The Constitution Dei Filius

THE schema on the Church, in the elaboration of which James A. Corcoran had expended so much energy before the council opened, was distributed to the fathers on January 21. The document contained fifteen chapters and twenty-one canons. 1 Although the schema was supposedly secret, its full text was published in Germany during February, and the publication raised for the first time the specter of possible interference with the council on the part of several European governments. Chapter X, which treated the power of the Church, caused the most difficulty. The schema claimed for the Church a legislative, judicial, and coercive authority which was completely independent of the State. It further asserted that ecclesiastical authority was not restricted to the internal forum of conscience, but extended to the right of imposing external punishments on offenders against church discipline, even without their consent. The canons attached to the chapter were written in the assumption that a union of Church and State was the most ideal form of government. There was no mention of papal infallibility in the entire constitution. 2 On February 22, a month after the schema had been distributed, the fathers were advised that observations on the first ten

1 Mansi, LI, 539-53.
2 On the agitation among the governments, see Collectio Lacensis, VII, 1546-1607; Ollivier, 11, 102-242; Granderath, II, 2, pp. 362-425; Butler, II, 3-25.

chapters should be handed in within ten days for referral to the deputation on faith. Consideration of the relations of Church and State, of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, and of the temporal power of the papacy was thereby postponed, since these topics occurred in the last five chapters of the constitution.

Eight American bishops responded to the call for written observations, but even before that, several of them had expressed views on problems raised by the schema. William Ewart Gladstone, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, indicated that he hoped that these views would coincide with his own when he wrote to Lord Acton:

Of all the prelates at Rome, none have a finer opportunity, to none is a more crucial test applied, than to those of the United States. For if there, where there is nothing of covenant, of restraint, or of equivalent between the church and the state, the propositions of the Syllabus are still to have the countenance of the episcopate, it becomes really a little difficult to maintain in argument the civil rights of such persons to toleration, however conclusive be the argument of policy in favour of granting it. 3

Bishop McQuaid's initial reaction, as we have seen, was that he thought the Americans could avoid involvement in what seemed to be peculiarly European preoccupations, and he wrote in that vein to Father Early on December 16. 4

Before the new regulations of February 22 made provision for the submission of written comments to the deputation on faith, the bishops of the German-Austrian minority bloc had presented a suggestion of their own. They asked for ample time to consider the schema and recommended that a vote on it should be preceded by exhaustive discussion of each section. Bishop Mrak of Sault-Sainte-Marie and Marquette was the only nonCentral European to sign the petition, which was handed in on February 9. 5 Mrak was not, however, the only American bishop

3 John Morley, The Life of William Ewart Gladstone ( 3 vols.; New York: 1903), II, 511. The letter is undated, but from the context seems to have been written in December, 1869, or January, 1870.
4 McQuaid to Early, Rome, December 16, 1869, in Browne, p. 414.
5 Mansi, LI, 636-8.

to give serious consideration to the original, fifteen-chapter constitution. On February 6, Archbishop John Baptist Purcell of Cincinnati told Father Icard that some of its provisions disturbed him greatly and he promised that, when the time came, he would deliver a speech on it in a general congregation.6 As matters turned out, Purcell never had the opportunity to deliver his planned discourse on the relation of the Church to civil government, although he incorporated some of its ideas in a later speech on papal infallibility. After his return to Cincinnati, he gave an outline of his ideas to an audience gathered to hear him in Mozart Hall. He told his listeners that a copy of the speech would be found among the acts of the council, and he then went on:

In it I took occasion to show that ours is, I believe, the best form of human government. That the source of government is placed by God in the people. That kings rule for their benefit, and that they were not created for kings. That the Church of God has no need of kingly patronage or protection; that for the first three hundred years of her history she managed to exist without the aid of kings, and in despite of them; that she was persecuted for these three hundred years, but that she throve and prospered. As Tertullian says, "the blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church," and when kings pretend to take her under their favor and patronage she was suffocated. Happy would it have been if kings had never pretended to be her nursing fathers! I said that our civil constitution grants perfect liberty to every denomination of Christians; that it grants perfect liberty to them all; and that I verily believe this was infinitely better for the Catholic religion, than were it the special object of the State's patronage and protection; that all we want is a free field and no favor. Truth is mighty and will prevail; and as we are here side by side with every sect and denomination of Christians, it is for the people to judge which of us is right, which of us teaches that which is most conformable to the Holy Scriptures. If they approve our religion, they will embrace it; if not they will stay away from it. I believe this is the best theory.

I illustrated all I was saying by contrasting all the nations of Europe with American Catholics; that in Spain the Catholic religion is perse-

6 ASS, Icard Journal, February 6, 1870.

cured; that in Portugal the Catholic religion is persecuted, the very Sisters of Charity driven out of the country; that in Italy monks, priests and people are driven away from their homes. I had seen the desolation that Victor Emmanuel has made, and all this contrasts, I said, with the best form of government which, I thanked God we had adopted. 7

We can only speculate what might have been the effect of this speech, which dealt with the relations of Church and State, not in terms of theses and hypotheses, but in terms of history and of contemporary facts. Purcell enunciated his ideas bluntly, but they were ideas shared by the majority of his fellow bishops from the United States, and they recalled the representations which Dr. Corcoran had made during the meetings of the preparatory commission on dogma. It is probable that a good deal of the private discussion among the Americans centered on the ChurchState problem. The special correspondent of the Boston Pilot, "P.L.C.," wrote on February 19 that they had achieved a reputation for fairness and clearness in the matter, and that they were especially opposed to groups like the Italians, who wanted to universalize their own sad experience of government and make it the basis for general laws. 8 The order of February 22, which limited comments to the first ten chapters of the schema, and the subsequent abandonment of all but the section on the primacy and an added chapter on papal infallibility, prevented what might have been a most enlightening confrontation between the representatives of the Old and the New World. Some of the American ideas found expression, especially in the comments made on Chapter X of the constitution, but the occasion never arose for a full-scale debate on Church and State.

The eight American bishops who submitted observations by March 4 commented on nine of the ten chapters, on the schema in general, on the title and introduction, and on the canons appended to the constitution. Some of the changes which they requested were stylistic, others looked to greater clarity of ex-

7 Catholic Telegraph, August 25, 1870.
8 Boston Pilot, March 19, 1870.

pression, and still others attempted to tone down the harshness of certain formulations. None of the Americans proposed wholly new constitutions, as did, for example, Bishop Wilhelm von Ketteler of Mainz and the Dominican Archbishop of Bologna, Cardinal Filippo Guidi. Butler has estimated that some 300 bishops participated in the preparation of a total of 600 separate amendments. 9 It must have seemed to the managers of the council that the story of the constitution on faith was going to be repeated, but on a larger scale, and this realization must, in turn, have been a factor in determining them to abandon the general treatment of the Church without any debate and to pass on instead to the question of infallibility.

The first American observation listed in the conciliar acts was that of Bishop Patrick N. Lynch of Charleston, whose remarks were among sixty-five amendments which were directed at the constitution as a whole. Lynch commented: "Very often the schema does not speak accurately, nor clearly, and its ideas are not expressed in an orderly way." He added specific examples; presumably these were his objections to individual parts of the constitution. 10 William Henry Elder, Bishop of Natchez, was the only prelate from the United States to make a suggestion about the introduction to the document. He felt that arguments from Sacred Scripture should be added, so as to enhance the decree's appeal to non-Catholics. 11 An interesting emendation to Chapter I was proposed by Archbishop Joseph Sadoc Alemany of San Francisco. The chapter asserted that the Church was the mystical body of Christ. Alemany asked that a statement be added to the effect that the Church was one society of the faithful professing one faith under one pastor, the Vicar of Christ. 12 The archbishop was a moderate proponent of the doctrine of papal infallibility, and it may be that he hoped to avoid a division in the council on the latter point by having a mitigated affirmation of

10 Mansi, LI, 740.
11 Mansi, LI, 747.
12 Mansi, LI, 756.
9 Butler, II, 15.

the Pope's supremacy in matters of faith inserted at the very beginning of the constitution on the Church.

The fourth chapter asserted that the Church was a visible society. Alemany suggested that this would be better placed after Chapter V, which explained its visible unity. 13 Bishop Richard V. Whelan of Wheeling wanted the scriptural basis for the claim explicitated. 14 Like Lynch, he thought in terms of the apologetic value of the decree. Chapter III brought comments from three American prelates, Whelan, Lynch, and Bishop Thaddeus Amat of Monterey-Los Angeles. The last-named merely mentioned that there was no need to underline the unity of faith and cohesion of the members of the Church in this chapter on its nature as a perfect society. He felt that the notion had been overstressed, since it appeared in three separate sections of the constitution. 15 Both Lynch and Whelan asked that emphasis be placed on the fact that the Church was a society of the supernatural order. As the Bishop of Wheeling expressed it, the Church's function was to procure the eternal salvation of men through faith and charity. 16 Behind these comments lay, of course, the fear that the council would seem to be setting up a conflict between two societies--ecclesiastical and civil--which operated in the same sphere of men's lives and disputed their allegiance.

There were no observations from the American fathers on Chapter IV, which stated that the Church was a visible society, but three bishops proposed emendations to the next section on its visible unity, which excluded all other religious bodies from participation. Alemany wanted this chapter and Chapter II transposed, and he asked that the note of apostolic origin be added. 17 Once again, Bishop Whelan called for enunciation of the scriptural foundation for the assertions made, while Bishop

13 Mansi, LI, 765.
14 Mansi, LI, 764.
15 Mansi, LI, 777.
16 Mansi, LI, 771-3.
17 Mansi, LI, 787.

Tobias Mullen of Erie felt that the introductory sentences could be simplified. 18

The sixth chapter said that the Church was not a "free" society, but that it was altogether necessary for salvation. Four American prelates braved the technicalities of theological language and called for a simpler and clearer declaration. Whelan and Lynch questioned the use of the term "free." The former felt that the sense was ambiguous, and asked that the adjective be dropped, while retaining the affirmation that the Church was a society "into which it is altogether necessary that all men enter." The Bishop of Charleston delivered a learned disquisition on the several meanings of the word "free," none of which he thought fitted the present context. Whelan further questioned a statement in the chapter which said that membership in the Church was necessary for participation in truth. He noted that heresy often retained a great deal of truth along with error. 19 Bishop Amat's amendment expressed his wish for an explicit statement that we are saved in the name of Christ. 20 Both Lynch and Bishop Augustin Vérot of Savannah asked that the assertion of the absolute necessity of the church membership be modified, so as to leave room for the doctrine of invincible ignorance which was mentioned in the following chapter. They were afraid that the text was susceptible of too rigid an interpretation which would not state the mind of the council with complete accuracy. 21

Chapter VII enunciated the ancient doctrine that "outside of the Church no one can be saved." It then continued with an explanation that God would not condemn to eternal punishment, on that ground alone, those who because of invincible ignorance did not know that the Catholic Church was the true Church. Bishop Mullen noted only that he approved very strongly of the doctrine as formulated. 22 Vérot was not so pleased, and he asked

18 Mansi, LI, 787.
19 Mansi, LI, 788, 790.
20 Mansi, LI, 794.
21 Mansi, LI, 790, 796.
22 Mansi, LI, 798.

that a clear acknowledgment of the possible good faith of nonCatholics be given a prominent place in the opening sentences of the paragraph. 23 Amat asked that two examples which had been used to illustrate the doctrine be deleted. One of these had compared the faithful to those who went into the ark with Noah. 24 Bishop Whelan was annoyed at the description of religious indifference as "either impious or repugnant to reason." He declared that when Christ spoke of the obligation of believing in Him, He also promised certainty about the teachings of faith, whereas in modern times there was so much prejudice against the Church as a result of schisms and heresies that great care had to be taken in judging the motivation of those who could not bring themselves to accept Catholicism, or for that matter, any religion. 25

The eighth chapter asserted that the Church remained immutable in the constitution which it had received from its founder, although it admitted that with changing times, different expression was found for the same fundamental truths. Whelan was the sole American commentator, and he asked that this last idea be expanded and stated more accurately, so as to read: "The Church explains itself variously in matters of discipline and more clearly (or more fully) in matters of doctrine." 26 Three fathers proposed amendments to the chapter on the infallibility of the Church.

Chapter X of the schema, which asserted the external, public, and absolutely independent power of the Church and its authority to impose salutary punishments, provoked the most outspoken criticism from the United States bishops. Thaddeus Amat pointed out an error of fact. The text stated that "pastors have this {external and absolute} power from Christ, and exercise it freely and independently of any secular domination." The Spanish-born Vincentian suggested that this be rephrased to read that pastors

23 Mansi, LI, 798.
24 Mansi, LI, 798.
25 Mansi, LI, 799.
26 Mansi, LI, 808.

"should exercise" the power freely and independently, since the simple declarative statement of the original did not describe a situation which corresponded to reality. 27 Amat was the only one of the six Americans who addressed themselves to this chapter to accept without qualification the doctrine proposed in it. Bishops Vérot and Domenec asked that the adjective "ecclesiastical," or else "spiritual" replace "salutary" in describing the punishments which the Church claimed the right to impose. Vérot wanted a further qualification on the assertion that the Church possessed "coercive power" by the phrase "by means of ecclesiastical penalties." 28 Tobias Mullen of Erie was another prelate who was clearly haunted by memories of the Inquisition. He expressed his dismay at the prospect of the hatred and persecutions that were liable to be stirred up by the chapter. Like Vérot and Domenec, he proposed that the reference to "salutary punishments" be dropped. The penalties, he thought, should be termed "ecclesiastical" or "canonical." In any case, he demanded that the Church explicitly abdicate any claim to use of the death penalty or corporal punishment. 29

Bishop William Henry Elder of Natchez was less perturbed about the possible consequences of Chapter X than were some of his colleagues. Nevertheless, he was dissatisfied with its wording, and he rewrote the section completely. He recommended that the Church's claim to possess judicial power and to inflict salutary punishments be modified with the condition, "insofar as it sees that these will really be for the good of souls and the glory of God and will not do greater harm." 30 The Bishop of Wheeling was much more positive in his views. His first suggestion read: "The entire chapter should be omitted, as calculated to arouse hatred." If this could not be done, Whelan demanded that the document at least be made more moderate in tone, so that it would not give offense. He thought that a good starting point

27 Mansi, LI, 830.
28 Mansi, LI, 834.
29 Mansi, LI, 833.
30 Mansi, LI, 833-4.

would be the words of Christ, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." His amendment continued: "In particular, I do not agree that we should, as the heretics do, reason about the Church in the same way that we do about civil society. Nor should rights of the Church be asserted which it has never exercised, nor, it seems, ever will exercise. We should claim only those rights which are of divine origin, or which are absolutely necessary for the Church's conservation and extension and for the fulfillment of the mission given to the apostles." Whelan summed up this part of his argument with a reminder that "the more authority the Church tries to claim for itself, the less it is permitted to have in practice." He also proposed three concrete amendments. The schema described the external triple power of the Church (legislative, judicial, and coercive) as absolute and entire. This sweeping assertion, the bishop remarked, was false and should be dropped. If the phrase "coercive power" had to be retained, he asked that it be defined as referring only to spiritual penalties. Finally, he felt that the entire section on the autonomy of the Church's external power ought to be deleted, since it was "harmful rather than useful." 31

In large part, American criticism of the twenty-one canons which accompanied the ten chapters corresponded to the amendments already suggested for the body of the text. The chief emphasis was on points which touched upon the relations of Church and State. Stylistic revisions for the first two canons were submitted by Bishops Lynch, Vérot, and Elder. In each case, greater simplicity and precision was the object. 32 Bishop Amat brought up a topic which was to be discussed at very great length during the debates on the revised schema on faith. In the thirteenth canon, the Church was described as "holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman." The Bishop of Monterey wanted the last two adjectives combined as "apostolico-Roman," to indicate that

31 Mansi, LI, 835.
32 Mansi, LI, 862, 860, 850.

the Roman Church was founded by Peter and was therefore apostolic. 33 Archbishop Alemany and Bishop Vérot were both concerned about Canon Nine, which declared that the Church was infallible, not only in teaching doctrines contained in divine revelation, but also with regard to all truths necessary for preserving the deposit of faith. Alemany recommended that the word "contained" be replaced by "expressed," but Vérot thought that the whole canon should be suppressed. 34

All the remaining American amendments dealt, in one way or another, with the Church-State question. Five bishops denounced the use of the word "intolerance" to define the Church's attitude toward non-Catholic religious groups. In this way they echoed Archbishop Spalding's letter to Cardinal Barnbò in August, 1869, and also the protest which had been made by an anonymous consultor--perhaps Corcoran--at the session of the preparatory commission on April 1, 1869. 35 Those who repeated the complaint in March, 1870, were Amat, Elder, Vérot, Domenec, and Lynch. Amat added that there should be no talk of "proscribing and condemning" non-Catholics, while Domenec noted that in the United States "intolerance" meant only civil and external intolerance. Spalding had already pointed out to Barnabò that there was a difference between this usage of the term and the technical theological meaning intended by Franzelin, who had framed the schema. 36

Two other canons which aroused opposition were the tenth and the twelfth. Canon Ten asserted that the Church was a perfect society, and, as such, not subject to state control. Canon Twelve reiterated the claim to possession of coercive power. Bishop Whelan asked for their emendation on the grounds that "in their present form, they are fit only to arouse hatred, turn

33 Mansi, LI, 849.
34 Mansi, LI, 860, 861.
85 AAB, 39-M-6, Memoranda pro Concilio Oecumenico; Mansi, XLIX, 682-685.
86 Mansi, LI, 849 ( Amat); 850 ( Elder); 860 ( Vérot); 860 ( Domenec); 862 ( Lynch).

men from the Church and leave everything confused in men's minds." 37 Thaddeus Amat requested clarification of the meaning of Canon Ten, and he declared that it ought to be made clear that penal legislation applied only to Catholics. 38 Patrick Lynch argued along the same lines, and reinforced his argument by adverting to the Protestant fear that if Catholics ever achieved political power they would be obliged by their religion to become persecutors of heretics. He had noticed, he said, that this apprehension was beginning to die away, but he was sure that the proposed canon would revive it. 39 Others who presented analogous amendments were the Bishops of Natchez and of Savannah. 40

The council never considered the schema on the Church, and so the work of the American bishops--and of nearly 300 others--came to nothing. However, the opportunity had been provided for a reaffirmation of what was clearly a majority consensus in the Church of the United States on the proper relation of Church and State. No one could charge that the numerous amendments on this and other points represented an attempt on the part of the minority to delay the work of the council. Bishop Elder, for example, was one of the foremost American proponents of papal infallibility, and Archbishop Alemany also belonged to the majority. If there was any common bond among the prelates from the United States who contributed observations to the constitution, it was their acute sense of the contemporary religious situation and of the need to avoid giving needless offense to non-Catholics. European theorists might dismiss their effort as sheer pragmatism. It seems instead to have been prompted by a keen pastoral awareness and the desire to seek out the best way of carrying on their apostolic mission in the modern world. As such, it merited at least as much consideration as shopworn formulas which in many cases were them-

37 Mansi, LI, 845.
38 Mansi, LI, 849.
39 Mansi, LI, 862.
40 Mansi, LI, 850, 860.

selves only the relics of practical adaptations which had been achieved in past centuries and in other political and cultural climates.

