Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "undefined".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    July 2, 1896

    “What Is Patriotism in America?” 1Delivered to a large and enthusiastic audience in the Metropolitan Temple, San Francisco, June 14, 1896 The Signs of the Times 22, 26, pp. 2-7 (402-407).

    An address by
    ALONZO T. JONES
    (Author of the “Two Republics,” “Rights of the People,” etc.

    The Great Principle Involved—The Struggle in Virginia—Memorials by Presbyterians and Baptists—Work of Jefferson and Madison—Declaration of Independence—Object of the Constitution—Recent Decision of the Supreme Court—The Steps Romeward—Our Duty.

    FELLOW-CITIZENS, LOVERS OF RIGHT AND TRUTH: As announced, I am to discuss before you this afternoon, “What Is Patriotism in This Country?” That is a question which needs now to be understood. Of course, in any country, in brief, patriotism is love of country. But love of country is more than love of the mountains and hills, the plains, valleys, rivers, and rills of which the country is made up. So I will read the established definition of patriotism, in order that we may proceed on firm ground: “Patriotism is the spirit which prompts obedience to the laws of one’s country, and to the support and defense of its existence, rights, and institutions.” So you can see that love of country extends to the love of its institutions and the principles which make a country what it is in all respects. If it were simply the mountains and hills, valleys and plains, of which the country is made up, I could be just as patriotic in Germany as I can here. Yet can therefore see that it is not the material earth, but the principles, which make the country what it is.SITI July 2, 1896, page 402.1

    The Principles of This Government.

    In order for us to know what patriotism is in this country, it will be necessary for us to know what the principles are which make this country what it is, and what is has been all these years, and to see what will be the results if these principles are not maintained; because there is no question whatever but what the principles upon which the nation was founded in the beginning are what has made the country what it has been all this time. And any forgetting or violation of these principles must destroy our country for what it has been, and make is precisely what these feared it would be who made it what they did make, in order that it might be what it has been.SITI July 2, 1896, page 403.1

    The Great Principle Involved.

    The chief principle which is now involved in national existence was the chief one which was involved when the country was made, when the government was established; and that is the question of religion and the state. What are their relationship, if they have any? How shall they stand one towards the other if there be any relationship between them? It is to these questions and that particular principle to which I shall call your attention to-day; because, as our fathers well knew and said, it is only in the separation of religion and the state that religious liberty can ever be assured to the people; and only by religious liberty being assured to the people can civil liberty ever be assured to the people.SITI July 2, 1896, page 403.2

    Before the Declaration of Independence was made, the colony of Virginia published a declaration of principles, of which this is a part:—SITI July 2, 1896, page 403.3

    That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force of violence, and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience.SITI July 2, 1896, page 403.4

    That was made before the Declaration of Independence. Virginia had an established religion, as the colonies all had, except Rhode Island, and they were trying to free themselves from the establishment of religion. That was the first step. As soon as the Declaration of Independence had been made, the Presbyterians, Quakers, and Baptists of Virginia followed the lead that was made by the Colonial Legislature and sent in a petition to the General Assembly, asking for the disestablishment of religion in the new state of Virginia; and one reason which they gave for the disestablishment of religion was this:—SITI July 2, 1896, page 403.5

    It is impossible for the magistrate to adjudge the right of preference among the various sects which profess the Christian faith without erecting a claim to infallibility, which would lead us back to the Church of Rome. 2Rights of the People, p. 8.SITI July 2, 1896, page 403.6

