• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Pope Leo XIII

Leo XIII brought to his new dignity many qualities that caused his election to be sympathetically received. In contrast to his predecessor, he was a man of slow and calm deliberation, and it was natural to suppose that he was little, if at all, accessible to impulses of the moment or to the persuasions of his entourage. He was endowed with a certain scholastic erudition, and enjoyed the reputation of being a good Latinist. As nuncio in Brussels he had become acquainted with the trans-Alpine world, and had been initiated into the working of the machinery of modern politics and modem parliamentary government. The fact that he had for so long been absent from Rome afforded ground for the belief that he was not inclined to identify himself with any of the parties at the Vatican court. These were the considerations that had caused the Moderates in the Sacred College to fix their eyes upon him.

The appointment of Franchi as secretary of state was a bid for peace that was viewed by the Irreconcilables with ill-disguised vexation. The following years of Leo XIII's pontificate only tended to increase their dissatisfaction.

The first care of the new pope was to pave the way for the restoration of peace with Russia and the German Empire, and it was owing to his patience, persistence and energy that these efforts for peace were crowned with success. In the case of Germany he made many concessions which appeared to the Zelanli to be excessive, and made even still greater ones to France and Russia, to the great distress of the Poles. But at last Leo XIII could boast not only of having re-established diplomatic relations with most of the powers, but also of having entered into a convention with the great powers of the North, which accorded him, in conjunction with the three emperors, a leading position as champion of the conservative interests of humanity.

How proud Leo XIII was of his importance in this position is shown by the beautiful encyclical, De civilalum constitutions christiana ("Immortale Dei " of Nov. 1, 1885), in which be adopted the strongest attitude against the principle of the sovereignty of the people [ Ex iis autem pontificum præscriptis illa omnino intelligi necesse est, ortum publicæ potestatis a Deo ipso, non a multitudine repeti oportere: "From these decisions of the popes it is clearly to be understood that the origin of public power is to be sought from God himself and not from the multitude; "] refuting the notion that the principle of public power emanates from the will of the people alone, and absolutely rejecting the sovereignty of the people as such.

But this attitude was adopted by Leo XIII not as an end but as a means. The real aims of his rule were disclosed in the second phase of his pontificate. At its very commencement, the pope in his first encyclical (Easter 1878) proclaimed the necessity of a temporal hierarchy. This was at the time regarded merely as a formality imposed by circumstances, and one not to be seriously entertained; but it became more and more evident that the recovery of the temporalities was the real mainspring of Leo's whole policy.

In the negotiations with Germany, it was dearly seen that it was from that side that the pope expected intervention in favor of restitution; and, according to all appearances, Bismarck did for a while keep alive these representations, though with more tact than candor. After peace had been concluded, Leo, by the agency of Galimberti, reminded the chancellor of the settlement of the Roman question. Bismarck replied that he was "unaware of the existence of any such question." The two visits paid by Emperor William II to the Vatican could not fail to remove any doubts in the mind of the pope as to the fact that Germany did not dream of giving him back Rome. The Austro-German-Italian triple alliance was a dire blow to his expectations, and Crispi's policy with its irritating and galling pin-pricks caused the cup to overflow.

Thus slowly, but yet deliberately, between 1887 and 1893, a transformation took place in Leo's spirit and policy, and with Leo XIII was brought about one of the most momentous changes in the attitude of the Church towards the problems of the times and their impelling forces. A rapprochement with France inevitably entailed not only an alliance with modem democracy, but also a recognition of its principles and aims. In Rome there was no room for both pope and king. The note of the pope to Rampolla of the 8th of October 1895, in consequence of the celebrations on the 20th of September, declared, in terms more decided than any that had until then been uttered, that the papacy required a territorial sovereignty in order to ensure ils full independence, and that its interests were therefore incompatible with the existence of the Kingdom of Italy as then constituted. The inevitable consequences ensued. Italy regarded the pope more than ever as a foe within its walls; and the policy of the pope, as regards Italy, aimed at replacing the kingdom by one or more republics, in which the temporal power should, in some form or other, find a place. But the continuance of the Republic in France was a condition precedent to the establishment of a republic in Rome, and the first had no chance of existence - if the democracy in France did not remain in power.