Two weeks elapsed between the submission of observations on the schema about the Church and the resumption of general congregations on March 18. The usually pessimistic James Roosevelt Bayley reported on March 2 that Bishops McFarland and McQuaid were still vacationing in Naples, and he added an uncharacteristic note of optimism: The sun had finally come out in Rome. He commented that the Roman winter had been as bad as one might expect to find in England. 41 The Bishop of Rochester was back in the city by March 14, and on that day wrote to Father James Early from his new quarters in the Hotel Minerva: "We have now been over three weeks without a meeting of the Council. They seem to count time for nothing in this ' Eternal City.' There are rumors of a meeting the end of this week, but only rumors, which in Rome are as thick and lively as their fleas."

The rumor which McQuaid had heard about the reopening of the debate proved to be correct. He had written to Early on a Monday, and the council resumed its sessions with the thirtieth general congregation on the following Friday, March 18. The revised draft of the constitution on the Catholic Faith had been laid before the deputation on March 1. It was the work of Joseph Kleutgen, S.J., and was sponsored by Bishop Conrad Martin of Paderborn. After some days of debate and emendation in the committee, a definitive text was adopted on March 11, and three days later it was distributed to the fathers. The division of the new schema was similar to that of its predecessor, but it contained only nine chapters, half as many as there had been in the constitution rejected by the council during the debates of December and January. Four of these chapters were proposed for immediate consideration. They corresponded roughly to the

41 AANY, C-2, Bayley to Corrigan, Rome, March 2, 1870.

first eleven sections of the original draft, and dealt with creation, revelation, faith, and the relation of faith and reason. 42

Archbishop Janos Simor of Esztergom, the sole minority member of the deputation on faith, opened the discussion on March 18 with an explanation of the new text. The three orators who followed him to the rostrum were generally favorable to the proposals, although Bishop Luigi Moreno of Ivrea, the last to speak on the first day of the debate, offered several amendments before he was interrupted by the presidents with the comment that the initial speeches should be confined to general commentary on the schema as a whole. The session was then adjourned, because of the fact that the pope was coming down into the basilica to make the weekly visit which was customary on all Fridays of Lent. 43

The fourth speaker at the thirty-first general congregation on March 22 was Peter Richard Kenrick. His comments recalled the speech which he had delivered at the fourth congregation on December 28. The Archbishop of St. Louis was not a man to waste words. He began by saying that he had many objections to the schema, but that he would confine his remarks to two themes. The first of these was a call for greater simplicity. Kenrick analyzed the role of bishops in council. "We must remember," he said, "that we have been summoned to the council not to compose a course in theology, and still less to pass judgment on philosophical systems, but to protect the faith by explaining it and condemning errors opposed to it." While it was true that the fathers were judges, he went on, their function was that of witnesses rather than that of men who put forth their own opinions. Their mandate was to guard the deposit of faith. The archbishop defined this in the words of Vincent of Lérins: "The deposit, not what had been found; what you have received, not what you have discovered; what you have learned, not what you have excogitated." Almost in passing, he added what was

42 The text of the new constitution is in Mansi, LI, 31-40.
43 Mansi, LI, 42-61.

in fact a capital point with the minority, that decisions in matters of faith should be by unanimous consent. Becoming more specific, he spoke out against incorporation of philosophical systems into the constitutions. He reminded the fathers that their task was to condemn errors which were plainly in opposition to to the faith. They were, he said, scarcely capable of forming adequate judgments on philosophical theories. His second point also recalled the earlier debates at the council. Although he admitted that the term "anathema" was borrowed from the apostles Paul and John and that it had been consecrated by long conciliar usage, he was disturbed by the excessive employment of it in the schema. He pointed out that in modern times men were attracted to the Church by its inherent goodness and not by repeated threats of punishment. If the term could not be omitted completely, Kenrick recommended that it at least be reserved for very serious errors and open impiety. 44

The debate on the schema as a whole ended with the speech of Bishop Jean-Pierre Bravard of Coutances, who followed Archbishop Kenrick. According to the new rules, a spokesman for the deputation which had presented the constitution under discussion had the right to take the floor and explain any difficulties which had been raised. Archbishop Simor availed himself of this privilege before the debate on the introduction to the constitution began. He mentioned none of Kenrick's points except that on the proliferation of anathemas. The merit of this he left to the council to decide. For the rest, he contended that the new draft reflected accurately the demands made by the fathers during December and January. 45

Granderath has dismissed Kenrick's effort as a mélange of truth and error, and he claimed that the archbishop's thought was somewhat obscure in the passage about introducing philosophical systems into a dogmatic decree. 46 Lord Acton was, of

44 Mansi, LI, 62-3.
45 Mansi, LI, 65-7.
46 Granderath, II, 2, pp. 39-40.

course, more favorably disposed to the speech, and he grasped its import more clearly than did the German historian, who never made any great attempt to conceal his bias against the minority. Acton told Döllinger on March 27 that Kenrick, whom he styled one of the most impressive figures in the council, had in effect explored the reasons for the minority opposition to the management of affairs in his treatment of the function of bishops as witnesses and judges of the faith. 47 What Kenrick's speech revealed, and what Granderath professed not to understand, was that there was a fundamental disagreement among the fathers on the nature of an ecumenical council and on the role of bishops in it.

From the outset, the policy of the Roman authorities had been to have decrees framed by a body of professional theologians using precise and technical theological language and employing concepts and patterns of thought drawn from scholastic theology and philosophy. It had not been anticipated that the bishops would do much more than suggest minor revisions, and no one had foreseen the massive resistance which the first constitution encountered. The motivation of the opposition bishops has been obscured by the fact that it is nearly always explained in terms of their determination to prevent a definition of papal infallibility. This explanation recognizes in their tactics only political moves, and it fails to realize that in the minds of many fathers-among them Peter Kenrick--papal infallibility was part of a larger picture. Kenrick had already opposed the move to send a Roman theologian to assist at the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore. He had protested to Cardinal Barnabò that the decrees adopted at that council did not represent the real wishes of the bishops who took part in the assembly. He had objected to the form in which the decrees were framed. His whole approach was to place greater emphasis on the episcopal role in determining essential truths. Their further elaboration he was content to

47 Conzemius Transcripts, Acton to Döllinger, Rome, March 27, 1870 ; Quirinus, pp. 385-6.

leave to the theologians, but he did not want to see this elaboration form part of dogmatic constitutions.

Emphasis on the role of the episcopate brought Kenrick and others into conflict with the process of centralization which was already far advanced in the Church by the time of the Vatican Council. It led logically to a reluctance to accept the definition of papal infallibility, particularly if that definition was to be proposed, as some of the majority wished, without sufficient time for long and serious consideration. The same emphasis on the role of the episcopate led, in the present instance, to a reluctance to define theological and philosophical formulations as belonging to the deposit of faith. The minority bishops thought that a council should restrict itself to enunciation of clearly and universally held doctrines. Kenrick and his colleagues were consistent in their opposition. They may have been wrong, but this does not excuse the historian from trying to understand and appreciate their point of view.

After Archbishop Simor had finished his defense of the schema against the general remarks directed at it, the debate on the introduction to the four chapters began. Four speakers were heard on this subject at the thirty-first general congregation. The last of them was Bishop Strossmayer whose speech provoked a vehement outburst. The Bishop of Diakovár made some preliminary comments on the unsuitability of the hall for any real discussion and on the papal prohibition against having the speeches printed. This exordium was scarcely calculated to render either the presidents or the majority of his hearers benevolent. He announced that he would raise three points. The first of these was the omission of the word definientibus in the introductory paragraph's description of the bishops. Strossmayer, like Kenrick, was sensitive to anything that seemed to detract from the bishops' role in the framing of dogmatic definitions. The proposed constitution was written in the form of a decree emanating from the pope in collaboration with the fathers, but the function of the latter was absolved in the one word judicantibus. Strossmayer wanted it made clear that they not only "judged," but also "defined."

The Croatian prelate's second point--and, as it turned out, his last--was to object to the attribution of the whole spectrum of modern errors to Protestantism. He began by indicating that not all Protestants were in bad faith, and he stated that a great many of them loved Christ. At this point murmuring broke out in the hall, and Cardinal de Angelis asked the speaker to refrain from words that were causing scandal to some of the fathers. There then ensued a long dialogue between the bishop and the presidents which came to an end amidst a general uproar in the council. Strossmayer finally left the pulpit with bishops shouting at him: "He is Lucifer, anathema, anathema," and so on. 48 The congregation was adjourned hastily, and one of the bishops from the United States said to Acton as he left the hall: "There is certainly one assembly in the world rougher than the American Congress." 49

On the day following this incident, Bishop Richard Vincent Whelan of Wheeling was the sole American representative in the discussion of the preamble to the schema. He and two other speakers advocated some of the points which had been made by Strossmayer, but their enunciation of them was received in respectful silence. 50 The Bishop of Wheeling had three substantial amendments to propose, but he first addressed himself to what he felt was a series of inaccuracies in the text. The first of these was caused by a collocation of words which seemed to imply that the cornerstone of the Church was Holy Scripture and not Christ. The bishop noted that this was a Protestant way of looking at things. Bishop Whelan also wanted a more accurate analysis of the origins of naturalism. The draft constitution named materialism, rationalism, and indifferentism as the errors

48 Mansi, LI, 75-7; Butler, I, 270-73; Granderath, II, 2, pp. 45-61; Quirinus, pp. 386-9.
49 Conzemius Transcripts, Acton to Döllinger, Rome, March 27, 1870.
50 Ibid.

which led to naturalism. He suggested that it be made clear that this was only a partial enumeration, and he objected to the sweeping assertion that religious indifferentism turned men into materialists, pantheists, or atheists. This statement, he thought, should be modified to read that indifferentism had these reresults in the case of "many" men. Another phrase that caught his attention was the declaration that naturalism was "a plague that was raging unchecked ( impune )." He felt that this smacked of a desire to persecute and asked that the word impune be replaced by liberrime or "freely." As he reminded the bishops, those who take the sword die by the sword, "and this is the reason why the Church has already suffered so much."

Whelan's three principal amendments played upon themes which were recurrent in the thought of the minority. The final paragraph of the preamble began with a eulogy of the pope's role as defender of Catholic truth. The same had been said in a more general sense of the Church in the preceding paragraph, and the preamble concluded with another similar reference to the pope. The Bishop of Wheeling thought this repetition excessive and proposed its elimination. Secondly, he repeated Archbishop Kenrick's request that the word definientibus be added to the phrase sedentibus nobiscum et judicantibus which was applied to the bishops. Again the point was to emphasize that in the council the pope and the bishops defined doctrine. Recalling Bishop Strossmayer's comments of the previous day, he insisted that the bishops had an obligation to defend the divinely conferred rights which belonged to them as a body. These were rights, said Whelan, which could not be renounced, since they belonged to the essential constitution of the Church as created by Christ. We all know of the primacy and rights of the Holy Father, he went on, but "let there not be silence about the rights of bishops, and more especially when questions of grave moment are proposed to us." Finally, he repeated another of Kenrick's suggestions by asking that the preamble end, not with a threat of proscription and damnation, but with a warn- ing that all who hoped to be saved must recognize and avoid the errors to be mentioned in the constitution. 51

In accordance with the new rules, all amendments had to be proposed in writing. These written amendments were given to the deputation on faith for consideration. 52 Nine bishops submitted emendations on the preamble. The only ones which the deputation thought worthy of refutation were those proposed by Bishop Whelan. 53 Archbishop Simor took them up at the thirty-fourth general congregation on March 26. He made an impassioned plea for the rejection of the amendment which suggested deletion of the eulogy of the pope, argued that the episcopal function in the council was adequately expressed by the word judicantibus, and refused the suggestion that the final words of the preamble be changed. 54 Preparations were then made to vote on the amendments, but Whelan went to the President's desk and asked that they be withdrawn. The vote was not taken, and the preamble was sent back to the deputation for a last revision. 55 While Whelan's three major proposals were unsuccessful, the text as revised by the deputation did incorporate some of the other modifications which he had requested. The confusion as to whether Christ or Holy Scripture was the cornerstone of the Church was avoided by treating the Church's relation to Our Lord and to the Bible in separate paragraphs. Rationalism was equated with naturalism, instead of being styled its parent. The broad sweep of the general condemnation of the religiously indifferent was modified, so that "many" of them were said to fall into the errors enumerated. And, lastly, the word impune was replaced by circumquaque

51 Mansi, LI, 85-7.
52 For the contributions of Archbishops Alemany and Spalding at deputation meetings between March 4 and April 20, see Mansi, LIII, 186-230. Alemany was consistently present; Spalding was regularly absent after April 3. Both took an active part in the discussions of the deputation and proposed emendations in the text of Dei Filius.
53 Mansi, LI, 126.
54 Mansi, LI, 129-30.
55 Mansi, LI, 130-1.

or "everywhere. 56 Simor also announced that the fathers would be permitted to sign the decrees with the traditional phrase, definiens subscripsi, so that, as Acton wrote to Döllinger, the principle for which Strossmayer and Whelan had fought was recognized, even if they had not been able to have it written into the constitution. 57

Whatever may have been Bishop Whelan's motives for withdrawing his amendments, the action raised a minor procedural point. Friedrich later reported that Dupanloup had entered a protest on the grounds that the rules made no provision for such a retraction and he felt that it was prejudicial "because other fathers would perhaps have proposed the same modification and abstained from doing so since someone had done it before them." 58 In any event, the president ruled that it could be done. The issue did not come up again at the council.

Debate on the four chapters and on the canons of the schema began at the thirty-third general congregation on March 24. No American spoke on the first chapter, which treated of the existence of God and of creation, but Bishop Thaddeus Amat, C.M., of Monterey-Los Angeles more than made up for this lack at the following session, where the topic was divine revelation. He proposed a long series of technical theological emendations, which were also submitted in writing. Vincenz Gasser, Bishop of Brixen, discussed these amendments at the fortieth congregation, and they were then voted upon. 59

The Bishop of Monterey's first two changes were rejected. His third emendation took on no less an adversary than St. Thomas Aquinas. The supernatural end of man had been described as a participation in the divine goodness which surpassed the comprehension of human reason. Amat rightly pointed out that

56 Mansi, LI, 429-30.
57 Conzemius Transcripts, Acton to Döllinger, Rome, March 29, 1870.
58 Friedrich, Geschichte, III, 788.
59 Amat's speech is in Mansi, LI, 146-7. His written observations occur ibid., 263-70. Gasser's answers are found passim in columns 277 -94. The record of voting is also found in the last-named place.

under no circumstances could reason ever "comprehend" the supernatural, although it could come to "know" the divine goodness and supernatural truths by revelation. He asked that the word "understanding" be substituted for "comprehension." 60 Gasser recommended the change as clearer and more definite than the original text, which had been borrowed directly from St. Thomas, and the vote was affirmative. 61

The subject of the third chapter was the supernatural virtue of faith. Once more, Bishop Amat was the only American prelate to speak. At the thirty-eighth general congregation on March 31 he presented a total of nine amendments. Five of these which dealt mainly with stylistic changes were rejected, two more were replaced by other emendations, one was accepted in its entirety, and one was combined with several other proposals to form a new text for Canon Three. 62

Amat's third amendment was the one adopted. He had asked that the whole scriptural definition of faith from Hebrews 11:1 be included at the close of the first paragraph, and this was done. 63 He also wanted it made clear that internal experience could play a part in moving men to faith. Canon Three defended the proposition that revelation could be made credible by external signs. Amat did not deny this, but he felt that the proposed wording of the canon seemed to exclude the possibility of any influence from the individual's subjective experience. 64 The canon was rephrased to accommodate this and similar objections. 65 The only other significant modification, in which the Bishop of Monterey-Los Angeles' recommendations played a

60 Mansi, LI, 265.
61 Mansi, LI, 281.
62 Amat's speech is in Mansi, LI, 231-2. His written observations are found ibid., 300-302, passim. Bishop Conrad Martin of Paderborn acted as spokesman for the deputation in discussing the amendments. His comments are found ibid., 315-35, passim.
63 Mansi, LI, 301; 317-8. The proposal was also made by Bishop José Caixal y Estrada of Urgel.
64 Mansi, LI, 300.
65 Mansi, LI, 332.

part, was the introduction of a clearer division between what had to be believed on the authority of divine revelation and what had to be believed on the authority of the Church. His proposal was not accepted, but its substance was contained in another amendment which was written into the constitution. 66

Debate on Chapter X ended on March 31. On the following day, twelve speakers mounted the rostrum to discuss the interrelation of faith and science. None of them came from the United States, but the Archbishop of San Francisco contributed to the general discussion by handing in an amendment concerning revision of the second canon of the chapter. It touched upon a problem which had been raised in the council by Bishop Jacques Ginoulhiac of Grenoble. The canon was framed in broad terms and condemned those who held that scientific disciplines could be pursued without any reference to divine revelation. Ginoulhiac objected that there were some disciplines which by their very nature could not conflict with revelation. Speaking for the deputation, Bishop Louis Pie of Poitiers agreed with this proposition, but pointed out the difficulty of enumerating the sciences which did or did not impinge upon areas in which the Church, as the custodian of divine revelation, had a legitimate interest. Archbishop Alemany thought that the problem would be solved if the canon were changed to read: "If anyone say that all human disciplines are to be treated without regard for supernatural revelations; or that the conclusions of these disciplines, even if they are repugnant to Catholic doctrine, cannot be proscribed by the Church, let him be anathema." Alemany's addition was the word "all," which he hoped would reconcile the views of Pie and Ginoulhiac. 67 His wording was not accepted by the deputation, but the definitive text of the canon managed to skirt the dilemma which Ginoulhiac's objection had raised. 68

Although they took no further part in the debates, a number

66 Mansi, LI, 322-33.
67 Mansi, LI, 343.
68 Mansi, LI, 372.

of the bishops from the United States became involved in two disputes connected with the constitution on faith. The first of these had to do with the opening words of Chapter I, and had been brought to the floor of the council on March 24 in a speech by the Benedictine Bishop of Birmingham, William Ullathorne. The chapter began with the words, "The holy Roman Catholic Church. . . ." Ullathrone objected that this qualification of "Catholic" by "Roman" gave countenance to the branch theory espoused by Anglicans and could be interpreted as an admission that there were really three Catholic churches, namely the Roman, the English, and the Eastern. He suggested that the text be reworded to read "Catholic and Roman," or that a comma be placed between the two words. 69

The subsequent history of Ullathorne's proposal is murky. On March 29, Bishop Gasser stated that the deputation had no objection to the placing of a comma between "Roman" and "Catholic." 70 A standing vote was then taken on the formula "Catholic and Roman," which was clearly rejected by the fathers, as was the substitute offered by Bishop William Clifford of Clifton, who wanted to say simply, "the Catholic Church." The next amendment to be voted upon was the insertion of the comma. The presidents declared that they could not determine the result of this vote, and a count was ordered. While this count was in progress, the voting was suddenly adjourned until the following day. When the council reassembled on March 30, Gasser again went to the pulpit. He announced that he had consulted many of the fathers, and many, although not all, of the members of the deputation on faith, and had come to the conclusion that the comma could not be allowed. He went on to explain his reasons:

What is the meaning of the words "Roman Catholic Church?" It means the same as the Roman Church, that is, the mother and teacher of all churches, joined with the Catholic Church, that is, with that

69 Butler, I, 277-82; Mansi, LI, 105.
70 Mansi, LI, 187.

church which is in the whole world, and indeed so joined that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church Roman.