    That petition was presented to the Legislature, where Jefferson and Madison actively supported it. Washington was not in a place where he could support it at that time, but he did support it, however. But Jefferson and Madison were the leaders in the support of that petition for the disestablishment of religion in Virginia. The bill passed, and religion was disestablished in Virginia. No sooner was that done, however, than an attempt was made to re-establish it. That campaign had been conducted practically, you see, against the establishment of some particular church. The Episcopalian Church was the established church at that time, and the campaign being conducted along this line, the minds of the people had been directed only to the disestablishment of a particular church or the separation of a particular church from the state. So that when that church was disestablished, and there was a separation of church and state in that sense, there was a movement made to establish religion—not any particular denomination, not any particular profession—but general Christianity. This was presented in the form of a bill, and establishing a provision for teachers of the Christian religion,—not the teachers of any particular denomination. But those who had presented the original petition and carried it through, against the establishment of religion, knew that the principles upon which they had done that were equally involved in this other, and, in the right against it, they put forth the same arguments with more added to them. They said again, if that is done, somebody will have to decide what is the Christian religion, and, in order to do that, as there are many phases of the Christian religion, and many denominations, each one professing to be the Christian religion, it will devolve upon the magistrate in some way to decide which one of these denominations most fully represents the Christian religion, and just as soon as that is done by the magistrate, it will lead the nation and the people back to the Church of Rome; and they said, We don’t want that. So they repeated that “it is impossible for the magistrate to adjudge the right of preference among the various sects which profess the Christian faith without erecting a claim to infallibility which would lead us back to the Church of Rome.” They truly ask:—SITI July 2, 1896, page 403.7

    Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions, may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects?SITI July 2, 1896, page 403.8

    Who does not see that now? They supposed everybody ought to see that. There were enough in Virginia to see it, and to say that it could not be done. Who does not see now that the same authority that can establish the Christian religion in exclusion of all other religions, can also establish any particular sect of religion in exclusion of all other sects. They said that the first principles of this bill “differed from the Inquisition only in degree.” They said this was only “the first step,” to which the Inquisition would certainly be the “last, in the career of the intolerance;” and they did not propose to take that first step.SITI July 2, 1896, page 403.9

    Again they said that “it is right for every man to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience,” and that he was responsible only to the Judge of all for the exercise of that right. That principle was the principle upon which the Gospel was first propagated, the principle of the Reformation from popery. That right of worship can never be transferred to another. So you can see that the one thing above every other thing that our fathers had in mind when they established religious liberty in this country, was to escape the domination of the Church of Rome. They said so in so many words. They said, “We want the people and the country to be kept forever free from it.” Now, in order that the people and the country may be kept free from the domination of the Church of Rome, they saw that it was essential that no favor be shown to any religion by law or by the government in any way. They said that in so many words, they said it plainly, and they stuck to it, until religious liberty absolute and complete was established in the state of Virginia. This was before the national government was formed, while these colonies had become free and independent states, as of right they ought to be.SITI July 2, 1896, page 403.10

    Now, that was done after a long discussion, in which Jefferson was engaged. It continued nearly ten years. It took nearly ten years to decide that contest in the state of Virginia. But so certain did it appear that the bill establishing a provision for teachers of Christian religion would pass if it were allowed to come before the assembly, that a motion was made simply to gain time. They were so certain that it would pass, that Jefferson and Madison did not want it to come to a vote. Madison made a motion that the whole subject be postponed until the next General Assembly. In the meantime, however, the bill was printed and distributed among the people, so that the next General Assembly could be instructed upon the question when they came together, and could vote directly upon the instructions which they had received. Fortunately, the motion was carried. As soon as this was accomplished, Madison wrote a remonstrance against it, and, along with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, it was one of theSITI July 2, 1896, page 404.1

    Grandest Public Documents

    that was ever made. Most people have forgotten that it ever existed, and many who remember that it existed have forgotten what it says. But I hope you will never rest until you hunt up that memorial and remonstrance which was written by Madison at that time, and read it over and over again until every principle and every sentence in it become ingrained in your very make-up. That you may see what is involved in it, I will read only a few passages from the remonstrance; but before doing that I will read a few sentences from the bill that was framed by Thomas Jefferson—SITI July 2, 1896, page 404.2

    Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who, being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time [Of course it was so. Our fathers were right on that subject, and we, their children, need to see what they said, and remain right]; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical. 3“Rights of the People,” p. 70.SITI July 2, 1896, page 404.3

    That is so. Yet doubtless you all know that within the last ten years the United States Government, and you the people, and we the people, who compose the government, have been compelled to pay out money for the propagation of opinions which we did not believe. The Congress of the United States has been making contributions of money to several different churches in the past, but now to the Catholic Church alone, because the others got ashamed of it and quit. But this present year hundreds of thousands of dollars of United States money has gone to the Catholic Church for the propagation of her opinions. Well, Jefferson and our fathers said this thing was sinful and tyrannical. William S. Linton, of Michigan, went up to Congress, and he made such a stir over the thing that it is being shut down upon, but not nearly as suddenly as it ought to be.SITI July 2, 1896, page 404.4

