native brought up to Marquette a young slave whom he was giving him). I ask you, have pity on me and my people. You know the Great Spirit who created us all. You speak with Him and hear His word. Ask Him to give me life and health, to come and live with us, so that we may know Him.” Letter of Marquette, VI section. The French original and English translation are found in Shea’s work, Discovery and Exploration of the Mississippi Valley, 1852, N. Y.

[3] Marquette’s account in the cited work Shea, p. 24. This account is full of very interesting details concerning the life and customs of these sons of the American prairie.

[4] Marquette in his account, p. 30.

[5] Bancroft’s History Vol. III, 162.

[6] Letter of the Jesuit Maret in the edition of Kippe, pp. 205 and following.

[7] Letter of Maret from November 9, 1712, pp. 204, 206, ed. Kippe.

[8] Ibidem, p. 194.

[9] The extermination of the natives through war by the white population continues to this day in the United States. The inhumanity of the American treatment of the indigenous peoples is starkly depicted in a book recently published in New York: A Century of Dishonor. The book made a strong impression on society.

Part Two. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development

(An outline of the relations between church and state, in historical development and present condition, in the United States of America).

VII. The first settlers of North America and their religious intolerance. The clash of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Persecution of the latter.—VIII. The struggle for independence and its significance for the proclamation of freedom of religious conscience. The limitation of the latter for Roman Catholicism. The Federal Constitution and the separation of church from state. The significance of this act for Roman Catholicism.—IX. The principles of relations between religion and state in the United States.—X. The relation of the Federal Constitution to the constitutions of individual states and its significance for the practical realization of the principle of freedom of religious conscience. The position of Roman Catholicism in the state.

VII

North America within the territory of the present United States owes its settlement chiefly to the Reformation. When a series of bold religious reformers proclaimed new principles in the realm of religion, the right of religious conscience, and personal responsibility, their voice thundered through European peoples, oppressed under the despotic weight of the papacy. The masses of the people were stirred, new principles clashed with the old, and this collision produced that epoch of political and religious turmoil which followed the Reformation. Alarmed Catholicism sought salvation from the flood of reformatory ideas in an even greater adherence to the old principles; Protestantism on its part proceeded irresistibly in the opposite direction, and in its most extreme sects fanatically rejected everything that could remind it of Catholicism. The difference between old and new ran so deep through the social and religious life of humanity that no middle conciliating principle could exist between them. If by the law of equilibrium such a middle principle had to form, it appeared not reconciling the extremes, but hostile to them. This fact asserted itself with particular force in England, to which North America owes its settlement chiefly.

The Reformation in England found expression in a compromise between Catholicism and Protestantism, and was more a political than a religious act. Henry VIII, rejecting the pope’s supremacy, nevertheless remained a zealous Catholic, and saw the significance of the Reformation chiefly in subjecting the Church more completely to the state and making it a prop of the throne. This view received full development in subsequent reigns. The Anglican Church became entirely a state religion. But it could not find general acceptance among the population, which included both pure Catholics, who continued to recognize the pope as the head of the Church, and pure Protestants, who rejected any connection with Catholicism. Both of these parties equally did not recognize the new Church, and the latter, as the state religion, began to regard them as equally harmful to the state. Hence arose the persecutions which characterized the relation of the Anglican episcopal Church and the state to Catholics and Puritans as the two extreme expressions of opinions at variance with the state religion. These persecutions served as the direct cause of the migration of the persecuted to the soil of the New World. Catholics, Puritans, and Quakers—the three main religious parties which had particular importance in the historical destiny of North America—in emigrating to the New World sought first and foremost a homeland of religious freedom, and then a land of earthly goods.[1] Catholics settled in Maryland, Quakers in Pennsylvania, and Puritans in New England. Other parts of the continent were settled by: the present state of New York by Dutch Protestants, Virginia by adherents of the Anglican Church, North Carolina by various non-conformists, and South Carolina by Huguenots.[2]

Thus the first settlers of the United States were martyrs for their religious convictions, and in emigrating to America sought a land where they could freely profess their faith. It might be expected, therefore, that they would bring with them to the New World the principles of freedom of religious conscience and make them the foundation of their mutual relations. Reality shows something quite different. Having themselves escaped persecution for their religious convictions, the settlers at the first opportunity displayed the same spirit of intolerance from which they had suffered and against which they had fought in their homeland. The entire history of the colonial period of the United States presents such facts of religious intolerance as are scarcely matched even in the history of religious persecution in England. Particularly remarkable is the fact that the most intolerant with respect to freedom of religious conscience were those who had suffered most and fought most for the rights of conscience—the Puritans—while Catholics found themselves among the persecuted. Freedom of religious conscience as it exists now in the United States did not appear suddenly, but developed gradually through a slow process of historical development, and is rather the necessary result of historical and political circumstances than a voluntary act of conscious recognition of the justice of the principle of freedom of religious conscience.

The main role in shaping the moral, religious, social, and political life of the United States undoubtedly belonged to the Puritans, who settled in that part of the country known as New England. They were exiles for the rights of conscience. But having found freedom themselves, they did not consider it an equal right for others. By its inner nature, Puritanism proved far removed from that breadth of views which could be compatible with the right of free thought. Having rejected external forms, Puritanism shut itself within a narrow circle of rigid ideas, beyond which everything was condemned as false and harmful. Dark, exclusive fanaticism became the foundation of the entire political and social system. Puritan colonies were as much religious communities as political ones. When a commission was appointed to draft and establish laws for civil society, one of the chief leaders of the Puritans, Cotton, declared that “the people of God should be governed by no other laws than those given to Moses by God,” and insisted on establishing a theocracy, a “government of God for God’s people.”[3] This law was not adopted in such an exclusive form, but nevertheless the code that was adopted differed little in its exclusive severity from the system of Mosaic theocracy, and it excluded everything that deviated from the strict form of Puritanism. “The rock on which this community was built,” says the historian, was religion; their common faith brought these people together and held them. They were exclusive because they had come to the edge of the world for the privilege of living by themselves. And why should they open their shelter to their oppressors? Religious unity was made a bulwark for the exiles against expected attacks from the Anglican hierarchy. The vast continent of America beckoned to colonization; they held their own territory only for brothers. Their religion was their life; they admitted only its followers; they could not tolerate a blasphemer, unbelief, or dissent; and the whole people gathered at their congregations. Such was the system, nurtured as a bulwark of their freedom and happiness. “The order of churches and communities,” wrote Cotton to his friends, has now by common consent been so established in New England that it resembles a new heaven and a new earth.[4] As a consequence of such an organic connection of religion with society, the recognition of religion as a state religion became inevitable. The Puritan form of religion became part of the civil institution; deviation from it began to be punished as a civil crime. “The state became a model of the kingdom of Christ on earth; a crime against civil government was a crime against Christ; and conversely, since the Gospel had equal authority, blasphemy, or what the court might call blasphemy, was the gravest crime in the list of offenses. Denial that any book of the Old or New Testament was the written and infallible word of God was punished by fine or whipping, and in case of stubbornness—by exile or death. Absence from “the ministry of the word” or divine service was punished by fine.”[5] Extreme intolerance became the atmosphere of the community. “God protect us from such a cooling of our love of truth that we tolerate error!” cried out Dudley, the old leader of Puritanism. “Better to tolerate hypocrites and tares than thorns and briers,” confirmed Cotton. “Dissent,” echoed Ward, “is the greatest impiety in the world. To say that men should have freedom of conscience is an impious error.”[6] These principles were not long in passing into action, and one of the first acts of the colonists was the expulsion from the community of two persons for being unable to agree with the overly severe form of Puritanism.[7] But in expelling from their midst those who disagreed with their principles, the Puritan community treated other external religious communities with even greater harshness, and considered the appearance of any member from the latter worse than a malicious plague. To prevent the introduction of heretical plague into the Puritan community, a special law was enacted against Quakers in 1657. According to it, “every male Quaker, for his first violation (of the law forbidding their appearance in the Puritan community) shall have one ear cut off and be held to work in a correction house until he can be sent away at his own cost; and for a second violation he shall have his other ear cut off and be held in the correction house as stated above. And every female Quaker who comes under this law shall be severely whipped and held in a correction house until she can be sent away at her own cost. And any Quaker (male or female) who violates the law a third time shall have his tongue pierced with a hot iron and be held in a correction house until they can be sent away at their own cost.”[8]

But if the Puritans treated the Quakers with such fanatical intolerance, despite their having suffered persecution together in England for the rights of personal religious conscience, they were even more intolerant toward Roman Catholics. Puritanism more than any other Protestant sect grew out of radical rejection of Catholicism and lived by hatred of it. The rank and authority of bishops, the sign of the cross, the observance of days commemorating saints, the use of musical instruments in church, and the ecclesiastical vestments worn by the clergy—all this was hateful to the Puritans because it was connected with Catholic worship, and the chief crime of the Anglican Church in their eyes was that it retained some doctrines and rituals of the Roman Church. Religion and liberty, though understood in their own peculiar way, were the governing principles of the Puritans, and since the Catholic Church in their view was the mortal enemy of both religion and liberty, their fanaticism, no less than their love of independence, filled them with the deepest hatred of Catholics. They had the virtues and vices of the lower, uneducated classes of the English people from whom most of them came. If they were moderate and frugal, content with little, ready to endure hardship and tolerate deprivation, stubborn in struggle with circumstances, they were at the same time narrow-minded, superstitious, angular, and harsh; and these qualities hardened further under the cold, gloomy, and severe system of their religious worldview. They were so superstitious that they hunted and hanged women for suspicion of witchcraft,[9] and this along with their belief in the diabolism of Catholic priests. Although they did not entirely reject external expressions of their religiousness—they fasted, appointed special annual days of public prayer, and under a misdirected asceticism renamed and changed Sunday into the Old Testament Sabbath—nevertheless Catholic fasts and feasts were in their eyes superstitions of idolaters, and although they maintained the right to declare what true Christian teaching is and compel its acceptance, they at the same time indignantly rejected the authority of the Church.[10] As a result, the Puritans treated Roman Catholics with particular intolerance and took all measures to prevent them from entering their community. In 1631, eleven years after the arrival of the Pilgrims on American shores, they seized and expelled from their colony a man on suspicion alone that he was a papist. That same year a priest was accused of expressing the opinion that the Roman Church is the true Church. Three years later, the Puritan leader Roger Williams, who became famous for his struggle for freedom of conscience and was later expelled for this from the community,[11] together with other Puritans declared that the cross was a “remnant of antichrist, a papal symbol, reeking of superstition, and therefore should not be recognized by Christian people.” To prove the sincerity of their views, the Puritans removed the cross from the English flag.[12] This hatred of Catholicism found expression in direct laws aimed at protecting Puritan communities from the intrusion of Catholics. The legislative assembly in Massachusetts enacted in 1647 that Jesuits appearing in the colony were to be immediately expelled, and in case of a second return, were to be hanged.[13] The settlers of Connecticut adopted laws providing that no priest (Catholic) should live in this territory; he should be expelled, and upon return suffer death. Priests can be arrested by anyone without any judicial authority.[14]

[1] See Inquiry into the Moral and Religious Character of the American Government. New York, 1838, pp. 39–72. Ramsay, History of the U.S. Vol. I, 79. “They emigrated not for the advantages of trade, but for religion and to enjoy freedom of conscience.”

[2] Inquiry, Section II. Settlement of Country.

[3] Bancroft, History of the United States of America, vol. I, ch. IX, p. 292. Centenary edition, Boston, 1876.

[4] Bancroft, History, p. 293.

[5] Bancroft, History, p. 363. Cf. Ramsay, History of the U.S. Vol. I, p. 81, 2nd edition, Philadelphia, 1816.

[6] Bancroft, History, X, 362.

[7] Bancroft, History, IX, 273.

[8] Colonial Holy Laws, cited in Murray, History of the Catholic Church in the United States, pp. 159–160.

[9] Bancroft, History, Vol. II, ch. XXX, pp. 259–266.

[10] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, article “Catholic Church in the U.S., 1766–1876”.

[11] Bancroft, History, Vol. I, ch. IX, pp. 286–299.

[12] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 438.

[13] Murray, History of the Catholic Church in the U.S., p. 159.

[14] Murray, p. 159 in note.

Part Two. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.)

The spirit of religious intolerance dominated throughout the entire colonial period not only among the Puritan population, which was exceptional in its harsh worldview, but in all other colonies as well, with few exceptions. This spirit found legal expression in the fact that most colonies before the beginning of the struggle for liberation had an established state religion. The Church of England held the foremost position in this regard, and was recognized by law in many colonies. “The clergy in America,” says an English author of the past century, “do not receive tithes, but in most colonies before the Civil War (excepting the provinces of New England, where Independents predominated), it was decreed to divide the colonies into parishes and establish religious worship there according to the rites and ceremonies of the Anglican Church; and also to collect annual salary for the maintenance of each parish clergyman.”[1] This law had particular force in Virginia, where the Anglican episcopal Church was by decree of 1662 recognized as fully state-established. “Although,” says the historian, “there was clergy in no more than one-fifth of the parishes, nevertheless the laws required strict conformity, and everyone was obliged to make contributions for its support. Twelve men in each parish were chosen to collect parish taxes, with the right to fill all vacancies in their society. Control of church affairs passed from the parish to a special corporation which the parish could not thereafter change and had no power over. No non-conformist could teach, even privately under threat of expulsion; no reader could expound the catechism or Scripture. The weakened severity of the laws of Queen Elizabeth was renewed against Quakers; for absence from church they were punished by fine of twenty pounds sterling.”[2] In a similar manner the Anglican Church was “established” in the states of Georgia and North and South Carolina, as can be judged from the fact that in their constitutions, drawn up after the declaration of independence, they abolished the “establishment” of the Church. The Constitution of North Carolina of 1776, for example, forbids the collection of taxes “for the purchase of land, or for the construction of a house of prayer, or for the maintenance of any priest or clergy.”[3] In Georgia the Anglican Church was directly established by a colonial statute of 1758.[4] These colonies were mostly populated by English settlers of Episcopal faith, and therefore the establishment of the Anglican Church in them is not surprising, as the law of establishment of this Church, operating in England itself, could most likely find application there. Far more remarkable is the fact that similar establishment existed in other colonies, populated by various non-conformists, although here the establishment was not limited to the Anglican Church but extended to Protestant religious professions. Thus the charter of New Hampshire provided that “freedom of conscience should be granted to all Protestants, but especially should be approved and favored that religion which would be more in accord with the rites of the Anglican Church,” and such a provision remained in force in this colony until the Revolution itself.[3] The Puritans in their colonies hastened to establish their own profession as the state church. “In Connecticut all persons were obliged to pay both for the maintenance of the Church and the community, Congregationalist churches were adopted and established by law.”[5] In Massachusetts, the colonial statute of 1716 established compulsory religious establishment, by which the assembly took care to provide every settlement with “a clergyman, capable as recognized by law,” namely, “able, learned, orthodox, of good behavior,” and imposed taxes for his support.[6] Of all the original thirteen colonies which formed the United States, in only four was there no more or less established state Church.[7] In all the others religion was strictly a state matter; clergy was appointed by government direction, as directly established by Massachusetts statute; common taxes were collected for the maintenance of churches, and in general the law favored one profession and oppressed others.

In the beginning, when settlers of different faiths lived in separate communities, the civil establishment of the Church was limited to one strictly defined religion, excluding all others, even though they might be related to one another in principle. But later, with increased emigration, changes and compromises in the principle of establishment became necessary. Settlers of different faiths so mixed with each other that the dominance of any one religion over all others became inconvenient and impossible. As a result, particular sectarian differences began to smooth out, civil legislation broadened its horizon, and in the “establishment” of the Church looked not at particular sectarian differences but at the general religious principle, so that several sects which, in their particular differences, were kindred by their basic principle could fall under it. Gradually this principle expanded to the point where legislation began to divide all religions into two categories—Protestantism and Catholicism, as two opposite and incompatible principles. This was already a considerable step toward religious freedom of conscience; but it could favor only one side—Protestant or Catholic. The resolution of the question of which side should hold the dominant position depended entirely on their comparative numerical strength; and since the overwhelming majority of the population was Protestant, Protestantism naturally became the established religion. Catholicism thereby found itself outside “establishment” and did not receive the rights of religious conscience. And indeed, the charters which defined the religious relations of the colonists limited the laws on freedom of conscience to Protestants only, while Catholics were either passed over in silence or directly excluded. By the New Hampshire charter, “freedom of conscience is granted to all Protestants.” In the Massachusetts charter it is said: “For the greater conveniency and encouragement of our residing subjects, inhabiting the province of the Massachusetts Bay, and such as shall come to inhabit the same, we do ordain, will, and require, that forever hereafter there shall be liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God to all Christians, except Papists, inhabiting or which shall inhabit the said province or territory.” The Georgia charter, which was in force until 1752, commands, “that liberty of conscience shall be allowed in the worship of God to all persons inhabiting or which shall inhabit the said province, and that all such persons, except Papists, shall have the free exercise of religion.”[8] More remarkable than others in the sense of the relation of Protestantism to Catholicism is the charter of Rhode Island. It was granted to the colony in consequence of a special petition, in which the petitioners “freely declared that they heartily desired, if it were permitted, to make a living experiment, that civil society can exist and be in a most flourishing condition with full freedom in religious matters.” The charter indeed provided that “all and each should freely and fully enjoy their own judgment and conscience in matters of religious concerns, throughout the length and breadth of the said land, conducting themselves peaceably and quietly, and not using this freedom for looseness and impiety, nor for civil damage or disturbance of others.” The meaning of this law granted full freedom of conscience—without any limitation by religious differences, but the colonial government, guided by the prevailing view, interpreted it as granting freedom of conscience only to Protestants, excluding Roman Catholics.[8] A historian of the past century says: “From the time of this charter the form of government underwent very little change. In 1663 it was provided that all men of sufficient estate and good behavior, who profess Christianity, except Roman Catholics, should be esteemed and allowed free.”[9]

Thus, gradually the population legally divided into two categories, which two opposite religious principles—Protestantism and Catholicism—fell under. As mutually exclusive, they could not meet on common ground, conflict between them was inevitable, and it now began with all the greater fury because Protestantism, without weakening itself through the fragmentation of particular sects, concentrated all its energy to suppress the numerically weak Catholicism. And so almost all colonies entered a period of strict laws subjecting Catholics to merciless criminal prosecution. In New York, which was distinguished by comparative religious tolerance and which had by the census of 1696 only seven Papists or at the largest estimate seven Catholic families, a law was enacted in 1700, which by its very wording characteristically expressed the spirit of the Protestant attitude toward Catholics. It began with the words: “Whereas divers Jesuits, priests and popish missionaries have of late come and taken up their residence in remote parts of this province and other neighboring colonies of his majesty, and by their wicked and crafty insinuations have endeavored to seduce, disturb and draw off the Indians from their due obedience to his most sacred majesty, to stir them up to rebellion and open hostility against the government,” it was enacted: that every clergyman coming into the province after November 1, 1700, or remaining in it after that date, was to be “deemed and accounted a disturber and disquieter of the public peace and safety, an enemy to the true Christian religion and shall be deemed and accounted as such, and shall be liable to suffer perpetual imprisonment”; if he escaped from prison and was caught again, he was to suffer death; anyone who gave shelter to a clergyman was subjected to a fine of 200 pounds sterling and three days of standing in the pillory.[10] In 1701 a law was enacted excluding Catholics from holding public office and depriving them of electoral rights, the right to vote.[11] The following year Queen Anne granted freedom of conscience to all inhabitants of New York, “except Papists.”[12] These laws were not dead letters, they found correspondence in the attitude of the Protestant population toward Catholics, who were extraordinarily hostile to them, which was demonstrated by acts of barbaric violence. In 1741 the population of New York was seized by panic due to frequent fires. A rumor spread throughout the city that Negroes had formed a conspiracy to burn the city and destroy the population. The people fell into furious confusion, several Negroes were seized and hanged, but no conspiracy was discovered on their part. Then the suspicion turned to the Catholics. “At first,” declared the governor of the province, “we thought only Negroes were involved, but now it is clear that there is a hand of Popery here.”[13] And there arose a furious outcry against Papists, the people sought someone to satisfy their bloodthirsty instincts, and finally fell upon one John Ury, as the chief culprit for all the ills and disturbances. On the suspicion that he was a Catholic priest, he was seized, subjected to trial, condemned to death, and executed in a barbarous manner.[14] Meanwhile, his guilt has not been proven to this day, nor has it been proven that he was a Catholic priest or even a Catholic, although he was accused and tried chiefly as a Catholic priest.[15]

[1] Stokes, A View of the Constitution of the British Colonies in North America, published in London, 1783—Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 722.

[2] Bancroft, History, Vol. I, ch. XIX, p. 533.

[3] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 722.

[4] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 723.

[5] Ramsay, History of the U.S. Vol. I, p. 178.

[6] Ramsay, p. 150. Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 723.

[7] “In Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey, there was never an established religion,” says Ramsay, a contemporary historian of the Revolution. Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 723. But this must be understood in a limited sense.

[8] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 728.

[9] Ramsay, History of the U.S. Vol. I, p. 184.

[10] Shea, History of the Catholic Church in the U.S., pp. 330–331. Murray, History, p. 152.

[11] Shea, History, p. 131; Murray, p. 153.

[12] Shea, p. 131; Murray, p. 153.

[13] U.S. Catholic Magazine, Vol. V, p. 678.

[14] Shea, History, pp. 332–335.

[15] The Catholic historian Murray directly denies that Ury was a Catholic. “From the facts at hand,” he says, “I have no doubt that Ury was not a Catholic priest or even a Catholic at all.” Murray, p. 154.

Part Two. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.) (2)

In a similar manner Protestantism dealt with Catholicism in other colonies. According to Massachusetts legislation, as was already mentioned above, Jesuits were expelled from the colony, and in case of their return were subjected to hanging. In Virginia, “Papists” were deprived of the legal capacity to be witnesses in any case, could not have firearms, and could not keep horses worth more than five pounds sterling.[1] But their fate in Maryland was particularly remarkable. This colony was settled almost exclusively by Catholics, under the protection of the Catholic Lord Baltimore, to whom the royal charter granted the possession of this land. Lord Baltimore, himself converted to Catholicism as a result of the horrors of persecution he suffered in England, made it his first duty in his colony to proclaim freedom of religious conscience, and with his own hand wrote a charter granting freedom of conscience to all Christians and assuring the right to vote in making laws to all free men.[2] “Roman Catholics,” says the Protestant historian, “oppressed by the laws of England, could with confidence find peaceful refuge in the quiet harbor of the Chesapeake, and there also Protestants were sheltered from Protestant intolerance.”[3] “A Puritan expelled from Anglican Virginia, and a peaceful Quaker whose ears had been cut off in Puritan New England, found shelter among the liberal and warmhearted Catholics of Maryland,” adds the Catholic historian.[4] But such religious tolerance of Catholics amid the general dominance of the spirit of intolerance caused them many troubles. Soon the Protestant population gained a majority in the colony, and with it quickly appeared the hostility of the Protestants toward the Catholics. In 1644 the Protestant population, led by an ambitious seeker of adventure, raised a revolt against the Catholics, so that Catholic missionaries and the ruler of the colony himself were forced to flee, and only two years later was order restored with the help of military force.[5] Recognizing the impossibility of maintaining the struggle against the Protestants by force, the Catholics sought to protect themselves legally from Protestant violence, and chiefly at their insistence, the general assembly in 1649 enacted the “Act of Toleration,” which granted full freedom of conscience to all “professing faith in Jesus Christ.”[6] But this act could reconcile the warring parties only for a short time. The execution of King Charles in England led to the rise of Cromwell, and in him Puritanism felt power in its hands. This event was instantly echoed in America, and the Puritans of Maryland again raised a revolt against the Catholics. In 1654 they assembled, excluded Catholics from it; repealed the “Act of Toleration” and enacted their own act, which affirmed freedom of conscience on the condition that the freedom did not extend to “Popery, Prelacy, or licentiousness of opinion,” by which was understood Catholicism.[7] Through the efforts of Lord Baltimore, the Catholics for a time maintained their rights, but then one after another the provisions finally deprived them of freedom of conscience. In 1692 the assembly proclaimed the Anglican Church as established in the colony of Maryland and imposed taxes on citizens of all faiths, including Catholics, for the maintenance of Protestant clergy. In 1704 a new law, called the “Act for the prevention of the growth of Popery in the Province,” prohibited bishops and pastors from saying Mass, performing services, or converting non-believers; forbade Catholics to teach and gave the right to a Catholic child who converted to Protestantism to demand from his Catholic parents the portion of property belonging to him, as if they were not living. Mass was allowed to them only in private homes. In 1706 an act gave freedom to Quakers to practice their worship, so that “in a colony founded by Catholics, Catholics were the sole victims of the intolerance of the dominant party.”[8] “In the years that followed, by a series of successive laws, they were deprived of electoral rights unless they solemnly renounced their faith. The executive power often arbitrarily issued decrees to “take children from the baleful influence of Catholic parents,” and the assembly voted that Papists pay double the tax collected from Protestants. The hostility to Catholics finally grew to the point that they were even forbidden to appear in certain parts of cities.”[9]

Such was the legal status of Catholics until the Revolution itself in all colonies except only Pennsylvania, where peaceful Quakers lived easily with Catholics. To what extent Protestantism was intolerant toward Catholics can be seen from the fact that the Protestants could not remain indifferent to the freedom of Catholics even beyond the borders of their own colonies. After France ceded Canada to the English government, a Parliamentary act of 1774, after several years of military emergency, restored to the Catholic population inhabiting that province the rights they had enjoyed under French rule: authorized them to sit in the provincial council, restored the operation of French laws in civil matters, secured to Catholic clergy the ownership of its property and complete freedom in religious matters.[10] Indignation arose among Protestants at the granting of such broad rights to Catholics, and the Massachusetts colony presented a protest to the Congress of 1774, in which it said: “that the late Act of Parliament, establishing the Roman Catholic Religion and the French Laws in that vast Country (Canada), is extremely dangerous to the Protestant Religion and the civil Rights and Liberties of all America; and therefore, as Men and Protestant Christians, we are necessarily obliged to take all proper Measures for our Security.”[11] Congress, having considered “the Rights and Grievances of these Colonies,” came to the conclusion: “that the following Acts of Parliament are impositions and violations of the Rights of the Colonists, namely: the Act establishing the Roman Catholic Religion in the Province of Quebec (Canada), abolishing the equitable System of the English Laws, and erecting a Tyranny there to the great Danger (from the too great Dissimilarity of Religion, Laws and Government) to the neighboring British Colonies, with the Assistance of Blood and Treasure of which that Country was conquered from France… Such grievous Acts and Measures Americans cannot submit to.”[12] In the address to the British people of the same year Congress says: “We cannot forbear to express our Astonishment, that a British Parliament should ever consent to establish in that Country a Religion, that has deluged your Island in Blood, and dispersed Impiety, Bigotry, Persecution and Murder throughout every part of the World.”[13] Such expressions of religious intolerance toward Catholics were uttered from the lips of representatives of the colonies on the eve of a great event—the declaration of independence, which had as its result a law of complete freedom of conscience in religious matters to all religions without distinction. Clarification of the question of how such a sharp reversal could happen acquires primary importance for understanding the character of the constitutional paragraph concerning religion and the causes that led to its appearance.

VIII

The population of the thirteen colonies that later formed the Confederation of the United States, before the beginning of the war for independence, was overwhelmingly Protestant. The Catholic population constituted a negligible drop among them, numbering only about 25,000, and lived chiefly in Maryland. Thanks to its weakness, it, as has been said above, was constantly the victim of persecution and harassment from Protestants, who at the same time continued to fight among themselves over differences of religious doctrine. The enmity arising from religious differences was so inveterate and intense that it could not be ended by mere recognition of the inalienable rights of man to freedom of religious conscience, since on the contrary the consciousness of the dominant majority denied these rights. It could end only through a general convulsive movement that would change the entire social and political structure of the country, which had nourished the spirit of intolerance. Such a movement arrived with the beginning of the struggle for independence. When the colonies in their relations with the metropolis saw the inevitable approach of a crisis that demanded from them extraordinary exertion of all their moral and physical strength, the very order of things forcibly called them to unity and solidarity in order to successfully endure the struggle against a common enemy. Religious enmity between Protestantism and Catholicism was especially fierce in Maryland, the chief colony of Catholics, and it was in this very colony that the rights of religious conscience were destined to receive legal recognition for the first time.

Already in the beginning of 1774 the relations of the colonies to England reached such a state of tension that a crisis seemed inevitable. The discontent of the colonists developed and grew into irreconcilable hatred of the metropolis and awaited only a pretext to open hostile action. The crisis was dangerous, and for its successful passage, the united cooperation of all members was necessary. The people assembled at conventions where they jointly discussed their situation, and at a convention in Maryland the following appeal to the people was drawn up: “Whereas our Opposition to the settled Plan of the British Government to reduce America to absolute Slavery, may be greatly strengthened and supported by the most firm and close Union of all Classes and Orders of People in this Province, we think it our indispensable Duty to recommend, that all former Animosities and partial Disputes, with all private Quarrels of every Kind, cease from henceforth and be forever buried in Oblivion; and we earnestly request and beseech every Man, by his Duty to God, his Country, and Posterity, to unite heartily and firmly with us for the Defense of our Common Rights and Privileges.”[14] This was the first sound heralding the general freedom of religious conscience, which later became the fundamental law of the country, but its origin more clearly shows where the chief cause lay that produced this law. It lay in the political circumstances that required the general union of the settlers of different faiths to struggle against England. The subsequent history presents striking proof of this.

Congress of 1774 in its address to the British people, as we have seen, armed itself with terrible indignation against the Parliamentary act that gave the Catholics of Canada freedom of religious conscience. Circumstances then rapidly changed, a rupture with the metropolis occurred. On May 10, 1775, another Congress assembled. Blood had already been spilled and it was clear that the sword would decide the matter. Congress sought means and allies for the struggle. All colonies united for it. Canada remained apart. Congress now found it very important to draw her to its side as an ally, and it sharply turned its front. It began to court Canada, and by means of a series of appeals to the Canadian people asked it to unite with the other colonies, declaring that “the Fate of the Protestant and Catholic Colonies must be strictly united” in this affair, and assuring it of complete inviolability and security of his religious rights. In the instructions given by Congress to its ambassadors for negotiations with the Canadians on November 8, 1775, it was said, among other things: “And you may and are hereby empowered to declare, that we consider the rights of Conscience as sacred, and shall never attempt to restrain them in the free Exercise of their Religion.”[15] Such appeals were made to Canada twice in 1775, but without success. The following year Congress attempted a third time to appeal to Canada with the same request, and in instructions to its ambassadors from May 20, 1776, again instructed: “You must declare, that we consider the rights of Conscience as sacred, and can solemnly assure the whole People that we do, in behalf of America, declare, that we will grant to them the free and undisturbed exercise of their Religion; and to their Clergy all their property now held or possessed by them for the purposes of Religion, and of their maintenance; that the free Exercise and Enjoyment of Religious Profession and Worship, shall be allowed to all Mankind within said Province, who are peaceable and loyal; and that the Management and Disposal of the temporalities of this Religion shall be left entirely in the Hands of the good People of the said Province, and such as they shall appoint for that purpose; under such Restrictions, however, as may be necessary for the Security of the State, with the further Assurance, that that Congress will apply to the Crown for Confirmation of the full Rights and Privileges of the Catholic Religion, and the Security of all its Rights and Property; and also that such Provision shall be made in the new Government, as may best conduce to the Establishment of a permanent and lasting Harmony between British Rulers and their Subjects; and also, on Condition that all other Denominations of Christian[s] shall be equally favoured in the Enjoyment of Civil, Religious and political Rights, and shall be exempted from any Tax for the Support of any Religion.”[16] Considering these assurances insufficiently convincing, the predominantly Protestant Congress even invited a Jesuit, Father John Carroll, as an ambassador, hoping that he could better influence the Catholic clergy of Canada.[17] But this embassy also failed. Canada viewed these assurances with suspicion, considering them forced by political circumstances, and too vividly remembered the indignant protests of the same Congress against the law by which Parliament had granted Canadian Catholics freedom of religious conscience. In this distrust of Catholic Canada toward the Protestant colonies lay the chief reason why it remained apart from the general movement toward independence and thus did not enter the Confederation of the United States. A historian contemporary with the struggle for independence assures us that the Canadian masses were inclined in favor of union with the other colonies, but “the legal Privileges which the Roman Catholic Clergy possessed induced them to oppose the Change, as they were apprehensive of losing them by a closer Connection with their Protestant Neighbours.”[18]

[1] Murray, History, p. 160.

[2] Murray, History, p. 134.

[3] Bancroft, History of the U.S. Vol. I, ch. VII, p. 187.

[4] Murray, History, p. 138.

[5] Murray, History, p. 139.

[6] This important act in the history of the development of freedom of conscience reads as follows: “Since the coercion of conscience in matters of religion has often had harmful consequences in those communities where it was practiced, and for the more peaceful and orderly government of this province, and to better preserve mutual love and friendship among the inhabitants, no person in this province professing faith in Jesus Christ shall in any way be harassed or despised for his or her faith, or be hindered in the free exercise thereof.” Bancroft, History of the U.S. Vol. I, ch. VII, p. 194. Among Protestant and Catholic historians there has been a dispute to this day as to whom this act owes its origin: to Protestants or Catholics? Catholic historians assert that the act belongs to Catholics, since the “general assembly” that enacted it consisted of a Catholic majority, of eleven Catholics and three Protestants (Murray, p. 140; Shea, p. 32). But the chief Protestant historian, Bancroft, says the assembly consisted of six members, three of them Protestant and three Catholic, and of representatives of the Maryland population, five of whom were Catholic, with the Protestant governor of the province Stone being the chief mover of this matter (Bancroft, Vol. I, ch. VII, p. 193). But the facts incline the conclusion toward the Catholics.

[7] Bancroft, History, Vol. I, ch. VII, p. 199.

[8] Shea, History, pp. 32–33.

[9] Shea, History, p. 33. Bancroft describes this Protestant intolerance in less sharp terms. History, ch. XXI, Vol. II.

[10] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 728.

[11] Journals of the American Congress from 1774 to 1788, 4 vols. Washington, 1823. Vol. I, p. 11, § 10.

[12] Journals of the American Congress, Vol. I, pp. 20–22.

[13] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 730; Shea, History, p. 43. See “The Address to the People of Great Britain” in Journals of American Congress, Vol. I, pp. 26–31.

[14] Shea, History of the Catholic Church, p. 36.

[15] Journals of American Congress, Vol. I, p. 170. Washington, 1823.

[16] Journals of the A.C., vol. I, p. 290.

[17] Shea, History, p. 42.

[18] Ramsay, History; Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 733.

Part Two. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.) (3)

The unsuccessful outcome of negotiations with Canada made it clear to the colonial representatives from the first steps what mistake they had made in allowing their Protestant prejudice against Catholics to express itself so sharply in their protest against the parliamentary act. This was an important lesson, showing that differences in religion could be the strongest obstacle to union against a common enemy. And it proved not fruitless. When in 1776 the “Declaration of Independence” was proclaimed and the colonies assembled in private conventions to draft new constitutions, the representatives of the people endeavored in every way to secure the organism of the newly born state by eliminating from it elements of discord, such as differences in religious confession, and in consequence placed religious questions outside the state, leaving religion to individual freedom. The constitutions of different colonies express this principle of religious freedom of conscience differently. The Constitution of Virginia, from July 5, 1778, declares that “religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be governed only by reason and conviction, not by force or compulsion; and therefore all men equally have the right to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, and that mutual obligation of all to have Christian patience, love and kindness toward one another.”[1] The Constitution of New Jersey, from July 2, 1776, determines not only freedom of religious conscience but the separation of religion from the state. It declares that “in this province no establishment of any religious sect in preference to another” shall be made; “no person shall be obligated to pay tithes, taxes or other duties for the purpose of building or repairing a church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the support of a priest or clergy, contrary to what he considers right, or freely and voluntarily performs.”[2] The Constitution of Delaware, from September 20, 1776, ordains: “No person shall be compelled to attend or pay for any place of worship or support of clergy against his free will and consent… And no preference shall be given by law to any religious societies, confession or forms of worship.”[3] The Constitution of North Carolina, from December 18, 1776, ordains: “that there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or confession in this state in preference to others; and no person shall be, under any pretext whatsoever, compelled to attend any place of worship against his own faith or judgment, or be obliged to pay for the purchase of land or the building of a house of prayer, or for the support of a priest or clergy, contrary to what he considers right or freely and personally agreed to perform.”[4] The Constitution of Georgia, from February 5, 1777, says: “All persons shall have the free exercise of their religion, provided it is not contrary to the peace and security of the state; and they shall not, except by consent, support a teacher or teachers, except of their own confession.”[5] The Constitution of New York, from April 20, 1777, abrogates “all such parts of public and state law and acts of assembly which establish any confession of Christians or their priests.”[6] Such principles formed the basis of the constitutions of other states as well, although some of them did not entirely break the connection of religion and state. The Constitution of Maryland, from August 14, 1776, says: “Since it is the duty of every man to worship God in the manner he considers most favorable to Him, all persons professing the Christian religion have equally the right to protection of their religious conscience; therefore no person shall be injured by law in his person or condition because of his religious confession or conviction, or because of his religious activity, unless under the guise of religion someone violates good order, peace or safety of the state, or violates the laws of morality, or harms others in their natural, civil or religious rights. And no person shall be compelled to attend, support or pay, except by consent, for any particular place of worship or particular clergy; but the legislative assembly may, at its discretion, impose a general and equal tax for the support of the Christian religion, giving each person the right to designate the payment of money collected from him for the support of a particular place of worship or priest, or for the poor of his own confession, or for the poor generally of any separate county.”[7] The Constitution of South Carolina, from March 19, 1778, says: “No person shall be obligated by law to pay for the support and maintenance of religious worship to which he does not freely join or voluntarily agree to support”; but the same article provides that “Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby determined and declared, the established religion of this state,” extending this determination to “all confessions of Christian Protestants of the state.”[8] The Massachusetts Constitution, from March 2, 1780, says: “No subordination of one sect or confession to another shall be established by law,” but it allows taxes for the support of “public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality in all cases where it is not done voluntarily,” with the condition, however, that “all money paid by a subject for the support of public worship and said public teachers shall be, if he requires it, uniformly applied to the support of a public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or confession, if there is one which he attends; otherwise the payment may be made to the support of a teacher or teachers of the parish or county in which said money is collected.”[9]

[1] Article 16 of the Virginia Constitution. See The Constitutions of the Thirteen States, Philadelphia, 1783.

[2] Articles 18 and 19 of the New Jersey Constitution. Ibid, pp. 101–102.

[3] Article 1 of the Delaware Constitution; section 1, article 1. The Constitutions of the Thirteen States, p. 121. Philadelphia, 1783.

[4] Article 34 of the South Carolina Constitution, p. 178; ibid, p. 724.

[5] Article 56 of the Georgia Constitution; ibid, p. 724. The Constitution of the same state, from May 30, 1708 [sic], more fully defines the same principle: “No person in this state, on any pretext whatsoever, shall be deprived of the invaluable privilege of worshipping God in the manner most agreeable to his own conscience, nor be forced to attend a place of worship contrary to his faith or judgment, and shall never be obligated to pay tithes, taxes, or any other impositions on the building or repair of any place of worship, contrary to what it considers right or has voluntarily agreed to do. And no religious society shall be established in preference to another in this state; and no person shall be deprived of the enjoyment of his civil rights solely because of his religious principles.” See Constitutions of the Thirteen States. Georgia Constitution, IV article, section 10, p. 207. This edition of the constitutions of the original thirteen states in the catalog of the Mercantile Library is dated 1783. But it is evidently later. The title page has been lost.

[6] Article 35 of the Constitution of New York. See Constitutions of the Thirteen States, p. 94.

[7] Constitution of Maryland, Art. XXXIII. The Constitutions, p. 145.

[8] Article 38 of the South Carolina Constitution. Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 724.

[9] The text of this article is remarkable: “Since the happiness of the people, the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend on piety, religion and morality; and as these may be diffused throughout a community only by the institution of public worship of God and public instruction in piety, religion and morality: therefore, to promote his welfare and ensure the good order and preservation of his government, the people of this republic have the right to vest in their legislative assembly the power to authorize and require, and the legislative assembly shall from time to time authorize and require, that the various cities, parishes, counties and other political communities or religious societies shall take appropriate measures, at their own expense, for the institution of public worship and for the maintenance and support of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality in all cases where such shall not be voluntarily adopted.” Constitution of Massachusetts, March 2, 1780, Part I, § 3. The Constitutions of the Thirteen States, pp. 34–35.

Part Two. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.) (4)

The general principle of freedom of religious conscience thus found more or less full recognition in the private constitutions of colonies that had hitherto been intolerant. The country was experiencing such an important and dangerous political crisis that carrying through it required the harmonious cooperation of all moral and physical forces, and therefore the people unanimously decided to forget their mutual disagreements over religious differences and placed them outside the nascent state organism, thereby dividing church and state. But although the political need for complete equality of rights of religious conscience of the various confessions entering the state was strong, even stronger were the historically-entrenched prejudices of confessions toward one another.[1] They could not immediately yield to the new principle, and if they could be held within the general principle, they continued to dominate in particulars, limiting the general principle of complete equality of rights of confessions. These prejudices made themselves felt in the relationships between extreme confessions—Protestantism and Catholicism—and since the former had the actual predominance, it did not fail to secure this with legal predominance and various privileges. Those very same constitutions which, as shown above, appeared with such decisiveness to incline toward equality of rights of religious conscience, to the exclusion of religious questions from the sphere of state administration, could not fully free themselves from the spirit of religious intolerance, and in many of them it manifests itself in the tendency to retain certain privileges exclusively for Protestants. This was especially evident in determining the qualification of persons to hold public and state offices. Many constitutions determined this qualification by the religious confession of persons, with complete preference given to Protestants. Thus the Constitution of New Jersey cited above, from July 2, 1776, along with the declaration of complete freedom in religious matters contains a provision strongly colored by the Protestant spirit. It ordains: “that no Protestant inhabitant of this colony shall have the enjoyment of civil rights denied solely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons professing the faith of any Protestant sect, who conduct themselves peaceably under the government hereby established, shall have the right to election to every profitable office or office of trust, or to be members of any branch of the legislative assembly, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and advantage enjoyed by their other fellow subjects.”[2] The constitution makes no mention of Catholics, but its meaning, conferring civil rights and privileges on “all who profess the Protestant faith,” clearly excludes Catholics from the scope of these rights. Other constitutions state this more clearly. The Constitution of North Carolina, from December 18, 1776, says: “that no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truths of Protestant religion, or the divine authority of both the Old and New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the state, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department of this state.”[3] The Constitution of Georgia, from February 5, 1777, says that members of the legislative assembly “shall be of the Protestant religion.”[4] The Constitution of South Carolina, from March 19, 1778, ordains that “the governor and commander-in-chief, lieutenant governor and privy council—all must be of the Protestant religion”; that “no person shall be elected to sit in the house of representatives unless he be of the Protestant religion”; and “that all confessions of Christian Protestants in this state, conducting themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges.” In this same state the governor took an oath “to the utmost of his power to uphold and defend the laws of God, the Protestant religion and the liberty of America.”[5] The Constitution of New Hampshire, from January 5, 1776, although it does not directly determine civil qualification by religious confession, implies the same through a provision retaining in force the former colonial law, by which all members of the legislative assembly were required to be of the Protestant religion.[6] This spirit of Protestant exclusivity toward Catholics manifested itself with particular force at the convention assembled to draft the Constitution of New York, from April 20, 1777. The assembly proposed for discussion an article on freedom of religious confession, which read: “free toleration of religious confession and worship shall henceforth be forever permitted to all mankind.”[7] This article met protest from a considerable number of convention members, and one of them, John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, proposed the following amendment to the article: “excepting those professing the religion of the Roman church, who shall not hold lands nor be admitted to any participation in the civil rights granted to members of this state, until the said professors shall appear in the supreme court of the state and there take the most solemn oath that they truly believe in their conscience that no pope, priest, or foreign power on earth has power to discharge subjects of this state from their allegiance to him; and further, that they reject and hold to be false and evil the dangerous and accursed doctrine that the pope or any other earthly power has power to absolve people from sins indicated and forbidden by the holy Gospel of Jesus Christ, and especially that no pope, priest or foreign power on earth has power to absolve them from this oath.” This proposal provoked lengthy debate, and when put to a vote, 10 members voted in favor, and it was rejected by a majority of 9 (19 against 10).[8] Such strong was still the spirit of Protestant intolerance toward Catholics in the people. Out of thirteen colonies, five made Protestantism the dominant religion. Of the remaining eight, five proclaimed complete freedom of religious confession, and three, namely Maryland, Delaware and Pennsylvania, made the Christian religion generally dominant and conditioned persons’ qualification to hold public offices on it.[9]

In 1787 the Federal Convention assembled, composed of representatives from all colonies, to draw up a general constitution for the United States of America. For its consideration the religious question was also presented—the question of the relationship between religion and state. For the members of the Federal Convention, into which entered some of those who had served in the congresses gathered before, this question was not new. On the contrary, they understood its full importance, and they saw the bitter lesson from its incorrect resolution in the loss to the common cause of colonies of the great province of Canada. Therefore the Federal Convention, by its very position and task having in view more general aims and a broader outlook, naturally had to take the religious question in a more general sense than it had been taken at the private conventions. The local conventions consisted of members from one colony, united among themselves by their very cohabitation; meanwhile, the Federal Convention was composed of representatives of colonies that had hitherto lived completely separate lives and had nothing in common, so that the bond between them was still very weak and could break at the slightest disagreement. Therefore it was imperative to eliminate any occasion for such disagreement. Meanwhile, occasion existed. The convention included Catholics, while in many states they were denied civil rights. In consequence, the Federal Convention hastened to eliminate this inequality, and it developed and unanimously adopted an ordinance which in final form reads: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust in the United States.[10] This article completely placed civil rights outside any dependence on religious confession and thus came into contradiction not only with those private constitutions which conditioned qualification to hold public offices on Protestant confession, but also with those which made it dependent generally on Christian religion. The private constitutions therefore had to undergo alteration in accordance with the principle of the Federal Constitution. The debates which occurred at the private conventions on the adoption of this article present important material for characterizing the views of the American people on the relationship of religion to state and primarily of Protestantism to Catholicism.

[1] The depth and antiquity of Protestant hostility to Catholicism is shown by the remarkable fact that even during the struggle for independence itself, there was a custom of publicly burning the effigy of the Roman Pope. On November 5, 1775, Washington issued the following order to the troops: “The General has been informed of the intention to celebrate the ridiculous and childish custom of burning an effigy of the Pope; he cannot help but express his surprise that in this army there are officers and soldiers so lacking in judgment as not to see the impropriety of such an action…. It is so monstrous that it cannot be tolerated or excused. Far from offering even the slightest offense, we are bound to publicly thank our brothers (the Catholics), to whom we owe our latest success over the common enemy in Canada.” Murray, History, p. 196.

[2] Article 19 of the New Jersey Constitution. The Constitutions, p. 102.

[3] Article 32 of the South Carolina Constitution. The Constitutions, p. 178.

[4] Article 6 of the Georgia Constitution. Catholic World, p. 733. Inquiry into the Moral and Religious Character of the American Government, p. 83.

[5] Articles 3, 13, and 38 of the South Carolina Constitution. Catholic World, p. 733. Inquiry, p. 80. The South Carolina Constitution additionally made an interesting provision regarding which societies could be considered religious and entitled to the advantages granted to religion. By this provision, all religious societies, to have the right to the advantages granted to religion, had to “receive and sign in the book the following five articles: (1) that there exists one eternal God and a future state of rewards and punishments; (2) that God ought to be publicly worshipped; (3) that Christian religion is the true religion; (4) that the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments is of Divine inspiration and is the rule of faith and life; and (5) that it is the lawful duty and obligation of each person called thereto by those who govern to bear witness to the truth.” Inquiry into the Moral and Religious Character of the American Government, p. 81.

[6] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 734.

[7] Murray, History of the Catholic Church, p. 180 in note.

[8] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 734; Murray, History of the Catholic Church, pp. 180–181. The Catholic historian observes on this point: “Jay was a narrow-minded man whose fertile imagination constantly conjured terrible shadows of priests and popes.” Murray, ibid, p. 181. Nevertheless, the constitution retained an article requiring that every foreigner “had to renounce and abjure all connection and allegiance to all and any foreign king, prince, sovereign or state, in all matters both ecclesiastical and civil,” so that Catholics, by virtue of their submission to the Pope in all matters, were in any case excluded from the rights of citizenship in the state. Shea, History, p. 337.

[9] The Maryland Constitution of August 14, 1776, establishes that “profession of faith in Christian religion” must be a qualification for office; and that every person appointed to any lucrative or fiduciary office must, before assuming it, subscribe a declaration of faith in Christian religion (Article 35 of the Declaration of Rights and Article 55 of the Constitution). The Delaware Constitution of September 11, 1776, establishes the following oath that all members of the legislative assembly were required to take: “I, A.B., profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Spirit, One God, blessed forever; and I acknowledge that the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament is of Divine inspiration” (Article 22 of the Constitution). The Pennsylvania Constitution of September 28, 1776, required members of the general assembly and civil officers to subscribe to a “declaration of faith in one God, Creator and Governor of the world, Rewarder of the good and Punisher of the wicked,” as well as an “acknowledgment that the writings of the Old and New Testament are of Divine inspiration.” The Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 734. See The Constitutions of the Thirteen States, pp. 141, 162; 114. Inquiry, pp. 80–83.

[10] In the original, this article reads: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” United States Constitution, Article VI, Section 3. The brevity of the formula makes accurate translation into Russian difficult. See The Constitutions of the several states of the Union and of the United States. New York, 1866, p. 19.

Part Two. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.) (5)

When the Federal Constitution was submitted for ratification to the private conventions, the article on the abolition of restrictions on holding public offices due to religious differences met with considerable opposition, especially in those states where such restrictions existed. Many objected that by virtue of such an article even the Roman Pope could become President of the United States, and a pamphlet even appeared supporting this objection.[1] Particularly heated debates occurred at the convention in North Carolina. Convention member Abbott said: “The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought to be dangerous and impolitic. It is supposed that if religious tests are not required, then pagans, deists and Mahometans may obtain offices among us, and that senators and representatives may be all pagans.”[2] Iredell replied to him, pointing to the sad results of religious tests in all ages, saying: “America has given humanity the example of thinking more modestly and soundly, that a man may be in religious feelings different from us without being a bad member of society… But it is objected that the people of America may elect representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted to offices. But how is it possible to exclude any class of men without taking away that principle of religious freedom for which we ourselves have fought so earnestly… This morning I happened to meet a pamphlet in which the author points to the great danger that the Roman Pope might be elected president. I confess this has never occurred to me before; but if the author had read all the rules conditioning the election of president, his fears might perhaps be calmed. Only a native or someone who has lived in America fourteen years can be elected president. I do not know all the rules for the election of a pope, but I think he must be taken from the college of cardinals; and probably there are many preliminary stages necessary to attain this dignity. That American native would have to have too extraordinary good fortune who, after living fourteen years in his country, went to Europe, entered a Roman order, received elevation to cardinal, then to pope, and finally was so long in the confidence of his country that he was elected president. It would be even more extraordinary if he refused the papacy for our presidency. Sir, it is impossible to treat such fears with a certain degree of seriousness… This country has already had the honor of presenting an example of civil liberty, and I hope that it will equally have the honor of showing the rest of the world the path to religious liberty as well. God grant that both continue to the end of time.”[3] Governor Johnson said: “when I heard the fears expressed that the Roman Pope might be president of the United States, I was greatly surprised. In such a case one might say also that the king of England or France, or the Turkish sultan could be elected to this office. It would be an entirely similar argument… There is also fear that Jews, Mahometans, pagans and so on might be elected to high offices in the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans or others not professing the Christian religion can never be elected to the office of president or other high office, except in one of two cases; first, this might happen if the people of America entirely abandon the Christian religion. If this should unfortunately happen, the people will elect such men as they themselves are. Another case is if persons of such a kind, regardless of their religion, acquire the trust and respect of the American people through their good conduct and deeds of virtue, then they may be elected.”[4] Member Caldwell said: “Here an invitation is given to Jews and pagans of every kind to come and settle among us. In the future this may threaten danger to the character of the United States. I think that for political reasons, gentlemen composing this constitution should not give such an invitation to Jews and pagans.” Spencer said: “Religious tests have always been the cause of persecution in all countries. Persons with a strict conscience will not accept the oath required by religious tests and will therefore be excluded from offices, although they might be as capable of fulfilling them as any member of society.”[5] Spaight, having been a representative at the Federal Convention, said: “No test is required. All men of equal ability and honesty may equally be elected to offices. Civil coercion may make men wicked, but never religious. A test would allow the dominant sect to persecute the rest.”[6] But Wilson expressed a wish that “the constitution exclude papal priests from office.”[7] Lancaster said: “Regarding religious test, if the article which excludes it only provides what had already existed in the states, I would not object to it… For my part, in examining the rules conditioning the election of president, I do not suppose that a pope could occupy the presidential chair. But we must remember that we are drafting government for millions who do not yet exist. I do not have the gift of foresight. I do not know how it will act during four or five hundred years. But it is quite true that Papists might occupy this chair, and Mahometans might hold it. I see nothing against this. In each state of the union there are, I think, limitations; so there should be in this system.”[8]

Similar debates took place in other states. At the Massachusetts convention, member Singletary declared that the constitution overthrew all privileges, “since it had no provision that government people must have any religion”; he hoped to see Christians in offices, “meanwhile according to the constitution a Papist or unbeliever is equally subject to election.”[9] Many convention members said that such a provision “was a departure from the principles of our ancestors, who came here to preserve their religion; since it admits deists, atheists and so forth into common government.” To such objections, the venerable Daniel Shute, a member of the convention, replied with an extensive speech which appears remarkable from the lips of a clergyman from the hitherto most intolerant colony and shows a great step in public consciousness toward recognition of the rights of religious conscience. He said: “The establishment of a religious test as a condition of qualification to offices in the proposed Federal Convention seems to me would lead to harmful consequences for certain persons without any benefit to all… In this great and extensive country there is and will be great diversity of feeling in religion among its inhabitants. On the proposal of a religious test, I think one should ask: who should be excluded from national trust? Whatever answer bigotry might suggest, by the dictates of honesty and equality, I think it will be—none. Far from limiting my goodwill and trust to people of my own confession in religion, I suppose and think, sir, that worthy people are found among the adherents of every confession, among Quakers, Baptists, of the English Church, Papists, and even among those who have no other guide on the path to virtue and heaven except natural religion. I am therefore forced to think that the proposed plan of government is in this regard wisely constructed; that as all have equal right to the blessings of the government under which they live and which they support, so none should be excluded from office because they are of a particular confession in religion. Probably it is supposed that the eyes of the people will be on the faithful of the earth; and, in view of their own safety, it will elect as its rulers people of known abilities, known honesty and good moral character. The Apostle Peter tells us that God does not show partiality, but in every nation receives those who fear Him and do what is right. And I know no reason why people of such character, to whatever confession of religion they might belong, caeteris paribus, with other suitable qualities, should not be accepted by the people, and why he could not use them with safety and advantage in important positions of government. The exclusion of religious test in the proposed constitution therefore clearly seems to me to merit recognition,” concluded the speaker.[10] In the same spirit spoke Major General Lincoln. But Colonel Jones “thought that rulers should believe in God or Christ,” and that, whatever abuse religious tests might suffer in England, he still thought that if “our public people were those who have good standing in the church, this would be good for the United States.”[11] Major Lusk concluded his argument about the abolition of religious test with the words that he “shudders at the mere thought that Roman Catholics, Papists and pagans might occupy office, and that Papacy and Inquisition might be established in America.”[12] The venerable Backus said: “I now ask permission to offer some thoughts on certain points in the constitution proposed to us, and will begin with the exclusion of religious test. Many seem very troubled about it; but nothing is more evident, both in reason and in Holy Scripture, than that religion is always a matter between God and individual persons; and therefore no one can establish a religious test without violating the essential prerogatives of our Lord Jesus Christ. Priests first seized this power under the Christian name, and then Constantine approved this practice when he adopted the profession of Christianity as the spring of state policy. And examine the history of all peoples from that day to this, and it will be clear that the establishment of religious tests was the greatest spring of tyranny in the world. And I rejoice to see how so many gentlemen now yield their rights of conscience in this great and important matter. Some serious-minded people see danger in the fact that if all religious tests are excluded, Congress might thereafter establish Papacy or some other tyrannical form of worship; but one can be fully assured that no such form of worship can be established and without any religious test.”[13] The same article was discussed, though more briefly, at the conventions of Virginia and Connecticut and in the legislative assembly of South Carolina, and after the final ratification of the constitution the principle of this article appeared to receive universal recognition.[14]

In discussing the Federal Constitution at the private conventions, the remarkable fact was revealed that the general constitution in the religious question took a different point of view compared with the private constitutions of individual states. The latter, as we saw above, decisively proclaimed freedom of religious conscience, separation of religion from the state, but retained religious tests for holding public offices. Meanwhile, the Federal Constitution abolished religious tests and passed in silence the general question of the relationship of the state to religion. Moreover, Congress not merely passed this question in silence, but directly rejected its positive resolution. In discussing the relationship of religion to the state, member Pinckney proposed to introduce into the Constitution of the United States an ordinance by which “the legislative assembly of the United States shall not make any law on the subject of religion.” This proposal fully corresponded to the spirit of the ordinances of private constitutions regarding religion and aimed at the complete exclusion of religion from the jurisdiction of the Union state. But Congress rejected it and adopted the proposal of the same member on the abolition of religious tests.[15]

Thus Congress in essence eliminated only the external sharp mark of inequality of different confessions before the state, but avoided giving a complete renunciation of interference in religious matters, that is, in other words, did not dare to fully separate the state from religion. Given the existing state of the constitution, Congress did not lose the power to make legislative ordinances in the field of religion; it could establish a state religion, and in view of the supposed possibility of the Roman Pope becoming president, such a state religion could even become the hated Roman Catholic Church. Such a gap in the Federal Constitution was noticed by many private conventions, which were even disturbed to recognize it in this form, and accompanied their ratification with the expression of desire for appropriate amendment to the constitution. The conventions of New York, New Hampshire and Virginia, having recognized the constitution, insisted on the necessity of an amendment to it concerning the complete separation of religion from the state. The convention of North Carolina in the first session refused to recognize the constitution altogether, and subsequently accompanied its ratification with the expression of desire for appropriate correction. The same did the convention of Rhode Island.[16] The New York Convention recommended such an amendment: “no religious sect or community should be preferred or established by law in preference to others.”[17] Virginia, North Carolina and Rhode Island also proposed that “no separate religious sect or community be preferred by law in preference to others.”[18] The Maryland Convention expressed as desirable such an ordinance that “no national religion be established by law.”[19] New Hampshire recommended such an amendment: “Congress shall not make any laws concerning religion, or infringe on the rights of conscience.”[20] As these declarations of private conventions, so too many internal public and political causes led to the fact that Congress resolved to introduce an amendment to the constitution concerning the complete separation of religion from the state, and this amendment, approved in 1791, appeared in the following form: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”[21]

[1] Elliot, The Debates in the several state conventions on the adoption of the Federal Constitution. 2nd edition. Vol. IV, p. 195.

[2] Elliot, Debates, p. 192.

[3] Elliot, Debates, p. 193.

[4] Elliot, Debates, p. 198.

[5] Elliot, Debates, p. 199.

[6] Elliot, Debates, p. 208.

[7] Elliot, Debates, p. 212.

[8] Elliot, Debates, p. 215.

[9] Elliot, Debates, Vol. II, p. 44.

[10] Elliot, Debates, Vol. II, p. 118.

[11] Elliot, Debates, Vol. II, p. 119.

[12] Elliot, Debates, Vol. II, p. 148.

[13] Elliot, Debates, Vol. II, p. 149.

[14] Elliot, Debates, Vol. I, p. 312; vol. II, p. 202; vol. III, p. 204.

[15] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 726.

[16] Elliot, Debates, Vol. I, p. 334.

[17] Journals of Congress, 1782–1788, Appendix, Vol. IV, p. 55.

[18] Ibid, pp. 52, 53, 60.

[19] Elliot, Debates, Vol. II, p. 553.

[20] Journals of Congress, Vol. IV, Appendix, p. 52. 1782–1788.

[21] Original text: “Congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Constitutions of the several states of the Union and of the United States. New York, 1866, p. 20.

Part Two. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.) (6)

Thus the Federal government of the United States completely excluded religion from the circle of its jurisdiction, and the separation of church and state became the fundamental law of the country. By virtue of it all religious confessions as if ceased to exist for the state and thereby became equal before it. The state refused to have any dealings with them, and thereby refused both preference for any of them and persecution of others. Protestantism and Catholicism, which had been at war with one another before, with Protestantism as the stronger opponent oppressing Catholics through state laws, were now left to their own internal forces, and in struggle with one another could rely only on their own internal strength and could appeal only to their own resources. Although the forces of the opponents remained unequal and Protestantism immeasurably surpassed Catholicism, it is nevertheless clear on whose side the advantage from such legislation lay. By it Protestantism lost the ability to rely on state force in its struggle against Catholicism and thereby lost one of its strongest means of struggle; Catholicism, on the other hand, was freed from the possibility of external oppression from its opponent and thereby gained as much as its opponent lost. The advantage, and an immeasurable advantage, was on the side of Catholicism; this amendment to the constitution brought it out of oppressed condition, placed it on a level with all other confessions, removed the chains of slavery from it and gave it complete freedom to grow and develop. Catholics highly value and fully understand the significance for themselves of this amendment, and Catholic historians even endeavor to prove that this amendment was adopted by Congress chiefly as a result of a memoir presented to Congress by Catholics with the assistance of Washington, who was allegedly in friendly relations with the Jesuit Carroll.[1] “The importance of this legislation,” says a Catholic historian, “which owes its origin chiefly to the far-sighted wisdom and enlightened patriotism of some of the most outstanding Catholics of that time, cannot even be exaggerated. It was the strongest barrier one could have placed against the rebirth of the spirit of persecution by which almost all colonies had dishonored themselves and which would certainly have raised again its hydra head if the States at a solemn convention had not rejected it as incompatible with the essential character of American government. Only an open field and honest struggle with error—this is all that is required by Catholicism for the development of its strength and its march toward victory.”[2]

American historians like to point to the articles of the constitution by which religion is separated from the state as an example of the magnanimity of Protestantism, which renounced its state advantage and thereby granted Catholicism equal rights with itself. Catholic historians, on the other hand, deny this magnanimity and attribute the formation of the law to fortunate circumstances.[3] And they are in large measure right. In the direction of legal recognition of freedom of conscience, especially regarding Catholics, various political, social and intellectual causes were at work. We have already seen what significance in this regard was the position of Canada at the beginning of the struggle for independence, how from the desire to attract it to their side the colonial congress made a sharp turn from its intolerance toward Catholics to the promise of them full religious freedom. Its loss for the union was a bitter lesson. When at the end of the war Canada nevertheless refused to join the new republic and the Americans had to withdraw their troops from it, “they made this withdrawal with great reluctance,” says a historian contemporary to the events. “Americans were not only grieved by the failure of their favorite plan to attach it as the fourteenth member of their confederacy, but also feared the most serious consequences from the restoration of British dominion in this region.”[4] Congress was very clearly aware that its immoderate expressions regarding the Roman Catholic religion in 1774 had led to such a loss, and by granting actual freedom to Catholics hastened to correct its grave error. Another cause working in the same direction was the desire on the part of the statesmen of the United States to attract and secure foreign emigration. Already in 1774 Congress noted that the population of Canada “was daily multiplied by Catholic emigrants from Europe”; and when by the condition of the peace treaty of 1783 Canada was to remain under British dominion, it was obvious that to retain for the government of the United States an anti-Catholic character would mean giving growth to this province at the expense of the United States, and that only by granting complete civil and religious freedom to all could the country hope for a turn of the emigrant flow to its shores.[5] Finally, the essential assistance which Catholic powers France and Spain rendered to the colonies in the struggle for independence imposed an obligation to grant freedom to the religion they professed.[6] The persistent struggle for independence, requiring the highest tension of all forces, naturally united the colonists, made them forget their religious disagreements and thereby developed the spirit of tolerance. The complete proclamation and realization of political independence, bought at great cost and with heavy efforts of all regardless of confession, predisposed to the granting of complete freedom and equal rights to all of them as a reward for these efforts. Under the exhilaration of the benefits of political independence, Americans developed a view of their country as a refuge for all the oppressed under European despotism, and this in turn contributed favorably to the resolution of the question of religious freedom. The rapid growth in the number of sects also had important significance as a cause of the separation of state from church, since the diversity of them made difficult any religious legislation, and moreover many of them directly rejected the interference of civil authority in religious matters. Finally, the theory of the civil character of the state, which was dominant in the eighteenth century and whose most prominent representative in America was Jefferson, the famous author of the “Declaration of Independence,” who received his political views from the French philosophers of the past century, was not without influence. The state, according to this theory, is purely a political organism and is in no way connected with religion. This theory, as we shall see below, in moderate form formed the basis of the American constitution.[7]

Most of the causes set forth, which led to the granting of freedom of religious conscience to Catholics, were realized by the latter even in the past century, and one of them, namely the Jesuit Carroll, who later became the first bishop of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, upon his elevation to the episcopate gave in 1790 an important historical account of these causes. Carroll first surveys the position of the Catholic Church in the colonies before the struggle for independence. “The laws in the colonies,” he says, “were the most severe against its practice. A priest was subject to death for merely entering their territory. Catholics suffered the most cruel punishments for adherence to the religion which their conscience approved; and were not only excluded from every office in government, but could scarcely be permitted to remain in any of these provinces if it were known that they professed the Roman faith. In such a state of things, few Catholics settled in other states; and if they settled, they concealed their religion, and either joined with some other or entered into marriage relations with Protestants and were forced to raise their children in error. Even in Maryland and Pennsylvania the position of Catholics was a state of oppression. The few Jesuits who could be borrowed from the English mission were insufficient even to satisfy the needs of the two provinces in which they first settled; and from other clergy no one yet dared to undertake the dangerous task of bearing the true faith into other provinces. Such was the state of things when there occurred a general uprising against England.” He then turns to setting forth the causes themselves: “Rejecting submission to England, the American states found it necessary to form new constitutions for their future government and, fortunately, free toleration of religion was made a fundamental point in all these new constitutions; and in many of them not only toleration was permitted, but equality of civil rights for persons of every Christian confession. In some, however, the inextinguishable spirit of prejudice and intolerance excluded Catholics from this equality. Many causes combined to produce this happy and just article in the new constitutions. First. Some of the leading men in directing American affairs were, on principle, against all religious oppression, and, being well acquainted with the customs and teachings of Roman Catholics, strongly set forth the injustice of excluding them from any civil right. Second. Catholics equally and with equal zeal united in the rejection of that oppression which first produced hostility with Great Britain; and it would be impolitic as well as unjust to deprive them of common participation in the benefits bought by common danger and united efforts. Third. The assistance or at least the neutrality of Canada was considered necessary for the success of the United States, and the granting of equal rights to Roman Catholics could dispose the Canadians favorably toward the American cause. Finally, France began to show friendly disposition toward the United States, therefore it was considered very impolitic to offend this powerful state by unjust severity against the religion it professed.”[8]

The immense significance of the article of the Federal Constitution and its amendment, separating the state from the church and equalizing the civil rights of all confessions, is thus undoubtedly important for the fate and growth of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States and is recognized by Catholics themselves. But a correct understanding of this significance can be established only by clarifying those theoretical principles which formed the basis of the legislation and constantly exercise influence on its practical application, as well as by determining the relationship of the Federal Constitution to the private constitutions of individual states. To the consideration of these questions we now turn.

