THE NEW CARDINALS AND THE TEMPORAL POWER

OF THE POPE

Some Protestants have been alarmed by the fact that the two new American Cardinals, Cardinal Farley and Cardinal O'Connell, when they were invested with the authority of their great office, subscribed to an ecclesiastical oath which contains the following clause: "I shall try in every way to assert, hold, preserve, increase, and promote the rights, even temporal, the liberty, honor, privileges, and authority of the Holy Roman Church of our Lord, the Pope, and his successors. When it shall come to my knowledge that some machination prejudicial to those rights, which I cannot prevent, is occurring, I shall immediately make it known to the Pope, his successor, or some one qualified to convey such knowledge to him."

The fear has been expressed that this clause means that the new Cardinals have subscribed to the doctrine of the temporal or political sovereignty of the Pope, and that if it does not now conflict with their loyalty as American citizens, it may conceivably do so at some future time. In our judgment, there is no ground for such a fear. In the first place, an examination of the letter of the clause does not reveal a statement of the doctrine of the political sovereignty of the Pope. The new Cardinals have vowed to promote the rights, even temporal, of the head of their Church. Of course the Pope has, as every other citizen of Italy has, temporal rights. He has the right of property and of the administration of that property. As the head of the great Catholic Church, he is the trustee for church buildings, colleges, and lands of great value. His temporal rights in this property ought to be sustained.

Some weeks ago The Outlook, in publishing an authorized interview with Cardinal Gibbons, pointed out the fact that the entire history of the Catholic Church in the United States, from the days of Lord Baltimore to the present time, confirm Cardinal Gibbons's differentiation between the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical and that of the civil authorities. If it is said that the doctrine of the separation of Church and State may be held by so eminent a Roman Catholic prelate as Cardinal Gibbons and yet not be held in Rome itself, we have only to turn to the history of Italian independence since 1870 to see how completely the theory of the Papal political

sovereignty has been abandoned in Rome, and even in the Vatican itself. In this respect the Catholic powers at Rome have adapted themselves with wisdom and foresight to modern conditions. In his extremely interesting and illuminating volume of essays on Italian subjects entitled "Italica," Mr. William Roscoe Thayer, the author of the recently published life of Cavour, draws attention to the changed attitude of the Roman Pontificate towards the old and practically abandoned doctrine of the Temporal Power:

A foreigner who skims only the surface of Italian life never understands how naturally and completely the Italians separate Church and State. They distinguish exactly between the political and religious side of Catholicism.

Although since 1870 ninety per cent at least of the Italians would never have consented to the restoration of the Pope's temporal power, there has lurked in their minds until lately the thought that possibly foreign interference might try to bring that about. But since the advent of Pius X there has come about a cessation of hostilities. At the very moment when liberal Catholics are chafing at the reaction which the Vatican has urged in religious matters, they are astonished by an unheard-of quiescence in political matters. For Pius X personally everybody in Italy has sincere respect; Clericals, Liberals, and Independents concur in praising his piety and genuine religious fervor, not less than the purity of his motives. ... The resumption of friendly relations between the Vatican and the Quirinal is, of course, officially disavowed on both sides, but it is an undeniable fact and indicates the tacit recognition by the Papalists that they need the Kingdom of Italy. The only thing indispensable to the Roman Catholic Church is that its headquarters shall remain at Rome.

Mr. Thayer's conclusion is that even those clerical authorities who in the past have upheld the political sovereignty of the Pope now recognize that it is incompatible with the modern view of the relations of Church and State, and that therefore the theory of political sovereignty, not held in recent years by the liberal wing of the Church, has been practically, though not formally, abandoned, even by those Italian prelates who for a long time. so heroically struggled to maintain it.

The separation of Church and State, sometimes regarded as solely a Protestant doctrine, has been, as Mr. Thayer points out, advocated by princes of the Church of great authority. Consider the example of Cardinal Hohenlohe, who died in 1896 in his seventy-third year, who was related by birth to the powerful nobility of Germany, and who was a Roman prelate of high position and influence. As long ago as 1889, in a letter to Leo XIII

Irish girl, does not see that her prayer has been answered." We are all asking as gifts those things which can come only as achievernents. We are expecting God to put into our hands things which our hands cannot hold until they have been strengthened by training and service.

We forget, too, that true prayer is not a continual appeal for things that we want, but a continual expression of our willingness to accept what our heavenly Father sees we need; and the two things are often worlds apart. There are no beggars at the gate of heaven. Nowhere else is the rule that what a man gets he shall work for more rigidly applied, because it is not a rule, but a part of the fundamental order of life. It is idle for a man to try to understand algebra until he has gone through an elementary arithmetic, to compose a symphony until he has learned the art of writing music, to paint a picture until he has mastered the use of colors and brushes. It is equally idle for a man to expect nobility and purity and unselfishness until he has gone through a discipline which has evolved these qualities out of him rather than brought them to him. For this reason prayer and work can never be dissevered, except in those rare cases where there is nothing to be done except to wait on the will of God, and then prayer becomes an earnest petition for quietness of spirit and willingness to be led.