    It is the same way with religion in the schools, taxing them to pay contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which they do not believe. It will never do. I read further:—SITI July 2, 1896, page 404.5

    Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, or molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or beliefs; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.SITI July 2, 1896, page 404.6

    Now for the remonstrance by Madison, in 1779:—SITI July 2, 1896, page 404.7

    We the subscribers, citizens of the said commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration a bill printed by order of the last session of the General Assembly, entitled “A Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” and conceiving that the same, if finally armed with the sanction of law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free state, to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said bill:—SITI July 2, 1896, page 404.8

    Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth “that religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.” The religion, then, of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only upon the evidence contemplated in their own minds, can not follow the dictates of other men. It is unalienable also, because what is here right towards men is a duty towards the Creator.... True it is that no other rule exists by which any question which may divide a society can be ultimately determined than the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass upon the rights of the minority. 4“Rights of the People,” pp. 26-102. Blakely’s “American State Papers,” pp. 27-34. Jones, “Two Republics,” pp. 667-692.SITI July 2, 1896, page 404.9

    These were some of the things that were said, I read simply enough to show you the trend of the document. It was knowing what was in that and sticking to it that made our country what it was, and what it has been all these years, and only by knowing that and sticking to it, can the country remain what it has been, the home, the very citadel, of liberty, both civil and religious, for all mankind.SITI July 2, 1896, page 404.10

    Now, the two points which we have made so far are these: Our fathers wanted the country and the people to be forever free from the domination of Rome and popery, and in order to do that they said that the government must be free, and separated entirely from any religion of any kind, in any way, and that by doing that they would be sure of not being led back to Rome.SITI July 2, 1896, page 404.11

    The Constitution.

    It is now proper for us to look around and see if there are any special principles being revived, against which our fathers fought in the establishment of this government; and if we find such, then learn from the original principles of this government, and the fathers of this government, just what to do. “Patriotism,” “patriotic,” and “patriot” all come from a Greek word referring to forefathers. So patriotism in a country, love of country, is not simply the love of the earth and the mountains of which the country is composed, but of the institutions and the principles which our forefathers established, which have made our country what it has been so far. Now, let us look again at what they said.SITI July 2, 1896, page 404.12

    There was a movement then to establish religion, and those who opposed it were charged with anarchy, atheism, and every other epithet that the people chose to apply to them; but they were right, and they knew it, and they held to the right, regardless of what the people said.SITI July 2, 1896, page 404.13

    While that campaign was going on in Virginia, which finally ended in the passage of this bill written by Jefferson, and which was finally passed by a majority of four to one in the Legislature, the national government was being formed. The people generally were discussing the relation of religion to the state, and the relation of the Christian religion to the state, and these principles of religious liberty went into the United States Constitution.SITI July 2, 1896, page 404.14

    When the Constitution was presented to the people, there was this declaration, and only one upon this subject, that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust in these United States. That was right; but that is all that the original Constitution said upon the subject. The Constitution of the United States was thus made, deriving its powers from the people, and those powers were delegated powers only, and the powers not delegated were reserved. If the Constitution said nothing upon the subject, it would have been forever excluded, but they did not show their opinion that no religious test should ever be required as a qualification for any public office in these United States.SITI July 2, 1896, page 404.15

    That was submitted to the people in just that way, but the people were not satisfied that the Constitution should simply say nothing particular on the subject. The people insisted that the Constitution should declare in so many words that the government should not legislate on the question of religion. So when the Constitution was submitted to the people for ratification, objection was made to it in every state upon this point, and in some of the states, the only condition upon which they would ratify it was upon the consideration that an amendment would be made to the Constitution, stating that the government should not legislate upon religious matters.SITI July 2, 1896, page 404.16

    Influence of Massachusetts.