IX

The relationship of church and state in the Federal Constitution of the United States was expressed in their legal separation from each other. The state renounced legislative power in the field of religion, granting this power exclusively to it itself. But legal separation does not condition factual separation, since in reality the foundations of the church and state come together so closely that they constitute one organic whole not subject to any break without harm to the very goal of the state. Therefore, the question naturally arises: what meaning does this legal separation of church from state have? In other words, into what relationship did the state stand toward the church by virtue of this legal separation? For a clear answer to this question it is first necessary to determine the principles of the relationship of church and state in general.

The existence of church and state is conditioned by two separate aspects of human life, the spiritual and the material. In Christian society the representative of the spiritual aspect is the church and the representative of the material is the state. These two orders exist already at the lower stages of development of human society, but are not understood clearly as two separate orders or as having their own separate and peculiar representation. Only in Christian society do these two orders receive proper distinction and each in its own proper representation stands in a normal relationship to the other. The prototype and very foundation of this distinction of two orders in society lies in the dual nature of man or in the fact that man exists only as soul and body and needs care of both. The church, representing the spiritual order, cares for souls, has concern for the inner life of human society and cares for the satisfaction of the inner spiritual needs and requirements; the state, representing the material order, naturally cares for the satisfaction of the material needs and requirements of persons and society. But man lives not by soul alone, or by body alone, but by the unity of both in their mutual relationship. Soul and body are distinct but not separate. They have their distinctive properties and functions, and one cannot replace the other; but their separation is death, death for the body only, not for the soul, which is immortal. The body is material and, separated from the soul, is dust and ashes, plain earth from which it was formed. The same in a moral sense applies to society, which is not only state, or only church, but the unity of both in their mutual relationship. They are distinct, each has its own distinctive nature, its own laws and functions, and one cannot perform the functions of the other or replace it. But although distinct, in the normal state of society they cannot be separated from each other. The separation of state from church in the moral order would be the same as the separation of body from soul in the physical order. This is death, death of the state certainly, not of the church, which like the soul is immortal. Complete separation of state from church destroys its moral life and leaves society to moral decay and corruption.

The soul, then, is the formative or life-giving principle of the body. The church in the moral order is the formative, life-giving principle of the state or civil society, which has no moral life in itself, since all moral life by its very essence proceeds from the spiritual order. In the physical order life is possible only from God through the mediation of the creative act; so too in civil society moral life can proceed only from the spiritual order, which is established by the Supreme Lawgiver and represented by the church, the guardian and judge both of natural and revealed law. The soul is the noblest and highest part of man, and it is appointed not to exclude the body or usurp its functions, but to guide and govern it according to the higher law; the body should not claim predominance over the soul to bring the law of the spirit into subjection to the law of the members. So too the church, as representing the spiritual order and having care for souls, is the noblest and highest part of society and to it belongs the guiding power over all human society. In the moral order it belongs to it to direct and control civil society through the proclamation and application to action of God’s laws, whose guardian and interpreter it serves and to which it is obligated by the Supreme Lawgiver to subject all its activities and life.

[1] White, Sketch of the Origin and Progress of the Catholic Church in the United States of America. Appendix to Darras, History of the Catholic Church, Vol. IV, p. 611.

[2] White, Sketch, p. 611.

[3] Shea, History, pp. 41, 45.

[4] Ramsay, History of the U.S. Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 738.

[5] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, pp. 738–739.

[6] Shea, History, pp. 40–41; Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, pp. 739–741.

[7] This theory gained particular predominance in the Democratic party, whose acknowledged leader was Jefferson. This partly explains, in the opinion of the Catholic author, the fact that the large mass of Catholics in the United States has held so firmly to this party and has always voted for it. Catholic World, July 1876, pp. 440–441.

[8] Copy of the handwritten report of Bishop Carroll concerning the origin and condition of Catholicism in the United States. White, Sketch, pp. 605–606.

Part Two. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.) (7)

Such is the ideal of the relationship of church and state. By virtue of it there equally appears abnormal and is condemned both the absorption of the state by the church and the absorption of the church by the state; each must remain distinct from the other, each with its own organization, with its own members, capacities, rights and sphere of activity. Equally condemned by it is both the clericalism of the papal system, striving to seize functions not proper to the church from the state, and secularism, by which the state strives to seize dominion over the church, as it was in all the states of the pagan world and was expressed in the persecution of Christians by pagan emperors. But the church, in its guiding position, does not itself enact laws; it only proclaims, declares and applies them, and is itself also bound by them as is the state. The very law is prescribed to the government of all peoples and nations by God as the Supreme Lawgiver or as the goal and final cause of creation, and is obligatory equally for persons and for peoples, for sovereigns and subjects, for church and state. Such should be the relationship of these two orders, spiritual and material, church and state; but in reality it has never attained full and perfect realization, and history on the contrary presents facts of constant deviation in this field from the ideal state. The chronic condition of these two orders in society, instead of unity and cooperation or mutual relationship, was a condition of mutual distrust or even open hostility. In the course of the first three centuries of Christianity the relationship between them was one of open antagonism and the state persecuted the church. The pagan Roman Emperor of the Roman Empire laid claim to the union of both these orders in himself and was at once imperator, pontifex maximus and divus or god. For its part, the church, having received one-sided development on the ruins of this very civilization, adopted in Roman Catholicism the tendency to intrude into the sphere not proper to it of purely civil life, to subject the state entirely to its power, to seize functions belonging exclusively to it. The Roman Catholic pontifex maximus, having appropriated the title of vicar of Christ, strove to be as imperator. The Middle Ages present a sharp and factual realization of this tendency, and signs of it manifest themselves in the relation of Roman Catholicism to the states of Europe to the present time. Protestantism, on the other hand, having degenerated from the influence of the principles of Greco-Roman pagan civilization on the intellectual makeup of European society, brought with it in the relationship of church and state a pagan view, appeared as a reaction against the strengthened clericalism and in turn gave undue predominance to the state over the church, which was expressed especially sharply in England, where the church became a simple instrument of the state.

In what relationship to the ideal theory of the correlation of church and state does the American system stand? Its essence is determined by those historical data on whose soil it grew, and by those philosophical principles which were legally expressed both in the “Declaration of Independence” and in the Federal Constitution. The first settlers of the American colonies were people predominantly deeply religious, and in organizing society on the new land had in view not simply to avoid the oppression of conscience of which they were victims in their former home, but to found a truly Christian republic according to their understanding. And they did indeed found such a republic with such perfection as was possible with their imperfect Christian views. The colonies of New England were undoubtedly inclined toward the founding of a theocracy, a modified but even more intense form of clericalism, whose representative in Europe was Roman Catholicism, and thus had the tendency to absorb the state by the church. In the southern colonies, on the other hand, like in England, there was the tendency to establish the predominance of the civil order and thus to make the church a function of the state. These two opposite tendencies in the formation of American society met one another and, balancing one another, produced the result by which the unity and distinction of two orders were established under the leadership of the Christian idea. In principle each order in American society exists and stands in its normal relationship to the other, and moreover in its entirety, with its own distinctive nature, its own laws and functions; and thereby the material order in proper subordination to the spiritual.

The developed theory of the American system of the relationship of church and state does not accord with the common view of it as a system by which the state is supposedly completely independent of religion, separated from it in the full sense of the word. But it constitutes a strictly logical conclusion from the philosophical principles placed at the foundation of American civil life. In view of the prevalence of this erroneous view, especially in Russia, we deem it necessary to dwell in more detail on the exposition of these principles.[1]

The foundation of the American state rests on what is called natural and inalienable human rights. These rights, which include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,[2] constitute the highest, supreme law for civil society, which the state is obligated to recognize and obey. They reject absolutism of the state, define its sphere, limit its power, and prescribe its duty. But from where do these rights come, and how can they bind the state and prescribe its duty? According to one view, these rights flow from the very essence of humanity as persons and constitute an essential part of it. But the rights of one person must then bind the rights of another person, and yet both are equal, as all persons are equal. How then can one person bind or morally obligate another? When things are equal, one cannot have superiority over another. According to another view, these rights are contained in our human nature, given to us by nature, and therefore they constitute the natural and inalienable rights of humanity. Nature is understood in two ways: as the physical order or physical laws that enter into the physical world, and as the moral law to which the Creator has subjected all beings endowed with reason and free will, and which is known by natural reason or common sense of all people. In the first sense, these rights are not contained in our human nature and cannot be, since they are not physical. Physical rights are an internal contradiction. They can be contained in human nature only in the second sense, and can exist only in our moral nature, and consequently must be contained under that law which grounds and sustains moral nature, or the moral order as distinct from the physical order. But the moral law that grounds and sustains the moral order, the order of right and justice, is not a law grounded or prescribed by nature, but the law of moral governance of nature, to which the Creator of nature as Supreme Legislator has subjected all moral beings. Thus the moral law of nature is the law of God, and all rights which it grounds or which flow from it are the rights of God, and they are ours only because they are His. My rights in relation to you constitute your duty, that which God prescribes as law or rule for your behavior or relation to me; and your rights in relation to me constitute my duty, or that which God prescribes as rule for my behavior in relation to you. And that which God prescribes, He has the right to prescribe, and therefore He can equally command me not to respect those rights in you, and you not to respect those rights in me, which are not His rights; and civil society, being His society, is bound by these rights and cannot alienate or deny them without violating His law and depriving Him of His rights. Hence, he who wrongs another commits injustice not only against him, but commits injustice against his Creator, his Sovereign, and his Judge. From the rights enumerated above, let us take the right to life. This right all people and civil society itself are obligated to deem sacred and inviolable. But all people are created equal and under the law of nature have equal rights. How then can equals bind one another? By mutual contract, according to Rousseau’s theory. But from where does the binding force of a contract derive? Why am I obligated to keep my word? Certainly not by the word itself, but because I would deprive him to whom I gave the word of a right belonging to him. But I gave my word to help commit murder. Am I obligated to keep it? Not at all. Why not? Because I pledged myself to commit a crime, to do injustice or an unjust act. It is evident, therefore, that contracts or pledges do not create or produce justice; they presuppose it. Contracts themselves are binding only by virtue of a higher law of justice, and no contracts that contradict this law can bind anyone. Why am I obligated to respect your life? You cannot bind me to do so, because you and I are equal, and no one by his own authority can bind another. To take your life would be to commit an unjust act, that is, to deprive justice of its right to your life. The right to life is in this case a right of justice. But justice is not merely an abstraction; it is not a mental idea alone, but reality, and therefore it is God. Hence my or your right to life is the right of Him who created us and to whom we entirely belong. Furthermore, the right to life is inalienable even for myself; I myself cannot even take it from myself, and therefore suicide is a crime, and not only a crime against society, but a sin before God, because all right to life belongs to God. Therefore He has the right to command all people to deem the right to life in each person sacred and inalienable, and it can never be taken away by other people or even by civil society, but only by His command. The same applies to all other human rights.[3]

These principles found legal and clear expression in the Declaration of Independence, that document by which the independence of the American people as a separate state was proclaimed and by which both the foundations of this independence and the principles of the subsequent development of the new state were determined. In the first article of the Declaration of Independence, Congress affirms that the people of the United States “judged it necessary to assume among the powers of the earth a separate and equal station, to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them.” Proceeding then to set forth the grounds of the act itself, the representatives of the people say: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” The document further states that those governments which deviate from this purpose and pursue a different one, by encroaching upon and violating these rights, thereby lose their power. Applying this principle to the particular relation of the American people to England, Congress makes it a casus belli and considers it sufficient grounds for the proclamation of independence.[4]

Thus, at the most critical moment, amid the very pangs of the birth of a new state, the people of the United States solemnly declared that the origin of every right, every law, every political organization, every government, and especially that which makes the United States a separate state-people, must be sought in the eternal law, in the law of God. If human rights proceed from God and are His rights over humans as His creatures, as they indisputably are, then they lie in the realm of the spiritual order, not the material; they are spiritual, not material. The American state, in recognizing the independence, supremacy, and inviolability of human rights, thereby recognizes in principle the independence, supremacy, and inviolability of the spiritual order, its own subordination to it, and its obligation to conform to it. It thereby recognizes the church as a divine institution, furnished by God with the authority to represent God’s law and apply it to the government of the people as a state, no less than to the people as individual persons. This is a necessary consequence. If God made a supernatural revelation, we are bound by natural law to believe in it; and if He founded the church to represent the spiritual order, or embodied the spiritual order in a visible organism, with the authority to proclaim His word to all people and nations, to declare and apply this law in the governance of human affairs, then we are obligated to accept it and obey it. This shows that the true church, if such exists, is sacred and inviolable, and what it declares to be God’s law is His law, binding on every conscience. Whoever refuses to obey it refuses to obey God, and whoever deprives it of any of its rights deprives God. Inevitable and terrible punishment necessarily follows from deviation from this obedience, and in relation to states and societies it appears in the form of moral weakness, corruption, dissolution, and death.

[1] This theory is dominant in American literature and is recognized even by Roman Catholic literature, though in its own peculiar manner. See, for example, articles in the leading Catholic journal Catholic World: “Independence of Church” (Vol. IV); “Church and State” (Vol. V); “Church and State” (Vol. XI); “Religion and State in the U.S.” (Vol. XX), and so forth. This same theory regarding the United States is recognized by the well-known German historian Leo in the introduction to his Universalgeschichte.

[2] Preamble to The Declaration of Independence, dated July 4, 1776. See The Constitutions of the several states of the Union and of the United States, New York, 1866, p. 5.

[3] The full development of this theory was made by the Italian author Cantu in his work Chiesa e stato. Volume XI of Catholic World contains a critical exposition of this work. But both the work and the critical exposition are marked by an extreme Roman Catholic tendency, and therefore deviate from a strict logical development of this theory itself, which is true in its essence.

[4] The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776. See The Constitutions of the United States, p. 7.

Part Two. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.) (8)

Thus the state finds itself subordinate to the church, and by this very relation to it is obligated in its life and activity to conform to its law. But what exactly is that church which can be the true and authoritative interpreter of the principles of the spiritual order? If there is only one church and in the historical life of a people it has been the morally constructive principle, the foundation of moral and intellectual development, and has answered the moral needs of the people, then it is indeed the true, in a relative sense, interpreter for that people of the principles of the spiritual order, it is the soul of the national organism, and the state should conform to its law as the voice of the people’s conscience. In such a case, the church necessarily becomes established and, as the soul to the body, serves for the state as the morally moving, vital principle. Every movement in it receives a corresponding reflection in the state organism, as every spiritual movement is reflected in the bodily organism. This is soul and body, and their organic unity is their natural and normal relation. But the United States encounters a completely different fact. It has no historical church with which it is bound by organic growth. It does not have a single, authoritative, unified religious consciousness which, proceeding from one central principle, could serve for the state as a unified and unchanging expression of conscience in interpreting the principles of the spiritual order. Here the state encounters a motley diversity of churches which do not agree with each other not only in the particular application of the principles of the spiritual order, but even in the interpretation of the principles themselves. The national religious consciousness has been fragmented into separate independent centers which do not recognize each other and strive to be independent interpreters of the spiritual order. Clearly, the state, as an external organism, cannot obey the voice of all these separate consciousnesses and be obedient to all of them together, since with the contradiction and disagreement of these voices the action of the state organism itself would be paralyzed. The state could exit this difficulty in two ways: either recognize one of the many churches as the true interpreter of the spiritual order and conform exclusively to its voice, or conform only to that common voice which necessarily emerges from the diversity as the resultant of all of them. In the first case, the difficulty would not be removed and would entail countless new difficulties. Each of the numerous churches and sects considers itself exclusively to be the true one, with the rejection of all others as erroneous, and therefore recognition by the state of one of them as true would be equivalent to recognizing as the guiding voice of the people’s conscience that voice which by the majority of private consciousnesses is considered false and rejected as such. Moreover, the state has no right to decide which church is true and which is false, just as the body has no right and cannot decide what in the soul is true and what is false. Thus the other outcome remains, and it is suggested to the state by the very nature of things. By its adoption the very essence of the relation of the state to the church in the United States is determined.

When several forces acting in different directions collide, by a necessary physical law a single resultant force is produced, which gains predominance over all other forces and gives one common direction to all their actions. In intellectual life the same process is observed. Different representations, clashing with each other, produce one common concept, which regulates the organism’s action. Such a resultant also arises from the collision of many moral or religious forces, and in this respect it is served by that common principle which constitutes the moving beginning and final purpose of all of them. The state, as an organism on which the action of all these particular forces is directed, naturally had to submit only to this resultant, and only it could obtain guiding significance in directing its actions. So indeed is it in fact. The resultant of the various moral and religious forces can only be the common moral or religious principle, and it serves as the guiding principle of state life in the United States. The state recognizes a certain common moral code to which it itself submits in its activity and uses coercive force to bring into submission those members who do not agree with it. All churches, sects, or communities which encompass this common moral code or this common civil religion enjoy complete equality and complete freedom before civil law. But if any of them, under the pretext of its teaching, its church law, freedom of conscience, or even divine revelation, openly violates the moral code accepted by the state, then it comes into collision with the state, and the latter will resort to external force to compel submission to this code. The resultant always takes more or less the direction which belongs to the predominating majority of the particular forces. In the United States, if not all, then an overwhelming majority of churches and sects, despite their particular differences, agree on one common principle and have one common foundation in the Christian religion; therefore the resultant of their forces could only be the common Christian principle, and it indeed serves as that moral code which has been adopted by the state. To the extent that the matter concerns this common Christian moral principle adopted by the state as the foundation of its activity, all churches and sects that recognize it exist in vital union with the state, are established churches and sects. Even the Jews, who recognize together with Christians the Decalogue as a common moral code, and communities founded on purely natural religion and recognizing the natural law of conscience, exist in this respect in the same vital union with the state. But if there were to appear such a religious sect which considered the offering of human sacrifices to be a duty of conscience, or if there were to settle in the state a community of Hindus who consider it a sacred duty for every wife to burn herself alive together with her deceased husband and were actually to carry out this religious teaching, then the state would not only not recognize these sects’ right to freedom of conscience equal to all others, but would hasten to forbid them from fulfilling the mandates of conscience in this respect, since they contradict the religious and moral code accepted by the state. By virtue of this same code, the state cannot tolerate, for example, such a sect as practices and advocates polygamy, as violating the Christian moral principle of family life and desecrating the purity of marriage. Proof of this is the long and persistent struggle of the United States government against polygamy as practiced by the sect of Mormons.[1] The bond between the state and church in the realm of the common Christian principle is not limited on the part of the former to prohibitive measures to suppress actions contradicting this principle, but is also expressed in positive facts whereby the state renders positive assistance to the church for the realization of its moral teaching. Recognizing religion as the soul of public and state life, the source of the moral strength of the national organism, the state, to afford it the best possible facilities in accomplishing its mission, grants it privileges and immunities which do not extend to other organs of intellectual and literary life. To this end, the state exempts from all taxes all places of worship and prayer assemblies, which privilege is not granted to any other places of assembly.[2] Religion preaches love and mercy to all the afflicted and conducts extensive charitable activity. The state not only does not prohibit this activity, does not ignore it, but in every way facilitates and assists it, making enormous appropriations from state funds for the support of various church charitable institutions. Religion further preaches the sanctity of Sunday, and the state comes to its aid in this matter, and legally prohibits all actions which in any way lead to violation of the sanctity of Sunday. To this end all commercial, drinking establishments and places of entertainment are closed, under penalty of liability before the court for violation of the statute.[3] The state recognizes religion as the highest moral principle of national life when it requires from its officials and from witnesses in court oaths in the name of Almighty God as Supreme Judge, whereby judicial testimony and the performance of public office are given religious sanction. Finally, the state recognizes its inner connection with religion through solemn facts, as for example when it establishes by law solemn national festivals, such as the so-called “Thanksgiving Day.”[4]

[1] For the suppression of polygamy, a series of laws was enacted, though up to now they have been successfully circumvented by the “latter-day saints.” In his latest official message to Congress on December 6, 1880, President Hayes expressed the necessity of new measures to enforce these laws. “The acknowledged duty and purpose of the people of the United States,” he says, “is the suppression of polygamy, where it exists in our territories, and the prevention of its extension. The authorities of the United States in Utah have made zealous and praiseworthy efforts to enforce the laws against it. Experience has shown that legislation on this subject, to be effective, requires considerable modification and improvement. The longer action is deferred, the harder the desired goal will be to achieve. Rapid and decisive measures are necessary. The Mormon sectarian organization, which supports polygamy, holds all the administrative and executive power of the local legislative body in the territory. By its control of the grand and petit juries, it exercises enormous influence on the administration of justice. Having in its hands the local political power of the territory, the heads of this sect have the ability to exercise their hostility to Congress’s law on polygamy and actually prevent its enforcement. Polygamy will not be eliminated if the enforcement of the law against it depends on those who practice and support this crime. It can be eliminated only by taking political power away from the sect that preaches and maintains it. Congress’s power to enforce laws to protect the territory is evident. There should be no place for half-measures. The political power of the Mormon sect is growing; it now controls one of our richest and most populous territories. It is constantly spreading to other territories; wherever it appears, it establishes polygamy and sectarian political power. The sanctity of marriage and family relations are the cornerstone of our American society and civilization. Religious freedom and the separation of church and state are elementary ideas of free institutions. To restore the interests and principles violated by polygamy and Mormonism, and to fully open to intelligent and virtuous emigrants of all faiths that part of our possessions which has largely been closed to general emigration by the intolerant and immoral institutions, a reorganization of the government of the territory of Utah is recommended.” Hayes’ Message, published in The New York Times, December 7, 1880.

[2] To this same end, the New York Constitution exempts ministers of religion from civil or military service, in order not to distract them from the great duties of their ministry. Constitution of New York, Article XXXIX. See Constitutions of the Thirteen States, p. 95. The Pennsylvania Constitution has no direct provision in this regard, but the Supreme Court, in a case where a Methodist minister refused a public office, decided the matter in the same sense and declared that “those persons who dedicate their lives to the service of God and the religious instruction of their brothers should be free from the burden of temporal offices.” See Inquiry into the Moral and Religious Character of the American Government, p. 108. New York, 1838.

[3] According to the clarification of the Supreme Court in New York State, Sunday is recognized as a complete civil institution, and its violation is therefore punished as a civil crime. See Christian Statesman, April 7, 1881. In Cincinnati, by an ordinance of 1881, a fine of fifty dollars is imposed for opening taverns on Sunday, and one hundred dollars for opening theaters, circuses, and similar establishments. The Advance, April 16, 1881.

[4] “Thanksgiving Day” is a national religious-political holiday in America, celebrated annually on the last Thursday of November. The date of celebration is appointed annually by the President of the United States by a special proclamation officially issued with the seal of state. The character of these proclamations can be judged by the following proclamation by President Hayes, issued in 1880: “Never in the course of its history since independence has the people of the United States had so many and such general grounds for rejoicing and giving thanks for the mercy of Almighty God, or been so deeply obligated to thank Him for His loving kindness and humbly to beseech the continuation of His care and protection. Health, wealth and prosperity in all our borders; peace, honor and friendship with all the world; the firm and faithful attachment of our people to the great principles of freedom and justice that created our national greatness, to the wise institutions and strong organization of government and society that preserve it—for all these let the thanksgiving of a happy and united people, as if with one voice, ascend in reverent prayer to the Giver of all blessings. I therefore recommend that on Thursday, the 25th of this month of November, the people gather in their respective places of worship to express their gratitude to Almighty God for His bounties and blessings and to offer prayers for the continuation of them. In witness whereof I have set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Given in the City of Washington, the first day of this month of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred eighty, and of the independence of the United States the one hundred fifth. (Seal) President R.B. Hayes. William M. Evarts, Secretary of State.” From The New York Times, November 1, 1880, transmitted by telegraph. Similar proclamations are issued by the governors of individual states. In the latter, and besides “Thanksgiving Day,” there are occasions when governors issue solemn addresses to the people for the performance of some unusual religious acts. In Vermont, for example, Governor Fairnough issued a proclamation last spring by which Friday, April 8, was appointed as a day of general fasting and prayer—to seek Divine mercy upon the crops that have been sown. See Christian Statesman, April 14, 1881. Congress, as the supreme representation of the people, also issued proclamations calling the people to prayer on the occasion of special historical circumstances. A similar proclamation issued on the occasion of the War of 1812 is found in Inquiry into the Moral and Religious Character of the American Government, p. 116.

Part Two. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.) (9)

If there were but one church, the state would necessarily have to carry out its subordination to it down to more particular details; but since there are many churches and religious communities that differ among themselves in the details of teaching, the state restricts its connection with religion and its assistance to it only to that principle which is common to all of them, although in this common principle it acts more under the influence of the dominant religion than of others; it favors Christianity more, for example, than Judaism, and legally protects the sanctity of Sunday rather than the Sabbath. But how does the state relate to particular churches and communities as diverse expressions of one common religious and moral principle? It relates to them precisely as diverse expressions of this common principle which it recognizes. Each church or community considers itself to be true, but the state lacks spiritual competence and cannot decide either for itself or for its citizens which church or community is truly the expression of the spiritual order. It therefore entrusts and must entrust the responsibility in this decision to the citizens themselves, who must decide for themselves and answer before God for the correctness of their decision. Their decision is law for the state, and it must respect and obey it, whether this decision is made by a majority or a minority, since the state recognizes equal rights for all its citizens and cannot make distinctions among them. The church which represents for the state the spiritual order is that church which is espoused by its citizens; and since they embrace different churches, it can recognize and give effect to the canons and decrees of each only in relation to its own members, and only to the extent that they do not violate the equal rights of others. In a perfect Christian society such a relation of the state to the church would be insufficient; but this is all that it can do where different churches exist and exist with equal rights before it. Since the state recognizes them all as diverse expressions of one common moral and Christian principle recognized by itself, but lacks the competence to decide which of them is truly the most complete and truest expression and interpreter of this principle, it recognizes equal rights for all of them, equally protects each and gives force to its laws and decrees, but only in relation to those citizens who recognize its authority. It protects, for example, the order and unobstructed performance of worship in all churches of whatever confession, and any disturber of worship is subject to arrest. This does not mean indifference of the state toward religion; it means only that the state does not claim the right to decide which is the true church, and considers it its duty to respect and patronize every church recognized as such by its citizens. The teaching that a person is completely free before God to choose whatever religion he wishes or to remain in complete unbelief finds no recognition in principle from the American state and is contrary to its basic constitution. Therefore, atheistic or false sects in themselves do not possess rights before the state, as they do not serve as expressions and interpreters of the spiritual order, and are contrary to the true interests of society. But in a society where they exist alongside more true churches, the state must respect in them too the rights of the spiritual order, not of course because they consider themselves true, but because they are considered such by a certain part of its citizens, and all its citizens have equal rights in the civil order, and consequently equal right to protection of their conscience. By equally patronizing all churches and communities, equally protecting the rights of all of them to complete freedom of action and complete development of their powers, the state retains only the hope that truth will triumph of itself, and for falsehood this very freedom will serve only to bring out more fully its inner weakness and incompetence.

Such are the general principles of the American system of the relation of religion and state. In its spirit, the Roman Catholic Church receives equal rights with all other churches and confessions and enjoys the same patronage and respect from the state. But for it these rights did not at once find practical significance after their proclamation in principle. Thanks to the prevailing hostile prejudice against it during the colonial period, the general rights of religious conscience in their application to it met with resistance from prejudice that still lived on, and they were extended to it only by a slow process as the prejudice weakened and the idea of freedom of religious conscience gained greater rights of citizenship. The slow effect of the general principle of freedom of religious conscience for Catholics is explained by the relation of the federal constitution of the Union to the particular constitutions of the individual states.

X

The colonies that entered into the United States, before the proclamation of independence, lived completely separate lives from each other, had nothing in common except external subjection to English rule. They were populated by emigrants of different nationalities, different confessions, customs and manners, and different political views. When the struggle with England began, the common interest required them to unite their forces for self-defense, and they formed a united Union, which found legal expression in the federal constitution. But in entering this Union, they did not wish to lose their local independence, and therefore they sought to limit the conduct of the federal government only to those general matters and relations that equally affected all of them, and to exclude from it everything that constitutes the internal life of each colony. In a word, they entered the Union as completely separate and independent states, as shown even by the name of the United States—which means United States. Each state is a completely separate and independent state, having its own special governor, its own senate, its own legislative assembly, its own constitution. The federal constitution restricts its conduct only to the general interests of the united states, just as the federal government deals only with the general relations of the Union, without any right to interfere in the internal affairs of individual states. The states were very jealous in preserving their own independence and excluded from the jurisdiction of the federal constitution everything that went beyond the limits of the general interests of the Union. They took the same position in the legal determination of the question of freedom of religious conscience.

Before the proclamation of independence, the colonies, as we have seen above, were so pervaded by such religious intolerance, especially toward Catholics, that even their common political interest in freeing themselves from English rule could not suppress in them this spirit of mutual intolerance, and it clearly expressed itself in many of them upon drawing up new constitutions by the exclusion of Catholics from certain civil rights and privileges, for instance, in the election to public office. The federal constitution overcame this injustice, and the third paragraph of Article VI abolished any religious test for holding office. “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the government of the United States,” states this article. This article apparently equalizes the rights of all religious confessions, and consequently Catholics, but its true significance is determined only by the relation of the federal constitution to the particular state constitutions. In virtue of the system described above of the relation of individual states to the Union, the federal constitution deals only with the federal government and its jurisdiction therefore extends only to the sphere of activity of the latter. Hence the article on abolishing religious tests has force only within the limits of the jurisdiction of the federal government and has no significance outside these limits, that is, does not extend to individual states as independent units. Therefore, by virtue of this article, Catholics were equalized in their civil rights and privileges only before the federal government and could be appointed to offices only in the jurisdiction of this government. It thus did not abolish the provisions of the particular state constitutions which excluded Catholics from public office, but only created a new provision granting Catholics civil rights equal to all other confessions in a completely different sphere, outside individual states. So the states understood this article, which is especially clear from the history of the origin of the famous amendment to it, according to which “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This law, as we have seen above, had been proposed to Congress for consideration even before the article itself on abolishing religious tests, but Congress rejected it and adopted the latter article. When this article was presented to the local conventions of individual states for ratification, the insufficient precision in determining its jurisdiction seemed dangerous to many conventions for local independence, since under a certain interpretation its effect could extend to states as separate, independent units. They wished to retain the right of jurisdiction over religious matters for themselves, and therefore many of them made the ratification of the federal constitution conditional on their proposal to add the aforesaid amendment to the article on the religious question. These proposals were so persistent that Congress was compelled to accept the provision it had once rejected and adopted the amendment according to which it “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This amendment has a twofold meaning. First, it proclaims the complete separation of the federal state from religion, and second, it limits its right with respect to the government of individual states, abolishes its right of jurisdiction in the realm of religion, the jurisdiction of which is thus completely entrusted to the jurisdiction of individual states. The amendment was merely a formal renunciation by the federal government of the right to interfere in the religious affairs of individual states, but the actual exclusion of it from this right was already implied by the states before. In ratifying the federal constitution, they ratified it as binding only within the limits of the federal government, not the governments of individual states. Therefore, the article of it denying any religious test for election to public office, while having full significance for the federal government, was completely not binding in a legal sense for the government of individual states. So it turned out in fact. The particular state conventions, recognizing the article on abolishing religious tests in the federal constitution, at the same time did not consider it binding for their particular constitutions, and the articles in them excluding Catholics from the right to be elected to public office continued to exist as before.

Thus in a legal sense the federal constitution established freedom of religious conscience only in a limited form, equalized the civil rights of religious confessions only before the federal government, which, given the complete dependence of the federal government itself on the electoral will of individual states, made freedom of religious conscience almost fictitious. Thus, a Catholic, under such circumstances, could never attain the presidential chair, since election to it is conditioned not by the federal government but by the electoral will of individual states. But though lacking legal significance, the federal constitution had enormous moral significance for the legislation of individual states. It was, so to speak, the highest expression of the collective sense of the entire people and in this respect inadvertently exerted influence on particular legislatures, morally urging them to bring their provisions into conformity with the basic spirit of this supreme national law. And indeed, some states, soon after ratifying the federal constitution, hastened to bring their particular constitutions into harmony with it and, like it, abolished religious tests for election to public office. Thus the Georgia constitution of May 6, 1789, the first new local constitution adopted after the federal constitution was ratified, excluded the provision according to which members of the general assembly must be of the Protestant religion. The South Carolina constitution of June 3, 1790, the second new constitution, excluded the same provision as well as all other provisions making Protestantism the established religion, and established that “the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall hereafter be allowed to all mankind in this State.”[1] But other constitutions long retained provisions excluding Catholics from the right to election to public office, and only gradually over time yielded to the moral influence of the federal constitution. Thus, in the State of New York only in 1806 was the provision abolished according to which Catholic emigrants, when elected to public office, were obligated solemnly to renounce all obedience to foreign church authority, that is, to the Pope.[2] A similar provision was contained in the Massachusetts constitution, and it was abolished only in 1821, thus affording Catholics the possibility of holding public office.[3] In Virginia, complete freedom of conscience was granted only in 1830, when religious tests were abolished.[4] By the North Carolina constitution, when elected to office an oath was required acknowledging the truth of the Protestant religion. “Any person who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old and New Testament, shall not hold any office in the State.” In 1835 this provision was modified, and instead of Protestant was placed Christian religion,[5] by which Catholics were equalized with Protestants. In the New Jersey constitution the Protestant provision by which “no Protestant inhabitant shall be denied the rights and privileges of citizenship,” was abolished only in 1844.[6] Finally, in New Hampshire, the provision excluding Catholics from the right to hold public office even outlasted the hundredth anniversary of American independence, celebrated in 1876, and this solemn festival of national freedom saw in the constitution of this state such articles: “every member of the House of Representatives shall be of the Protestant religion”; “no person shall be eligible to election to the Senate unless he be of the Protestant religion”; “no person shall be elected to the office of Governor unless he be of the Protestant religion.”[7]

[1] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 738. Constitutions of the Thirteen States, South Carolina.

[2] Murray, History of the Catholic Church, p. 183. Cf. note 1 on p. 141.

[3] Shea, History of the Catholic Church, p. 45; Murray, p. 183.

[4] Murray, History, p. 183.

[5] The Constitutions of the several states. Constitution of North Carolina. Cf. pp. 259 and 265.

[6] Shea, History, p. 45.

[7] Murray, History, p. 184. These articles, if we are not mistaken, still exist. At any rate, we found no notice of their repeal in such a careful and strict guardian of the interests of the Roman Catholic Church in America as the journal Catholic World. True, they exist rather as dead letter than as living, active legislation; but even such existence constitutes a characteristic fact. Proposals for their repeal were made several times in the state legislature and found unanimous approval, but were constantly lost in the proceedings. See The Constitutions of the several states, Constitution of New Hampshire, pp. 54, 57, 59.

Part Two. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.) (10)

Thus only by a slow and gradual process did the idea of freedom of religious conscience and religious equality before civil law make its conquests in individual states, notwithstanding that by the federal constitution it had been adopted and proclaimed at the very dawn of American political independence. Only with the passage of time and by virtue of the constant moral pressure of the federal constitution did the sectarian intolerance of Protestantism toward Catholicism gradually weaken and retreat, and at the present time the idea of freedom of religious conscience has in fact gained full rights of citizenship. But this freedom is not equivalent to complete license. It even now finds in many states legal and indeed strict limitations which even condition the exercise of civil rights. Thus, by the Maryland constitution, for election to office a declaration of belief in the Christian religion is required, and for a Jew a declaration of his belief in a future state of reward and punishment.[1] By the Vermont constitution, no religious test is required, but nevertheless “every sect or association of Christians shall keep and observe the Lord’s Day or Christian Sabbath, and shall hold some form of divine worship or religious service on that day.”[2] By the Pennsylvania constitution, “no person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of reward and punishment shall, on account of his religious opinions, be disqualified to hold any office or place of public trust.”[3] By the Tennessee constitution, “no person who denies the being of God or a future state of reward and punishment shall hold any office in the civil department of the State.”[4] Finally, by the North Carolina constitution, “no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Christian religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testament, or shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom or safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of public trust in the civil department of the State.”[5] Other states make no legal determinations concerning religion. But this does not mean that the state in them completely ignores religion and severs all connection with it. If this connection has not been expressed in written law, as in the states named above, still it exists, is recognized by the state, and is expressed in unwritten common law. This connection constantly makes itself known in judicial proceedings concerning religion. Both the court and individual jurists are always guided by this common law and by their decisions confirm the connection of the state not only with religion in general, but even particularly with Christianity. Thus the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, whose constitution only indirectly touches on religion, positively recognizes the inseparable connection of the state with Christianity, when in one judicial proceeding it declared: Christianity is part of the common law of this State… Its foundations are broad, strong, and deep; they lie at the basis of the power, interests, and feelings of the people. Setting aside all private questions, it is the purest system of morality, the strongest helper and the only stable support of all human laws. It is impossible to administer the laws without accepting the Holy Scriptures as their basis… An oath in the usual form, before a discredited book, would be the most idle ceremony.[6] But even more remarkable in this respect is the declaration of the Supreme Court in New York, whose constitution does not at all legally determine the connection of the state with religion. “Christianity,” said Chancellor Kent on behalf of the court, “in its broad sense as the religion revealed and taught in the Bible, is not unknown to our jurisprudence. The statute for the prevention and prohibition of immorality sanctifies the first day of the week as holy time, and treats its violation as immoral… The Act concerning oaths recognizes the usual manner of taking an oath by laying on of hands and kissing the Gospel.” “Whatever tends to corrupt morality tends clearly to destroy civil government,” he plainly declares concerning the inseparability of the state from Christianity as a universal church.[7] And further he says: “Blasphemy, according to the most precise definition, consists in the malicious reviling of God or religion… in reviling Christianity through its Founder… Such crimes have always been treated independently of religious establishment or church rights. They are viewed as acts affecting the essential interests of civil society.” “Blasphemy against God,” he says in another place, “and the reproachful and profane derisions of Christ or the Sacred Scriptures, which are considered equally with blasphemy, are crimes punishable by common law, whether expressed orally or in writing.” “But we are not at all obliged to punish similar attacks on the religion of Mohammed or of the great Lama, and this on the simple ground that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply rooted in Christianity, not in the doctrines or worship of these impostors.”[8] Clearly, the state in New York not only recognizes its inner connection with Christianity as a church, but at the same time denies its connection with all other religions. The effect of this general, unwritten law makes itself known in all states. The general sense of these constitutions is evidently that freedom of religious conscience is granted only to the extent that it remains actually freedom of religious or even Christian conscience, and ceases where it passes over into a denial of all religious or Christian conscience. This must be firmly remembered by all advocates of freedom of conscience, and especially by those who like to appeal to America.

And so only toward the end of the century of American political independence did the Roman Catholic Church come to be legally and practically equal in its rights with all other confessions in America. At the present time, it has, equal with all other confessions and communities, recognized as inalienable those rights which were proclaimed a hundred years ago in the historical declaration of American freedom, in the “Declaration of Independence,” namely the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and has gained full significance the provision of that same declaration that government is instituted to secure these rights and guard their free exercise. “The right of freedom,” explains a Catholic author in reference to the Declaration of Independence in its application to the Roman Catholic Church,[9] “includes freedom to keep the commandments of God, to observe the law of His Church, to use all the means given to us for obtaining mercy, acquiring virtue, and fulfilling the purpose of our existence. The right to happiness includes unobstructed enjoyment of all the advantages of our religion, which alone can make us truly happy in this world and enable us to attain eternal beatitude. The right of freedom and happiness gives full opportunity for all who wish to dedicate themselves to the sacred duties of the altar and monastery. It gives freedom to perform all the rites and ceremonies of religious worship, to dedicate our wealth to the service of God and our neighbors, to organize and govern our churches according to our canonical law, to establish and hold colleges, seminaries, monasteries, and charitable institutions, to educate our children, to profess and practice the Catholic religion fully and wholly. The purpose of government is to secure these rights, so that if it does not provide actual protection for the free and peaceful enjoyment of them, it is negligent in the performance of its duty; and if it invades these rights or violates them through tyrannical legislation, it commits a positive act of injustice and usurpation. The government, the supreme power in the state, from which the government derives its authority, is equally responsible before eternal law as are individual citizens, and it can violate it through neglect of securing and protecting, or through direct violation of the rights of conscience granted by the Creator. Therefore, it is necessary strictly to guard these rights, to declare and defend them loudly when they are in danger of violation, and by all lawful means to prevent any attempt to interfere with their exercise through unjust legislation or tyrannical use of power by the government and its official agents. The supreme power in the state has a general and constant tendency to seize unjust power and violate the rights of subjects. The freedom of the individual or class under government is always in danger, and therefore eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. This is equally true whether the supreme power is entrusted to a monarch or aristocracy, or where the people retain it for themselves. It would be a great error to suppose that popular government and republican institutions constitute a perfect and complete guarantee of freedom in general or freedom of conscience in particular. The political majority or ruling party may tyrannically dominate the minority or weaker party and private citizens. Magistrates elected by popular vote may abuse their power and oppress those whom they should protect. Legislative assemblies elected by the people may enact the most unjust and despotic laws. Athenian democracy exiled Aristides the Just and poisoned Socrates, the wisest man of pagan antiquity, the father and founder of philosophy. In our own time we have witnessed the most treacherous violation of guaranteed rights and the most tyrannical oppression of religious freedom of Catholics committed by the Swiss Republic. Catholics are always subjected to oppression where they constitute the weaker party, and never have sufficient guarantee for acquiring and preserving their religious freedom except in their own numbers and strength, gained significance through energetic activity in behalf of their cause.”[9] “In accordance with the principles and spirit of our laws and political institutions,” continues the same author, “the Catholic Church possesses in the United States a greater degree of freedom belonging to it by divine right than in most other countries. And in practice this freedom has been largely secured to it, thanks to the justice of the people in general and the fidelity of those entrusted with the administration of the law. Nevertheless, we cannot and should not be satisfied with anything less than the full and perfect freedom and equality that by right belong to us, and which do not in the slightest degree violate the same rights of those who profess a different religion. There are matters in regard to which we are obligated both by duty and by right to demand a greater degree of justice than has so far been shown us, and to endeavor to prevent further diminution of our rights as Catholic citizens.”[10]

From the passage quoted above, which by general and official recognition is the best expression of Roman Catholicism in America, it is clear that Catholics recognize their equality before civil law with all other confessions and communities as legally and practically established, but that in the state there is nonetheless a tendency toward curtailment of these rights, against which tendency Catholics are called upon to guard. This tendency finds justification in actual facts and flows from the very conditions of the position of Roman Catholicism in the state. The United States, by its history and composition of population, is in essence a Protestant state. The Catholic population constitutes a weak minority, one-seventh of the total population. In republican states, where the composition and character of government are determined by popular vote, governmental power necessarily rests in the hands of the majority. Since this majority in the United States is on the side of the Protestant population, naturally the composition of government appears predominantly Protestant. A “Protestant government” is in essence a logical and internal contradiction in a state where government and church, state and religion, are legally separated from each other. But such is the organic nature of man that he cannot extract and remove the soul from his being even when the question concerns only his body. So also Protestant representatives of the people entrusted with the government of the country, inevitably and of necessity bring with them in the governance their Protestant views. This is an inevitable fact and it is confirmed by reality.

[1] The Constitutions of the several states. Constitution of Maryland, Declaration of Rights, Article 34, p. 224.

[2] The Constitutions, p. 70. The sense of this article is evidently that only a genuinely religious society can enjoy certain privileges not extended to purely civil societies, such as exemption of temples or places of worship from taxes.

[3] The Constitutions, p. 194.

[4] The Constitutions, Constitution of Tennessee, article IX, section 2, pp. 270–271.

[5] The Constitutions of the several states, New York, 1866. Constitution of North Carolina, Amendments to the Constitution, Article IV, p. 265.

[6] North American Review, March 1891, pp. 217–218. Cf. Inquiry into the Moral and Religious Character of the American Government, pp. 99–102. Several cases of blasphemy in the same state led the state legislature to adopt a positive law against blasphemy as a civil crime, which in the statute of 1860 reads as follows: “If any person shall freely, intentionally and stubbornly blaspheme or profanely and impiously speak of Almighty God, Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or the Scripture of Truth, such person, upon conviction, shall be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars and to serve imprisonment not exceeding three months, or both as the court determines.” Christian Statesman, May 12, 1881, p. 424.

[7] North American Review, March 1881, p. 218.

[8] Ibid, pp. 218–220. Cf. Inquiry, pp. 97–98.

[9] Catholic World, Vol. XVI, p. 728.

[10] Catholic World, Vol. XVI, p. 729.

Part Two. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.) (11)

The United States undoubtedly bears predominantly a Protestant character, and this is first of all evident in the very manner of its relation to religion or the church. The essence of the principle of the relation of state and church in the country, as we have seen above, consists in a strict delineation of the spheres of their relative activity, so that to the church belongs entirely the jurisdiction over the spiritual order of phenomena in human life, and to the state the jurisdiction over the material order. In determining the scope of these orders, Catholicism and Protestantism appear as two opposite and irreconcilable principles. According to the view of the former, the realm of the spiritual order essentially extends over the entire spiritual life of mankind—the religious, moral, and intellectual—and therefore the church exclusively has jurisdiction not only over religious conscience but also over the facts of marriage and family life, the education of children, and even literature.[1] Contrariwise, according to the view of Protestantism, the jurisdiction of the church extends only to religious conscience, and all other phenomena of human life, as not having essential significance for the main purpose of the church—the salvation of souls according to the principle of justification by faith alone—naturally fall under the jurisdiction of the state. According to the fundamental principle, the United States could not legally take the exclusive side of one of these opposite views, and therefore of necessity chose a middle position between them, which however the Catholics themselves recognize as most normal compared with the relation of most European states to the Catholic Church. This relation, however, from the Catholic perspective appears already Protestant because it does not realize the Catholic ideal of the relation of church and state, according to which the state should be merely a simple instrument of the church. But besides the state’s deviation from the extremes of the Catholic view, it shows a Protestant tendency in more essential matters, so that it not only stands in the middle of the two opposite views, but plainly inclines toward Protestantism. This is especially evident in its relation to the question of marriage and public education. According to the Catholic view, jurisdiction over marriage relations and public education belongs to the church,[2] but according to the Protestant view these are social facts and therefore fall within the sphere of the state. What position has the state taken on these questions? It has entirely inclined toward the Protestant view and made both marriage relations and public education purely state functions, independent of the church. It recognized marriage as a social act, allowing so-called civil marriage and broad freedom for divorce, and made public education one of its functions. Since Catholicism regards these functions as essential functions of the church, the state, by taking them under its jurisdiction, thereby deprived the Roman Catholic Church of its rightful authority and thus took the side of the opposite view—Protestantism. This naturally led to a collision between the state and Roman Catholicism, and on the question of public education the collision has developed into an open struggle, which continues vigorously to the present. Catholicism denies the state any right to educate children, regarding it as the duty of parents and the church;[3] but the bitterness of the struggle is intensified further by the fact that the state, as we shall see below,[4] to avoid the possibility of narrow denominational education in the spirit of the teaching and belief of any one church or community, has secularized the public school, which again coincides with the Protestant view and contradicts the Catholic one. Here the state commits even a positive injustice toward Catholics. Having taken public education under its jurisdiction, to maintain it the state levies a tax on all the population without distinction of religion, and consequently on Catholics. Meanwhile, Catholics cannot use this state school, since its use is forbidden them by their conscience and church, and therefore they are compelled by the state to pay for an object which for them is, at the least, useless, and from a strictly Catholic point of view—directly harmful, since a secularized school from this perspective is a denial of true education, is a product of Protestantism and therefore hostile to Catholicism. Not recognizing the state school, Catholics are compelled to establish and maintain their own parish schools, and thus bear a double tax compared with Protestants, which is already a direct state injustice.

Beyond the sphere of public education, the state—voluntarily or involuntarily—takes the side of Protestantism in many other respects. It controls a multitude of different institutions whose existence is caused by and conditioned upon social necessity, yet whose purpose cannot be achieved without religion, as the state itself acknowledges. Such are prisons, reformatories, and homes for delinquent children, asylums for homeless children, and similar institutions. They contain persons of various faiths—both Protestants and Catholics. The state, not only refraining from denying them the right to freely practice their religious duties, but even considering religion an essential element for achieving the very purpose of these institutions, has taken care to furnish them with religious fixtures and priests, whom it maintains on public salary. To avoid preferring any one denomination at the expense of others, the state everywhere follows what is called the nonsectarian system, in which religion is recognized and practiced only in its general Christian traits, without denominational distinctions. The state applies this same system when introducing religion into its institutions, and therefore employs priests who in fact belong to no particular denomination but are preachers of general Christianity. Catholic priests, as representatives of a strict, concrete denominational system requiring strict and unwavering observance of all its parts and details, naturally do not fit the state’s perspective; hence Protestant priests are placed in these institutions, where they preach general Christianity in prisons and teach it in reformatory schools. For Catholicism this situation is already disadvantageous in that Protestant priests are admitted to these institutions; but moreover, the general Christianity they preach is, in the Catholic view, nothing other than pure Protestantism. Catholicism recognizes no other Christianity except that embodied in a concrete historical form, and considers any departure from it as Protestantism—all the more so a detachment from any concrete church form such as general Christianity, which a Catholic publicist openly calls humbug,[5] meaning a deception obscuring the true nature of the matter. To force Catholic inmates of state institutions to attend the services of this general Christianity, in the Catholic view, violates their conscience. Yet this is exactly what happens in most institutions. In New York State, for example, there are three state prisons, and in not one of them is there any state provision for meeting the spiritual needs of Catholic prisoners.[6] The state has seven penitentiaries, and only three of them hold Catholic Mass; it also boasts four reformatory institutions, but only one of them provides Mass and the sacraments.[7] In the rest, all prisoners without exception are required to attend services according to the general Christianity system, which is, in the Catholic publicist’s view, beyond all question the cruelest violence to conscience—for even the worst Catholic in this world would never willingly participate in any service other than his own.[8]Recently a Catholic priest was allowed to visit one of the state prisons, to hear confessions and preach on Sunday afternoons; but the Catholic prisoners were also required to attend Protestant services.[9]Throughout the country, according to a Catholic publicist, only in Minnesota is freedom of conscience and equal rights in religious matters for those in state institutions fully secured, and that only by the recent act of March 5, 1874.[10] Thus the state acts not only toward criminals, who though needing religious consolation more than others have through their own conduct brought themselves to deprivation and restriction of freedom, but also toward those unfortunates who come under state care because no one else looks after them—abandoned, homeless, destitute children. To them the state appears not as a punisher of evil deeds but as guardian, taking the place as it were of parents. It also takes care to furnish these institutions with religious fixtures; but here again it introduces its favorite general Christianity, which, as we have seen, is entirely rejected by Catholicism. One of the oldest and most notable such institutions in New York State is the Society for the Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents, which has an educational and charitable character. According to its 1875 report, over the past fifty years it had housed 15,791 persons, at least half of whom were children of Catholic parents. Yet the institution had always employed a Protestant chaplain who preached general Christianity, and never a Catholic one. The average age of these children, according to statistics, was thirteen years and eight months. Therefore, explains the Catholic publicist, the children were of an age when they could already distinguish one denomination from another, and were six years older than the average age set by the Catholic Church for receiving Confession and Communion, for preparation for Confirmation and attending Mass on Sundays and holy days, under pain of mortal sin.[11] The natural consequence of such exclusion of Catholic children from the rites and beliefs of their Church could only be a complete weakening, if not elimination, of the Catholic spirit in them; and thus these institutions become directly proselytizing agencies for Protestantism. In light of this, the following tirade of the Catholic publicist does not seem exaggerated: In our public institutions, there is constant violation of the state constitution regarding freedom of religious profession and worship.[12]In these institutions there is a stereotyped system of religious profession and worship that all inmates are required to accept and follow, regardless of their faith. They have no freedom of choice in this matter. They cannot have contact with the pastors of their church except in impossible circumstances according to that stereotyped plan. Practically they cannot have such contact at all. Once they become members of these institutions, the freedom of religious profession and worship they enjoyed or could have enjoyed before entering is completely destroyed, and replaced by a new form of religious profession that they are required to accept and follow as their religion until leaving the institution, whether they like it or believe in it or not. Whatever name is given to this form of worship and instruction—whether called nonsectarian or not—it is a monstrous violation of human conscience, not to mention the letter and spirit of this state’s constitution. Its true name would be: a church established in public institutions. From the day a Catholic child enters such an institution until the day he leaves, he is in most cases not even allowed to see a Catholic priest; he is absolutely forbidden to practice his religion; he is not allowed to hear Mass or receive the sacraments. His religion is taken from him and barred to him, and his soul is left dry and barren. The injustice does not end even there, for all the while he is subjected to non-Catholic influences and a direct system of anti-Catholic instruction and worship. He is compelled to bow and believe in the institution’s established church.[13]

Thus even with legal equality between Catholicism and Protestantism, the latter has many advantages over the former, solely due to its numerical superiority, which necessarily influences the direction and spirit of government and state, inclining them toward Protestantism. The state’s Protestant tendency is so strong that Catholicism must be in constant struggle to defend its legal rights and continually protect them from encroachment by Protestant authorities. Yet this position of Catholicism within a Protestant state has, on the other hand, taught it to be wise as a serpent, and it has profitably exploited this wisdom in those respects where the state, by force of social necessity, had to recognize equal rights with Protestantism. Catholicism achieved particularly important results in the realm of financial relations with the state.

One of the spheres of public life in which the state cannot in fact separate itself from the church, despite the most complete legal separation, is charitable activity. Conditioned by the internal state of public life, it equally affects both church and state. The Church is called to charitable activity by the very essence of Christianity, one of whose principal precepts is the relief of the sufferings and miseries of the destitute and unfortunate. The state is called to the same by the very essence of the state idea, according to which the state is established as a collective defense against private evils that would be unbearable for individuals to combat. Yet while neglect of charitable activity would be for the Church merely a violation of Christian principle, for the state it would result in incalculable public calamities—the inevitable social evils, such as homeless children, fallen women, those afflicted by nature, and such beings, if not counteracted by charitable activity, would be a terrible scourge to society and would undermine the very foundations of the state. Therefore, both Church and state are equally interested in charitable activity, and in the same proportion that generally determines the relations of Church and state, as principle and fact, soul and body. In this regard, the Church acts as the moving principle, and the state as realizing that principle in actuality. Such are the relations that Church and state have assumed in the sphere of charitable activity in the United States. Charitable activity owes its beginning to the Church or to various private religious societies, which, from purely religious and Christian motives of philanthropy, founded charitable institutions to aid the distressed. The state soon recognized their beneficial activity for society and, to support and develop their work, began to grant them subsidies from public funds collected through ordinary state taxes.[14] At present these relations between Church and state in charitable activity have reached such full development that in most cases the state has assumed the budget of charitable institutions on itself, leaving to the Church or private religious societies only the management of their operations. Charitable institutions are divided into Catholic, Protestant, and municipal. The latter are supported entirely from public funds, while the former receive only subsidies. To ensure uniform distribution of public funds among them, a rule has been adopted by which the amount of subsidies is determined by the number of persons maintained in the charitable institutions. This rule has been used to excellent advantage by the Roman Catholic Church.

[1] Catholic World, Vol. XI, article “The Church and State,” p. 146.

[2] Catholic World, Vol. XI, cited article.

[3] Catholic World, Vol. XIV, p. 437, and others.

[4] The question of the state’s conflict with Roman Catholicism in the matter of public education, given its importance, we devote below to a special section of our work.

[5] Catholic World, Vol. XXI, p. 11.

[6] Catholic World, Vol. XXI, p. 4.

[7] Ibid, p. 4.

[8] Catholic World, Vol. XXI, p. 3. In reviewing the religious question in prison confinement in European states, an American Catholic publicist also points to Russia, where priests of various denominations, “even Jewish and Islamic,” are admitted to prisons. Ibid, pp. 5–6.

[9] Catholic World, Vol. XXI, p. 6.

[10] Ibid, p. 6.

[11] Catholic World, Vol. XXI, p. 17.

[12] Section 3, Article I of the New York Constitution states: “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed to all persons in this state; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed so as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify acts incompatible with the peace and safety of this state.” The Constitutions of the several states, p. 143.

[13] Catholic World, Vol. XXI, p. 8.

[14] The scale of charitable activity can be judged by the fact that in New York State alone, as shown in the official message of Governor Cornell of January 5, 1881, the cost of maintaining charitable institutions for the past year reached eight million dollars, and the total value of property devoted to charitable purposes in the state was estimated at thirty-five million dollars. Gov. Cornell’s Message. The New York Times, January 5, 1881.

Part Two. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.) (12)

For the Roman Catholic Church, charitable activity is one of the manifestations of its general church principle, according to which the Church’s jurisdiction extends over the entire sphere of human life. Therefore, charity is considered in it one of the essential functions of church life, is under the direct control of the church organization, and is carried out by the immediate servants of the Church—brothers and sisters of various monastic orders. At present, in the United States, a whole army of Catholic brothers and sisters numbering 18,000 persons[1] labors in the sphere of charitable (and simultaneously educational) activity. This mass of free or largely inexpensive laborers has enabled the Roman Catholic Church to develop its charitable activity to extraordinarily wide dimensions. If not in numbers, then in the coherence of organization and breadth of activity, Catholic charitable institutions surpass similar institutions of all other denominations combined. In New York, the largest charitable institutions belong to Catholics. Their public activity is so evident and important that the government of New York State could not help recognizing their general importance and began giving them state subsidies before any other Protestant charitable institutions. The subsidy consists partly of public and common lands allocated by the government for charitable institutions, and partly of direct monetary sums. The Roman Catholic Church has made better use of both types of subsidies than all other denominations. At present, it holds more land under its charitable institutions in New York than all other Protestant denominations combined,[2] and moreover, in the best and most expensive parts of the city. The land it occupies is valued at the present rate at an enormous sum—three and a half million dollars (3,500,000), and all these parcels are given to it either in perpetual possession or for ninety-nine years with an annual rent of one dollar.[3] But the Roman Catholic Church has achieved even greater results in monetary terms. Thanks to free or inexpensive labor from brothers and sisters, it was able to place its charitable institutions on a broader basis than all Protestant ones, which, not having free laborers, could in no way compete with it in this respect. Consequently, its charitable institutions are more extensive and can support a larger number of those in need than all Protestant denominations. Being able to maintain a larger number at more economical rates, it simultaneously received from the government larger subsidies compared to Protestant denominations. As to the scale of this proportion in the division of state subsidies between Roman Catholic and Protestant charitable institutions, one can judge by the fact that already in 1866, when the Roman Catholic Church did not yet have the political weight it has now acquired in New York, out of the amount appropriated by the government for specifically religious charitable institutions—129,025 dollars—the Roman Catholic Church received 124,174 dollars for its own institutions. In the following year this subsidy reached 200,000 dollars.[4] In 1869, the New York government appropriated 528,742 dollars and 47 cents for sectarian institutions. Of this amount, the Roman Catholic Church received 412,062 dollars and 26 cents for its institutions. The remainder was distributed among other denominations as follows: the Episcopal Church received 29,335 dollars and 9 cents; Jewish institutions received 14,404 dollars and 49 cents; the Reformed received 12,630 dollars and 86 cents; Presbyterians received 8,363 dollars and 44 cents; Baptists received 2,760 dollars and 34 cents; Methodists received 3,073 dollars and 63 cents; Evangelical institutions received 2,027 dollars and 24 cents; mixed received 44,085 dollars and 12 cents.[5] In these proportions the public subsidies to the Roman Catholic Church continued in subsequent years, and for some institutions the total sum is now reckoned in millions of dollars. Thus one Roman Catholic House of the Good Shepherd received over its twenty years of existence 406,552 dollars in government subsidies. The Catholic Foundling Asylum received an enormous sum of 1,252,713 dollars during its eight years of existence. The Catholic Protectory from 1863 to 1877 received 2,030,454 dollars in public subsidies, and so forth.[6] According to the 1880 report, the Catholic Protectory received 110 dollars per person for the past year, totaling 294,253 dollars; the Catholic Foundling Asylum in the same year received 236,014 dollars from the city government.[7] The magnitude of this subsidy becomes even clearer from the fact that the total operating costs of these charitable institutions shown in their reports exceed the subsidies by only 6,000 dollars for the first and 8,000 dollars for the second,[8] so that in essence they are completely supported at public and state expense, while at the same time constituting an organic part of the Roman Catholic Church and remaining under the direct control of its hierarchy.

Thus the Roman Catholic Church, while being somewhat oppressed by Protestantism in the realm of religious profession, has abundantly compensated itself at the state’s expense in material terms. Here, in comparison with Protestant denominations, it appears as a fully established state church, maintained from public funds collected through taxes imposed equally on all inhabitants regardless of denomination.[9] The chief reason for its success in this regard is the system by which public and state offices are seized by Catholics. At present, this system has reached its height of development in New York, for on November 2, 1880, Catholics seized the highest office in city government, despite fierce protests from the Protestant population, and a devoted Catholic was elected mayor, an opportunity which the Roman Catholic Church has not failed to exploit for its purposes—ad majorem Dei gloriam.[10]

Thus, even with complete legal equality, in fact there are distinct advantages and disadvantages for different denominations. But both are overshadowed by the general advantage that this legal equality before the state has had for the overall growth and development of Roman Catholicism in the country. It removed the chains of slavery from the Roman Catholic Church, and it did not delay in manifesting a monstrous force of external and internal growth. The investigation of the actual causes and exposition of this growth process forms the subject of the next section.

* * *

[1] Murray, History of the Catholic Church in the U.S., p. 578. “Eighteen thousand persons, many of them of the highest education, working for free for the benefit and progress of the United States!” exclaims the Catholic historian-publicist. “Calculate their value, O you political economists who above all strive to achieve great results with the least expense!” Ibid.

[2] Catholic institutions occupy eighty-six parcels in the city, while all other Protestant denominations hold only about seventy parcels. See the Catholic pamphlet Private Charities, Public Lands and Public Money. 1880. New York.

[3] Putnam’s Magazine, July 1869. Atlantic Monthly, 1880.

[4] Putnam’s Magazine, July 1869, p. 43.

[5] Putnam’s Magazine, March 1870, p. 359.

[6] Catholic pamphlet Private Charities, Public Lands and Public Money, pp. 26–30. New York, 1880.

[7] The Times, February 6, 1881.

[8] On March 11, the “Protectory” submitted a petition to the state legislature for an additional subsidy of 60,000 dollars. This will more than compensate for the shortfall. New York Herald, March 12, 1881.

[9] An article entitled “Our Established Church” was published in Putnam’s Magazine in July 1869, in which the Roman Catholic Church is presented as a state church. The article made a strong impression on the public and provoked intense polemic between Protestant and Catholic publicists.

[10] The newly elected mayor, Mr. Grace, was educated in the Catholic Manhattan College, maintained by the Catholic order of the “Christian Brothers,” and is under the strong influence of Cardinal McCloskey. The city comptroller for the past years was John Kelly, not only a devoted Catholic but also the brother-in-law of the same Cardinal McCloskey.

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism

XI. The composition of the population of North America. European emigration and its Catholic portion. The nationalities composing the Roman Catholic Church and their comparative significance for it. The process of numerical growth of the Roman Catholic population. – XII. The establishment of the episcopacy and the growth of church organization. The synodal form of church governance. Anti-Catholic movements. The legal status of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States. – XIII. The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore. Its historical and canonical significance for the Roman Catholic Church of the country. Acts and decrees. – XIV. Monastic orders and their significance in the building of Roman Catholicism in America. Jesuits and Sulpicians. The emigration of male and female orders to America following popular emigration. Their important services to Roman Catholicism.