The result was the policy of the Ralliement. Instructions were given to the French Catholics to break with monarchical principles, and both externally and internally to cleave to the Republic as representing the best form of constitutional government. In carrying out the regime of Rampolla, which was, in every respect, a bad imitation of that of Antonelli, the Vatican left no stone unturned in its attempt to coerce the conscience of the French royalists; it did not even stop at dishonor, as was evidenced by the case of the unhappy Mgr d'Hulst, who, in order to evade the censorship of his pamphlet on Old Testament criticism, had to abandon both his king and his principles, only to die in exile of a broken heart. The case was characteristic of the whole Catholic monarchical party, which, owing to the pope's interference in French politics, became disintegrated and dissolved, a fate that was all the more painful seeing that the Ralliement failed to influence the course of events. The "atheistic" Republic did not for one moment think of putting on sackcloth, or even of giving the Church a single proof of esteem and sympathy.

In one respect it was impossible for the papacy to continue on the path it had taken. In his first encyclical, Leo XIII had sounded the clarion for battle against the Social Democracy. The unequivocal condemnation of Socialism, even in its nonviolent form of Fabian Socialism, made Catholics cautious in accepting social policies which are socialistic in design or purpose. Pope Leo XIII stated: "From all these conversations, it is perceived that the fundamental principle of Socialism which would make all possessions public property is to be utterly rejected because it injures the very ones whom it seeks to help, contravenes the natural rights of individual persons, and throws the functions of the State and public peace into confusion." (Rerum Nova rum, par. 23)

This encyclical Novarum rerum endeavored to show the means to be employed, mainly in view of the condition of things in Belgium, for solving the social question on Christian lines. But the Christian Democracy, which, starting in Belgium and France, had now extended its activity to Italy, Austria and Germany, and was striving to arrive at this solution, degenerated everywhere into a political party. The leaders of this party came into close contact with the Social Democrats, and their relations became so cordial that Social Democracy everywhere declared the "Democratic Chretionne" to be its forerunner and pioneer. The electioneering alliances, which were everywhere in vogue, but particularly in Germany, between the Catholics and popular party and the Social Democrats, throw a lurid light upon the character of a movement that certainly went far beyond the intentions of the pope, but which it was now difficult to undo or to hold in check. For it is the essence of the matter that there were further considerations going far beyond the Roman question and forcing the Curia to adhere to the sovereignty of the people.

The external rehabilitation of the Church had become, in many points, a fait accompli, but, internally, events had not kept pace with it. Catholic romanticism had withered away in France, as it had in Germany. "Liberal Catholicism," which was its offspring, had died with Montalembert, after being placed under a ban by Rome. The national religious movement, associated in Italy with the great names of Rosmini and Gioberti, had similarly been disavowed and crushed.

The development of the last decade of the 19th century had clearly shown that the educated bourgeoisie, the tiers etat, in whose hands the supreme power had since 1848 become vested throughout Europe, was either entirely lost to the Church or, at all events, indifferent to what were called Ultramontane tendencies. The educated bourgeoisie, which controls the fields of politics, science, finance, administration, art and literature, did not trouble itself about that great spiritual universal monarchy which Rome, as heir of the Caesars, claimed for the Vatican, and to which the Curia of still clung. This bourgeoisie and the modern state that it upheld stood and fell with the motion of a constitutional state, whose magna carta was municipal and spiritual liberty, institutions with which the ideas of the Curia arc in direct conflict. The more the hope of being able to regain these middle classes of society disappeared, the more decidedly did the Curia perceive that it must seek the support and the regeneration of its power in the steadily growing democracy, and endeavor through the medi«m of universal suffrage to secure the influence which this new alliance was able to offer.

The pontificate of Leo XIII in its first phase aimed at preserving a certain balance of power. While not openly repelling the tendencies of the Jesuits, Leo yet showed himself well disposed towards, and even amenable to, views of a diametrically opposite kind; and as soon as the Vatican threw itself into the arms of France, and bade farewell to the idea of a national Italy, the policy of equilibrium had to be abandoned. The second phase in Leo's policy could only be accomplished with the aid of the Jesuits, or rather, it required the submission of the ecclesiastical hierarchy to the mandates of the Society of Jesus. The further consequence was that all aspirations were subjected to the thraldom of the Church.