    Everything depended upon whether it was ratified by Massachusetts. If she refused to ratify it, her influence would defeat it. In the convention in which Massachusetts decided to ratify the Constitution, this very subject of its relationship to religion was discussed fully, and it was decided in favor of the government having nothing whatever to do with any question of religion. So you see the question was discussed in the making of the Constitution, and the one state whose influence in the ratification of the Constitution carried the rest, and assured the Constitution and government as our fathers made it—the one question upon which they stood was the question of the relation of the church and state, and in the first amendment which was made to the Constitution, it was declared that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”SITI July 2, 1896, page 404.17

    Then in 1797 Washington made that treaty with Tripoli, in which he and the fathers who originally made the Constitution, and had discussed this question thoroughly, said that “the government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion.”SITI July 2, 1896, page 404.18

    You see, therefore, from the Declaration of Independence to the adoption of the national Constitution and the first amendment to it, the one subject which led all other subjects, was that question of the separation, the utter separation, of religion from legislation. And why was it done?—Done that this country might not be led back to the Church of Rome. They said so. It was done in order that popery might not dominate here. They said so. That is the principle upon which the government was founded, and it is patriotism to stick to these principles.SITI July 2, 1896, page 405.1

    But now, mark, in order that that might be done, they said that no legislation in favor of Christianity and no magistrate’s decision can be allowed; for it is impossible for the magistrate to do this without leading us back to the Church of Rome.SITI July 2, 1896, page 405.2

    Well, now, we are ready to see whether anything has been done, whether any of these consequences have begun to follow. I suppose that you here are familiar with the fact that the Church of Rome has made some statements with reference to taking possession of this country. She has made them, and she has made them plainly, all the way down from Leo XIII. to names that are familiar with you here in San Francisco. But, friends, I am compelled to say to you, and I will give you evidence that will satisfy you, that the Church of Rome has more foundation for that than perhaps you have thought, and more than a good many people have thought, because of there having been done that thing which our fathers said never could be done without leading us back to the Church of Rome. This thing has been done in an official way, so that there has been an official foundation laid for Rome to assert predominance. That is the worst part of the thing. If there were no foundation upon which she could stand and make her declaration, there would not be near so much in it, altho there is enough in that statement whenever it is made, to cause the people to wake up and say that it is time to look out.SITI July 2, 1896, page 405.3

    The Steps Romeward

    Now, in 1892, the Supreme Court declared in a decision from the bench, that “this is a Christian nation.” Our fathers said it is impossible for the magistrate to do anything of the kind “without erecting a claim to infallibility, which would lead us back to the Church of Rome.” The Supreme Court did it, and then entered upon a long argument to prove it. It is true that they did not get any evidence from Jefferson, or Madison, or Washington, but they did from Ferdinand and Isabella, who established the Inquisition. The first citation which the Supreme Court of the United States makes to prove that this is a Christian nation in the meaning of the Constitution, is a quotation from Ferdinand and Isabella in sending out Columbus to take possession of the lands he should discover, in the name of the Catholic god. Now, if nothing more than that had been done, you could see what would inevitably follow. When the Supreme Court of the United States said this is a Christian nation, and proved it by documents of Ferdinand and Isabella, Rome said, “Of course it is, and it is a Catholic Christian nation.” This is the mischief of the thing. She has said that over and over. She has said it since that declaration was made by the Supreme Court of the Untied States. She said it upon the declaration of the Supreme Court, and proofs furnished by the court. I do not say that she is right. I do not say that the court is right; but when the Court lays the foundation, is it surprising that she should build upon it?SITI July 2, 1896, page 405.4

    That decision was rendered in February, 1892. In July of that same year, Leo XIII. published a letter in the United States, in which he said:—SITI July 2, 1896, page 405.5

    “What the Church has done for other nations in the past, she will now do for the United States.”SITI July 2, 1896, page 405.6

    But she never said it before.SITI July 2, 1896, page 405.7

    By the way, friends, I will not call your attention to a list of things which have occurred in succession from the time that that declaration of the Supreme Court was made up to last spring. The court said “this is a Christian nation,” and produced a long argument to prove it. In July 11 of that same year that letter of Leo XIII. was published, stating that what the church had done for other nations in the past, she would now do for the United States. In October of the same year Francis Satolli was sent to this country, a personal representative of the pope, ostensibly to represent the pope’s interests, but in reality to be a permanent delegate at the capital of the nation. September 5, 1893, at the World’s Catholic Congress in Chicago, this same Satolli delivered to the Catholics of America the following message from Leo XIII.—SITI July 2, 1896, page 405.8