It was a proper name, he continued, and he asked if any of the fathers had ever thought of separating their Christian and family names by a comma. Finally, the bishop concluded, the comma could not be tolerated, because "that church which is the mother and teacher of all the churches cannot have or hold second place in the proper name of the Church." 71 After this exhortation, the council voted to reject the amendment.

Despite this defeat, the last had not been heard of the Ullathorne proposal. On the day following Gasser's sudden reversal and the consequent vote in the council, nine bishops from English-speaking countries addressed a strong protest to the cardinal presidents over the way in which the affair had been managed. Bishop Michael Domenec, C.M., of Pittsburgh represented the United States in this protest. The signers recalled that the amendment for the introduction of the comma had been approved by the deputation, and they declared that it had apparently been adopted by standing vote. But, the memorial continued, while the vote-counters were checking the results, a conference was held at the rostrum. A bishop who was a member of the deputation had then come to the English-speaking delegates and asked them if they would be satisfied with the change --"holy, Catholic, apostolic and Roman Church"--instead of the comma. He was told that this was satisfactory, and in turn assured the Anglo-American group that the deputation would recommend the new formula. On this note, the session had been adjourned. On the next day Gasser had rejected all compromise, and admitted in so doing that he had not even consulted all the members of the deputation. The nine bishops who signed the protest of March 31 felt that they had been deceived. 72

The question lay dormant until the preliminary vote on the entire constitution, which took place on April 12. At that time,

71 Mansi, LI, 200.
72 Mansi, LI, 200-201.

thirty-six amendments were handed in which supported Ullathorne's demand. Nearly all of these came from bishops of the British Empire and the United States. The seventeen American protests cut across all previously established party lines. Those who voted placet juxta modum and gave as at least one of their reasons for so doing the name which had been adopted for the Church were: Archbishop Martin J. Spalding, Archbishop John B. Purcell, and Bishops John J. Conroy, Michael Domenec, William H. Elder, Edward Fitzgerald, James Gibbons, John Loughlin, William McCloskey, Bernard J. McQuaid, Tobias Mullen, William O'Hara, Maurice de St.-Palais, Jeremiah Shanahan, Augustin Vérot, Richard V. Whelan, and John J. Williams. 73

Only a handful of prelates who did not belong to the AngloAmerican group protested against the word Romana at the congregation on April 12. However, forty-four bishops of the opposition made the cause their own in a written protest submitted to the presidents on April 18. They informed the cardinals that they were anxious that the vote for the constitution at the third public session should be unanimous, but they demanded two changes before they would consent to add their placets. The first change asked that a clearer distinction be introduced between the faithful in general and the episcopate. The peroration of the constitution seemed, they thought, to minimize unduly the episcopal role. The second demanded that the Church be entitled "holy, Catholic, apostolic and Roman." Among the signers were Archbishop Kenrick and Bishops Domenec, Fitzgerald, and Mrak. 74

These repeated representations finally had some effect, and on April 19 Gasser recommended to the council that it adopt the style "holy Catholic apostolic Roman Church." This had been another formula suggested by Clifford. Ullathorne wrote exultantly to a friend, Canon Edgar Estcourt, on the very same day:

73 Mansi, LI, 381-92.
74 Mansi, LI, 411-2.

To-day in General Congregation my amendment was carried unanimously, two only rising against it: after it had been first proposed and voted, the votes left uncounted; the substance of the question retracted and shelved; and then voted again in another form by the 'placet', except about forty who stood by me; and then protested against on the score of informality; then reopened by private correspondence; then taken up anew and unanimously approved by the special deputation; then to-day finally voted . . . . But many Americans voted with me, and I owed the reopening and working of the question in Council to the Archbishop of Baltimore. I shall I hope be able to show some day what a mess it has saved us from, in England especially. Our Archbishop [ Manning] behaved very well in the last act of the special deputation. 75

The final form of the amendment adopted, as well as the initial impulse, had come from England, but the bishops of the United States had provided indispensable help in accomplishing something that was very rare in the Vatican Council, namely, the reversal of a decision already taken by both the deputation on faith and a general congregation.

The second problem which threatened unanimous approval of the constitution has already been hinted at. It involved the two concluding paragraphs. They were written in the first person, and therefore in the name of the pope. This was in itself a sore point with the minority, which would have preferred that decrees be issued in the name of the council. The first paragraph exhorted the faithful, and particularly those charged with the pastoral or teaching office, to protect the Church against the errors which had just been condemned, and to strive to teach the faith which had been enunciated. The second paragraph said:

But since it is not sufficient to avoid heretical perversity, unless those errors are also avoided which more or less approximate it, we admonish all of their duty to observe also the constitutions and decrees by which this Holy See has proscribed and condemned similar evil opinions which are not here enumerated in detail. 76

75 Ullathorne to Estcourt, Rome, April 19, 1870, in Butler, 1, 297.
76 Mansi, LI, 38.

Both of these paragraphs had originally belonged at the end of the entire constitution on Catholic faith, of which only the first part had been discussed. The deputation had wavered on the proper placing of them, but finally decided that they should be put at the end of the truncated decree. Messengers had been sent to the home of each of the fathers on April 9 to tell them that they would be asked to vote on the concluding paragraphs before the vote on Chapter IV of the schema. This inversion of the order of voting brought a letter of protest from nine minority bishops on April 10. Among them were Archbishops Kenrick and Purcell. 77 The protest was disallowed, and the council approved the two sections on April 12. 78 Kenrick later explained the reasons behind the minority objection. They feared--and their fears were subsequently confirmed in a speech of Archbishop Manning--that they were being asked to put their names to an implicit acknowledgment of the infallibility of the pope. Kenrick claimed that a spokesman for the deputation had expressly denied that this was the intention of the paragraphs. 79

As in the case of the word Romana, last minute protests were entered against the paragraphs. At the general congregation of April 12, when the ballot on the entire constitution was taken, Archbishop Kenrick and Bishops McQuaid and Mullen joined thirty-seven other prelates in submitting requests that the section be dropped. 80 The letter of April 18, which was signed by forty-four bishops, including five Americans, made the same point. As an alternative, they declared themselves ready to accept the amendment of Bishop Matthias Eberhard of Trier, who proposed that prelates and teachers be distinguished from the faithful, and that all be asked to work for the elimination of error according to their position in the Church. 81

77 Mansi, LI, 378.
78 Mansi, LI, 378-80.
79 Peter Richard Kenrick, Concio in Concilio Vaticano habenda at non habita ( Naples: 1870), pp. 66-7.
80 Mansi, LI, 409.
81 Mansi, LI, 411-2.

The third public session of the council, at which the formal vote on the constitution on Catholic faith was to take place in the presence of the pope, was set for Low Sunday, April 24. Three meetings of the international committee of the minority were held during Easter Week in an effort to decide whether they should make a public show of opposition by voting non placet. Bishop Clifford opposed the move, while Bishop Strossmayer favored it. A compromise was ultimately agreed upon and those who could not bring themselves to vote placet were asked to abstain altogether, so that the decree would be adopted unanimously. 82

Several of the more outspoken leaders of the minority were not content with this halfway measure. On the eve of the public session, eight bishops, headed by Peter Richard Kenrick, transmitted a formal explanation of their stand to the cardinal presidents. They regretted, they said, that they would be unable to explain their vote at the session, as had been customary in the Council of Trent. Despite that fact, they intended to vote for the constitution, since they admitted the essential doctrines contained in it. They wanted to go on record, nevertheless, with three objections. The first of these was to the generous use of anathemas. Secondly they complained that the conclusion of Chapter IV--by which, presumably, they meant the two paragraphs discussed above--was "too general and indeterminate." The third objection brought into the open one of the principal reasons why the minority had contested the constitution so vigorously. The eight signatories declared that in giving their placet they did not retract or minimize any of the expostulations which had been made about the management of the council. They insisted, the letter went on, that these demands be met, for the sake of the liberty of the council and for the preservation of conciliar tradition and the rights and prerogatives of bishops. In addition to Kenrick, the protest was signed by Strossmayer, Archbishop Jean-Paul Lyonnet of Albi, Bishop Augustin David of St.-Brieuc, Bishop Henri Maret, titular of Sura, Bishop Félix

82 Friedrich, Gerchichte, III, 835-6.

de Las Cases of Constantine, Bishop Charles-Philippe Place of Marseilles, and Bishop Luigi Moreno of Ivrea. Seven of the eight voted placet on April 24; only Strossmayer abstained. Bishop Fessler, the secretary, placed the letter in the files with the notation that it had not been delivered until April 25. 83

Consideration of the struggles over the word Romana and over the terminal paragraphs has carried us beyond the fortyfifth general congregation on April 12, when the test vote on the whole constitution was held. When the roll call had been completed, it revealed that the representation from the United States was down to forty prelates. Nine had already left Rome, while Bishop William McCloskey of Louisville had arrived. Sixteen Americans gave an unconditional placet, eighteen voted placet juxta modum, and six others who were still in the city absented themselves. 84 No one had voted non placet, and the over-all tally stood at: placet, 510; placet juxta modum, 85. 85

As required by the rules of February 22, each of the fathers who had given only conditional approval to the constitution handed in his objection or objections in writing. For many of the Americans, this amounted to a briefly stated demurrer on the word Romana. Some, like Bishop Shanahan of Harrisburg, specifically associated themselves with the speech given during

83 Mansi, LI, 425-6.
84 Mansi, LI, 381-2. Affirmative votes were cast by Archbishops Blanchet and Alemany, by Bishops Amat, Dubuis, de Goesbriand, Heiss, Henni, Lootens, Martin, Miége, Mrak, O'Connell, Persico, Rappe, and Ryan, and by Abbot Wimmer. Conditional ballots came from Archbishops Spalding, Kenrick, and Purcell, and from the following bishops: Conroy, Domenec, Elder, Fitzgerald, Gibbons, Loughlin, William McCloskey, McQuaid, Mullen, O'Hara, St.-Palais, Shanahan, Vérot, Whelan, and Williams. The six temporary absentees were Archbishop John McCloskey and Bishops Bayley, Hennessy, Lynch, McFarland, and McGill. The nine who took no further part in the council were Archbishop Odin and Bishops Bacon, Feehan, Hogan, Lamy, Melcher, O'Gorman, Quinlan, and Wood.
In this balloting, Bishop Ignatius Persico, O.F.M. Cap., participated for the first time as a full-fledged member of the American hierarchy. In March, 1870, he became Bishop of Savannah and Bishop Vérot was transferred to the new See of St. Augustine.
85 Collectio Lacensis, VII, 739.

the debates by Ullathorne. 86 Elder of Natchez was not content with any such general statements. He presented seven amendments, and in some of them backed up his argument with a half-dozen reasons.

Bishops Whelan and Vérot were two others who explained their opposition to the word Romana at some length. The Bishop of Wheeling recalled that it was a comparative late-comer to the official name of the Church, and said that it was completely unknown to the ancient councils. He lamented the fact that an accessory and accidental title, which belonged properly to a local church, was to be emphasized at the expense of two of the four notes of the universal Church, namely the qualifications "one" and "holy." If it had to be included in the constitution, he said, it ought to be placed last, only after all the notes of the Church had been enumerated, and separated from them by a conjunction." Bishop Vérot, appearing for the first time in the minutes of the council under his new appellation as Bishop of St. Augustine, proved to be as sprightly and humorous as ever. His preference was for the description "holy Catholic Church," as an answer to those Protestants who claimed that the Roman Catholic Church was not the Catholic Church of the creeds. The matter was more than a question of apologetics and theology to Florida's new bishop, as he proceeded to explain. Some years previously, he declared, a farm had been left to his diocese. The will specifically stated that the property was to go to the "Catholic Church." However, the Episcopalians had taken the case to court and had won the farm with the contention that Vérot's church was not Catholic, but Roman Catholic. 88

Another amendment on the same subject was submitted anonymously, but the editors of Mansi have identified the handwriting as that of Archbishop Spalding. His arguments paralleled those of the preceding bishops, but he added one more by referring to the profession of faith of Pius IV, which was in

86 Mansi, LI, 396-8.
87 Mansi, LI, 395.
88 Mansi, LI, 395-6.

standard use. There the term "Roman" was used to designate a specific church, the mother and teacher of all churches. Spalding feared that indiscriminate use of the term with reference to the whole Church would result in ambiguity. Like Whelan, he asked that all four notes of the Church be included if the added title also was employed. 89 No American emendations were suggested for the third and fourth chapters, and only one was handed in on the second. This came from Mullen of Erie, who wanted a statement to the effect that not everything which could be revealed actually had been revealed. A similar request by Bishop Amat at the thirty-fourth general congregation had been refused, and the Bishop of Erie's petition fared no better. 90

The canons appended to the constitution came under particularly strong fire from the United States bishops. The most succinct criticism was that of Bishop McQuaid, who made a fourword request: "Omittantur omnes canones, etc."--"Let all the canons be omitted, etc." 91 Archbishop Kenrick was more specific, and he expressed his displeasure with the canons because he opposed multiplication of anathemas. 92 Fitzgerald of Little Rock had the same objection, pointing out that good Catholics had no need of threats and that others made a joke of them. He felt that excessive use of the anathema would only drive away those whom the Church was trying to win to itself. 93 Bishop Elder likewise preferred a positive approach to non-Catholics. He declared himself convinced that there were a great number of people in the United States who followed false doctrines not from any evil intent, but out of either culpable or inculpable ignorance. These people, he protested, were well disposed to listen to the truth if it were proposed to them in a kindly and sympathetic fashion, but they would not listen to words which were calculated to injure their sensibilities. The Bishop of Natchez was not opposed to a strong and vital preaching of

89 Mansi, LI, 396.
90 Mansi, LI, 400.
91 Mansi, LI, 402.
92 Mansi, LI, 403.
93 Mansi, LI, 402-3.

truth, but he could see no point in rousing unnecessary antagonism. He also raised a point of order by asking who was the object of the anathemas. They seemed to be directed at those outside the Church and even at the non-baptized. This he declared to be against traditional conciliar practice. In any event, he thought that most of those who were teaching the errors proscribed--especially the professors in European universities-had little reverence for the Church or fear of its condemnations, and so the whole approach was pointless. It would be much better, he felt, to stress a positive exposition of the Church's doctrine than to spend time proscribing and condemning without tangible results. 94

Elder demonstrated his dislike for a proliferation of canons by declaring himself dissatisfied with seven of those which had been proposed to go with the first three chapters of the constitution. However, he gave no reason for his objections, and so it is impossible to make any further analysis of his thought on such subjects as materialism, ontologism, and so on. The fifth canon of Chapter III was another question. Three American bishops had comments to make on it.

Canon Five read: "If anyone say that the assent of Christian faith is not free, but is produced necessarily by arguments of human reason; or that the grace of God is necessary to living faith alone, which works through charity, let him be anathema." 95 The condemnation was directed at two interconnected errors of the German theologian Georg Hermes ( 1775-1831). The first of these was Hermes' denial that the act of faith was a free, nonnecessitated act. In other words, Hermes had declared that rational evidence could compel an act of supernatural faith. His second error was to claim that the help of divine grace was necessary only for living faith, that is, for faith informed by charity. He had denied that it was necessary for faith which was not informed by charity. In formulating Canon Five, the deputa-

94 Mansi, LI, 403.
95 Mansi, LI, 37-8.

tion wished to assert: (1) that the act of faith was free, that is, it could not be compelled by rational arguments; and (2) that grace was necessary even for dead faith. Martin of Paderborn pointed out the necessary connection between these two assertions when he told the fathers that the freedom of the act of faith was a necessary condition for the need of grace. If the act of faith could be compelled by rational evidence, then grace was unnecessary. 96

The entire canon was framed in the context of a refutation of Hermes' errors. His doctrine was scarcely intelligible, even to Germans, and it was not therefore surprising that many of the fathers misunderstood the purpose of the condemnation. 97 A number of them interpreted it as simply an affirmation of the necessity of grace for the act of faith and neglected the correlative affirmation of the freedom of that act. 98 Among those who did so was Bishop Elder, who wanted the adverb "always" to modify the phrase "produce necessarily," because, he explained, arguments can sometimes be such as to produce conviction. 99 Had Elder's amendment been adopted, Hermes would not have been condemned. The bishop did not universalize the necessary production of faith by rational arguments, as did Hermes, but he obviously considered it a not abnormal possibility.