XI

The population of North America is by its composition almost exclusively foreign. The indigenous population, consisting of small Indian tribes and occupying all the space of the continent before its discovery, lacked the strength to preserve its distinctiveness and hold the continent against others. In the face of white people, they received a death sentence, as an inevitable result of hostile collision between the strong and the weak. With white people came higher culture, before which the primitive culture of the indigenous population had to yield, and indeed, as white people advanced, the indigenous population began to retreat into the wild depths of the continent, until finally it was reduced to the insignificant number of today, which if gathered together would scarcely constitute a medium-sized city among the multitude of cities of the foreign population. At present, the indigenous population within the United States does not exceed 300,000 persons,[1] while all the population according to the latest census is estimated at fifty million,[2] so the former constitutes an insignificant drop in the sea of foreign population. If, then, all the population of the country owes its growth almost exclusively to the external influx of settlers and their natural increase, then the growth of each part of this population must be sought in the same causes. The Roman Catholic population, as a component part of the entire mass of population, therefore owes its growth primarily and chiefly to the same general causes of growth of the American people. But to form a clear understanding of the process of increase of the Roman Catholic population specifically, it is necessary to make a general survey of the growth of all the American population, of which it is an organic part.

The earliest European settlement within the United States was established in Virginia in 1609, if we do not count the Florida settlement, which was not part of the original thirteen colonies that formed the union of states—a settlement dating to 1565.[3] New York was settled in 1613, and New England in 1620.[4] The initial settlement occurred slowly. The distance of the journey and the unknown nature of the country frightened the imagination, and those who ventured across the ocean at first were only various adventurers, religious missionaries, and those persecuted for their religious convictions. The earliest immigrants from the Old World to the New were, as is well known, the Spanish—eager seekers of gold, who arrived in America soon after its discovery, but did not establish permanent settlements until much later. The Dutch settlers, who founded the colony of New Amsterdam, which later received the name of New York, were also merely entrepreneurs and fortune hunters. But the English Puritans, who immigrated to the New World and established a colony in New England, and the English Catholics, who established a colony in Maryland, were the principal pioneers in settling the continent. They fled from unbearable persecution and sought in the New World a new and permanent homeland for themselves. It is impossible to form a precise estimate of the number of these early settlers, since there are no official records for this purpose. Only in 1819 did Congress adopt a resolution requiring the recording of immigrants at various ports of the country. Until that time, the flow of immigrants was not continuous and stable; it was subject to various fluctuations, although a noticeable average annual growth was observable until 1806. Careful statistical investigations show that from 1784 to 1794, immigrants arrived annually on average at about 4,000 persons. In 1794, about ten thousand arrived. During a ten-year period from 1806 to 1816, emigration almost completely ceased due to hostile relations between the United States, Great Britain, and France. But with the coming of peace, namely in 1817, it suddenly rose to the significant figure of 22,240. In light of the rapid growth of European emigration that had begun, Congress took measures to regulate it, established statistical committees, and from their reports it is possible to trace the gradual course of emigration. Over the past sixty years, the course of emigration appears as follows[5] (year – number of immigrants): 1820 – 8,385; 1821 – 9,127; 1822 – 6,911; 1823 – 6,354; 1824 – 7,912; 1825 – 10,199; 1826 – 10,837; 1827 – 18,875; 1828 – 27,382; 1829 – 22,520; 1830 – 23,322; 1831 – 22,633; 1832 – 60,482; 1833 – 58,640; 1834 – 65,365; 1835 – 45,374; 1836 – 76,242; 1837 – 79,340; 1838 – 38,914; 1839 – 68,069; 1840 – 84,066; 1841 – 80,289; 1842 – 104,565; 1843 – 52,496; 1844 – 78,615; 1845 – 114,371; 1846 – 154,416; 1847 – 234,968; 1848 – 226,527; 1849 – 297,024; 1850 – 369,980; 1851 – 379,466; 1852 – 371,603; 1853 – 368,645; 1854 – 427,833; 1855 – 200,877; 1856 – 195,857; 1857 – 246,945; 1858 – 119,501; 1859 – 118,616; 1860 – 150,237; 1861 – 89,724; 1862 – 89,007; 1863 – 174,524; 1864 – 193,195; 1865 – 247,453; 1866 – 167,757; 1867 – 298,967; 1868 – 282,189; 1869 – 352,768; 1870 – 387,203; 1871 – 321,350; 1872 – 404,806; 1873 – 459,803; 1874 – 313,339; 1875 – 227,498; 1876 – 169,986; 1877 – 141,857; 1878 – 138,469; 1879 – 177,826; 1880 – 457,257. Total over sixty years 10,138,758.

If to this number we add the quantity of immigrants who arrived before 1820, which is estimated at 250,000 persons, and the quantity of immigrants during the second half of the calendar year 1880, not included in this count, then the total number of immigrants who found in America a new homeland for themselves will be approximately ten and a half million (10,500,000) persons—a figure which, together with the three and a half million of the original population, is quite sufficient to account for the entire population of the United States, as it was determined by the last census.

This count includes all immigrants of any kind who arrived in the United States from all parts of the world. But the main proportion comes from European immigrants, who constitute at least 80 percent of the total number.[6] It is interesting now to trace which countries primarily provided these immigrants. From 1820 to 1880, immigrants arrived in the following quantities by nationality: From Ireland – 3,065,761; England – 894,444; Scotland – 159,547; Wales – 17,893; Germany – 3,002,027; Sweden and Norway – 306,092; France – 313,716; Switzerland – 83,709; Italy – 70,181; the Netherlands – 44,319; Denmark – 48,620; Russia – 38,316; Austria-Hungary – 65,588; Poland – 14,831; Belgium – 23,267; Spain – 28,091; Greece and Turkey – 1,004. Total – 8,746,921.[7]

This table includes both Protestant and Catholic countries. If we separate from this total the quantity coming from Catholic countries, it will approximately determine the number of immigrant population that entered the Roman Catholic Church in the United States. Of these countries, some have a purely Catholic population, with insignificant exceptions; others have only a Catholic minority; and still others have a Protestant population. The latter include the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, which therefore should not enter into our count. The countries in which the Catholic population constitutes a minority are: England, Scotland, Wales, Switzerland, Russia[8], and Germany. The sum of immigrants from these countries equals 4,195,936. If we assume for them a Catholic population of ¼ of the total number,[9] then the gain to the Roman Catholic Church from them will be equal to approximately 1,050,000 persons. Next come the countries with predominant Catholic population: Ireland, France, Italy, Spain, Austria-Hungary, Poland, and Belgium. The sum of immigrants from these countries equals 3,581,435. The Catholic population in them constitutes 9/10 of the entire population. In this case, the gain to the Roman Catholic Church in the United States from them will be equal to approximately 3,223,000 persons. Together with the preceding number, this will constitute approximately four and a quarter million,[10] This number is more than sufficient to account for the origin of the entire Catholic population in the United States, which now amounts to 7,000,000 persons.[11]

Thus, the primary source and chief cause of the numerical growth of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States lies in the emigration of the Catholic population from Europe. If emigration, which especially strongly began to arrive at American shores from the 1840s, had ceased or had proceeded from Protestant countries, such that the growth of Roman Catholicism depended entirely or mainly only upon the natural increase of the population or upon conversions from Protestantism and paganism, then the Roman Catholic Church in the United States would now be of small importance numerically, as Catholic publicists themselves acknowledge.[12] This can be judged with sufficient clarity from a comparison of the growth of Roman Catholicism in America with its growth in England over the same period, namely over the past fifty years, when the laws persecuting Catholics were abolished in England. From that time, the Roman Catholic Church in England was completely free both in its administration and in matters of propaganda and in returning to its fold those who had fallen away from it during the period of persecution. Despite such equality from a legal standpoint, in England the growth of Roman Catholicism was far weaker than its growth in the United States. In 1830, there were more Catholics in England than in the United States. From that time, the church in both countries was equally free in its life, activity, and development, yet now the number of Catholics in the United States is almost four times greater than in England. In 1830, according to the most reliable estimate, England had 600,000 Catholics, and the United States had 500,000, whereas at the present time England has about two million, while in the United States the number, as stated above, rises to seven million.[13]

By its composition, the Roman Catholic population of the United States divides into many different nationalities, but the predominant significance in the fate of the church belongs to three nationalities—Irish, German, and French. It is chiefly to these that the Roman Catholic Church owes its growth and greatness. Each of these three nationalities has contributed its own special share to the common work of building Roman Catholicism in America.

The French element in the Roman Catholic Church in America is one of the most ancient, and in a certain sense it constitutes the primary ferment for it on the soil of the New World. From it came the first valiant missionaries, who in the early period of the history of the United States brought Christian preaching among the wild Indian tribes, and the blood of these missionaries was, so to speak, the seed of Roman Catholicism in the country. French colonists before the declaration of independence of the United States settled chiefly in Canada, since only there did Catholics enjoy full freedom of conscience. From the time of the legal proclamation of Catholics’ equal rights in the United States, French emigration turned toward their shores, and from 1820 to 1880, it strengthened Roman Catholicism by more than 300,000 persons. Besides, this fact had a considerable effect on the French population of Canada itself. With the declaration of independence of the states and the equalization of Catholics with Protestants, the French population of Canada showed a tendency to immigrate to the United States, and gradually this emigration grew to the significant figure of 99,000 in just the past year. Over the past thirty years, the total number of French Catholics who immigrated from Canada amounts to half a million persons.[14] The presence of this Canadian element constitutes a notable feature in all dioceses bordering Canada, where a considerable part of the parishes consists exclusively of Canadian French.[15] To this number of French Catholics must be added several thousand refugees from San Domingo and other West Indian islands who sought asylum in the United States in 1793, because of the disturbances caused by the reverberations of the French Revolution and the uprising of the enslaved. These French Catholics, according to the expression of a Catholic author, “gave faith, piety, and wealth to the infant church, and their descendants, faithful to their religion, are numbered among the most prominent citizens of the republic.”[16] Their numbers were significantly increased by the acquisition or admission into the Union of territories populated largely by French Catholics. Thus in 1803, Louisiana was acquired, which at that time had about 35,000 inhabitants, consisting almost exclusively of Catholics. In general, the French element had important significance in the formation and building of the Roman Catholic Church in America, and as we shall see below, it gave to it a succession of brilliant hierarchs, who rendered invaluable services to the cause of Roman Catholicism in the country.

[1] According to the “Bureau of Indian Affairs” report for 1875, there were 279,333 Indians. Of these, 65,122 are counted as full citizens. Census Bulletin from March 16, 1881, No. 77.

[2] But according to the statistical census of 1880, the entire population of the United States is determined at 50,152,866 persons. See Census Bulletin from March 16, 1881, No. 77.

[3] Bancroft, History of the U. S. Vol. I, first chapter.

[4] Bancroft, ibidem.

[5] Figures are taken from the statistical report on emigration in The American Almanac for 1881, p. 27.

[6] By Europeans here is meant direct emigrants from Europe. Among the remaining number of settlers, a significant part also consists of Europeans, although they emigrate from other parts of the world and countries, such as South America, the West Indies, Canada, etc. From Canada alone, in the past year 99,706 persons arrived in the United States. Of 10½ million settlers, properly speaking European settlers number 8,746,921 persons. American Almanac for 1881, p. 27.

[7] American Almanac for 1881, p. 27. Properly in the calendar year 1880, all settlers arriving at the port of New York numbered 327,371 persons, who are distributed by nationality as follows: from Germany—104,264; Ireland—66,399; England—33,768; Sweden—35,217; Norway—9,937; Italy—11,190; Switzerland—8,223; Russia—7,693; Bohemia—7,606; Hungary—6,672; Denmark—5,577; Austria—4,461; France—4,087; Wales—3,588; Netherlands—3,259; Belgium—1,309; Spain—931; Scotland—9,625. Statistical report in N. Y. Times from January 25, 1881.

[8] By Russian settlers is meant not true Russians, of which there are none, but Mennonites and chiefly Poles and Jews, emigrating from Russia.

[9] Such a proportion is ordinarily accepted for the Catholic population of these countries by Catholic publicists. See Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 582.

[10] All these figures have the value only of approximate calculation. Exact data are not available, since the statistical data of the “Emigration Commission” do not distribute settlers by religious differences.

[11] The Catholic Directory for 1881 determines the entire Catholic population of the United States at the figure of 6,367,330 persons; but this figure is probably below the actual number. Catholic publicists ordinarily determine it at seven million, and some believe it to be as much as eight or nine million. We accept the figure of 7,000,000 as recognized by most authorities.

[12] Catholic World, Vol. XXV, p. 677.

[13] Catholic World, Vol. XXV, p. 678. Shea, History, p. 128.

[14] Hecker, Catholic Church in U. S. p. 6. Pamphlet, 4th edition, 1880.

[15] Hecker, Ibidem, p. 6.

[16] Ibidem, p. 5.

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.)

Even more important than the French element in the composition of the Roman Catholic Church is the German element, although it constitutes a later stratum. Until the middle of the present century, the German population in the United States was insignificant; but from the end of the 1840s, when a storm of revolutionary disturbances broke over Germany, and then the system of iron militarism set in, German emigration suddenly poured into America in a mighty wave, and over the past thirty years has given more than two million immigrants. According to the latest calculation, the German Catholic population constitutes about one and a half million souls,[1] making up about a quarter of the entire Roman Catholic population in the United States. “In the Catholic Church of the United States,” says a Catholic publicist, “one cannot find a people more devoted, sincere, and better educated in their religion than the Germans. The number of their churches, schools, seminaries, hospitals, and orphanages compares favorably from both an intellectual and material standpoint with similar institutions of any other part of the Catholic population. No one better than the Germans is provided with priests for the people and teachers for the children. Among them flourish various religious orders, especially those that serve the cause of education. Among the higher hierarchy are one archbishop and several bishops—Germans by birth or descent.”[2]

But the significance of both these named nationalities recedes into the background compared with the significance that the Irish nationality has had for the development and growth of Roman Catholicism in the United States. If the French nationality was for it the primary ferment, and the German nationality gave it intellectual and quantitative strength, then the Irish nationality brought with it to America the entire organic essence of Roman Catholicism, its spirit and flesh in organic wholeness, its idea and traditions. This is the chosen people of the Roman Catholic Church, possessing, according to the views of Catholic historians, a supreme, providential mission—to create the kingdom of Roman Catholicism on the soil of the New World, to bear this historical treasure of the Romanic-Celtic peoples from beneath the European yoke to a new promised land, just as the ancient chosen people transferred the treasure of divine promise from the land of Egyptian slavery to the promised land of antiquity. “When considering the gratifying success of the church in the United States,” says a Catholic historian, “justice requires us to declare that she is indebted for this in large measure to the faith, zeal, and generosity of the Irish people, who immigrated to these shores, and to their posterity. We are far from wishing to diminish the merits of other nationalities; but the tremendous influence, which the Irish people exerted on the spread of the dominion of the church, deserves especial notice, for it gives an edifying lesson. The wonderful history of the Irish nation has always convinced us that, like the chosen offspring of Abraham, it was in the designs of Providence destined for a special mission to preserve and spread the true faith. To its zeal and energy we must ascribe in very large measure the rapid growth in the number of churches and other institutions that arose in the United States, and to this same source the clergy is mainly indebted for its support in the performance of its pastoral ministry. One cannot deny that hundreds of clergymen who labor for the salvation of souls would have died of hunger, and their labors for religion would have been in vain, if only there had not been such generous aid furnished to them by the sons of Érin, who in the majority know how to appreciate the benefits of religion, and therefore willingly bring from their earthly means to purchase the spiritual goods dispensed by the church.”[3] “The Irish,” says a Catholic publicist, “were preserved by Providence and destined to be a missionary people, especially for the English-speaking world of our time, and he thus blesses those who cursed him, and benefits those who despised him.”[4] “If we turn,” says the Catholic bishop-publicist Spalding, “to an explanation of the revival of Catholicism among English-speaking peoples, we must at once recognize that the Irish people is the providential instrument through which God brought about this wonderful revival. If not for Ireland, Catholicism would now be weak and unsuccessful in America, England, and Australia. The force of this assertion is not weakened by the weight and importance that should be given to what the converts in England and the Germans and French in the United States have done for the church. The Irish made possible and actual the very work of converts, and they gave Catholicism in this country the force and attractiveness which enable it to assimilate the most heterogeneous elements, and without which it is not improbable that the vast majority of Catholics immigrating here from other countries would have been lost to the church. No people could have done for the Catholic faith of the United States what the Irish people has done for it. Its unwavering attachment to priests; its deep Catholic instincts, which no combination of circumstances was capable of bringing into collision with its love for the country; its worldly and spiritual temperament of national character; its indifference to ridicule and contempt, and its unfailing generosity—all this was as well adapted as could be for the work that lay before it to do, and gave it the ability, despite the strong prejudice against it, inherited by Americans from England, to accomplish what could not have been accomplished by Italian, French, or German Catholics. No people received such providential preparation for this work, and from no people did God require such proofs of love. Like the children of Israel, the Irish bore the yoke of slavery, were delivered from a sea of blood, and wandered the weary years in the wilderness without home or country, and were saved from despair and death only by the presence of the pillar of fire, which is the Catholic Church.”[5] Thus, the primary role in building the Roman Catholic Church in the United States belongs to the Irish people. They constitute its soul and body, and if the future of America belongs to Roman Catholicism, as Catholic publicists openly proclaim,[6] then it will owe this to the religious energy of the Irish people. They, as the chosen people, have a high religious mission to recreate the kingdom of Roman Catholicism in the new promised land, and this mission of theirs finds remarkable confirmation in the fact that this very promised land, America, owes its initial discovery to none other than the Irish themselves. Catholic historians of the Irish people maintain that the first white people that America ever saw were Irish missionaries of the early centuries of Christianity. Thus, already in the sixth century, the Irish monk St. Brendan visited the shores of America, penetrated into the interior of the continent as far as the present state of Ohio, and after spending seven years there returned to Ireland, by the command of “a certain man of respectable bearing who accompanied him, who told him that he had already gone far enough, and that further discoveries should be left for other people of a later time, who would come and Christianize this glorious land.”[7] This legend in the eyes of Catholic historians has the significance of an actual historical fact, and on the basis of it they predict that the future of America belongs to these faithful sons of the Roman Catholic Church, serving as a cornerstone for it.[8] Despite such legendary antiquity of the Irish immigration to America and the preeminent significance of the Irish people in the composition of the Roman Catholic Church on the soil of the New World, the Irish people became a real force for Roman Catholicism only very recently. Although Irish emigration began with the very declaration of independence by the United States and the proclamation of freedom of conscience for Roman Catholics, and gradually increased, especially from the beginning of the present century, yet it became a truly vast source of numerical strength for the Roman Catholic Church only from the middle of the 1840s of the present century, when a successive series of crop failures in potatoes (in 1846, 1847, and 1848) plunged the people into the abyss of poverty and the horrors of starvation. “The destruction of potato crops in Ireland was undoubtedly an act of inscrutable Providence,” says a Catholic publicist; “the calamity, suffering, and sacrifice of human lives that followed it were already an act of man. In the worst times of hunger in the country, there was always more than enough cattle and grain to feed the population. Under a wise or just government, a sufficient quantity would have been retained to satisfy the primary needs of the people; but all of it was exported and sold in foreign markets, to satisfy the most insatiable of all human beings—the Irish landlord. Struck by the unexpectedness and enormous scale of the calamity, the peasantry at first stood in shock, and before help could arrive, entire hundreds perished from hunger. Then, when private and public charity was exhausted, when epidemic was added to want, when nothing but death or the almshouse faced even the best people of the middle class, the people resolved to leave their homeland and, like a routed army, rushed to the nearest ports and left the country, apparently doomed to destruction. Many fled to England and Scotland, but the majority sought refuge in the United States. From that time, each day was witness to the arrival of overcrowded ships in our harbors, while the streets of our great cities were literally packed with crowds of strange and emaciated figures. From 1840 to 1850, more than a million such Irish emigrants arrived in the United States.”[9] Since this great immigration of the Irish people, Irish emigration has occupied the most honorable place in the list of emigrating peoples, and as we saw above, during the period from 1820 to 1880, it gave a figure of more than three million souls. From the beginning of the 1870s until 1876, a gradual weakening of it was noticeable, but from that year it again became noticeably lively, and in the last year, when Ireland was again visited by its formidable scourge—famine—Irish emigration again reached the substantial figure of more than sixty-five thousand souls. At the present time, the entire Irish Catholic population amounts to 4,250,000 souls.[10] The Irish nationality gave the church a succession of famous hierarchs, who greatly contributed to the organization of church life, and as if in justification of the high religious mission assumed by Catholic historians for them, these hierarchs have constituted and constitute the foundation stones of the entire hierarchical structure of Roman Catholicism in the United States. The first bishop of the Roman Catholic Church of this country, Carroll, so-called the “patriarch of the American church,”[11] was the son of Irish emigrants; he was also the first archbishop of the church.[12] The first hierarch raised to the rank of cardinal in the United States, the present archbishop of New York McCloskey, is also a son of Irish parents.[13] And this same nationality gave a succession of other hierarchs, who by their energy for the benefit of the church occupy the most prominent position in the history of the church. Such are the bishop England, the “Chrysostom of the American church,”[14] and the archbishop Hughes, to whom, according to the expression of a Catholic historian, “Catholicism in America owes a debt of gratitude which cannot be expressed in numbers.”[15]

[1] Murray, History of Catholic Church in U. S. p. 577. The author of the pamphlet “The Catholic Church in U. S.” determines this number at 1,237,563 souls.

[2] Hecker, Catholic Church in U. S. p. 6–7.

[3] White, Sketch of History of Catholic Church in U. S. Appendix to Darras History of Catholic Church, Vol. IV, p. 660. – Murray, History, p. 573.

[4] Brownson in “Quarterly Review” for October 1873. Murray, History, p. 637.

[5] Spalding, Religious Mission of the Irish People; p. 61–62. New York, 1880.

[6] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 592.

[7] Murray, History, Appendix, note A. p. 625.

[8] Murray, History, p. 567 and others.

[9] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 580.

[10] Murray, History, p. 577. Murray, who published his work in 1876, estimates this figure at four million, but subsequent immigration, together with natural increase, warrants acceptance of our figure.

[11] Murray, History, p. 227.

[12] Murray, Ibidem; Hecker, Catholic Church, p. 6.

[13] Murray, Ibidem, p. 589; Hecker, p. 6.

[14] Hecker, p. 6; Murray, pp. 317–320.

[15] Murray, pp. 321–327.

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (2)

But the success of the Irish mission, as the chosen people of the Roman Catholic Church, is undermined by their disadvantageous social position in America. Arriving in America in extreme poverty, they flood the cities and find themselves in the position of a landless proletariat, victims of the changing vicissitudes of the industrial market. At the present time, there is no factory, dock, and mining operation that is not crowded with Irish workers, and the entire service personnel in the cities consists largely of Irish.[1] Such a position is disadvantageous for them in many respects. It places them in the eyes of American society in the position of some kind of inferior race, new pariahs, an ignorant and superstitious people, and this view is transferred to the Roman Catholic faith professed by them. Crowded urban life injures their morality and health, and besides makes them victims of ambitious political agitators, who, exploiting their low political development, use them as material for agitations of all kinds, especially during presidential elections, demoralizing them through bribery and all sorts of fantastic promises.[2] Such a condition of the Irish people is a matter of strong concern to representatives of the Roman Catholic Church, who are aware that if the Irish people is the principal reason for the church’s greatness, then a moral decline of the Irish would inevitably bring harmful consequences for the church. Therefore, they strive in every way to draw them away from cities and to settle them in the Far West on farms. For this purpose, a special “society for Irish Catholic colonization” was formed, the principal actors in which are Roman Catholic hierarchs. The society purchases land in the territories of the Far West and at a low price, with installment payments, gives it to the Irish. Particularly prominent and zealous in this endeavor is the bishop Ireland, whose diocese embraces the territory of Minnesota, the principal wheat granary of the country. He began his activity five years ago, and in 1876 founded the first colony. “His plan is very simple,” says another enthusiast for Irish farmer colonization, the bishop Spalding. “He selects a tract of land of fifty or one hundred thousand acres, to which the exclusive right of disposition is granted to him by the railroad company[3] for three years. By means of a special bureau he organized, he brings all the details and conditions of sale to the attention of Catholics who wish to secure a home for themselves. He selects a priest most familiar with farming and farm life to guide the new colony, and sends him to the site to receive the settlers, who, upon arrival, find in him a father and a friend. The first building erected is a church, and around it the settlers select their land parcels. The settlements are arranged at proper distances along the railroad line. Within a few weeks of the colony’s opening, a post office and a store are opened in it, but a tavern is not permitted.”[4] Such colonies at the present time number a hundred, and they fully achieve the aims of their founders, namely to remove the Irish population from the corrupting influence of urban industrial life and to give them independent rural life based on strict religious and moral principles. “The power of religion,” says Spalding, “in these primitive settlements and in the presence of wild nature is almost incredibly great. There are no taverns, no idle halls where the lazy or discontented can gather for the production of public disturbances. On Sundays the entire community gathers in church. Soon a new world grows up here. The first arrivals notice that they have creative power, that instead of being wage slaves, they become founders of an independent community. Their self-consciousness rises and the whole of their moral and religious character is elevated.”[5] “The duty of the church in America from now on,” remarks a Catholic publicist, “should be to ensure that not one Catholic family arriving at our shores and seeking a new homeland in our western states and territories shall go out of its control, but should be directed to places where its priests are already prepared to receive it and where its fellow citizens will be bound to it by ties of faith. Catholics in this country now constitute one-sixth of the population. We are daily making acquisitions from the ranks of Protestant sects; few, if any, are lost to us; the emigration of the future will, in substantial measure, be in our hands. Thus, the church in America, where at the present time our holy father, by his own expression, is the “more actual pope than in any other country,” will increase in strength and beauty, and thus will prepare, when the hour comes, to save the republic, for which his sons, from the hour of its birth to the present time, have shed their blood, labored, and prayed in boundless measure.”[6]

From other nationalities entering into the Roman Catholic Church in the United States are the Spanish, who established the first settlements in the southern limits of the country; the Italians, who constitute a later stratum; the Czechs, who form a fairly populous colony with several churches in New York and other cities; and the Poles, of whom there are about forty thousand in New York, about one hundred thousand in Chicago, and in the territory of Texas there are entire settlements speaking exclusively Polish. Then also entering into the Roman Catholic Church are about 106,000 Indians[7] and about 25,000 Blacks.[8] The total number of these smaller Catholic nationalities amounts to half a million souls.

The chief source of numerical growth in the Roman Catholic population is, as evident from what has been set forth above, the emigration of European Catholic peoples. But there have also been some other causes influencing its increase, although of secondary importance. Thus, during the present century, several territories with more or less significant Catholic populations were added to the United States. In 1803, Louisiana was added with a population of about thirty-five thousand, consisting almost exclusively of Catholics. In 1819, Florida was purchased with a population of 18,000; in 1845, Texas was acquired, and in 1848—California and New Mexico, which together had a population of about 160 thousand, almost exclusively Catholic.[9] But besides this purely external addition and stratification, the numerical growth of the Roman Catholic population is also caused by intensive natural increase through the natural process of births. A general remarkable fact has been noted that the natural increase of the immigrant population in America is much greater proportionally than the increase of the native element. This can best be seen from statistical data concerning the states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. They show that in the native American population, the number of deaths exceeds the number of births. Yet in Massachusetts there is still an increase in population—from where does it come? “Wherever increase occurs,” says the learned statistician Dr. Allen, “it is found upon investigation to be occurring from the immigrant element, and depends either upon emigration or upon a greater number of births in it. It is now well established that the immigrant population on average has three times as many children as the native American population.”[10] In Rhode Island, the census of population for 1875 shows that “in the past ten years, the native American population through natural increase increased only by 12.89 percent, whereas the immigrant population through the same process increased by 80.11 percent during the same time.”[11] The causes of this phenomenon lie partly in the fact that emigration gives predominantly adults, so that among them the percentage of people of the age when children are born is almost twice as great as in the native population;[12] furthermore, emigration gives predominantly laboring people, which also promotes greater fertility. Finally, religious and moral causes are of very important significance, especially with regard to Roman Catholics. The native American population, with the broad freedom of divorce and the prevalence of civil marriage, has weakened the bonds of marital life and thus reduced its fruits; meanwhile, the Roman Catholic immigrant population, holding marriage to be a sacrament and a sacred union, preserves the purity and strength of its bonds and likewise preserves all its productivity. “Bitter experience,” remarks a Catholic author, “will teach statesmen that there is no other means to preserve the state from certain fall than to bring its legislation into accord with Christian morality, as it is taught only by the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church of the United States,” he adds, “had been left to only the law of natural increase, then it is evident that this alone would be sufficient for its speedier growth compared to the population of the country.”[13]

All these causes, taken together, produced the result that the Roman Catholic population during the course of one century, and especially beginning with the 1840s of the present century, grew and increased with incredible rapidity, rising from the insignificant figure of 25,000 in 1776 to 7,000,000 in 1880. By decades, it increased in the following manner: in the year of the declaration of independence of the United States, namely in 1776, the Catholic population, by the ordinary assumption of historians, consisted of 25,000 souls;[14] fourteen years later, namely in 1790, when the first national census was taken, the Catholics, according to the calculation of the first bishop Carroll, numbered 30,000.[15] In the next decade, the Catholic population tripled, and in 1800, it numbered 100,000; in 1810 – 150,000; in 1820 – 300,000; in 1830 – 500,000. From this time begins a phenomenal growth due to the beginning of the great immigration of European peoples and especially from Ireland. In 1840, the Catholic population figure rose to 1,500,000 souls; in the following decade, this considerable figure more than doubled, and in 1850, it was estimated at 3,500,000 souls. Over the next decade, another million souls was added, so that in 1860, the total was 4,500,000; in 1870, it grew to 5,500,000, and finally, over the past decade, it increased by another million and a half, so that now its number is determined to be seven million souls, which constitutes about one-seventh of the entire population of the United States. Impressive as these figures are in themselves, they become even more striking when compared to the proportional growth of the Roman Catholic population with the growth of the entire population of the States. In 1776, with a total population of three million, Catholics constituted only 1/120 of it; in 1790, with a population of 8,200,000, they constituted 1/107; in 1800, with a population of 5,300,000, Catholics already constituted 1/53; in 1810, with a population of 7,200,000, they constituted 1/48 of it; in 1820, with a population of 9,600,000, they constituted 1/32; in 1830, with a population of thirteen million, Catholics constituted 1/26; in 1840, with a population of seventeen million, they constituted 1/11; in 1850, with a population of 23,200,000, they constituted 1/7, and then in the following decades, the proportional growth of the entire population kept pace with the growth of the Roman Catholic population, so that the proportional share of the latter advanced no further than the seventh part,[16] which it still constitutes now. The cause of this can be attributed in part to a change in the composition of European emigration, in which in recent times a weakening of emigrants from Catholic countries and a strengthening from Protestant countries, especially from northern Germany and the Scandinavian states, have been noted.[17]

Thus, the Roman Catholic population of the United States during the past century since the declaration of independence and the proclamation of freedom of conscience to all faiths grew and increased almost literally not by days but by hours. But in itself, it did not yet constitute the Roman Catholic Church. It arrived in scattered form and without any church organization. Dispersing throughout a foreign country, among a hostile Protestant population, it could easily have been lost and destroyed. If, on the contrary, it has been preserved and almost in its entirety entered into the organism of the Roman Catholic Church, then it owes this to the church itself, in the person of its hierarchy. The growth of the latter proceeded proportionally with the growth of the Catholic population, and its efforts in organizing church life present a new remarkable page in the history of Roman Catholicism in America.

XII

[1] Spalding, Religious Mission of Irish People, p. 112.

[2] Bishop Spalding thus characterizes the influence of political agitation on the Irish people: “Serious harm to our people in cities is caused by politics. A saint or wise man would scarcely touch the core of our politics without revulsion; and for the working classes it ordinarily serves as a school of immorality and corruption. They imagine that some good may come to them from the success of one or another party, from the election of one or another candidate, and this good, if not wholly illusory, consists in participation in the distribution of offices or spoils. This is enough to excite and agitate them and fill them with the idea that in the outcome of the struggle lies their personal interest. Therefore, they devote themselves with enthusiasm to agitation, i.e., they drink an endless quantity of detestable poison. With the low moral level of political feeling in this country, and especially in cities, the poor, following the example of the rich, readily put conscience aside in these matters and come to believe that to sell or buy a vote, or to vote falsely, is as simple a matter as to sell or buy a loaf of bread. All this is destructive of morality and, not only harmful to the poor, but injurious to general well-being.” Religious Mission of Irish People, p. 126.

[3] Enormous tracts of land in this region belong to the Pacific Railroad Company.

[4] Spalding, Religious Mission, p. 174 and 175.

[5] Spalding, Religious Mission p. 196. Efforts by those engaged in colonizing Catholics in the Far West have already borne considerable fruit. Following the 1880 emigration, a tendency has been noted to settle not in cities as before, but to head to the Far West to establish farming operations. See N. Y. Herald from April 14, 1880.

[6] Catholic World, Vol. XX?, p. 689.

[7] Hecker, Catholic Church, p. 2.

[8] Murray, History pp. 574–576. Hecker, p. 8.

[9] Hecker, Catholic Church, pp. 5, 8.

[10] Hecker, Catholic Church, p. 19.

[11] Hecker, ibidem, p. 20.

[12] N. Y. Herald, from November 19, 1880, estimates this percentage for the first at 41 and for the second at 27.

[13] Hecker, Catholic Church, p. 20.

[14] Murray, History, p. 316; Hecker, p. 18.

[15] Murray, History, p. 200. Some historians estimate this figure as below the actual and believe the Catholic population of that time to have been fifty thousand. Ibidem, note.

[16] Some statisticians determine the Catholic population now as 1/6 of the entire population of the States; but there is insufficient basis for this. Hecker, p. 18; Murray, p. 316.

[17] N. Y. Herald, from April 14, 1880.

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (3)

Before the declaration of independence and the establishment of the federal constitution, Roman Catholicism in the United States, as shown above, had almost no right to exist. The insignificant Catholic population, scattered over a vast territory, led a poor and oppressed life, not daring to openly conduct worship and establish a church organization. Few priests, like ghosts, wandered through the country, seeking out their flock and often concealing their very rank to avoid the severe laws against them.[1] Only in the wild recesses of the country, among the wild sons of the primeval forests, where the legislative power of the white newcomers had not yet penetrated, could Catholic priests, in the form of Jesuit missionaries, work freely in the field of serving Roman Catholicism, openly say Mass and make converts to the bosom of the Roman Catholic Church, without fearing harsh laws, only taking care to preserve their skulls from the capricious tomahawk of the converted. By the time of the establishment of the federal constitution, all Roman Catholic priests in the country, including the Jesuit missionaries, numbered from thirty to forty men.[2] This insignificant church had almost no organization. Before the declaration of war, it was under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the London apostolic vicar.[3] This jurisdiction, owing to the difficulty of communications, the dispersion of the Catholic population, and the absence of cohesive parishes, was only nominal both before the war and after the declaration of war ceased entirely, as the apostolic vicar was placed in a difficult position between two warring parties by this war. He transferred his authority to the head of the Jesuit mission in America, who administered the Roman Catholic community during the struggle for independence. After the end of the war, which resulted in the recognition of the independence of the United States from the English metropolitan jurisdiction, the apostolic vicar of London could no longer continue the exercise of his hierarchical authority over the American church, for the American people, having severed its political ties with England, could not tolerate any dependence on it, even in matters of church life.[4] Thus, the Catholic community was left completely without any hierarchical head. Such a situation was sorrowful, and the head of the mission convened a meeting to discuss the state of the church and work out some form of organization. The meeting appointed a committee to draw up regulations that could serve as the basis for “establishing a form of governance of the clergy and setting forth regulations for the conduct and management of its own property.”[5] These regulations, expressed in eighteen articles and adopted by the meeting of October 11, 1784, established church organization in general and in particular, appointed a procurator as an authority distinct from the supreme superior of the entire church, with the measures of the latter subject to the approval of the local authorities.[5] These decrees, made without any canonical authority, of course, had only a temporary character and did not provide guarantees of the larger organization that the church needed.[6] “It was evident,” says the historian, “that in the clergy of Maryland, certain germs of independence were developing, from contact with the spirit of political and religious self-will (rebellion), which constitutes the foundation of the American character. But the Sacred See, with fatherly care, watched over the rising church in America, and seeing the beginning of tolerance which Protestantism now for the first time granted to Catholicism in the United States, Rome at once understood what precious advantages could be extracted for religion. The Sacred See immediately set about the idea of establishing the church in Maryland on a more independent basis and of freeing it from any spiritual subjection to England.”[7] In short, the Curia decided to establish an independent bishopric in the American church, and for this purpose, through the envoy of the United States in Paris, the famous philosopher Benjamin Franklin, submitted to Congress the following note, which is interesting and important in characterizing the initial diplomatic relations between the Roman Curia and the government of the new republic: “Before the revolution, which has just ended in the United States of North America, Catholics and missionaries in these provinces depended in spiritual matters upon an apostolic vicar residing in London. It is now evident that such an arrangement cannot be much longer maintained; but since it is necessary that the Catholic Christians of the United States have a spiritual person to govern them in matters concerning religion, the Congregation De propaganda fide, existing in Rome to establish and maintain missions, has come to the resolution to propose to Congress to place in one of the cities of the United States of North America one of their Catholic brothers with the authority and power of an apostolic vicar and the dignity of a bishop, or simply with the rank of apostolic prefect. The establishment of a vicarial-apostolic bishop appears most suitable, since the Catholics of the United States can have at hand the administration of confirmation and ordination in their own country. And since it may sometimes happen that among the members of Catholic society in the United States there shall not be found anyone competent to undertake the office of spiritual governance, either as a bishop or as an apostolic prefect, then in such circumstances it may be necessary for Congress to consent to the election of such a person from any foreign nation standing in close relations of friendship with the United States.”[8]

This note is important not only as a historical document, but also as a document characterizing the views of the papal Curia regarding the relation of the American government to ecclesiastical matters. It obviously did not presuppose in the new republic the principles of separation of church and state, which, however, had been proclaimed by the majority of individual state constitutions since the declaration of independence and were merely awaiting incorporation into the federal constitution of the country. Therefore, it sought in political terms to surround this matter with every possible precaution so as not to offend the feelings of independence of the new state, from which it hoped for a rich harvest.[9] But Congress treated the diplomacy of the papal court with republican frankness. When Franklin presented the papal note to Congress, he received a reply to the effect that the federal government had no authority to express any opinion on a matter that did not fall within its jurisdiction, as religious affairs were subject to the jurisdiction of individual states.[10] “This,” remarks at least one Catholic historian, “showed the absence of any opposition to the Catholic hierarchy; and if Protestant fanaticism did not attempt to stir up the people and inflame religious passions, it was because France was too necessary an ally to permit any offense to the religious feelings of Louis XVI. This monarch, as is known, took a lively interest in the spread of Catholicism in America, and France can thus have the right to the glory of having rendered powerful aid to the Sacred See in establishing the American episcopate.”[10] But the response favorable to the hierarchical designs of the Curia, by its indifferent form, rather points to the predominance in Congress of the principle of separation of church from state, which was already being prepared for legal ratification, than to external political influences. In any case, the response was favorable. It placed jurisdiction in this matter with individual states; and since the state in which the establishment of the bishopric was contemplated, namely Maryland, had already before the beginning of the war proclaimed full freedom of conscience and equal rights in matters of religion, it is evident that the Curia was provided with full freedom of action in organizing the hierarchy according to its own judgment. This was an important precedent for the independence of papal action in America, and it subsequently led, as we shall see below, to such breadth of rights and such independence of the Pope in the affairs of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States as he does not enjoy in any of the Western European Catholic countries.

On November 6, 1789, the cornerstone was laid of the Roman Catholic higher hierarchy in the United States. On this day, Pope Pius VI issued a decree establishing a bishopric in the city of Baltimore, in the state of Maryland, and thus, remarks a Catholic historian, “at the moment when revolution was preparing the storm which was soon to engulf the entire church of France, Providence was raising beyond the ocean another church, where valiant exiles of the priesthood could find themselves hospitable refuge.”[11] The first bishop was appointed a Jesuit, or rather, since the Jesuit order at this time was dissolved, ex-Jesuit John Carroll, who thus became the “patriarch of the American church.”[12] The choice was extraordinarily fortunate. Carroll, having been born (1735) in an epoch preceding the great tempest of the struggle for independence, developed in himself such hardened will, which, disciplined under the rule of the Jesuit college and directed by Jesuit education toward energetic service in the name of the motto ad majorem Dei gloriam, well suited the needs of the Roman Catholic Church in America. Before him lay Herculean work—to gather and unite into one organism the Roman Catholic population scattered across the entire extent of the United States. And he set about it with remarkable zeal: constantly traveled through all provinces where Catholics lived, gathered scattered priests and missionaries, and inspired them with new energy in the field of their ministry. “Making Baltimore his base and center of operations, he soon made his authority felt and respected even to the confines of Georgia, Maine, and Michigan. A spiritual Hannibal, the wise prelate skillfully managed his small force of a few dozen priests. He gave each priest his blessing, encouraged him in difficulties, reminding him of his lofty mission as the vanguard for the conquest of souls. Weak points were strengthened, enemies were made neutral or turned into friends, and the boundaries of the faith gradually expanded.”[13] In him, the Roman Catholic Church, besides an able organizer, for the first time felt political force in the United States, which was of extraordinary importance for the initial position of the church. He enjoyed great prominence in the political world, and as is known, Congress used his services in negotiations with Catholic Canada; the famous Franklin was his friend, and his cousin Charles Carroll was one of those “fathers of the republic” who, as members of Congress, signed the “Declaration of Independence.”[14] Such a position gave him the ability to enter into close relations even with the famous liberator of the country—Washington.[15] The clever ex-Jesuit did not fail to extract the greatest advantage from all of this for the church, and his most important act for the future of Catholicism was the well-known memoir submitted to Congress through the mediation of Washington on the establishment of freedom of religious conscience in the country under the guidance of the federal government. The article inserted into the Constitution in this sense legally secured for Roman Catholicism that equal rights with all other faiths which it began to enjoy in fact through the person of its fortunate and valiant representative.

[1] Murray, History, p. 148.

[2] Catholic World, Vol. I, p. 3; Murray, p. 200.

[3] Murray, History, p. 191.

[4] Shea, History of Catholic Church, p. 52, 53.

[5] Shea, History, p. 55.

[6] Some of the assembly members themselves viewed these resolutions this way. One of the missionaries—Farmer—speaks of them thus in a letter to Carroll: “I cannot understand how we can be a society without a bishop as head. We may have a voluntary union among ourselves—I grant this; but this cannot make us a canonical society of clergy unless it is appointed and declared to be such either by the Supreme Pastor or rather by a bishop placed over us by him. Our community, even in temporalibus, as I fear, will be regarded rather as a simple combination.” United States Catholic Magazine Vol. III, p. 800. In this journal was published an extensive monograph by Campbell: “Life and Times of Archbishop Carroll,” presenting valuable material for the early history of Roman Catholicism in America.

[7] Shea, History p. 55.

[8] The note was presented to Franklin by the papal nuncio at the Paris court with the following letter: “The Apostolic Nuncio has the honor to transmit to Mr. Franklin the enclosed note. He requests him to present it to the Congress of the United States of North America and support it with his influence. July 28, 1783.” Shea, History, p. 56.

[9] In a letter dated July 1, 1784, Franklin writes: “The Papal Nuncio called on me and informed me that the Pope, at my recommendation, has appointed John Carroll as head of the Catholic clergy in America with many of the powers of a bishop and that he will probably be made a bishop in partibus before the end of the year. He asked me what would be most convenient for him—to come to France or to go to San Domingo to receive ordination from another bishop, which was necessary. I mentioned Quebec (in Canada) as the most convenient point of all. He asked whether our government might be offended by this, as it is an English province. I thought not, if only the ordination by that bishop did not give him some power over our bishop. He said not at all, that once our bishop was ordained, he would be independent of any other, and even from the pope, which the simple-minded philosopher could not clearly understand.” Shea, History, p. 60. Remarkable were the relations between the Jesuit Carroll and Franklin. They were together in the embassy which Congress sent for negotiations with Canada in 1776. During the journey Franklin fell ill, and the Jesuit carefully attended to him, thereby gaining the warm friendship of the latter. The Jesuit Carroll owed his elevation to the episcopate chiefly to this circumstance, as Franklin did not forget his friend when he held the high post of American minister to the French court, and, as is clear from the letter, recommended him to the papal attention. Shea, p. 42, 43.

[10] Shea, History, p. 61.

[11] Shea, History, p. 63.

[12] Murray, History, pp. 200, 201, 227.

[13] Murray, History, p. 203.

[14] Murray, History, p. 172–176.

[15] “For his high dignity as a minister of God, for his unblemished character as a man, and above all for his distinguished services as a patriot during the Revolution, Dr. Carroll stood very high in the esteem and affection of the famous Pater Patriae,” writes Custis, the adopted son of Washington. White, Sketch, p. 612. Murray, p. 230.

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (4)

The essential needs of the church were, however, crying. A handful of priests and missionaries was completely insufficient for the actual needs. Investigation revealed many distant Catholic settlements that for decades had not seen a pastor among them.[1] Therefore, one of the first concerns of the “patriarch of the American church” was to establish a college for the training of priests, which he opened in Georgetown, gathering as a faculty a handful of scattered ex-Jesuits.[2] But the withdrawal of ex-Jesuits from their missionary and priestly ministry only increased the actual need of the church. Then fate came to the aid of the needful church in the form of an event from which the least benefit could be expected for the church. In Catholic France, a terrible crisis was rapidly approaching. Unbelief and political turbulence were proudly raising their audacious head and threatened a bloody specter. The throne and the church trembled, feeling beneath them the signs of a volcanic earthquake. In such threatening circumstances, the monastic orders of Paris sought in advance for themselves a refuge outside French borders, and the supreme general of the Sulpician order turned his gaze toward America as the best haven from the approaching storm. Having corresponded with Bishop Carroll, the general selected four brothers of the order and, providing them with funds, sent them to America together with five seminarians.[3] This was the first vanguard of the monastic army, which subsequently, as we shall see below, began to arrive at American shores in thousands. The newcomers quickly acquired land and buildings, in one of which they opened a seminary, the first special nursery of American clergy, and together with the ex-Jesuits began to work energetically for the benefit of the infant church.[4] Meanwhile, the expected catastrophe of the revolution broke loose in France, from its horrors everything fell into confusion and with cries of despair, sauve qui peut, rushed beyond the borders of the unfortunate country. Many turned toward the ocean. Between 1791 and 1799, embracing the very turbulent period of the revolution, a party of French priests, numbering twenty-three men,[5] nearly equal to the then existing quantity of all the clergy laboring in the country, arrived in the United States.[6] This party, consisting mainly of the most educated persons and members of famous aristocratic families, was of tremendous hierarchical significance for Roman Catholicism in America. It not only doubled the composition of the clergy, but also gave it new energy and introduced into the new church the organizing traditions of the well-ordered, historically-developed hierarchy of the French church. Six persons from this party subsequently became bishops in various regions of the United States.[7] Upon arrival in the country of their new refuge, these French exiles took up with energy the work of serving the country that had granted them asylum. The majority of them grouped themselves in Baltimore, as the center of Roman Catholicism, and gave the bishopric new organizing and constructive force; others, meanwhile, went in various directions throughout the extent of the United States, sought out distant and abandoned settlements of Catholics, established churches, and performed worship. They penetrated into the most remote and isolated localities of the vast country and everywhere left behind traces of organizational activity. “The Catholic Church in the United States is deeply indebted to the zeal of the exiled French clergy,” says a historian of Kentucky. “It supplied our infant missions with the majority of the earliest and most zealous laborers, and it also gave us our first bishops. In the elasticity and flexibility of the French character there is something which particularly makes them capable of foreign missions. They have always been the best missionaries among the Indians of North America; they can adapt their character to any circumstance and event, they feel at home everywhere and are always cheerful. The French clergy, who arrived at our shores, though many of them were educated in the midst of all the luxury of refined France, could without murmuring subject themselves to all the hardships and deprivations of missions on the borders of civilization or in the very heart of the wilderness. They could adapt themselves to the climate, accommodate themselves to the feelings and customs of a people opposite them in temperament and character.”[8]

The initial needs of the Roman Catholic Church, which consisted in a shortage of clergy, were thus more than adequately met by these French exiles. But their significance for the destiny of Roman Catholicism was not limited to this. History was preparing them for a more important role in the future. Events in Europe, arising from political and social upheavals that bore heavily on the masses, were preparing the great migration of European peoples to the soil of the New World. And “now,” says a Catholic writer, it was time to prepare the land for the great European migration, which was to produce the astonishing growth of the United States. Dispersing across the vast territory of the Union, emigrants everywhere found these veterans, whom the French Revolution had sent to the New World as pioneers, tested both in the sufferings of persecution and in the labors of apostolic work. Before the beginning of this great human influx, the old immigrant priests were like primary rock formations, which arrest and stabilize geological strata. The Catholic portion of the turbulent influx always settled around them and their disciples. Throughout the west, churches founded by the old French settlers increased, and new ones arose wherever a Catholic priest settled. From this moment the magnificent progressive movement never ceased. The blood of the martyrs of France, the spirit of her exiled apostles—became fruitful for the blessings, which are felt daily by American churches.[9] Emigration indeed followed quickly upon the settlement of French clergy and once again the first impulse came from the horrors of the French Revolution, which were felt throughout all the remotest possessions of France. At the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth centuries, numerous French Catholic families settled on the remote West Indian island of Santo Domingo. Now the French Revolution reached this island too, shook its foundations; a bloody uprising of the Black population occurred, which forced the French to emigrate to the United States, giving numerical strength to the Roman Catholic Church.[10] These emigrants were so numerous that “they exceeded in number the Protestant emigration that had come in the previous century.”[11] Then, when the Revolution in Ireland in 1798 ended in failure, the first party of the “chosen people” of the Roman Catholic Church rushed to the United States, as it were as an advance guard of that grand migration which later, as we have seen above, gave monstrous growth to Roman Catholicism in America.[12] The emigrants, driven by calamity, arrived without any organization and could easily have scattered and been lost to the Church; but they were already awaited by “spiritual pioneers” in the new country, and around these people the emigrants settled. At first a few cabins were established in the wilderness, quickly forming a village with a church, and then an entire city.[13]

Subsequently, with the influx of Catholic population and the organizing activity of the clergy, the Roman Catholic Church by the beginning of the present century suddenly emerged from obscurity and took a prominent position among other religious communities. Every priest appointed to an almost uninhabited parish within a few years found himself surrounded by a numerous congregation. In New York in 1807 there were already about 14,000 Catholics, while seventeen years earlier there were not even one hundred of them.[14] The Sulpician seminary and the Jesuit college meanwhile continued their work of preparing candidates for the priesthood, and the bishop could now count with greater confidence on satisfying the needs of the increasing population with respect to priests. At the beginning of this century he could already ordain these native pupils to the priesthood, and in 1808 six men were ordained on a single day, which day, in Carroll’s words, was “a happy day for the diocese.”[14] At the same time churches were rapidly being built one after another in cities and villages. In 1806 the bishop laid the cornerstones of three churches in the city of Baltimore.[15] In 1808 his diocese already had sixty-eight priests and eighty churches.[16] Once a wilderness, the diocese now presented a strong and numerous church, the administration of which in the remote parts required new authoritative leaders, and therefore the “patriarch of the American Church” turned to the Pope requesting the appointment of new bishops for the separate parts of his diocese. Pope Pius VII granted the request and by decree of April 8, 1808, raised Baltimore to the dignity of a metropolitan see, and in four cities of the country—New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Bardstown—opened new bishoprics, to the last two of which French emigrants Cheverus and Flaget were appointed as bishops.[17]

Thus, by the beginning of the present century, twenty-five years after the adoption of the Federal Constitution (1787), which gave Catholics the legal right to freedom of conscience, and twenty-three years after the opening of the first bishopric (1789) in the country, the Roman Catholic Church presented itself as already a well-ordered hierarchical organization, consisting of four bishops with a metropolitan see at its head. With the death of the “patriarch of the American Church,” which occurred in late 1815,[18] the first period of the history of Roman Catholicism’s development in America comes to a close. This period has extraordinary importance for subsequent history. It not only demonstrated the power of Roman Catholicism to establish itself among other denominations as soon as it was given equal rights with them to unhindered activity, but also left the brightest hopes for the future. If in the past, under difficult circumstances and unclear legal conditions, it was able to create a strong organization out of nothing, then under better circumstances in the future, which would be prepared by this very organization, it only remained for it to enjoy the fruits of the preceding period, and it indeed began to develop and grow within the United States with astonishing rapidity.

In the subsequent history there come forward one after another energetic champions of Roman Catholicism’s dominance in the United States, endowed with remarkable ability to adapt to changing circumstances. After two years of administration of the Baltimore metropolia by the elderly Archbishop Neale,[19] his place was taken by Archbishop Marechal, one of the French exiles during the Revolution. “The early days of his administration were strewn with trials of the most agonizing nature,” says the historian. “Catholics in the United States, living amid a Protestant population and under the influence of the surrounding ideas of independence, did not always show obedience to their pastors. Lay administration of churches is a source of constant conflicts, and laymen, seeing how Protestant churches are managed, too often encroach on powers not belonging to them. Archbishop Marechal had much to struggle against the spirit of insubordination and division, which threatened to end in open schism. In this difficult position, the prelate displayed such zeal, wisdom, devotion to his flock, and firm steadfastness in principle, such as have characterized the greatest bishops, and which successfully suppressed the growth of disorder that threatened the Church.”[20] The cause of the disorder was the Protestant tendency of parishioners in many churches to seize control not only of the financial side of church life, but also of the hierarchical side, so that parishioners denied the bishop’s right to appoint a priest to a church and claimed for themselves an uncontrolled right to elect priests according to their own tastes and wishes.[21] This tendency indeed threatened serious consequences and undermined the very foundation of Roman Catholicism as a bureaucratic Church, but fortunately for it, this tendency encountered in the person of the Archbishop of Baltimore, and in other bishops as well, an unshakeable opponent before which it had to yield.[22]

[1] Shea, History, p. 54. Catholic World, vol. I, p. 4.

[2] Shea, History, p. 64.

[3] Carroll fully understood the importance of this event for his church. Reporting on his initial negotiations with the general of the Sulpicians, he says with joy: “Providence appears to favor our views. We have resolved that two or three men, chosen by General Emery, shall come to Baltimore next spring. They are provided with means to purchase land for buildings and, as I hope, for the establishment of a seminary for young ecclesiastics. I think they will bring with them three or four seminarians who are either English or know English. They will be provided with books, altar fixtures, church appurtenances, etc.—professors of philosophy and theology. I intend to settle them near my house, the cathedral in Baltimore, so that they may both serve as clergy for the church and give dignity to divine worship. This is a great and important event for our diocese, but only regrettable that we owe so great a benefit to the sad catastrophe in France.” Shea, History, p. 65, 66.

[4] Shea, History, p. 68.

[5] Catholic World, vol. I, p. 3.

[6] Shea, History, pp. 69–72.

[7] The names of these six missionaries to the hierarchical organization of Roman Catholicism in America are as follows: Flaget, who later became bishop of Louisville, Dubois—later bishop of New York, David—later bishop of Mauricastro, Maréchal—archbishop of Baltimore, Dubourg—bishop of New Orleans and archbishop of Besançon; Cheverus—later bishop of Boston, archbishop of Bordeaux and cardinal. Shea, History, p. 70.

[8] Spalding, Sketches of the Early Catholic Missions of Kentucky; Shea, History, p. 68–69.

[9] Catholic World, vol. I, p. 5.

[10] Shea, History, p. 74.

[11] Shea, Ibidem.

[12] Murray, History, p. 222.

[13] Murray, History, p, 223.

[14] Murray, Ibidem.

[15] Shea, History p. 89.

[16] Murray, History, p. 223; Shea, History, p. 89.

[17] Shea, History, p. 89.

[18] Murray, History, p. 226. “The United States became a church province with its bishops, a growing body of clergy, and a Catholic population of more than two hundred thousand souls. Amid these happy circumstances, God called his faithful servant. At a ripe old age of eighty-one years, on December 3, 1815, Dr. Carroll died, equally distinguished as a man, as a Catholic, as a patriot, as a Jesuit, as a bishop, as an archbishop, and as father and founder of the American church,” says the Catholic panegyrist-historian. Ibidem.

[19] Shea, History, pp. 93–100.

[20] Shea, History, p. 103.

[21] Murray, History, pp. 221, 233, 242, 244.

[22] This movement took on especially dangerous proportions in New York. Having met with resistance from the bishop on this matter, the trustees decided to compel him through reducing his salary. But they were mistaken in their adversary. Bishop Dubois, one of the French exiles, responded to this measure with the following answer: “Gentlemen, you may or may not pay me a salary. I do not need much. I can live in a basement or in an attic. But whether I go up to you from a basement or down from my attic, I will still be your bishop!” Murray, History, p. 244.

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (5)

The ecclesiastical difficulties caused by these disturbances led to the development of a new form of church management. To successfully combat disorder, individual efforts of separate bishops would not suffice; collective efforts of the entire hierarchy, the collective wisdom of the whole Church were required. The idea naturally arose of convening a council for general discussion of the Church’s condition. The implementation of this idea fell to the next Archbishop of Baltimore, Whitfield, who convened in 1829 the “first Provincial Council of Baltimore.” During the period before the convening of the council, the hierarchy, despite difficulties, developed with extraordinary rapidity, and by the time of its convening the Church consisted of nine dioceses, with the Baltimore metropolia at its head.[1] The council was composed of six prelates, as others could not attend for various reasons.[2] Private councils had been held in Baltimore before this,[3] but they had merely a consultative character. The present council, however, had independent legal significance as an organ of church management, and therefore many important questions about church life and church administration were submitted to its discussion, and some of them had such significant legal character that the prelates called upon the best lawyers of the country to resolve them.[4] Various questions arising from the circumstances of church life were proposed for the council’s consideration, but primary importance was given to the question of the relationship of the hierarchy to the laity, as required by the disturbances and fermentation caused by the Protestant tendency of laymen to intrude into church management. Therefore the bishops with special insistence and force affirm the right of the bishop to appoint priests to churches and limit the claims of trustees.[5] Meeting at the council, the bishops were able from the comparative position of the dioceses to determine the Church’s overall condition both morally and materially. Among other things they determined the number of the Catholic population at that time. Comparing individual reports and bringing them to a general total, the council concluded that the number of Catholics in the United States in 1829 was more than 500,000, and was growing daily from emigration and conversions.[6]

The conciliar form of church discussion and management, after the first trial, proved to be most suited to the condition of the Church, whose members were indeed increasing daily by thousands from the influx of European settlers that began at that time, which required extraordinary effort from all the organizing powers of the Church to preserve Catholic emigration from scattering among the Protestant population. And indeed in the subsequent period councils were convened in rapid succession one after another. From their activity and composition one can judge both the development of the Church’s juridical consciousness and the growth of church organization. In 1833 the “second Provincial Council of Baltimore” was convened. It was attended by ten prelates with the Archbishop of Baltimore at the head, among whom three were representatives of the newly opened bishoprics of Saint Louis, Mobile, and Detroit.[7] The council adopted rules for the election of bishops,[8] outlined new dioceses, entrusted Native Americans and Blacks to the care of the Jesuit order, determined the opening of a seminary in each diocese, and again urged the establishment of exclusively Catholic schools.[9] In 1837 the third Provincial Council of Baltimore convened, and at it the prelates drafted a proposal to the papal curia concerning the opening of four new dioceses, three of which were indeed opened shortly thereafter.[10] In 1840 the fourth Provincial Council convened in Baltimore, in which thirteen prelates participated.[11] At this council, among other matters, the prelates by their fifth decree urged the necessity of forming “societies of temperance and abstinence from spiritous liquors” among Catholics[12] and made an important resolution concerning the administration of church property.[13] In 1843 the fifth council convened in Baltimore, at which sixteen prelates were present.[14] At this council the strict Catholic view of marriage as an ecclesiastical act was canonically confirmed and the penalty of excommunication ipso facto was established against those who, after obtaining a civil divorce, would consider themselves entitled to a second marriage.[15] In view of the new growth of Catholic population and the increasing needs in church administration, the council made a representation to the curia concerning a new subdivision of dioceses, and as a result of this representation four new bishoprics were opened.[16] At the sixth Provincial Council in Baltimore, in 1846, twenty-three prelates were present, whose very numbers sufficiently expressed the strength of the church organization that Roman Catholicism had acquired in America. By its first decree the prelates proclaimed, “with fervent and unanimous voice,”[17] the Blessed Virgin Conceived Without Sin the patroness of the United States,[18] and proposed for approval the opening of three new bishoprics, which were indeed opened in Buffalo, Albany, and Cleveland.[19]

In 1849 the seventh Provincial Council of Baltimore was convened. This was a time of severe trials for the head of Roman Catholicism, Pope Pius IX. Elected to the papal throne in 1846, he was exalted with praise for his liberalism by the revolutionary Italian party, and after two years he was forced to flee Rome, escaping from this very party. The Pope’s calamity was felt with particular force by the Catholics of the United States, and the thought arose among them that the soil of the New World might be the best refuge for the Pope during the revolutionary turmoil. In execution of this thought the prelates of the United States wrote a letter to the Pope, asking him to “honor Maryland with his sacred presence.”[20] But the far-sighted Pope did not wish to give his enemies cause for joyful proclamation of the transfer of the papacy to America, which would surely have resulted from even this temporary visit to the New World, and he declined the offer of his faithful prelates. Though “deprived of the happiness of having as their presiding officer the successor of the Prince of the Apostles, the fathers of the seventh Council of Baltimore wished to show their living sympathy by ordering a collection in their dioceses for the Peter’s Pence. This voluntary collection yielded about 26,000 dollars, which were transmitted to the papal nuncio in Paris by the Archbishop of Baltimore.”[21] On the appointed day the council opened in the presence of twenty-five prelates. As at the previous council, the prelates devoted their first and second decrees to the question of the Immaculate Conception and proclaimed that the veneration of the Immaculate Conception had been universal both among the clergy and the laity in the United States, and declared that “the prelates with living joy would have received the dogmatic definition of this mystery from the supreme high priest, if he, in his wise judgment, considered this definition timely.”[22] These decrees were accepted unanimously by all except one bishop of Richmond,[23] who so vigorously defended his dissenting opinion that it was entered into the acts of the council. The council further noted the unceasing continued growth of the church organization and proposed for opening three new bishoprics and one vicariate, which were indeed opened in 1850.[24]

[1] These dioceses are as follows: 1) Baltimore, embracing the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia; 2) Boston, embracing six states of New England; 3) New York, embracing the state of New York and half of New Jersey; 4) Philadelphia, embracing the states of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and half of New Jersey; 5) Bardstown, embracing the states of Kentucky and Tennessee; 6) Charleston, embracing North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia; 7) Richmond, embracing the state of Virginia and administered by the archbishop of Baltimore; 8) Cincinnati, embracing the states of Ohio, Michigan, and the Northwest Territory, and 9) New Orleans, embracing the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Missouri. Shea, History, pp. 109 and 110.

[2] Shea, History, p. 124.

[3] Murray, History, p. 203.

[4] Murray, History, p. 236. “These learned gentlemen left the presence of the prelates filled with respect and amazement. We appeared, they said, before a solemn tribunal of justice, but we never had less confidence in ourselves than when we entered this august assembly.” Ibidem.

[5] Thirty-eight determinations in all were worked out at the council. Here are some of them: I. Bishops have the right to send into any part of their dioceses or recall any priest ordained or appointed within the diocese… V. Since lay trustees often abused the authority given them by civil law, the council expresses the wish that bishops should not consent to the building or consecration of a church unless the matter of property is properly arranged for them. VI. Since some laymen, and especially trustees, have assumed the right of patronage and even management in certain churches, the council declares that these claims are unfounded and forbids their exercise on any grounds… IX. The council instructs bishops to turn their flocks away from reading Protestant translations of the Bible and to recommend the use of the Douay version… XXXIV. Since many young Catholics, especially born to poor parents, are in danger of losing their faith and morality through lack of teachers to whom their education can safely be entrusted, the council expresses the wish that schools be established where young people might receive instruction in the principles of faith and morality together with human learning… XXXVI. According to the wise counsel of Pope Leo XII addressed to the archbishop of Baltimore, a society should be established for the distribution of good books. See Concilia Provincialia Baltimori habita. Baltimore, 1851. Shea History, pp. 125–127.

[6] Shea, History, p. 128. “These discoveries, says the historian, brought the bishops inexpressible consolation in their labors.” Archbishop Whitfield in his report to the Roman association de propaganda fide writes: “The miracles, if I may so express it, that have been accomplished and are daily accomplished in my diocese are a source of consolation for me amid the difficulties with which I often have to struggle… A truly Catholic spirit distinguishes Maryland and the District of Columbia from all other states in the Union… Conversions of Protestants in good health are also numerous, and hardly a week, often hardly a day, passes without our priests being called to the bedside of some sick person who wishes to renounce error and die in the bosom of the church.” Annales de la Propagation de la Foi, V, 711.

[7] Shea, History, p. 129.

[8] The fourth determination proposes the following method of selecting bishops: “When a see becomes vacant, the votes of the other bishops in the province must be gathered to determine which priests should be presented to the Supreme Pontiff for the see. If a provincial council is to be held three months after the death of the prelate, the bishops must wait until then to select persons for presentation. Bishops desiring a coadjutor should also submit to a vote of their colleagues assembled in council the names of spiritual persons put forward for the post of coadjutor. Since the holding of a council may be delayed, each bishop should keep two sealed packets containing the names of at least three priests whom he considers worthy of succeeding him. Upon the death of the prelate, the vicar general should present one of the packets to the archbishop, and the other to the nearest bishop. The latter, having noted the names given by the deceased prelate, should send them to the archbishop with his remarks. The metropolitan then writes to all his suffragans, submitting to their examination the three names proposed by the deceased prelate, or three others if he finds serious objections to the first; and then each bishop personally writes to the Propaganda, giving his remarks about the three or six proposed persons. Upon the death of the metropolitan, the dean of the suffragans should discharge the duties which in other circumstances fall to the archbishop. If the deceased prelate has not left in his papers the designation of his successor, the nearest bishop presents three names to the archbishop, and the latter presents them to his suffragans, with three other names if the first do not inspire his confidence.” Shea, History, p. 131.