    In the name of Leo XIII. I salute the great American republic; and I call upon the Catholics of America to go forward, in one hand bearing the book of Christian truth, and in the other the Constitution of the United States. 5“Rights of the People,” pp. 190, 191.SITI July 2, 1896, page 405.9

    What has given Leo a love for the Constitution of the United States all at once?—The interpretation of the Supreme Court of the United States, saying that it is the meaning of the Constitution that “this is a Christian nation,” and proving it by documents of Ferdinand and Isabella. That it is which has opened the way for Leo to express his great love for the Constitution of the United States.SITI July 2, 1896, page 405.10

    How did they look upon it in 1871? I read from the Catholic World of that year (September, p. 736), the article if by Dr. Bronson, and he stated this in speaking of the Constitution:—SITI July 2, 1896, page 405.11

    As it is interpreted by the liberal and sectarian journals that are doing their best to revolutionize it, and is beginning to be interpreted by no small portion of the American people, or is interpreted by the Protestant principle, so widely diffused among us, ... we do not accept it, or hold it to be any government at all, or as capable of performing any of the proper functions of government; and if it continues to be interpreted by the revolutionary principles of Protestantism it is sure to fail.... Here it is we so often say that if the American republic is to be sustained and preserved at all, it must be by the rejection of the principles of the Reformation, and the acceptance of the Catholic principle by the American people. 6Ibid.SITI July 2, 1896, page 405.12

    Now, then, what did our fathers say in making the Constitution?—That it is the right of every man to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience, and that is according to the principles upon which the Gospel was first propagated and the Reformation from popery carried on; and this right can never be transferred to another. This is the principle of the Constitution as our fathers made it; and they said so. But these said that that principle of the Constitution as thus interpreted, they did not accept, and did not recognize the government as having any of the proper functions of government at all, and that it could only live by the rejection of the Protestant principle and the accepting of the Catholic principle. And the Supreme Court of the United States did reject that principle of our fathers, when they made that decision, and they did accept and lay down the principle of Catholicism. Then it was that the Catholics could accept the Constitution of the United States, and go forward bearing the Constitution of the country in one hand and the Catholic Bible in the other—for what? This is for what:—SITI July 2, 1896, page 405.13

    Bring your fellow-countrymen [I continue to read from Satolli’s address], bring your country, into immediate contact with that great secret of blessedness—Christ and his church.SITI July 2, 1896, page 405.14

    Now, to bring this country into immediate connection with any church is not patriotism as our fathers established it. Never! This commission of Satolli’s can never be patriotism. They may profess it all they choose, but it is not that. It is directly in opposition to and violation of the governmental principles which our fathers established. But I say again, they are not making these statements without some foundation; and the Supreme Court laid the foundation for them, and it is not surprising that they should build upon it; but it is time that the American people waked up and saw to it that neither they nor the Supreme Court of the United States builded upon it.SITI July 2, 1896, page 405.15

    A Parallel Case

    The Supreme Court of these United States once said that the black man had no rights which the white man was bound to respect. Abraham Lincoln said that was not true. He said that that decision was wrong. The courts said that was what the Constitution meant, what the Constitution was intended to mean and did mean. Abraham Lincoln said that decision was wrong, and being wrong must be reversed. It is time that the American people should follow the example of Abraham Lincoln, and say that this decision of the Supreme Court in reference to this being a Christian nation is wrong and must be reversed. Upon that question in that day Abraham Lincoln stood. When a white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he attempts to govern another, that is more than self-government, that is despotism. If any man chooses to be religious for himself, that is religious liberty; but when any man or any set of men chooses to be religious for themselves and for others too, that is despotism—religious despotism. When any man calls for legal recognition of his religious opinions, he proposes in that to be religious for himself and for the other man too, and when we have that, civil liberty is gone. Well, Satolli’s speech continues:—SITI July 2, 1896, page 405.16

    Here you have a country which will repay all effort not merely tenfold, but ayl a hundred-fold. And this no one understands better than the immortal Leo. And he charges me, his delegate, to speak out to America words of hope and blessing, words of joy. Go forward, in one hand bearing the book of Christian truth—the Bible—and in the other the Constitution of the United States.SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.1