The pontificate of Leo XIII was distinguished by the great number of persecutions, prosecutions and injuries inflicted upon Catholic savants, from the prosecution of Antonio Rosmini down to the proscription directed against the heads of the American Church. Episodes, such as the protection so long extended lo the Leo Taxil affair, and to the revelations of Diana Vaughan (the object of which last was to bring Italian freemasonry and its ostensible work, the unity of Italy, into discredit), together with the attitude of the Ultramontane press in the Dreyfus affair, and later towards England, the invigoration of political agitation by the Lourdes celebration and by anti-Semitism, were all manifestations that could not raise the "system" in the estimation of the cultured and civilized world. Perhaps even more dangerous was the employment of the whole ecclesiastical organization, and of Catholicism generally, for political purposes.

No one will be so foolish or so unjust as to hold Leo XIII responsible for the excesses committed by the subordinate departments of his government, in disclosing prosecuting and sometimes even fraudulently misrepresenting his aims and ends. But all these details, upon which it is not necessary to dwell, are overshadowed beyond all doubt by the one great fact that the ecclesiastical regime had not only taken under its wing the solution of social questions, but also claimed that political action was within the proper scope of the Church, and, moreover, arrogated to itself the right of interfering by means of "Directives" with the political life of nations. This was nothing new, as early as 1215 the English barons protested against it. But the weakening of the papacy had allowed this claim to lapse for centuries. To have revived it, and to have carried it out as far as is possible, was the work of Leo XIII.

It would be presumptuous to pass a verdict upon the value and success of a policy to which, whatever else be said, must be accorded a certain meed of praise for its daring. Even in 1892 Spuller, in his essay upon Lamennais, pointed out how the latest evolution of Catholicism was taking the course indicated by Lamennais (1837), and how the hermit of "La Chenaie," who departed this life in bitter strife with Rome, declared himself to be the actual precursor of modern Christian Socialism. He hinted that the work of Leo XIII was, in his eyes, merely a new attempt to build up afresh the theocracy of the middle ages upon the ruins of the old monarchies, utilizing to this end the inexperience of the young and easily beguiled democracies of the dawning 20th century.

To comprehend these views aright, we must first remember that what in the first half of the 19th century, and also in the days of Lamennais, was understood by Democracy was not coincident with the meaning of this expression as it was afterwards used, and as the Christian Socialists understood it. Down to 1848, and even still later, "Democracy " was used to cover the whole mass of the people, pre-eminently represented by the broad strata of the bourgeoisie; in 1900 the Democratic party itself meant by this term the rule of the laboring class organized as a nation, which, by its numerical superiority, thrust aside all other classes, including the bourgeoisie, and excluded them from participation in its rule. In like manner it would be erroneous to confuse the sense of the expression as it obtained on the continent of Europe with what was understood under this term in England and America. In this latter case the term "Democracy," as applied to the historical development of Great Britain and the United States, denoted a constitutional state in which every citizen had rights proportionate to his energy and intelligence. The socialistic idea, with which the "Democratie Chretienne" had identified itself both in France and Belgium, regarded numbers as the center of gravity of the whole state organism. As a matter of fact it recognized as actual citizens only the laborer, or, in other words, the proletariat.

On surveying the situation, certain weak points in the policy of the Vatican under Leo XIII were manifest even to a contemporary observer. They might be summed up as follows: (1) An unmistakable decline of religious fervor in church life. (2) The intensifying and nurturing of all the passions and questionable practices which are so easily encouraged by practical politics, and are incompatible in almost all points with the priestly office. (3) An ever-increasing displacement of all the refined, educated and nobler elements of society by such as are rude and uncultured, by what, in fact, may be styled the ecclesiastical "Trottori." (4) The naturally resulting paralysis of intelligence and scientific research, which the Church either proscribed or only sullenly tolerated. (5) The increasing decay and waxing corruption of the Romance nations, and the fostering of that diseased state of things which displayed itself in France in so many instances, such as the Dreyfus case, the anti-Semitic movement, and the campaign for and against the Assumptionists and their newspaper, the Croix. (6) The increasing estrangement of German and Anglo-Saxon feeling. As against these, noteworthy reasons might be urged in favour of the new development.

It might well be maintained that the faults just enumerated were only cankers inseparable from every new and great movement, and that these excrescences wpuld disappear in course of time, and the whole movement enter upon a more tranquil path. Moreover, in the industrial districts of Germany, for example, the Christian industrial movement, supported by Protestants and Catholics alike, had achieved considerable results, and proved a serviceable means of combating the seductions of Socialism. Finally, the Church had reminded the wealthy classes of their duties to the sick and toilers, and by making the social question its own it had gone a long way towards permeating all social and political conditions with the spirit of Christianity.