[9] Shea, History, p. 130–137.

[10] New sees were opened in Nashville for the state of Tennessee, in Natchez for the state of Mississippi, in Dubuque for the territory of Wisconsin. The council proposed opening a see in Pittsburgh or the western part of Pennsylvania, but this proposal was deemed premature. Bishop Dubois in New York was given a coadjutor. Shea, History, p. 149.

[11] Shea, History, p. 150.

[12] This idea was obviously suggested by the fruitful work of the famous Irish temperance preacher, Father Theobald Mathew, who was at that time conducting a successful campaign in Ireland against drunkenness. In 1849, he also visited America, “gathering thousands of the faithful there under the banner of sobriety.” Shea, History, p. 151.

[13] Shea, History, pp. 152–154

[14] Shea, History, p. 154.

[15] Shea, Ibidem.

[16] New bishoprics were established: in Little Rock for the state of Arkansas; in Chicago for the state of Illinois; in Milwaukee for the state of Wisconsin; and in Hartford for the states of Connecticut and Rhode Island. Shea, History, p. 154, 155.

[17] “Ardentibus votia plausu consensuque unanimi”. See Concilia provincialia., p. 250.

[18] Catholic historian Pia, in expounding this decision, remarks that “this solemn proclamation could even then have convinced the holy fathers of the Church’s aspiration toward a dogmatic definition of the glorious prerogative of the Mother of God. The devotion of the faithful to the Immaculate Conception, moreover, is not a new thing in North America.” The historian argues that the American Church earlier than others recognized the necessity and truth of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, subsequently established. Shea, History, pp. 155–157.

[19] Shea, History, p. 157, 158.

[20] This letter of January 18, 1849, reads as follows: “Our seventh Baltimore Council is to convene on May 7 of this year. Perhaps we are too bold, Holy Father, when we petition and trust that, if possible, the shadow of Peter might once pass over us and give us new strength and vigor. How great an honor and support to our rising Church! What joy and what ecstasy, what fruits and pledges of communion throughout our entire republic would there be if Your Holiness, yielding to our unanimous desires, would even consent to stand among the prelates assembled from the remotest reaches of North America and would deign to comfort and honor us and our flocks with your apostolic counsel and paternal blessing! The Council could easily, should Your Holiness so direct, be postponed to a more convenient time, and insofar as our means allow, nothing shall be lacking to make all comfortable and agreeable for our most holy father.” Shea, History, p. 166.

[21] Shea, History, p. 166.

[22] Shea, History, p. 167.

[23] Concilia Provincialia Baltimori habita, p. 274.

[24] New dioceses were opened: in Wheeling for the eastern part of Virginia; in Savannah for the state of Georgia; in St. Paul for the territory of Minnesota; and a vicariate in Santa Fe for New Mexico, which had just then been annexed to the United States. Besides this, a new bishopric was added in Monterey, California, which after the war of 1846 had been ceded by Mexico to the United States. Shea, History, p. 167.

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (6)

The seventh Provincial Council of Baltimore serves as the closing point of the second period of extraordinary growth of Roman Catholicism in America. This growth took on particularly grand proportions beginning in the 1840s. European emigration poured forth in an unprecedented stream—hundreds of thousands of Roman Catholics arrived annually, seeking refuge on the soil of the New World from European upheavals. Roman Catholic settlements grew with monstrous rapidity. Once deserted regions now quickly filled with Catholic parishes. Parts of extensive dioceses became weighted down and required independent hierarchical administration. Hence we see throughout this decade an almost continuous process of the separation and formation of new bishoprics. A regular item in the decrees of each council at this time is the representation concerning the opening of new episcopal sees, so that their number more than doubled during this period. In 1840 there were sixteen (16) dioceses, and in 1850 there were already thirty-three (33).[1] The center of gravity of all these numerous hierarchical units long served as a single metropolitan diocese—Baltimore. All bishoprics constituted one province with Baltimore as metropolia at its head. But as time went on, individual dioceses became so weighted down that the center began to waver and the metropolia ceased to maintain equilibrium. Hence it became inevitable that among the bishoprics there should emerge such as by their importance came to equal the metropolia, established within themselves a center of gravity for the surrounding bishoprics, and eo ipso became in the position of metropolias. This process was already noticed by former councils and upon their representation two bishoprics, one after another, were raised to the dignity of archbishoprics, namely Oregon in 1846 and Saint Louis in 1847.[2] But this process found its complete juridical expression in the representation of the seventh council. The prelates were fully conscious of the stage the Church had reached and at which it required the localization of centers, and therefore made a representation concerning the opening of three new metropolias, with the transfer to them of the hierarchical rights of the primary metropolia of Baltimore. The representation was approved by papal decree of July 19, 1850, and thus by the beginning of a new decade the Roman Catholic Church consisted of six metropolitan provinces, with metropolitan sees in the principal centers of the country: Baltimore, Oregon, Saint Louis, New York, Cincinnati, and New Orleans.[2]

With the opening of the new metropolias, the Roman Catholic Church in the United States entered a new phase of its development. It ceased to be a province, as it had been heretofore, and became a national Church, insofar as that term denotes its spread throughout the whole country, with independent administrative centers. The new position required intensified organizing activity. The new metropolitans formed councils in their respective provinces to discuss the needs of their provincial churches. But the private activity of individual metropolitans required general guiding principles on the basis of which particular measures could be developed and implemented. Such principles had not yet been worked out. The guiding decrees worked out at the Provincial Councils of Baltimore no longer satisfied the needs, as these decrees had essentially a private provincial character and their jurisdiction did not extend to the new metropolias, which had received equal rights with Baltimore to jurisdiction in their provinces. A higher organ of church jurisdiction was required. Such an organ could only be a general national council, and indeed in 1852 this general council was convened, receiving the name of the first Plenary Council (Primum Plenarium Concilium), which consisted of all the prelates of the country. The place of the council was chosen to be the historic cradle of Roman Catholicism in America—Baltimore, and it consisted of six archbishops or metropolitans and twenty-six bishops.[3] The life of the Church was so organized and presented such bright hopes for the future that the prelates of the council did not need to work out any special radical decrees, and they, establishing on the basis of former councils general guiding principles for the metropolias, limited themselves to only a few decrees concerning other aspects of church life. Thus they with special insistence confirmed the necessity of establishing Catholic schools to isolate the Catholic population from the influence of Protestantism, and solemnly condemned secret societies, especially Freemasonry, which was spreading rapidly in America.[3] Then they proposed for approval the opening of several new dioceses, and the elevation of San Francisco in California to the dignity of a metropolia,[4] “If there were here,” considers a Catholic historian in this connection necessary to observe, “questions about dignities made attractive by honor, power or the riches of the earth, we could see in this development of the episcopate human bases and motives of ambition. But in the United States the mitre is only a terrible burden, without any of the consolations that lighten it in other places; and the prelates are only honorable paupers, always extending their hands for daily bread, for means to erect those modest walls that form their cathedrals and churches. A new bishop must create everything; he finds only a few priests scattered here and there, altogether insufficient for a country where emigration periodically brings throngs of Irish and German Catholics, who must be protected, and still more children, who must be guarded from the temptations of error. He must build churches and dwellings, establish a seminary and schools, and confirm the faithful in the truth; gather around himself brothers and communities of sisters, ensure by continuous labor the means of sustenance for these co-workers, perpetually travel by horse or on foot, in snow or in rain, preach at all hours, without rest hear confessors, visit the sick and everywhere oversee the preservation of the sacred treasure of faith and morality. Such is the life of an American prelate appointed to establish a new diocese—a life of physical exhaustion, like that of the humblest missionary, with all the responsibility of a bishop. Most often such duties are accepted through obedience by one whom the holy seat considers sufficiently courageous to undertake them; and the new diocese soon witnesses the rise of churches and monasteries, the increase of clergy and the presence of a priest in the latest settlements alongside the pioneer. Such is the history of religion in America from the beginning of this century, and the future promises that, contrary to the trials of the last few years, this development will not cease.”[5]

But however great the burdens of the actual service of the prelates of the Roman Catholic Church, they were not visible to the outside world. It saw instead only a brilliant assembly of prelates and naturally assumed behind it a strong organization with all the advantages and hopes of power. The Protestant world, giving full freedom to its enemy Roman Catholicism to develop and grow on the soil of the New World, did not suppose in it that power which it had managed to unfold in half a century. Now it saw its error. Roman Catholicism was growing daily into a powerful organization before which the fragmented Protestantism involuntarily felt its weakness. Consciousness of weakness often leads to fanaticism. Protestantism had always been fanatical toward Roman Catholicism in America from the very beginning of American history. Political circumstances suppressed this fanaticism and even legally killed it. But actually it continued to live and upon every opportunity showed its fiery tongue. When in the early 1840s Roman Catholicism began to grow especially rapidly from the emigration that surged in at that time, Protestantism was alarmed. Considering America its property, Protestantism saw with horror how Catholic emigration was spreading the hated faith throughout the country. Its dormant fanaticism awakened and, sustained by the spirit of narrow native exclusivity, according to which America exists only for Americans,[6] turned into open hostility not only toward Roman Catholicism but toward all foreign, immigrant elements. In the 1840s a party of “Nativism” formed, which waged fierce agitation against emigrants in general and Catholics in particular. In Philadelphia this movement expressed itself in open rioting by crowds, which burned Roman Catholic churches and plundered monasteries.[7] The movement was ominous and although it did not assume particularly large proportions at that time, it nevertheless made known what fierce fanaticism lives in the heart of Protestantism.

Having vented its first outbursts of rage, Protestant fanaticism quieted for a time and the Nativism movement ceased, only to burst forth again at the first convenient opportunity. The opportunity was not long in coming. Roman Catholicism continued to grow and develop, the immigrant Catholic population multiplied annually by hundreds of thousands, and the church organization declared itself with ever greater splendor in the increasing councils of prelates. The first national council was a brilliant expression of the high phase of Roman Catholicism’s development in the country, which it had achieved in an incredibly short time, and this success of the mortal enemy could not fail to wound Protestant jealousy and embittered zeal. Fanaticism awakened again and awaited only a spark for ignition. The spark came from the visit to the United States by a papal nuncio. In 1853 the Pope, wishing to demonstrate his interest in the growth of Roman Catholicism in America, sent one of his most famous representatives, Archbishop Bedini, papal nuncio in Brazil, to visit the United States, furnishing him with his own personal letters of recommendation and credentials to the President in Washington.[8] The nuncio was cordially received by the President, Pierce, and made a solemn review of the Roman Catholic Church in various cities and localities of the country.[9] This journey of the papal nuncio was the spark that ignited fanaticism, especially since America at that time had accumulated much combustible, purely political material. The European revolutions of 1848 had driven to America whole gangs of German and Italian revolutionaries. They were the first to begin agitation against the nuncio of the hated papacy, and with the well-known Italian reformer Gavazzi at their head began to pursue the nuncio on his heels, inciting popular passions against him as a mortal enemy of the American republic and freedom. The nuncio went west and the revolutionaries followed him. Catholics everywhere enthusiastically received the envoy of the “Vicar of Christ,” and this only further inflamed the malice of the enemies. Not yet succeeding in arousing public opinion, the Italian revolutionaries called upon German infidels settled in the western states for aid. The German press thundered curses upon the nuncio[10] and succeeded in rousing the fanaticism of the mob. On one evening a crowd of five hundred people intended to attack the house in which the nuncio was staying. A strong police patrol met the crowd, a bloody clash occurred, in which eighteen men were killed.[11] The rioters could not withstand it and scattered.

[1] Murray, History, p. 260.

[2] Murray, History, p. 259.

[3] Murray, History, p. 301.

[4] New dioceses were established: Erie, separated from Pittsburgh; Burlington and Portland from Boston; Brooklyn and Newark from New York; Covington for the eastern part of Kentucky; Quincy, which enlarged the diocese in the St. Louis province; Natchitoches in the New Orleans province, and finally Upper Michigan was made a vicariate. Shea, History, p. 176.

[5] Shea, History, p. 176.

[6] The spirit of native exclusivity is very strong among Americans, and it found expression in President Monroe, whose characteristic phrase “America for Americans” became known as the “Monroe Doctrine.” On the basis of this teaching, Americans were even unsympathetic to the famous project of Lesseps for drilling through the Isthmus of Panama, fearing the establishment of French influence in the country.

[7] Murray, History, p. 240, 241. Riots occurred in other parts of the country as well, especially in Puritan New England. Attempts to set fire to Catholic churches also occurred in New York, but the arsonists were met with rifle fire from Catholics. Ibidem, pp. 244, 249.

[8] This interesting letter reads as follows in Russian translation from the Latin original: Illustris and Honorabilis Vir, salutem: “Since our esteemed brother Castan, Archbishop of Thebes, accredited as our legate and apostolic nuncio at the imperial court in Brazil, has received from us instructions to visit those countries (per isteas transeat regiones, that is, the United States), we at the same time gave him special commission to come before your excellency in our name (Nobilitatem tuam conveniat) and deliver to you our letter, extend to you our warmest greetings and express and testify with ardent words our heartfelt feelings toward you. We are confident that these friendly feelings of ours will be pleasing to you, and we have no doubt that the esteemed brother mentioned, adorned with excellent qualities of mind and heart, will be received favorably by you through your distinguished benevolence. And since by divine commission there is entrusted to us the care of the Lord’s flock throughout the world, we cannot pass over this occasion without seriously begging you to extend your protection to all Catholics dwelling in these countries and to defend them always with your strength and authority. Being assured that your excellency will gladly accede to our desires and requests (desideriis ac postulationibus), we shall not fail to offer our humble prayers to Almighty God, that He may grant you, brilliant and esteemed man, the gifts of His mercy, pour upon you every kind of true happiness, and unite us in perfect love. Given at Rome at St. Peter’s, the 31st of March, in the year 1853, in the seventh year of our Pontificate. Pius P. P. IX.” See Shea, History, p. 497, 498.

[9] Murray, History, p. 302.

[10] In Cincinnati, a German newspaper appeared at that time daily specifically for attacks on the nuncio and called him a “hyena,” “man-killer,” “murderer,” “blood-thirsty Bolognese hound,” and concluded its articles with a furious and bloodthirsty question: “Is there not a bullet, not a dagger for the monster equal to which has never existed on earth?” Murray, History, p. 303. In New York, the organ of the revolutionaries similarly heaped such epithets on him and even a conspiracy to assassinate him was formed. Ibidem, p. 302.

[11] Murray, History, p. 303.

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (7)

In 1854 the nuncio left the country, but fanaticism did not leave with him. It spread among the masses. In New York agitation began, preachers came forth who in the squares began to attack the Pope and all Catholics. A secret society called the “Know Nothings”[1] formed, which by secret means began to incite the crowd against Roman Catholics, especially the Irish, who had begun to compete successfully in labor and art with the native American population.[2] The base instincts of the American mob—the most terrible and bloodthirsty mob one could imagine—were unleashed. Armed gangs began to form processions, trying in every way to provoke hostility from Irish Catholics in order to start a massacre.[3] In the city of Newark, neighboring New York, a procession in broad daylight rushed upon a Catholic church and destroyed it under the pretext that a shot had been fired at the procession from it.[4] Then rioting spread throughout the country, the reign of a ferocious mob began, which started everywhere to burn and plunder Catholic churches and monasteries. New York, Boston, Brooklyn, Saint Louis, Louisville, and other cities became the scenes of shameful occurrences and mob rule. A man named Orr emerged as the leader of the movement, calling himself the “angel Gabriel,” summoned to the destruction of Catholicism. In New Hampshire the mob destroyed and scattered two Catholic churches, one of which it blew up with gunpowder. In the state of Maine a mob, led by the “angel Gabriel,” broke into the doors of a church and scattered the altar, pulpit, crosses, and icons. The Bishop of Portland had gathered to lay the foundation of a new church to replace the destroyed one, but the mob attacked the place of consecration and dispersed everyone.[5] In Louisville, during the elections of 1854 and 1855, religious fanaticism united with political. The “Know Nothings” agitated against Catholics as foreigners and papal servants, set fire to Catholic houses and killed residents. The mob even approached the cathedral to burn and destroy it, and the cathedral was saved only because Bishop Spalding handed the keys to it to the city mayor.[6] But the mob did not confine itself to the destruction of Catholic property. It extended its rioting also against the representatives of the papal hierarchy. An example is the sad fate of the Jesuit John Bapst. The reverend Jesuit, serving as pastor of a Catholic church in Ellsworth, in the state of Maine, appealed to the schools requesting that they not force Catholic children to read the Protestant translation of the Bible. The teachers agreed, but the school committee intervened in the matter and ordered the teachers to force Catholic children to read the Protestant Bible under threat of expulsion. Catholics appealed to the court against such injustice, but this so inflamed the rage of fanatics against the Jesuit Bapst that a huge meeting was held, which resolved, for the trouble caused to the city by his troublesome behavior, “to provide him with a new suit of clothes such as cannot be found in any tailor’s shop.”[7] The resolution was accepted unanimously and the mob did not delay in carrying it out. On October 14, 1854, the Jesuit Bapst, living in the town of Bangor, as was his custom went to Ellsworth to perform Mass on Sunday. The waiting mob had been expecting nothing else. In the evening the mob surrounded the house in which the Jesuit was staying, seized him and dragged him into the street, placed him on a rail and carried him about the city with all manner of insults and mockery. Finally, stripping him naked, they covered him with liquid tar and rolled him in feathers, leaving the unfortunate Jesuit in that condition.[8]

The mob’s rioting finally became so insufferable that it aroused indignation even among the Protestant population, which took measures to suppress it. But the ideas of the “Know Nothings” society had spread so widely that a special anti-Catholic party formed, which began to exert influence in politics. At elections it put forth many members who acted in legislative assemblies in this anti-Catholic spirit. Their influence was especially strong in the legislative assembly of the state of New York, which made several anti-Catholic ordinances, for example that no donation for religious or charitable purposes could be considered legal if it did not fall under the control of trustees, thereby denying the bishops’ authority over such donations.[9] The Massachusetts legislative assembly, under the influence of rumors spread by the anti-Catholic party concerning immoral life in Catholic monasteries, appointed a special committee to inspect all monasteries—male and female—which directly violated the rights of the Roman Catholic Church to independence, and the inspection itself was accompanied by many improprieties on the part of committee members.[10]

The turbulent period lay heavily as a burden on the Roman Catholic Church and naturally retarded its growth; but it could not stop it. On the contrary, from the midst of the very evils came in some respects a blessing. Thus the madness of the “Know Nothings” awakened in many a feeling of sympathy for the persecuted Catholics and because of this, according to the expression of a Catholic historian, “thousands of good, sensitive people entered the true flock.”[11] Moreover, as if in retribution to the destroyers, Catholics in the subsequent years erected and founded one after another such magnificent cathedrals as had never existed before. In 1855 magnificent cathedrals were solemnly consecrated in Pittsburgh and Buffalo; in 1858 the foundation of the Cathedral of Saint Patrick in New York, the finest temple on the continent, was laid; in 1857 three new dioceses were opened,[12] and in 1858 Pope Pius IX elevated the Baltimore see to the rank of a primacy.[11] But in general, this period was destined to be a time of all manner of trials not only for the Roman Catholic Church but for the whole country. Scarcely had the country recovered from the rioting of fanatical mobs when fate prepared for it the heaviest trial of all. In 1861 a civil war between North and South broke out and filled the country with the destructive horrors of fratricide. During the war much of the Roman Catholic Church’s property, plundered and burned by the warring sides, was lost along with public property, and moreover Roman Catholicism lost many of its members, as the armies consisted chiefly of Irish Catholics.[13] The trials of the war were hard for the whole country, but it emerged from it chastened and renewed. It renewed in the people the consciousness of its organic unity and killed separatism both political and religious. The ideas of separatist-democrats and anti-Catholic Know Nothings were driven from the country by the blows of war. In the people the idea of their national unity began rapidly to develop and strengthen, and this idea, as we shall see later, gave new strength to the Roman Catholic Church of the United States.

After the fratricidal war the country found itself in a weakened and devastated condition both materially and morally. The excessive strain of passions during the war had now turned into apathy bordering on despair. Only Roman Catholicism did not lose heart, and scarcely had the deadly thunder of weapons fallen silent when it renewed its organizing activity. War left it in inheritance destroyed churches, devastated dioceses, bereaved families, helpless invalids. Some of the southern dioceses almost disappeared from the face of the earth.[14] The Church faced a difficult task—to examine its condition, assess the harm done to it, and determine the new conditions of its position. For such activity the individual and scattered efforts of separate provinces would not have sufficed; the collective efforts and collective wisdom of the whole Church were necessary. And indeed a new general council was appointed, convened in 1866 in Baltimore under the name of the “Second Plenary Council of Baltimore.”[15] This council, both by the particular conditions of the Church’s position and by the importance of its significance for it, marks a new epoch in the history of Roman Catholicism in the United States, and as such deserves detailed investigation. Never had Roman Catholicism appeared before the country in such splendor and power as at this council, and it was not only a demonstration of the vitality of the Catholic community in the country but also gave encouragement to the very weakened country itself. “The country had just emerged from the most terrible crisis, in which the very ship of state had been torn from its moorings. House rose against house and the hands of brothers rose against brothers. The sects had broken up and were still in confusion and disorder, contributing to the widening of the chasm that threatened to engulf the life of the nation. Half the country was laid waste and devastated; the beaten people bent under the double burden of the memory of the past, which could not return again, and thoughts of the future, which seemed hopeless. On the other side were weariness and exhaustion, which follow extreme strain, and a longing for peace and quiet after so much bloodshed and so much suffering. All were glad to welcome any force that would be able to survive this terrible struggle—unharmed and unbroken. When therefore the Catholic Church came before the eyes of the people, clothed in the full armor of undiminished strength and unbroken unity, thousands, who a short time before would have looked upon this display of its power with jealous envy, now welcomed it with joy as a harbinger of good omens. It should also be acknowledged that during the war the people saw this Church more and came to know it better, and having known it better, came to love it more. Throughout the country there was not such a village in which some brave warrior—not a Catholic—did not praise its heroic daughters, who during the battles stood nearby to staunch the blood of the wounded.”[16] And indeed, if the first Plenary Council was the occasion for an outburst of anti-Catholic passions among the Protestant population, the second was the occasion for complete recognition by Protestantism of its weakness compared to the constantly united and unbroken Roman Catholicism. And this was a great moral victory for the latter. Beginning from this time a new era of unprecedented prosperity and progress dawned for Roman Catholicism, and it began to grow even more rapidly in its numbers and strengthen in its organization. By the end of the century of American independence it represented such a magnificent edifice as to require a special crowned head for itself, which was given to it by Pius IX in 1875, when he elevated the Archbishop of New York John McCloskey to the rank of cardinal,[17] and raised four archbishoprics to the rank of metropolitan sees.[18] The history of this epoch has as the basic seed of its development the Second Plenary Council, which weighed the vital forces of the Church and juridically determined the plan of its subsequent development, and therefore the best indicator of the current condition of Roman Catholicism in the United States is precisely this council, which therefore requires detailed investigation. But before turning to this investigation, we consider it necessary to summarize the features of the juridical position of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, thanks to which Roman Catholicism could grow and develop unhindered both in its numerical composition and in church organization.

[1] The “Know-Nothings” drew up a special constitution defining the purpose of the organization and plan of action. The first paragraph stated: “The purpose of this organization is to counteract the insidious policy of the Church of Rome and all other foreign influence against the institutions of our country, by filling all offices with native people or appointing only native Protestant citizens to them.” By their oath, members of the organization pledged themselves especially not to allow “all Roman Catholics and all foreigners” to hold office. Murray, History, p. 304.

[2] In one of the first-rate portrait artists in New York, namely Mr. Carter, the author had the pleasure of meeting a living history of the entire Know-Nothing movement. Being an Irish emigrant and spanning three quarters of the current century with his life, he personally, as a Catholic and Irishman, lived through this epoch of turmoil and from his experience conveyed to the author many characteristic features of the movement.

[3] Murray, History, p, 304.

[4] Shea, History, p. 500.

[5] Shea, Ibidem.

[6] Shea, History, p. 505; Murray, p. 305.

[7] This document, of the barbarous mob rule so common among Americans, reads as follows: “Since we have reason to believe that we are indebted for the present pleasure of this judicial proceeding to one John Bapst, O.I., a Catholic priest, we Determine, that should the said Bapst again appear in the town of Ellsworth, we express our thanks to him for his kind interference in our public schools and attempt to drive the Bible out of them by preparing for him a new suit of clothes, such as cannot be found in any tailor’s shop, and that he, dressed in such manner, should be given a free ticket to leave Ellsworth after the first railroad operation that shall be performed upon him.” This resolution, in the barbarous jargon of lynch law, was then published in the local newspapers. Shea, History, p. 502.

[8] It would be impossible, writes an eyewitness, to reproduce all the terrible blasphemies and outrages of that terrible night; but everything that imagination could represent besides mutilation and bloodshed was perpetrated by those vile villains. The abuse continued for two hours, during which time cold rain fell throughout. Shea, History, р. 503.

[9] Shea, History, p. 504.

[10] Shea, History, p. 505.

[11] Murray, History, p. 308.

[12] Fort Wayne, Alton, and Market.

[13] Murray, History, 309–311.

[14] After the conclusion of the war, in the diocese of Charleston in South Carolina, there remained only one priest, and most of the churches had been razed to the ground. “The war had the most destructive effect on our ancient Maryland Catholic families,” remarks the Archbishop of Baltimore. Murray, History, p. 314.

[15] Concilium Plenarium Baltimorense II.

[16] Spalding, The life of Archbishop Spalding, New York, 1874. Archbishop Spalding was chairman of the Second Plenary Baltimore Council and one of the most famous champions of Roman Catholicism. The comprehensive biography of him, compiled by his nephew, the learned Bishop of Peoria Spalding, abounds in a wealth of interesting material for the history of the Roman Catholic Church during the period of the Civil War and the Second Council.

[17] Shea, History, p. 445. Murray, History, p. 314, 315.

[18] Murray, History, p. 315, The archbishoprics are: Boston, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Santa Fe.

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (8)

When the Federal Constitution, and under its moral pressure soon also the majority of the private constitutions of the individual states, placed religious affairs outside of state jurisdiction and thereby separated Church from State, for Roman Catholicism this was equivalent to liberation from the slavery and oppression in which it had existed before the declaration of independence. Refusing to interfere in religious affairs, the State left them to their own internal development and the management of them to the Church’s own internal centers and organizations. This order of things proved extraordinarily fruitful for Roman Catholicism and it is to this above all that it owes its success and rapid growth in the country. Its liberation from state jurisdiction, which had constantly expressed itself in negative and hostile ordinances toward it, gave it the ability to grow rapidly in numbers and openly and unhindered to unite the surging wave of Catholic emigrants into one integral body of the Church. And the State’s complete non-interference in church affairs gave the church hierarchy the ability to grow and develop absolutely freely from any external influences, solely according to the internal organic necessity and direction of the head of Roman Catholicism—the Pope. Having renounced all jurisdiction in the realm of religion, the State thereby transferred jurisdiction concerning the Roman Catholic Church to itself and its head—the Pope, that is, it established an order of things which from the standpoint of Roman Catholicism is considered ideal, which it constantly strives to achieve and for which it conducts continuous struggle with European States. Thanks to such an order of things the Roman Catholic Church in the United States enjoyed such freedom in its life and activity as it does not enjoy in any European country. “There is no part of the civilized world,” says Bishop Spalding, “where there are now more favorable conditions for Catholics to do great and eternal work for the benefit of the Church, its children, and the age, than here in the United States. Pius IX, as it is reported, was in the habit of saying that only in America was he truly a Pope. Surely nowhere else did he have greater freedom of action. In the appointment of bishops, in the formation of dioceses, in the approval and promulgation of laws for the guidance of church discipline, the Pope encounters no obstacles in this country. Bishops also have the most complete freedom in the discharge of their high office. The Levites who are designated to serve at the altar are fully entrusted to their hands for preparation and education by whatever system seems to them most suitable for the formation of a perfect man of God; and public opinion and the customs of the people assist them in their efforts to entrust the care of souls only to the worthy.”[1] This complete freedom of the Roman Catholic Church is evident in every line of the history we have traced of its development, and moreover entirely to its advantage. Its hierarchy is created by internal organic necessity of growth, and the Roman Pope with powerful hand appoints the first bishop, entering into no conditions and negotiations with the government of the country, which at the same time immediately declared itself outside of all connection with this matter. Then the Pope completely freely elevates the first bishopric to the rank of a metropolia, while in Europe armies were destroying his eternal seat. In 1809 the supreme Lord of Roman Catholicism in Europe is led into captivity, but for the United States he continues to remain Pope and in captivity signs decrees by which he creates a series of new bishoprics, and these decrees have full legislative force across the ocean.[2] The rapid development of the Church creates the need for collective management of it, and behold, bishops meet without hindrance at councils for the general discussion of the Church’s needs and make decrees which require no external, non-ecclesiastical approval and confirmation except the approval of the supreme head of the Church—the Pope. In 1849 the Pope in Europe is forced to flee from the eternal city, his historical seat, and the bishops of the United States peacefully and freely assemble in regular councils and themselves offer refuge to the Pope among them.[3] During the Pope’s exile he creates several metropolias which transform the previous provincial Church into a national one, receives from America a generous Peter’s Pence and moral support in the person of the prelates of the Baltimore Council, who raised on his behalf a solemn voice and issued a conciliar letter to the clergy and people in which the supreme rights of the Pope are affirmed and proven.[4] In 1852 the prelates completely freely, according to the internal needs of church life, assemble at a plenary or national council, freely discuss the needs of the Church, work out decrees and disciplinary rules which acquire legislative force solely by the approval of the Pope. Finally the Pope elevates the first metropolia to the rank of a primacy, convenes the Second Plenary Council which elaborated independent canon law for the Church in the United States, confirms the cardinalate—all this completely freely, without any interference from the civil government of the country, and moreover at a time when in Europe his every activity encountered opposition from the government, which soon turned into open persecution, expressed in the well-known German Kulturkampf. And during the last quinquennium, when persecution of Roman Catholicism was occurring in Europe, now in the form of cultural struggle in Germany now in the form of persecution of the Jesuits in France, in the United States Roman Catholicism continued to grow and develop widely and unhindered, the Jesuits peacefully teach in their numerous colleges, bishops assemble at councils and the Pope with powerful hand, unhindered, appoints bishops and manages the entire organism of the Church. The State, by virtue of its juridical separation from religion, puts no obstacle in the way of the Pope’s full authority to govern the Church, and to the Church itself, as a community of its own citizens, offers general assistance and protection. In view of this, the important significance becomes clear which the juridical principle of separation of Church and State has for the successful development of Roman Catholicism in the United States. And the late Pope Pius IX was completely right when, amid the difficulties surrounding him in Europe, he exclaimed: “The United States is the only country in which I am truly Pope in the eyes of the government.”[5]

XIII

The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore was the last and most complete expression of the life, strength, organization and successes of Roman Catholicism in the United States, and therefore is interesting not only for the canon law it elaborated but also for its very external composition. It was convened by the Archbishop of Baltimore, Spalding, for October 7, 1866.[6] This council, according to the conviction of all Roman Catholics in the United States, was to appear as the highest expression of the Roman Catholic Church in the country and because of such importance the question even arose in society concerning its very name. “The name Plenary,” says a Catholic publicist, “sounds strange to some ears and occasioned discussion in the public press. In ordinary conversation this council is often given the name of national, and it would probably have been its official name as well, had it not been for the foresight of the holy seat. Rome, illuminated by wisdom from on high and rich with the experience of centuries, looks upon the striving for nationalism in the Church as one of the greatest dangers that could follow, even almost as a harbinger of schism. When it intended to propose to American prelates the convening of a council of all bishops of the various provinces of the country, the question immediately arose concerning its official title. National was not liked, General was too broad, Provincial was too narrow. One learned ecclesiastical historian suggested the name Plenarium, a title given to general councils of the African Church in the fifth century, councils which were famous for the genius of Augustine and their clear condemnation of Pelagianism. This name was approved. It avoids the narrowness of nationalism while fully expressing the idea of a plenary council of all prelates of the American Church.”[7] “The purpose of the plenary council was clearly indicated by the holy seat. Strictly speaking, provincial councils could present all necessary legislation. But there would be danger of losing uniformity. Even regarding the best men of advanced age, the truth is justified that where there are many people, there are many minds. To prevent too sharp implementation in practice of this diversity of views, it was considered wise to occasionally convene all bishops together so that by united counsel measures could be adopted which would maintain the American Church as one not only in faith and essential points of doctrine but even in important among secondary matters of that kind. There is no need to expatiate on the advantages of such uniformity. The plenary council thus has in view the needs of the entire American Church and does for it what the provincial council does for one ecclesiastical province. Canon law is necessarily limited to general terms and cannot be equally applied everywhere. The greater part of it even consists of decrees given for special localities under special conditions, so that only their principle can find universal application. It often happens that general rules must be modified to correspond to other needs, other times, and other circumstances. This is one of the first duties of local councils. They propose and put into action such decrees which their wisdom and experience may indicate as necessary for the realization of the true spirit of general law. They do not contradict, and much less abrogate canonical rules; on the contrary they strengthen their observance.”[8]

Two weeks were appointed for the council sessions. If the council had limited itself to this time, then naturally it could not have accomplished its important tasks. The Archbishop understood this and tried to develop a preliminary plan and enable the council to better and more fully express its legislative wisdom. This plan he sent out at the beginning of 1866 to the archbishops, bishops, heads of monastic orders and all who had the right to attend the council. Then he convened an assembly of theologians to conduct preparatory work and investigations. They were drawn from both monastic orders and the ordinary clergy; many of them were professors of theology or canon law; some held high posts or were known for their learning. This learned assembly (coetus) met daily as long as most of its members could remain in Baltimore, and during this time all the principal points were carefully investigated and appropriate corrections were made. Some of the learned theologians, unable to attend in person at the assembly, sent their written works, so that, according to the expression of a Catholic publicist, “the best talents of the country performed this preliminary work.”[9] The result of this preparatory work was an entire volume of a collection of various legislative decrees and ordinances of the Church. It undoubtedly eased the labor of the council members and indeed “it would have been difficult to understand how without this preparation the work of the council could have been accomplished at all.”[10]

The council consisted of a magnificent assembly of prelates and representatives of theological science, as each prelate had the right to have learned theologians with him: the president—four theologians, archbishops three each, and bishops two theologians each. The council sessions opened with a solemn procession, in which participated seven (7) archbishops, thirty-seven (37) bishops, one (1) apostolic administrator, two (2) abbots in mitres, twenty-two (22) general vicars, nineteen (19) heads of monastic orders, thirty-one (31) officials, seven (7) rectors of seminaries and ninety-three (93) theologians.[11] “Seldom was Rome itself a witness to a more imposing assembly and even more rarely to one so remarkable in its character,” remarks the historian. “Even in respect to numbers, this council was one of the greatest assemblies of prelates since the Council of Trent.”[12] More than forty thousand people gathered to witness the spectacle of the conciliar procession.[13] Along the streets through which the procession passed, there was scarcely a house that was not decorated. “It was undoubtedly one of the grandest and most beautiful Catholic demonstrations ever witnessed in this land of freedom where all sects and communities gather. The council presented one of those remarkable lessons which American common sense will not forget and which little by little will lead them to the understanding that where there is unity there is life.”[14]

Council work was conducted according to a strictly formulated and determined plan, on the principle of division of labor. All council members were divided into seven congregations, among which the material to be discussed was distributed. Each congregation had a bishop as its president, and also had a vice-president and church notary. The congregations were to discuss among themselves, in a preliminary manner, the proposed measures. The result of these deliberations, collected by the notary with the votes and arguments for and against, in case of disagreement, was then presented to the bishops. The latter in turn held private sessions where they dealt only with questions already subjected to the discussion of theologians. Secretaries kept detailed minutes of all that occurred at these meetings. The question was then transferred to the general assembly and finally presented to the council sessions where the decrees received their final form and sanction, making them binding. Sessions took place in the cathedral and consisted of a solemn Mass, after which the decrees were read and proclaimed as law, which needed only the approval of the Pope.[15] “As to the very order of deliberations, the bishops found it best to adopt the same order usually found in the legislative assemblies of the United States. Each had the right to propose whatever he wished, if only he did it in writing and in Latin. But a question proposed by a member could not become the subject of deliberation unless another prelate joined the first in demanding attention to the given matter. No one had the right to deviate from the given plan or the section which was the subject of discussion. In all other respects not only was complete freedom of opinion provided, but even encouraged, as long as speakers did not exceed the bounds of propriety. If anyone transgressed these bounds, or uselessly prolonged his speech, any member could demand a call to order; the promoter was obliged to watch for the observance of the rules of order, and in case of doubt the final decision belonged to the president. All members were obliged to attend the sessions, and under penalty could not leave sessions before the completion of the work.”[16]

[1] Spalding, The Religious Mission of the Irish people. 3 edition, New York 1880. p. 136–137.

[2] Shea, History, p. 91.

[3] Shea, History. p. 165, 166.

[4] Shea, History, pp. 169–171.

[5] Murray, History of Catholic Church in the United States, p. I. The Catholic historian considers this saying of Pope Pius IX so apt that he chose it as the epigraph for his work.

[6] Archbishop Spalding in his letter to the bishops of March 19, 1866, stated: Nos, auctoritate Nobis hac in parte commissa, hisce praesentibus literis indieimus ac Convocamus Secundum Concilium Plenarium Beltimorense, in Mitropolitana Nostra Ecclesia inchoandum Dominica prima Octobris anni currentis.

[7] Catholic World, Vol. VII, p. 619.

[8] Catholic World, Vol. VII, p. 620.

[9] Catholic World, Vol. VII, p. 623.

[10] Catholic World, Vol. VII, 624.

[11] Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis II Acta et Decreta. Baltimorae, 1877. pp. XVIII–XXV.

[12] Murray, History, p. 312.

[13] Catholic World, Vol. IX, p. 497.

[14] Catholic World, Vol. IX, p. 498.

[15] Catholic World, Vol. IX, p. 498–499; Vol. VII, p. 625.

[16] Catholic World, Vol. IX, p. 499.

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (9)

All the material subject to discussion at the council was divided into twelve sections (titulus), which were distributed among seven congregations, with some congregations undertaking the discussion of two sections of related content. These sections, together with two new ones developed by the council itself, in their final form entered the council’s acts under the title Decreta.[1] The collection of acts was published in an elegantly printed book, which soon required several new editions. “The prelates of the United States legislated with such prudence, with such perfect unity of mind and feeling, that their churches now possess in their collection of decrees a complete code of laws.”[2] Besides two complete editions, for general use the acts were published in an abridged form, and in this form serve as a textbook in Catholic seminaries for canon law. By this fact alone one can judge, and the Catholic publicist is fully convinced, that “the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore is destined for a memorable place in the history of Catholicism in the United States.”[3] Without doubt, this council created complete canon law in its application to the particular conditions of the Catholic Church in America, precisely defined its dogmatic and juridical relationship to Rome, and fully expressed the very conditions of its position in the United States both in respect to their government and in respect to the various non-Catholic churches and communities existing in this country.

The first section, consisting of seven chapters, was devoted to dogmatic questions, and as such does not present particular interest, constituting the usual exposition of the Church’s faith.[4] Yet even here there are several features arising from the particular conditions of the Roman Catholic Church’s position in America. The third chapter was devoted to the question of Holy Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church by its historical practice demonstrated its opposition to the popularization of the Bible, denied the necessity of its translation into the vernacular language and the people’s reading of it.[5] In America, on the contrary, it encountered a new fact: the Bible was considered the most popular and common book, without which Christianity itself is inconceivable. Under such circumstances, to deprive the people of the opportunity to read the Bible would mean not only to place itself in the eyes of other Christian communities as an enemy of Christianity, but also to forfeit all hope of conversion from other confessions. The council’s prelates fully understood this situation and in the chapter on Holy Scripture spoke out in favor of the necessity of giving the people the Bible in intelligible English, the so-called Douay translation (Duacensis versio), which had been accepted already by the prelates of preceding councils.[6] Remarkable in this regard is the fact that the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide itself, in its response to the Archbishop of Baltimore reviewing the council’s acts, not only did not express opposition to such a decree, but on the contrary itself confirmed its necessity. It instructed the archbishop to compare again the various English editions of the Bible, to avail himself of other Catholic translations if they exist, so as to have in English a true and unimpeachable text of all books of Holy Scripture, which should then be distributed throughout all the dioceses of America.[7] In the sixth chapter is made the affirmation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, “which Pope Pius IX solemnly defined, amid the rejoicing of the entire universal Catholic world, respectfully and willingly heeding and accepting it as the voice of Peter and the pronouncement (oraculum) of Christ himself.”[8] Then the prelates in defining true doctrine necessarily encountered a mass of false doctrines abounding in America. Therefore, just as it was natural for them to affirm Catholic doctrine, so too was it natural to deny and condemn non-Catholic doctrine, especially in its extreme manifestations. The seventh chapter they devoted to the question of wandering errors (De erroribus serpentibus), in which they condemn both the general principle of wandering sectarianism and its particular manifestations in the form of indifferentism, which regards all religions and churches as equal; unitarianism, which denies the divinity of Jesus Christ; universalism, which denies the eternity of torment after death; transcendentalism and pantheism, which “impiously cast God himself from his throne,” and finally in the form of the most characteristic broils in America—mesmerism and spiritualism.[9] Spiritualism is especially widespread in America, and to its condemnation the prelates devoted a longer paragraph. They also give an explanation of its phenomena. “What has been well examined, they say, appears to be that most of those wonderful phenomena which, it is said, are produced in spiritualist circles (in circulis spiritismi), are either fabricated, or produced by the crafty art of the performers, or should be attributed to the imagination of persons called mediums (media) and the credulity (credulitati) of spectators, or finally to some clever sleight of hand, such as is common among magicians. However, the prelates add, it should not seem questionable that some phenomena result from satanic intervention, since they can scarcely be adequately explained in any other way. And it does not seem surprising if in these latest days, in which dangerous times arrive, so ancient an enemy of mankind again strives to introduce the art of ancient magic, under different however forms more suited to the present state of the world, to the ruin of mankind.”[10] Having then expounded the teaching on good and evil spirits, the prelates ask what is surprising if the devil begins again to establish his kingdom in society where “so great a number of those who are called Christians have never been washed in baptism and thus have not passed from darkness to light and have not known Christ?”[11] In conclusion, they exhort “those in Christ that by no means, even indirectly, should they favor spiritualism and that they should not even out of curiosity attend its circles. And those who enter the devil’s house, let them beware lest they be deceived by his machinations and not fall under his power.”[12]

The second section has as its subject the hierarchy and governance of the Church,[13] and the first chapter naturally is devoted to the head of the Church—the Roman Pope. The question of submission to the Pope for the American Church has a double interest—ecclesiastical and political. In the latter respect, the dependence of Roman Catholics in the United States on the Roman Pope continually aroused and arouses public suspicion regarding their true attachment to the republican government, so that in some states, as we saw above, Catholics upon assuming public office were required to take an oath denying their submission to “foreign ecclesiastical authority.” But the council’s prelates felt such strength that they no longer feared public opinion and solemnly proclaimed their filial loyalty to the Pope, whom “Christ established as the head and center of his entire Church.”[14] They declare with what filial obedience they always receive directives from the Holy See and together with Pope Pius IX condemn the way of thinking and acting of those “who give little weight (parvipendunt) to what is not expressly defined in Catholic faith, and hold opinions and even make proposals that are altogether alien to the general sense of Catholics and even scandalous and offensive to pious ears.”[15] The prelates then insist even on the necessity of temporal power for the Pope as an independent sovereign in an independent state. For, they repeat from the apostolic letter of March 26, 1860, “when the Catholic Church, founded and established by Lord Christ for the care of eternal salvation of men, by virtue of its divine institution achieved the form of a perfect society, then it should also enjoy freedom, so that in its sacred governance it should not be subject to any civil authority. And insofar as, in order to act freely, it required those advantages that accord with the conditions and necessities of the times, therefore by the counsel of God’s particular providence it was ordained that, when the Roman Empire dissolved and divided into many kingdoms, the Roman pontiff, whom Christ placed as head and center of his entire Church, received civil dominion (principatum). Therefore it was set by God’s wise counsel that amidst the multitude and variety of secular rulers, the supreme pontiff enjoy political freedom, which is so necessary for the unhindered exercise of his spiritual might, power, and jurisdiction over the whole world (toto orbe). So it clearly should be that in the event of any doubt arising in the Catholic world, perhaps by the instigation of civil powers or party passion (partium studio), one might appeal to that seat to which every Church must have recourse by reason of its preeminent authority.”[16] Having cited these words of the papal letter, the prelates for their part declare that in mind and heart they proclaim their agreement with them.[17] Having then affirmed the twofold right of bishops to teach and govern the Christian world in union with the Roman pontiff,[18] the council particularly dwells on the synodal form of Church governance, and according to the counsel of the Council of Trent, decrees that provincial councils be convoked every three years throughout the United States, “for, in the conviction of the prelates, in these assemblies of unity can be found the best and most effective remedies against the ills besetting all parts of the Church, when the pastors of dioceses unite their wisdom in adopting measures most suitable for ensuring the salvation of souls.”[19] The prelates motivate the necessity of frequent synodal consultations by the changing conditions and circumstances of the Church’s life and activity and repeat the following words of Pope Benedict XIV: “With time the manners of men change, the circumstances of things change, and what at one time was useful afterwards becomes useless and even harmful. The duty of a prudent prelate, if he is not bound otherwise by a higher law, consists in conforming himself to the time and place and abolishing what was in use in ancient times, when he judges in the Lord that this will be more useful for the diocese entrusted to him.”[20] Besides this the prelates recommend having diocesan or eparchial synods as frequently as possible.[21] If the extent of the diocese does not permit priests to gather annually, then the bishop must convoke a synod at least after each provincial or plenary council to promulgate decrees and ensure their observance. Meanwhile, the place of the synod, at least in part, may be taken by ecclesiastical conferences (collationes) organized in districts. The prelates express the desire that such conferences be held in cities four times a year, and at least once a year in rural districts where it is difficult for priests to gather.[22]

[1] The decrees are as follows: Title 1: On Orthodox Faith, and on creeping errors. II: On Hierarchy and Church Government. III: On Ecclesiastical Persons. IV: On Churches and Ecclesiastical Goods to be held and protected. V: On the Sacraments. VI: On Divine Worship. VII: On Promoting Uniformity of Discipline. VIII: On Religious and Nuns. IX: On the Instruction and Pious Instruction of Youth. X: On More Effectively Promoting Salvation of Souls. XI: On Books and Journals. XII: On Secret Societies. XIII: On the Erection of New Episcopal Sees and on the Presentation of Candidates. XIV: On More Efficacious Execution of Baltimore Decrees for promotion.

[2] Catholic World, Vol. IX, p. 499.

[3] We have before us the second complete edition of the Council’s acts, the full title of which is as follows: Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis II in Ecclesia Metropolitana Baltimorensi a die VII ad diem XXI Octobris A. D MDCCCLXVI habiti et a sede Apostolic recogniti Acta et Decreta. Editio Altera mendis expurgata. Excudebat Joannes Murphy Summi Pontificis, atque Archiepiscopi Baltimorensis Typographus. Baltimorae. MDCCCLXXII. The entire edition is in Latin, except for the pastoral letter of the prelates of the Council to the clergy and people, which is published in English. Attached to the acts and decrees is a large Appendix containing corrections and instructions from the Roman Congregatio de Propaganda Fide and other supreme authorities of Rome.

[4] Acta et Decreta, pp. 3–33.

[5] Barnum, Romanism as it is, pp. 417–419.

[6] Acta et Decreta, Capnt III, p. 14. “Statuimus igitur, ut Duacensis versio, quae in omnibus ecclesiis quarum fideles Anglice loquuntur recepta, et a praedecessoribus nostris usui fidelium merito proposita est, omnino retneatur”. § 16. “The Douay Bible” is the popular name of the English translation of the Bible, made in accordance with the Vulgate and approved by the University of Douay in France in 1609. Barnum, Romanism, p. 412.

[7] Catholic World, Vol. IX, p. 500.

[8] Acta et Decreta, p. 21, § 24.

[9] Acta et Decreta, pp. 22–33.

[10] Acta et Decreta, p. 30, § 36.

[11] Acta et Decreta, p. 32, § 39.

[12] “And we exhort them in Christ, that they in no way, either directly or indirectly, favor Spiritualism, and never even from curiosity attend its gatherings. For whoever enters the house of the devil, let them fear lest they be deceived by his machinations and subject to his dominion.” Acta et Decreta, p. 33, § 41.

[13] On Hierarchy and Church Government.

[14] Acta et Decreta p. 34–38.

[15] Acta et Decreta, p. 37, § 46.

[16] And so it was fitting that the Catholic world have no occasion for doubt that, driven perhaps by civil authorities or partisan zeal, the See to which all churches must resort on account of its greater principality might sometimes be directed in universal governance. Acta et Decreta, p. 38, § 47.

[17] With these most illustrious words of the Supreme Pontiff, the Fathers of this Council gave their full assent of mind and heart. Ibidem, p. 39.

[18] Acta et Decreta, Title II, Cap. II, p. 40–45.

[19] Catholic World, Vol. IX, p. 502.

[20] Acta et Decreta, p. 49, § 61.

[21] Acta et Decreta, p. 50.

[22] Acta et Decreta, Titus 2, caput IV, pp. 50–53.

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (10)

The third section treats of “ecclesiastical persons” and the first chapter is devoted to the question of “metropolitans,” to whom in accordance with Catholicism’s usual tendency toward centralization the right of appeal by priests against the actions of their immediate bishops is granted.[1] In determining the rights and privileges of the metropolitan, the council showed a tendency toward decentralization, and the prelates passed over in silence the aforementioned right of appeal and the metropolitan’s intervention in episcopal governance. But the Roman Curia immediately noticed this omission, and to the three points defining metropolitan rights (reporting to the sacred seat about bishops who fail to observe residence laws, convening provincial councils, and bearing the cross), it added two new ones, by which he is granted the right: to supply what has been neglected by bishops through negligence in cases determined by law, and to receive appeals against episcopal decisions.[2] Then is established the method of electing bishops (c. III), which consists in the following: every three years each bishop sends to his metropolitan and the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide a list of persons whom he considers worthy of the episcopate with detailed exposition of their distinguishing qualities. When a see becomes vacant, the bishops of the province gather in a synod or in some assembly and discuss the aptitude of candidates put forward by each of them. After secret examination, three names are sent to Rome with records of election. By this presentation the Pope appoints one to the see and raises him to episcopal dignity. Such an order has existed since 1861 everywhere.[3] Having then devoted several chapters to questions about the life and activity of the clergy and a special chapter (c. V) to preaching, which has extraordinary importance in America, where Protestantism reduces all church life to brilliant preaching, the prelates with particular care dwell on the question of ecclesiastical education. The earlier councils already made efforts toward establishing seminaries in each diocese, but even by the time of this council many dioceses still lacked seminaries. Therefore the prelates express the desire that, if it is not yet possible to establish them everywhere, then at least each metropolitan province should have its own seminary, whose maintenance should be the combined responsibility of all bishops within it.[4] The prelates distinguish two levels of education: the minor seminary or praeparatorium, where boys meeting the conditions prescribed by the Council of Trent are admitted,[5] and the major seminary (seminaruim major), where clerics hear lectures on dogmatic and moral theology, canon law, hermeneutics, and sacred eloquence. If the seminary serves as a common institution for an entire province, then study should not be limited to merely elementary ecclesiastical sciences, but instruction should include a full course of exegetics and Eastern languages, as well as the latest philosophical systems, explained in such a way that the students might resolve all difficulties and objections presented by modern unbelief. “For now, the prelates say, we must contend not with heresies and often refuted errors of the ancients, but with new opponents—unbeliefs, and indeed more heathen than Christian, who care neither for God nor for the divine, and yet are most learned (cultissimis) and ingenious (ingeniosis), who preach that everything in heaven or on earth should be measured by reason (ratione mitienda dictitant), and thus they flatter the pride innate in human nature and seduce those who do not guard themselves against danger. To such, if truth cannot convince them, the mouth at least must be shut (os obstruendum est), so that by the empty sound of their words they might not scandalize the inexperienced.”[6] By requiring of students a strict moral discipline as the best ornament of learning, and by permitting the German language in provinces with a preponderant German population, the prelates conclude their determinations on ecclesiastical education.[7]

A question of very great importance in the life and activity of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States is that concerning church property. Its property position gives it special grandeur in the country compared to other confessions and often brings it into conflict with the state. The council devotes an entire section (Titulus IV) to this question; because of its importance we devote a separate chapter to it below, and therefore confine ourselves here merely to noting that the council insists on the Church’s fullest right to dispose of church property, denying any intervention of civil authority.[8] The following section is devoted to the question of the sacraments. Besides the usual and general determination regarding the significance and administration of sacraments, the council faced many particular questions occasioned by local conditions of the country. Thus, in examining the sacrament of baptism, the question arose of the validity of baptism administered by Protestant sects. Most of them regard baptism as a mere ceremony, “which has no significance for the salvation of the soul,” and therefore perform it often negligently. In view of this, the question arose how to regard such baptism in the conversion of Protestants to Catholicism. “Hence those whom God’s special grace calls away and leads out from their ranks must almost always be rebaptized. Yet not all who are baptized by heretics should be rebaptized. The priest in each case should make detailed investigation of all the conditions of the baptism administered to the convert, and only then should administer the sacrament again when the invalidity of the former baptism is fully evident.”[9] In examining the sacrament of the Eucharist, the question arose concerning the material for it, and especially wine. America is only beginning to cultivate the grape and in wine production remains entirely dependent on Europe. But since one cannot be certain of the purity and integrity of wines imported from Europe, the prelates express the desire to establish a special community in Florida, which should be entrusted with the special care of preparing material for the administration of various sacraments—wine, oil, and so forth. This community might also keep beehives and supply the various dioceses with pure wax candles. Meanwhile they caution priests against using for the Eucharist wines commonly sold under the names port, sherry, madeira, malaga, and rather to choose Bordeaux, Sauternes, Catawba, Isabella, and other wines less subject to alteration or adulteration, and concerning whose “whole nature there is no sufficient ground for doubt. However, the wine necessary for the sacrifice must be obtained from the most genuine producers, who should be Catholics of known integrity; and since at present, when cultivation of vineyards is beginning almost everywhere and there is a large supply of genuine wine, so much the more easily can it be achieved that there might be no excuse for negligence in such an important matter.”[10] The prelates devote an extensive chapter to the sacrament of penance, which so often troubles Protestants, and in the chapter on indulgences they try carefully to establish and clarify their true meaning as the Church’s right to free from temporal punishment for sin.[11] “Let the preachers of the divine word teach the faithful thus, and let them not confuse the true and established dogmas of the Church with the opinions of theologians. Let them make this clear and instill it steadily and teach it so soundly that the faithful might easily refute the absurd and frequently repeated cavils (cavillationes) of heretics, many of whom either from ignorance, and even more from malice, daily attack (debacebantur) this teaching and practice of the Church.”[12] In the question of marriage also there are several distinctive features occasioned by local conditions of the Church’s position. The prelates condemn the doctrine of free love spread in America, and even more those who “wish to introduce impure polygamy again. Such folk come together like apes, animals without spirit.”[13] In view of the known ease of American attitudes toward marriage, the prelates with particular insistence affirm the true teaching of the Church and strictly rebuke contrary teachings in their pastoral letter to the clergy and people. “We recall (the true teaching of the Church), they say, to strengthen our solemn exhortation to our flock not to heed the false and debasing theories concerning the subject of matrimonial relations which are boldly put forth by enemies of the Church. According to these theories, marriage is a mere civil contract subject to the jurisdiction of civil authority and from which an aggrieved or unsatisfied party may free himself through divorce so as to be able to contract new agreements. This stands in obvious contradiction to the words of Christ: what God has joined, let man not divide. As the guardian of God’s holy law, the Church condemns this false theory, which would lead to consistent polygamy, no less contrary to the unity and stability of Christian marriage than that shared polygamy which to the scandal of Christianity is found in our realm. No state law can authorize divorce so as to allow divorced parties to contract new agreements; and any such new agreement contracted while so divorced parties are alive contains the crime of adultery. We point with sorrow to the scandalous increase of those unlawful divorces, which more than any other cause undermine the foundations of morality and prepare the complete destruction of the foundation upon which society is built.”[14] The council exhorts against mixed marriages with heretics;[15] meanwhile in practice there are even cases when Catholics in remote localities far from church centers enter into marriage with Protestants who in fact turn out to be even unbaptized. In such cases the marriage in the eyes of the Church is not marriage at all. Often, however, those so united live in good agreement and good faith, and when a priest, learning of the unlawfulness of their union, proposes to them to formalize their cohabitation, sometimes the unbaptized party refuses. For such cases the prelates request from the Pope authority to grant missionaries who frequently visit these remote places the power to validly (in radice) repair such marriages.[16] The council also found that in most provinces of the United States the determination of the Council of Trent regarding secret marriages had not been proclaimed. In some districts the proclamation is subject to doubt. The prelates insist on exact fulfillment of the determination.[17]

The sixth section is devoted to determinations concerning the conduct of worship and the seventh treats the establishment of uniform discipline.[18] In the area of ecclesiastical discipline the prelates encountered the fact that over the vast expanse of the United States there existed great diversity in the observance of certain church ordinances. This was especially noticeable in the observance of feasts and fasts. “In some places seven or eight feasts are celebrated, while in others four times as many. The observance of fasts, apart from Lent, also varies from place to place.”[19] The prelates were troubled by such deviation from the Church’s unified teaching and appealed to Rome with a petition that uniform practice be established in this matter. But remarkably, Rome proved more liberal in this respect than the council’s prelates, and in its response said that it was better to respect the existing customs of each diocese, and that if changes were necessary, each bishop could separately appeal to the Pope about it.[20] But the feast of the Immaculate Conception was declared a feast of patronage for the United States and therefore made obligatory throughout the country.[21] In other respects uniformity is established. The prelates desire complete uniformity in all that pertains to Christian instruction and prayer books. A catechism should be composed according to Cardinal Bellarmine’s catechism, adapted to the particular position of Catholics in the United States.[22] Prayer books that have not received episcopal approval should not be used by Catholics.[22] The prelates forbid the raising of money for church or charitable needs through places of amusement, for such a method occasions public scandal and “exposes the Catholic name to ridicule and mockery by those of other faiths.”[23] Then they exhort Catholics to refrain from such entertainments which are known in American cities under the name of picnics and excursions.[24]

[1] Acta et Decreta, pp. 59–62.

[2] It supplies the neglect of suffragan bishops in cases provided by law. It receives appeals from the judgment of suffragan bishops, according to the rules defined by the holy canons. Acta et decreta, p. 61, 62, § 81.

[3] Acta et Decreta, pp. 69–75, Catholic World, Vol. IX, p. 503.

[4] Acta et Dacreta, p. 106, § 174.

[5] Acta et Decreta, § 176.

[6] Acta et Decreta, p. 108, § 178.

[7] Acta et Decreta, pp. 108–110, § 179–181

[8] Acta et Decreta, p. 117.

[9] Acta et Decreta, p. 132, § 240.

[10] Acta et Decreta, §§ 266, 267, 311, 373. Appendix, X, On the use of genuine wine in Mass. Cp. Catholic World, Vol. IX, p, 506.

[11] Acta et Decreta, §297– 298.

[12] Acta et Decreta, § 301.

[13] Acta et Decreta, § 325.

[14] Pastoral Letters of the Council Fathers, in the common language, directed to the clergy and people committed to them. Acta et Decreta, p, XXXIX.

[15] Acta et Decreta, §§ 334–338.

[16] Acta et Decreta, § 339.

[17] Acta et Decreta, § 340.

[18] On Promoting Uniformity of Discipline. Acta et Decreta. Title VII, pp. 198–208.

[19] Acta Det ecreta, § 382.

[20] “Let the Bishops whose concern it is, recur in particular, setting forth the reasons of their petition”, Acta et Decreta, p. 199, 2nd note to § 383.

[21] Acta et Decreta, § 383.

[22] Acta et Decreta, § 387.

[23] Acta et Decreta, § 396, p. 205.

[24] Acta et Decreta, § 396. The prelates found it necessary to confirm this decree in their pastoral letter as well, where it takes an even more strict form. “We deem it our duty to warn our people against those amusements which may easily become for them an occasion for sin, and especially against those fashionable dances which, as they are performed at present, offend all sense of delicacy and propriety, and are attended with the greatest danger to morality. We also solemnly warn them against great abuses arising in the form of fairs, picnics, and excursions in which, as too often happens, the name of charity is made a cover for a multitude of sins. We forbid all Catholics to participate in them, except in those cases when they are conducted in accordance with the bishop’s rules and under the immediate supervision of their respective pastors.” Literae Pastorales. Acta et Decreta, p. XLVI.

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (11)

Besides questions concerning monasteries (Titulus VIII), popular education (Titulus IX), and other means promoting the development of church life (Titulus X), to which because of their importance we devote separate chapters of investigation, the council did not fail to turn most serious attention to one public force which in America more than in any other country exerts influence on society—namely, literature both in books and especially in periodical, newspaper and journal form. An entire section it devotes to the question “of books and newspapers (De Libris et Ephemeridibus).” Having praised the art of printing, “which more than all other inventions of recent times has brought convenience for literature, science, religion itself and all human life and society,”[1] the prelates note with sorrow: “But alas (Verum proh dolor), this excellent art that cunning enemy of God and mankind strove to steal for himself and turn to his own use. And it is scarcely credible what progress heresies made in the sixteenth century, how many souls that infernal robber and murderer destroyed by making use of this most clever and almost divine art. Such is the weakness of human nature, such is the persistence and malice of the demon in the destruction of people redeemed by Christ.”[2] Turning to a survey of literature’s contemporary influence, the prelates say: “Now daily there issue forth in every form and at cheap prices bad books, booklets, tales and newspapers which are eagerly snapped up (fere teruntur) by all. What is most lamentable, some of these books, tales, journals, public papers and others of this kind, whose writers, if not openly then covertly and as if by cunning stratagems strive to attack and undermine religion and morality, are bought by Catholics or published at their expense, received in their homes and read by their children and families. Truly sad is the blindness of those parents who with their own hands dig for themselves a pit and prepare their ruin (ruinam parant)!”[3] Having portrayed the ruinous influence of immoral publications, the prelates call on all the faithful, especially heads of families, to cleanse their homes of all harmful and dangerous books, confirming their exhortation with the words of the apostle: “if anyone does not care for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”[4] In view of this all school books must be carefully reviewed, corrected and subjected to episcopal approval.[5] For this purpose a special council has been established, composed of rectors of three colleges of the Baltimore metropolitan province.[6] But if bad books must be eliminated in every way, then on the contrary, boni libri should be distributed as widely as possible among the people. The prelates express the desire that societies specially engaged in spreading salutary and useful books be formed everywhere, and they point to the New York (Neo-Eboraci) “Society of Catholic Publications” as a model.[7] In each city committees should be formed, connected with the central society, and annual monetary collections should be made to support this work.[8] Prayer books should always be examined by theologians and not printed except with episcopal approval.[9] “What we have said above concerning good and bad books, the prelates say, can easily be applied also to newspapers (Ephemeridibus) or public papers. Of them some are impious and accursed; very many are extremely (maxime) ruinous to morality; few are such as can perhaps (utcumque) be tolerated, and very few that would merit praise and recommendation. Reading of those which are worthless, the shepherds of souls should altogether forbid, but carefully and wisely and not always by name, so that the souls of the younger or coarser might not be inflamed thereby to more avid reading. Good ones and those admitted to the list as beneficial to religion and souls let them recommend and take care to maintain, read and spread them.”[10] “Public papers published or managed by Catholics should exist if they contribute to the good of the Catholic faith. But from fears lest the political opinions of writers be attributed to church authority or the Catholic religion, as this often is done by malicious opponents, we wish all to be duly informed that we recognize no journal as Catholic if it does not bear the approval of the bishop (Ordinarii approbationem).”[11] “In many dioceses there exist journals which enjoy the very name of Catholic and bear the approval of the bishop. For by them as if the bishop uses them as means and instruments through which he announces to the clergy and people his commands and his thoughts. Hence they are commonly called official organs (Organa officialia), as if he who holds episcopal office and dignity teaches and speaks to his flock on every page and line. This opinion, false as it is, arising from an erroneous understanding of such a designation, fills the minds of all, especially heretics. From this great inconvenience arises; for all that is written by the writers of these papers or sheets, sometimes under the influence of human passion falsely, confusedly and immoderately, is attributed to the bishop himself, as if he were thus teaching the people by force of his office.”[12] “So that in this way we might remove this heavy and burdensome responsibility from episcopal office hereafter; so that we might correctly and clearly establish the true relationship, as it is said, of bishops to church papers or Catholic journals; so that afterwards no doubt might exist on the part of ours or of opponents,—the fathers of this plenary council declare and proclaim that the approval of the bishop, which is commonly given to Catholic papers, means nothing other than that the bishop finds in them nothing contrary to faith and morality, hopes that in the future there will be nothing such, and that the editors themselves are such that their writings can be useful for edification; the bishop himself cannot and should not be responsible or give account for everything that is in such papers, but only for what he himself publishes by virtue of his office for the instruction, exhortation, command or prohibition of the people, and under which he signs his own hand.”[13] The prelates of the council considered this question so important that they found it necessary with persistence to repeat this determination also in their pastoral letter. “We joyfully acknowledge, they say, the services which the Catholic press has rendered to religion, and also the disinterestedness with which in the majority it is conducted, giving editors and publishers very small remuneration for their labors. We exhort the Catholic community to render these publications more generous support, so that they might become more worthy of the cause for which they work. We recall that the power of the press is one of the most striking features of modern society, and that we are bound by duty to use this means for proclaiming the truths of our religion and removing misunderstandings which generally prevail concerning them. If many of these publications do not represent what we would wish them to be, it is often explained by the fact that the actual cause of their unsatisfactory quality lies in insufficient support received from the Catholic public. Demand and supply correspond to each other; and if in many cases the former produces the latter, then at least in regard to Catholic publications demand should precede supply. We also wish to warn against the misunderstanding which often arises from the fact that the bishop’s name is connected with such publications, so that they are recognized as organs, that is, means through which the bishop communicates with his flock. This circumstance gives no other sanction to articles appearing in these publications except that which they receive from the name of the writer when it is designated; much less does it identify the bishop with the publication so as to justify the conclusion that everything that appears in it has his sanction and authority. This simply means that the bishop may from time to time place in it such official documents as he finds necessary to publish; but concerning them in the highest degree it would be desirable to have a special regular method of communication.”[14] The prelates of the council then express the desire that a special journal (Quarterly Review) be founded, which would be specially devoted to the exposition and defense of Catholic doctrine and which would be the property of the Archbishop of Baltimore, New York or others with him,[15] and in their pastoral letter again dwell on the special recommendation of the “Society of Catholic Publications” in New York. “In connection with this, they say, we cordially recommend to the faithful the Society of Catholic Publications, recently founded in the city of New York by a zealous and devoted clergyman. Besides the publication of short tracts, with which the Society began and which can be useful for attracting the attention of those who have neither inclination nor leisure to read large works, this Society intends the publication of Catholic books, according to how circumstances may allow and the interests of religion may require. Judging from the good taste in the composition and selection of those books already published by the Society, we dare hope that it will be very useful in acquainting with the truths of our holy religion and in dispelling the prejudices which owe their existence mainly to the lack of familiarity with them on the part of so many of our countrymen. For this reason it is necessary that generous assistance be rendered both by the clergy and by laypeople to this enterprise which in importance yields to none of the auxiliary means which the inventions of modern times present to our service for the spread of Catholic truth.”[16]

Besides the press as an open force, in the United States another force has great significance in public life—in the form of an extensive network of secret societies formed for the achievement of various goals—religious, moral, economic and political. The council’s prelates did not overlook this circumstance and devoted to it the twelfth section of their decrees.[17] “Secret societies, which hide in darkness to work more effectively against the good of the Church or civil society, have always been condemned by the Catholic Church,” they say.[18] Having cited various papal determinations regarding the prohibition of secret societies, the prelates confirm them in regard to American secret societies and especially the society of Freemasons, which is strongly widespread in America. “Masonic and other such societies, which openly or covertly contrive against the Church or legitimate authorities, are censured and condemned.”[19] But besides societies that have more or less declared their hostility to the Church or existing order, in America there are many such societies which claim to have nothing against the Church and state, and constitute a secret society either for cooperation, or for mutual aid, or even simply for ordinary social pleasures. Thus the Archbishop of Philadelphia Kenrick appealed to the Roman Curia for a decision on the question how to apply the determinations prohibiting secret societies to such an American society as the “Odd Fellows,” which is very extensive in America. The Congregatio inquisitionis, to whose jurisdiction this question belonged, was not able to find an answer to this question and responded only: “conform to the papal bulls.”[20] Having compiled these bulls and determinations, the council’s prelates came to the following conclusion: “After careful examination of them, we find no grounds for the Church’s prohibition against Masonic and other secret sects to extend to those societies of workers which have no other purpose than to afford mutual protection and assistance to members of their craft. Yet care must be taken lest under this pretext anything favorable to condemned sects be permitted; and that workers who give their names to these societies not be seduced by base and covert tricks of wicked men, not withdraw from their proper work, and in no way trample upon laws. Yet all this should not be understood so as to regard as tolerable those societies, whatever their character, in which members from the moment of entering are bound by oath to obey whatever may be commanded by the society’s leaders, or to enter into such secret alliances which have as their object the obstruction of legitimate authority. Neither are permitted those societies in which members unite for mutual defense in such a way that danger of uprising or disorder might arise.”[21] But in any case, the prelates conclude, “the children of light do only the deeds that are of light, do not love what is secret and dark, on the contrary hate it and are horrified by it. And so let the faithful beware and strive in every way not to be deceived in this matter, lest under the guise of good they be drawn into worse bondage, lest finally, moving in darkness and the shadow of death, trampling upon the most sacred laws, they enter into such communities which should be feared as the greatest evil of our age, whose sole purpose might turn out to be the trampling underfoot of all rights, both divine and human.”[22]

The thirteenth section treats the establishment of new sees and the fourteenth concerns more effective means of executing the council’s decrees. “We exhort the bishops that they move no stone neither in visiting the diocese nor in synods both eparchial and provincial, nor in assembling priests for discussion of theological teachings until there shall be fulfilled in all the determinations of this plenary council, whose collection completes and confirms all laws, established and proclaimed by the preceding Baltimore councils and recognized by the judgment of the holy see.”[23] “Finally, so that the determinations of this plenary council might better reach the knowledge of our priests and be better realized in practice, we decree that they, after recognition by the holy see, be published, received in our schools of canon law and theology as a certain norm which the professors should follow and explain in teaching, and all students diligently and carefully study.”[24] Then follow the signatures of the council’s prelates.