    But what are they to do that for?—They are to do that in order to “bring this country into immediate connection with that great secret of blessedness, Christ and his church.” It was on September 5, 1893, that that was said. On September 24, of the same year Prof. T. O’Gorman, of the Catholic University at Washington, stated this in the World’s Parliament of Religions: “That by right of discovery and possession, dating back almost nine hundred years, America is Christian,” and he then cited evidence in proof of “an acquaintance between America and the church in times when the only Christianity in existence was Catholic,” and that therefore this is “a nation that shall find its perfection only in Catholic Christianity.” He had a basis for this statement that by right of discovery and possession this country is Catholic. The Supreme Court settled that question, and proved that is was so, because Ferdinand and Isabella started Columbus to discover and bring it under their dominion, and the only religion at that time was the Catholic religion. If this country is Christian by right of discovery and possession, then it is Catholic Christian.SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.2

    Rome and America.

    October 18, 19, 1893, the jubilee and Cardinal Gibbons was held at Baltimore. The night of the 18th Archbishop Ireland delivered a speech, in which he said:—SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.3

    I preach the new, the most glorious crusade. Church and age! Unite them in mind, in the name of humanity, in the name of God. Church and age! ... Monsignor Satolli, the church, and the age. ROME IS THE CHURCH; AMERICA IS THE AGE.SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.4

    That means a union of Rome and America,—church and state united. But our fathers said that must never be. They established the Constitution against that idea.SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.5

    At a banquet the next night Vice President Stevenson sat on the right hand of the cardinal. Archbishop Ireland was called upon and made another speech. At the table he said:—SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.6

    I do not know whether or not you appreciate the full value of the union you see typified here to-night,—the union of the Catholic Church and America; the fraternity between the church and the non-Catholics of the nation. The Vice President of the United States come here and takes his seat alongside of the cardinal. The spirit of fraternity between church and state thus typified, is the result of the work of our American cardinal.SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.7

    On September 21, 1894, Bishop Keene came back from Rome, having been there on a mission, and in an interview said:—SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.8

    The policy of the pope in view of the recent overtures in Italy, is the union of the church with the great democratic powers of the future—that is, America and France. This is his hope, and toward it all his remarkable energies are bent.SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.9

    So it stands plainly stated that all Leo’s remarkable energies are bent to the union of the Catholic Church and America. Three days later, September 24, the newspaper despatches stated that Bishop Keene was the bearer of a rescript from Pope Leo XIII., the import of which was as follows:—SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.10

    The papal rescript elevates the United States to the first rank as a Catholic nation.SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.11

    But where did that idea start? In 1871 it was not recognized as a Catholic nation. Not until 1892, when the Supreme Court made its decision,—not until then did Rome say that it was a Catholic nation, because it was discovered by Catholics. Rome is logical enough to find an argument; but I hope the American people will be logical enough to find an argument which will annihilate that argument. The despatch continues:—SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.12

    By the new rescript the country is freed from the propaganda, and is declared to be a Catholic country.... The importance not only to Catholics, but to all citizens of the United States, of this radical change in the relations to Rome of the church in America, can scarcely be overestimated.SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.13

    But what would any citizen, in the mind of Rome, have to be, to be concerned in the declaration that this is a Catholic country? Do you not see that they propose to take possession of it, citizens and all? It is important that American citizens should look into this thing and see what there is in it.SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.14

    A letter from the Vatican dated October 14, 1894, to the New York Sun, republished in the Philadelphia Catholic Standard, says:—SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.15

    The United States of America, it can be said without exaggeration, are the chief thought of Leo XIII. in the government of the Roman and Universal Catholic Church.... A few days ago, on receiving an eminent American, Leo XIII. said to him, “But the United States are the future; we think of them incessantly!” [There is no doubt that that is so.] This ever ready sympathy has its base in the fundamental interests of the holy see, in a peculiar conception of the part to be played and the position to be held by the church and the Papacy in the times to come. That is why Leo XIII. turns all his soul, full of ideality, to what is improperly called his American policy. It should be rightly called his Catholic universal policy.SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.16