Bishop Vérot would have turned both parts of the canon into a statement of the necessity of grace. He suggested that the first part read as follows: "If anyone say that the assent of Christian faith is not free, but is produced necessarily by arguments of human reason without the supernatural help of God . . . let him be anathema." Vérot gave as his reasons a desire for greater clarity and the fear that the canon seemed to concede that the usual apologetic arguments for the faith were not con-

96 Mansi, LI, 330. For this whole section, see Roger Aubert, Le Problème de l'acte de foi (Louvain: 1950), pp. 181-5.
97 Aubert, ibid., pp. 103, n. 2.
98 Ibid., p. 182.
99 Mansi, LI, 406.

vincing. 100 In saying this, he missed the point. The first part of the canon did not intend to deny the validity and effectiveness, in their own sphere, of rational arguments. It did intend to assert that a faith which was specifically supernatural ("the assent of Christian faith") could not be the inevitable result of an inexorable chain of human reasoning. Even after rational arguments had been proposed and accepted, the mind remained free to make or not to make an act of supernatural faith. The assent, if made, was therefore free. It was not necessitated by rational arguments. Once this freedom had been established, the second part of the canon went on to determine the role and influence of divine grace in a concrete act of faith. By introducing this latter question into the first part of the canon, Vérot was confusing the issue. His amendment was therefore rejected, as had been that of Bishop Elder.

Bishops Elder and Whelan also had suggestions for the second part of Canon Five. This clause ("If anyone say . . . that the grace of God is necessary to living faith alone, which works through charity, let him be anathema") denied directly Hermes' assertion that grace was necessary only for faith informed by charity. If the German theologian were wrong, then it followed that grace was also necessary for faith not informed by charity. Whelan proposed that the section read: "If anyone say . . . that the grace of God is not necessary to initial faith, not yet informed by charity, let him be anathema." Gasser rejected the change, since it did not hit Hermes' error directly. 101 Elder felt that the phrase "to living faith alone" was ambiguous, and preferred to say "only to living faith." The wording expressed the intended condemnation, and was in fact employed by Gasser in his rejection of Whelan's amendment, but it was not incorporated in the text. 102

There is one final amendment that should be mentioned. The

100 Mansi, LI, 406. Vérot's addition to the text is italicized.
101 Mansi, LI, 407.
102 Mansi, LI, 406.

fifth canon of Chapter I condemned another of Georg Hermes' errors, namely, his denial that the world had been created for God's glory. Bishop Whelan asked that the proposition be altered to read: "If anyone assert that the world, which was created for God's glory, was also created to increase His happiness, let him be anathema." He felt that this change would make clear the difference between God's glory and His happiness. 103 Once more, the objection failed to take into account the fact that the canon was written in a specific context, that of the Hermesian errors, and that it was intended to refute them. Answering for the deputation, Gasser rejected Whelan's emendation on the grounds that it would say only indirectly that which the deputation wanted to say directly, namely that God had created the world for His own glory. It is interesting to note in this connection, and indicative of the difficulty in achieving a proper understanding of the abstruse thought of Hermes, that Eberhard of Trier contended that the deputation itself had misconstrued the views of the Hermesians. They did not, he said, deny that the world was created for God's glory, but for them this was a secondary purpose of creation, with the primary purpose being the happiness of man. 104

On this note of confusion, we can leave the debates on the constitution Dei Filius, the official name of this set of decrees on Catholic faith. The bishops of the United States had shown an active interest in many phases of the discussion. Their best achievement was the forcing of a compromise on the word Romana. When they came to trade metaphysical subtleties with the fathers of the deputation, they were less successful. Nevertheless, there was a certain unity in their approach. In both these cases, their preoccupation was chiefly pastoral and apologetic. The same bent explained their reluctance over the nu-

103 Mansi, LI, 404.
104 Mansi, LI, 107. See also Marcel S. J. Viller, Coors Viller, étude historique et doctrinale des documents de l'Eglise contenus dans L'Enchiridion de Denzinger (San Miguel, Argentina: 1956), p. 534.

merous anathemas in the constitution. As Peter Kenrick had put it, they had not come to the council to compose a theological treatise, but they were very much concerned with the relation of the Church to those outside its ranks and with their apostolic mission in the world. For this they had no apologies to make.

The constitution Dei Filius was approved unanimously, 667 to 0, at the third public session of the council on Low Sunday, April 24. Thirty-nine American prelates were present, and Bayley of Newark was the lone absentee. 105 As has been mentioned previously, Archbishop Kenrick was one of seven fathers who voted affirmatively after having signed a letter declaring that their vote was given under protest. 106 American reaction to the constitution was predictably varied. McMaster printed it in Latin in the Freeman's Journal for May 14, as a "welcome treat" for his 2,000 priest-subscribers and for educated laymen. He added that the decree would give some of the American bishops the opportunity to make an act of faith, and commented: "it will do them good." 107 Bernard McQuaid's report was somewhat more sober. He wrote to Father Early: "There are some obtruse {sic} metaphysical points which few can fathom and certainly will never trouble the brains of any but a German Philosopher for whose especial benefit they seem to have been made. The rest is quite simple Theology. Yet it was wonderful the care that was needed and the pains taken to make everything just as it ought to be." 108

After the public session, the fathers were allowed four days to recoup their forces before the next topic for debate was proposed to them. There had been some uncertainty as to what would happen once the constitution on faith was adopted. On April 20, Bishop Miége told his correspondent, Canon Alliaudi:

We shall have a public session on Quasimodo Day: this will be for the first four chapters of the Schema de fide. If you are very anxious

105 Mansi, LI, 437-50.
106 Mansi, LI, 425-6.
107 Freeman's Journal, May 14, 1870.
108 McQuaid to Early, Rome, April 24, 1870, in Browne, pp. 423-4.

to know what will happen when we re-commence the meetings: if we will deal with infallibility, or simply with faith, or with the Church, or with discipline, I will tell you with all my accustomed simplicity that I know nothing. The rumors are so contradictory that it is not worth the trouble to talk about them. 109

McQuaid was able, however, to inform Early on April 25 that the next point for discussion would be the "old one of the 'little Catechism.'" He thought it a useless project, since, while it was supposed to be a move towards uniformity, bishops would still be allowed to have larger catechisms according to the needs of their dioceses. 110

Debate on the proposal to adopt a universal, elementary catechism was resumed at the forty-seventh general congregation on April 29. The first speaker was Archbishop Franciszek Wierchleyski of Lemberg, who appeared on behalf of the deputation on discipline. He was followed by Cardinal François Donnet of Bordeaux, who supported the project, and then by Bishop Hefele, who read a speech by Cardinal Rauscher who was against it. During Hefele's reading, there was murmuring in the hall. When he had finished, Cardinal de Angelis broke in to announce that a schema on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff would be considered next. He said that comments on the chapter dealing with the primacy were being distributed, and that the same would be done for infallibility on the day following. The president gave two reasons for this move. One was that many fathers had requested it. The second was that great anxiety about the matter had been aroused among the faithful, with a consequent disturbance of the peace and tranquility of the Church. 111 Debate on the catechism project then continued, with a speech in which Bishop Pietro Rota of Guastalla exhorted the council to hasten its work so that it would not be forced to adjourn without having completed it.

Bishop Vérot was the only American orator. His speech was

109 Miége to Alliaudi, Rome, April 20, 1870, in Garin, p. 150.
110 McQuaid to Early, Rome, April 25, 1870, in Browne, p. 425.
111 Mansi, LI, 467.

restrained and brief, and he began by saying that he had an amendment to offer, which he would leave with the presidents, "according to the mind of the rules which have been given to us." At this point, de Angelis cut him off brusquely with the remark, "We are dealing with the schema in general, and not in particular, Most Reverend Father. Therefore either speak in general or give place to another." As it appears in the minutes, the interruption seems to have been completely uncalled for. Vérot assured the president that his amendment dealt with the general import of the schema, and then proceeded to suggest that the vote which they were to take be only provisory until an actual catechism had been produced for inspection. He wanted a common catechism, he said, with all his heart, but unless it were satisfactory to the bishops, it would be useless. The hierarchy of the United States, he concluded, had been trying for years to agree on a common catechism and had appointed a committee to do the work of preparing one at a plenary council fifteen years previously, but the book had not yet been written. 112 This speech of Vérot stood in marked contrast to his other appearances in the pulpit. He had started out in a conciliatory vein, only to be rebuked immediately by the chair. Perhaps his reference to the rules of February 22 was considered sarcastic. If so, this is not clear from the printed text. At any rate, he had nearly as much difficulty when he rose to speak in favor of this schema as he had had when he objected to those which had preceded it. His suggestion was certainly eminently sensible, but it touched upon a delicate point. No actual catechism had been proposed to the fathers. Two spokesmen for the deputation on discipline later made it plain that there had never been any idea of having the council plan the catechism. What was wanted was that the fathers commit the entire project to the Holy See for implementation. This was all that was asked of them. 113

112 Mansi, LI, 469-70.
113 These statements were made by Bishop Johann Zwerger ( Mansi, LI, 493-500) and by Bishop Étienne Marilley ( Mansi, LI, 535-8).

The preliminary vote on the schema took place on May 4, after a discussion that had lasted through three general congregations. The results were as follows: placet, 491; placet juxta modum, 44; non placet, 56. Nineteen American bishops voted placer, four voted non placet, and five placer juxta modum. At least one more American bishop had left Rome since the public session of April 24 ( Patrick N. Lynch of Charleston), while others did not participate in the balloting on May 4. 114

The entire second debate on the elementary catechism is a strange one. On the very first day of the debate had come the long-expected announcement that the question of papal infallibility would be discussed in the council. This was bound to cause a considerable diminution of interest in the matter at hand. The catechism schema itself was peculiar. In effect, the fathers were asked to give the Roman authorities carte blanche, and both spokesmen for the deputation persisted in treating objections as professions of disloyalty to the Holy See. In his final summation for the deputation, Bishop Étienne Marilley of Lausanne and Geneva put the charge very baldly. He declared that those who demanded that the catechism be the work of the council were saying equivalently that they did not trust the pope, and that they were affording journals hostile to the Church the opportunity of claiming that there was a division between the pontiff and

114 Mansi, LI, 510-12. Those who voted placet were Archbishops Alemany, Blanchet, and John McCloskey, and the following bishops: Dubuis, Elder, de Goesbriand, Heiss, Henni, Lootens, Miége, O'Connell, O'Hara, Persico, Rappe, Ryan, St.-Palais, Shanahan, and Williams, and Abbot Wimmer. Voting placet juxta modum were Bishops Amat, Gibbons, Hennessy, Loughlin, and Vérot. Archbishop Purcell and Bishops Domenec, McQuaid and Whelan voted non placet. The absentees were Archbishops Spalding and Kenrick, and Bishops Bayley, Fitzgerald, Martin, William McCloskey, McFarland, McGill, Mrak, and Mullen. It is probable that several of the absentees had already quitted Rome permanently, but there is no way of determining their exact date of departure. Bishop Martin, for example, had been officially excused from the council on March 18, and had written to Bishop Perché on March 12 that he would be leaving within the week, but he was present at the public session on April 24. A similar uncertainty exists with regard to other bishops.

the bishops. 115 It is very difficult, to say the least, to find substantiation for these accusations in the remarks of those prelates who questioned the advisability of the schema, either in speeches from the rostrum or in written observations. In the case of the Americans, there is nothing in the record to cast the slightest doubt on the sincerity of their motives. In any event, nothing more came of the project. It was given tentative approval on May 4, but was never voted upon in public session.

By sheer statistics, the contributions of the American bishops to the abortive schemata on the Church and on the catechism, and to the dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith, cannot be considered very impressive. Prelates from the United States delivered five speeches at the twenty-one congregations which were held between March 18 and May 13. Two of these were by Bishop Amat. A grand total of twenty-three bishops--just over half of those present at the council--took some part in the discussion by submitting written emendations or protests. As has been pointed out, the single greatest example of united endeavor, and the most successful, was the campaign which resulted in adoption of a compromise on the use of the word Romana. This in itself was a minor accomplishment, yet it was to some extent symbolic and indicative of a clearly traceable pattern in the thought of most of the twenty-three bishops whose activities form part of the official record.

The Americans represented a relatively new and different branch of the universal Church, with its own peculiar problems and hopes. When various questions came up in the council-whether it was the catechism or Church and State or the good faith of non-Catholics--they tried to form their judgments on the basis of a practical awareness of the needs of the Church which they knew best. If they did not seek to impose their own system and approach on others, they were no less unwilling to accept procedural arrangements which were unsuited to their situation. Their approach was less juridical, and it was certainly

115 Mansi, LI, 535-8.

less speculative, than that of many of their fellow bishops. They did not claim for it an absolute validity which excluded all other opinion, but they were concerned that the American experience should have its day. Cardinal de Angelis' announcement of April 29 focused the complete attention of the fathers on the subject of papal infallibility. We shall see that some of the same concerns manifested during the debates of March and April appeared again in the speeches and other activities of the bishops from the United States during the debates which led eventually to the definition of infallibility.


Preparations For the Debate on Infallibility

ALTHOUGH the question of papal infallibility had not been mentioned in the schema on the Church submitted to the fathers on January 21, we have seen that it was a very live issue in extra-conciliar discussions, and that a number of petitions for and against its introduction had been handed in during the first month of the new year. According to the rules of the council, these petitions were referred to the congregation on proposals ( Congregatio de postulatis ). Behind the scenes, the councils of the majority were divided on the advisability of bringing matters to a head. As a concession to the minority, one group proposed to let the question lie until treatment of the whole constitution on the Church would logically demand its consideration. Among those who favored this approach were several Italian cardinals, including Bilio, one of the council presidents, Antonelli, the papal Secretary of State, and Pecci, the future Leo XIII. For a time it seemed that Pius IX sided with Bilio, but he eventually yielded to the arguments in favor of an immediate presentation which were presented by Manning, Senestréy, Mermillod, and others, with the support of another of the council presidents Cardinal Annibale Capalti. 1

Cardinal Manning later recalled that the majority petition for immediate consideration of infallibility came before the congregation on proposals on a Sunday morning. He continued:

1 Ollivier, II, 257-61.

"We met in the Vatican. Out of 25 all but two or three voted to recommend to the Holy Father that the Definition should be proposed to the Council. This was the first step in advance." 2 The minutes of the congregation report that the meeting on the various proposals occurred on Wednesday, February 9, at 10:00 A.M. in the Vatican Palace. Twenty-four members were present. Eight of them were signers of the majority petitions which were to be discussed, while two, Cardinal Rauscher of Vienna and the Melchite Patriarch of Antioch, had put their names to petitions asking that infallibility not be brought before the council. Archbishop Spalding was absent, as was Archbishop Alessandro Riccardi di Netro of Turin, an opponent of the definition. Some of the committee members suggested that it would be preferable if initiative in the affair were left to the bishops, and others asked that a moderate decree be framed. Archbishop Manning then made a strong plea for immediate consideration of infallibility and listed seven reasons in its favor. Grégoire Jussef, O.S.B.M., the Patriarch of Antioch, stated that he had hesitated on the question because of the difficulties that a definition would cause for the Eastern Orthodox Church, but he announced that he would submit his judgment to that of the pope. When a vote was taken, only Rauscher opposed submission of a decree on papal infallibility to the fathers. 3 On February 28, Spalding told Father Icard that the congregation had completed its work, and that its recommendations had been sent to the Holy Father. 4 The titular Archbishop of Thessalonica, Alessandro Franchi acted as agent of the congregation. He was received in audience by the pope, who gave his consent to the decision which had been taken, and this information was communicated to the secretary of the council on March 1. 5

Chapter XI of the original constitution on the Church had

2 Purcell, II, 453.
3 Mansi, LI, 687-96.
4 ASS, Icard Journal, p. 231.
5 Mansi, LI, 696-7.

dealt with papal primacy. The new chapter on infallibility was designated caput addendum, or additional chapter. In a departure from ordinary practice, its text was distributed to the fathers at their residences instead of in the council hall. 6 This was done on March 6, and ten days were allowed for written comments, a deadline which was later extended to March 25. On that same day, observations on Chapter XI were also due.

Distribution of the new schemata hastened the crystallization of opinion for and against the definition. On February 26, James A. McMaster's Roman correspondent, Father Eugene M. O'Callaghan, informed him: "I understand that at least half the French and German bishops--and these the men of ability--[are] opposed to at least the opportuneness of any declaration of papal personal infallibility or of infallibility 'ex cathedra' other than the indeterminate belief already existing." 7 Opposition was not, however, limited to French and German bishops. On his way to an afternoon drive in the Villa Borghese, Dupanloup stopped in at the American College on March 4 and found Purcell in an agitated state. In his diary for that day the Bishop of Orléans quoted the archbishop as having exclaimed that the council had been begun with a comedy of invitations and would end with a tragedy of excommunications. 8 Peter Richard Kenrick was more explicit still. He wrote to his vicar-general Henry Muehlsiepen:

The Council appears to have been convoked for the special purpose of defining the Papal Infallibility and enacting the propositions of the Syllabus as general laws of the Church. Both objects are deemed by a minority, of which I am one, inexpedient and dangerous, and are sure to meet with serious resistance. The minds of both parties are seriously excited, and there is every reason to fear that the Council, instead of uniting with the Church those already separated from it, will cause divisions among ourselves most detrimental to Catholic in-

6 Quirinus, p. 337.
7 UND, McMaster Papers, O'Callaghan to McMaster, Rome, February 26, 1870.
8 ASS, Dupanloup Journal, p. 33.

terests. Let us pray that the Providence of God may overrule the passions of men. 9

Another American who was greatly disturbed by the turn of events was Domenec of Pittsburgh. Father Icard met him, together with Bishop Ryan of Buffalo and another bishop, in the Villa Pamphili on March 8. He found Domenec in the worst possible humor, and the bishop told him that the only explanation he could find for the way the council was going was that divine justice was trying the Church. With apparent reference to the proposed schema on Church and State, Domenec declared that the "maxims of intolerance" which were being made to prevail would not go down well in the United States. His remarks on infallibility were even more succinct and vivid. "It will kill us," he told Icard, "we shall have to swallow what we have vomited up." The bishop went on to explain to the Sulpician Superior-General that a standard Protestant reproach was that Catholics made the pope a sort of god who was impeccable, infallibile, and all-powerful. Hitherto, such charges had been met with a straightforward denial. But if the pope were to be proclaimed infallible, the American bishops would have to retract their past teachings on the subject. Icard, who was surprised at the vehemence of the bishop's argument, then suggested to him that he had perhaps been overly influenced by the writings of Dupanloup. Domenec's answer was immediate and clear:

It is nonsense to say that. Monsignor Dupanloup has nothing to do with it. Don't you think we can see what is going on in our own country? They have summoned us from America only for decisions which will do infinite harm to our churches. They do not listen to us. They do all this because they have the majority with them, which makes them more powerful than we. Is that a council?

The discussion then turned to the causes of the situation in which the council found itself. Icard remarked that a good many

9 Kenrick to Muehlsiepen, Rome, March 6, 1870, in Rothensteiner, History, II, 305.

inopportunists had changed their views because of the violent attacks being made on the pope, and now favored a definition of his infallibility. But Domenec refused to consider this aspect of the question and laid the entire blame for discussion in the council at the door of Civiltà Cattolica and L'Univers. On this note the conversation ended. 10

While the fathers were still considering the two new chapters, Lord Acton was busy trying to mobilize the forces of the opposition. On March 8, he wrote Döllinger on the subject of moral unanimity, without which, he claimed, decisions of the council would not be binding. He reported that this was also the opinion of Archbishop Spalding. 11 A day later Acton wrote once more to Döllinger and urged him to bring out a pamphlet on infallibility which could be distributed among the fathers. He further suggested that autographed copies should be sent to certain friendly bishops. As he put it: "A little attention of this sort, with some appropriate words, in the various languages, or in Latin, would not only do good, but has been deserved by several. I should like particularly to suggest the Rt. Revd. the Bishop of Clifton, the Most Revd. the Archbishop of St. Louis, the Most Revd. the Archbishop of Halifax, Haynald, Archbishop of Calocza, Strossmayer, the Cardinal of Prague [and] Mérode." 12

The distribution of the schema on infallibility had not put an end to petitions on the subject. Proponents of a definition reacted to minority opposition by submitting requests that the topic be scheduled for immediate consideration. One of these memorials bore the signatures of two bishops from the United States, Dubuis of Galveston and Miége of Kansas. 13 Bishop Elder of Natchez did not sign any petition at this time, but in a letter to the Coadjutor Bishop-Elect of New Orleans, he expressed his sympathies clearly as he reported that Döllinger and his French counterpart, Gratry, had been repudiated by bishops from their

10 ASS, Icard Journal, pp. 255-6. 11 Conzemius Transcripts, Acton to Döllinger, Rome, March 8, 1870. 12 Conzemius Transcripts, Acton to Döllinger, Rome, March 9, 1870. 13 Mansi, LI, 703-11.

own countries. 14 There was also some talk of an attempt to carry the definition by acclamation, something which Civiltà Cattolica had suggested in February of 1869. One of Döllinger's correspondent's informed him of this possibility, and he wrote in the twenty-ninth Quirinus letter on March 15:

In this connection the answer of a North American Bishop of the Infallibilist party is significant. He said that he remembered having heard, when in the theological class of his seminary, that the condemnation of Pope Honorius by the Sixth Council meant nothing, and now in his old age nobody could require him to study and examine the question for himseIL 15

There is no way of checking the accuracy of Döllinger's quotation, but it was at least true that the question of Pope Honorius was one of the problems being agitated by the minority. On March 11, thirteen fathers, representing Austria, Germany, Hungary, Italy, France, England, and the United States, presented a memorial in which they asked that they be allowed to meet with representatives of the deputation on faith to discuss the cases of Popes Sergius and Honorius. They complained that ten days was too short a time for consideration of such an important matter and they protested that the general congregations did not provide adequate opportunity for full discussion. Archbishop Kenrick's was the sole American signature on this petition, which was rejected by Bishop Fessler. 16

Members of the minority felt that objections on the score of insufficient time for consideration, the defect of moral unanimity, and the supposed intention of proclaiming infallibility by acclamation were so serious that they brought into question the ecumenicity of the council and, consequently, the validity of its definitions. Continuing rumors that an attempt would be made at definition by acclamation provoked the strongest American protest of the entire council. On March 15 Archbishops Purcell

14 AANO, Perché, Elder to Perché, Rome, March 6, 1870.
15 Quirinus, p. 348.
16 Mansi, LI, 702-3.

and Kenrick joined Bishop Fitzgerald of Little Rock and Bishop Moriarty of Kerry in warning the presidents that if such a maneuver were attempted, they would withdraw from the council and make known the reason for their departure. 17 Acton reported a sequel to this protest to Döllinger on March 17:

I have warned you that they are again going to make the attempt to proclaim the dogma by surprise. Barnabò came to Kenrick and asked him to make a declaration that he would somehow leave the determination of the teaching to a commission. The story is still not clear to me. Kenrick, who is of the nature of iron, seems to have given a determined answer. I now believe, and so does Strossmayer, that they should let it come to a head once more, and then, in the council itself, denounce the council. 18

Three days later Acton was still trying to unravel the story. His principal source of information was Connolly of Halifax, who told him that Kenrick was about to publish a tract in which he would sum up the arguments against the ecumenicity of the council. Acton suggested that Döllinger defer any statement of his own until further information was available on Kenrick's plans. 19

The minority fathers were not the only Americans who were active during the first weeks of March. Spalding had not yet given up hope that his compromise solution might be accepted. On March 15, Cardinal Mathieu of Besançon presented it once more at a meeting of the French opposition bishops, and once more it was rejected. The French decided that they would be inconsistent if they opted for an indirect and implicit definition after having petitioned the pope to remove the question from the agenda entirely. Icard, who recorded the session in his diary, noted also that the bishops really missed the point. The question was no longer whether the issue should be brought up, but what line of action they would take when it came to the floor. He felt that serious consideration should have been given to Spald-

17 Mansi, LI, 714.
18 Conzemius Transcripts, Acton to Döllinger, Rome, March 16/17, 1870.
19 Conzemius Transcripts, Action to Döllinger, Rome, March 20, 1870.

ing's plan as one possible way of conciliating the opposing parties. 20

Three episcopal letters written during the fourth week of March testified to the sharp division of opinion that existed among the United States bishops. On March 20 Bayley wrote to Father Corrigan at Newark that he was leaving Rome for Paris. He continued enigmatically: "I will tell you the reasons which have induced me to leave Rome, when I see you, or rather why being obliged to go to Paris, I do not intend to return here." 21 However, Bayley did return to Rome and took part in the voting in July. Bishop Wood of Philadelphia, on the other hand, was already on his way home. From Paris he sent a letter of thanks to Spalding for his "kind intervention" in helping him to obtain leave from the council. He ended the letter with "kindest remembrances to all our Rt. Revd. friends, a warm prayer for the conversion of the recalcitrants and for the perseverance of the infallibilists." 22 The third writer, John Baptist Purcell, was in no such happy mood, as he told two friends in Cincinnati:

Annie is perfectly right in using the phrase 'the bitter end.' The Infallibilists are frenetic. They are are [sic] ready for mobbing, as they were at Trent, when beards were plucked. Montalembert, Dupanloup, Maret, Gratry are treated as heretics and abused--so that as Bp. Bayley has often said to me, 'never has the pleasant anticipation of a fraternal union of bishops been so painfully marred as during the last four months'. We here do not disagree, but there is a cloud lowering over our minds and hearts hardly edged by a silverage of light.

I am sorry that [Henri] Ramière [S.J.] is perverting the 'Messenger' [of the Sacred Heart] into an organ of controversy & misrepresentation. Many of our bishops are disgusted with the course he has taken and one of the wisest and saintliest of the French prelates expressed the conviction that the Jesuits are preparing another cataclysm for themselves and the Church. But they never learn from experience. 23

20 ASS, Icard Journal, pp. 202-3.
21 AANY, C-2, Bayley to Corrigan, Rome, March 20, 1870.
22 AAB, 36-T-40, Wood to Spalding, Paris, March 24, 1870.
23 AAC, Purcell Papers, Purcell to "[illegible] and Anna," Rome, March 24, 1870.

The day after he wrote this letter, Purcell translated his feelings into a protest which reiterated the minority's claim that moral unanimity among the fathers was necessary for the validity of a dogmatic definition. He joined Bishops Whelan, Purcell, and Vérot in declaring that it was difficult to put faith in a divided witness and in claiming that Christ had promised that He would be with the Church and would provide the help of the Holy Spirit only when the Church's testimony was unanimous. In a subsidiary point, the protest, which was in Whelan's handwriting, challenged those provisions of the decree of February 22 which allowed cloture to be imposed by a simple majority vote after a petition to that effect had been made by only ten fathers. Finally, the four bishops summed up their objections in a series of lapidary sentences: "Is this how the affairs of God are to be handled? How was it done in the Council of Trent? How in other councils? We speak to those who know. We have done our duty." 24

Now that the debate over infallibility was obviously approaching a decisive phase, both sides increased their efforts at organization. Until March, the international committee of the minority had been a rather amorphous group. Cardinal Rauscher was one of the first to propose a more tightly knit organization. He suggested that the opposition bishops be paired off by nations against the leading advocates of the definition. In his preliminary listing, Kenrick and Connolly were to answer the arguments of Manning and Spalding. 25 During the latter part of March, the committee was enlarged to nearly three times its original size. The charter members had been Darboy, Dupanloup, Ginoulhiac, Rauscher, Ketteler, Haynald, Strossmayer, Clifford, Moriarty, Kenrick, and Connolly. Connolly withdrew at about this time, under pressure, it was said, from Cardinal Barnabò. He continued, however, to sympathize with the committee's aims and to lend his help when it was possible to do so. No record

24 Mansi, LI, 716-7.
25 Conzemius Transcripts, Acton to Döllinger, Rome, March 20, 1870.

has been found of the Americans who joined the international committee, but those whose subsequent activity in the council demonstrated most clearly their association with its efforts were-besides Kenrick--Purcell, Domenec, Fitzgerald, McQuaid, Mrak, Vérot, and Whelan. 26

The first meeting of the enlarged international committee took place on Wednesday afternoon, March 30. Strict secrecy was observed. Strossmayer summarized the history of the first three months of the council and proposed that it be made the basis of a protest at the way in which affairs were being managed. Hefele of Rottenburg, one of the new German recruits, and Clifford seconded Strossmayer's motion, and Dupanloup was commissioned to draw up the document. Hefele and Ginoulhiac were assigned to prepare a study of the question of moral unanimity. Dupanloup's contribution was ready by Friday, April 1, and it was approved at a meeting of the international committee held on that day. Ginoulhiac and Hefele presented separate reports, and the committee set itself to reconciling them. Apparently Clifford had assisted Dupanloup in writing his pro. test, which was handed in over six signatures, including that of Kenrick, on April 3. The document kept in the Vatican Archives File on the council is in the English prelate's handwriting. It was an appeal for greater stress on the role of the fathers in general congregations and for a corresponding de-emphasis of the role of the deputations and their spokesmen. It seems that the committee was not able to arrive at a final formulation of the Ginoulhiac-Hefele treatment of moral unanimity, and no protest was submitted under that heading. As Archbishop Haynald noted sadly in his diary for April 2, the minority bishops still had some way to go before they achieved real unity of action. 27

26 Conzemius Transcripts, Acton to Döllinger, Rome, March 30, 1870.
27 Friedrich, Geschichte, III, 2, 811-2; Mansi, LI, 717-9. Friedrich quotes as his authority "the unpublished letter of a bishop." Much of his material is, however, taken verbatim from Acton's March 30 letter to Döllinger which has just been quoted.

One further petition resulted from the initial minority efforts at collaboration. On April 10, fourteen fathers, including Purcell and Kenrick, recommended that consideration of infallibility be delayed until after the council had completed its work on problems of Church and State. The petitioners pointed out that there were many unresolved areas of dispute in the politicoecclesiastical field and suggested that a solution should be found for them before the possibility of infallible papal authority was discussed. This approach had the double purpose of recalling to the minds of the council presidents the ever-present threat of intervention by the secular powers, and at the same time expressing the apprehensions of the opposition that once infallibility was defined, the remaining schemata on the agenda would be proclaimed by papal decree. 28

The confusion and fears which beset some of the minority bishops were well expressed by McQuaid of Rochester, who wrote to Father Early on Holy Saturday, April 17:

I have just heard that the Holy Father sent for one of the strongest Infallibilists and told him that he must use his best influence to bring on the question at once, as the state of Europe was such that if not settled now it never would be. Of course if he has said so to one, he has said the same to several. We may therefore expect the allimportant question to be placed before us for discussion immediately. As the Holy Father has used all his influence to decide the question his own way, we may expect to have it placed before the Cath. world in some shape or other. If the Council will so limit it that the decisions of Popes dethroning Kings, and setting subjects free from their allegiance, and authorizing the burning of heretics, etc. shall not be declared infallible, we may be able to get along. It seems to me that we are destined to encounter great difficulties and troubles in America in the next few years. What the Almighty has in store for us is past my comprehension. 29

Just a week later, the Bishop of Rochester returned to the same theme in another letter to the rector of his cathedral:

____________________ 28 Mansi, LI, 719-22. For an explanation of the minority's motivation, see Quirinus, p. 489. 29 McQuaid to Early, Rome, April 16, 1870, in Browne, p. 423.

Several American Bishops leave this week, although some will not go home directly. I stay to fight the great battle if it should come up. We ourselves know little of what we shall have to do next. We may take up the second part of the first Schema de Fide, or we may pass on at once to the Schema do Ecclesia, taking the question of Infallibility first of all and out of its place. Some Bishops are urging the Holy Father to have this done; on the other hand, the difficulties in the way of such a definition are so many and so serious that there is some hesitation. Opposed to the definition are so many Bishops of unquestionable devotion to the Holy See, who will vote a non-placer if it should come before them that men stop to think. Besides the governments of Europe are alarmed. They remember that Popes in the past absolved subjects from their allegiance and in many ways interfered with governments. Even in our country there will arise more or less difficulty on this head. At least politicians will try to use the difficulty against us.

Yet with all these reasons weighing against the definition, I am inclined to think it will pass in some modified form. The Holy Father wishes it, and lets everyone see that he does, the Jesuits are as busy as bees of late and the French Bishops of that way of thinking are as enthusiastic and excitable over the subject as they well can be.

My hope is that in the definition the Pope will in some (way) be connected with the Church. I cannot conceive of a living head without a body. However, I must not enter into the vexed question, which has been such a disturbance to my mind since I come to Rome that once it is disposed of in one way or another I will never want to hear of its controversy again. 30

These two letters make it clear that McQuaid's reason for opposition to the definition was a threefold one. He believed that it was politically inexpedient, and he was disturbed by the tendency of the majority to demand a formula that was vague and indeterminate in its scope and which could therefore be extended beyond due limits by subsequent broad interpretations. Finally, he felt that the chief stress should be laid on the infallibility of the Church, and he did not see how the papal prerogative could be defined outside that context. He was, therefore, more than a mere inopportunist. There were doctrinal problems connected

____________________ 30 "McQuaid to Early, Rome, April 24, 1870, in Browne, pp. 424-5".

with the definition to which he thought the majority owed an answer before the proposed dogma could be proclaimed.

Another who took a pessimistic view of the opposition's chances of preventing the definition was Bishop Richard V. Whelan. On April 24, he wrote to Dupanloup:

I am convinced that all the arguments which can be accumulated will have no effect with those who favor this doctrine. In one way or another they reject everything. Reasons mean nothing. Facts count for nothing. Difficulties for the future do not trouble them. They are not alarmed by the effect which the definition may produce among the faithful, nor of the outside opposition which it may arouse. We must, they say, decide the question--the matter has gone too far--in the present state of affairs the authority of the Pope will be shaken unless there is a definition. They want it; they have decided on it; nothing can prevent it (humanly).

In this hypothesis, Whelan told the French prelate, the only prudent course was to accept the facts and to work for a moderate formula which would spell out exactly the limits of pontifical infallibility and which would emphasize that the pope spoke infallibly only when he functioned as "the mouth of the Church." He enclosed a copy of the formula which he had designed to meet these specifications, and which he had already handed in as an observation on Chapter XII. It will be seen again when we come to survey the various amendments which were suggested by the fathers for the chapters on the primacy and infallibility. 31

An outside observer, Father Sherwood Healy, who had accompanied Bishop Williams of Boston to the council, gave the following summation of the situation at the end of April to a correspondent in the United States, James F. Edwards: "I think it no indiscretion nor exaggeration to say that the preponderance of talent is decidedly on the side of the non-definitionists, but the preponderance of numbers is all on the side of the definition . . . . The Pope is avowedly for the definition. I go with the Church, willingly and cheerfully, if a definition is made. I know

31 ASS, Dupanloup Papers, Whelan to Dupanloup, Rome, April 24, 1870.

others than I are not so willing. God help them and give them a docile heart." 32

Their numerical superiority and the assurance of papal support made the task of the proponents of the definition an easier one than that of their opponents. Nevertheless they encouraged petitions on the subject, and two of these were signed by American bishops. The first was submitted on April 22 and it urged that the question be proposed to the council. Miége signed together with a group of fellow Jesuit vicars apostolic, while Dubuis, de Goesbriand, and Rappe added their names to a page which was headed by the signature of Archbishop Manning. 33 After the schema had actually been laid before the fathers, Dubuis joined other prelates in a rather ornate letter of thanks for the action. 34

Minority bishops were not the only ones who relayed their views on the issues to correspondents elsewhere. Bishop Augustus Martin's lengthy March 12 report to Napoleon J. Perché has already been quoted. The latter was also a strong infallibilist, and he answered the Bishop of Natchitoches in a letter which was released to Le Monde of Paris and was then carried in the London Vatican and the New York Freeman's Journal:

I am deeply astonished, My Lord, by what you tell me with respect to the Council. It is easy to understand that the Supreme Pontiff should be grieved by it. But I do not see any reason why the Cardinals and Bishops, who form the vast majority of the Council, should be discouraged. The only thing I fear is lest the Sovereign Pontiff, from his love of peace, should be willing to withdraw the question of infallibility on account of this violent opposition. If it is permitted to me, the least among my brethren, to express my opinion, I should say that it is absolutely essential to represent clearly to the Sovereign Pontiff that the withdrawal of this question would be an irreparable calamity, and a step backwards of which the results are incalculable.

For all good priests and good Catholics, the decision of the infallibility is the principal affair of the Council. All other questions,

____________________ 32 UND, Edwards Papers, Healy to Edwards, Rome, April 30, 1870. 33 Mansi, LI, 722-4. 34 Mansi, LI, 722-6.

however serious they may be, have only a secondary importance in the judgment of the Catholic world. At a moment when the fundamental principle of authority is so violently attacked, it is in my opinion the duty of the Church to affirm it with greater solemnity than ever by the definition of the infallible authority of the representative of Jesus Christ. Such is the sentiment of all true Catholics. If the question were set aside it would be a triumph for all the enemies of the Church and the Holy See, both within and without; and it would be a cause of discouragement to all Catholics worthy of the name. However you form the majority, and it seems to me, My Lord, that with firmness and union the vote is in your hands. I know that it is God who does everything; but since he deigns to make use of men it is their part so to act that they may be, not only humble and docile, but also active and intelligent instruments in his hand. 35

Perché's argument underlines one of the most painful trials to which the members of the minority were subjected. Whatever may be said of the motivation of bishops from other countries-and that is not our concern here--it is abundantly clear that prelates like Whelan and McQuaid, whose letters have just been quoted, and others from the United States honestly believed that a definition of papal infallibility would be harmful to the Church. They had, besides, doctrinal difficulties for which they felt themselves obliged in conscience to demand convincing explanation. To assume that such men were not "true Catholics" and to lump them together as "enemies of the Church and the Holy See" was nothing short of the rankest injustice. Allowance must be made for the highly charged polemical atmosphere of the time and cognizance taken of the fact that genuine enemies of the Church did indeed seize upon the arguments of the minority for their own purposes, but this scarcely excuses the tone of the criticism leveled at bishops whose only fault was that they took as seriously as did the members of the majority their role as judges of the faith.

The letters of Bishop Eugene O'Connell of Grass Valley were not much more tolerant of the minority position than were the

____________________ 35 The Vatican ( London), April 1, 1870. See also Freeman's Journal, May 21, 1870.

comments exchanged by Martin and Perché, but at least they were more humorous and imaginative. He sent two messages during April to Father William Fortune, the rector of All Hallows College in Dublin. The first was dated Spy Wednesday, April 13:

Pardon me for having delayed so long a reply to your esteemed favor and excuse this hurried scroll, which is penned during the short interval between the grand function of Tenebrae in St. Peter's and Dr. Moriarty dissertation, as usual, De Infallibilitate Summi Pontificis. Whether it be owing to my dullness or not, I cannot be persuaded that the "Venerable Doctor" and Bishop of Kerry treats his subject as ably and omni exceptione major as the Papal Choir treated the Lamentations and Miserere. Is it not strange that the Doctor's views have undergone such a change since he taught the Doctrine ex cathedra for fifteen years that the Pope was infallible when addressing the Church de fide nut moribus? But age and experience mellow the fairest fruit--just as happened to Osius of Cordova.

After giving this vignette of life at the Dominican convent of St. Clement, where both he and the Bishop of Kerry were lodged, O'Connell went on to ask Fortune if there were any substance to Moriarty's fears that the definition would provoke a schism, or if talk of it were in any way responsible for efforts to push a convent inspection bill through the British Parliament. 36 His remarks also provide a not too flattering commentary on the success of the campaign which Dr. Moriarty had described to John Henry Newman when he wrote on February 3: "My mission is to talk to every man I meet--cardinal, bishop or monsignore. I try to frighten our opponents and to encourage our friends, for there are many timid. I am the voice of one crying out, not in the wilderness, nor in the Council, but in the streets and salons." 37

Two weeks later O'Connell addressed Fortune again, and this time his tone was a little sharper:

____________________ 36 AAHC, Marysville Papers, O'Connell to Fortune, Rome, April 13, 1870. See also Henry L S. J. Walsh, Hallowed Were the Gold Dust Trails ( Santa Clara: 1946), p. 424. 37 Moriarty to Newman, Rome, February 3, 1870, in Butler, II, 29.

Were I in any other place but Rome, I'd feel my absence from All Hallows, as the pain of loss. But Rome is more my home than even green Erin.--of course it is so with every Roman Catholic. But all Catholics are not, in a certain sense, Roman Catholics; there are German & Bosnian & Gallican, aye American Catholics--not to speak of English Cawtholics who seem to be of old Cobbet's way of thinking, viz.: that every man is suppos'd to be a rogue until he is proved to be honest man. So certain Catholics suspect every utterance of the Sovereign Pontiff apart from the Bishops assembled in Council or Dispersed as arbitrary, if not despotic and trenching upon Episcopal Privilege. Such Croakers are perpetually upbraiding the advocates of Papal Infallibility with Honorius & Vigilius & I know not how many others, as if the acts of these Pontiffs were definitions ex Cathedra, or a second edition of Original Sin which must have necessarily descended to their successors. They are quite silent about the Council of Rimini & such assemblies as had to be called to order & rectified by the Sovereign Pontiff. However we must make great allowance for the Gallican Catholics on account of their National Saint Dionysius who, you know, walk'd a long way without his head: little blame then to his spiritual children who imagine that they can 'get along' (as Americans say) without a Head that they haven't a right to reform. For my part however & fere omnis Jerosolyma mecum--we are satisfied with the old 'Pontifex anni illius' whose utterances require no more Gailican or German Reformation than refin'd gold needs gilding or the violet fresh perfume. The Unanimity--nemine dissentiente, on Low Sunday amongst the 667 Prelates assembled around the Sovereign Pontiff De Doctrina Catholica in the 4 primis Capitulis Schematis Dogmatici was a most cheering & consoling spectacle. Fiat! Fiat! usque ad finem. Won't you have the Review & Record regularly sent to me & continue to pray that we may all be united in this Grand Council like the various tints of the rainbow & form in Heaven's sight one arch of peace? 38

As May and the debate on infallibility drew near, the bishops from the United States were beginning to adopt firm positions, either for or against the definition, but there was still a certain amount of doubt about the stand which many of them would take. Manning, who wanted a text framed in the broadest possible terms, told the American scholar Charles Eliot Norton that

____________________ 38 AAHC, Marysville Papers, O'Connell to Fortune, Rome, April 27, 1870. See also Walsh, p. 425.

there were no more than ten "enemies of the dogma" in the council. This estimate would seem to be optimistic, especially if by "the dogma" was meant Manning's expression of it. The archbishop also told Norton that "almost all the Americans are sound." 39 No doubt they were, but whether this was so in Manning's understanding of the phrase is another question.

The recess in the council which extended from February 22 to March 18 had afforded ample leisure for study of the schemata on papal primacy and infallibility which were distributed on March 6. By March 25 a considerable number of written observations were in the hands of the presidents. Bilio had these bound in separate volumes, one for the primacy and the other for infallibility. Bishop Senestréy of Regensburg then persuaded him that a résumé should be made of the episcopal comments, and the Bavarian prelate was commissioned to do the work, with the help of his own theologian Canon Willibald Maier and of Clemens Schrader. This was the origin of the Synopsis Animadversionum which is reprinted in Mansi. 40 The work of editing the observations was therefore entrusted to three of the most prominent advocates of a definition. In the copies of the Synopsis distributed to the fathers all contributions were anonymous, a fact which annoyed some of the minority bishops who protested that they wanted to know the authorship of the various recommendations. The authors have since been identified by the editors of the Mansi collection. 41

39 Conzemius Transcripts, Acton to Döllinger, Rome, April 20, 1870. Norton himself elaborated on his April 19 conversation with Manning in a letter to his mother, Mrs. Andrews Norton. He quoted the archbishop as having said: "There are not ten men in the Council who would deny the truth of the doctrine. The whole opposition to it is based on what is called 'opportunity'. And now, as the Civilita Cattolica well said the other day, the word opportunity is found but three times in the Gospel, and the passages are parallel, namely, 'And Judas sought an opportunity to betray Him'. That's it; opportunity means personal interest of one sort of another." ( "Norton to Norton, Rome, April 20, 1870", in Norton and Howe, I, 382.) 40 Granderath, III, 1, 13. The Senestréy diary is in Collectio Lacensis, VII, 1695- 1703. 41 Mansi, LI, 929-1070.

Two bishops from the United States had remarks to make on Chapter XI of the proposed constitution on the Church, which treated the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. Whelan was one of many commentators who discussed the use of citations from the Second Council of Lyons and from the Council of Florence. While a considerable number of the minority bishops wanted these citations either omitted or else, in the case of Florence, quoted in full and not piecemeal, the Bishop of Wheeling found himself in the company of Senestréy in proposing that the text be retained as it stood. Whelan, however, had a reason of his own for making the suggestion. He went on to recommend that the passage which referred to the pope as "supreme father, teacher and judge of all Christians" be deleted, and he also called for omission of any reference to the questions of papal inerrancy and appeal from papal judgments to a general council. His purpose was to dissociate the notions of jurisdictional and magisterial primacy, which the schema had taken care to combine. For this he felt that a general reaffirmation of the decrees of Lyons and Florence would suffice. 42

The second American contributor was Thaddeus Amat of Monterey-Los Angeles. Like Whelan, he was opposed to an explicit definition of papal infallibility, but he adopted a tactic which was exactly the reverse of that proposed by the eastern bishop. In an amendment which paralleled that submitted by his fellow Vincentian, Edmond Guierry, the Vicar Apostolic of Tche-kiang, China, Amat asked that two canons be added to the chapter on the primacy. In the first of these, he condemned the opinion which held that the ordinary jurisdiction of diocesan bishops was not subordinate to that of the pope. Secondly he called down an anathema on those who claimed that assent was not due to papal judgments which proscribed errors in matters of faith and morals, or else declared that it was licit to appeal from the pope to a future council or to the civil powers. 43

____________________ 42 Mansi, LI, 949. See Umberto Betti, O. F.M., La Costituzione dommatica "Pastor Aeternus" del Concilio Vaticano I ( Rome: 1961), p. 76. 43 Mansi, LI, 965; 972. Betti, pp. 99-100.

These recommendations echoed the terms of the Spalding compromise plan, which, as has been seen, had evoked no very great response from either the majority or the minority. Amat's version was to be no more successful.

When it came to the "added chapter" on infallibility, the United States bishops were considerably more articulate. The first American observation listed in the Synopsis Animadversionum was that of Augustin Vérot. As usual, his remarks were vivid and direct. They can be subsumed under five headings: (1) the definition would be unnecessary, unfair, and scandalous; (2) it represented a departure from traditional conciliar practice in that it condemned an opinion that Catholics had been free to hold; (3) if a definition had to be made, it should be severely circumscribed; (4) the arguments alleged in the schema were not probative; and, (5) the rules of procedure of the council were such that grave doubts could be cast on its ecumenicity.

Under the first heading, the Bishop of St. Augustine asked that the subject be stricken from the agenda. He saw no need for a definition, since all Catholic bishops obeyed the pope, whether he spoke ex cathedra or not. In a thinly veiled reference to men like Louis Veuillot, the bishop stated that the dogma was being proposed only to satisfy the vanity of "the editors of certain journals." He recalled that infallibility had not been mentioned in the bull convoking the council and complained that he had therefore not brought along the books and other materials which would enable him to form a scholarly judgment on the question. He feared, moreover, that scandal would arise, since, he said, the definition would amount to a contradiction of the decree of the Third Council of Constantinople which had censured Pope Honorius. Lastly, he predicted that relations with Protestants would be harmed. Until the present, Catholics had been able to defend themselves with regard to "criminal popes" by answering that they were neither impeccable nor infallible. If the definition were made, Vérot declared, the charge would be made that

Catholics worshiped the Pope as a god, "like the blind pagans of the Indies."

Vérot's second point was a spirited defense of the Gallican Church and its doctrine, the merits of which, he said, were demonstrated by the distinguished record of the French clergy, both at home and in the foreign missions. He declared that the Gallican school was a staunch defender of the need for unity with the pope and of the indefectibility of the apostolic see, although it did admit the possibility that one or the other pope might make a mistake, which would then be corrected either by himself or by a successor. As examples of pontiffs who had erred he cited Honorius, Vigilius, John XXII, and Nicholas I. To deny these instances of papal error, Vérot said, was to subvert historical certitude and to play into the hands of unbelievers like Renan. With regard to the obedience of bishops to the Holy Father, the bishop stated that Gallicans acknowledged the pope as their superior. For this infallibility was not needed. As he put it, the man who would demand infallibility in a superior before obeying him did not deserve an answer, but a blow.

Despite his own clearly expressed doctrinal hesitations, Vérot was a realist, and he was under no illusion that the question of infallibility could be avoided. He therefore suggested that the prospective definition be carefully hedged about with restrictions. First, there must be no thought of accepting as an infallible papal decree a declaration made under physical or moral pressure. Secondly, it should be made plain that the pope was not himself the source of revealed doctrine, nor did he receive special inspiration in the matter. Rather, the bishop suggested, he must determine the faith which springs from the consent of the churches and to this end he must employ advice, reading, prayer, and other means, both natural and supernatural. Finally, Vérot asked that the Vatican Council make no decree which could be interpreted as prejudical to the condemnation of Pope Honorius, and that it explicitly disavow the notion that popes had direct or indirect power in temporal affairs.

Turning his attention to the proofs alleged in the schema, the bishop noted first that, while opinion for infallibility now seemed to be predominant, this had not always been true. He felt that the texts from Scripture and from the Second Council of Lyons proved nothing except papal primacy. He added that St. Augustine seemed never to have heard of the doctrine, and that Bossuet and even the catechism of Cardinal Patrizi, which was in use at Rome, mentioned only the infallibility of the pope when he spoke in union with the other bishops of the Church. "A bishop," he concluded, "would sin mortally if he were to give his vote only out of pious affection for the Holy See." His last point was a protest to the effect that if freedom of expression were denied to the minority, the authority of the council could afterwards be rejected. But he was sure, he said, that this was impossible in a council directed by the Holy Spirit. 44

One American supporter of the definition who proposed modifications in the text was Claude Dubuis, the Bishop of Galveston. He joined three other bishops of French origin in suggesting a slightly altered version of the definition, and he also put his name to a petition of eight French prelates who asked that the citation of Luke 22:32 be made fully and in context. 45 Bishop Tobias Mullen of Erie was another who wanted a complete citation of the Lucan text. He also proposed what he thought might be a way of conciliating the differences among the fathers. In the original version of the definition, the pope was said to pronounce infallibly when he spoke in the exercise of his office as supreme teacher of all Christians. Mullen proposed that this be amplified to include the notion that the pontiff, in his infallible declarations, was only confirming the doctrine of the bishops. 46 This was, of course, one of the main

____________________ 44 Mansi, LI, 1006-8. Betti, p. 107, analyzes Vérot's observations, and, pp. 108 -10, lists the fathers who agreed with one or another of the points which he made. 45 Mansi, LI, 1014-5; Betti, pp. 126, 137. 46 Mansi, LI, 1018-9; Betti, pp. 138-9.

points at issue between the parties, and it was an addition that the majority could not accept.

We have already seen that Bishop Amat hoped to avoid controversy by including a substantial affirmation of infallibility in the chapter on the primacy. Two other efforts at a compromise were made by Americans. Archbishops Spalding and Alemany suggested that a paragraph be added to Chapter XI which would demand "internal and external assent of the heart, with the full obedience of faith" to judgments in matters of faith and morals which were made by the pope as "universal teacher and mouth of the Church." They were joined in this petition by five bishops: St.-Palais, Quinlan, Conroy, Williams, and Elder. 47 Alemany and O'Connell of Grass Valley were associated with the second compromise attempt. They signed an observation submitted by a group of Dominican and other bishops headed by Cardinal Filippo Guidi, O.P., of Bologna. There were five points in this memorial. The petitioners asked that the object of papal infallibility be restricted to those cases where the pope "defined something to be held or rejected on faith by the universal Church." They asked for the omission of the term "inerrancy" on the ground that it sounded badly in Latin, and of "infallibility" because St. Thomas did not use it. The Angelic Doctor had instead spoken of the pope as "immune from all error," and this was recommended in place of the words to be omitted. Lastly, they proposed an explicit condemnation of those who held that apostolic constitutions derived their force from the consent of the churches, and that they commanded only respectful silence and not internal and absolute assent. As a corollary of this, they declared that appeal from the judgments of a pope to a future council should be condemned. 48

Four more Americans submitted observations. They were Domenec, Whelan, McQuaid, and Kenrick; and, all of them opposed the definition. The Bishop of Pittsburgh declared that

47 Mansi, LI, 1049. 48 Mansi, LI, 1028; Betti, pp. 130-1.

there was no need for it, and that it would put an end to the conversion of Protestants in the United States. Until now, he said, we have been telling non-Catholics that the question was a free one. If it is proclaimed to be a dogma of faith, they will reply that either we have been lying or else our doctrine has changed. The Spanish-born Vincentian could foresee no good results from the project. He pointed out that good Catholics would obey the pope in any case, and he was of the opinion that bad ones would only become worse. Heretics, the bishop declared, were hard put to accept the infallibility of the Church. The infallibility of the pope would erect an impenetrable wall between them and Catholics, and it would be but another occasion of scorn for unbelievers. After this recitation of the reasons why he thought the definition would be inopportune, Domenec continued. "I add that the doctrine of the infallibility of the supreme pontiff is not altogether certain, and moreover, many of the authorities on which it rests have been found, in the course of time and with critical examination, to be false and spurious, while others of them have not been correctly interpreted." 49

Both Bishop Whelan and Bishop McQuaid were concerned about the historical evidence for the dogma. The former proposed a text of his own which would avoid the word "infallibility" and speak instead of "inerrancy." He stated that this would be more consistent with past conciliar pronouncements and that it would help to avoid unnecessary controversies. 50 McQuaid began his comments with a rapid survey of the evidence of tradition. He had been unable to find a patristic text in which the doctrine of the schema was clearly expressed, and he remarked that it was strange that the fathers of the Church had never explained the pertinent Scripture texts in the sense now assigned to them. He then mentioned the case of Pope Honorius and, after admitting that many theologians had come

____________________ 49 Mansi, LI, 1034; Betti, p. 102. 50 Mansi, LI, 1050-1.

to accept the doctrine after the twelfth century, said that even so it was not clear that it had become common teaching. Certainly, he continued, there was no lack of contemporary authors in Germany, France, England, and America who declared that the doctrine was not of faith. The Irish bishops had made a statement to that effect to a committee of the British Parliament, and in the United States the common Catholic teaching was that the question was a disputed one.

With these doctrinal doubts on record, the Bishop of Rochester proceeded to an enumeration of the reasons why he thought the definition would be inopportune. He repeated the same points with regard to Protestants which were made by Domenec, and added that unfortunate political consequences might also follow. There was, he added, no need for the dogma. If the Italians be excluded, he said, there were no Catholics who rejected papal authority. In fact, devotion to the apostolic see had never been greater, and he did not want to see any action taken which would diminish either the universal compassion felt for the pope in his temporal difficulties or the subsidies which were offered to him from all sides. The definition, said the bishop, would be the cause of disputes. As matters stood, all papal pronouncements without exception were accorded a respectful reception, but if some of them were to be infallible, all would be subjected to intense scrutiny. He also regretted that the controversy was hindering the work of the council, which had been called to remedy the ills of society. For all these reasons, he concluded, the subject should be removed from the agenda. 51

The last American commentator was Peter Richard Kenrick. He prefaced his critique with the statement that the opinion which held that the Roman pontiff alone, without the consent of the bishops, was infallible was not certain enough to be defined as a dogma, and that even if it were certain, it was not expedient that it be defined by the Vatican Council. On the

____________________ 51 Mansi, LI, 1051-2; Betti, p. 103.

doctrinal question, he argued that the proposed dogma was insufficiently grounded in Scripture and Tradition. The Petrine texts proved nothing beyond the primacy, he declared, and the evidence of Tradition seemed to be that the consent of the churches was the tessera of faith. Kenrick further challenged the possibility of making a distinction between the pope as a noninfallible private teacher and as the infallible doctor when he spoke ex cathedra. He declared that the distinction was an ad hoc arrangement, with no foundation in fact, and stated that it would inevitably lead to misunderstandings and disputes. The archbishop had no difficulty in admitting the infallibility of the Church, which he said sprang from its very constitution. Instead of proclaiming the pope infallible, he asked for the more frequent convocation of general councils and he blamed many of the evils of the past four centuries on the fact that no council had been held. He declared that it was playing with words to try to deduce papal infallibility from the pontiff's acknowledged primacy of jurisdiction and of honor. Supreme authority in this area did not bring with it infallibility in matters of doctrine. Rather, this latter prerogative belonged properly to a council presided over by the pope.

Having committed himself to forthright opposition to the schema, Kenrick turned next to an analysis of the contemporary state of theology on the question. He conceded that the infallibility of the pope had been taught for four hundred years, and by saints, and that it was defended by the greater number of theologians. It was, he admitted, common teaching, but he emphasized that there was a difference between common teaching and dogma, which could only be defined by a council. At one time, he recalled, the doctrine of the "two swords" had been commonly held, but he declared that in the nineteenth century there was scarcely anyone who would uphold the right of papal interference in secular matters to the extent that they allowed popes the right to depose kings and bestow their kingdoms on others. As a final fillip to his argument on the dis- tinction between common teaching and dogma, he remarked that infallibility itself had been unknown for ten centuries, which made the possibility of its definition questionable at best.

Kenrick realized that the definition of the Immaculate Conception by Pius IX in 1854 was a strong argument against the position which he was taking. He approached this delicate question in two stages. First, he pointed out that the definition of 1854 was not quite in the same category as that of papal infallibility. Its intention was to do honor to God and to Our Lady, and it did not in itself prejudice any episcopal rights. Nevertheless, he admitted, it was a departure from traditional practice and was contrary to the rule of faith of Vincent of Lérins, which demanded for a dogma that it be doctrine which was accepted everywhere and at all times by everyone. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was also unique, Kenrick continued, in that it was motivated by piety rather than necessity, while the practice in former times had been to make definitions only in order to proscribe errors. In any case, he felt that the problem of a definition made by the pope alone was not completely solved by Pius IX's action, since he had in fact taken care to canvass the opinion of the bishops before issuing the bull Ineffabilis Deus.

Like Domenec and McQuaid, Kenrick attacked the opportuneness of the definition on the score that it would work harm in the area of Catholic-Protestant relations. This was his only excursion into the argument of inexpediency, and he returned immediately to doctrinal issues with a series of comments questioning the ecumenical character of the council. He argued that the present controversy was one between the pope and residential bishops, and he thought that it should be decided by the litigants, but instead he found that the council counted among its members a considerable number of fathers who did not represent actual dioceses, and who in some cases were not even bishops. The archbishop contended that the presence of these prelates, who were presumed to side with the central authority of the Church, weighted the scales heavily against the residential bishops, and he feared that their vote for infallibility would reduce the latter to the status of mere counselors of the pope. He completed his challenge of the validity of the council by enumerating some of the standard complaints of the minority, namely, that procurators of residential bishops had been excluded from the sessions on the sole authority of the pope, that the freedom of the fathers to propose subjects for discussion was severely circumscribed, and that the composition of the deputations left much to be desired from the point of view of the opposition. 52

Archbishop Kenrick's far-ranging criticism of the schema established him as one of the leaden of the opposition. As Spalding had discovered at the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1866, the St. Louis prelate was not a man to mince words or to disguise his true feelings. In the question of infallibility, he had sincere doubts, and he was genuinely concerned by what he saw as the attempted erosion of episcopal prerogatives. He expressed these doubts and this concern in the memorandum which he submitted to the council presidents and which eventually found its way into the Synopsis Animadversionum. This was not, however, his only effort during the final weeks before the all-important debate on the schema began. As April drew to a close, he engaged, as will be seen, in a controversy with Archbishop Spalding, and he also had an elaboration of his observations on infallibility published anonymously at Naples. This brochure, which ran to forty-two pages in Latin, was distributed to all the fathers of the council and covered all the subject headings which have just been enumerated; it concluded with a plea for the decentralization of the Church. The archbishop felt that this could be achieved without prejudice to the unity of pope and bishops, and he declared that it would

____________________ 52 Mansi, LI, 1059-70; Betti, p. 111.

be well received by many Catholics and also by many outside the Church who wished to return to it. 53

The most startling evidence of the deep rift which had occurred among the bishops of the United States because of their disagreements over papal infallibility is to be found in the exchange between Archbishop Spalding on the one hand and Dupanloup, Kenrick, and Purcell on the other. The American aspect of the controversy began when Dupanloup, in the course of a literary debate with Archbishop Dechamps of Malines, used arguments against a definition of infallibility drawn from Spalding's January petitions on the subject. The French prelate's pamphlet quoting Spalding appeared on March 1. Among other things he used the January petitions to buttress his argument that a conciliar definition demanded the morally unanimous consent of the fathers. 54 The Archbishop of Baltimore spent a full month preparing his answer, which appeared in Louis Veuillot Univers on April 4. He expressed his regret that Dupanloup had brought his name into the debate with Dechamps and pointed out that the Petitions had been written when the council was much younger and the question not yet fully matured. He and his cosigners, he said, were neither enemies of the dogma nor inopportunists. Instead they saw papal infallibility as intimately united with the infallibility of the Church and a logical corollary of the pope's primacy. Spalding also challenged the French bishop's attempt to use texts from the works of his predecessor in the See of Baltimore, Francis Patrick Kenrick, as arguments against the papal prerogative. He concluded by saying that a definition was inevitable and that the only question was whether the individual bishop would stand with or against the Holy Father. 55

____________________ 53 Kenrick brochure (the first of two which he published) was entitled De pontificia infallibilitate qualis in Concilio Vaticano definienda proponitur dissertatio theologica ( Naples: 1870). 54 Felix Dupanloup, Résponse de Mgr l'évêque d'Orléans à Mgr Dechamps, archevêque de Malines ( Naples: 1870). See Granderath II, 1, 379-409. For the Spalding petitions, see Mansi, LI, 663-6. 55 Collectio Lacensis, VII, 1362-6. Spalding, pp. 397-403.

The debate with Dupanloup marked Spalding's debut as a confirmed supporter of the definition. The few notes which he left concerning the controversy testify to his efforts to meet all the objections of the opposition and to evolve his own notions more clearly. 56 He also kept a file of newspaper clippings on the subject. 57 One point irked him immediately, and it was that his letter to Dupanloup first saw the light of day in L'Univers. Even though Veuillot was the outstanding lay advocate of the definition, the archbishop disapproved of the French editor's methods, and, in a second letter to the Bishop of Orléans (which may or may not have been sent), he said explicitly that he had given his original rebuttal to M. Ravelot of Le Monde. 58 Veuillot himself confirmed this, and later wrote that he had never met Spalding. The letter had been circulation in Rome for twenty-four hours before he obtained a copy of it and dispatched it to France for publication. 59 Spalding subsequently asked at least two French papers to print his letter, since they had published Dupanloup's March 1 response to Dechamps. 60

The opening of the controversy with the Bishop of Orleans also occasioned a few uncomfortable moments for the SuperiorGeneral of St.-Sulpice, whose community was charged with the direction of St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore. On April 4, the same day on which Spalding's letter was published in l'Univers, the archbishop, who was riding in his carriage with two other American bishops, noticed Icard walking on the street in Rome and invited him into the carriage. They drove out to the gardens of the Villa Borghese, and Spalding inquired if Dupanloup had studied at St.-Sulpice. Icard answered that he had and added that Bishop Pie of Poitiers, a leading infallibilist, was also an alumnus of the seminary. Spalding then went on to speak in a

56 A twenty-point guide sheet on infallibility is in AAB, 39-N-5. 57 These clippings are in AAB, 39-K-2-13. 58 A rough draft of this letter is in AAB, 39-N-10. 59 Veuillot, II, 76-7. 60 AAB, 39-K-6, 7. The papers were Le Monde and L'Union de l'Ouest of Angers.

kindly way of the Sulpicians and assured the Superior-General that he had no reproaches to make against them. Icard noted in his diary that he seized the opportunity to indicate that former Sulpician students were to be found on both sides in the council. He said that their orientation depended on what had happened to them after they had left the seminary. It was true, he admitted, that Gallicanism had been taught when everyone in France was teaching it, but he insisted that his community had always been careful to stress respect and obedience for the Holy See at the same time. Spalding and his companions professed themselves satisfied with this explanation, and the remainder of the drive was considerably more comfortable for Father Icard. 61

The Archbishop of Baltimore's letter provoked a spate of comments, both friendly and hostile. The first support which he received was indirect. L'Univers had published a letter attacking Dupanloup which had been sent by Christophe Bonjean, the Vicar Apostolic of Jaffna. On April 5, Veuillot was able to follow this up with a second letter from a group of missionary prelates who declared that they deplored the scandal which the French bishop's opposition to the dogma was causing in their mission territories. The Americans who signed this protest were Archbishop Blancher and Bishops Heiss, Martin, Miége, Dubuis, O'Connell and de Goesbriand. 62 Spalding received more direct commendation from Francesco Nardi, an official of the Roman Curia, who wrote to him on April 12: "I read with extreme pleasure your splendid letter to Mgr. d'Orléans, written with Christian and American courage, and frankness. It is a tremendous blow! The wrong quotation from your glorious predecessor's works, this poaching [?] with your, and your venerable fellow-Bishops' adhesion, got what they deserved." Nardi asked the archbishop to send him extra copies of the letter "for my Italian and German newspapers.'' 63 A shorter, but equally

____________________ 61 ASS, Icard Journal, pp. 335-7. 62 Freeman's Journal, April 23, 1870, quoting L'Univers, April 5, 1870. 63 AAB, 39-K-8, Nardi to Spalding, Rome, April 12, 1870.

positive note of congratulations came from Angelo Paresce, the Jesuit rector of Woodstock College: "I have rec'd your Grace's letter to the Bishop of Orléans with great pleasure. It is worthy of the Archbishop of Baltimore!" 64

As usual, news from Europe took some time to reach the United States. The Freeman's Journal printed the first news of the Spalding letter in its April 30 issue. Editor McMaster was exultant and commented: "There is an end put to the indecent lucubrations of the incompetent Roman correspondents of Catholic journals--organs or fiddles--in these States, about the adherence of our American prelates to the singular and untenable position of Bishop Dupanloup" 65 A week later, the editorial columns of the journal carried a translation by McMaster of the letter to Dupanloup, and this was followed by a statement of gratitude to the archbishop for his defense of orthodoxy and the remark that opposition by some of the bishops only proved their fallibility. This last was apropos of the text of the January petition against infallibility which had been signed by a number of Americans and which had been printed in the New York Herald for April 27. 66

Spalding's intervention on the side of the infallibilists was received with joy by the European editors who advocated the definition. On April 27, the London Vatican published the following praise in its correspondence columns: "Nothing which I have yet seen or heard proves so irrefragably the absolute necessity of a clear, unflinching, black and white definition of Papal Infallibility as that letter." 67 Louis Veuillot was also extremely pleased, and wrote to a correspondent in France:

Here is a very fine letter of the Archbishop of Baltimore to the Bishop of Orléans, on his last pamphlet. That pamphlet, it must be admitted, was not a happy one. The refutation which I send you, frank, sharp and eloquent, really has something terrible about it. Like that of

64 AAB, 35-O-1, Paresce to Spalding, Woodstock, May 4, 1870. 65 Freeman's Journal, April 30, 1870. 66 Ibid., May 7, 1870. 67 The Vatican, April 27, 1870. The letter is signed "M.F.H."

Monsignor Bonjean, the Bishop of Jaffna, it touches only one point, but the point which it touches, it annihilates. From the point of view of skill, it is a masterpiece of polemic. What firmness! What precision! What triumphant moderation!

I have no need to add any commentary to demonstrate for you the more and more frank and decided attitude of the council. The letter of the eminent Archbishop of Baltimore is a sufficiently clear manifestation of it. 68

This enthusiastic response to the letter of Archbishop Spalding was, of course, not a universally shared emotion. The New York Herald was particularly unfriendly. On May 11 it berated the archbishop for what it called his childish desire to break into print, and it claimed editorially that his effort was generally laughed at because of its "general appearance and general aspect of 'hard times.'" 69 Two weeks later, the Herald quoted Dupanloup as having charged that Spalding had been against the definition until his appointment to two commissions of the council, and it attributed his attack on the French bishop to the influence of Manning. However, the New York newspaper's correspondent continued, the English prelate could not "humbug" the other Americans, since they were men who liked "converts who say their prayers and give alms to the poor, but they cannot stomach them when they run around Rome like one-horse politicians on the eve of a local election, asking for signatures in favor of a dogma which . . . is only an opinion theologique." 70

Among the European commentators, Johann Döllinger's critique was a sober one, and he specified two weak points which Spalding would have to explain further. In the forty-third Quirinus letter, the German historian remarked that the archbishop had made two changes in his position. Previously, he had wanted an indirect definition; now he called for one which was open and explicit. Secondly, he had formerly declared that

____________________ 68 Veuillot, I, 460-61. 69 New York Herald, May 11, 1870, in Beiser, p. 100. 70 New York Herald, May 22, 1870, in Beiser, pp. 98-9, 100.

moral unanimity was necessary, but he was now satisfied with "a mere majority of votes." 71 More emotional and chauvinistic was a report cited with disapproval by the Vatican. It came from the Roman correspondent of the London Standard, who complained of "the insolent letter addressed by the Archbishop of Baltimore to the Bishop of Orléans, in which this ignorant trans-Atlantic prelate takes the accomplished Mgr Dupanloup to task for his Latin and his French, accusing him of presenting doctrines under a form remote from the truth, and refusing to be associated with his struggles." He concluded: "There is something shocking to one's sense of the fitness of things that the Bishop of Orléans should have such a correspondent at all." 72

The English reporter's remarks are scarcely worth recording, except insofar as they indicated the attitude towards the United States bishops which existed in certain quarters, but a more serious storm was building up. In mid-May, the Cincinnati Catholic Telegraph told its readers that a bishop from one of the southern dioceses had written that Spalding was pretending to speak in the name of the American hierarchy in his dispute with Dupanloup. "The American bishops of both parties," wrote the prelate, "are displeased that he should speak as their representative without their consent or even knowledge." He went on to say that a reply was being prepared that would set the record straight. 73 By the time this news had reached the American Catholic public, the attack on Spalding by Archbishops Purcell and Kenrick was history. It was launched during Easter week and continued into the early part of May.

The first round was fired by Kenrick, in a printed circular addressed to Spalding, which bore the date, "Tuesday of Easter Week." This was April 19. The Archbishop of St. Louis concentrated on a single issue, namely, Spalding's use of citations from the writings of his late brother, Archbishop Francis P. Ken-

____________________ 71 Quirinus, p. 503. 72 The Vasican, April 29, 1870, quoting the Standard, April 24, 1870. 73 Catholic Telegraph, May 19, 1870.

rick of Baltimore, in support of the infallibilist position. Peter Kenrick admitted freely that his brother had been ardently devoted to the Holy See. But he quoted a passage from the latter's Theologia Dogmatica which seemed to him to make it clear that the author demanded the consent of the bishops before any pontifical decree could be considered irrevocable. 74 On April 21, Archbishop Kenrick sent this document to Spalding with a covering letter in which he expressed both his regret that he had been obliged to take public issue with him and his hope that they would always remain friends. The Baltimore prelate's answer was equally courteous. He thanked Kenrick and promised a reply in due time, but told him that he could not consent to a public controversy in the matter. 75

While this preliminary exchange was taking place, two other documents were being prepared. Bishop Dupanloup's diary for Easter Sunday and the days following has these cryptic notations: "Sunday, April 17, 1870 . . . answer to Baltimore; Monday, April 18, 1870 . . . work on Baltimore; Thursday, April 21, 1870 . . . revised Baltimore and finished; Tuesday, April 26, 1870 . . . revised answer to Baltimore." 76 The references were to his Réponse de Mgr l'évêque d'Orléans à Mgr Spalding, archevêque de Baltimore, which was published at Paris. It contained the French prelate's answer to Spalding, a copy of the arguments which the latter had used in urging his compromise petition during January, the April 19 letter of Kenrick to Spald-

74 Ibid., May 26, 1870. The passage cited by Peter Kenrick occurred in Francis Patrick Kenrick, Theologiae dogmaticae tractatus tres: de revelatione, de ecclesia, et de Verbo Dei ( Philadelphia: 1839), pp. 283-4. It reads as follows: "Non tamen placet ea loquendi ratio qua Pontifex se solo infallibilis praedicatur, nam de eo tamquam privato doctore, privilegium inerrantiae nemo fere ex Theologis Catholicis noscitur propugnasse; nec tamquam Pontifex solus est, ei quippe docenti adhaeret Episcoporum collegium, uti semper contigisse ex Ecclesiastica historia liquet. Pontificias autem definitiones ab Episcoporum collegio exceptas, sive in Concilio, sive in sedibus suis, vel subscribendo decretis, vel haud renitendo, vim habere et auctoritatem nemo orthodoxus negaverit." 75 AAB, 36A-L-10, Kenrick to Spalding, Rome, April 21, 1870. A rough draft of Spalding's reply is on the inside flap of this letter. 76 ASS, Dupanloup Journal, pp. 45, 46, 48.

ing, and a new letter "of several archbishops and bishops of North America," who supported Dupanloup against the Archbishop of Baltimore. 77 It is with this last letter--the second of the two documents mentioned above--that we are principally concerned. It was addressed to the Bishop of Orléans, and the original is in the handwriting of Michael Domenec of Pittsburgh. The other signers were Purcell, Kenrick, McQuaid, and Fitzgerald. All but Kenrick's signature were crossed out, and another hand has added the words "in the name of several bishops of North America." 78 As finally published, the letter bore this last legend and the names of Purcell and Kenrick. 79 Some explanation for the alterations was contained in a note from Bishop Vérot to Dupanloup:

As I have had the honor to tell you, the names which are found on the letter are for your personal satisfaction, and the prelates would not like to see their names figure publicly, either in the newspapers or otherwise, but in case of need, you can prove your assertion, if it becomes necessary to do so.

P.S. There are other prelates who would sign, but they do not want to expose themselves to the publicity. 80

As will be seen, Archbishop Spalding had another explanation for the absence of more signatures on the letter, which was printed in the Gazette de France on April 28, 1870, a Thursday. On the next Monday, the Gazette added the remaining items from Dupanloup's pamphlet, that is, his own letter to Spalding, the Kenrick letter of April 19, and Spalding's January arguments for an indirect definition. 81 The Kenrick-Purcell letter was first published in English by the Vatican on May 6, and it did not become known in the United States until James A. McMaster translated it in the Freeman's Journal of May 21.

77 The Dupanloup-Spalding letter is reprinted in Collectio Lacensis, VII, 1366-73, with only minor variations. 78 The original is in ASS, Dupanloup Papers, and is undated. 79 Collectio Lacensis, VII, 1373-6; Gazette de France ( Paris), April 25, 1870; Freeman's Journal, May 21, 1870. 80 ASS, Dupanloup Papers, Vérot to Dupanloup, Rome, April 21, 1870. 81 Gazette de France, April 28 and May 2, 1870.

The first point which the objectors made was that Spalding's letter seemed to speak in the name of the American hierarchy. They denied that, and asserted that at best he spoke for a party among the bishops who agreed with him. Secondly, they declared that the Spalding letter had been sent without prior consultation, an action which they said was contrary to custom in the United States, where matters affecting the general interest were first thrashed out in a meeting of the individuals concerned. Therefore they not only dissociated themselves from the archbishop's sentiments, but also consented that their views be made public, "considering that there is a question of strict duty toward the Catholic Church, in which we are established by Our Lord Himself, judges of the faith; and that we are well convinced that it is an assault made on the faith to agitate for the erection of a theological opinion into a dogma of Catholic faith."

The letter to Dupanloup continued with a direct attack on Spalding:

You have believed, Monseigneur, that it was the clearly enunciated opinion of the author of the Postulatum of which this letter treats that it was not opportune to define the Pontifical Infallibility. According to the present declarations of the author himself, it would seem that you are mistaken. But, we think we can assure you, you are not the only one that has been mistaken on this subject. Those who have the honor to enjoy the company of the amiable Archbishop are mistaken about the matter as well as your Lordship--and they have not well and clearly perceived the change that has taken place till since [sic] the honorable Prelate has found himself a member of two Deputations of the Council.

Several of us could, at need, declare having heard him, more than once, exhort and induce his colleagues in the Episcopate to oppose a definition supremely inopportune. We think, even, that the mere reading of the Postulatum puts sufficiently in evidence the real desires of the author. We have not the least doubt, or suspicion, but that the change of opinion that has happened since has been accomplished under the influence of solid intrinsic reasons. But these reasons are unknown to us as much as to you; and so it is easy to explain the unfortunate mistakes that have occurred on the subject. It seems to us, however, that the blame, if any, ought not to weigh entirely and exclusively on your Lordship.

After this negative section of their letter, the bishops went on to discuss the issues which had come up in the course of the Dupanloup-Spalding dispute. They claimed that the declarations made by the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1866 and by the prelates assembled in Rome in 1867 had been expressions of respectful obedience to the supreme pontiff, but not professions of faith in his infallibility. Another difficulty was Spalding's use in January of the Latin verb deberet to express the need of moral unanimity. Dupanloup had translated this into French as il faut, while Spalding said that he had meant il serait désirable. The latest American entrants into the debate did not pretend to be experts in French philology, but they referred instead to the history of the Council of Trent and to the Dominican theologian Melchior Cano as authorities for the validity of their stand on the need for moral unanimity.

Turning to the American scene, the authors granted that the "great majority" of the bishops of the United States admitted papal infallibility, but they insisted that they admitted it only as a theological opinion. Even though it was extrinsically more probable, and was upheld particularly by those prelates who had made their studies in Rome, they did not feel that this was sufficient for the proclamation of a dogma. They also alleged the difficulties that would follow in the wake of a definition because of past papal claims in the matter of deposing power and freedom of worship. A special problem would arise, they stated, with regard to the Irish, who could never be brought to accept Pope Adrian IV's gift of their homeland to King Henry II of England. The letter closed with a statement which reflected both the practical and the doctrinal doubts of the signers: "For several of us believe that ecclesiastical history: the history of the Popes, the history of the Councils, and the tradition of the Church are not in harmony with the new dogma; and it is for this that we believe that it is very inopportune to wish to define, as of faith, an opinion that appears to us a novelty in the faith, that seems to us without solid foundation in scripture and tradition; while it appears to us contradicted by irrefragable monuments." 82

Archbishop Spalding held fast to his resolution not to engage in public controversy with other American bishops, but he did draw up two statements of his views. One of these was the draft of a letter to Dupanloup. The second document was an explanation of the opinion on infallibility of Archbishop Francis Patrick Kenrick which was printed on May 9 and mailed to the fathers of the council on the twelfth. 83 Spalding set the crucial passage from his predecessor's Theologia Dogmatica in context and pointed out that it referred to the pope as private teacher. No one, he indicated, claimed infallibility for a pontiff acting in his private capacity. He felt that the other passages which he adduced proved sufficiently that Francis Kenrick could not be counted among the adversaries of the dogma, and he rested his case on this evidence.

In the draft letter to Dupanloup, the archbishop prefaced his remarks with several comments on the provenance of the Kenrick-Purcell letter. He declared, accurately enough, that he had reason to believe that the "several" prelates on whose behalf the two metropolitans had written meant in fact four or five bishops. They had said that the great majority of the American hierarchy admitted infallibility only as an opinion, and Spalding said that he had to agree with them on that point, since it had not yet been defined as a dogma. He then repeated his intention of not entering into controversy with Kenrick and Purcell, since, he asserted, the bishops of the United States had always been a moral unit and would remain that way. The archbishop seems to have hesitated over the absolute character of

82 Freeman's Journal, May 21, 1870. The comment that the dogma would be "a novelty in the faith" is omitted in the text published in Dupanloup's brochure referred to above. 83 It was published in the Vatican, May 20, 1870. Dupanloup's copy is in ASS, Dupanloup Papers.

this last statement. He had at first written "almost always," but then crossed out the qualifying adverb.

With this preface done, Spalding turned to the issues. He denied strongly that his basic position had shifted, and referred Dupanloup to the letter which he had addressed to the Holy See in the summer of 1869, in which he professed his belief in the doctrine of infallibility, but questioned the advisability of a definition. This, he said, had been written before he came to Europe, and when he was under the impression that Gallicanism was a dead issue. However, the reading of pamphlets by Döllinger and by the Bishop of Orléans himself had convinced him of the error of his ways. He had then, he went on, proposed a compromise solution, but Dupanloup would have nothing to do with it. The archbishop was obviously still persuaded that an indirect definition would have been preferable, and he told his correspondent that the minority would now get for its intransigence a formally defined dogma, with all the results which he had predicted in his August letter. In other passages he denied that he had given his first letter to Veuillot, whose methods he disapproved, and he charged Dupanloup with mistranslation of the word deberet of the January petition. He repeated his defense of the orthodoxy of Francis P. Kenrick and promised his prayers for the French bishop's speedy conversion to the side of the infallibilists. The letter closed with an apology for the straightforward manner in which he had spoken, and the archbishop remarked that this was due to his "American republican education," and to the fact that he had not had the advantages of the refined politeness of French society or of membership in the French Academy. This last jibe at Dupanloup, who was a member of the Academy, was crossed out. 84 No copy of this letter has been found among the papers of Dupanloup, but at least its essential outline was released to Le Monde of Paris, which on

84 AAB, 39-N-10. Preliminary notes for the draft are in 39-N-5 and 9. In the latter notes, there is a long section on Gallicanism, which Spalding described as "conceived in schism, brought forth in despotism and resurrected in modern liberalism--so called."

May 11 printed a summary of the letter's main points, together with a copy of Spalding's August, 1869 letter to Barnabò. 85

Reaction to the dispute was not long in coming, and it was predictably varied. On May 3, Louis Veuillot wrote that the combined attack of Dupanloup, Purcell, and Kenrick on Spalding was a tactical move, designed to take advantage of the archbishop's well-known abhorrence of controversy. The Kenrick-Purcell letter he criticized for its rashness and for what he saw as a lack of sufficient reflection behind it. 86 Ten days later, the Vatican reported that "the attempt to divide the American Bishops has signally failed." The report continued: "Of the sixty members of the hierarchy of the United States, more than fifty, mindful of the solemn decisions of their own provincial councils, are of one mind and heart with the Archbishop of Baltimore, who will leave his five or six dissentient colleagues to their own pious reflection, confident of the restoration of that perfect unity which they have been the first to disturb, but which will again be the glory of the American Church." 87

Diocesan newspapers in the sees of three of the most prominent minority bishops handled the dispute cautiously. On May 21, the Pittsburgh Catholic published a moderate editorial which said that the editors did not feel that they were in any position to judge the actions of distinguished bishops who were on the scene in Rome. A letter signed "Veritas" in the May 28 issue of the Catholic was less pacific. The author, a priest, castigated McMaster for what he considered his vicious attack on the archbishops, accused him of an incredible egotism, and ended by saying that if he were his confessor he would not give the editor absolution unless he apologized publicly for what he had written. The item in the Catholic Telegraph which had aroused McMaster's ire was along the same lines. Father Callaghan declared that nothing could excuse the scurrility of Mc-

85 Le Monde, May 11, 1870. 86 Veuillot, 11, 74-5. 87 The Vatican, May 13, 1870.

Master's pen, and he added: "The great scandal in connection with this correspondence is of the Journal's own making."

The Western Watchman of St. Louis followed the same pattern as the Catholic Telegraph. On May 21, it reported: "The Archbishop of this diocese is undoubtedly laboring to defeat the promulgation of the new dogma of the Papal personal infallibility . . . . Compared with him, Dupanloup is but an essayist." But the editor, Father David Phelan, was not quite sure of his ground and surmised that Kenrick had perhaps been deputed, in the scholastic tradition, to marshal opposing arguments so that the question would receive full discussion. Phelan likewise chided the "false zeal" of Spalding, whom he accused of misrepresenting the opinion of Archbishop Francis Kenrick.

Comment on the controversy by the secular press in the United States was not particularly profound or enlightening. The New York Herald, which kept up a steady stream of fire on Spalding, was loud in its praise of Kenrick's scholarly attainments, and it found the position which he and Purcell had adopted a "noble and unselfish" one. Their letter was, the paper said, "one of the boldest documents that has ever been seen in Rome from the pen of an ecclesiastic." 88 Another metropolitan daily, the Post, could not quite bring itself to credit the sincerity of the opposition, and dismissed the Archbishop of St. Louis as a disappointed office-seeker who had been refused the cardinal's hat and was now "showing his teeth." 89

More important than all the journalistic chaff was the fact that the sharp agitation of the last few weeks before the debate on infallibility stimulated thought in higher American ecclesiastical circles and made prelates explicitate their convictions. One indication of this result was the letter sent to Le Monde by an anonymous bishop who described himself as a veteran of thirty years in the American mission field. It was not a commentary on the Kenrick-Purcell dispute with Spalding, but it paralleled it

88 New York Herald, May 11 and May 22, 1870, in Beiser, pp. 95-6. 89 The Evening Post ( New York), June 18, 1870, in Beiser, p. 96.

and was directed at Dupanloup. The bishop denounced compromisers, whom he termed "dumb dogs who knew not how to bark," and declared that the "liberal Catholics" made no converts despite the praise heaped on them by Protestants. He saw the definition as a great boon to conversion work, because nonCatholics approached the Church looking for clear and definite truth, and not for opinions or theories. This truth was to be found in an infallible pope. The author of the letter rejected the notion that it resided in the council and remarked: "Six hundred Bishops assembled in Council are only six hundred fallibilities. How can these six hundred fallibilities constitute an infallibility?" He then explained his own position:

The true solution is this. The infallibility of the decisions and judgments of a Council derives all its force from the union of the body of Bishops with the Supreme Head of the Church, to whom alone it belongs, by divine right, to give to the judgments of his brethren the irreformable sanction of his own judgment. But then, in fact, it is in this Supreme Head that infallibility resides? In one sense, yes. But nevertheless, when convoked by him, and judging with him, the Bishops, considered collectively, become an infallible body. Separated, they are no longer so. But, independently of a Council, this infallibility of judgment which the Bishops do not possess, does the Pope possess it? Undoubtedly. Otherwise it would be from them he would receive it. Himself fallible, he would receive from other fallible men the infallibility which they do not possess: which is absurd. 90

The letter just quoted is the best exposition by an American of the majority point of view. Although he did not enter into any of the historical difficulties alleged by the minority, the author challenged the assumption that an infallible pope would make the Church less attractive to non-Catholics and declared that, on the contrary, a reaffirmation of papal authority was the principal remedy demanded by the needs of the times. This need, he felt, was in itself sufficient warrant for proclamation of the dogma. Another United States prelate who shared the same sentiments was Bishop Thomas Foley, the Administrator of

90 The Vatican, April 15, 1870.

Chicago, who wrote to express his agreement with Spalding on June 13. The recently consecrated bishop deplored the divisive effect of the stand taken by Purcell and Kenrick and reported that Protestants were gloating over their letter to Dupanloup. He asserted that all Catholics believed the dogma, and concluded by saying: "A fair definition of it will silence cavils & quibbles forever--or drive the Gallican element to its proper place." 91

The situation of the council at the beginning of May was not a happy one. With all compromise efforts practically at a standstill, positions had hardened and the fathers were divided into two camps of unequal size. The larger majority party realized that victory was within its grasp and was impatient of the success which was felt to be inevitable. Among the minority, a sense of frustration was evident. As for the hierarchy of the United States, the dominant motive of the American opposition was the fear that a definition would hinder conversions and embarrass the progress of the Church in Protestant countries. The American anti-definitionists turned for support to the evidence of Scripture and Tradition, and what they found there made many of them also question the validity of the dogma itself. A third facet of their thinking was the emphasis which they placed on individual episcopal responsibility, both in matters of church government and in the affairs of an ecumenical council. The bishops of the majority, while they sought to provide answers for historical difficulties, took a stand that was essentially less complicated than that of the minority bishops. For many of the more zealous proponents of the definition, the question was simply one of loyalty to the Holy See, and they were unable to understand how any Catholic bishop could reconcile such loyalty with opposition in the council. Examples of this type of thinking have been seen in the letters exchanged by Bishops Martin and Perché. With all the good will in the world they could not fathom the mentality which was well described in a letter which Richard Gilmour, the future Bishop

91 AAB, 34-A-4, Foley to Spalding, Chicago, June 13, 1870.

of Cleveland, wrote to Archbishop Purcell after the latter's return from Rome:

To many of us here it is a gratifying satisfaction to see that at least there are some of the great and venerable prelates who are not afraid to proclaim their disapprobation on questions of grave moment to the Church, while at the same time they are ready to acquiesce in the final decision of the Church. To us raised in America, freedom of discussion is a sacred right. And when men hold convictions, at the proper time and in the proper place, they should calmly and respectfully declare them, salva auctoritate. The world is watching the action of this great council and all hail to the men who are laboring so ably and so fearlessly in the grand cause of religion. 92

As the event proved, Purcell, Kenrick, and the rest did acquiesce in the final decision of the Church. They did not believe that their willingness to do so forbade them to argue their case before that decision had been made.

The attitude of Archbishop Spalding must be distinguished from that of the outright infallibilists, and it was sufficiently nuanced to create some confusion as to his true feelings in the matter. Like many of his colleagues from the United States, he feared the possible consequences of the definition. Cardinal Gibbons later stated that this "seemed to be the consensus of the opinion of the majority of the American bishops at the Council." 93 nere can be no doubt that Spalding left Baltimore an inopportunist. In his January petition he did, as his critics claimed, advocate the strong desirability, if not the necessity, of moral unanimity among the fathers. Events in the spring of 1870 persuaded him to submerge his fears in the interest of what he had come to feel was the greater good of the Church. The aspersions cast upon his motives for this change were unworthy of the bishops who uttered them. Nevertheless, although Spalding became a supporter of the formal definition in the closing months of the council, he did not do so without regret that a compromise had proved unworkable, as his second

92 ADCL, Gilmour Papers, Gilmour to Purcell, Dayton, July 19, 1870.
93 AANY, A-34, Gibbons to John M. Farley, Baltimore, May 9, 1910.

letter to Dupanloup indicated. When the formal debate on infallibility began, there were, then, three discernible groups among the United States bishops. Two of these were deeply committed, one for and one against the proposed dogma. The third group, which was symbolized, if not represented by, Spalding, held to a middle ground. The story of the further evolution of these groups belongs to the next chapter.

[ Previous | Next ]