To the council’s acts is appended a “pastoral letter,” in which the prelates briefly set forth the council’s determinations, and its first paragraph establishes the legislative force of plenary councils. “The authority of these councils,” the prelates say, “is original, not borrowed; and therefore their determinations from the time of their promulgation have the character of church law for the faithful in the district or region subject to the jurisdiction of the bishops by whom they were established. But by a wise rule which combines the beneficence of central authority with the advantages of local legislation, the determinations of these councils are not proclaimed until they have been presented to the holy see. This is not only to give them even higher authority, but also to guard against any inaccuracy in the exposition of faith, or any determination at variance with the general teaching of the Church or even such as might be contrary to the spirit of ecclesiastical legislation.”[25]

[1] Acta et Decreta, § 492.

[2] Acta et Decreta, § 493.

[3] Acta et Decreta, § 494.

[4] 1 Tim 5:8. Acta et Decreta, § 495.

[5] Acta et Decreta, § 496.

[6] Acta et Decreta, § 497.

[7] Catholic Publication Society, on Barclay Street in New York. This society at present serves as the richest Catholic library in the country, and the author owes it many books which he used for his work and which are not found in other libraries. It owes its founding to the well-known founder of the American order of Paulists, the Reverend Hecker, the current editor of the journal The Catholic World.

[8] Acte et Decreta, § 500. 501.

[9] Acta et Decreta, Cap. III, §§ 502–504.

[10] Acta et Decreta, § 505.

[11] Acta et Decreta, § 506.

[12] Acta et Decreta, § 507.

[13] Acta et Decreta, § 508.

[14] Literae Pastorales, in Acta et Decreta p. XLI.

[15] Acta et Dacreta, § 509.

[16] Literae Pastorales, in Acta et Decreta, p. XLII.

[17] Title XII, On Secret Societies. Acta et Decreta, pp. 260–265 §§ 511–523.

[18] Acta et Decreta, § 511.

[19] Acta et Decreta, § 512.

[20] “Comprehendi Bullis Pontificiis”. Acta et Decreta, Appendix XV, pp. 300–301.

[21] Acta et Decreta, § 519.

[22] Acta et Decreta, § 523.

[23] Acta et Decreta, § 533.

[24] Acta et Decreta, § 534.

[25] Pastoral Letters of the Council Fathers, in the common language, directed to the clergy and people committed to them, in Acta et Decreta, p. XXVIII.

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (12)

In reviewing the council’s determinations, the prelates in their pastoral letter dwell on such aspects of church life which could not find more or less detailed exposition in the determinations themselves. Thus, they devote a special paragraph to the question of “the relationship of Church and state,” and it is so important in the sense of clarifying both the views of the Roman Catholic Church on this subject and the actual state of these relations in the United States that we find it necessary to cite the general part of it here. “The Church’s enemies,” the prelates say, “do not fail to depict its claims as incompatible with the independence of civil authority, and its action as hostile to the state’s activity for the development of society’s well-being. Not only are these accusations unsupported by facts, but the Church’s power and influence appear to be the most effective support of earthly authority by which society is governed. True, the Church does not proclaim the absolute and visible independence of civil authority, for it teaches with the apostle that ‘all authority is from God’; that the earthly ruler is His servant and that the power of the sword which he uses in exercising authority is given him from above (Rom 13:1-5). For the Church’s members obedience to civil authority is not subjection to irresistible force; and not merely a condition of peace and security; but a religious duty founded on obedience to God, by whose authority the civil ruler exercises his power. But this power, as subordinate and granted, must always be exercised according to God’s law. By prescribing anything contrary to this law, civil authority exceeds its authority and has no right to obedience. Disobedience to God can never be lawful, as clearly declared by the apostles Peter and John before the tribunal which sat to judge them: ‘Whether it is right in God’s sight to listen to you rather than to God’ (Acts 4:10). This undeniable principle does not, however, lead to the same consequences in the Catholic system as in the systems of sects. In the latter the individual is the supreme judge of what the law of God commands or forbids, and consequently is able to claim the sanction of the supreme law for what in the end may be, and often is, only the prompting of an undisciplined mind or inflamed imagination. And from civil government one cannot expect recognition of an authority which has no guarantee of its divine character and limits in its application, without plunging the state into disorder and anarchy. A Catholic has a guide in the Church as a divine institution, which gives him the means to distinguish what God’s law forbids or permits, and this authority the state is bound to recognize as supreme in the sphere of moral teaching no less than dogmatic. There may be cases when individual Catholics make an incorrect application of this principle; or when, while recognizing the principle of obedience to civil authority as a divine obligation, the seat of this authority might be the object of doubt, owing to a division of opinion prevailing regarding this important fact. The Church makes no claim to decide such matters in the earthly order, for it is not the judge in civil disputes, though it has always, when invited to do so, endeavored to remove misunderstandings from which contentions so often arise and to give advice for the common good, maintaining the peace of society and the rights of justice.”[1]

The acts and determinations of the council published to the world undoubtedly constitute an important legislative monument which will long serve as a guide for the church life of the Roman Catholic population in the United States. As to the value which Catholics themselves place on it, one can judge from the following passage of a Catholic publicist:

“Reading them involuntarily one is struck by the wisdom and prudence which characterize them. After divine assistance, of course not denied to so holy an undertaking, here you find that American common sense, extraordinarily precise and practical, which in dealing with elevated subjects takes them chiefly from their positive side and, while not losing sight of principle, always adapts them to time and circumstances. If the disciplinary side is very rich in this book, then pure theory occupies little space. The council before all else wished to be a work of organization. No less remarkable in what it did not say than in what it said, it apparently embodied the counsel of the poet: semper ad eventum festinat; there are neither unnecessary details nor useless erudition; everything bears the stamp of legislation, soberly yet firmly reasoned, in which nothing is omitted that can illuminate and convince the mind, and nothing is allowed to lengthen the brief text or complicate a simple matter. This is a stately monument of simple and severe proportions; art apparently is neglected in it, but in any case it does not seem to be absent. If it were permissible in view of so great a work to draw attention to a secondary detail, we would say that seminarians studying these acts will find in them a model of that beautiful Latin which unfortunately is too rare in theological treatises.”[2]

XIV

“We willingly acknowledge, say the prelates of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, that very great benefits have been derived for religion from the fact that religious men in our dioceses have performed their work. There has always been such a thought among our forebears and we still retain the same opinion, that by their labors much is lightened of the burden laid upon bishops; timely help is given to the secular clergy burdened with pastoral duties, and finally the faithful people receive very many blessings from more than one source.”[3] With such a solemn acknowledgment of the services of monastic orders for the cause of Roman Catholicism in America did the council’s prelates find it necessary to open their treatise on those in the monastic life. This acknowledgment corresponds to their services to the Roman Catholic Church and perhaps does not even fully appreciate them. Monastic orders always constitute an important element in the organizing activity of the Roman Catholic Church. They are its warriors, whom it sends to all lands of the world for the conquest of nations. Bound by no personal interests and living only by the will of the supreme head of Roman Catholicism, they at his first gesture leave their homeland and selflessly go to the most distant ends of the earth, to the impenetrable wilds of deserts, to the midst of bloodthirsty savages, and preach to them the gospel of love and submission to the “vicar of Christ” on earth. “I confess,” writes Leibniz, “I have always looked with ardent admiration at monastic orders; they are something like a heavenly army on earth. They constitute one of those special qualities which make one regard with respect the Church that has preserved the name and marks of Catholicism, so that it alone produces and fosters these brilliant examples of elevated virtues and ascetical life.”[4] But if the services of monastic orders are generally important for the Roman Catholic Church, then in the United States they acquire even greater importance in view of the special conditions of the introduction and development there of Roman Catholicism. The growth of the Roman Catholic population in this country proceeds so rapidly and under conditions unprecedented in history that the organizing activity of the Church would far from correspond to the needs if it could not dispose of a ready, easily moveable, selfless force in the form of monastic orders. Therefore, a history of the development and progress of Roman Catholicism in the United States would be incomplete if it did not indicate the irreplaceable services rendered to its cause by monastic orders, all the more since these services constitute one of the reasons for the rapid spread and contemporary strength of the Roman Catholic Church in the country.

[1] Literae pastorales, § III. Relations of the Church and the State. Acta et Decreta, pp. XXXIII and XXXIV.

[2] Catholic World, Vol. IX, p. 511.

[3] Acta et Decreta, Title VIII, On Religious and Nuns. Cap. I, § 405, p. 209.

[4] Murray, History of Catholic Church in the United States, p. 349.

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (13)

The first seeds of Christianity cast upon the soil of the New World were brought by members of monastic orders. From the very beginning of the expeditions that began to penetrate the territory of what is now the United States, missionaries from monastic orders came, and just thirty-six years after the discovery of the continent, the Roman Catholic Church had its first martyrs among them.[1] The entire period of colonial times, until the declaration of independence, then represents a heroic epic of missionary endeavors by various monastic orders and especially the Jesuits, to whom the enlightenment of Native Americans was specially entrusted.[2] At the same time, they were the principal administrators of church services for the Catholic population. When severe legislative measures against Catholics prevailed everywhere, measures that completely forbade Catholic priests from entering most of the colonies, the Catholic population in many of them preserved their faith and did not perish among Protestants thanks only to the self-sacrifice of the Jesuits, who, despite the dangers threatening them, penetrated everywhere Catholics were to be found, often in secret and sometimes openly, risking their very lives.[3] Throughout the entire colonial period, they remain the chief actors of Roman Catholicism in the country, directing the church’s first steps and preparing it for the new era that opened with the declaration of independence. Amid the universal prejudice against “popery,” they managed to penetrate the highest classes of society, established colleges, and from the start had among their pupils the children of the finest and even governing families.[4] Thanks to their skill in adapting to circumstances and their historical sense, they were the first to understand the transformation being prepared in the nation’s fate and were able to take the fullest advantage of it for the benefit of the church they represented. Through their schools, by this time they had already drawn public attention to themselves as an important political force, had formed a circle of admirers, and had so thoroughly gained the society’s trust that the Protestant Congress, in negotiations with Canada, did not hesitate to employ the services of the Jesuit Carroll.[5] Finally, when the transformation itself occurred, the Jesuits proved to be the leading force in the church and provided from among their ranks the first bishop for the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, laying, one might say, the first cornerstone for the edifice of Roman Catholicism.[6] The state of the church at this time was such that only the indomitable energy and practical shrewdness of the Jesuit could meet its needs. The Catholic population was scattered and dispersed across the vast territories of the country, often going entire decades without seeing a priest; the clergy was few in number and often undisciplined; ecclesiastical organization had not yet begun. The task ahead was enormous and could only be accomplished by a “spiritual Hannibal”—or a Jesuit.[7] The first Jesuit bishop fully understood both the difficulty of the work before him and the instrument through which it could most conveniently be accomplished. He zealously set about implementing four undertakings that could have the greatest importance for the success of Roman Catholicism in the country—namely, the organization of Catholic education for young people, the formation of a native clergy, the construction of churches, and the establishment of women’s communities for charitable work. “The first need was the most urgent, because it was necessary to give Catholic children exclusively Catholic education to protect them from the dangers of Protestant schools.”[8] But it was the one that could be most conveniently accomplished under the given circumstances, since the Jesuits, who formed the first cadres of clergy, were the finest masters of specifically Catholic education. Through the joint efforts of the Jesuit bishop and his brothers, a college was quickly established in Georgetown, and it soon became the center of Roman Catholic education in the country.[8] By a happy accident, or by the historical sense of the Jesuits, the college was founded in a place that turned out to be the center of the nation’s political life, for just one mile from the college, by a decision of Congress in 1791, the location was chosen for the national capital—the present Washington.[9] In view of this, the Jesuit college soon acquired popularity in the highest and ruling classes of the country and educated several generations in the spirit of Roman Catholicism.[8] But its first steps were difficult. The number of Jesuits who could dedicate themselves to teaching was small, and moreover, in their work at this time they were bound by the papal bull of 1773, which, as is well known, had closed the order itself.[10] This was a great obstacle to them. They could act only as ex-Jesuits and had no opportunity for organized activity, in which lay their principal strength. True, the flexible logic of the sons of Ignatius was able to reconcile their obedience to the papal bull with the continuation of their existence, and while being ex-Jesuits de jure, they remained Jesuits de facto. But for the full scope of their action, the prohibition of the order was still an impediment. Nevertheless, they fully understood their strength in the consciousness of the Roman Catholic world and did not despair that a time would come again when the temporary circumstances that had led to the closure of the order would be removed, and the order would resume its activity ad majorem Dei gloriam. They were fully convinced that their raison d’etre remained unshaken on the soil of Roman Catholicism and only awaited time for its open renewal. This conviction manifested itself with particular brilliance in the United States, which by its distance from the center of Roman Catholicism offered more opportunity for the elastic logic of the Jesuits. The Jesuit bishop understood what an important instrument for his work he would obtain in the organized assistance of the order, and, foreseeing the inevitable rebirth and restoration of it in the future, resolved to anticipate this historical logic. “An ex-Jesuit, becoming a bishop, would seem to care little about the fate of his order, destroyed thirty years before, writes a Catholic historian. But the sons of the Society of Jesus never forget their mother, and as soon as Bishop Carroll learned that the society still existed in some manner in the Russian Empire, he resolved to restore the fathers living in the United States.[11] Together with his coadjutor, the ex-Jesuit Neale, he wrote to Gruber, the general of the order in Russia, asking him to accept American ex-Jesuits as members of the surviving order. “Our holy father Pius VI, of blessed memory, it is said in this interesting document, established a new see in Baltimore and granted the appointed prelate jurisdiction over the boundless territory of this republic. Since that time, many fathers have dispersed across the numerous provinces of America; and this dispersal, as we have reason to hope, has contributed to the fortunate growth of the true faith. But of the Society of Jesus, only thirteen fathers remain at present. These are men, for the most part, weakened by age and exhausted by labor; they dwell chiefly in Maryland and Pennsylvania, in the provinces where the Catholic religion was first planted and where it now flourishes more than in other places. From the letters of many of our brothers, we have learned with the liveliest joy that by some miracle the society has been preserved and still exists in the territory of the Russian Emperor. We know that the Supreme Pontiff has recognized it and that by bull he has given your Paternity full power to readmit those who belonged to the society. Almost all our old fathers ardently pray for the mercy to renew the vows which they made to God in this institution; they desire to end their lives in its bosom and hope to devote their last days to the restoration of the society, if Providence permits. Your Paternity does not know what efforts must be taken so as not to resurrect some phantom of the former society. It must live again, but in its true form—with its government in all things and with its own proper spirit. In order to achieve this result, it seems to us necessary that your Paternity choose from among the members of the order a father endowed with extraordinary prudence, experienced in affairs, filled with the spirit of Saint Ignatius and his decrees, so that, sent here by you, he might manage everything in your name and by your authority. It would be possible to avoid a long voyage if one could find in England or here someone from the society to whom this mission could be entrusted. But, to tell the whole truth, we have been used so much in services foreign to our institution; we are so inexperienced in administration; the lack of books, even of the decrees and definitions of the congregation, is so glaring, that you cannot find among us a single Jesuit who, by health and vigor as well as by other necessary qualities, would be capable of discharging the office of superior. Therefore it would be extremely useful to send here some father from those around you. He must fully know your intentions and be prudent enough not to undertake anything rashly without first studying the government, laws, and spirit of this republic, as well as the customs of the people. The property belonging to the Society is almost entirely intact, and it is sufficient to support thirty members. After the destruction of the order, one part of this property was devoted to the establishment of a college, where young people are taught literature. When Pius VI desired to give this country a bishop and later a coadjutor with right of succession, he chose both from among the fathers of the Society. In this republic, priests of whatever faith enjoy equally the same freedom. Nothing prevents monastic orders from living according to their rules if they only obey the civil laws. Nevertheless, in contracts of all kinds, it is better to refrain from naming the community. All property which monks possess is considered to belong to individual persons, and if anyone throws off the yoke of religion, he does so with impunity in this world; the civil hand in no way extends to bring him into compliance with his duty. Such are the vows which, as our brothers desire, are set forth to you in their name. In fulfilling this, we pray from the depths of our hearts to divine Majesty that from this intercourse there might be born hope and the beginning of the realization of the work of restoring the Society, and that God may grant you life and the necessary strength for accomplishing such a work.”.[12]”

Gruber’s reply was not long in coming. By virtue of the authority granted him by the Roman Curia, the general could admit former fathers and young men as they presented themselves to him, under the condition, however, that in those states where the rulers refused to recognize the vows of the pope, the Jesuits should not wear their order’s habit and should not live in community. This limitation could not apply in the United States, and therefore Gruber admitted the American Jesuits into communion with the order, and to reorganize their community sent Father Molyneux as head of the mission.[13] Thus, the United States became the first, after Russia, to receive a newly reorganized community of Jesuits. For Roman Catholicism in the country, this fact was of incalculable importance. In the revived order, it obtained such an organizing force as gave it the ability to look more boldly into the future.

[1] Murray, History, p. 72. In 1528, two Franciscans, Bishop Juarez and Brother John de Palos, perished in Florida. It is presumed that they died either of hunger in the forest or from a native club. Ibidem, “Our first martyrs”.

[2] See “First Section” on Jesuit missions.

[3] Shea, History, p, 34, 327; Murray, History, p. 148.

[4] Shea, History, p. 329.

[5] Shea, History, p. 42.

[6] Murray, History, pp. 227–231.

[7] Murray, History, p. 195, 202, 203.

[8] Shea, History, p. 64.

[9] Keim’s Washington and its Environs, pp. 236 – 240. Washington, 1881.

[10] Derras, History of Catholic Church, Vol. IV, p. 512. “Inspired by the Divine Spirit,” it is said in the bull, “we abolish and destroy the Society of Jesus, its functions, houses, and institutions.” Ibidem.

[11] Shea, History, p. 72.

[12] Cretineau-Joly, Histoire de la Compagnie de Jesus, Vol. VI, pp. 280– 282. Paris, 1846.

[13] Cretineau-Joly, Histoire, p. 282.

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (14)

When news spread of the restoration of the order in America, scattered Jesuits from all over Europe began to flow to this new field of their activity. Soon after the reorganization, the Jesuit order in the United States was strengthened by a dozen new members[1] and activity resumed with vigor, having its center in the college in Georgetown, which from then on became the alma mater of American Jesuits.[2] Together with members of the Sulpician order,[3] who arrived in America during the turmoil of the French Revolution, they played the principal role in directing the activity of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States—until the time of the great migration of European peoples to America, which began in the 1840s. This was an important period in the history of the Roman Catholic Church in the country. Just freed from governmental oppression, it entered a new phase of its life and had to seriously and carefully weigh and determine its position, its strength, and its hopes. For this, there was needed the firm and penetrating judgment of a Jesuit combined with the selfless enthusiasm of the Sulpicians. The combination of these two forces proved a great blessing for the church, and to this fortunate circumstance it owes the fact that already under the leadership of the first Jesuit bishop it could rise to considerable heights both morally and in hierarchical and economic relations. The “patriarch of the American church,” Bishop Carroll, thanks to his Jesuit political acumen and Jesuit education, was able in his person to raise the church, so long despised and persecuted, to such a height that, upon the death of the founder of the republic, Washington, Congress unanimously entrusted him to pronounce the funeral oration over the valiant liberator of the nation.[4] Only the iron energy of a Jesuit could unite into a harmonious whole the scattered, diverse in race and language, mass of Catholic population from which the church was first constituted;[5] and only the selfless enthusiasm of the Sulpicians could fail to fear the vastness of the labor that lay ahead in the remote regions of the country. These two orders almost exclusively filled the highest hierarchical posts of the church from its very foundation and throughout the first four decades of the present century. The Jesuit order retained for itself the central post, the metropolitan see of Baltimore, while the Sulpicians occupied the newly created sees in neighboring cities, and thus were the chief pioneers in the work of organizing the Roman Catholic hierarchy in the United States.[6] At the same time, through their colleges, they prepared the first native priests[7] and together were the first laborers in the field of Catholic education, which was destined to play a very important role in the fate of the church.[8]

Besides Jesuits and Sulpicians, in the first quarter of the present century, only two orders came to America: the Trappists, who brought with them examples of rigorous asceticism,[9] and the Lazarists, whose purpose is religious, charitable, and teaching activity.[10] These orders were for the time sufficient for the needs of the church, as until the 1840s the Catholic population did not have extraordinary growth, and church affairs were limited to organization and the preparation of candidates for the priesthood to meet ordinary needs. But from the beginning of the 1840s, a new epoch began in the history of Roman Catholicism in America. At this time, the first wave of European emigration rose and poured onto the soil of the New World. This wave was the beginning of a general, continuous, and progressive influx of settlers to America, which with each year increased in volume. Thanks to this influx, the Catholic population began to increase with incredible force, and yearly new Catholic settlements were formed in previously unsettled places. Extraordinary efforts were demanded of the hierarchy to meet the religious needs of these settlers. But even with superhuman exertions, the forces at hand could not be sufficient for the constantly increasing needs. The church found itself in a difficult position. Continually newly formed Catholic settlements required priests, but there were none. The surrounding Protestant environment could absorb the inexperienced and distressed settlers, and the Roman Catholic Church could lose a significant portion of the harvest that had given it power and strength. Then, to aid the church, there came its reserve forces in the form of monastic orders, and they rendered it an invaluable service.

Monastic orders, as a social force, are entirely dependent upon the quantity of religious needs that called them into existence in society, and therefore of necessity they fully reflect all its movements. When European population began to flow to America, the monastic orders in Europe either had to reduce their numerical strength or follow the settlers. Since the settlers took their religious needs with them, it was natural for the orders to follow them in order to meet those needs in the soil of the New World. And indeed, from the very beginning of European emigration to America, the emigration of monastic orders also begins, and to the extent that the wave of popular emigration increased, so also increased the number of emigrating orders. Beginning with the 1840s, which marked the start of the European migration of peoples, a long, unbroken procession of monastic orders stretches out, which almost yearly arrived at the shores of the United States. In 1838, the Redemptorists came and began their labors in the metropolitan see of Baltimore, among the German population, which was in dire need of priests of their own nationality.[11] This was the first vanguard of the monastic forces, followed by the main army. In 1841, the “Congregation of the Holy Cross” came to the soil of the New World and began to carry out its mission of Christian education.[12] In the following year, 1842, the “Fathers of Mercy” set out across the ocean and developed their missionary activity chiefly among the French population—from Canada to New Orleans.[13] In 1844, the order of the Precious Blood arrived and founded several monasteries and a seminary in the land of gold—California and in the state of Ohio.[14] In 1846, the venerable and historically experienced and renowned order of Benedictines set out across the ocean. In its members in America appeared the truest embodiment of historical papacy, since it was renowned for having given from its ranks about fifty popes.[15] “The chief purpose of this ancient order is the glorification of God through regular and solemn divine worship, day and night; as well as literature, agriculture, and the education of young people.”[16] An extensive field of activity opened to them in the new soil, and so the order soon took root in America and began to spread rapidly, and at present it is one of the most flourishing in the country.[17] But even greater spread and significance was achieved by the order of “Christian Brothers” that arrived in the same year. The Roman Catholic Church in the United States owes very much to this order for its success. By its arrival, it remedied one of the most significant deficiencies in the church—the lack of teachers for specifically Catholic schools. The Protestant school, supported by the state, began to make rapid advances in the country and exerted strong influence on the Catholic population. The hierarchy used all efforts to create its own special Catholic schools, in which Catholic youth could be educated in the Catholic spirit, away from the influence of Protestant schools. But there were no teachers. Then the archbishop of Baltimore, Eccleston, turned to the “Christian Brothers” for help, to whom the main and special vow is teaching. The order responded to the call and established its institutions first in Baltimore, then in New York.[18] From that time on, the order began to spread its branches in all directions throughout the country and soon covered it with a network of its colleges, academies, and schools. At present, there is scarcely a more or less significant city in the country where the “Christian Brothers” do not have their institutions. They manage parish schools in New York, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Albany, Brooklyn, Chicago, and many other important cities of the country. The number of pupils under their supervision amounts to thirty thousand.[19] Besides schools, the order manages many higher institutions of learning, namely ten colleges, which are located throughout the country and enjoy great popularity not only among Catholics but even among Protestants. Their college in New York, the so-called Manhattan College, is considered one of the finest in the state. According to 1876 statistics, the order numbered seven hundred (700) brothers and had under its special supervision forty-nine (49) establishments.[20] Such success of the order in the thirty years since its establishment in the United States shows not only the great need of the Catholic population for Catholic education but also testifies to the need for Christian education in general on the part of the American population, which from necessity is obliged to content itself with the state’s secularized school. In 1847, the order of Franciscans renewed its mission in America, which it had begun in the sixteenth century. In 1848, the order of the “Immaculate Mary” arrived, whose vow is care for the oppressed and forgotten classes of society as well as teaching in theological seminaries and colleges. The order by its very name appeared as an embodiment of the doctrine of the immaculate conception, favorably received by the prelates of the sixth provincial council of Baltimore.[21] In 1849, a new specifically teaching order, the “Brothers of Mary,” arrived, and together with the “Christian Brothers” zealously devoted itself to serving Roman Catholicism through Catholic education, and at present has about twenty-five (25) establishments in various cities and states of the Union.[22] In 1853, the order of Passionists arrived. “Their life’s work is the conversion of sinners, drawing people to God through exhortation and persuasion. In achieving this goal, they combine the severity of the Trappists with the energy of the Jesuits.”[23] They lead the strictest and most ascetic life. They perform divine service at midnight and at sunrise engage in daily labor. The order had great success in America, and this is the more remarkable in view of the well-known practicality of the American character, which seems completely foreign to the purposeless severity of asceticism.[24] In 1854, the order of “Xaverian Brothers” arrived,[25] strengthening the ranks of teaching orders. Then followed a series of other orders down to the most recent times, such as: the Society of Mary (1863), Carmelites (1865), Alexian Brothers (1866), Servite Fathers (1870), the Congregation of the Holy Viator (1865), the Congregation of the Sacred Heart (1874), the Congregation of the Resurrection (1865), the Brothers of the Sacred Heart (1874), the Brothers of Mercy (1874), and others. According to 1876 statistics, there were in the United States 27 male Roman Catholic orders.[26]

[1] Shea, History, p. 73.

[2] Gretineau-Joly, Histoire, p. 282.

[3] Murray, History, p. 367. See also above in the chapter on the growth of Roman Catholicism.

[4] Murray, History, p. 230.

[5] In Boston, for example, in 1790 there were only about one hundred Catholics, and they consisted of three nationalities—French, Irish, and American. Murray, History, p. 198.

[6] Murray, History, pp. 364, 368.

[7] Murray, History, p. 207.

[8] At the present time the Jesuits have establishments and churches in New York, Boston, Baltimore, Washington, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Buffalo, Chicago, San Francisco, and many other cities. Woodstock College—in Maryland, is their House of Studies and the main theological seminary of the society in the United States. The Jesuits oversee 14 colleges in the American republic, among which are particularly notable: the College in Georgetown founded in 1791, the oldest and most respected seat of Catholic learning in the country; Saint John College in New York, the oldest in the middle states (founded 1841); the College of the Holy Cross (1843) in Massachusetts, Saint Xavier College (1831) in Cincinnati; Saint Joseph College (1830) in the southern part of the country not far from Mobile on the Gulf of Mexico; Saint Louis University (1829)—the oldest Catholic college in the Mississippi Valley, and Santa Clara College (1851)—the oldest Catholic college on the Pacific coast. See Murray, History, p. 363. With the Sulpician order is connected the strange fate of the Russian prince Dmitri Gallitzine. Prince Gallitzine was one of those victims torn from the Orthodox Church by the whirlwinds of mental enthusiasms foreign to the Russian character. He was born in 1770 from an Orthodox man named Prince Dmitri Alexeyevich Gallitzine, whose wife was the Protestant Countess Amalia von Schmettan. His father was an ardent follower of the fashionable French philosophy of that time, was in friendly and close relations with Voltaire and Diderot, and considered it his highest ambition to educate his son in these “sacred” ideas. The tender and soft-hearted boy was therefore subjected from an early age to the cold pressure of soulless philosophy. But his nature was of a completely different character and resisted foreign influence. As if seeking protection, he wholly surrendered to the influence of his sentimental mother, who not only did not sympathize with the philosophers constantly filling her husband’s salon, but, by way of reaction, surrounded herself with Jesuit fathers and secretly embraced the Roman Catholic faith. Having embraced Roman Catholicism herself, she naturally endeavored to turn her son to the same path, and with the help of the Jesuits and her maternal influence, she succeeded in achieving her goal. The boy also accepted the Roman Catholic faith. Now his melancholic and sentimental nature had opened a wide field for corresponding activity. Hearing the captivating stories of the Jesuits about the world activity of the order, about dangers threatening religion, about the storm of political and philosophical passions troubling humanity, about the necessity to devote his strength to combat them, the boy wholly gave himself to religious reveries and began begging his mother to allow him to enter some monastic order. His mother agreed, but his father would not hear of it and enrolled him as an adjutant in the Austrian army, hoping that the pleasures of an officer’s life would dispel his strange dreams. But the nature of the young prince was irrevocably inclined toward these dreams, and at the first convenient opportunity he was ready to realize them, in defiance even of his father’s will. Seeing this, his father tried to distract him in other ways and sent him to travel. America at that time had just begun to develop its youthful republican forces, and Prince Gallitzine, thinking that the republican spirit would best refresh his son’s mind, sent him to the United States to study the political life of the young republic. This, however, ultimately decided the fate of the young prince. Upon arriving in America, he immediately fell into the hands of the ex-Jesuit Bishop Carroll and his brothers, who, noting the inclination of the wealthy and distinguished Russian prince, finally turned his head. He decided to remain in America forever, devote his life to service of the Roman Catholic Church, and three years after his arrival in America, namely in 1795, he entered the Sulpician order, having first completed a theological course at their college. In vain were all his father’s threats and his mother’s pleas to return to Europe; he resolved once and for all to devote his life to the American Church. As a missionary, he set out to the desolate Allegheny mountain country and there established his residence, using his religious influence and material prosperity to strengthen Catholic colonization there. Hundreds of thousands of dollars from his enormous inheritance he spent on the needs of the Church and died in 1840, receiving the title “Apostle of the Alleghenies.” To him belongs a highly valued work in Catholic literature, “Defence of Catholic Principles.” His memory is held in high esteem in the Roman Catholic and especially Irish population of the United States, and he is the subject of extensive literature. See, for example, Brownson, Life of prince D. Gallitzine, N. Y. 1872. Heyden, A memoir of Gallitzine; several articles in Catholic World and several pages in general histories of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States.

[9] Murray, History, p. 368. The Trappists arrived in the United States in 1805.

[10] Murray, History, p. 370. The Lazarists, or Congregation of the Mission, were introduced into the United States in 1816. In the same time, namely in 1805, the order of the Dominicans renewed its activity, begun in the sixteenth century, but subsequently discontinued. Ibidem, pp. 355, 356.

[11] Murray, History, p. 372.

[12] Murray, History, p. 373.

[13] Murray, History, p. 374.

[14] Murray, History, p. 375. The arrival of the order in California almost coincided by some chance with the discovery of the richest gold mines there, news of which spread throughout the world with lightning speed.

[15] Murray, History, p. 376.

[16] Ibidem, p. 376.

[17] Ibidem, pp. 376–377.

[18] Shea, History, p. 143.

[19] Murray, History, p. 378. According to statistics from 1876, there were 26,000 students in their institutions.

[20] Murray, History, p. 378.

[21] Murray, History, pp. 237, 380. Full name of the order: Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate.

[22] Murray, History, p 381.

[23] Murray, History, p. 381.

[24] Murray, History, p. 382.

[25] Congregation of Xaverian Brothers, which took its name from its founder Xavier, in Belgium in 1839. Murray, p, 382.

[26] See the statistical table in Murray, History, p. 384.

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (15)

All these orders followed the emigration of the European population step by step and continued to serve it in the soil of the New World. But American life presented demands that could not be met by immigrant orders. These could be satisfied only by a native order, composed of persons deeply familiar with and understanding the peculiarities of American life. With this purpose, in 1854, the native American order of Paulists was founded,[1] whose founder is the American Hecker. The purpose of the order is missionary work in its highest sense—the spread of Christianity and especially Roman Catholicism through superior historical, literary, and philosophical learning. The order’s main residence is in New York, and it consists of nineteen members,[2] whose principal merit is their high, comprehensive education. The order of Paulists publishes the best Catholic monthly journal in the United States, The Catholic World, which under the skillful direction of Hecker, founder of the order, in its thirty-three volumes presents a rich encyclopedia of general Christian and philosophical knowledge and greatly contributed to the establishment of the moral influence of the Roman Catholic Church in America.[3] Under his direction also is the vast “Society of Catholic Publications,” whose benefits and importance were solemnly testified to by the second full council of Baltimore, holding it up as an example to all other such societies.[4]

No matter how great the forces that came to the aid of the Roman Catholic Church in the form of male orders, yet, given the enormity of the work itself, they would still have been insufficient if it had not at its disposal another force no less important—women’s orders. Women’s orders are another form of soldiery with whose help Roman Catholicism strengthens its position in the world. One might say more: Roman Catholicism itself is in its greatest degree a woman’s religion, a religion of external, overwhelming aesthetic effect and internal sentimentalism.[5] Hence the enormous development that women’s orders have in it, and in the United States they exceed male orders by twice their number.

Within the present territory of the Union, women’s orders began to appear in the early years of the previous century. The first to appear were the Ursulines, who established their community in New Orleans in 1727, when that area still belonged to France.[6] The Ursulines—one might say, are the female Jesuits, and for Roman Catholicism they render the same services in their sphere as the Jesuits. Their purpose is the spread and strengthening of Roman Catholicism through the education of the female generation. At present, they have twelve (12) establishments in the United States, with which are associated women’s academies and schools, crowded with girls and young women of all faiths and directed exclusively by sisters.[7] From these establishments come the most devoted Catholic women, and in one period, during anti-Catholic movements, Protestant fanaticism especially furiously attacked the Ursulines, and several of their monasteries were destroyed by angry mobs.[8] When in 1803, New Orleans was ceded to the United States by France, the Ursulines became American citizens, and from that time began an epoch of their prosperity.[9] In 1790, already after the declaration of religious freedom, the Carmelites arrived and first brought to the American Union examples of female asceticism.[10] In 1808, the “Sisters of the Annunciation” arrived, and at present have eighteen (18) establishments for the education of girls.[11] In the following year, 1809, the order of “Sisters of Charity” came and brought with it a new element of charity. The order found grateful soil in the New World, and at present is one of the most flourishing in the country. It now manages fifty (50) schools, thirty-eight (38) orphanages, thirty (30) hospitals, and one (1) women’s academy, which is considered one of the finest women’s colleges in the country.[12] In the same year, a native branch of the order of Sisters of Charity was formed, namely the order of “Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul,” who devoted their activity specifically to New York state, though they have since spread to other states. This branch manages sixteen (16) academies, forty-eight (48) schools, thirteen (13) orphanages, and two (2) hospitals.[13] The women’s academy under their care, St. Vincent Academy, in New York state, enjoys great popularity among the population of various faiths. This community owes its origin to a certain Mrs. Seton, who converted to Catholicism from Protestantism and devoted herself to the service of her new church with all the burning zeal of a neophyte.[14] In 1812, two new women’s orders arose on American soil, the “Sisters of Loretta” and the “Sisters of Nazareth,” and at present together number more than six hundred (600) members, manage sixty (60) schools and academies, and several hospitals and orphanages.[15] In 1818, the renowned order of the “Ladies of the Sacred Heart” arrived. “Of the orders established in the period of the present century, says a historian, none has achieved a wider development than the Ladies of the Sacred Heart. None enjoys greater renown in the United States.”[16] The vow of the “Ladies of the Sacred Heart” is the education of young women in its highest branches, and in this regard the order enjoys great fame. At present, the “Ladies of the Sacred Heart” have twenty (20) monasteries, in which are numbered more than eight hundred (800) sisters. They manage twenty (20) academies, fifteen (15) schools, and two (2) orphanages.[17] Their women’s academy in New York is particularly renowned, founded under the direction of a Russian sister of the order, Princess Golitsyn,[18] and designated specifically for the highest classes of the country. When from the 1830s and 1840s European emigration increased, women’s orders proportionally increased their emigration to America, and it continued uninterrupted down to the most recent times, giving the United States by the centennial anniversary of their independence about fifty (50) orders, engaged in all types of educational and charitable activity.[19]

The numerical strength of women’s monastic orders in the United States at present is estimated at 15,000 persons. If to this we add the number of members in male orders, amounting to 3,000 persons, this makes a powerful religious corps of eighteen thousand persons.[20] The services rendered by them to the cause of Roman Catholicism are difficult to overstate. Without the assistance of monastic orders, as we have seen above, successful organization of the church would not have been possible. The monastic orders first gave it its hierarchy—from simple priest to highest church administrator, laid the very foundation of the hierarchy, and constantly strengthened it with newly arriving forces. They brought into it that elastic flexibility which was necessary amid rapidly changing circumstances, and that ability to combine autocratic centralization with democratic independence, which alone could give Roman Catholicism a place on the soil of a democratic republic.[21] They were the first fighters for the church’s cause in any difficult situation and, thanks to their mobility—appearing quickly everywhere there was need of the church—whether in the wild wilderness of the distant west or in the center of the intellectual life of the country, with spade and axe as pioneers or with pamphlets as polemicists. During Catholic colonization in the western prairies, members of monastic orders are the first to appear in virgin wilderness and meet the emigrants, guiding the plan of colonization, and during anti-Catholic movements they are the first to defend Roman Catholicism with the force of their theological knowledge and enlightened logic. They represent both the organizational and intellectual force of the church, and at the second full council of Baltimore they constituted the flower of Roman Catholic theological thought: the corps of theologians consisted almost exclusively of members of various orders.[22] Finally, when the external organization of the church had achieved its desired perfection, the orders devoted themselves to internal organization, and now gigantic work proceeds in this direction throughout the country. The orders have spread across the country such a dense network of various educational, instructional, and charitable institutions that Protestantism shudders. Thanks only to this devoted and gifted force, Roman Catholicism was able to maintain its struggle with the Protestant state in the matter of education, and it alone gave it the ability to maintain specifically Catholic schools—from the lowest elementary schools to the highest colleges and academies. At the present time, monastic orders manage in the United States 2,389 parish schools with 423,383 pupils, 28 theological seminaries, 79 higher secular colleges, 511 women’s academies, 267 orphanages, and 119 hospitals.[23] In these specifically Catholic schools, attended also by Protestant children, the living material is formed that serves as a pledge of the present strength and future success of Roman Catholicism in the country. Finally, monastic orders have rendered an immeasurable service to the Roman Catholic Church also in gathering earthly goods, and only through this service has it become possible that the church, which was the poorest in the country at the end of the past century, has become the richest as it appears at the present time.[24]

[1] The Paulists or full name Congregation of the Missionary Priests of Saint Paul the Apostle. See about this order Murray, History, pp. 383, 388–369.

[2] Sadliers, Directory, 1881, p. 137.

[3] The author owes this journal very much in the compilation of his work. It served for us not only as a rich encyclopedia of historical material, but also as the best indicator of the moral and social condition of Roman Catholicism in the United States.

[4] The founder of this society is the same Reverend Hecker, head of the order and editor of the journal The Catholic World.

[5] This character of Roman Catholicism, in our view, explains the fact that it has become the religion of Romance peoples, distinguished by feminine receptiveness and passion, and the most striking feature of its femininity was even expressed dogmatically in the deification of the Mother of God, confirmed by the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

[6] Catholic World, Vol. XIX, p. 369.

[7] Murray, History, p. 395–398.

[8] Murray, History, p. 398.

[9] With this period is connected an interesting document clarifying the position of women’s orders in the Union. When New Orleans was transferred to the United States, the Ursulines feared for the security of their property under the new government. To formally assure themselves of its preservation, they submitted a petition to the President of the United States, Jefferson, and to their great joy received a very favorable reply, which at the same time characterizes the relationship between Church and State in America. The President wrote as follows: “President of the United States to Sister Thérèse of St. Xavier Farjon, Superior, and the nuns of the Order of Saint Ursula in New Orleans: I have received, holy sisters, your letter in which you express concern for the property given to your institution by the former government of Louisiana. The principles of the Constitution and government of the United States are a sure guarantee to you that it will be preserved for you as sacred and inviolable and that your institution will be allowed to manage itself according to its own voluntarily adopted rules, without interference from civil authority. Whatever the diversity of shades in the religious opinions of our fellow citizens, the beneficial purpose of your institution cannot be a matter of indifference to anyone; and its contribution to the good aims of society, by directing the young members of it on the path they should follow, cannot fail to secure for it the protection of the government under which it exists. Be assured it will receive all the protection my position can offer. I greet you, holy sisters, with friendship and respect. Th. Jefferson.” See Murray, History, p. 396–397.

[10] Catholic World, Vol. XIX, p. 370.

[11] Murray, History, p. 401.

[12] Murray, History, p. 403.

[13] Murray, History, p. 404.

[14] Catholic World, Vol. XIX, p. 371. The foundress of the community is highly popular in the American Catholic world and is the subject of a large monograph: White, “The life of Mrs. Seton”. See also a biographical sketch of her in Murray, History, p. 416–418.

[15] Murray, History, р. 405.

[16] Murray, History, p. 406.

[17] Murray, History, p. 407.

[18] Princess Elizabeth Gallitzine came from the same line of Russian princes Gallitzine who were distinguished both by their historical valor and by the weakness of their Orthodox principles. She was the first cousin of the infamous “Apostle of the Alleghenies,” Prince Dmitri Gallitzine. Her mother was a secret Catholic, constantly surrounded by Jesuit fathers, but she hid this from her daughter for a long time, preparing her, however, to receive the “holy faith” through Jesuit teachers. The young heart of the princess anticipated a trap and struggled; but when her mother finally revealed her religious secret to her and openly urged her to the same, the young princess even swore solemnly that she would never change her faith. But the Jesuit fathers had already done their main work; the princess’s soul was already in their hands, and the very oath was only the last vain effort of the unfortunate princess to save her Orthodox faith. Under the influence of her mother’s constant exhortations and under the pressure of Jesuit logic, the princess finally visibly wavered, and at the funeral of a Jesuit, she suddenly heard some mysterious voice that said to her: “You hate Catholics, but a day will come when you yourself will be a Catholic.” The princess wept bitterly one last time for her inexorable fate and—indeed accepted the Roman Catholic faith. Once broken and directed in another direction, the princess’s strong nature, with all the passion of a desperate heart, gave itself to the new direction. She entered the order “of the Ladies of the Sacred Heart” and became a seeker of religious adventures, which she apparently sought to use to suppress the last movements of her Orthodox heart. The Superior of the order sent her to America, where a branch of the order already existed. The princess immediately set out on the distant journey and in 1840 established a mission and school among the Native American tribe of the Potawatomi in Kansas. But life among the red-skinned children of the Far West, despite all its romantic allure, could not long amuse the high-society heroine, and she was very glad when the Archbishop of New York, the famous and tireless champion of Roman Catholicism in the country, Louis, invited her to New York to found a higher female college designed specifically for the higher classes of the country. Having established the college, Mrs. Gallitzine devoted herself entirely to a passion for traveling and constantly traveled around the country—now to the Far West to visit the Native American mission, now to the Far South to visit the institutions of the order in New Orleans. From New Orleans, she twice ventured even to Europe, and to enjoy seeing Paris, she neglected all the difficulties and inconveniences of the ocean voyage of that time, and finally died of yellow fever raging in New Orleans during her last visit to this American Paris. Compare: Shea, History, pp. 413–417; Murray, History, p. 407.

[19] According to statistics from 1876, there were 44 women’s orders in the United States, namely besides those mentioned above: Sisters of Saint Joseph; Sisters of the Holy Cross; Sisters of Mercy; Sisters of the Good Shepherd; Sisters of Our Lady; Sisters of Providence; Presentation Sisters; Presentation Nuns; Gray Nuns; Sisters of Charity; Servite Sisters; Poor Maidens of Jesus Christ; Little Sisters of the Poor; Sisters of the Third Order of Saint Francis; Sisters of Saint Clare; Benedictines; Ladies of the Incarnate Word; Sisters of Our Lady of Charity; Daughters of the Cross; Oblate Sisters of Providence (Black); Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin; Sisters of Our Lady of Namur; Sisters of the Holy Names; Sisters of Saint Anne; Sisters of the Poor of Saint Francis; Sisters of the Precious Blood; Sisters of Christian Charity; Sisters of the Agonizing Heart of Jesus; Sisters of the Holy Infancy; Serving Sisters of the Immaculate Heart; Sisters of the Humility of Mary; Sisters of the Immaculate Conception and Sisters of the Holy Family. See the statistical table in Murray, p. 415.

[20] Murray, History, p. 578.

[21] Explaining the reason for the successful spread of monastic orders in America, a Catholic writer states: “Indeed worthy of astonishment is this extraordinary success, since the American mind, with its ideas of freedom and independence, would seemingly be wholly unsuited to such religion where the vow of obedience requires the most complete submission of individual will. This seeming contradiction can be explained by taking into account the actual character of religious orders. Practically they represent the most perfect form of democratic government on earth. Superiors are elected by members of the order and only for a certain fixed time. During this time their power is limited by a code of rules to which all agree to obey. This peculiarity, as I think, is what makes religious orders so prolific in this free and enlightened country.” Father Nilus C. P. cited in Murray, History, p. 382.

[22] As is evident from the “Elenchus Antistitum ac Theologorum qui Conciliointerfuerunt,” only a small part of the theologians do not have mysterious letters appended to their names (C.I., S.S.S., O.S.B., etc.) indicating their membership in religious orders of various names. See Acta et Decreta, pp. XXIII–XXV.

[23] Sadliers, Catholic Directory for 1881 year, see the statistical table p. 25.

[24] The North American Review, January 1876, article “Religion in America. 1776–1876”.

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (16)

The economic question is one of the most important questions regarding the Roman Catholic Church in the United States and has enormous significance in its historical fate. The successful resolution of it Roman Catholicism owes to the external grandeur that it now displays. Already for this reason alone it deserves investigation, but it also presents another interest—namely, how the Roman Catholic Church, without any support from the government (in consequence of the legal separation of church and state), was able to achieve such material well-being as has placed it, in economic terms, at the head of other religious confessions and churches in the country. The investigation of the economic condition of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States forms the subject of the following chapter.

* * *

Part Four. The Material and Moral Strength of Roman Catholicism

XV. The rapid development of the material wealth of the Roman Catholic Church and its causes. Sources of material well-being. The significance of male and female monastic orders. Management of church property. “Trusteeism” and the struggle against it. The Protestant tendency of state laws regarding church property. Council protest against it. Property and duty. XVI. The acclimatization of Roman Catholicism on American soil. Conversions to the Roman Catholic Church. Historical examples of conversions and their connection with different periods of the historical life of Roman Catholicism in the country. The “Tractarian movement” and its echoes in America. Anti-Catholic movements, the Civil War, and their significance for strengthening conversions to the Roman Catholic Church. Quantitative and qualitative significance of converts.

XV

Nothing can be more striking than the difference that distinguishes Roman Catholicism at the end of the last century from that of the present time in respect to external grandeur and prosperity. This is the difference between two extremes—abject poverty and colossal magnificence. Less than a hundred years ago, over the entire vast stretch between Philadelphia and Canada, there was not a single Catholic church nor a single permanent priest. In New York, only a small group of Catholics, numbering about a hundred people, were living there, and for Easter services they had to travel to Philadelphia. [1] With the proclamation of political independence and the establishment of freedom of religious profession, the hierarchy gained great freedom of action in organizing church life, and it hastened to satisfy the religious needs of its distant and neglected flock. In 1783 the Jesuit Farmer ventured from Philadelphia to New York and there performed Mass—in the upper floor of a carpenter’s shop—for lack of other accommodations. [2] In 1786, exactly ten years after the declaration of independence, the foundation was laid for the first Catholic church in New York—a small brick building, to which the Spanish King Charles III contributed ten thousand dollars for its construction. [3] At the present time this building no longer exists, and in its place stands the great church of Saint Peter, which continues to serve as a sacred shrine of church history to the Roman Catholic population of New York. The insignificant brick church of a small group of “Papists” attracted no one’s attention and gave no promise of particular success. But in fact, it was like a grain of mustard seed, which soon grew into a magnificent tree. Churches began to spring up one after another in rapid succession, and soon Roman Catholicism not only surpassed all Protestant denominations in its temples in the city, but even erected a temple equal to which, in respect to architectural elegance and luxury, is not found on the entire American continent—namely, the church of Saint Patrick in New York, on Fifth Avenue. [4] This magnificent temple, representing an immeasurable contrast not only with the carpenter’s workshop in which a Mass was performed by a Jesuit a hundred years ago, but also with the first church built at the generous gift of the Spanish king, serves as the most complete expression of the external grandeur and prosperity which Roman Catholicism has achieved in less than a century of its existence. [5] The same process of development of the prosperity of the Roman Catholic Church has taken place throughout the country, and everywhere during the century of its freedom from persecution, Roman Catholicism has succeeded in erecting temples which, under the ordinary course of events, should have required centuries of effort. [6]

The prosperity of the Church, as an institution freely accepted and maintained by society, is naturally entirely dependent both on the number and on the generosity of society itself. In the first respect, the increase in the prosperity of the Roman Catholic Church finds a simple and natural explanation in the increase of the number of the Catholic population. The process of this increase was shown above. It was not limited to natural slow growth, but flowed in a turbulent stream—in the form of European emigration. “Millions of newcomers who sought a new homeland in America could not bring their churches with them,” says a Catholic writer. “They had to acquire them here, and the American priest of necessity became a builder and financier. When in 1847 the extraordinary emigration began, we had only 812 churches, many of which were small buildings hastily constructed and wholly inadequate even to the needs of those who erected them. Many of them have since been destroyed, rebuilt, or replaced with solid brick or stone buildings. This in itself is work of considerable value; but when we consider that since that time no fewer than four thousand three hundred (4,300) churches have been added to that number, we are struck with amazement at the magnitude of work accomplished in so short a time. And besides, these newer buildings are generally not of the rough and unstable character that was the case fifty years ago, but on the contrary, many of them represent excellent examples of solid construction and architectural art. The magnificent cathedrals, especially those that adorn Baltimore, Albany, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Boston, and other episcopal sees, are models of design, strength, and grandeur of which any country and any age might be proud. The same may be said, but with especial force, of the cathedral of Saint Patrick in New York—this magnificent epic in marble, from whose lofty spire the shining emblem of our salvation is destined soon to shine upon a million faithful followers of the cross.” [7] The fact of the immediate dependence of both the rapid construction of churches and their maintenance on external emigration is established also by the fact that the majority of churches in New York, as well as in other cities, were built chiefly by emigrants and especially by Irish. [8] The cathedral of Saint Patrick itself, this pride of Roman Catholicism, owes its appearance to the Irish population of New York, which consists entirely of settlers and their descendants. [9] The construction of churches is the first and most notable expression of the religious zeal of the Roman Catholic population—with it are connected other manifestations of it, appearing in earnest contributions for the needs of the Church. The Irish people are distinguished by extraordinary devotion to Roman Catholicism, and this is fully understandable in view of their historical fate. They are a much-suffering people who have endured as much hardship as no other people in Europe. They were deprived of all land property and delivered to the mercy of English exploiting lords, who brought them to utmost poverty and periodic starvation. For their devotion to Catholicism, they were until the beginning of the second quarter of the current century deprived of all political rights, subjected to persecution, and had no right to use their native language. In this harsh struggle, they lost everything, forgot their language and the glory of their nationality, and all that remained as a legacy from the historical past was their Catholic faith, and they devoted themselves to it with all their soul as to the sole national treasure. [10] When unbearable afflictions forced him to leave his homeland and seek a new home in America in masses, he naturally carried with him his religious zeal, which under the new circumstances of life in an unknown country became even stronger from the fact that he constantly had to turn to the clergy as the sole counselor and guide. In view of this, the first thought of Irish emigrants upon settling in the New World was the construction of a church, [11] and around it were already built the huts of the pioneers. To the maintenance and management of this as religious and also public temple, the people with a generous hand brought their possessions, and therefore the prosperity of the Church not only kept pace with the development of the people’s prosperity, but developed faster than it.

As far as the method of collecting and forming church property in the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, it consists in the usual voluntary contributions of parishioners for church needs, in payment for the performance of masses and church rites. But besides these usual means, American practice has developed several special sources of church income. One of the main sources is bequests left by wealthy people, by which all property or part of it is bequeathed to the Church. Bequests in favor of churches are known in Europe, but in America they have achieved extraordinarily wide development and constitute one of the characteristic phenomena of American life. Every American considers it his sacred duty to set aside from his property a portion for public needs—educational, charitable, or religious—and one can judge the extent of them by the fact that annually the budget of the educational department of the country receives up to 10 million dollars from this source of voluntary bequests alone. [12] There are no accurate data for determining the amount of property collected by the Church through bequests. But if we take into account that the religious sphere is one of those three to which voluntary contributions go preferentially, we can form an approximate idea of the amount of this sum in comparison with the amount of donations to education. [13] Sometimes individual donations reach enormous sums—in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. [14] Another means is the so-called annual church bazaars—The Church Fairs. During the year, various donations of articles are made to the churches, which at a specified time are offered for sale, sometimes at fixed prices, and sometimes through auction, and thus converted into cash value. [15] Finally, one of the most reliable sources of income is the sale of church pews. This sale has achieved extraordinary development in America, to the point that there are almost no free churches. The sale takes place annually at a specified time, either at fixed prices or even by auction, and there are examples of remarkable competition. [16] When an auction was first opened to determine prices for pews in the new cathedral of Saint Patrick, instead of the nominal price of 150 dollars for the first pews, people paid 6,000 dollars. [17] Of the amount of this income, one can form an idea from the fact that the gross income from the sale of pews in the cathedral of Saint Patrick, at nominal value, amounts to 29,160 dollars. [18] By this sale, the pew is rented only for a certain number of masses, and since in Catholic churches there are usually several masses a day, visitors to the temple pay separately each time for the use of a pew, and in general the entrance to the temple for outside worshippers not having a rented pew is purchased for a certain sum, from 10 cents to 1 dollar, depending on the nature of the service. [19]

[1] “John Leary travels to Philadelphia once a year to receive absolution,” ironically remarks the Protestant chronicler Watson in his “Annals”, Murray History, p. 194.

[2] Murray History, p. 195.

[3] Murray, History, ibidem; Shea, History, pp. 341, 342.

[4] See the description of this council in “The Church Messenger” for 1880, No. 2, in our letter from New York.

[5] By some coincidence, the windows from the altar of the present location of the Russian Orthodox Church open directly toward the magnificent temple of St. Patrick, and the view from them involuntarily awakens the thought of the comparative position of these two churches on the soil of the New World. A hundred years ago Roman Catholicism was crowded into such an inconspicuous and small space as Orthodoxy now has begun its holy mission. In the course of its hundred-year life, Roman Catholicism has made enormous conquests and its temple proudly rises above the entire capital of the American continent. Is it not ordained that Orthodoxy too shall reap a rich harvest on this new virgin soil, and is it not ordained that it too shall see its temples whose bells will call forth thousands of devoted hearts? – May it be so – See “The Church Messenger” No. 47, 1880.

[6] How rapidly Catholic churches are being erected at the present time can be seen from the most recent case reported by newspapers. A year ago Cardinal McCloskey authorized a Catholic pastor in New York to form a new parish. The parish had to be created almost from nothing and many doubted the success of the undertaking. Meanwhile on May 1, 1881, a solemn dedication of a magnificent church for this parish had already taken place, valued at 100,000 dollars, and the parish itself had grown to two and a half thousand souls. See N. Y. Times of May 2, 1881.

[7] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 583.

[8] Murray, History, p. 567, 572.

[9] New York is the greatest Irish city in the world, surpassing Dublin, the capital of Ireland, far by its Irish population.

[10] Spalding, The Religions Mission of the Irish people, p. 62–63.

[11] Murray, History, p. 567.

[12] North American Review, Jan. 1876, article “Education in America 1776–1876”, p. 225. Over four years 1871–1874 roughly 33,000,000 dollars were donated. A particular example of these donations for the cause of public education can be found in the most recent fact, namely the bequest of the wealthy American Amasa Stoy from Cleveland of half a million dollars for collegiate education. N. Y. Herald of April 18, 1881. A year earlier another citizen of the same city bequeathed a tremendous sum of one and a half million dollars for higher education. N. Y. Times of Jan. 9, 1880.

[13] “Hardly any country in the world is so accustomed to giving money for religious and public needs as ours,” remarks an American publicist in an editorial of N. Y. Times of April 3, 1881. p. 6, article American Giving. As an example of this giving, one can cite the fact reported in the same newspaper that ex-governor of New York Morgan donated 200,000 dollars to the New York theological seminary, the so-called “Union Theological Seminary,” of which 100,000 he specifically designated for the purchase of a new location for it, and another 100,000 for a library. See N. Y. Times, of April 14, 1881. In The Sun of May 22, 1881 another fact is reported of a donation to the theological seminary of New York. 90,000 dollars.

[14] N. Y. Herald, April 1680. Legal proceeding regarding a major bequest. The last similar case of a bequest see in “Sun” of May 22, 1881, for the sum of 4,500 dollars.

[15] A description of such a bazaar can be read for example in N. Y. Times of April 20 of this year in the article: “St. Ann’s Church Fair”.

[16] A description of one of such auctions see in “The Church Messenger” for 1880, No. 35, in our “American Notes”.

[17] Ibidem.

[18] The figure is compiled on the basis of a table of nominal prices and number of seats in the cathedral. See the table on the columns of St. Patrick’s Cathedral on Fifth Avenue in New York.

[19] An entrance fee of 10 cents for side seating and 30 cents for center seats is charged for entry to the cathedral. We have two printed tickets with prices marked for entry. For entry to St. Stephen’s Church, which is famous for its artistic singing and the splendor of its worship, 25 cents are charged. A price of 1 dollar is set for special occasions – such as a cathedral service of several prelates, etc.

Part Four. The Material and Moral Strength of Roman Catholicism (Cont.)

The most important agency in the accumulation of church property then is the monastic orders—male and female. These are among the most active pioneers of the Roman Catholic Church, not only in the spiritual but also in the material respect. One can judge the success of their activity in this respect by the fact that from Europe the orders sent to America only a few brothers or sisters, supplying them with barely sufficient means for initial establishment. [1] Within a few years, the brothers and sisters not only managed to ensure their own existence with their own means, but also had the ability to begin solid construction of monasteries on land acquired in their own right, and at present throughout the United States the traveler constantly encounters monastic castles nestled in all localities distinguished by the most beautiful scenic beauty. By the rapid development of their prosperity, monasteries are indebted not only to the usual religious zeal of the Catholic population, but also to their active public activity. Among American orders, only a few have a specifically contemplative character. Most of them conduct lively public activity—educational and charitable. Almost all of them have educational or charitable institutions attached, which are maintained partly on voluntary donations, partly on fees charged, and partly even at state expense. We saw above what enormous sums the government of New York State annually pays to charitable Catholic institutions. But an even more important source of income for monasteries is their educational institutions—colleges, academies, and schools. While elementary schools are maintained partly at the monastery’s own expense and tuition is not charged for them, the so-called colleges and academies are entirely of a private, expensive boarding-school character. These colleges and academies are closed schools, in which the students or female students receive both education and complete maintenance during the course for a certain annual fee. And this fee is very high, as can be seen from the following examples. The New York college of the “Brothers of Christian Schools,” the so-called “Manhattan College,” in its advertisements sets forth the following conditions: “For maintenance, laundry, and tuition during the ten-month season—800 dollars; entrance fee 10 dollars; for medical care—10 dollars; for vacation time in college 40 dollars. For instruction in music, German and Spanish languages, drawing, and for the use of apparatus in the study of chemistry and natural philosophy, a separate fee is charged. Books are sold at current prices. Payment for half a season in five months is made in advance.” [2] Thus the annual tuition at this college amounts to 400 dollars, while it is overcrowded with students, so that according to statistics from 1876, it had 740 students, [3] who thus gave the college an annual income of more than 250,000 dollars. Another Roman Catholic college in New York, maintained by the Jesuits, the so-called “college of Saint John” (St. John College), charges 340 dollars from boarders, apart from a special fee for instruction in languages and drawing, and 60 dollars from day students. [4] In 1876, it had 200 students, [5] which gave the college an annual budget of 68,000 dollars. [6] Similar prices approximately prevail in the remaining colleges and seminaries. If we take into account that in the United States there are 107 colleges and seminaries with a total of about 20,000 students, it is evident that the annual income of male orders from this item should be counted in millions of dollars. [7] Even more income is extracted from this source by female orders. According to the latest statistical data, female monasteries in the United States maintain 511 female academies or boarding schools. [8] Tuition in them is as high as in male colleges. Thus the “Academy of Mount St. Vincent” (Academy of Mt. St. Vincent), several miles from New York, charges for instruction and maintenance 250 dollars per year, apart from special fees for instruction in music, languages, etc., raising this amount to 300 dollars. [9] In 1876, the academy had 200 female students, [10] giving the academy an annual budget of 60,000 dollars. The “Institute of Our Lady of Maryland” charges 375 dollars per year. In the last academic year, as shown in its circular, the institute had 110 female students, [11] which makes for the institute an annual budget of 44,250 dollars. Some colleges, such as the academy at “Presentation Convent” in San Francisco, have up to 700 female students. [12] If we assume an average of one hundred (100) female students per academy, this constitutes all the number of female students in the academies run by the sisters more than fifty thousand—(50,000), [13] which in monetary terms gives female orders from this source alone, at an average fee of 200 dollars, an enormous annual budget of ten million dollars (10,000,000).