    Again Leo says (encyclical of Jan. 6, 1895), “She [the church] would bring forth more abundant fruits, if in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws, and the patronage of the public authority.” That is his encyclical to the people of the United States. Liberty is not enough. She must have possession and power. Now, let us see. The decision of the Supreme Court is final in every sense and every respect. But the Supreme Court has said that “this is a Christian nation.” That is intended to be final and everlasting, and she can build upon it what she chooses. Here is a statement of Father Lyons, of Baltimore:—SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.17

    It is strange that a rule which requires a Supreme Court to give final decisions on disputed points in our Constitution, should be abused and slandered when employed by the Catholic Church. Citizens and others may read the Constitution, but they are not allowed to interpret it for themselves, but must submit to the interpretation given by the Superior [Supreme?] Court.—Catholic Mirror, March 2, 1895.SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.18

    Are you ready to accept that doctrine? American people, are you ready to accept that doctrine? Never! You ought to understand, then, what use is being made of it. Abraham Lincoln said it was a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The people made the Constitution, and the people can interpret the Constitution when its courts interpret it wrong. The people took up the Dred Scott Decision, and they interpreted the Constitution quite another way, and they had a right to do so. And upon that subject, and in defense of that principle, Abraham Lincoln took his stand before the people. The people of these United States have the rightful mastery of both Congresses and courts,—not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the decisions of the men who pervert it. The people are the supreme authority, and to them the last appeal goes. They put infallibility in no man, neither executive nor judicial. You see, therefore, that the doctrine is a mistake that the people are not allowed to interpret the Constitution for themselves. But he goes on:—SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.19

    The Bible is the constitution of the Catholic Church, and while all are exhorted to read this constitution, the interpretation of its true meaning must be left to the superior court of the church founded by Christ. The decision of our Federal Supreme Court is final; the decision of the superior court of the church is final also.SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.20

    So you see where they are running that parallel. When the Supreme Court cries out, “This is a Christian nation,” Rome says “That is so, and that decision is final, and the proof that the court presented is correct. Ferdinand did issue that document giving Columbus authority to discover countries and bring them to the religion of Ferdinand and Isabella. That is all correct, and that decision is final; and that being so, this is a Christian Catholic country. And the Catholic Bible is the constitution of the church, the rule of Christian countries; and the superior court of the church is the interpreter of that book, and her interpretations is final. Do you see the logic of the thing? That is where it will lead us if the decision of the Supreme Court be correct. Where is there a flaw in it? Isn’t it time that the American people began to think? Isn’t it time to find out what is patriotism in the United States?SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.21

    I will read Satolli’s interpretation of the Constitution, and it is important to remember the statements which our fathers made. The New York Advertiser, under date of March 11, 1895, points the following:—SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.22

    Private advices received here give an interesting and important communication from Mgr. Satolli to officials in Guatemala, concerning that country’s following the course of Nicaragua in sending to Rome an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary. In the course of the document reference is made as to the propriety under the United States Constitution of official relations between Washington and Rome, and an interpretation given of that feature of the Constitution relative to the separation of church and state. Mgr. Satolli’s letter was written while negotiations were pending about four months ago. It refers at length to difficulties in church administration in Guatemala, and suggests that certain changes desired by the government would be accompanied by an equivalent of serious advantage to render less burdensome the condition of the church in Guatemala. The document then adds:—SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.23

    “The condition of the Catholic Church in the United States, in whose Constitution was inserted the article of separation of the state from any religious sect, can not escape our consideration.”SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.24

    Does he speak of the separation of the state from religion?—No; “from any religious sect.” This is the very thing which our fathers repudiated. They repudiated the establishment of any religion, in order that they might escape dealing with any sect; but now Satolli interprets the Constitution in the very way which our fathers rejected. He will declare that the Catholic religion is not sectarian, that the Catholic Church is not a sect, it is Christianity. Isn’t the very name general? Isn’t the name universal? The rest of them are all sects. The Baptists are sectarian, the Congregationalists are sectarian, but we are the religion. He continues:—SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.25

    I might almost say it causes no surprise. If up to date no official relations exist between the government and the holy see [what is the cause?], it is because the great majority of the population is anti-Catholic.SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.26