Men are always praying without knowing it; they are silently asking for things and actively striving to get them. As Mr. Merriam points out, men do not get their physical sustenance by an invocation to Divine Providence; they get it by digging and planting, reaping and winnowing, grinding, mixing, and baking. This is the real prayer for bread, perhaps the most universal prayer that has ever been offered; for there never has been a time when this prayer has not been ascending from the whole human family; nor has there ever been a time when the answer to that prayer has not been growing more generous and complete. As men have learned to ask, God has given; and asking has meant

study of the soil, invention of new impiements of agriculture, more intelligent methods of work. The universal prayer for bread has been made, not by beggars, but by a race willing to put itself in a position in which prayer could be answered. The chemistry of the universe is at the disposal of men who pray in this spirit; and all the forces of

nature come to their aid and help to answer their prayer.

In like manner, as Mr. Merriam points out, a man secures the answer to his prayer for moral excellence by resolutely and definitely seeking moral goals, by making use of all moral education which comes his way; and the world is full of organized and unorganized schools for moral training. If a man is eager to be loved, and that becomes the burden of his prayer, he can secure the answer only by making himself lovable. If his soul cries out for beauty, which God has so lavishly spread over the whole face of the earth, he need not go to Sicily or Greece, or make a tour of the Mediterranean; he needs only to educate his eyes to become the companion of nature in fields and woods, to make himself familiar with good pictures, and to put himself under the influence of good music.

For the whole world is organized to answer prayer, and if one puts one's self in the spirit and submits to the teaching which the earth and society offer him through all manner of opportunities, the answer to prayer is unerring and inevitable. It is not a matter

of chance; it is always the expression of the righteous will of the Infinite.

ONLY HALF EDUCATED

Crime is said by the statistician to be increasing in the United States faster than the population. And a sad feature is the fact that crime is reported to be notably great among the young. Says Professor George Walter Fiske, in his interesting series of lectures on 66 Boy Life and Self-Government:"

Our reformatories and jails are still filled with mere boys. The maximal age for malicious mischief is only fourteen; for petty larceny and assault, fifteen; for crimes against property, sixteen; while the maximum curve for fornication is at seventeen. Early and middle adolescence is still the great crime period. The shirking of the average home largely accounts for this boy waste, but the ethical failure of the public school is to a degree responsible also. It is significant that the worst year in boyhood is usually the year after leaving school.

What is the cause of this? One cause is that we are only a half-educated people. The most important factor in education is either wholly left out or attended to only by chance, and incidentally. Professor Huxley's definition of education is a classic:

Education is the instruction of the intellect in the laws of nature, under which name I include

not merely things and their forces, but men and their ways; and the fashioning of the affections and of the will into an earnest and loving desire to move in harmony with those laws. For me education means neither more nor less than this. Anything which professes to call itself education must be tried by this standard, and if it fails to stand the test I will not call it education, whatever may be the force of authority, or of numbers, upon the other side.

Instruction in the laws of things and their forces. That is science; and that is being taught with great efficiency. Instruction in the laws of men and their ways. That is the humanities --history, literature, philosophy, psychology, ethics; and that is being taught with efficiency. But what are we doing to fashion the affections and the will into an earnest and loving desire to move in harmony with these laws?

Saluting the flag does something to cultivate a spirit of human brotherhood. Reading the Bible and the Lord's Prayer, where this is permitted, does something to develop the spirit of reverence where it already exists. Self-government has been experimentally tried in some of the public schools; and it has its effect in promoting a habit of self-control and a recognition of mutual rights and duties. Some teachers recognize this fashioning of the affections and the will as part of the work of education, and do what they can by their personal influence to train these motive powers; but they have scant time even to think on these needs of their pupils, still less to cultivate personal relations with them. In parochial and private schools there is some teaching of a catechism; but teaching pupils the law is not the same as fashioning their affections and will into an earnest and loving spirit of obedience to law. A boy may learn the Ten Commandments perfectly and break them every one.

We may roughly divide the progress of democracy into three epochs.

In the first it was believed that if political power was taken from the few and given to the many, the many would be well taken care of. This was the philosophy of Jeremy Bentham, in the latter half of the eighteenth century. Leslie Stephen, in his work on "The English Utilitarians," thus describes it :

The people will naturally choose "morally apt agents," and men who wish to be chosen will desire truly to become "morally apt," for they can only recommend themselves by showing their desire to serve the general interest. experience testifies to this theory," though the evidence is "too bulky" to be given. Other proof, however, may at once be rendered super

"All

Humanity which is humane only when it pays is not humanity. Interpreted in the terms of the Manchester School of Economy-the doctrine that the employer should buy his labor in the cheapest market and the laborer should sell his labor in the highest market-this pseudo-humanity bound on the back of Great Britain a burden of poverty from which she is now painfully struggling to be free. Imported as the philosophy of freedom into the Colonies, it imposed on the United States a slave system, which was a greater curse to the whites than to the Negroes, because it did train the Negroes in some virtues, but the whites in none; their virtues were in spite of the system. imprisons our children in mines and factories, robs woman of her womanhood by putting unwomanly burdens upon her, and builds slums in every city and in many a smaller town.

It still

The honesty which is only the best policy is no honesty at all. It only checks the cruder crimes and punishes the lesser criminals. Those that are intelligent enough generally go free.

The purity which is founded on intelligent self-interest does not keep society pure. Seeking only to avoid personal disease and dishonor, it fails to escape either and inflicts both upon the community.

Intelligent self-interest substitutes for the inherent laws of God, with the sanction of divine authority behind them, a series of prudential maxims, to be observed only when it pays to observe them; for the Ten Commandments of the Mosaic code the Latest Decalogue" of Arthur Hugh Clough:

"Thou shalt have one God only; who
Would be at the expense of two?
No graven images may be
Worshiped, except the currency:
Swear not at all; for, for thy curse
Thine enemy is none the worse:
At church on Sunday to attend

Will serve to keep the world thy friend:
Honor thy parents; that is, all

From whom advancement may befall:

Thou shalt not kill; but need'st not strive
Officiously to keep alive:

Do not adultery commit;
Advantage rarely comes of it:

Thou shalt not steal; an empty feat,
When it's so lucrative to cheat:
Bear not false witness; let the lie
Have time on its own wings to fly:
Thou shalt not covet; but tradition
Approves all forms of competition."

Democracy is just entering upon the third stage of its development. It is just beginning to perceive the truth of Professor

Huxley's definition, that education includes the fashioning of the affections and of the will into an earnest and loving obedience to the divine laws. Taught by experience, it is beginning to learn that "the engagement of the affections in favor of that particular conduct which we call good" is "something quite beyond mere science;" and that "no human being, and no society composed of human beings, ever did, or ever will, come to much unless their conduct was governed and guided by the love of some ethical ideal." It is beginning to perceive that this love of an ethical ideal, this fashioning of the affections and of the will into a spirit of loving and earnest obedience, is absolutely essential to good citizenship in a free State, and that whatever is essential to good citizenship in a free State it is the right and duty of the State to provide. It is beginning to see that this work of train

W

ing the motive powers cannot be left to the Sunday-schools, because, even if they were far more efficient than they now are, they could not do this work adequately with the untrained teachers on which they must rely, and in the one hour a week which is all they have; and that it cannot be relegated to the family, because untrained parents cannot train their children any more than ignorant parents can teach their children ; and many parents are untrained.

America has, amid all the problems that are forcing themselves upon her attention, none more serious than this:

How shall a free State, without an established Church or a State religion, fashion the affections and the will into an earnest and loving desire to move in harmony with the divine laws of the personal life and the social order?

HAT are the facts of the difficulty between Russia and America regarding the passport question? We have a treaty concluded in 1832 with the Russian Emperor granting to American citizens in Russia the same privileges accorded to Russian citizens in America-that is to say, equality of treatment.

There shall be between the territories of the high contracting parties a reciprocal liberty of commerce and navigation. The inhabitants of their respective States shall mutually have liberty to enter the ports, places, and rivers of the territories of each party, wherever foreign commerce is permitted. They shall be at liberty to sojourn and reside in all parts whatsoever of said territories, in order to attend to their affairs, and they shall enjoy, to that effect, the same security and protection as natives of the country wherein they reside, on condition of their submitting to the laws and ordinances there prevailing, and particularly to the regulations in force concerning commerce.

But what are the actual facts? The New York" American " (Ind.) thus explains them : While we permit Russia to throw out as she pleases passports carried by American citizens of a religious faith [Jewish and other] distasteful to her, we politely recognize every passport that Russia sends and give full welcome to citizens bringing with them the Russian religious belief, in spite of the fact that that belief, involving religious control of government and its citizens, is absolutely repugnant to American institutions and American doctrines.

No wonder, then, that the "American Hebrew" (Ind.) fulminates as follows:

The offended dignity of the United States, the humiliation to which successive Administrations have been put by the lying diplomacy and subterfuges of the Russian Government, demand that this be done [the treaty be denounced]. The Jews of the United States demand it, not as Jews, but as American citizens. They demand it, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as citizens, denied fundamental rights which the Constitution of the United States has bestowed upon them.

The semi-official St. Petersburg "Rossiya," however, makes a statement that will surprise some, namely, that only Jews emigrating through the agency of the Jewish Colonization Society are permanently excluded, and that "of the eleven American Jews who applied for a visé during 1910, only three were rejected."

Why not submit the meaning of the treaty to arbitration? That is what Mr. Roosevelt has suggested. His idea, expressed in an editorial in The Outlook, for a submission of the treaty to the permanent International Court of Arbitration at The Hague for interpretation, has been espoused by certain well-known papers-the Springfield" Republican" (Ind.), for instance, the Chicago "Record-Herald" (Ind.), the New Orleans "Times-Democrat " (Dem.), the Salt Lake