In view of the figures presented, the fact that the prosperity of the Roman Catholic Church developed proportionally faster than the prosperity of the country itself should not be surprising, as can be seen from the following statistical data. In 1850, the entire value of property in the United States, according to the government census of that year, was estimated at 7,135,780,228 dollars; in 1860, it rose to 16,159,616,068 dollars; in 1870, to 30,668,518,507 dollars; finally, for 1880, it is estimated at 50,000,000,000 dollars. [14] The percentage growth of national wealth will thus be for the decade 1850–1860 about 125 percent, for the following decade about 86 percent, and for the last decade 1870–1880 about 60 percent. If we take the value of property belonging to the Roman Catholic Church, then for the corresponding years it is expressed in the following figures. In 1850, its property was valued at 9,256,758 dollars. In 1860, it rose to 26,744,119 dollars; in 1870, it was valued at 60,985,556 dollars; finally, in the last census, it is tentatively estimated at 100,000,000 dollars. [15] That is, the value of the property of the Roman Catholic Church for the first decade from 1850 to 1860 increased by 189 percent, from 1860 to 1870—by 128 percent, and for the last decade by 60 percent. Thus, while the wealth of the country for the first of these decades (1850–1860) increased by 125 percent, the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church increased by 189 percent. For the second decade, the wealth of the country increased only by 86 percent, while the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church increased by 128 percent. [16] For the last decade, the percentages of increase, due to the absence of exact data, we have taken as equal, although undoubtedly, judging by the previous decades, the property of the Roman Catholic Church increased faster than the general property of the country.

Along with the sources and methods of gathering material wealth, the system of managing it is of paramount importance, and in this respect the history of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States presents highly interesting data determining both its relationship to church property and its relationship to American property laws.

According to the laws of most states, property may be owned by either a person or any community or association—commercial, industrial, or religious. Any religious society, represented by its trustees, readily obtains corporate rights (incorporation), meaning it is recognized as a legal person entitled to own property, accept gifts, and receive inheritances. This right is ordinarily limited to a certain sum, but it is far greater than what any community needs. Even if the amount of property should exceed the determined maximum, it is easy to satisfy legal requirements by establishing a new center for property, for example, by building a new church, etc.[17] Given such legal provisions, church administration of property has all necessary conveniences and advantages. The Church, as a community, evidently has the same rights to property ownership as any other association in the state. And so it truly is in practice. Each church, through its elected trustees, possesses corporate rights, freely gathers property, owns and manages it according to its needs and requirements, without any interference from civil authorities. Such an arrangement would seem to be most favorable for the Roman Catholic Church, whose fundamental principle is independent management of church property in accordance only with its own statutes and rules. In reality it proved to be not particularly favorable and was a source of numerous and very serious difficulties for it. The reason is that civil legislation in this, as in many other respects, adopted a Protestant point of view, which proved contradictory to the fundamental spirit of Roman Catholicism as a church organization. By recognizing corporate rights to the church community, the legislation, in accordance with Protestant views, recognized the parish as the highest corporate unit and limited corporate rights to it. From the Protestant point of view, the parish is indeed the true highest corporate unit, an independent whole having no superior legal authority on which it depends. It is quite different in the Roman Catholic Church. The parish is not an independent legal unit, but only an organic component part of a higher unit, namely the diocese, on which it is entirely dependent and from whose representative, the bishop, it receives all its rights and all its governance. Clearly, this is a fundamental difference, and therefore legislation, having adopted the perspective of one of the concerned parties, thereby placed itself in contradiction with the other party. And since it adopted the Protestant point of view, it thereby placed itself in contradiction with the Roman Catholic perspective. This fact is the source of difficulties for the latter down to the present day, and at the same time the movement it produced threatened serious harm to the very integrity of its organization. This is precisely the so-called “trusteism” (trusteism), a movement hostile to the Roman Catholic organization, which found encouragement and support in the aforementioned legislation concerning the corporate rights of the religious community—the parish, not the diocese. The history of the Roman Catholic hierarchy’s struggle with this movement is not only interesting from a general historical perspective, but is also highly important for clarifying the principles of the Roman Catholic Church in managing church property.

The movement of trusteism received its name from the word “trustee,” which means steward, guardian, and as applied to church matters means a church steward in the broad sense of the word. In American church life, trustees played a very important role. All power of church administration—not only in material but also in spiritual matters—was concentrated in their hands. They represented the religious community before the state in their own name and received corporate rights under their names. In most cases by right of election from the parish, and in some cases, when the church was built with their own funds, by right of ownership, they were complete masters of the church: they sought sources for its maintenance, conducted the sale of church seating, hired choirs and orchestras, and finally, most importantly, they sought out the best pastor-preacher within their means, paid him his salary, and when dissatisfied replaced him to find a better one. Except for the parish, they had no superior jurisdiction over them and in their actions they were guided only by the voice of the parishioners and the interests of the church. This system of parish-church governance became deeply rooted in American church-religious life and constitutes a particular expression of the general principles of American public life, which has a strong tendency toward decentralization and the concentration of independent jurisdiction in each relatively separate public unit. With such an arrangement, the structure of Roman Catholic church-religious life, with its opposite tendency toward relentless centralization, naturally found itself immediately in contradiction with the prevailing principles. Between these two opposite systems of things, collision was inevitable, and it soon occurred, expressing itself in the trusteism movement.

[1] See for example, Murray, History, pp. 378, 382, 406, 408, etc.

[2] Sadliers, Catholic Directory, for 1881, in the announcements section, p. 1: “Manhattan College”.

[3] Murray, History, statistical table on p. 480.

[4] Catholic Directory, announcements section p. 3. See also the program of the college for 1860, p. 7.

[5] Murray, Ibidem, p. 480.

[6] All these colleges are in the full sense financial and industrial institutions, and if on the whole they yield large returns on capital, sometimes bankruptcy is not avoided. Thus, very recently one of the oldest Catholic colleges, namely “the college of the Mount of St. Mary” – Mount St. Mary’s College, at Emmitsburg – declared itself bankrupt due to financial disorder. The college had a debt of 200,000 dollars – creditors are offered payment of 30 cents on the dollar. In the last year the college had about 150 students, and its annual income is estimated at 40,000 dollars. – See N. Y. Times of February 28, 1881.

[7] If one places the general fee from each student at even 150 dollars as it is determined in some provincial colleges, this would constitute a solid budget of 3,000,000 dollars. And at an average fee of 200 dollars, which would be closer to reality, the budget would rise to 4,000,000 dollars.

[8] Sadliers, Catholic Directory for 1881, statistical table on p. 25.

[9] Academy of Mount of St. Vincent, program for 1881, p. 7.

[10] Murray, History, p. 447.

[11] “Notre Dame of Maryland, Collegiate Institute for Young Ladies, Baltimore County, Maryland”. Program for 1880, p. 9 (fees), p. 13–16 (list of students).

[12] Murray, statistical table, p. 447.

[13] This figure determines only the number of female students in academies and the so-called Select Schools. But the entire number of girls taught by sisters, according to the calculations of a Catholic publicist in 1674, amounted to 350,000 souls. Catholic World, Vol. XIX, p. 367.

[14] United States Census for the corresponding years. The Census for 1880 is not yet finished printing and the figures are compiled on the basis of fragmentary data, so they have only approximate or probable accuracy.

[15] Remarkably, the especially rapid growth of Roman Catholic Church property began very recently, and even in 1850 it was poorer than many other confessions in the country, as can be judged from the following statistical data. The property of ten major confessions in the United States over three decades from 1850 to 1870 is presented thus: 1850 1860 1870 Methodist $14,825,670 $33,683,371 $69,834,121 Roman Catholic $9,256,758 $26,744,119 $60,985,556 Presbyterian $14,543,780 $24,227,359 $53,265,256 Baptist $11,620,855 $19,789,378 $41,608,198 Episcopal $11,375,610 $21,665,698 $36,514,549 Congregationalist $8,001,995 $13,327,511 $25,069,698 Reformed $4,116,280 $4,453,820 $16,134,470 Lutheran $2,909,711 $5,385,179 $14,917,747 Unitarian $3,280,822 $4,338,316 $6,282,675 Universalist $1,718,316 $2,856,095 $5,692,325 Total $81,849,797 $156,470,846 $330,324,595 From this table it is evident that even in 1850 Roman Catholicism in respect to the value of property held fifth place among confessions, and in 1860 it had already taken second place, which it held also in 1870. In essence this place is already first, since under the name “Methodists” the census incorrectly combines into one two factions of Methodists – Episcopal Methodists and Southern Methodists, which have no more in common with each other than with other Protestant confessions, according to the statement of an Episcopal Methodist pastor Mattison (Mattison’s Romanism, p. 74). According to the 1880 census, which has not yet been printed, the Roman Catholic Church will, by general agreement, already occupy the first place, even above the combined Methodism. See the table in Catholic World, Vol. XXII, p. 710. Bishop Spalding in his article in Catholic World, Vol. XXIII: “Catholic Church in U. S. 1776–1676” already in 1876 expressed confidence that the Catholic Church in this respect holds first place. See Dale’s Impressions of America. New York 1879. p. 198, 199.

[16] Catholic Church in the United States, pamphlet by Hecker, New York, 1880, p. 22.

[17] Catholic World, Vol. IX, p. 504.

Part Four. The Material and Moral Strength of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (2)

The Roman Catholic population, given the weakness of church organization and its small numbers at the end of the last century, being completely surrounded by Protestant population, could not help but succumb to its influence. The result of this influence was that already from the end of the last century a tendency toward parish self-government and a limitation of the bishop’s power began to be noticed in it. The parish began to take active part in church administration and the idea arose in it to elect its own priest apart from the bishop and moreover following the Protestant model, having in view not those qualities determined by the canonical law of the Church, but his preaching talent.[1] At the first opportunity the idea did not delay in manifesting itself in action. After the opening of church services in New York, in 1784 a Franciscan named Whelan was appointed as pastor to the church. He had not served a year when another Franciscan, Nugent, arrived in New York and began to intrigue against the first, trying to take his place. Since he possessed a better preaching talent than Whelan, the parishioners took his side and asked the Jesuit Farmer to remove Whelan. The Jesuit at once grasped the danger of this tendency for the stability of church organization and tried to pacify them. But the parish would not hear of it, and the trustees threatened to turn to the legislative assembly with a petition requesting them the legal authority to dismiss a priest in case of dissatisfaction with him.[2] All attempts at pacification were in vain. The trustees were conscious of their power, and although they did not turn to the legislative assembly as they threatened, they decided to drive out Whelan by domestic means and discontinued the Sunday collection on his behalf. Since this was the sole source of his support, the Franciscan had no choice but to withdraw and yield to his rival, who took his place.[3] This was the first outbreak of trusteism, and although it was subsequently extinguished thanks to the energy of the first bishop, the Jesuit John Carroll, it was an ominous foreboding of troubles for the Church that would follow. And indeed the subsequent history presents an almost unbroken struggle of the church hierarchy with the trusteism tendency, which manifested itself at every convenient opportunity now in one place, now in another, and sometimes not without success.[4] If trusteism did not everywhere succeed in limiting the bishop’s rights regarding the appointment and dismissal of pastors, in the management of church property it made enormous conquests, so that gradually church property passed into the complete control of the trustees. This order of things became customary, and although it was in complete contradiction with Roman Catholic church law, according to which the bishop is the complete and unlimited master of church property, for a long time no bishop dared to enter into open struggle with trusteism. Indeed, this struggle required extraordinary will power and unbreakable energy, since trusteism already had solid ground beneath it and relied on established custom. Nevertheless, as contrary to church law, trusteism could not count on perpetual dominance; the hierarchy could not reconcile itself to it and awaited only a favorable opportunity to enter into decisive battle with its opponent. This opportunity presented itself when, as an assistant to the energetic Bishop Dubois, an even more energetic coadjutor was appointed to the episcopal see of New York, the later famous Archbishop of New York Hughes. Trusteism at this time had reached wide proportions in New York and the trustees were in open rebellion against episcopal authority. The young energetic coadjutor resolved to crush this movement and—largely succeeded in this. Bishop Dubois energetically defended his rights as a hierarchical spiritual administrator.[5] His coadjutor did not confine himself to defending these rights, but vowed to crush trusteism in its very existence, on its economic foundation. The struggle was not easy. Trusteism had reached its highest intensity, refused to recognize episcopal authority and controlled church property unchecked. But the keen-minded coadjutor detected the weak side of trusteism in its very strength, and directed his blows at it. Trusteism, intoxicated by its gains, had degenerated into the despotic willfulness of trustees, who ceased even to be guided by the voice of the parishioners and managed church property like simple possession, making it an object of financial speculation. This naturally brought about the cooling of a considerable part of the parishioners, and Hughes exploited this. He appealed to this part of the parishioners with a protest against the illegal actions of the trustees and found their sympathy. Taking advantage of this first success, he proceeded to more effective measures in the struggle against trusteism and appealed to the people with a proclamation—“to send their contributions not to the disobedient trustees, but to their lawfully appointed pastors, whose support according to church law was obligatory for them.”[6] His appeals made an impression on the Catholic population, and thus began a public movement to discuss the question. A massive rally was called, at which Hughes was given the chair. Relying on the pastoral address of Bishop Dubois to his flock, he set forth the abnormal state of affairs before the assembly with such clarity and force that the rally determined henceforth to harmonize the entire system of church administration with the canons of the Church.[6] Trusteism thus suffered a moral defeat, but in fact it continued to exist until, through the abuse of its administration, it deprived itself entirely of its foundation. Looking on church property as an object of speculation, the trustees engaged in all sorts of speculative enterprises. Soon, however, some of them brought matters to a dead end, so that the trusteeships of five churches out of the total of eight churches in New York at that time declared bankruptcy. On the church of St. Peter alone the debt amounted to more than one hundred and fifty thousand dollars.[7] The situation of these churches was hopeless, as they were subject to sale at auction to satisfy creditors. Bishop Hughes used this situation to deal a final blow to trusteism. He exerted all efforts to collect a sum of money, and by contract purchased all these churches for his own property, thus becoming the head of these churches not only by the right of bishophood which the trustees denied, but also by the right of owner which they could no longer deny.[6]

Defeated in New York, trusteism nevertheless continued to exist in other cities. Rejoicing in his success in the struggle with the trustees, Bishop Hughes at a diocesan synod convened in 1842 developed “rules concerning the management of church property without trustees”[8] and demanded their practical application. But these rules met with protest from some trustees. Particularly obstinate were the trustees of the church of St. Louis in Buffalo (in the state of New York). They not only refused to submit to Hughes’ demands, but twice sent a delegate to Rome to petition for their rights. During the height of the struggle, even the church was closed. The Pope entrusted his nuncio Bedini to examine this matter. In 1853 the trustees had an audience with the nuncio and presented to him a memorandum containing their complaints against Bishop Hughes. The nuncio sent them a written response with the decision that the parish must submit to the bishop’s demand, that the trustees must implement this decision as soon as possible, that the management of church property belongs to administrators appointed by the bishop, who supervise all the church’s property and at prescribed intervals present a report on their administration to the bishop and the faithful attending the church.[9] This resolution bitterly disappointed the trustees, and on the very day of receiving it they sent the nuncio this reply: “…We see nothing in the response of your excellency (Excellency) except a repetition of the demands made by the esteemed Bishop Timon,[10] that is, complete submission, so that our act of incorporation (Act of incorporation) be abrogated and that a special committee appointed by the one who caused our difficulties replace the trusteeship. Before the beginning of these difficulties, we never interfered in spiritual affairs, leaving them entirely to the pastor and bishop; but as regards the material side, we have always had control over it, subject however to the annual examination of the bishop and pastor—with respect to the sums expended and received, and the pastor always found everything in order. As for the abrogation of the act of incorporation, there is not a shadow of sense in this, since we think that the material side has nothing in common with the spiritual…”[11] The nuncio’s final response of October 26, 1853, declared the trustees’ response “truly grievous,” reproached the trustees for completely disrespecting Catholic principles, and lamented their sad position in the case of further obstinacy.[11] Bishop Timon issued a pastoral letter to the parish of St. Louis Church, threatening excommunication to those who persisted. The threat did not have the desired effect, and then the bishop, on June 22, 1854, officially declared the seven “so-called trustees of St. Louis Church,” whom he named individually, “excommunicated by major excommunication,” adding furthermore that “all who henceforth assume the position of trustee of St. Louis Church, in order to continue the present sacrilegious opposition to church discipline, ipso facto incur the same major excommunication.”[12] Excommunication proved a powerful means and trusteism did not withstand it. The trustees of St. Louis Church surrendered and submitted to the bishop. Other church trustees followed, and thus gradually one of the most dangerous movements for the success of Roman Catholicism in the United States, which had arisen under the influence of Protestantism, was crushed.

[1] “A good preacher, alas! – that is all those wish for who never approach the sacraments,” bitterly exclaims Jesuit Farmer. “Various sectarians can hardly have any other rule for judging a spiritual person except his talent for preaching, and our Irish parishes, such as for example New York, follow the same rule,” wrote Jesuit Carroll on December 15, 1785. U. S. Magazine, Vol. VI, 102.

[2] Shea, History, p. 343.

[3] Shea, History, p. 344.

[4] Trusteism achieved its greatest successes in Philadelphia, to the extent that the trustees compelled Bishop Conwell to sign an actual treaty, by which he ceded a significant portion of his rights to the trustees. By the fourth article of this treaty (from 1826) the bishop acknowledged that the trustees had the right to recommend suitable persons for the position of priests in the church of St. Mary on the following conditions: “The bishop must name the candidates and notify the trustees. If the latter do not find them suitable for the position of pastor or assistant, then they must present their objections to the bishop. If the bishop insists on his choice, then he appoints a committee of three clergy, of whom he himself constitutes one member, for discussion of the matter together with a committee of three trustees, and the voice of this committee must be respected by the bishop. If the committee is evenly divided, then two mediators are elected, and their voice carries decisive weight.” This treaty, insulting as it was to the canonical dignity of the bishop, did not, however, fully satisfy the trustees. Encouraged by their first success, they further increased their claims and forced the bishop to accept a new condition. In the new proposal, the trustees declared that they did not limit their rights by the treaty made and intended to assert their claims in Rome, so that in the future no bishop would be appointed without the recommendation and approval of the Catholic clergy of the diocese. Such concessions on the bishop’s part provoked terrible indignation against him from the Roman Curia, and he was recalled to Rome. Peace in the church was restored only by his more energetic successor, Bishop Kenrick. Shea, History, pp. 220–225.

[5] Shea, History, p. 306. Bishop Dubois issued a strong pastoral letter directed against the unlawful omnipotence of the trustees. Ibidem p. 395–397. See also the first footnote of our work on p. 231.

[6] Shea, History, p. 404.

[7] Shea, History, Ibidem.

[8] The Rules for the Administration of Churches without Trustees. New York 1843. See Barnum, Romanism as it is, p. 555.

[9] Barnum, Romanism as it is, p. 556. The letter of the nuncio can be found in New York Freeman’s Journal, November 5, 1853.

[10] Timon, the first bishop of the diocese of Buffalo, who worked together with Bishop Hughes in the struggle against trusteism. Barnum, Romanism, p. 555. Shea, History, pp. 482–485.

[11] Barnum, Romanism, p. 556.

[12] Barnum, Romanism, p. 557.

Part Four. The Material and Moral Strength of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (3)

But broken in its external manifestation, trusteism could not be completely destroyed in the sense of the tendency, since its roots are embedded in the spirit of American public life itself, in the character of its public institutions. Therefore, having suffered defeat in open battle, trusteism began to seek secret refuge in this spirit, and to a considerable degree succeeded in this, so that it even threatened at times to deprive the Roman Catholic hierarchy of the fruits of its hard-won victory. This was particularly evident in the state of New York. The state legislative assembly regarded the success achieved by the Roman Catholic hierarchy in its struggle for its rights with some displeasure,[1] and almost considered its policy regarding church property management incompatible with the republican institutions of the country. The trustees detected this sentiment and attempted to use it to restore their rights. Soon a favorable opportunity presented itself. The main enemy of trusteism, Archbishop Hughes, after his victory went to Rome in triumph to attend the promulgation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The trustees took advantage of his absence and submitted to the state legislative assembly a petition for the restoration of their trampled rights.[2] The petition found favor in the legislative assembly, the majority of which was anti-Catholic in sentiment and was apparently under the influence of the recently concluded anti-Catholic movement of “Know-Nothings.”[3] In consequence the petition was accepted and the legislative assembly developed a “law on church possession,” which not only deprived the Roman Catholic hierarchy of the right to manage and own church property, but in some cases bordered on confiscation of church property. Assuming that the majority of the legislative assembly, as representatives of the ruling party or expressions of the popular will of the state, are owners of all immovable and personal property in the state, and that the actual owners are merely custodians of it, they stipulated that all property held by any person in a church office must, upon his death, be given to the parish if it has corporate rights, or in the absence of the latter—to the people of the state.[2] Another provision stipulated that no transaction concerning property intended for divine worship should be considered legal or have legal force unless made in the name of the corporation.[4] Clearly, not only did these provisions substantially violate the rights of the Roman Catholic Church regarding self-governance according to its own church laws, but they also established by law the exact opposite of its self-governance, and finally, what was worst, the Roman Catholic hierarchy was deprived of all the fruits of its hard-won, extraordinarily difficult victory over trusteism. Trusteism received legal, juridical recognition, and the trustees, as representatives of the corporate rights of the parish, received complete control over church property. Even more, the bishop could not transfer his right to church property, in case of death, to his successor-bishop; he had to transfer it to the parish or trustees, and thus the church property purchased by Archbishop Hughes passed again upon his death to his mortal enemies—the trustees.[5] When Archbishop Hughes returned to his diocese, this law poisoned his spiritual joy occasioned by the happy proclamation of the new dogma. He saw that the victory he had gained had slipped from his hands again, and the hated trusteism once more proudly raised its head, now relying not merely on customary right but on a definite, juridically-formulated legal provision. But the energetic archbishop did not think of yielding his rights and immediately began agitation against the new legislation. Here indeed the Church was entering into struggle with the state, but the archbishop did not shrink from such a struggle in order to secure his rights. He submitted a strong protest to the legislative assembly, demolishing the very foundations on which the new legislation was built. These foundations were the complaints of the trustees that the archbishop demanded from them a formal renunciation of their rights over the church property they managed in favor of his personal right to this property, and the assurances of Senator Brooks that the Archbishop of New York had thus seized enormous property worth five million dollars.[6] The archbishop conducted his case against the trustees with such tact that he forced them to renounce their claim that he demanded the renunciation of their rights in his favor. There remained Senator Brooks, and against him Hughes wrote an entire polemical work entitled: “The Brooklynica,” and not only refuted his assertions regarding the archbishop’s alleged tendency toward personal seizure of property, but also proved the inconsistency of the very figure by which the value of his diocese’s church property was determined, and moreover revealed the secret springs that had promoted this unjust legislation.[7] This strong protest was not fruitless, especially since soon the internal inconsistency of the law itself became apparent, undermining the very foundations of property,[8] and it was finally repealed by the legislative assembly in 1863, after eight years of existence.[9] Instead of it a legal provision was adopted which represents a sort of compromise between the rights of the hierarchy and the trustees, and consists in this that corporate rights are granted to all Roman Catholic parishes and churches, but this corporate right in any case has its highest jurisdiction in the bishop and the vicar general of the diocese, and the pastor and trustees are appointed by the bishop.[10]

Thus in the state of New York the Roman Catholic hierarchy finally achieved some recognition of its rights regarding the management of church property. But since jurisdiction over religious matters belongs exclusively to the realm of local self-government of the individual states, naturally the attitude of the state toward the question of church property management is not uniform in different states. While in one state this attitude is more or less satisfactory for the Roman Catholic Church, in another state it continues to stand in contradiction to its wishes. Thus in the Puritan states of New England the laws regarding church property management are fully based on Protestant principles of parish independence from any higher jurisdiction, and therefore the rights of Roman Catholic bishops are limited in favor of the trustees. In 1866 Bishop Fitzpatrick attempted to present to the legislative assembly of Massachusetts a petition for the reform of laws concerning the management of church property of the Roman Catholic Church according to the plan adopted in New York, namely that “the various Roman Catholic churches or congregations in this commonwealth be empowered to receive corporate power, with the same rights regarding property and possession which religious parishes enjoy by law, and that such corporate power in any case be vested in the bishop and vicar general of the diocese in which such church or congregation may be—and the pastor of such church or congregation and two laymen shall be appointed by said bishop, vicar general, and pastor, or by a majority of them.”[11] The petition was referred for examination to the “committee of parishes and religious societies,” naturally composed of a majority of Puritan clergy, and this committee gave a unanimous unfavorable opinion to the petitioners. This opinion is a characteristic document in clarifying the position of the question of church property management in Massachusetts, so that certain passages from it are not out of place. “With such an arrangement, say the committee, parish or public corporations would be in any case only nominal. The actual corporation would consist of three clergymen and two laymen of their choosing, since members of the parish community have no voice in appointing their nominal representatives. In a word, parish corporations would have no corporate powers at all. We assert with full confidence that such an anomalous society can never be created or legalized by an act of legislation. It would be contrary to the whole theory and purpose of our civil and religious institutions. At the present time the documents (title-deeds) to all Roman Catholic church property in the state are made out in the name of the bishop and are in his hands. By his will he transmits all to his successor, since there is no law against it—although in reality he owns not a single dollar of all the value. Thus Bishop Williams[12] enters into possession of all the numerous and valuable estates which the late Bishop Fitzpatrick either received from his predecessor or acquired through his own administrative abilities. Possession of such property, which now amounts to hundreds of thousands and millions (of dollars) and in the future may increase indefinitely and infinitely, gives the one occupying the episcopacy, as anyone must see, enormous influence both ecclesiastical and political. And this influence certainly would not be diminished if the change were made which the petition before us proposes… The committee sees no reason why those who build church buildings and who so abundantly support their pastors, bishops and other clergy should not have control over these buildings under their own names as their secure property for religious purposes in accordance with the existing laws of the republic. The corporate organization and management of Roman Catholic parishes or societies, we do not doubt, would find general approval from their members; and according to our American principles and experience, would give them more mental activity, self-respect, and all the qualities of usefulness as good citizens. It would be a crying injustice, an abuse of power, unforgivable in the legislative assembly of Massachusetts,—whatever may be done elsewhere,—if any of our fellow-citizens should be deprived of the full measure of that freedom to which, by the favor of our God toward us, we owe so much and so openly. And that surely we would deprive our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens if we granted the request of the petitioners”[13]. Thus the claims of the Roman Catholic hierarchy for the right to manage church property in accordance with its own canonical law were found by the Massachusetts legislative assembly to be incompatible with the general structure of the public-political life of the republic and were rejected as violating the rights of citizens to self-government. Therefore trusteism continues to prevail in New England more than in all other states of the country.[14]

The struggle of the hierarchy with trusteism and the government over the question of church property management, although apparently concerned only separate dioceses and localities, could not but stir the whole Church, and its vicissitudes were reflected therefore in the various councils that took place during the period of the struggle itself. The councils carefully followed the vicissitudes of the struggle and made various determinations which defined the Church’s view on this question and adopted various measures for its most favorable resolution for the Church. The highest expression of the Roman Catholic view on the question of church property management found its expression in the determinations of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore. The prelates of the council regarded this matter very seriously and devoted to it an entire section, presenting a careful compilation of various determinations of previous councils, their comparison with the general canonical law of the Church and with the directives of the Roman Curia, and concluding with the prelates’ own determination regarding the Church’s rights in property management in relation to trustees and government.[15] “In order better to arrange, say the prelates, the management of church property and suppress the abuse of secular trustees, the First Council of Baltimore decreed: Since lay trustees often abuse the rights given them by civil authority, to great harm to religion and not without confusion to the faithful, we greatly desire that henceforth no church shall be built or dedicated unless it be transferred (adsignata) by written document to the bishop of that diocese in which it is to be built, for divine service and the use of the faithful.”[16] The bishop is declared the complete owner of church property with the right to pass it to his successor by will. The order of transfer is determined by a decree of the “Roman Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith” from December 15, 1840, “the essence of which is as follows: each bishop must make a will, by which one of his fellow bishops of his country, whom he deems more worthy (idoneum) in the Lord, is designated as heir, with the purpose that, being thus the heir, he may transfer to the successor of the deceased bishop all the property which came to him by right of inheritance. But this however must not be stated in the will itself, but must be made known to the designated heir by letter, which he must burn after reading it. A bishop who has a coadjutor should make him his heir.”[17] The prelates repeat the determination of the Seventh Provincial Council of Baltimore that “all churches and other church property, acquired either by the offerings or donations of the faithful, for the purposes of charity or religion, belong to the ordinary (ad Ordinarium pertinere), unless it be written stated that they have been transferred to some monastic order or congregation of priests for their use.”[18] Repeating the determination of the First Plenary Council of Baltimore, the prelates “strictly forbid the laity to interfere in the management” of church property “without the voluntary consent of the bishop. If they shall attempt to intrude into this management without any consent, convert it to their own use, or what is entrusted to the care and custody of bishops they shall tear from their hands, even by the prestige of law, we declare that they ipso facto are subject to the punishment determined by the fathers of Trent for rash plunderers of Church property.”[19] Finally the prelates themselves determine the property position of the Church in relation to the general legislative principle of the state and say:

[1] Shea, History, p. 404, 405.

[2] Shea, History, p. 437.

[3] Shea, History, p. 504.

[4] See this “Church tenure bill” in The laws of state New York for 1855, Ch. 230.

[5] “The government of the state, says the Catholic historian in this regard, made one of the most extraordinary decrees that can be found in the legislation of a civilized country; a decree that claimed to take away from the bishop property which he had purchased, and to transfer it without any compensation to the same trustees, whose lawful right to this property had been sold by the determination of law!” Shea, History, p. 405.

[6] Shea, History, p. 438.

[7] See Brooksiana; or the controversy between senator Brooks and Archbishop Hughes, grown out of the recently enacted Church Property bill. New York, 1865. In the preface to this book the archbishop provides a historical survey of the trustee movement in the United States and particularly dwells on the exposition of the evil it caused to the church of St. Peter, the cradle of Roman Catholicism in New York.

[8] According to this legislation, for example, no one could purchase a plot of land for a chapel, and even if he paid for it, the transaction was not considered legal. And anyone who, before this decree, owned property which he used for worship, upon his death it was to pass not to his heir, but to some corporation. Shea, History, p. 437, 438.

[9] Barnum, Romanism, p. 557.

[10] Barnum, Romanism, p. 558.

[11] Barnum, Romanism as it is, p. 558.

[12] Bishop Williams was the successor to Bishop Fitzpatrick, who died on February 18, 1868, before the final settlement of the case. Shea, History, pp. 512, 513.

[13] Barnum, Romanism, pp. 558, 560, 561.

[14] “This state (Massachusetts),” notes the Catholic historian, “the cradle of Puritanism in America, the true center of unbelief and Arianism, and now is distinguished by the same fanaticism and intolerance as it was in 1620.” Shea, History, p. 154. The spirit of trusteism, however, continues from time to time to assert itself in other states. Thus, recently a bill was presented to the house of representatives of the state of Michigan—“concerning the removal from Catholic bishops of Michigan the administration and control of church property and the transfer thereof to a committee of laymen.” The chairman of the judicial committee, Campbell, a member of the Catholic church in Marshall, made a fierce attack on the administration of the Catholic church in the state. He declared that “the bishops hold all church property in their own names, contrary to the direct law, and in case of their death without a will it could be lost to the people. Control over such an enormous amount of land by a single person, according to his declaration, contradicts the spirit of our institutions, and such privileges are not granted to any other religious denomination.” The Sun, May 1, 1881, p. 3, col. 7.

[15] Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis II Acta et Decreta, Baltimore MDCCCLXXVII. Titulus IV: De Ecclesiis Bonisque Ecclesiasticis tenendis tutandisque. §§ 182–204.

[16] Acta et Decreta, § 182, 183; p. 111.

[17] Acta et Decreta, § 189, p. 114.

[18] Acta et Decreta, § 195, p. 116.

[19] Acta et Decreta, § 197, p. 116.

Part Four. The Material and Moral Strength of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (4)

“Since in the United States all citizens and inhabitants are permitted to live freely and without hindrance in accordance with the principles of their religion, which the civil laws themselves recognize and proclaim; it seems nothing at all should prevent us from exactly fulfilling those laws of the Church which were decreed by the councils and supreme pontiffs for the acquisition and proper keeping of church property. Therefore the fathers wish to set forth and clearly place before the eyes of all and in full light for the state itself the true right of the Church concerning the receipt, maintenance, and administration of sacred property, such as the lands on which temples are built, the temples themselves, houses for priests (presbyteria), schools, cemeteries, and such like, so that Catholic citizens might be permitted to exactly follow (ob oculos habere) the laws and determinations of the Catholic Church. This same full freedom can exist only if the laws and determinations made by the Church itself are admitted to full execution and are thus given civil force. Protection is given to every right by them; abuses which accidentally arise are prevented by them; and the power of bishops is not only not increased but rather diminished by the determinations made by the Church itself. For in order to guard against undue intrusions of secular tribunals, which scarcely recognize, and in practice not at all recognize, the laws of the Church, bishops have no recourse for directing all matters according to the rule of Church laws except to be granted the fullest administration of property before the civil authority. Since this recognition of Church laws and tribunals does not yet exist in some states, we consider it our duty thus to arrange matters (nostrum est ita res componere), so that in places where the civil laws have not made better provisions, the difficulties arising for the freedom of the Church or for the security of property from civil laws may be eliminated or as far as possible reduced. To prescribe to lay trustees their proper limits and the manner of their election, we extend to all churches of these provinces the determinations made at the Third Provincial Council of New York and recognized by the apostolic see, and advise everyone to follow them everywhere. They are as follows: 1) No one should be accepted as a trustee who is known at the time of selection, or shortly before, to have given his name to some secret society or has not received the Easter sacraments. 2) Let trustees understand that it is entirely unlawful for them to transfer even the smallest portion of church property for their own use under any pretense whatever, or for others’ use except with the permission of the bishop and in accordance with apostolic determinations concerning the alienation of church property.[1] 3) Except for ordinary expenses, trustees are not permitted to request for any special purpose a sum of money exceeding three hundred dollars (scutatos nummos) unless the bishop gives his written consent. 4) Let the trustees know that the power to appoint the pastor of the church, to keep him in his position or not—belongs to the bishop. To the bishop alone belongs the power to determine a certain sum of money for the support of pastors of souls; and the trustees are not permitted either to withhold, reduce, or increase this salary. 5) To the pastor belongs the power to appoint the organist, the singers, the sacristan, the sexton or servant, the teacher (if there is a school in the parish), and other persons of such a kind serving the altar or temple. 6) Let trustees beware, without consulting the pastor, of prescribing any law or rule for the parishioners. If any disagreement arise between the pastor and the trustees, and this disagreement they cannot settle among themselves, then let the bishop decide the dispute, to whose judgment and sentence all must obey.”[2] “Thus we declare as a universal law of the Catholic Church that all those who in any manner whatsoever administer church property have this right only by the consent of the apostolic see or the bishop and in their administration are subject to the power and jurisdiction of the bishops, or, if exempt, to the power and jurisdiction of those whom the apostolic see shall appoint.”[3]

The fundamental idea of these determinations is evidently that administrators of church property in parishes should do nothing without the consent of the bishop. “To observe this law and secure themselves from the danger of intrusion by secular tribunals, the bishop has no other recourse except to appear before the civil authority and declare his right to full administration of all the property belonging to his church as a single corporation. Some states have recognized this right. In others it is not yet recognized. Therefore the council determinations propose the best means for avoiding or at least reducing the inconvenience resulting from such a state of affairs. By them it is required that mutual security be adopted on the part of the bishop and trustees. Upon his appointment to the see, the prelate must make a will and give a copy of it to his metropolitan. Besides the property of which he is the sole owner, he should be ex-officio president of all the trusteeships which in the eyes of the law hold parish property.”[4]

Having set forth these determinations as palliative measures for the most favorable possible realization of the canonical law of the Church under the given difficult circumstances, the prelates naturally did not consider their work finished. They resolved solemnly to express their protest against state restrictions regarding the management of church property in accordance with the canonical law of the Church. This protest they expressed in their pastoral letter to the clergy and people.[5] “While gladly recognizing, say they, the fact that thus far the general and state governments of our country, except for some brief periods of excitement and delusion (delusion), have not interfered with our church organization or our civil rights, we however have reason for sorrow that in many states we are not yet permitted by law to take those measures for the security of church property which would be in accordance with the rules and discipline of the Catholic Church. We gratefully recognize that in some states we have been granted in this respect all that we could reasonably ask for. The right of the Church to own property—be it churches, houses for clergy, cemeteries, or schools, asylums, etc.—cannot be denied without depriving it of the necessary means to achieve the purpose for which it was established. We are aware of the purported grounds for this refusal to recognize the Church’s corporate right except on condition that in the matter of church property management it conforms to the general laws established for that purpose. These laws, however, are for the most part based on principles which it cannot accept without deviating from its practice from the beginning, so soon as it was permitted to enjoy the freedom of divine worship. They are an expression of distrust in church authority as such; and are the fruit of perverted ideas which were entertained about the Church’s activity in past centuries. To impose on it a system of property management which is alien to its principles and which is borrowed from those who have rejected its authority is the same as if the civil authority should prescribe to it the doctrines which it must preach and the divine service by which it must worship God. Rather than trying to refute the various grounds cited for this denial of Church rights in some states, we content ourselves with a formal protest with which we step forward against this denial; and we briefly note that even on the supposition, which we utterly reject, that this denial results from legitimate motives, this denial in itself is incompatible with the full measure of that church or religious freedom which we presumably enjoy. This is not an unimportant matter or one which would not have the most outrageous practical consequences. Because we are not permitted to administer church property on Catholic principles, we are not only forced to place church property in conditions of extreme uncertainty; but in at least one of the States of the United States, namely Missouri, laws have even been enacted by which all church property not held by corporations was made subject to monetary taxation; and the evident purpose of this provision was hostility toward the Catholic Church. In conclusion of these remarks, we simply point out this attempt made in that state to place the conduct of divine service in dependence on a condition imposed by the civil authority.”[6]

Thus regarding the management of church property in its proper sense, the Roman Catholic Church, despite the important results it has achieved in this respect, considers itself oppressed by the state. But more important results it has succeeded in achieving regarding the management of another kind of property, which while essentially church property, nevertheless appears to have a separate existence and independent purpose. Such is the property belonging to various Roman Catholic educational and teaching institutions: colleges, high schools, and boarding schools for girls, directed by various monastic orders. The United States government is more favorably disposed toward these institutions than toward the Roman Catholic Church itself, places them under special legislation which grants them full freedom. “States generally grant these institutions corporate rights without much difficulty, and their property is completely under the control and administration of the council of these institutions, consisting of the rector and chief officers of the college or institute, and sometimes also friends who from time to time are elected as trustees. Many colleges directed by Jesuits and other orders are thus maintained.”[7] However, in this respect also there are not without obstacles, and everything depends on the general disposition of the legislation of a given state toward Roman Catholicism. Thus, the legislative assembly of the Puritan state of Massachusetts stubbornly refused to grant corporate rights to the Jesuit college of the Holy Cross in Worcester (Worcester), although it apparently satisfied all the legal conditions for this.[8]

From the data presented it is evident that regarding the question of church property management, Roman Catholicism does not yet enjoy in the United States the independence and freedom which it considers necessary for the successful development of its external prosperity and which, in its conviction, belongs to it by virtue of the state’s proclaimed principle of the separation of Church and state and the resulting freedom for church-religious life. In such a case it is all the more remarkable the fact that even under such, in its view, restrictive circumstances, it has managed to develop its external prosperity to enormous proportions, determined by the figure of the value of its church property cited above. But this success would be even more striking if compared with the success of other religious communities and sects. At the beginning of the independent political life of the country, a hundred years ago, the Roman Catholic Church was the poorest and occupied the last place in its material value among American denominations. Through a hundred years this relationship has radically changed, and at the centennial anniversary of the country’s independence it already occupied the first place among those same denominations in the material respect,[9] a position it certainly continues to hold now.

[1] The italics belong to the original. See Acta et Decreta, p. 118.

[2] Acta et Decreta, §§ 199–201; pp. 117, 118.

[3] Acta et Decreta, § 202; p. 119.

[4] Catholic World, Vol. IX, p. 505.

[5] Literae Pastorales concilii patrum, lingua vulgari, ad clerum populumque sibi commissum directae. Acta et Decreta, p. XXVII.

[6] Literae Pastorales, III. Relations of the Church to the state. Acta et Decreta, pp. XXXIV, XXXV. The law on church property enacted in the state of New Hampshire in 1879 is marked by a clearly anti-Catholic character. According to this law “any property, real or personal, belonging to a church association or corporation, used exclusively for a place of worship, must be free from taxation; but all such associations or corporations that own church property exceeding $10,000 in value are subject to taxation as any other property for the full value of the excess.” Obviously, this law can apply only to small parish units. And since Roman Catholic property is grouped in diocesan units, which of course by their value exceed the prescribed maximum of ten thousand dollars, it is subject to taxation and thus deprived of a substantial advantage. This law can be seen in Christian Statesman, April 21, 1881.

[7] Shea, History, p. 153.

[8] Shea, History, p. 154.

[9] North American Review, January 1876, article “Religion in America 1776–1876,” p. 22–23, places it in second place, but the learned Roman Catholic bishop Spalding, in his article: “The Catholic Church in the United States in 1776–1876,” says that the Roman Catholic Church “in this respect undoubtedly holds first place.” And this is acknowledged by the majority of authorities. Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, cited article.

Part Four. The Material and Moral Strength of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (5)

But a sketch of the development of the material prosperity of the Roman Catholic Church and its present condition would be incomplete if we did not at least briefly mention one aspect in this respect which constitutes one of the characteristic phenomena in American church life, namely the widespread prevalence of speculative credit. Both the general character of American life and the particular position of American church parishes as independent legal and economic units led to the fact that each church, through its trustees, became in material respects a financial company which freely borrowed money on the security of its real property. This on one hand contributed to the development of the material prosperity of churches and the liveliness of their financial operations, but on the other hand led to immoderate speculation, the burdening of churches with debt obligations, which sometimes, in the event of unsuccessful operations, ended in lamentable catastrophe—complete bankruptcy and the sale of the church at auction to satisfy creditors. This general spirit of speculation could not but penetrate into the Roman Catholic Church, especially given the prevalence of trusteism, and we have seen what catastrophe befell the New York churches in the 1840s, when out of eight churches five were sold at auction for debts and purchased by Archbishop Hughes. With the strengthening of hierarchical control over church property, measures were taken to limit this evil, and the Second Council of Baltimore reaffirmed the determination of the First Council that bishops and priests should not burden churches with debts. “We urge the bishops, said the prelates, to see to it that priests, for unwise building or repair of churches or for some other reason, do not burden church property by the contraction of debt obligations (aere alieno contrahendo), or else destroy faith by bringing dishonor to religion: therefore let them examine the condition of the property annually and not permit them without written permission to borrow money on behalf of or for the church.”[1] But the force of circumstances proved more effective than council determinations, and despite them churches continued constantly to resort to credit on a very wide scale, so that at the present time in New York for example only four Roman Catholic churches are completely free from debt, while all the rest are more or less burdened by it, and the largest debt lies on the new Cathedral of St. Patrick. For determining the total amount of debt lying on the Roman Catholic Church we have no data, but an approximate idea of it can be gained from New York. All the property of the Roman Catholic Church in it is estimated at 11,176,500 dollars, while its debt equals 3,042,814 dollars, that is, it comprises about 1/4 of all the property. Judging by this proportion the total amount of debt should amount to 25,000,000 dollars.[2] Clearly, under such a burden there cannot be without financial collapse, as for example recently happened with the college of Mount St. Mary’s, which was mentioned above.[3]

XVI

Having received religious freedom, the Roman Catholic Church, as we have seen, deployed extraordinary strength and in one century not only created a powerful organization thanks to which the flood of Catholic immigration to American shores was incorporated into the Church and did not disperse among the Protestant population, but could at the same time raise the material prosperity of the Church to a high degree. In its numerical growth Roman Catholicism, as has already been shown, is almost exclusively indebted to the incoming immigrant population, and by such composition the Church itself may be called foreign, an exotic plant on American soil, as it is often called by American publicists. In its main aspect it is foreign not only in its popular numbers but also in its very hierarchy, and those numerous monastic orders, both male and female, which constitute one of the strongest strongholds of Roman Catholicism on American soil, are also foreign elements, which emigrated from Europe following the popular emigration. But once having stepped on American soil, this Church could not remain permanently foreign to it and of necessity had to acclimate and take root in the new soil. Thanks to its orderly organization and the tireless energy of its agents, it began to work actively in this direction, and the material prosperity shown above, as acquired exclusively on American soil, constitutes its first and principal success in this respect. By means of its property it became firmly established on the new soil, and this property serves as the chief sign of its acclimation. But material prosperity alone of course is not sufficient for the complete acclimation of the Church as a moral institution. For this it is necessary that it take root also in the people’s consciousness, and this is the most important condition of true acclimation, since without it the Church, despite strong material roots, would morally remain foreign to the American people. After examining the material foundation of Roman Catholicism on the soil of the United States, it is now therefore very important to examine its moral foundations, those roots which it has succeeded in planting in the moral consciousness of the American people. The expression of these roots may be served by those members of the Church who are taken from the very midst of the native American population, namely converts from American denominations to Catholicism. This is a very important question and its investigation will show how firmly Roman Catholicism is indeed rooted on American soil and what may be expected of it in the future.

The question of Roman Catholicism’s gain on American soil through conversions, despite all its importance, is at the same time very difficult to resolve satisfactorily. Exact statistical data were never gathered concerning the number of converts and therefore it is impossible to determine with precision their numerical strength. Meanwhile the importance of such a determination is indisputable for determining the moral position of Roman Catholicism in the country, and it is evident already from the fact that Protestant and Catholic writers constantly vie with each other over the exact number of converts, the former being inclined to reduce it, while the latter to the opposite inclination to exaggerate it.[4] But if it is impossible to determine the exact number of converts from Protestant-American denominations to Catholicism, nevertheless it can be said with confidence that this number, while having great moral significance, does not at the same time represent numerical strength. To gain an understanding of both its aspects, it is necessary historically to trace the most outstanding facts and examples of conversions, which will above all clarify the consistent quantitative and qualitative character of the converts.

At the end of the past and even in the first quarter of the present century, Roman Catholicism was too weak both in numbers and in ecclesiastical organization to exert any moral influence on the surrounding faiths. On the contrary, it was the most abandoned and almost despised communion, so that moral strength was not on its side, and it could not only not think of subjecting non-Catholics to its authority but had to make every effort to protect its members and its organization from foreign Protestant influence. From this it is understandable that during this period of its history it could not have much hope of acquiring converts, and indeed it had almost none, except for a few more or less scattered instances, which at the same time were offset by losses to Protestantism.[5] Thus at the end of the past century Catholic historians note the fact of conversion to Roman Catholicism of a Congregationalist minister named John Thayer, “a member of one of the oldest families in New England and a gentleman of more than ordinary substantial education”.[6] But even with this conversion, the American Roman Catholic Church owed it in essence not to its own moral influence but to the influence of Rome. Thayer, having traveled to Europe for scholarly purposes, did not intend to convert to Catholicism and was extremely prejudiced against it, especially against the Jesuits, and only in Rome itself, having encountered the Jesuits, did he yield to their moral and scholarly superiority and accept the Catholic faith.[6] This occurred in 1783. Fifteen years after this, we encounter an instance of native conversion and moreover not of a single person. The circumstances of this conversion are very characteristic both of the position of the Church and of the circle in which it began to make its acquisitions. In a remote corner of Virginia stood a sparsely populated village called Middleway, consisting of a few pioneer houses. There settled a Pennsylvania native named Adam Livingston, a Lutheran by faith. He was kind and hospitable, and once took into his home a wandering Irish Catholic when he fell ill; he cared for him and buried him properly, but refused him one thing – namely his request to send for a Catholic priest for him. He had never seen Catholic pastors and “very likely, like many others, thought they were living emissaries of Satan and had horns like their master”.[7] This refusal became the occasion of numerous troubles for the good Lutheran. “His house apparently was given over to Satan’s sport. His barns suddenly caught fire and burned, no one knows how; his horses and cattle fell sick; his clothing and that of his entire family, the bedding and bedclothes – all of this either burned or was cut into such small scraps that there was no way to repair it. Boots, saddles, harnesses – all met the same fate; burning coals whirled around the floor without any apparent reason; all sorts of sounds tormented the ears of the entire family; furniture moved and struck at all hours, dishes crashed to the floor and shattered into fragments”.[8] Such sport of Satan plunged the unfortunate family into grief and terror and struck fear into all the neighbors. The Lutheran appealed to various Protestant pastors to drive out Satan, but Satan did not yield and once suddenly silenced the pastor’s chanting by hurling a huge stone from the stove.[9] Livingston, in despair, did not know what to do. Then he had a dream, “so remarkable and so vivid as a vision”.[10] He dreamed that with great difficulty he climbed a rocky mountain and there saw a beautiful church and in the church a man – wearing such garments as he had never seen – and heard a voice: “such a man can deliver you from misfortunes.” When he told this dream to his wife and neighbors, judging from the description of the garments, all came to the conviction that the man was a Catholic priest. Not far away there turned out to be a Catholic pastor, in whom Livingston recognized the very man he had seen in his dream. The pastor sprinkled holy water on the house and all of the dwelling of the unfortunate man, and Satan’s sport apparently ceased, but soon began again. Then another Catholic pastor, the Sulpician Prince Dmitri Golitsyn, undertook the work of driving out Satan. Apparently relying on his princely authority, he “resolved to drive out the evil spirits entirely; but hardly had he begun to exorcise them when there came a terrible crashing and rumbling, as though from countless chariots, and this so affected his nerves that he could not sufficiently control himself to continue reading the exorcism”.[11] Only later, together with the former pastor, Prince Golitsyn finally overcame Satan and delivered from him not only the house but also the souls of its inhabitants, for Livingston with his entire family accepted the Catholic faith after this, except for his wife, who “was never sincerely converted and always called herself Judas”.[12] Word of this defeat of Satan spread throughout the previously quiet region and the result was the conversion to Catholicism of several people, so that “in the course of one winter fourteen (14) people were converted as a result of this”.[13]

From the beginning of the present century there are found in history already a few more examples of conversion, although all of them stand separately and individually, not representing any constant and developing phenomenon. Thus in the course of the first decade the Catholic historian names the names of six Protestant ministers who converted to Catholicism, and says that even “the Episcopal bishop of New York himself, Hobart, repeatedly expressed the desire to end his days in the bosom of the Roman Catholic Church”.[14] Among these six converts, John Richards, a Methodist minister, is worthy of attention. He was a fanatically zealous preacher of Methodism and with the goal of spreading it traveled to Upper Canada to convert Catholics. In 1807, in the city of Montreal, he met with members of the Sulpician order and even attempted to convert them to Methodism. But here he encountered strong opponents. The Sulpicians for their part gave him books explaining the doctrines of Roman Catholicism to read. He read them carefully and – turned to the order “not in order to convert others but to receive further instruction”.[14] For several months he engaged in careful study of this system. “The further I go, he writes in his diary, the clearer the truth becomes to me, so that I am fully convinced that no teaching has been so perversely interpreted (as Catholicism) as far as I can understand it. I see in it nothing but what has the sanction of God’s word”.[15] After his conversion he entered the Sulpician seminary, was ordained as a pastor, and preached Catholicism with the same zeal with which he had formerly preached Methodism, – to the no small confusion of the Methodists, although this fact did not have substantial consequences for acquiring new converts. Then in the chronicles of the historical life of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States there appear, scattered here and there, examples of other conversions, to follow which would be wearisome and useless for our purpose. Much more important is an investigation of those historical periods with which the greatest quantity of conversions is connected. Such an investigation will clarify the dependence of conversions on one or another historical condition that the Roman Catholic Church experienced in America.

[1] Acta et Decreta, § 192, p. 115

[2] Interesting statistical data in this regard were recently compiled by the New York Times newspaper. From them it can be seen that of all the religious denominations existing in New York, only one is free from debt, namely the community of Friends or Quakers. Of the 345 parishes included in the statistics, only 120 were free from debt, namely: 22 Protestant-Episcopal, 22 Methodist-Episcopal, 20 Presbyterian, 14 Baptist, 7 Dutch Reformed, 5 Jewish, and 4 Roman Catholic. The remaining 224 parishes carried a debt, of the amount of which we can judge from the following statistical table: Churches Debt Property Roman Catholic 3,042,814 11,176,500 Prot.-Episcopal 1,341,300 24,175,000 Dutch-Reformed 1,098,800 4,381,000 Presbyterian 543,600 5,802,000 Methodist-Episcopal 480,850 2,799,100 Jewish synagogues 380,500 1,861,000 Baptist 223,300 1,446,500 Lutheran 183,900 1,095,000 Congregationalist 181,000 607,000 Unitarian 82,000 475,000 Universalist 75,000 466,500 Colored parishes 72,350 360,000 United Presbyterian 23,500 190,000 Reformed Presbyterian 20,000 310,000 Community of Friends – 585,000 Total 7,770,314 dollars 56,191,600 dollars

[3] See above, p. 313, 4th footnote. Financial collapse sometimes reaches enormous proportions. Last spring a bank in Cincinnati, founded and managed by Archbishop Purcell, declared bankruptcy. Creditors filed claims for the sum of $3,800,000. “If the case,” says the correspondent of the N. Y. Times, “is decided in the affirmative (in favor of the creditors), then it will be necessary to sell half of the Catholic churches and schools in Cincinnati.” N. Y. Times, May 8, 1881. The case has still not been decided and will certainly drag on for a long time.

[4] Compare on one hand Mattison, Romanism, p. 74 and Barnum, Romanism as it is, pp. 670; on the other Hecker, Catholic Church in the U. S. p. 7; Catholic World, Vol. I, p. 14.

[5] Murray, History, p. 239, 242.

[6] Murray, History, p. 197.

[7] S. M. Brownson, Life of prince Demetrius Gallitzin, p. 101.

[8] Brownson, ibidem; Murray, History p. 210.

[9] Brownson, Life, p. 102.

[10] Murray, History, 211.

[11] Brownson, Life, p. 104.

[12] Murray, History, p. 213.

[13] Brownson, Life, p. 107. Catholic historians attach great importance to this fact, and a detailed description of it can be found in various courses of church history. See Murray, History, pp. 209–215; White, Sketch of History of Catholic Church in the U. S. pp. 600 – 605, etc.

[14] Shea, History, p. 384.

[15] Shea, History, p. 385; Murray, History, p. 242.

Part Four. The Material and Moral Strength of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (6)

The first signs of conversions appeared, as was to be expected, shortly after Roman Catholicism was freed from legislative restrictions and especially when with the establishment of a bishopric the organization of the Church began to strengthen. Until then persecuted, abandoned, and despised, Roman Catholicism was hardly able to retain its own members from falling away, and doubtless many of them did fall away either due to persecutions or simply because for decades they did not see Catholic priests, and therefore, lacking moral support, succumbed to the influence of surrounding Protestantism.[1] With the weakening of persecution and, especially with the establishment of a bishopric, the Church gained greater ability to support the Catholic population in the faith. The number of priests and missionaries began to increase and they penetrated into the most remote and wild places where only Catholics lived. This naturally contributed to the revival of Catholic faith, gave them courage, and they began to exert moral influence, and first and foremost of course on those who due to previous unfavorable circumstances had abandoned their faith but in whose souls the spark might still smolder. And therefore, at the appearance of a priest and under the moral influence of their neighbors, they again returned to the Catholicism they had abandoned. Such a process is transparent in the described event we have recounted, by which fourteen people were converted. In Virginia, where this event occurred, severe laws against Catholics prevailed, and Catholic pastors were so rare there that many throughout their entire lives never saw them and had no idea what they were.[2] With the weakening of these laws there appeared “wandering Irish Catholics” preaching Catholicism, Satan began to torment those who refused to satisfy the Catholic soul, visions of the Catholic Church and Catholic priests appeared, and finally the priests themselves appeared, drove out the evil spirit from the dark Protestant land, and – conversion to Catholicism began.[3] It is clear that all these facts point to the establishment of Catholic influence in a locality where Catholicism had previously been suppressed by fanatical Protestantism. Nothing is said about the converts regarding who they were, but it is not impossible to suppose that they were precisely those Catholics who had fallen away.

Meanwhile Roman Catholicism began to grow and develop with extraordinary rapidity. Its church organization, under the leadership of the energetic “patriarch of the American Church”, the former Jesuit Carroll, was rapidly built and strengthened. The Jesuits and Sulpicians began their educational work in their colleges, which began to gather into their walls the children of noble families, and the Church itself, from abandoned and despised, became known, acquired considerable weight even in political respects, so that its bishop Carroll was in close relations with the foremost statesmen of the country.[4] All this, of course, had to draw the attention of other faiths to it. Representatives of various Protestant communities viewed with astonishment the growth of the hated popery, which they considered completely destroyed during the persecutions of the colonial era, and sought to oppose it. This led to a collision of two doctrines and to better mutual acquaintance with them. Protestantism now could only act against Catholicism through moral and logical means, and at the first serious collision had to acknowledge that it was dealing far from with the wretched community of ignorant and superstitious papists which it was accustomed to imagining the Roman Catholic Church to be, but with a powerful historical system, a logically elaborated dogmatic theology, and with highly educated, steadfast polemicists such as the Jesuits and Sulpicians. From this arose such facts as that zealous preachers of Protestantism, colliding with defenders of Catholicism, could not endure the struggle, and instead of dealing Protestantism a blow, themselves acknowledged themselves defeated and converted to Catholicism. The Methodist preacher Richards and other Protestant ministers whose conversion has been mentioned above, mark for us this new period in the history of the development of the moral influence of Roman Catholicism in America. This cause, namely the logical weakness of Protestantism as a system against Roman Catholicism in open conflict with it, became a permanent motive for further conversions, and we see a whole series of conversions occurring solely from the fact that one or another Protestant thinker, colliding with Catholicism, could not endure logical combat with it. But such conversions by their very nature could naturally only be singular and therefore are not noticeably connected with one or another period of history. However, a period does stand out here which led to an acceleration and intensification of this slowly acting cause, namely the period of the so-called “Tractarian movement”.

The “Tractarian movement” originated in England and was an expression of reaction against the exclusive dominion of Protestantism. Several spiritual figures and professors of Oxford University, having devoted themselves to careful study of patristic literature, came to the conviction that the Reformation was a fatal error; but they sought to show that the Anglican Church was still part of the Catholic Church and could restore itself to its original position as a Catholic Church by receiving what in their opinion was not rejected by it but only lost sight of during the troubles of the Reformation movement, namely the teachings and discipline of the Catholic Church, which found undoubted confirmation in the writings of the Church Fathers. To prepare public minds to receive these ideas and to cut Anglicanism off from its connection with continental Reformation, these Oxford theologians in 1833 began the publication of a series of tracts,[5] directed against the Reformation and in defense of Catholic teachings, translated and published patristic writings, and even attempted to restore monastic orders and Catholic asceticism.[6] These publications awakened lively interest both in England and in the United States. Bitter polemic began, which however only accelerated the movement, and soon all those responsible for it in England one by one converted to Catholicism, drawing after them numerous followers.[7] This movement was reflected with full force in America and its ideas found eager adherents among Episcopal clergy. The most zealous defender of it was Bishop Ives of North Carolina; more moderate adherents were the bishops of Philadelphia and New York, as well as some laypeople. After the bishops the clergy followed, and everywhere began to preach Oxford ideas. Bishop Ives began actually to implement these ideas and even founded the “Brotherhood of the Holy Cross” in imitation of Catholic orders. The clergy in some places began to preach about the necessity of confession and sought to restore it in imitation of Catholicism. Such a movement produced excitement in the Episcopal world and was discussed at Episcopal conventions. The conventions found this movement dangerous to the integrity and success of the Episcopal Church in America and took vigorous measures against it. The bishop of New York, who had sympathized with the movement, was put on trial for improper conduct. The bishop of Philadelphia was forced to resign from his office; the bishop of North Carolina, Ives, was put on trial, but his explanations temporarily satisfied his opponents, although the “brotherhood” was dissolved.[8] Nevertheless, the movement was not suppressed. When the English leaders of the movement actually came to their final conclusion and accepted Catholicism, their example did not go without imitation in America. In New York alone, ten members of Episcopal clergy converted to Catholicism, and individual cases of conversion occurred in many other large cities of the country – Baltimore, Philadelphia, and others.[9] Remarkably, the most eager adherent of Oxford ideas, Bishop Ives, held out longer than others before finally accepting Catholicism, but he too, finally, apparently after long spiritual struggle,[10] “left the position in which he had served as a priest of the Protestant Episcopal Church for more than thirty years and as a bishop of the same Church for more than twenty years, and sought admission as the last thing in his life to the holy Catholic Church as a simple layman without any expectations for the future, but only for peace of conscience and the salvation of his soul”.[9]

This movement, after its first intensity, weakened with time and did not show as many conversions as before. But its influence constantly made itself felt in all the subsequent history both through private conversions of members of Episcopal clergy and through a particular manifestation of its spirit in periods of trials for the Roman Catholic Church. Such a period was the period of anti-Catholic movements that agitated the country especially in the 1840s and early 1850s, when the outrages of “nativism” and “Know-Nothingism” raged. The first and principal motive for these movements was the extraordinarily rapid growth of Roman Catholicism in the country. And when the Oxford movement began and whole tens of Protestant ministers and bishops started converting to Catholicism, this produced consternation in Protestantism; dormant fanaticism awakened, preachers thundered against popery, and laypeople began the burning and destruction of Catholic churches and monasteries. But naturally such a movement could in the end only give even greater triumph to Roman Catholicism, strengthen its propaganda, which was confirmed in reality. This persecution of Catholics not only revived the dominion of Oxford ideas but also awakened sympathy for it in many people unconcerned with these ideas, and thus “thousands of good, sensitive people were driven by this movement into the true flock of the Roman Catholic Church”.[11]

But if the period of trials during anti-Catholic movements contributed to the strengthening and increasing of conversions to Catholicism, still greater significance in this respect belonged to the trials that the whole country experienced in the early 1860s, during the civil war between North and South. This fratricidal war shook the entire state organism and cost the people extraordinarily great sacrifices. The division of parties during the war reached such extremes that throughout the entire country there was no statesman whose impartiality in judgment could be relied upon. Protestant sects and communities during this crisis became even more fragmented and confused and did not represent reliable support. Only the Roman Catholic Church continued to be one, with its powerful organization and its indifference toward both warring sides. This was the reason that it acquired important weight also in political respects, in the sense of an equilibrating force, and to its famous representative, Archbishop Hughes, as the only impartial person in political respects, President Lincoln and his ministers appealed for advice and sent him on a diplomatic mission to negotiate with England and France.[12] Her female orders acted with such self-denial during the war as sisters of mercy that Congress found it possible to violate the direct constitutional law of the country concerning the non-use of state funds for any religious institutions and appropriated a considerable sum of money ($20,000) in favor of the order of “sisters of mercy” as compensation for their services.[13] At the end of the war the country presented a picture of destruction and exhaustion, both physical and moral. True patriots despaired of the future of the nation. From nowhere was there visible a ray of hope, and the people would have eagerly welcomed any phenomenon that would represent unity and strength as a pledge of a better future for the country. Such was the Roman Catholic Church again, and when shortly after the end of the war, amid general exhaustion and fragmentation, it displayed unprecedented might and unanimity in the form of the prelates of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, the eyes of the people turned to it with such joy as they had never before looked upon it. In it the people began to see a symbol of their unity, which alone was able to survive the fatal crisis, and this had the consequence that many worn down by the trials of the period began to seek in it refuge and consolation. This movement coincided with the political mood caused by the war and developed with it until the present time. For all its ruinousness to the welfare of the country, the civil war had that beneficial result for it that it finally killed in it political separatism, which before the war constantly shook the state organism and gave cause for constant ferment both of political and religious forces, expressed in extreme fragmentation in both respects. After the war, which killed the tendencies toward decentralization, the opposite process began – centralization, which continues to the present time and was clearly expressed in the presidential elections of the past year 1880, when the Republican Party, namely the party of national centralization, dealt a mortal blow to the Democratic Party, representing the old principle of decentralization that prevailed before the war.[14] The process of political centralization, as having its source in events that profoundly shook the entire nation, was reflected on all sides of national life and most noticeably on the religious. With the blow dealt to political separatism there was also dealt a blow to religious sectarianism. Religious ferment began noticeably to weaken, small sects began to break apart and merge with larger communities.[15] The Roman Catholic Church, as the most prominent and representative community, distinguished by the most strong organization and having in its favor the charm of historical antiquity, which for the American people, having experienced the ruinous instability of both political and religious ferment with its continuous process of change since the war, acquired special significance, extracted the greatest advantage from this process. The process of national centralization continues now, and with it continues religious centralization, and in newspapers one constantly reads about instances of Protestants converting to the Roman Catholic Church, although again these instances are of a singular character, and conversions do not occur en masse. Nevertheless, at the present time “it is hardly the case that there is such an American family famous for its antiquity or distinguished by its public position or its wealth that does not now have one or two representatives among those converted to the Catholic Church, declares a Catholic publicist solemnly. In some parts of the country there are parishes composed almost entirely of converts. Converts can be found among archbishops, bishops, and clergy, and a considerable part also belong to various learned professions or occupy positions equally honorable. Statistics show variously in this respect. In some dioceses the number of converts among those confirmed reaches up to twelve percent, in others around seven percent, in some no more than five, and in others probably still less”.[16]

[1] Murray, History, p. 160, 195, 196.

[2] Brownson, Life of D. Gallitzin, p. 101.

[3] Brownson, Life of Gallitzin, 107.

[4] See above, in chapter XII.

[5] These tracts or tracts gave the name to the entire movement—the Tractarian Movement.

[6] Shea, history, p. 420.

[7] Shea, History, p. 421.

[8] Shea, History, p. 422.

[9] Shea, History, p. 423.

[10] This is indicated by his work “Trials of mind”—trials of the soul.

[11] Murray, History, p. 308.

[12] Murray, History, p. 326.

[13] Barnum, Romanism, 703.

[14] For more details on this, see our letters from New York in the autumn issues of “Berega” for 1880, under the title: “Among the Yankees.”

[15] North American Review, January 1876, art. “Religion in America 1776–1876.” See also above in the introduction.

[16] Hecker, The Catholic Church in the United States, p. 8. New York, 1880.

Part Four. The Material and Moral Strength of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (7)

The external historical circumstances with which conversions were connected do not explain the fact of conversions themselves. They only contributed to its manifestation and in no case would have produced it if internal causes, which gave the possibility of the origin of the very inclination to conversion, had not acted behind them. Therefore, the full and important significance is obtained by the question of these internal causes. There are many such causes and only their totality was sufficient for the occurrence of the phenomenon under consideration. The main and most general cause lies in the very religious condition of the American people. This people is distinguished by a remarkable intensity of religious feeling and is far from the cold, soulless skepticism that permeates the Western European peoples. Its thought is constantly attuned to religious truth and it seeks it with an intensity worthy of wonder. This seeking of religious truth explains the religious ferment that was particularly noticeable from the beginning of the present century until the period of the civil war. In the absence of guiding principles and with the complete dominion of the Protestant principle – individualism – in religious consciousness, this ferment could naturally only lead to fragmentation of religious consciousness, as it indeed did. Sects, each smaller and more intolerant of each other, constantly emerged on the surface of this churning and fermenting sea of religious consciousness and again dissolved into it. Such intensity of feeling could naturally not continue forever, and by a natural law a reaction had to occur. Religious feeling began to tire from fruitless agitation, and religious thought, having recognized all the hopelessness of individualism, began to seek more solid social support. From this, a weakening of religious ferment began to be noticed and small sects began to coalesce with larger religious communities. When turning to these larger religious communities, thought could distinctly discern two kinds among them, of which one holds more or less to the same principle of religious individualism, which was the cause of the tiring religious ferment, and the other holds to a completely opposite principle – enduring, historically established forms of thought and life. In a word, thought encountered Protestantism and Catholicism as two opposite principles. If many, accustomed to the vigor of religious thought and personal responsibility, could not at once change the principle of individualism for the opposite principle of Church authority and were satisfied only with a more stable form of the same principle in larger Protestant communities, then many also, most worn out by ferment, hastened to find consolation in the Roman Catholic Church, which took upon itself all the responsibility that had become an unbearable burden for such persons. This tendency found correspondence also in political consciousness, in which it received a new motive. Political separatism before the civil war in political consciousness was the same thing as sectarianism in religious consciousness. When the former reached its highest intensity and produced a political crisis followed by a reaction in favor of political centralization, religious thought, which had shown signs of weariness even earlier, found in this reaction a natural ally and moved even more strongly in the direction opposite to sectarianism. If further political thought, as a result of reaction against extreme separatism, began to seek support in a strong national organization, so that adherents of separatism began to suspect even the birth of Caesarism,[1] then religious thought even more and sooner could stop at such an organization which represented the most reliable support against the extremes of sectarianism. And such an organization on American soil was represented only by Roman Catholicism. Its powerful organization, resting on tested historical foundations, its unshakable and absolute authority emanating from one center, the unchanging stability of its forms – all this involuntarily inspired respect for it on the part of those wearied by the varied mutability of forms and in comparison gave it an advantage over the wavering, unstable, and troubled Protestantism. Finally, the very splendor of its worship, in which it distinguished itself in America from all other confessions, also began to constitute one of its advantages, when the era of stern Puritanism had passed in the country and, with increased comfort of life, aesthetic feeling began to develop in the population.[2]

After clarification of the general causes of the phenomenon under consideration, the question naturally arises about the environment from which the majority of converts come. American Protestantism presents many gradations in the application of the general principle of individualism in faith. In some confessions it is accepted only with significant limitation, so that the communities themselves constitute a sort of compromise between Protestant and Catholic principles, such for example as the Episcopal confession. Others, on the contrary, carry the principle of individualism to extreme limits, so that not only is the principle of churchiness denied but even the basic dogma of Christianity itself is limited, for example in the Unitarian community. The rest occupy various gradations between these extreme points of Christianity. Now, which degrees of Protestantism give the most converts? It would not be surprising if the Episcopal confession gave the greatest number of conversions, as it stands in the closest relations to Catholicism; but the question becomes much more interesting in view of the fact that converts come predominantly from both extreme degrees, both from the Episcopal and from the Unitarian. “Various Protestant sects, says a Catholic publicist, furnish very unequal contingents to the small army of souls daily returning to the true faith. But the curious fact is that the two sects which give the greatest number are Episcopalians, who in their forms and traditions stand closest to the Catholic Church, and Unitarians, who stand on the most opposite fringe and apparently push their philosophical and rationalist principles almost beyond the limits of Christianity. These two sects embrace the most enlightened and educated population of North America. On the other hand, confessions which embrace more ignorant classes, such as Baptists, Wesleyan Methodists, etc., provide, proportionally to their number, only a few converts”.[3] Such a phenomenon appears enigmatic, but it logically flows from the religious condition of these communities as two extremes in the general ferment of Protestant consciousness. A satisfactory explanation of it is presented by Hecker, the founder of the Paulist order in America. “The human mind is restless, he says, until it attains unity and embraces universal truth. And this is achieved by two different but equally legitimate paths. Those who are born in sectarianism, as soon as they allow their mind to act on their faith, learn that they have only fragments of Christian truth; following them to their logical connection with other truths contained in divine revelation, they gradually acquire knowledge of the entire totality of revealed truths. Upon reaching this stage of preparation, the divine character and mission of the Catholic Church stand before their mental vision. As soon as this is understood, entrance into its flock becomes a test both of their intellectual consistency and of the sincerity of their Christian faith. Such is the path which leads Episcopalians and others, still firmly holding to one or more of the revealed truths of Christianity, to the Catholic Church. The second class turns toward the essential truths of natural reason. As soon as this ground is reached, the logical consequence is rejection of sectarianism, for the denial of any one truth of divine revelation contains the necessity of contradiction in human reason. Dissatisfied with this, people of this class begin to seek a religion which agrees with the dictates of reason and finds its foundation in the human spirit. Americans who have rejected Protestantism on the grounds of reason (and there are not a few of them) made the discovery that the exposition of Christianity by the Catholic Church agrees with the dictates of reason and that it calls to its purpose all the faculties of human nature. This is the path of Unitarians, which is destined, in our opinion, to become the great American road to the Catholic Church”.[4] The foundations of this explanation, apart from its optimistic Catholic coloring, cannot be subject to doubt and find justification both in the actual facts of conversions and in the logical process which produces them. In the latter case, in our opinion, along with the positive cause indicated by the Catholic writer, there hardly acts less strongly another, negative cause, namely the protest of Christian religious feeling against the rationalist extremes to which Protestant individualism leads in the end. The fact of conversions from these two extreme confessions of Protestantism is confirmed even by the locality in which the majority of conversions occur. The principal center of the Episcopal Church is New York, and the center of Unitarianism and another extreme Protestant community, which has almost completely displaced the principle of churchiness and put in its place the principle of complete individualism, namely Congregationalism, is Boston. And in these very two centers does the greatest number of conversions occur.[5] The causes leading to conversion act slowly and imperceptibly, but the consequences of this action make themselves known in many phenomena and sometimes as though quite unexpectedly. We shall cite the most recent example. The most famous American preacher, Dr. Beecher, pastor of the Congregationalist Church in Brooklyn (a suburb of New York), was considered one of the most liberal religious thinkers, standing almost outside the limits of the basic Christian dogma[6] and in any case an irreconcilable opponent of Roman Catholicism. Yet recently he produced a genuine sensation in his congregation when in one of his sermons he clearly expressed his sympathy for the Catholic Church.[7] Of course, he is still far from actual recognition of the superiority of this Church over the system of Congregationalism, but in this very expression itself there shows through a note of dissatisfaction with the latter.

[1] The idea of Caesarism seriously troubled the country during the presidential elections of last year, especially when General Grant appeared as a candidate for a “third term” of the presidency. The Democrats proclaimed the Republican victory as also a victory of Caesarism. See our sketches of the presidential campaign in letters from New York “Among the Yankees,” in the autumn issues of “Berega” for 1880.

[2] North American Review, January 1876, art. “Religion in America 1776–1876” pp. 44–46. At the present time a general tendency is observed toward the strengthening of the aesthetic element in worship in American churches of all denominations. See also above.

[3] Catholic World, Vol. I, 11.

[4] Hecker, The Catholic Church, p. 7.

[5] Catholic World, I, Vol. p, 11.

[6] Such a view of him was expressed based on his sermons in N. Y. Times for July 1880. See also Catholic World, Vol. XII, art. Beecherism.

[7] The Herald’s report of Beecher’s sermon on Sunday, April 3 of this year, states: Deep silence settled over Plymouth Church and every ear strained when Beecher said that he intended to tell of a case of which he had not spoken before. “Once,” he said, “a member of my congregation came to me, the mother of a young woman, and said that her daughter had been attracted to Roman worship and wished to join this church. I said to her: ‘Tell your daughter to wait a year, until her soul and her judgment are fully settled, and if at the end of this time she finds that she comes closer to God and heaven through this church, then let her come to me and I will take her by the hand and lead her to the gates of this church.’ At the end of a year she still wished to join this church, and I sat down and wrote a letter to a venerable Catholic pastor in this city and said: ‘this lamb has found better pastures in your fields than in mine.’ She joined the Catholic church and is now a happy Christian young woman in this community.” One could have heard a pin drop—such was the silence when Beecher related this case, and then there was quite a sensation when he added: “I would do the same again if it were necessary, because when I speak of the unity of all who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, I speak only what I think.” The subject of the sermon was the question of the church and therefore this fact takes on even greater significance in the mouth of the preacher of an extreme Protestant community. See N. Y. Herald, April 4, 1881.

Part Four. The Material and Moral Strength of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (8)

As for the number of converts, it is impossible to determine it with precision, due to the lack of more or less complete and reliable data. But one can still form an approximate idea. The Catholic writer Robert Mullen determined in 1852 that the number of conversions over the previous twelve years, when precisely the period of conversions after the Oxford movement began, amounted to 20,000.[1] Fifteen years later another Catholic publicist determined this number at 30,000, thus showing an increase of ten thousand over fifteen years.[2] If one accepts this process as normal, then for the present time the number of converts can be determined at 40,000; but since in recent decades, due to the clarified causes, it has received greater intensity, it is necessary to add several thousand to determine the present figure, so that a figure of 45 or even 60 thousand will more correspond to reality. With this number is determined all the number of converts to the Catholic Church since the political independence of the country. In quantitative respect this number, as is evident, appears very insignificant and in this respect constitutes a barely noticeable ingredient in the general Catholic population. If it had only quantitative significance, then as not constituting one of the principal causes for the spread and strengthening of Roman Catholicism in America it could hardly even have a place in this investigation. But it has another important significance – qualitative or moral – and therefore deserves detailed investigation. It constitutes that vital root by which Roman Catholicism, as an exotic plant, is attached to American soil. Without it, it would be entirely a foreign plant on alien land and as such would not have organic connection with this land and at the same time would not have the pledge of its future organic development. Meanwhile, this root shows that Roman Catholicism has in itself sufficient vital force to become acclimated on new soil, and on this basis rest its chief hopes for the future. Such significance it acquires even greater importance in view of the qualitative composition of this number. A Catholic publicist said that the greatest number of converts comes from the most educated classes of society[3] and in this respect he is largely right. When reviewing a list of converts one is inevitably struck by the fact that they are predominantly indeed educated people, even by their very station – those people who consciously seek religious truth. From the examples of conversions cited above one could already have noticed that among them there is a considerable number of priests and teachers of various communities and particularly of the Episcopal Church, which has given even several bishops to Roman Catholicism from its midst. This fact is confirmed by more precise data. Thus according to the statement of a Catholic writer, in the course of the last fifty years (1815–1865) from the American Episcopal Church alone not fewer than 41 spiritual persons – priests and bishops – converted to Roman Catholicism.[4] This statement could be suspected of exaggeration, but it finds confirmation in Episcopal sources. Thus, in the Episcopal journal “Banner of the Cross” was printed a list of Episcopal clergy who converted to Roman Catholicism in the period 1815–1858 and in this list were entered 38 persons.[5] Among these are counted both priests and bishops, and some of the converts at present hold the position of bishops in the Roman Catholic Church.[6] Not a smaller number of spiritual persons, in the opinion of the Catholic writer, converted also from each of the other sects, especially from the Congregationalists and Unitarians.[7] And at the present time in newspapers one can often read of cases of conversion of priests of various Protestant communities to Catholicism, which testifies to the continuing process of acclimation of Roman Catholicism on American soil.[8] The qualitative significance to this phenomenon is given even further by the remarkable fact that converts are the most active and energetic champions of Roman Catholicism.[9] To confirm what has been said it is sufficient to name only two names – Brownson and Hecker. Brownson, who died in 1876, was one of the most remarkable men in America. Born into Presbyterianism, from early childhood he began to seek the true Church, passed through the religious sects of Protestantism until the most extreme sect of Unitarians, and, finding in them no satisfaction of his thirst for religious truth, finally turned to the Catholic Church and dedicated all his strength to its cause. Possessing high philosophical education and enormous literary talent, he founded his own journal “The Brownson’s Review”, which for thirty years served as a repository of his brilliant efforts and apologies in favor of Roman Catholicism. “As a Catholic publicist he was truly a great man, says a Catholic author, and accomplished a great work for which he deserves eternal remembrance. To this labor he dedicated the last thirty years of his life with gigantic energy”.[10] The other person named, namely Hecker, is none other than the well-known founder of the American order of Paulists, the present editor of the best Catholic monthly journal at the present time, “The Catholic World”. He was born in New York to Protestant parents and also devoted himself to the seeking of the true Church until he found it in Roman Catholicism. Hecker is a highly educated man, as are all members of the order he founded, and his articles constitute an ornament of the journal he edits. He is also the founder of the “Society of Catholic Publications”, which the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore pointed to as a model and which has brought incalculable benefit to the cause of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States.[11] Finally one can point also to Mother Seton, daughter of a bishop of the Episcopal Church. Having converted to Catholicism, she dedicated herself with all her soul to the new Church, founded several charitable and educational institutions and the famous female Catholic college of St. Mary in Baltimore. “Without exaggeration it can be said, says a Catholic historian, that in this century there has not yet been a woman to whom the Catholic Church in the United States has been as much obliged as to Mother Seton”.[12] From other well-known converts to Roman Catholicism we name Bayley, who converted from the Episcopal confession and was archbishop of Baltimore until 1877,[13] and Wood, who after converting from Protestantism attained the highest sacred rank as archbishop of Philadelphia, which position he occupies at the present time.[14] The qualitative significance of the number of converts is further strengthened by the fact that many of the lay converts belong to distinguished and influential American families. “Romanism understands well the influence of persons with high social or political position, says a Protestant author, and therefore is always ready to take advantage of this influence. It will cross sea and land to make only a proselyte in the family of a senator, or governor, or judge, or someone in high military rank”.[15] The principal agency for these acquisitions is of course those numerous colleges and schools which are directed by Jesuits and other orders, both male and female, and many of which are specially intended for the children of the upper classes.[16] The significance of this agency in the work of conversion is witnessed by the fact that “at one time out of forty Protestant girls sent for education in a monastery in Montreal, thirty-eight became papists”,[17] and in general by the calculation of the Catholics themselves out of ten educated in monastic schools, seven convert to Catholicism.[18]

Given the importance of the Roman Catholic school in the sense of an agency for strengthening and consolidating Roman Catholicism on American soil, the question of the organization of this school acquires serious significance. But the Roman Catholic school serves not only as an agency for new acquisitions but also has greater significance as a means of protecting the Roman Catholic population from Protestant influence. In this respect Roman Catholicism, in order to preserve for itself this powerful means of catholicization, even entered into struggle with the State, which offered its own secularized school. Both this struggle and the goals and means of the contending sides revealed in it present valuable material for clarifying the position of Roman Catholicism in America, and therefore we devote a special section to the school question.

* * *

[1] Mattison, Romanism, p. 74.

[2] Catholic World, Vol. IV, p. 459.

[3] Catholic World, Vol. I, p. 11.

[4] Catholic World, Vol. IV, p. 459. December 1866.

[5] Barnum, Romanism, p. 669.

[6] Barnum, Romanism, p. 670.

[7] “Although the number of priests among them (Catholics),” says the Protestant author, “is small compared to the number of Protestant clergy, still it is sufficient to supply all their churches, and moreover it is rapidly increasing. And what is particularly troubling is that many of them are Americans by birth. Brownson (formerly a Unitarian clergyman) was born in this country. Dunn, in Newark, is the son of an Episcopal bishop. Hecker, in New York, the son of a Presbyterian father and a Methodist mother, still belonging to one of our New York churches, and two priests in the east are sons of a Congregationalist clergyman. We knew of three cases where sons of Methodists became Roman Catholic priests.” Mattison, Romanism, p. 71. Cf. Catholic World, Vol. IV, p. 469.

[8] Among recent cases of this kind that we have had occasion to read, we note two cases in December of last year, when two converts to Roman Catholicism, one a Presbyterian priest and another an Episcopal priest from Philadelphia, were solemnly ordained in New York as Catholic priests. See N. Y. Herald December 22, 1880. In the Herald of April 27, 1861, a case of new conversion to Roman Catholicism from the Episcopal Church is reported, namely that of the Episcopal priest Edward William, formerly rector of a church in Clinton, North Carolina.

[9] “And what is even more troubling,” says the Methodist author, “is that these Protestant apostates are the most zealous and intolerant of all the papal clergy in this country.” Mattison, Romanism, p. 72.

[10] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 369. In addition to his journal Brownson published several separate books, of which the one entitled “The Convert” (The Convert) is particularly remarkable, in which he sets forth the motives that led him to accept Roman Catholicism.

[11] More detailed information about Hecker, see Murray, History, p. 388, 389.

[12] A biographical sketch of Mother Seton see in Murray, History, pp. 416–418. A comprehensive monograph is also devoted to her: White, Life of Mother Seton.

[13] Murray, History, p. 594–596. Catholic Directory, for 1881, p. 58.

[14] Catholic Directory, for 1881, p. 152. Biographical information can be found in Murray, History, p. 596.

[15] Mattison, Romanism, p. 82.

[16] “The daughter of the late famous General Winfield Scott was brought up in a convent and of course converted to Roman Catholicism. The son of the late chancellor Walworth now serves as a Roman Catholic priest in Albany (the capital of the state of New York). One convert, Preston, has specifically devoted himself to the work of attracting converts into the Catholic fold.” Barnum, Romanism, p. 676.

[17] Mattison, Romanism, p. 76.

[18] Hecker, Catholic church, p. 76. Hecker made a prediction that Roman Catholicism would obtain a political advantage over Protestantism no later than 1900. See Barnum, Romanism, p. 680.

Part Five. Conflict of Roman Catholicism With the State in the Sphere of Public Education

XVII. The system and organization of public education in the United States. The elimination of confessional distinctions from schools and the introduction of “common Christianity” as the result of political necessity.—XVIII. The opposition of Roman Catholicism to state schools and its foundations. The concerns of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the isolation of Catholic children from Protestantism and the establishment of exclusively Catholic schools. Conflict with the state.—XIX. The Protestant character of state schools. The inevitability of this fact and the real grounds for Catholic opposition to state schools. Legal and illegal efforts of Roman Catholics in establishing and maintaining exclusively Catholic schools. XX. The system of Catholic schools and the significance for them of male and female religious orders. The projected Catholic university.

XVII

The system and organization of public education in the United States differs essentially from the system practiced in the states of the Old World. The difference consists not merely in the organization of the matter, but in the very principle laid down as its foundation, and in the goals which it seeks to achieve. In most European states, religious instruction in its confessional or dogmatic coloring is laid as the foundation of public education. In the United States, on the contrary, the school has as its chief aim the achievement of a certain degree of intellectual development necessary for the conscious fulfillment of the duties of a citizen in the spheres of his political, public, and family life. Religion, in its confessional sense, the American school does not know. This peculiarity of the American school is conditioned by the peculiarities of the structure of the state, public, and religious life of the country and can be elucidated from a brief sketch of the history of the origin and development of the present system of school education.

The origin of the present system of public education, in its general form, dates to the early period of the settlement of the American continent by European colonists. The English settlers, so-called “Pilgrim Fathers,” having settled on a new continent and having breathed freely from persecution, considered it their first duty to establish schools where their children could learn to honor God in such purity and strictness as would fully correspond to their Puritan worldview. At first, school education had a private character, but in 1647 it received, in the state of Massachusetts, the homeland of the whole present system of public education, an official determination which from that time became a model for all other states. On November 11 of that year, the legislative assembly of the state of Massachusetts adopted and approved a decree which made public education a public matter, and detailed its system. According to this decree, every town, whose population “the Lord had multiplied to fifty households,” had to establish a school and appoint a teacher for it; and a town with a population of one hundred families or households had to have, in addition, a “grammar school,” in which children could be prepared for admission to a higher school or university.[1] The operation of this decree was mandatory for all colonies of Massachusetts under penalty of monetary fine.[2] It contains in embryo all the features of the present system: local responsibility to the state for schools, free instruction, and recognition of three levels of school as they exist today. The school established in this way was essentially a parish school, because what in the decree is called a town (township) coincided with the parish. The parish, in its annual assembly, determined the amount of money needed to maintain the school for the following year, and this was collected through known taxes and distributed under the supervision of a chosen committee.

The internal character of the school established in this way was in complete dependence on the environment in which the school itself arose. The Puritans, or more precisely the Congregationalists, were deeply religious people. They knew no law other than the law of their religious conscience. When in 1620 the “Pilgrim Fathers” first approached the American continent, before stepping ashore they agreed with each other to be governed by the laws of God as they are written in the Bible, until such time as circumstances would allow them to work out more particular laws adapted to their new situation.[3] But time itself had little influence on changing their original “social contract.” Subsequently, more detailed and precise rules of cohabitation were certainly worked out, but at their foundation there always remained and still remains biblical law. To this day, public life in New England bears a strictly religious character, which has been especially preserved in villages. The latter present a remarkable example of religious communities, almost with theocratic governance. Religiosity is the principal driving force of their public life.[4] In such an environment, the school, by necessity, had to be religious. And indeed it was. The aim of the school was to give religious and secular education in their organic unity, and furthermore with the subordination of the latter to the former, just as everything in the public life of the Puritans was subordinate to religious law. In the school, the Bible was read first, the catechism was studied, and the pastor of the parish visited the school whenever he deemed necessary and taught the law of God. He was, so to speak, the principal administrator of the school, and his voice, whether he was a member of the school committee or not, always had important significance in the administration of the school, in the appointment and dismissal of teachers.[5] Such an arrangement was not only demanded by the internal peculiarities of the environment, but also was facilitated by the simplicity of public and state life. In New England there lived only one people, having one religion, which was their common possession and was recognized as the state religion. There was no difference in creeds, and therefore there were no objections to religious instruction in the strictly confessional coloring of Congregationalism. Gradually, the school system adopted in Massachusetts spread to other states, and at first it could easily be adapted to the particular characteristics of their structure and life. But soon the state underwent a change which gave a new direction to all its life and had a tremendous influence on the school system. This was the declaration of independence and the introduction of a new constitution.

One of the fundamental principles of the federal constitution of the United States is the separation of church and state. According to the meaning of this principle, the church and the state are recognized as completely separate spheres in human life, developing according to their own special internal laws and pursuing their own special aims, in satisfaction of the special needs of human life. Before the declaration of independence the colonies did not know such a principle. In almost all of them the church and the state were united, the state recognized or supported one particular creed and persecuted others. In schools as well, preference was given to the dominant creed. Thus the new constitution introduced a new principle which had been foreign to them until that time. It proclaimed the principle of the separation of church from the state, and thereby renounced support of any creed at the expense of others. Having separated from the church, the state had to avoid relations with it in all spheres of its activity, but in some spheres the aims of the church and the state are so close that such separation proves difficult to achieve. Public education the state considers to be its obligation, as it constitutes a necessary condition for its prosperity and successful development. But in recognizing it as its concern, it here necessarily collides with religion, for religion is an essential element in education and, according to the view of the majority, the latter is unthinkable and undesirable without religion and cannot achieve its aims. Thus, already at the first attempt at practical application, the theory of the separation of church and state meets with a difficult contradiction to resolve. According to principle, the state should ignore religion in school, but in fact it cannot do so if it does not wish to remove from the school an essential part of the educative significance which is in the interest of the state itself. The natural result of this was that the state of the United States made a concession from its principle and recognized religion as an element in the system of school education. But this did not eliminate all the difficulty. Religion is not only a general abstract idea. It is at the same time a practical force, deeply penetrating into the internal and external life of man and society and taking various forms in the guise of different creeds and sects, of which some do not recognize, and often even exclude others. According to the fundamental principle of the constitution, the state cannot give predominance to one of them at the expense of others, and according to the general principle of education, it cannot completely eliminate all of them from the school. Thus the state was left with one solution—to work out such a general foundation on which all the diverse creeds could converge. The United States is a Christian state, and by the name of religion in it is understood Christianity. But in addition to Christianity, other religions exist in it which are difficult to reconcile with Christianity, for example, the Jewish religion, Mormonism, and others. If there existed only one Christian religion, although in diverse forms, then finding a common foundation for them would not be difficult: all of them have the same common beliefs on which Christianity rests, and limiting religious instruction in the school to these common beliefs would be the solution to the problem. In view of the difference not only of creeds but even of religions themselves, mutually excluding one another, the state faced a new dilemma, from which it could be exited only not by resolving it, but by, so to speak, cutting this dilemma like the Gordian knot. And it did cut it, by adopting as the common foundation of religious instruction in school the general foundations of Christian religion in the form of reading the Bible, the study of common Christian prayers, and the singing of common Christian sacred hymns.

The program of religious instruction in the school, worked out in this way, gave it the character of the so-called “unsectarian school.” In it no preference is given to any one creed at the expense of others; all of them are in essence excluded from the school, and only what appears as their common possession is retained, what is equally recognized by all creeds and sects, with the exception, of course, of anti-Christian religions. In practice, the religious element in the school manifests itself in the fact that every day before the start of lessons a chapter from the Bible is read, common Christian prayers such as “Our Father” are sung, and then during the hours appointed for the study of singing, sacred hymns used in church worship are sung.[6] Various creeds and sects often disagree in their interpretation of Scripture. To avoid this difficulty, the teacher is forbidden to make any explanation of the text read, lest his interpretation fall into some confessional understanding of the text and thereby offend the conscience of children of other creeds. In the selection of sacred hymns for singing, strict tact must also be observed, and only such hymns as do not contain denominational shades and contain common Christian truths should be chosen for general singing. This rule extends also to books, so that only books that are completely free from any religious sympathies or antipathies can be admitted to school libraries.[7]

However shaky this system is in itself, it presents itself as the only way out of the difficulty in which the state found itself in implementing its theory of the separation of church and state. And it has proven satisfactory to a considerable degree. All Protestant creeds, which constitute the majority of the American population, agreed on its general principle, since all recognize more or less the religious elements introduced into the school. True, they consider these elements far insufficient for completeness of religious education; but they consider the latter more an obligation of the churches than of the schools, and it is indeed supplemented in the churches through Sunday schools, which have an exclusively religious character. Other objections are also raised against such an arrangement of religious instruction in schools, having a confessional character, such as the possibility that teachers, belonging to one or another creed, can easily fall into one-sidedness when selecting even texts of Scripture for reading in school and thereby violate the unsectarian character of the school, supporting their own sect or creed; but these objections do not have sufficient force and energy and the school faces no danger from them. Protestant creeds in general, and small sects in particular, in the absence of firmly established traditional beliefs and with constant ferment and variability, in essence attach very little significance to particular confessional differences, and therefore care only that the instruction is not completely non-religious, pagan, or Roman Catholic. “While,” says the Protestant author, “the inhabitants of the city or state were exclusively Protestants, there could be no or were few objections to the use in school of the authorized version of the Bible (the English version, the so-called King James’s version), the singing of hymns, the reading of the Lord’s Prayer, or other similar religious exercises, at the teacher’s discretion. Weak objections, sometimes raised against such a system, did not take the form of organized opposition or pass into political agitation. In those communities and school districts where the Protestant element still predominates, objections to these simple Christian influences are only rarely, if ever, made. They are completely free from church authorities, usually foreign to narrow confessionalism, and free from proselytizing tendencies. As the school system spread throughout the country, brief and simple religious exercises, of which we are speaking, continued to be performed. But when Catholic emigration began to arrive in myriads to our shores and gained weight in political affairs, the public school was attacked as a Protestant agency, in spirit hostile to the Catholic Church.”[8]

Thus the public school, built on the shaky compromise of the state with religion and various creeds, in time had to meet an opponent who, appearing with strong traditional principles, led a vigorous agitation against the very principle on which the shaky school was built. The history of this agitation by Roman Catholicism against the American school presents an interesting page in the history of the Roman Catholic Church in America and its relations with the American republic.

XVIII

The opposition of Roman Catholicism to the adopted system of public education is a natural and logical consequence of the general system of the Roman Catholic Church, pursued by it in all spheres of life. In its relations with the diverse peoples that compose it, a tendency has long been observed to subject them to its authority not only in the sphere of religious, but also of political life. With this aim it has constantly striven to seize public education into its own hands, so that from childhood it might impress upon the peoples the sanctity of its authority and educate them in the spirit of its principles. This tendency has been most clearly manifested in recent times in Germany and France, where it has acquired such practical significance that the state has proved powerless before it in principle and has resorted to crude violent measures to suppress further influence of Roman Catholic education. The German cultural struggle and French persecution of the Jesuits are two variations on one theme—the state’s realization of its powerlessness to resist Roman Catholic principles introduced into the consciousness of the people through public education seized by the Roman Catholic Church. On the soil of the New World the Roman Catholic Church naturally maintains the same tendency.

[1] This important document is cited in an article on the state of public education in America during the past century since the Declaration of Independence in North American Review, January 1876, Article “Education in America 1776–1876,” p. 197.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Bancroft, History of the United States, Vol. I, p. 292. Centenary edition, Boston.

[4] See Contemporary Review, December 1880, article “Village Life in New England.”

[5] Catholic World, Vol. XI, p. 93.

[6] The report of the superintendent of schools for 1857 describes in detail the state of the religious element in public schools. See Randall, History of the Common School System in the state of New York, p. 412, N. Y. 1871.

[7] These rules are as follows: 1) “No writings that have been deliberately written to support or refute any sect or religious denomination in our country that considers itself religious (according to the explanation of Superintendent Randall in his 1843 report, this rule applies to writings by Bolingbroke, Godwin, Shelley, Paine, Lessing, Voltaire, and others of this kind) shall be tolerated in school libraries; 2) exemplary works on secular subjects shall not be excluded merely because they happen incidentally or indirectly to reveal the religious views of their authors; and 3) writings (deliberately on secular topics) that abound in direct or unrestrained refutations or defenses of any religious sect, or those that provoke contempt for any religious community by the selection or presentation of only dark facts of its history or character, shall be excluded from school libraries. Books deliberately written to refute or defend political parties shall be excluded; but history or biography that incidentally reveal the political views of their authors may be admitted.” Randall, History, pp. 173–175.

[8] North American Review, January 1876, p. 206.

Part Five. Conflict of Roman Catholicism With the State in the Sphere of Public Education (Cont.)

In contrast to Protestantism, which by virtue of its fundamental principle—justification by faith alone—naturally and logically arrives at the secularization of the school, the separation of church from state, and practical life from religious principles, Roman Catholicism has an inner tendency to subject all practical life to its church principles. It not only does not permit secularization, but on the contrary seeks to introduce its church principles even where secular or non-ecclesiastical influences still predominate; its ideal is the theocratic principle, strictly carried through in all spheres of life—political, public, and family. Therefore, a secularized school, that institution by means of which Roman Catholicism considers it most convenient to carry its principles into life, is an impossible thing for it, and recognition of it would be equivalent to its self-denial. If in general, according to Christian worldview, education must necessarily have religion as its foundation, Roman Catholicism carries this theory with unflinching consistency. “We value education and learning,” says the Catholic organ, “but we do not recognize education separated from religion and religious culture. Religion is the supreme law, and everything in personal or public life, civil or political, must be subject to it and considered only as a means for achieving the eternal goal for which man was created and exists. Religious education is most important, and we wish our children, from the first awakening of reason, to accustom themselves to look upon everything as having direct relation to their religious life or their obligation before God. We are convinced that the education of both reason and heart, or of both together, in separation from faith and religious discipline, is dangerous both for the individual and for society. All education should be religious and should have as its aim the development in the child of consciousness of eternal purposes.”[1]

In carrying out its theory, Roman Catholicism goes further and not only has in view to establish education in its strict sense on religious principles, but also to make education itself religious, to subject reason to faith, to place science not as an end in itself, not as the achievement of independent scientific truths, but as a means for implementing the same religious principles. “It is said that simple secular education, such as the study of geology, geometry, history, natural philosophy, botany, astronomy, etc., taught in our schools, offers no opportunity for moral or religious instruction. Nothing could be more false,” remarks that same organ. “Properly directed anatomy of the tiniest insect, like the contemplation of the infinite firmament with its countless planets and stars, can become a silent and involuntary prayer to the Creator of all things. There is no physical or artificial force revealed to the attention of a young mind that could not contain some indication of the invisible Force ruling the universe, and the teacher who neglects the opportunity to draw a moral from these symbols of the almightiness of the Creator does only half his work, and that the less elevated part.”[2] “The primary rules of reading and writing, arithmetic and the elements of pure mathematics may still be taught independently of religion; but when instruction reaches the higher regions of knowledge, the religious question appears again. Let us take, for example, geology, that most interesting science, the abuse of which has led to worse atheism than all the sophistries of Voltaire. As it is taught in our schools, without proper explanation or direction, it cannot but be destructive to faith, and consequently to morality, for inquisitive and unstable young minds.”[3]

Roman Catholicism is thus dissatisfied with the public school because of the secularization of instruction in it, because of the separation of scientific knowledge from religious influence. In this respect it is undoubtedly right, insofar as by religious influence it understands not the extreme ultramontane principle excluding freedom of scientific investigation, but only the supreme ideal of human purpose toward the achievement of which every science should serve. The best Protestant thinkers also consider it abnormal and even harmful the complete separation of instruction from religious influence,[4] but they are reconciled with that “common Christianity” which has been introduced into the school. But Catholicism cannot by any means be reconciled with such an arrangement of religious instruction. It represents a strict system in which long history has worked out a complex organization, sustained in all its parts and details, so that each part or detail has an organic connection with the whole system, and the removal of any one feature disturbs the balance in the entire organism. Therefore, “common Christianity,” representing an impersonal and, so to speak, divorced from life doctrine, is unthinkable for Roman Catholicism, constitutes its negation and in no way can be accepted by it without essential harm to the entire system. “The difference between Protestantism and Catholicism,” says the Catholic organ, “is not merely a difference in details or particulars, but a difference in principle. Catholicism must be taught in its entirety or unity or wholeness, or otherwise it will not be taught at all. It must be everywhere all, or it is nothing. It is not merely a theory of truth or a collection of doctrines; it is an organism, a living body living and acting by virtue of its own central life, and therefore necessarily it is one and undivided, and cannot have anything in common with any other body. To exclude from schools everything that is distinctive or peculiar in Catholicism means simply to exclude Catholicism itself and to make the schools either purely Protestant or purely secular and therefore hostile to our religion, whose support is forbidden us by our conscience.”[5] Consequently, Roman Catholicism can naturally be satisfied only with schools in which unrestricted religious-Catholic influence prevails, namely, in parish schools, under the direct supervision of the clergy. And indeed, from the very beginning of the history of Roman Catholicism in the United States, we see constant efforts by church leadership to establish parish schools. Even before the declaration of independence, Catholics had several of their own schools, and the first American Catholic bishop, John Carroll, in a pastoral letter to his flock, devotes a significant paragraph to the question of specifically Catholic education,[6] and subsequently Catholic bishops at local and general synods constantly express concern for the organization of parish schools. The first provincial synod in Baltimore, held in 1829, expressed the desire that schools be established everywhere in which children could learn the principles of faith and morality along with acquiring human knowledge.[7] The prelates of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1866 made remarkable decrees in this regard, which clearly characterize the views of representatives of the Catholic Church on the significance of the school question for its success in the United States. The ninth section of these decrees is devoted to the question of “the education of youth and the propagation of piety.” It says among other things: “Since it has become evident that schools for public education in the majority of these provinces are set up in such a way that they serve heresy, and the souls of Catholic children in them are constantly and imperceptibly saturated with false teachings of sects, we exhort the pastors with all their strength to endeavor to give Catholic children Christian and Catholic education and carefully observe that they do not use a Protestant translation of the Bible or have prayers and hymns of these sects. They must observe that books or exercises of such a kind are not introduced into public schools with danger to faith and piety. We urge the bishops and, in view of the most serious evils which usually come from youth improperly disposed and educated, we ask them with bowls of divine mercy to take care that schools be established in each church in their dioceses; and, if necessary and circumstances permit, hire suitable teachers for it at the expense of the church with which the school is connected. But in view of the fact that because of poverty, exclusively Catholic schools cannot yet be maintained in all parishes and there is no place for daily and necessary instruction except in public schools, it is necessary to take great precautions so that Catholic youth suffer as little harm as possible from them. For this purpose, let catechism schools and Christian instruction schools be established. Let the pastors gather boys and girls in their own churches on Sundays and other holidays, and sometimes even more frequently, for careful and diligent instruction in the elements of Christian knowledge. Let the pastor in every possible way impress upon parents their part in this work. Let him urge them by praises, frighten them with threats, move them with requests to send their children to church at the appointed time for catechism. And the latter let him attract with small gifts and rewards—for more willing attendance at school and instruction. For if the teachers of heresy do this daily to attract Catholic children to their own schools, to imbue them with the poison of error and bring them to eternal misery, then should not the minister of God and His holiest religion zealously and diligently do the same to save those who belong to him, and not lose even one of those whom the Father has given to His Christ? Let the pastors of souls carefully strive so that parents under their spiritual direction bring their children, when they reach the appropriate age, prepared to receive the sacraments of holy Eucharist and Confirmation; and to achieve this let them often throughout the year, especially when Easter approaches, publicly exhort the people in churches to this most important obligation, the non-fulfillment of which exposes parents to the greatest danger—deprivation of salvation, and therefore they should be deprived of the sacraments until they come to themselves and make satisfaction for this obligation.”[8]

The decrees of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, juridically binding for Catholics of the country, were at the same time, according to the expression of a Catholic historian, “only the expression of the universal sentiment of Catholics of the whole world, that religious education is the very life and essence of the Church, a necessary condition for the preservation of true faith and its development according to providence, for the welfare of society and the salvation of souls. Perhaps there is no country in which these considerations,” the historian continues, “have greater significance than in the United States of America. The common mixing of Catholics in public and political life with those erring in every way, matrimonial ties with sectarians, the gigantic efforts made by the state to support schools in which religion is ignored and which by the fullness of their external organization present an attraction for the poorest classes of the people, are serious obstacles with which Catholicism must struggle. Consequently, nothing so occupied the attention of the first bishop of Baltimore as the establishment of a Catholic institution for the religious education of youth; and his successors, with their colleagues in the episcopal office, have always shown the same carefulness.”[9] The impulses to establish parish Catholic schools came also from the very head of the Catholic world—the Pope himself, and at the time of, for example, Archbishop Maréchal’s tenure, the Curia insisted particularly strongly on him the obligation to establish such schools to counteract the efforts and influence of churches of other faiths. Cardinal Somaglia, in his circular of August 5, 1820, pointing to the efforts of sects to lead the people into error, says: “You see therefore how zealous and active the pastors of the Church must be to protect their flocks from the attacks of wolves coming to them in sheep’s clothing. If the shepherds sleep, the enemy will come, and soon the tares will grow up among the wheat. Therefore, it is necessary in every way to try to remove children from these sectarian schools and to impress upon parents their obligation in this respect. The most effective means for this purpose would be the establishment of schools in which the poorest classes could receive proper instruction. Will there be a lack of necessary means for this? A useful lesson in this regard can be borrowed from the heretics themselves; they, as we know, support their schools by a penny collection from all members. Why should not Catholics do the same? We therefore exhort you and by the compassion of our Lord Jesus Christ we ask you to take the most effective measures possible to protect your flock from the attacks of those who would lead it astray, and, remembering the words of the apostle: ‘there will be false teachers who will bring heresies of destruction,’ apply all your efforts to prevent the false seduction of Catholic youth.”[10] “The only means to counteract the evil influences indicated above, and others leading to the same result,” remarks the historian, “can be served by a more general establishment of parish schools, in which Catholic youth will be educated in the knowledge and observance of their religion, and more serious attention to the sacred sciences in our higher educational institutions, through which faith acquires a firmer and more influential character.”[11]

Thus both the general principle of Roman Catholicism and the synodal decrees expressing it and public opinion clearly define the view of the Roman Catholic Church on the school and education. It considers them the chief instruments by means of which its members can be kept within its fold and protected from the harmful influences of other faiths. Consequently, it first seeks to isolate its school from any communication with Protestantism, to make it exclusively Catholic, under the direct supervision of Catholic clergy. But in achieving this aim it necessarily encounters important obstacles posed by the constitution of the country and general state provisions regarding public education. The Constitution, by making religion free, thereby refrains from supporting any creed, and state provisions regarding the exclusion from schools of all sectarian differences thereby do not allow the possibility for Catholicism to introduce into the school all its system, the slightest reduction or depersonalization of which is equivalent to the negation of Catholicism itself. In view of this, it has only one way out—to completely abandon the common public school supported by the state, and to organize an independent system of Catholic parish schools. This it strives to do; but in achieving this aim it encounters a new difficulty. The public school is in essence a mandatory institution for citizens. Having become a fully state institution, it is supported by state resources collected from the entire population without distinction by means of levying known fees and direct taxes. Catholics are certainly not exempt from them, and therefore they unwillingly must use this school. Otherwise, to maintain their own schools, they must bear a double tax—on a school which they do not use, and on a school which they alone consider useful. Here clearly the Catholic Church comes into conflict with the state, and this conflict is caused not only by moral, but also by financial motives. The state, having taken upon itself the matter of public education, to maintain it levies taxes on the entire population; Catholics also bear this tax, but moral motives forbid them to use the state school. The inevitable consequence of such a state of affairs was the struggle of Catholicism with the state on the question of public education, and it continuously makes itself known at all outstanding events in school life.

[1] The Catholic World, Vol. XI, p. 95.

[2] The Catholic World, Vol. XIV, p. 438.

[3] Ibid, p. 443.

[4] The Christian World, February, 1870; American Educational Monthly, January 1869, and so forth. See also official reports of various school superintendents in Randall, History of the Common School System, pp. 194, 195, 308, 309, etc.

[5] Catholic World, Vol. XI, p. 94.

[6] Appendix to Darras, History of Catholic Church, Vol. IV, pp. 620, 621.

[7] Murray, History of Catholic Church in U.S., p. 429.

[8] Acta et Decreta, Titulus IX, §§ 429, 435, 437, 440.

[9] Appendix to Darras, History of Catholic Church, Vol. IV, p. 661.

[10] Appendix to Darras, History of Catholic Church, Vol. IV, pp. 661–662.

[11] Appendix to Darras, History of C. Ch., Vol. IV, p. 662.

Part Five. Conflict of Roman Catholicism With the State in the Sphere of Public Education (Cont.) (2)

The struggle of Roman Catholicism against the adopted system of public education began almost from its establishment; but it manifested itself with particular force from the time when the state’s tendency to make the school a state institution became fully clear. The main objective pursued by Catholics was always to have a proportional part of the money fund collected by general taxes for public schools allocated to them corresponding to the number of students in their own parish schools. This tendency manifested itself with particular insistence in 1840. In that year the trustees of several Roman Catholic schools in the city of New York, in connection with influential members of the Catholic Church, submitted a petition that they be given equal participation in the distribution of public money collected by the state for educational purposes with the “Society for the Promotion of the Public Schools,”[1] which at that time served as the main organ of the state in the matter of public education. The petitioners expressed dissatisfaction with the organization and management of the said society, which “monopolized public education and conducts it completely independently of the wishes and views of taxpayers and without regard to the demands of conscience and religious beliefs of a large part of the citizens; that although the society does not belong specifically to any creed and does not attempt openly and directly to teach the distinctive articles of faith of any particular sect; nevertheless its schools are in practice sectarian, the books and general tone of instruction are so strongly reminiscent of Protestantism that nearly eight thousand children who are under the guardianship of the petitioners and with whose secular instruction the latter wish to combine daily instruction in the principles of their own faith cannot, by the dictates of conscience, participate in the benefits presented by the society, although the petitioners and all their like-minded people bear heavy taxes for its support.”[2] The Society, for its part, replied that it was far from monopolizing public education, provides free instruction to all who come, avoids any partiality to sectarianism, and on the contrary, by virtue of the constitution of that religious community to which the petitioners belong and whose specific views they represent, the distinctive teachings of Roman Catholicism will inevitably enter into their system of instruction, coming into contradiction with the general educational system of the state.[3] A bitter dispute ensued, which passed into the press and from the church pulpit. On the side of the Catholics, a strong fighter came forward in the person of Bishop Hughes, who later became archbishop of New York. The case was brought to the Common Council, which rejected the petitioners’ claims and referred to the resolutions of 1824 and 1832, according to which “the school fund of the state has a purely civil character, is intended for civil purposes, and therefore entrusting it to religious or church societies would be a violation of an elementary principle.”[4]

The Catholics naturally were not satisfied with this decision and brought their case before the legislative assembly, repeating the same petition. At first fortune seemed to smile on them, and State Secretary Spencer in his annual report as superintendent of public schools found it possible to state the following: “Each of the seven Roman Catholic churches has free schools in which more than five thousand children receive instruction six hours every day. Although established by a separate denomination, they are open to all children without distinction, and in fact are attended by children of various denominations. They are supported by voluntary contributions of pious and charitable founders. They do not participate in the distribution of the school fund.” Meanwhile “it would be just if all those who directly or indirectly make contributions to this fund, and especially those who pay their share of taxes, should benefit from it.” Accordingly, he proposed a bill by which local authorities would have the right to distribute the fund among schools in proportion to the number of students attending them.[5] In the 1841 session the question was brought before the senate. Both the petitions and the written responses were referred for examination to the same Secretary Spencer, who this time presented a detailed report on the state of the matter, considering it from the perspective of the whole state. This report was so important in characterizing the state’s relationship to schools and the religious question within them that we consider it necessary to present here the essential features of it, concerning principally the subject under our examination.

Having determined the general state of public education, its needs, and its importance for the state, the author of the report says: “Some of the petitioners complain that the tendency of education in public schools is unfavorable, if not hostile, to those principles of faith which they hold dearer than life itself; and they declare that, in accordance with their views on religious duty toward children, they cannot send their children to these schools. On the other hand, those who resist any change to the present system express their fear that, with the allowance of free and equal participation in public monies for those schools, public funds will be indirectly, if not directly, used for the promotion of religious doctrines of all kinds; and some particularly fear the possibility of promoting such doctrines as they consider false and harmful. Thus the question of sectarian influence is raised from two opposing sides, with its usual complications. According to the principles of our institutions, no one has the power to determine whether the religious doctrines or sentiments of any class of our citizens are true or false. The Constitution and public opinion stand beyond the religious faith and profession of all our citizens. The sole aim that our fellow citizens can have is the education of all children of the republic in literature, morality, and virtue. It is true that the state has undertaken only the intellectual education of children, while their moral and religious education has been left to the home, places of public prayer, and those institutions that the piety of private individuals may establish for this purpose. Yet it is thought that in a country where the vast majority of citizens acknowledge the fundamental truths of Christianity, public sentiment would be outraged by any attempt to exclude all religious teaching from public schools, and that any plan or system of instruction in which there was no relation to moral principles based on these truths would be universally rejected. Furthermore, it is thought that such an attempt would be altogether impractical. It is impossible to find books or to select reading lessons that do not contain, to a greater or lesser degree, certain principles of religious faith, either directly preached or indirectly admitted. Religion and literature are inseparably interwoven, and purging the works of orators, publicists, and poets of religious sentiment would make them extremely empty. Examining the subject in this practical way, in all systems of education designed for the youth of this country, it may be considered a positive axiom that some considerable portion of religious instruction must necessarily be included. The trustees of the “society for public education” admit it in their schools perhaps no more than is unavoidable. While they declare, and undoubtedly sincerely, their readiness to omit anything that might be considered controversial, they at the same time affirm—and quite rightly—that education cannot be perfect without the inculcation of moral and religious principles; and therefore they permit reading of Holy Scripture or parts of it, and inculcate the fundamental principles of Christianity. Yet it is impossible to understand how it is possible to teach these principles with benefit without at the same time impressing what is accepted by some denominations and rejected by others. Even the reading of the text of our commonly accepted translation of Holy Scripture is rejected by many on the ground of its supposed errors and imperfections; others meanwhile consider its use by children without explanation positively harmful. Even the moderate degree of religious instruction admitted by the “society” is inevitably sectarian; that is, it favors one class of opinions and opposes another; and so it will always be, with any method of instruction that human wisdom can devise. – If these views are correct, then there arises such a dilemma: while a certain degree of religious instruction is necessary and will inevitably enter into the system of education under all circumstances, it cannot at the same time be introduced without adopting, to a certain degree, a sectarian character and causing offense to those whose opinions stand in contradiction to this character. But happily, there is one way out of this difficulty. This way will be found in recourse to the fundamental principles set forth in our Constitution, by which no law can be passed “respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and by which “the free exercise and enjoyment of religious worship shall forever be allowed to all mankind.” Those in whose hands our government has hitherto rested found that practical effect could be given to these principles only through careful abstention from any legislation concerning those matters which involved or had any relation to religious faith, profession, or religious instruction; and in this course of action they found such a safeguard against oppression, such a guarantee against discord and hostile intolerance and fanaticism, and such a pledge of peace and harmony that it has constantly and in all circumstances received their unanimous approval. On the basis of this principle, which might be called absolute non-interference, all the apparent difficulties surrounding the subject under examination can be removed.”[6]

But in what sense should this “absolute non-interference” be understood? In the sense of the complete exclusion of religious instruction from schools as a state institution, or in the provision of equal participation in religious instruction to all sects and denominations? The first part of the alternative, in the Secretary’s view, would not eliminate the difficulty. “To suppose,” he says, “that the absence of all religious instruction, even if it were possible to achieve it, could serve as a means to avoid sectarianism, is entirely erroneous. On the contrary, it would itself be sectarian, as it would accord with the views of one particular class and contradict the opinions of other classes. Such a system would favor those who reject religious beliefs and oppose all efforts to instill them in young minds before they reach the maturity of judgment that would give them the ability to form their own opinions. But there are people who hold completely opposite views and insist on protecting youth against the influence of their own passions and corruption through the implanting in their souls and hearts of those elements of faith which, in the opinion of this class, serve as necessary foundations of moral principles. This class of people considers neutrality and indifference to be the most dangerous form of hostility.”[7] Thus it is erroneous, in the view of the state secretary, to suppose that sectarianism could be avoided in schools by the elimination of all religious instruction. There remains therefore only one way out of the difficulty—the second part of the alternative: complete and free provision to all sects and denominations of the right to teach their doctrines in schools. To achieve this, in his opinion, is possible through the provision of complete self-government to individual school districts, so that the population could easily be grouped in them according to their denominational distinctions and thus could easily teach its own doctrine in its separate schools.[8]

Thus the state secretary, proceeding in his reasoning from the fundamental principles of the Constitution, arrived in principle, if not in form, at the very conclusion sought by the Catholics: the establishment of such a school system in which all denominations would have a full opportunity to teach their doctrines in their separate schools. For the Catholics such a decision meant complete accession to their demands, and by its terms they could subsume all their parochial schools under the category of district schools and thus make them in form public schools entitled to a proportional share of the school fund. But the “Society for Public Education” perceived the disadvantage of this conclusion and, on the basis of the same Constitution, made the following response:

“In adopting the system of public education at public expense, the state had in view to give youth such an education as would make them capable of discharging the duties of citizens in this life, leaving to their natural and ecclesiastical guides to prepare them, through paternal and spiritual instruction, to render an account in another world. It was necessary, and is necessary, to have some common foundation upon which all children, destined to act as citizens of the same republic, could receive a common education. To this common education all children have a right; but the determination of its particulars and conditions belongs to society, not to parents. The fact that the fund was raised through taxation of all for universal education does not give the taxpayer-sectarian the right to demand that a portion of it be devoted to the propagation of his own separate sect. The tax was laid upon him as a citizen, not as a member of a church. Its sole object was a purely civil purpose, not to pave the way to a particular place of worship. The establishment of a church (parochial) school shows a sectarian aim. It has an exclusive system and peculiar rules of management, is under the direction of trustees and teachers of a particular faith, and religious accord is a necessary condition for participation in its management, which cannot be achieved through civil qualification acquired by a citizen. It is in essence a part of a church institution, and a sectarian of another denomination may justly feel that his rights are equally violated whether a tax is collected from him to support foreign religious teachers on the school platform or to support them on the church platform. The state has never yet claimed the power to levy taxes from its people for church purposes; and if its sovereignty includes such a power, then the rights of conscience require that the religion of the taxpayer be entered on the tax roll and his money be used to support his own church.”[9]

The dispute was finally settled by a law of April 11, 1842, in which the paragraph concerning the religious question proper was formulated as follows: “No school shall have the right to receive any portion of the school fund if therein are taught, inculcated, or professed the religious doctrines or teachings of any particular Christian or other religious sect, or if books are used containing writings favorable or hostile to the particular doctrines or teachings of any Christian or other religious sect. But nothing contained in this provision shall authorize the ‘board of education’ to exclude Holy Scripture, without notes or interpretations, or selections from it, from any of the schools coming under this provision.”[10]

The effect of this law retains its full force to the present time. But it obviously did not settle the disputed question; it merely evaded it, and naturally it did not satisfy the principal contending party—the Roman Catholics. The dispute has since not ceased until the present, becoming less acute only at times, only to burst forth again with renewed force. The Catholics constantly sought arguments to begin agitation against the school education system. So in 1853 the Roman Catholic pastor Keigley brought a complaint to the school superintendent in which he says that in many public schools the religion and faith of Catholic children are offended by forcing them to participate in prayers and to read and memorize portions of a Bible translation that the Catholic Church does not recognize; that once a teacher ordered one of her pupils, a twelve-year-old boy, to read and study the “Protestant Bible,” and when he declined to obey such an order, on the grounds of his unwillingness to violate the instructions of his parents and the rules of his religion, she punished him severely and shamefully expelled him from school.[11] This complaint naturally led to new discussions and new examinations of the question concerning a way out of the difficulty, but again without success.

[1] The Public School Society, founded in 1805 and serving as the governmental agency for public education in New York State until 1853, when a special Department of Public Education was established—the Board of Education. See Randall, History of the Common School in the state of New York, 1871.

[2] Randall, History of the Common School in the state of New York, 1871, pp. 119 and 120.

[3] Randall, History, p. 121.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Randall, pp. 123 and 124.

[6] Randall, History of Common School System, pp. 124, 127–130.

[7] Randall, History, p. 131.

[8] Ibid, p. 130.

[9] Randall, History of Common School system, p. 134.

[10] Randall, History of Common School system, p. 138.

[11] Randall, p. 307.

Part Five. Conflict of Roman Catholicism With the State in the Sphere of Public Education (Cont.) (3)

To show the state of the disputed question at the present time, it is sufficient to cite several excerpts from Catholic journals, which tirelessly agitate against the school system they detest. “All education, in the opinion of Catholics, should be religious and designed to educate the child for an eternal purpose”;[1] therefore, “secular education, to achieve its aim, should be inseparable from and, so to speak, intermingled with religious instruction, so that the student, as his intellectual abilities develop with years, might gradually but steadily be led to the knowledge of those divine truths which the Church teaches to its children, and so that his character might thus be internally formed on a true Christian foundation.”[2] Granting that “religion is an essential element in education, we come to the question: to whom does the right to teach it belong? Certainly not to the state, because, according to our theory of government, the state knows not religion, and in no way can claim apostolic authority to preach and teach the Gospel to peoples. This authority is far above all existing governments. That the state is or should be religious in the mode and character of its actions cannot be denied; but it must derive this character from the teachings of the Church and its individual members, and this does not give it the right to prescribe to the Church what it should teach or allow to be taught, because the Church’s authority to teach comes from God, while the state’s authority comes from man.”[3] “We consider education a function of the Church, not of the state, and therefore we do not accept and will not accept the state as an educator.”[4] Meanwhile, according to the existing system, the state has taken education into its own hands as its proper function, and moreover the state has already completely entered into a sphere that does not belong to it, prescribing a certain system of religious instruction in the form of Bible reading, sacred hymns, and religious exercises. If the very idea of an educating state contradicts Catholic views, then the religion prescribed in schools is, in their view, direct blasphemy and a violation of the rights of conscience. “In the Declaration of Independence it is clearly marked among the inalienable rights of man—his life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For me the child is the highest happiness and I must have the freedom to raise him as my understanding of happiness requires. What value has freedom for me when I am forced to send my child to a public school where he will hear the reading of the Bible, which I, in the best sense, consider a corrupted and incorrect copy of Holy Scripture, and will be obliged to repeat prayers and hymns which—alas—are often nothing but blasphemy against the name of Him who died on the cross for the redemption of mankind?”[5] But even the exclusion of the Bible translation not recognized by Catholics would not satisfy them in the least. “The exclusion of the Bible would not help the matter. It would only make the schools purely secular, which would be worse than making them Protestant, because in relation to the state, society, morality, all the interests of this world, we consider Protestantism better than the absence of all religion. The question lies deeper than reading or not reading the Bible in schools, in one translation or another. Certainly our Church does not approve of the Protestant translation of the Bible as an incorrect translation of a corrupted text; but its exclusion from public schools would in no way eliminate our objection to them.”[6] “Although in principle we decidedly oppose the reading of the Bible in our public schools, our principal objection is directed against the schools themselves.”[7] Summarizing their objections to the existing system of public schools, a leading Roman Catholic journal formulates them in the following propositions: “1) all education should be based on and conducted according to true religious principles; 2) the state has no right to teach religion in its schools; 3) public or state schools without religion would be godless; 4) as such, they are incapable of forming the character of our children or teaching them morality in accordance with Christian principle; 5) in trying to avoid what is called sectarianism, they undermine even the aims of purely secular education.”[8]

It is thus clear that the Catholics are not only opposed to the system or program of public education as it is now constituted, but are opposed to the very principle of state education, considering the latter to be a matter of the Church, not the state. State education they consider not only as failing to achieve the aim of education, but as directly hostile to that aim—with regard to Catholics, of course. Naturally the question now arises: does this opposition of Catholics to the state school in its present form have real grounds, or is it merely a manifestation of the usual policy of Roman Catholicism, by which it always and everywhere struggles with the state for predominance and dominion in various spheres of public and political life? In the matter under our consideration, these two motives do not exclude each other; on the contrary, they come so closely together that their difference is more a matter of time than of essence. They serve one another: the first provides more or less plausible material for agitation, while the latter, making use of this material, acts in favor of the basic Roman Catholic principle—predominance in the state.

XIX

The system of public education now adopted by the state is undoubtedly disadvantageous or even harmful to Roman Catholicism. In establishing it, the state had in view the realization of the fundamental principle of the federal Constitution—non-interference of the state in religious matters, the separation of state and religion; and therefore, recognizing the school as a public or state institution, it intended to make it an instrument of purely state purposes, without any relation to religion. But such a purpose proved unattainable in practice. First of all, from the very nature of education and learning, it proved impossible to completely isolate it from religion, since the latter, as the theoretical foundation of all morality, must necessarily constitute one of the most important elements of education aimed at the implantation and development of moral principles in a person. But even in recognizing religion as a necessary element in the system of education, the state encountered another difficulty, which presented itself in the form of the diversity of churches, denominations, and sects. The preference of any one of them would have been a violation of the rights of others and again would have contradicted the Constitution. Therefore the state resolved to find a way out of this difficulty—in the recognition for the school of a depersonalized, general religion made up of the withdrawal from all denominations and churches of their particular peculiarities, with the retention of the essence common to all of them: Christianity, in recognition of so-called “Common Christianity.” This religion, in the denominational sense, does not constitute any single denomination; it does not belong to any of the existing churches and sects; it is an invention of the state itself and therefore rightfully may be called a state religion. As such, it is naturally calculated to satisfy equally all the churches, denominations, and sects into which the population is divided. In introducing it, the state did not intend to give advantage to any one denomination at the expense of others; on the contrary, by this very means it sought to place them all on an equal level of rights and privileges, to avoid any shadow of privilege of one denomination over another, to realize the fundamental principle of the Constitution requiring equal and free profession for all churches and sects. The aim, however, proved unattained; the state religion could not satisfy everyone, did not provide a guarantee of complete freedom of religious profession for all citizens equally, and on the contrary proved favorable to some and harmful to others. This depended on the internal composition of the state itself. Had the state consisted of a diversity of such churches, sects, and denominations that differed from each other only in particulars of denominational teaching, then the state religion in the form of “Common Christianity” would not have been able to provoke any fundamental objections. But this division is deeper and with regard to Catholicism and Protestantism it touches the very inner principle of their life, to the point of their mutual exclusion of each other. Therefore they could not have agreed on any common ground, however abstract and free from particular differences. Consequently, it was impossible to satisfy both by accepting one common foundation, and the state by necessity with its religion, if it did not contradict both, had to side with one or the other, thereby coming into contradiction with the rights of the other. On which side did the state stand? It stood, and could not have failed to stand, on the side of Protestantism. A republican state, as a product and expression of the will of the people, must by necessity reflect in itself, in all spheres of its life and activity, the dominant principle of the majority and is inevitably permeated by it. The majority in this case happens to be Protestantism in its various forms, since the Protestant population constitutes at least six-sevenths of the entire population of the country. And indeed, the Protestant tint makes itself felt throughout the entire system of public education, from its general principle to its small details.

[1] Catholic World, Vol. XI, p. 95.

[2] Catholic World, Vol. XIV, pp. 435 and 436.

[3] Catholic World, Vol. XIV, p. 437; Vol. XVI, p. 732 et seq.

[4] The New York Tablet, December 25, 1869.

[5] Catholic World, Vol. XIV, p. 438.

[6] Catholic World, Vol. XI, p. 94.

[7] Catholic World, Vol. XIV, p. 442.

[8] Catholic World, Vol. XIV, pp. 443 and 444.

Part Five. Conflict of Roman Catholicism With the State in the Sphere of Public Education (Cont.) (4)

In the general principle, Protestantism makes itself known already in the fact that the school adopted by the state is a secularized school, that is, one in which education is removed from organic connection with religion. Such an organization of public education does not contradict Protestantism; on the contrary, it constitutes the logical conclusion from its basic nature as a religion of “faith” separated from “works.” Meanwhile, Roman Catholicism holds the exactly opposite principle, by which there must be an organic connection between religion and life, between Church and school, between faith and works; and therefore a secularized school for Catholicism is an impossible thing, standing in contradiction to its fundamental principle. The state, in adopting a system in accord with the principles of Protestantism and contradicting the views of Catholicism, thereby sided with the former, to the detriment of the latter. The school is thus in principle Protestant and consequently hostile to Roman Catholicism. It appears Protestant also in the portion of the religious element which has been introduced into the secularized school. That “Common Christianity” which the state chose as its state religion is undoubtedly possible only from the Protestant point of view and is in essence Protestant religion, albeit abstracted from its various forms. For Roman Catholicism such “Common Christianity” is unthinkable; it recognizes only such Christianity as is embodied in an unchanging, strict, historically developed and consolidated form, outside of which any other form is, for it, a deviation from the one true form, is Protestantism and thereby a denial of Catholicism. Those particular forms in which this “Common Christianity” is introduced into the school again necessarily bear a Protestant character. According to the Massachusetts statute of 1826, adopted in most states, the religious element enters the school in the form of “the Bible, prayers, hymns, and piety.”[1] This is obviously a very vague definition and in this connection a Roman Catholic organ rightfully could pose such questions: “What does this mean? Will our children be instructed in religion according to the parliamentary doctrine of the Anglican Church, or trained in the complete madness of the followers of Calvin? Will they be obliged to deny the divinity of Christ with the Unitarians and the eternity of torments with the Universalists? Can it really be that our children are given to us so that we subject them every day to instruction in the wanderings of Methodism, Congregationalism, Presbyterianism, Muggletonanism, Mormonism, or any of the thousands of other isms born of that fertile mother of discord, the vaunted and notorious Reformation? Or are we to teach them a portion of each of them in turn, depending on what teachers political revolution throws to the surface? This idea is obviously absurd.”[2] Meanwhile, in public schools exactly such an arrangement can and does exist. The Bible in them is accepted only as the one which Catholics consider corrupted and spurious,[3] and hymns are sung which in the opinion of Catholics constitute nothing but “blasphemy” against the divine persons.[2] In schools it is allowed for Catholic children to use the translation of the Bible recognized by them—the Douay; but the choice of one or another translation is determined chiefly by the composition of the teachers, and the latter, as appointed to their posts by ballot of the trustees and superintendents, are naturally for the most part Protestant, and therefore are most likely to use the commonly accepted Protestant translation. Moreover, the use of the Catholic translation of the Bible, given the preponderance of Protestant children, would be an injustice to the latter. More than that, in schools for economy’s sake a Bible has been adopted which is, in the view of Catholics, even worse than the unrecognized or King James translation—namely, “the translation (as says a Catholic author) concocted by the Bible Society. The very Lord’s Prayer in this so-called Bible is, in the opinion of all scholars, spurious; and if it is spurious, as all American translators acknowledge, then it is blasphemous, and yet in a sectarian spirit of proselytism they forcibly introduce it into schools.”[4] Such proselytism is not merely a product of Catholic imagination; it is acknowledged by Protestants themselves. “We cannot expect the conversion of parents,” says a Protestant pastor; “but between two millstones—the Bible and public laws—we will grind Catholicism out of their children.”[5] Protestantism makes itself known not only in the adopted Bible and in the organization of religious education in school, but also in the secular textbooks themselves. “Veiled mockery of Catholicism,” writes a historian-publicist, “appears in some of them even now. A Catholic child in vain searches for even in the best of them a single word of praise for the great ancient church of his fathers, or his glorious faith. We know one educated young Catholic who received his education in public schools and for a long time was convinced that Catholics had never written anything worthy of being included in school anthologies. And it could not be expected that he would have a better opinion.”[6] All these facts do not go beyond the realm of possibility and are an inevitable result of the numerical superiority of Protestants both among students and teachers. Collision between Protestantism and Catholicism, as between two opposing principles, is inevitable even in the purely scientific sphere, and in such collision any reconciliation must necessarily favor Protestantism if it is impossible to remove the subject of the dispute itself. And its removal is often completely unthinkable without harm to science itself. Undoubtedly the collision between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism can be strongest of all in the field of history as a science, whose recent facts consist largely of the struggle between these two denominations. “Regarding history,” a Roman Catholic organ justly declares, “even with the most careful regard to accuracy, it is impossible to reproduce it without constantly touching upon disputed events and characters regarding which Protestants and Catholics can never agree with each other. Can one imagine a history of modern Europe from which were omitted the great facts of the Church’s civilizing mission in the Old World, the establishment of the temporal power of the popes, the ‘peace of God’ and the crusades of the Middle Ages, the great uprising against spiritual authority, mistakenly called the Reformation, the persecution of Irish Catholics, and the French Revolution? At best such a book would be a wretched compilation of numbers and distorted facts, and yet any exposition of these great epochs in European history, with all possible accuracy, would inevitably be an offense to the opinions or prejudices of Protestants or Catholics. If history is ‘philosophy teaching by examples,’ then we must seek it somewhere else, not in our public schools.”[7] It was of course impossible to avoid these facts in history textbooks and they were included in them, and their exposition could not but appear in a form recognized as true only by Catholics, and consequently they appear inevitably with a Protestant tint, at least in the eyes of Catholics, for whom everything non-Catholic is thereby Protestant. Finally there have been cases when Catholic children found themselves in conflict even with school discipline due to its Protestant character. Catholics have holidays which Protestants do not recognize and which therefore have not been taken into account in the school program, and in such cases Catholic children are placed in a difficult position between two opposing requirements—the Church and the school. “A case that occurred in Vermont,” says a Catholic author, “proves that in some places Catholic children cannot attend public schools and at the same time fulfill the requirements of their religion. Because they dared to go to Mass on the Feast of Corpus Christi in 1875, they were expelled from the public schools in Brattleboro. The matter was brought to court. But the law (?) supported the side of the fanatic board of education. From this it is clear that the child must cease to be a practicing Catholic, otherwise it will be banished from public schools.”[5] In general, the entire system of public education is hostile to the spirit of Roman Catholicism. “On the basis of the oldest and best Catholic testimonies, it can be confidently asserted that, with few respectable exceptions, Catholics educated in mixed schools may be respectable and honest people, according to the Protestant sense of this word; but as actual, religious, faithful observers of the rules of their Church they cannot be. They are Catholics in name, Protestants or semi-pagans in fact.”[8]

Thus the opposition of Catholics to the present system of public education has real grounds. The school system, contrary to the Constitution of the country, which secures equal and identical rights of religious conscience for all denominations, has turned out, by force of the inevitable laws of might, in all its parts to be Protestant, and as such it is undoubtedly harmful to Roman Catholicism. And yet it exists, and the state, levying taxes for its support, does not exclude Catholics, thus imposing upon them an indirect obligation to use a school which they do not recognize. “The system of public schools in the United States,” says a Catholic author, “in its present form excludes religion from the school; or if it admits any, its influence in any case is hostile to Catholic faith. In consequence of this, Catholics must, with great sacrifices, build and maintain their own schools. But they are also compelled to support public schools. They are placed between two evils: 1) if they send their children to public schools, it means exposing their faith to danger; that the atmosphere of the public school paralyzes a Catholic child’s love for the religion of his fathers, this has never been refuted; 2) if they build their own Catholic schools, it means subjecting themselves to a double tax. In this respect the Catholic element suffers a crying injustice. It bears the tax for the support of institutions whose use conscience forbids.”[9]

It is understandable that Catholics seek a way out of this difficult situation, and their prolonged agitation against the existing system is an expression of these efforts. The aim of their agitation is to achieve such a state of affairs in which it would be possible for them to use the public school without violation of the requirements of their conscience. They strive for the “public school fund to be distributed between Catholics and Protestants on such a fair basis that each religious organization could have its own school and conduct religious instruction according to its own method.”[10] “Set aside,” says a Catholic newspaper, “for the support of Catholic schools a portion of the public money proportional to the number of children taught in them, and leave the selection of teachers, instruction, discipline, all internal management to Catholic educational authorities, and then you may, in all other respects, in all reasonable matters, leave them as they are, under public control and management, under the oversight of public committees, regents, trustees, if you wish.”[11]

However persistent were such demands, however much the Catholic press agitated for them, not missing a single opportunity that could be used as a pretext for agitation, the Catholics have not achieved their aim even to the present day and, as fifty years ago, it remains for them a pious wish. All their attempts to achieve their goal on legal ground have invariably failed. Their cries about the restriction of Catholic conscience were in vain, their bitter reproaches against the free state which, contrary to the Constitution, supports one denomination—Protestant—and oppresses another—Catholic, were all in vain. The state was either deaf to all demands of the Catholics or directly refused to satisfy them. Then the Catholics began to seek another way out of the difficulty. Despairing of achieving their goal by legal means, at least in the near future, they found roundabout paths to the same goal, and these proved more accessible to them. The history of these roundabout attempts presents already another side of the policy of Roman Catholicism, its offensive movement against Protestantism and the Protestant state.

[1] “The Bible, prayers, hymns and piety.” Catholic World, Vol. XIV, pp. 434 and 438.

[2] Catholic World, Vol. XIV, p. 438.

[3] Murray, History of Catholic Church in U.S., p. 431; Catholic World, Vol. XIV, p. 442.

[4] Murray, History of Catholic Church in U.S., 6th ed. 1879, p. 439; Shea, in American Catholic Quarterly Review, January 1876.

[5] Murray, History, p. 434.

[6] Murray, History, p. 433.

[7] Catholic World, Vol. XIV, p. 443.

[8] Ibid, p. 433.

[9] Murray, History, p. 433. To show more clearly the injustice of the state toward Catholics, the author makes the following calculation: “Suppose that in a certain city one-fifth of taxes collected goes toward the maintenance of the school fund. N is a Catholic householder. His children are educated in a parish school. But on the nearest corner stands a public school. On N rests a tax of 30 dollars. Of them six dollars go toward the maintenance of the public school, from which neither N nor his family derives any benefit. Suppose that in this city there are 25,000 Catholic householders who send their children to Catholic schools and pay on average a tax of only 30 dollars each. In one year they thus contribute 150,000 dollars toward the maintenance of a school system which is completely useless to them. In other words, they are legally robbed of 150,000 dollars. If this money went toward the maintenance of Catholic schools, then there would be no reason for complaint.” Ibid, pp. 433 and 434.

[10] North American Review, January 1876; article “Education in America 1776–1876,” pp. 208 and onward.

[11] New York Tablet, November 27, 1869.

Part Five. Conflict of Roman Catholicism With the State in the Sphere of Public Education (Cont.) (5)

Besides the sphere of public education, there exists in the state by necessity another related sphere—that of charitable activity. But if education already stands in close relation to religion and their separation has been brought about only by the necessary conditions of social organization, then charitable activity, by its very nature, is altogether inseparable from the Church. Indeed the state in this respect has renounced all claims and has left charitable activity to private societies, predominantly religious ones. Considering, however, this activity to have important public significance, the state could not refuse to contribute to it, and therefore makes annual monetary subsidies to charitable societies. Catholics were quick to make use of this state of affairs for their principal aim. Among various charitable institutions, they established orphanages, to which homeless orphans gather to live and be educated. By their very nature, these institutions are not only charitable but also educational—that is, they represent a kind of charitable school. Making use of their charitable character, Catholics demanded from the state a subsidy for them—for the support of these orphanages—and indeed obtained a result, when by an ordinance of 1825 orphanages were recognized as having the right to a certain portion of the public school fund.[1] Since instruction in these orphanages was conducted exclusively by Catholics and all these institutions generally were under the direction of the Roman Catholic Church and the guidance of Roman Catholic Sisters of Charity, it is clear that the Catholic maneuver completely succeeded; they achieved their goal, obtaining the right to a share of public funds for their specialized, exclusively Roman Catholic schools. This success so encouraged the Catholics that in 1840 they submitted a petition demanding the appropriation to them from the public fund of sums for all their Catholic schools, even those having no charitable character whatsoever. Although the petition, as we saw above, was rejected, this did not discourage the Catholics. In 1853 they repeated the petition and with such persistence that they achieved an expansion of their claims on the public fund, especially in the city of New York itself. From 1860 onward there began a regular appropriation of subsidies for the support of Roman Catholic orphanages, a name which Catholics succeeded in extending even to some simple schools, and the amount of these subsidies grew in rapid progression. In 1861 the Catholics received $18,791; in 1863 they received $78,000; in 1868 they received $124,424;[2] from 1869 to 1871 about $2,000,000, and from 1872 to 1876 annually $300,000.[3] In a tax bill for the city presented to the legislative assembly in 1869, there was included such a paragraph: “Annually a sum equal to 20 percent of all revenue obtained in the city under the direction of an official specially appointed by the board of education in said city shall be set aside for the support of schools giving free instruction to children in said city.” According to the meaning of this paragraph, the city treasury was to allocate annually $250,000 for the support of parochial schools; and since 4/5 of them belonged to Catholics, it is clear that this paragraph by its somewhat indefinite wording legalized exactly what the Catholics sought. The paragraph passed in that legislative session, and the Catholics rejoiced. But as soon as the true significance of the paragraph became apparent, a tremendous uproar arose against it; in the following year’s session a petition was presented for the repeal of the paragraph bearing the signatures of 100,000 voters, and indeed on April 24, 1870, the Catholic paragraph was repealed.[4]

In some states, as a result of the balance of power between Protestants and Catholics, the question of religious instruction did not receive a categorical decision. The Catholics were not slow to make use of this for their purpose. According to the statute of Connecticut it is neither required nor prohibited to read the Bible and prayers in schools or to perform other religious exercises. All of this is left to the determination of school visitors or the population of various cities and school districts. Such an arrangement proved favorable to the Catholics and they skillfully extracted all possible advantages from it, seizing control of several schools even in the very capital of the state, New Haven. The seizure was accomplished in every way legally—through elections that gave them a majority on the “board of public education.” With their members on this board, the Catholics could naturally freely dispose of public money for their schools, and now some schools, maintained at public expense, have a purely Catholic character. Thus the public school known as the “Hamilton” is completely in the hands of Catholics: all the teachers in it are Roman Catholic Sisters of Charity and are, together with all the pupils, under the spiritual direction and control of the Roman Catholic bishop, who acts through the pastor of the church within whose bounds the school is located, and, taking advantage of the opportunity to introduce religious instruction in the school outside of the usual class hours, directs it in an exclusively Catholic spirit.[5] In similar fashion public funds have been appropriated to Roman Catholic schools in many other places. In the city of New Britain, in the same state, a Roman Catholic school was adopted by the entire city in 1862 and from that time has been known as the “city school.” It is maintained at the expense of the city, which annually appropriates over $3,000 for it, and yet it remains an exclusively Catholic school. In it one teacher and six teachers—all Roman Catholics, chosen by Roman Catholic authorities.[6] Thus, little by little, the Catholics not only managed to circumvent in many places the particular law prohibiting the use of public funds for the support of denominational schools, but also the general provision of the Constitution of the country, by which religion with its organs is placed outside the sphere of the state’s jurisdiction. They not only appropriated to themselves the right to public funds for the maintenance of their schools, but also managed to make their exclusively Catholic schools into public schools, thus placing their denomination as it were as the dominant and state religion, in place of that “Common Christianity” by means of which the state intended to avoid the religious difficulty.

The methods by which Catholics achieve their aims have a fully legal appearance on the surface. They consist, as is evident already from the examples given, in the fact that Catholics strive first of all to fill with their members public offices that have jurisdiction over schools, and by means of these officials they easily obtain control over the schools. This manifested itself with particular clarity recently in New York. The Roman Catholic element in this city is very strong. Politically the city belongs to the Democratic party, which consists predominantly of Irish, faithful Catholics. The leader of the strongest faction of the Democratic party in the city (Tammany Hall), John Kelly, a zealous Catholic (cousin-in-law of Cardinal McCloskey), and in administrative matters has until recently been the true dictator, directing the entire administration of the city. Through his agency Roman Catholicism was able to make its strength felt in the city, but this strength could only be manifested by unofficial means, was public rather than governmental power. And society, long regarding with horror the developing omnipotence of Roman Catholicism, could comfort and reassure itself by the fact that the official head of the city—the mayor—was not a Catholic, and kept watch to ensure that Catholicism did not seize this supreme position in the national metropolis. At the slightest move by Catholics toward seizing the mayoralty the press would usually sound a terrible alarm, threatening the city with every imaginable horror which Catholics were supposedly preparing for it.

In November 1880 there were elections for a new city mayor and the Democratic leader appointed Grace, a known and devoted Catholic, as the candidate for this office. As soon as word spread of such an appointment, the press sounded a desperate alarm and from Protestant church pulpits preachers thundered in unison philippics against Catholicism, which supposedly sought the “head of the republic” to cut it off, in order to deliver the country to the power of the Pope. In vain did Grace insist that he would never bring religion into politics and would faithfully execute the laws of the republic; his assurances were futile and at immense rallies speakers one after another predicted the ruin of republican institutions as soon as the mayoralty would be in the hands of Catholics. The main fears were expressed regarding the existing system of public education, which politicians consider the best guarantee of the preservation and prosperity of the republic and against which Catholics agitate the most. To calm public opinion, the candidate addressed the public with a special letter concerning his future policy regarding the schools, in which among other things it was stated: “If elected, my aim will be to preserve the system of public schools in all its integrity, a system that has been so long established and upon which the American people looks with such pride. In all appointments which it will be my duty to make in connection with the management of schools, I will not fail to give full and proper recognition to the prevailing American sentiment in this matter. I believe that the public schools, established by the people and regarded by it as its richest heritage, should be preserved without any violation, and I shall work for generous appropriations for their support.”[7] This letter was calculated to calm the excited public opinion, but with passions inflamed it could not achieve its purpose. At a large anti-Catholic rally, one of the speakers spoke thus of this letter: “Grace says in his letter that he will maintain the system of public education in New York in its integrity. But read into the letter; see with what skill it is written. Does it not show a creation worthy of Talleyrand or a Jesuit? Is there anything in it that can be understood as opposition to the use of public funds for sectarian purposes?—Not at all. In such a case the matter is decided by the general proposition: Grace is a Roman Catholic. He either is or is not a good Catholic. If he is a good Roman Catholic, then he is subject to the commands of his spiritual and ecclesiastical master—the Pope, whose commands are expressed through cardinals, bishops, priests—down to the confessor. This supreme pontiff is a sworn enemy of all governments and systems of education that are not under the control of the Roman Church. He has said that every system of education outside the control of the Church is godless—I quote his own words in his encyclical. Thus if Grace is a good Catholic, he must, insofar as it depends on him, bring the school system of the city into accord with the commands of the Pope. If he is a good Catholic, he will be obliged to act thus, because the Catholic Church demands of a person obedience first to the Church, and then to his state. But if he is not a good Catholic, then he is unworthy to be the mayor of New York.”[8]

In spite of all its heat, the anti-Catholic party did not prevail, and Grace was elected mayor of New York. Whether the fears concerning the harmful consequences of this election for the existing school system are justified can now not yet be said with certainty. With confidence it can only be said that the Catholics will not fail to extract all possible advantages in favor of the realization of their views on education from their temporary position as the dominant party in the city.[9]

XX

While struggling against the dominant system of public schools, Catholics at the same time zealously support their specially Catholic schools, and these represent a coherent system of Catholic education, from parochial elementary schools to higher colleges. This system, standing in opposition to the adopted system of state education, represents the complete realization of the principles for whose dominance Catholics struggle, and therefore a description of it can serve as the best indicator of the kind of school that Catholics desire.

Regarding the establishment of parochial Catholic schools, as we said above, the first bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States took care. But for lack of both means and teachers, this work could not be quickly undertaken in the new land. Only when a great emigration to America of various monastic orders began could the business of school education expect to proceed successfully. The first to appear in the field of elementary education were women’s orders—the Ursulines, Sisters of Charity, and Sisters of the Visitation. After them came other workers—Sisters of Mercy, Christian Brothers, and other orders, and all devoted themselves zealously to school work. At the present time, besides lay teachers, the work of teaching in Catholic schools is undertaken by seven monastic male orders and thirty-six female orders. Under their direction and supervision are 2,389 schools with 423,383 pupils.[10]

By their internal character, Catholic parochial schools naturally fully correspond to the strict Catholic view of education. They are all under the direct supervision of some monastic order, and the teachers themselves are for the most part members of various orders. Instruction consists of the usual course of elementary subjects, with the essential difference from ordinary public schools that religious instruction is a necessary daily element in them—in the form of catechism or religious instruction. Before the beginning of instruction the teacher reads a prayer, and all pupils listen to it on their knees. Instruction also concludes with prayer. The walls of the school are usually decorated with icons, a crucifix, and various moral maxims such as: “We must write without wasting time”; “we must not come late or stay home without permission”; “we must listen attentively to the catechism”; “we must pray to God with reverence in church and school,” and the like. Whenever the clock strikes, a short prayer is read, with the pupils remaining quietly in their places. Every half hour one of the pupils, by previous assignment, proclaims loudly: “Let us remember that we are in the sacred presence of God.” Instruction stops for a moment and then begins again.[11] Thus the religious element is interwoven throughout the entire course of instruction and constitutes its most essential part. “The children,” says a Catholic author, “learn to keep God in their souls throughout all the days of their lives. This is what the Catholic Church calls true education. Religion and science live together in heavenly harmony; and the young mind sees no conflict between them, because there cannot be any. The child honors one, loves the other. He knows that they both come from God.”[12]

Parochial schools provide only elementary instruction; children in them merely enter the realm of knowledge, and if they were limited only to this, Catholic school system could not achieve its aim. In proceeding to higher education in other non-Catholic schools, children would necessarily subject their initial Catholic impressions to higher non-Catholic principles. Therefore, for the complete realization of the principles of Catholic education, higher schools of purely Catholic character were also necessary, where the initial Catholic education would be completed and strengthened by higher Catholic education as well. And indeed, Catholics have long cared for the establishment of higher Catholic colleges that could be on par with non-Catholic colleges. At the present time in the United States there exist seventy-nine (79) Catholic colleges and 28 seminaries with the right to confer academic degrees.[13] In these lies the main strength of Catholicism. From them come the most zealous Catholics, fighters for the dominance of their Church. A description of the external and internal organization of these higher schools gives an understanding of higher Catholic education.

[1] Randall, History of the Common School System in the state of New York, pp. 75–77.

[2] Barnum, Romanism as it is, p. 595.

[3] N. Y. Herald, November 29, 1880.

[4] Barnum, Romanism, p. 596.

[5] Barnum, Romanism as it is, pp. 601–603.

[6] Barnum, pp. 603–640.

[7] Both the letter and the entire history of the agitation are taken from the newspapers of the second half of October 1880, chiefly from the Herald, Times, World, and others.

[8] The N.Y. Herald, October 20, 1880.

[9] Signs of this have already appeared even now. In January of this year, elections were held in New York for various positions in the Department of Public Education, and they clearly showed the political predominance of Roman Catholics. See letter in N.Y. Times, January 11, 1881.

[10] Sadlier, Catholic Directory for 1881, p. 25.

[11] Murray, History, p. 430.

[12] Ibid, p. 431.

[13] Sadlier, Directory for 1881, table on p. 25.

Part Five. Conflict of Roman Catholicism With the State in the Sphere of Public Education (Cont.) (6)

Parish schools, like colleges, were under the direction of various monastic orders. But while the former, in their simplicity of organization, could be entrusted chiefly to female religious orders, the latter, by the very importance of their work, required stronger and more experienced hands for their guidance. Male orders took them up, and in particular the Jesuits, to whom most of the present-day Catholic colleges owe their existence. The Society of Loyola, both in Europe and in America, devoted itself to the cause of higher Catholic education, and its members everywhere founded Catholic colleges. Upon their arrival in Quebec, they established the first college on New World soil in 1635, two years before the founding of the oldest Protestant college in the country, the so-called Harvard College.[1] This was in the French possessions. In the English colonies, strict ordinances against Jesuits existed at first, and so they had no opportunity to found colleges among English colonists. But at the first opportunity they did not fail to carry out their plan. In 1685, three Jesuits appeared in New York and founded a college. The Catholic element, however, was too weak in the city to sustain a college, and it soon closed. Yet even during its brief existence, signs appeared of the possibility of future success. The college was the best school in the city, and the children of government officials were sent to it.[2] The oldest of the colleges now in existence, in Georgetown, was founded in 1789 by the first Catholic bishop in the United States, the Jesuit Carroll.[3] In 1809, the Jesuits attempted to open a college in New York again, this time with great success. This college soon acquired such fame even among Protestants that Governor Tompkins, later Vice-President of the United States, considered it the best for educating his own children, and afterward always held its rector in the highest esteem.[4] After this followed a series of other colleges and seminaries down to the present time. Now the Jesuits have fourteen colleges under their direction.[5]

By their internal organization, Catholic colleges represent secular institutions of learning, something between secondary schools and a university. They are divided into faculties in which specialized groups of sciences are studied. Thus, the college in Georgetown has departments of literature, medicine, and law. It possesses various scientific equipment for this purpose: an astronomical observatory, a botanical greenhouse, a rich mineralogical and geological cabinet, and a library of 30,000 volumes. Students have a monthly journal, College Journal. Professors and rector are all members of the Jesuit order.[6] The other Catholic colleges, such as St. John’s College in New York, are distinguished by the same character. Education in them, up to the highest course, is permeated with a strictly Catholic spirit, almost with monastic discipline.[7] Despite the predominant secular character of the studies, education is directed in a strictly religious spirit, and many graduates of these colleges later enter the sacred ministry.[8] The colleges enjoy great popularity among Protestants, and the children of well-known representatives of the highest government circles are often sent to them.

By educating the male generation in its spirit, Roman Catholicism achieves only half its goal. Male colleges provide it with devoted defenders and supporters, literary and religious workers. But it also needs a conservative force, that more general and permanent element from which these workers could naturally emerge. Such an element can be found in the female generation. On the direction given to women, as mothers, depends the entire character of the mental, moral, and religious worldview of future generations. Therefore, Catholicism applies the most serious efforts to educating the young female generation in its spirit, and in this respect it achieves very important results.

Catholics began to show concern for establishing female educational institutions already in the past century, and the most zealous workers in this field were female religious orders. At the end of the last century, the Poor Clares, during their brief stay in America, opened a female school in Georgetown, which, upon passing into the hands of the Visitandines, soon flourished and came to be called an academy (1799). Earlier still, the Ursulines had founded a female academy in New Orleans and Louisiana, which then still belonged to France. When this territory was purchased by the United States in 1803, there were 170 pupils at the Ursuline academy. But the true era of female Catholic education begins with the present century, when female teaching orders began to arrive one after another at the shores of the New World, and upon their first settlement they established female schools. In 1809, a female academy was opened in Emmitsburg by Mother Seton, who had been converted to Catholicism; three years later, the Sisters of Loretto entered the field of female education; in 1818, the Ursulines penetrated into the very heart of Puritanism and founded a monastery with a school in Boston; in the same year, the Ladies of the Sacred Heart began their labors in educating the female generation in the South, especially in Missouri and Louisiana. In 1836, the Sisters of Saint Joseph arrived at the shores of the New World, and under their direction female academies flourished in various places. In 1840, the Sisters of Notre Dame founded a female school in Ohio. In the following year, the Sisters of the Holy Cross and the Sisters of Providence began working in Catholic education in Indiana; in 1847, the Teaching Sisters of Notre Dame founded their first academy in Milwaukee. Between 1840 and 1850, the Ladies of the Sacred Heart and the Sisters of Charity opened several schools in New York and other cities, and soon after came the Sisters of Mercy.[9] At present, there are five hundred and eleven (511) Catholic female academies or schools in the United States that have the curriculum of secondary institutions.[10] “We can point with pride and complete confidence to our academies for higher female education, which abound in all parts of the United States,” Bishop Becker exclaims with self-satisfaction.[11]

By their internal character, all these so-called “academies” are ordinary convent schools, resembling boarding schools run by Catholic sisters. The education provided in them can be called secondary, though many of them have preparatory classes for beginning pupils. The curriculum encompasses both classical and practical sciences, with special attention given to applied sciences in the area of ordinary household management. Many of the academies have natural history museums and astronomical apparatus.[12] The entire course of study naturally has a strictly religious character, and all discipline bears the spirit of monastic order. In announcements of student admissions, academies invariably declare the Christian character of the instruction. “Parents and guardians,” states the superior of Mount St. Agnes Academy, “may be assured that the sisters, under whose direction this institute is conducted, consider themselves obligated to justify the trust shown them by the entrusting of pupils to their care, by affording them Christian and virtuous education, by giving close attention to their mental development, the cultivation of refined manners necessary for society, and by surrounding them with that degree of care in physical matters which they could only have received under parental roof.”[13] “The discipline of the school,” states the superior of St. Peter’s Academy in Rome, New York, “is gentle but firm, founded upon those Christian principles of divine charity which form the source of all true refinement and which alone ensure happiness to pupils afterward. Pupils of all faiths are admitted, and every care is taken to avoid any interference with their religious convictions.”[14] “Parents may be assured,” declares the superior of the Academy of the Immaculate Conception, “that pupils will receive every attention compatible with gentle but firm management, and every effort will be made to implant in their souls those principles of virtue and religion which alone can make education beneficial. Young ladies of every religious faith are equally admitted; however, to maintain good order, all will be required to observe the external discipline of the institute.”[15] Pupils are received as boarders at fees ranging from 200 to 300 dollars per year.[16]

All these convent schools undoubtedly constitute a firm bulwark of Roman Catholicism in America, serve as the principal source of its strength, and give promise of success in the future. In them is educated all the Catholic female generation of the more or less wealthy class, which can afford the mentioned expenses for monastic education of their children. Moreover, they enjoy great popularity even among the Protestant population, and this presents another aspect of their significance for Roman Catholicism. “Who can calculate the sum of good accomplished by these institutions, the magnitude of the work they have performed?” exclaims a Catholic author. “Prudent Protestants know their worth and send their daughters to receive education from these virtuous and accomplished ladies who have devoted themselves to God. In many of our convent boarding schools, one-third, and in some even half of the pupils are Protestant girls. Parents concerned with the purity and dignity of their daughters know that they are completely safe with the brides of Christ.”[17] The fact that Protestants send their daughters to Catholic convent schools is not in doubt; it is acknowledged by Protestant leaders themselves and is a matter of concern and indignation to them. On this subject, many pamphlets of all kinds have been issued by various Protestant writers, in which the harm of these schools to Protestantism is depicted in bright colors, and stories often appear intended to show the proselyting significance of convent education.[18] The sharply hostile and indignant tone of these pamphlets only more clearly shows the significance of Catholic convent schools. “Much has been said,” writes a Protestant author, “about Romanism resorting chiefly to its educational institutions to influence the Protestant population. This is especially true regarding their female schools. While declaring that they do not teach Romanism in them, they calculate that seven out of every ten Protestant girls entering these schools become Roman Catholics. While thousands of their own children grow up unable to read and write, they will not hesitate to take in almost free a young girl from a prominent Protestant family, merely to pervert her to the Roman faith. Their various female academies serve as the best agency in our country for this purpose; and all Protestant parents who do not wish the ruin of their children should guard them against Roman Catholic schools as they would guard them from the gates of death.”[19] One lady, who received her education in a convent school in Montreal, states that of forty girls from Protestant families in the United States who were educated with her, thirty-eight became Catholics.[20] Another lady, who also received her education in a convent school, concluding her public address on Romanism, said: “Warn the people everywhere against the danger of sending their children to Roman Catholic schools. For genuine education they are the worst schools in the country, but they serve as the principal agencies of Romanism for converting children of respectable families to the Roman Church. I passed through a terrible ordeal, and I know what it is.”[21] “And yet,” exclaims a Protestant author in sorrow and indignation, “some Protestants, and even Methodists, send their children to Popish schools to save a few dollars or under the false pretext that these schools are better than Protestant ones. We have often heard of wealthy Methodist families who, living near their own denominational seminaries, sent their children to distant Catholic schools! In some cases this is done to promote trade with Catholics, and more often from political motives, thus sacrificing their sons and daughters to Moloch for the sake of securing Catholic votes.”[22] In some parts of the country, and especially in the Far West, where Protestantism has not yet established a more or less stable organization, Roman Catholicism asserts itself with special force, arousing terror among Protestants. “The Papists,” says one of the latter, “are rapidly conquering the great West. Their agency is the school. The property of the Roman Church in the new Kansas city of Leavenworth amounts, according to a published estimate, to 475,000 dollars, while the property of all other Christian denominations in the same city is less than 100,000 dollars. Sustained by all this wealth, the great agency of the Roman Church in the work of proselytism is the school, and especially the school for girls. Such schools are established in all large settlements, and they are filled with pupils mainly through the generosity of Protestants.”[23] Pointing to the particular zeal of Catholics in attracting young Protestant girls to their schools, the author says: “A Papist will go further to secure one girl, the future mother of a family, and perhaps an obedient and submissive ‘sister’ or nun, than to secure half a dozen boys. If now the girls are secured, then the families of the next generation will be in the power of the Catholic Church. You who have daughters for education, remember this!” exclaims the Protestant author of the pamphlet.[24]

Notwithstanding such warnings, Protestants fill Catholic convent schools with their daughters, and the latter enjoy great popularity among them. The reason for this must be sought first of all in the actual educational merits of these schools. They provide a complete education for young ladies, and most of them have the right to issue collegiate diplomas granting significant rights and privileges. Moreover, the strict discipline of these schools, usually located away from large urban centers, has great advantages in the eyes of Americans, most of whom regard the education of girls from a strict Puritan point of view, over public schools surrounded by the distracting frivolity of noisy city life. Finally, Protestants are attracted to these schools by the strictly religious character of the education given in them. Very many Protestants are dissatisfied with the existing system of public education, in which too limited a place is allotted to the religious element, and therefore prefer Catholic schools, in which religious instruction is given primary importance. The usual indifference of Protestants to outward denominational form allows them to disregard the warnings of the most zealous Protestants regarding Catholic proselytism in convent schools, and the earnest assurances of the “sisters” that they carefully avoid any intrusion into matters of religious conviction and any proselytism in religious teaching, reassure and dispel the fears of even suspicious Protestant parents. The extent to which Americans, regardless of religion, prefer monastic religious education to civil public education can be judged from the remarkable fact that Protestants themselves have their own convent schools similar to Catholic ones, in which they are also taught by “sisters” who fully model themselves on the Catholic form, even wearing Catholic monastic dress.[25]

[1] Murray, History, p. 454.

[2] Shea, History of Catholic Church in U.S., p. 329.

[3] Murray, History, p. 456.

[4] Shea, History, p. 360.

[5] Murray, History, p. 363.

[6] Murray, History, p. 457.

[7] We had the opportunity to visit St. John’s College personally and to examine its scholarly and disciplinary organization.

[8] Murray, History, pp. 461, 403, 464.

[9] Murray, History of Catholic Church in U.S., p. 442 and others.

[10] Sadlier, Catholic Directory for 1881, p. 25.

[11] Murray, History, p. 443.

[12] Murray, History, pp. 444–446.

[13] Sadlier, Catholic Directory for 1881, p. 10 in the advertisement section.

[14] Sadlier, Directory, p. 14.

[15] Sadlier, Directory, p. 17.

[16] Ibid, pp. 8, 16, 24, and others.

[17] Murray, History of Catholic Church in U.S., p. 143.

[18] One such story appeared at the beginning of the current year under the title: “Amy’s Probation” – “The Trial of Amy, or an Answer to the Question: Should Protestants Send Their Daughters to Catholic Convent Schools?” New York, 1881.

[19] Mattison, Romanism, its general decline, and its present condition and prospectus in the United States. New York, 1870, p. 46.

[20] Mattison, Romanism, p. 46.

[21] Ibid, p. 47.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Extract from the newspaper “Advocate,” cited in Mattison, Romanism, p. 61.

[24] Mattison, Romanism, p. 60.

[25] One such Protestant convent school, namely in Peekskill, New York, we had the opportunity to visit personally. The entire appearance of this Protestant monastery bears a Catholic character. It owes its founding to the Episcopalians, but includes Protestants of various denominations.

Part Five. Conflict of Roman Catholicism With the State in the Sphere of Public Education (Cont.) (7)

Thus, despite the disadvantageous position of Roman Catholicism in the United States regarding the system of public education, it has, thanks to the energy of monastic orders, managed to organize a strong system of specifically Catholic schools, which stands face to face with the system of public schools and even rivals them in popularity and public significance. But for its complete significance, it does not yet have such scientific height as would give it full scientific completeness in higher, university knowledge. America still has no higher schools with scientific curricula like European universities; nor are there such schools among Catholic colleges, but among the latter there is already a clear indication of a desire to attain the scientific level of European university knowledge. The second plenary Council of Baltimore expressed the wish “to have among the colleges one higher college or university which would complete the convenience and usefulness of all existing colleges and in which literature and all sciences, both secular and spiritual, would be taught.”[1] Since that time, the idea of founding a Catholic university has become dominant in Catholic literature, and its actual founding will undoubtedly be laid in the not distant future. With the founding of a university, Roman Catholicism in the United States will naturally acquire a new support on the soil of the American continent.

* * *

[1] Acta et Decreta, § 451.

Conclusion

I. Past history and hopes for the future. The views of Roman Catholic historians and publicists. A review of the main factors in the successful development of Roman Catholicism in America. The principle of separation of church and state. Independence of church life. Emigration. Monastic orders. The system of Catholic schools. Statistical table. – II. The weak points of Roman Catholicism. Lack of organic connection with the native core of the American people. The incompatibility of Roman Catholicism as a system with the public and national character of the American people. The paralyzing influence of Protestantism. The public school as an anti-Catholic agency and its significance in the demoralizing of the Catholic population. An attempt to establish an independent Catholic Church. – Practical conclusions from the investigation.

I

The process of century-long development of Roman Catholicism in the United States presented in this work shows that the factors of this development contain a sufficiently strong guarantee of its future successes in the country. The very process of development and strengthening presents such energy and rapidity of internal and external causes acting in it that the optimistic view of those vitally interested in the successes of Roman Catholicism in America should not seem surprising. Catholic publicists and historians cherish the brightest and most radiant hopes for the future and solemnly proclaim and predict that the future of America belongs to Roman Catholicism. “An observer a hundred years ago,” says Bishop Spalding, “in examining the religious condition of this country could not have supposed that the faith of a negligible handful of Catholics could have a future in the American republic; yet now there are good reasons to think that no other religion can be as confident of its future here as the Catholic. This is our only historical religion. Outside of it exist opinions and views, but here is an organism that has its roots deeply in the hidden strata of past centuries. I am far from the thought that the United States will become Catholic. We live not in an age when a nation, as such, wishes to become or remain Catholic; but what I affirm is that the actual condition of Catholicism in the United States is such that it inevitably leads to the conclusion that this church is destined to be a great and permanent factor in this country. The difficulties which it has had to overcome to ensure its present position are sufficient proof of its internal strength and vitality, while the increasing weakness of Protestant sectarianism shows that it cannot expect serious rivalry from any other religious faith.”[1] “The future of the United States,” says Hecker, “belongs to that religion which, through its conscious possession of truth and the divine love dwelling in it, succeeds in bringing the American people to unity in their religious faith and activity, as it truly is united in the political sense. It would be the utmost despair of reason to suppose that truth cannot be known with certainty. The thought that existing religious division will continue and increase forever can find admission only in base minds and can satisfy only a vulgar soul.”[2] “The future of America belongs to us,” says a Catholic publicist. “While the preachers of sectarian doctrines, in their efforts to impose their particular views on society and each other, have reached their apex and now descend into depths of nihilism and refined paganism, the Church (Catholic) in this republic enjoys the primordial vitality of youth and manifests unprecedented unanimity in spirit and activity. In its organization lies an immense reserve of hidden strength not yet revealed, a mine of intellectual wealth awaiting only the skilled hand of the explorer to bring it to the surface.”[3] “Glory and hope adorn the beautiful, unclouded career of Catholicism in America,” says Catholic historian Murray. “Its past history is magnificent. Its future is filled with hope. It will not be immodest to predict that half a century hence the Catholic Church will be the only great religious force that firmly will possess the American soul. The learned and honest seeker of truth will gladly hasten to its bosom. And thus the ancient faith, which conquered, civilized, and ennobled the rude peoples of early centuries, which elevated woman, saved Europe from returning to barbarism, developed art, science, philosophy, and literature, nurtured individuals, sanctified the family, and blessed society—this faith and this alone will save the land of Washington and Carroll and illuminate the path that will lead it to glorious destiny.”[4]

The excerpts presented from the chief organs of Catholic opinion in the country testify that Roman Catholicism cherishes hopes bordering on extreme optimism. While we cannot recognize their full validity, neither can we deny their logical deduction from the historical data of Roman Catholicism in the United States. These data undoubtedly authorize us to recognize its important successes in the future. The causes which enabled it to develop in one century from insignificance into a magnificent ecclesiastical organization exist in the very structure of the life of the country and as such will long continue to exist in the future, unless the progressive process of historical development substantially changes this structure or brings forth a new force that would stand in opposition to the conditions favorable to Roman Catholicism. Until such a radical change, if it ever takes place, the factors of Roman Catholic success will continue their action in a direction favorable to it. In the continuation of the action of these factors lies all the hope and all the strength of Roman Catholicism. In the preceding investigation, the relative significance of each of them has been shown in detail, but to present a complete picture we shall make a general review of these factors and their significance as conditions favorable to Roman Catholicism.

The most general cause that acted to enable unimpeded development of Roman Catholicism is the juridical principle of the separation of church from state and freedom of religious conscience. This principle had a twofold significance for it—negative and positive. In the former respect, it helped to free Roman Catholicism from the unfavorable conditions of oppressed status, removed the chains of bondage, and gave freedom to the development of its internal forces. In the latter respect, it gave it positive advantages over other faiths, since by virtue of this principle Roman Catholicism, meeting no obstacle or restriction from the state, could freely bring into the field of action forces that give it undoubted advantage over fragmented Protestantism; namely, the forces of its orders and centralizing organization. While in Europe, Protestantism and the Protestantized state, conscious of their insufficiency on purely moral grounds against Roman Catholicism, resort either to Kulturkampf or to persecution of Jesuits, in the United States such a phenomenon is impossible, and therefore Roman Catholicism conducts its organizing and proselytizing activities unimpeded and completely freely—at the expense of the opposing force of Protestantism, which remains only with the consciousness of its internal weakness and helpless polemic against the advancing and rapidly developing system.[5]

But favorable juridical conditions would be an inert factor in themselves if they had not encountered a strong and skillfully created and maintained organization of Roman Catholicism, which could use them for its purpose. Hence the active cause of the success of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States is precisely this organization, which, having its center in the pope as head of the Church, acts in full dependence on this center and directs its organizing forces to the point where at any given moment the greatest need for them is felt. The higher hierarchy is in full dependence on the central head of the Church, and in its disposal is an unfettered host of priests and members of monastic orders, so that by a single command from above an entire army of devoted champions and servants of Roman Catholicism can be moved to any part of the globe where the interests of the system require it.[6] Such a system made it possible to quickly satisfy the Church’s needs in the United States when a huge influx of settlers required extraordinary exertion of the Church’s forces. In this respect, the monastic orders rendered irreplaceable service to the Church, which, as shown above, emigrated to America parallel with popular emigration.

The chief source of the numerical growth of Roman Catholicism was European emigration, and without it, it could not at all have risen from the state of insignificance in which the proclamation of the political independence of the country found it. This cause will undoubtedly not continue to act with the same intensity as before, but it is equally certain that it will yet long serve as a rich source of numerical strength for Roman Catholicism in America. “The increase of Catholics in the United States,” says Hecker, “has been due almost entirely to European emigration, and when emigration decreases, will not the progress of the Church cease? The number of emigrants may decrease relatively to before, but for substantial reasons it will remain large. Emigration will continue because the freedom which the people enjoy under republican institutions, and the material advantages which the country offers settlers, especially in its cheap and fertile lands, are attractions in themselves sufficient to draw a large population to these shores. Millions of emigrants, having settled in the republic as a homeland, act as an attractive force for their relatives, friends, and former countrymen. The desire to escape the almost unbearable burden of military service through forced conscription, caused by frequent wars and dangers from rival nationalities threatening the political horizon of Europe, will drive a large number of young and vigorous people to a country that has no army and whose geographical position makes it free from any danger threatening its peace. Last and not the least cause in this respect is religious persecution; it sends a tremendous amount of people, especially thanks to Prince Bismarck, to a country of religious tolerance. In light of these and other causes, from Ireland, Germany, and other countries of Europe there will stream into the United States a constant flow of settlers. And since three-fifths of Europe’s population hold the Catholic faith, the Catholic Church in the United States can count, at least relatively, on its share in future settlers.”[7]

Another source of numerical strength, namely conversion from Protestantism, has not yet achieved proper development and does not have significant quantitative importance. But under the given circumstances it undoubtedly has an important role in the future, if only it is not paralyzed by another force which does not yet exist at the present time. The ferment in the American religious sea will not cease so long as the fundamental Protestant principle underlies it, and it will constantly produce tireless seekers of religious truth, who will find rest in the Roman Catholic Church, as representing the most stable principle in comparison with wandering Protestantism.

Apart from sources of numerical growth, an important element of the strength of the Roman Catholic Church is its vast property and great material resources. Thanks to them, it maintains its churches and monasteries, educational and charitable institutions in such a manner as to make it independent of any other external force except its own internal interests and needs, which places it in a more advantageous position than Protestant denominations and communities, which in this respect, lacking a firm principle, are entirely dependent on chance external conditions and often on the caprices of the trustee system. Through skillful use of the political and social influence connected with its wealth, numerical strength, and centralized organization, it is able to place its adherents in the highest public and political positions and to remove those who oppose it. As everywhere, Roman Catholicism in the United States is far from indifferent to the use of political means to achieve its ends.[8]

Finally, the most important source of strength for Roman Catholicism is its system of strictly Catholic education and learning. Its network extends throughout the country and it serves not only as a means of protecting the Catholic population from Protestant influence but also as an active agency of proselytism. This importance of the school system is fully recognized by the Church itself, which therefore spares no efforts for its maintenance and development. The Protestantized state, on the other hand, recognizes what a tool Roman Catholicism possesses in its own school system, and therefore in this area it stands in opposition to the Roman Catholic Church more than in any other respect. The struggle between Roman Catholicism and the state over the school question continues to the present time, and it is unknown how it will end. But it is certain that if the state in time yields and satisfies the demands of the Roman Catholic Church, the latter will obtain a new factor for its progressive development and strengthening in the United States.

The combined action of these causes and factors produced the rapid process of development and strengthening of Roman Catholicism in the United States which has been presented in this investigation. To more clearly depict this process, we offer a statistical table showing the gradual growth of the Roman Catholic Church from the time of the proclamation of American independence in 1776 to the present time.[9]

II

If Roman Catholicism in the United States had only those strong points which we have presented, then the optimistic hopes of Catholic publicists that the future of the North American republic belongs to Roman Catholicism would have solid grounds in reality. But together with its strong points, it also has weak ones, which paralyze its efforts to become more firmly established on American soil.

[1] Spalding, The Religious Mission of the Irish People, pp. 58, 59, 60, 61, – extracts. New York, 1880.

[2] Hecker, The Catholic Church in the U. States, p. 22, New York 1880.

[3] Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 592, art. The Next Phase of Catholicity in the United States. August, 1876.

[4] Murray, History of the Catholic Church in the U. S. pp. 537, 588. “It would not be presumptuous of Providence,” says the Catholic publicist, “to predict that the progress of the Church in this country in the future must be faster than before, and that perhaps not far distant is the age when this vast ‘continent of Mary’ will be one heart and under one name obey the sacred bride of the son of Mary.” Catholic World. Vol. IV, p. 460, art. The Philosophy of Conversion.

[5] When from the 1840s and 1850s Roman Catholicism began to grow and develop especially rapidly, Protestantism was seized with alarm and began a fierce polemic against it in literature and especially from the preaching pulpit. All the preaching literature of that period and even to the present time bears an extremely anti-Catholic character, and preachers strain themselves in seeking the most degrading names possible for the Roman Catholic Church, such as “the man of sin,” “the synagogue of Satan,” and the like. See Mattison, Romanism, p. 4, 5. Barnum, Romanism, p. 700.

[6] Barnum, Romanism as it is, p. 695.

[7] Hecker, Catholic Church in the U. S. p. 19.

[8] Cf. Barnum, Romanism, p. 696.

[9] The table was compiled based on the following sources: Murray, History, statistical tables on pp. 316, 384, and 416. Hecker, Catholic Church, statistical table on p. 18. Sadlier, Catholic Directory for 1881, table on p. 25. Catholic World, Vol. XXII, pp. 709, 710, and others.

Conclusion (Cont.)

Its weakest point is that which at the same time is the chief source of its strength, namely emigration. Its numerical strength and grandeur have been created almost entirely by European emigration, and the Roman Catholic Church looks to it as the chief source of its growth in the future. But in this very source lies its weakest element. Consisting chiefly of settlers, the Roman Catholic Church in America is itself foreign, not grown on American soil but transplanted from Europe. This deprives it of one of the essential elements necessary for strong organic development, namely the native sense of attachment to the country and its institutions. The mass of the Catholic population represents various national groups which, for the most part, have not yet had time to orient themselves on American soil and live by the traditions of their former homelands. Since these traditions correspond more to Roman Catholicism than to the national purposes of the country, there naturally arises a contradiction between the native American people, who have embodied their national sense in existing institutions, and the Roman Catholic population, which in its majority either does not recognize or does not understand these institutions. This contradiction constantly manifests itself throughout the entire history of Roman Catholicism in the United States, and while it has not been expressed in open repressive measures by the state because of the principle of separation of church and state, there is nonetheless a virtually continuous agitation against Roman Catholicism on the part of both the state and society, sometimes in the form of various ordinances aimed at forcibly introducing institutions repugnant to it (trusteeism, compulsory education), sometimes in open uprisings of the native population against foreign Catholics (nativism and Know-Nothingism). The consciousness of this contradiction has led to fear that Roman Catholicism aims at the destruction of the republic’s institutions and in any case is incompatible with them. This fear has taken firm root in the consciousness of the American people and is expressed at every notable public or political event. At last year’s election of mayor in New York, this feeling manifested itself with particular force, when huge meetings were assembled for open protest against the nominated candidate, who by common agreement was a worthy citizen, but at the same time was known for his Catholic zeal. Public opposition to Catholicism is expressed both in literature, and there the virulence against it reaches such extremes that in the heat of polemical zeal history is forgotten and obvious incompatibility of means to ends is overlooked. Anti-Catholic literature in the United States is very extensive. Against Roman Catholicism take up the pen not only Protestant theologians but ordinary public figures, statesmen, novelists, and unbelieving professors.[1] All this clearly testifies that the Roman Catholic Church is a foreign institution to the American people and has not yet adequately reconciled American republican consciousness to itself. It lives in America like a foreign army, with its own separate life, as a state within a state, is governed by foreign authority, and consists of foreign members. In this lies its organic weakness, and as a consequence it does not and for a long time in the future will not have that stability of position in the country which is possible only through complete acclimatization on American soil and through accordance of its principles with the principles and spirit of American republican institutions. Since in the latter respect its principles of strict centralization stand in clear contradiction with the spirit of American socio-political organization, complete identification or reconciliation of it with the national ideal of the American people seems entirely impossible and can be achieved only under conditions of concession from one side or the other. But to suppose this concession from American society and the state would mean supposing the possibility of their renouncing their internal essence, developed by history and organic development of the internal national character, which is obviously impossible. On the other hand, to suppose concession from Roman Catholicism in favor of the spirit of the American people would mean supposing another impossibility, for with concession to the national character, Roman Catholicism would lose its essential character as a rigid, centralized system and become a national Church, for which strict papalism has no other name but schism.[2] Thus the contradiction lies in the very essence of the systems of Roman Catholicism and American socio-political organization, and it will forever serve as an insurmountable obstacle to the realization of the radiant hopes of Catholic publicists. This contradiction undoubtedly also explains the fact that, despite the strengthened process of national centralization after the civil war and its undoubted significance for religious centralization, the Roman Catholic Church cannot derive all the benefit from this process which its very essence would present. The people seek a strong unified church that would fully correspond to its strong unified national organism, and at first glance they seem to find it in Roman Catholicism; but at the same time they soon recognize the difference between the systems of centralization itself. The people seek an independent, organic, internal centralization, while Roman Catholicism represents for them a foreign organization with its driving center outside their country. This contradiction paralyzes movement in favor of Roman Catholicism and explains the fact that conversions to the Roman Catholic Church are far fewer than they might be if the Church coincided with the spirit of the national ideal.[3]

Because of the incompatibility of Roman Catholicism with the principles of the national ideal of the American people presented above, the Roman Catholic Church does not have a solid foundation in its struggle with Protestantism. The latter, by its principle and actual fragmentation, does not bear comparison with Roman Catholicism as a dogmatic system and a single strong organism; but at the same time it finds strong support in its greater correspondence with the national way of life. Because of this, it stands closer to the state and imparts a Protestant character to the latter. As a result, Protestantism was able to conclude a kind of alliance with the state for the purpose of opposing Roman Catholicism. The former is hostile to it as an opposing Church system, while the latter is no less hostile to it as an opposing political system, animated by a spirit hostile to itself. From this they jointly resist the hostile system, and Roman Catholicism in many respects must engage in struggle not only with Protestantism as a religious teaching, as it should be under the principle of separation of Church from state, but with the state itself, which recognizes as state institutions those establishments which by their very essence are Protestant institutions. The chief institution of this kind is the system of public schools (Public school system). The chief aim of this system apparently is the realization of the fundamental principle of the state, namely the principle of religious equality of all faiths and sects without preference of one to the others, to achieve which the school has been secularized, while retaining the most general forms of religious element. But by such secularization the state only openly took the side of Protestantism, which is satisfied with general forms of religiosity, and thereby directed the most powerful instrument in the matter of forming the moral-religious and mental character of the people against Roman Catholicism, which considers such a school not only insufficient for itself but directly harmful. Hence the open struggle of the Roman Catholic Church with the state over the system of public education, and it naturally does not contribute to its consolidation on American soil. In its opposition to the system of public education adopted by the state, the Roman Catholic Church undoubtedly has serious grounds, since this system, despite its “non-sectarian” character, is in essence Protestant, and the entire arrangement of school instruction as independent from direct Church direction is permeated with a Protestant character. As a result, it serves as a powerful instrument of Protestantism in its struggle with Roman Catholicism. The children of Catholic parents, having gone through this school, lose the specific character of Catholic religiosity and become either indifferent to the Catholic system or entirely Protestant.

Relying on its advantages as a native American system and as standing closer to the fundamental principles of the public and national life of the country, Protestantism was able not only passively to resist Roman Catholicism but also to make gains at its expense. These gains were especially significant when Roman Catholicism did not yet represent a strong organization capable of retaining within the Church the mass of Catholic population flowing in from Europe. When Irish emigration poured into America in the 1830s and 1840s, the available resources of the Roman Catholic Church proved insufficient for the suddenly arising need, and masses of settlers remained outside the actual organization of the Church. Many of them naturally were lost among the Protestant population and succumbed to the influence of Protestantism, especially since religious influence found strong support in public opinion at that time.[4] These losses were very considerable. The Roman Catholic Bishop England, in presenting a report in 1836 to the Congregatio de propaganda fide on Roman Catholic emigration arriving in the United States, expressed his sorrow over great losses for the Church from this emigration. “If I speak,” he writes, “on the basis of the data presented, that we ought, in the absence of loss, to have five million Catholics in the United States, while in fact we have fewer than one and a half million, then our loss should be at least three and three-quarters million; and persons thus lost are found among various sects in a number three times greater than all the Catholic population of the country.”[5] This calculation is undoubtedly exaggerated, but the very exaggeration testifies to real serious losses. Other Catholic prelates also testify to such losses. When in 1851 the Irish Catholic scholar Mullen came to the United States to investigate the religious condition of Irish emigrants, Bishop Reynolds said to him: “You will render great service to religion (Catholicism) if, upon returning to Ireland, you will go from parish to parish and tell the people not to destroy their immortal souls by emigrating here.”[6] Archbishop Hughes also told him: “The people in Ireland do not fully understand the condition of emigrants here; thousands of them are lost in the great cities, and even in the country faith has died out in many places.”[7] According to information gathered by Mullen himself, the Catholic Church through emigration lost up to two million souls.[8] In 1853, the Roman Catholic pastor in Pennsylvania, Reardon, wrote to his friend in England regarding Irish emigrants: “They hurry almost certainly to the ruin of their souls, while their material condition improves only slightly. For the love of Jesus try to keep your people at home, for with every person you retain, you snatch a soul from hell.”[9] If the very people most devoted to Roman Catholicism—the Irish—perish in multitudes for the Church upon emigration to America, this must be said even more forcibly about German Catholics. They soon succumb to Protestant influence and abandon Roman Catholicism. Archbishop Purcell in Cincinnati openly complained that “the Catholic Church is losing hundreds of German members, who prefer Protestant preaching in German to Catholic preaching in English and who, moreover, wish to belong to a larger number of societies than the Church allows.”[10] By 1850, as a result of this, there were already whole parishes made up exclusively of converts from Roman Catholicism, who had as their preachers Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, and other pastors.[11]

Protestantism with its influence invades the internal organization of the Roman Catholic Church and undermines its foundations. We have seen how this Protestant influence expressed itself in trusteeism and how much effort the Roman Catholic Church had to expend to suppress it. But it is not even now fully suppressed and as is known is even legally supported in some states, for example, Massachusetts. And in general, the Protestantized state reluctantly inclines to recognize for Roman Catholicism full rights to manage its Church property in accordance with its own canons and, on the contrary, supports the Protestant system of parish self-government, which provides food for trusteeism. Until full recognition by the state of the rights of Roman Catholicism to self-government in the matter of property, trusteeism will constantly threaten the organization of the Church and take away from it many fruitless efforts.

[1] The well-known work of Draper “The Conflicts of Science and Religion” is nothing other than a pamphlet directed against Roman Catholicism.

[2] To what degree Roman Catholicism is intolerant of national tendency in the Church is evident from the fact that the Curia saw schismatic tendency even in the very name “national,” which was proposed to be given to the Second Baltimore Council. Catholic World, Vol. VII, p. 619.

[3] Catholic publicists are conscious of the contradiction between the Roman Catholic system and the fundamental principles of American political and social life, and of all the disadvantages to the Church resulting from this, and therefore with particular insistence strive to smooth over this contradiction, even arguing that the Roman Catholic system, both in all Church organization and in the structure of monastic orders, is a model of republicanism and democratic self-government. But such efforts even more clearly reveal the true character of the system. See Hecker, The Catholic Church, pp. 8–18. Catholic World Vol. XXIII art. Church and Liberty. Murray History, Ch. III; Catholic World, Vol. IV, art. The Church and Monarchy, and so forth.

[4] Even in the 1840s public-Protestant opinion was so strong and exclusive that less bold Catholics did not have the courage to acknowledge their belonging to the Roman Catholic Church out of fear of losing public respect. Oral account of a long-time Catholic resident, painter Mr. Carter, in New York.

[5] National Magazine, Vol. VI, p. 565. Mattison, Romanism, p. 77.

[6] Barnum, Romanism as it is, p. 673.

[7] Barnum, Romanism, p. 673. Mattison, Romanism, p. 79.

[8] In “The American and Foreign Christian Union” for August 1852 the following extract from Mullen’s report was printed: Catholic emigrants from Ireland 1835–1844 = 800,000, 1844–1852 = 1,200,000, from other countries = 250,000. American Catholic population over 12 years of age in 1840 = 1,200,000. Increase through births = 500,000. Number of converts = 20,000. The number of Catholics should have been 3,970,000. In fact 1,960,000. Quantity of persons lost by Roman Catholicism in the United States 1,990,000.

[9] Mattison, Romanism. p. 79.

[10] Barnum, Romanism, p. 673, 674.

[11] Barnum, Romanism, p. 674.

Conclusion (Cont.) (2)

The Protestantized system of public education, despite all efforts by Roman Catholicism to counter it through the establishment of specifically Catholic schools, continues to exert its Protestantizing influence on the Catholic population. Many of the latter, due to their poverty, cannot bear the double tax (for maintaining state schools and maintaining Catholic schools) and therefore are obliged by necessity to place their children in the secularized state schools. The result is not only individual conversions to Protestantism[1] but also the development of indifference, which prepares the ground for the reception and spread of Protestant ideas. Without question, dependent on such influence from the Protestant school is the fact that in recent times there have appeared with increasing frequency attempts at reform movements among the Catholic population and more often preachers of the “independent Catholic Church” have come forward. True, such attempts so far have proven unsuccessful and offer no guarantee of successful development, but the very fact of their appearance indicates the existence of soil more or less suitable for them.[2]

Finally, an element of weakness for Roman Catholicism is the fact that the Roman Catholic population, consisting predominantly of the lower classes and masses of immigrants, falls far short in comparison with the Protestant population regarding general development and education. The secularized state school, which according to its system is not recognized by Catholics, but which Protestants of all denominations freely utilize, stands high in educational terms. Directing all its efforts toward higher intellectual development, even if it errs in one-sidedness, it achieves its direct purpose with considerable success, and through it is developed that comparatively modest but universal level of intellectual development which, in terms of practical education and judgment, places Americans above all other peoples of the world. Catholics, meanwhile, cannot utilize such a school, and while their efforts in establishing their own schools are not entirely fruitless, these schools nevertheless cannot equal the state schools. Therefore the Catholic population as a whole stands far below the Protestant population,[3] and by this very fact Roman Catholicism is deprived of a considerable portion of its influence, since from the lower degree of intellectual development of its followers, judgment is transferred to the system itself, as if hostile to intellectual progress.

Thus from the foregoing it is evident that while Roman Catholicism has many advantages over Protestantism as a strong, historically developed, dogmatically principled system, which has enabled it to forge for itself a brilliant path of hundred-year historical development in the United States, at the same time it has its weak points, which completely paralyze the successful action of the system and give Protestantism advantages which it could not have by its own nature when encountering another system—historically strong and great, but lacking the defects of Roman Catholicism.

With the foregoing the essence of our subject is exhausted. If investigation must always be completed with a practical conclusion, it may consist in the following: the historical life of Roman Catholicism in the United States presents much evidence that suggests hope for the possibility of success on American soil for such a church as would, while possessing all the historical greatness, the strength of ecclesiastical organization, and the integrity of dogmatic system that places Roman Catholicism above Protestantism, at the same time be free from the weak points that completely paralyze the successful action of the Roman Catholic Church on American soil. We mean the holy Orthodox Catholic Church. In our deep conviction, the social and religious life of the American people presents much evidence upon which the Orthodox Church can rely with far greater confidence and hope than Roman Catholicism, as we have endeavored to show in the introduction.

* * *

[1] Mattison with satisfaction notes that “annually up to two thousand Romanists convert to the better faith,” Romanism, p. 74.

[2] In 1879 in New York two “independent Catholic churches” suddenly arose, of which one lasted only three months and proved to be a speculative scheme (See Church Herald 1880 no. 22 and 23 in our “American Notes”), while the other exists to the present day and in the person of its pastor, a former Catholic priest James O’Connor, conducts rather notable agitation. We have had many occasions to be in his church and listen to his sermons directed against Roman Catholicism. The audience usually numbers up to 1,000 people, who enthusiastically applaud him at pathetic moments, and many of them regard him with warm sympathy, generously helping him with money. We happened to witness O’Connor gather up to 100 dollars from his listeners in one evening after his sermon for the needs of the church. This year he published “The First Annual Report of the Independent Catholic Church,” from which it is evident that during the year he “admitted to his church more than 300 persons, who declared their conversion from the Roman Catholic Church,” See First Annual Report of the Independent Catholic Church, New York, 1881, p. 3. Less successful are the affairs of his other colleague “Bishop” McNamara. Recently after an anti-Catholic sermon in Hartford, in the state of Connecticut, upon leaving the hall he was met by a numerous crowd of Catholics who, after whistles and verbal insults, resorted to throwing stones, so that the “Bishop” was able to reach his hotel safely only under police protection, having suffered only minor bruises and damage to his hat, which was knocked off by a stone. Telegraph in N. Y. Herald, April 2, 1881.

[3] Catholics themselves acknowledge this. “One must confess,” says the Catholic publicist, “that in respect to human knowledge Catholics in the United States in the general mass stand behind their non-Catholic fellow citizens. We acknowledge this backwardness and can satisfactorily explain its causes.” Catholic World, Vol. XXIII, p. 584.

Scripture Index

Every Scripture reference identified in this book, sorted in canonical Bible order. Tap a reference to jump to the verse where it appears.

Matthew
Matthew 11:37–38Preface
John
John 10:16Preface
Acts

Acts 4:10Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (12)

Romans

Romans 13:1–5Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (12)

Colophon

Roman Catholicism in America
by Professor Alexander Lopukhin.

This edition was produced by
Royal Archives.

The cover features
Mission San Carlos Borromeo (Carmel Mission)
by Edwin Deakin (American, 1838–1923), Wikimedia Commons, which is in the public domain.

The text is set in Palatino and Georgia.

The first edition of this ebook was released on
August 16, 2026.

Table of Contents

Title Page
Copyright
Introduction
Preface
Preface (Cont.)
Preface (Cont.) (2)
Preface (Cont.) (3)
Preface (Cont.) (4)
Preface (Cont.) (5)
Preface (Cont.) (6)
Preface (Cont.) (7)

Part One. The First Steps of Roman Catholicism on the Continent of North America

Part One. The First Steps of Roman Catholicism on the Continent of North America (Cont.)

Part One. The First Steps of Roman Catholicism on the Continent of North America (Cont.) (2)

Part One. The First Steps of Roman Catholicism on the Continent of North America (Cont.) (3)

Part One. The First Steps of Roman Catholicism on the Continent of North America (Cont.) (4)

Part One. The First Steps of Roman Catholicism on the Continent of North America (Cont.) (5)

Part One. The First Steps of Roman Catholicism on the Continent of North America (Cont.) (6)

Part One. The First Steps of Roman Catholicism on the Continent of North America (Cont.) (7)

Part One. The First Steps of Roman Catholicism on the Continent of North America (Cont.) (8)

Part Two. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development

Part Two. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.)

Part Two. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.) (2)

Part Two. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.) (3)

Part Two. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.) (4)

Part Two. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.) (5)

Part Two. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.) (6)

Part Two. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.) (7)

Part Two. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.) (8)

Part Two. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.) (9)

Part Two. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.) (10)

Part Two. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.) (11)

Part Two. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.) (12)

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.)

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (2)

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (3)

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (4)

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (5)

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (6)

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (7)

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (8)

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (9)

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (10)

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (11)

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (12)

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (13)

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (14)

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (15)

Section Three. The External and Internal Growth of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (16)

Part Four. The Material and Moral Strength of Roman Catholicism

Part Four. The Material and Moral Strength of Roman Catholicism (Cont.)

Part Four. The Material and Moral Strength of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (2)

Part Four. The Material and Moral Strength of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (3)

Part Four. The Material and Moral Strength of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (4)

Part Four. The Material and Moral Strength of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (5)

Part Four. The Material and Moral Strength of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (6)

Part Four. The Material and Moral Strength of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (7)

Part Four. The Material and Moral Strength of Roman Catholicism (Cont.) (8)

Part Five. Conflict of Roman Catholicism With the State in the Sphere of Public Education

Part Five. Conflict of Roman Catholicism With the State in the Sphere of Public Education (Cont.)

Part Five. Conflict of Roman Catholicism With the State in the Sphere of Public Education (Cont.) (2)

Part Five. Conflict of Roman Catholicism With the State in the Sphere of Public Education (Cont.) (3)

Part Five. Conflict of Roman Catholicism With the State in the Sphere of Public Education (Cont.) (4)

Part Five. Conflict of Roman Catholicism With the State in the Sphere of Public Education (Cont.) (5)

Part Five. Conflict of Roman Catholicism With the State in the Sphere of Public Education (Cont.) (6)

Part Five. Conflict of Roman Catholicism With the State in the Sphere of Public Education (Cont.) (7)

Conclusion
Conclusion (Cont.)
Conclusion (Cont.) (2)
Scripture Index
Colophon