    It is not because the Constitution repudiates it, but because the majority of the people are anti-Catholics. The people can not interpret the Constitution, but Satolli can interpret it. It is not allowed to the people to interpret the Constitution, but the Supreme Court can interpret it, and the court says that this is a Christian nation. Satolli says that you can not say any sect; for the Roman Church is not a sect. It is, therefore, according to the interpretation of the Supreme Court and Rome, a Catholic Christian nation.SITI July 2, 1896, page 406.27

    It is stated that this is the first time, so far as it is known, that Mgr. Satolli’s mission has been extended outside of spiritual questions, and he has dealt with governmental subjects. He had full authority to deal with governmental subjects, but not until the Supreme Court had opened the door for him had he dealt with governmental subjects in relation to his religion.SITI July 2, 1896, page 407.1

    Now, we have seen what our fathers said when they began to make the nation, that it is impossible for the magistrate to adjudge the right of preference without erecting a claim to infallibility; and the Supreme Court has done that, and that is leading us right back precisely to that place where our fathers said it was bound to lead us, if that thing was established. That is why it is time to think, friends. That is why it is time to inquire, What is patriotism in the United States?SITI July 2, 1896, page 407.2

    The Inevitable Logic-Persecution

    Now, if it is to be so, that religion is to be an element in the government, and that the government is to recognize Christianity, and is to legislate in behalf of Christianity, then I must submit that the Catholic Church is entitled to get itself recognized if it can. Why not? If the door is opened, and one must be recognized, that some phase of Christianity must be established, is she to sit still, and let some other one get the power and then oppress her? Are others to sit still and let her get power to oppress them?—No; it is not to be expected that the other churches will sit still and allow her to make use of the governmental power to oppress them. So Protestantism will have to see to it that she gets the recognition of the government; and I have seen Protestants who would not be very gentle toward the Catholics if they had the power.SITI July 2, 1896, page 407.3

    It there is a likelihood that Protestantism will get governmental recognition, is it to be expected that Catholicism will sit still and say nothing against it, and run no race to reach the goal first? There is where the mischief comes in, in the recognition of religion at all on the part of the government. If the government opens the door, some one will get the power, and any religionists who get the power will use it for the oppression of those who do not agree with them. I care not what religion it is, it will use that power in an oppressive way. It never has failed, and never can fail. I do not care if it be the religion to which I myself belong, let that religion get the power, and there will be oppression. But what I am striving for is to keep myself and all those who are joined with me in religion so filled with the grace of God that they will never want the power. Sometimes people have said to me, “If you had the governmental power, you would be just as bad as they are.” Of course I would. I would have to be as bad as they are to get it, and having necessarily to be as bad as they are in order to get it, I would be as bad as they are when I got it; so I want to have so much of the power of the grace of God that I will never want it.SITI July 2, 1896, page 407.4

    When any one wants to mix religion with civil government, it shows that they have lost the power which belongs to that religion; and when they get a power which does not belong to it, nothing can come but oppression and persecution. Our fathers saw all that; they knew all that, and they hoped to keep this country forever exempt from any phase of it. And, in order to do that, they said that the government never shall have anything to do with the question of religion in any way whatever. They were right; for Jesus Christ himself said, “If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not.” He said it, and you will find it in John 12:47. That is religious liberty coming from the Lord of mankind. Now if the God of mankind tells us plainly that if any man hears his words and believes not, he will not judge him, you may rest assured that he will never qualify any man or any set of men to put themselves in a position where they will condemn, or slight, or set at naught, any person who does not believe what the Lord says, or what they think he says. It is the devil who has sought to put himself above Jesus Christ. If they put themselves above Jesus Christ, and in the place of God, they are bound to act like the devil. It is so. It is so.SITI July 2, 1896, page 407.5

    [A voice: “Peter York says it is a lie.”]SITI July 2, 1896, page 407.6

    We are dealing with Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Lincoln, and Jesus Christ, and what they said, and what they did; what Jesus Christ said is religion, and what Jefferson laid down as the principles of civil government, are true principles of liberty, and are what our fathers hoped might forever be maintained. Love of these principles is patriotism in the United States, and Christianity anywhere upon the earth.SITI July 2, 1896, page 407.7

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents